Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Social promotion/archive3

Social promotion[edit]

I believe this article now meets the criteria for featured article. Please read it carefully before objecting! (I'm so bored)

Object -- It does not even meet half of the featured article criteria. No references, no pics, short sections, poor prose (use of slang), discusses only Canada and the United States. What about other countries? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What kind of pictures can you put in it? A picture of a student being promoted! Social promotion is only in the US and Canada. They don't have it in other countries. There wasn't any slang. (I'm so bored)

Comment: If it isn't used in other countries, why not? How do other countries handle students who are lagging? What do educational experts say about these differences between the U.S. and other countries? John Broughton 14:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object -- ditto Rlevse 15:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Nothing has been fixied since last nomination, also the nominator should learn how to move and archive articles properly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk} 15:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per the reasons I gave in the previous nomination. --Wisd e n17 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: Too short (8.4 K's according to popups), no refs per Cite.php, and one large intro (split that into three). Everything else fails the criteria at WP:WIAFA. Move to WP:PR to get ideas on how to improve it. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: Between June 11, 2006, when this article was first submitted as a candidate for a featured article, and now, the article has had a total of SIX relatively minor edits (four of which I did myself; none of which were done by the person submitting the nomination). Nothing basically has changed since the original submission, so I repeat my original objection: As someone who has contributed a number of edits to the article, but has given up fighting about minor points (like redundant information, poor grammar, etc.), I'd be among the last to consider this article an exemplar for wikipedia. John Broughton 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]