Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Govan/archive1
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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.
- Support: The article has been created with a lot of research, and exteme effort has been put into ensuring that all sources are correct and that it is factually correct. There isn't a great deal more that I can put into the article, and although it is fairly modest in size I should not think that it therefore is excluded from being featured. Everyone has different views, and I am aware that it might need a little tweaking for that. Perhaps other people can add to it some how? Thanks!--TheEditor20 19:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SNOW Object, second in a week for TheEditor20 (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- yikes...im sorry I was not aware of that. It was not my intent. At least two other people have helped me with the article however. Perhaps they should have created a username and submitted this. Also, lets be fair it was very nearly 1 week ago that I submitted the last one. Once again, sorry.--TheEditor20 19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object "Early life" is only one sentence, nowhere near comprhensive. Jay32183 21:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious oppose. That there's fewer than 300 words (of prose) gives an indication of the comprehensiveness. Trebor 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - the length of the article should have nothing to with its comprehensiveness. It depends on the article. An article on NASA is obviously going to be long, whereas this article on a fairly well known blues singer may well have considerably less. I have brought together most of the information available on the subject, and I think it to be comprehensive.--TheEditor20 09:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object: Article suffers from a combination of comprehensiveness issues ( there is no information on the artist's sales figures, critical response, or the date and reason he was presented a key to the city) and peacock claims (the lead states "Govan has become one of the most influencial musicians in Beale Street" yet provides no information to back up this claim). --Allen3 talk 14:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi Allen3 thanks for your input. When I get home tonight (currently at work) I'll have to address those criticisms. Also, thanks for reading the article and providing constructive criticism. It makes it a lot easier for me :p --TheEditor20 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy snowballish object - WP:FAC is not WP:PR. --Plek 21:51, 16 February 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.