Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Kerry/archive1

John Kerry
non-selfnomination Received a large amount of attention during the election and now that it is over the article has calmed down considerably. Most of the edits are still vandalism, but they do not require the article to be almost always semi-protected, such as the George W. Bush article. Overall, this is one of the best article wikipedia has. --Banana04131 03:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination thank you for your suggestions. --Banana04131 02:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Stubby paragraphs and inadequate lead; quick, fix them before anyone notices. Have you read the instructions? Tony 03:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. This article has a number of issues which need to be addressed:
 * The lead section is far too short; it is only one sentence. The WP:MOS recommends a three paragraph lead section, the lead is clearly not a complete overview of the entire article.
 * There are too many subsections, leading to an immense and bloated ToC which takes up the enitre screen when the article first appears.
 * The huge number of subsections has bred a large number of one-sentence and other similarly short paragraphs, these should all be lengthened or merged together to provide better flow throughout the article.
 * There is no explicit references section.
 * There are not enough inline citations for an article of this length.
 * Not all of the prose in the article is top-notch, and some of it is crufty and has excessive detail, such as listing which wing of which hospital Kerry was born in, among other things,
 * Not all of the pictures have acceptable copyright status.
 * The page is still relatively unstable, with a high volume of vandalism.
 * Comment "Stability" refers more to content changes and edit wars than vandalism. Vandalism isn't really something that can be addressed, as the biggest factor with vandalism is subject matter, which is not a FA criteria.  It's not an addressable concern. Fieari 21:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry 'bout that. Sometimes I get a bit carried away. RyanG e rbil10 01:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This article should go through Peer review first, as it needs major sturctural changes, some careful attention paid to the prose, and thorough referencing. RyanG e rbil10 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Object&mdash;lead is very insufficient. I'd expect a good three paragraph lead for this article&mdash;two at least. Everyking 10:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Object This article simply isn't good enough 3:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Object For most of the reasons above. Additionally, I'm concerned about the use of fairly stubby sections. I'd reccomend that you either expand sections so that they involve at least two complete paragraphs each (minimum 1 complete paragraph), or merge some of the headings together and make better use of prose for organization of information.  If the article becomes too large because of this expansion, consider splitting the article instead of simply cutting out anything.  I'm also concerned about the order of information presented.  Why is "Personal life" last?  Whatever is first or last in an article is emphasized, and I'm not sure that's a propper subject to emphasize, even if it is an encyclopedic subject. Fieari 21:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. I merged sections to shorten the TOC, and it is still huge. Things here need both rewriting and reorganizing. --Danaman5 22:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)