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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:51, 18 October 2009 [1].

---

Sociology

Nominator(s): Tomsega (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Sociology/archive1

This article has been greatly improved over the last two months. It is highly detailed and well-written. 2-3 more references are needed here or there, and shall be added within the next few days, but otherwise I believe it is worthy of featured status. Tomsega (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. 2-3 more references? Sections on "Epistemology and ontology", "Key figures" and large elements of "scope and topics" are completely unreferenced. I would suggest (firstly) a complete overhaul of this referencing. Second, things like "emphasized the reciprocity in how cultural texts and mass-produced products are used, questioning the valorized division between 'producers' and 'consumers' evident in earlier neo-Marxist theory." are completely undecipherable to the laymen; we write for lay readers, not for expert sociologists. See Law as an example of a "general topic" FA and make a note of the language used there. I would suggest you might be best going through GA and the Peer Review process to get feedback first; this nomination is premature. Ironholds (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Granted, more like 10-12 references. I shall add references to the 'Epistemology and ontology' section, and tighten up the 'Scope and topics' section, within the next 48 hours. As for the 'key theorists', it'd be very difficult to find a reference for that as such. The page has moved forward considerably, however. Perhaps it has been nominated 2-weeks or so too soon, but this way I hope attention is drawn to it. Input appreciated. --Tomsega (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A place for input to be drawn to it is Peer Review, not FAC. Ironholds (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose:-
  • The article is under-cited throughout.
  • What criteria, if any, were used to select the "key figures"? Are they all really "key"? This rather turgid listing of around 100 names has little purpose, given the link to a list of sociologists.
  • I agree with the above comment, that article-building should not be done here. The sensible thing would be to withdraw this nomination and list it for peer review.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose While it is great to see an FAC on a really big subject for a change, this is seriously under-referenced, and some of the short sections need more added. The great big lists should either be spread through the text with indications of what makes the people significant, or left for a list article. Not ready yet. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Withdrawn, this FAC has been archived. Please see WP:FAC/ar and wait for the bot to go through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.