Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka)

Westboro Baptist Church

I am nominating this article as a featured article. It is well-written and packed full of factual, verified information. 66.32.97.69 21:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object for now. Lead section is too long, and there are no references. JYolkowski // talk 22:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. See its talk page - many people believe it may be NPOV. No references section either. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object As stated above: 1) the lead is too long. 2) Cite your sources. 3) There are too many single sentence paragraphs and a few single paragraph sections. 4) The writing seems too POV against the organization. slambo 01:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Must object. For starters, Image:WestboroBaptistChurch.jpg has no copyright information, the other images (while having copyright information) ought to be tagged properly, rampant POV and weasel words all over. I do realise that this is a subject that is hard to be neutral about, but I'm also sure it can be done better than it is at present. WegianWarrior 06:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object Writing style is not up to par here. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Aside from the irreparable NPOV problems, there's the erratic spelling. Monicasdude 00:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. This topic matter is given space and detail far out of proportion to its actual significance, which I believe is a violation of NPOV. MrVoluntarist 03:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, trolling. The article has been nominated for deletion by the same IP who nominated it here, who there describes it as "far too long, has little to no references, mostly opinion, negative point of view, bad spelling, poor grammar". Most amusing, can it be removed now, please, Raul654? Bishonen | talk 00:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'm removing this waste of time from the list now. Bishonen | talk 08:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I retroactively concur →Raul654 19:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)