Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Enfield revolver/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 04:56, 3 September 2007.
The Enfield revolver was one of the other major British service revolvers, and the article has already passed an A-class review with no major objections. It's extensively cited, comprehensive, and (IMHO) worthy of being elevated to FA status. --Commander Zulu 05:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose This article is good (A-class possibly), BUT fails on most of the FA criteria.
- 1(a) Almost the entire article is written in passive voice and the details are sketchy. Many awkward sentences and phrases. This prose is neither engaging, brilliant, nor of a professional standard.
- 1(b) The article is horrendously short with prose less than 10K. Recommend combining with another article or expanding this handgun's usage.
- 1(c) several sentences with claims that are not referenced
- 1(d) seems ok, but I'd like a second opinion on this.
- 1(e) Seems pretty stable
- 2 Fails miserably with compliance with the MoS (read the entire WP:MoS, WP:Date, WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, WP:GTL, etc.). Feel free to read other reviews I have done in order to get a better idea of the points I am talking about. This is your biggest problem.
- 2(a) marginal, but see WP:LEAD for some serious improvements...BTW, don't start with "the"
- 2(b) no system, just 4 subheadings
- 2(c) not substantial
- 2(d) consistent, but not enough
- 3 More images would be useful, if possible, but the captions are poor.
- 4 Inappropriate length. Please lengthen.
- — BQZip01 — talk 06:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I'm having trouble following the specific areas you're commenting on- could you please provide some examples of what you are referring to? --Commander Zulu 06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the given links and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Is that the info you want? — BQZip01 — talk 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't understand what you are referencing with the "1a, 2b, 3c" etc notations. --Commander Zulu 09:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These are references to each of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Please click the wikilink to read about these. This article has potential, don't get me wrong, but it needs some serious work before it can be considered for FA. As the next reviewer suggested, try a "Good Article" review first. That should iron out a lot of bugs and help you. Good Luck!!! — BQZip01 — talk 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't understand what you are referencing with the "1a, 2b, 3c" etc notations. --Commander Zulu 09:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the given links and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Is that the info you want? — BQZip01 — talk 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose A few paragraphs have no references. Less than 15 kB, may be not comprehensive. Try GAC instead. --Kaypoh 12:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.