Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope John Paul II/archive 2

Pope John Paul II
- After reading the objections to the previous nomination, I belive this article is ready to become FAC. SVera1NY 17:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * The old nomination is here: Featured article candidates/Pope John Paul II/archive 1 --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Object
 * The images Image:Pjp2b.jpg, Image:Giovannipaolo 2arms.jpg, Image:Dalai Lama.jpg, Image:Jp ii wailing wall.jpg, Image:Pope and Christodoulos2.jpg, Image:Qur'an.jpg, Image:Toronto.jpg, Image:Yad Vashem.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, "fair use" and other non-free images should be avoided if at all possible.  If fair use images must be used, the source for the image must be given, and a rationale as to why fair use can be claimed must be provided for each page the image is used on.
 * The image Image:Pope-shot-26.jpg is claimed as public domain, which is clearly incorrect.
 * The rationale for why Image:Pope John Paul II with Pinochet.jpg is in the public domain is confusing.

Object, the prose isn't exactly brilliant, there are very few paragraphs over 2-3 sentences, much of the article reads like bullet points without the bullets.--nixie 23:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The nominator seems to have deleted the old nomination in preparing this one, but I seem to remember it wasn't all that long ago that there was a HUGE list of objections, and I can't see any evidence that any great progress has been made.Harro5 08:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * The edit summary indicates that the old one has been moved to Featured article candidates/Pope John Paul II/archive 1. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. The old nomination is here: Featured article candidates/Pope John Paul II/archive 1. Most of my objections still stand. The Pope deserves a perfect article, and this is not it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Object- he he, edit conflict. I basically typed the same thing as Piotrus, but it seems like because of the edit conflict, it "lost" my comment. Anyways, I have planning to rewrite/expand this for a long time, but haven't found the time yet because I've been quite busy. Many of the objections from last time have not been addressed yet. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)