Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/World War II/archive 1

World War II
Detailed, well written, well referenced, topic completely covered, lots of pictures. Not a self-nom. &rarr;I&ntilde;g&#333;lemo&larr;  talk   donate  07:22, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * Object. Although this article is pretty decent, I think it is not sufficient for such a complex and broad topic. I have several specific complaints, which I will not list here, since the article notes that "There is currently an alternative writing of this article at World War II/temp." This alone seems enough to object to this article. Jeronimo 07:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As there is a major rewrite underway in /temp I think this might not be such a good idea as a FA article. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Particularly not as the /temp-version to my eye seems more Anglo-centric, less correct, and suspiciously unconnected to the (hierarchies of) articles World War II refers to. (Compare for instance Replies to common objections.) The proposition of a rewrite must be properly handled before it's relevant to consider FA-status. --Johan Magnus 14:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object &mdash; Nothing mentioned as to the real reasons that Japan invaded Burma. The Japanese wanted to defeat the British in India that was vital in providing foods and supplies to the Allies. See India during WWII. Also English conventions are not followed eg. USS Missouri should be italicised to USS Missouri. Maps would be useful on this page. Nichalp 19:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * object no article on WWII could possibly be comprehensive enough to merit being a featured article. Most featured articles are simply overachievers - they take an obscure topic and really do it justice, leaving nothing out.  Surely individual generals or battles of WWII could become featured articles, but not the whole war.Dinopup 20:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object to the objection. This is not an actionable objection, and is therefore invalid. --Carnildo 21:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)