Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bioterrorism/archive1

Bioterrorism

Good article, only needs a little more work (which tends to happen during a nomination process) to be featured, I think. I've just done a load of wikignomery, so it's arguably a self-nom. — OwenBlacker 13:49, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

• Object for now. while i agree this article looks good, I think it is lacking that oomph that a FAC should have. It seems well written but it just doesnt have a lot of impact. Perhaps this is due to the constant media coverage of this subject, but I do not feel this is the right time for this to be nominated. Now for specific complaints:
  1. lack of images.
  2. subsection labelled stub, needs content added there
  3. 0 reference to "first responders" and those responsible for cleanup.
  4. Category A entries all have a 1-3 line description, are Category B and Catagory C entries not worthy of this same treatment?
  5. Categories A and B have lists, Category C cops out with 1 sentance.
  6. Biological warfare programs seems to be a brief afterthought.

I have more but this is a good start Alkivar 19:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. I mostly agree with Alkivar. Most importantly, the article fails to draw a line between bioterrorism and biological warfare. These may be very closely connected, but then so should the articles. In addition, the history seems incomplete (where's the sarin attack in the Japanese metro), and most of the topics are "discussed" by adding a link only. Far from featured status IMO. Jeronimo 07:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. Category A has entries for all the mentioned biological agents, except for "viral hemorrhagic fevers". What are these?
  2. Category B has entries but not in summary form.
  3. Category C should be expanded.
  4. Biological warfare programmes and convention on biological weapons needs expansion. I'm sure there is much more material than that!
  5. Modern Bioterrorist incidents needs to be expanded in summary form.
  6. There is a sentence "Arguments given to justify this option is that people are used to plants much more than to chemical sensors and the use in public places would not worry the population. Another argument is that these GMO sentinels could be deployed on vast geographical areas and their system of detection could be introduced into the evergreen trees and the algae of the watery zones, making it possible for satellites to supervise and perceive any change of color due to an hostile agent." in Plants as sensors that is totally unqualified. Who give these arguments? How do we know this information is not just made up?
  7. Why is DARPA references in "See also"?

Ta bu shi da yu 05:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)