Maybe it is once again a nomination, but still the article is better. The year 2005 is also the Einstein year/World Year Of Physics 2005. Because in 1905 he formulated the theory of relativity. --ThomasK 05:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Very informative, well written and referenced. Befitting Einstein's genius. I learned something new: Einstein is trademarked... --[jon] 06:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I could think of no way to improve the depth and coverage of this article. It is a shining beacon of NPOV and completeness that definitely deserves this distinction. RyanGerbil10 06:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. It's as complete as it cane be in my opinion. Mgm|(talk) 08:53, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Filiocht 09:13, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, simply fantastic. I cannot vouch for all of the material, but what I can seems very well done. - Taxman 19:43, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Very well done. --mathx314
- Support. Minor nitpick. I think that external links from the main body should be moved to external links section and linked from main body by using <sup>[[#Note|1]]</sup> or similar syntax, would you agree? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, no. The article is already very well. Other opinions? --ThomasK 12:45, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't agree either, there's no special requirements for footnotes and they would merely be academic decoration in this case. Inline links are fine. However, it would be good if those links could be added to the "References" section as well as appearing inline. Any external links that have been used as sources ought also to be moved from "External links" to "References", incidentally. Those two sections aren't for distinguishing between web and print sources, but between non-sources and sources. Bishonen | Talk 11:10, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support.--Jirate 19:48, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent, even includes the famous photo of Einstein with his toungue out! CGorman 00:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support, amazing.--Bishonen | Talk 11:10, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support, nicely done! Zerbey 13:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I'm impressed. --Spangineer ∞ 22:24, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Giano 21:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support (not that it needs any more, really!) violet/riga (t) 12:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, so far 14 pro votes, 0 contra votes . Is that a consensus,I suppose yes.I suggest,the FA should be on the January 19. Your statements? --ThomasK 18:37, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I think it is fairly unanimous and Raul654 will promote it soon, I'm sure. Please remember that the Featured Article status is different from appearing on the front page - see Wikipedia:Tomorrow's featured article for that, though you'll have to wait until this is officially an FA. violet/riga (t) 18:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I know,that´s why I underlined "so far". --ThomasK 05:42, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, one of the best written articles I have seen on WP. Edeans 06:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)