Wikipedia:Featured article review/1996 United States campaign finance controversy/archive2
Fails to meet criterion 1d) by the use of an opinionated word in its title. The lead is also POV sketchy, with the word "alleged" in the lead section. Articles like this should not be featured articles. Sceptre (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre seems to have embarked on a campaign to rid wiki of controversy/controversies in article titles. I see no problem with this usage when the article is about one or more controversies. Everyone please look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unacceptable. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly what the procedure is for this, but I urge Marskell or Joel to close speedily both this nomination and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Boy Scouts of America membership controversies as stunningly misguided and disruptive reviews. Unfortunately, I don't believe that the nominator has coherent understanding of the meanings of the words alleged or controversy or the concept NPOV, and thus there's little to discuss. For the record, I don't believe these nominations were disruptive by intent, but the chain of actions has been disruptive by effect. --JayHenry (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with JayHenry. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Closed and removed by User:Joelr31. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)