Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Snuppy/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 by Karanacs 17:47, 20 October 2009 [1].

Snuppy edit

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Snuppy/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel the article is interesting, well written and meets all the FA criteria. It is not involved in any edit wars or similar and is a stable page. Although it may seem short, it stays on topic and provides a complete and concise description of the topic. Miyagawa (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1c (by an odd name)

As this was both a short article and a fairly important event in (medical) history, I decided to check if there were more sources. Sure enough, this article only uses web sources, even though searching snuppy clone on Google Books yields 84 results, none of which are referenced in the article. Seek peer-reviewed academic journal sources as well, because news sources and even popular books often (intentionally or otherwise) distort findings. Expand the article and replace the web sources with the books and journals where you can—featured articles thoroughly draw from high quality reliable sources, where appropriate, but this doesn't yet. It does otherwise look decent (consistent date format, prose is not bad, etc.).

--an odd name 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. ~~Please add alt text to the two images; see WP:ALT.~~ Eubulides (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text is now added to the two images. Miyagawa (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately that alt text merely copies the caption, or introduces info that does not describe the image and/or cannot be verified simply by looking at the image. Please read WP:ALT (particularly, WP:ALT#Repetition, WP:ALT#Verifiability, WP:ALT#Essence, and WP:ALT#Proper names) and try again. Eubulides (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Had another shot at the alt text. Miyagawa (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose essentially per AnOddName. A lot of the sections are short, single paragraphs...including important ones like Process and Reaction. There must be more to say about such a significant topic. Also, it's not clear to me what the difference is between the "Reaction" and "Controversy" sections. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1c, due to Full Text on Net bias. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Above message is probably referring to this, just in case it's not clear. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permission email for images needs to be sent through to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, rather than copypasted onto the image description page. Also, the images appear to be from ABC, an Australian media company, and not the university. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I wrote most of the article; expanded it for DYK and got it through GA, and it was a bit or surprise to see it nominated for FA. A lot of the sections need expansion and, honestly, most of the sources are web-sources found via Google (reputable sources such as Time, BBC etc. I didn't use any ol' thing but, as AnOddName mentioned, this could be improved). So, not ready for FA yet in my opinion but good luck. ♣ Ameliorate! 14:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.