Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Karla Homolka/archive1

Karla Homolka
Read the CNN.com article about this lady today, and thought it was interesting. Came to el pedia, expecting to find a couple of paragraphs; imagine my surprise when I found this massive treatment of the person, case, and common myths. --Golbez 00:27, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Object. Lead's too short. Dralwik 02:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Object the misconceptions section in not really in an appropriate format and all those facts should be refferenced.--nixie 02:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure this is comprehensive? Also, she's about to be released, so this may be a bad time to make this a FA (generally right in the midst of a current event is a bad time because we want the article to be relatively stable). Also the "misconception" section gives me a slight impression of a pro-Karla POV...those are just some thoughts, I'm not voting on it. Everyking 05:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Object!. Incredibly POV and wishy washy. Consider sentences like: This was an utter failure if it is to be believed. Many of the myths floating about the internet were far more sickening than the actual details of the case (which were, indeed, very upsetting in their own right). Unfortunately, due to the very nature of the internet, many of these tall tales are still to be found, while the factual details -- protected by the publication ban -- are much more difficult to find.; Most of the ban breaking was done on the unfortunately named alt.fan.karla-homolka Usenet newsgroup.; The whole article is also written in a rather informal style, and the single reference (without any footnotes to acompany the external links are insufficient to make this article credible. The "Common misconceptions" section will also have to go (or be completely rewritten in another form) for me to support this FAC; right now, it feels like a sensational tabloid infobox. Phil s 22:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Object, highly POV. Neutralitytalk 19:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Refer to Peer Review. Even having just copy edited the article, I still feel that it is POV, light on sourcing and needs to have the sensational "misconceptions" section rewritten. This is too much to address here. --Theo  (Talk) 21:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * object - seems like there is only one reference for quite a lot of material! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's start again I have taken on the reorganization, reediting and rewriting of the articles on both of these adorable killers. It is important that all relevant facts are put on the table so that people can understand what went on and make up their own minds. Because of certain obstacles I have to do this in sections. ALL references will be added after the articles are complete. IF the bot once more deletes my changes and accuses me of being an unidentified vandal, while I am signed in, I will leave if for someone else to pick up. Freiherrin (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

PS AGAIN - I am logged in yet am told "You are not currently logged in." Am sick of this. Any suggestions?Freiherrin (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)