Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ABBA/archive1

ABBA
I think this is good candidate for a featured article. Its length is more than enough, it meets most of the criteria, and I think if it's named as a Featured Article people might realize there were other supergroups out there besides the Beatles. -- Supertrouperdc 04:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object, no references. Length alone does not a featured article make. Fieari 04:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Per Fieari. Also, trivia sections (or in this case, lists) should be turned into prose if they contain pertinent information. RyanG e rbil10 04:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Refer to WP:PR - sorry, but meeting "most" of the criteria is not enough: it needs to meet all of them, and references are a fundamental criterion (see WP:WIAFA). This is going the right way, but not quite there yet:  (i) the sectioning is a bit odd - why is "Before ABBA" in "History, but "After ABBA" is not?  (ii) There is very little on the distinctive musical style of ABBA, rather than the bare facts of which singles where released when, and what chart positions they reached.  (iii) Videos could do with their own section, I think, and the non-music impact (currently only fashion) could do with extending to the wider cultural impact - has ABBA been an influence on later music?  Who?  How?  When?  Why? (iv) Trivia is a bit overwhelming, and most of the items should be incorporated into other sections.  Good luck. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object per Fieari. -AKMask 19:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object, for lack of inline citations and references, and per ALoan. The list would be best off in prose. AndyZ 01:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Just like the last featured article candidate you brought up, "Waterloo," it's a nice read but it isn't Wikipedia's 150% BEST work. Mike H. That's hot 05:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object, no ciatation of sources and references at all. No peer review has been done and needs more content. --Ter e nce Ong 08:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object This thing really needs some refs. Staxringold 16:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object The article lack sourcse as said by many above. Weatherman90 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This was referred to peer review from FAC, because it clearly has a snowball's chance of being promoted. Johnleemk | Talk 17:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This article was returned to FAC because peer review is not a dumping ground for failing FACs. If the submitter wants a peer review he can request one himself without the cluttered text from a past FAC review (that said linking to the past FAC nomination is fine). Cedars 08:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not very helpful when this nomination doesn't have a prayer of succeeding. You're just wasting people's time on FAC. Please remove the noms you added back. - Taxman Talk 00:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have de-listed this nomination from WP:FAC, noting that it doesn't have any chance of succeeding, and also that the nominator seems to have nominated and then abandoned it. Please compare the page instructions: "If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised." The nominator is kindly advised to take it to Peer review provided s/he is motivated to work on the article to improve it. Bishonen | ノート 01:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC).