Talk:Scolopendra
From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Just an idea, but maybe the whole Scolopendra history could get its own entry. That way the article is less long and the 'basic' information gets more space. You should still refer to it of course :) Knoot 21:33, 3 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Done. --Scolopendra 23:58, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Scolopendra FAC Vote (4/0/2)
Please remember to sign your votes with 4 tildes ( ~~~~) and update the vote tally when you vote.
Support
- Very informative, extremely well written and organized. A clear example of some of NSWiki's best work. Khen 14:52, 14 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Freod 23:37, 14 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Mikhail 20:55, 27 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- I can't think of any reason to not support it. Nightbane 21:22, 4 August 2005 (GMT)
Oppose
-
Object. I would have to disagree with Khen, it could use some small revision and reformatting. At times it is not most logically ordered. (eg: position of lists; should probably be as an annex would), and the prose is in need of work in a few parts. Although this is nothing large, I would resent its being promoted to featured article status in its current state. Apart from these objections, it is fairly good. Rechze • (talk) 11:51, 3 Mar 2005 (GMT)
Neutral
- Rechze • (talk) 10:45, 9 Mar 2005 (GMT)
- While I'd like to vote yes, I can't see anything that really makes it stand out enough. If someone would kindly point out something truely original here, perhaps I'd change my view. Nanakaland 20:05, 11 Mar 2005 (GMT)
Comments/Questions
- Rechze, could you perhaps specify which sections you believe are in need of work or should be reordered, so that Scolo can take your suggestions under advisement? 69.225.31.50 11:53, 8 Mar 2005 (GMT)
- For record, 69.225.31.50 is me. Wasn't logged in. Khen 11:56, 8 Mar 2005 (GMT)
- I have done what I can, but further: a short summary of Scolopendran_History, in the history section could be useful. Moreover, the paragraphs I have made should be linked if not naturally, and I am not quite sure as to if this article could be considered comprehensive: covering all aspects of the topic, whether detailed or not. So I will defer a support vote. Rechze • (talk) 10:45, 9 Mar 2005 (GMT)
