Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knitting/archive1

Knitting

Maybe I'm being a bit bold, butI feel that this article is well-written, factually correct, and pretty readable. Overall, I think it meets the featured article criteria, as well as having a lot of the things listed in WP:TPA. DroEsperanto 01:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Very nice start, but the article needs to be cited (see WP:WIAFA). Also, some attention to wikilinking is needed - common terms that we all know need not be linked. You also may need to prune the External link farm: see WP:NOT and WP:EL. (Some of them should be available on the DMOZ link anyway.) Sandy (Talk) 01:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can you give some examples of "common terms" that are wikilinked in the article? Like "parallel" and "USA"?

coffee shop, t-shirt, for example. Sandy (Talk) 03:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. A fun read but lacking in expanded details and references. Perhaps more info regarding "cannonical" knitting designs? Details regarding knitting complex objects (socks, gloves, sweaters, etc.)? Expansion on stiches patterns and some more cultural matters on knitting can also be very helpful. Sjschen 02:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Insufficient cites. LuciferMorgan 11:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Article needs to decide on A.E. or B.E. (fiber/fibre) Rmhermen 16:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to tell from early edits what the original author intended, but this edit is a clear indication of British English. Unless something was distinctly American before that, I guess we assume the article was originally written in British English. Jay32183 18:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Needs a copy editor first. And, an article on knitting should include a picture of a sweater, and some type of knit hosiery or footwear, also. There are a lot of other problems. Has it gone through a peer review also? This would be really helpful. KP Botany 18:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Just not much there yet, and not nearly cited enough. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: it's lacking in inline cites, hence it fails 3c. Mikker ^(...) 05:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]