Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Negligence

Negligence

 * Article is no longer a featured article.

No lead, no references and far from complete, the sectioning is also unbalanced. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:22, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Remove, unless someone deals with the above issues (at least it has a - tangentially relevant - image now). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely say remove. I don't see how it's a featured article, actually. There is no discussion about the theoretical justification for a negligence law, or its theoretical place within civil or criminal law. The actual explanation of the law reads like a basic text book explanation, it doesn't go any deeper into debates and questions about any of the criterion. Is the reasonable person/man standard inherently sexist? Should efficiency (law & economic) concerns underly the breach aspect? Is an economic analysis (with WTP at the hart) classist? More broadly, what is the aim of negligence? Deterrence (ie establishing norms of safety and taking an a priori view of decision making cf a posteriori), punishment and compensation are alcompetin answers, and each lead to different results in any particular case. This is a bare sketch of negligence law, it should never have been featured. Psychobabble 01:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Remove. Ambi 04:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Remove. No references is enough for me, the incompleteness and lack of lead just adds to that. - Taxman 13:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)