Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Falsifiability/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. 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.
The article was not promoted 20:02, 30 April 2007.
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.