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 22:03, 22 June 2012 [1].


William S. Sadler[edit]

William S. Sadler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten, MathewTownsend & LivitEh?/What?

William S. Sadler was an author and psychiatrist who was one of the best known skeptics in the U.S. in the 1920s, until he came to believe that aliens were communicating with him through one of his patients. The result was a 2,000 page book that launched a new religious movement featuring otherworldly theology. Although Sadler never received a great deal of publicity, enough has been published about him in the past decade to piece together a decent article. This article has passed GA and been peer reviewed, and I think it now meets the FA criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492 comments
(Disclosure: I participated in the article's first PR)
"While attending medical school, Sadler worked as a chemistry tutor and became an elder in the Adventist church. In San Francisco, he served as the "superintendent of young people's work" for the church's California conference and the president of the San Francisco Medical Missionary and Benevolent Society." - I don't think the second location conjunction is necessary (in San Francisco)
  • That's it for prose... I did a bit of work myself, feel free to revert any you disagree with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments and earlier peer review, I tweaked the sentence you mention above. Your most recent copyedits look fine too. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images are fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments

All minor points, and I'll be adding my support for FA when they're addressed. – Tim riley (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article. Well proportioned, fully referenced, very readable prose, admirably illustrated. Clearly FA class. Tim riley (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the main things after a first read. Good work overall! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- I feel the prose could do with another run-through by someone; per my copyedits, the lead contained some niggling things and although the first section of the main body was an improvement, it still gave me some cause for concern... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article again, and could not find any prose issues. Images are checked. I have not done a source spot check. Changed to "Support". --Noleander (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for all the helpful comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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