Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Bowl XXXIX/archive1
Good length, informative, a few pictures and links, no disputes. karmafist 02:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: My first impression off hand is that I am a bit concerned about Image:Bushclinton2.jpg because it does not have a specific source cited. Plus, the image does look a little distorted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: In the lead, the phrase "Many commentators and fans believe" is an example of a weasel term.-Scm83x 06:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Object. I protest against lists in articles, thus the Trivia section needs to be merged into another part of the article or made into prose. Inline citations would also be preferable to justify any statements made in the article (See Wikipedia:Footnote). Image:Bushclinton2.jpg doesn't cite a source and is missing a fair use rationale as well. — Wackymacs 09:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I remember one commercial—vaguely—and the issue was that this guy had looked like he killed his girlfriend's cat, and then there was something about "everything is not how it appears". Can you investigate that and add it in? But, looking at the whole picture, I think that the article is in fairly good shape, but I'm not sure if it's really FA status, so I'll abstain from voting one way or the other. But it's still a nice article. --HereToHelp (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Object The image Image:Bushclinton2.jpg doesn't cite a source, looks streteched, and has no copyright info. While refs are listed at the end, they are not linked to any article content. Rlevse 19:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
