Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early Norwegian black metal scene/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 Dabomb87 15:06, 1 February 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): PeterbrownDancin (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because this article is on a supremely signficant and oft-overlooked topic, the Early Norwegian black metal milieu of the 1980's and early 90's. I came to this article expecting a short forgettable stub but was instead greeted with a cornucopia of compelling information. Wikipedia would be foolish not to recognise this article as a veritable masterpiece. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DAB links: You have one dab link to Aske
- External Links: There are 4 dead links, and 4 redirects. Check the external link checker on this subpage to see what they are, and if the website is permanently dead, use web.archive.org and the archivelink= and archivedate= parameters in the citation template to fix the reference
- ALT text: The one image needs alt text, please see WP:ALT for how this should be done.
- --PresN 07:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? You're nominating an article that has a reference template at the top? Oh, I see. DRIVE-BY NOMINATION: the nominator has done little to no work on the article. (0 edits, to be precise) This article can be quick-failed by the FAC administrator. --PresN 07:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready I agree with PresN; the [citation needed] tags are tell-tale quick-fail signs. Featured articles are well-written and well-sourced, and are not necessarily on important or overlooked subjects; discuss the article at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles if you think it is one of those. (I am not quite convinced it measures up to their vitality either, though.) --an odd name 08:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Apart from the citation issues there are internal lists, weasel prose, unformatted references, dead links, no alt text, etc etc. Nominator should read FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unformatted, unreliable references, too many lists, lack of context. Suggest Peer Review at the least. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and speedy close - obviously not of FA standard, unlikely it could be fixed within the scope of a FAC (even if anyone showed the inclination to do so, which I suspect would not be the case) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:50, 1 February 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.