Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cthulhu/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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:46, 3 March 2007.

Cthulhu[edit]

Cthulhu is definitely within the featured article scope. It has tons of sources and no relinks, and is quite informative. The only shortcomings are that it is shorter than most FAs and has only one image, but the image coveys pretty much everything about Cthulhu, including his legendary city. Belgium EO 04:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. Belgium EO 04:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Style mixes fiction with reality - refers to Lovercraft myths and characters as if they were real. No section on impact outside on myriad of popular culture and such (Cthulhu in popular culture, a see also, needs to be rewritten from a list into a proper article and summarized there). 'Other writers' section is a list. Most of the references are from Lovercraft himself, most of the rest from not properly formated sources - many seem to be fanzines? References should be upgraded to proper acdemic works covering Cthulu, I am sure there are many. Before FA, go for WP:PR and WP:GA first.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object Article needs to address the subject from a 100% out of universe perspective. S. T. Joshi is usually the main academic on Lovecraft, if the FAC nominator fancies a library trip. LuciferMorgan 09:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object - I'd love to see Cthulhu as an FA but this needs alot of work - main issues are the writing style; too many short paragraphs, odd word usage such as 'debuted' instead of 'first appeared', and I am sure there are more works on lovecrafts ideas behind the creation. I would recommend a Peer Review first. cheers Cas Liber 23:07, 26 February 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.