Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anaheim Ducks/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 SandyGeorgia 00:24, 16 April 2011 [1].

Anaheim Ducks[edit]

Featured article candidates/Anaheim Ducks/archive2

Nominator(s): Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:00 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the article in question meets the criteria to be a featured article. It's been quite awhile since i've seen a sports related FA and with the article well sourced and formatted, i believe it meets. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:00 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, suggest GA or PR - not to be discouraging, but you might want to consider WP:GAN or WP:PR, as the article does not seem to meet the FA criteria at this time. Large sections of the article are unreferenced (a good starting point would be to have at least one citation per paragraph, usually more), there are a number of one-sentence paragraphs and other prose issues, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Nikkimaria. This appears to be a way off the mark; there's a lot of referencing still needed here. As noted above, every contentious or factual statement needs citing in reference to a reliable source, and to be done consistently and clearly. There are plenty of citation templates available which will make that job a lot easier. Good luck. Seegoon (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm afraid that I too have to agree with Nikkimaria's assessment. In many ways it's a nice article, but it's very obviously insufficiently cited to meet the FA criteria, or even the GA criteria for that matter. Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal – Agree with the others that the level of referencing isn't close to what a featured article requires. My advice is to add citations to the whole article, pruning what can't be cited, then take it to peer review to gain outside views before another FA or GA attempt. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.