Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Tumble bunny trainer (second nomination)


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.

Tumble bunny trainer
Support Oppose
 * 1) And this time, it's for money. Thefourdotelipsis 05:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Imperialles 13:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) My mind is screaming at me not to vote for this, but it's a great article. Darthchristian   ( Hey! ) 00:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  Stake black   msg 16:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Yep. Chack Jadson 00:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) TBT owns. Adamwankenobi 00:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, great article (even though I don't like the concept) -Darthtyler
 * Not even a good article! DARTH SIDIOUS2 14:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC) stricken by Atarumaster88  13:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)&mdash;not a legitimate objection.
 * 1) Less than 1000 words. Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Per GT and this forum. --School of Thrawn 101 20:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, as per above. Greyman ( Paratus ) 21:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * I don't feel that this is FA material, but it could do nicely as a GA. Also does it satisfy #17? I cut and pasted it into my word processor and it was just short after i cut out the pics and edit tags, but correct me if I'm wrong. Humbone 13:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we counting quotes towards word count? If I cut out the pics, edit tags, and the quotes, it's under 1k, but with the quotes it's just over. --School of Thrawn 101 08:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't count quotes. Green Tentacle (Talk) 08:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's my question, essentially. To fulfill rule 17, does an article have to have 1k words not counting quotes? --School of Thrawn 101 13:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well now, hold on a second. I didn't realize it was ok for a user to edit the FA requirements at their leisure. --School of Thrawn 101 17:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This was not editing the FA requirements but clarifying one of them which was written too ambiguously. As you can see here the original proposal was for them to not be included in the word count. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, well that's what I was asking for, in the first place. --School of Thrawn 101 20:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)