Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parapsychology/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

[edit] Parapsychology

This article has recently became a Good article and in my opinion it fits the criteria of a Featured Article. The article is very well written and is engaging, The article covers the topic of parapsychology very well and neutrally without negating any facts or failing to mention specific topics within parapsychology, the article is sourced by reliable citations throughout, I along with a few others recently spent the past few weeks rewriting the article and it is neutral and stable. All in all a great article. I would appreciate constructive criticism that I or others can use to improve the article to FA criteria if you feel it isn't already currently. Please take the time to add a review to help us improve this article. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support While imo the article firmly meets all the other criteria, I feel that it is not quite stable enough for FA status. A few significant changes are still being made on a daily basis. I think we need to give it some time to settle after all the work that has gone on. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support I'd love to see this article reach featured status, but I don't think it's there yet. It's still very, I don't know how else to describe it, heavy. I think the text can be slimmed up without losing any important details and things that take a lot of words to say can be said with a lot less. I think all of the content is there for a featured article, but I think it can use some style improvement. I would definitely like to see some constructive criticism from those involved in previous FA articles as well. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I disagree about the "heaviness" of the article. If you check out other featured articles, it could be more detailed, not less. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment By heavy I don't mean less detail. I mean the amount of words used to illustrate a single detail. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is still actively being edited, and a couple of sections of it are incomplete. I would probably support FA nomination in the near future, but right now it is premature. This draft is too new and the article still needs time to stablize. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Shouldn't we run this through peer review first? Also, I think we should strive to get people who were not involved in the creation of this article to evaluate whether or not the article deserves featured status. Right now, all of the votes are from the "inside". Antelan ^talk 11:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose per above. Looks good, though. --Kaypoh 10:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Kaypoh, FA nominations aren't a "me too" vote type of thing. If you're going to oppose then you need to offer some novel criticism supporting your opposition. Right now the article actually is very stable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's very stable now, I strike my oppose. If I find any problems with the article, I will un-strike it. Sorry, I'm a little new to this. The article needs a PR, though. --Kaypoh 14:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, please cite policy with a link before striking out other people's contributions. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Annalisa Ventola. This article is still being edited and expanded. We should not give FA status to an article we know to be incomplete. This is not to denigrate any of the hard work people, including Wikidudeman, have put into it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't strike it out. He did that himself. [[1]]. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, What more improvements are to be made? It hasn't been edited in 3 days aside from my adding of the navbox. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake- sorry. I think a few sections need to be added, and probably some general editing. Let's just give it a few weeks, and then think about FA status again. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that withdrawal would be a good step at this phase, re-working, and re-approaching later. (When you do, be sure to address the problems with WP:DASH and WP:MSH, and please prune the large External link farm per WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT). The criticism section frequently says "critics say"; I suspect there are better definitions available for these critics, like professional scientists, physicians, or whatever; one of the sources uses the wording "mainstream scientists", so I suspect that "critics" can be better defined. There is too much uncited text, and a keen eye needs to run through the prose. Statements that will become dated need to be refined, example: Contemporary parapsychological research has waned considerably. Not quite ready, and doesn't seem balanced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it up just to see what other editors have to say. Usually FAC's are the best way to get good reviews of the article. I appreciate your reviews and will try to make the relevant changes, Also if you are able to, please make some improvements yourself. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, in what way do you see it as imbalanced? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.