Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Netherlands (archive)

Battle of the Netherlands edit

Great style accurate information and an interesting relatively unknown part of history. User:Sandertje 22:08 december 19, 2005

Object. The times of the brilliant prose are long gone, today we require proper references. In addition, lead is inadequatly short.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Piotr, talking of brilliant prose, can you fix up your own so that your meaning is clear; I'm not trying to be arch—I really don't know what you're saying. Tony 01:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ooops, that should tech me not to edit around 3 pm. :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object/Comment. The ESA image used for showing the geography of the battle has two problems: #1, the overlayed text is almost impossible to read, and at tremendous strain on the eyes. Someone needs to change the letters so that there is some kind of border your eye can follow to distinguish it from the background. Secondly, while the image copyright is shown, there's no explaination of where the image was obtained (except "from the ESA" which doesn't narrow it down very much) - not even what instrument took it. Furthermore the ESA's use policy does not allow commercial use without permission. According to this, Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided, Please check that the conditions given above are compliant with Wikipedia licensing policy. Most importantly, derivative work, commercial use, and use in non-educational contexts must be permitted. If they are not, please list this image for deletion. If that template is accurate, this image should be deleted immediately. I haven't checked all the other images, but I'm definitely suspicious now. Maybe if this was resolved it could be considered. - JustinWick 23:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object No references. Also this article is still in peer review, where the same objection was stated. Garion96 (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object—Criterion 2(a). Was this prepared by translating a Dutch text into English with a computer translation program? Tony 02:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is the battle of the Netherlands in my boxing article? User:Andman8
Object. Firstly, the article has no references. Secondly, the lead section is too short. Otherwise, not an entirely bad article. Ronline ✉ 07:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The writing needs some improvement generally, and references are also a must. But it's not bad, it has the potential to be featured if there's a little extra effort. Everyking 07:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object The English contains ~~many~~ some typically Dutch translation mistakes. (I am a native Dutch speaker). This can be corrected with relatively little effort. I also object because of missing references. Andries 23:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, to be slighted by the man who wrote "The battle ended after the bombing of Rotterdam by the Luftwaffe and the subsequent decision of Dutch military to surrender to prevent other cities suffer the same fate"... ;o)--[User:MWAK|MWAK]] 13:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Quite ironic, I have to admit. Thanks for correcting. Andries 21:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Good article, but it really needs references. GhePeU 11:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is not comprehensive. See talk page for details. Wendell 18:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be of interest to know that the article is far from finished yet :o). Sandertje, relatively new to Wikipedia, was simply too hasty. In a year's time, I hope to have given you reason enough — by improvements in both style and content — to revise your opinion. Not that I'm in favour of qualifying any article as "featured", mind you. And no, Tony, none of it was created by a computer translation programme ;o).--MWAK 11:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]