Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Digital rights management/archive1

Digital rights management edit

Nomination An informative, comprehensive, & timely article. Noclip 19:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Prose is impossibly dense, no references, bizarre and unintuitive structure. Suggest you take the article to Wikipedia:Peer review. --zippedmartin 21:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per above. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Wow, this is heavy stuff - I'd say it's almost unreadably dense. I'm sure there a lot of excellent content in this article, but it cries out for a peer review to make this more readable and for conformance to the FA standards. I agree with the above comment that the structure is bizarre and very difficult to follow; in my opinion, the entire article's organization should be completely reworked. --Alexthe5th 01:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. It clearly needs to be featured, and soon-ish, but it doesn't place the controversy center stage (see zippedmartin's bizarre and unintuitive structure comment). It must considerably elevate the promenence of the controversy, and move the technical information lower down in the article. If necissary, much technical information can be split off into seperate articles, but I've got no specific recommendations there. JeffBurdges 20:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to Peer review. — Matt Crypto 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The underlying subject is so convoluted and contentious and twisted for various reasons that I think no article that fairly reflected the subject matter could reach FA standards. A glance at the talk page shows a long history of complaint of bias, without much joy on either side. Nevertheless, Noclip's point is well taken. this article is a good coverage of a very messy topic. Just not FA clarity and spit and polich. ww 02:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. One of the FA criteria is supposed to be "stability." This subject is sufficiently contentious that to date it has not been possible to reach a stable state. I haven't been following this closely; I've edited the page from time to time and am thus an interested party. I see that the opening paragraph, where you'd most hope for stability, has changed quite a bit in the last few months, and in fact, in my opinion, has degenerated into incomprehensible gobblegook. The reality of the situation is that the established, accepted name projects a highly non-neutral point of view (much as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" do). This shouldn't make it impossible to write a good, neutral, stable article, but it does make it difficult, and this article has not managed to surmount the difficulties. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]