Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Copa Libertadores/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 18:50, 21 May 2010 [1].
Copa Libertadores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been a little green before. After thoroughly following the guidelines set in Wikipedia:FA criteria, I believe the article is truly ready to become a candidate. Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—dead external links to http://espndeportes.espn.go.com/section?id=copalib and http://www.nacional.com.uy/mvdcms/uc_95_1.html; links to dab pages Dream team, El Latino, Portuguese, Spanish. "Further reading" should be after "References". Strange to have a section "Additional information"—if the information in that section does not belong together, it shouldn't be together. Ucucha 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed! I can't believe they died so fast...well, I took out the "Additional Information" title...now that you mention it, it looks redundant.Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The nominator has had two (three, if you count an instant re-nom of the first article) previous FAC noms archived within the last few days. This particular nom therefore violates the rules: "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating." Furthermore, the PR -- which was previously blanked -- was open for less than three days and received paltry attention. Time should have been given for a proper review by someone familiar with the FA criteria before coming here; sometimes it takes longer than you'd like, but it's always worth the wait. The GA nom was also removed, I see, before a review could have been given. Jamen, patience is a virtue. Rarely is an article ready for the big leagues after only three days and little review. María (habla conmigo) 18:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a fast editor (although I am a nice, slow guy). You tell me if there is anything wrong, missing, etc. and I would probably fix it immediately (the above comment being a prime example). Just don't ask me to paint the moon green. Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please correct the WP:MSH errors. And, although Karanacs may be willing to let this nom run, I am not. Reviewers have begged and pleaded for FAC instructions to be respected, to lower the backlog. Take two weeks, and please do not continue abusing of the FAC process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.