Wikipedia talk:FAC coordination

This has two open opposes and has just - yesterday - had GoCE finish a copy edit. This looks to me like an under-prepared nomination unlikely to achieve a consensus this time round. As such I am inclined to archive it. Thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I considered archiving it when I saw the copyedit in progress, as they shouldn't take place during FAC, but didn't pursue. Might be time to harpoon it now, yes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

My posting and reading Ian's reply there seems to be some movement. I'll leave it for a couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I was on the verge of closing this with a promotion when it attracted a criterion 1c oppose. This seems to now have been thoroughly discussed and I am still of the opinion that the article meets all of the FAC criteria and that there is a consensus to promote. However, I would appreciate someone else running an eye over the last review to see what they think. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Copied from the review: I saw this mentioned at Wikipedia talk:FAC coordination, came here, and found the discussion interesting. I won't commit to doing a full review, but could I ask that the @FAC coordinators: hold off on closing this for a couple of days to give me a chance to read the article and marshall my thoughts? Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure Roy, no rush. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2026 (UTC)