Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chagas disease

Chagas disease
The article is comprising, well-written and structured. I believe that it meets the criteria for being featured. It was written mainly and is maintained mostly by a Brazilian user who is a PhD doctor with lab experience in the disease. Support. Redux 2 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)
 * Support. Good article. I am not sure about the copyright of the foto of the poor sick child though - is there a permission to use it? (CDC is a US-government agency and the image is therefore public domain.) --Fenice 2 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)<--edited--Fenice 2 July 2005 09:29 (UTC)
 * Neutral, good article, but for the non-scientists I'd like to see a short explanation of terms like pathogen and vector, etc. - Mgm|(talk) July 2, 2005 12:58 (UTC)
 * Support, my stuff has been adressed. - Mgm|(talk) July 3, 2005 20:01 (UTC)
 * Object, it's close but not there yet. I'd like to see inline cites in a reference list rather than html links in the text. The italic section in the lead should be moved to a seperate section on the parasite and it's evolution and the pathogen-vetcor relationship (there is actually very little description of the pathogen, since it and the disease seem to be the topic of the article more description of the pathogen should be included), and the lead should be expanded. The life cycle diagram should have a descriptive caption. What are the articles in the bibliography, were they used to write the article or are they further reading?--nixie 2 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)


 * As Mgm requested, I've inserted explanation to the words "pathogen" and "vector". I did it only for the first appearance of each word in the article, since once explained, the reader will understand the other references.  About the bibliography, I will ask Rsabattini, but it is most likely that he has read all of those books at some point in his life, meaning that they are indeed intelectual references  (noting that someone with his expertise and experience probably knew most of what is in the article by heart).  Regards, Redux 2 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)
 * The articles in the bibliography were used as sources to the facts in the body of the text. We are adding also a number of external links and in-depth sources for further reading. Rsabbatini 3 July 2005.
 * Support. I have completed quite an overhaul and additions to the original article. I hope User:MacGyverMagic and User:Petaholmes are satisfied now and that the selection process can proceed. Thanks for the choice. Rsabbatini. 3 July 2005.
 * Support. Good work! Phil s 3 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)
 * Neutral Lets have more time to give specialists opportunity to correct. I doubt strongly "our" epedemiologic map does any better than these google hits. m.20050704. (Vote by 213.7.155.183.)
 * Still oppose, I had changed to support, but going over the article again the english not always clear, the html links still need to be put into a reference list, the lead still needs expansion, and what are the list of sources?--nixie 4 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)
 * I noticed this article and decided that I really want it to be an FAC. I've started working on the English.  When I'm done and if inline references are added, I'll support. Hopefully you will as well. Dave (talk) July 5, 2005 12:39 (UTC)
 * Support, some minor cleanup and then FAC. JFW | T@lk  4 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)
 * I have started cleaning up English and improving on the overall structure of the article. It will take a few days, though. Please have patience, it will become a FAC in due time, but with a super good-looking text. Answering to User:Petaholmes, the list of sources are public domain texts from the US Government such as CDC and NLM which were used as primary material for text and images Rsabbatini.

Is the article already featured? The tag in its talk page says so, and it has been listed on WP:FA. Isn't there some sort of "closure" required? Anyways, good news! Regards, Redux 01:45, 8 July 2005 (UTC)