The article was kept 11:26, 8 December 2007.
I believe this article needs to be seriously reviewed if it's to remain a featured article. The reason I believe it no longer meets this criteria (and in fact, never met the current criteria) is because of the lack of inline citations. I believe the article is adequately sourced, but not referenced from a fact to fact basis, rather the article as a whole, but that's not fitting with being completely referenced. This reason alone brings the validity of the article into question, as I (nor almost any other reader) would read every resource available to confirm the validity of the article's claims. -- linca linca 03:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply
Question: If Wikipedia should not be used as a link farm, should it also not be used as a catalogue for every work written on a subject? In point: "Further reading" - is this extensive (exhaustive?) list needed? Would anyone object if only works directly referenced were listed? Rossrs ( talk) 14:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Also, as the reference list was starting to get messy, I've reworked it in line with Johannes Kepler as suggested at Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations. Rossrs ( talk) 07:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was kept 11:26, 8 December 2007.
I believe this article needs to be seriously reviewed if it's to remain a featured article. The reason I believe it no longer meets this criteria (and in fact, never met the current criteria) is because of the lack of inline citations. I believe the article is adequately sourced, but not referenced from a fact to fact basis, rather the article as a whole, but that's not fitting with being completely referenced. This reason alone brings the validity of the article into question, as I (nor almost any other reader) would read every resource available to confirm the validity of the article's claims. -- linca linca 03:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply
Question: If Wikipedia should not be used as a link farm, should it also not be used as a catalogue for every work written on a subject? In point: "Further reading" - is this extensive (exhaustive?) list needed? Would anyone object if only works directly referenced were listed? Rossrs ( talk) 14:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Also, as the reference list was starting to get messy, I've reworked it in line with Johannes Kepler as suggested at Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations. Rossrs ( talk) 07:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply