101:: There are two objections which I anticipate, so here are my pre-emptive responses. First, copyediting: this article failed last time because it had not been properly edited. However, we have made a good-faith effort to make this article presentable and would appreciate a little slack. If there are any glaring errors, let us know and we'll fix them immediately. Second, the book covers: though several users have expressed some concern about the number used, no one has lodged any formal objections and we are confident that they capture the spirit of the novel.
31:
304:
sort of analysis, you could probably add an external link to another site that has done such a thing, but this isn't really the place; this article needs to be stripped down to the facts. (eg. Johnny then went to the river with his mother; and this represents his freudian blah blah blah. SHOULD be simply: Johnny went to the river with his mother.)
81:. Several other editors and I have spent a lot of time copyediting and cleaning up this article. To be perfectly honest, there isn't much more we can do on our own. I hope you will see fit to give this article FA status, and if not please give us some constructive feedback so we can keep improving it. Thanks again.
417:
Although I love
Heinlein and really think more people should be exposed to his work, I have a few reservations as to the suitability of this article for featured article status, given its at times technical/specific nature. Also, very very minor detail, the aliens are sometimes referred to as the
303:
I have never actually read this selection, even though it has always been one of those i knew i should; but having said that, I found the article rather long winded and much too analytical to really be NPOV. Overall the article is very informative, but much too in-depth; if you want to have this
164:
As do I, this NOR policy needs to be handled a little bit more flexibly than many editors seems to want to contemplate. Is not the process of finding and including "reviewers and critics" comments original research of it's own type. I understand the policy aim, but we need to avoid being too
130:, but, in fact, a creation of our own new analysis. We don't get to make judgement calls about whether reviewers and critics are right or wrong in their interpretations, and we don't get to originate our own.
215:
Looking at the talk page, it sounds like there is no source for the specific passage mentioned there. Unless a published source has promulgated this idea, it is original research that has to be removed.
68:
is a controversial science fiction novel by Robert
Heinlein about powered armor warfare from an infantryman's perspective. The book has always been a personal favorite of mine, so this is a self-nom. I
418:
Bugs and at other times as the
Arachnids, with no statement that I saw saying these terms are synonymous. In the end, I support given how well reaserched and written the article is.
366:
the covers. There's a difference between the two, and that is what determines if the images are being used to illustrate the article, or are merely being used to decorate it. --
77:
321:- I think it's good; however, shouldn't there be some sort of symbolism section? But it doesn't really matter becuase it explores far more themes thanthe symbolism.
307:
Could you be a little more specific? You're not giving me much to work with :). Were there any particular areas that you think could/should be trimmed down?
124:
Since
Heinlein compares the Arachnids on more than one occasion to Communists, it's more than likely that they serve as a foil for the individualistic Terrans
122:
problems. The entire "Comparisons to
Heinlein's other works" section is basically literary analysis by a Wikipedian editor, as is the sentence
47:
17:
179:
It's a very different thing to cite the opinions of named, reputed critics and to include such analysis in the article without attribution.
126:. We're arguing that certain critics are wrong, and "drawing conclusions" (in the words of a Talk page contributor) that are not only not
375:
Until some sort of consensus can be reached, I have removed all but three covers. This nomination is about the article, not the images.
75:
this article for FA status at the beginning of
February. Since then, the article has been extensively rewritten and received a thorough
190:
I don't think that was quite what I was saying. All references to reviewers and critics shoudl be properly referenced. Quite agree. ::
334:: Too many fair-use images. Most of those book covers are being used for decorative purposes only, which isn't permitted under
220:
431:
422:
409:
397:
379:
370:
353:
344:
325:
311:
289:
264:
255:
232:
223:
208:
199:
183:
174:
159:
141:
105:
93:
38:
285:
251:
71:
217:
152:
115:
281:
247:
205:
197:
180:
172:
335:
58:
191:
166:
394:
322:
277:
There is also a current comic book series based on the book, by a company called
Markosia.
428:
419:
406:
376:
350:
308:
261:
229:
102:
90:
278:
137:
Striking objection, but not supporting until examining image question in more detail.
367:
341:
156:
119:
138:
131:
127:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
427:
Tossed in a line at the beginning of "Plot" about the terms being synonymous.
246:
I still miss anything about the various comic books based on the novel. --
204:
My point was that it's not "original research" to gather such opinions.
349:
Removed two of the images and added detailed captions to the rest.
393:
I think this article is pretty comprehensive about the subject.
25:
260:
8:
228:I have removed the passage in question.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
7:
24:
29:
1:
336:Knowledge's fair-use policy
450:
114:. As I brought up on the
432:16:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
423:09:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
410:17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
398:05:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
380:07:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
371:02:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
354:15:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
345:04:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
326:13:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
312:02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
290:18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
265:03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
256:17:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
233:08:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
224:06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
209:18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
200:17:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
184:17:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
175:10:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
160:04:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
142:16:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
134:02:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
106:01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
94:01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
72:unsuccessfully nominated
165:"slavish" about it. ::
405:Outstanding article -
358:You've added captions
151:As I explained on the
42:of past discussions.
118:, this article has
415:Cautiously Support
218:Christopher Parham
144:
66:Starship Troopers
59:Starship Troopers
54:
53:
48:current main page
441:
362:the covers, not
194:
169:
136:
33:
32:
26:
449:
448:
444:
443:
442:
440:
439:
438:
192:
167:
155:, I disagree.--
63:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
447:
445:
437:
436:
435:
434:
412:
400:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
328:
316:
315:
314:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
282:Fritz Saalfeld
270:
269:
268:
267:
248:Fritz Saalfeld
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
213:
212:
211:
188:
187:
186:
162:
146:
145:
108:
96:
62:
55:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
446:
433:
430:
426:
425:
424:
421:
416:
413:
411:
408:
404:
401:
399:
396:
392:
389:
381:
378:
374:
373:
372:
369:
365:
364:commenting on
361:
357:
356:
355:
352:
348:
347:
346:
343:
339:
337:
333:
329:
327:
324:
320:
317:
313:
310:
306:
305:
302:
299:
298:
291:
287:
283:
279:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
266:
263:
259:
258:
257:
253:
249:
245:
242:
241:
234:
231:
227:
226:
225:
222:
219:
214:
210:
207:
206:Andrew Levine
203:
202:
201:
198:
195:
189:
185:
182:
181:Andrew Levine
178:
177:
176:
173:
170:
163:
161:
158:
154:
150:
149:
148:
147:
143:
140:
135:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
107:
104:
100:
97:
95:
92:
88:
85:Nominate and
84:
83:
82:
80:
79:
74:
73:
67:
61:
60:
56:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
414:
402:
390:
363:
359:
331:
330:
318:
300:
243:
123:
111:
110:
98:
86:
76:
70:
65:
64:
57:
43:
37:
193:Kevinalewis
168:Kevinalewis
78:Peer Review
36:This is an
395:BlueShirts
360:describing
323:Hillhead15
128:verifiable
429:Palm_Dogg
420:Nicolasdz
407:Check-Six
377:Palm_Dogg
351:Palm_Dogg
309:Palm_Dogg
262:Palm_Dogg
230:Palm_Dogg
153:talk page
116:talk page
103:Palm_Dogg
91:Palm_Dogg
368:Carnildo
342:Carnildo
157:Bcrowell
403:Support
391:Support
319:Support
244:Comment
99:Comment
87:support
39:archive
332:Object
301:Object
221:(talk)
139:Jkelly
132:Jkelly
120:WP:NOR
112:Object
16:<
286:Talk
252:Talk
89:. -
340:--
288:)
280:--
254:)
196::
171::
338:.
284:(
250:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.