Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid/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 by SandyGeorgia 12:29, 17 June 2010 [1].
Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): CoercorashTalkContr. 05:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because...
- Even after this article is related to Palestine-Israel conflict,it's very much neutral.
- It contains 318 references(you've read correct,it's 318!);as per:05:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC).This is probably the biggest number of references on wikipedia.
- Almost all of the sources are reliable news sources.
- IMO,One of the most interesting thing is that the article developed in just about 2 weeks!!
CoercorashTalkContr. 05:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: four links to dab pages and at least ten dead external links (see the links in the toolbox to the right). Lead is not engagingly written, full of long lists of countries. The article contains several sections with lists that may be better as prose, and contains sections marked for undue weight and as requiring expansion. References are inconsistently formatted and often just URLs.
That's just what I spotted on a quick look; there are undoubtedly more problems. I suggest you withdraw this nomination, fix the problems noted, and then ask for a peer review before bringing this article to FAC again. I also note that the nominator is not a primary contributor to the article (compare FAC instructions); have the primary contributors been consulted before this nomination? Ucucha 06:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Reference formatting is inconsistent, a pov orange tag is still on the article, this resembles a list more than article, and I question if enough distance is between now and the event to establish a stable, historic perspective yet. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - The lengthy outlook of this article still reflects the destructive edit warring it underwent. For instance, the section that supposedly covers the reactions of "Israeli and Jewish organizations" actually covers the reaction of B'Tselem and two small Jewish organizations I've never heard of. Most Israeli and Jewish organizations expressed opposing views to those expressed in the article body, but these are not covered. I hope one day tiny fairies will bother to come and rewrite this article in accordance with encyclopedic standards. Until then, it's just another noncomprehensive and biased article that fails to cover yet another minor aspect of current Middle-Eastern politics. Even Hama massacre is better. ליאור • Lior (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.