Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Yarmouk/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 SandyGeorgia 01:02, 5 November 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured article candidates/Battle of Yarmouk/archive1
- Featured article candidates/Battle of Yarmouk/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because... The article apparently seem perfect to be a featured article as it fulfill all the requirements for the same, there has been exhaustive research and editing on this article to make it compatible with the needs of a featured article. The article has been referenced with several Wikipedia:Reliable sources. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - There are numerous "citation needed" tags and several unreferenced paragraphs. The lead is also too short. Recommend withdrawing and renomination once these and any other issues have been addressed, as FAC is not peer review. At a glance, the article has plenty of potential, though; it's just not close to there just yet. Steve Smith (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the article is only B class, I would recommend that the article either be nominated as a Good Article candidate or take it to WP:MILHIST's A-Class Review. -MBK004 21:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the B class category tag is the old one i think no contributor (including me) really bothered to put it for the nomination as GA and A class aricle. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right; I agree with MBK004 that taking it through one or both of those processes (with maybe a peer review first) could give you some pointers on how to bring this up to featured article standard. Steve Smith (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the B class category tag is the old one i think no contributor (including me) really bothered to put it for the nomination as GA and A class aricle. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks for the advice, i just nominated it for the A class military history articles.
الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Second Steve Smith that its an article with potential. Second Steve that its the wrong forum, FAC isn't an article workshop. Take to Milhist A then Good Articles first. Article violates WP:MILMOS#SOURCES through primary source use leading to original research and the use of inappropriate tertiaries. The references are completely inconsistent, years are formatted in and out of brackets. Akram lacks page references. Article in The Medieval Review miscited. OUP Pakistan lacks a city. "Khalid ibn al-Walid, Encyclopædia Britannica (2007)." dog doesn't eat dog. Biblio not alpha. Naftziger not in bib. Page number referencing all over the shop. fn8 and thus fn10, 6, 5 are all OR through using primary sources in a history article. Density of citation is insufficient in some places. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn by nom: [2]. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the FAC template on the talk page until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.