Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Pentagon/archive1
Well photographed, well structured and well referenced. Concise and not unnecessarily elongated. An ideal FAC BjF 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I see you have nominated quite a few articles now within these last days. All of them have nothing but objections. I suggest you read the guidelines once more, so we can focus on those articles that actually got a chance. And no, this article is not one of them. --Maitch 20:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Object - Article ostensibly lacks depth and comprehensiveness. The lead is far too excessive for the brevity of the rest of the text. Fact lists are undesirable and should be avoided, especially for subjects such as this. Please rethink and convert all noteworthy information into prose and place somewhere within the body of the text. Eliminate trivia section completely and concentrate on expanding subsections. Increase the number of references accordingly. Wisdom89 21:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong object, agree with Wisdom89. You might want to review some recently-promoted featured articles and visit WP:PR and WP:WIAFA to get the article ready for FAC. Sandy 23:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Not well referenced, several numbers and statements show no reference. Wandalstouring 20:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment How could the information I added just yesterday (about which side was hit on 9-11, and once I found that, something I hadn't even planned to look for--why the attack could have had worse results) been have been missing for more than eight years? I'm not even sure it's that good. But it was information I was curious about and needed to be there.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)