Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xzibit/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 00:14, 4 May 2008.
- previous FAC withdrawn 16:06, May 1, 2008
Nomination - I'm nominating this article for featured article because it exemplefies good articles about rap musicians on Wikipedia. Signed, Laughing at my money now (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose—The lead is insufficient, per Wikipedia:Lead section. Large sections are without references. The references that do exist are not formatted correctly or are missing vital information, such as publisher and accessdate. I suggest working toward good article first—this needs a major amount of work before it can be featured. Pagrashtak 17:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly recommend withdrawal (again): The most cursory of glances reveals substantial deficiencies. WP:LEAD is inadequate; entire sections are unreferenced; references are of questionable reliability (e.g. current ref 6 address implies it is a blog), grammar is poor; prose is poor; even basic MOS is not followed (e.g. captions); etc. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest withdrawal. Please read What is a featured article?-Wafulz (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is almost at FAC status. Just a few more hours work, a little tweaking here, a little tweaking there. Yep, that should just about do it. :) Gary King (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose Others have already pointed why this article should not be a FA. I don't have anything more to say. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose I didn't even have to read past the first half of the article to see that it's not even close to being FA-worthy. Lack of references, short lead, not the best writing, MoS, etc. Needs a total rewrite. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Sorry. The prose ranges from non-encyclopedic at best to very poor, with euphemisms, colloquialisms and clichés. There are not enough reliable references. The point of view is not neutral and is biased in favour of the subject. The article needs a peer-review, a copy-edit, to be tested by the Good Article criteria before FAC can even be considered. It has a long way to go. GrahamColmTalk 17:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: I suggest the information at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 may be helpful in starting a peer review and following the tips there to locate editors to contribute to the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 4 May 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.