Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John McCain/archive1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
*Oppose. It has been edited about 75 times in the past 24 hours because of the New York Times story. ---[[User:CWY2190|CWY2190]]<sup>[[User talk:CWY2190|<font color="darkgreen">T</font>]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/CWY2190|<font color="grey">C</font>]]</sup> 22:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC) |
*Oppose. It has been edited about 75 times in the past 24 hours because of the New York Times story. ---[[User:CWY2190|CWY2190]]<sup>[[User talk:CWY2190|<font color="darkgreen">T</font>]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/CWY2190|<font color="grey">C</font>]]</sup> 22:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
* '''Oppose''' While the article is well written and definitely well sourced, the article currently fails the stability measure for being a FA. Even if you ignore the kerfuffle from the NY Times article, the article has averaged over 20 edits a day this month and that's two months after the major rework/rewrite by [[User:Wasted Time R]]. The article also has 82k of readable text, which is quite a bit outside [[WP:SIZE|size guidelines]]. The should really have less than 50k of readable text before it should be considered for FA. There have been several requests (including one by myself yesterday) to start discussion on the creation of child articles in accordance with [[WP:SS|summary style guideline]] but so far nothing has come of it. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 22:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC) |
* '''Oppose''' While the article is well written and definitely well sourced, the article currently fails the stability measure for being a FA. Even if you ignore the kerfuffle from the NY Times article, the article has averaged over 20 edits a day this month and that's two months after the major rework/rewrite by [[User:Wasted Time R]]. The article also has 82k of readable text, which is quite a bit outside [[WP:SIZE|size guidelines]]. The should really have less than 50k of readable text before it should be considered for FA. There have been several requests (including one by myself yesterday) to start discussion on the creation of child articles in accordance with [[WP:SS|summary style guideline]] but so far nothing has come of it. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 22:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' |
*'''Oppose'''! Good fu__ing grief. This is "FA criteria '''opposite'''".[[User:Mr.grantevans2|Mr.grantevans2]] ([[User talk:Mr.grantevans2|talk]]) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 00:30, 22 February 2008
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is very well developed, and i believe it meets WP:FA criteria. 8thstar 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Given the current allegations raised against him, I can't imagine it being a stable article for some time. Arzel (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Those allegations are over 8 years old, they were bandied about in 2000, liberal media is just regurgitating old news and calling it a scandal. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It's an election year, and he could well go on to serve two years as US President. In the circumstances we'd be mad to think this article was going to be stable enough to remain featured article quality in the foreseeable future. --TS 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- 2 years as US President?? Nishkid64 (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect Tony meant two *terms*. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah well, I just wanted to make sure that Tony wasn't a clueless git. *grin* Nishkid64 (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect Tony meant two *terms*. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- weak support. The article is very interesting and informative. Very well cited but I also am unsure if it can stay stable enough to remain featured article quality in the future.--CPacker (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. It has been edited about 75 times in the past 24 hours because of the New York Times story. ---CWY2190TC 22:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose While the article is well written and definitely well sourced, the article currently fails the stability measure for being a FA. Even if you ignore the kerfuffle from the NY Times article, the article has averaged over 20 edits a day this month and that's two months after the major rework/rewrite by User:Wasted Time R. The article also has 82k of readable text, which is quite a bit outside size guidelines. The should really have less than 50k of readable text before it should be considered for FA. There have been several requests (including one by myself yesterday) to start discussion on the creation of child articles in accordance with summary style guideline but so far nothing has come of it. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose! Good fu__ing grief. This is "FA criteria opposite".Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)