Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atlanta, Georgia/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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] Atlanta, Georgia

• Archive of former nomination

It has been acclaimed as a quality article on the talk page, is written with power and neutrality, and has been nominated for some of Wikipedia's highest honors. Why not feature it? Tom Danson 05:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Well, whole sections lack citations (including many specific statistics that need verification), and there are a few citation needed tags sprinkled around. References are not properly formatted; almost all of them are just URLs. Refer to peer review for further improvement. Gzkn 05:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - (edit conflict) It's great, but at a glance: the crime section is still tagged as a stub, the universities section under Education is just a list disguised as a paragraph, more cites are still needed, and most of the existing cites aren't in a proper format. There's many large swaths of text but the prose isn't interesting enough to compel readers (me, at least) to read it, you know? Carson 05:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: as an editor who did pretty significant overhauls to the article over the last few months, I say it still has a long way to go. I bear responsibility for many of the faulty cites, but put them in hurriedly because most of the article, when I first began editing it, had no cites at all. More corroboration — and, as the editor above points out, better prose — can make a difference, but for now, the article needs work. —GGreeneVa 06:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, 1c. Needs a lot more referencing. Trebor 18:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm confused didn't Restoration literature just appear on the front page? That had no inline citations. Harvey100 10:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, yeah. I doubt that would pass these days, but citation standards were lower then. I think in any article of a reasonable length, footnote referencing is the only way to do it; I don't want to have to search through all the references to find out where a specific fact is mentioned. Trebor 12:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Trebor (needs better references) Semperf 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.