Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bush v. Gore/archive1
This is not really a self-nomination as the article differs significantly from my first draft and is very complete and well researched. I feel its coverage of the case is uncommmonly good, the endnotes really clarify things and its well cited.
—This unsigned comment was added by Reboot (talk • contribs) . RyanGerbil10 02:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Object. Lacks proper footnoting. RyanGerbil10 02:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Object This article fails FA requirements on many counts:
- Please use either {{ref}}/{{note}} or <ref> to cite your sources.
- Also, the Relevent Law section needs to be expanded so that it makes sense to readers that don't have a legal background. All I see now are exerpts from clauses in the constitution.
- The verbiage of the three bullets in The issues is non encyclopedic. Rephrase.
- The article discusses the merits of Bush's claims while not touching upon Gore's claims.
- Comment. This objection is completely wrong. The merits both parties' cases are discussed in the "issues" section, which (in the interest of full disclosure) I wrote. You will be hard pressed to find a more neutral presentation of each side's case anywhere. However, I agree that this article needs substantial work, but mainly in the "decision" section. Kronius 00:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- In-line citation is very limited in this article. This was a fairly important ruling in what was a controversial election. Appropriate citations are required to justify that the article complies with NPOV requirements.
- Please move this article to WP:PR and incorporate any suggestions you receive there. AreJay 22:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Object, no peer review done before FAC, lacks footnoting does not meet FA standards. I suggest withdrawal of this nomination. --Terence Ong 11:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment A peer review is not necessary before an article comes to FAC. A very good idea, but not necessary - The Catfish 03:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)