Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Days of our Lives/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 by SandyGeorgia 22:18, 17 May 2010 [1].
Days of our Lives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Sami50421 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the criteria. I have done numerous amounts of edit's on the article. It's a very good, well-written article. It covers the topics, and is broadened in different views. User:Sami50421 Sami50421 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose of the four pieces of non-free content, not one of them has a plausible FU rationale Fasach Nua (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest withdrawal. Hi. This seems like a decent article, and for the most part it isn't badly written. However, I do feel that this nomination is premature. It's only just become a Good Article, and even with that I think a different GA reviewer would have balked at the numerous uncited statements, paragraphs and even sections. In addition, did you consult the major contributors to the article before nominating? This is a solid foundation, but not yet close to what should be considered for FA; the article's frailties would soon be exposed under this review process' harsher light. If you're serious about making this article the best it can be (and I have no reason to doubt that, given your contributions so far), perhaps Peer Review would be the best next step. Steve T • C 22:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.