The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 17:28, 7 July 2012 [1].
Metz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
On behalf of the contributors to Metz article, I am submitting the article for featuring for the first time. Indeed, we believe that the article is of interest to the readership of wikipedia and meets the criteria required for such nomination.
Strong oppose per criteria 1c. There are many unsourced comments. To show a couple:
Also, there are sections with only single sources. Looking at the talk page, the article is only C-class. I suggest you put in the article as a Good article nominee before attempting the FA. A peer review may be beneficial. Regards. JZ CL 19:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment not doing a full review, but some general comments for possible improvements:
I have only briefly skimmed the text, so will abstain from a formal vote. But the article seems to have some basic issues (mainly organisation, tone and listy prose), which need more work. GermanJoe ( talk) 14:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose at this time, suggest peer review to gain further suggestions for improvement. Some comments:
Delegate's comments. This candidate is poorly prepared and, having read the article I fully agree with the reviewers' comments and recommendations. Graham Colm ( talk) 17:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 17:28, 7 July 2012 [1].
Metz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
On behalf of the contributors to Metz article, I am submitting the article for featuring for the first time. Indeed, we believe that the article is of interest to the readership of wikipedia and meets the criteria required for such nomination.
Strong oppose per criteria 1c. There are many unsourced comments. To show a couple:
Also, there are sections with only single sources. Looking at the talk page, the article is only C-class. I suggest you put in the article as a Good article nominee before attempting the FA. A peer review may be beneficial. Regards. JZ CL 19:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment not doing a full review, but some general comments for possible improvements:
I have only briefly skimmed the text, so will abstain from a formal vote. But the article seems to have some basic issues (mainly organisation, tone and listy prose), which need more work. GermanJoe ( talk) 14:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose at this time, suggest peer review to gain further suggestions for improvement. Some comments:
Delegate's comments. This candidate is poorly prepared and, having read the article I fully agree with the reviewers' comments and recommendations. Graham Colm ( talk) 17:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply