Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pixar/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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:52, 24 February 2007.

Pixar edit

I am nominating this article for FA because it is well-written and there are no unimportant images on the page. It features a detailed description of their history, including the recent Disney • Pixar fiasco. The awards that the films have won are shown on the list of films. The traditions section is also very accurate. Please leave comments. If the article needs any improving, say so. I think this article would make a good featured article. A•N•N•Afoxlove r PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE! 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's missing ONE citation, but I hope anyone else voting in this won't go at this otherwise excellent article's throat because of that. 2Pac 23:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support What missing citation? A•N•N•Afoxlove r PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE! 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a relatively good article, but not anywhere near FA. First thing I notice is lack of referencing. Please see WP:CITE. Ten references is not nearly enough, and they are not even done properly. -Bluedog423^Talk 03:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Practically no referencing. JHMM13 03:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for lack of referencing in general. The lack of printed references on a subject that I can see 1200 news articles on and a large number of books is also a matter of concern. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - After a promising start, the article turns very listy and stubby in the latter half. Most of that should be converted to brilliant prose and be put in an attractive layout, to regain proper textual flow. I agree with the other comments about referencing; please take a look at WP:CITE and WP:CITET. Good luck! --Plek 20:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image:Pixar.jpg is at too high a resolution. It needs to be shrunk to a low resolution (and then tagged with {{fair use reduced}}), and it needs a detailed fair use rationale. ShadowHalo 01:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when the pictures in the article are the measure for the preparedness of the article to be a featured one? Tomer T 17:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is barely referenced. Suggest withdraw from FAC and undergo peer review first. --Dweller 10:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Aside from the referencing, the prose is faaar from brilliant and professional. Sentences like These classes are available not only for animators, but everyone, from the security guard to cafeteria chef. and The issue of sequels is a particularly sticky one with Pixar. are not written in encyclopedic tone at all. Wickethewok 22:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd love for Pixar - and its films - to be a featured article, but I have to agree that it's not ready. Perhaps we should improve it a bit and go for a good article nomination instead. RMS Oceanic 22:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.