Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harrow School/archive2

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 21:58, 20 December 2007.

Harrow School

previous FAC

I've recently done a major reorganisation and rewrite of this article by introducing footnotes and removing trivial information. All information and statements are now verified, the article is of decent size and is easy to read, and where appropriate is supplemented by appropriate images. However I don't think I've formatted the access dates on the footnotes correctly, could somebody please re-format them for me, because I don't know how to --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - agree with nomination, verified statements, concise, well-written article --Brent Ward (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support a very good article with sourced statements, well-written prose and pictures to add to the comprehensive and overall encyclopedic tone of an already well written article Brendan44 • (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Brendan44 and Brent Ward appear to be same user. They both came here to support the FAC after last editing on September 5. Also, Brent Ward's boyfriend is Hadseys. It strongly looks like there was canvassing involved. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong object - Article is not comprehensive, article fails 1a, eg see the newspaper section. Refs are not formatted properly and basically all of the refs are self-sourced and are not RS. The slang section is very unencyclopedic. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree if ever you were a pupil at Harrow you'd know that the jargon is what sets its apart from other schools
Oppose - References need proper formatting ({{cite web}} style is recommended), and need be sourced to reliable sources, not the school's website. This page contains a few good suggestions, as will examples in this category. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also this FAC's talk page for a large number of automated suggestions. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Major referencing, verifiability and reliable sources issues in the article. Please find other sources, and use the {{cite web}} template as Dihydrogen Monoxide suggested. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You need to find more sources, not just the school website. The article is not comprehensive. Don't put "Harrow" in the section names. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't want to pile-on an oppose, but I strongly (if not very humbly) recommend you read User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you guys give me a couple of weeks I'll try and get some references for the article, thanks, sometimes though the school's website is the only source for such information --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Poor article. Not comprehensive. Harrow School has a lot of printed references / sources available. The further reading is only the tip of the iceberg. Check out a library. Check out the books in the library. There is no reason to rely on the school's website for such a well known school. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article as it stands now has about 1200 words excluding the table and lead. Personally, I think an article on Harrow School should be about 3000 words. The school is about 500 years old. It has many notable alumni. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than insulting my hard work why dont you suggest how to make it larger and more comprehensive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to be combative. You have had several good suggestions on how to improve the article, and here is another: withdraw your nomination, take a few weeks to do some proper research (beginning with the literature that is listed on the article), go over various style guidelines -- especially MOS for citations, and then try for GAC and/or a Peer Review. That way you will be ready for FAC next time. For now, with the poor state that the article is in at the moment, I will have to oppose along with the majority. It just does not fulfill the FA requirements, I'm afraid. María (habla conmigo) 18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I wasn't being combative i was just noting that he provided criticism and no suggestions for improvement at all, hardly helpful given that i put a lot of work into the article. I'm only 17 after all, i'm doing my best. I'm currently collating resources from my local library, but they have to come from the british library so i withdraw the nomination for now --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 19:56, 20 December 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.