The article was not promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because ive done alot of work and i want to know if its good enough for a fa, and if not what is missing Rankun ( talk) 01:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - Many problems and I would suggest withdrawing the candidacy and taking the article to Peer review. The lead is too short; see WP:LEAD for ideas to improve this. Large chunks of the history section and elsewhere are either unsourced or do not use inline citations. The prose needs a lot of work and peer review may help. I am not a big fan of the external links in the Campus section. It is a good start but it needs a lot more work before it is at FA standard -- Mattinbgn\ talk 02:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - The article did not make GA earlier this year. I think it should be withdrawn from FAC and go through GA again. -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Support with revamp This article is off to a good start but needs a lot of work. You need to go through each section line by line. For example, the law school section. It can be improved, prose-wise, adding references, etc. A huge aricle and only 19 references? Don't want to be discouraging but I can think of a few comments per section that needs work. It can be done! Good luck! Congolese fufu ( talk) 02:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - Not nearly as many references as it should have. — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions - 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose -- I just failed the GA for this article (why was there both a GA and FA open at the same time?) -- listed reasons extensively on Talk. Dylan ( talk) 09:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Support but definitely too early - Today, I made some serious changes to the article. But, nevertheless I really think that this page should be WITHDRAWN from FA candidacy. It is way too early! I think that the very first thing that is necessary is to shoot for GA status. I'm not even really sure why this was submitted to FA review.
To the FAC director: if it is at all possible, this article should be withdrawn from FA Candidancy and not failed. There has been a significant amount of work done on this article in the past few days by several editors. But it is nowhere ready yet. Therefore, I believe this article was submitted by mistake (perhaps an editor jumped the gun) and that seems to be what other editors are also saying here. Thanks. aNubiSIII ( T / C) 04:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because ive done alot of work and i want to know if its good enough for a fa, and if not what is missing Rankun ( talk) 01:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - Many problems and I would suggest withdrawing the candidacy and taking the article to Peer review. The lead is too short; see WP:LEAD for ideas to improve this. Large chunks of the history section and elsewhere are either unsourced or do not use inline citations. The prose needs a lot of work and peer review may help. I am not a big fan of the external links in the Campus section. It is a good start but it needs a lot more work before it is at FA standard -- Mattinbgn\ talk 02:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - The article did not make GA earlier this year. I think it should be withdrawn from FAC and go through GA again. -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Support with revamp This article is off to a good start but needs a lot of work. You need to go through each section line by line. For example, the law school section. It can be improved, prose-wise, adding references, etc. A huge aricle and only 19 references? Don't want to be discouraging but I can think of a few comments per section that needs work. It can be done! Good luck! Congolese fufu ( talk) 02:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - Not nearly as many references as it should have. — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions - 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose -- I just failed the GA for this article (why was there both a GA and FA open at the same time?) -- listed reasons extensively on Talk. Dylan ( talk) 09:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Support but definitely too early - Today, I made some serious changes to the article. But, nevertheless I really think that this page should be WITHDRAWN from FA candidacy. It is way too early! I think that the very first thing that is necessary is to shoot for GA status. I'm not even really sure why this was submitted to FA review.
To the FAC director: if it is at all possible, this article should be withdrawn from FA Candidancy and not failed. There has been a significant amount of work done on this article in the past few days by several editors. But it is nowhere ready yet. Therefore, I believe this article was submitted by mistake (perhaps an editor jumped the gun) and that seems to be what other editors are also saying here. Thanks. aNubiSIII ( T / C) 04:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply