Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starship Troopers/archive1

Starship Troopers

Starship Troopers is a controversial science fiction novel by Robert Heinlein about powered armor warfare from an infantryman's perspective. The book has always been a personal favorite of mine, so this is obviously a self-nom. I took over stewardship of this page in late November and have been trying to bring it up to FA status ever since. It's been an uphill struggle, but I'm confident that Starship Troopers is close enough to FA to warrant a posting here. It is already listed as a Good Article, has been copy-edited, and received a Peer review in December, though the latter wasn't very helpful. In any case, I hope you will support this nomination. If not, I would love to hear any suggestions about how to improve the article. Palm_Dogg 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fair use images need fair use rationales, when you write these you should realise that there are more imgaes in the article than are really fair, see also WP:FUC--nixie 00:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Would you please take another look and let me know if the addition of tags works? While there are a lot of images on the page, they consist solely of book, movie, and DVD covers. Palm_Dogg 06:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object—Criterion 2a. Here are just a few examples of pervasive problems:

based on a Soviet promise to make it joint

(make it what?)

his other immensely successful novels

(loses authority through over-amplification)

Rico finds himself at a boot camp so rigorous less than ten percent of the recruits finish basic training

('that' is missing)

almost gets killed, goes career,...

(awkward, then quirky)

and hold certain jobs, such as police work

(tension between 'jobs' and 'work')

It should also be noted that

(try to avoid this phrase)

Needs thorough copy-editing (not just fixes for these examples). Tony 04:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection noted. I'm currently trying to copy-edit the article. Palm_Dogg 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object per above. Also, some statements (specifically, the section "Heinlein's view") needs some refs and in-line cites. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support if above objections are addressed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a bunch of inline citations and references, as well as rewritten a HUGE chunk of the page -- everything except the "Themes" section which I'll try and tackle today. Regarding the copy-editing, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not qualified to do this. Palm_Dogg 08:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, because the article is of high quality now that it has been successfully reworked and copy edited to deal with the objections. The article is amply illustrated with fair use of covers that provide interesting interpretations of a number of the themes of the novel. I feel that the article deals in an even handed way with the controversy engendered by the novel. Thus the article exhibits the ideals of Wikipedia: detailed but clear writing, well organized sequential development of the topic, neutral point of view when dealing with controversial subject matter, well situated within context, well connected to related explanatory articles, thoroughly referenced, and a visually interesting appearance. Note: I have contributed some copy editing. Hu 07:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]