Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starship Troopers

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 a self-nom. I unsuccessfully nominated this article for FA status at the beginning of February. Since then, the article has been extensively rewritten and received a thorough Peer Review. Several other editors and I have spent a lot of time copyediting and cleaning up this article. To be perfectly honest, there isn't much more we can do on our own. I hope you will see fit to give this article FA status, and if not please give us some constructive feedback so we can keep improving it. Thanks again.

• Nominate and support. - Palm_Dogg 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There are two objections which I anticipate, so here are my pre-emptive responses. First, copyediting: this article failed last time because it had not been properly edited. However, we have made a good-faith effort to make this article presentable and would appreciate a little slack. If there are any glaring errors, let us know and we'll fix them immediately. Second, the book covers: though several users have expressed some concern about the number used, no one has lodged any formal objections and we are confident that they capture the spirit of the novel. Palm_Dogg 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. As I brought up on the talk page, this article has WP:NOR problems. The entire "Comparisons to Heinlein's other works" section is basically literary analysis by a Wikipedian editor, as is the sentence Since Heinlein compares the Arachnids on more than one occasion to Communists, it's more than likely that they serve as a foil for the individualistic Terrans. We're arguing that certain critics are wrong, and "drawing conclusions" (in the words of a Talk page contributor) that are not only not verifiable, but, in fact, a creation of our own new analysis. We don't get to make judgement calls about whether reviewers and critics are right or wrong in their interpretations, and we don't get to originate our own. Jkelly 02:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Striking objection, but not supporting until examining image question in more detail. Jkelly 16:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As I explained on the talk page, I disagree.--Bcrowell 04:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As do I, this NOR policy needs to be handled a little bit more flexibly than many editors seems to want to contemplate. Is not the process of finding and including "reviewers and critics" comments original research of it's own type. I understand the policy aim, but we need to avoid being too "slavish" about it. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 10:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a very different thing to cite the opinions of named, reputed critics and to include such analysis in the article without attribution. Andrew Levine 17:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that was quite what I was saying. All references to reviewers and critics shoudl be properly referenced. Quite agree. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 17:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My point was that it's not "original research" to gather such opinions. Andrew Levine 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, it sounds like there is no source for the specific passage mentioned there. Unless a published source has promulgated this idea, it is original research that has to be removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the passage in question. Palm_Dogg 08:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I still miss anything about the various comic books based on the novel. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I threw in a line about the comics under Adaptations. Palm_Dogg 03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There is also a current comic book series based on the book, by a company called Markosia.[1] --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object I have never actually read this selection, even though it has always been one of those i knew i should; but having said that, I found the article rather long winded and much too analytical to really be NPOV. Overall the article is very informative, but much too in-depth; if you want to have this sort of analysis, you could probably add an external link to another site that has done such a thing, but this isn't really the place; this article needs to be stripped down to the facts. (eg. Johnny then went to the river with his mother; and this represents his freudian blah blah blah. SHOULD be simply: Johnny went to the river with his mother.)
  • Could you be a little more specific? You're not giving me much to work with :). Were there any particular areas that you think could/should be trimmed down? Palm_Dogg 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I think it's good; however, shouldn't there be some sort of symbolism section? But it doesn't really matter becuase it explores far more themes thanthe symbolism. Hillhead15 13:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object: Too many fair-use images. Most of those book covers are being used for decorative purposes only, which isn't permitted under Wikipedia's fair-use policy. --Carnildo 04:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Removed two of the images and added detailed captions to the rest. Palm_Dogg 15:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You've added captions describing the covers, not commenting on the covers. There's a difference between the two, and that is what determines if the images are being used to illustrate the article, or are merely being used to decorate it. --Carnildo 02:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Until some sort of consensus can be reached, I have removed all but three covers. This nomination is about the article, not the images. Palm_Dogg 07:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think this article is pretty comprehensive about the subject. BlueShirts 05:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Outstanding article - Check-Six 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Cautiously Support Although I love Heinlein and really think more people should be exposed to his work, I have a few reservations as to the suitability of this article for featured article status, given its at times technical/specific nature. Also, very very minor detail, the aliens are sometimes referred to as the Bugs and at other times as the Arachnids, with no statement that I saw saying these terms are synonymous. In the end, I support given how well reaserched and written the article is. Nicolasdz 09:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Tossed in a line at the beginning of "Plot" about the terms being synonymous. Palm_Dogg 16:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)