Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peugeot 205/archive1

Peugeot 205
This car is popular, and should be a main page article. I am willing to work on it to FAC standards. --Sunholm(talk)  11:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Object. This article needs some serious work before it can be a FA. It is pretty short, without that much text. If the car is that popular, there should be more written about it that you can incorporate. You should also try a peer review before you submit it for FAC. Briancua 15:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. List-y at points, no inline citations, needs some expansion (the one section consisting only of two external links definitely needs to grow); there are other issues, but these would be good to start with.  This needs a lot of work; I recommend taking a look at WP:WIAFA and some recently promoted FAs to get an idea of what you should be aiming for. --RobthTalkCleanup? 14:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The intro is missing a period at the end of the 2nd sentance.
 * You need to cite sources for this. Who says its one of the most popular hot hatches of the era?  Who says they are difficult to handle?  Who says it is the 'king of the GTis' and who said the VW was?  These (and many more) statements all need to be refernced.  Your opinion isn't enough.  There is not a single reference anywhere in the article.  See WP:Cite
 * 'Trim Level' should either be defined or create an article for it. At the very least cut the redlink.
 * You need more than two outside links with no text in the special editions section.
 * I can't find Image:Rallyevoor4ue.jpg at the webpage listed. Also, I don't know Dutch, so I can't find my way around the site to see if its on there somewhere else.  Please provide a specific link.  I'm also not sure if all rights are released or not.  Please provide the Dutch and an English translation of the release.
 * I cant find Image:Peugeot 205T16 RAC 1984.jpg at the webpage listed. Please provide a direct link to the promotional photo page.


 * I am willing to work on it to FAC standards.
 * Then for heaven's sake why list it here if you're tacitly admitting it's not up to snuff yet? Withdraw the nomination and spend more time working on it (like, as everyone else says, getting references included). Sorry to be testy but this is not the place to list articles you think could be featured, it's for articles the nominator thinks have reached that level. Until it has, you're wasting our time and yours. Daniel Case 04:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - I'd suggest a Peer review -- light darkness (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Daniel Case: why list it here prematurely? No loss of face to withdraw and submit it in fine state later. Tony 10:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It could be improved by removing links to solitary years. This task is easier by a single click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. There is a 'units' tab too that ensures consistent use of spaces before unit symbols. Hope that helps. bobblewik 23:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - you're beginning in the wrong end, mate. You should work on it before listing it here. Joffeloff 23:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)