Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Name of Turkey/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 22:57, 20 December 2007.
Name of Turkey[edit]
Support: This article grew from a partially developed stub into a full-blown study on the historical development of Turkish nationhood. Please actually read the article to give your final judgment. If it is not yet a candidate for this week, it will be, from the way it is being developed. Wish it the best of luck. Bestlyriccollection (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: I am sorry, the article does not have sufficient citations to qualify for an FA -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 06:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Inconsistent formatting, numerous {{stub section}}s, virtually no references, and is even currently ranked a stub. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose Almost no references, a few short sections. Not even a GA. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose. Faaaar away from FA status. Sorry ...--Yannismarou (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose Very very far from FA even GA, this article is stub or start class. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose bad writing, rename "Etymology of Turkey", doesn't even have reference/citation section and has 2 citations - lack of verification, Bizarre organization.--Keerllston 14:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is this a proper nomination? I claim negligence on the part of the nominator in that he did not ensure it met FACr. - in fact he seems to know "it is not yet a [serious] candidate for [FA status] this week" - making it intentional negligence of duty. Dost the holy directorship wish to prefer that this not happen?--Keerllston 14:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think what you're looking for is peer review. They can help you develop this article so it can reach FA status eventually.-Wafulz (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong object I wasn't going to bother, but since Sandy just did the latest round of closures without shutting this one down I might as well make the consensus stronger. No refs, no MOS, wikilinks etc.....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually at least four days is allowed, but this was listed at PR today as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object Lack of referencing and structure would make me rank the current article start-class (ie not even B, let alone GA or FA). Arnoutf (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.