Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Embrun, Ontario
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Embrun, Ontario
Embrun, Ontario is a quality article about the town of Embrun in Ontario, Canada. This article is self-nominated. It is notable and provides content suitable for Wikipedia rather then useless blabber and has backing proof for facts and follows Wikipedia formatting. FruitsAndVegetables133 22:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Very Strong Support. I never heard of Embrun, Ontario before. I read this article and now I know as much about the town as the town's residents. I can't see anything wrong with this article. In my opinion, it is 100% featured article material. --SallySplit1492 22:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)- Oppose a ton of one-sentence, ultra-mini paragraphs RN 22:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Object. No references. Also, do I detect sockpuppetry judging by SallySplit1492's contributions and similar name to that of FruitsAndVegetables133's? 64.231.152.254 22:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Object - Insufficient lead, insufficient prose, insufficient referencing, insufficient images, insufficient organization... in general, insufficient. Fieari 22:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Weak Support. While this article could use changes, can't every article use changes? I think this article is worth being featured. --RichyHillyIsMyTown 22:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Moderate Support. I don't like the way this article doesn't have images, but I still like it and I think it is worth being featured. Don't get the impression that I adore this article, though. --Chinaism 22:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Support. In my opinion, Featured Articles shouldn't follow a universal standard, but instead should follow a standard for its general subject. While there are many articles better than this, I think this article is as good as it could possibly be, and that is what matters (sorry if I took too much room).--LeGrisChat 22:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)- Comment The above 3 users have a total of 8 contributions, all today. Sockpuppetry seems to be a reasonable claim; where does one go to report it? - The Catfish 23:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Object. Please expand the lead (see WP:LEAD. Also, no images or references. Clearly not FA material. PDXblazers 00:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. There is some good stuff here, but it's just not FA material yet. I'd suggest going through a peer review first to get improvement opinions; I'd also strongly suggest not self-nominating. Furthermore, I'm a bit leery of the fact that every single keep vote so far has come from a user with no prior edit history. Puppet city. Bearcat 00:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose. The lead itself is is very small. No inline citations. A two sentence long external link inside text. Section organization (especially history) is poor. "Location" has just two paragraphs, both one sentence long. Even a lot of other paragraphs are single sentences that need to be fixed. Go for Peer Review per Bearcat. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong oppose per Ambuj Saxena. Ardenn 01:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
