Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Malaysian Grand Prix/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 17:53, 31 August 2007.
2007 Malaysian Grand Prix edit
Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 16:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose. I looked at the article and didn't think what I read was too bad. I simply felt it required a copy-edit. I therefore proceeded, and I think pre-race and qualifying are now up to scratch. However the lead places emphasis on the wrong areas. The race section requires a re-write to the extent that I don't think the prose is currently good enough for GA, let alone FA. There are a lot of positives: sources seem good and if the images aren't fair use I can rectify this. I'm willing to work extensively to get this article it up to FA standard, but I don't have the time to adopt a current FAC. BeL1EveR 13:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'WHY' has this been restarted. The list of nominations is very long already. We deserve a short, substantive reason for each restart. Tony 02:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From who? From Raul654? My request for a short rationale for closures was slapped down pretty hard: " he has a huge workload; please don't suggest that it be even marginally increased".[1] If so this seems like a marginal increase to me and no more deserving. Mark83 13:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really do want to know why a huge list is further blown out by restarts, with apparently no good reason. Very unhappy about this. I think the default should be a fail. Tony 07:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, excuse me? If you haven't realised, people over at WP:F1 have worked trying to get this article to FA status? And your their saying it should be default fail? If you didn't realise we've been improving the article via the previous comments, and I think Raul654 noticed that, therefore he extended the time, so we could make further edits. Ans as for you thinking it should be fail, at least give us constructive criticism to work on, don't just be stubborn and give it a fail like that. Davnel03 14:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Calm down! In Tony's defence I believe he is talking about processes in general - not this article in particular. As for "constructive" or not might I suggest that calling somebody stubborn is far from constructive. Ironically you're attacking a user who supported the original FAC! Mark83 21:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, excuse me? If you haven't realised, people over at WP:F1 have worked trying to get this article to FA status? And your their saying it should be default fail? If you didn't realise we've been improving the article via the previous comments, and I think Raul654 noticed that, therefore he extended the time, so we could make further edits. Ans as for you thinking it should be fail, at least give us constructive criticism to work on, don't just be stubborn and give it a fail like that. Davnel03 14:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really do want to know why a huge list is further blown out by restarts, with apparently no good reason. Very unhappy about this. I think the default should be a fail. Tony 07:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So wait - does anyone else have any comments on how to improve the article toward FA status? Guroadrunner
- I don't think anyone does. If no-one else has any comments, the article should be promoted as nothing is concerning anyone. Davnel03 12:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say it's still in "seeking comments" status instead of "automatic promotion" status? It seems like there was some dissent. Guroadrunner 11:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I addressed all the points before the restart, so there's nothing else I can do to improve the articles now. I guess it's just "let's wait and see...." Davnel03 15:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, in the case of an article that goes little/no feedback, the default is to fail the nomination. Over the last couple years I've decided I really don't like doing that, so I tend to leave things on the FAC a long time to get some comments. Raul654 17:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, so why restart it?
- Actually, in the case of an article that goes little/no feedback, the default is to fail the nomination. Over the last couple years I've decided I really don't like doing that, so I tend to leave things on the FAC a long time to get some comments. Raul654 17:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I addressed all the points before the restart, so there's nothing else I can do to improve the articles now. I guess it's just "let's wait and see...." Davnel03 15:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say it's still in "seeking comments" status instead of "automatic promotion" status? It seems like there was some dissent. Guroadrunner 11:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone does. If no-one else has any comments, the article should be promoted as nothing is concerning anyone. Davnel03 12:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Issues
- MOS breach: "two tenths"; and others.
- "pretty (no closing quotes).
- We have "1.3 seconds", to one decimal place, but three decimal places elsewhere (three seems too much, esp. for distances in the infoblot).
- "Race"—is there some way of merging the stubby, choppy paras?
- "Hamilton started to struggle in the latter stages"—Remove what I call startitis"—"H. struggled ..."
- "aggresive" Tony 11:57, 31 August 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.