Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Little Rock, Arkansas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Little Rock, Arkansas
I am nominating this article, due to it conciseness, wealth of information and NPOV. --Scaife 14:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- No sources cited; lots of one-sentence paragraphs; history section should be in prose; no coverage of the city's music or arts. Article also has three photos that were improperly tagged as free and which need fair-use rationales to be used. Andrew Levine 00:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose. This article does not fit the Featured Article criteria, listed here: Wikipedia:What is a featured article
- Brilliant Prose. There is hardly any fleshed out writing in this article. It is largely a collection of incomprehensive lists.
- Image Tagging. Not all of the images are tagged. Others are listed as fair use. However, they don't fall under fair use criteria, which can be found here: WP:FU. These are images of existing structures that anyone can easily take a new photo of and release it under GFDL, CC, PD, or the like. I think they should all be nominated for deletion at Images for Deletion, as there is no need to upload copyrighted images of topics like this — we will likely never have fair use rationale.
- Comprehensiveness. The economy and education sections are stubs. Most of the content of the article is statistics and figures from a census, likely written in with a bot.
- Inline Citations. Back up your facts and figures. Featured articles require some kind of inline citation, whether by using inline links, Harvard style-referencing, footnotes, {{inote}}, or possibly other options. Personally, I am a fan of using the new ref-tag style. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- What say we remove it form consideration. I didn't know that it had that may problems with the media, the other objections are easily taken care of however. --Scaife 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That first image, the skyline, is in a rather awkward position. Also, why do you want the TOC to be merged with the text. Its all quite messy. Forever young 04:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Object; many sections, such as the history section, still need major work. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
