Wikipedia:Peer review/RegisterFly/archive1
RegisterFly[edit]
Nominating this article for Peer Review--I would like for it to be eventually FA level, and have it up for GA review now too, but want even more people to review it so that it can be the best article it can be. I think the prose... is good, and the sourcing is rock solid; but the various overlapping natures of the history of this make me a bit nervous. Some sentences have multiple sources due to this, and to make the fairly... insane story/facts cohesive to read, especially as... there were basically two major overlapping incidents happening at the same time, but that also fed off/were related to each other. Any advice would be very appreciated! - Denny 08:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Decent, but you really need to work on the lead. Most of that information belongs in the main article. The lead should be a short summary informing the reader about RegisterFly. Right now it's way too long and clunky. Also, what are the exact consequences of loss of ICANN accreditation? Also possible NPOV problems, try and find out how the owners of RegisterFly responded to these claims, and include those responses. Icestryke 17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)