The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 05:04, 27 April 2012 [1].
Citroën C3 Picasso ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be of a standard higher than good now and at the very least the article would be improved from this candidacy. Thanks Jenova 20 09:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose, based on criteria 1b, 2a and 2c. I'm far from an expert, but I just can't believe this would be a comprehensive study of the subject. I feel like every section could be expanded with more information. Not enough context is given for general readers, for instance: "The chassis platform used for the vehicle is a modified version from the Citroën C3 and the Peugeot 207, giving it a comparable wheelbase" - this means nothing to me. The lead needs to be substantially expanded, to summarise the entire article, before it can even be consider for FA status. Lastly, citations are not formatted consistently. -- Lobo (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose and suggest withdrawal per Lobo. Content-wise, it barely--if at all--meets GA status; the lead does not satisfy WP:LEAD; and there is just too little information on what I reckon to be a very popular subject. Auree ★ ★ 17:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose as per above comments. For me the Lead is too short and there is not enough information in all the other sections. Also, a curious use of the Ghostbusters car image. To justify it's inclusion, you state: "The original Ghostbusters did not use a C3 Picasso" - why the image then? It's not really relevant to have this image included based on the fact it was not used in something. If that was the case then the images would be endless. Sorry. --
Cassianto (
talk)
19:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 05:04, 27 April 2012 [1].
Citroën C3 Picasso ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be of a standard higher than good now and at the very least the article would be improved from this candidacy. Thanks Jenova 20 09:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose, based on criteria 1b, 2a and 2c. I'm far from an expert, but I just can't believe this would be a comprehensive study of the subject. I feel like every section could be expanded with more information. Not enough context is given for general readers, for instance: "The chassis platform used for the vehicle is a modified version from the Citroën C3 and the Peugeot 207, giving it a comparable wheelbase" - this means nothing to me. The lead needs to be substantially expanded, to summarise the entire article, before it can even be consider for FA status. Lastly, citations are not formatted consistently. -- Lobo (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose and suggest withdrawal per Lobo. Content-wise, it barely--if at all--meets GA status; the lead does not satisfy WP:LEAD; and there is just too little information on what I reckon to be a very popular subject. Auree ★ ★ 17:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose as per above comments. For me the Lead is too short and there is not enough information in all the other sections. Also, a curious use of the Ghostbusters car image. To justify it's inclusion, you state: "The original Ghostbusters did not use a C3 Picasso" - why the image then? It's not really relevant to have this image included based on the fact it was not used in something. If that was the case then the images would be endless. Sorry. --
Cassianto (
talk)
19:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
reply