Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Democratic peace theory/archive2

Democratic peace theory edit

Original nomination Here

Nomination by --84.113.52.244 16:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (German wiki - Tets)[reply]

Pro --84.113.52.244 16:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (German wiki - Tets)[reply]
Oppose at first glance. Long list of sources appearing at the end of the article needs to be converted to inline citations. Neil916 (Talk) 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My english isnt very well, but the sources appearing at the end of the article are inline citations! Take a closer look. Its called havard citation. 84.113.52.244 17:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I did not notice the Harvard citation method. Neil916 (Talk) 19:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Initial glance for the inconsistency of referencing - similar to above. Yes there is harvard referencing, but there's also the wikipedia standard referencing side by side. Pick one style and stick to it -- I would definitely prefer the wikipedia standard with the "ref" style. Further review only after the referencing is consistent. Fieari 17:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Insufficient and inconsistent referencing combined with an essay tone for most of the article make it completely unworthy of being a featured article. I think DPT has been nominated before (at least I've definitely seen the article before), and it was in much better shape then. —Cuivi é nen 18:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object -- this reads more as an essay than as an encyclopedic summary of mainstream and significant minority sources. There's an argumentative thread running through what should be an explanation of theory, and we're not given any context for a lot of this material; we go from an unsourced statement about Kant's as being somehow important to a quote from the U.S. President in a couple of paragraphs; without a stronger lead there's nothing to give the reader confidence that this is really giving an informative overview instead of some idiosyncratic description. Image:DP CHART V19.JPG and Image:DP BACKSIDE V 16.JPG need deleting for being higher resolution than necessary, not identifying the copyright holder, and seemingly being used solely to demonstrate that someone that some Wikipedia editor likes has published PDFs. Jkelly 23:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]