Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Capital Freenet/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 Dabomb87 22:17, 12 March 2010 [1].
National Capital Freenet[edit]
National Capital Freenet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it is well written, stable, cited and overall has the qualities of a featured article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick fail oppose
- Where's the rest of the lead? "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." Are there no more important aspects and events to add to the lead?
- Overwhelmingly sourced to the subject itself, to the point that I question its notability and neutrality.
- For example, is there no third party (press, major tech blog, etc.) that has covered this group and discussed what they see their mission to be? We seem to be taking their stated mission at face value without mentioning how others have observed them.
- Get rid of the year mini-headings. Maybe separate "History" to three or so sections based on major events.
- Why aren't the linked studies used or at least mentioned in the article body? A featured article is comprehensive, and "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic"; this is not.
- Add alt text for the images to help those who can't see them.
- A section with just one sentence? Tell us more about these "server" things and how NCF uses them.
There are certainly other issues, but I'll stop here because this article has not received peer review to ensure it meets rules (or at least ignores them well), and failed a 2008 GAN. There are no confusing dab links and few dead external links, but I think the other issues above make those moot. Please withdraw the candidate, get other editors to at least glance at it, and address my issues (and any that are raised by the other editors). --an odd name 20:07, 12 March 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.