Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rio de Janeiro/archive1

Rio de Janeiro
I would like to nominate this article as the featured article. You can support, object or comment on it. 202.40.210.164 01:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Object strongly. Please go to Peer review first. This article is well below featured standard. We have: no history section, no politics section, no references. Many of the topics that are discussed need more attention and better sectioning (a section like "miscellaneous" is of course terrible). In addition we could use a map of the city, and of its location within Brazil. Jeronimo 07:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Object. I agree with Jeronimo.  This is not a good faith FAC nomination, and (along with other noms by the same user) is verging on abuse of the process.  Please cease and desist so that it does not become necessary to implement controls on nominations.  Bantman 07:33, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that all of these nominations seem to be from User:Cheung1303. Since I've noticed a transport enthusiast on some obscure Hong Kong newsgroups going by that handle (and User:Cheung1303 is a transport enthusiast), I'll see if I can find a way to talk to him. I think he's a kid. --JuntungWu 13:35, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above observation that this is borderline abuse of the system. If it continues, I think we should consider removing his nominations on sight - all they do is suck up time from editors that could be better spent on other nominations. &rarr;Raul654 15:59, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that deleting Cheung1303's inappropriate posts on sight proved the only way to get through to him when he was repeatedly uploading copyvio images. That doesn't bode well for his ability to follow instructions here, I'm afraid.  &mdash;Steven G. Johnson 18:36, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Cheung is trying to achieve, but he certainly has no interest in getting articles up to featured standard. I agree that frivolous nominations should be removed. Mark1 02:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. Not an awful article, but surely would need to cover a lot more to be FA quality. Can we just remove this one now instead of waiting? - Taxman 00:25, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)