This article is about a former proposed county in Iowa, named after the politician
William Larrabee. I am confident this will fail but I want to try to see how I can improve this. This is a very short article so I’m probably going to get a ton of opposes. After all, this is my first time here. Hope to come back and cheers
48JCLTALK 23:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's the point of
peer review, to get feedback. And it looks like an ok article right now
750h+ 00:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
To the nominator's credit, it has already been peer reviewed (although closed fairly early.)
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she) 00:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Suggest withdrawal Without a wealth of contemporary newspaper sources, this is not going to be possible to bring up to FA quality. It is far too short and under-detailed - I am unsure if this article meets the GA criteria on breadth, and that's a pretty lenient metric; comprehensive is far stricter and not a bar any given subject could necessarily reach. I will also urge the nominator or any nominator not to submit a FAC if you expect it to fail! This is not Peer Review+.
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she) 00:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Closing note: This
candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the
bot goes through.
FrB.TG (
talk) 05:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about a former proposed county in Iowa, named after the politician
William Larrabee. I am confident this will fail but I want to try to see how I can improve this. This is a very short article so I’m probably going to get a ton of opposes. After all, this is my first time here. Hope to come back and cheers
48JCLTALK 23:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's the point of
peer review, to get feedback. And it looks like an ok article right now
750h+ 00:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
To the nominator's credit, it has already been peer reviewed (although closed fairly early.)
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she) 00:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Suggest withdrawal Without a wealth of contemporary newspaper sources, this is not going to be possible to bring up to FA quality. It is far too short and under-detailed - I am unsure if this article meets the GA criteria on breadth, and that's a pretty lenient metric; comprehensive is far stricter and not a bar any given subject could necessarily reach. I will also urge the nominator or any nominator not to submit a FAC if you expect it to fail! This is not Peer Review+.
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she) 00:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Closing note: This
candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the
bot goes through.
FrB.TG (
talk) 05:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.