The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 24 October 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because...
HampshireCricketFan ( talk) 22:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments Mainly technical stuff.
-- an odd name 23:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose: Sorry, this article is quite unready for FAC and should not have been brought here at this stage. I appreciate that it has a lot of useful information in it, but it is nowhere near to meeting the featured article criteria. Of the many issues that need addressing, here are just a few examples:-
I could go on and on, but the best advice I can give is withdrawal, then (after further work) over to peer review for some serious article-building. I do apologise if this sounds harsh, but please remember that featured articles should be examples of Wikipedia's "very best work". There is no reason why this article shouldn't become exactly that in time, but there's a lot to be done meantime. Brianboulton ( talk) 00:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose Very surprised to see this here and I would disagree strongly with the view that this page is "is the most comprehensive page on an English County Championship team". Nowhere near: see Yorkshire, for example. What strikes me immediately is far too many redlinks and an emphasis on statistics, which I detest, rather than on text. One of the greatest feats by this club was its championship title in 1961 but where is the coverage of that? I disagree with Brianboulton above about his recommended sources, although to use anything by Arlott is fine but by no means essential. ---- Jack | talk page 04:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't know if you can snow a FAC, but I would recommend a good peer review before trying again. SGGH ping! 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose – Don't like piling on, but the unreferenced parts of the history section are enough on their own for me to oppose. These are the kinds of things that should be handled long before an FAC nomination, as are many of the comments from the other reviewers. To offer a comment unique from those of everyone else, the images should have alt text. Giants2008 ( 17–14) 23:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 24 October 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because...
HampshireCricketFan ( talk) 22:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments Mainly technical stuff.
-- an odd name 23:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose: Sorry, this article is quite unready for FAC and should not have been brought here at this stage. I appreciate that it has a lot of useful information in it, but it is nowhere near to meeting the featured article criteria. Of the many issues that need addressing, here are just a few examples:-
I could go on and on, but the best advice I can give is withdrawal, then (after further work) over to peer review for some serious article-building. I do apologise if this sounds harsh, but please remember that featured articles should be examples of Wikipedia's "very best work". There is no reason why this article shouldn't become exactly that in time, but there's a lot to be done meantime. Brianboulton ( talk) 00:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose Very surprised to see this here and I would disagree strongly with the view that this page is "is the most comprehensive page on an English County Championship team". Nowhere near: see Yorkshire, for example. What strikes me immediately is far too many redlinks and an emphasis on statistics, which I detest, rather than on text. One of the greatest feats by this club was its championship title in 1961 but where is the coverage of that? I disagree with Brianboulton above about his recommended sources, although to use anything by Arlott is fine but by no means essential. ---- Jack | talk page 04:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't know if you can snow a FAC, but I would recommend a good peer review before trying again. SGGH ping! 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose – Don't like piling on, but the unreferenced parts of the history section are enough on their own for me to oppose. These are the kinds of things that should be handled long before an FAC nomination, as are many of the comments from the other reviewers. To offer a comment unique from those of everyone else, the images should have alt text. Giants2008 ( 17–14) 23:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply