Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Duke/archive1

David Duke[edit]

Both Pro and Con editors have sited bias sources. The neutrality of various aspects of this article could readily be debated. I understand that Dr. Duke is a hot and very controversial topic, thus I would like some seasoned editors review this articles format, citations, and overall grammatical presentation. Perhaps I am part of the problem, yet I only want to see this article resolved and free from skewed opinions as any valid encyclopedia entry would present to it's readers.

Furthermore, I submit not to interfere with this process by rebutting additions or subtractions made by editors 'without political agendas. David Duke seems to be a true summit for ideological spin for both supporters and critics.

My hope is that a general consensus will yeild a factual article that could be used as a formal reference for a school child's report in social studies class. Forgive my analogy should it not fit this situation like a glove. I hope you all understand my genuine concern for generating an article that depicts David Duke's life objectively, and not through the eye's of a small group of editors. I look forward to your responses.

DocFisherKing 05:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want some ditors to review it, can I suggest that you take this to peer review before FAC? Thanks. Batmanand | Talk 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a candidate for peer review. Refs do not use correct punctuation, there are two different referencing styles, there are cite needed and stub tags, and there are numerous short stubby sections and paragraphs. Sandy 18:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Needs beter citations. It has several {{citation needed}} tags. --Ineffable3000 23:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Needs a more neutral perspective. 69.167.100.155 07:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]