Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ammar ibn Yasir/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 Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2014 (diff).
Ammar ibn Yasir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
This article is about the companion of prophet Muhammad, Ammar ibn Yasir Grandia01 (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: the article is 1)supported sufficiently and completely by reliable citations, 2)its format is according to Wikipedia's guidelines and 3)is linguistically solid Grandia01 (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I support this article becoming a featured article; it is rich in information and has undergone a rigorous edit process to ensure all information present it accurate and sourced. The article should include however more pictures of images to be in full par with a featured article. I also recommend the promoting of the article ali ibn abi talib to featured status, it is a complete article with lots of images info and very good citations. Hooperag (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Epicgenius (talk)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but for such a huge nomination, doesn't there have to be a good article review or peer review first? Anyway, I can point out a few problems:
- The headings are too long and have links in them (discouraged per MOS:HEAD).
- No pictures at all. At least one image is recommended for it to even be a good article.
- Although it is written well, it is written as though it was a story and not an encyclopedia entry.
- So I will vote oppose, for now. (And please don't support your own nomination; it is strictly discouraged.) Epicgenius (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you for your advices and opinions. what do you think of it being a good article then? Grandia01 (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be a better option. However, for the article to even pass a good article nomination, you should first take care of the Manual of Style (MOS) issues mentioned above first. Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you for your advices and opinions. what do you think of it being a good article then? Grandia01 (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for the moment. The content is not my field of expertise, but from a purely MOS point of view, it isn't ready for the reasons articulated by Epicgenius. --ukexpat (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
not asking you to change your opinions here, but I fixed the problems of the headings and did other improvements also (see details of change histories please) just to let you know Grandia01 (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Although this page wasn't transcluded to WP:FAC, it has received commentary indicating more work is needed to get it to FA status, so I'll be archiving it shortly. From my own observations, I'd add that the structure seems fragmented owing to the many very short sections and subsections, and the expression needs to be more objective, based just on reading the lead. I'd recommend that if further work is done then you should take the article to Peer Review, as well as GAN, before considering another run at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.