Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Palpatine: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:37, 25 November 2005 editMaclean25 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,633 edits []← Previous edit Revision as of 16:57, 25 November 2005 edit undoHahnchen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,014 edits []Next edit →
Line 8: Line 8:


:Peer Review: ] -] 11:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC) :Peer Review: ] -] 11:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Is it not possible to fork this article out? It's so long, 100 kilobytes, and looks very text heavy. - ] 16:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:57, 25 November 2005

Palpatine

I'm nominating this. It is a comprehensive article, which is well-written, referenced, sourced, picture-ied, discussed etc. I've implemented most of Peer Review's suggestions, and I really see no reason why Palpatine couldn't be a Featured Article; it would be pretty neat- AFAIK, our first Star Wars FA. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The additional material was really unnecessary. It was a good, though bloated, article beforehand. Today's changes have largely succeeded in making it fatter with poor grammar and a variety of short, choppy sentences in the opening segment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.15.144 (talkcontribs)
I feel I should note that the preceding comment is from an anonymous user's whose removal of references on Palpatine I've reverted twice now. --Maru (talk) Contribs 06:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Peer Review: Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Palpatine -maclean25 11:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)