Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emergency department/archive1
Emergency department[edit]
This is the first time this has been nominated to FAC. The Emergency department article has been through peer review and was the Article improvement drive for a week from November 20, 2005. It has been improved a lot by many wikipedians (including myself). The lead is good, the image copyrights are good, and the flow/language is good. The article is also referenced. — Wackymacs 10:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Object. It should really have more photos especially as they shouldnt be too difficult to get ---- Astrokey44|talk 11:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- It would be nice but pictures are not a requirement for a featured article, so this isn't a reason to Object. Please see the FA criteria. — Wackymacs 12:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well no 4. says that although they are not required, it should have images where appropriate. It should have something like a closeup of an ER sign - perhaps different ones in different countries, and maybe the image of the building could be cropped to show the ED clearer. ---- Astrokey44|talk 03:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Astrokey's complaint is valid. It is not appropriate to say "there are no images, therefore this cannot be an FA." It is appropriate to say, "there are not enough images for this specific article topic." Images not being required just means that how many images an article should have depends entirely on the topic itself, and whether more things should be illustrated in it. -Silence 14:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- OBJECT - I concur - this article is sorely lacking in imagery. I'm honestly interested to see what emergency departments look like, especially in non-western countries. - JustinWick 02:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Astrokey's complaint is valid. It is not appropriate to say "there are no images, therefore this cannot be an FA." It is appropriate to say, "there are not enough images for this specific article topic." Images not being required just means that how many images an article should have depends entirely on the topic itself, and whether more things should be illustrated in it. -Silence 14:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well no 4. says that although they are not required, it should have images where appropriate. It should have something like a closeup of an ER sign - perhaps different ones in different countries, and maybe the image of the building could be cropped to show the ED clearer. ---- Astrokey44|talk 03:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- It would be nice but pictures are not a requirement for a featured article, so this isn't a reason to Object. Please see the FA criteria. — Wackymacs 12:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Why are there section just on the US and UK? Those should be integrated into the supersection, and it should also have some info on the non-developed world as well. Tuf-Kat 16:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Object. This is limited to only few English speaking countries. What about such places in the rest of the world? What about the history, invention, changes over time? Could use more inline citations and references as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Mild object. Rather thin in the references department. Do you have, for instance, something supporting the explanation that "ED" failed to catch on as a replacement term because of the TV show ER and "ED" as a shorthand for erectile dysfunction? It's probably right, and Lord knows I've gotten away with similar speculations in articles, but I've never yet submitted one for FA status either. Daniel Case 02:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)