Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sid McMath/archive1
The writing was so good I almost thought it was a copyvio, but found nothing. A really interesting article on a fascinating figure who's relatively obscure. Meelar 16:21, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Meelar 16:21, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Andrew 22:20, May 3, 2004 (UTC); excellent article. Might be nice if it could be sectioned without harm to the text, but it's fine as is.
- Neutral. Subheds would help with readability. jengod 22:26, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
- I've added them. This is really good writing. As a previous poster said, it flows together so well that it's hard to tell where to partition. Meelar 00:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
against. Chauvinism. Unimportant person. Never eard of him before. Qualityful, but not interesting. I think.Pedro 01:25, 8 May 2004 (UTC)- I don't really think that your complaint is substantive - just because you haven't heard of him (and neither had I, for the record) doesn't disqualify it from being a featured article. It's my opinion that anything that is encyclopedic should be eligible to be a featured article. →Raul654 01:47, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
- changed to Support. It is unappelling The subject) to me, but can be great to others. Major quality: good writing.Pedro 01:26, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
- I don't really think that your complaint is substantive - just because you haven't heard of him (and neither had I, for the record) doesn't disqualify it from being a featured article. It's my opinion that anything that is encyclopedic should be eligible to be a featured article. →Raul654 01:47, May 8, 2004 (UTC)