Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jeddah/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 17:31, 25 May 2007.
What do you think about this article? Stranger17 15:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This needs to go to peer review. This page isn't the place to get feedback. --Aude (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose anyway because of the short lead, stubby sections, and the excess lists. I think people are turned off of peer review because of the backlog there, and realize that they'll get comments more quickly by posting here. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 16:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be willing to give comments on this article at peer review. From my experience, it also helps to request feedback from WikiProjects when an article is at peer review, and possibly ask specific users on their talk page who might be willing to help but don't regularly check the peer review page. --Aude (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think comments should go here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Jeddah/archive1 I will look over the article and give suggestions there. --Aude (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, per the instructions at WP:PR, articles are not supposed be at both places at the same time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't spend as much time at FAC as you and others, but isn't it reasonable to refer articles to peer review? especially if they haven't been at peer review before? Maybe WP:IAR regarding articles listed at both places. --Aude (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically echoing Sandy here when I say that this happens nearly everyday, that being an article that is nowhere near ready and simply needs to be sent to PR. An invoking of IAR in all such situations isn't feasible. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 17:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. If the nominator agrees PR is more appropriate, s/he can withdraw this nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically echoing Sandy here when I say that this happens nearly everyday, that being an article that is nowhere near ready and simply needs to be sent to PR. An invoking of IAR in all such situations isn't feasible. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 17:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't spend as much time at FAC as you and others, but isn't it reasonable to refer articles to peer review? especially if they haven't been at peer review before? Maybe WP:IAR regarding articles listed at both places. --Aude (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, per the instructions at WP:PR, articles are not supposed be at both places at the same time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think comments should go here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Jeddah/archive1 I will look over the article and give suggestions there. --Aude (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be willing to give comments on this article at peer review. From my experience, it also helps to request feedback from WikiProjects when an article is at peer review, and possibly ask specific users on their talk page who might be willing to help but don't regularly check the peer review page. --Aude (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This article is that its largely a translation of ar:جدة (arwiki version) or vice versa. The Arabic article has been nominated for FAC there. The FAC criteria listed there are similar to enwiki, however in practice the FAC standards (what people support) are much more lax. I know some Arabic and can look it over. I think the Arabic article - ar:جدة - can be improved significantly, but have a tough time reconciling the different standards and deciding what FAC to support there and what not to. --Aude (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The lists are raw, only one reference, almost no prose, chaotic illustrations. Needs a significant improvement at WP:KSA. --Brand спойт 19:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball oppose per 1c. LuciferMorgan 19:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Desperately needs referencing. Also needs copyediting. Axl 19:51, 21 May 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.