Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman naming conventions/archive2

Roman naming conventions[edit]

If you look at this articles talk page, you will see that I have fulfilled the previous criteria given for the failure of my first nomination. I have also attempted to add more interesting topics and I feel it is an excellent example of what a FA should be. Rrpbgeek 17:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current unanswered issues for nomination:

Absence of inline cites
Shortness of sections, esp. lead
Improper source formatting

Object. The article has no references,(Fixed Rrpbgeek) and many sections, including the lead, are too short. RyanG e rbil10 17:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice start, but the footnotes need to be listed in a separate section, the lead section needs to be expanded, and the sections themselves shouldn't contain so much bolded text. Keep up the good work, RyanG e rbil10 03:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Lincher 18:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For these reasons :

- Fix the prænomen and praenomen, which one is the good one.
  - Fixed Rrpbgeek
- More info on the nomen gentile as per why these name, what is the origin and where the -ius comes from.
  - -ius comes from the masculine form. Shown in history. Rrpbgeek
  - More info on Nomen Gentile and origins. Rrpbgeek
- Support information with inline citations. Lincher 18:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The footnotes go nowhere (fixed Rrpbgeek) and there's no book sources.(added Rrpbgeek) Also, prænomen needs to turn into praenomen,(done Rrpbgeek) and more details need to be added. Might be more appropriate for WP:GA. UnDeadGoat 23:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the Foreign names section the article reads "A number of the names below are of Greek origin..." but there's nothing listed. Should this link to a separate article? Very interesting topic, but the article needs a strong copyedit. --NormanEinstein 14:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No inline citations. Most of the sections are so small that they should qualify as stubs. Probably more suitable for WP:GA per UnDeadGoat. And please respond in a separate paragraph and don't include your responses inline. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not sure that all of the references were actually used in the creation of this article. For example, I have significant doubts that the "list of roman derived names" is a references rather than just an external link inadvertantly labeled a reference. Also, the article would be improved by adding inline citations and also formatting the references properly, see WP:CITE. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]