Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Kingdom/archive2

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 11 February 2007.

United Kingdom edit

This article was formerly nominated but rejected. I have re-nominated because I think it has reached the standards of a featured article. --Rcandelori 14:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

former fac

Not yet I didn't even get past checking ref fmt: some say "accessed" some "retrieved", some mdy, some not, some wikilinked, some not. They should all be the same format, suggest "Retrieved on m-d-y". Use accessdate parameter and it'll do it for you. I always check this issue first because if it's correct and consistent, it shows attention to detail in the rest of the article. And footnotes normally come right after punctuatiuon with no spaces.Rlevse 16:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Patricknoddy (talk · contribs)
Support I think that this article finally reaches the Featured Article criteria. --Wolf^talk 20:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. 122KB overalll with 73 KB prose is a non-starter. See WP:LENGTH and WP:SS. Reference formatting problems mentioned by Rlevse (I fixed the footnote placement, but refs aren't formatted correctly). The infobox is a killer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this article is well written & presented. The links are all specific for the subject in hand.LondonAngel 20.35 4 February 2007
- LondonAngel (talk · contribs) - newly registered, only and first contributions to this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trishm 02:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC). I think it's a good job for a large topic, it may be worth considering forking. I see nothing that is a show stopper. US reviewers should note that the British style of footnotes is reference tags before the punctuation, see note 4 of wikipedia footnote guidelines. Also, m-d-y is US style. Most others use d-m-y, or better still the Swedish(?) style of yyyy-mm-dd, because it sorts correctly.Trishm 02:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British style of footnotes is indeed before punctuation, but Wikipedia uses the American style, even in British articles. Trebor 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rcandelori 14:35, 5 February 2007 (AEST). I would also say that the criticism regarding the footnotes in the info box are misplaced because they are appropriate given the unique and disparate cultures that exist in the United Kingdom. This article has long been FA-Class quality and thus it should be recognised as such.
Object - there are a variety of issues that need to be addressed. 1) There are still three "citation needed" sentences that need to be cited, two of which are in the Economy section. 2) The Visual Art section does not use proper summary style, and the Culture section as a whole is rather poorly-structured and unbalanced. 3) The Transport section is far too long and is not written in nicely-flowing prose (instead utilising bullet points, and list-type statistics). 4) Overall, the article is not optimal, probably because there is too much content accompanied by poor use of summary style (lack of tight prose). I don't generally have a problem with long articles per se, but this one isn't really indicative of FA status (though I concede the UK is one of the harder countries to write an article on, due to its complexity). Ronline ✉ 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object - What is this? (under Climate) at Edgmond, near Newport, Shropshire. [2] and this Faversham, Kent. [1]. Seems like external links but there's no links and they should be converted into references. 3 Citation needed tags, one sentence paragraphs. The article is severely under cited, "Sports" has fourteen paragraphs and two references, Religion is about nine paragraphs and five or so references, the article should decide on either British or American English, automated peer-review brings up lots of problems, some references aren't formatted properly. I haven't looked at the prose but these are pretty simple things to spot out. M3tal H3ad 09:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the time being, per above. There are numerous problems with the article. Trebor 15:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose first strip out at least 30% of content, as per SandyGeorgia. (Caniago 19:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose If only on length. I suggest to take a look at the recently promoted Turkey and Germany for inspiration and smart use of summary style and subpages. Pascal.Tesson 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I thing this artcle can't be Featured article.--Absar 13:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object per Sandy's concerns. LuciferMorgan 04:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.