Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Funeral of Pope John Paul II/Archive02

Funeral of Pope John Paul II
I put this article on peer review a few weeks back, and have addressed those comments. This article was also nominated for featured status previously and failed. All of the issues there have been resolved as well. The article is factually correct, with many pictures and a comprehensive coverage of a important world event. Bratsche talk random 18:14, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. The problems have not been resolved. Two people objected last time because it had tons of fair use images, and now it is being renomianted and *all* of the pictures are fair use. &rarr;Raul654 18:24, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought the problem was that the pictures were not legally used. I didn't see anything against fair use pictures on the FA criteria list. If this is truly a problem, I will withdraw this nomination. Bratsche talk  random 18:41, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Using fair use pictures, while not prohibited, is discouraged (particularly for featured articles). It's one thing to use a fair use picture on a featured-article-candidate if you really don't have much hope of finding a copyleft one, but I don't think that's the case here. It is legitimate to object when an article has tons and tons of them, like this one. &rarr;Raul654 18:45, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this nomination at all. PJPII's funeral hadn't even happened a month ago; he wasn't even dead yet. I can't imagine an article reaching a FA level of quality without a process of maturation. I see a lot of edits, but insufficient contemplation. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 23:50, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
 * Practically all articles are developed from scratch, or minimal quality, to featured quality within a month. I will cite Emsworth as my example: many of his articles are developed to a FA quality within several days. Thus, the quantity of time is irrelevent to the quality of the finished product. I assume your "maturation" refers to editing by a number of independent users during this time - this article has certainly undergone rigerous inspection and amendment. Emsworth does not wait for his article to be reviewed by many users over a period of several weeks before nominating, and there is no reason why he should. Essentially, I doubt the actionability of your critique. Time and quantity of independent editing may be indicative of a reviewed quality article, but it is not a direct relationship. Nor is it a criterion of a featured article, most users do not have the patience to leave their work to ferment for months before nomination. This article may well not be featurable yet, but do you have any thing more constructive and actionable to put forth? --Oldak Quill 11:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note Emsworth usually writes article about events that happened years (often centuries ag0) and/or people who are long dead and for which there is a lot of widely accepted documentation and information available. Phils 11:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The status of this event as a very recent event actually hampers it, as in the case of pictures. Since only accredited, professional photographers with the AP, L'Ossovertare Romano, or Catholic News Service were allowed anywhere close to the casket, Mass, or anything else (probably because of security reasons) there aren't amy free use pictures that we could use on this article. The fair-use images make it look very professional, but if they're not appropriate, then the article will probably image-less. And for the record, the article has gotten comments on both the previous FAC nomination, and on peer review. Once the comments stopped for about a week, I archived the PR request. There's no use, as Oldak said, letting the article ferment for a month. Bratsche talk  random 18:00, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * On the subject of the images, the White House has released a photo essay for the funeral taken by White House photographer Eric Draper, the copyright status of these pictures isn't immediately obvious since photgraphs taken by federal employees aren't immediately in the PD, however you could email him and ask. --nixie 04:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)