Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xena: Warrior Princess/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 04:25, 3 February 2008.

Xena: Warrior Princess

I'm nominating this artice for FA is because it has good references and it meets with the FA criteria. Glitter1959 (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959[reply]

Strong object — It's a good article length-wise, but even with a cursory glance, it needs a lot of work on citations and picture captions to name the biggest two things that jumped out at me. I'd suggest making a run through the Good Article process before submitting it to FAC. You've got a good start there, but I can't in good faith support it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose, introduction does not meet WP:LEAD at all, excessive plot, does not fit the TV project MOS, its full of trivia, has excessive non-free images, and it is badly referenced with a TON of broken references. In short, it fails all of the FA criteria. Collectonian (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Motherhood 18.jpg needs fair use rationale for each article it appears in, including this one. — brighterorange (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Article is a 100 miles from ready. Glitter - it is admirable that you are interested in certain articles and topics but please try and remember that FA is about being the best, and that articles that pass do so because they meet all of the stringent criteria. If you put up articles that are not ready for this process you actually slow the process down. Far better for you to spend time on the article - I mean real blood sweat and tears time getting it to a much higher stage and others will see what you are doing and join in. At the same time you will learn more about what it requires to get an article to GA and then to FA standard.--VS ^talk 22:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready - does not have much in the way of scholarly resources, many of which can be found via http://scholar.google.com -Malkinann (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.