Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/OK Computer/archive1

OK Computer

Nominator(s): TGilmour (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recently finished perusing this article and I'm sure it is of FA quality. I am not the primary contributor to the article, but the primary contributors are retired, so I'm ready to do my best to get it to FA. TGilmour (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question on level of article knowledge. Very quick skim shows the article looking in GA+ state. Have not really dug deeper, but I can see why you want to FA it. I do see some work in the history by you, mostly links and ref formatting.

Little concerned though, if you have really taken enough ownership of the article to make sure it is FA (I think of the nominator/author as the most important person to ensure quality...all the reviewers and director are the second check). Have you checked all the sources to make sure that they actually support what is being said in article (not format, but logic)? In particular read the two books that are the core references? Also, just a little surprised, if you had dug into the topic that you would not have found some change to make in the content (additions, subtractions, corrections, re-org). TCO (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read both of those books and checked the pages. TGilmour (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing, please read FAC instructions-- at minimum, you should have checked with WesleyDodds and Indopug. You've read "both" books? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I'll write them. TGilmour (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the primary contributors to the article, and I own one of the books in question. I'm willing to help get this article into shape for featuring. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool. Maybe a future FA is born from this little kerfuffle...and a valued contrib returns! TCO (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]