Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kill Bill/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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:49, 15 July 2008 [1].
- Nominator(s): StevenLSears (talk)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because this is a great article, and meets all requirements. StevenLSears (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please review the instructions at WP:FAC. You've never edited this article, and didn't consult previous editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Oh man, this was definitely an article I've been watching for some time now and hope to get to FAC. It's definitely not even close. Missing lots of things, too many to name; one significant one is it's completely missing a Development section. Where's the history on how the film was created? Gary King (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Nominator never edited the article, first of all. Regarding the article itself, the lead is too short, there are not near enough in-line citations, and it is far from comprehensive. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose in part due to lack of comprehensiveness and insufficient lead, as described above. In addition, there are too many sections for what's written. The section "High Definition release" only has one sentence! Why do we need a header for that? Refs need to be fleshed out (Many are missing publisher, accessdate, etc.) I'd suggest you withdraw this nomination and work with the primary authors of the article to get it ready. Consider trying for GA first. Pagrashtak 21:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose — I love the movie, but not the poor formatting of this article. And the sources aren't really all that comprehensive. Grindhouse has a much better article, but even that one has sourcing problems. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- No feedback from StevenLSears (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Juliancolton and Gary King. Cast section is also improperly formatted and a questionable source is listed in the references. Cliff smith (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.