Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Nyna Calixte (second nomination)


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.

Nyna Calixte

 * Nominated by:--Gonzalo84 01:40, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments:Already updated it and done cleanup

(0 Inqs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object
 * 1) Preliminaries
 * 2) *Improper usage (simply put, none at all) of the Pronounced template.
 * 3) *Major sourcing issues.
 * 4) *As nominator of this article, you are responsible for every single word and format in the article, which extends to the still-hesitant grammar quality of the article&mdash;one of the reasons that the article was demoted in the first place. Moreover, as a major character in an ongoing comic series, she fails to meet FAN Rule 5 of stability, which was another reason why she was removed. Because of this, I'd recommend that you work on the article and re-nominate her only when she can meet every single one of the FAN Rules and comply with all of the policies on Wookieepedia.  CC7567  (talk) 05:09, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Thoughts, pasta-style
 * 6) *Agree with all of CC's statements, first off.
 * 7) *A few paragraphs are still unsourced.
 * 8) *There are some lapses in the prose where paragraphs are not long enough, information is out of chronological order, and other things that make the read challenging.
 * 9) *There is also a quote in the middle of A turning tide that should not exist there.
 * 10) *The appearances are not in chronological order, and while this falls under, I point it out as it reflects the state of the entire article.
 * 11) *My suggestion parallels CC's. While I hate to encourage this, I suggest pulling it down and working on it. I slightly disagree with my colleague that the article inherently violates rule five, as I believe that it could be stable if updated promptly and cleanly each time something new arises. That said, the over all level of the article needs to be brought up, and I am not sure it should be done while on the FAN page. If you are serious about going after it, then we'll do it, but the article has not been edited for over two weeks, and the objections that CC has placed appear to have been basically ignored. I simply encourage you not to let this reach three weeks of inactivity. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 22:36, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comments
 * Pardon my ignorance, but what does the Pronounced template is for?.
 * For giving a correct pronunciation of the article like a dictionary does.  CC7567  (talk) 04:07, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Vote to remove nomination (Inquisitorius only)

 * 1)  It has been over one month since CC's objections were placed and over three weeks since any activity was done on this article; there has been no activity by the user in ten days; and there appears to be no intent to address the significantly major outstanding, which were enough to warrant the Inq to remove the article from FA status before. I'm sorry to do this, but it does not appear that there is any serious intent or effort to address this. &mdash;  Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:31, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  CC7567  (talk) 19:35, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:38, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  19:40, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) How not to nominate an FA, part eleventy-blarg. --  Darth Culator  (Talk) 19:42, March 28, 2010 (UTC)