Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Omaha Beach

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Omaha Beach

Self-Nom. This article has been peer reviewed and has successfully completed an A-Class review by the WPMILHIST project, and I would now like to submit it for consideration for Featured Article status. Thanks. --FactotEm 12:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentQuite good, but there are very few wikilinks. Is it possible to make more. Also some items are linked more than once (like 1st US Infantry Div).Rlevse 15:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help - much appreciated. I've gone through the article and wikilinked as much as I could find of relevance as well as removing some duplicated wikilinks. Cheers. --FactotEm 08:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sumoeagle179 11:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another pretty impressive milhist article. I saw one "grievous" POV example, which concerned me that there might be more. Actually that example might not be grievous if the source supports or better yet uses that wording, but you can't tell from the current citation if it covers the paragraph or just the last sentence. Oh, and I must say the lead is particularly impressive, which is no small feat. - Taxman ^Talk 03:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your input. Where there is only one cite in a para it supports all statements in that para. In this case the source does not support the use of that word and I've replaced it now. I've checked through the rest of the article and do not believe that there are any further examples. --FactotEm 09:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a fine piece of well-informed and confident writing. I particularly liked the way you step back from the battle details every so often to provide overviews. It's good to read an article from someone who clearly understands ground and tactics. I thought the brief sketch of the beach as it is today added much. There were a few fussy typos/inconsistencies, which I've amended. Revert if you disagree. These in no way detract from the excellence of this article. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 09:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind. Thank you. I see no need to revert any of your improvements. --FactotEm 12:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diagramatic cross section is neat, but it's tiny (to the point of almost illegibility) and should probably be redone as an SVG. Raul654 20:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've re-rendered it as Image:Omaha beach cross section.svg. What do you guys think? Raul654 04:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic. A whole lot better and I've replaced the original with it. Thank you.--FactotEm 05:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I visited Omaha Beach and the museum in Caen several years ago and I found this article to be exactly what I had learned. It definitely deserves to be featured. Voot42 23:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support FA-class all the way. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support detailed, referenced and richly illustrated. The only thing I could complain about is the short "Dramatizations" section (there's another one, but...) igordebraga ≠ 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An excellent article. Cla68 23:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support w/ comment. Excellent article, very well written. My only comment would be to avoid sandwiching text between two images Oberiko 20:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That area is pretty congested image wise and I can't work out a quick fix, but I'll have another look at it in the morning. Thank you. --FactotEm 21:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get some advice on this one? I have tried various reformats to eliminate this but they all seem to me to be worse than the current layout, and I don't think that any of the images should be removed. Is this a significant issue, or a 'nice to have if you can'? Also, does this extend to sandwiching text between a quote box and an image, or is that OK? --FactotEm 09:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.