Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vivah/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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 22:34, 10 January 2007.
I hereby nominate the article Vivah for a Featured Article. It is referenced properly, mainly with articles from Indian newspapers (as the article is about an Indian film). I think it's decently written and all the pictures have a proper fair use rational. It has had a peer review and besides a problem with the references (which has been solved), there were no complains. Plumcouch Talk2Me 01:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong object. WP:LEAD is inadequate (but since there isn't much to the article, it would be hard to summarize the article); section headings don't conform to WP:MOS, WP:MSH; has a trivia section, footnotes are not properly formatted, and the article is very sparse on any actual prose, referring to several other works without weaving a story relating to those works. A red link in the lead should really be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed trivia section, removed red links (created articles for them where information was found), renamed section headings (please name the ones that don't conform). As for footnotes: Will format them tomorrow according to those found here. Regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 03:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong object WP:SNOW. It's not really readable, and it's unfair to ask folks at this point to review it for FA status. KP Botany 04:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong object Not even sure that the writing is up to the good article standards: orphaned paragraphs, short sections, too little critical commentary, and so on... Not that the article is horrendous or anything but this does not have a snowball's chance in hell of achieving FA-status right now. Pascal.Tesson 08:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object: Getting there, but a one-¶ lead, some stubby sections and so forth worry me. (Besides, the film was released only two months ago; current events are not suitable for featured article topics.) I suggest you withdraw sooner or later, and refer to WPj Films' peer review. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 03:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object per above, I believe you should convert this into a peer review Plumcouch. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object- The article must be peer reviewed and then may be later upgraded. And Objects as above. Amartyabag (Talk) 07:02, 8 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.