Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Max Weber/archive1

Max Weber
My first Featured Article from November'04 was recently defeatured for insufficient inline citation, a defeaturing critieria I strongly support. I have finally found time to go over ol' Max and add inline citations to the article; this with some other minor changes (expanded lead, removed unreferenced essayish sections that others added to the article (now split and mentioned in see also)) make it FA-worthy again, IMHO. Your comments, as always, much appreciated. Some links of interest: Old nomination from Nov'04; unsuccesfull FARC from Apr'05 (addressed then); Ancient PR.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please fix the ref punctuation.
 * I'd assume there is a bot for this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No idea but it think that I have fixed it anywayys. Jeltz talk  23:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tnx!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you discuss this source, since almost the entire aricle is referenced to it? My concern is POV or comprehensiveness, when an article relies heavily on one source.  Bendix, Reinhard, Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait, University of California Press, 1977, ISBN 0520031946 Sandy 18:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This book is published by a respected academic academic press (University of California Press) and is written by a notable academc author (Reinhard Bendix), which makes it quite reliable. The book seems quite widely cited, I am sure there are many reviews, here are two (by Talcott Parsons and T.H. Marshall). If you can find a review which indicates the book is POVed or outdates, we will have to consider this again, but I think the source is pretty sound.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Object
 * 1) Don't use italics for quotes, per the MoS
 * 2) The article needs a copyedit and there are several single sentence paragraphs floating around on their own
 * 3) The caption on the 1917 image is a bit dull, do you know what he was doing?
 * 4) I'm not opposing on this point, but according to WP:CITE books refs should probably provide page numbers where the information is paraphrased from the source; it would make ref 2 a whole lot easier to navaigate should someone want to follow up from this article. For long sections all form the same source (like much of the Sociology of religion) its probably easiest and less dispuptive to the flow of the text just stick the ref at the begining or end of each section with the page range (unless it's a direct quote).
 * --Peta 01:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support. Meets, and in some cases exceeds, all important criteria. Most of the minor objections have been addressed. Petty quibbles should not be allowed to hold back such a fine article on one of the fathers of modern social sciences. Another great job, Prokonsul!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Addressed 1st and 2nd. For 3rd, I am afraid I don't know much about the photo, caption comes from the sourced page and that's all it sais, IIRC. As for 4th, I thought about adding page numbers, but honestly, I found it too time consuming (separate ref for almost all of those 30+ refs, I did it once for Józef Piłsudski and I am not doing it again for any article until we get a better WYSIWIG references editor which we talked about at Wikimania); and besides I didn't have access to the edition I used in Poland, and Google Print had two editions (different pages...) - I couldn't decide which one I should use :). On a sidenote, page referencing is so 'old tech' - I am really looking towards some kind of 'semantic book referencing' future :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, support --Peta 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Object for now, although it's reeeeeeally close. Enthusiastically support! Referencing is now top-notch. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Excellent article. Well cited, seems to meet all FA criteria. Kaldari 01:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support per Kalderi. Rama's arrow  03:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - Wow, great article! Sources are particularly impressive and it's very well-written. -Bluedog423Talk 19:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - Nice comprehensive article. Well-sourced, appropriate length. --Delta Tango 11:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)