Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jane Cobden/archive1

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 GrahamColm 10:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Jane Cobden

Featured article candidates/Jane Cobden/archive1

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Cobden was a pioneer of women's rights, one of a group of women who emerged in the late Victorian era to exercise considerable influence over early 20th century British domestic politics. Daughter of a great Victorian radical, she was one of the first women to serve on the London County Council, and was a supporter of many causes: women's suffrage, free trade, land reform, Irish independence, and the rights of indigenous peoples in South Africa and elsewhere. She believed in persistence and behind-the-scenes lobbying rather than big, headline-grabbing gestures, and is perhaps less recognised than she deserves to be. This account of her life may raise her profile just a little. Widely peer-reviewed; nevertheless, further comments always welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comments at the peer review. Well-written, concise enough, and well-sourced. ceranthor 21:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in the article, your review help and your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - File:Westbourne Terrace road bridge - geograph.org.uk - 1291578.jpg is one of the dullest images in existence. It shows Westbourne Terrace Road at Little Venice, not Westbourne Terrace. - hahnch e n 21:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course absolutely right; I meant to remove this image ages ago, and forgot about it. I've now removed it, not before time - thanks for the prompt. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I too joined in the peer review, where my few (minor) queries were thoroughly dealt with. The article meets all the FA criteria, in my view. Tim riley (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your PR assistance and support here are much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, minor comment An interesting biography of a woman of whom I had never heard. I would suggest linking "suffrage" in the lead, also "free trade" and "calico" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the links you suggest. Thanks for reading the article and for giving it your support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Why not italicize ODNB in citations?
- If I may stick my uninvited oar in here, the title of the ODNB (and the OED) italicised feels subtly wrong, despite all logic, the MoS etc. Just my own view, of course. I'll shut up now. Tim riley (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - With all respect to Tim, the reason I haven't italicised the ODNB is because these citations are to the online edition, which is a different publication from the print edition. I have followed the same practice in every article where I've used the ODNB as a source. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I must have expressed myself badly. I was agreeing with the status quo of an unitalicised title for the ODNB. (Now be quiet, Riley!) Tim riley (talk)
Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
- Fixes done Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Missing bibliographic info for Taylor. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Book now added to sources. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for the sources review. I think all is well now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support; another of the peer reviewers, where my very minor points were dealt with: another excellent, well-written and very readable article. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you enjoyed the article. Thank you for support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Had my say at the peer review. Great article! (would you believe I got edit conflicted? At an FAC?)--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - with just a couple of very minor comments, none of which of course have to be adopted.

"who at the time of her birth was Radical MP for the West Riding." -- Did each area have its own Radical MP? If not, "a" is missing from before "Radical".
Second para in Sisterhood section: Is it usual to finish a paragraph with a note and not a citation?
At the end of the first para in "Social, political and humanitarian activities", could we link Edwardian era?

A very nice little article. -- Cassianto ^Talk 12:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the small fixes required. With regard to ending a paragraph with a note, I would say that's OK if the note contains a ref that covers the preceding text. That was not the case here, so I have added the necessary reference. Thanks for pointing this out, and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check No problems. All three images are validly published pre-1923 or are art to which the copyright has expired, either by pre-1923 publication or seventy years post mortem.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Brianboulton (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2013 (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. Graham Colm (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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