Wikipedia:Peer review/Urania's Mirror/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's been a long time since I've taken an article to featured article, but I think this one has a decent chance: It uses good sources; I think it's pretty well-written, its illustrations definitely improve it, and, buy the time I take it to FAC, I expect to have a full set of images. So, what does everyone think? All advice is appreciated.
Thanks, Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Casliber has an interest in constellations, and Chiswick Chap has written a lot of articles about historical works of science- perhaps they would be good people to talk to if you haven't already. J Milburn (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's frustrating all the different computer monitor screens, looks funny on a widescreen but I guess there isn't much we can do about that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Lead should be a little bigger given the size of the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I notice the Dingley paper has some more info on Bloxam, which might be good to add Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- What a delightful, quirky subject. I'll help if I can. The only thing that immediately struck me was that if Bloxam was an 'assistant master', he must have been one of many, i.e. "a" not "the", as every teacher was an 'assistant master' except the head and perhaps the deputy head! Good luck with it. Feel free to ping me if you think I can contribute. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm on stage this week with Princess Ida; I'll get to work on this Sunday, during my recovery day. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Right. Let's have a look at this. I think I'd rather spin Bloxham off into his own article, to avoid too much here. As for expanding the lead - never quite sure what to put in it in addition to what's there. Any suggestions? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)