Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Papal conclave, 2005/archive1

Papal conclave, 2005
I am nominating this article. I know that as a currently being edited article it isn't stable but notwithstanding that I think it is a credit to wikipedia. It deals with an immediate issue of worldwide concern in a deeply factual, objective manner. It conveys context and history in a form that few other net sources on the conclave does. I think it is worth highlighting this article as an example of just what wikipedia can do, and of the calibre of all the people who had contributed. Indeed I would say a lot of media sources and members of the public would benefit greatly from seeing this article. This is the sort of 'up to the minute' deep analysis that shows just how good wikipedia can be and everyone who has contributed to it has added to its quality. Take a bow, wikipedia, and let the world know that the best and most comprehensive internet analysis of the forthcoming conclave can be found on wikipedia. Fear ÉIREANN 21:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Object - one of the criteria is that the article is "Stable: a featured article should be mostly static, and not change rapidly from day to day". Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 23:15, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Mostly static. There are no edit wars, no disputes on content. The only change taking place is that when someone else finds additional information (eg, today's in pectore information) it is added in. In fact, given that it is a live subject just 48 hours old it is astonishing static - work on it is all about information, not POV, edit wars, rows over content, etc. Most of the information it needs to cover is in there now. It is likely to remain largely as it is now, with minor tweaks on information. Many articles take weeks to achieve its stability and consensus. Fear ÉIREANN  23:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Just look at the page diff between yesterday and today. You'd be hard pressed to find a more unstable article on all of wikipedia. &rarr;Raul654 02:14, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, stability issues aside, since the conclave hasn't yet happened, the article itself is mostly speculation. Remember, Wikipedia is not original research, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. &rarr;Raul654 04:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. Instability: articles with current tags are inherently not stable. No references. 119 00:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. The only way this article could remain stable over the next few weeks is thorugh undesirable neglect. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:13, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Heavily fails stability test. -- Shauri 05:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. Instabilty (which {current} by definition implies) and lack of refs are the least of its problems. The intro is too short and the discrepancy between the general article being titled papal "election", and this being titled papal "conclave" has to be corrected one way or the other (preferably, IMHO), or it at least has to be clearly addressed before the reader gets to the first "Main article" link. Also, the whole article needs a major copyedit by someone assuming the reader has zero knowledge of Catholicism--I learned more about the relationship between the terms "conclave" and "papal election" from the Talk page than I did the article; "Curialist" isn't defined and the article it links to doesn't provide much insight; "One should keep in mind how historically rare non-Italian popes are..."--if I don't know that, actual numbers would be a big help; "A selection of a pope from the United States or France would be seen as too controversial"--why?; that sort of thing... Niteowlneils 05:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Object This is an article about an event that will start in the next fortnight and be over in the next 4 to 6 weeks! It'd be quite perverse to make it a FA now - try again in 2 months' time, jguk 18:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Object&mdash;I'm flexible about this kind of thing, I supported the Dec. 2004 tsunami article, but making it FA before the conclave has even happened just takes it too far. I'd be happy to support it if it maintains a high level of quality in covering future events. Everyking 20:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Support I was going to nominate this article if it hadn't already been nominated. I realize that it's an article on a current event, but the article's quality is so high and it covers its subject so comprehensively that I think it should be considered as a featured article regardless. This article is exactly the sort of writing we should be encouraging on Wikipedia; if stability is the only issue, then perhaps we should feature it after the conclave. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 20:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Article is currently subject to massive change without notice, and is mostly speculation.  Try again in six months to a year. --Carnildo 20:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. 1. The article is not stable. However, I will withdraw this objection after the next Pope takes office. 2. The title, "Papal conclave, 2005," is redundant. There is no such thing as a non-papal conclave; all conclaves are for Popes. The adjective "papal," therefore, is superfluous. The title should include either just "conclave," or "papal election," but not "papal conclave." -- Emsworth 00:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Object: Simply put, there is nothing to write about, as it does not yet exist. After the conclave meets, then it will be suitable for In-the-News.  A featured article should assess its topic, contextualize it, and have references.  All of these things are impossible with future events and almost impossible with recent events. Geogre 02:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, no, it's as easy with future and recent events as with anything, if you ask me. So while I don't think this should be featured yet, I'm basing that on the lack of stability, which is a valid objection, while this isn't. Everyking 00:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Object inherently unsuitable, at least until the dust settles. Fawcett5 15:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't disagree with the argument against the feature nomination. But I would just like to say that this is a fantastic article, and a way should be found to showcase it, probably under "In the News."  --BlueMoonlet 15:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it'll go "In the News" on many days throughout the conclave itself and shortly thereafter, since, whilst it's ongoing, it'll always be one of the top 4 stories in the world, jguk 17:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)