Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Washington, D.C./archive1

Well written, complete, many pictures, very deserving. --Hezzy 02:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object — for an article of this size, there are not many references. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object for now I was working on this article a few weeks ago when it was the United States Collaboration of the Week. Although content wise, it is FA material, much of the material still needs to be referenced. I was going to work on it more when I have some time, but I just haven't had the time lately. I would like to see it referenced more thoroughly, because it is so close to FA status. However, I cannot support it until proper referencing is done. PDXblazers 02:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, needs more time to reach FA standards. Lacks of inline citations, needs to be referenced. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per points raised above Aspern 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per the concerns about the referencing, and I also think that the history section is a bit too long (Does the relocation of the Expos need to be here?) seeing as it has it's own main article. Th e Halo (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object (pretty much exactly) per PDXblazers. Andy _t 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]