Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Matthew Axelson/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 April 2021 [1].

Matthew Axelson

Nominator(s): Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 19:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a well researched, notable Navy SEAL that I feel, meets the mentioned requirements for this assessment. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 19:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am going to have to oppose this nomination.

There is a very large block quotation. I'm not sure why this has any use.
Several sources have doubtful reliability, for example [2] and [3].
The article does not cover the subject in depth. There are only a few sentences on his death, the event for which he is best known. The article is also only 769 words long. Whilst certainly longer than a stub or maybe even start class, I would generally consider this too short for FA-class.
There's a random Navy Cross on the article.

Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. Also the article gets basic facts wrong. I don't believe that the Navy Cross is not the highest US Navy decoration, it's the second highest since the Medal of Honor has a Navy variant. (t · c) buidhe 20:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and WP:SNOW close nomination instantly as the article would be considered C-class as most. There are obvious issues to someone not even versed in the subject or anything military-related: that insanely, insanely, insanely-long quote; incomplete citations (newspaper articles only have years instead of full dates and have no authors credited); questionable sources; and no representation from other existing sources like another author's book biography on him, indicating a non-comprehensive article. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I'm not sure how the article achieved B-Class given the concerns noted above, at its current length one might try GAN after all the issues are sorted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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