Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Service Excellence/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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 23 June 2008.

Service Excellence
I'm nominating this article for featured article because the published work has been peer reviewed by the British Computer Society prior to them publishing it. - Mr David R Miller 15:50, 16 June 2008 UTC


 * Opposing. The article is not ready for FA status yet; more work, much more, needs to be done. Have you read the criteria, Featured article criteria and the Manual of style? The article is missing many aspects required for FA status. May I suggest that you withdraw the article and seek guidances from established editors? Graham Colm Talk 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment.- The absence of citations is the first issue that should be actioned. Graham Colm Talk 10:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While I believe that the subject is a worthy one, this article is written for publication in a magazine, not an encyclopedia, and needs to be substantially rewritten. It reads like a personal reflection; statements like this one: "There is an assumption that if the IT services provider is compliant in all regards it will be meeting all project and service business objectives" need to be sourced. Who is making that assumption? I'd too would recommend withdawing this nomination and seeking help from a more experienced editor. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Same as above comments. Idontknow  610 TM 17:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposes do need to be actionable and based on WP:WIAFA. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. If it's necessary to go through the hoops, then I'll simply point out that the article is entirely unreferenced, and has numerous (serious) MoS breaches. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I suggest you re-read the FA criteria. The article has no citations, or references for that matter. Its missing a lead, its categorized, and there are quite a few MOS problems. Sorry. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie  01:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - It's obvious that this isn't going to pass - it's not even clear if this particular subject warrants an article. I'm not sure of what the convention is to do in such a situation - if the nom is unwilling to withdraw or inactive, could Sandy just archive this? More piling on would hardly be constructive. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 00:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The nominator hasn't edited since June 16 when this article was nominated. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I said that if the nominator is inactive, couldn't it be closed? Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 23:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.