Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Tecumseh Sherman

William Tecumseh Sherman

This article was originally nominated by Kross in January. It had already had a positive peer review, but its nomination failed largely because on insufficient references (see archived discussion). I think that all of the issues raised then have now been addressed. The article as it stands is scrupulously referenced. It offers a balanced and very readable account of the life and work of a major historical figure. The images complement the text of the article nicely. I think this is the best source of general information on Sherman that is currently available on the web to the general public.

This is a self-nomination in that the bulk of the edits after the first featured article nomination failed are by me, though John Flaherty and Hal Jespersen also contributed significantly. -- Eb.hoop 18:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but I would like to see more footnotes -- one per paragraph would be nice. Ideally the new format (see WP:FN) should be used. Johnleemk | Talk 18:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well done. RyanG e rbil10 21:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Definitely a Good Article, but not quite featured quality yet, I think.
- According to WP:LEAD, the lead section should be three paragraphs long for this article.
- Most of the sections are stubby, consisting of only one or two paragraphs. Consolidate sections, or, if there is enough to write about, expand them (preferred). If this makes the article too large, use summary style and split the article up.
- Each section should have at -least- one inline citation. It would be nice to have at least one per paragraph.
I didn't have time for a more thorough review of content and writting style, but I'll get back to that later (hopefully later tonight). But the above issues are obvious and need to be fixed. Fieari 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lead was too short, and have now expanded it to three paragraphs. I also have added a few extra references, and expanded some sections. The footnotes are now in the new format. Please take a look! -- Eb.hoop 00:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a well organized, well referenced, well written, and well balanced article. Introduction, layout, and image use are all appropriate. FA material by all standards. Durova 15:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clear, well-referenced, NPOV. One to be proud of. Hydriotaphia 04:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]