Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill/archive2
- 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 SandyGeorgia 16:49, 7 July 2011 [1].
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill[edit]
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured article candidates/University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill/archive1
- Featured article candidates/University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Tnbailey09 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a complete and thorough overview of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This article covers all aspects of the University and includes citations for each. Also, it bothers me that the Duke article is featured status and this article is not. Tnbailey09 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close per FAC instructions. The nominator does not appear to be a significant contributor, and I see no indication he/she has consulted major contributors before nomination. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In addition, there are a number of problems. Numerous MOS errors, the lead is a poor representation of the entire article, and there's little in the article to distinguish this top-ranked 216-year-old university from Bob's School of Cosmetology and Auto Repair, apart from athletics and a few dry rankings. This is a school that has had major impacts on the region, the country and the world, almost none of which is reflected in this article. - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick glance, I'm not seeing the article in such bad shape, but there are raw URLs in the citations and the aforementioned numerous MOS errors. Please consult significant contributors and consider a peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.