Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/University of Michigan

University of Michigan

Article is still a featured article

I've done a massive lead-section copyedit, but this article is still not FA-shape for a university of 39,000+ students. It reads at times like an admissions brochure and has lots of weasel words. Neutrality^talk 22:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I haven't read every word, but on a first look it seems fairly neutral to me. Can you be a bit more specific, particularly as to problems which can't easily be fixed? I find it a rather dull article, but that's because I have no particular interest in the subject- it's not obvious to me how it could be much better. Mark ¹ 22:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Again, not a single concern brought up on the article's talk page, nor have you given any specific criteria it lacks or what can be fixed. The primary author has actively sought advice on how to improve the article and has implimented everything he's gotten. Your edits to the lead improved nothing I saw. You just rearanged information and arguably made it flow worse. In addition you introduced what appears to be a factual error in changing the conversion of 1920 acres to 776 hectares instead of the 777 which appears more correct. Why would you even do that? - Taxman ^Talk 23:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't even dignify the "made is flow worse" comment with a response. The 776/777 change was the result of an edit conflict. --Neutrality^talk 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I make comments here quickly to limit the time wasted on meta conversation. But if you want to focus on that and ignore the more important points we're making go ahead. - Taxman ^Talk 00:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Taxman on the confusion here. I'm shocked that people seem to be so emotional about this University - both for and against. Little constructive discussion has occurred, but lots of vandalism, and a NPOV tag got slapped on a featured article. --Habap 02:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected much of the POV issues, and the user who placed the NPOV tag in the first place has since removed it. Pentawing^Talk 07:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the FARC has been put up without any in-depth discussion concerning POV on the article's talk page is beyond me. Usually, FARC is done as a last resort if no one is willing/able to work on the article further. Pentawing^Talk 04:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have been working on getting U-M's in-state rival, Michigan State University up to Featured Article status, but I support U-M's inclusion in the FA category. I have worked hard to give a balanced view of MSU (most notably our frequent riots), and I think that the U-M article can stay a featured article with just a few extra "cons" to balance the numerous "pros". While I agree that the article is POV (for example, I've never heard anyone call it a "public ivy",) puting this article up as a FARC the day after it appears on the Main Page is the online equivalent of MSU students spray painting the U-M Diag green and white. For you non-Michiganders, that means it's not cool. — Lovelac7 05:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved the "public ivy" reference out of the lead, changed the peacock language to a matter-of-fact statement, and added a footnote. Please see the this talk page section for more details. — Lovelac7 05:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is practically the same version as the one that was first put up as a candidate for featured article. If there are too much favorable POVs been added since the time the candidate was elected as a featured article, perhaps a selective reversion to the "feature article version" would suffice. An AFRC a day after the article managed to get to the front page is just too fast and shocking. __earth 06:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The campus map needs to be rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise. (Unsigned comment by 68.54.242.34 15:04, January 12, 2006.)
Keep - unless substantial, specific problems are pointed out by the nominator (or someone else) this is not a productive exercise. Johntex\^talk 18:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—insufficient grounds for removal, as yet. Convince me .... Tony 10:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]