Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Japanese toilet

Japanese toilet

 * Article is still a featured article. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:41, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

While Featured_articles may say that featured articles are "reviewed for style, prose[sic] and completeness" (the [sic] reference has now been fixed) it is hard (perhaps impossible) to believe considering what I have read in the first paragraph of this article. Prose is completely lacking as well as style and although I did not get past the first paragraph, I think it speaks for the rest of the article (as it should).

I will not review each error, but instead will display how the sentence should be. The current state of the art is bidet toilets, which, as of 2004, are installed in more than fifty percent of Japanese households. (Note the removal of POV and the redundancy of ?advanced high-tech?)

In Japan, these bidets are commonly called Washlets (&#12454;&#12457;&#12471;&#12517;&#12524;&#12483;&#12488;), a brand name of Tokyo-based Toto Ltd., and include many advanced features, rarely seen outside of Japan.

The rest of the paragraph does not belong here as it applies only to the last type of toilet (with a sentence about squat toilets), and should therefore be place under that heading.

I have made the following changes to the article, but otherwise the remainder of the article is unchanged (i.e. still horrible). Additionally, the remainder of the article, as a whole, is in poor character, and unfortunately, I have come too late to prevent its current status.

Moogle 01:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph is representative of the entire article and is shown on the main page - therefore, if it is poor, it needs to be revised to be considered one of "of our best articles" (I actually did read beyond the first paragraph, but wrote the above for effect).
 * The creator of course.
 * As far as meeting "all of the major featured article criteria" - while it may have been "comprehensive [and] factually accurate" as mentioned above, the question of whether it was, "Well-written: compelling, even "brilliant" prose?the former name for featured articles" is easily answered: No.
 * If pulling actual sentences out of the text and improving them was not enough for you, what do you need, exactly?
 * Besides being described as "a great article", what exactly is great about it?
 * Finally, what does an article's promotion date have to do with the quality of the article? Moogle 07:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That you didn't like the first paragraph is not sufficient grounds to nominate the entire article for featured article removal. How do you know that the rest of the article is horrible if you didn't past the first paragraph? Simoes 03:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. Filiocht 09:33, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC) Note only featured since Oct 18. Filiocht 09:52, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:50, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. If you have issues with the text, bring it up on the talk page.  This article meets all of the major featured article criteria. - Taxman 14:51, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal - what is wrong with it, exactly? It was promoted less than a month ago, on 18 October. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. The proposal to remove is weird.  It's a great article.  Tempshill 18:25, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)