Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gordon v. Gordon/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Gordon v. Gordon

I wrote this entire article and I must say that it is my best work. It reads like a television documentary script. This truly deserves a spot on the front page of Wikipedia. Rhythmnation2004 13:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Not comprehensive and doesn't follow the manual of style (the article doesn't have sections for example, and I'm sure there's a trial infobox that can be used). See Roe v. Wade for an example of a featured trial article. There are also some reference positioning issues (see WP:FN) and typos ("eachother" -> "each other"). Apart from that, it's a good start; the content's there. CloudNine 13:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, in the lead, it should state why the case was brought to court. Ideally, it should be two or three paragraphs long, although I'm sure it'll grow as the article expands. CloudNine 14:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Object—I did a little cleanup, but this article does not meet the featured criteria. This article needs a lead section badly, and there is a {{Fact}} tag. The article is very short. Pagrashtak 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment from Rhythmnation2004 I cleaned up the citations, added an infobox and section headings. Any other suggestions? Rhythmnation2004 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The section headings make it worse. You shouldn't have a section per paragraph. Pagrashtak 18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Almost all of the cites are from the same primary source. There's no evidence of wider coverage, as yet, though I'm sure there was some. Try submitting these articles to peer review instead for more useful advice on how to improve them. If this was part of a WikiProject, the article would still be Start-class - for a featured article, you have to give a more scholarly treatment than this. I would suggest covering the legal arguments in some depth, for a start. DrumCarton 18:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per DrumCarton: Add some more, varied sourcing. Take it to the corresponding WikiProject (is there one?) and ask for an assessment. Try to go more in-depth, write as if it were a term paper or such document. Then, take it to Peer review and come back here looking good. --tennisman 13:37, 23 June 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.