Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star/Archive1

I haven't written the article. But looks and reads decent enough to be a featured article. Infact I am suprised it isn't. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Lead too small and no references --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object; lead & refs (per Jaranda). "Appearance and distribution of stars"; "Energy production" and "Star mythology" are not comprehensive. And "Star classification" doesn't even mention the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. Moreover, how about some more nice pics? (plenty of free ones on the NASA site) And why aren't exoplanets mentioned? Mikker ^... 23:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Many lone sentences and above objections. Gflores ^Talk 00:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - need more references, inline notes would be nice, and expansion of important topics. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object- for such a large topic, this article is far from thorough and complete. Definitely needs references/inline citations, and the lead needs to be expanded. AndyZ 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. This article deserves much more work. Lacks most references.--Jyril 10:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]