Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kagome Higurashi/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 00:45, 14 March 2008.

Kagome Higurashi
Nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it's a very interesting article about an anime character. Goldenphoenix2007 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Goldenphoenix2007, it doesn't appear that you've contributed to the article. Have you contacted the primary author(s) to determine whether they feel it's ready for FAC?  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 23:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Fails numerous FA criteria including 1, 2, 3 and 6.
 * Lead does not adequately summarize article, see WP:LEAD.
 * Article appears to be entirely devoid of real world context, see WP:WAF.
 * Article is not comprehensive, e.g. no discussion of character development process or reception of fans, media, etc.
 * Article has little or no "reliable third-party sources", see WP:V.
 * “References” refer us to “in the manga” or “in the anime”. This is not appropriate formatting.
 * Article is not well written (e.g. multiple instances of sentences beginning with “this”; the subject needs to be properly reasserted).
 * Apparent Fair Use violation: three images of the same character, see WP:NFCC#3A and 8.
 * Article appears far from ready and, frankly, I recommend withdrawal. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 21:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lead section issues, no real world context, no development of the character discussion, lack of third party sources, lack of discussion of fan and critic reaction, lack of discussion of where the character appears. Prose is clunky, and large sections are just lists of powers or other characters. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. Why was this even ranked as a B-class article in the first place? The article contains no real-world information—character development, reception—or third party sources. The article has a long way to go to even reach Good Article status. --Farix (Talk) 22:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per everything stated above. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yep. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the article doesn't respect some criteria for a featured article. MOJSKA   666  (msg) 12:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Don't waste our time by nominating horrible articles like this. The lead section sucks, the article is too "in-universe", referencing is not FA standard and I see no external links section. This article is not even a GA. --Kaypoh (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Civility, please. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.