Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jan Smuts/archive1

Jan Smuts
I'm nominating this because it is a very well written article with a large amount of informative content. It's very well organized and is unlikely to be changed in any substantial way. This was the first article I read where I immediately thought that it would be a good condidate for a featured article. It's a bout a well-documented, historic figure that many people don't know that much about. - DNewhall


 * comment I think having two templates giving the same info is not good. Keep just the footer or just the series one, I say. Circeus 21:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object While I agree with Circeus my objection is due to only 1 inline citation, and only 5 refs total. Staxringold 21:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object on the simple grounds that in the main editor's own words the page is not ready. It is an excellent article, but does need better referencing. However, all this is secondary to the fact that it is not yet finished! Batmanand | Talk 22:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Batmanand is correct that there is a heck of a lot of work to be done on it.  I've done very little in the past few months, but, if someone considers it to be within striking distance of that target now, I'll redouble my efforts, in conjunction with those that want to help to improve it. I'll also bear in mind the comments about the templates and citations. Bastin8 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment For some with such an extensive military service and rank I find it rather unusual that there are no references to any service Medals. Gnangarra 16:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Refer to WP:PR - the existing sub-articles are rather impressive, but some comments: (i) the five-paragraph lead seems rather long for the length of the article at present; (ii) some sections are too short (e.g. "Soldier, statesman, and scholar" has just one sentence on his academic contribution; "After the [Second World] War" seems rather short; and the "Miscellaneous" section is also poor - lots of single-sentence paragraphs with no coherent narrative, most of which could be added to more relevant sections). (iii) The many succession boxes seem rather excessive, particularly as most are full of redlinks. (iv) The references and footnotes seem rather thin. (v) The single image is rather striking, but some more would be nice. Good luck. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object for now. Not enough references or citations. I'd like to see this article make it as I am a fan of Smuts, but it needs work still. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object for now.Add a few more references, tweak it out, and ask for a peer review or send it to WP:GAC first.-- Wizardman 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)