Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Doom

Doom

 * Article is no longer a featured article

This article contains weasel words, editorializing, facts known to be erroneous, and facts without references. Further, it fails to distinguish important facts from trivia, which is essential for a high-quality encyclopedia article. It is incomplete, particularly concerning history. There are many loose statements which have not been put into context. Finally, the entire text needs to be restructured. (I have put up some comments on the talk page.)

I was partially responsible for getting this featured a little over a year ago, but my standards (and Wikipedia's) have improved considerably since then. I would like to see this de-featured so that I (and anyone else who wishes to help) can improve it to the point where it would pass critical peer review. De-featuring it might seem like an odd action, but I think a tangible goal (getting it featured again) will make work easier. Fredrik | talk 22:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not convinced this is entirely necessary. After all, isn't that what WP:PR is for? I agree it could use reworking, but I'm not sure I'd say it's fallen so far in comparison to other featured articles to warrant removing its featured status, when there are other ways to receive critical review. I'm not exactly opposed, I'm just not sure if it's entirely warranted. Sarge Baldy 22:39, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just putting it on PR would be a good idea if the work could be done within a week or two, but with my usual article-writing speed it will more likely take six months ;-) I think it should be kept off the featured articles list until then. - Fredrik | talk 23:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok Remove then. Keep, unless there are some other criteria that it fails to meet. If all it needs is a good copyedit, then please go do that. Then list it on peer review to get suggestions of what other people see and do your best to implement those.  That would be the best way to improve this article, not de-featuring in my opinion. - Taxman 22:49, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Besides neutrality, accuracy, verifiability, completeness, and presentation, I can't think of any featured article criteria that it fails. It's a bit more than just a copyedit; I think most of it should be rewritten. Fredrik | talk 23:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Remove. A commendable nomination, too, to come from an author. Everyking 00:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. agree with Everyking. Ambi 22:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. &mdash; Matt Crypto 01:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. this article is some way from the quality I expect of a Featured Article. Rje 15:30, May 3, 2005 (UTC)