Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raven banner/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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 11 February 2007.

---

Raven banner

Self nom as initiator, though many others, including User:Berig, contributed as much as or more than I did. This is an article about a somewhat obscure topic, drawing on multiple primary and secondary sources. It has been featured on DYK and is a "Good Article". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose 1c, 2. Please see WP:CITE; references are not formatted. Review section headings per WP:MSH. Why are there two columns of text, and why is full non-English text given? "Purported" in a section heading is weasly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I have three major issues with the article as is...

1. The first image is of exceedingly low-quality to be the primary image of a FA. The image needs to be recentered, with the anti-aliasing corrected and the background color changed.
2. The second section is far too long and tangental, and perhaps should be forked off to Symbolism of the raven in early Scandinavian culture. Mentioning the import of the raven in Viking art, literature and heraldry does set the stage, but quoting blocks of Old Norse text detracts from the article.
3. The lead describes (and the image depicts) the flag with "a rounded outside edge", yet later in the article, it is described and shown as being triangular, too. Is it one or the other? Both? The lead needs to be crystal clear on this, otherwise the article contradicts itself. And if it is (or can be both), then the depiction of the flag should show both variants.

Caknuck 08:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, all of your images need to have descriptions of what they are, their licenses, where they were taken, etc. A lot of them aren't even sourced. gren グレン 08:53, 8 February 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.