Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juno (film)/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:42, 10 July 2011.

Juno (film)

 * Nominator(s): Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 19:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article candidacy because it meets all the criteria and has been through a successful peer review.Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 19:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggest withdrawal: I see some flags right off the bat: PR has not been archived per the instructions, so is still technically open. Nominator only has 17 edits to the article, most of which were less than an hour prior to this very nomination.  There are three broken citations, noticeable by the angry bold, red text; presumably this is because the dead ELs were simply removed rather than replaced, leaving large chunks of uncited text as well as broken sites.  I really don't think this article is ready given the circumstances. María ( habla  con migo ) 19:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggest withdrawal - give it more time at PR, fix up the obvious issues, follow FAC instructions. Agree with points raised above. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 20:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This better? --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 20:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This article doesn't even meet the GA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything else says it's currently a GA, though. --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 01:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued on talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The GA was three years ago and is not really relevant now. The recent PR was superficial. Having glanced through the article I have to say it doesn't look that bad – I've seen worse here – but it is clearly in need of some hard work to match it with the FA criteria, which I wonder if the nominator has actually read. The nominator had done little work on the article; the most active recent editor is User:Wehwalt, and he should certainly have been approached before this nom. I agree withdraw: work on the article, follow procedures, consult widely, and then maybe bring it back. Brianboulton (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.