Refer to peer review 0) There is no reason listed here for the nomination (yes, not actionable, that's why it's point number 0). 1) Cite your sources in a References section. 2) The article is too list-heavy with not enough prose to balance the lists. 3) The Theories section needs to be reworked into prose and less like a discussion. 4) There are no images. slambo 01:58, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Object. Almost exclusively lists. Phils 16:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And, I'd add to that, the prose in the lists is not very well-written. Object, Refer to peer review. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:38, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Object I'm a little questionable about this one. So far, there has been only one constant editor for this article, which kinda tells me that this person is one of the creators, making this a vanity article. Also, there is a lot of information here which doesn't seem to be on any of the external links. I'd actually be closer to saying that this would be better in VfD than FAC. --JB Adder | Talk 23:27, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Object. Somebody has worked very hard on this article, but there are too many lists. The plot is also very detailed and well written, but this article, so far, does not seem to meet the criteria for a featured article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
