Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Washington/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:25, 3 February 2008.

---

George Washington

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's been through three peer reviews, is a GA, and isn't the best, yet is somewhere there ranking among some of the much better. Basketballoneten 03:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The lead needs to be expanded. It should serve as a standalone outline of the entire article. Also, I would like it if you used more book references, instead of online sources. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose This article is IMHO Good Class but not yet ready for FA
  • The lead sentence "Washington has been consistently ranked by scholars as one of the top three U.S. Presidents" needs a reference.
  • The overview section is not satisfactory, that should go into lead or into main article.
  • Several sections are weakly sources (prominently the American Revolution; and the Presidency: 1789–1797 sections, but many paragraphs in other sections are hardly referenced as well).
  • Also the flow of the article has to be considered. Legacy is mainly after his death, while personal life and religious belief are during life. It seems logical to move legacy section backwards. Arnoutf (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - not a bad article but not up to FA class yet
  • The first reference for his birthdate appears adequate - why the other two in the lead ?
  • The lead is too short - mentioning little about him at all. Needs to summarise the article
  • Not an issue but I think Image:George Washington 1795.jpg is better for the lead. Crisper and cleaner than the current one
  • The overview section breaks the flow of the article. This text should be in the rest of the body, summarised in the lead per WP:LEAD Peripitus (Talk) 04:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Well referenced, well written. The lead's a bit short, but the article is otherwise excellent. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

• Oppose - would love to support for our first president, but I just can't. The lead is not a sufficient overview of the article (see WP:LEAD). The overview section seems like what should go in the lead; just trim it down, but all the majors are in there. I found it to be oddly placed and it would be much more weel suited for the lead. Another big problem is cites, which the article lacks to a certain degree for its size. Also make sure the images follow MOS guidelines, i.e. no specific thumbnail sizes. Happyme22 (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved much of the overview section into the lead to compensate for it's lack of information. I still feel that more citations are needed before it can become featured, however. Happyme22 (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks better but unfortunately the lead lacks summarising information on his first 23 years - Peripitus (Talk) 06:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• NO edits to the article or feedback on the FAC from the nominator since the nom started; unless someone else is taking over this FAC, I will close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Basketball110 let me know he's still following the nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Accurate information, strong article. Lead is a little weak, needs some touching up, but probably ready for FA status once the lead is reinforced. Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 21:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.