Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Krag-Jørgensen
Krag-Jørgensen[edit]
Selfnomination. Was listed for FAC earlier [1] without success - but I think all issues raised then has been addressed, as well as the article significantly expanded in all areas. I believe the article, as it stands now, give a comprehensive overview of the subject (one of the early repeating, bolt action rifles, adopted by Denmark, the USA and Norway). WegianWarrior 08:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. The references and notes might benefit from a reformatting according to guidelines. Otherwise, excellent. Phils 11:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Have reformated references and notes according to the guidelines as I understand them, hopefully this is the way they are meant to be understood ;) WegianWarrior 10:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. Will support when Philis note about references is adressed. Also, See Talk:Krag-Jørgensen for more details of the sources of the different sections. doesn't look to good to me. See also Talk? Add the relevant info to the article, please. Also, the long list of similar notes may be shortend by using Ibid or similar notes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Will attemt to get references and notes into compliance with guidelines tomorrow (too late right now, sorry). Have taken the suggestion of using 'ibid' to heart. All info on sources are in footnotes / reference section - had just forgotten to remove the line. WegianWarrior 21:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Excellent work, I shifted the notes to above "References" - Ta bu shi da yu 21:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support now. Good job. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Excellent work, I shifted the notes to above "References" - Ta bu shi da yu 21:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Will attemt to get references and notes into compliance with guidelines tomorrow (too late right now, sorry). Have taken the suggestion of using 'ibid' to heart. All info on sources are in footnotes / reference section - had just forgotten to remove the line. WegianWarrior 21:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A model of clarity, crispness, and encyclopedic quality. Bishonen | Talk 14:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Quality work. JuntungWu 02:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I concur with the supporting remarks above. I will add that although I am not a true "gun nut" (unlike some of my relatives), I still found the article quite interesting. Edeans 05:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Wow, nice work. Much improved from when it was first on peer review. I didn't happen to check all the images, are they all properly licensed? - Taxman 21:59, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes - the lineart is from Norwegian Army manuals in the years up to 1923 and the black and white photo is from 1905; so they should all be free of copyright. The colour photos are taken by me last saturday and can be used freely. WegianWarrior 04:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)