Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red Panda/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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

Red Panda[edit]

I think this article can be featured. What do you think? Daniel10 20:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Certainly there is potential - but the article has no inline references (I'd think it would need at least 20 or so to be even close to comprehensive and more like 30 minimum). And the opening lead needs to be two paragraphs long and summarise the important points. The article also is mostly about names with very little on the biology of the creature. I think someone will suggest this go to Peer Review first. Jaguar is a featured article worth looking at for ideas. cheers Cas Liber 20:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I'll try to say this as politely as possible. I understand you're ten and your contributions are valuable, but please stop nominating articles for FAC that haven't been through an exhaustive peer review first. It takes time for other editors to process through these - Thanks for understanding. Sandy (Talk) 21:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing some of your recent FACs, Red Panda, Snow leopard, Brown Bear, and Fin Whale - perhaps if you suggest future nominations on the talk page here, we can indicate whether they will be snow'd, and that will save work for everyone, including ultimately tagging these articles as facfailed. I hope this helps, Sandy (Talk) 21:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, Daniel, if you have to ask "What do you think?", it shouldn't be nominated. Good advice, Sandy. Tony 15:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It can't have any {{fact}} templates. Find those citations! Just H 07:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ditto above. And it needs expanding. It's also a good idea to go through a peer review and Good Article review before submitting to FAC. Bobanny 08:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The article needs to be expanded and more citations need to be added throughout. -- Underneath-it-All 20:27, 6 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.