Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neil Armstrong/archive1

Support - Excellent article! Well balanced, stable, and interesting. Worthy of being shared! Check-Six 23:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. It needs proofreading. For example, I scrolled to a random paragraph, and found mistakes in its first two sentences: "involved in several instances" should be "incidents," and the next sentence is missing a comma. Also, out of 42 references, 37 are to a single book.--Bcrowell 23:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not convinced that two errors identified above are sufficiently serious to avoid supporting this otherwise excellent article, but I'll do a copyedit when I have time. The references point is more of a concern, not least because of a screenful of "Ibid." footnotes, but the "single book" is the "authorized" biography written with Armstrong's assistance and published in 2005. Cross-checking with other biographies would be great, but this is good enough for me. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support The lead needs to summarize the entire article, without dwelling into specifics. Summarize Neil Armstrong the person, his time in the Korean war, his professional career as an astronaut, and his life after after he stopped flying. Some of the sections (Personal life, and Armstrong in popular culture) look choppy with 2-3 sentence paragraphs. Please consolidate them to promote flow and continuity. Other than that I think this is a great article. I will change my vote to support once these objections are met. I am not too concerned with the references portion — although I would like to see more references, it won't change my vote since I feel quality-wise, this is FA material. Well written article on a fellow Boilermaker! AreJay 01:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Well written Article the problem i see is the quantity of red links Gnangarra 10:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of redlinks is not a criterion mentioned on WP:WIAFA. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A lovely, well-written article, but the references, as noted earlier, are predominantly to a single reference work. That makes it a good synopsis of First Man, but not encyclopedic. -- Gnetwerker 01:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. I have to agree on the problem with a single source of references. Find some more reference sources and you have my support. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]