Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Talmud/archive1

Talmud

The Talmud article is very detailed, unbiased (which is unusual for such a controversial topic), and referenced with legitimate historical sources. After reading it, I decided that it is front-page material. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - per nom - --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object Very well done, except there are no inline citations (footnotes) (see req. 2c "....complemented where appropriate by inline citations...". There is also at least one external jump that needs fixed. Let me know if this gets fixed.Rlevse 10:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Goodcontent's fourth nomination in a few days, but s/he hasn't acted on suggestions on first nom yet. Sandy 12:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object the scholars section is not a good addition; insufficient discussion of the content; no citations and insufficient references. The criticism sections, while informative are not comprehensive or cited. Rama's arrow 16:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object There are no citations and certain section should be expanded (as they are too small). Also, while the article does contain a lot of information, it is not comprehensive. -- Underneath-it-All 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object There is too much poorly defined and unnecessary jargon. And the article is currently disorganized. It suffers perhaps from too much information, I think, not too little. -- חנינא

• Object - I cannot support an article without extensive in-line citations, and 0 isn't even close to extensive. Also, this is the exact reason that nominators are heavily encouraged to only submit one article at a time- you can't focus on all of the comments if you're juggling several articles. --PresN 21:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)