Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Smotherbox/archive1

Smotherbox

 * Self-nomination. I'm very proud of the article. I could not find a way to improve it, so I had a peer review for the article, which revealed only things that can not be easily helped ( Requests for information which may or may not be known to anyone and photographs many of which are not published because the subject is quite intimate ) So I think the article is as good as it will get for sometime, yet I hope it will still get improved in the long run. --Easyas12c 20:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. Difficulty of obtaining information doesn't exclude a featured article from requiring that information.  Yeah, that means that it might take some herculean tasks to make this featured, but not every "good" article is featured quality.  Featured is the best.  This isn't there yet, I don't think. Fieari 23:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The things "missing" don't leave the article broken. They are just features, nice to have along with definition and explanation of the subject. What is a featured article states "It should exemplify our very best work, representing Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet." As one of the main authors of the article I strongly doubt there exists another such compilation of objective information for the subject anywhere else on the Internet. --Easyas12c 00:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Far too short, no references, poor naming of external links, lacks quality information, isn't the best example of a web source on the subject. Basically, read What is a featured article and carefully address each point, but you're nowhere near there yet unfortunately. Harro5 00:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Featured article definition states that a featured article should be comprehensive, this does not mean that it would have to be long. It just has to be complete instead of one-sided. It also states that a featured article "should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic". It seems that the reference to smothered.com (which is included as an external link in the article) is the most academic reference you can get for a subject such as this. I renamed the links, if they are still not good, feel free to show how to exactly do it, by editing the article. What do you mean exactly by "lacks quality information". As in my comment for the last thread abowe, I'd still claim that this is the best public source for the subject on Internet, if you disagree please point out an url to a better source. I'd be happy to make the article better. --Easyas12c 00:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Object, for two major reasons:
 * Utterly inadequate referencing: there are no references labeled as such; the external links, which one might presume to contain the sourcing, are all to commercial sites engaged in selling the product&mdash;hardly the most reliable source for information. The paucity of online sources is no reason to neglect this issue&mdash;it may be necessary to examine more obscure offline references.  In addition, use of inline citations is necessary here, as a number of claims in the article are quite questionable in their provenance.
 * Lack of information: there is no discussion of the history of the item. More significantly, an article about a commercial product must have certain basic information&mdash;market size, major manufacturers, price ranges, resources involved in production, manufacturing techniques, and so forth&mdash;before it can be considered even moderately comprehensive.  The difficulty of obtaining this information is not an excuse unless a convincing argument is made that the information does not exist at all.
 * Finally, a more general remark: that the article is the best online source on the subject does not necessarily attest to its quality, since this may merely mean that there is little information on the topic available online. Kirill Lokshin 04:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. The article is too short, and lacks references. --Hollow Wilerding 13:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Object on grounds of inadequate references cited above. PedanticallySpeaking 16:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Object, sorrowly incomplete. --  user:zanimum