Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ghost Dance/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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 05:46, 9 March 2007.
This article has come a long way. Everything prior to this is from an older nomination. It is currently a GA, has undergone peer review, and deserves another look.
- Comment, of the 11 references 9 of them come from one source. I'm not sure if this is a sufficient range. Witty lama 08:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. For starters, 11 references are about 5 times too few, and 3 sources are not good, either. Lots of unreferenced info.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm going to take some time and diversify the sources. Piotrus, you mentioned the lacking citations as "for starters". Would you mind taking the time to point out whatever else you felt wasn't up to par for a FA. Pointing out your perceptions of the article's weaknesses would help this newbie a lot. Thanks. 68.56.128.121 03:54, 2 March 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.