Difference between revisions of "Talk:Rokolev"

Revision as of 15:11, 19 January 2006

Rokolev FAC Vote (4/6/0)

Please remember to sign your votes with 4 tildes (~~~~) and update the vote tally when you vote.

Support

1. Mrnutty 22:59, 30 Dec 2004 (GMT)
2. El Cid 23:00, 30 Dec 2004 :Comment: Alot of info, could use some more pictures but it is throurough and informative about the nation Rokolev. Very good. :) (GMT)
3. Myrth 01:42, 4 Jan 2005 (GMT) Bah
4. Qantrix 18:30, 8 Jan 2005 (GMT) because of the necryt pics i vote yes.

Oppose

1. In my conviction, it is not sufficiently well composed. Rechze • (talk) 11:11, 7 Jan 2005 (GMT)
2. Not the best nation page I've seen. With two nation pages already featured, there needs to be something truely original for a nation page to be a featured article. Nothing truely original here. Correct me and I might change my position. Nanakaland 20:09, 11 Mar 2005 (GMT)
3. More attention needs to be paid to the layout. -- Ceorant 16:52, 6 November 2005 (GMT)
4. Poorly structured, few links, and little of any particular originality, save for the bulky intrusiveness of the random pictures.Gruen2alk 20:13, 6 November 2005 (GMT)
5. Changed my mind. This still could use a lot of work, and I also oppose for the reasons previously stated. --Pacitalkia 00:50, 13 November 2005 (GMT)
6. Broken record time. I just finished raking another country for the same flaws you've got; though, yours are nowhere nearly as bad. You have too much poorly thought out division. Reorganize, flesh out, and neaten the images and links. -- Nairatsa Complain 3:41, 7 January 2006 (GMT)

Neutral

1. It's got the stuff but some of it sounds gramatically incorrect to me. Some of the categories could have more information, if the person has time to update it. Pacitalia 23:26, 26 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Comments/Questions

go go roko \o

1. Agreed. (I can't be bothered to stop FireFox blocking cookies from here, so I'm just going to post as guest)
2. IP (guest) votes don't count, sorry. Removing MrNutty and Myrth and adjusting FAC totals. You also need to be logged in to nominate. If you can't be bothered to sign in, NSwiki can't be bothered to count your vote. → Fris Θtalk 06:12, 30 Dec 2004 (GMT)
3. Extremely badly written, biased and format could definately use improvement. This article is what a featured article should NOT look like.

Moving this out of 'Oppose': unsigned votes do not count. Also, please remember to update the vote tally!

• It looks like Pacitalia accidentally voted twice with the same text. I removed it, but if I made a mistake in doing that, please revert. → Ceo \ squawk 15:30, 7 January 2006 (GMT)

Consensus issue

This article's FAC status is opposed by a majority of users, and it has been up for nearly a year at that. Therefore, I am removing the FAC status for this article. Please feel free to renominate, but take into account the suggestions of the users who opposed or were neutral when editing. Thank you. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 19:11, 19 January 2006 (GMT)