Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/SS Christopher Columbus

Article stats

For reference: Articlestats

Lar 61 (self nom)

Malleus Fatuarum 44 notified

Maralia 35 notified

Kablammo 7 notified

Bishonen 6 notified Bishzilla :)

Eaglizard 6 notified

Rwalewska 3

Francine3 3

!! 2

Giano II 2

Parsecboy 2

American Patriot 1776 2

Forgone conclusion 2

Neilbeach 2

++Lar: t/c 20:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Process note

Please keep the suggestions coming. I will be away for a bit but will take a look again soon. I'm confused about the process though, I thought once things are resolved the person who raises them strikes them out? I think I've (or others have) resolved quite a few but nothing has been stricken yet. ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary, though I'm sure most reviewers won't mind if you strike their comments out when addressed. For as long as you say somewhere that it's done, and they acknowledge that (and support, sometimes) than it's OK. Sandy and Raul are good readers and will work it out ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

strike someone else's comment? really? I figured it was for them to strike. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are probably right, Lar - I haven't seen nominators strike the remarks of commenters before, and I have always struck my comments myself. It's a long weekend in much of the (Christian) world, however, so perhaps people have been busy off-wiki. Risker (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

See the instructions at the top of WP:FAC; no, don't ever strike someone else's comments. Either the reviewer can strike when they revisit to see if issues are resolved, or alternately, if they switch to Support, it's implied that issues are resolved and it's not necessary to clutter the FAC with strikes. If I see something of concern that is not struck or otherwise resolved, I usually query if it's the only thing holding up the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Images, imagestack, right left alternation, squeezing, churn, and etcetera

Images are apparently the Achilles heel of this article.  :) In my view, it needs quite a few images to capture what's going on, but there just isn't enough more to say about this ship (without padding it out with superfluous verbiage) to make the images work if they alternate. Some resolution or another will make them squeeze text, or leave whitespace or whatever. {{imagestack}} seems to be a template that is gaining in popularity (that people use it suggests that not everyone always follows WP:MOS in this area, or that it's evolving). I have, and other people have, changed the images around a number of times. Just during this FAC in fact there has been major churn. I'm not complaining, but I'm throwing up my hands, I'm out of ideas. How do we fix this? And fix it in a way that the next reviewer doesn't suggest undoing things! :) Is this a problem with other articles too? I would welcome any suggestions anyone might have, other than "lose most of the images"... ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple ideas; will have a go at this tonight. Maralia (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)