Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bigfoot/archive1

Bigfoot[edit]

What I like about the Bigfoot article is that it is the result of the contributions of both "believers" and "debunkers". The result is an article which is balanced and well sourced. I learned a lot from it. (I made only a couple of edits, one of which was quickly reverted.) Steve Dufour 01:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong object, Has an original research tag, short stubby sentences, and 3 dozen plus external jumps. I didn't get any further. Rlevse 02:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they are still working on the article. Steve Dufour 03:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Object per the above. Featured articles should not have tags (especially ones regarding original research), and should have references conforming with WP:CITE. --physicq210 02:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The articles have numerous references, which is a good thing. However, convert your external links to the footnote format or embedded link style prescribed by WP:CITE. This is my main objection. Correct this and I may reconsider. --physicq210 23:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hope someone will do that. It is beyond me since I am a relative newcomer to Wikipedia and don't understand all the technical stuff. Steve Dufour 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2 As stated, the prose is very choppy. Combining sections and a rewrite are in order. In addition peer review is a very useful tool in bringing articles up to true FA status. --physicq210 00:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. —Jared Hunt September 9, 2006, 03:53 (UTC)
Weak Oppose as per above. There are some minor NPOV problems, too. --queso man 17:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support What can I say? Description, Bigfoot phenomenon, Eyewitness reports, Physical evidence, etc... most of these are very well written. Hoping that people will continue to work at this article, I support it! KYMYK 11:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it is a very informative article. I can also see the objectors' point that there is still a lot of original research in it. That should be removed and then the tag taken off. Steve Dufour 15:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did that as well as I could. I'd like to ask the objectors to take another look at the article. Steve Dufour 16:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I have converted all of the embedded external links to inline citations with copyright attribution and some minor text tweaks. It's a start, but a number of the citations are to less than reliable sources and a number of the links were broken (I left all those in, but hid them from view and left notes flagging them). There are red-links, uneven passages, one line paragraphs, {{fact}} templates (some of which I added), a disambiguation header that doesn't make sense (is Yeti and Sasquatch what is meant?) and so on. The article contains significant, good material but has a ways to go.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. It looks like it's not going to make Featured Article right now, but it has been much improved by the process. Steve Dufour 02:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the article needs some work, but the disambiguation header does make sense if you click on the links. Bigfoot and Sasquatch are two names for the same alleged creature. However, the "Bigfoot" dab page refers to other things which are only known as "Bigfoot" (the truck, the town, etc) while the "Sasquatch" page refers to other things which are only known as "Sasquatch" (the Marvel Comics character, the Capcom fighter, etc). It makes sense to have both dab messages on the page because Sasquatch redirects to Bigfoot. Yeti has its own article and is generally assumed to refer to Bigfoot's Himalayan counterpart (not sure if the article makes this clear, but it should), so we don't need to mention Yeti in the dab header. Zagalejo 14:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The one image the article has has no fair use rationale. There are also still many gaps in the information; citation needed tags, very strange article sectioning, and red links. Keep working on it! Judgesurreal777 14:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I take the nominator's point about debunkers and believers, but as with most contested tug-of-war pages, Bigfoot has suffered from having many editors hurriedly input their factoid or POV anywhere. Each addition may be both well-meant and, in itself, useful, but the structure is totally incoherent. The sections are random in order, and have no focus, separately or together. Any connection between sections and their headings seems to be pure luck. One-sentence paragraphs are the norm. The TOC is a monster. I started trying to copy-edit this article a month ago, and progressed to the nervous breakdown you see in this edit summary, as I realized the depths of the structural problem. It hasn't gotten any better since, I see. Bishonen | talk 05:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose I have hopes to get this article to featured level at some point, but now is not that point. I have to agree with Bishonen that the article is in need of help. Frankly, it really needs a complete rewrite.--MONGO 10:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-Page seems much too large, and writing style uneven throughout article. It's good, but not FA status. Trnj2000 19:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -This article needs a LOT of work. Withdraw the nomination, nominate it at a later timepoint.Martial Law 00:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator I agree. How do I withdraw the nomination? Steve Dufour 03:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]