Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet/archive1

Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet
As per the suggestion of User:Phil_Boswell, I hereby nominate this article as a Featured Article Candidate on Wikipedia as this single one quote was a key turning point in a particular Canadian election campaign. --GRider\talk 17:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. No references and no picture, both of which are core FA requirements. Jeronimo 17:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * May I ask what you mean by "not referenced"? It appears to be highly referenced.  A photograph has been added if you care to reconsider.  --GRider\talk 18:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see Cite sources. Johnleemk | Talk 19:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you John, I am intimately familiar with our Cite sources document. Where in your opinion is this article falling flat with regards to citing sources?  How else can it be improved in order to become worthy of featured status?  Is it not ready as it stands?  --GRider\talk 19:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Quoth the document: "At the end of an article, under a ==References== heading, list the complete reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one per reference work." Johnleemk | Talk 19:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This was nominated two minutes after I closed its vfd. Please note the nominator there. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 18:32, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's odd...to say the least. o_0 Johnleemk | Talk 19:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not odd -- this guy is just about disrupting Wikipedia and has done almost nothing but post spurious VfDs for the last few weeks. (he's on the fast track to ArbCom in my opinion, if there was a fast track) My bet is that this is just more disruption of one form or another. --Fastfission 20:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Was this nomination made simply to prove a point or something? Everyking 08:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Nowhere near featured article standards. Nominator should withdraw the nomination and stop wasting our time. Dbiv 15:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Barely above the stub status. -- Shauri 17:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, have to agree with Dbiv about the timewasting. It doesn't even have a TOC! Considering how much higher Featured standards are today than the last time it got rejected for FA, and the oddness commented on by Korath, and the nominator's VfD career, I also urge GRider to withdraw this nomination. Bishonen | Talk 22:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing it to our attention that this article has already once been nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. As you may note on the VfD discussion, this article appears to be quite popular amongst the Wikipedia community and has since been improved.  Structural changes such as a TOC and ==References== subsection are minor and easily made.  Perhaps it will be considered again in the future.  --GRider\talk 22:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * As you may note on the previous VfD discussion, David Gerard complained on 26 June 2004 that the article had "no sections, structure insufficient to keep my eyes from sliding off the text". That's still the case, nine months later, in spite of the clear requirement for sections in the FA criteria: A Featured article should ... include headings (see Manual of Style (headings)) and have a substantial, but not overwhelming, table of contents (see Section). See also Headings. For myself, I don't find a sectioned reader-friendly structure a small matter to provide, or the addition of references either, but apparently you do. If they're minor changes easily made, how about making them already, if you're not prepared to withdraw the nomination? Bishonen | Talk 23:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong object. This article should be deleted, not promoted to featured status.  The title itself is POV, the content is nonencyclopedic, and the little information that this refers to could easily be subsumed either into the election article or into the articles about the people involved.  RickK 07:54, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object Subject is marginal at best. Where are sections? It may have a place in WP, as almost anything does, but as written, it is not comparable to the quality of most Featured Articles I've read to date. Vaoverland 19:10, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object I agree with everything above. it simply has nothing strong about it, nothing that I can see stands out. it is stub length and the topic is not very important or worthwhile. --Lan56 08:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? -- Riffsyphon1024 00:22, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ignore. WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 14:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In favour. --Spinboy 01:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)