Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt old

W. Mark Felt aka Watergate's Deep Throat
Self-nom. Detailed, sourced account of Mark Felt's life with references. If someone wants to add specific footnotes--I don't understand how the footnote system works--see my list here. PedanticallySpeaking 14:44, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Footnoting is now (almost) done. There are a few footnotes to fill in. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Thorough and readable. --Ian Pitchford 15:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Object Great work on getting it done so quickly, but I feel that this needs to mature a bit before I think it should be nominated, after all the article is only 18 days old. PPGMD 15:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There are precedents for quicker elevations to Featured status. Today's featured article, the Warren County Canal, was started on April 15, 2005, and made featured status on May 2.  PedanticallySpeaking 15:37, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * There may be precedents, that doesn't mean I agree with them. Particularly on articles that can get politically charged, I believe in a wait and see attitude. But hey you never know how these votes turn out. PPGMD 15:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Well constructed, impressive example of the ability of Wikipedia to put together an excellent article in a short amount of time --John Kenneth Fisher 15:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Though it may eventually get even better, this article appears to be thorough, accurate, neutral, and readable. Jon the Geek 16:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Some of the writing still needs some work, e.g. "Tolson submitted his resignation, dictated by Felt, and Gray accepted it, the acceptance also dictated by Felt." My reaction was, huh? A couple of the captions need a bit of polish as well, e.g. "Hoover made Felt the third ranking official in the Bureau in 1971." Has the article been through Peer Review? The Talk page does not indicate this. --JohnDBuell | Talk 16:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The Tolson sentence has been altered.  No, it hasn't gone through PR.  PedanticallySpeaking 15:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the writing has been improved, some of the comments below do indicate more work to be done, and as such, I feel I cannot change my vote at this time. --JohnDBuell | Talk 05:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. I agree with the concerns about occasional awkward writing, and there's also no way something is ready to be featured when the comment "Citation needed" appears at several points in the text. I also suggest that the section about his pardon be trimmed down; its detail is out of proportion to the rest of the article and not particularly necessary for a topic that should really be handled as a relatively simple addendum to the account of his trial. --Michael Snow 18:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Have gone through and tried to tidy the prose. The citation needed have been fixed, though the final paragraphs (written by others) need source notes.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support, good article. Phoenix2 19:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, for an article made in less than a day, this is quite full. And if we can Spring Heeled Jack as a FA, he can be, too. As some of you may know, I was one of the people to vote to keep all Deep Throat info on the Deep Throat page, so my support is assured. --WizardOfTheCDrive 20:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. Hi there. As a relatively new Wikipedia contributor, I had to look up featured article criteria to understand what is being proposed. I would have to say the Felt article in its current form does not quite meet criteria for a FA. A FA is supposed to be an example of Wiki's "very best work"; in particular, its prose must be "[c]ompelling, even "brilliant"." In this regard, the Felt article is very nearly there, if we confine our meaning of prose to the type of writing that is seen in non-fiction works like encyclopedias (which is what Wiki is). It needs a little more work but on the whole is very encouraging. However, a FA should also be stable. Here there are more problems. I note from the Edit page that the article is still being actively edited. Secondly, the Felt and DT articles may in the near future be merged, and I'm not sure what implications this holds for one of them being nominated for FA - what if its decided that Felt should be merged into DT, since it is arguable that Felt's entire significance from a historical point of view is really his involvement in the Watergate scandal as DT? Note, I'm not pushing that point, and in fact will oppose such a motion if only because this article is much better written than the DT article. I'm just pointing out possible hurdles toward FA status.~ Neuroscientist 05:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this is so close to being there. I have footnoted the entire article, and have noticed that the last few paragraphs are not sourced properly. This has let it down - right at the end we get some weasel words creeping in! Also, if you notice, there are several Fill in! bits in the "Notes" section. These obviously need to be filled in :-) Ta bu shi da yu 09:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Quotes in end paragraphs are someone else's doing, so I don't have information on their sourcing. PedanticallySpeaking 15:26, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support, but this could use another pass or two from editors before it is featured. It's not as tight as it once was. Don't have time to work on it myself, but there was an article in The Nation showing Felt was in charge of finding out who Deep Throat was, and we should add stuff about the book deal. Jokestress 17:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Object for now I still think its too early to give this a run for FAC, information is still being added to it, its still in the news. Although the article looks very very good, I still think its a bit too soon, maybe wait til the fall for another FAC run.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 22:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Support A wonderful article and an important one. --jenlight 08:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object Whatever the quality of the article to date, it's got to be viewed as a work-in-progress right now. Monicasdude 19:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * support: The timeliness and significance of this article showcases the incredible collective effort, by an ensemble of talented Wiki editors, to preserve institutional memory. Making it a featured article would truly be in keeping with the Wiki's mission.  Noting the vast contrast between Felt's invaluable disclosures and the destruction of files kept by J. Edgar Hoover during the Watergate era, and the similar contempt for public disclosure evidenced by latter day thought police (e.g. Executive Order 13233), the outcome of voting on this nomination will be a very telling indicator of which road Wikipedia is headed down.  Ombudsman 18:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Object: While the story of W. Mark Felt is an intriguing one, I don't feel that this topic should be a featured article. I feel the point of a featured article is to bring to the attention of the Wikipedia readership an often overlooked, but always very well done article.  The W. Mark Felt article has seen plenty of publicity on the main page in the last month.  Because he has been in the news so much, I think we would be wasting an opportunity to bring a different article some extra traffic. Badammcqueen 22:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object, the whole article is filled with pictures of other people. This seems to be unique for an article about a specific person. -- Dissident (Talk) 29 June 2005 17:02 (UTC)