The writing style is non-encyclopedic, specifically the lead section is not a proper overview, but instead a narrative continuation with the next section. Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, (UTC) Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, (UTC) Please also note the top of the Featured Article candidates page says "If nothing can be done to "fix" the objected-to matter, the objection may be ignored", which we'll have to do with your objection to topic in this case. And finally, your objection to the article topic is not actionable or valid as a reason for objecting to the article (as has been pointed out several times by various people (among them being Meelar, who wrote "Neither support nor oppose, but note that we should not be biased against an article because of its topic specifically, that's pretty far from actionable."). Obviously you are wrong about it being obvious to everyone, because it certainly wasn't obvious to the Oregon State Highway Division! So also you can see it's not irrelevant to the story: on the contrary it's highly relevant. This fact is pointed out to show clearly that their theory was incorrect. Secondly, the fact that the birds were scared away is relevant because "they believed that the use of dynamite would cause an explosion that would disintegrate the whale into pieces that were small enough for scavengers to clear up", which clearly did not happen.
Just because you deem it foolish does not stop it from being relevant. You may believe it was foolish, but I'm quoting him as straight out factual (and might I note interesting) material for the story. Had you actually viewed the footage, you would have noted that it is a highly significant part of his news footage. I'm sorry, but you're wrong about the Paul Linnman quote as being irrelevant. But I cannot bring myself to see it as having any value as a feature article. This is a fun story, and it is exactly the kind of article I like to see appear in Wikipedia to ease the tedium of charged politico-economico-cultural articles. For example, Paul Linnman's quote is foolish, and the fact that the blast scared away scavenging birds is (a) no surprise to anyone, and (b) an utter irrelevancy. Second, I find the writing style flippant and irrelevant. I oppose the topic because it consists of only two events, hardly a common occurrence, and in the two cases, the cause of explosion was completely different. It is with, as I have already said, the topic and the tone. Please note that User:Denni has not replied on this page (actually he did, but I didn't notice because he managed to somehow duplicate this nomination) (I'm an idiot.) so I'll include what he wrote on my user talk page:.It is entirely sensationalist, and though it may teach a minor moral lesson about sticking explosives in without considering where the results may fall, it is first and foremost an off-color joke, and nothing near a featured article. This story strikes me as one which is most appreciated by the rubberneck crowd - I can see nothing in it to enlighten, elicidate, or instruct. Sorry, Ta bu shi da yu, my vote remains to oppose. Also, Denni wrote the following on my talk page: Note: I've also left a similar message on Denni's talk page. After all, if I can't get a more specific objection about the tone then it's not exactly an actionable objection, is it? Denni, could you address my query about the problems with the article's tone? I realise you don't like the article topic, but I'd still appreciate a response.What in particular about the tone of the article do you have an issue with? - Ta bu shi da yu 16:35, (UTC) The tone, however, I'd like to resolve if you don't think it's too good. Regrettably, there's nothing I can do about the topic itself.The writing is inconsistent and the whole article needs significant tightening up. A good topic for Weird World News, but neither the topic nor the tone strike me as appropriate for a featured article.
Ta bu shi da yu 12:46, (UTC) (It failed because 4 people supported while 3 people said it was too short →Raul654) (And those people who said it was too short have mostly said the length is OK now, during that time the article doubled in length Ta bu shi da yu) Re-nomination: last time it failed for technical reasons and they have since all been resolved.
0 kommentar(er)
