Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fox v. Franken/archive1

Fox v. Franken[edit]

A well written article that meets featured article criteria Justforasecond 17:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Putting aside my political views here, I believe the article needs to be built up a bit more. For starters include the case numbers, create a reference section. Couldn't hurt also to put this through a peer review. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - No references. Additionally, I'm concerned that an article consisting of three short sections of two, three, and four paragraphs could possibly be comprehensive. Length isn't a hard and fast determinant, but it sure is a key sign that something more could probably be written when it's so short. Compare lengths of other featured artcles. But at any rate, this doesn't even qualify for GA right now, due to a need for references, in a references section. Fieari 19:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - No peer review, no references. Kafziel 21:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Peer Review isn't obligatory, but would help. Sorry but this article is a way off at present, needs references, and could do with expansion and pictures. --PopUpPirate 01:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object No references. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per above.Gator (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object not comprehensive enough. AmbExThErMaL 20:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Object I added references, but comprehensiveness needs to be worked on and the references should be cited correctly per WP:CITE. AndyZ 22:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Inadequate references. PedanticallySpeaking 19:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]