Wikinews:Featured article candidates/archive/9

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Video, lots of pictures, original reporting. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom and main contributor. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per Brian. --RockerballAustralia contribs 22:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yup. --Pi zero (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Perfect meld of text, video, and stills. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted --Bddpaux (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a blast from the past. I'll note my attendance, and significant contribution to the article, but think we could do with cultivating a new Brussels-centric bunch of contributors. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Less-so as a contributor, more-so as having been able to be in the right place, at the right time. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Slightly before my time; I'd say I hadn't noticed it before, except the edit history tells me otherwise. At any rate, I'm happy to notice it now. --Pi zero (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wish the mainstream media wrote more like this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A few minor typos notwithstanding....certainly a gob of input. --Bddpaux (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) nails my thoughts on this. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted --Bddmagic (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over an hour of audio. "Cover the news event comprehensively, and without rambling". (I reviewed it.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as nominator. --Pi zero (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice layout work. --Bddpaux (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted. --Pi zero (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great investigative OR imo. This was a story where the mainstream were left in the dust; I don't think anybody else covered it - probably because they were all doing it. There was collaboration with Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) obtaining legal expertise that backed us up, although it was placed in a folow-up. And that was about our investigation being noticed in high places. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator/correspondent. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As reviewer, it was deeply satisfying to be involved in helping this piece happen. Featured articles should stand as examples of what news articles should aspire to, and this does. --Pi zero (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is why we do Original research. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This article serves as an excellent example of what we should strive for when writing original research. A thoroughly good article. —Mikemoral♪♫ 11:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This piece could be said to be even more topical now in some ways. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A little shorter than other FA interviews, but we often forget that our mission statement includes entertaining content. Best example I've seen of that last in a long time, I for one thoroughly enjoyed this. --BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support having reread this, what BRS said. --Pi zero (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as reading it put a smile on my face. A lighthearted look at making a film on next-to-no budget. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An amusing article and a good example of entertainment OR content. —Mikemoral♪♫ 10:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stunned this wasn't already nom'd. Priceless snapshot of a major world event. --BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Snapshot, in very deed. --Pi zero (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yep, we need more of these article types....loads of 'little' interviews, focused on one topic; I liked this one. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Whilst the mainstream seemed to be toying with the idea of starting a new cold war, this is mature reporting on a complex issue. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be putting in photoessays rather than lots of verbiage these days. It's the easy way to cover stories where I have strong opinions on the topic being covered, and this is a story the mainstream didn't want to acknowledge (The BBC claimed there were a couple of hundred for this march, judge for yourself from the photos). --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As Bddpaux points out, the reference to "the referendum" wants context. There is at least one, possibly two, ways we could mitigate this without crossing the archiving policy.

• Wikilink "referendum result" to Scottish independence. Wikilinks are generally treated as within-bounds for archived articles, since they aren't the article content. By the same token, though, Wikinews articles are supposed to be self-contained, which isn't fully addressed by a wikilink even though it's local.
• Add a Related news link to Scotland says 'No' in independence referendum. This would do more to address the problem, but I'm ambivalent about whether it's within-bounds. Adding or changing Sister links is generally considered in-bounds, but I'm somehow more hesitant about External links or Related news.

--Pi zero (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I've added Related news to the archive before. Would've immediately done so again but for the comparison to External links. Then again, at least some ELs still feel okay. For example, adding a link to an interviewee's website would be both reasonable and doesn't feel like a content edit to me. imo the related piece can and should be added; would appreciate backed up by somebody on that. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of opposition I've added the related link and will close this nom. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as author and nominator. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support At least equal to our other featured photoessays, which seems to be a rapidly growing collection. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Pi zero (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but only barely. I'm not from Scotland, so I struggled a bit to understand, "...activist numbers had clearly been swelled by the referendum result." About which referendum am I reading?? Maybe that could've been wikified or maybe a link-box to a Wikipedia article could've been dropped in at bottom. I think FA articles should have a VERY LOW confusion rating for international readers. Great array of photos, though!! --Bddpaux (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• It seems clear that this article is not going to achieve the consensus needed to promote BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best visual documenting of the 2014 grand final. Definitly the best article I've written this year. --RockerballAustralia contribs 07:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I like this, but I think it's the presentation lets it down. You've a handful of video clips "hidden away" in a photoessay-style slideshow where those should be up-front and pushed at folks. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator and author --RockerballAustralia contribs 07:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, sadly; I liked it, but I don't see this mid-size photoessay as up to featured standards. (I did use one of the images to round-out the OR overview we're doing this year, though.) BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, but just barely. I struggled a bit with the VERY Australian lingo, but after about the 4th read, I began to 'get' it. Yes, it's an OK article, it really is. But, I see little that pulls it up to FA status. Sorry. --Bddpaux (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Additional input would be desirable but, on reflection, this has been open a long time and it seems reasonable to conclude that would-be objectors have had a long time to weigh in. Promoted. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare for us to manage to get two accredited reporters on the scene, and I'd like to think the result of BRS and I working on this one made sure it's up to FA standards. Most of the photos are Iain's, with his penchant for photographing police officers rather evident. That it was also seized upon by the Signpost over a single word as another reason to demand the project be closed. Bonus!

I'd also like to encourage people to go through the open FACs below. Many of them need either an uninvolved (non-contributing) admin to decide if they're good to promote, or a vote or two more to put them clearly over the line. In the past I've closed and promoted one per week, re-posting it onto Facebook Sunday AM (UK time); this gets high visibility, since it's a rest day for many. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd really like to see this given clear consensus before closing. With two accredited reporters working on it, and likely to vote for promotion, that'll mean more comments/votes than I think we'd usually be happy with. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't believe we've ever had two accredited reporters on the one scene before, though I could be wrong. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as co-contributor, and nominator. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as co-contributor. It took me a while to settle on this one; ultimately, it's the photos that make it once again. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 09:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as reviewer. From the text it's a sound report; as BRS notes, the pictures — with their captions — elevate it to featurable level. --Pi zero (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- David Davidson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forthe1789usconstitution (talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 May 2015

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomming an interview; it's always a good sign when scientists tell you you've asked a good question about their work. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as reviewer. Also good when the interviewee starts one of their answers with "This is a fun one." --Pi zero (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great to see a high-quality contribution in the topic of science, most educational and useful for our readers. -- Cirt (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Cirt's comment. Green Giant (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still hugely topical. "How long do you think the cat and mouse game will continue?" "Until one of two things happen: The authorities realize they can't enforce laws that require monitoring all private communications, especially given the large international level of grassroots support, or [they] actually start monitoring all private communications." Well then. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I agree with Blood Red Sandman (t · c · b) that this is still quite topical and applicable, today. -- Cirt (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Snapshot in time well chosen well captured and well timed. --Pi zero (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --RockerballAustralia contribs 00:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As with the indie horror interview, we often forget that our mission statement includes entertaining content. It's interesting to look at this afresh years down the line.

"I don't enjoy cheating in games, and to me buying items with real money seems like cheating -- except worse, since it actually costs money." And yet microtransactions have become depressingly familiar, even to those like myself who have never paid one. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, fascinating piece by Eloquence (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good stuff. --Pi zero (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yeah, nifty little article. --Bddpaux (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted. Once again, more votes on these would be nice. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is as cool, and interesting, as it was when it was still, well, news. Prime science reporting. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sure, what the hey! ...certainly a huge word count. --Bddpaux (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (I made a few neatifying copyedits.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Quite a hefty article, indeed! Promoted. --Bddpaux (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To borrow the reviewer's remark from talk; "a hefty undertaking all around, and[...] worth it" - @Pi zero:. Excellent and thorough OR, highly collaborative, and the best coverage of anybody anywhere. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as reviewer. --Pi zero (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Holy cow! That's not an article, it's an essay!! --Bddpaux (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Wish we had a few more votes, but otherwise Promoted. --Bddpaux (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping in some synthesis of mine, which highlights an intense collaboration to make for a good report on major breaking news. There's no sensible way so many sources on such a large article could have been reviewed had it been submitted in its final condition. What ultimately emerged captures the confusion and emergency scrambling that follows a major disaster unfolding. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the question. Is to much information to much or is information not enough? Thanks!- David Davidson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forthe1789usconstitution (talk • contribs) 00:48, 14 May 2015

That seems, to me, to be a false dichotomy. What question are you referring to? BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as author and nominator. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good infographics and use of quote boxes. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as reviewer. Which is to say, reviewer for much of it; the article history shows, as remarked, an intense process (note the post-publish edits with edit summaries telling the reviewer where to find info in the sources; post-publish revision review can easily turn into a tangled mess, and didn't this time). My initial review published an article less than half the size of the archived version. Imo a good role model for breaking disaster coverage. --Pi zero (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews has a fine tradition of featuring excellent photoessays, which I began cultivating back in 2009(!) with photos from '06. As this piece shows, we've come a long way by 2015. Clearly on a par with the other featured photoessays, excellent though they are. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, high quality contribution from Brian McNeil (talk · contribs), with great photographs, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reviewing it, it felt excellent; looking back at it now — it's well to give these some time for sober reflection after passions cool — it still feels excellent. --Pi zero (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - excellent work. Green Giant (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan of the combination effect of this article; some light-hearted entertainment, and some rather more serious thought. Lively would be the word. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. My thanks to Blood Red Sandman (t · c · b) for the kind comments about this interview contribution to Wikinews. Most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - interesting to read another angle on the whole Pricasso-Russavia-Jimbo episode. Green Giant (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted, with clear consensus. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm delighted photoessays continue to crop up at exceptional quality. I'm a little disappointed a few images aren't captioned, but I don't think that alone should stop an otherwise breathtaking piece from being featured. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Votestacking as nominator BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "breathtaking" is a good word. --Pi zero (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good photos!
  Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 13:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good --Ddvche (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good photos. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted. Higher voting totals remain, as ever, desirable. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really fascinating. A solid and informative read. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support without hesitation. --Pi zero (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nominator. Jackninja5 (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article deserves to be a featured article! Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 17:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK....looks like this is a 'pass' for FA status....now, let's see if I can make that happen! --Bddpaux (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 17:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This isn't overly strong on images, but it gets a few in. It's a solid capture of Burke's perspective. If someone wants a role model for an interview of this sort, I'm happy to have this one held up as an example. --Pi zero (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yeah, I agree. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems fine. Mashford42 (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I see no reason not to. --Queen Laura (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Low voting totals remain an evergreen issue, but consensus is pretty clear. Promoted BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point in writing this one was to basically square off to the mainstream media and try to produce the definitive article on the case. Believe it or not there's even more detail could have stood to go in there, but I still think I wrote up the most comprehensive article out there. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as reviewer. Solid piece. (I recall criticism raised off-wiki about the order of treatment. It could be fascinating to explore comparisons between alternative arrangements, but I don't see it as a problem with the chosen order.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support
  Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 06:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Deserves this, if only for the MASSIVE amount of sourcing!! --Bddpaux (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.