I think that I should nominate this article, because it seems someone must have forgot this great page existed.
Malomeat 05:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Malomeat[reply]
Slight Object until the following concerns are addressed:
- The lead and sections are well written, but the lead should be split into 2-3 paragraphs and the body sections should be split into subsections where possible.
- More references should be cited.
- There seems to be disagreement about a Shakespeare reference on the talk page. If indeed there is any conflict, it needs to be resolved.
- [Nope, conflict long dead - newbie upset about his edit being changed, but I'm the other "party" and am not that bothered, so newbie's edit stands. JackyR 16:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)][reply]
- The article could use a few more images to break up the text. Perhaps one of Dickens as a child? The guidelines say that images are not a prerequisite for FA status, but if it is possible, we should do it.
These are my most immediate concerns, and some of them I can begin working on myself. If they can be resolved, you have my support. --Danaman5 06:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object; as above. Also, the (two, which is insufficient anyway) references don't use any real referencing format, not MLA, not APA, not Harvard, not... anything, so far as I can see. It just has a link with a brief discription of what the link is, no author or date or publisher or anything. Please include more information with the references as well. Fieari 22:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]