Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wallachian Revolution of 1848/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 23:20, 22 January 2008.

[edit] Wallachian Revolution of 1848

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for promotion to featured article status, as I think it meets all criteria for this. The article has been promoted to A-Class on WP:MILHIST few months ago. Eurocopter tigre (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: I understand there isn't anything in the Featured Article Criteria regarding redlinks, but this article has many of them, including two in the lead, which I find to be very distracting. I counted more than forty, and a couple of them are linked more than twice. Is there a reason for this? María (habla conmigo) 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Nope, anyway i'll have a look over them and see if I can remove some. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, I removed some of them, especially those linked twice. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As the main contributor, I have to thank the nominator, but allow me to express a wish for this article not to be promoted at this stage. There are several reasons for this: 1) the red links are many, and having one in the lead cannot work with FAC criteria - they should be filled with time, not removed; 2) the nomination is hasty - for example, the article does not touch the significant cultural and political legacy the Revolution had over the next century and beyond; 3) working on and then renominating this article in a couple of months could help its presence on the main page coincide with the 160th anniversary of the June uprising, or, at worst, with the September anniversary of its crushing. In any case, let's not be hasty: this article has just had an A-class promotion, we should consider where to take it further - it is, if I do say so myself, good, but not yet all it could be. Dahn (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • As long as the article meets all FA criteria, I see no reason why this nomination shouldn't pass because of your statements above. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Request withdrawal If the main contributor thinks it needs more work, it seems premature and discourteous to nominate apparently without consultation. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm forced to agree with this, even if I don't really understand the main contributor's reason to do it... --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:33, 21 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.