Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ancient Healing Device

Ancient Healing Device
Self Nomination I started this article in conjuction with WikiProject Stargate. Since then at least a dozen people have improved it. After I put the finishing touches on this article I decided to nominate it here. It covers everything on the topic. And I mean everything. I don't think any new content can be added here. This shows wikipedia's uniqueness greatly. I was only able to find one other page on the entire net descibing this device. It is well written, perfectly formatted. Fit style, is fully wikified, and is well written. If this article becomes featured, it will also, add to our FA diversity, as no Stargate articles are featured yet. Stargate is a very popular show, and this article represents the device described in it very nicely. Tobyk777 04:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Object The article is far too short, and the only references are other Wikipedia articles. It also doesn't give enough background for those of us who aren't Stargate fans. Also, there are punctuation mistakes and sentence fragments.Captain Jackson 04:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose, numerous spelling and grammatical errors, generally poor writing, very limited amount of context provided for non-fans of the show. Andrew Levine 04:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment It would have been much better to improve and nominate the Stargate article itself, as it would be much more interesting to the general Wikipedia audience. Captain Jackson 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Response That article is far too general. The only good thing about it is that it links to more specific articles.  That article already may be up to FA standards, but this information in it is so general, that only someone who has never even heard of stargate would benefit from it.  These are more specific articles that can be nominated, (Though still too general it think) which are good for non-fans:  Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, List of Stargate Atlantis episodes.  Stargate is just so general that it only serves as a basic introduction for people who have never heard of Stargate before.  Tobyk777 05:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, being general does not prevent an article from becoming FA as long as the article meet all of the required attributes. We encourage sub-articles which go into specifics, so that our initial article can be comprehensive over the whole topic and not end up 2000 pages long trying to cover everything. -- KTC 23:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. Many spelling and gramatical grammatical mistakes, article is too short and too confusing for people not familiar with this TV show (like myself). I also agree with Captain Jackson above. JoaoRicardotalk 22:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OMG! gramatical mistakes you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.129.66 (talk • contribs)
 * Object, not comprehensive among other objections. -- KTC 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not comprehensive? What's that supposed to mean?  There is no more information that can be added.  It exhausts the topic.  It's probably one of the most comprehensive articles on wikipedia.  Many of these other objections are valid, but saying that it's not comprehensive is totaly false, if you watch the show you will be able to see that this covers the topic to the extreme.  Tobyk777 04:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that it's just too damn short. Whether or not there is anything else to say about it doesn't matter. An article should be much more than two or three paragraphs long to be a feature article. Again, I strongly suggest giving up on this one and finding another Stargate article, preferably one describing one of the series, improving it, and nominating it. Don't forget non-Wikipedian references, inline citations, and brilliant prose. :) Captain Jackson 23:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment, the article could benefit from relating the subject to the production of Stargate, not just its storyline. For example, Spoo from Babylon 5 describes its origin and etymology with the writer, as well as its physical characteristics. --maclean 25 19:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object: this article is too short, hasn't been referenced properly and the actual text doesn't seem to flow. This information would have come to light had it been Peer Reviewed. --Matthew kokai 09:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)