It has grown to a very impressive article. --83.109.174.227 (link to nominator's IP added by User:Phils).
- Withdrawn, I agree with the concerns raised below. 83.109.148.242 21:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Impressive indeed, but the lead section requires expansion. Phils 15:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Object - Not stable, completely inadequate lead section, no organized references section. --mav 16:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Object It is still experiencing tons of edits and vandalism. See the talk page for all the issues that have yet to be resolved. Maybe in a couple of months. Bratschetalk random 18:05, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Too soon. Let the news settle in first. Everyking 18:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Object - I agree with Maveric and Bratsche, this article is still too much the subject of debate to be stable enough for a featured spot. Ben Babcock 20:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Object - This is way too unstable, also I would suggest that it is too close to his election. I am not too keen on current, or very recent, news stories, or figures involved in them, being promoted to featured article status. Let's wait awhile. Rje 00:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Object - As mentioned above, the article is too unstable. We deal with vandalism and continious editing/sub-paging. There is still some information that is not clear yet, some of which includes his Coat of Arms, his Theology and early life. Though I do want to give thanks to those who edit and debate the article and it's contents, I do not think this is the right time for the article to be elevated to Featured Article. Zscout370 (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Object- I do believe this is an excellent article, with a lot of information on the pope. Yet, I agree that there's going to be a ton of editing on the page. Every new appearence that the pope makes for the next couple of weeks will surely be added to the article. Let's wait a while, and see if the article stabilizes. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 01:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Object - I think this article is quite impressive in its breadth and depth of coverage for having been worked on for such a short time. I think however that it is premature to feature it for a while, as substantial editing changes continue to be made, and the article which is featured might differ substantially from the article as it stands presently. Also, by the very act of featuring this article, it is likely that we would attract more vandals as were such an annoyance in the early days of this article's creation. Whig 03:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- neutral - I think this article is a credit to wikipedia. I doubt if there is a more thorough article on Ben anywhere at this stage in his papacy. But the article does need more work. It is possibly a bit premature to make it a featured article just yet. But it does deserve that acolade and will get it in the near future. Maybe we need another category - potential featured articles covering those that are nearly there but just not yet. FearÉIREANN 03:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Object Good article, but still in the mold. Sjakkalle 07:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - For those that object due to vandalism. Does that mean that you would propose a FA article be un-FA if people suddenly start vandalising it? Whether one support or object to FA should be based on whether the article is good in content and not whether people like vandalising the article. -- KTC 09:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment after the initial wave of vandalism I suspect this page is on rather a lot of people's watch lists so I doubt vandalism would be a problem.Geni 09:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A FA will get vandalized no matter which way you slice it. Articles about netrual subjects, like the Medal of Honor and the Order of Bath, got vandalized a lot due to them being a FA. Reversions come quick in Wikipedia, but if you take the vandalism out, you still have problems with the stability. We are still talking about cutting the article down into managable pieces, and there is still more to be added. Zscout370 (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Object, agree with the above concerns. Neutralitytalk 04:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Object very good article, but a "Sex abuse scandal" revels a tendency, offensive to the person, and a prejudice. It would be important to discuss why people didnt like him, rather than using that section, maybe with keeping some info (i'm not saying that is useless). But not an all section! I'm not seeing an encyclopedia, like wikipedia that uses writing to offend people. Would you like a sex scandal section in your biography? -Pedro 22:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an important, contentious subject, and to leave it out would be POV, not the other way around. I wouldn't want a section about a sex scandal in my biography, no, which is why I will endeavor in life not to do anything that would justify one. Benedict, however, even if by inaction, has done so and it should be noted. Kairos 12:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I said keep what's important and factual, If you use that and make a fire out of it (like in the article), it is surely POV. -Pedro 10:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Object to the article becoming featured, for the reasons given above. It's too new and unstable. Kairos 12:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The majority of the article is sourced from current events news articles. The footnote external links will be mostly DOA within a year as news sites remove article links, even if this made FAC, it would need a close review within a year or so as links expire. Most news sites dont keep links for long. Stbalbach 04:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]