Probably one of the best short biolgraphies of W.S. Gilbert out there. Detailed, covers all aspects of his life and work (which few short biographies about him do), and uses a format developed for the article after that of Demosthenes that I think works really well. Has had two peer-reviews, of which I think everything was dealt with. Of course, this is a self-nomination. Vanished user ^talk 07:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I urge to remove the list of Gilbert's works into a separate page. You may check Nikolai Gogol (which I just completed) to see how this may be implemented. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query: We have removed most of the works to another page, what remains is a list of those with articles (or those so important that they couldn't be left off): should this simplified section still be removed? It certainly can be, but... Vanished user ^talk 09:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ah, well. Fixed. Vanished user ^talk 09:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks much nicer this way. Support. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks great. Mangojuice^talk 16:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we just hang on for another 3 days, just to tighten up the references and prose? Once that's done, the article will look truly magnificent. Moreschi 08:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FA status is supposed to take a week or so anyway, I think, so it'll be fixed up by then. Vanished user ^talk 12:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(For those confused, I invited Moreschi into the project to point out everything he thought needed citing that wasn't - it's hard, when you're too close to the subject, to know what might jump out to other readers. Then I went through reference works and cited everything. The footnotes grew from 15 three days ago to 41 now, many of those footnotes containing multiple cites - an effective citing up, I think. Vanished user ^talk 15:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here is the BIO peer review, which is only a week old. It is helpful to reviewers to link to old reviews, so we don't have to do the same work twice. Sandy 01:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologise for not linking. I think, however, that everything that came up was dealt with? Vanished user ^talk 11:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. All the concerns of the two Biography reviews have been addressed.--Yannismarou 18:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportOppose. Not enough refs: there are still entire unreferenced paragraphs. Please add more inline references, I'd be happy to support than.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Added a few more refs. If there's anyhing else, tell me - should cite the Who's who bit, but I'll get that Wednesday or so. Almost sure it's in Stedman, but better to check first. Vanished user ^talk 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Great, looks much better now.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Did the pragmatic thing and temporarily removed the Who's Who bit: It can easily be added back in later, when referenced, and since I think it's the only non-cited, non-trivial fact, I didn't want it holding up FA. Vanished user ^talk 00:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I'm a contributor, but I can confirm that these references have been checked, and that the authorities in the field agree with the bibliography. -- Ssilvers 02:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well worthy of featured article status. A thorough treatment of the whole of Gilbert's life and literary career (not just the G&S years). Heavily referenced too. Obviously a lot of hard work and research has gone into it. My congratulations to the authors.--Folantin 17:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Reads well and easily. Informative and seemingly well referenced. Good job.--Monocrat 18:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - as involved party. All my requests for cites were met and I've tightened up the prose. It looks good. Moreschi 08:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well written and very informative, covering his life and the full range of works and not just those for which he his best known. PaulJones 08:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It is the very model of a modern Wiki article. Guy 14:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well-written, follows MOS, easily understandable, well-organized and well-referenced article. --Drenched 10:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]