The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
I'm not keen on the use of colour highlighting for quotes, but I would suggest toning down the red/pink colour. Article accords with MoS.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
14:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
References #24 and #32 are broken links. A large number of links to published books lack page numbers. This is fine when the reference is to the entire work but not when individual statements are cited.
Jezhotwells (
talk) 15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC) DoneJezhotwells (
talk)
17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)reply
I suspect some OR. Many statements, e.g. Ultimately however, Either/Or stands philosophically independent of its relation to Kierkegaard's life., Either/Or was translated into English in 1944; however, several of Kierkegaard's later works had already been translated, making Kierkegaard's first great book one of the last to be translated for an English reading audience. Please cite or clarify.
Jezhotwells (
talk) 15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC) DoneJezhotwells (
talk)
17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)reply
OK, looks like the points above are fixed. If you wished to take this to featured article status I think re-writing in clearer English would help. GA status confirmed
Jezhotwells (
talk)
17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)reply