Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dowd/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Dowd

An article about the surname and its ancient clan.

  • Support I will admit that this page used to be below featured article standards, but now I have improved it, I don't see why it can't become a featured article. --Footballexpert 07:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment two of the above supports seem to be from the same person. Rlevse 10:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object Lead is too short, article not sufficient in depth, a one-sentence section, and no references. Rlevse 10:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - no inline references, or references at all. In addition, a one sentence section? Has room for wast improvements, but is not suited for FA at this time. Has a Peer Review been done btw? WegianWarrior 10:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object This article is too short. If you add some references, you should consider nominating it for Good Article instead. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. The entire article is too short, and there aren't any references. — Wackymacs 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Not up to FA quality at all. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 17:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Strong Object Not even close to FA standards. Tobyk777 05:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Clearly not an FA. --DanielNuyu 06:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, suggest early closure per WP:SNOW. Batmanand | Talk 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object - Sucks ass. I've seen some bad nominations, but this takes the prize. Where to begin? Ummm, the entire article is just not FA material. From length, to sources, to format. It's obviously a joke nomination. --Sean WI 03:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, looks more like a stub to me. - Mailer Diablo 09:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we close this? --kingboyk 11:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. I don't think I need to explain this again.--queso man 17:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. Way too short, and the legends section is ridiciously stubby. CloudNine 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Instead of criticising, why don't you help bring it up to featured article standards? --Footballexpert 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Footballexpert, it seems you don't understand what the FAC process is. You come here to have it voted, everyone Objects, and you say we're criticizing. We are telling you how to get it to FA standards. Maybe you need to do your homework. — Wackymacs 07:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)