Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indigenous Environmental Network/archive1


 * 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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2017.

Indigenous Environmental Network

 * Nominator(s): Gmhardesty (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... Gmhardesty (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The article describes recent media developments of an activist group that has seen increasing focus from the media recently, and thus will likely be searched often in the future. The page aims to explain the goals and actions of the group while maintaining neutrality, so the general public can learn more about this lesser-known but highly public group.

Gmhardesty (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose and recommend withdrawal. A three sentence lead? Thirteen references of which seven are to the subject itself? Entire paragraphs without a single source? Please withdraw this. &#8209; Iridescent 18:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per above and because some sentences, such as "Certain practices of coal mining, oil drilling, and fishing and hunting in the United States directly infringe upon native land and values," read like an ad. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  19:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose   although your article is currently not near meeting the standards of the Featured Article criteria, I think that with improvement it could meet the lower "Good article" criteria. I appreciate that you have worked on this article for a class, particularly on a topic that is under-developed on Wikipedia; environmental and social justice issues are also interests of mine. That said, I don't think that FA is the best venue for this article to be reviewed. If you nominate this article for GA instead, I promise to review it there and suggest improvements that would guide it to an achievable (and still very worthwhile!) level of recognition. —BLZ · talk 20:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.