Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Isambard Kingdom Brunel

Isambard Kingdom Brunel

Partial self nom. Legend. --PopUpPirate 01:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Everything seems in order. Meets FA criteria as it is, but seems like it could improve to an even better level of quality. Would be an average Featured Article, seems like it could be among the best of FAs. RyanGerbil10 03:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm particularly happy with the references; I still would like to see a slightly longer lead, as per my comments on peer review. Robth^Talk 14:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ Support - ~~If the lead is lengthened.~~ —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead section increased by a paragraph, I've moved the section about the £2 coin and bicentenary celebrations to the top where I think they look better --PopUpPirate 18:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: should probably remove the external links from the body of the article. Use a footnote and keep the ext. links in the references. Ease off the one-sentence paragraphs like "Brunel University in London is, perhaps obviously, named after Isambard." Also, remove the links in the "See Also" section that are already linked in the body. --maclean25 15:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actioned --PopUpPirate 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great article. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Too short sections. --Off! 06:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Too short sections"? Which ones? There is only one one-paragraph section ('Brunel's "atmospheric caper"'), which I think is actually fine. "Legacy" is a bit choppy, but the other sections are also fine. I suspect, however, that there is more that could be said. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plus to expand sections would be duplicating articles like The Great Eastern / Clifton Suspension Bridge, etc, which are all worthy of their own articles. --PopUpPirate 11:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the relevant facts from those articles should be included here too (following Wikipedia:Summary style). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've re-read through the article and added where I can, with referenced works, mainly in the Bridges section. --PopUpPirate 18:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful article! The only (and fairly minor) problem I would have is with the "See Also" section. Perhaps you might rename it "Other structures by Brunel"? Otherwise, congrats on a fine article. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what you mean, but "See Also" is a commonly used section on wp, so I'll prob keep it for consistencies sake. Ta for support! --PopUpPirate 22:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good indeed. I specifically like the "time line", I must learn how to do that. Giano | talk 08:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love the article and think it has FA potential. I'd like to see mention, though of Brunel's design of the train sheds at Bristol's Temple Gate and Paddington Station. Both the architecture and engineering of these structures were very significant at the time. --Sophitus 09:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think "main articles" or "for more details" templates should be added to the relevant sections. Also, it seems to me that the article is more detailed than atmospheric railway. Circeus 16:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added (what I consider to be) relevant main article links, looks better for it I must admit. --PopUpPirate 00:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ALoan (Talk) 11:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good references, comprehensive and contains a lot of good pictures. Afonso Silva 14:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support; lengthy, stable and very interesting. The timeline is a nice touch. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]