Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guns, Germs, and Steel/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Guns, Germs, and Steel

Guns, Germs, and Steel should definitely be a featured article. The book itself is amazing and the article on it is almost there. Too many people are racist because of some perceived difference in people, when what they really should be looking at is the geographical imbalances. Especially in these racially-charged times it helps to focus on something that downplays the lies of bigotry and replaces them with science. --Cyde 08:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - It would be great if more people were exposed to Diamond's ideas. --Cyde 09:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article is still was under peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Guns, Germs, and Steel/archive1. --maclean25 09:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose there are some very good points brought up by the peer review that should be addressed.--nixie 10:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Could you list which are still valid and significant? Some have been fixed.--JWB 11:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Those of maclean25, the article doesn't actually describe the book releases, sales and so on.--nixie 12:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose per nixie. Along the same line, I still don't think the article covers Diamond's hypothesis about Eurasia being more successful because it is long in the east-west direction completely enough. To my recollection, that was an absolutely crucial point of the book: that societies could successfully transplant their "toolsets" (crops, agricultural and housing technology, food preservation techniques) only to places with similar climates, effectively isolating the peoples in the north-south oriented Americas and Africa. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, this is Wikipedia, you know ... if it's so important maybe you could, say, add it in there and then Support it. --Cyde 04:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll restrain my intense burning urge to be sarcastic here, and merely point out that describing what an article is missing is often a less time-consuming process than actually producing good writing in an article to that effect. In addition, my "oppose per nixie" indicates that I agree with the other problems raised in the peer review, especially the lack of discussion of the book's sales etc. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This line is very odd: "- this is a more extensive discussion of the effects of geography on comparative Chinese and European development than is allowed in the final section of Professor Diamond's book, and predates it by sixteen years." Jkelly 04:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. As a person who nominated this to PR I don't think that it is ready for FA status yet, although I think that with some work to address the raised issues this can be back here in short order. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)