The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:29, 13 January 2013 [1].
Jainism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because the article has been improved substantially since last review. It has addressed all the issues raised and now meets the criteria for FAC. Rahuljain2307 ( talk) 06:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Johnbod ( talk) 02:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose - I commend your efforts in taking on an article of this magnitude, but unfortunately I disagree that it currently meets FAC criteria. Some specific points for further improvement:
Delegate query -- Three early opposes but no suggestion to withdraw; is current consensus that improvement to FA-quality is possible in a relatively short time, or rather that the nom should be archived and work done away from FAC before another try? Talk to me, people... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:29, 13 January 2013 [1].
Jainism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because the article has been improved substantially since last review. It has addressed all the issues raised and now meets the criteria for FAC. Rahuljain2307 ( talk) 06:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Johnbod ( talk) 02:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose - I commend your efforts in taking on an article of this magnitude, but unfortunately I disagree that it currently meets FAC criteria. Some specific points for further improvement:
Delegate query -- Three early opposes but no suggestion to withdraw; is current consensus that improvement to FA-quality is possible in a relatively short time, or rather that the nom should be archived and work done away from FAC before another try? Talk to me, people... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply