Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turkish people/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 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Turkish people edit

verys beatiful article--Uannis 18:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro --Ozculer 18:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. At least for now. Faaar away from FA status. Some of the reasons:

Some sections are completely uncited or undercited;
In "Music" I see some one-sentence paragraphs, making the section look a bit listy.
All the online references are not properly formatted. Template:cite web or Template:cite news could be helpful here.

If the article starts getting improved, I will come back with a more detailed review.--Yannismarou 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There is potential for a good article here, but the formatting needs need work:

It is listy in places, and over linked (eg 18th century, 1960s, European, France).
The foot notes are incomplete; where available they should contain author and publisher names, as well as retrieval dates.
Some refs are placed within brackets eg. France (400,000[34]); should be France (400,000),[34]
Ref 5 is listed as : "a b c d e f g h Citation needed."
Prose need work: eg "It is to be noted that".
Incorrect use of summary style - switch from "Main article" to "See also", as the former implies that the sub-section is a summary of the linked article.
The sub-section "Poetry" has no content. Ceoil 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Citation needed tags ("Citation needed" as a footnote LOL!), significant if not majority unsourced sections, subsections with no content, improperly formatted citations and references, improper section heading capitalization, bad English (e.g. "During the 1930s Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoglu ve Vedat Nedim Tor begin to publish KADRO. KADRO was revolutionary in its look at the life."). Not even close to even a good article in my opinion, please improve it further and try at WP:GA and WP:PR first. By the way, I hope I'm not seeing a mass nomination of Turkish-related articles at WP:FAC. I'd be happy to see more featured-quality articles dedicated to Turkey, but it's more important to actually bring them to that quality than to nominate them :) For that reason, Turkish friends, please don't blindly support a nomination just because the topic is Turkish: it is the quality that matters, not the little gold star. Best, Todor →Bozhinov 19:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a "mass nomination" of Turkish-related articles. There seem to be only two Turkish-related nominations on WP:FAC by the time I'm writing this comment, both nominated by the same user (who's a newcomer). Both nominations have been deemed premature, here and there, by experienced Turkish wikipedians. Please don't bite the newcomers. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Premature nomination by a relatively inexperienced user, I suggest we snowball it and withdraw the nom. The article needs to go through GA and peer reviews before FAC. Baristarim 19:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support use of WP:SNOW. There are 87 candidates in FAC at present, and the work needed here to bring it to standard is too extensive to reasonably expect a promotion. Ceoil 20:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto that. Todor →Bozhinov 21:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Premature good-faith nomination by inexperienced user. The article needs to undergo considerable work to reach FA quality, and it currently lacks the focused attention of its regular / potential contributors. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.