Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ford Mondeo/archive1

Ford Mondeo

I believe that this article is very well written, and it meets the featured article criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrmann (talk • contribs)

Oppose. For a start, there are no references. The article could also be greatly expanded upon. —Hollow Wilerding 23:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. References are pretty important sir Rampart 23:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's good, but it has no references. I'd support it if references were added. - Cuivienen 02:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's, overall, a decent article. At first glance, it really looks like it can be expanded on, but my main objections are on several specific grounds:

Lead section: You're going to need to flesh out that lead section. The summary at the top should be enough to stand on its own as informative, well-written, and enough to ease the reader into the rest of the article.

See also: "Contains more information about the Contour," is redundant, as we can already tell that it's an article about the Contour from the link itself.

References: As per Hollow Wilerding, Rampart, and Cuivienen.

Short sections: It would be wonderful if you could beef up the "Replacement", "Image," and "Ford Mondeo in popular culture" sections. They're very skimpy, and this simply leads the reader to think two things - that the article is choppy, and that the article may not be comprehensive. A single sentence about a topic doesn't deserve its own major subheading.

Needs a copyedit: There's a few grammatical and style issues that need to be worked out before this article can and should be held up to be "brilliant prose," a requirement for Featured Article status. There are a number of comma splices, as well as gratuitous use of "this" and "that" in a context in which the reader needs to slow down to catch what you're referring to. Some areas simply don't flow well - it seems like one person wrote the article, and someone else then came in with a thesaurus to awkwardly rephrase various sections with "bigger" words.

Red links: I don't think this last point has too much to do with promoting this article to Featured status, but there's quite a number of red links in your page. It's something that wouldn't look very good to, say, newcomers skimming through the front page article on a certain day.

Nice work, so far, and I wish you the best of luck getting this to FA status! -Rebelguys2 05:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. There are no references, the lead is too short, Image:Mondeo 1995 Verona 18TD.jpg is much too small (and its a shame because its not a bad photo). There are quite a few red links (thats not a reason for an objection, just a comment), and the last few sections are terribly short. Could do with expanding, refer to WP:Peer review for more specific comments/suggestions. — Wackymacs 07:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The 4x4 line wich was released late 95 to 97 is briefly mentioned. I do have some information, but I'd like to find some more here, because it's a mix of the 2.0L and the V6 line. Futte 13:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]