Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Orleans, Louisiana/archive2
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 00:58, 26 February 2008.
New Orleans, Louisiana[edit]
Nomination added by Samian (talk · contribs) who has never edited the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, tagged for needing clean up just this month! Poorly referenced, with whole sections having no references at all. Seemingly excessive images, many without any obvious point or need to be in this article. Also seems to be suffering from some link spam. Not close to being FA ready. Side note: seems to be an incomplete nomination, and person who nominated has never edited on that article, nor are they a particularly active editor. Not sure if this is even a legit nomination or someone messing around. Collectonian (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: like collectionain. 79.11.18.74 (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Lots of issues with the article. It wouldn't even pass WP:GAN.
- Numerous 'citation needed' tags.
- Cleanup tag at the top must be addressed.
- Numerous red links.
- Several manual of style violations (see also tags placed in incorrect places in the article, there's several external links within article text, not at the end under 'external links').
- Poor overall organization; sections do not comply with WP:CITIES' guideline for the structure of US cities. Climate and cityscape should be combined into the geography section as subsections, not as their own main sections. Try to minimize the use of multiple subsection headers in the transportation section; write one comprehensive transportation section instead of a single large section with multiple subsections. The section is also large under-referenced.
Dr. Cash (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, long way to go. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.