Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/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 by SandyGeorgia 16:54, 10 March 2010 [1].

Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008[edit]

Nominator(s): William S. Saturn (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article status because it complies with all the criteria. There was a comment left at the GA nomination that the article looked ready for FA status, and I agree. William S. Saturn (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It is generally a mistake to rely on a GA comment as a basis for FAC nomination, since the standards are very different. This article is good, and interesting, but it's not FA quality yet. Here are just a few issues:-

Four disambiguation links
Two dead external links
Alt text missing on all images
Inadequate lead (not a full summary of the article)
No personal information on Barr that I can see. Minimal details on him, and his background, are necessary. The article should be self-contained and not require readers to use a link to find out who Barr was.
Image placement leading to squeezing of text betwen left and right-aligned images is contrary to MOS. (It may be that too many images have been crammed in).

I have not examined the prose in detail, but in general a thorough peer review is an advisable stage between GA and FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Not Passed - 11 images. Most are flickr-transfers or PD-self, though File:Greater Atlanta Libertarian Meetup 6-23-2008.jpg, File:Barr HQ.jpg, and File:Bob Barr Speaking on Diplomacy with Iran.jpg need a description. File:Barr logo.jpg needs a "purpose" filled out. --Pres N 18:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. I oppose this article for many reasons (such as the reasons stated by other users on this archive). The article's images do not have alt text, there are disambiguation links, dead links, and the articles lead as well as other parts of the article are not very informational. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 23:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction to this comment was, "what an asshole," but then I looked at the person's userpage and I saw that they are just a child. As for the first oppose, I will try to address these issues shortly. Looking back, I shouldn't have nominated the page, but I've been away for a while and was overly optimistic. I'll let the nomination run its course to allow for more feedback. Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you thought I was an "asshole" for opposing an article that, in my opinion, did not meet the FA criteria for a number of reasons? Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 04:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I thought you were an asshole for your tone, but I no longer feel that way because you are only a child and have not reached maturity. I have no desire to continue this conversation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add note: William, you are more likely to get constructive feedback at WP:Peer review than by leaving it here. I suggest you withdraw and take it there, where I'd certainly be prepared to go over it. Brianboulton (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing, multiple reviewers indicate this is not FAC-ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.