47:. 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:
114:
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
81:
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
115:
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
33:
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. —
17:
108:
Biological warfare programmes and convention on biological weapons needs expansion. I'm sure there is much more material than that!
59:
Category A entries all have a 1-3 line description, are
Category B and Catagory C entries not worthy of this same treatment?
95:
Category A has entries for all the mentioned biological agents, except for "viral hemorrhagic fevers". What are these?
119:
that is totally unqualified. Who give these arguments? How do we know this information is not just made up?
99:
133:
34:
82:
most of the topics are "discussed" by adding a link only. Far from featured status IMO.
83:
73:
27:
56:
0 reference to "first responders" and those responsible for cleanup.
111:
Modern
Bioterrorist incidents needs to be expanded in summary form.
62:
Categories A and B have lists, Category C cops out with 1 sentance.
123:
65:
Biological warfare programs seems to be a brief afterthought.
53:
subsection labelled stub, needs content added there
8:
72:I have more but this is a good start
18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
7:
98:Category B has entries but not in
24:
105:Category C should be expanded.
1:
151:
37:13:49, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
126:references in "See also"?
136:05:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
86:07:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
76:19:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
117:Plants as sensors
142:
150:
149:
145:
144:
143:
141:
140:
139:
134:Ta bu shi da yu
50:lack of images.
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
148:
146:
138:
137:
130:
129:
128:
127:
120:
112:
109:
106:
103:
96:
87:
78:
77:
69:
68:
67:
66:
63:
60:
57:
54:
51:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
147:
135:
132:
131:
125:
121:
118:
113:
110:
107:
104:
101:
97:
94:
93:
91:
88:
85:
80:
79:
75:
71:
70:
64:
61:
58:
55:
52:
49:
48:
46:
43:
40:
39:
38:
36:
29:
26:
19:
116:
100:summary form
89:
44:
41:
32:
28:Bioterrorism
35:OwenBlacker
84:Jeronimo
122:Why is
74:Alkivar
45:for now
90:Object
42:Object
124:DARPA
16:<
92::
102:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.