Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abu Musab al-Zarqawi/archive1

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

Strongly Oppose: This article is clearly biased and an example of commentary, not a factual writeup. I depend on this Wiki to be fair and factual. The following statements illustrate my meaning:

"...he didn't shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq."[18]

Zarqawi is believed to have had two wives. Al-Zarqawi had consentual sex with his second wife Israa, when she was 13 and she bore him a bastard child when she was 14."

Please delete this article, and have someone write one without the clear right wing bias towards Bush. And leave out "wining and dining the French," as well as the statement, "and she bore him a bastard child..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.229.53.224 (talk • contribs) .

Comment - it's bad form both to put your comment at the top, and not to sign your comments on FAC. (By the way, this is also the IPs first and only contribution [1]) 81.86.155.153 18:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good and indepth article which covers the life and death of this brutal terrorist. Good FAC. --Mercenary2k 1:44AM June 9, 2006

Comment (leaning to object) - Given the recent news concerning al-Zarqawi's death, I would hold off on nominating this article for FA for about a week or so until everything has settled down. Pentawing^Talk 05:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - what Pentawing said... wait for the vandalism to calm down... we're still working on minor cleanup here and there too... - Adolphus79 05:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there will be too much change in the next month at least, especially if he may not actually be dead. Then whatever his followers do may keep on necessitating a change in whatever his "legacy/consequences" on history that he may have left.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I agree with Blnguyen. Becasue of recent events, this won't be a stable article, which is one of the requirements of an FA.--P-Chan 06:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Unstable, uses at least 1 copyvio image. --Rory096 07:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Unstable, recently been on Main Page. Too many short subsections. Could do with a copy-edit. — Wackymacs 08:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Obviously too soon. Everyking 10:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Way too soon. New material is still being released on him in regards to the airstrike.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that its too soon but absence of vandalism should never be a criteria for FA noms. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is incredibly soon. Many FA's have much more info than this one does. Just because this is news doesn't mean it should be a featured article. We should wait until there's much more information about the details surrounding the impact his death will have (or lack thereof). This article is certainly not Wikipedia at it's best! Rondmc170 16:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, fails stability requirement. --Golbez 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: one of the criteria for a featured artiare is that it be stable. Numerous changes surrounding the exact circumstances of his death, as well as other changes, mean that this article will become different rapidly. By waiting for a period of time after the current-eventness to die down, this article will become stable.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: uses copyrighted images. /Slarre 22:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above - it's really a current event. -zappa.jak e (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose POV concerns and too current...wait at least 30 days and see what other information may arise...just today, it was disclosed that he was still alive when Polish and U.S. forces first got to the scene, and he even tried to get off the stretcher to possibly escape.--MONGO 00:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Given that this relates to a major current event, this articles needs another couple of weeks before it can be considered stable and worthy of featured article status. joturn e r 17:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the issues concerning the timing of the nomination (in light of him just dying) is something that any user can really change. Maybe we should just move the article off of the FA nomination list (for now) and just put it back in a month of so. What do you think? (Right now, it feels a little cluttery to have this here).--P-Chan 02:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Because of recent events with his death and who he is, this article will be an even heavier target for vandals than it already is now if it was featured. Also, just because it's major news right now does not make this article a good article. --Shizane 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the moment. It is too early, especially since this is a hot issue. Let it wait for a while as this article is a very tempting target for vandals. RashBold ^Talk 19:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm putting a POV tag on it. TheKillerAngel 02:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]