Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maguire v SOCOG 1999/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 by User:SandyGeorgia 16:39, 14 September 2008 [1].

---

Maguire v SOCOG 1999

Nominator(s): Semibrevetrouser48white (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has reduced the number of headings, it is referenced and have correct footnotes ... Semibrevetrouser48white (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - one sentence lead does not meet WP:LEAD, headers do not meet WP:MSH, "categories" are all red links, text is poorly written and does not meet WP:WIAFA criterion 1a, has no image, has very few wikilinks, and is nowhere near even GA class, let alone FA. I note I just peer reviewed this and pointed out many of the same problems. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong opposte the article fails on nearly all points, if not all. With respect, I suggest the author/nominator has a look at some of the featured articles, Flight 93, Don Bradman, Siege of Malakand, to familiarise oneself with featured articles first. I will take a crack at fixing some of the issues to get it in line with WP:MOS to help it on the way to start/B class in the mean time. SGGH ^speak! 15:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned the article up possibly to start class. SGGH ^speak! 15:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reminder please consider the FAC instructions before responding to an untranscluded FAC; the nominator has never edited the article, and this FAC should not have been listed. Because declarations have already been entered, I've had to transclude the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry Sandy, I found this doing Peer Review maintenance (the peer review was not properly archived) and weighed in - never thought to check if it was transcluded. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor prose, MoS breaches, poorly formatted citations, Wikilink issues; a lot of work to be done. I suggest the nominator withdraws to work on this article. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Was clearly not ready when it came here, for all the reasons given above. Some nice cleanup work has been performed by SGGH, which was a nice gesture. It still needs a lot more editing to have a chance at GA, though, never mind here. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose an interesting topic but nowhere near jimfbleak (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.