Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Embrun, Ontario/archive1

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Embrun, Ontario

Embrun, Ontario is a quality article about the town of Embrun in Ontario, Canada. This article is self-nominated. It is notable and provides content suitable for Wikipedia rather then useless blabber and has backing proof for facts and follows Wikipedia formatting. FruitsAndVegetables133 22:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Support. I never heard of Embrun, Ontario before. I read this article and now I know as much about the town as the town's residents. I can't see anything wrong with this article. In my opinion, it is 100% featured article material. --SallySplit1492 22:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- probably a sockpuppet. blocked. --BRIAN0918 03:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a ton of one-sentence, ultra-mini paragraphs RN 22:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. No references. Also, do I detect sockpuppetry judging by SallySplit1492's contributions and similar name to that of FruitsAndVegetables133's? 64.231.152.254 22:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Insufficient lead, insufficient prose, insufficient referencing, insufficient images, insufficient organization... in general, insufficient. Fieari 22:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. While this article could use changes, can't every article use changes? I think this article is worth being featured. --RichyHillyIsMyTown 22:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- probably a sockpuppet. blocked. --BRIAN0918 03:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support. I don't like the way this article doesn't have images, but I still like it and I think it is worth being featured. Don't get the impression that I adore this article, though. --Chinaism 22:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- probably a sockpuppet. blocked. --BRIAN0918 03:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In my opinion, Featured Articles shouldn't follow a universal standard, but instead should follow a standard for its general subject. While there are many articles better than this, I think this article is as good as it could possibly be, and that is what matters (sorry if I took too much room).--LeGrisChat 22:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- probably a sockpuppet. blocked. --BRIAN0918 03:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above 3 users have a total of 8 contributions, all today. Sockpuppetry seems to be a reasonable claim; where does one go to report it? - The Catfish 23:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Please expand the lead (see WP:LEAD. Also, no images or references. Clearly not FA material. PDXblazers 00:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is some good stuff here, but it's just not FA material yet. I'd suggest going through a peer review first to get improvement opinions; I'd also strongly suggest not self-nominating. Furthermore, I'm a bit leery of the fact that every single keep vote so far has come from a user with no prior edit history. Puppet city. Bearcat 00:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. The lead itself is is very small. No inline citations. A two sentence long external link inside text. Section organization (especially history) is poor. "Location" has just two paragraphs, both one sentence long. Even a lot of other paragraphs are single sentences that need to be fixed. Go for Peer Review per Bearcat. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Ambuj Saxena. Ardenn 01:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]