Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norfolk Island/archive1
(self nom, although I've not added anything of substance in more than 12 months) I may be biased, having worked on the article in its very early days, but I think it covers all the bases for being Featured. At the risk of churlishness, it's also an Australian topic, which is an area which I believe has been underrepresented in recent FAs. At the very least, if it's not up to the high standards, the ideas for improvement will help it look even better as an article than it currently does. BigHaz 07:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nomination cheerfully withdrawn. Now let's see if I can find the templates to add to the article's Talk page... BigHaz 23:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Object. Needs expansion of the lead section, more complete inline citations, and removal/merging of the one-sentence paragraphs and sections. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 08:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'll have a go at the paragraphs and sections tomorrow (my time), as well as trying my hand at the citations. BigHaz 12:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Refer to Wikipedia:Peer review --cj | talk 12:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- At the risk of seeming a total n00b, what specifically about it? Everything I can see there is that it's a useful but non-mandatory step in the article-to-featured-article process, rather than something which absolutely must be done. If there's a policy I'm missing out on, I'll be happy to be put to rights. BigHaz 13:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I apologise for being vague. No, it is not at all a "required" step, but it is strongly recommended. I suggested this nomination be rescinded and the article sent to WP:PR for two reasons: 1, it is nowhere near FA-standard (see the criteria and compare with like articles); and 2, your opening statement made it seem as though you were seeking advice on how to improve the article (which should already be as close to finished as possible upon presentation to WP:FAC).--cj | talk 14:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- At the risk of seeming a total n00b, what specifically about it? Everything I can see there is that it's a useful but non-mandatory step in the article-to-featured-article process, rather than something which absolutely must be done. If there's a policy I'm missing out on, I'll be happy to be put to rights. BigHaz 13:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, right. I'll have another look at the criteria and may well rescind based on those comments. BigHaz 22:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)