The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:31, 7 February 2012 [1].
Randall Flagg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because other editors and I have put a lot of work getting it into shape over the last couple of years. It is in my mind very comprehensive, covers a variety of topics including the character's concept and creation as well as critical analysis and has proper citations. This has gone through noms in the past but I believe that the article has improved since then. CyberGhostface ( talk) 19:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria ( talk) 05:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC) reply
For an article with so (relatively) few sources, there are quite a few issues. Nikkimaria ( talk) 05:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose, primarily on criteria 1a, 1b, and 1c. There is a lot of great material here, but I'm afraid this has a fair way to go before being a well-written and comprehensive account of this character. My principle issues are as follows:
Much more could be said, but these are two large items that need attention before this can be considered for FA status. -- Laser brain (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Past three weeks, with no support; closing.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:31, 7 February 2012 [1].
Randall Flagg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because other editors and I have put a lot of work getting it into shape over the last couple of years. It is in my mind very comprehensive, covers a variety of topics including the character's concept and creation as well as critical analysis and has proper citations. This has gone through noms in the past but I believe that the article has improved since then. CyberGhostface ( talk) 19:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria ( talk) 05:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC) reply
For an article with so (relatively) few sources, there are quite a few issues. Nikkimaria ( talk) 05:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose, primarily on criteria 1a, 1b, and 1c. There is a lot of great material here, but I'm afraid this has a fair way to go before being a well-written and comprehensive account of this character. My principle issues are as follows:
Much more could be said, but these are two large items that need attention before this can be considered for FA status. -- Laser brain (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Past three weeks, with no support; closing.