Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seton Hall University/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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

[edit] Seton Hall University

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because ive done alot of work and i want to know if its good enough for a fa, and if not what is missing Rankun (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Many problems and I would suggest withdrawing the candidacy and taking the article to Peer review. The lead is too short; see WP:LEAD for ideas to improve this. Large chunks of the history section and elsewhere are either unsourced or do not use inline citations. The prose needs a lot of work and peer review may help. I am not a big fan of the external links in the Campus section. It is a good start but it needs a lot more work before it is at FA standard -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is already on Peer review, and has received no reviews. Rankun seems not to know it is necessary to tell others about the peer review. --Una Smith (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Its been in pr for a while and ive been telling people, if you guys see problems please add them to the todo list in the talk page if someone could help me with the GA consideration as apparently i am an idiot and have been having problems with it i would appreciate. any help with letting people know abot pr in other ways than putting it in the talk section, if you guys can help me with this id be appreciative and once i figure out how, withdraw it from FA considerationRankun (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - The article did not make GA earlier this year. I think it should be withdrawn from FAC and go through GA again. --Una Smith (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Support with revamp This article is off to a good start but needs a lot of work. You need to go through each section line by line. For example, the law school section. It can be improved, prose-wise, adding references, etc. A huge aricle and only 19 references? Don't want to be discouraging but I can think of a few comments per section that needs work. It can be done! Good luck! Congolese fufu (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I have been asked for advice and have agreed to help fix this article. Later, I found what seems to be plagiarism. I hope I am mistaken! (Whatever it is, let's fix and and not point fingers). However, if true, FA status cannot be granted. I have fixed the questionable part but have not reviewed the whole article for plagiarism. This is why citations are good. When you cite something, it's either not plagiarism or anyone can easily check to see that it's not. If I am wrong about the plagiarism, I think the re-write and checking will actually help the article. Don't worry, with a crash effort, this article can be ready in 4 weeks. With a moderate effort, 2-3 months. With a slow but steady effort, maybe 6 months. Wish us luck! Congolese fufu (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Not nearly as many references as it should have. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose This article is far from FA:
  • Referencing is not FA standard:
    • Only 2 references in "History" section.
    • Paragraphs 2 and 3 of "Ever Forward Campaign" section are unreferenced.
    • No references in "Schools and colleges" section.
    • No references in "The Stillman School of Business" section.
    • Only 1 reference in "Athletics" section.
    • Only 1 reference in "Student Media" section.
    • No references in "Notable Alumni" section.
    • Only 1 reference in "Notable Faculty" section.
  • References 7, 8, 16 and 18 have formatting problems. Reference 11 says "Ibid" and nothing else. Also, the references in the "Campus" section must be fixed.
  • The article is not well-written. I can see a few short paragraphs with only one or two sentences. It needs a copy-edit but I cannot help because my English is not very good.
  • The article is not comprehensive. No "Academics" section. Some lists should be changed to prose.
  • Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose -- I just failed the GA for this article (why was there both a GA and FA open at the same time?) -- listed reasons extensively on Talk. Dylan (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Since this article was failed just this day in GAN, definitely, this one won't pass. BritandBeyonce (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Support but definitely too early - Today, I made some serious changes to the article. But, nevertheless I really think that this page should be WITHDRAWN from FA candidacy. It is way too early! I think that the very first thing that is necessary is to shoot for GA status. I'm not even really sure why this was submitted to FA review.

To the FAC director: if it is at all possible, this article should be withdrawn from FA Candidancy and not failed. There has been a significant amount of work done on this article in the past few days by several editors. But it is nowhere ready yet. Therefore, I believe this article was submitted by mistake (perhaps an editor jumped the gun) and that seems to be what other editors are also saying here. Thanks. aNubiSIII (T / C) 04:12, 4 January 2008 (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.