Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sports PNF/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 15:17, 8 May 2008.

Sports PNF
I'm nominating this article for featured article because...Self-nominatorChuck (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Currently tagged for a merger and not a single internal link. Please check out What is a featured article? if you haven't already. Among other problems, the article is not well written (poor prose, contractions used, contains a "conclusion" section), it only uses one source, and the diagrams (while appreciated) are of low quality.-Wafulz (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose—Wafulz has given a good list of improvements needed, so I won't add too much more. I would suggest you withdraw the FAC for now, resolve the proposed merge, find additional sources, and either submit the article Peer review or find interested editors who can help you improve the article.  Pagra shtak  14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - can this be closed early, as this article is FAR from being of any acceptable standard, let alone featured article. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  15:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - The other reviewers are right. I would like to see a better reason for nominating an article than "because". Also, any article that hasn't been rated at all will likely be a poor FAC. Listen to Pagrashtak and put it up for peer review. It needs a ton of work to even be a Good article. Giants2008 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - no good images (we have got possible copyviols!!), to wikify. (-.-') -- Mojska  666  – Leave your message here 11:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah, I fear those "sketches" might be tracings of actual images from the (sole) book used as a reference. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The article is less than two weeks old. As mentioned, no internal link, a single source. It's apparent this article needs more work before being considered. --Porqin (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose I don't know what else I can say about it that hasn't already been said. No wikilinks, relies upon a single source, written more like a manual than an article... and those photos of a guy standing in his laundry room??? I know we're not supposed to judge an article based on the quality of the photos but sheesh... those are terrible, no offense. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.