Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IPod/archive4
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 16:57, 28 June 2007.
Think its well written, and very informational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongesquid (talk • contribs) 03:01, June 15, 2007
Oppose Informational, yes. FA, no. Just at a glance, it fails to be adequately referenced (including several direct quotes). I will review later for further information, but that one is a showstopper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BQZip01 (talk • contribs) 03:29, June 19, 2007
- Oppose I agree with the reviewer above regarding references. There are several paragraphs that are completely unreferenced.Legalbeaver 17:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well. The article is coming along, but still needs the aforementioned refrencing. Millancad 23:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because:
- The models table needs to be cut down in size/detail, just like how Nilchap described in the previous FAC.
- The refs need some work (see comments from SandyGeorgia from Previous FAC)
- Some sections feel like advertisements, like iTunes Store, and Models
- Sales section needs to be in a global viewpoint (also mentioned in the previous FAC).--IE 08:14, 22 June 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.