Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Louis Kahn/archive1

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 by Ucucha 12:50, 23 August 2011 [1].

Louis Kahn[edit]

Featured article candidates/Louis Kahn/archive1

Nominator(s): Rossi101 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Louis Kahn is a very influential architect of 20th century. He is considered as master of International style and Brutalist architecture. His works are considered as highly monumental, beyond time and culture. I think Kahn is more important figure than the architects featured as like as John Douglas (architect), Rudolf Wolters, I. M. Pei, Charles Holden etc. Rossi101 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)--Rossi101[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal - while I agree that Kahn is an influential figure in architecture, FA status is based on the article not its subject, and at this point this article does not meet the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

Lead is too short - per WP:LEAD, given the length of the article it should be at least 2 paragraphs
File:Yale_Center_for_British_Art.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author information
File:Louis_Kahn.jpg: where and when was this photo taken?
Many more references are needed. A good rule of thumb is to have a minimum of one source per paragraph, but more is usually required
Don't use contractions outside of direct quotes
Citation formatting needs to be much more consistent. Web citations must include title, publisher and retrieval dates. Print sources need page numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There is little or no evidence that this article has been prepared for this FAC against the FA criteria. The Personal life section is unreferenced; other sections have unreferenced or inadequately referenced paragraphs; the text looks far from comprehensive; the prose includes non-encyclopedic contractions; there are MOS violations, e.g. misuse of italics. Too much of the article is in list form. The checking tool indicates a disambiguation link in the lead. The article has never been through any formal review process; in my view, at present it barely meets the required standards for its B rating. I agree with the suggestion that the nom should be withdawn. The article should be worked on significantly, then sent to peer review before coming back here. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.