Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/European Parliament
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.
European Parliament[edit]
Self-nomination (mostly). I have been working on this for a while and editors have done a lot to it. Since getting GA status it has been improving and I think the quality overall is good enough for FA. If there are any problems I should be able to fix them rapidly. - J Logan t/c: 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Reads well, covers all the bases. Looks great! --Hemlock Martinis 21:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks very good! —Nightstallion 22:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support But I think the caption "The seat in Strasbourg is seen as a symbol by some, and as a waste of money by others" can be improved, probably be deleting all but the first four words? BenB4 09:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it might loose a bit meaning if I did that, I had shortned it to "Strasbourg is seen..." before but was rv. as that would mean the whole city it seems. I have rewritten it though as "The Strasbourg seat is a symbol to some, and a waste of money to others" which brings it down to two lines. That okay? - J Logan t/c: 11:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, on just the wording, it's likely that a lot of people see it as both. But what I was trying to get at was the bias and weasel words. The accompanying text explains the situation well. How about "Strasbourg is controversial because of the extra cost for a second seat"? BenB4 11:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it might loose a bit meaning if I did that, I had shortned it to "Strasbourg is seen..." before but was rv. as that would mean the whole city it seems. I have rewritten it though as "The Strasbourg seat is a symbol to some, and a waste of money to others" which brings it down to two lines. That okay? - J Logan t/c: 11:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, but looks very doable.- Templates go at the top of each section (see WP:GTL).
- Please get rid of the awful scrolling window on references; that method eliminates from refs from mirrors (of which FAs have many) and printouts (some of us do read the articles from a printed version). {{scroll box}} says not to use it in mainspace, and references this TfD result.
- There are external jumps in the text; Wiki is not a blog. Those jumps should be either converted to references or Wikified text.
- Date parameters are not correctly identified on all sources; for example http://www.ft.com/cms/s/56b6d760-a412-11da-83cc-0000779e2340.html has a full date, which should be entered (there are likely others, since no full dates are specified).
- See WP:MOSNUM, solo years shouldn't be wikilinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the one template that was below. Removed ref window. Removed all external links. Added all available dates. Not sure what you emant on solo years, but I have removed all links to years without full date. - J Logan t/c: 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Beautiful, and fast! Striking oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the one template that was below. Removed ref window. Removed all external links. Added all available dates. Not sure what you emant on solo years, but I have removed all links to years without full date. - J Logan t/c: 09:44, 9 July 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.