Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/archive2

United States

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/archive1
Self-nomination. The United States article exemplifies one of the best country articles on Wikipedia and deserves to be featured. The article is increasingly well written, very comprehensive, accurate, well sourced, neutral, and generally very stable. It is quite the impressive article considering the subject manner, and we can't include everything in the article, but I think this is nicely done.

If you are unsure, you are welcome to check other featured country articles, such as China, India, Australia, South Africa, and Cambodia, to get an idea of how the US article compares.
If you object because of personal opinions on how the article should look, including suggestions regarding section organizations or that the article should be either expanded in size (for comprehensiveness) or reduced (for an appropriate size), please take it to the discussion page, as these opinions are subject to debate. If you don't, your vote and reasons might be moved by someone else.
If you object because you have a previous bias against this article or if you consider yourself anti-American, please do not let your bias cloud your judgements or otherwise, do not vote.
If you object because of copyedit issues, please state explicitly where you see an issue, so that the article may be further improved upon. Thank you.

Support, per nom. --Ryz05 _t 19:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous nomination was taken off this page yesterday (it's customary, by the way, to include a link to the previous nomination when one renominates an article). Has it really improved that much since then? Have you adressed all the concerns that was raised? I'm not saying you havent, but I do wonder... Have you considered a peer review of this article (I found no mention of a peer review on the talkpage, there is usually a template there if the article has been peer reviewed)? Oh, and the size of the article is a relevant objection on for a FAC - ref attribute 5. WegianWarrior 19:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't like that the nominator tries to influence people, by calling them anti-American if they object to the article. --Maitch 20:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. This is stuffing the ballot box. --Golbez 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object per my previous objection. I haven't even read the article through, but an article at 86 KB is too large. If it doesn't meet the FAC criteria, there is no need for me to read it to judge it on its other merits. As WegianWarrior mentioned, size is a valid objection. Not adhering to the FAC criteria is a valid objection. This needs to be cut down significantly. I recommend this nomination be speedy closed and moved to peer review where suggestions can be made and properly taken care of. Pepsidrinka 21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to object simply because you think the size is too big on the US article? I don't see information needs to be removed for such an important and big subject. In any case, I've brought your comment to the US talk page, where you are welcome to discuss.--Ryz05 _t 21:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to peer review Joelito (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of process.It was taken off this page yesterday? I'm delisting it right now. Please wait at least a couple of weeks before re-nominating, and ask Raul first. Also, I too advise very strongly against such an uncivil nomination. It won't do you a blind bit of good to rile people by telling them they might be biased and ought perhaps not to vote. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]