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 02:59, 8 October 2007.


I have been building this article slowly with great help from other editors. It has been promoted to A-Class and peer reviewed since that, and I would like to get the feedback from the community if it can be promoted to FA-Class. --Legionarius 02:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it is a little better now.--Legionarius 01:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. "Early life" feels a bit too brief to merit a separate section, though. Perhaps it could somehow be merged with the section below.
Peter Isotalo 06:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I joined the paragraphs and reading improved, even if the article has a looser structure. A worthy trade-off. Thoughts?--Legionarius 06:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gallery remopved. Unfortunately I am at a loss regarding prose, and I am asking for some help from the League of Copyeditors.--Legionarius 21:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll try to do something about the prose issues I see in the next few days. Gimmetrow 23:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--Legionarius 01:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the issues mentioned. Or at least I guess I did. :-)--Legionarius 23:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the lead repeats information that appears again in the fourth paragraph of the lead. Can this be reworked so it is not repetitive? Gimmetrow 02:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to include some information about the fact in the first paragraph to attest his notability and expand information on the third paragraph. Thanks for the copyediting!--Legionarius 05:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I am striking my oppose for now because I won't have time to do a thorough re-read for a little while, and I am happy with the other MOS changes that have been made so far. Karanacs 03:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Oppose for now. Karanacs 19:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DASH. In many instances you are not to use the hyphen key on your keyboard but should instead type & ndash; or & mdash; to get the appropriate dash. Karanacs 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I failed to find an issue with the dashes in the article other than "present-day"; but this probably is my incompetence in understanding the policy. I listed all the suspects; could you please tell me where you see a problem in the occurrences below?

Hyphen

as his son-in-law.
..was twenty-seven by fourteen feet.
legislatively-appointed auctioneer.
present-day

Ndash

1783–1863

Mdash

Cooley moved away in 1823[3]—possibly to escape the Spanish influence—to the north bank of New River
Frankee Lewis—one of the first settlers, in the area since 1788[17]—sold her business...
...Indians in the area—arrowroot was a staple of their diet.
..good performance of his machinery—the output was close to 450 lb per day (204 kg per day)—brought Cooley..
...was a Captain of the "Silver Grays"—a militia for the home defense of Tampa in the 1850s.
--Legionarius 16:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you've got listed here looks correct, but when I go to edit the article it just looks like a hyphen (that may be my browser, and I am used to seeing the actual code & mdash;). The policy also applies to citations, unfortunately. Karanacs 14:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to your preferred coding, including citations.--Legionarius 16:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few more; I saw references to lbs but not kg and ft with no corresponding meters. Karanacs 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hopefully they are all done now.--Legionarius 16:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the League is overwhelmed now. Is there any particular area of the article you are specially dissatisfied? I saw that other users stopped by and made comprehensive and high-quality edits.--Legionarius 16:08, 5 October 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.