Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parkman-Webster murder case
Fascinating article, which I've read with bated breath. Very good prose. Contains many images, notes and references. — Itai (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Object far too many unreferenced claims. Sorry. --Dweller 14:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - as the creator of this article, I won't vote either way. However, I agree that it has far fewer citations than is standard for a modern-day FA, so I share Dweller's concern. (Since I'm quite familiar with the source material, though, I welcome the addition of {{cn}} tags where needed, and will be glad to supply references there.) Biruitorul 22:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to do this, but I suggest you close this FAC and take this (back?) to Peer Review to get these fundamentals sorted. --Dweller 00:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea. I request this FAC be closed early. Assuming there's some potential here, let's move it to peer review and bring it back up once the problems are addressed. Biruitorul 01:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ask the original nominator to request withdrawal here and it can be archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Given all that's been said above, I hereby request this (alright, premature) FAC request's withdrawal. I still maintain that this is a very good article, and hope to see it become a featured article one of these days. (I'll be glad to help on Peer Review.) — Itai (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ask the original nominator to request withdrawal here and it can be archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea. I request this FAC be closed early. Assuming there's some potential here, let's move it to peer review and bring it back up once the problems are addressed. Biruitorul 01:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to do this, but I suggest you close this FAC and take this (back?) to Peer Review to get these fundamentals sorted. --Dweller 00:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)