Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tent pegging/archive1

Tent pegging

I came across this article when doing research on cavalry traditions, and I was really impressed by it. It was an absorbing read, and afterwards, I felt I thoroughly understood a sport that I had never even heard of before, and I wanted to go out and try it immediately! I am nominating the article for five main reasons:

Highly rated by Wikipedians: Rated an A-Class article and appeared as a Main Page Did you know feature.
Exposed to wide scrutiny: Passed through two separate peer review processes (general peer review and military history peer review), and made all suggested improvements.
Thoroughly referenced: Impressive use of primary and secondary sources, from up-to-the-moment web pages to 200-year-old newpaper articles.
Compelling and disciplined prose: Engagingly written and concise, covering the subject thoroughly without over-writing or excessive run-on verbiage. It resists the common error of "prose bloat" and uses a minimum of words to convey a maximum of information.
The definitive resource: Unquestionably the most thorough and authoritative resource on the web about the sport, and (as far as I've been able to see) the most thorough and authoritative resource anywhere.

This is not a subject I know much about, but I think this is a great example of a "tiny, perfect" article, that covers the subject thoroughly, authoritatively, and interestingly.

UltimaThule 15:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The article is way too short, and the lead must be two paragraphs. See WP:LEAD. — Wackymacs 15:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD does not say it must be two paragraphs, it says "one to four", depending on the article. Rlevse 17:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally FAs have two paragraph leads, its just a suggestion and the current lead is much too short anyway. The lead is meant to summarize the entire article. — Wackymacs 17:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but it does not say "must be two paragraphs".Rlevse 18:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Comprehensive enough (what else can you say?), referenced with extreme prejudice, and clearly well-reviewed. WP:LEAD is just a guideline. Deltabeignet 17:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. WP:Lead is a guideline, but the lead must be much more than than three sentences in length, which is the current length of this article's lead section. However, in addition to that, the prose is choppy and should be unified into longer paragraphs. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 18:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support I wouldn't call the article short; it's concise. Here, brevity really is the soul of wit. Also, I wouldn't call the prose choppy, but terse--in a good way. Reimelt 04:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, article/lead too short to be featured, in my opinion. Phoenix2 21:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I doubt there's much more to be said. zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, It's a great article, and the only real criticism of it has been its brevity. However, Wikipedia guidelines for Feature Article Candidates clearly states, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to 'fix' the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." Saying an article is too short doesn't fit that, unless you say why it's too short. What has been left out? What sections need more depth? I can't think of any, no one in either of the two peer review processes could think of any, and since none of the critics have specified any gaps in the article, it appears that they can't think of any either. Making an article longer just for the sake of making it longer without adding missing information doesn't improve an article; it actively diminishes an article. Neanderthalis 15:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are you sure that all of those articles under the reference section have been used as references? (I'm wondering because the article is so short and most of it is cited already). Maybe you want to move some of those to a "Further reading" section.--P-Chan 15:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All but two of the items listed in "References" were used in the citations, so the referenced works must have been used in making the article. My understanding of the wiki guidelines is that works cited in the notes (citations) have to be repeated in the References/Bibliography section, although I think this is a little redundant. I know that scholarly journals etc have this same requirement, but it does clutter up the screen IMHO. UltimaThule 17:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you're not using an item as a reference, then it should not be in the reference section. Put it in as further reading, or delete it all together.--P-Chan 03:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Also, you're right. I think if you have each of the references in both the notes and references section, it ends up cluttering everything. I think you can get away with removing the repetition here.--P-Chan 02:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support A very short concise article, actually did not know anything on this subject until I read the article. I agree that fluff shouldn't be added just to make an article longer.--Oldwildbill 08:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great example of "good things come in small packages". I agree with Oldwildbill above. Size counts, but in reverse - if you can get more information in with fewer words, that's better than less information with more words. Typonaut 18:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but object. History section could be expanded, as this discipline is quite ancient, and its role very important in medieval warfare and tournaments... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]