Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here I Am (Eve album)/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 00:22, 21 December 2007.

Here I Am (Eve album) edit

I Am (Eve album)}} Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because this is one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I mean come on it has literally a hundred plus references!!! SoapTime (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not believe that this is a serious nomination as it was made by a brand new user with a history of disruptive edits who had just added tens of empty references to the article. [1] nancy ^(talk) 07:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose! - too short. --Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]} 08:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Contains uncited content, several red links, chaotic referencing (e.g. footnotes containing non-described URLs). JFW | T@lk 09:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball oppose Album isn't out until January 2008, so cannot even be nominated yet due to instability issues. My objection is per 1b, 1e, 2a and 2b of the FA criteria. This FAC needs archiving, or (the better option) deleting by an administrator. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per LuciferMorgan. Even if the nomination was serious, this article is currently nothing more than a track listing. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per Lucifer Morgan. The request for deletion makes little sense to me however.--Keerllston 11:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose A hundred plus references? I think you fail primary school Maths. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose HAHAHAHAHA.....you're kidding right? I agree with instability issues, and as for what you claimed the article to have, I checked one of the previous revisions of it and I saw the so called "hundred plus references" which mainly consisted of #'s. Who are you tring to fool over here? As for the article, IT'S CRAP; it looks like the the work of many of those unsigned users who always fuck up the articles that are in good condition. "One of the best articles on Wikipedia"...I mean, seriously? In any way, it fails all of the criteria, period. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 06:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Choppy, poor prose. Could I remind reviewers that "too short" is not a valid oppose. Please consult the FA Criteria. Tony (talk) 13:32, 20 December 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.