Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bidder's Organ/archive2
Note: this was an ill-formed submission by IP 203.87.151.227. Submitting it correctly. Phils 06:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Was suggested before; see Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bidder's_organ. Hasn't expanded significantly since. Still too stubby to be FA. Oppose. Mgm|(talk) 08:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose the large text jumps out at you before you can even read it. Whew! In addition to the format, missing sources, internal and external links, and so forth. Maybe placement of a request in WP:PR could help improve it. Vaoverland 01:12, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Object. As above, can we please remove this nomination? It currently has no chance. - Taxman 15:06, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Object: Complete agreement with Taxman. Besides which the explanation of location is nauseating in so short a page. Giano 22:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Could you tell me why should we remove this nomination? Please reply so that I can improve this article more to a higher status. And also, what was the meaning of the 'large text jumps out at you before you can even read it'?; I already revised it because Mgm said that it was a stub, and now, someone says that it's too long. User:Matthewprc 18:41, Feb 24, 2005
- Since you seem sincere, I'll offer what I can to help. Very simply, it doesn't meet many of the important featured article criteria. It has no references, no lead section (since it is not long enough to even have a table of contents), and is not likely comprehensive on its subject due to how short it is. It's not bad information, it is just not very close to being a FA. Nothing wrong with that. If you do want it to be a FA, read through the criteria and try to meet all of them. Especially by finding the most authoritative sources on the subject and write up their findings and cite them properly. That way you'll find what else there is to write about the subject, and it will be authoritative. Check through some of the other recently promoted FA's or even just some of the ones on this page with unanimous support to see the difference in level of quality of this one vs those. - Taxman 17:07, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)