I had a quick look at this article & found it is a solid, useful piece, the kind of work I've been looking for to add to [[Wikipedia:Good articles]]. I think it is just as important to recognize that spending 50 hours to create, say, 25 solid & useful articles is just as valid as spending 50 hours to create one Featured Article. Considering the number of articles, spending the time on more articles may be more worthy of praise.
Some of us are having trouble explaining that to a group at [[Wikipedia talk:Good articles]]. Or maybe they are just afraid that as it stands, saying that something like [[Lang Hancock]] is a Good Article is arbitrary & therefore bad -- without acknowledging that for the most part, everything on Wikipedia is arbitrary. (Although it helps in the long run if you can articulate a reason for your actions.)
Geoff
We already have a lot of articles and a lot of them are substandard. I think spending time fixing, updating and generally improving articles is better spent than creating new ones (especially ones that end up on AFD or spark huge rows). But hey, everyone is entitled an opinion. As long as you are one of those that seek out gaps in our coverage that no one disputes needs to be covered. I can think of a few, then creation is a good cause.
Mgm