Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eric Clapton/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.

Eric Clapton[edit]

This article is very well writen, (never mind about the cites), and everything is in the right spot. Dennis Kussinich 08 23:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object Suggest a peer review first. There are several problems with the sections: see WP:TRIV, WP:GTL, and WP:MSH (caps, articles). There are several [citation needed] tags all over the article, a couple of external link jumps to be converted to refs, and most of the refs are hard to read due to the excessive blue linking (try using the |author= and |date= parameters of {{Web cite}} to resolve this). Several images fail WP:FUC, including Image:Clapton is God Graffiti.jpg and Image:Claptonstrat.jpg. AZ _t 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Mostly uncited, contains a trivia section, sections should be reordered to WP:GTL, reference formatting is incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Whole sections are unreferenced, contains a trivia section, and needs some stylistic fixes. ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Uncited, listy, trivia sections.--Yannismarou 15:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object Severe lack of citations. Needs a trivia-ectomy. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 19:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object Needs some major referencing. Hello32020 21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object. One of the few citations in the text actually refutes the claim it is supposed to be supporting (that there was a "Clapton is God" graffiti craze). -- Qarnos 07:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The article is basically uncited and has a long, listy trivia section. -- Underneath-it-All 20:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG OBJECT. Too much trivia, not enough referencing. Writing not compelling or brilliant. —ExplorerCDT 10:00, 10 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.