Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Glossary of philosophical isms/archive1


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

The list was not promoted 21:44, 20 January 2008.

Glossary of philosophical isms
This is a very broad list, covering almost every ism under the sun. Very well laid out and informative. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN play it cool.  ☆ 20:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments First of all: amazing list! This is going to be a wonderful resource to any philosophy student.  However, I do have one complaint: it's just too big!  I think the article would benefit greatly from being split up.  Take for example, the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people series, which is split up into a main article and a number of alphabetical sub-articles.  That would help things alot.  Also, shouldn't isms be in quotations?  Since it's kind of a colloquialism to say "ism". Drewcifer (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Due to my comments (above), as well as those made by other reviewers (below). I hope to see this article back here soon, in whatever incarnation results, as I think it is an excellent idea with tons of encyclopedic potential. Drewcifer (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment As a major contributor to the list, I would like to comment that I personally do not believe that this article is ready yet for FL status. Definitions could be expanded, literally dozens more philosophies could be added, and while I consider it to be a good list now, I do not believe it is ready for FL status and should be worked on for a bit longer. Why? Because while it is good now, it has the potential to be so much more. All it needs is a little bit more love. -- Shark face  217  04:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - it doesn't appear that the featured list criteria were consulted before the list was nominated. The glossary fails to meet the criteria because it is incomplete, and because it lacks citations.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    09:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The lead is way too short. -- Scorpion0422 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of the definitions are imprecise or go into needless detail. There are no good criteria for a meaningful split. –Pomte 11:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you all mean. Should I withdraw now to save it being opposed?   WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN  play it cool.  18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, there's no difference between withdrawing and being failed as much as I know.-- Crzycheetah 21:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you still want to withdraw it? -- Scorpion0422 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.