Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ford Taurus/archive1

Ford Taurus

I nominiated this article because the Taurus is a well known and best selling car, and it is responsible for bailing Ford out of bankrupcy. Besides that, it is well known very well, and it is one of the most reconizible cars nad most well known cars ever made. It's article is well written, long, and informative, and it's article is for sure featured article material.

• Object. The article doesn't cite its sources. Also, I think the level 3 headings should be removed, since they don't really help organize the article and most of them say "SHO". rspeer 00:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak support now that my objections have been addressed, as long as the information in the article really does come from those two sources. rspeer 18:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object - IMO, not exactly good enough to be a featured article. It needs some more sources and some tidying up. BTW Karrmann, don't forget to timestamp your comments. --ApolloBoy 06:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Needs more references than there currently are, the sections need to have more detailed titles (not just dates). The '1992–1995' section is very short, surely that can be expanded. The lead is much too long, some of that info needs to be split up into another section. I'm not too sure I like that huge infobox going down the side either. See also section could be expanded and the fair use images are missing their fair use rationales. Refer to WP:Peer review for more comments/suggestions on how to improve this to featured article standard. — Wackymacs 19:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It's about a particular car model and that in itself seems pov.--81.29.68.162 22:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How so? --ApolloBoy 00:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It's an incredibly common object. There is no reason to use fair-use images here. --Carnildo 22:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object Two sources seems insufficient. Also, the section headers need to be more descriptive than just listing dates. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object What ever happened to the peer review part of the process? Tarret 01:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)