Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gladiator/archive1

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

Gladiator

I think it fits the criteria, and should be Featured or at least A-class. Neddyseagoon - talk 14:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's strikingly short of references. Five footnotes is not nearly enough for an article of this length. MLilburne 14:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per MLilburne. Further, in the Books section, the publishing details of the books are given. They should be set in Further reading. This article has a long way to go before it can even be considered as a featured article. Jeffpw 15:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per above. Also intro doesn't comply with WP:Lead. First image has a deletion tag, worth checking if this was vandalism or someone's genuine concern. Mark83 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Commons image--the history says "only deleting page--image is on Wikipedia commons". So I assume the image itself is not a problem...just the rest of the article. Jeffpw 17:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1c. Very short of references throughout. Trebor 18:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OBJECT. Lacking References per 1(c) and WP:CITE, separate the images in the section titled A typical combat. Improve the writing. Write a better lead. And that's just a start. —ExplorerCDT 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lead is way too short and as has been said it lacks references. Quadzilla99 00:37, 24 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.