Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Windows Vista/archive1

Windows Vista

You may be looking for a different FAC: see correcting old FA archive errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the best articles, I believe, in all of Wikipedia. I frequently look at it, as I'm not only interested, but as it's also so informative and interesting. Furthermore, the article is well-documented and frequently updated with new material, keeping it fresh and current. Also filled with many good pictures, it's been marked as a Good Article, and I think it's time to make it a featured one. Nicholasink 01:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The article isn't bad, but it isn't stable, sadly, as WP:WIAFA.1(e) requires. Until it is released, then I'm not sure it meets the stability requirement. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the features section should describe at academic level the actual technologies used and read less like a marketing sheet.--BMF81 09:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this topic is a current event, and things may change rapidly. wait several days. Yao Ziyuan 22:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'd rather not wait only a few days as it releases to the general public next month. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yao. This is still a software in development.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 07:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without even reading the article in detail. It's simply unwise to make it a featured article since we can't expect it to be stable in the very near future. Pascal.Tesson 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be a landslide opposition here so before the nominator starts getting too depressed I'd like to add that this is a high quality article, just not one currently suited for FA status. Pascal.Tesson 04:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, article content is not stable due to the status of the articles subject. Ansell 06:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose; I've written at least half of this article, but as much as I'd like to see this article be FA, I don't think FA status will be appropriate for another half a year, at the least. -/- Warren 10:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; As previously stated the article isn't stable as it's a current event. A large amount of the pictures are missing Fair Use rationales as well. Alexj2002 21:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. sd31415 (talk • contribs • count)
Oppose per all above too. Needs more work, and subject needs to become more stable. -Advanced 19:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]