Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/It's a Wonderful Life/archive1

It's a Wonderful Life[edit]

Self Nomination. This article delves deep into the storyline, not merely outlining but describing and telling. Good pictures all around to give mental images, thusly making it more fun (and more compelling) to read. All information surrounding the film is discussed more than adequately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.31.8.97 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 6 July 2006.

Object No sources provided, in-line or otherwise. I would try a peer review first. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 23:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Agreed, please put this through a peer review first. Wikipedia:Peer review --P-Chan 00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object No sources. --GoOdCoNtEnT 03:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object While I love this movie, the article has to be referenced. Try PR first. Rlevse 09:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Object - As great a film as it is, no references, in-line or otherwise, plot is WAAY to long, it's supposed to be a summary, not a novel adaptation. And way to many images, is that really fair use? See Casablanca (film), simply the rockingest film article around, for ideas on how to improve this article. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 12:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: No refs per Cite.php, and no fair use rationales for the images (even the poster has no license tag). I'd love to see ==Trivia== merged into the content, and (reminiscent of The Star Wars Holiday Special's past troubles) all but 4 or 5 pictures need to go. Let's see about that at WP:PR, and hopefully it will return on FAC in time for Christmas. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, why is the section named "Bank run" hidden from the rest of the plot. If it could be transformed into a section of historical perspective, that would be fantastic. -- Zanimum