Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Social promotion/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Social promotion

I truly think this article is a really good article and should become a featured article. It list the pros and cons of social promotion in a neutral way. There aren't anymore edit wars. Social promotion is only used in the United States and Canada. I wrote in the article that it was used in the United States and Canada. It's not a worldwide view. How can you object to such a good article? It tells you everything you need to know about social promotion. Well if you object, then maybe you should just write the article instead since you know more. (Xtremeruna21)

  • Object. Styling/formatting problems, see WP:MOS, article generally very short, article does not represent a worldwide view (only seems to speak of US and Canada), no footnotes (see WP:FOOTNOTE. — Wackymacs 15:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The article should state that Social promotion is only used in the US & Canada. — Wackymacs 18:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object A very short article, in FA terms, and has a number of formatting problems, and is generally not representative of the best work on Wikipedia. --Wisden17 15:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Too short and doesn't show a worldwide view --Geoffrey Gibson 16:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. As someone who has contributed a number of edits to the article, but has given up fighting about minor points (like redundant information, poor grammar, etc.), I'd be among the last to consider this article an exemplar for wikipedia. John Broughton 22:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Giving this the gold star would be ... well, social promotion (Sorry, I couldn't resist). Daniel Case 02:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Pretty good. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 18:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Resembles below-average freshman paper (sorry for being so blunt, but I grade those on sociology topics). Too short sections. No inline citations. 3 references out of which maybe one is academic. Few ilinks. Short. This needs much work before it can even go to WP:PR.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)