Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rachel Weisz/archive1
- 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 Laser brain 20:44, 8 March 2011 [1].
Rachel Weisz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Gduwen (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC); --Gunt50 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I think its information meets the FA requeriments:
1.
- (a) The article is well-written.
- (b) The article is comprehensive for the topic.
- (d);(e) The article is neutral and stable
2.
- (a) The lead summarizes properly the content
- (b) The section heading have an appropiate structure
3. The images featured in the article meet the needed copyright status, are properly tagged and captions meet the requirements
4. The article successfully focuses on the topic
--Gduwen (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time. Article is of sufficient quality for GA, but is not at FA level at this point. Some copy-editing is needed, and there are multiple manual of style issues (particularly overlinking). There are extensive problems with reference formatting - it should be completely consistent, web cites should have publisher and retrieval date information, etc. The article also uses some sites of questionable reliability. You might consider having this article peer reviewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig/External Link check - No dabs, 1 dead external link (the oscars.org search link doesn't work). Several external redirects which may lead to link rot; see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The dead link was corrected--Gduwen (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: Nominators, what work is being done to address Nikkimaria's concerns? I don't see any movement here. Edits have been made to the article, but it's difficult to me to tell what they are because edit summaries are not being used regularly. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy-edits are being corrected, web cites templates have been completed, and IMDb sources have been replaced.--Gduwen (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- During the WP:GAC, I had noted that there were unnecessary redundant links. I see many again now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give one or two examples of unnecessary redundant links? --Gduwen (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been trying to solve the overlinking issues according to the MoS throughout the article. You should take a look now--Gunt50 (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give one or two examples of unnecessary redundant links? --Gduwen (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.