Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sunderland/archive1
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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.
Sunderland
This article is on a city in Northeast England. It has been written finely with little vandalism, it has a lot of detailed descriptions, and images. A number of experienced users contribute to it weekly and the article does not require any kind of cleanup. I think this would make a perfect featured article. Rasillon 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The article is woefully short on citations and currently has at least one "citation needed" tag. There are glaring typos even in the section headings: for example, "Parlimentry divisions" and "Facilities and Amemites in Sunderland." The writing in the latter section is also particularly poor. MLilburne 22:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object, after a quick scan of the article. Entire sections go without a single reference. The triva section at the end should be converted to (brilliant) prose. "Non-commercial use only" images should go. Please check WP:WIAFA. --Plek 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: why are you submitting the article for peer review and as FAC simultaneously (see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Sunderland/archive1)? --Plek 22:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support It seems okay, but what is going on here? Wiki wa wa 22:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Critical comment I have contributed to this article myself and would be delighted to support it. But ... . Take the first sentence of the main text - The city of Sunderland is a highly large and evalated city, most of its suburbs are situated towards the west end up on the hillside well above the sea level. It is split directly through the river wear. Surely this could withstand a little tidying up?. best wishes and good luck. Bob BScar23625 23:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. Reference, remove "other facts" per WP:TRIV, reduce the number of lists, copyedit (and spellcheck)...then try a peer review. Trebor 13:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Needs inline citations, and a couple of sections are lists. Isn't always stable, either, either in terms of vandalism or image copyvios. The JPStalk to me 17:23, 15 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.