Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Collapse of the World Trade Center/archive1

Collapse of the World Trade Center
Self-nom (mostly), resubmitted from some months ago. Added schematic and improved text should settle minor objections from last time. JDG 07:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The introduction could use some polishing. The introduction talks about the collapse and how it prompted discussion, but doesn't give any hint as to what the article actually says. &rarr;Raul654 07:28, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Added a sentence. Does that help? JDG
 * It's an improvement, but a single sentence is insuffecient. I suggest you read Lead section. &rarr;Raul654 20:27, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just overhauled it. JDG
 * The introduction looks good now. The article is also in need of some wikification as well. I did some, but I think it could use more. &rarr;Raul654 17:17, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Raul. I was a slight bit annoyed when you objected to the short intro because I felt expanding it much would lead to redundancy for anyone who went on to read the full article. Now I see that it is indeed better if the intro acts as a sort of "executive summary" for articles of this length and longer. I'd say Collapse is right on the edge in this respect-- a shorter article would get quite redundant with a detailed intro... I'll be looking to wikify more too. JDG

...Well, it looks like time is up and we have 2 supports to 1 objection. How does that play out? JDG 23:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A few comments added to the talk page. Tempshill 22:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose No references. --mav 22:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I added the two main references. (One was already in the "external links", the other is a TV documentary.) - Marcika 00:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support; not too short, not too long. Wins points for including "... the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)" rather than just "FEMA", and even more points for mentioning a conspiracy theory without giving the impression that the writer either secretly believes in it, or has an axe to grind against it - which would make the axe sharper. Perhaps I need to think of a better metaphor. Perhaps if the diagram included an outline of a 767, as I once saw on television, that might be better.-Ashley Pomeroy 13:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose; detailed comments on the talk page. Jgm 03:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not consensus - this nom is going to fail. &rarr;Raul654 16:32, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)