Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Randy Johnson/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 by SandyGeorgia 17:26, 10 January 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): Alex (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it has length and is very well written. It is well sourced and is about a relevant subject. I believe it meets the necessary guidelines. Alex (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by an odd name—I'm not feeling confident on this one.
- Have you consulted major editors of the article, or checked if they are inactive? See the candidates page: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination."
- No dab links (good) but some dead external links, esp. ref 15 and External Links item 3. Replace them with archives or new sources to keep the article verifiable.
- Add titles and author and publisher info to citations. Simply calling a citation "1", like at the very first ref, doesn't help us verify the statements and sources if e.g. the website goes down. Sources should be high quality and citation formats should be consistent (see criteria 1c and 2c).
- Merge one-line paragraphs to bigger ones, or expand on their statements with more sentences. The retirement news might be big, but giving it or anything else its own sentence makes the article look choppy. Go for professional, flowing prose.
- Images need alt text in case they don't load or the reader can't see them. (added on 09:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC))
--an odd name 09:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose, suggest withdrawal – Clearly fails FA criteria, and the problems are so severe that the article needs more time for fixes than an FAC should take. The most severe issue is a lack of references throughout the article. I'm not sure how the nominator can say this is "well sourced" when the vast majority of the article lacks citations. In addition, a few of the existing references strike me as unreliable (RootsWeb in particular), a non-free image with a questionable rationale exists, the prose turns listy toward the end, and there is a clarification tag. I understand that Johnson has been in the news lately due to his retirement, but this isn't close to being a GA, let alone an FA. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose short choppy one and two sentence paragraphs, large sections unreferenced, bare link and bare numbered links as references. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the only reason why even someone brought it here is because he retired yesterday. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.