Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Democratic Republic of Afghanistan/archive1

Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
I find it well-written and exceptionally well politically balanced. The only missing criterion is pictures, but they are not so important IMO for this type of article, and may easily be added. Mikkalai 23:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. No lead section, nearly twice the recommended article size, does not follow WikiProject Countries standards, badly needs subsectioning (but given the size, that would create an overwhelming TOC). In general a more condensed treatment is needed for those who don't have the time to read all this. --mav 04:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * lead section. Sorry. My overlook at nomination.
 * size. A ridiculous, discriminating objection.
 * I don't see how countries standards apply. This is an article about a period of history, not "Afganistan" article.
 * Then I believe it should be made a bit clearer. I did expect to see a country, not an history page. Circeus 23:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Subsectioning without reason? 15 sections not enough?
 * condensed. Agreed. Some sections may be summarized and made subarticles from them. Mikkalai 17:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Overal. I agree. My nomination was premature. I was impressed by the text, and overlooked the structure. Mikkalai 17:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Objecting based on size is a perfectly valid. This is an encyclopedia and people very often have limited time to get the information they need about a topic. Having a treatment that is both comprehensive and can be read within the average adult’s attention span (~20 minutes) is very useful to the reader. The reason is due to limited time the reader may have and the fact that the writer has already done the work of prioritizing the more important parts for the reader. This makes the article much more useful as a jumping off point to more detailed treatments on sub-topics (which might be tied together with a series box). That can be done with sections that have links to daughter articles that go into detail on the topic summarized in that section. See USSR for an example of a country article about a dead nation. I was talking about subsectioning - many of the sections are rather long and therefore could use some structure (not too much since that can stifle further development of that section) --mav 17:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Mav, just a week back you vehemently objected to my summary on the Singapore article after I had added the main points. It still conformed to the directions you later gave me. == 19:43, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Add an intro and split some content into subarticles. Everyking 10:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Once there's an introduction, I'll probably support this article. Hydriotaphia 21:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * I take that back. There need to be sources. Hydriotaphia 21:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)