Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heavy metal umlaut/archive1

Heavy metal umlaut
I really enjoyed this one. Cow 00:05, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. My first thought was "what a silly article!"  But no, it gives a reasonable discussion of a real trend.  I'll still call it "quirky".  But some quirky features is a good thing.  --Andrew 02:50, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Kaihsu 08:21, 2004 May 7 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a well written article (also, I always wondered what the deal was with those umlauts.)  Uranographer 09:00, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. This was nominated back in March.  What happened then? Markalexander100 10:08, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Didn't need to know any of this, but feel better for having learned about it. Quirky doesn't quite convey the effect. Good to have a lighter toned piece now and then ww 14:47, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Unique about wikipedia--Britannica would never have this article. :) jengod 19:56, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support completely. I like to see this sort of article nominated - a bit unusual, a bit pop cultural.  Great job. Moncrief 20:26, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * S&uuml;pp&ouml;rt! I stumbled on this article early in my Wikipedia experience and was impressed at how detailed and well-researched an otherwise obscure subject can be. - Lucky 6.9 00:15, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Every encyclopedia should include the occasional article which, when stumbled upon, provokes a reader to exclaim "Gadzööks!" Denni 00:36, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
 * Support! It's actually a nice surprise to see this article nominated. After the first time I saw it I remembered about The Onion article and added it to the text. MikeCapone 04:00, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Such an interesting article - a good example of information which is well worth knowing but would never be in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Dmn
 * Hey! I nominated this once before, and no one took it seriously.  Oh well, it's still a good article, and I enthusiastically support. Isomorphic 20:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)