|
|
| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
==Nominations with objections== |
|
==Nominations with objections== |
| − |
===[[Bell Riots]]=== |
|
| − |
Third times a charm, right? I still believe this is a comprehensive article that thoroughly covers the subject, and I should, since I did the last "major" rewrite of it. ;) - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 21:19, May 6, 2010 (UTC) |
|
| − |
:I think it is a good article about the Bell Riots, but it is just the plot of one episode from an in-iniverse POV, a slightly rewritten episode summary. What does comprehensive mean in that context? The best of MA should make connections and have collaboration and all that. So, good enough article, but not FA, unless the standard of FA is much lower at the moment, it has varied quite a bit over time. --[[User:Bp|bp]] 22:19, May 6, 2010 (UTC) |
|
| − |
::Well, we do have [[Klaa]], our current Article of the Week, and that only contains content from one movie. The Bell Riots article contains content from a two-part episode (equivalent in that respect), and in fact contains somewhat more content due to the fact that it focuses on a large event rather than a single character. Thus, I would think this article is definitely good enough to be a FA--so my vote is '''support'''. -[[User:Mdettweiler|Mdettweiler]] 23:11, May 6, 2010 (UTC) |
|
| − |
:::I still '''support''' this article, as before. The scope of the article is irrelevant- as Msettweiler stated we have FA's about subjects big and small. --[[User:31dot|31dot]] 23:46, May 6, 2010 (UTC) |
|
| − |
::::'''Support''', again.– [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 00:43, May 7, 2010 (UTC) |
|
| − |
:::::'''Support'''. --Delta2373 00:54, May 7, 2010 (UTC) |
|
| − |
|
|
| − |
If you're still opposed bp, I'll move this to the archive. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 01:42, May 16, 2010 (UTC) |
|
