Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brazil/archive1

Brazil

Good article. -- JoãoFelipe ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support JoãoFelipe ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well written and cited article, definitely is FA worthy.Ganfon 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, fails criteria 1c off the bat, with only 3 or so incline citations. I would suggest peer review. - Tutmosis 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Too listy in places, lacks sufficient inline citations and there's many embedded links that need conversion. This wouldn't even make GA right now, so I echo - Tutmosis's suggestion to go to peer review. LuciferMorgan 00:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong object: the lead needs work; the "History" section is preposterously lacking in detail about the 20th century; "Government and politics" is too short; "Geography" is too listy; "Science and technology" is a stubsection; the wrapping is broken for IE in many places and then, perhaps most importantly, the refs are seriously inadequate. (not enough refs, citation needed tags and inconsistent ref style). Mikker ^(...) 03:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: Only three inline citations.--HisSpaceResearch 05:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Not well cited and in some places listy.--Yannismarou 09:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Not ready for FAC, refer to peer review for more work. Sandy (Talk) 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object There are only three citations, there are articles with 50 references that don't make the GA review. Peer review might be the way to go, or take a look at Canada, Australia and India (all FAs) to see the FA standard for country articles. Baristarim 20:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object The article lacks a NPOV. It cointains a lot of unreferenced claims. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 17:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]