Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gustatory system/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it is of high quality, is brilliantly written and is factually accurate to a tee. Benji63 (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose: does not meet FA criteria at all. The lead is way too short, references are not formatted correctly, and the writing isn't the best Wikipedia can offer. That is only a taste of the problems this article has; you really need to work to get the article to even GA. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 00:21, 23 November 2007 (GMT)
- Comment. I have informed the nominator of WP:FACR and the likelihood that this nomination will fail unless significant effort is put into the article. JFW | T@lk 01:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Needs images, inline references and expanded lead. DrKiernan (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose per above. Sorry, this is nowhere near FA standards.
- Lead section is too short.
- Many sections are unreferenced.
- I think the article is not comprehensive. You need info about how scientists research on it and a lot of other stuff.
- No images.
- Normally I will ask people to try GA first, but this article really sucks and has no chance of getting GA also. If you want to try getting GA learn the policies and read what is a good article? --Kaypoh (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "this article really sucks" does not sound like the proper tone for a reviewer.
many articles do not get GA before getting an FAC - it is not policy that one is needed before the other - probably per "wikipedia is not a bureocracy"---Keerllston 21:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "this article really sucks" does not sound like the proper tone for a reviewer.
- Objection [1b, 2a, 2c, 3] seems well written, but not wikified, has it been checked for plagiarism?
- 1b It seems it is not comprehensive, Function is too small.
- 2a lead defines subject but does not introduce article.
- 2c strange use of referencing, inline citations or harvard referencing needed, not just noting which sources.
- 3 lacks images
- 4 "Importance" section is not concise and redundandly refers to information about function.
- --Keerllston 21:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Like stated above. It should start with a peer-review. NCurse work 13:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as not wikified or in-line cited, making it difficult to verify —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain.davies (talk • contribs) 18:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Benje63: don't lose heart—now build a team of good editors to get this into shape. Know how to locate them? Tony (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.