Talk:Daniel Wood/FA Discussion (second nomination): Difference between revisions

*'''Slight Support''': Some concern about aspects of the actual character (is it me, or is he a superhero?), but here to judge the article, not the character. As an article, it's presentable, quite detailed, we've ironed a lot of the typos out, though it could still do with a proof read by the characters author in parts. Decent article, yes. Featured Article? Maybe. I'm not totally convinced yet though. - [[User:Salak|<font color="maroon">Lt. Salak</font>]][[Image:Nav-PhoenixC.jpg|30px|USS Tiger]]^{<i>[[User talk:Salak|Talk]]</i>} 08:00, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

**'''Slight Oppose''': I've worked hard to set aside my distaste for certain aspects of the character and look solely at the quality of the article itself.  After reading recently promoted and nominated articles, I don't think "presentable" is good enough for featured article.  I'm glad this article had the makeover it did (ironing out typos, grammatically incorrect passages, etc.) and this really is a decent article, but I don't think that it showcases our group's writing the way a Featured Article should.  I think the time and effort that he's put into thinking through the character is laudable, but the writing doesn't engage the reader and keep them interested in a way I would expect a Featured Article to.  There is lots of detail, which is usually a good thing, but sometimes this leads to redundant passages with significant repeating from section to section.  In short, this is a decent article but decent does not equal Featured. [[User:EJVerde|Karynn Ehlanii]] 11:38, 30 May 2008 (EDT)