The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:14, 6 June 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
Jeez ... Jappalang's nomination spiel is a tough act to follow, so I'm not even going to try. This is the second FAC nomination for Yukon Quest. It failed about a month ago with two supports and one oppose. Since that time, I've added a few more photos, edited the article to meet the concerns of reviewers, added a couple citations, and stubbed most of the redlinks in the article. I felt this article was ready for FA the last time I submitted it, and I feel even more the same way now. If you have any questions or concerns outside of a normal review, don't hesitate to drop a line on my talk page. Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I hope you'll review the article and find it worthy of FA. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 08:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments – Not sure exactly what to make of this one. I supported before but am concerned there are flaws that I'm missing, considering the opposition from the last FAC. One thing I do see is that the lead has a couple of small paragraphs that would be better off merged elsewhere in the opening. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 03:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply
map - would this be in order? Fasach Nua ( talk) 20:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) Last FAC, I was more focused on getting through the entire article rather than focusing on one area. On intense scrutiny, however, I find glitches:
Oppose—The writing is not good enough. Why is this here less than a month after the last attempt? And why has it sucked up our precious reviewing resources for a whole 24 days? This is not the venue for article improvement drives: they should occur before nomination. Sorry to talk plainly. I read only part of the lead, as an example of the whole text.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:14, 6 June 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
Jeez ... Jappalang's nomination spiel is a tough act to follow, so I'm not even going to try. This is the second FAC nomination for Yukon Quest. It failed about a month ago with two supports and one oppose. Since that time, I've added a few more photos, edited the article to meet the concerns of reviewers, added a couple citations, and stubbed most of the redlinks in the article. I felt this article was ready for FA the last time I submitted it, and I feel even more the same way now. If you have any questions or concerns outside of a normal review, don't hesitate to drop a line on my talk page. Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I hope you'll review the article and find it worthy of FA. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 08:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments – Not sure exactly what to make of this one. I supported before but am concerned there are flaws that I'm missing, considering the opposition from the last FAC. One thing I do see is that the lead has a couple of small paragraphs that would be better off merged elsewhere in the opening. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 03:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply
map - would this be in order? Fasach Nua ( talk) 20:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) Last FAC, I was more focused on getting through the entire article rather than focusing on one area. On intense scrutiny, however, I find glitches:
Oppose—The writing is not good enough. Why is this here less than a month after the last attempt? And why has it sucked up our precious reviewing resources for a whole 24 days? This is not the venue for article improvement drives: they should occur before nomination. Sorry to talk plainly. I read only part of the lead, as an example of the whole text.