Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Birmingham/archive1

This article seems well-written and is a good article so far! --Sunfazer | Talk 13:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - several sections lack any inline citations at all. —Wh o uk (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object -- lots of issues including unbalanced sections, unnecessary information (article should be a summary and detail moved to daughter articles), geography is sparse, demographics missing etc. The number of sections can be trimmed by merging with other sections and summarising. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object:
- More WP:FOOTNOTEs would definitely be helpful. They should be cited in accordance with WP:CITE (see also WP:CITE/ES, {{Cite web}})
- Please alphabetize the interwiki links (minor issue)
- The population statistics in the WP:LEAD belong in a Demographics section.
- Several sections are too short, like Famous residents and Literature. I suggest either merging or expanding them.
- It is a bit too list-weighty; for example Places of interest and Twinning should be prosified.
- Image:BlackSabbath.jpg needs a fair use rationale (see WP:FUC). I would suggest replacing it, as replacements should be able to be found.
- Image:Birm 1977 arms.png will also need a fair use rationale
- Change The main article is at History of Birmingham; the following is a summary. to {{mainarticle|Birmingham}}
- Generally, years without full dates aren't linked - see WP:MOSDATE

Thanks, AndyZ _t 15:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I swapped out the Black Sabbath image for Image:Black Sabbath 1999-12-16 Stuttgart.jpg. Jkelly 02:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object This article needs more references, everything covered in the lead needs to be covered in the main article, and lists in sections like "Nearby places" and "Places of interest" need prettier formatting. Staxringold 19:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]