Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2005 Ashes series/archive1

2005 Ashes series[edit]

The greatest Test series ever? Or did the 1960-61 Australia v Windies series edge it? Either way, this is a great article of England's greatest sporting achievement of 2005, jguk 12:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I know a lot of hard work has gone into this, and it's a good article in many ways, but I'm afraid I can't support it as a featured article because I don't feel it's written in an encyclopaedic style. The match reports have too much hyperbole and colloquialism, which would be appropriate in a newspaper article, but not in an encyclopaedia article. Sorry. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Too few references, requires in-line citations using footnotes, see Wikipedia:Footnotes. More photos would be good as well. — Wackymacs 13:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The second half of this objection (the part about feature articles requiring footnotes) is (a) flatly wrong, and (b) invalid. Raul654 22:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Featured articles do generally require in-line citations (see Wikipedia:Inline Citation); however, they do not have to be footnotes. If you'll reference Wikipedia:Inline Citation, you'll see that citations can be done in two ways: hyperlinking and ref/note templates. I see some hyperlinking within the article; however, it is inconsistent and broken apart into external link subsections. -Rebelguys2 16:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are best as footnotes which is why I suggest footnotes - there are also not enough in-line citations in the first place. — Wackymacs 16:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - They have now been converted to using the new automatic referencing system by Sam Vimes. [[Sam Korn]] 18:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, it's a work in progress, actually. I'd suggest people wait for a couple of days and then read it again, since I plan to do a thorough copyedit over the New Year (I know this isn't proper proceedings, but I didn't expect it to be nominated now). Sam Vimes 18:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object -- Copyedit + it should be written in summary style. The ToC is overwhelming. The text needs an update: England lost to Pakistan and the team members were given the OBE. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per comments above + a few more pics Da Gizza ^{Chat (c)} 03:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Pictures are, for obvious reasons, rather difficult. I may have one or two from Edgbaston and Old Trafford, but it is very difficult to get free images for this kind of article. [[Sam Korn]] 11:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about a map of the venue locations and some graphs to jazz the page up? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That might be feasible. I'll have a look at making some pretty diagrams. [[Sam Korn]] 13:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - 71kb is monstrously long - it should be far more concise than that. Worldtraveller 00:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It's great - completely comprehensive. Yes it is long. To anyone disinterested in the subject probably very boring - very boring indeed; but it does meet all criteria for a FA. Some more pictures would be wonderful but unless any wikipedian fans took some, they are unlikely to be forthcoming. So look at the article for what it is - an informative and quite objective article. I was there- Whoa! It was great and this covers the series well. Giano | talk 15:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As per Stephen Turner. --Kilo-Lima 19:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak object - uncomprehensive. This is almost solid text, make it user friendly and remove some of the no-notable info. Copyediting also direly needed here. -- Hurricane Ericarchive -- my dropsonde 03:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. While length is not a ground for objection, I too feel it's written in a style more akind to a (tabloid) newspaper than an encyclopedia. -- KTC 23:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]