Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/archive1

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

A decision that was just made recently, this article is referenced quite a bit and I think lives up to the standards of a featured article very well. --ScienceApologist 16:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Where are the references? Also, there are too many lists. Either they be converted to prose or placed into tables. Pentawing 16:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. In-line citations need to be converted from HTML links into footnotes (see Wikipedia:Footnotes) in a 'Notes' section. Lists need to be converted into prose or placed into tables. Sub-sections in 'External links' section need to be branched out into a 'References' section. Image:Dover.jpg has no license or source and is pending deletion. Image:20051220115909990001.jpg has no source link and no license. Lead length is a bit extreme, could be cut down to two more concise paragraphs? Refer to peer review for more suggestions/comments. — Wackymacs 16:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object the background is insufficient - it needs to mention other cases, the most important of which is Edwards v. Aguillard. The key plaintiff witness was Barbara Forrest, but her evidence from the subpoena of the early drafts of Of Pandas and People is missing. It's also badly written - a bit of a mish-mash caused because it was written whilst the case was in progress. Because of its immediacy, needs a while before the consequences become apparent. Suggest you try to get Edwards v. Aguillard or one of the others up to standard. — Dunc|☺ 16:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object It would make too much discussuion on that topic which won't help Wikipedia what so ever. Wikizach 16:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a valid objection at all? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Object. This article deals with a lengthy, controversial court decision issued barely a week ago. Virtually all of the references and sources predate the decision. There has been virtually no opportunity for professional commentary on the decision to be published (and even no references in the article, so far as I can see, to any significant body of online commentary. This article does not meet the FA comprehensiveness requirement, and will not be able to meet the FA criteria. The enterprise is something like attempting to create an FA on a film on its opening night, just home from the theater. Monicasdude 22:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object My reasons have been stated above. However I would suggest that you go for peer review first to get comments and edit the article in relation to those comments; before relisting this article. --Chazz88 14:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]