Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations/archive1
This, from what I have read, is a very good article about an interesting topic and definitely material worth considering later on for the Main Page. My only concern is with the touchy political topics it might and encompass and lack of information in some of the footnotes. Nicholasink 02:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Refer to peer review --Peta 02:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Despite the lack of info in some footnotes, I think this is a FA quality article. †he Bread 03:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Refer to peer review. Some stubby and listy sections. Also referencing problems in some parts. i think it needs further work.--Yannismarou 06:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Object, per Yanni. Many paragraphs are unreferenced, many of current references are just external links without description. Too many lists, not enough pictures. Not FA quality.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Object agree with Yannismarou and Piotrus, and weasel words. Sandy 19:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: the lead could use some work, huge parts of the article is unrefed & it is way too list heavy. Mikker (...) 04:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose The UN is a large and well established organization and as such by now has many scholarly books published about it. I do not know which books are the most important books about the UN but I am sure they exist. It would be like the (English) Mawdudi article going for FAC without citing the Vali Nasr book. For this to be featured it should rely mostly on books and scholarly articles--not news sites. gren グレン 09:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)