Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry S. Truman/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 03:23, 12 April 2007.
Note: this FAC has been moved; you may be looking for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry S. Truman/archive4, which was originally at this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have renominated this article for featured article status. A great deal of revision, research, and citation has been done since its last nomination in August of '06. BYT 21:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object A proper lead would not need 14 footnotes, it should be a summary of the body. Footnotes go after punctuation, not before, and with no space btwn the punctuation and the fn. The footnotes, especially the web ones, themselves are not properly formatted. See Gerald Ford. For a sample of ways to do it.Rlevse 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, web references are an absolute mess. Also, are that many external links needed? -Phoenix 23:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I partially take back the bit about the external references, Gerald Ford might have even more. In any event, It's not the determining factor for promotion here. -Phoenix 15:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fixed refs 105 and 106, which were inexplicably butchered, but you're right about the others.--Rmky87 16:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All it needs and that regard is {{Cite web}} or the equivalent formatting, as mentioned below. -Phoenix 22:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fixed refs 105 and 106, which were inexplicably butchered, but you're right about the others.--Rmky87 16:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I partially take back the bit about the external references, Gerald Ford might have even more. In any event, It's not the determining factor for promotion here. -Phoenix 15:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, agree with Phoenix. I suggest an extended stay at WP:PR to help tune up the article for FAC. You also might want to look at WP:CITE/ES or the cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above and suggest peer review. For web references, use {{Cite web}}. Happy editing, [sd] 14:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay -- thanks everyone, I'm withdrawing this again to work on implementing the good notes above. Much appreciated. BYT 00:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I think,personally, that it is perfect Featured Article material --j@5h+u15y@n 04:47, 7 April 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.