Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wikipedia/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia[edit]

Not suitable for the Main Page, self-nomination. Previous FAC: 1, 2. Previous PR: 1, 2. 119 07:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sure I've seen some controversy over what licence we use (GFDL vs. Creative Commons or others)--should this be mentioned in the article? Sorry I can't be more specific. Anyway, support. Meelar (talk) 09:00, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • This article recently failed FAC. Address the concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wikipedia/2 and the first FAC first. --mav 12:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I have. Your history objection was the only one remaining, and having been ignored when I asked you to clarify in what way the history section is "inadequate", I can only say I've done what I can and any valid objection must from the new version (and actionable). 119 14:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have added more links to other Wikipedias with the aid of this excellent tool. See my comments on Dorset, above.--194.73.130.132 14:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikipedia is already on the Main Page introduction. -- Tony Jin | (talk) 23:23, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Main Page" being the "Today's featured article" above. 119 00:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems excellent. Support. Andre (talk) 21:06, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Supprt 68.105.113.143 05:22, 28 Apr 2005 [1]
  • Support. Fredrik | talk 16:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • SVPPORT. I think it is an interresting article (excess of references, but ok). -Pedro 21:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Shanes 06:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-referenced and fair. Mark1 07:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • it has an excess of references, and 'excess' is not a good thing, I believe. Maybe to a book, or a paper. But not an article. I think the language edition numbers should be updated to May. -Pedro 22:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not understand the concept of an excess of references. Mark1 01:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont see the point It's not real, so why should it be FA? Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 02:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • occupies 1/3 of the article. What kind of article where a major part of it is references? it justifies to much. And has my Management teacher once told me: "people dont believe in those that justify to much." It is a defensive behaviour, besides excess is not a good thing in any field. It is close to justify every word that is written in the article! excess? try to drink water (aka article) with 1/3 of the glass with sugar (aka references). Even if sugar tastes good, it will be impleasant in that quantity. -Pedro 22:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • References can be ignored if you wish. Everything I can reference I do, and as a result you may check much of of this article's accuracy easily. I think that is more trustworthy than giving a good impression through rhetorical skills. 119 03:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There is no such thing as too many references, and it really exemplifies what this is all about. It may just be our bias, but oh well. Deltabeignet 23:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Wikipedia/archive1&oldid=1079644212"