Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Slavic mythology/archive1

Slavic mythology

What a fantastic article, definately one of the best we have on mythology on Wikipedia. A good length, with appropriate images. Only downside is no inline citation, but for a mythology article, is that really appropriate? There do not appear to be any disputes on the talk page. - FrancisTyers 13:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, inline citations are appropriate in ANY Featured Article. Otherwise people would be required to hunt down every last work mentioned in the references to find out where any spesific factoid comes from. WegianWarrior 14:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Object. Here are some of my suggestions:

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.

Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
Images need proper image copyright tags and source information. Specifically, Image:Svetovid.jpg need(s) proper image copyright tags.

This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
Thanks, AndyZ _t 15:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Inline citations are a must, especially if we have sections like 'Unauthentic sources'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, per above remarks. Also, see various comments on the Slavic mythology discussion page, e.g. regarding the periodization and supposed ubiquity of the mythological phenomena. Anatopism 17:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object--Molobo 19:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]