The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 23 May 2021 [1].
This article is about Milton Friedman. I am nominating this for FAC because I have worked diligently on this article. I have added quite a bit of relevant media, added a massive new slew of sources that make this article extremely reliable, added several new sections including a criticism section to ensure the neutrality of opinions (which has been a complaint on the page). I have also fixed all mistakes in conventions, spelling, and other things. I also made the article pleasing to look at, and I am most certainly proud of this work. Please take away this proudness if necessary. I have checked the criteria. The prose is well-written (already was), and thus I did not feel a need to improve it. The article is supported by numerous pieces of media which interact well with users, and the amount of information is certainly sufficient for a FA. Thank you for your comments! BasedMises Mont Pelerin 02:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi BasedMises, thanks for nominating this article for FAC. Unfortunately, I suggest that this article is withdrawn from FAC at this time and a peer review be opened instead. At 101kb of prose size, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be split. I also notice some paragraphs do not have a citation at the end of them, something I consider a prerequisite before nominating for FAC. Some other concerns are unnecessary information (like his height in the Personal life section) and numerous short paragraphs that should be merged together. Since lots of the information will be changed or removed before it is FA ready, I think it would be unfair for a reviewer to read through the whole article right now. Z1720 ( talk) 03:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - I've looked at only about half of the inline citations, and it is just a total mess. Formatting is completely inconsistent, most books lack page numbers, a number of sources are week or unreliable, and I didn't even look at the latter half of these, and it is clearly a mess. This needs a very detailed peer review before it will be ready, as the sourcing currently is pretty far from FA standards. Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Coord note -- per above comments I'm going to archive this and ask that improvements (and a Peer Review) take palace outside the FAC process, after which you could consider another nomination here. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 23 May 2021 [1].
This article is about Milton Friedman. I am nominating this for FAC because I have worked diligently on this article. I have added quite a bit of relevant media, added a massive new slew of sources that make this article extremely reliable, added several new sections including a criticism section to ensure the neutrality of opinions (which has been a complaint on the page). I have also fixed all mistakes in conventions, spelling, and other things. I also made the article pleasing to look at, and I am most certainly proud of this work. Please take away this proudness if necessary. I have checked the criteria. The prose is well-written (already was), and thus I did not feel a need to improve it. The article is supported by numerous pieces of media which interact well with users, and the amount of information is certainly sufficient for a FA. Thank you for your comments! BasedMises Mont Pelerin 02:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi BasedMises, thanks for nominating this article for FAC. Unfortunately, I suggest that this article is withdrawn from FAC at this time and a peer review be opened instead. At 101kb of prose size, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be split. I also notice some paragraphs do not have a citation at the end of them, something I consider a prerequisite before nominating for FAC. Some other concerns are unnecessary information (like his height in the Personal life section) and numerous short paragraphs that should be merged together. Since lots of the information will be changed or removed before it is FA ready, I think it would be unfair for a reviewer to read through the whole article right now. Z1720 ( talk) 03:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - I've looked at only about half of the inline citations, and it is just a total mess. Formatting is completely inconsistent, most books lack page numbers, a number of sources are week or unreliable, and I didn't even look at the latter half of these, and it is clearly a mess. This needs a very detailed peer review before it will be ready, as the sourcing currently is pretty far from FA standards. Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Coord note -- per above comments I'm going to archive this and ask that improvements (and a Peer Review) take palace outside the FAC process, after which you could consider another nomination here. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)