Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ITunes/archive1

ITunes edit

Partial self nom/support This article is well written, is of a good length, and has good pictures that are all within the copyright regulations. False Prophet 18:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and oppose This article was placed in peer review yesterday. That is certainly not enough time to be reviewed adequately. I suggest that the article be moved back to Peer review since the article has a small chance of achieving featured status. Too many short, stubby paragraphs, images in gallery are copyrighted and have no fair use rationale, prose is not the best work of Wikipedia, among other things Joelito (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The version history section is sloppy, and there aren't enough inline citations. Letting the Peer review run its course would be a good idea before nominating here. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object per RyanGerbil10, this is not ready yet. — Wackymacs 07:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object per above. Computerjoe 's talk 19:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object per above above. --DragonWR12LB 22:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object There is POV and POV editors. It is factually inaccurate: the blanket Vista "not yet officially supported" issue in the intro is inaccurate and the changes I make to enforce its accuracy keep getting reverted. Now perhaps I understand why! Mattjs 16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The POV Vista issue immediately above has - after much heated discussion - finally been resolved factually (and seems to be staying that way): So I can and should finally recind my previously valid Object above! Regards, Mattjs 18:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]