Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christmas/archive2

Christmas[edit]

Christmas originally gained feature status on Dec. 24, 2004. It lost feature status on Jan. 1, 2006. You can see the old versions of the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christmas&diff=32012542&oldid=8777491 here. Since then, the article has been comprehensively re-edited. It now has a new set of illustrations (including several Old Masters) and a well-referenced history section. The history section is mostly new material, but also consolodates the historical material in the previous version. The historical interpretions are referenced to articles in History Today, a British magazine written by professional historians. There are links to the article summaries, although the full articles are available only by subscription. Another neat new feature is that Biblical verses have been linked to www.biblegateway.com, which allows you to read the verse in your choice of language and translation. Check out the "References" section -- 28 references, all given as footnotes. Kauffner 13:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Some section lack inline references. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per RyanG. Also, could someone do something about the ugly infobox. Generally, we should never use red as a background colour for something there is text in. --Maitch 06:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In a quick skim for WP:FN I saw two cites before periods and one extra period after a cite. The cites are scarce near the end of the article. Gimmetrow 14:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object—2b: the history section is pretty superficial. Needs to offer a deeper account than what you'd receive in Sunday School if it's to be FA material. Tony 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: the real history of Christmas is missing, at least the controversy (such as the pagan origin of Christmas). See the talk-page (Talk:Christmas#"wildly unhistorical"?). __Maysara 09:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Too much focus on Western culture. Little or no reference to 3rd world. Last section is POV. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Having an entire section debating what year Jesus was born in is totally unneccessary in this article. The lengthy section on the Star of Bethlehem is also gratuitous. I'll try removing them and see what the reaction is. Hopefully the History section can be revised to actually be about Christmas. We don't need an exhaustive analysis of the nativity here, since that is well covered elsewhere. Kaldari 21:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]