Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roger Federer/archive2

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 Laser brain 03:29, 11 January 2011 [1].

Roger Federer edit

Nominator(s): Taro-Gabunia (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the Featured article criteria Taro-Gabunia (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: nominator is not a significant contributor to the article. Trebor (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Look at the questions from the previous attempt and see whether they have been resolved. The rivalries section needs referencing and all deadlinks should try and be removed as well. I will help you. KnowIG (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I′ll handle the dead links but what can I source for the Rivarlies section? Taro (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There doesn't seem to have been much, if any work behind this nom. The Bowers biography is not cited at all and the Stauffer biography only twice. Both seem to be credible sources. I'd expect an FA to make much more use of those comprehensive and researched sources and much less use of news sources. See criterion 1c. Also, I only had to glance at the article and see the apostrophe howler "Federer's main accomplishment's as a junior player...", to conclude that the prose needs a lot of work. There are wild jumps in tense. Large tracts of the article are unsourced. This is the kind of article that needs strong ongoing attention by experienced editors. The out-of-date second sentence of the article "As of 28 November 2010..." indicates that it is not being maintained well (latest rankings are here. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I see some {{cn}} templates in the lower half of the article. One or two could be forgiven as I'd assume they'd be taken care of during the nom, but there's too many here. Other sentences are needlessly cited with 4, 5, or 6 references which hinders the flow of reading. The tables need attention, too: Why does the second row "Grand Slam Tournaments" span all 18 columns in the first table?; The "Year-End Championship performance timeline" has extra coding and has caused extra lines at the right side; I'm pretty sure the use of Flags in the championship column of "Finals (5 titles, 1 runner-up)" is a violation of MOS:FLAG, possibly for the opponents, too; all the tables look like someone's tossed a bag of Skittles at them and there is no key or other indication as to what the colours mean. See WP:COLOR; the three tables in the "Records" section shouldn't be hidden for WP:ACCESS reasons, such as with users accessing paper copies Matthewedwards : Chat 07:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no it doesn't meet the criteria. Please clean up this article, add refs (why are there "cn"???), too much references for sentences like Federer is widely considered one of the greatest tennis players of all time. or or simply Maestro (yes simply his nickname and 5 refs!), triffles like not linking (clay, grass and hard courts), useless things like and met Pope Benedict XVI while playing the 2006 Internazionali BNL d'Italia tournament in Rome. or the unsourced Like all male Swiss citizens, Federer was subject to compulsory military service in the Swiss Armed Forces (also against NPOV). All in all "only" a GA, but far, far away, behind the Milky Way, it meets the criteria.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nominator has never edited the article, Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. No indication that regular editors of the article were consulted prior to nomination. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from anything else, this is the second current FAC nom from this nominator, clearly breaching FAC rules. Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Withdraw – Several cite tags and dead links in the article and some unreferenced content in the 2010 section; in addition, it looks as though the issues brought up by opposers in the last FAC haven't been addressed. All of this points to a lack of preparation, and I see no reason that this FAC should continue. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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