This seems to be a well referenced article with appropriate pictures and length.
Ozone 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
There are no inline citations. The text of featured articles is generally expected to be supported throughout with footnotes.--
ragesoss 03:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is not really even close. There's an OR tag to go along with the lack of citations.
Quadzilla99 06:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Well researched and well written. Use of pictures is appropriate to the topic.
Darren Magennis 08:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
If every article that "properly used" images was featured, this encyclopedia would be a complete mockery. --Phoenix (
talk) 18:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, {{original research}} in the Examples section, and it could probably be placed elsewhere as well. As per Quadzilla, it lacks inline citations. --Phoenix (
talk) 18:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose What's the point of "well referenced" if it's still got "original research"? Why doesn't the nominator improve that first? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Orngjce223 (
talk •
contribs)
Oppose No inline citations, original research, and the writing is too technical. --
Alabamaboy 00:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose "Scientific propositions have nothing to do with those sorts of individual idiosyncrasies." - impressively over-arching statement in overly short lead. Not sure what Darren Magennis's support means - article has two images of swans, arguably a good illustration of one section, but it's a long article, mostly unillustrated. From F=MA we suddenly go to number of hairs on a sled dog? Different dashes in the Quotes section. Use in Courts of Law has bad capitalization. The criterion of demarcation section has a bullet point for no good reason. In work beginning in the 1930s, Karl Popper gave falsifiability a renewed emphasis - so what was the earlier emphasis, and why did it need to be renewed? Probably other problems, but that should be enough for now. --
AnonEMouse(squeak) 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.