Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freemasonry/archive3

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 not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

---

Freemasonry

former fac2, former fac1

Nominating as contributor to article. Much work has been done on this article since it was last FA (the first time; I don't know why the second nom was even done), and I feel that it has gone about as far as it can go informationally. MSJapan 04:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. Just something on first glance without actually reading the article: you've got entire swaths of texts with no inline citations, and then other sections that seem to be slightly over-referenced (like the lead). I think it is a bit rash for me to say "over-referenced," but a lead should be repeating information that can be found in the rest of the article and is not a place to elaborate on claims made. This issue would probably make the article a nonstarter, so you should fix it up. JHMM13 05:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not nearly enough citations. There are quite a few, but this subject begs many more. If information is not published in neutral, independent sources about the facts in the article (for example, about the lodges) it needs to be removed and the article will not be comprehensive. --Mus Musculus 03:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy oppose, not all ready, suggest an extended stint at WP:PR to prepare for FAC. There are WP:MSH issues, and citations are completely unformatted, blue-link URLs (see WP:CITE/ES). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Seems to be on a par with any other FA I have seen. Could always be better, but seems NPOV and well referenced. Will certainly fulfil the definition of an encyclopaedic reference. BrianWalker 03:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Sandy is right. These stray web references need to be formatted with relevant publisher info and access dates.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 04:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.