Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive3

blanking per new nom - see project page

Gordon reduced the article length by cutting out 10 years of legal history from 1993 until 2003. This section covers the major disputes between Michael and the Schindlers. It also is the section where the courts ceclare facts and various court appointed guardian ad litems report findings about Terri Schiavo. All of that information has been moved to a subarticle by Gordon. He didn't shorten the article, he cut it into two different articles. There is no way you can reasonably represent Terri Schiavo's case by pushing 10 years of legal battles into a subpage. This was done simply in an attempt to satisfy the people who objected to FA status on the grounds that the article was "too long". Well, it may be too long, but converting it into two articles doesn't make it any shorter. The current version of Terri Schiavo is now an article that covers her early life, her collapse, her initial treatment. Then jumps 10 years ahead to some government meddling and an autopsy. THere is no way this makes the article "better" in any sense of the word. It only makes the article look "shorter" to those who don't actually read the article from start to finish and stumble across the 10 pothole in the road. FuelWagon 22:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The featured article criteria are what we, as a community, agree that our articles should strive for. One of them is that an article "should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail" Articles in excess of 100 kilobytes are simply not acceptable - they fail to cover the material concisely. The changes were definetely for the better, your editorial opinion not withstanding. →Raul654 22:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, cutting out 10 years of a 15 year story and putting it in another article is so much better. especially when you replace that 10 year hole with nothing. you didn't shorten it. all you did was split it into two articles. Maybe you should read the article sometime, rather than simply count kilobytes. FuelWagon 03:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Since we all are complaining about the article length (and some of us are complaining about FuelWagon's disruption here), I was wondering if some brave admin would either co-opt with me for a RfC re: FuelWagon --or take action to keep him from de-stabilising the Terri Schiavo page. I just barely get it fixed when he keeps messing up the references section, taking out approved references to cite our sources; As we discussed in talk, I removed all links that look like vanity links except those approved by the resident Admin, Taxman.

So, will someone assist me in combating this editorial vandalism here by the argumentive FuelWagon. (I do not mean this is disrespect; I too wanted the article length to stay the same, but I am man enough to comply with consensus here.) Thx.--GordonWatts 03:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)