Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laura Schlessinger/archive1

Laura Schlessinger

This is a controversial subject that has been a great example of how Wikipedians can work together and compromise despite strong differences of opinion. A great deal of time has passed since anty real issues, which says that it is the product of good discussion and consensus. It is well sourced, NPOV, well written, not too lengthy but is very informative. I'm proud of the work that everyone has put into this and I think it should be held up as a featured article.Gator (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator.Gator (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poorly written, many holes in her early-life biography. Personal history section is completely unsourced. There is no significant content in this article. Although the moral opinions section and criticisms is nice. There are articles on Wikipdia more worthy of Featured article status--Muchosucko 21:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Referencing! Every bullet item in that "Moral opinions" section needs a reference. Wouldn't call it "poorly written", however. Unsure about "comprehensiveness". Jkelly 21:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - please fix the references. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I've fixed the formatting of all those external links in the article, but it still needs improvement, especially with some of the quotes. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subject. Much is said, much more could be said, little needs to be said. Listen to her radio show for three days, know all there is know or will be to know. She lays it on the line and the 'pedia lines lay it lower than you might not know. Look deep into the article's history and see what you do not know now; look into what has survived the many edit-downs and see only what those in the know want you to know. 205.188.117.65 04:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Are you like an oracle or something? If so, what stocks should I buy? Andrew Levine 14:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delphi. A yes and know answer is not what you want, but may be what you need.64.12.116.70 02:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice job. KI 18:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Gator. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the vote count as unneccessary. FAC is based on consensus, not voting. The Catfish 21:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. As one of the contributors to this article, I have mixed feelings about it. A lot of material that used to be in it, got chopped out on the grounds that even though well-researched, it contributed to an overall negative impression of the subject. While this may have been fair, I think it resulted in the article losing the "feel" of what LS is all about. Perhaps some more images or some sound clips could make up for that. Wasted Time R 02:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong object per others. Bonus comment: ~~Someone as unpatrotic and unAmerican as Ms. Slesigner's ilk should be lined up and shot in the back of the head on pay-per-view television.~~ Cjmarsicano 18:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We DO NOT advocate violence or suggest violence against anyone here and that is why I struck out your comment.--MONGO 22:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like how striking that out did absolutely nothing at all. --Muchosucko 03:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after reading through the article several times, I see that it may need a few more citations linked in, especially in the beginning. A little more on her personal life, an elboration of her estrangment from some family if possible, her marriage etc. I congratulate those that otherwise presnt a neutral article that would potentially be one that could be divisive. Maybe toss the article through Peer Review if this should not be promoted, work on a few of the missing pieces and renominate later.--MONGO 03:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. This in no way meets the oft-overlooked FAC requirement of stability. It's too controversial and it's evident that edit wars will continue even after it's featured. If a few months could pass without any major arguments, I would support. Kafziel 18:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - full of NPOV terms and expressions. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]