Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Switzerland/archive1

Switzerland[edit]

I have nominated this article for an FA status due to the fact that it is well-written, very clear and is an examplary Geography-related article. Book s worm Hello? Anyone home? Vote! Vote! 16:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I support this as I nominated it Book s worm Hello? Anyone home? Vote! Vote! 16:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - 13 inline citations is far too few for a featured article. Those that are there need to be formatted properly. HornetMike 17:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How come does Acorn Computers have an FA status, when it ONLY has 11 references and ONLY 7 other notes! Book s worm Hello? Anyone home? Vote! Vote! 17:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a quite old FAC. And anybody can nominate it to FAR to be reviewed. But it is not this article which is judged; it is Switzerland!--Yannismarou 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment mere numbers of refs are not a valid objection, it's more a matter of where they're at and formatting. Rlevse 18:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a valid objection if the article is long like this one.--Yannismarou 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Entire sections are missing refs and the refs you do have are not properly formatted. Use cite php/web, make them consistent and ref unref'd sections. Rlevse 18:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very well written, just like Booksworm says. --SonicChao ^talk 18:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The article is obviously not ready for FAC. It is undercited and not well-prepared. It is characteristic that in "Religion" just after the heading there is a link for further information to an article which does not yet exist!!!--Yannismarou 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Undercited, Footnotes not correctly formatted in a consistent biblio style, very listy, templates (Further, main, etc.) not used correctly. Recommend peer review to prepare article for FAC. Sandy (Talk) 21:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Object. Though I do not think that references "make the article", so to speak, I do agree that Switzerland features a few fewer than most FAC. Switzerland did have a peer review (which I was planning on digging through sometime, but then things got in the way). The lack of citations seems to be a major objection. Get a few more, clean up formatting a bit, and I would support. Ourai ^т _с 05:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major comment How ON EARTH did Infinite monkey theorem become an FA and Switzerland cannot. Someone answer this for me, becasue I really don't get it! Book s worm Hello? Anyone home? Vote! Vote! 10:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite monkey theorem became an FA over two years ago, when standards were lower. You can nominate it for review at WP:FAR, where it will be improved or demoted from FA status. Sandy (Talk) 14:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support but the objections should be taken into account and acted upon. Chavatshimshon 14:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object — A lengthy list of suggestions were presented during the peer review,review/Switzerland/archive2 but it appears that few if any have been addressed. Also per above comments. — RJH (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]