Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Little Bighorn/archive1

Battle of the Little Bighorn
Excellent, the article is well-written, well-referenced and it covers well the subject.--Fertar 16:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support:Seen I propose it.--Fertar 16:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong object, completely uncited and unreferenced, full of weasel wording and unattributed opinion, has multiple list sections, and so forth. Kirill Lokshin 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong object per Kirill plange 16:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. No in-line citing. Cite.php --Shane (talk/contrib) 17:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. No in-line citation.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong object per Kirill Rlevse 21:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object per Kirill. In line citations are a must. Has several factual inaccuracies which I'll gladly address in the article's Talk page as soon as I can.  Phaedriel   ♥  The Wiki Soundtrack! ♪  - 14:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to Strong object. Sorry, but a deeper analysis shows more worrying mistakes than I thought at first. I'm compiling a list of all those that I've been able to detect, and I'll discuss it at the Talk page once it's ready.  Phaedriel   ♥  The Wiki Soundtrack! ♪  - 14:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong object. There are no citations or references!! -- Underneath-it-All 01:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Object Not strongly, however, as it seems a fair amount of research has gone into this article. Many citations and a bulkier lead would sway my opinion though.UberCryxic 19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Object A featured article on a battle with no maps or references? There are 3 english maps available at wikicommons, what's wrong with them? Mieciu K 16:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - why are you people opposing this article? the person definetely spend a lot of time doing quality research with legit sources, provided a lot of detail (casualties, progression, etc.), found good pictures, and kept it un-biased. I wish history textbooks very like this article. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Object - this is a good article.  However, the objects above cannot be ignored.  I suggest you recommend this article for GA status first. -- ZeWrestler   Talk 17:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)