Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Citroën C3 Picasso/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 GrahamColm 05:04, 27 April 2012 [1].
Citroën C3 Picasso edit
Citroën C3 Picasso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be of a standard higher than good now and at the very least the article would be improved from this candidacy. Thanks Jenova20 09:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A few comments to start off, I haven't read the article yet. Note that it's generally a good idea to have a WP:Peer review between GA and FAC.
- The lead is too short, that should be expanded. (See WP:LEAD for the guideline.)
- There are a lot of short sections, they should probably be condensed into larger sections.
- The page has a cluttered feel to it, lots of pictures and charts all over the place.
- There's one link to a disambiguation page that should be fixed.
- Is Autogear.us a reliable source? (WP:RS) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved some sections around and removed others. What do you think of it now? Also i was told to add more pictures in the good article candidacy as you can see on the talk page. Every single thing is referenced and AutoGear.us in this case is well informed on specifications of the car so i do believe them to be appropriate, even for a blog/low-key auto news source. Also which link to a disambig page is wrong? Opinions Thanks Jenova20 16:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since you said you want comments, here are a few more. I encourage you to withdraw this nomination and try to get a thorough peer review.
- To prove that Autogear is reliable you would have to provide evidence that it is a "third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:RS. Even if it is useful and accurate, it may not qualify.
- MPV is the link I meant. The dabs on the article are listed here, for future reference.
- The external links section should come after the references section.
- In a caption you have "Reviews of the "plasticky" interior were mixed.", who are you quoting there?
- How does the picture of a 1959 Cadillac held the reader understand this article?
- Numbers less than 10 should generally be written out (i.e. "two out of three" rather than "2 out of 3"). Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, based on criteria 1b, 2a and 2c. I'm far from an expert, but I just can't believe this would be a comprehensive study of the subject. I feel like every section could be expanded with more information. Not enough context is given for general readers, for instance: "The chassis platform used for the vehicle is a modified version from the Citroën C3 and the Peugeot 207, giving it a comparable wheelbase" - this means nothing to me. The lead needs to be substantially expanded, to summarise the entire article, before it can even be consider for FA status. Lastly, citations are not formatted consistently. --Lobo (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest withdrawal per Lobo. Content-wise, it barely--if at all--meets GA status; the lead does not satisfy WP:LEAD; and there is just too little information on what I reckon to be a very popular subject. Auree ★★ 17:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can i get realistic detailled suggestions for content improvements from everyone so at least i have some idea where to go from here and improve the article.
- And all the criteria for Good Article status was met and the User:Waggers provided what i compare to this so far to be absolutely flawless reviewing. Thanks Jenova20 18:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The place for "detailed suggestions for content improvements" is WP:Peer review. I also just suggest reading through a load of FAC reviews to get an idea of the requirements (standards are very high), and read over similar FAs to see what they do. You'll find this extremely helpful, I'm sure. Don't be disheartened—you've underestimated the requirements for FAs, but there's no reason this article can't get there with more work. You just need to make sure you have a full grasp of the criteria. --Lobo (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't underestimated the criteria, as i state above i just want it to be improved and was expecting the kind of support i got at the Good article review. I thought that's what the review would aim for like last time, improvement rather than 2 lines and a vote. Thanks Jenova20 19:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The place for "detailed suggestions for content improvements" is WP:Peer review. I also just suggest reading through a load of FAC reviews to get an idea of the requirements (standards are very high), and read over similar FAs to see what they do. You'll find this extremely helpful, I'm sure. Don't be disheartened—you've underestimated the requirements for FAs, but there's no reason this article can't get there with more work. You just need to make sure you have a full grasp of the criteria. --Lobo (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above comments. For me the Lead is too short and there is not enough information in all the other sections. Also, a curious use of the Ghostbusters car image. To justify it's inclusion, you state: "The original Ghostbusters did not use a C3 Picasso" - why the image then? It's not really relevant to have this image included based on the fact it was not used in something. If that was the case then the images would be endless. Sorry. -- Cassianto (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. Lede is especially noticeable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.