Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Backgammon/archive1

Backgammon
Support: This article is thorough and has been lingering for a while. With the exception of Chouettes one thinks this article is interesting and accurate.

The fact that Backgammon is one of the oldest games in history is especially enticing and appealing. The pictures represent some of Wikipedias finest work.
 * Oppose. While the early pictures are certainly very good (especially the first one), the article needs some areas addressed. No references, no note and ref system, and effectively a cleanup notice on the choutettes section. These issues all need to be addressed before the article can become featured. The "fact that Backgammon is one of the oldest games in history is especially enticing and appealing" also doesn't really factor in here...Harro5 09:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Images "Bg sg start.png", "Bg sg w1.png", "Bg sg b1.png", "Bg sg w2.png" lacks copyright information. The section on the rules is not an easy read - might be benefitial to branch it out as a seperate article and just give an overview in the article on backgammon. The subsection on Other variants ought (IMO) to be placed under the section on the rules, as it's variations on the rules. Red links should at least be stubified, or taken out (I just don't like red links in a featured article). And as Harro5 mentioned, references really should be added. WegianWarrior 10:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Object Allow me to start from the top:
 * Expand the lead paragraph and 'History'. They are way too short for a featured article.
 * Sort out the accuracy dispute concerning 'Choulettes'.
 * Merge 'Backgammon in the Middle East' and 'Other variants' into one section: 'Variants'. They are too short on their own.
 * Turn 'See also' into a list; makes it a lot neater.
 * I strongly suggest you put this through Peer review. --JB Adder | Talk 01:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the above two points form one vote. --JB Adder | Talk 01:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. Lead is too short, no references, large unwikified sections. Peer review is a must, this is not yet close to FA standard. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)