Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Execution of Saddam Hussein/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Execution of Saddam Hussein

Sexy. ~ UBeR 06:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I object. It is a good article, but not yet at featured status. I was actually considering GA-nomming it in a few days. The main problem now is that it is so dynamic. A featured article should be relatively stable. Sexiness is not a criterion for featured status, whether one agrees that this article is sexy or not.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Most new revelations have stopped by now. He's been executed and buried and most countriest have made statements. It's been stable for a while. ~ UBeR 07:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Not stable. Listy and full of orphaned quotes with no context. Will need an overhaul after this news story dies down. Gzkn 07:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fully half the article is taken up by quotes from world leaders and humanitarian groups in reaction to his death. Would such a collection of quotes be better off on Wikiquote, with a few of the more noteworthy quotes worked into the article? --Richmeistertalk 07:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This I have addressed in the discussion page. I'm waiting on a consensus on what to do with it. It's recognized that it is overly long, and most likely will be reduced dramatically, if not altogether. ~ UBeR 07:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • See WP:LAUNDRY. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 14:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but a good start. Just H 07:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sterilize too sexy to be a featured article. On #wikipedia, I commented to WAvegetarian "In a week or less, we could try GA", and I still think that this could be true. At this point, however, any long-term causality related to this event is (by definition) undefined, so it is not really comprehensive. Nor is it stable: I most certainly hope that it isn't. If this FA could pass, it would certainly be a marvel and testament to the efficacious way of Wikipedia. However, reality is not always so efficacious. (No, not even wikiality.) Waiting a bit might be advised. Not to mention that the article is a bit listy (as mentioned by Richmeister and Gzkn). By the way, this is a comment. Oooh. GracenotesT § 08:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not yet stable. Metamagician3000 08:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Way too early. The article documents a current event, and as such has not yet stabilized. Needs a copy editing and additional sources, too, as noted above. Jeffpw 09:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no way. The "reaction" section needs a lot of digesting while preserving all significant points of view (not necessarily all parties who expressed them). Gazpacho 10:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose should be removed from FAC under WP:SNOW. Rlevse 12:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Way too early for this find of thing. --217.210.147.74 12:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very bad joke. That is not even an encyclopedia article. In other projects such a thing would get a deletion request. --Thogo (Talk) 12:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, only a news article by now, historically and politically half-baked --EvaK 12:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not stable, as it is on the main page as an ITN item (and may change radically over time). Also, you should not nominate articles with "sexy" as reason. Did you expect us all to laugh and then happily give this article a star? This seems like a violation of WP:POINT. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 14:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too early, current event articles shouldn't be FA so soon. The article is likely to change way too much for this to be FA. MartinDK 14:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Not only does this article document a current event, it needs some serious NPOV revision. ← ANAS Talk? 14:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now - Let's wait until this is more stable and not a current event. Also, there are neutrality issues with the article, apparently. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 15:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose WAY too unstable, and too many NPOV issues. If these can be worked out, then maybe later. Hut 8.5 17:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose No "Aftermath" section! :-) NikoSilver 17:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Just not yet ready to be FA.--Yannismarou 18:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. per Niko. Semperf 18:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Recent edit warring over an NPOV tag I added last night due to the article consisting of more than 50% quotes of non-relevant people expressing their opinions against the death penalty. Regards, --Jayzel 20:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Only your detracting of the international community shows your POV. Regards. ~ UBeR 20:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't no what your problem is, but I've had it with your attitude. Numerous other people have pointed out that the article is list heavy. At no time did I say there shouldn't be reactions from world leaders. I just object to an article entitled "Execution of Saddam Hussein" consisting of only three paragraphs on the actual execution itself while also devoting more than half of it to quotes from obscure people in Iceland and Finland. I also find it insulting to the FAC process for you to nominate this shortly after I announced I was going to sleep while the article was in the middle of a POV discussion. Good day, --Jayzel 20:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An article about an ongoing event such as this simply can't be stable enough to meet the Featured Article criteria (pretty much any of section 1 of the criteria). Someone needs to invoke WP:SNOW here. Mike Peel 23:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this nomination please. Look at the nomination. It's a bad joke. Get this tag off the discussion page. Tempshill 05:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Would hesitate to nominate a relatively narrow-scoped subarticle of an article that in itself isn't even a Good Article. But the biggest problem is that this is an article about a too recent event. Give it more time. Yeah, it could be given a "Good example of Wikipedia staying on the pulse fresh and covering current events" award. But Featured Article? Eh... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)