Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Kingdom/archive1

United Kingdom[edit]

This article is full of pictures, over 60 citations and features a detailed history, politics and geography of the countries. It is rated as a good article and I'm surprised it hasn't already been a FA. (Mattpitt1991 13:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Objection. See literature section and recent associated talk page discussion. The need to convert the random lists of names into a proper UK literature summary was agreed but has not yet been addressed. Viewfinder 14:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object needs reorganization and copyediting. The obvious problem is that there is a lot of UK info to handle, that's understandable. But this size management has killed the "compelling prose" requirement of FAs. The culture sections are very long, as opposed to the history section - there is a lot of imbalance. The "Law" section needs to be compressed into "government," and "cities" should be discussed in a section about "subdivisions," which should talk about counties, burroughs, islands, territories. Rama's arrow 19:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak object needs reorganization and imbalance like Rama said. Content is good though. It is very hard to do an article about a country, there's a lot to say. --Pedro 22:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Lead is way too long, the infobox looks rather messy (the footnotes for the box are longer than the box itself), still [Citation needed] boxes in the prose. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object—poorly written and, I'm afraid, pompous in places. Tony 15:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]