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 by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Girl Pat (1935 trawler)[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This decidedly quirky, slightly mysterious maritime adventure of 1936 created enormous public interest and press attention at the time, well out of proportion to its apparent significance. It has since been ignored by almost all the social historians of the period. Was there something unrevealed behind it? After reading a passing reference to the affair in Ronald Blythe's The Age of Illusion, I was intrigued, so I researched the story and here it is. You'd call it a nine days' wonder, except that it lasted more like nine months. The article has been polished by some helpful peer reviewers, and is hopefully ready for consideration here. All views welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I enjoyed this article extravagantly. On occasion, rereading something for FAC after one has fairly recently peer reviewed it can be a bit of a chore. Not this time! The lighter side of Wikipedia, at its finest. A delectable change from shipping disasters, mad racists, drug-doomed actors, and modern slavery (though fine articles all, by fine editors). This jeu d'esprit is well balanced, comprehensive, widely sourced and referenced, cunningly illustrated and an unalloyed delight to read. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 17:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support. It was indeed a pleasure to write this, not least because of the utterly fascinating period newspaper pieces, provided with much help from you and SchroCat, which formed the basis of the article. Ah, well, back to the grim stuff (I am currently resarching the Mary Celeste...) Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the Doctor[edit]

Lede

• "The Girl Pat was a small fishing trawler from the Lincolnshire port of Grimsby" -was it made in Grimsby or was it just based at the port, it's not clear to me. I don't think I can recall a boat referred to as coming from a place like that.

• Information relating to the Girl Pat regarding its constructiion and technical features has been very hard to find, beyond what I have included in the article. Thus I don't know if it was actually built in Grimsby, but I should imagine it was, possibly at Smith's Docks. "Grimsby trawler" is a generic name for a wide range of fishing boats, large and small, based at the fishing port of Grimsby. I have altered "from" to "based at", but can't do more. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "In May 1936 Orsborne, with a crew of four and his brother James as a supernumerary, took the vessel out on what the owners authorised as a routine North Sea fishing trip. However, after leaving port Orsborne informed the crew that they would be going on an extended cruise in more southerly waters. Nothing more was heard of them until mid-May" -here it's unclear the duration of the trip, there's no date mentioned with May and nothing on how long they were actually away for, If you were precise with the date of departure then the reader would be able to gauge that it was a week or two or more or whatever.

• My mistake: "In May 1936..." should read "On 1 April 1936..." I have added a few more date indicators to establish a rough chronology, and I hope this is clear now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Îles du Salut off the South American coast". -that's a huge area of possible scope as most will not be familiar with those islands, perhaps add off the coast of French Guiana.

• Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are some countries linked but not others? Is Bahamas really worth linking more than Senegal? I'd be consistent and not link countries. There's no link of Bermuda in the main body in the background section.

• I agree that countries should not be linked, and have delinked Bahamas. Brianboulton (talk)

• "In court, George Orsborne based his defence " -when was this? - needs some indication of timeline here I think.

• Date added. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• Do you think a major city like Liverpool is worth linking?

• Not sure – same might be said for Aberdeen. I have been pulled up in the past for not linking major British towns, and told not to assume a worldwide awareness of British geography. I'll leave them for the present, unless there are serious objections. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "During the following ten years, his career, he " -the "his" and "he" so closely together here I find a little jarring

• Reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we know what month the trawler was completed? Is there nothing further to be said technically about it? What about it's features and anchorage?

• See my earlier note. I'm not sure bwhat you mean by its "anchorage", but such specifications as I have found, I have included. Some newspapers have referred to different lengths and tonnages, but I have relied on them particulars included in a notice of sale. I wish I could add more, and will obviously do so if anything more comes to light. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is really the correct term, I have heard it used in sailing navigation books, but I mean details on its anchor and docking etc. I'd imagine info about them don't exist.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice in the lede you initially refer to the vessel as The Girlpat using the definite article, but throughout you just refer to it as Girlpat. Which is preferable here?

• Yes, I think either form is acceptable, but one should be consistent. I have removed "the", except for the first line (which I think needs the definite article, (and where the reference is to the Girl Pat "adventure", "crew", "affair" etc. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage

• "where he would get rid of Jefferson, who was not included in his further plans." -seems a bit vague, why was this? The way it is worded seems as if he was desperate to get him off of the boat and makes me curious!

• The previous section records that Jefferson became a crew member only because the enterprise was changed at the last minute from Gypsy Love to the Girl Pat, of which he was the regular engineer. Thus he was an outsider; he was left out of the wheelhouse discussions, and dumped at the first opportunity because he wasn't part of Orsborne's plans to go further afield. I'm not sure how I can make this clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• English Channel not linked yet the North Sea and the Channel Islands are?

• Done. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Orsborne ordered changes to the boat's appearance: the bowsprit was altered, and the fishing registration number on the side of the hull was blacked out. " -where was this conducted?

• Regrettably, not. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Now here you refer to the port as the "small northern Spanish port" which I think reads well, but earlier you call it the "north Spanish", can you change the earlier example to "small northern Spanish port" too.

• Done. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Some indication of where the Savage Islands would be good here, you could add something like "nearly midway between Madeira and the Canary Islands", although in looking in fairness you do give an indication in the next sentence, although it doesn't indicate where 170 miles is in relation to the Canary's which might be useful for reference.

• Done Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "This small uninhabited archipelago, roughly 170 nautical miles (310 km) south of Madeira, had long been associated with stories of pirates' buried treasure; news that Girl Pat had been seen there gave rise to press speculation that she was engaged on a hunt for treasure.[28][29] Lloyd's of London sent a representative to Las Palmas, to investigate the sighting;[30] meanwhile Girl Pat made an unobserved call at Tenerife in the Canary Islands, where she was repainted.[31]" -The semicolon seems heavy here, you probably disagree, but I think one could be avoided with a little tweaking.

• Zapped one semicolon

• "meanwhile Girl Pat made an unobserved call at Tenerife in the Canary Islands, where she was repainted." -do we have a date here?

• Again, regrettably not. Brianboulton (talk)

• Mauretania is the incorrect modern English spelling I believe, we should probably use the official English name of Mauritania here with an i.

• You are quite right. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd delink the Bahamas

• Done Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• " the steamer Arakaka" -what nationality was this? You'd think Japanese or Polynesia with a name like that! Some indication might be useful

• It was British! Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe there's a few "Daily Worker" papers, you might add "New York" before it for some indication it's American.

• I had the wikilink wrong - it's the British Daily Worker, after 1960 known as the Morning Star. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't " "Kia-ora" be in italics like the other ship names?

• Well, it wasn't actually the vessel's name – like the "Margaret Harold", so I haven't italicised it. Its 50:50, I suppose. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "A Hull man" -used in an article on shipping this might confuse some people as to which hull you mean! A local man from Hull should clear that one, admittedly my initial reaction was a boat technician!

• OK, I've reworded and added a link to the town Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we have a link for Fugitive Offenders Act?

• No. There have been several such acts; I believe that 1881 was the most recent before 1936. I'm not sure the relink is really useful, but someone may take it up I suppose. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hearings

• " once the Governor's formal approval" -surely there's a name of the actual Governor of French Guiana at the time which could be directly mentioned here?

• It was of course the Governor of British Guiana, and The Times does not name him. Some nonentity I expect.

• Apologies for butting in here, but if you're interested in adding it, the governor at the time was Geoffry Northcote, and here's a reference if you need it: Girl Pat is Captured After Fight.-RHM22 (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I don't think the name is important, but as you've ntaken the trouble to find it, and provided a ref, I've added him in. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The brothers each entered not guilty pleas" ="The brothers pleaded not guilty"

• Yes, better. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The trial began on 19 October 1936." -you should probably mention at the Old Bailey here despite the header.

• OK Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Profitable activities such as gun-running and smuggling were mentioned" -who mentioned them? Did Maclean specifically state his suspicions that Orsborne was involved with it? Can you clarify?

• Reworded. MacLean wasn't voicing suspicions, merely recounting what was said to him by Orsborne. (Mind you – see following footnote – MacLean was not the most trustworthy of people.) Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "being hazarded" -seems a tad awkward

• "jeopardised"? Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

• "After the outbreak of war in September 1939 she was requisitioned by the Admiralty for naval use; she is" -repetition with "she was" and "she is" here as well as a conflict in tense.'

• Well, the list still exists – I've seen it – so either "is listed" or "was listed" works here. I'll leave it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure if is also customary to use a weight conversion for 60-ton, same with the weight of the ship mentioned earlier to kilograms for the Americans among us. I know a lot of people like to have a metric indication of weight, just nit-picking of course :-).

• I have never seen the weight of a ship given in kilograms, not even American ships (I did lengthy research into this matter when working on SS Arctic disaster a few months ago). The whole question of ships' tonnage is muddled when the sources don't indicate if the figure is "gross tonnage" (based on the volume of cargo space), "displacement tonnage" (weight of water displaced by the ship", or whether these are long tons, short tons etc. Safest I think not to conjecture, and let things be. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't either! Yes, it's probably best left as it is. Does make you wonder though given that most other measurements and weights are converted these days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Did you link Portsmouth earlier like Southampton? The last example of Portsmouth I saw wasn't linked but I might have missed an earlier one.

• I have added the Portsmouth link. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all, a thoroughly enjoyable adventure story, I think I need a rest now! My only significant criticism I suppose might be that there's very little technical information about the vessel itself. I understand that it's the story which is being covered here more than the actual boat itself, but you would normally expect a section covering its technical aspects and performance. What was its capacity in fish hauls? What equipment did it possess etc? If only the very basic figures exist though then of course there's not much you can do about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, the kind of technical information you mention is simply not available, or at least, I've not been able to find it. The great majority of the information on the story comes from newspaper sources, and they were interested in the adventure and the people, not the technical details of the ship. I dare say that these exist somewhere, in a long-lost report or book, that may one day come to light, and the stuff you mention can then be added. Many thanks for the trouble you have taken to read the article carefully, and in most cases I have adopted your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for addressing the points. An excellent piece!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (and support) by RHM22[edit]

This is an excellent, informative article which I thoroughly enjoyed reading. I have some points in addition to some of Dr. Blofeld's commentary above, with which I mostly agree. I think it especially important that some technical specifications be given if they are available, even if only as a few sentences.

• Capture, detention and arrest: This quote: "Like some coursing greyhound the faster Government ship stuck to the tail of the fleeing suspect which, harelike, doubled back on her course to dodge her pursuer" would be improved by giving the source in the body of the article.

• Done Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Capture, detention and arrest: "A Hull man thought the adventure demonstrated "the spirit of Drake", and called for a public subscription to meet the crew's debts and expenses." I'm not sure what "Hull man" means here. Is it a nautical term, or does it refer to a man working at the Hull Daily Mail? If it's the latter, then "Hull" should probably be italicized as part of the name of the paper, or preferably (to me), the entire name of the paper should be given for its use. In the next sentence, the full name of the paper is given, so maybe just flip those two, unless "Hull man" is indeed a nautical term. I know very little about boats and boating, so apologies for my ignorance.

• Dr Blofeld, above, made the same point and I have adjusted the wording accordingly

• Oops; Sorry for missing that one above.-RHM22 (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In Georgetown: "...and bail was again refused." I didn't see any previous reference to bail being denied the first time.

• The sentence begins: "The brothers were held in custody", which I think is sufficient to indicate that they were refused bail. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Bow Street, London: "The defence counsel did not answer the detailed aspects of the prosecution's case, but stated that at the forthcoming trial "very serious allegations" would be made against certain of the prosecution witnesses." I don't understand "would be made against certain of the prosecution witnesses." Is this a typo, or a remnant of a previous revision?

• I'm sorry, but I don't know what the problem is. The sentence makes perfect sense to me as it stands. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I did some research, and I was wrong to point this out. It's correct, as you said. I had never previously encountered "certain" as a pronoun, but it's definitely proper English. Maybe it's a regional preference.-RHM22 (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Old Bailey: "It was put to Moore that he had instructed George Orsborne not to go fishing, but to "lose" the vessel..." Perhaps this could be reworded for the benefit of people who might not realize that the quotation marks around "lose" are meant to imply a euphemistic intent, such as "...not to go fishing, but to purposefully "lose" the vessel..."

• I have replaced the euphemism with the explicit "get rid of". Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Aftermath: "...that Harris drank up his share of the crew's newspaper money..." Does this refer to alcoholism? If so, I would suggest rewording it to make that a bit clearer and avoid what is, in my opinion, an overly-euphemistic phrase.

• I am simply recounting what Orsborne says in his book; he does not mention alchoholism. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Aftermath: This section references the invasion of Singapore as taking place in 1941, but wasn't it actually early in 1942? Malaya was invaded late in 1941, but Singapore wasn't invaded until the next year, as far as I know. Does it refer to something distinct from the Battle of Singapore?

• No, I just got the date wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. As stated by myself and others, this is a very interesting article and a great read.-RHM22 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments and kind words. I have done my best to respond. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - All of my concerns have been adequately addressed, so I support the promotion of this fine article to featured status.-RHM22 (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - excellent article and a great read. - SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My debt to you is considerable, for providing so many of the newspaper accounts that are an essential ingredient in this article. Thanks, too, for your help at peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I had my say at the peer review. A fine and strange tale.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your support and help. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Llywrch[edit]

I'm not going to address whether I think this should be considered a pass or fail for FAC. But I will make a few comments here:

• I made one minor edit to remove "that" from the section "Orsborne's alternative account". I think this better transitions into the account of the contents of Orsborne's memoirs which are (properly) in the present tense.
• One change I considered, & am recommending here, is to mention the title in this section. There is an ambiguity in the third paragraph of the next section "Aftermath" in the sentence "Of the other Girl Pat crew, Orsborne mentions in his memoirs that Stephens went straight back to sea after the adventure, that Harris drank up his share of the crew's newspaper money, and that "Fletcher" (Stone) emigrated to Australia" -- since the previous sentence states George Orsborne died, I thought "Orsborne" here might refer to the brother James, & wondered why this was the first time I had heard of this book. Changing this sentence to read "Of the other Girl Pat crew, in his Master of the Girl Pat Orsborne mentions etc."

• I have effected this change within a general reorganisation of the paragraph in question. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Like the evil good Doctor pointed out above, the mention of the Fugitive Offenders Act left me wanting more information. Not being versed in British maritime law, I don't know what this means. Obviously Orsborne stole a sailing craft; this could be considered piracy -- although due to how Orsborne gained control of the vessel & its value, another portion of the British criminal code might better apply. In short, if this were a FA, I'd expect some discussion why the Fugitive Offenders Act was selected in charging Orsborne.

• I have clarified the reference in the text to the Fugitive Offenders Act. According to the source they were "arrested on a provisional warrant issued under the Fugitive Offenders Act, charging them with the alleged larceny of the Grimsby trawler, Girl Pat". In other words, the Act merely provided the legal basis whereby the brothers could be arrested in one jurisdiction for crimes committed in another. It was not in itself the statute which covered their crime; they were charged with conspiracy and theft. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As I wrote in the peer review, I'm missing some explanation for this joy-ride. Then again, at this time we may never understand Orsborne's motivation. As an example, there's Trevor-Roper's book on Sir Edmund Backhouse, which contains enough details about this eccentric to allow the reader to sense why Backhouse habitually indulged in numerous fabulations.

• As I wrote in the peer review, Orsborne's true motives remain a mystery, and I think will do so until the sea gives up its dead and all are judged according to their deeds. But who knows? Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could probably say more, but my off-wiki life has me pressed for time. -- llywrch (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and thank you for giving the article the time you have. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Support. A fine article, and an entertaining read. I had some trouble finding even minor nits to pick; the points below don't amount to enough to prevent me from supporting now.

• Why isn't the article titled "Girl Pat"? Surely there's nothing to disambiguate it from?

• This matter was raised at the peer review. There have been at least two other vessels of this name, one of which is mentioned in the "Aftermath" section. I agree that this one is the only really notable Girl Pat, and your comment makes sense. However, the extended title does make it absolutely clear to casual readers what the article's subject is, which the shortened title might not. I'd prefer to leave the title as it is, at least in the duration of this FAC, and perhaps reconsider at leisure thereafter.

  OK; after FAC, I would suggest moving it -- we don't typically disambiguate unless there are or are clearly going to be other articles with the same name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are there quotes around "stowaway" in the "Crew and vessel" section?
• The caption of the leading image reads "Girl Pat, photographed during her period of service as a Port of London Authority, circa 1945": I would guess the word "vessel" is missing after "Authority".
• This isn't an article about Orsborne, but in case you didn't spot it and are interested, there's an account in the El Paso Herald-Post for 17 November 1952 of Orsborne claiming to have been tortured in Venezuela; the article also mentions that he was accused of gun-running but acquitted.

• I did know about the Venezuelan torture claims – they are mentioned in the short biography that I created for Orsborne, here. If the El Paso article is online I might use it to add detail to that article.

  It's available via newspapers.com; if you don't have a subscription let me know and I'll clip the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "After Stone and Jefferson had reprised the evidence they had given in Bow Street, George Orsborne took the stand": I don't think you need "had" before "reprised".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Mike, for your review and support. The minor points you indicate have been fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Full disclosure on this: I forwarded Brian a selection of news reports from local British newspapers during the article's development. I took no other part in the writing until the peer review, so I'm confident that there is no conflict in my further involvement.

• Spot checks on ten randomly selected citations from newspaper and online sources confirm they support the text in the article;
• FNs 37, 38, 56 and 82 need the double quote marks in the titles to be single (i.e. "Trawler "Girl Pat"". Hansard -> "Trawler 'Girl Pat'". Hansard);
• FN115 is inconsistent in the capitalisation of the title compared to the other refs;
• FN115: Just wondering why this is shown as Grimsby Telegraph online (unitalicised paper name and "online"), when the other online news source without a page, FN66, is shown as The Nashua Telegraph.

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. The minor fixes are done. On the final point: Ref 66 links to a facsimile of The Nashua Telegraph, so the newspaper itself is the source rathre than Google News (in the same way that we cite directly to books hosted by Google Books). In ref 115 the source is not The Grimsby Telegraph itself, it is the paper's website, which is a separate non-print medium. I hope that's clear. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's fine for me. - SchroCat (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

• File:Girl-pat.JPG - Fine. Small enough (Nitpick, 484 × 232 is 112,288 pixels, whereas the only firm number at WP:IMAGERES is 100,000 pixels).
• File:Fish Dock, Grimsby, Lincolnshire.jpg - Fine
• File:Edificios en Corcubión - Galiza.jpg - Fine
• File:Selvagem Pequena - 1ago04.jpg - Fine
• File:Îles du Salut.jpg - Fine
• File:Georgetown City Hall, Georgetown, Guyana.jpg - Should be fine.
• File:Old Bailey entrance.JPG - Also fine. Why not use the full court? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If you mean File:Oldbaileylondon-900.jpg , I thought it a little overwhelming! It doesn't fit the text as well as the more diffident entrance. However, thank you for the image review. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright. Images are okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.