Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cricket World Cup/archive1

Cricket World Cup

I just decided to know that does article really deserve for featured articles? The article looks concise enough. The article is completed upto date. The article is well written and shows neutrality. The article does not change significantly from day to day. I ensure that all issues concerning the factual accuracy has been properly addressed. I would appreciate any help provided in improving this article and hopefully lead to a FA status. Thanks -- Shyam ^(T/C) 21:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - No references. Far too short, only goes -briefly- into history and has some tables with records. I would reccomend you compare this article to the articles that are already featured. Comprehensiveness is more important than conciseness. Stability and stagnation aren't quite the same thing. This article needs a lot more information. Also see the Feature Article Requirements, linked above. Fieari 21:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - not comprehensive enough; most FAs are more than a paragraph of prose. You may wish to use peer review in the future. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object- Lead is too short, too many lists and a lack of prose, no inline citations and references. If you are still trying to get it to FA status- consider Peer review. AndyZ 23:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - see my comments at the Peer review. --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 10:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - not comprehensive or easy to read. lists and tables are intrusive. psch e mp | talk 03:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Not a comprehensive article. It is also a bit difficult to read. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]