Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Guardian/archive1

The Guardian
Comprehensive and well written article. Does a good job of grabbing and maintaining the readers interest. Modest Genius 16:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Object - a major diappointment, given the write-up above. Too many lists; no references ; choppy prose throughout; even a section stub. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The ref tags were there- they just needed to be flushed out. I don't know why that wasn't done before. Mark1 17:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Somebody inexplicably deleted them. Joe D (t) 17:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks - they seem to have been deleted accidentally here. Still object, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Agree with User:ALoan, there are several lists that should be converted to prose, weak prose, and a section stub. There are several references and external links strewn throughout the prose of the article that need to be cleaned up. A couple of other issues:
 * All the aforementioned are owned by The Scott Trust, a charitable foundation which aims to ensure the newspaper's editorial independence in perpetuity, maintaining its financial health to ensure it does not become vulnerable to take over by for-profit media groups, and the serious compromise of editorial independence that this often brings. This sounds rather POV.
 * The Guardian's ownership by the Scott Trust is likely a factor in it being... run-on
 * The Guardian and its parent groups - why is Guardian italicized here, when it isn't in the beginning of the paragraph?, plus the external links should be properly switched w/ footnotes.
 * The Guardian is part of the Guardian Media Group of - run-on again
 * In 1995, both  versus In 1992 it relaunched its features - sometimes, after In ~year~, there is a comma, other times there isn't. This has to be changed all into a comformity.
 * There are several other errors gramatically, so I would suggest running over the article with a thorough copyedit. AndyZ 22:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Object—copy-edit needed. As a subscriber for several decades, I'd like to see an improved version of this article featured, not one that contains bloopers such as:
 * 'is likely a factor in it being', and
 * 'no-longer'.

A more thoughtful approach to punctuation would help, too. Tony 12:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That would not be in accordance with the traditions of The Guardian! -- Arwel (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)