Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chocolate/archive2


 * 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 23:57, 20 May 2008.

Chocolate
previous FAC

Well, this nomination is pretty different than what I'm used to nominating. The article was nominated back in August 2007, but failed. Since then it became a good article, but was delisted because it wasn't referenced enough. I added references, deleted unsourced statements, added a popular culture section, and fixed the "further reading" section. I think the article is pretty good, and can very well become a featured article.  Limetolime  talk to me • look what I did! 01:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Comment Definitely suggest withdrawing and going through some serious editing and Peer Review first. Large sections unreferenced, some sources don't appear to be reliable, and I didn't even look at the prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, this should be delisted immediately. Limetolime, you simply cannot make a few edits to an article and then bring it here.  Your efforts are appreciated but misguided.  An article like this needs to spend time under collaboration and scrutiny by its regular editors.  You added an uncited pop culture section??  It is far, far, away from FA status. -- Laser brain   (talk)  02:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose You have certainly improved this article in the 3 days you've been working on it, but it's not close to ready for FA. It's strewn with typos, punctuation errors, baffling statements ("Many chocolate manufacturers have created products from chocolate bars to fudge to become the world's largest manufacturer."), weak prose ("Chocolate is regularly eaten for pleasure."), and a mishmash of American English and British English. It is underreferenced (the entire Tempering section, for example, has no citations), the existing citations are in need of formatting work, and several links are broken. Half of the See also items are already linked in the navigational footer. I notice that you haven't requested input on the article's talk page, or approached WP:FOOD which lists it as a top importance article; peer or project review would be a much more appropriate next step, considering the current state of the article. Maralia (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with all of the above. Definitely a good start, but needs quite a bit of polishing up of the prose, references, and general formatting. Drewcifer (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The second image had contained blatant vandalism for two months (!), which I've corrected. Several captions have WP:MOS (not to mention basic grammar) issues.  The featured article criterion requires images appropriate to the subject; what does a chocolate Reichstag have to do with anything?  The preceding issues seem to indicate that criterion three was not considered prior to nomination; were the other criteria engaged?  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 15:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Nominator requested withdrawal per this. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 23:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.