Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/H5N1/archive1

H5N1
A successful WP:AID article, I think this is of great significance just now. -Litefantastic 18:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone should convert all of the external links that are in the body of the article into numbered references. At the very least, people have to stop inserting new external links that disrupt the existing numbered references. --JWSchmidt 18:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is this really stable? KingTT 19:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

--nixie 23:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Andreww 09:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Object, the following need to be addressed:
 * 1) The lead needs to mention why H5N1 is a concern.
 * 2) html links should be converted to footnotes and full details of source included (this seems to be in progress)
 * 3) By my understanding 2004/05 isn't the first time HN51 has been recorded, can some information on the first occurence and subsequent identificaion of the virus be added.
 * 4) The Asia and beyond section reads like the current events page, please try and incorporte this information into cohesive paragraphs.
 * 5) Merge pig cases and big cat cases into a sectional called HN51 in other animals.
 * 6) The worst case scenario section should probably be L2 heading and notably this is the only unsourced section, it would be useful for the reader to know which agencies are concerned about a pandemic. Information on planning for a pandemic and government responses would also be valuable addtions.
 * 7) Remove see alsos that are already mentioed in the text.
 * Comment the cleanup taskforce have been looking at this and have yet to decide it is "clean" - I don't know what that means but we should remember that. Andreww 09:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Object, just looking at the lead section:
 * 1) Third paragraph. "Usually these flu viruses " which flu viruses - N5H1 or bird flu in general? The Spanish flu was H1N1 so I guess bird flu in general but it's not clear.
 * 2) Is this about one particular H5N1 virus or about H5N1 viruses in general? I think H5N1 existed before 1997 but it only became so dangerous then.
 * Support: extensive, thorough, very well researched, structured and illustrated, this is the quintessential featured article. Furthermore, it is currently of high relevance and interest and will attract kudos and lots of traffic to Wikipedia once again. I suggest we focus on this one for rapid approval. --R.Sabbatini 10:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong object Will not meet stability criterion until the current scare goes away. Has many short subsections and paragraphs. Inline external links should probably be converted to footnotes. The "Asia and beyond" section is far from being brilliant prose. Poor layout by the end of the article. "Worst case scenario section" should be far longer and include current research. There is absolutely no info on the 1997 outbreak beyond a passing mention on the lead... and the list goes on. -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  02:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I have this page on my watchlist and I haven't seen any stability problems at all, there doesn't seem to be any sort of popularity of the article among vandals, and there don't seem to be any edit wars due to content disputes. But I don't think it matters, shouldn't this of been closed months ago? Homestarmy 15:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * 1) Infobox should be at the top of the article, instead of pushed down by an image.
 * 2) Image #1841 (the colorized transmission electron micrograph of H5N1) is displayed twice, this is redundant.
 * 3) The Wikinews template seems to be placed in an odd section in the middle of the article. --Hetar 03:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: As Hetar pointed out, H5N1 is a regular hotbed of dispute over where to place images. In no way ready for Featured Article status. Move on, nothing to see here. WAS 4.250 04:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have delisted this nomination. It seems to be a mix of several old noms--look at the dates of the comments! Please follow the instructions for re-nominations at the top of WP:FAC. Move any old noms to archives (separate archives!). Start the new nom from scratch with a new header (not one dated October 2005), which contains links to these archives, and without any old comments, and post it at the top (not the foot) of WP:FAC. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, but a nomination that conflates at least three different discussions just won't work. And how about the comments from April 6 (day before yesterday..?) Don't just put this back, please. Bishonen | talk 18:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC).
 * Comment. Since this is a WP:GACo, I suggest holding this off till monday when it'll be rotated out. I'll re-nominate it at that point myself if no one else has. (I think that most if not all of the above objections have been adressed either before, or during the improvement drive.) --Barberio 19:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)