Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wikipedia/2

Wikipedia

I'm recycling this nomination because the last nom recieved very little attention, and what objections were raised were dealt with satisfactorily. →Raul654 02:18, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Sarcastic Object no self references. And based on the comments below, this isnt ready.  ALKIVAR™ 18:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object - History section still inadequate (it is the size the lead section at History of Wikipedia should eventually be). Also, a quick glance detected a glaring error: "Wikipedia's first sister project was launched simultaneously with Wikimedia, creating Wikiquotes." If something this obviously wrong is in there, then I don't have much confidence for the rest of the article (the first sister project was the Sep11wiki ; the first sister project we are not embarrassed of and thus pretend does not exist is Wiktionary). --mav 23:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you sure Sep11 came before Wikiquote? Can you give dates to prove that?  ALKIVAR™ 23:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Uh, Mav was definitely here then and would remember it ;) →Raul654 00:02, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasnt debating that Raul. Merely wanted verification.  ALKIVAR™ 18:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Sep11wiki was started in October 2002, Wiktionary on 12 Dec 2002, Wikiquote on 10 Jul 2003. --mav 02:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "History section still inadequate" gives no clue as to in what way it is inadequate. You made this objection last week, and struck it out before elaborating. Please be specific this time, I cannot act if you do not specify in what way you feel it is inadequate. That Wikiquote was not Wikipedia's first sister project has been corrected, as has the date on which Wikiquote actually launched. The innuendo that because of this one error, the entire article cannot be trusted is insulting and not actionable: please find specific errors. 119 02:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That error was a very obvious one. The fact that it was not caught until I mentioned it is telling. Three paragraphs is simply not long enough due to the fact that that is the size of lead sections. More history is needed and the ==Wiki== section seems to be overloaded. Consider summarizing the main points and moving the detail to a daughter article. --mav 02:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object There should be some reference to competitor products - ie other online encyclopaedias that accept submissions from the general public, jguk 22:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Added the context of Wikipedia regarding traditional encyclopedias and other collaborative projects. 119 07:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Since "Wikipedia" is a title of an encyclopedia, should it not be in italics in the body of the article?
  • Wikipedia is not paper, it's not a book, hence not an encyclopedia in that sense. 131.247.234.229
    • I italicized it since Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia. 119 07:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)