Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Schabir Shaik Trial/archive1

Self-nom. What I think is a well-written and researched article on one of the most divisive court trials in South African history. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 04:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well written, and comprehensive, although a few more pictures might be helpful. However i support. Thethinredline

Object to lead, which needs ruthless editing. "Chippy"?? 64.251.55.196 18:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his name is Chippy. Would you tell me please what you object to in the lead? Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 18:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article appears to be well researched and written. The main complaint I have is that the article seems to be written more for South Africans who know about this case than for outsiders, like myself, who have not heard of it. In other words, too many things are not immediately explained such as who the gentlemen involved are--you give their names but not who they are and what they do--and I had to click on the links to the people before I began to understand. Try having someone who is not familiar with the case look at the article. Cheers! Ganymead 01:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I tried to address that in the second sentence. Does that work ebtter? 165.121.145.199 21:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

mild object deal with the red links. Borisblue 13:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Having red links is not a valid reason to object to an article. The questoin here is the quality of *this* article - not the (lack of) articles it links to. →Raul654 16:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-are there any other similar cases that could be put under See also? I know there are a lot of online references, but could we have an external link section? Falphin 02:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. Good article, but I'd like someone familiar with Floridian copyright law to confirm whether usage of those two piccis is ok. Support is conditional on that, jguk 18:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]