Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Agnes Obel/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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Ucucha 23:09, 21 September 2011 [1].
Agnes Obel[edit]
Agnes Obel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Theda78
I am nominating this for featured article because this is the best ressource about Agnes Obel on the web actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theda78 (talk • contribs) 15:25, September 21, 2011
Oppose, suggest withdrawal - this article would benefit from undergoing some of the previous stages of review and assessment, particularly peer review, before attempting FAC. No comment on its merit relative to other Obel resources on the web, but it does not meet the featured article criteria. There are numerous problems with prose, manual of style, and referencing among other things, and it requires extensive work to address these issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, second Nikki's call for withdrawl - At a glance, it's obvious this article falls way, way short of FA standards, and even GA standards. The lede is woefully incomplete, there's a heavy overuse of quotes, the actual content of the article is thin and far from comprehensive, the sourcing has all sorts of problems, etc. etc. — Hunter Kahn 22:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.