Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bart McQueary

Bart McQueary

 * Support, he's planning on running for government office and this will be a great "pre-emptive" move to get people aware of who this guy is before any of the lies or mudslinging starts69.154.189.180 05:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is used for pre-emptive strikes?66.32.122.233 19:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds more like grounds for deletion than grounds for featuring. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Carnildo 20:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Even though your comments have been noted and your zeal for participating in Featured Articles votes are appreciated I must inform you that your vote will not be counted when it comes time to count the votes, This is not personal and I urge you to create an account so that you can have your vote officially counted.  Jtkiefer  T - 07:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

WegianWarrior 05:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong object. In addition to needing a massive NPOVing, there is no copyright information on the pictures used.
 * Support, I'm sure that Bart couldn't be happier than to be featured on Wikipedia. He's determined that everyone will know his name - he subscribes to the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity." He makes it a point to make people dislike him. If he runs for office, he surely dosen't expect to win but rather use the publicity. He dosen't accept any money. So all it can do is help him. Go for it! 66.32.122.233 06:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Even though your comments have been noted and your zeal for participating in Featured Articles votes are appreciated I must inform you that your vote will not be counted when it comes time to count the votes, This is not personal and I urge you to create an account so that you can have your vote officially counted.  Jtkiefer  T - 07:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

No Harro5 you are wrong. It says on the discussion page "A well written article that also will help serve to raise awareness."
 * Absolutely not. Terribly written, not at all notable or worthy of Wikipedia's time, no referencing system, no real information of any value...this nomination should be removed. Harro5 07:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * In responce to the unsigned comment by 66.32.122.233; the article don't seem very well written to me. As it stands it is in need of NPOVing (I notice that a number of things that are, how to put it, less flattering have been edited out) as well as a rewrite to make it easier to read. WegianWarrior 10:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think more references should be cited, the lead article needs to be longer and the page could use a cleanup. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Right now, it's a "he said" and a "and then he did this, and then this" format, more like a news report than an encyclopedia article. Structurally, the page is focused so much on following every exploit that it's a celebration of him in the guise of a condemnation, and both POV's need to be removed.  So far, he has had nearly zero effect on the world and only some slight effect on the digestion of Internet junkies, so it's not really dealing with a significant bit of history or news.  The writing is choppy, and, most of all, there just isn't any logical presentation of the subject.  And to the IP editor: these are actionable objections, and lawyering about it is absolutely no use.  Geogre 16:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article definately needs a ton more references and a much more NPOV. Many times while reading this piece I felt that I was reading a self-promotional brochure about the guy instead of an encyclopedia article.--Alabamaboy 17:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Object.
 * The images Image:Bartley.jpg and Image:Bart 2.JPG have no copyright information
 * The incidents described in "1.4: Internet Presence": is there any significance to this, or is it just normal forum squabbling?
 * Overall organization: How is it organized? It certainly isn't chronological, but it probably should be.
 * Health problems: How is his sleep apnea and other problems significant? And why is it important that he took time out from the announcement to call someone names?
 * References: The article is completely lacking in third-party references, and much of the "so-and-so says" statements are completely unsourced.
 * I'm sure there are other problems.
 * --Carnildo 18:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: the article is up for WP:VFD at Votes for deletion/Bart McQueary 2. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)