The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 21:55, 7 November 2012 [1].
Wikipedia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article has risen to become an FA article.
A few months ago, I started on a quest to get "Wikipedia" back to FA article status. I got it a Peer Review, which it hasn't gotten since 2009, and I implemented all of the suggestions that were made in the review, and more. Other editors also got into it and added some stuff. Since I feel it has changed for the better since July, I feel that this article is an FA article. So, I, Cbrittain10, officially put Wikipedia into FA-nomination and review. Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 13:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Lots of good material here BUT...
Comment And yet the peer reviewers didn't notice those things.. gah. I am going to put those things into the article. Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 14:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose, sorry. The article has a lot of stuff cobbled together, of widely varying importance and reliability. The section on "Cultural significance" is a good example. The first paragraph is good, but then there's a very choppy series of unrelated factoids in the paragraph below. It's not at all clear, for example, why the Franco Grillini factoid is of any significance. Also, the citing falls short of FA standards. For example there are no cites for:
Then there's the puffery. "For instance, Meta-Wiki provides important statistics on all language editions of Wikipedia," is sourced to Meta-Wiki itself. Another example is "Although poorly written articles are flagged for improvement", which is a rather uncritical statement cited to WP itself. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 21:55, 7 November 2012 [1].
Wikipedia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article has risen to become an FA article.
A few months ago, I started on a quest to get "Wikipedia" back to FA article status. I got it a Peer Review, which it hasn't gotten since 2009, and I implemented all of the suggestions that were made in the review, and more. Other editors also got into it and added some stuff. Since I feel it has changed for the better since July, I feel that this article is an FA article. So, I, Cbrittain10, officially put Wikipedia into FA-nomination and review. Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 13:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Lots of good material here BUT...
Comment And yet the peer reviewers didn't notice those things.. gah. I am going to put those things into the article. Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 14:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose, sorry. The article has a lot of stuff cobbled together, of widely varying importance and reliability. The section on "Cultural significance" is a good example. The first paragraph is good, but then there's a very choppy series of unrelated factoids in the paragraph below. It's not at all clear, for example, why the Franco Grillini factoid is of any significance. Also, the citing falls short of FA standards. For example there are no cites for:
Then there's the puffery. "For instance, Meta-Wiki provides important statistics on all language editions of Wikipedia," is sourced to Meta-Wiki itself. Another example is "Although poorly written articles are flagged for improvement", which is a rather uncritical statement cited to WP itself. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply