The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:04, 27 November 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the standards of a featured article. Ω pho is 21:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose - sorry, I can see a lot of work has gone into this contribution but the prose is appallingly bad. There are problems everywhere—too numerous to list here. The whole article requires a thorough copy-edit. I suggest that this candidate should be withdrawn, taken to peer-review, and a good copy-editor recruited. It does not meet the standards of a featured article, sorry. Graham Colm Talk 22:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose - sorry, but I have to agree with Graham. Here's a sampling of sentences from one random paragraph, I would defy anyone to claim that this approaches criteria 1a: " its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Sasata ( talk) 05:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
15:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:04, 27 November 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the standards of a featured article. Ω pho is 21:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose - sorry, I can see a lot of work has gone into this contribution but the prose is appallingly bad. There are problems everywhere—too numerous to list here. The whole article requires a thorough copy-edit. I suggest that this candidate should be withdrawn, taken to peer-review, and a good copy-editor recruited. It does not meet the standards of a featured article, sorry. Graham Colm Talk 22:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose - sorry, but I have to agree with Graham. Here's a sampling of sentences from one random paragraph, I would defy anyone to claim that this approaches criteria 1a: " its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Sasata ( talk) 05:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
15:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
reply