Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 FIFA World Cup/archive2

2006 FIFA World Cup edit

Support Article is very clear, as superb grpahics and is extremely concise as well as having a very impressive NPOV for a football related article. --Jboyle4eva 01:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous FAC nom here Raul654 06:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Article contains almost no prose. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Object no prose, no analysis and no pictures. Its a result chart-sheet, dat's all. This Fire Burns.....Always 06:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong object. Needs some critical analysis. I have been active in updating this, but it's just a scoresheet, not worthy of FA. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong object per WP:SNOW. --Maitch 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - In addition to the above, the subject of the article has just ceased to be a current news item, which may mean the article is not yet stable. In addition, there is not one picture of the entire event itself. Jeronimo 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - per Jeronimo's point. Tdslappy
Object per Jeronimo and rbil. It's solid data, but still, not FA-worthy. —Nightst a llion (?) 08:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per above, it needs more development. --Ter e nce Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 12:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A quick glance over shows some pretty glaring tense issues about things which "will" happen during the Cup... Shimgray | talk | 01:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The tense issue has now been addressed. -- Alias Flood 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object too listy --Robdurbar 19:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think we should have 2006 FIFA World Cup as a featured article -- Patricknoddy 8:36am, July 15, 2006 (EDT)
Weak Object. I think it is worthy of being an FA, but the World Cup happened less than a week ago, so I think you should give it some time to settle in. Turbokoala 17:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. I think it has not enough prose to be an FA, and I agree with the argument of the WC being too recent as well. --Madcynic 17:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]