Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Festivus/archive3
Source: 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 Laser brain 16:33, 5 December 2010 [1].
Festivus
Festivus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): aido2002talk·userpage 12:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was nominated and failed twice a few years ago, but since it's coming up, I figured we may as well take another look and decide if it'll make it this year. If yes, then it'll be a fun featured article for Dec 23rd. If no, then at least we gave it a chance. aido2002talk·userpage 12:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query Has anything changed since it failed FAC last time? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, and, sorry, I suggest this is withdrawn. There are large unreferenced sections (for instance, the pole and dinner sections), the references are very badly and inconsistently formatted, the bulleted list in the pop culture section looks a little tacky, and the writing is pretty poor in places ("The person may decline if they have something else to do, such as pull a double shift at work.") If it was given a solid cleaning, it could head towards GAC, but this is a long way from FA standards. J Milburn (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral To respond to the above, I can't say for certain if things have changed, but it's been two years; I'd think so. Like I said, I proposed it just because it'd be nice to have it featured on the 23rd, I have no opinion one way or the other on it. I'm not going to withdraw it, though -- if nothing else, this process will create a list of needed fixes for the article. aido2002talk·userpage 13:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, just because it has been two years does not mean the article has improved. Secondly, FAC is not the place for an article to be improve; it is the place where articles are awarded a status because they do not need improving. Thirdly, only articles that are of a high standard will pass FAC, not articles that it might be "nice" to feature on a certain day. wackywace 14:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If the nominator doesn't think it is FA quality, then I see little point in this process Fasach Nua (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Clearly not ready, relies too heavily on quoting copyright material Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:57, 5 December 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.