Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Skopje/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 21:07, 17 July 2010 [1].
Skopje[edit]
Skopje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Tomica1111 (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)1111tomica[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it has all prepositions to be a featured article. It's quite long, comprehensive and referenced too. The pictures that are a quite good showing the city are nearly in the all sections of the article. Tomica1111 (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)1111tomica[reply]
- Oppose—four links to dab pages and at least five dead external links (see the toolbox to the right). Also, much of the article is unreferenced and consists of short, stubby paragraphs, so that it does not flow well. There is an excessive number of images. Most of the references are missing essential information (publisher, accessdate). The references that do have this information are inconsistently formatted. I suggest withdrawal of this article and a peer review after the above problems have been fixed. Ucucha 16:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest withdrawal Per Ucucha, unformatted references, many unreferenced sections, unnecessary image gallery (see WP:IG), and the prose is not of professional quality ("The Open Youth Theatre Festival is established In May 1976 by a group of young enthusiasts", "In 2009, lights, which bright at night were set around the bridge"). Dabomb87 (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Ucucha and Dabomb87. There are far too many images, the text is messy and the article really needs a good deal of work. 1111tomica, if you're truly determined to get the article to FA status, I suggest taking it to peer review first. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, than I will put the article on peer review. Tomica1111 (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)1111tomica[reply]
- Speedy close since the nominator has opened a peer review of the article. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 17:30, 17 July 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.