Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Featured articles"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(formatting and a vote)
Line 215: Line 215:
 
:* Agree. Wow, that's a lot of detail. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:08, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 
:* Agree. Wow, that's a lot of detail. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:08, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 
}}
 
}}
 +
 +
{{fa|Judaism|}}
  
 
==Past Nominations==
 
==Past Nominations==

Revision as of 09:01, October 19, 2008

Featured articles

Committee members

The Featured articles are posted on the Main Page each week. 35 articles have been featured to date. Articles may be submitted to the list of featured articles by listing them on this page. Please add them to the end of the list. Articles will normally be featured in the order listed, but the order may be changed by the committee in some cases.

Articles listed here will be considered for featuring by the committee. However, any editor may offer their own comments and are welcome to help improved listed articles.

Past articles

2007/08

  • Disagree. Many better American topics than this. TonyT 12:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. It's something different (think of it as chess on steroids), but I'm biased --JessicaTOhayo gozaimasu! 16:23, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. Found this very interesting and informative. I think others would too. Taj 14:46, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. Philip J. Rayment 10:03, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. --DeanStalk 13:30, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Suggest expansion of lead Geoff PlourdeComplain! 12:26, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
I just wanted to thank the committee for using this article. I do not know who put it forward, but I am glad (and a little proud) that it made the grade. --KotomiTHajimemashite! 10:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
  • As his VP spot remains an ongoing media topic among major news networks, I feel that Conservapedia can gain big readership by bringing him into discussion. CTrooper 20:40, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 13:07, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree Geoff PlourdeComplain! 12:30, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. --DeanStalk 13:30, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Current article

Future articles

The following articles should be checked for any improvements that can be made before they are posted to the Main Page.

Proposed for featuring

The following articles will probably be moved to the list above in the order listed if nobody has any objection or alternative suggestion.

New suggestions can be added at the end of this list.

  • Disagree. Unimportant topic of interest mostly to liberals. TonyT 12:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Disagree. Important topic, but not described correctly. Article contains at least one contradiction ("reader response" both wrong and right). --Ed Poor Talk 16:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:14, 26 August 2008 (EDT) Fixed red links and improved. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 00:16, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Disagree. I'm not qualified to judge it's accuracy, but it is too obscure and not written at a suitable level. Philip J. Rayment 10:24, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Disagree. Not long enough, too many red links, not nearly enough images that explain the text, I just didn't understand what was going on in that article. JY23 21:31, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Disagree. Too short. Too many red links. TonyT 12:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Disagree. Too short. Philip J. Rayment 10:29, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree, will be improved. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:21, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Disagree, too short, far too many red links JY23 18:31, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Neutral. Would like to see what it looks like after more information added; it could be a good article. Learn together 16:02, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
  • AGree. TonyT 12:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Disagree. Lead section is too short. Individual sections need to be better developed. Geoff PlourdeComplain! 21:44, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Disagree. It's coverage of the topic is too limited, briefly describing different architectural styles, but nothing more. Philip J. Rayment 10:16, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. It has been improved. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 20:33, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Still disagree, but... It still covers almost nothing except architectural styles. The description of architecture itself is limited to the first two sentences plus a further sentence quoting a dictionary definition. There's nothing about the goals of architecture, the methods that architects use, the profession of architecture, etc. If this article was moved to Architectural styles, then perhaps it would be good enough to qualify. But for its current title, its coverage is still far too limited. Philip J. Rayment 10:49, 17 October 2008 (EDT) Done. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 11:02, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree, although the missing sections under Effects of the Flood should be filled in or removed. Philip J. Rayment 10:14, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:30, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. But it would be nice to finish the missing sections. Learn together 16:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. Taj 22:36, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Disagree. Essential topic, but far too short. Anything about the history of the Bell that someone can put? JY23 21:37, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. Taj 22:36, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. Didn't realize I had to voice agreement when I added it to the list. -Foxtrot 00:08, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. -Foxtrot 00:08, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. Good length, citations, and images. DuncanB 21:28, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree, been on the "Most Viewed Articles" list for a while now, but someone needs to work on the red links. JY23 20:39, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. --DeanStalk 04:28, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. Thorough and lots of citations! -Foxtrot 00:12, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. Found very informative, anti-Communist topic, but far too many red links. #1denverfan 19:31, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. Wow, that's a lot of detail. -Foxtrot 20:08, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Past Nominations

The following articles were proposed and determined not to be suitable for featuring. If the article has been improved to the point where it is of sufficient quality to be featured, move it back to Proposed for Featuring. Click the show link after each entry to see why it was rejected.

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Featured_articles&oldid=538689"