Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hoi polloi/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hoi polloi

Partial self-nomination - concise, yet complete, coverage of the topic. Well written, well referenced, with free image accompanying. Johntex\^talk 01:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Feels very short. There should also be a mention of the common misuse of the phrase to mean its antonym, i.e. to refer to the social elite. Andrew Levine 01:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, thanks for checking out the article and for the edits you made to it. You are absolutely correct about the need to include the common misuse of the phrase. I will add that info tomorrow. As to the length, I feared this objection might come up. However, I hope that size will not be a final disqualifier if the article is found to be complete. (As a counter-example, I have seen so many articles get criticized for being longer than they need to be). Thanks again for your constructive comments. Johntex\^talk 01:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Brevity is a virtue. I especially liked the original quotations from Byron. alteripse 02:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object; I'm not opposed to a short article getting featured, but this one needs some improvements. First major problem is using a listserv post for a reference. I can't think of any reason to do that, but if there is a reason for that, let me know. Also, the quote by Lord Bryon is a little weird there at the end, referring to the image and the words in greek. Either replicate the greek letters or "translate" them into English. The usage in literature should be expanded—it shouldn't just encompass the first uses, but also more recent uses. What were the dates for all of those quotes? Avoid links in headings. Do you have examples of the phrase being used incorrectly since the 1950s? Sorry for the fragmented suggestions, ask me for clarifications if needed. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Has not been subjected to peer review, is too short, and I would actually stick a move to Wiktionary tag in it. JoaoRicardo^talk 20:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Does wiktionary take entries describing a word's use in literature? That would surprise me, but I don't know much about that project. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no idea, but if it doesn't, that would surprise me. Uses in literature are a feature of lots of good dictionaries. Anyway, uses in literature is indeed included in dictionary entries, which doesn't help this article in trying not to be one. JoaoRicardo^talk 21:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. A "section" which consists of one bullet point? Sorry, no. Mark¹ 17:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Sections are rather short, links generally don't appear in section headings, and lead is short. Also, there are too many lists. AndyZ 13:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Basically consists of a bunch of quotes with a little historical background but little else to string them together. The part about Dead Poets Society doesn't even include any real discussion. And one example from one film gets a section all its own? Surely more can be said on this topic. — BrianSmithson 14:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose This is not up to snuff. Too many bullets and short paras. A section of one bullet? Use prose. Also, there should be a dab line at the top noting that Hoi Polloi was the title of a 1935 short by the Three Stooges (thanks to Coffeeboy on that one). Rlevse 18:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)