This article was once FA but now when I look at it I doubt it would pass FA again. It is far, far too long, and some of the sections — the bits about his religion, political views, and "scientific philosophy" — look very amateurish and are not encyclopedic (the religion section is currently a bunch of unsynthesized quotes). The article has been in this state for months. It would be great if someone would sit down with it and try and bring it up to standards but so far nobody has bothered. Some sections are very good, and are very carefully sourced; some are not. I'm putting this here both to call attention to the problems with this former featured article as well as to prepare for a possible FARC if it isn't improved substantially. I don't think it is among the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, currently. -- Fastfission 18:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments It appears that this article has grown via piecemeal edits, with no oversight, since it's promotion. Besides everything already mentioned, some samples of problems throughout:
I didn't look at the prose because this article is in need of a major rewrite, reorganization anyway. Sandy 00:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
And lots more. Tony 11:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This article was once FA but now when I look at it I doubt it would pass FA again. It is far, far too long, and some of the sections — the bits about his religion, political views, and "scientific philosophy" — look very amateurish and are not encyclopedic (the religion section is currently a bunch of unsynthesized quotes). The article has been in this state for months. It would be great if someone would sit down with it and try and bring it up to standards but so far nobody has bothered. Some sections are very good, and are very carefully sourced; some are not. I'm putting this here both to call attention to the problems with this former featured article as well as to prepare for a possible FARC if it isn't improved substantially. I don't think it is among the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, currently. -- Fastfission 18:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments It appears that this article has grown via piecemeal edits, with no oversight, since it's promotion. Besides everything already mentioned, some samples of problems throughout:
I didn't look at the prose because this article is in need of a major rewrite, reorganization anyway. Sandy 00:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
And lots more. Tony 11:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)