Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sicilian Mafia/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 Ian Rose 10:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Sicilian Mafia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it now meets the FA criteria, and is a fine article with no major failings. Kurzon (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid that this falls well short of the FA criteria. Substantial amounts of text are not referenced, and the article has a rather unfinished feel (for instance, the significance of the "Ten Commandments" section is unclear, the "Vote buying" section is amateurish and sexist and the "Protection rackets" section doesn't note the growing resistance to paying protection money). I'd suggest that this nomination be withdrawn given that the article is not ready. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, and urge withdrawal. Referencing is really not adequate, including the presence of [citation needed] tags in several places. The lead isn't an adequate summary of the article, and the several citations and large quote included there aren't really in the spirit of MOS:LEAD. Tone and style issues are pervasive; many sections are simply not written to an encyclopedic standard, much less the brilliant prose expected of FAC. There are a number of problems with linking as well, from massive overlinking (I lost count of how many times Palermo is linked) to at least one self-referential link (violent succession). There are referencing issues as well, including a bare URL link to Youtube as Reference 125, but given the state of the article, I didn't do a comprehensive reference review. To meet the FAC standards, this article would require a sufficiently thorough rewrite that I would then oppose on the stability criterion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.