Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bear community

Bear community
I think this article is a very fascinating, well written article about something the general public would find fascinating. I'd like to see an article be featured that isn't quite so serious and intense. Pacian 16:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article is very short, and what content is there is primarily in list form.  No references at all.  This article is not Wikipedia's best work. bcasterline t 17:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Please go through WP:WIAFA. The article lacks references, is mostly in lists, and has a .gif image. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per above. I don't mind have a less serious topic for a featured article, but I don't think this article is an example of the best of Wikipedia. :/ --Syrthiss 18:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's not a good article and even if it was I don't think it would be appropriate to feature it. —This unsigned comment was added by Drnknsooner (talk • contribs) 00:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC).
 * Comment: Appropriateness is not a criteria. Any and all articles can become featured.--Fallout boy 01:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The first line of the article declares that it is a stub. Stubs cannot be FAs. Batmanand | Talk 01:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Then oppose because it is not exhaustive enough, and becuse of the lack of reference. Batmanand | Talk 17:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not trying to undercut you or anything but I've removed the stub tag... it was misplaced and not really appropriate anyway. --W.marsh 04:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Too much of the content comprises lists and it is rather short. Brisvegas 09:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article contains relatively little factual content, and consists mainly of lists. Additionally, there is a defined lack of references. --NEMT 17:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per almost all comments above. I don't mind this topic becoming a featured article (articles about rarely-exposed subcultures probably would be very popular with the general public), but this definitely isn't up to FA status. The content definitely has to be beefed up, with a lot less emphasis on the lists; more references and citations need to be added; there's plenty of work required.Alexthe5th 12:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Way too many weasels, not comprehensive and lacks references. Mi kk er (...) 00:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose No references, too short, and slightly fails NPOV. Needs a re-write too.  Wouldn't make WP:GA so why should it make FA?  Recommend Peer Review.  -DMurphy 00:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per most of the above comments. Also, after reading this article, it seems to be somewhat inaccurately named. It's not really about the bear community; it's more about bears. The Disco King 04:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)