Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/March to July 2004

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept status[edit]

Enclave[edit]

Article is still a featured article.

This article is mostly a bunch of lists. I don't consider this anywhere near our best work. Kingturtle 03:54, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose removal. This was strongly supported for addition a couple of months ago, and has not changed substantially since. It's a fine article on an easily overlooked topic. Ambivalenthysteria 08:49, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal. It's an informative article and easy to read, with a nice diagram and a good introduction. While it is true that each sub-category includes a list of examples, they also include other explanatory text, and only in two categories are these list significantly longer than the other text. Furthermore most items in the lists are not simply bulleted names, but complete and interesting sentences such as this snippet: "Some villages in eastern Estonia can only be reached by a road which ventures inside Russian territory. One can drive on the road without any visa, but it is forbidden to stop before coming back to Estonia." In any case, it is a topic which lends itself to listing examples. I do have one small objection however: counter-enclaves and counter-counter-enclaves are not mentioned. Securiger 01:46, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Peerage[edit]

Article is still a featured article.

Most of the content which was used to justify featuring this article has since been moved to other articles to create a series (not surprisingly, those articles are pretty good and are starting to get nominated for FA status). No summaries were left, resulting in a comparatively poor article that has no history and little other information. Given the subject matter, this article is a virtual stub. However, if a pre-split version were condensed to fit within the 30KB limit, then there is no reason to de-feature. --mav 06:34, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I've amended the article to address your objections. -- Emsworth 17:06, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Some of the sections could use a bit of expansion, but this does remove the reason for removal. I will re-list this once-again fine example of Wikipedia prose. :) You are an FA-generating machine your lordship. --mav 18:10, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Frankfurt School[edit]

Article is still a featured article.

A quotation:

Consequently, at a time when it appears that reality itself has become ideology, the greatest contribution that critical theory can make is to explore the dialectical contradictions of individual subjective experience on the one hand, and to preserve the truth of theory on the other. Even the dialectic can become a means to domination: "Its truth or untruth, therefore, is not inherent in the method itself, but in its intention in the historical process." And this intention must be toward integral freedom and happiness: "the only philosophy which can be responsibly practised in face of despair is the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves from the standpoint of redemption". How far from orthodox Marxism is Adorno's conclusion: "But beside the demand thus placed on thought, the question of the reality or unreality of redemption itself hardly matters."

I realize that this is mostly quoting Theodor Adorno's word salad. But Adorno can't be blamed for passages like:

By locating the conditions of rationality in the social structure of language use, Habermas moves the locus of rationality from the autonomous subject to subjects in interaction. Rationality is a property not of individuals per se, but rather of structures of undistorted communication. In this notion Habermas has overcome the ambiguous plight of the subject in critical theory. If capitalistic technological society weakens the autonomy and rationality of the subject, it is not through the domination of the individual by the apparatus but through technological rationality supplanting a describable rationality of communication.

I realize that part of the problem is the confused and confusing thoughts of the school of thought itself. Maybe the article can't help but be vague, abstract to the point of evanescence, and confusing --- if it hopes to convey an accurate impression of these vague, evanescent, confused thinkers. Still, as David Hume said:

Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

The article contains a number of passages like that, whose meaning, if any, seems pretty impenetrable. It also seems to have some POV issues. It's introduction to the history and the people involved are pretty good, I agree. But I would question whether passages like this actually leave a reader unacquainted with the Frankfurt School that much more knowledgable about the substance of their thought, or its historical and cultural consequences, than before he had read it. (The jargon might help that reader fake it and drop the right names, which is perhaps the main thing a student of the FS needs to learn.) Teaching these guys to speak English is a chore, I realize; but I think a better attempt should be made before this article qualifies as a featued article. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This echoes my complaints about the article on Jurgen Habermas. Unfortunately, my extensive critical reading at Talk: Jurgen Habermas does not seem to have attracted any response, let alone improvements on explaining the ideas of this philosopher. BTW, a very apropos quote from David Hume, Smerdis! -- llywrch 20:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

The article has a very short lead, completely inadequate for a FA its size (3a). I've raised the issue at the talk page but it has not been addressed. It should be removed untill it attains FA quality again. Loom91 07:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also factualy inaccurate, speculative and contradictory. I give the following passages as examples:-

"This probability cloud obeys a quantum mechanical principle called Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which states that there is an uncertainty in the classical position of any subatomic particle, including the electron; so instead of describing where an electron or other particle is, the entire range of possible values is used, describing a probability distribution. So in normal atoms with electrons in stationary states, the probability of the electron being within the nucleus (or somewhere else in atom within similarly small volume) is nearly zero according to the Uncertainty Principle (it is nearly zero as the nucleus has a volume and is not a point). Therefore, quantum mechanics, translated to Newton's equally deterministic description, leads to a probabilistic description of nature."

It's not only subatomic particles that obey uncertainty principle, this is a false claim. It is also a false claim that the probability cloud obeys the uncertainty principle. The probability cloud obeys the Shroedinger equation. Uncertainty principle only predicts the existence of such a probability cloud.

Comment - I am a PhD student in a subject closely related to quantum mechanics. It is not wrong to say that the probability cloud obeys the uncertainty principle (UP). Indeed the UP is a constraint on the spread of the probability distribution *in phase space*, be it defined as the Wigner function or any other sensible way. However I agree with your other criticisms. I reworked this paragraph. -Cedric

The sentence "Therefore, quantum mechanics, translated to Newton's equally deterministic description, leads to a probabilistic description of nature." is devoid of any remote semblance of meaning.

"In some cases, both general relativity and quantum mechanics converge. As an example, general relativity is unable to explain what will happen if a subatomic particle hits the singularity of a black hole which is a phenomenon predicted by general relativity and involves gravity in the macro world. Only quantum mechanics can provide the answer: the particle's position will have an uncertainty that follows the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, such that it might not really reach the singularity and thus escape the possible collapse to infinite density."

This passageis contradictory, inaccurate, unreferenced speculation. Such shortcomings are far too numerous for me to list all of them. Suffice to say the article needs a major copyediting by experts to meet the ever-increasing FA standards. Loom91 07:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm no physicist - in fact, I haven't taken a science class in almost five years - so I can't speak to your allegations about the accuracy of this article. However, we luckily have an expert on hand (you) who seems to know a fair bit about the subject of quantum mechanics. Seeing as you've already spotted a few seemingly big problems, why not be bold and fix them? Since this isn't technically a valid objection (as it wasn't listed on the talk page prior to nomination), that might be a good idea. To speak to your only valid objection, the too-short lead (which you mentioned on the talk page on May 9), yes, it is true that WP:WIAFA requires a lead of 2-3 paragraphs. However, for me, this violation is too minor to merit demotion, as it is easily fixed by somebody who has thoroughly read the article and has a good understanding of the topic. (Again, for lack of any other knowledgable and interested volunteers that I know of, I'll nominate you.) Cheers! The Disco King 17:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unfortunately my knowledge of the subject is not comprehensive enough to actually correct all those errors, while I can recognise them as errors. {{sofixit}} is always the best solution to any problem, but not always feasible (in this case because I don't have enough time). Loom91 07:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment

1. I'm happy with the lead. Criterion 3a requires just "a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent section". I note, too, that some reviewers in the FAC room have been getting themselves into a knot about the number of paragraphs that a lead should comprise. IMV, that is too strict: there are a number of ways of writing a satisfactory lead, and some of them may not require precise numbers of paragraphs. That is why 3a deliberately avoids the issue.

2. Since the complaint, as aired on the talk page, is not, IMV, actionable, a question hangs over whether this is a valid nomination. It would be proper to withdraw the nomination and go through the process again, citing better reasons. Give the contributors a chance to fix it before the nomination.

3. I agree with Disco that it would be an excellent outcome if Loom91 corrected what s/he has identified as factual errors. This is the very thing that WP's science articles need. But reviewers and nominators are, of course, under no obligation to do so.

4. There are a few problems in the article: the caption for Figure 1 is ... whoaaa ... far too long, and I hate the italics. Figure 2 is just a question mark: why bother? The prose is OK, but could do with a run through to fix awkward little things such as "which we today call Quantum Mechanics".

It would be sad to defrock this one. If the nominator agrees to fix the factual errors, I'll agree to copy-edit it. Tony 02:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said before, I would love to correct the errors but my expertise does not allow me to. In any case, "correcting factual errors" is not the solution here, sourcing statements is. Wikipedia is not in the buissness of determining "facts", it is in the buissness of practicing WP:NPOV, and it is impossible for me to not only know what the correct stement would be but also source it from presumably papers in technical journals. This a job for a real expert, and as long as none is forthcoming, I think it will be best to give this article a temporary leave from the hectic life of a FA. Loom91 07:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A while back, I nixed the paragraph about "both general relativity and quantum mechanics converge", which was beyond redemption, and I just made a few other fixes. If I weren't on deadline in my real job-type job, I could do more. As it stands, I advocate removal, just because quantum mechanics demands (and deserves) a solid article, and this isn't it. Anville 20:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glass[edit]

Article is still a featured article.

Needs better structure, standard TOC placement; recent discussions in some newsgroups are not a proper source to answer scientific questions. Also: pictures! How can we have an article about glass without pictures? —Eloquence 05:42, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Pictures there are; at least, I've added one and there's one already. I have some stained glass pictures, as well as those at glassblowing and smoking pipe.
The TOC is only three paragraphs from the top, now, and one of those paragraphs serves to explain a more general concept than will be discussed in the rest of the article. --Andrew 23:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Resolve[edit]

Glass[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

When I nominated this article an old conversation came up on the template. I'm not sure why.

That'd be the old Farc. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very messy. It is not visualy appealing, has a bad paragrpah layout, and only has three refrcnes. On top of that, It was never voted a FA Look at the nomination page, and you will see that it never won the vote. Someone put it as an FA even thouhg it lost. This is a poorly formatted, poorly refrenced article which should not be here. Tobyk777 00:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAC IS NOT A VOTE. For the record, Glass is a legitimate featured article, promoted by Raul July 2004. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One just despairs of the electorate's knowledge Giano | talk 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. The referencing for this article is poor and the intro section is awkward with the focus of the article not being entirely clear. -- Lewis 22:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove lead fails to properly summarize article, too many 1/2 sentence short paragraphs, too few references, stacked images, "glass in buildings" is far too listy, overlong "see also" and "external links" sections, and despite FAC not being a vote all those valid objections are still unaddressed. Zzzzz 23:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - featured articles of lesser quality should not be granted grandfather clause status just because of an appeal to tradition. If it were freshly nominated today, it would fail for various reasons. Davodd 09:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per Davodd, Zzzzz. — mark ✎ 08:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


History of the United States[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

This article is in the process of being rewritten (or so it seems to me). There are many sections with headings like For details, see the main History of the United States (1964-present) article without any text under that heading. Removed by: DanKeshet

Removed status[edit]

February[edit]

Wikipedia FAQ[edit]

Articles are no longer a featured articles.
Split into two FARS, created Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states

Neither of these are articles, so how can they be featured articles? Emsworth 23:37, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. -- Stewart Adcock 20:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. --Kaihsu 23:01, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • Might it be an idea to feature a project somehow, now and then? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:36, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed--Jiang

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states[edit]

Articles are no longer a featured articles.

Created from Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Wikipedia FAQ and WikiProject U.S. States

Neither of these are articles, so how can they be featured articles? Emsworth 23:37, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. -- Stewart Adcock 20:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. --Kaihsu 23:01, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • Might it be an idea to feature a project somehow, now and then? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:36, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed--Jiang

September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

Ongoing neutrality dispute. -- Emsworth 23:56, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I also think it contains too many daughter articles, most of poor quality. The article itself is not impressive either. --Jiang 06:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. -- Kaihsu 18:28, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

DNA[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

(This article has been the subject of a dispute which won't be resolved in the short-term due to wikiegos.) The article is incomplete: DNA#More_on_DNA_replication -- Stewart Adcock 20:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. -- Emsworth 22:54, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove it till the edit wars end. It is completely outlandish that we should feature an article that's being protected! A truly great way of showing Wikipedia at its best, no? The situation is so bad that it may be best to take it up on WikiEN-l to ask for immediate action. Dandrake 23:23, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

March[edit]

Origins of the American Civil War[edit]

Article is still a featured article.

It has no lead section that can act as concise encyclopedia article (not in news style), which in addition to being reader unfriendly, makes it very hard to feature this article on the Main Page.

  • A lead section was added since the comments were made. 172 01:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is also horrendously huge (80 KB!), we should not be encouraging such a huge article size by featuring such an unusably long article. It needs to be broken up in discrete digestible bits (NOT another damn series - if you want to write a book then go to Wikibooks!)--mav 06:41, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Size issue fixed. Article going through the nomination process again. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War

While I don't care about featured status in and of itself, I'm worried that Mav's sending a message that there is no place for a measure of depth and substance on Wikipedia. If you do not have the time or energy to read an 80KB + article, then there's the timeline toward the bottom of the article, the intro lead in sentence, and the one paragraph overview just for you. But others are looking for substance and an overview of where historians disagree, not a dinky chronology that anyone can find in an almanac.
I'm not alone in this regard. Note, e.g., this comment on the talk page: "I am in my first year teaching American history at the high school level, and I thought this article was incredibly helpful, both to me and to my students. Too often, websites or online encyclopedias provide only a cursory overview of the Civil War, or present the lead-up to the conflict as an inevitable polarisation of 'Slavery v. Anti-Slavery' and 'States Rights v. Federalism'. Certainly these themes are central to the conflict, but they were neither inevitable nor straightforward - nor did they take on the moral overtones people tend to give them today. This article avoids those pitfalls - thanks."
See also "Wikipedia for Journalists" By Sree Sreenivasan, Columbia Professor & Poynter Visiting Professor http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=32&aid=62126 . An excerpt reads, "So far, the effort has created numerous reference-quality articles as wide ranging as the Hutton Inquiry, algorithms, social history of the piano, origins of the American Civil War, and severe acute respiratory syndrome. As its quality has improved, news publications have increasingly cited Wikipedia on subjects..." From time to time Wikipedia has to address issues of such complexity. And a "long" article is the only way to give credence to a subject with such a rich historiographical tradition. 172 01:04, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If you can't create a ~20KB summary then I will. I will start with expanding your overview and combining that with the timeline. There are very valid technical and readability reasons to split this monster up. --mav 06:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No, you will not create redundant article. The executive summary of the origins article belongs in - and is found in - the parent History of the United States article, which contains the executive summaries of its component daughter articles. If you choose to "expand" the overview by "combining that with the timeline," it will go up on VFD right away.
Nor will you dismember the main body of the text. Although you're caught up in the "the news style mantra", I have cited ample evidence demonstrating that others find the in-depth coverage helpful and readable. Nor can you take issue with the latter. A lead-in sentence, an overview, and a timeline already supplement the origins article for clarity and readability. 172 07:58, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some facts you deleted from this section (which was talk moved from my talk page):

Just for everyone to note, I removed your spam. Perhaps had you "summarized" your spam in the first place I would've had no need to remove it. 172 23:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not spam - I moved the talk and deleted it from my talk page. --mav
  • The text alone of the 88KB article takes at least 12+ seconds to download for a 56K connection (assuming that the modem is operating at max speed which means 7KB/second - most 56K modems max out at 4-5 KB a second).
  • Many browsers cannot edit such a long article.
  • Most readers don't have the time to read it (it took me over 50 minutes to read every word).
    • Your point? You have a disdain for serious history on this site, but others don't, and I've cited ample evidence demonstrating that you're in the minority - if not alone. You seem to like almanac-style lists, but I will ensure that readers looking for something else have a choice. You have the "the news style" executive summary and the timeline, which you can feel free to expand. But there's no way in hell that I'm letting you dumb down this article. 172 23:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I do not have a disdain for serious history - that is an unfounded personal attack. I'm also not the only person who does not like the length of the article and wishes to break it up. Nowhere have I advocated that any of your prose should be removed. Summarizing the main points and putting the detail in daughter articles is not dumbing down anything - it is making it more useful for a larger number of people who may not want to spend an hour to get the major points. --mav
        • No, you are alone. Alex, the other user concerned with the length, called the article "excellent." His concerns are logistical. In fact, he seems to be on my side on the talk page, in favor of splitting it up into several parts rather than splitting up along the lines of the New Imperialism series. Alex is coming to realize that this article cannot be restructured. As the article proceeds, it relates historians' competing interpretations and the thematic build up to the chronological narrative history. But this organization makes the article impossible to restructure, given the build up from the top of the article to the bottom. As a historian, I knew that this was the only workable organization for an encyclopedic article of this nature on Wikipeida (and I'll defend my reasoning on a more appropriate page). Aside from Alex, the article has received ringing praise from everyone else but you. Why? You're a copyeditor caught up with "news style." The other people who've given us feedback on the article, however, read the article due to a different set of reasons - that is, they were hoping to actually learn something about the origins of the Civil War. I know you mean well, but I have to teach you a lesson. You need to accept the fact that the structure and organization of all history articles cannot be one in the same. 172 21:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I have also stated that the content is really good. My main concern is to make that article accessible to a larger audience. That requires it to be broken up and a summary left in its place (with pointers to the detail). I am in fact agreeing with Alex right now on that talk page - so how can I be alone on this point? I think you have misunderstood what I wanted and acted irrationally to the mention of "news style" (which in fact is not really the right term - a better term is needed). Please join the discussion on the origins talk page. --mav
  • When I put the text in OpenOffice the result was 30 pages long. Books have separate pages, why should this article/booklet not have separate pages?

Best to keep the detail but put it in daughter articles and summarize the whole thing at the parent. The executive summary you talk about is way shorter than what I was thinking of. --mav

    • Then expand it and quit bitching about it. It almost seems as if you're trying to censor content that doesn't correspond to your personal stylistic hangups. 172 23:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not trying censor anything - that is yet another unfounded personal attack. I am advocating for that article to be split up. I will go ahead and expand that section and farm off the detail to daughter articles soon. --mav
        • This isn't an attack. You are imposing your own personal preferences on the entire community, conflating them with everyone's preferences and even policy. You probably don't even realize this, but you're going way to far. You're not being helpful in this case. Just accept the fact that this isn't a "Mav style" article. 172 21:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm being very helpful - right now we are working out how to best break up this article. That's all I really wanted. --mav
To get to the heart of my real concern, this is fundamentally an argument over the nature and style of history articles. Mav says, "Not sure what to do with the historiography... I for one don't much care for analysis like that since it reads more like a thesis than encyclopedic prose (I instead prefer to do my own analysis after being presented the facts). Much of it could be condensed - but that can be taken care of later." 1. (I disagree with these premises, but that's irrelevant to the point of my example.) I'm not suggesting that these comments reflect negatively on Mav. I'm just saying that our preferences are related to our backgrounds, and that like-minded users shouldn't be dictating stylistic "polices" for history articles. Their preferences ought to be respected - hence we have a short boiler point summary, an overview, and a timeline on the subject - but not hegemonic. In the end, I can argue that Mav wants to write an almanac as well as he can argue that I belong at "Wikibooks."
Although I'm arguing that policy is on my side with respect to featured status, I'm far more concerned about emphasizing that my argument is fair, irrespective of policy. The opinions of readers satisfied by the article are simply underrepresented on this page. They tend to be readers searching for encyclopedic entries rather than active users (that is, readers who were searching for something and were satisfied with what they had found). Mav was complaining about the fact that an anon nominated the page; but I'd say that a nomination by an anon, who might've found the article through a search engine, said even more about the article.
I've also gotten a number of favorable e-mails from readers without user accounts (i.e. "anons"). Interestingly enough, shorter articles never got me favorable e-mails. I make no apologies for writing the article with someone like the author of the following comments in mind: "I am in my first year teaching American history at the high school level, and I thought this article was incredibly helpful, both to me and to my students. Too often, websites or online encyclopedias provide only a cursory overview of the Civil War, or present the lead-up to the conflict as an inevitable polarisation of 'Slavery v. Anti-Slavery' and 'States Rights v. Federalism'. Certainly these themes are central to the conflict, but they were neither inevitable nor straightforward - nor did they take on the moral overtones people tend to give them today. This article avoids those pitfalls - thanks." 2. I also make no apologies for the timeline, despite my doubts that this will do much to strengthen a reader's understanding of the subject. 172 12:20, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

172, me, and AlexS have been trying to work out the size issue on the Origins' talk page. If the outcome of that is a split-up of the article that will probably result in me withdrawing my objection (depending on how it is split up). See Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/categorization. ?mav

Size issue fixed. Article going through the nomination process again. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War

Political correctness[edit]

There is an ongoing neutrality dispute. Emsworth 23:36, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm not saying this article should be here, but I will say that the substance of the dispute seems to be "the article is too long for such a silly topic" which isn't a very convincing objection IMO. I've asked a couple of times for a dialogue relating to the dispute, and there doesn't seem top be much interest. Sam Spade 19:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • There is now some interest and new folks on the page, so maybe the header will get removed in time at least. Sam Spade 06:44, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • There is no longer an ongoing neutrality dispute, you still want the page removed? Sam Spade 03:45, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe the old NPOV dispute was regarding whether the article represented the concept fairly, or mockingly. After significant rewrites, the NPOV dispute header has been removed, and the page has reached a stable form. Keep. --zandperl 00:50, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pub quiz[edit]

This is a sentinel FARC to represent Rebecca's removal of pub quiz from the featured article list on March 30, 2004 [1] Raul654 21:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geologic ages[edit]

Removed March 8, 2004 Raul654 22:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This articles dont make me especially proud. Not thats incorrect, its just not brilliant: much more can be done. Muriel 08:18, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree. Its incredibly short for such a broad topic. Sam Spade 08:27, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • To be fair, it used to have a big table with all the ages and IIRC more text - all of which has been farmed-off into other articles now. So at one time it was relatively brilliant, but it is no longer. Even if all the stuff I mentioned were still on that page, I would still vote for de-listing - I'm sure that will eventually happen to some entries we now think are brilliant if they don't continue to improve. As Wikipedia matures, we simply expect more. --mav 11:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Love the topic; hope that it one day makes it back to featured status. +sj+ 04:54, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Absurd to list this stub as a featured article. Tannin

Pythagorean theorem[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

Editor war on subsection Relationship to non-Euclidean geometry and physical space, Tosha 23:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

Discussion moved to Talk:Libertarian socialism/Featured article removal

Removed by Sam Spade 07:36, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) (due to clear lack of Concensus)

  • Restored by Toby Bartels 03:03, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) due to clear lack of consensus to remove it.
    • What is the procedure on removal anyway? Do we require consensus to remove, or do we only require a lack of consensus to keep? If the latter, then Sam was right to remove it. OTOH, if the latter, then Sam could have removed it before the discussion, which certainly doesn't seem to be the procedure. I will ask for discussion on this talk page. -- Toby Bartels 03:03, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Clearly there is no concensus either to keep or remove this. From what I see on the talk, that means it must be removed. I am not going to edit war however, so would you be so kind as to remove it, Toby? Sam Spade 01:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • From what I can see on the talk, this is still a point under contention. Since I disagree with your position there, I'm not going to remove it. However, if you were to remove it, that would not (IMO) be anything close to engaging in an edit war on your part. Your position does seem to have more support than mine, and I would not restore it if you removed it. I do applaud your desire to avoid edit wars, but I don't think that it applies in this case. -- Toby Bartels 21:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Since some insist on removing the neutrality dispute, and Toby seems forgiving, I am removing it. Sam Spade 07:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

same-sex marriage[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

Heavily biased towards gay rights POV --Uncle Ed 18:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Huh? You're kidding, right? Please provide some evidence for this odd-ball claim. Tannin 19:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that this should not be a featured article, but not because of a heavy bias in any direction. It is a good example of how an article can become bulky by trying to satisfy every side of a debate. The current controversy and constant stream of news articles surrounding this topic garantees that people will argue over every sentence. As long as this situation continues it will be hard to keep it unbiased (or at least get everyone to agree on what unbiased means; see the article's talk page), or complete. -- Kimiko 19:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • When did this become a featured article anyway? It wasn't when I started working on it. At the same time, I don't see how it's biased, but --User:Ed Poor has made this claim on the talk page too, also without explaining it. Exploding Boy 01:33, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no actual reason to remove it Dmn 01:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bulldogging[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

The page should be merged with steer wrestling. Emsworth 23:35, 15 Feb, 2004 (UTC)

President of the United States[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

Article should make more prominent mention of how presidents get their position in the first place (preferably at the beginning and nicely integrated with the flow of the text). Currently we have to make do with obscure links at the end to U.S. presidential election and U.S. Electoral College. -- Dissident 04:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done. jengod 01:34, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
This objection seems to have been addressed. What's the procedure for re-listing the article? Can anyone just add it back if there are no further objections? --Minesweeper 22:27, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

I beg to make an objection (or rather, objections). Firstly, the Article does not seem to mention that the term limit does not apply in the case of terms lasting less than two years. Furthermore, it does not note that the term limits are relevant in the case of elections; an individual who has previously served two terms may suceed to the Presidency in the case of a vacancy. Secondly, the Article misrepresents the facts relating to the Twelfth Amendment. It states, "Since the ratification of Amendment XII in 1804 clarified the electoral process, the President and Vice President have been elected together as a ticket through the constitutionally mandated U.S. Electoral College." After the ratification of the Amendment, despite the statement in the article to the contrary, the President and Vice President are elected separately - not as a joint ticket. Thirdly, the article states, "The winning candidate must receive a majority of electoral votes." I object because the article does not state that a winning candidate can win in the House of Representatives if there is no majority in the Electoral College. Fourthly, I object to the structure of a sentence: " Thus, in order to raise the salaries of other federal employees, the President's salary had to be raised to avoid surpassing the President." It would seem, reading the sentence, that the President's salary was surpassing his own, and therefore had to be raised - which of course does not appear logical. -- Emsworth 03:33, 20 Mar, 2004 (UTC)

Later comments
Lord Emsworth made some excellent points above. I checked the current article, and point 4 has already been addressed. So I struck it out, to reflect that progress. I'll try to come back and look at the other 3. -Pete 07:12, February 25 2007 (UTC)
The other three comments above have been addressed.Richard75 22:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American English[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

This is so not a featured-article-quality article. It's basically a list of AE words, without enough consideration of the use of the language, the reasons why the language grows so explosively, how it compares to other English dialects...It's just not all that brilliant. jengod 03:38, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

While I find the article to be more than a simple list, I do agree that it should be removed. The article needs significant copyediting for proper English usage and grammer, ect, which is ironic for an article about an English language. Gentgeen 10:49, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Remove. Agree with god and gent; the bizarre circumlocutions (and many red links, with one in the opening para!) knock it right out of 'almost-featurable' status in my book; it will take more than a few good edits to clean this art up. +sj+ 04:59, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
Oppose (i.e., oppose removal, support retention). I tend to wonder whether we're looking at the same article. (Indeed, we may not be, since Wikipedia articles change, often in response to complaints.) I'm completely unable to see in what sense it's basically a list. It's true that the table of loan words is about half the length of the article; but then, tables tend to use up a lot of lines. As it now stands, the article has a good deal to say about comparison to other dialects, and the historical reasons therefor. As to copy editing, I've copy edited several things that were proposed for Featured status (with mixed success; some just can't be repaired adequately, e.g., History of China, which I'd like to see fixed and Featured); but I see little editing needed here. One almost wonders if the problem is with English usage, such as "The first wave of English-speaking immigrants was settled..." which in Britain might have a plural verb, but not (usually) in US usage. It's likely that specific complaints will be heeded if they appear on the Talk page. Dandrake 01:56, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
This isn't a feature article; it's just not good enough. The article is rather poorly written for Wikipedia standards. It would appear to be targetted more toward a high school term paper than a serious discussion of how American English evolved, unless it's an example piece of how American English Teaching is failing. So, I suppose I'd say remove it from Feature consideration, but don't be adding it to the Delete consideration yet. Xinit 17:01, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Remove. These ideas of American English, Canadian English, etc... and other varieties of Languages are, sometimes, merely ideas and sometimes local ignorants-pride. I want to know if there's a serious and impartial linguist that support these "varieties" ideas. Most of these "varieties" are various dialects, some of them are more similar to a dialect in other country's "variety" rather to the "variety" and they are not uniform and the variety is mostly just a dialect that became standard. In Portuguese, I verifyed that. I've created Angolan Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese (edited most of it), I just made it because there is about English, and I see it as a more cultural subject than linguistic and some credible linguists support the "variety" idea, while others dont even think about this.-Pedro 01:48, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

April[edit]

Concept album[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

I nominated concept album to be removed from Featured Articles. It consists of one paragraph that vaguely tells the history, and then a list of about 150 examples - with descriptions as informative as "a man goes insane," "The story of a poor outcast," and "Deals in part with bouncing back from near tragedy." Work needs to be done in detailing the history a well as in verifying and properly explaining the examples. Don't get me wrong, I love the info the article gives me - but as it stands now, it really shouldn't be a feature. Kingturtle 02:40, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Remove to cleanup; then perhaps return to featured. Agreed with kingT -- the list of examples needs elaboration for the article to shine. +sj+ 05:01, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
Just a list with a stub grafted onto the top of it. Remove. Tannin 10:56, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Second removal. Fredrik 21:27, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone out there in wiki-land object to the removal of this article from the Features list? If not, I intend to remove it this weekend. Kingturtle 17:46, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Representative peer[edit]

This is a sentinel FARC for the April 2004 defeaturing of this article after it was merged with peerage. This page was merged with peerage [2], and later unmerged and restored to FA status.[3] Raul654 15:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Erdős[edit]

This FARC is a sentinel for my removal of Paul Erdos from FA list on April 14, 2004 [4] Raul654 21:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May[edit]

Nude celebrities on the Internet[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

I am nominating this article to be removed. It is not especially informative. It reads more like a pamphlet. Kingturtle 06:28, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Clumsy writing in the intro, nothing much to say anyway. Not too much wrong with it but a long, long way away from being amongst our best. Tannin 10:47, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Ambivalenthysteria 12:18, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I removed this from the Feature articles. Kingturtle 20:25, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Original sin[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

A large-scale removal of copyrighted material left this full of holes. What remains is reasonably well-written, but the article as a whole is far from complete. Until the missing sections are filled out, it's not front-page material. --67.71.77.254 05:19, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Only half-finished. Remove. Tannin 10:57, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Ambivalenthysteria 12:18, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I removed this from Featured articles. It still needs a great deal of work since the copyright fiasco. Kingturtle 20:23, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Removal - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:45, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Law of Demeter[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

Law of Demeter is listed under the Philosophy heading, but seems to have little to do with philosophy. (The article itself defines the LoD as "a design guideline for developing software.") In additon, the article itself, while well-written, is much less comprehensive and generally less impressive than most other featured articles. --Conover 04:17, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Some explanation of the curious name might make the article more interesting to non-programmers; what does this law have to do with Demeter? -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Not voting, just info for Smerdis: it's named for the Demeter Project, during which it was formulated. The Demeter Project was so named because it was trying to develop software methodolgies which "grew" organically, and Demeter is the goddess of agriculture. Securiger 09:19, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Conover, this is a good article but not really a feature article. If it does stay it should at least be moved out from under the Philosophy heading. -- Cedars 01:33, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

June[edit]

Ernest Hemingway[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

Nausiously flowerly language. Article flow is horrible, and the introductory section is non-existant. The article was added with no discussion on the FAC on July 19, 2003 (page diff). →Raul654 21:21, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Support removal. It reads like an essay, not an encyclopedia article, e.g. "A Farewell to Arms is a male fantasy all the way through, a kind of ambulance driver's wet dream." — Matt 21:32, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Political correctness[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

An article that routinely offends its readers, prompts significant edits that are invariably reversed, and has to warn on its talk page to “read talk page discussions before making changes,” is not representative of the Wikipedia. Isn't that close to the opposite of our ideal? Even if it were well written, I don't see why we would direct readers to an article about an expression of such dubious origin, application, and implication. Nathan Hamblen 20:34, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • I find most of these poor reasons for removal. Sam [Spade] 04:45, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sam. Ambivalenthysteria 06:20, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm removing the article from Wikipedia:Featured articles, as I apparently should have done when first listing it here. Also, I'd like to add that in being controversial (it has msg:controversial on its talk page, and a history of carnage too), the article is strictly excluded from Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Nathan 21:57, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

You appear to have misread, the statement is (must) "Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy (no ongoing edit wars)." Sam [Spade] 23:19, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You appear to have bypassed the removal process and taken it into your own hands to remove this from Featured Articles. IMHO, this is not on. We have this voting process for a reason. Ambivalenthysteria 03:51, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Read the text at the top of this page. Nathan 05:58, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sam, that article's neutrality and accuracy are disputed by me and several other people. I could add the disputed NPOV notice back to the article itself, which would spark another edit war, invalidating the article from being featured in yet another way. Would that make you happy? Nathan 16:35, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand how this is supposed to work. A I undestand it Nathan not only listed the article here (OK) and removed it from the Wikipedia:Featured articles list (OK), but also unilaterally removed the "featured articles" notice from the article's own talk page. Is that how this is supposed to work? -- Jmabel 23:22, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know either... to me it made sense to remove that notice, but if you don't like it you can unilaterally add it back. I don't see a policy on it one way or the other. Nathan 16:35, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, while I don't think the article should be completely deleted (at least not yet) I certainly do not in any way believe this is 'Featured' article material. There are still problems with this page, and with so many other good ones, why on earth is this considered as being excellent work? --ArcticFrog 14:09, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog

Could you guys please provide some specific, fixable suggestions that would meet the objection criteria? Sam [Spade] 16:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Uh, yea..how about using highly opinionated statements in the opening definition and supporting them with stuff like this:[5]. How do you support an opinion with an opinion? I have made several recommendations about specific changes, most of which are reverted w/o good reason. It seems to me that someone dead set on using this article to make a political statement. If you can't stand to rectify this material, then not only should it be removed from the 'featured' list, but should probably just be deleted. The article should only state what everyone agrees on: that the term means using a substitute term for one that may be offensive. Anything else is a political jibe as there is no consensus on it and it only appears in unquestionably biased political pieces. Is this encyclopedia a soapbox or not?--ArcticFrog 19:01, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog

as I said in talk, I was providing evidence of usage. The article doesn't state that this usage is what P.C. means, but rather than this is what some people mean when we say it. Sam [Spade] 19:08, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I provided a couple more citations to that particular, just for good measure Sam [Spade]

I vehemently maintain my objection. "Evidence of usage" just shows someone's opinion. If this is to continue, we should go to the Rush Limbaugh page and after the intro, put this "And also, some people think he is 'a Big Fat Idiot'" and refer to the Al Frankin book. It's a fact that some people think that...right? So we should say it? It's irrelevant; it's nonsense; it's a political jab where none need be. I object to the citation itself, and the others don't look much better. --ArcticFrog 22:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog

There's a reference above to objection criteria. I know of know such criteria, other than failing to live up to Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Because the bar to be featured is so high, the bar to remove them is low, particularly for an article such as this one that was never voted into the featured list by the community. In my view, Political correctness falls short in the following featured criteria:

  • Be comprehensive, factually accurate, and well-written. Please read Great Writing and The Perfect Article to see how high the bar can be set.
    • Accurate: support facts with specifics and external citations (beware vague justifications such as "some people say").
    • Well-written: compelling, even "brilliant" prose--the former name for featured articles.
  • Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy (no ongoing edit wars).
  • Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.

As for "fixable suggestions," that's not my concern. I don't think it's possible for the article to be improved enough to be featured, at least not with its current attack-dog editors. If it ever is, though, that's when it should be listed on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and voted in like any other article. Nathan 08:25, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support removal. I don't think the article is written that well.
    • The first sentence in the article should provide a simple definition of the term. It does not. Instead, it says political correctness et al. are "terms that commonly refer...to a social idea...characterized by efforts..." etc. It's unnecessarily complicated and doesn't really explain what political correctness is adequately.
    • The usage section has some good points, but I think it needs to be expanded. Specifically, what groups of people are concerned with being politically correct and thus are apt to use politically correct language?
    • The history section needs to be expanded. Why did concern for political correctness arise in the 1980s? Why did usage of the term decline in the '90s?
    • The controversy section is all right for the most part, but the last paragraph contains some unfortunate wordings. The sentences, "They then changed it back and gave the name of the editor who had changed it. They then had to retract the name of the person who had edited it because it is Times policy not to name people who make changes to articles" come and go without any explanation of who "they" are (I assume the Times staff). This section has now been significantly improved. Acegikmo1 23:56, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • A new objection: I find the use of the term "P.C." thoughout the article too informal. I'm especially disturbed by the appearance of "P.C.ness". This not only looks bad, it also doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't the term "Political Correctness" be abbreviated to "P.C." as well? Acegikmo1 23:56, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC) This has been addressed. Acegikmo1 23:47, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • I guess my real problem with the article is the quality of writing. Didn't Featured Articles used to be called "Brilliant prose"? The article needs to be expanded so that it covers the topic more comprehensively, and several parts need to be re-written to make the article clearer. If my points are addressed, I will reconsider supporting the removal. Acegikmo1 08:48, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with the criticisms by Acegikmo1. I'll see what can be done about making improvements. Sam [Spade] 17:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I beleiev improvements have been made. Thoughts, comments? Sam [Spade] 18:32, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I have withdrawn my support for the removal of this article. I now oppose its removal and would like to see it remain a featured article. I believe that most of my specific problems have been addressed and (most importantly) the quality of writing has improved substantially. I'd still like to see more specific examples or quotes in the History and Usage sections, but this is a minor point. Acegikmo1 19:28, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've read the article again and am happy to say that it's been improved. I'm sorry to say, though, that it still seems to be at odds with itself. About half the times that "Political correctness" appears in the article (strange capitalization, by the way) it is preceeded by the disclaimer "so-called." Ha! That's the name of the article, and people don't agree on what it means. (I'm in the "so-called" camp.) That was and continues to be my primary objection. Until the article represents a full and accurate disclosure on the expression's orgins, uses, implications, etc, and does so in an orginized and well written way, I will object to it being featured. Nathan 15:21, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

I think its only fitting that an article about politically correctness is not considered politically correct. JCreedon Jul 14, 2006 (UTC)

July[edit]

Fancy cancel[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

this is barely bigger than a stub. How can it be a featured article? This article lacks breadth and detail. Kingturtle 09:40, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kingturtle. Furthermore, it ought to be moved to pictorial postmark where it belongs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:24, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
Support removal, for exactly the reasons given. Don't agree with the proposed name change though; it's apparent from the article that "fancy cancel" is a term of the art. Securiger 01:48, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal. It's a concise, informative article on a little-known topic. It even has references. Nathan 21:51, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Too short; if people have written books on the topic, we can probably write a more detailed article. — Matt 00:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Illegal prime[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

See that article's Talk page for the kind of objections that I see. I don't see the content as at all either well-written, nor a true topic that is fit for inclusion into an encyclopedia. It seems so contrived to fit a specific POV. - 65.119.52.66 22:40, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support removal, though for different reasons. (I think it's a perfectly good topic for inclusion in this encyclopedia, and while the idea of an illegal prime is propaganda for a certain viewpoint — it's to make DMCA look ridiculous — the article isn't grossly POV). My objection is simply that the article isn't of dazzling quality, and it seems that more could be written (the referenced external links go into greater detail and explanation). — Matt 08:47, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object to removal. It's not clear how one can write in a dazzling fashion about this topic. That such a prime could even exist is an illustration (and something that deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia, of coding theory). That the motivation for discovering it was political is perhaps also a topic for an encyclopedia, at least for one that purports to cover current topics. The halflife for this particular political difficulty is probably considerable, so by the time it's 'cooled' enough for inclusion in a traditional encyclopedia, the entire matter will be moot. Readers deserve more from WP -- this is neither current news nor traditional encylopedia fare. But then, WP is not a traditional encyclopedia. ww 20:09, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm a bit confused; you say, "it's not clear how one can write in a dazzling fashion about this topic". Featured articles should be dazzling, that's their purpose; if an article isn't great quality it surely shouldn't be held up as an example of the best of Wikipedia? — Matt 20:25, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Matt, Having been dodging WP downtime, I've only just been able to get to this. Sorry about that. On the question of dazzling writing on this topic, I was trying to point out that prose which adequately describes a substantially circumscribed technical topic is unlikely to be capable of the artistry which is normally meant when speaking of great writing or dazzling prose. Metaphor, simile, allusion, etc (tools of the writer's craft) are often -- rightly -- thought to be confusing and so inappropriate in technical writing, thus making dazzling prose about technical subjects unlikely as the writer has been disarmed, if eschewing these tools. In the present instance, prime is a rather unmetaphorizable topic, and the legal tangle created by Congress with the DMCA, though hugely metaphorizable, would be so mostly only in a NPOV fashion. So, in this case, featured status must rely on other criteria. Clarity (which this article has), relevance to important concerns (which this article has), completeness (which in a limited sense on a limited topic, this article has), interest (as a result of the relevance to odd effects of important public policy enactments), etc... No article I can envision would be able to do much better, I think, so within the limits of the possible for this article, it does just fine. Does this sufficiently clarify my comment? ww 15:06, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Insufficient explanation, deatial, and length. Acegikmo1 17:58, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - David Gerard 00:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. It does not discuss why this is essentially a very trivial discovery, and it has an overtly political slant (which I agree with) that does not belong on Wiki Greglocock 23:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Noah[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

Not a bad article by normal standards, but is on some occasions off-topic and contains some doubtful information. Should not be a showcase for Wikipedia work. DJ Clayworth 15:30, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Support removal. POV issues: referring to a list of decendents in Genesis (in the Bible), it says, "These genealogies... should not be dismissed out of hand. For the times in which they were memorized and recited, they were presenting a structure for primitive efforts towards creating an ethnology that would express the degrees of alienness or relatedness the authors of such genealogies sensed among those neighboring peoples of whom they were aware. In the genealogies of the "Sons of Noah" sometimes a grain of historical fact can be discerned, as there may be a kernel of history buried in legend. Generally the most useful truths to be uncovered in these invented lists are in what they reveal of the cultural point-of-view of the legend-makers themselves. (emphasis mine). — Matt 14:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree that for religious articles to be FA, they should be vetted particularly carefully for comprehensiveness, attention to all relevant views, and NPOV. +sj+ 20:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/March_to_July_2004&oldid=986296123"