Talk:Great Southern War

Great Southern War FAC Vote (12/0/0)

Please remember to sign your votes with 4 tildes ( ~~~~) and update the vote tally when you vote.

Support

1. Never mind, it was the template WarBox that was in error. I removed the bullets and reformatted the participants' list of the section. Now you just need to complete some of these articles to change off these red links, or just remove those references, and it'll be great. I'll probably start doing some of that right now. --Pacitalkia 21:46, 12 November 2005 (GMT) ***EDIT*** Cleaned up all the dead links. Looks great now, very much worthy of Featured status.
2. Looks like the problems are fixed. I support. ~ ^C_e^orant (or rave) 00:28, November 19, 2005 (GMT)
3. Great Article! I love it, and it's certainly worthy of Featured Article status...--Qantrix 19:04, 19 November 2005 (GMT)
4. Very well done summary of that war. --Helvetic Confederation 21:44, 20 November 2005 (GMT)
5. very well written, a good story and this should be an example to everyone in NS of how to write and how to conduct a war. Monkecia 12:12, 22 November 2005 (GMT)
6. Great article, nuff said! --Pantocratoria 05:46, 16 January 2006 (GMT)
7. Very strong support. Gruen2alk 19:45, 19 January 2006 (GMT)
8. Very nice - good use of pics, nice text length, good formatting. Thumbs up. Praetonia 14:51, 14 February 2006 (GMT)
9. Always liked this article, support. United Island Empires 20:39, 2 June 2006 (GMT)
10. A great example of a war article, and I would love to see it on the front page next. Spaam 07:22, 13 October 2006 (GMT)
11. Fully supported, though see my comment about the pictures. ^Je_y^° 02:40, 19 October 2006 (GMT)
12. This article is excellent, a realy well written piece of work that I thoroughly enjoyed reading, I like forward to more articles like it. One slight qualm though, is the pictures, I agree with ^Je_y^° on that point, but other than that this definately gets my seal of approval. - Conrad Kruschev 15:14 (GMT) 21st October 2006

Oppose

Neutral

1. I agree with Pacitilia. I like the great content, but the infobox seems a bit substandard. If that was fixed, I'd definitely throw my support behind it. Ceorana|√∞ 03:06, 28 October 2005 (GMT)
2. I agree with your philosophy - it would be nice to see another war featured article soon around these parts. This is definitely one of the better articles around, and I'm impressed by the thoroughness. I feel that the infobox at the top could use a bit more work. If you can perfect that (i.e. starting with the bottom two cells with the bullets listing the nation participants), I'll change my vote to support. Pacitalia|PaciTalk 19:17, 2 October 2005 (GMT)

A response! I'd almost given up hope. I'm not sure what you mean by the table though and even if I did I'm not sure how to change it. I pretty much just ripped the WWI (or WWII) table from wikipedia. The problem with the list of involved nations cells is that there was such an imbalance in the numbers on each side. GreatGodOm 11:58, 19 October 2005 (GMT)

Comments/Questions

• Its a self-nom by me obviously but in the absence of any featured war articles I thought I'd throw it out there. Plus, it happens to be an account of one of the longest and most rewarding conflict RPs Europe has ever seen. GreatGodOm 22:10, 26 August 2005 (GMT)

• My only slight criticism about the article is about the pictures of the maps. Is there any way that you could allow for them to be enlarged when clicked on? Maps such as these (which appear to be similar to my own nation's maps) are relatively hard to see when not enlarged. ^Je_y^° 02:40, 19 October 2006 (GMT)

Don't forget to update the vote tally!

Status as featured article

I think this would be next in line for featured article. Any objections? If none, we'll do the switchover on 25 January. The authors of the article can tell us which parts of the article they'd like in the sting box on the Main Page. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 19:04, 19 January 2006 (GMT)

It's 28 January. The article can be featured whenever the authors get a chance to choose what parts they want, I guess. → Ceo \ squawk 00:22, 29 January 2006 (GMT)

Apologies, I've been quite busy with RL stuff to pay much attention to either this or NS. So I assume this has missed the Jan 25 spot. If it is to be featured I'm not exactly sure what aspects should be stuck on the main page, its, to my mind anyways, not the easiest of articles to summarise. Perhaps the intro, and then a quick summary of the cause, fronts, conclusion and legacy? GreatGodOm 15:06, 15 February 2006 (GMT)

Certainly, that sounds good. Yours'll be next up on the front page, then, I'd assume, on or around the 25th of March. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 18:49, 15 February 2006 (GMT)

Not to rush things but I am keen to see my article on the front page GreatGodOm 14:38, 29 August 2006 (GMT)

The present featured article only just got put up there last week, finally, so I think it'll be a little while before this makes it there, but in my opinion it should be next after Danaan Monarchy comes down from the front page. --Pantocratoria 15:16, 29 August 2006 (GMT)

It will be, should I remember. I am sorry for the delay in this matter. ~Gruen2alk 10:25, 6 September 2006 (GMT)

This will become the next featured article as of 25th October, no later. I'm going to close the vote as we obviously have the consensus required to feature this sucker. Congratulations to GreatGodOm for his excellent job on this article. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 18:10, 21 October 2006 (GMT)