Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brown Bear

Brown Bear
Nomination.The Brown Bear I think is a very well written page. It has many pictures and good illustrations and i hope it will be a featured article. I have nominated it because:


 * 1) It is a very well written page.
 * 2) There are many pictures and they are very clear.


 * 1) There are many paragraphs.


 * 1) There is lots of info.

Daniel10 14:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for teling me that.

Daniel10 16:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Barbagianni potente, 8.34, 28 september 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Is very good! P.S. I'm italian, but I don't like Italian Wikipedia. W Englis Wiki!
 * Object Number of issues. See Peer Review script I ran for you and put on the article's talk page. Not enough refs too. Rlevse 15:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Object Not yet. Random capitalisation.  Confusion in section on current habitats in North America & Europe with its history.  I gave up after that. JMcC 15:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Object To the above concerns, I add that 2 of the 5 pictures in the article are using deprecated image copyright tags: Image:Grizzly_SierraMag_July2005.jpg with fairuse and Image:Brown_bear_rearing.jpg with notify.The first one also lacks proper source info (it only says it was scanned from "July/August 2005 Sierra Magazine", but no info on authour or copyright holder). --Abu Badali 17:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment You might want to fix the opening sentence. The mass of the bear is not the general focus of the article, and should not be in the first sentence. Sturgeonman 23:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Daniel10 is right, it is a very well-written page. And also I love bears.  There is lots of information on it and now two subspecies (Grizzly and Kodiak) have their own articles.  Also, the pictures are now not unliscensed.  81.179.113.20 10:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "And also I love bears." Are you kidding? Sloan21 12:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The imafge copyright issues remain, anon, don't remove copyright infomation from images.--Peta 01:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Object the article is disorganised, prose is average, it is poorly cited and there are copyright issues that need to be resolved. Take it to peer review first next time.--Peta 01:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Object per Peta, lead not compelling, should go to peer review. Sandy 22:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Object the section on Bear encounters is unencyclopedic, and requires cleaning up. The lead sentence is inappropriate and the references are too few. --Alex (Talk) 13:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)