Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flying Spaghetti Monster/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 GrahamColm 10:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Flying Spaghetti Monster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all of the criterion outlined at WP:FACR:
- It is well-written. The content is very interesting; in fact, the first time that I, personally, read the article, I read the entire thing without realizing it - the style and language used is simply engrossing. It is unique, professional, clear, and provides many parallels with other religions and articles that keep the reader entertained.
- It is comprehensive. Without overwhelming the reader with un-encyclopedic content, the article manages to entirely cover all major aspects and movements associated with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
- It is well-researched. With 96 sources from a variety of media forms and areas, all information is adequately documented and verifiable. Citations are kept up-to-date and reflect a range of research that is paralleled in the article with substantial, informative information.
- It is certainly neutral. Looking at the talk page FAQs, it is clear that there has been criticism from both sides of arguments surrounding this topic, which I view as an accurate representation that both sides are being equally represented and their views presented without showing favor or bias. The article is absent of any WP:NPOV violations.
- It is stable. The article is semi-protected, and the talk page reveals little to no recent vandalism with multiple instances of polite, non-reviewer users kindly requesting changes that are acceptable and quickly implemented.
- They style guidelines are met to all feature article expectations, including the lead, which is sizable, provides excellent background and lead-up information, and is interesting.
- The structure of the article is excellent, divided into nine main sections that follow a logical sequence and structure. These are further divided when appropriate. Links to other articles and external resources are provided when beneficial, and templates are well-used.
- The references follow typical structure and do not vary in style. After all, the article is already considered a Good Article and, though I realize Featured Articles are held to an even higher standard, this criterion is clearly met. References are more than sufficient and stylized appropriately.
- Media effectively supports the article without being overwhelming or irrelevant. All media is under creative commons license with the exception of two adequately-documented and supported fair use images and one public domain image.
- The length is ideal for this subject. It is not overly wordy and, as stated, includes necessary content and media without including un-encyclopedic content or being overwhelming.
In summary, I feel that this would make an excellent contribution to the Featured Article collection, as it is interesting to the general public, unique, entertaining, and reflects some of Wikipedia's editors' excellent work to the standards that we strive to achieve. Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate/procedural comment -- Hi Jackson, I gather you're not a contributor to this article. I've seen that you left a message on the article talk page but have you directly contacted the main editors to discuss this nomination? FAC nominees are expected to be among the article's major contributors, or at least to have consulted with them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Ian! I appreciate the feedback. In accordance with your suggestions, the discussion picked up a bit at Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster#Featured Article Status. I feel it should also be noted that the article did splendidly at peer review, with Guy Macon stating that he felt it was ready for FA status! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would anyone object to me being the Nominator? My style of contributing to articles which already have several active editors is to work with others on the article talk page and then let them edit the article. If you look at my first ten or fifteen talk page comments or this archived discussion you will see the sort of contribution I have been making.. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per talk page. Guy has my full support and I relinquish any perceived claim that I had on this nomination. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would anyone object to me being the Nominator? My style of contributing to articles which already have several active editors is to work with others on the article talk page and then let them edit the article. If you look at my first ten or fifteen talk page comments or this archived discussion you will see the sort of contribution I have been making.. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It's an entertaining article that certainly satisfies criteria 1a, but unfortunately I have to oppose based on a failure to satisfy 2c.
- All of the citations need to be properly formatted in a consistent manner. Examples: "Billy Townsend", "Kent Hovind", "John Chambliss", "RD Magazine", "El Pais", "Carole M. Cusack", "DIY Flying Spaghetti Monster bumper sticker", the bare link for reference 72, &c.
- What makes The Big Announcement a reliable source? Or Ramendan? Even under WP:SELFPUB, do they speak for the "movement" as a whole?
- There is no direct link between the paragraph about the "Kansas State Board of Education" and the remainder of the article. Yes it is related to the bigger issue of teaching ID, but there is no clear link to FSM. If this can not be established, then I think the paragraph should be removed.
Otherwise I enjoyed reading this article. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The article cites web forums as sources. That is all. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, suggest withdrawal - sourcing just isn't up to par at this time, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.