Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The CW Television Network/archive1

The CW Television Network

OK, this may be out of hype, but it's a big page with lots of interesting info for a network that just launched recently. --(trogga) 03:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my own nom. --(trogga) 03:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article fails the stable criteria as the network was just launched in the last week. In addition, the article only features two references, well below the standard for an FA. The Filmaker 03:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If some more references were added I would change to Support. - Mike Beckham 03:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object needs more references and extensive copyediting. Also, as the network launching is news, there could be more information to add in a short period of time. Rama's arrow 03:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to peer-review Don't bring these articles here, if you haven't gone through at leat one peer-review. I see listy sections, lack of inline citations, not-recommended ways to link external links etc.etc.etc. Go first for a peer-review. The article may have the potential, but it is not ready.--Yannismarou 11:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to peer-review, per Yannismarou. Fails criteria, IMO. SergeantBolt (t,c) 22:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article is packed full of information and certainly deserves this honor. -- Some Person 10:19, September 23, 2006 (CST)

(Table removed). FAC is not a vote. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this table. FAC is not a voting process, and the number of oppose or support votes does not influence the promotion of the article. CG 16:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. External jumps, mixed citation styles, and needs extensive inline cite work. Sandy 00:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Too few references, too much trivia. Also, I request the editor who has included the support/oppose table to remove it. FAC is not a vote. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object as per TheFilmaker. Merosonox 07:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Upgrade to FA I may however support a good article nomination. It just isn't good enough for FA status yet though. Hello32020 01:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]