Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wikipedia:Featured articles/archive1

Wikipedia:Featured articles[edit]

Featured article candidates/Wikipedia:Featured articles/archive1

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator(s): Newyorkadam (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for Featured Article status as I believe it's an example of Wikipedia's best work. It is one of Wikipedia's oldest articles, having begun on November 14, 2001.^{[April Fools!]} Thanks for your consideration! -Newyorkadam (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

Oppose Nasty, brutish, and short, but that's life, they say. Also no alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as there are no images requiring alt text on this article, I don't see how your second oppose reason is valid. -Newyorkadam (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

Well, it's at least as germane as the average oppose. And what's life without alt text?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm sorry, but the section "Geography and places" has no references at all. buff bills 7701 00:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, can't believe that slipped my eye! Will be adding references over the next day or so. -Newyorkadam (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

Oppose - Lack of references, does not look like an article. Maybe try WP:FLC instead? Dough 48 72 00:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you propose a merge? -Newyorkadam (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

We need to merge it with Wikipedia:Featured lists.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 01:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It is not in the correct namespace! Imminent opposing is likely. Eye snore (pc) 02:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - reads well but I'm afraid there might be some slight issues with overlinking. Still, it seems consensus is building to promote the article, so I won't stand in the way. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this article, so therefore, I can not support this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted per WP:SNOW! Northern Antarctica (₵) 02:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a really good feature topic...—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 02:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three thumbs up. What better way to feature Wikipedia's best than to feature the whole shebang of Wikipedia's best? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Lacks sufficient sourcing. — Status (talk · contribs) 03:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not even 1% of all possible entries represented. Fails criterion 1b. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - fails #4 - Listing all Articles is unnecessary detail. 149.254.183.195 (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your kind comments, I think this will be a successful FA nomination! -Newyorkadam (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.