Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moncton, New Brunswick/archive1

Moncton
I think this is a very good article with good pictures and well-written out explanations. Yvesnimmo 01:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. Lacks references as required by FA criteria 2c. --Allen3 talk 01:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Object; quite well written, but not yet 'compelling, even brilliant'. Clauses such as "consistent snow cover does not take place" don't fill me with confidence. Can you get rid of the apostrophes in "20s" etc., and hyphenate "mid-"? All hyphenated ranges should have an n dash instead (–). Needs a good copy-edit. Tony 02:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Object; Economy section needs to be layed out better. Pictures break up text too much. I'm not sure how it looks on IE but in mozilla it doesn't look good. --Crossmr 03:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object should be removed per WP:SNOW Tobyk777 04:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That isn't policy, its an essay, might want to read the page and the discussion before trying to cite it as justification. While I agree it should be removed, its necessary to go through the process in case someone does have intent to actually flesh out the article. --Crossmr 16:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Tobyk777 said "should be removed per" not "should be removed by" - the latter would apply to quoting a policy only, the former would apply if citing a policy, essay, suggestion, or a comment by another user in the discussion. It's just a short-hand way of saying "this nomination should be removed for all the kinds of reason given at WP:SNOW" which seems perfectly valid to me, it's by no means a "policyfication" of SNOW. However, I would also agree with Crossmr that there is no need to quote SNOW in this case, as the article is not inherently unfeaturable, merely apparently unlikely to reach the required standard before this nomination runs out of time. TheGrappler 22:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Maybe next time. :)-- 陈 鼎  翔    贡献  Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 04:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Object, some of the photos in the buildings section are stolen from websites and labelled "self-made". Ouuplas 21:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object, Article needs a better lay-out, several problems with pictures (over-sized, too many, copywrite problems), and IP addresses constantly vandalize or add biased facts whiche aren't reverted very quickly. Although the article has many other positive aspects I feel it just doesn't meet "feature-article" standards. Theyab 21:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)