Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Omnipotence paradox

Omnipotence paradox

 * Article is still a featured article.

After a Main Page exposure, this article went way downhill. Prose has become lists or vanished entirely, and what's left is far from "compelling" or "brilliant". It makes me sad. (Here's the version which was featured, as near as I can tell.) Yes, I'm the one who pushed it to get Featured in the first place, so I might be more miffed than usual since it was "my" text that got gutted. I'm not saying that I "owned" it or that the version I and a few others put together was the best possible; I'm just saying that what's sitting there now is not worthy to be Featured. Anville 07:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The link you provided seems to be linking to the current version, but anyway, you could put this on featured article review. If there's a consensus that the promoted version was superior, we could revert to it. Tuf-Kat 07:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * When I click on it, the link sends me to the "Revision as of 08:38, 29 November 2005". ??  Anville 08:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, I was confused because both versions looked identical. It appears User:Carnildo reverted to the version you linked to.  I think this is the diff and this is the old version. Tuf-Kat 08:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * After Carnildo's reversion, I edited the article to reflect the two or three positive changes which had been made in the interval. (A nice image was added, for example, near the end.)  Whatever issues remain can probably be hashed out on the article's talk page, so I think I can withdraw my FARC nomination.  I had planned to post this to FA Review, but in the process I checked its current state, and said current state horrified me so much I decided it needed immediate action.  Anville 16:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't this be reverted then? I mean, if it was once good enough, can't we revert it and then judge whether it still needs to be removed from its staus? Thethinredline 14:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been reverted, and in fact improved somewhat since (not all the edits in the reverted period were detrimental). I don't think we need to wait the full two-week period, or whatever's left of it.  Whom should I pester to have this entry's withdrawal expedited&mdash;Raul654?  Anville 18:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)