Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rent (musical)/archive1

RENT[edit]

I truly believe that this article is a brilliantly written article that exemplifies the writing Wikipedia loves. It is all relevant information, is entirely correct, shows no bias and is completely referenced. I believe this is more than perfect for a featured article. Political Mind 00:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I nominated this article, and I sure believe this is a good one! Political Mind 00:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: glancing over it real quick, I would like to ask where is the reception/criticism of the film/musical? Whats the point of Musical numbers section which is just one big list? Thanks. - Tutmosis 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe criticism would would be a bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Political Mind (talk • contribs)

I believe withdrawl of criticism is bias since you are only giving the positive side of the film/musical... - Tutmosis 01:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of the above. Oppose for three too many long lists, no inline citation, and absolutely no criticism (look at any other featured film or television or play or book article). Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, per Staxringold. Alo, there is no explicit references section, and there are no footnotes. RyanG e rbil10 01:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Lack of references section is the most worrying factor about this article for me. Also missing lots of information on the film that has been mentioned by Tutmosis. — Wackymacs 07:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Lack of reference/footnotes - InvictaHOG 10:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object lack of references/footnotes. Computerjoe 's talk 15:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]