Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jimmy Wales/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jimmy Wales

[edit]

I've scanned the article, and I must remark that this is one very comprehensive piece of writing. I think it's time Wikipedia gave its creator's article FA status. -- Selmo (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have no problem with the article, but the idea really bothers me. It would sound like massive vanity to an outsider, though I know it's not. It's the "featured". "Good" or "high quality" would be fine.Derex 09:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro is insufficient for a FA. Needs to summarize the article and be suitable for inclusion on the main page. Several of the sources do not meet WP:RS and seem a bit self-referential, and really wouldn't be acceptable with other subjects. Also just not very interesting as an FA, and I'm a Wikipedian... I can only imagine how dull it must people to people who aren't all into Wikipedia, the article would put people to sleep. Of course that last part is not really actionable. --W.marsh 15:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Derex is correct. The subject matter itself disqualifies it from Featured Article status. Madman 19:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not used to working with articles on people, so I don't know what to think. All articles seem to be different in this matter. Jimbo's article looks a bit short, but I don't know how much more info can surface on him. Frankly, I don't think subject matter should disqualify something from being an FA. (I also wonder what Jimbo would think if he saw his article on FAC). I'll probably abstain, although it does look like a good article. Sir Crazyswordsman 02:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Essentially self-bio. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Jimbo did not/does not have anything to do with his artice being featured, we do. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  17:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; short lead and poor referencing. Primary sources like emails, newsgroup postings, and edits shouldn't be used. --Spangineeres (háblame) 23:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; lead's not there, one-sentence paragraphs which say little, and newsgroup postings are not reliable sources. Sandy 23:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some things you may wish to consider: there are excessive direct quotes from Jimbo, I think; it breaks up the flow of the prose in a lot of areas. Some paragraphs are too short, such as the awards section, which could be a single paragraph. And some minor flow issues that I will go and deal with now. If an article is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, it is worthy of being made FA. It just needs to be good enough. Dev920 (Tory?) 09:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In order for an article to be a Featured Article, it should first be, you know, good. This article is actually quite bad in several important respects. Controversial claims are made without attribution. (Example: the bit from Wired about my trading career is something I have objected to repeatedly but it is still reported on as fact.) My birthdate is sourced to a cut and paste from Wikipedia (original research), and is in fact completely at odds with what my birth certificate says. The number $100,000 appears, with no source. The number $500,000 appears, no source. The article implies falsely that the foundation spent $25,000 on my travel. False, and original research. (And a good example of what is wrong with original research.) I could go on, but you begin to see my point.--Jimbo Wales 16:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be why I didn't vote support. : ) Dev920 (Tory?) 16:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jimmy_Wales/archive1&oldid=1138464615"