Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holy Prepuce/archive1

Holy Prepuce
This article shows in my opinion the best quality of wikipedia: her unusual articles. Its nicely written in a rather detached style. No, it does not have a picture, although i think importing the image of Jesus could be an idea. I think it would look wonderful in the front page. Muriel G 07:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The article looks wonderful, thanks to all the ones who time and effort to polish it. I'm also glad to see so many people supporting my view of a wikipedia featured article. Now i shall translate it asap to wiki.pt. Cheers, Muriel G 17:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Nice to see you still around, Muriel. :-) I do like this article -- I wonder, though, if it could be extended at all?  Perhaps the addition of a section on, for example, theology (have authors rejected the thought that Jesus was circumcised? should it have gone to him when he resurrected?  If not, would amputees lack their limbs at resurrection?)?  Or more explanation of miracles associated with it?  I know length is important to many people.  Otherwise, though, the article is good -- needs sectioning and a little grammar check, I imagine, but once that's done I'd support.  I'd prefer more length, though. Jwrosenzweig 18:24, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * In light of sectioning and Ihcoyc's excellent addition, support wholeheartedly. :-) And really, Smerdis.....Saturn?  I didn't know what you meant till I re-read the article -- thanks for the good laugh. Jwrosenzweig 21:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I nominated it months ago. (Why was it removed, I wonder?) -- Infrogmation 19:08, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd like it to be longer, with sections. It reads like there's more to be said. That's a suggestion, not an objection. Support - David Gerard 19:15, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I have worked on this article myself, and recently added some thoughts and references as to whether Jesus got a fresh foreskin at the resurrection, so my vote for support would be something of a self-nomination. Perhaps a picture of the planet Saturn could be added also?  I'd like to know how the rite of circumcision changed after Jesus' life; and whether it has ever been common for foreskins to be kept as keepsakes.  That said, support.  Smerdis of Tlön 20:54, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Just because--well, nevermind, I'll get in trouble. But, support. jengod 21:18, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, good article, although it could use a little more info and I question the usefulness of the "Cloning" section at the end. Everyking 21:46, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree with everyking. Support, with the possible exception of the cloning bit, which seems a little too irreverent/speculative. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:54, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
 * Genius. Fully support. Johnleemk | Talk 13:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. Support (love the picture of Saturn and accompanying caption). --ALargeElk | Talk 13:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, but... I'm not sure the picture of Saturn helps. And for the lead picture, I would suggest using a picture of one of the abbeys claiming possession (if one can be found) or a general picture of a reliquary. The cloning section is clearly problematic. The point seems worth making, but currently isn't sufficient for a section of its own. I would suggest merging it with the Allegorical section and giving the combined section a better name. There is also the practical problem that, given the unkowns of immaculate conception, it is not clear that you would expect conventional DNA amenable to current cloning techniques. -- Solipsist 13:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, and btw Muriel a rather detached style. is a priceless description of both this article and subject. - DropDeadGorgias (talk)
 * Support. And the picture of Saturn should stay.  The dry, encyclopedic humor is perfect for Wikipedia. --Shibboleth 22:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * ! A very readable article. Just in case, though, could there be some references / sources cited? Because it's only just this side of believability... I support if they're added. &mdash; Matt 00:19, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Now has some references. Atheism.about.com has a good article on this, but I haven't included it as it's quite similar to this article, so much so that I'm guessing one of them was largely based on the other. --ALargeElk | Talk 10:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. 195.167.169.36 11:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Ambi 01:20, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Read the article three times and still love it! -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)