Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Dickens/archive2

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 13:30, 25 March 2012 [1].

Charles Dickens edit

Nominator(s): Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 05:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this is worth a featured article, and has been significantly improved since it's last nomination on March 19, 2006. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 05:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 05:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments this version

Fix the ^{[citation needed]} tags in the article
Consider merging short paras like "Siblings" (in Life); "Adaptations of readings, "Museums and festivals" and "Other memorials" (in Legacy)
WP:Galleries: Those galleries IMO are not needed.
References:
- Ref 41 is dead
- Ref 24, 44, 45, 63 etc. miss page numbers
- Ref 44, 45, 46 miss date
- Ref 44 misses publisher
"His fiction, with often vivid descriptions of life in nineteenth century England, has inaccurately and anachronistically come to symbolise on a global level Victorian society": opinion needs to be attributed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now contacted a major contributor to the article. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 06:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to FAC delegate the nominator has a total of 0 edits to the article, and there's no evidence that he contacted the main writers of the article of this FAC. Secret ^account 06:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw? Can this be nomination be withdrawn as premature? I won't bother with details at the moment, but significant content builders have recently discussed the article (nothing to do with a possible FAC), and all agreed that the article has many defects and needs to be rewritten based on scholarly sources (see here for one comment). Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. - Dank (push to talk) 12:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - per Johnuniq. The page has significant issues and does not meet FAC criteria at this time. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:29, 25 March 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.