| Revision as of 12:55, 4 April 2008 editReywas92 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers81,016 edits →Angkor Wat: I'll wok on it.← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:11, 4 April 2008 edit undoAnmaFinotera (talk | contribs)107,494 edits →Angkor Wat: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| I am nominating this article for review as I feel it no longer meets the FA criteria. Most concerning is its failure of 1c and 2c with whole paragraphs being appearing to be completely unsourced and confusing mix of referencing styles used. I also feel it fails criteria 3 with an excessive amount of images that flow all the way down the external link sections. Most are unnecessary and do not illustrate the sections they are in and appear to have been added for decoration. It also fails criteria 2a and ] in that it does not adequately summarize the entire article. ] (]) 02:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC) | I am nominating this article for review as I feel it no longer meets the FA criteria. Most concerning is its failure of 1c and 2c with whole paragraphs being appearing to be completely unsourced and confusing mix of referencing styles used. I also feel it fails criteria 3 with an excessive amount of images that flow all the way down the external link sections. Most are unnecessary and do not illustrate the sections they are in and appear to have been added for decoration. It also fails criteria 2a and ] in that it does not adequately summarize the entire article. ] (]) 02:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *Collectonian, You practically ruined ] in many ways, and I don't want you defeaturing this. I'll start today with the images and move on to the refs soon. I'm not an author, so someone else can work on the lead. <font color="#1EC112" size="3px">]</font><sup><font color="#45E03A">]</font></sup> 12:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC) | *Collectonian, You practically ruined ] in many ways, and I don't want you defeaturing this. I'll start today with the images and move on to the refs soon. I'm not an author, so someone else can work on the lead. <font color="#1EC112" size="3px">]</font><sup><font color="#45E03A">]</font></sup> 12:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| **Was such a comment really necessary? How about a little ]. ] (]) 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:11, 4 April 2008
Angkor Wat
I am nominating this article for review as I feel it no longer meets the FA criteria. Most concerning is its failure of 1c and 2c with whole paragraphs being appearing to be completely unsourced and confusing mix of referencing styles used. I also feel it fails criteria 3 with an excessive amount of images that flow all the way down the external link sections. Most are unnecessary and do not illustrate the sections they are in and appear to have been added for decoration. It also fails criteria 2a and WP:LEAD in that it does not adequately summarize the entire article. Collectonian (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Collectonian, You practically ruined Jeopardy! in many ways, and I don't want you defeaturing this. I'll start today with the images and move on to the refs soon. I'm not an author, so someone else can work on the lead. Reywas92 12:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Was such a comment really necessary? How about a little civility. Collectonian (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)