Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/England/archive2
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 01:54, 13 February 2008.
I'm nominating this article as it's been almost two years since its first attempt. The article has improved a great deal since then. Polly (Parrot) 04:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- There are many stubby paragraphs, and the prose needs a lot of work.
- Refs aren't consistantly formatted and some lack information.
- Galleries are discouraged.
- The Sport section suffers from recentism.
- Some of the lists should be made into prose, and the Literature and Science section contains listy prose. Epbr123 (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Epbr123. I would've recommend going to WP:PR, then WP:GA before nominating for FA status. Lack of verifiability is my main objection here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Epbr123. Plus, too many refs in the lead, a proper lead, as a summary of the body, will have few if any refs. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Epbr123. Juliancolton Talk 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose short stubby paragraphs, use of lists for the major rivers subsection, the cuisine subsection, the engineering subsection, and the nomenclature section. Galleries are frowned on. References lack complete information. I did not check in depth. I highly recommend PR and/or GA, especially for an article this broad in coverage. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.