Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Time in Finland/archive1

FAC checks

This is a bold move by me, based on the instructions at "Commenting, supporting and opposing" box in Template:FAC-instructions which states:

To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s) ...

To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). ...

To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== ... Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. ...

This is further highlighted by this discussion, where it stated that extensive reviews should be taken at the talk page. Though there is no rule about the matter, it is beneficial that only support/oppose rationale be written at the FAC. A copy of this notice is at the FAC as well. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]