Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Palazzo Pitti/archive2

Multiple corrections post closing[edit]

Your accusing me of nominating removals due to the fact that my nomination failed.

No, I'm not accusing: I'm restating what you have said.

As I said before, this may be the case, but certainly nobody can argue that my nominations were worthwhile and productive, and above all necessary.

This nomination is unproductive.

I will wait until the others close before I nominate anymore, but be assured there will be more to come.

Thank you for following FAR instructions; also, please consider shortening the length of your posts (see WP:TLDR, the purpose of FAR is to evaluate and restore featured articles, not WP:SOAPBOX).

Perhaps you are shocked that I have pointed out numerous flaws in articles that you or your delegate have promoted, ...

Your implications and understanding are inaccurate. I do not have a "delegate", and I will recuse at FAR if a FAC I promoted comes to FAR.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats taken as read Sandy; the FAR was 1 vs all others. This was a bad nom. Ceoil ^sláinte 17:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt matter how about quantity, quality is what matters! Yes, there were many people against my issues; but even they will admit, if they really had to (say in like a life or death situation) that this article is getting away with un-sourced information. Even if it can be found in the already previously used references, that's no excuse to just assume that the reader will know this. You must cite information whenever a challenged statement comes up, the entire purpose is to acknowledge where such information came from. Simply leaving many paragraphs unsourced is just a lack of effort and discipline. I really hope that articles which are supposed to show Wikipedia's best work are actually taken more strictly next time, for the very last time, just like the Croatia team article was. Surely anyone can admit that the strict opposition against that article were pretty much invalid and un-solvable, yet this article and others are getting away with the exact same problems.Domiy (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"lack of effort"? Come on. You have a very strict definition of likely to be challenged, other editors argued against you position, concensus swung against you. End of story. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]