Wikipedia:Featured article review/Omnipotence paradox/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:05, 9 June 2009.

FAR commentary

 * Notified: WikiProject Atheism, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Philosophy, Anville, Lacatosias, Bmorton3, BrianH123, SandyGeorgia.

Criteria WP:FACR for the rewiew: 1a (sometimes weasel-like prose), 1c (missing citations), 2 (e.g. "infinity - infinity" has only short "-" ), specifically 2a (lead too long).--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I concur that the lead is too long. The rest will take a little more time to look at. It appears that the editors who bird-dogged this article as an FA and through its first real FAR have gone inactive. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  14:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason that the newer FAR is listed as "archive1"? Athanasius • Quicumque vult  14:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It had to do with the new archiving system. I fixed it. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I took a quick look at the article and found some problems: This article is clear and has good prose, but I'm afraid it'll take some work to fix these problems. Eubulides (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Several paragraphs have zero citations. Some of those paragraphs really need citations.
 * The article doesn't mention the crucial connection between the omnipotence paradox and the law of non-contradiction. See:
 * The article doesn't make the important connection between the omnipotence paradox and monotheism. See:
 * The article doesn't mention that the omnipotence paradox is a standard argument for atheism. See: This could be illustrated with File:Atheism1.svg, which is both a logo and a diagram of a variant the paradox.
 * Likewise for agnosticism. See:
 * I agree that the lead is too long. Also, it doesn't really summarize the body: it contains several notions (e.g., the quote from Titus) not in the body, and some important notions discussed at length in the body (e.g., types of omnipotence) are not mentioned in the lead.
 * More illustrations are needed.

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist as per my comments in the FAR commentary. The abovementioned problems remain, as no edits have been made to the article since then. Eubulides (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist, no significant progress so far.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist, concerns have not been suitably addressed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.