Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Duck and Cover (film)/archive1

Duck and Cover (film)

 * After two trips through the FAC, a brief nomination at the COTW and a sucessful nomination at the AID, nobody can say we're not trying. A self nom, but only to a point. A lot of dedicated people have put in work here, and I think it's ready at last. -Litefantastic 14:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article is too short to be comprehensive. It doesn't say how long it was shown in schools. And a large chunk of the article is a list. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 09:01, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Cut me some slack. Even the IMDb doesn't know how long it was in schools. And did I mention this article also spent about three weeks on Peer Review? -Litefantastic 17:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is an earnest effort to make a mountain out a mole hill.  The cultural context of the cold war is deserving of its own article.  And as Evil Monkey suggest, half of the article is a list  Fawcett5 22:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Saying it isn't an important subject is A) POV and B) not a criterion on the 'what is a featured article' list. -Litefantastic 00:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see any featured article High School or Pokemon character articles, no matter how thoroughly developed or well written so clearly this is something people DO consider. I'm not suggesting that Duck and Cover falls into this category, but by itself I just don't see how it can ever develop into a suitable length for a FA without resorting to lists, as is the case now.  I DO think it would be a wonderful part of a larger and more comprehensive article on the cultural context of the cold war... Fawcett5 18:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Interesting read, but still needs more development. I.e., there isn't a single mention to Anthony Rizzo, nor to his other work in the subject, Our Cities Must Fight. The fact that this info is available at an external link doesn't mean it shouldn't be at least mentioned in the article. -- Shauri 23:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Interesting but there has to be a way to beef it up more. Since this is old enough and a government work (making it PD) there must be a copy of the video somewhere. I will not support this without the video being on commons or at least a link to the video at an external site. The video itself is too critical to the article.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 00:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, he has already provided a link to either download it or watch it online. See the article's External links. -- Shauri 01:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hrm wierd, when I looked there was just the IMDB link in the Externals  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 18:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Object Too short. I don't know how can this ever be long enough to become a FA. But the topic is just too short to even be expanded on. Squash 05:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)