Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/North American Free Trade Agreement/archive1
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 not promoted 00:22, 21 December 2007.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets all the criteria. If not, please state why? Thanks. Obsolete.fax (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Multiple citation needed tags, external link farm, refs aren't formatted correctly and the lead is too short. Also it is not comprehensive - all sections need to be much more thorough. --Peter Andersen (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: like Peter. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 18:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the external link farm? And I can remove the citations needed tags :) --Obsolete.fax (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- Some references are malformed (refs 5,6 missing dates and publishers) and there is a lack of consistency to the formatting.
- Far too many external links. - check through the criteria on WP:EL
- Unreferenced sections, some tagged as citation needed. The "Chapter 19", "Mexico and the United States", "Trade", "Industry" sections in particular are under or un-referenced.
- NPOV - much of the "Criticism and controversies" section does not read as neutral.
- The lead is too short and does not adequately summarise the article per the WP:LEAD guidlines.
- A image of trade before/after would be good. I would expect that there are US government Public-Domain charts/images available.
- per the style manual headings should not start with "The"
- There are weasel words and terms in the article that should not be there. "Some have", "Most agree" ,"Trade has increased dramatically" etc... - please read through Avoiding weasel terms
- Peripitus (Talk) 04:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Not ready for an FA. I agree with the comments given above. The article should be peer-reviewed and may be tried for GA, before a push to FA -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose Lead section sucks and there are many unreferenced paragraphs and short paragraphs with only one or two sentences. Why do people always nominate horrible articles like this for FA? --Kaypoh (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object I wasn't going to bother piling on, but seeing as Sandy is waiting for a stronger consensus. References are not filled out properly etc. and per above. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:00, 20 December 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.