Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2003 Invasion of Iraq/archive1

2003 Invasion of Iraq edit

Although I haven't been sucessful nominating here in the past, this is a far better article than others I have nominated. This article, despite its contriversial nature, is NPOV and has an incredable amount of detail. It has tons of notes refrences and external links. Is well written, and is complete. Tobyk777 19:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Before I actually go in depth with the article, the article contains no inline citations, but on the other hand contains too many embedded links that hamper the articles readibility. AndyZ 20:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Concur with AndyZ, dozens of external links should be made into inline citations, which is the standard for FAs as I understand it. Also, this is 124K long--way too big. The WWII article is only 84K long and that was the biggest war in the history of the planet. Some of this should be split off into sub articles. The length alone kept me from reading it. Rlevse 21:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Before touching on the vexed issues of POV, culturocentrism and balance—which would be hard for the most skilled, diplomatic writer to manage in relation to this topic—I have to say that it needs word therapy throughout. A start could be made by rewording the opening sentence to remove the repetition (the majority UK and US participation is covered twice). Overall, it's not disastrously written, but it's not up to FAC standards; when you look closely, there are numerous little glitches, such as 'Americans, British, Australians, Polish', which should all be grammatically consistent. Tony 00:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Some of the numerous problems with this article have been touched upon above, but there are others, including large sections of poor prose and uneven coverage of topics. This article should be on the Article Improvement Drive, not here. - Blake's Star 02:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - yes, inline citations might need to be made. That said, should I use the new ref tags, or the old ref templates should I embark on this (that's about 90 different links!)? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 12:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object, the text is way too long and wordy. It needs a total rewrite, and sections should be summarised. The references of the news should be linked to the reference section as it will be much neater than what it is now. -Ter e nc e Ong 12:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Among other issues, the opening sentence should summarize what the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was. As it is now, it's a chronological statement. It's a confusing topic, but this doesn't clarify it sufficiently. Crunch 13:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object as per above. (note: as has been said above, the article is way too long, please split off into sub-articles)... Mikkerpikker ... 23:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]