Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Narcolepsy/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

Narcolepsy
Just a great article. It is referenced and written clearly. Seems to follow all Wikipedia policies & guidelines. I'm not an editor of this article, but just stumbled across it today. Being someone who has never studied narcolepsy and after reading the article I feel informed and feel its facts are reliable. Chupper 17:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Object Far from being ready. Not well written, poor source citing. Should be removed from FAC rapidly.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Object Per Dwaipayan. Please refer to WP:PR first. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 18:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Object. I have made a number of contributions to the article. While it is a good article, it is not worthy to be featured. Axl 18:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OBJECT. Needs a substantial expansion of the lead per WP:LEAD. 1(a) considerations: too many one-sentence paragraphs. Bullet points are just that, bullet points. Need refining. Prose in general is not brilliant/compelling. Popular culture references is too listy, to trivia-esque. 1(c) considerations. This article is sorely unreferenced. This should be a candidate for speedy FAC closing. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 18:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:WIAFA. Aside from everything mentioned above, I'd like to slightly build upon one of Explorer's comments: Just get rid of the pop culture section. It's unnecessary. -- Kicking222 19:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wouldn't get rid of the popular culture references section, I would keep it and develop it for one reason. Narcolepsy is very misunderstood and as such is often incorrectly depicted in artistic works or in characterisations. That should be a point on which this article can make the popular culture references section a viable, compelling, relevant section. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 21:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point regarding how narcolepsy is portrayed in popular culture, and I certainly wouldn't object to a section dealing with this; as you state, there are certainly many misconceptions out there. However, a section simply saying "in Film X, Character Y is a narcoleptic," which is the current state of the pop culture section, will not do. -- Kicking222 00:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The pop culture section as is needs to go.  Might as well start with a clean slate. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Guidelines at WP:MEDMOS may be helpful, with respect to cultural section and the rest as well. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It should also be emphasized that the article needs many many more inline citations. I only saw two, and vast swaths of text that were completely unreferenced. That alone disqualifies it for FA. Jeffpw 21:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Object Please add way more citations, what this article has now is unacceptable for a Featured Article. Arjun  01:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Object Article lacks citations, and the pop culture section needs a rewrite. --SunStar Nettalk 12:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.