Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barbara Gordon/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:18, 16 September 2011 [1].

Barbara Gordon

Nominator(s): The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I've worked on the article for a few years now and I believe it is as close as it can be to FAC requirements. I nominated it for PR first, but received no response. I chose to move forward with the FAC. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, unfortunately - you've done some good work here, but it doesn't quite meet the FA requirements. Here are some specific concerns:

Prose needs a good copy-editing - I see a few grammar and spelling errors ("whit", "apated", etc)
WP:MOS issues: ranges need endashes not hyphens, overlinking, etc
FURs for non-free images generally need to be improved, particularly the purpose of use sections
Source link for File:Yvonnecraigcomic.jpg is dead
External links could stand to be culled
Some phrases are written using a non-neutral or otherwise problematic tone - for example, "In her persona as Oracle, Barbara Gordon is not limited to the Batman Family, serving a unique and universal role in the DC universe"
Referencing format is inconsistent and problematic. Web citations should include publishers. Book and magazine citations should include page numbers. Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations for books. In general, edit for consistency.
Don't repeat cited sources in Further reading or External links. Use the same reference formatting for both cited sources and Further reading entries
What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am very concerned about the use of non-free content in this article. I appreciate that it's a very difficult subject to freely illustrate, and, of course, it's a visual topic. However, currently, every non-free image is used with the useless justification of "Illustration of a specific point within the article." One of the key points of a rationale is to explain what that "specific point" is, and why it needs to be illustrated with the use of non-free content- preferably with reference to the text of the article. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've begun working on the citations. I've also removed images I could not come up with a good rational for as well as writing new rational for images I believe are essential. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Far too much of it is unsourced, sorry. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.