Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tracking animal migration/archive1

Tracking animal migration

Very well written article. Gives good detail http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tracking_animal_migration&action=edit&section=1and is defitnley featured article criteria. --Zonerocks 02:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several glaring problems:

The tone is wholly inappropriate for wikipedia, being written more as an essay than a reference.
The article is far too short
It hasn't gone through peer review
You wrote the article yourself, but didn't specify that it was a self-nom

I'd recommend that you reread WP:WIAFA and take this article to peer review when you feel it's more up to standards; it seems like it needs a fundamental rewrite for tone and a significant expansion before it reaches that point. You should also check out the statements being made over at the AFD for the other article that you mostly wrote, because the issues of essay tone really apply here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the image appears to be a copyright violation, and most of the content in the article is redundant to Bird ringing. The image should be deleted and ~~the articles merged~~. Never mind the tone needs more work first. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First expand then refer to peer-review. This article is not even ready for a pee-review. It needs expansion, some rewriting and then peer-review. Faaaaaar away from FAC.--Yannismarou 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - article is too short, no inline citations, no references at all. Not formatted to Wikipedia's style - section headers should not be in all caps, wikilinks seem to be haphazardly selected. Pagra shtak 03:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. In addition to what others have already pointed out:

Copyvio image
Article is an orphan!

I'd be more likely to vote delete in an AfD than support to FAC. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I can't even count the number of problems with this article. Let's see... it's an orphan; the second sentence of the (incredibly short) lead is not a sentence; it has one picture, and it's got no copyright info; lots of external links but zero citations; a lot of words are wikilinked for no reason at all (for example: path, patterns, locations, recreation, etc., etc.); two paragraphs are indented for no reason whatsoever... and that's just what I felt like typing before I got tired. I'm with Samsara- this is much closer to deletion than anything close to even Good Article status. I'm sorry, Zonerocks- it genuinely is a good start, but please check out WP:FA?. -- Kicking222 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Expand it, run it by peer review to get some ideas for improvement. Sandy 23:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]