Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gymnopaedia/archive1
Gymnopaedia[edit]
Article covers in a compact description pretty much of the links that in several epochs of Ancient Greece existed between Martial arts - Dance - Religion - Ceremony - Performance - Nudity - Education - Gender role - Competition.
Referenced through quotes from contemporary writers in Wikiquote: Wikiquote:Gymnopaedia.
Draws discreetly attention to the all-time favourite compositions of Erik Satie, named after the gymnopaedia (see gymnopédie)
--Francis Schonken 11:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object Although made out to be comprehensive, it looks only a bit longer than a stub to me, jguk 13:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Compact is bad. Expand greatly. Everyking 22:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object Far too short. Also lacks references. --mathx314 23:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Concur with other reviewers: article is not comprehensive, lacks references, and writing is poor at times (especially the lead reads like a loose collection of sentences). Jeronimo 08:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object. No way is this a featured article. It is not comprehensive at all. Far too compact, and has no references. If there is a connection between the surreal "3 Gymnopedies" and these Greek athletes perhaps it should be explained rather than "discreetly" hinted at. Giano 10:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object To short, way to short. The external links and sources section is longer than all of the article. Waerth 15:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Refer to peer review, for reasons itemized in all the votes above. A "refer" vote doesn't seem to be in use much, although it's suggested in the FAC instructions at the top of the page for just this kind of case (it seems to me). Raul, considering the specific objections made, you might possibly want to take the unanimous votes above as also implying "Refer to peer review". Bishonen | Talk 18:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Refer to peer review - same reasons as Bishonen. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: "Refer to peer review" will only have a chance of working if there's at least one editor who will respond to any comments left. If Francis Schonken, or anyone else who wishes to contribute to the article wants to put it on WP:PR, that would be great. But we shouldn't refer it to peer review unless there is at least one volunteer! jguk 09:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- OK, volunteering --Francis Schonken 08:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- According to policy, we should. Jguk, if you disagree with the FAC instructions, maybe you want to go edit them, or take it to the talk page? Bishonen | Talk 10:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)