Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anubis/archive1

Anubis
I have suggested this article as it is about an important, culturally relevant aspect of an ancient religion with numerous ties to popular culture. Additionally it is very well-written.


 * Object needs refences, and small lead to start with, send to Peer Review --Jaranda wat's sup 22:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Many of the pop culture examples of Anubis have articles. For example this one: Anubis (Stargate) before this can become featured, we need a disambiguation page.  Many of the other ones could be confused with Anubis. Also, anubis is worshiped in some neo-pagan cults.  There is nothing in the article abou that.  Tobyk777 05:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ask and you shall receive. Anubis (disambiguation) is live. I'll give a mail program thingy at the bottom its own page. - Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Subsequently, this apparent infidelity of Osiris was explained in myth, in which it was said that a sexually frustrated Nepthys had disguised herself as Isis in order to appeal to her husband, Set, but he did not notice her as he was gay and infertile, whereas Isis' husband Osiris did, mistaking her for his wife, which resulted in Anubis' birth. I think saying Set was gay needs to be removed or heavily backed up by reliable sources. IIRC gay wasn't a concept they had in those days anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 11:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object looks great, nice variety of pics, needs more text tho --PopUpPirate 22:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object there sould be more subsections, as having one huge section is a bad way of writing. Plus if only one sourse is used (even if the information is common knowledge) is poor Thethinredline 10:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. One third of this article consists of the section "Anubis in modern culture", which is nothing but one long list.  FA requires "brilliant prose", and lists like this don't qualify. Fieari 15:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Second Fiaeri, the "modern culture" section as it is absolutely has to go. These "Add yours!" lists represent the worst in encyclopedic writing.--Eloquence* 05:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)