Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bergen/archive1

Bergen edit

Nomination. This is a page that i feel doesn't have many major problems, and i could easily see it as a featured article. --Trygvebw 08:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. See Chicago for a sample of a FA on a city. Bergen has no reference section and no inline citations. All the external jumps, ([1]), need to be made footnotes, preferably in cit php format. Rlevse 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago is not an FA.--DaveOinSF 18:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AH, but it used to be-;) Cape Town and Seattle, Washington are FAs. Rlevse 16:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Chicago has been nominated a couple times before but I don't think it ever passed. San Francisco just recently became an FA. --DaveOinSF 18:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: ~~No citations.~~—Abraham Lure

Now you have some citations, I see. However, the formatting needs fixing so the edit buttons for the Climate, Universities, Commerce and Transportation are in the correct place and not all alongside each other next to the Transportation section. The reason for the fault is the images dominating the entire right of that area of the article. I'd also like to see the citations use templates so the URLs have titles and dates accessed.—Abraham Lure 23:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as there is only an insufficient amount of in-line citations. Also please use the citation template to its full potential and give each reference a title, so the reference section isn't just a long list of URLs. That's said the pictures and illustrations of the article are great! But the citations need some work. Regards, Signature ^brendel 06:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: References and citations have been added. Good illustrations. Might need some slight fixes. --Bohtor 12:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Many sections are completely unreferenced. The vast majority of the references all pertain to a single section. As gerdbrendel stated, none of the references are titled. Also, is it just me, or are there actually too many pictures? Seeing them all in a row, at least, slightly takes away from the article (in my- perhaps singular- opinion). The pictures are also poorly placed- a "typical summer day" next to the "Commerce" section, some houses next to the "Transportation" section, etc. One line in particular is completely out of place; one of the listings under Commerce is "TV industry (TV 2 - the largest commercial TV station's headquarters)", which is grammatically odd, and I don't think TV can really be considered an "industry" nor "commerce". Finally, some of the statistics are only stated in metric (i.e. not converting Celsius to Fahrenheit). I think this article should be peer reviewed and perhaps made a good article before renomination to FA status. -- Kicking222 23:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Kicking222, perhaps you will have to reorganize a little bit the use of references in order to reach equal results in all the sections, not just one.--Gustavo86 04:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Undercited, has external jumps, peer review might help. Sandy 22:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]