Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2005 to November 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 November 2005 1.1 Tecmo Cup Football Game 1.2 Alexander Dennis Enviro 500 1.3 Collyer brothers 1.4 2005 Southeast Asian Games 1.5 Sino-American relations 1.6 Palpatine 1.7 New Orleans Mint 1.8 Bohuslav Marashek 1.9 Tyrannosaurus rex 1.10 Hollaback Girl 1.11 Céline Dion 1.12 1997 Pacific hurricane season 1.13 Delrina 1.14 Volkswagen Beetle 2 I'd like to help 2.1 Douglas Corrigan 2.2 Target Corporation 2.3 English language 2.4 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster 2.5 Insulin 2.6 Smotherbox 2.7 Space Shuttle Enterprise 2.8 Mike Watt 2.9 Søren Kierkegaard 2.10 Seinfeld 2.11 Moustache 2.12 Empress Dowager Cixi 2.13 Karl Silberbauer 2.14 Sea shanty 2.15 Apple Macintosh 2.16 John F. Kennedy 2.17 M1 Garand 2.18 MMORPG 2.19 J. R. R. Tolkien 2.20 Evan Mecham 2.21 God 2.22 Emperor Taizong of Tang China 2.23 Tram 2.24 Bayreuth Festival 2.25 Valence electron 2.26 Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva 2.27 Scrooge McDuck 2.28 1957 World Series 2.29 GG Allin 2.30 Race of Jesus 2.31 Xanadu House 2.32 Guns, Germs, and Steel 2.33 Planar graph 2.34 Islam 2.35 Bob McEwen 2.36 Shoe polish 2.37 Billings, Montana 2.38 Water resources 2.39 Around the Horn 2.40 Turku 2.41 Lostprophets 2.42 Beatles For Sale 2.43 Paper Mario 2.44 Mormonism and Judaism 2.45 Fox River Grove level crossing accident 2.46 Time to completion 2.47 H5N1 2.48 West Indian cricket team 2.49 Guitar 2.50 Drill bit 2.51 Epistemology 2.52 Ed Gein 2.53 Glacier 2.54 Atlantis 2.55 1997 Pacific hurricane season 2.56 Coffee 2.57 Sokol space suit 3 October 2005 3.1 Intelligent design 3.2 Eleanor Rigby (song) 3.3 Corinth 3.4 Giuseppe Verdi (listen up, folks; seriously) 3.5 Sydney Boys High School 3.6 Cooperative 3.7 Virtual band 3.8 About-Picard law 3.9 Dungeons & Dragons 3.10 Babe Ruth 3.11 Government of France 3.12 Brain 3.13 Battle of Vaslui 3.14 Half-Life 2 3.15 University of Maryland, College Park 3.16 New England Patriots 3.17 Ordnance Survey 3.18 History of Test cricket (1890 to 1900) 3.19 Big Brother (TV series) 3.20 Manichaeism 3.21 Those We Don't Speak Of 3.22 Dinosaur 3.23 Coeliac disease 3.24 Nevada-tan 3.25 Sleep 3.26 The Daily Show 3.27 Removal from the Order of Canada 3.28 Sinclair Research Ltd 3.29 Miami, Florida 3.30 West Indian cricket team 3.31 Microsoft Jet Database Engine 3.32 Battle of Stalingrad 3.33 Surrender of Japan 3.34 George Galloway 3.35 Lostprophets 3.36 Ordnance Survey 3.37 Gimli Glider 3.38 American popular music 4 September 2005 4.1 Opus Dei 4.2 Houston, Texas 4.3 Popular culture studies 4.4 Terri Schiavo 4.5 Crazy in Love 4.6 Beyoncé Knowles 4.7 Destiny's Child 4.8 Megatokyo 4.9 Cyberpunk 4.10 U.S. Highway 66 4.11 Benzene 4.12 Magneto (comics) 4.13 Nicolas Sarkozy 4.14 Belarus 4.15 Stroke order 4.16 Oh My Goddess! 4.17 Southeastern Anatolia Project 4.18 John III of Portugal 4.19 Warez 4.20 A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates 4.21 Martin Guerre 4.22 Bruce Johnson 4.23 Hydrogen 4.24 Bulk vending 4.25 Hulk Hogan 4.26 Fred Phelps 4.27 Charles Darwin 4.28 Ashlee Simpson 4.29 Taoism 4.30 Salvatore Riina 4.31 Rosicrucian 4.32 Howard Dean 4.33 Hopkins School 4.34 El Ángel 4.35 Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) 4.36 Division of Korea 4.37 Don't Speak 4.38 Solarquest 4.39 TV-FM DX 4.40 Final Fantasy VI 4.41 The Godfather 4.42 Napoleon I of France 4.43 Apple typography 4.44 Burning Man 4.45 Elton John 4.46 Brisbane 4.47 Modified Newtonian dynamics 4.48 Cathedral of the Assumption (Louisville) 4.49 Vishnu sahasranama 4.50 In-N-Out 4.51 Tupac Shakur 4.52 Terri Schiavo 4.53 CF-101 Voodoo 5 August 2005 5.1 Cerebellum 5.2 Avatar: The Last Airbender 5.3 History of South Carolina 5.4 Belgium 5.5 Notre Dame de Paris 5.6 Trinity test 5.7 Demographic transition 5.8 Pan American World Airways 5.9 Turku 5.10 History of the Jews in Poland 5.11 Palladium 5.12 Westboro Baptist Church 5.13 Flag of Belarus 5.14 USS Liberty incident 5.15 DualDisc 5.16 Winston Churchill 5.17 Monarchy in Canada 5.18 Michael Thevis 5.19 Brave New World 5.20 Education in the United States 5.21 Suburbs of Johannesburg 5.22 Sesame Street 5.23 Martin Guerre 5.24 Walt Disney World College Program 5.25 Panama Canal 5.26 Denis Law 5.27 Iran 5.28 John III of Portugal 5.29 Queen's Guard 5.30 Battle of Trafalgar 5.31 DualDisc 5.32 Brave New World 5.33 Belarusian Republican Youth Union 5.34 Removal from the Order of Canada 5.35 Appointment to the Order of Canada 5.36 Stonewall riots 5.37 Cat 5.38 New Orleans Mint 5.39 Paul Hackett 5.40 Crew Exploration Vehicle 5.41 Backgammon 5.42 David Irving 5.43 Tucker Max 5.44 Luftwaffe 5.45 Marcel Junod 5.46 Sociocultural evolution 5.47 Enzyme 5.48 Javier Solana 5.49 Cimarron 5.50 Model minority 5.51 Neptune (planet) 5.52 Gay Nigger Association of America 5.53 Many-worlds interpretation 5.54 Chicago, Illinois 5.55 Asteroid 5.56 Isle of Wight 5.57 Winter of Discontent 5.58 Pope John Paul II 5.59 Military history of Canada 5.60 Astrophysics Data System 5.61 Microsoft Jet Database Engine 5.62 Cochineal 5.63 Bart McQueary

[edit] November 2005

[edit] Tecmo Cup Football Game

Self-nomination. An one-man effort on a rare Sega Genesis game.
This article has already been on;

Peer Review (with a grand total of no comments),
CVG Peer Review (with a whopping 1 comment).

Taking the silence to be a sign of satisfaction, i'm nominating it here. Please bear in mind that this game is extremely rare, and only 4 sites even mention it. This accounts for the short number of references and external links. LordViD 19:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object. Several problems with the style and wikification. This article doesn't entirely comply with WP:MOS. Several basic dictionary words such as success are linked for no reason. Trivia section is too short, as a two item list. Fair use images do not have fair use rationales. Very good effort though, and I'll support when the things I've mentioned are fixed. — Wackymacs 19:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the irrelevant links and added the fair use rationale to the images. What do you suggest should be done with the trivia section? Should it be merged with other sections or removed completely? Also, you mentioned that this article doesn't comply with the MOS. Any specific points?LordViD 19:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Though this might sound like nitpicking - the References section should not use small size type for just three references, and should be placed before the External links section. The External links section should also read External links, not External Links (this is mentioned in the manual of style, I believe). I suggest you merge the Trivia section into another section. — Wackymacs 20:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

There, all done. Will you support now? Pretty please? :) Thanks for the comments. LordViD 20:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Good stuff. Though I hate to say this, there is one thing still keeping me from Supporting this article. There are possibly too many sub-sections, because each section should ideally be two/three paragraphs long according to guidelines, and short sections look bad. I suggest that you remove the sub-sections. — Wackymacs 20:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Too many sub-sections? I can only see one, which is the Guts system section. I've merged the content and removed it. All other sections are over two/three paragraphs long. Perhaps you are also referring to the Characters section? But doesn't the table compensate for that? LordViD 20:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Looks pretty good, though someone else might have objections that I haven't noticed. I might also note, I changed the HTML table into a Wikitable because it uses simpler syntax and looks better. — Wackymacs 21:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• thank you for taking the time to review the article :-) LordViD 21:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - Theres just not enough there for me to support. 2 of the references are to GameFaq walkthrough/reviews, there really is absolutely no point in referencing a gameFaq review. Anyone can write them, they're not professional in the slightest. I mentioned in some music FACs that we should have mainstream reviews for them over internet ones, and it applies here. You say its a rare game, and I'm sure it would be near impossible for you to find some published critical feedback for the thing, but still it stands. Also, on googling the thing and looking around, it seems that there was a NES version of this game released called "Tecmo Cup Soccer Game", which isn't even mentioned. - Hahnchen 23:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the gamefaqs review reference, and added info on the NES version. LordViD 12:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object -- The article doesn't do enough to put this game in a larger context of Sega Genesis games and soccer games. Of course, because of the relative rarity of the game, some of this information may not exist. I think that, at minimum, I'd like to see --

• Historical context. Are sports games common? Were they common in 1992? Was this a popular sport at the time, particularly in these countries? You could have a section that goes into more detail about the success of Captain Tsubasa games, the article doesn't explain what "Captian Tsubasa" was. Are these kind of "clone" games common?
• Impact of the game on the genre. In this case, you might mostly be talking about the *lack* of impact. You might be able to cite poor sales figures, a lack of published references, lack of marketing on the part of the publisher. Even if the game was published with no impact whatsoever on anyone, there should probably be a section mentioning this, with references.

On a side note, the sidebar mentions that this was published only in Europe? If so, you might want to mention that in the text, perhaps in the first paragraph. -- Creidieki 00:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

All valid points, but what you're asking is impossible. The internet has proved useless for me when writing about this game, however, i'll try as much as I can to incorporate all your points. In the meantime, I can clearly see that this article is going nowhere but to the trash heap. LordViD 10:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Not to the trash heap! not every article can become featured because, in this case, the subject is very rare and difficult to write a lot about. Its a good article, but I doubt it will get the featured article status. — Wackymacs 10:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - I'm sure the internet has been next to useless in searching for references to this game. But since when were featured articles just a collection of all the things found on the internet. It might be impossible for you, but for me, a featured article on a computer game should have a critical reaction section with reviews from popular gaming magazines and possibly sales figures. I mean heck, I'm finding it a hard time looking for magazine reviews of games that came out in 1998, let alone 1992, but still. - Hahnchen 14:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment I'm sorry if my comments seemed harsh; I hope that you won't be discouraged by them. I believe that this article could become a featured article, and I trying to give suggestions for how to flesh it out. My first request was for a History section, to tell the reader about the status of Sports games in 1992, and other related issues. That section wouldn't need to have information specific to this game -- it just needs to *set the stage* for the game. The reader probably isn't a sports video game fan living in 1992, so you can get a lot of milage with "obvious" statements like "Sports video games have been one of the most popular genres since the beginning of video games, and in 1992 were the second-most-popular genre after Action" (or something like that, I just made that up). Wikipedia might have most of this information already.

And my second suggestion was, if there was no effort to promote the game on the publisher's part, try to mention that...Your local librarian (public, school, or university) can help you find any magazines of that time period with reviews of the game, and can probably get copies sent to you, quite possibly for free; one or two of those would go a long way towards supporting a section that says, "This game was poorly received and had little impact on the industry.".

So I *do* believe that you can have a Featured Article on a topic like this. At the moment, the article is too short and doesn't cover all of its bases, and it'll probably take several hours of research to get it there. But I disagree with Wackymacs; I tend to think that every article can become featured. -- Creidieki 06:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comments weren't harsh in anyway. All you say is completely true. But I think you severely underestimate the rarity of this game. I've looked everywhere; books, magazines, the internet. No luck. This wasn't a game that made any news, top ten lists, or even got reviewed. It's as if it didn't exist. As you and the others have pointed out, a game article could never be featured without proper sections about its impact, critical acclaim etc., and so I'm withdrawing the nomination. LordViD 08:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Dennis Enviro 500

Self nomination. This article has been peer-reviewed and the introduction section is expanded. 61.10.4.84 05:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object - After reading this article, I know much more about low-floor buses and trains (but only because I got curious and looked it up). I'd love to read a great article about a bus I've neither seen nor heard of before, but on this one, much work needs to be done to get there:

• The writing is sloppy - In places, sounds a bit like rough translation: integrated with all advantages of Transbus and its subsidiaries or and good reputation was made by the passengers.
• Much of it is lists - Most of the article is listings, in one format or another, of various technical details, with little to no context.
• No overall context and history - It's a doubledecker bus. Why was it built? What niche does it fill in the World of Buses? What is its design history? Is it in a class of its own for some reason, or which are its competitors? How much does it cost? What is it particularly good at? These are some of the questions that should be answered. As it is, this bus doesn't come to life for me whatsoever...

There is more, but I think the above already requires significant work beyond tweaking. --Tsavage 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Collyer brothers

I just discovered this article today: A fascinating and little-known story of two urban hermits living in New York City in the 1930s and '40s, obsessively hoarding tons of junk in their brownstone. Very well-written and well-organized biography, with free-use photos and a lot of Times articles listed in the references section.

• Nominate and support. Andrew Levine 21:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn; see below. Thanks to User:Tsavage for alertness. Andrew Levine 07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unfortunately I see no evidence those images actually are free. It appears they are all mislabelled. Great topic, though.--Pharos 21:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• I recognize many of these images from Corbis. Modern photos are of no use; there is nothing but a little park on the site today. The story is interesting but works much less well without contemporary pictures. Also, the term "Collyerism" has been used to refer to a pathological refusal to throw things away. Uucp 05:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object Very interesting article, but the lead is too short and some of the images do not state where they are actually from originally. I am eager to support when the issues mentioned are fixed. — Wackymacs 22:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and, the ' House contents' and 'Contents of House' sections should be merged into one section. — Wackymacs 22:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• It is looking much better now, but I think the death sections should be merged together and named 'Deaths'. I will then support. — Wackymacs 08:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Fascinating article, but as above, the lead is too short. And just a small note, I'd say that a disambig is needed at the top, the Collyer brothers can also refer to the guys who created Championship Manager. Google Oliver Collyer Brothers and you'll see some links. - Hahnchen 02:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This may be generational: anyone over the age of 50 will have no doubt who "Collyer Brothers" refers to. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I have made the following improvements to the article:
  1. The lead section has been expanded slightly. I don't think the lead needs to be very long, and it's not, but it has been lengthened to provide better summary of the brothers' situation.
  2. A disambig has been added per Hahnchen's suggestion.
  3. The four images used in the article have been re-tagged as fair use. One is from Corbis and I'm in the process of finding out where the other three (stated to come from the NYPL) really originated.
  4. The "House contents" and "Contents of House" sections have been combined. Redundant descriptions have been dropped (although a few additional items described in the Times articles, like the eight live cats that the police found, have been added.)
  5. A sentence from one of the Times pieces has been added for closure. Andrew Levine 05:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Could I suppose be a bit longer, but this makes for a fascinating read and is well-written. Ambi 01:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Entertaining article, the length supported by the morbidly fascinating story. I have one major objection, and a couple of minor concerns. I also made a few minor edits and copyedits rather than include those here.

The article and its references seem rather close to the this article "The Collyer Brothers" in Useless Information. - I realize there can only be so many ways to write the story chronologically, but these articles are very close in content throughout, some of the sentences are very close in wording, and there is at least one identical list of items removed from the house. As for the References, are these direct sources used in the Wikipedia article, or is the list simply copied from the Useless Info article's reference list? I'm not sure what the policy is on rewriting other articles, where's the line? Or was that article written from this one?

The account of the tonnage of junk removed is unclear. A first figure of 103 tons is cited, next, an additional 19 tons is mentioned, then 103 tons is mentioned again. It's unclear what the final total is, and this makes the chronological sequence fuzzy as well, from "House contents" through "Manhunt" (the account was strictly chronological up to that point).

Reason for "Manhunt" section unclear" - The term "manhunt" doesn't seem justified by simply the bus rumor, and the police going back into the house. It seems to make more sense to include the following "Langley Collyer found dead" section by deleting that second heading (i.e. "manhunt" is a dry reference to the renewed house search, culminating in the body). (Perhaps irrelevant here, and in poor faith, but "manhunt" would better apply in the Useless article, where a repeated "where's Langley?" device was used, and in addition to the bus sighting, a dead body found in the river and briefly thought to be him, was mentioned.)

Is "disposophobia" a recognized medical condition? - A quick Web search, and the name itself, make me think not, but it's not made obvious either way. This should be clarified. The way it's written now could be interpreted to mean that this...behavior resulted in its very own clinical condition.

--Tsavage 03:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I followed the link from your first objection and found it very serious indeed: It looks like one of our article's authors simply took the Useless Information summary, stripped out the idiotic attempts at humor, and rewrote what was left slightly to avoid blatant copyvio. With that considered, I am withdrawing my nomination of this article. Andrew Levine 07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that the immediate source was the Useless Information article (someone should look throught the article's history and see if this is likely), it should certainly be credited as a reference. Also, for any references that were not directly checked, but are merely "as cited in Useless Information", that should be explicit. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Southeast Asian Games

The Southeast Asian Games (also known as the SEA Games), is a biannual multi-sport event involving participants from the current 11 countries of Southeast Asia. The event also features new comer East Timor. Its the right time to feature this one. Homboy 17:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object Mainly consists of lists, no references, the fair use images need fair use rationales and at least one of the images has no source/license. It needs more context, refer to WP:Peer review for specific suggestions on what can be added.— Wackymacs 18:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object per Wackymacs, and also wish to point out that the games haven't even happened yet, and so this article is certianly not stable is it is not yet complete. Harro5 09:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object More suitable for current events box, rather than feature article. - nathan (currently doing the Arnis in the 2005 SEA games article)
  • I remember someone requesting this to be a featured article or "In the News" on the help desk a few days ago. Someone said it wasn't notable enough to be there, but I disagreed. If it is sufficiently updated, it could be a news item. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (boggles) 11 participating countries doesn't count as notable? Dayem, that reasoning sounds just whack. --Tagasilab 07:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object aboslutely. It is far from being an FA article in terms of any criterion.--Huaiwei 14:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Great Opening of the SouthEast Asian Games, except for the introduction of a FAKE President

• Please remember this is a not the talk page, so do not write things here. Terenceong1992 16:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. save the commentary for her own article here--Tagasilab 19:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object The SEA Games haven't ended yet, and want to make it a featured article, maybe later or something. Also, the quality is not very right yet for FAC standards. Terenceong1992 16:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The SEA Games have to be over first, then the article has to go through peer review and only do you end up on FAC. Follow the process. ;) --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 11:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sino-American relations

This article describes Sino-American relations, and has references. I think this will meet the FA status. 202.40.210.244 05:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• object due to stub sections. --Jiang 05:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• object can't agree more with Jiang -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article was generally written from an American point of view, and to a certain extent, focuses too much on the contemporary relations with the PRC. There's far less coverage on the relations between the United States and Qing, and its successor the ROC. — Instantnood 12:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Makes no reference to the role of Zbigniew Brzezinski. —thames 23:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palpatine

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Palpatine/archive1

Self-nomination This is an article about a main character from Star Wars. I revised it using the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). This article was at peer review recently and was copy-edited to tighten the prose and decrease cruft. It is comprehensive and well-sourced. I'm sure there are still some wrinkles that need ironing, thanks in advance for your input. Dmoon1 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Support I am very impressed with this article's progress since its last nomination. Great job! Judgesurreal777 03:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! Dmoon1 03:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Another great article about a star wars character. The people at Wikiproject:Star Wars do seem to have a keen understanding of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Excellent. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support. Dmoon1 14:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Why is there a Darth Sidious article? CG 08:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Because some editors here feel that protecting people from knowledge is more important than Wikipedia's objective of spreading knowledge (hint: look at the spoiler tag). It's the same reason we're stuck with the senseless presence of both a Darth Vader page and an Anakin Skywalker page (despite their shared identity being pop culture since 1983). Ryu Kaze 11:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I would just like to point out that I had nothing to do with that, but Ryu is correct. This is the result of a debate that took place several months ago. Darth Sidious and Palpatine were two separate articles created before Revenge of the Sith was released when their relationship was not confirmed in the fiction. Some people did not want to spoil this connection, feeling that the movie was too new and Palpatine's identity was not common knowledge to most people. Dmoon1 14:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Very good article. means alot morte than just Star Wars. Team6and7 14:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! Dmoon1 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. I've seen several fictional character articles, and this is the best example yet. The interweaving of Ian's commentary with explanation of Palpatine's nature is unique and articulates his characteristics well. It also stays on track, not straying too far into pop culture trivia. Good job; this is a great template for future articles of this kind. --Zeality 16:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support! Dmoon1 16:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

SupportObject the entire first two sections (10 paragraphs worth) of Appearances (Star Wars films and Clone Wars miniseries) have NO references. Otherwise, very nice work. Rlevse 20:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)...Rlevse 20:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is the standard practice for plot summaries from film- and television-related articles. It has always been understood that the work described is the reference. Look at the other film, television, video game, and character featured articles. Dmoon1 20:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • While I agree with Dmoon1 in principle, in practice I personally use references for plot-related stuff, especially when there might be some disagreement among fans as to what something means. (Examples: Final Fantasy VII and Final Fantasy X-2) In either case, I personally wouldn't object over something like this, as it is understood that the work being discussed is itself the reference. Even so, I would advise you, Dmoon, to add plot-related references sometimes. Even if only one per paragraph or something like that (a general rule of thumb for most people who stick to this practice is two per paragraph). Again, not because I think this is a reason to object, but because sourcing this stuff 1) prevents any concerns over a lack of sources for information in the article, and 2) it prevents anyone who had a different interpretation of something from removing what's been verified and replacing it with fanfiction. So to summarize: it's not really grounds for objection, but sourcing plot info is a good idea because it provides other benefits. Ryu Kaze 21:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I can add citations to these. I just never do it unless it is something not apparently obvious from the film itself. Dmoon1 06:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, this has been done now. Dmoon1 06:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. In the section "Concept and creation" it says that "Lucas originally envisioned him as a weak ruler controlled by bureaucrats". This is almost repeated just a few lines below in the first paragraph of "Character creation", which says "Lucas's original conception of Palpatine was of a cunning but weak politician elevated into office and controlled by bureaucrats". Could you please do something about this. --Maitch 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I revised this somewhat, but it is going to be similar to the text that follows it because this is an introductory statement that briefly summarizes the section. Dmoon1 20:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. At least now it is only mentioned twice (also in the lead). I'm not to sure what to think about that introductory statement though. --Maitch 20:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I've always done this (this is my seventh featured article nomination) and this is the first time someone has mentioned it at FAC. I think it was a more obvious in this article; someone mentioned it in the peer review but I didn't really do anything about it. Dmoon1 20:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Tobyk777 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Dmoon1 06:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Yet another well-researched and well-written article from Dmoon1! The Wookieepedian 00:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for your support. Dmoon1 06:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Covers the topic well and from a real-world perspective without drifting into the perils of cruft and giving too much information. Well done. — BrianSmithson 03:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support and valuable comments at peer review. Dmoon1 06:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Not much to add... RN 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Dmoon1 04:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose no trivia section. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Very funny. How's this for starters? "Palpatine likes to drink pink lemonade on Sunday evenings while watching reruns of Desperate Housewives." Dmoon1 04:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • In other words, that's an invalid objection. The Wookieepedian 04:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • He's just joking. His objection isn't meant to be taken seriously. Dmoon1 04:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
        • OIC. :) The Wookieepedian 05:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Well referenced, well researched, talks about the character from an out-of-universe perspective and covers all major topics regarding Palpatine. LuciferMorgan 13:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support! Dmoon1 14:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Support better than last time. Hope Darth Vader is next... igordebraga ≠ 16:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! Dmoon1 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Just as good as the other two Star Wars character articles (gee, who were those written by...)--Dark Kubrick 01:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support and comments during peer review. Dmoon1 01:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Orleans Mint

Previous FA nominations can be found here:

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Orleans Mint/Archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Orleans Mint/Archive2

Self-nomination. This article has been peer-reviewed multiple times, and I think that it's fairly comprehensive. There is a long list of coinage statistics as part of the article (which I think is necessary), but I think the text about the Mint speaks for itself fairly well. I've tried to make sure the article properly uses citations and attend to any comments fellow users have made regarding improving the article, and I think it meets the FA criteria pretty well. It's been rated an A-class article for numismatics, and is pretty stable; recent changes have been fairly minor. Absecon 59 18:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Is <pre> tags the best way to present the data? Would using tables be better? And on my computer, the images covered some of the data.WP 09:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Object. The giant poorly formatted list is a problem. Move the list to a sub article. --Maitch 09:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, you have fixed this problem. If you will decapitalize the headings as described in Wp:mos#Headings, use {{cite web}} for web references and convert external links within the article to references, then I will support. --Maitch 15:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think that these problems have now been fixed, but please let me know if I've missed anything. Absecon 59 16:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Great. I have changed my vote to support. --Maitch 21:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Agree, the list should be moved to a sub article as suggested by Maitch. If you find that as a result of the move, you have too many images then using a gallery format may solve the problem. Pending the above modifications, I would extend my support.--Riurik ^(discuss) 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

These are excellent suggestions. I've taken the stats for coinage and made them into a sub-page and linked that from the article. The "Coinage Produced" section has been reorganized into a table that I think displays relevant data nicely with images of the coinage. (Please comment if this table does not display properly on your computer). The article is, I think, slightly shorter now, as well. Absecon 59 14:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support I like this now, espcially the tables the coins are in. Rlevse 14:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but I would love if the image could be organized some other way. —Jared Hunt September 9, 2006, 04:02 (UTC)
• Support Great article and I believe it fits criteria for featured articles Hello32020 15:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Object The article is quite good. However, the "coinage produced" section is way too large for this article, and seems irrelevant. That section is not about the mint so much as it is about the coinage. If that section were completely removed, I would support this article for FA. At the least it needs to be drastically reduced, with at most one or two somewhat historically noteworthy examples. Also, how about some creativity with layout? All the photos are on the right side and all the same size--DaveOinSF 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bohuslav Marashek

Bohuslav Marashek. This article should be featured. That's all that needs to be said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.189.40.197 (talk • contribs). [1]

• Object. No references, no images, very short. Please see the featured article criteria -Silence 04:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Images are not actually a requirement for a featured article. — Wackymacs 18:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object per above. You might want to enter it for WP:Peer review for specific suggestions on what can be done. — Wackymacs 18:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrannosaurus rex

Self-nom. (a little bit) This article is very detailed and informative while not being too wordy for non-scientists. Covers scientific debates as well as the T-rex's image in popular culture. Presents all sides of all debates. Article is well-refrenced. The article has had two peer reviews, one recently. Banana04131 18:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support — Wackymacs 19:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Looks comprensive, but I think there should be added something about geographical distribution. Currently you have to read between the lines to find out that fossils are restricted to North America Fornadan (t) 20:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

added a sentance to beginning of Discoveries section (forgot to sign) Banana04131 22:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Last peer review -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment even older peer review just in case. . . Banana04131
• Object All the internet refs need to be footnotes. Also the text refs for the books need to be IDed somehow, perhaps in parenthesis. The T. rex in Jurassic Park section has absolutely no reason to be there, it needs to go. This article has nothing to do with Jurassic Park, thats like using the Great White Shark article to disscuss the shark in Jaws or the RMS Titanic to disscuss the 1997's Titanic. Also Other giant theropods section uses Jurassic Park 3 as an example, again using a film as an example is inappropriate.

Biology has mostly minor style issues. Sometimes it feels like an essay, but since most everything about a dinosaur is speculation its not that big of a deal. I'm mainly concerned with things this sentence in Predator, Scavenger or Both? section: "But why be so well armed if T. rex were a scavenger?", asking a question for it to be answered later in the article is not encyclopedic. I'm not thrilled with the subsection using questions as titles either for the same reason. Its a good article and its close, but not there yet. MechBrowman 03:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• I have renamed the sections so they are not questions, which I disliked as well. I have also removed the Jurassic Park paragraph since it is not needed. I might take a look at copy-editing the Biology section myself a bit later on. — Wackymacs 09:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Sue'sBrain.jpg is tagged as being under the Creative Commons Attribution license, but does not have information on the creator. This is a violation of the license. --Carnildo 07:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Object. While the science is comprehensive, T-rex's image in popular culture is scant. This probably deserves an article of its own (and not just Jurrasic park) with a summary in this article. -- Samuel Wantman 00:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article neglect the "Popular culture" section. And why is there a "Other tyrannosaurids" and "Other giant theropods" sections? shouldn't they respectively belong to Tyrannosauridae and Theropoda? CG 20:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, prose is not clear enough in places. In particular, the second paragraph of Discoveries ("In 2000, there was a controversy regarding its name...") is very opaque to those of us unfamiliar with these matters. Which June were these discoveries made in South Dakota - 1892, 1900, 2000? Exactly how could the 2000 discoveries possibly have caused a fossil named in 1905 to be renamed, if the rules hadn't prevented it anyway? This paragraph needs clarifying badly, and perhaps even rewriting with a clearer, better-organised argument. — Haeleth Talk 21:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, my criticisms from the peer review still stand, also there should be one consistent referencing system applied to the article with the html links in text given full citations for tracability.--nixie 04:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very compreshensive.--Smerk

[edit] Hollaback Girl

Second attempt. Let's see what kind of controversy the article can stir this time. —Hollow Wilerding 21:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. ... -Silence 22:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Inactionable. Please be more specific. :) —Hollow Wilerding 22:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. It's too soon to renominate this. It rolled off less than 4 days ago, and even then Raul had given it an extra go. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's never too soon to do anything. I will continue to bring this article back into the nomination process until it is passed. —Hollow Wilerding 23:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Will you? Object, misuse of process. Bishonen | talk 00:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Your objection is unactonable, and therefore will be ignored. —Hollow Wilerding 01:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Your zeal is commendable, Hollow, and you've done a lot of good work on that article. Give the issue some time to rest and then people will take a fresh look. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Enough about the little things, this article has met featured article status. --DrippingInk 01:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object per bad-faith nomination whereby objections unaddressed from the previous two FACs, both of which took place in the last fortnight, may not be mentioned again as the objectors would rightly believe time would be taken to deal with them properly. This is a very poor performance by the nominator, and an attempt to undermine the community's consensus. I move to have Raul654 remove this nomination. Harro5 04:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please support your objection with valid reasons. Bad faith is a horrible assumption. —Hollow Wilerding

• From the above statements, I hear that the nomination had been failed previously. Please direct me to the previous FAC nom. (The link should have been on the article talk page too). =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment

First FAC nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl old

Second FAC nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl/Archive1

--maclean25 06:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object until the objectors to the two previous recent nominations have confirmed here that their objections have been addressed to their satisfaction. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd like to make this as clear as day: this is a new nomination. Please do not direct me to the old FAC(s), and address your new objections here. It is—currently—easier to read due to the fact that there is almost no socializing going on here, but oh, I guarantee its increase. —Hollow Wilerding 13:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object as well as Oppose: This is the third nomination, and all without addressing the objections raised. While other folks mildly take their articles off and work on them, this one just keeps coming back. With no insult intended for the nominator, I have to say that we really shouldn't see a return to FAC so quickly. There are no policies on waiting and the amount of time necessary to lick wounds and repair the body, but what common sense exists suggests that this is far too soon and far too many. Geogre 13:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Once again, inactionable. Please provide a reason for you objection here. Do not redirect me to the old nomination. —Hollow Wilerding 14:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• The Objection is all previous objections unaddressed. I won't redirect you to the old nominations. After all, it has only been four days, so you should remember them. If previous objections are not overcome, renomination is bad faith. That's not an assumption: it's a demonstration. Geogre 17:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I didn't comment on the previous two FA nominations for this article, but I agree with several of the objections that other users have raised. It's rather odd that after I myself advised Hollow Wilerding to request a peer review for the article again, and outlined some of the problems I felt the article had, she decided to submit it for featured status again anyway. Unfortunately, none of the concerns I expressed on Hollow's talk page have been remedied. The "Chart performance" section could do with trimming, as could the "Music video" section. Yes, you could argue that the synopsis for the video goes into about as much detail as the corresponding section on the Cool (song) article does, but the "Hollaback Girl" video doesn't seem to have as much relation to the song's lyrics as the video for "Cool" does. Image:Camera2.jpg and Image:Hollaback Girl alternative cover.jpg seem to be on the article for decorative purposes only, which does not meet Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. Additionally, while this does not influence my vote in any way, comments such as "It's never too soon to do anything. I will continue to bring this article back into the nomination process until it is passed" demonstrate an extremely poor understanding of the FAC process. FAC operates on consensus being reached and objections being addressed; as demonstrated with the Terri Schiavo fiasco, you can't just resubmit an article again and again and expect one of your attempts to finally break through. I strongly recommend requesting peer review on this article before you even consider submitting it for FAC again. Extraordinary Machine 14:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with Bishonen and Silence. We must respect each other's prior actionable comments, and try as much as possible to address them before renomination. This is why I've been delaying for so long the nominations of my current pet articles Rabindranath Tagore and Saffron for so long ... I don't wan't to burden this system with articles that might just attract undue attention and objections because I wasn't considerate enough to address those concerns by myself beforehand. Nevertheless, you are very brave, and many people have been following this bizarre nomination. Please do not take this as a sign of disrespect of the article ... I have no expertise in this area. Sorry. Saravask 15:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note. For the reasons laid out above, and explicitly ignored by the nominator, I have de-listed this premature re-nomination from WP:FAC. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Extraordinary Machine has provided a worthy objection! Now that's what I want to see so I can address the objections! —Hollow Wilerding 20:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, for two main reasons:

• A number of questionable or non-obvious claims in the article need to be cited:

• "The song has been compared to Toni Basil's 1981 single, "Mickey"; it is also known for its repeated use of the word "shit"."
• "However, a case of writer's block left early collaborations uninspired and unsuccessful." - an NPOV violation as it stands.
• "The song is known for its repeated use of the word "shit", which appears thirty-seven times."
• "Lyrics that could seem to be directed at Love include:"
• "Another notable reference is the musical similarity to Toni Basil's worldwide number-one single, "Mickey""
• "In a line-by-line analysis of the song's lyrics, OC Weekly reviewer Greg Stacy speculated: "Gwen is apparently the captain of the cheerleader squad; she is the girl who 'hollas' the chants, not one of the girls who simply 'hollas' them back"."
• "within six weeks of its release, it had reached the number-one position, making it the fastest-rising single to reach the top in 2005"
• "However, some argue that the song achieved this due to its hip hop–influenced production."
• "Both positions were the highest that a non-R&B/hip hop solo artist had attained in the 2000s."
• "It was the best-selling digital download for the latter three weeks of May 2005, and broke the record for the most downloads sold in one week, totalling over 60,000."
• ""Hollaback Girl" exceeded one million digital downloads for the week ending October 4, 2005, and was the first single to ever accomplish this"

• There seems to be very little discussion of either the musical qualities of the song, or what the song is actually about (cf. Cool (song), which has some four paragraphs on those topics).

I'll also note that renominating this article so soon (and without correcting the outstanding objections from the previous nominations) is in rather poor taste. —Kirill Lokshin 20:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• If I were capable of it, I would cross out the majority of your objections, as almost every single one of them are referenced in the References section. —Hollow Wilerding 20:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Note that I wrote "cited" rather than "referenced". In case I wasn't clear: I would like to see direct citations, using footnotes or an alternate format of your choice, for these points. —Kirill Lokshin 20:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Hollow Wilerding, I see that you have reverted my edit to WP:FAC. Please don't try to railroad the community like this. And please don't revert anybody ever without giving a rationale in the edit summary or on the associated talkpage. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Bishonen is right. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 21:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not railroading a community. How dare you. If I'm not allowed to renominate an article four days after the previous FAC failed, then the Céline Dion article should not have been renominated the day following its nomination. Also, when I want something, I get that something. Now you know. —Hollow Wilerding 22:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

How dare I? I suppose I must simply be very brave. The tone you take isn't heard very often on WP:FAC. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I do thank you for ignoring the second half of my above comment, which was expected. Do you care to answer it now? —Hollow Wilerding 23:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No reply? Then I will resubmit the article to the nomination process. —Hollow Wilerding 01:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• I believe his entire comment was a response to your entire comment. It's true that I've never heard anyone on Wikipedia say anything like "when I want something, I get that something". You're an interesting bird.
• While I admire perserverence and hard work to get articles FAd, your specific strategy seems not so much to use your dedication to go to amazing lengths to make the article truly exceptional, but rather to use it to try to exert your will over others, barraging anyone who votes "oppose" (if anyone criticizes a general issue with the article, like "writing quality is poor", you tell them their comment is inactionable until they list specific problems with the writing quality (essentially forcing everyone who objects to the FAC to put in as much work on the article as though they were an editor of that article!), then continue to argue that everyone's oppose votes are invalid even when you don't fix those problems) and repeatedly dismissing comments.
• I agree that both this article and "Celine Dion" should not have been renominated so quickly, and if the system continues to be abused like this, I'd definitely support enforcing a mandatory minimum waiting period between renominations. (I don't mind when terrible articles get nominated for FAC because it brings up interesting new discussions and they typically crash pretty quickly, but the renominations just seems like trying to abuse the system to get an article through on sheer willpower and law of averages rather than on the merits of the article itself.) And before you respond to my entire comment with "inactionable", this advise is for you to improve your chances of getting future articles featured, not for any specific article. :f -Silence 23:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the article still contains no information on the musical structure, other than the statement that it is "primarily beat-driven and features few instruments". More detail is needed on this aspect. Some of the writing isn't up to FA standard either, e.g. "Maxim was not thrilled with the song either". I also tend to agree with the objector above that a spell in peer review might help iron out some of these problems. Leithp (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment "When I want something, I get that something." You mean when you´re snoozing and a dream comes along? In the waking world, being obtuse, belligerent and ignoring consensus actually doesn´t get you much. Marskell 07:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I do get what I want. It just takes time. :P —Hollow Wilerding 01:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

By reverting the removal of Hollaback Girl from WP:FAC yet again, you're spoiling for a block from editing Wikipedia, so please consider starting to behave like an adult. Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates if you haven't already. Did you notice Raul654 approving my de-listing of Hollaback Girl? Not that he needs to, as the overwhelming consensus is already that you're being disruptive. Bishonen | talk 01:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

By failing to respond to the second half of my above comment, I do thank you for ignoring the second half of my above comment, which was expected. Do you care to answer it now? —Hollow Wilerding 23:43, 4 December 2005, you're spoiling for an RFC being filed against you if a block is taken into action. However, I am not surprised that you ignored me, as most Wikipedians resort to this when they are uncertain of how to answer. Do not tempt me with a block when you are the one not providing the answers. That's what I call uncivil behaviour. Due to my other comments made in this article nomination, I will renominate it until it becomes featured. —Hollow Wilerding 21:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have responded on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Bishonen | talk 01:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the second half of the comment to which you refer above is the statement about Céline Dion (that it should not have been renominated quickly) or your statement that "when I want something, I get that something." In relation to Céline Dion, if you look at the renomination, the short interval between the failed nomination and renomination is addressed at length, as it is here. That renomination has also now disappeared from WP:FAC.

Simply renominating the article without addressing previous objections is not going to succeed in wearing the objectors down. You may find it more fruitful to take the article away from WP:FAC for a while to address the objections before bringing it back (and I see some comments on your talk page that indicate that that is what you intend to do). -- ALoan (Talk) 21:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is. —Hollow Wilerding 00:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - was that comment addressed at me? "Yes it is" what? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is what I intend to do. Take a break from Hollaback Girl. Is that a bit clearer now? :) —Hollow Wilerding 20:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

SUPPORT LIKE CRAZY!!! MAKE IT A FEATURED ARTICLE!!! --Winnermario 22:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: under the Music section, I saw: ""Hollaback Girl" features few instruments. It is primarily anthemic and beat-driven. Each time the chorus is sung, the number of instruments increases." Could you add what instruments were used, if even was so small. What influenced the music chosen for this song, since when I heard it, it sounds like something I might have heard from the movie "Drumline." Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 04:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The "When I want something I get it" comment reminds me of Veruca Salt from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. But in the end, she got what she needed instead of what she wanted, just as in the Rolling Stones song. *Dan T.* 13:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Céline Dion

Self-Nomination. This article has come a very long way. I mean, a VERY long way. I discovered it in the summer, and was appalled at its state, so I decided to improve it (even though school got in the way). Ive worked laboriously, seeking the help of User:Mel Etitis and User:Extraordinary Machine, both of whom have provided valuable feedback. It was also submitted for peer review, (though only two users replied--User:Jkelly and the aforementioned User:EM). Here is the article before the others and I got to it: Celine Dion in August, and here is the finished product: Céline Dion. I think it displays one of Wiki's best work as it's comprehensively written and meets all the FA criteria. If you disagree, please provide constructive criticism and I will be sure to address them and resubmitt. Thanks Θrǎne (t) (c) (e-mail) 19:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. C'est magnifique! However, there are some consistency issues: francophone and anglophone are written in the article with both capitalised and uncapitalised initial letters.--cj | talk 00:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work. Balcer 01:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Enchanting article. Although I would advise you to place the "External links" section at the very bottom. Amazing work! --Hollow Wilerding 01:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks very much. I would put external links at the bottom, but according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), "notes' should be at the bottom. Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) ^{Make Céline Dion a FA!} 01:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, really? I did not know this. Then that's fine. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Good job! --Hollow Wilerding 02:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment Learn something new every day. I didn't know that either. Jkelly 03:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I too was surprised to learn this. I've posted a comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (headings) asking about it. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The article is better than most of her songs, really. :) Halibutt 02:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Objections: 1. Most of the images lack detailed fair use rationales. 2. I respect Stephen Thomas Erlewine, but there is far too much dependence on his and other All Music editors' reviews. 3. Focuses far too much on dry awards and sales information with only vague notions of the interesting aspects: What does her music sound like? How has it progressed between albums? What themes do her lyrics cover? What is the recording process for her albums like? What musicians does she work with on the recordings? Article also appears to not mention what label(s) she's been signed to and how they've worked out. 4. Lead section is choppy and needs to be tightened -- listing every specific award she's won and the year she won it isn't particuarly effective in hooking the reader to read the rest of the article. 5. Many albums aren't linked to, I assume because it would create glaring red links throughout the article. If that's the case then why not create stubs for them? 6. For discography section, suggest not listing compilations and the like, focusing only on her main albums, and save the rest for the discography page. —jiy (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feed back. I will address those concerns posthaste. I also encourage anyone to help. 1) For the images, would you specify which ones in particular? 2)I know that the article focuses on AMG reviews, but that site is one of the most authoritative for reviews. And even if you search the net and find reviews, at the end of each would read ...All Music Guide. Ive tried incorporating Rolling Stones (they have only reviewed one of her albums), and Amazon.com Editorial reviews (which sometimes borrow from AMG.) 3)Now that you mention it, the article could talk more about her themes etc. However, most of her collaborations are listed in the article (or the ones worth noting), but thanks for pointing that out. 4) The article does mention her label (Columbia)-- as early as the lead section. 5)The lead section isnt the greatest, but its not choppy. I think its a matter of personal style, (that especially why there's no such thing as a perfect article) Again, thanks. Hopefully, my changes will persuade you to change your vote. Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) ^{Make Céline Dion a FA!} 03:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• No vote, but for a performer who so many people find bland and artificial, especially in her English-language material, you would think from this article that she was a critics' darling, which on the whole she is not. -- 08:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• support but not strongly yet.. good article to read / excellent referencing, easily better than many existing FAs but probably the previous vote is right that more negative responses to her work should be included. Mozzerati 21:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very encyclopedic. Has someone fact checked all the information? Wikipedia needs articles of this quality on all major people so we're not caught flat-footed when they're above the fold news.--FloNight 22:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the votes. Just to let you guys know, Im wroking on addressing the concerns of User:Jiy. Any help would be appreciated. I will also include more negative comments to balance it out. Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) ^{Make Céline Dion a FA!} 22:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support --User:UrineForGas 15:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support--compelling article. Most of the issues that User:Jiy had problems with seems to have been addressed. I think that it's a great article. Khalif 20:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, I think jiy's points are well-taken and most of the issues have not been adequately addressed to this point. Relying on Allmusic blurbs for critical perspective is like quoting from Amazon staff reviews; this is not the stuff of a serious encyclopedia. This is part of why the article fails to synthesize its material so as to allow the reader to evaluate her career, instead filling out primarily with awards, chart positions (CHR Audience Chart? BDS era? What are we talking about here?), and gossipy personal factoids. The fact that the authors seem ignorant of the difference between Rolling Stone and (The) Rolling Stones is symptomatic of the problem. For somebody with an extended career that has received a tremendous amount of media coverage, there's a large pool available of significant, generally professional, critical material with both positive and negative assessments (hint: not all of it is available online). This article barely dips a finger into it. --Michael Snow 21:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object After reading the article I can't but agree with the anon's and Michael's objections above. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 02:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There's far too much overreliance on AllMusicGuide and Amazon staff reviews to give any really deep sense of critical reception, especially for a singer with a strong reputation for producing bland schlock. 90% of it reads like it was written by her publicist, and the other 10% like it was written by the staff of People magazine. Andrew Levine 18:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, as per Michael. Give us more meat in the references and notes sections. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, I understand all of the comments, but the people magazine thing was a stretch. Ive really worked hard on the article, and none of the constructive comments seem to point out anything good about the article i.e. what should stay/what works etc, then go on to what's bad, poor ect. Now, Im not angry or anything (in fact, Im far from that), but I beleieve that you could be a little more sensitive. Now, on to more important matters: I know that the all music guide references are a stretch, and Ill remove them, and find other ones. (Again, I ask for help). Maybe the article was prematurely nominated, I dont know. Anyway, there were some who thought that it was excellent, or atleast, very good.

Also, why does everyone think that Dion makes mediocre music (User:Andrew Levine and others)? The lady has won five Grammys. Can mediocre music win Best Pop album, Best pop vocals,(twice), and the most coveted Album of the year and Record of the year awards?. I really don't think that theres much pov in the article. Before the 2000s, Dion did make good music (as can be shown by her awards→Grammys etc), she does have a good voice (shown in the fact that she was voted as the 9th greatest voice in popular music, and the 4th most outstanding pop vocalist on earth). And please dont be against the inclusion of album sales in the article, its shows the fan's reaction (popularity), just as how the reviews show the critical reaction. I agree that since the millennium, she had lost her spark (for lack of a better word), and she has gotten unfavourable reviews. Ive included all this in the article: Rolling Stone reviewer calling her music "schlock pop". Ive used quotes that proves that her album/singles are "uninspiring", "lifeless", disastrous , "forgettable" "predictable", "inconsistent" and a host of other words. The fact remains, however, that she is not as loathed by the critics as you want the article to potrey.

Ill see what I can do. And i would encourage people to give other ideas of how it can be improved (instead of joining the band wagon by saying as per Michael ...) Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) ^{Make Céline Dion a FA!} 22:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you regard the criticisms of the article as insensitive to your efforts. But we have to be firm and rationale here. Let's face it, the article needs more research. There's nothing wrong with that -- featured articles should not be rushed.

Maybe a different approach is needed for addressing the article's critical eye. Critical perspective is not a simple matter of seeking a representative for each extreme and quoting them. Perhaps a broader perspective could be achieved by reading multiple reviews and extracting the common criticisms and accolades between them, then formulating it into prose. It is not a matter of just "good" and "bad", either, but also how her work fits into the overall framework of music. Industry awards and sales figures are not indicative of artistic worth, and the reader cannot infer worth from these aspects alone.

Before things get too far out of perspective, though, we must keep in mind the critical side is not the only aspect to focus on. There are no interviews (in other words primary sources) in the reference section. Surely a more detailed and accurate picture of this woman and her career, in terms of biography and history, can be extrapolated from the various interviews that have accumulated over the years. By using VH1 and fansite biographies for this purpose -- secondary sources -- we are basically summarizing summaries. Perspective, detail, and accuracy is lost in this way.—jiy (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I voted as I did because Michael said what I thought. FAC is a process that relies on consensus, and if I did not voice my agreement with Michael, it would be as if only Michael felt that way, which would increase the likelihood of the article being promoted without our concerns being addressed. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thats totally understandable. Sorry for the outburst . like I said, Im not angry :). Now, come to think of it, the article could use some improvement, I been rereading it (especially the last part) and Im not too happy with it. Im gonna make sure that it does reach FA status. Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) 04:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support, because the article is very well thought out! 64.231.163.172 23:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Good article, lots of information. Terenceong1992 17:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. A very good article, but could use a good deal of expansion before it satisfies the "comprehensive" requirement. Could also use a good copyedit, lots of strange word choices like "Though her albums were relatively successful, it seemed as if Dion had already reached her plateau since the late 1990s, and her albums failed to really ignite critics and fans." Is this saying that Dion is living on a plateau because of the existence of the late 1990s, presumably to hide from prosecution for setting her critics and fans on fire? Less casual and vaguely POVed terms in general will help give the article that extra inch it needs for FA. -Silence 21:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object Reads quite well, long but there's a lot to cover. My two specific objections echo some of the objections above:

• Almost no coverage of Dion's MUSIC. After a brief mention of her genre influences, the rest is mainly the critical and sales performance of her recordings, and other details of her personal and business life. There is nothing about her actual singing: her voice and her approach to making music. As it is now, I suppose this format represents one type of "accepted" music biography, but I don't think that's enough of a reason to promote it as a Wikipedia standard, not if it could clearly be improved as far as comprehensiveness. For example, on Wikipedia, I looked up the first dozen or so names of popular musicians and singers that came to mind, and found among them two articles which do attempt to treat the music; neither are very well done, but I think they illustrate the missing dimension that should be a part of all MUSIC articles...coverage directly related to the music itself: Billie Holliday, The Edge.
• Over-reliance on AMG and use of Amazon.com. - If critics are to be quoted, there should be a reasonably representative variety of sources, not almost exclusively one writer from one source. Using Amazon.com as a source of critical reviews doesn't seem right, as these reviews appear on the pages devoted to selling the product that they are covering...

• Comment: I heavily disagree with this specific part of your objection. There is no rule on Wikipedia that states "articles must have reviews from various music/film/food etc. critics". As long as there is a review featured from a specific source, the story is settled, and it adds to the article. Having "over-reliance" on certain reviewers is a POV-reason to object. However, I partially agree with your other objections, though this article already meets FA status in my eyes. —Hollow Wilerding 23:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

--Tsavage 21:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Ive addressed many of the concerns that arose from the article. Ive removed the superfluous A.M.G reviews, and I found some other reviews, Ive spoken about her music, and the transition of her albums, the instruments used etc (and removed most of the dry awards and sales). Ive linked the albums, provided firuse rationales for each image, oh, and the Intro is changed a bit. Ive used the Kylie Minogue article (a featured article) as a model for this one. Does anything need further attention? Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) 03:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1997 Pacific hurricane season

Attempt 1
Peer Review

Second try. It is well-referenced, meets standards for the appropriate WikiProject, has many PD pictures, covers everything in detail, has appropriate use of spinoff articles. This is a self-nom. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Good. Everyking 01:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good work but there are several stub sections, short paragraphs and short sentences. — Wackymacs 07:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • • Support Looks excellent now. — Wackymacs 20:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I expanded the sections on Tropical Depressions a bit. Could you please name which other sections you find too short? Some of the sections are short because there isn't really a lot to say about a cyclone that lasted 2 days and never threatened land. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Almost all the sections are too short, because there are too many subheadings. For example, 'Tropical Depression Three-E' and Tropical Depression Five-E' are both only one sentence long. Each section should be up to two paragraphs long. If there isn't enough context to put there, then they should not have their own sections. — Wackymacs 07:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I put the depressions in their own section. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle
• Support, though I'd recommend expanding the stub sections. –Hollow Wilerding 14:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment -- would it be possible to reorganize the article so that the storms are treated by maximum intensity? That is, first cover tropical depressions, then tropical storms, then hurricanes, then Paka. Keep them in chronological order within each section, but cover all the tropical depressions in one section (no subsections) so that there aren't any super short sections, as there are now. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I put the depressions in their own section after the named storms. The named storms are in the order they formed during the season. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle
    • That's a start. Now I'm wondering if separating it by month would be helpful... the bottom line is that this article has a really big table of contents for the amount of information, and that means that sections should be consolidated. I'll make the change so you see what I mean. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 22:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• I've changed the navigational structure of the article so that there aren't any short sections, so I'll support now. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Because of the radical and bold changes, this article is very different from when it was first nominated. For that reason, I am closing the nomination and sending it to Peer Review because some of the original comments may not apply to the changed version. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delrina

Re-(Self) Nomination. A thorough article on the company best known for having created WinFax. Has already gone through a peer review and a previous FAC round. I believe I have taken care of all the outstanding issues with this one: have done a thorough copyedit, re-worded the intro paragraph and added points they may have required further clarification. Have also dug into the corporate reports for the firm (thanks to the local reference library!) and managed to fill in some remaining "holes" information-wise that I found. Found further info on the Berkley Systems Inc. v. Delrina case, which was about the only contentious item I could find _that was documented_ relating to the history of the company or its products. Captmondo 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support, though the red links found near the end are annoying. «LordViD» 18:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just fyi, have plugged some the link "holes". Just as a matter of interest, is there a guideline on how many links should be "fixed"? For example, I am not an expert on cc:Mail, but I can see the need for an article on it by somebody, if not me. Does that mean that I am obliged to "fill it", as I would rather just point it out that it should a) exist and b) be filled by someone who does know more about the subject than myself. It makes most sense in this instance for me to fill in links to Delrina-related personalities and products, but I was leery about straying too far from known territory. Would like to hear back from anyone on this point, as it relates how to much or how little I felt obliged to create Wikilinks in an article. Captmondo 19:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Red links can't be used as an objection, as they don't affect an article's content. However, they are a bit annoying. My advice is to leave them red if you aren't familiar with them, so if and when this makes the main page, someone with the knowledge and interest can create them. It's really up to you, though. Just do what you want with them if/when you feel like it. The Catfish 00:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very comprehensive, detailed and well written. The lead is impressive, and the article discusses a very difficult topic but covers it very well with pictures and lots of references. — Wackymacs 18:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. My only real regret is that there's so much to say about the company's earlier history that the juicy meat of the article - the flying toaster case - ends up so far down. I wonder if splitting the intro into two paragraphs would help draw attention to this? And what about an internal link from the intro to that section - I'm sure we had something similar on a recent frontpage article (the New Zealand architect whose lunatic asylum fell down). — Haeleth Talk 20:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

**Not sure I would want to do that in this case. Over time I think Berkely Systems v. Delrina should quite possibly become its own article, but in the meantime I think that what is currently there covers things off nicely for someone who is just casually interested in the case. That is of course IMHO. ;-) And in the end it is not the central focus of the Delrina article, just a particularly interesting facet of the company's history/legacy. Captmondo 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Skip last comment. I see what you have done (and what you meant) and I approve, for what it is worth. Captmondo 20:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - and thanks for helping me catch all of the Berkley/Berkeley typos :) --JohnDBuell 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Great content, good references and well-designed footnotes. Good use of illustration. Article interesting even to people not very interested in software considering its review of the legal case with Berkeley Systems. - JustinWick 01:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. A consistent referencing sytem is not used throughout the article, there are inline cites without corresponding numbered notes and there are some html linked refs in text that do not use the footnoting system and are not fully cited in the references for future tracability. See Hugo Chávez for a method to link multiple inlines to one ref if you need to.

The section Acquisition by Symantec and aftermath is poorly written in comparison to the rest of the article, megere bitsy paragrahs into longer ones where necessary.--nixie 02:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

re referencing and See Hugo Chávez for a method to link multiple inlines I'm holding off on my new read and "vote" until some of the changes arising from this FAC are complete. But I want to comment here that the issue of referencing for a comprehensive corporate profile should be more thoroughly addressed. Although the Hugo Chavez article was only referenced for an example of linking multiple inlines, since it was mentioned, the fact that it contains barely readable paragraphs due to the sheer abundance of citation links should also be noted. These further have the tendency to be broken by future edits, decreasing usability, and require an extra order of Wikipedia-literacy to use and maintain. IMHO, in general, objections based on detailed recommendations for referencing and citation style should be based on specifics of the article and article category. For example:

• Is the References section complete? Does it contain well-documented sources that would seem to allow verifiability of the general contents of the article, and the general subject area?
• What specifically requires "pinpoint citation"? What are the controversial statements and explanations of arcane topics that are not specifically cited?

I believe this is all entirely consistent with both WP:Verifiability, WP:CITE and related, and with practical reality. Hope that helps the processs... --Tsavage 20:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I have found the reference in the Hugo Chávez article you are talking about, and will look into converting everything to the format you suggest. This may take a little while, but will let you know when this is done. Will also look into expanding the "poorly written" Aftermath section, though I tend to disagree with the argument that short paragraphs are necessarily bad paragraphs. Captmondo 14:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe I have fixed the footnote/referencing problems pointed out, and have also re-organized/added to the Aftermath section. Captmondo 03:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - This is a comprehensive and well designed and composed article. It's got items of interest for those interested in the industry of which this company was a part, with insights for those who might not know the milieu as intimately. VickiZ 15:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object; same reasons as nixie. Footnote numbers in the text must match the footnote numbers in the list; one-sentence paragraphs are indeed bad. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Paragraphs. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:23, 14 December

2005 (UTC)

• • Have fixed the footnote numbering/inline links problem, which I believe was the underlying issue. Have also re-jigged the organization and wording of the offending one-line paragraphs that had appeared near the end of the article. I won't dispute not keeping to the house style, but I would argue for flexibility on this point if not overused, and if used as intended, as emphasis. Captmondo 03:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object: The article is complete and for someone like me who doesn't really understand software, it's terminology and various systems, it is quite easy to comprehend. What lets it down is the erratic placement of the images. (I assume someone more knowledgable than me has checked the legacity of so many images in copyright in one single article?) They seem to have just been plonked in regardless of section or appearance to the article as a whole. The footnotes system seems to be as erratic as the images - I know they can be a pain to organize but the cause of the problem is (I think) in line references causing the footnotes to be confused. Inline references are useless and need to be placed at the bottom of the page with the other references, one can footnote to them if they are of vital importance to a certain section of text. Inline reference is no use to anyone printing the article anyway so put them down below where they belong. My points are all things which can easily be fixed, I look forward to changing my vote. Giano | talk 19:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Am planning on concentrating on the footnoting issue possibly tonight -- and you have pointed me in the right direction as to what the underlying issue is, so thank you! I am confused about the comment about the images appearing willy-nilly though. I thought it was quite orderly, with a forms screenshot adjacent to the Forms section, a WinFax screenshot adjacent to the WinFax section, a Box Shot of CommSuite against the communication software section. The three images used for the multimedia section are: product box shot, followed by illustrative album cover, then a screenshot of a further multimedia product, all of which (I believe) are fully explained both in the captions and in the body of the text. If you just don't like the arrangement of those three images, I can remove two of them, but I think the article will suffer for it. Captmondo 20:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

*You don't need to remove any images so long as they are all legit. I'm not obsessive (like some) about images all being on the right hand side of the page, or even the same side but it would be beneficial to the article if they were at least in one section or another noy inbetween. To my eye it would be better if they were dispersed evenly throughout the article. I don't like that big template much in the lead, but I suppose it's OK an article on this subject matter. Giano | talk 23:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've come up with a different way of ordering the image, which I think is the best of both worlds. And the footnoting issue has I believe been resolved. Captmondo 03:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support: OK that's a lot better. I see the images are still breaking the line separating various sections. To my eyes it would better still if you could fix that, but if that's allowed within the style guidelines then so be it. I'll support the article now as it is very good. Giano | talk 15:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent job well done. This article is amazing, especially for such a simple topic. Long live Canadians! —Hollow Wilerding 23:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• My concerns above were addressed, thanks! I still Object (apologies for not noting this before): The "Trivia" section with just one item should be merged into an appropriate section elsewhere. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Issue fixed, thanks, Objection struck; no time right now to review further. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Done! This has been merged with the "Aftermath" section. I did have this in the trivia section as this is not a fact that I can easily back up with a reference, and thought it more appropriate to throw it in the trivia section as a result. I was there and remember it happening that way, but I doubt there are is documentary evidence I can show for this. If there is a further contention on this paragraph, I think I would just delete it, as it should not "drag down" the quality of the rest of the article. Cheers! Captmondo 04:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If you can't find a verifiable reference for it, then you need to delete it. WP:NOR and all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Duly removed! Captmondo 10:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks for fixing the footnotes. Two more things, are the links in the external links section, links that people might be interested in or were they used a refs- external links used to write the article should probably be put in the references section so it is clear that why were consulted to write the article. Secondly could the trivia section be merged into the article, I guess it would probably go into the Acquisition by Symantec and aftermath section.--nixie 04:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I take your first point, and have moved all of the links that I used for research purposes into the References section, and left the rest that did not add any further info (but may still be of interest) in the External Links section. As for point two, I have removed that paragraph altogether (after having first merged it as you suggested), as Bunchofgrapes pointed out that it goes against WP:NOR. Captmondo 10:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Ok Captmondo, this is well written article. however, i think we should wait a couple of days until it's featured. today is the day wikipedia featured it's dullest, most frivilous article. though Captmondo's article is by no means dull, the subject matter is a little dry. something like the Spawn Man's Dinosaur article is the perfect antidote to the tedium of shoe polish. then after a couple of days we could feature this article? Veej 23:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between Featured Articles and Today's Featured Article, the one shown on the main page. It usually takes a few weeks for a FA to get onto the front page after promotion; there's no set schedule. And I take exception to your categorization of Shoe Polish. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I seriously doubt that you have made a convincing case for a valid objection, but will accept your support, conditional though it may be. One person's tedium is another's treasure. As for scheduling as a Feature Article on the front page, there is a process in place for that, and you can see what is currently slated for the "front page" in upcoming days for December. Having said that, I am guessing that it will take another week or so for the Delrina article to (hopefully) pass full muster as a Featured article candidate, and probably will not appear on the front page until January at the earliest. Captmondo 14:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support The article is easy to read, the summary stands up on its own, the article proper maintains a consistent level of detail and covers the subject thoroughly to a depth that seems appropriate for a software company profile, and Delrina in particular. I did make a couple of what I consider minor changes to the summary, mainly, repositioning the paragraph break to a more logical spot, and adding a mention of "flying toasters" (which I believe is, along with WinFax, one of the two details likely to come to most people's minds). That said, my support is based on the article as it stands. I did take the time to more thoroughly go through the references than I might have for previous FACs, with the question: Could I reconstruct this article from "common knowlege" plus the cited sources. I believe could; in any case, I don't have a problem with verifiabilty, from what's presented. The writing style could be slightly more...peppy, but as is, it is just fine, and neither sounds overly clinical and press release-like, nor over editorialized in a chatty attempt to capture interest. I also read a couple of other computer software-related FAs. All in all, seems to meet FA criteria to at least the best of current standards. --Tsavage 16:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Volkswagen Beetle

Beetle is a pop culture. Feel free to leave comments. 202.40.210.178 02:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object - No references. Pentawing 02:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - FAC is being taken over by anons nominating unreferenced articles! Help! KingTT 15:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object - No references, several short sections and short paragraphs. Needs a lot of work, refer to WP:Peer review for more comments. — Wackymacs 19:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'd like to help

I would be willing to offer major help with this article. If anyone with a good knowledge of VW and Beetles is willing to work with me, I'd like to contribute all my knowledge and combine to make this article submitable for featured article status. Nick carson 11:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas Corrigan

After peer review and a few subsequent enhancements this seems a complete account of an interesting individual. —Theo (Talk) 17:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Nice article indeed. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object until a fair use rationale is added to Image:Wrong Way Corrigan.jpg. Support. The article is very good: concise and comprehensive. — Haeleth Talk 00:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  I have explained why I believe the newspaper page to be fair use. —Theo (Talk) 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  Thank you. Objection struck. — Haeleth Talk 22:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comments. How/when/why did his name get changed from Clyde to Douglas? Also, I would try to combine or expand sections to avoid one-paragraph sections, although in an article this short, they might be OK. I'm also worried that the shortness of the article may indicate a lack of comprehensiveness, but I don't know enough about the subject to say either way. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  It is my understanding that Clyde Corrigan Jr was called Douglas from childhood and had his name changed legally as an adult. I have expanded the article with additional details in most areas. —Theo

• Theo and all - I am related to Corrigan, being a second cousin twice removed. The name change is indeed fact, although it began much earlier in his life, when his father (Clyde, after whom he was named) deserted the family. His mother informally "changed" his name to Douglas out of disdain. He was probably ten or younger at the time. I have sources for this which I will add to the article, and I will attempt to verify when the actual legal name change took place, if possible. I do not have his autobiography; maybe it states this somewhere? Toniskids 15:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

(Talk) 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support based on a great article which is well-written. I will assume that the image issue will be resolved — InvictaHOG 21:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object Neutral: It's an interesting read, but there must be a lot more to this man than this, to be an FA biography which this is supposed to be it should cover a lot more aspects of his life interesting or not. Regarding the flight, there could be a lot more press details etc. If he had not prepared for such a flight, what condition was he in when he landed, what condition was the aeroplane in. If it took him 23 hours to notice he was going in the wrong direction, how long should the flight have lasted had he been going in the right direction. What's the name of his biography, surely that would answer a few questions and give some material to fill this page out a little more. Giano | talk 18:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Does the expansion just made address your concerns adequately? —Theo (Talk) 20:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• No, I'm afraid it doesn't its still very short and only two images for a man who lived to be 88. Reading between the lines there is a lot more to be told.

1. "The company disapproved of his attitude to risk"
2. "His favourite stunt"
3. "Corrigan moved from job to job"
4. " Corrigan made repeated modifications and reapplications for full certification, but none ::succeeded."
5. "his aircraft was refused renewal of its licence"
6. "Known to be exasperated with official resistance"
7. "he ran for the U.S. Senate as a member of the Prohibition party but was defeated"

It seems the man was a maverick so lets have the full autobiography or rename the page to be solely about his amazing flight. Giano | talk 21:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Taking your points in order:

On the matter of images, I am not sure what his longevity contributes to this. Do you seek images of the man at various stages of his life? Sadly such material is not yet in the public domain and it is hard to argue fair use of multiple images. Similarly, I can find no public domain images of his aircraft.

As for the article's length, I do not know what level you seek. From your numbered comments I think that you want the implicit made explicit. This may be no more than a matter of style but I have respected your opinions elsewhere so I would appreciate your clarification. Specifically:

1. "The company disapproved of his attitude to risk" because he stunted in their aircraft. This was already stated in that paragraph but I have recast it to make this clearer.
2. "His favourite stunt" was there to add colour by showing that he had a repertoire. Listing more of his stunts seems redundant to me. (No, I would like to know what they were, were they dangerous? Irresponsible? Dull? Clever? Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))
3. "Corrigan moved from job to job" has now been clarified to indicate the type of job. Although we can infer that he moved on because he was fired, there are no sources to support this. The sources show that he had several jobs but give no details. (This suggests a transigent, or beligerent personality, there must be written comments on this somewhere Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))
4. " Corrigan made repeated modifications and reapplications for full certification, but none succeeded." This arises from a combination of causes that are implicit in that paragraph: Corrigan was prepared to take greater risks than the authorities could accept and at that time the flying regulations were being tightened constantly. Corrigan's attitude to authority kept him a step beind the flying authorities. Is this not clear from the article? (We are back to his charater again Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))
5. "his aircraft was refused renewal of its licence". See previous comment.
6. "Known to be exasperated with official resistance". What more is it appropriate to say about this? (How did he show this exasperation? Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))
7. "he ran for the U.S. Senate as a member of the Prohibition party but was defeated" seems to me like a full statement. Like many celebrities, Corrigan ran for public office. Original research of political records might reveal why he chose a minor party. (Prohibition Pary? The link tells me little other than a dilike of alchohol, why that party, was he a rabbid teatotaler, or a hypocrite or very religious - it's certainly not the party most of the Irish Catholics of my acquaintance would choose to join - So why? I dont know and this biography should be telling me Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

I do not understand what you mean about the "full autobiography"/ Necessarilly, his autobiography ends at the point that it was written. It is very heavily focused on the flight. (Sorry, that was a slip of the mind I meant biography. Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

—Theo (Talk) 12:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Theo, I have addressed your points in italics for clarity above. For this article to be an FA biography it needs so much more detail and information. What is there is good but limited, it suggests that there is a lot more to tell. He ran for the Prohibition Party. I know nothing of that party - the links suggests abstinence from alcohol was he a rabid teetotaller? like so much not in the page I don't know, and this biography is not telling me. Did no one write an obituary appraising his life at all, it would be odd if no one hadn't, but if there really are no more facts and details available to you, then perhaps this is not a subject for FA - just an interesting, better than many ordinary, page. Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Giano, I have now addressed your objections as far as my sources will allow. I have increased the emphasis on his waywardness and irresponsibility. I can find nothing that portrays him as belligerent: quiet rebellion seems to have been his style, but this is all implicit. Rather than describe his stunt repertoire I have emphasised the inherent risk of such activity. I have attempted to further clarify the reasons for his failure to achieve certification of "Sunshine". His exasperation was expressed in his autobiography so I have made that source explicit within the text. I can find no clue as to why he ran on a Prohibition ticket. The party espoused Right Wing Christian values and advocated state support of Bible reading as well as the more central platform of alcohol prohibition. None of my sources (including his autobiography) allude to his attitude to alcohol or religion. I think that on this point I must acknowledge that your curiosity (and mine) is unlikely to be assuaged and that the article cannot currently mak featured article status until some other source surfaces or his daughters comment publicly. Thank you for all your comments. I am sorry that we end up with an objection that cannot be resolved. I have flagged the article for expansion in this area. —Theo (Talk) 23:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I'm afraid you probably won't find a daughter, as to my knowledge Corrigan had none, only three sons. However, I am a cousin (see above). ;-) His running for office under the Prohibition Party is news to me. However, I do believe I've heard/read that he did indeed have a lifelong distaste for alcohol, and that one of the reasons for this was because his father, who abandoned the family when Corrigan was a young boy, had a drinking problem. However, I have no sources to support this at present, so will not add it to the page. I can say that his paternal grandmother came from a strong Indiana Mennonite (earlier Pennsylvania Dutch) background, and like the Amish, the Mennonites tend to eschew alcohol. Thus, it can be postulated - but not conclusively substantiated - that his religious background and family history may have contributed to his political and personal views and beliefs. Toniskids 15:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object - It a tight, readable article that I'd support, except, I more or less agree with the comment above: it seems a little sparse, both with details of the flight, and about his life apart from his big flight. Case in point, I made some minor additions, like: the name of his autobiography, the name of the plane(!), the fact that the plane travelled with him by ship back to the US. There were some other interesting bits, from other sites, and some discrepancies, that I didn't include because they were one-source, but still, interesting, e.g. he made $75,000 around the trip (for the movie, etc) compared to $50/week as a pilot-mechanic; his plane cost $900 at auction, not the $325 as reported. These may be wrong, but they're out there...

• More important, Corrigan's characterization is underplayed: I read an in-depth article on the flight that painted a more vivid picture of Corrigan as risk taker, which if correct is largely missing here. He liked doing stunts, to the objection of fellow pilots, and had to be officially forbidden by the company he worked for (Ryan, the Spirit of St. Louis builders) to do them. His plane wasn't licensed fly on the trip prior to the crossing (so if that was originially going to be the crossing trip, he'd have been in a plane deemed unsafe to fly), and eventually it was grounded by aviation officials; he only finally managed to get an experimental license (i.e. his plane was just hanging together; another source has his extra fuel tanks as a bunch of gas cans welded to the front of the plane). Then, he developed a gas tank leak on the way to New York, which he didn't fix. That turned into a big leak, he was flying over the Atlantic with an inch of gas in the cockpit, had to punch a hole in the floor with a screwdriver to drain it, and finally revved up to burn fuel faster rather than lose it, reversing his strategy of flying slower to conserve. Also, the same article has him barnstorming, hustling plane rides for cash with his friend on the East Coast (the article talks about running a small town shuttle service). If accurate, this adventurer-wildman aspect should be reflected in the article...
• Later life doesn't seem to be, as the article portrays it, exactly a "simple life": Corrigan tested bombers for the Government during W.W. II and also flew in the U.S. Army Ferry Command. In 1946 he ran for the U.S. Senate on the Prohibition ticket, after which he worked as a commercial pilot--this time for a small California airline. In 1950, he bought a 20-acre orange grove in Santa Ana, Calif., settling down there with his 3 sons and his wife Elizabeth, who died in 1966. - http://www.trivia-library.com/a/where-are-they-now-flying-irishman-douglas-corrigan.htm (Also, the article says it's an 18-acre farm...).

So, some work necessary. --Tsavage 01:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for your extensive and helpful comments. I wish that I had these when I had the article on peer review. I have expanded the article and attempted to address the points that you raise. Fasolino's "in-depth article" was one of my sources; I omitted much of his detail because previous FAs of mine only got there after extensive condensation; I can see that I overdid this and trust that I have now gained a more appropriate balance. I chose the $325 price for the aircraft because that is what he gave in his own book and The People's Almanac has proven unreliable elsewhere. Inconsistently, I have now used their $75,000 earnings figure because it fits with comparable fees for other late thirties movies and news stories (as does $50/week for a mechanic). His wartime experiences were new to me and I am glad to include them. His political failure is born out by other sources. I prefer the 18-acre size because the source for that is a Santa Ana local. I guess that The People's Almanac authors rounded up to a neater number. I hope that you can support the expanded version. —Theo (Talk) 20:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

By me, it's almost there. I struck many of the specifics. I still have a small problem with the writing style. I went through and copyedited a bunch of sentences, which hopefully made things read a little smoother (this is a difficult way to edit, compared to rewriting). What I left in the objections are relatively minor:

• I do wonder still about his apparently short-lived political career. As soon as one mentions political activity, new questions about "what the person was really like?" tend to come up. This is the effect of the very brief Prohibition party mention. If no additional material is available, short of doing personal interviews, it would probably be enough to get basic info on the Party, and also maybe include, "although his personal motivation isn't entirely clear from the records..." That sort of thing. At least knowing what the Party was about gives a clue...
• The Clyde name-change bit (not explicitly mentioned above) also sticks. I see there is a hidden note; perhaps that should be worked into the text. As is, it's a point brought up and left hanging.
• The description of the big flight, and the work-up to it, could probably use a standard rewrite: more paragraphs? rebuilding sentences? It has the feel of a lot of facts strung together so as to be readable, as opposed to a smooth recounting of the events. The information is there to paint the apparently appropriate picture of Corrigan as maverick, but it doesn't quite come across easily, as is. A relatively minor reorganization should do it.

My overall objection is pretty much consistent with Giano's above. However, I don't agree with many of the latest specific points brought up there. I don't think much more need be told in this context. I believe the central editorial point is: Corrigan is an interesting figure, mainly for doing one thing. Perhaps painting him as a "maverick" only by referring briefly to unlicensed flights, forbidden stunts, barnstorming, cobbled-together plane, is too one-dimensional, IF we wanted to know every minute detail of his life; for an encyclopedia article, the level of detail should simply match the subject. "He took some risks, was one of the first to fly across the Atlantic alone in a possibly death-trap plane, and became quite famous (and paid) for his trouble", seems to sum it up, which this article does, giving much additional info with which to assess is life and character before and after, cradle to grave. The more detail that's included here or there, the more the entire article has to be rebalanced, and I don't think that's warranted to the degree suggested by some of Giano's specifics. So, IMO, it's now mainly a couple of points of info and of style. (I checked a few other FA bios, and the type of content varies, as far as balance between personal detail, and accomplishments. Past FAs are not the standard, I know, still, the ones I read were all quite good. Karl Dönitz is perhaps a relevant example, where the article seems to work well, while concentrating almost exclusively on events, with little personal background commentary (although that article might work better with much more personal detail, given his life and, um, crimes...) --Tsavage 16:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was about to go Neutral (which probably wouldn't matter as Giano's objection seems pretty extensive, but I just read this (which is cited in the References), and much of the article here is a pretty close copy of that piece. That perhaps accounts for the stilted flow, as words and phrases have been changed so as not to make it identical, and extra bits of detail inserted, but IMO it's essentially an alteration, not a rewrite. --Tsavage 01:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• For what little it is worth, I can only assert that I did not start from that article or any other single source. I started from the original stubby article, read most of the cited sources (many of which are cross-cited), built the outline and then wrote a first draft. I then did some googling, which turned up most of the other sources. The stilted flow arises from my inadequacies as a writer. Sadly, I recognise that such an accusation of such subtle plagiarism is impossible to refute except by extensive work by a third party, so I will stop further work on this. Given your opinion, Tsavage, I think that it would be appropriate for you to flag this as a copyvio (although I do not share your opinion). —Theo (Talk) 09:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• I appreciate your reply. On my part, I don't think an apology is exactly the thing here, but I do want to let you know that I didn't have any intention of in any way attacking you/your editorial integrity personally (an article is a collective endeavour and all that). I also didn't carefully comb through the history, which perhaps I should have (I wasn't thinking in terms of a "charge" at the time, despite how it sounded). I stumbled on FAC only a week ago, and I'm sure that charging in there with that newcomer ENTHUSIASM is something that gets tempered if one sticks around. Perhaps I could've put it more mildly. I've since posted a very similar comment (FAC Collyer Brothers), and I'm not at all sure that's the case there, either. It's very tricky with this online research business, for example, there are a number of high-in-the-search-rankings reference sites that use Wikipedia as their content, as I'm sure you've noticed, and while in those cases, it's obvious, it kinda highlights how the recycling of info is bound to be a much bigger obstacle in this online research environment, than "before". I'm not going to copyvio Corrigan (I haven't even read up on the criteria for copyvio... ;)). Perhaps in the FAC I should have written something more like: "Seems pretty close to this cited article?" with the link. I'll reread what I wrote just yesterday at Collyer. You should resubmit, maybe take another pass at it first, this process probably only made it better?!... --Tsavage 20:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Moments later and, re the aforementioned Collyer Brothers FAC (I went to review my objection), this response just posted:

I followed the link from your first objection and found it very serious indeed: It looks like one of our article's authors simply took the Useless Information summary, stripped out the idiotic attempts at humor, and rewrote what was left slightly to avoid blatant copyvio. With that considered, I am withdrawing my nomination of this article. Andrew Levine 07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Tsavage, I appreciate your explanation. The articles do have similar structures. I imagine that the Centennial of Flight essay particularly resonated with me when I was sourcing the research. I know that I did not start from a single source. All of this is moot, however, because I cannot resolve Giano's outstanding objection about Corrigan's affinity for the Prohibition Party. I do not think that it can be appropriate for me to resubmit the article to FAC with Giano's objection unresolved and I cannot face rewriting the article yet again knowing that it is fundamentally flawed by an omission that I cannot rectify. I agree that the article is much better than it was when first submitted. But it can never be good enough without original research so I regret wasting all our time on it. Ho hum. —Theo (Talk) 23:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, on that point, for what it's worth, I felt the same way about wanting to know more about his lifestyle (as I did note), until I thought about it. There's no hard-and-fast standard for "comprehensiveness". First, in this case, the Prohibition Party might seem weird, if one assumes a maverick in one area is likely a non-conformist, let-people-do-what-they-want type in others. But that's an easy presumption; people usually aren't so consistent in their behaviors. Corrigan may well have been a straightlaced guy, except for his flying thing. Second, everything isn't knowable, else there could be hardly any "good" bios. In this case, his flight, and career in aviation, are the main parts of his story, and they seem knowable and well-covered. Perhaps simply treating this character issue directly would resolve it: "Little is known of his personal life. His autobiography doesn't say whatever, and other published accounts shed no light. He will be remembered for his flight." That sorta thing. IF that's held up by research, I don't think it's a cop-out or whatever, it's a legitimate treatment. OR, this being the World Wide Web, there's every chance you could get in touch with some of his contemporaries or their relatives, by Web then email. That'd be cool...! It'd only take a few words from one first-hand source: Was he a boozer or a Bible thumper, or both? --Tsavage 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC) - comment edited --Tsavage 15:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hey now, don't solicit original research. But I agree that the particular standing objection shouldn't neccessarily DQ the article's FAC. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, strike that last part! (Unless, of course, for personal reasons, you just gotta know...) --Tsavage 03:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well I would be fascinated to know his personality seems to be contradictory - go on Theo (I dare you) phone his mates up and ask, we are all dying to know! Seriously though, I'll write down here as it's getting very busy up there. People have rather jumped on my use of the word maverick, perhaps that was not the best word to use, but I did qualify it by "it seems to me" so it was my opinion rather than general fact. I appreciate you have made valiant efforts to improve the page, and improved it certainly is. If there really is no more information then no more can be done. I'll change from oppose to neutral. Not because I don't like the style or prose, and I've no opinion on the copyvio issue (I've never understood the complxities of the subject). However, I do feel though an FA biography should be comprehensive, if insufficient information is available on a subject then that must preclude their biography (IMO) from becoming an FA. I know this is not the response you are going to like or want Theo, but a biography must be just that, not just a limited collection of available facts. Giano | talk 12:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Target Corporation

Self Nomination. This article has gone through significant improvements over the past year, including adding references and balancing the article's POV by adding a criticism sections that is backed up by references. I feel this article would be a good choice for featured article status as it would show Wikipedia's diversity of articles (it seems most featured articles are about things or events). Wikipedianinthehouse 21:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Issues I spotted are:
  1. The history section is composed largely of one or two sentence paragraphs. These short paragraphs should be combined to form larger paragraphs.
  2. The article mentions the existence of several divisions other than the retail division (Target Financial Services, Target Commercial Interiors, Target Brands, ...) but only gives a one line description of what each does. The descriptions of each need to be expanded. Some information on the distribution network and back office operations that support the retail stores would also be useful.
  3. There are multiple examples of peacock and weasel terms in the article. Some examples in the Philanthropy section are: Target Corporation is ranked as one of the most philanthropic companies in the country (who did the ranking and when was it done?) and Many religious organizations objected to this decision (Please name two or three of the many religious organizations). The claim in the lead that Target is the second-most successful discount retailer in the United States should also clarify what is meant by "successful". Does success translate into total revenue, total profit, or something else?
  4. The Diversity, Major sponsorships, and Target International sections all need to be expanded from one to three short sentences to at least two good sized paragraphs in length.
  5. The lead is currently on the small size, and after the above issues are addressed will certainly need to be expanded.
  6. As per WP:CITE, the Books section should be renamed either References or Further reading depending on whether the cited book was actually used as a source for verifying the facts presented by the article. Complete citations for the sources references via the footnotes sections should also be provided.

Overall I found there was a lot of good material in the article, but it has a ways to go before reaching FA status. --Allen3 ^talk 23:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Having taken a closer look at the references used for this article, I noticed that one of the references, [2], is from a blog on a website maintained by a group with a well-known political agenda. This does not appear to meet the standards at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources, so another source should be found for information referenced by this source. --Allen3 ^talk 12:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There is some information on distribution centers in their corporate fact card. I've already cited from it in the article. Target's use of information technology systems can be included, since this article seems to include none of it. 68.226.61.4 08:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added a couple paragraphs on distribution centers, in addition to some of the information technology that supports the retail stores. 68.226.61.4 22:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded the part on subsidaries some, however there is still plenty of information that could be added that I left out from the sources that I used. Also, I don't know why it has to be in the History section. 68.226.61.4 22:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded the History section by adding content and combining paragraphs, and I've moved the book in question to the Notes and references section since it was used in the article. 68.226.61.4 07:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Before this article can even be considered for featured article status its one-sentence sections must be fixed. Cedars 09:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English language

English language is the world's most widely taught second language. One-third of the world's population can speak some English. There is no reason that there are objections. 202.40.210.164 09:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object: a couple of things to begin with. 1) No clear references section. 2) Lack of flow to the structure. Some sections (e.g. the Constructed variants and Sounds sections) are just thrown at the reader with no introduction. Too many list-like sections. Some very short paragraphs. Overall, not a very good example of the English language. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object: a complete, well-written article, but there is no References section, and there are very little graphics/no photos. Ronline 09:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

**Just as a matter of interest, what photos would you expect to see? Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC) question answered below. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object I agree with the previous points raised: poor flow, lack of clear references, too much list-like prose. The "history" section, at the very least, could be illustrated with photos of significant manuscripts (from Anglo-Saxon on up). It's always worth combing Featured Pictures to see if anything is germane. Anville 09:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: Gallery of illuminated manuscript images may also be a good place to start a hunt for appropriate images. If none of the images in this gallery, or the galleries listed in the See also section, are appropriate then the image description pages should provide useful links to libraries and museums that have images of historical manuscripts available. Another possibility is authors who have had a major influence on the development of English such as Geoffrey Chaucer and William Shakespeare. --Allen3 ^talk 23:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I HIGHLY encourage a part discussing the impact Chaucer and Shakespeare had on the language, as that is sadly little known. I have studied both extensivly in university classes and have come to the conclusion that English would look nothing like it does today at all without these two men. According to many sources, Chaucer is responsible for the vast majority of England's interest in the language. That is to say, many people who spoke either local celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Norman French, or other languages learned English specifically so they could read Chaucer. My understanding is that before him, it was mostly just a language used for trade and not used much in private. As for Shakespeare, I've heard the play Hamlet alone contributed 500 new words to the English language. In fact, were it not for him, we would be retireing to sleeping chambers at night rather than bedrooms, as the word bedroom did not exist before he used it. Out of all of the authors who have ever written in English before or since, Shakespeare's works contain more total vocabulary than any other. Contrafool 08:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The main reason you nominated it was its epic importance, so we shouldn't let it be featured until it is at the very paramount of our standards. -- user:zanimum

• Object The article does a fair job, but most of the objections listed above do seem quite valid and proper considering the nature of the article itself. To my POV, Filiocht says it best here: "Overall, not a very good example of the English language." One part that really irritates me about the article (aside from the quality of the content dealing with earlier incarnations of English) is the "External Links" section. It is begging for a Wiki-scythe to come sweeping away the weeds. P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Space Shuttle Columbia disaster

A major bit of history and a tragic event. Deserves to be on the frontpage for a day - User:Tom_walker

• Object. While the subject is certainly worthy of someday being on the frontpage, the article does not currently meet featured article criteria such as citing its references. --Allen3 ^talk 12:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It could be great, but there are several problems that are sticking out currently:

1. Image:TIME_feb_2003.jpg has no fair use rationale.
2. Lead is very short for the size of the article.
3. References are missing. What was used as sources to write this article? Newspaper articles, books, etc?
4. Layout could do with some working, all of the images are of different sizes and it looks messy.
5. 'Response from the President' section is a bit short.
6. A few sentences in the Memorial section are sort of choppy, it doesn't provide a nice flow.

I couldn't spot anything else from my look at the article. You might want to refer it to WP:Peer review for more comments/suggestions. — Wackymacs 19:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Insulin

This article is very well written and informative. It is a jewel of Wikipedia that should be considered for featured article status. --153.104.27.107 01:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lacks references. KingTT 02:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No references. Andrew Levine 05:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Sufficient references, I think. There's a reference to a book on the history of the discovery, some links to various historical sites, and so on. This is not a topic about which controvery demands copious references. It's pretty well settled what the substance is, how it's produced, and what it does; little dispute there. This stuff is important enought that it has earned 3 Nobel Prizes for scientists studying it. ww 07:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No references. --Oldak Quill 10:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lacks references. --Hollow Wilerding 13:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Let me be slightly more detailed than those above. Put references in a "References" section, as per FA requirements. Make sure there are sufficient references. The reason references are required, even in non-disputable articles, is due to the fact that ANYONE can edit this encyclopedia. If we don't prove that what we say is true, how can anyone be sure that they aren't reading, for example, sneaky vandalism? We need to be verifiable in every aspect. Fieari 15:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unreferenced, even the easy-to-find ones (such as the Banting-Best paper cited in diabetes mellitus). It makes no use of the subarticles intensive insulinotherapy, conventional insulinotherapy, could use a microscopic image of the islets, etc. JFW | T@lk 16:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose. Good-looking article, it just needs a bibliography. PedanticallySpeaking 16:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Article incorrectly suggests insulin therapy is limited to humans. Article also needs at least short systematic discussion of the various types of insulin formulations (e.g., NPH, Lente, ultralente). Monicasdude 04:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smotherbox

• Self-nomination. I'm very proud of the article. I could not find a way to improve it, so I had a peer review for the article, which revealed only things that can not be easily helped ( Requests for information which may or may not be known to anyone and photographs many of which are not published because the subject is quite intimate ) So I think the article is as good as it will get for sometime, yet I hope it will still get improved in the long run. --Easyas12c 20:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Difficulty of obtaining information doesn't exclude a featured article from requiring that information. Yeah, that means that it might take some herculean tasks to make this featured, but not every "good" article is featured quality. Featured is the best. This isn't there yet, I don't think. Fieari 23:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The things "missing" don't leave the article broken. They are just features, nice to have along with definition and explanation of the subject. Wikipedia:What is a featured article states "It should exemplify our very best work, representing Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet." As one of the main authors of the article I strongly doubt there exists another such compilation of objective information for the subject anywhere else on the Internet. --Easyas12c 00:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Far too short, no references, poor naming of external links, lacks quality information, isn't the best example of a web source on the subject. Basically, read Wikipedia:What is a featured article and carefully address each point, but you're nowhere near there yet unfortunately. Harro5 00:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Featured article definition states that a featured article should be comprehensive, this does not mean that it would have to be long. It just has to be complete instead of one-sided. It also states that a featured article "should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic". It seems that the reference to smothered.com (which is included as an external link in the article) is the most academic reference you can get for a subject such as this. I renamed the links, if they are still not good, feel free to show how to exactly do it, by editing the article. What do you mean exactly by "lacks quality information". As in my comment for the last thread abowe, I'd still claim that this is the best public source for the subject on Internet, if you disagree please point out an url to a better source. I'd be happy to make the article better. --Easyas12c 00:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, for two major reasons:

1. Utterly inadequate referencing: there are no references labeled as such; the external links, which one might presume to contain the sourcing, are all to commercial sites engaged in selling the product—hardly the most reliable source for information. The paucity of online sources is no reason to neglect this issue—it may be necessary to examine more obscure offline references. In addition, use of inline citations is necessary here, as a number of claims in the article are quite questionable in their provenance.
2. Lack of information: there is no discussion of the history of the item. More significantly, an article about a commercial product must have certain basic information—market size, major manufacturers, price ranges, resources involved in production, manufacturing techniques, and so forth—before it can be considered even moderately comprehensive. The difficulty of obtaining this information is not an excuse unless a convincing argument is made that the information does not exist at all.

Finally, a more general remark: that the article is the best online source on the subject does not necessarily attest to its quality, since this may merely mean that there is little information on the topic available online. Kirill Lokshin 04:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article is too short, and lacks references. --Hollow Wilerding 13:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object on grounds of inadequate references cited above. PedanticallySpeaking 16:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, sorrowly incomplete. -- user:zanimum

[edit] Space Shuttle Enterprise

I have nominated this article as I believe it is about a vehicle that many people don't realise exists and its story is of great interest. - Tom Walker

• Hum. Some iffy stylistic choices throughout ("the Enterprise", "it") and some corrections I've been meaning to make for a while; I'll fix those tonight and then have a look at the rest of the article. Shimgray | talk | 21:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• This article does need quite a bit of work. I've given it a new framework, and will dig out Jenkins tonight and set to fleshing that framework out. There's probably potential, but... Shimgray | talk | 21:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Looking at it some more, I don't see a FAC in this for the near future. It's a worthwhile article, but currently the content's just not there. I'll see if I can give it a good kick, though. Shimgray | talk | 22:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - stub section, zero references. KingTT 18:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to Peer Review - This isn't FA quality yet. PR might have helped. Fieari 23:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose. Would support if a reference section were added. PedanticallySpeaking 16:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Watt

• Self-nomination. I'm pretty proud of the work I've done (and will continue to do) on this article, and quite frankly I'm curious to see what other opinions of the piece will be. Hence my seeking out more objective opinions. ;) Cjmarsicano 07:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object 1. too many subheadings. Please reduce them 2. No references. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Too many subheadings. Too many short paragraphs, some sections read like a list, especially the Illness and Recovery section. Try and make the prose flow more. And Illness and Recovery is a totally misleading section title. - Hahnchen 16:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Too many subheadings, too many short sentences/paragraphs. Too many links to non-existant articles, and a very messy Discography section. There's a lot of work to be done, refer to WP:Peer review. — Wackymacs 22:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• I cleaned up the Discography section and several other aspects of the article, but I still Object for the moment. — Wackymacs 19:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Reluctant oppose. Good article, but it needs a good proofreading and cleaning up. It's close, but not quite there. And, as I've said on other FAC's, the references are inadequate. PedanticallySpeaking 16:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Same with PedanticallySpeaking... great article, only let down by a lack of references. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Søren Kierkegaard

I've been working on this article for several months, motivated by a previous fac. I think I've improved this article since November; I've addressed comments from the peer review and got this to be an good article. This is a biography containing details about his life, his writing methodology, his journals, and his critics and supporters. His philosophy and theology have been extracted to other articles and a summary has been left behind for those aspects of his work. I've also cited references throughout the article. Poor Yorick 03:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Looks very good. I suggest that there is still some copyediting to be done; there is some overuse of passive voice, a few instances of odd phrasing, etc. One minor referencing problem; the 2002 Danish demographic information is referenced to a Wikipedia article, which is something that we want to avoid doing. The sentence could be safely removed without any impact to the article, in my opinion, but if I'm missing its importance, it needs better referencing. Jkelly 04:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok removed, that 2002 ref; shouldn't need it since kierk didn't live in 2002. looking for those passive sentences now. Poor Yorick 04:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support I only have several minor issues with the article. WP:MOS states that the headings of articles should not start with the word "The" when possible. In addition, non-proper nouns should not be capitalized outside of the first letter of a heading. Finally, could footnotes be provided for the several quotes also? AndyZ _t 19:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok removed "the" from the article headings, removed caps, and added footnotes for those quotes Poor Yorick 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - How did Kierkegaard make his living after leaving University? The article makes no mention of it (or it is not made explicit). --Knucmo2 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The article mentioned he was born to a wealthy family, so I've elaborated that K lived on his inheritance. Poor Yorick 22:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Tentative Support. The content is there, but I don't have time to read it really closely at the moment. Ironically, I have to read a chapter of Crime and Punishment for my English class tomorrow. RyanGerbil10 03:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Full Support. Upon having more time to read the article, I lend it my full support. RyanGerbil10 03:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Looks very good; I see no problems reading through it. One thing is the possible overuse of long quotes, particularly in those quote boxes. They look clever when small in number, but this article is rife with them. It bothers me a little bit, but not too much. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 25 April 2006 @ 21:40 UTC

• Support. This article is certainly up to, if not beyond, the standards of Wikipedia featured articles. Ig0774 09:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Supplementary comment: I kind of like the quote boxes, except in two places where they are (at least in my brower) a visual distraction — the first quote box and the picture of Regina Olsen overlap as does the one next to the Journals. That said, I don't think visual distractions like that really matter when it comes to considering a page for FA status — it seems to me that it is more about content (see [WP:WIAFA]).
    • Personally, I kind of like the overlap, as the first quotebox (about Regine) overlaps with Regine's pic, while the other quote (about the journals) overlap with the journal pic. Poor Yorick 11:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support. This article is well written and well referenced. My only problem is, as Cuivienen also noted, the use of many quotes. In my opion it disrupts the flow of the article and I'm reminded of why Wikipedia should be based on secondary or tertiary sources. If you pick 2 or 3 really good and short ones it would work better. Another technical problem is that the quote box doesn't look all that good in combination with thumbnails or infoboxes. --Maitch 10:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright guys, removed some quote boxes. Poor Yorick 10:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I've made a few emendments to the article, such as the age at which Michael expected his sons to die (it was 33, not 34), and a few more clarifying edits. It is worth noting that although the University did regard Kierkegaard's thesis as wordy, they converted it to a doctorate! He conducted his dissertation defense in Latin, a condensed version of the original Danish text. Other than that, I like the article and can find no other inaccuracies at present. Perhaps there might be a little more made of the "Edifying Discourses", but I understand there is an article solely devoted to his philosophy. Nevertheless, I feel a little more mention should be made of them. --Knucmo2 11:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • About the 33/34 thing, it's sorta similar: the previous version is something like < 34, this version now says something like <= 33. Back then, it was a masters, and K was awarded an MA, but nowadays that kind of coursework would be awarded a doctorate, which is kinda of a ripoff for K, LOL. And yes, his philosophy is treated in another article (I'd like to try to keep this article under 50k). Poor Yorick 11:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seinfeld

Great article, seems to match all criteria. Good use of images, sources are cited properly, and is overall a very informative, interesting read. Honestly, I'm surprised it hasn't been featured before. 64.135.205.238 18:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Note This nomination was incorrectly placed on the page of another nomination: CM Punk. I went through the whole nomination procedure for this user. That is why my user name appears on all nomination procedure related pages. - Tutmosis 19:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose too large amount of unsourced material. The Filmaker 19:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm with The Filmaker- tons of unsourced claims. Just a few examples: "During the show's current syndictation run, it continually ranks in the syndication's top 10 programs list"; "In general, product placement became much more frequent in TV shows after Seinfeld demonstrated that a successful show could work specific products into its plots and dialogue" (which is currently tagged as needing citation); "The show divided even more of its audience in its final two seasons." There are also a ton of screenshots; I really don't think any article (no matter what its size) should have so many fair use images. In addition, the article failed to become a GA in July- perhaps work should go to making it good enough for that plateau first. -- Kicking222 22:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I liked this article last time it was nominated. I'll probably see this get snowballed, but I'll give it a support vote, as it is rather interesting. FireSpike 20:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object Although length is not an FAC issue, it really is very very long. Maybe post-Seinfeld careers, DVD information and stuff like that could be even split into their own articles. The notable episodes section is so POV! The whole article actually reads like one fan's opinon; the 'notable' episodes, criticism, the ending etc etc. There are not nearly enough references, and a lot of images as well, stuff like the logos gallary is a bit of a fair-use stretch. And screenshots representing characters/cast would be better off without credits obscuring them (Newman's image)...Needs a lot of work. Seinfann 07:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Article too long, unsourced, most of it is fancruft, such as sections on The Soup Nazi,The Contest--Coasttocoast 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moustache

It would be very timely to have this up in November in honor of Movember, (itself one of the funniest, if not best written, articles I've found) DiceDiceBaby 17:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Object. It's a rambling and confused lead followed by two lists, one of them arbitrary. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• It's 90% list! Where's the beef prose? Raul654 21:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object This is disappointing. It is missing references, and is mostly full of lists, not enough context! — Wackymacs 10:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, lacks references, seriously list heavy. I do however support the inclusion of notable people with moustaches. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Even though it would either be an arbitrary selection, or run to thousands of people, if you include historical figures? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object as per above. I would gladly support a moustache FA, but it would have to include topics such as cultural differences regarding moustaches and trends in historical popularity. As it stands, it ought to be completely trashed and rewritten. The Catfish 00:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. "Edgar Allan Poe had a simple moustache." This article has the worst captions I've ever seen. Not to mention all that is aforementioned. Harro5 03:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, they aren't very exciting though they are all in relation to the moustaches the people are wearing. If you can think up better ones, please do! --Fastfission 13:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object mostly lists, no mention of Salvadore Dali, who I think had possibly one of the most spectacular mostaches ever :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Just as an aside, it actually it does mention Dali. --Fastfission 13:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It's (sadly) much better than it used to be, but it's not really an "article" much less a "featured article". --Fastfission 13:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Empress Dowager Cixi

Real head of state of China for 48 years.

• I think she did very bad, she did lead Emperor Guangxu to reform. 20:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Astorknlam
• This is a great article, though unfortunately I must object. I suggest this article should go through peer review before coming here. These items should be addressed:
  • The article is rife with a number of short and sometimes one-sentence paragraphs. These should either be either combined with other paragraphs or expanded.
  • There are a number of NPOV statements such as "...her conservative attitudes did not serve her well..." These should either be cited to specific sources or eliminated.
  • I noticed one picture only had a caption in Chinese. While the captions in Chinese and English are fine, there needs to be an English counterpart to every Chinese caption.
  • Numerous times the article refers to "recent biographies" or "recent biographers," though the references section only lists one biography. The references section should be expanded to include all works cited, plus inline citations should be used to indicate exact sources.
  • I think the Names section really should come before the Early Life sections so as to not break up her biography.
  • This article has been over-linked. Sometimes the same name is linked in the same paragraph. The important names and dates should generally only be linked once or a few times in the article.
  • The section "Crisis with Guangxu" is too short and really should either be expanded or merged with another section.

Is this the same Dowager Empress as the one who appears in the movie The Last Emperor? If so, you may want to include a brief mention of it. As I said, this is a marvelous article! If these problems are addressed and the article given a general copyedit, it would make a lovely addition to FA. ''*Exeunt*'' Ganymead [[User_talk:Ganymead|^{<font color="green">Dialogue?</font>}]] 17:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The structure is a bit strange and difficult to follow, and some of the prose could really do with a solid reworking, particularly in the earlier parts of the article. It's certainly not bad, but really does need quite a reorganisation before being featured. Ambi 23:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object Two sentences do not make a section. Expand or merge. --Jiang 05:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong object. I saw this article a few weeks ago (while going through a list of biography articles that are considered "most important" to Wikipedia, of which this is one), and have been planning to do heavy revision on it as soon as possible because I was immediately very surprised by how many bizarre layout choices there were, errors in the text, etc. I'd consider putting several cleanup tags on it, not making it a Featured Article. -16:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Silberbauer

Partial self-nom, since I created the article, but the majority of the work has been done by User:Yallery Brown. Article is detailed yet succinct, exploring the actions and subsequent fate of a minor figure who nonetheless had a significant role in historical events. DS 16:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's a good article, but too short to hold up as our best work. Only a few lines in the article are about Silberbauer, too: most of it is really about Anne Frank, her family, and Simon Wiesenthal. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Massively too short for featured status. Ambi 23:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sea shanty

Detailed, informative article about an interesting historical topic. (Unsigned nomination by User:194.73.99.107)

• Oppose. Have a look at the featured articles on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:What is a featured article for an idea of what we are looking for here. This article needs to be longer, more detailed and better written. Harro5 21:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per Harro5. Ambi 23:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Articles do not begin with quotations. Daniel Case 14:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apple Macintosh

Peer review 1 and 2 | FAC 1

This is the second nomination for this article. Several people have done an excellent job on this, and I formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Macintosh to work on it collectively together. The result is excellent. The article has a lead, image copyright status/sources are good, there are references, footnotes, the grammar/spelling is good, the flow is good, and its not too long and has been improved a lot since the last FAC. Please do not object for the 41k article size, there are FAs that are more than 60k that have not been objected. — Wackymacs 08:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Firstly, excellent article. It is reasonably clearly laid out, reasonably well referenced and certainly exhaustive. The photos are all in "good copyright nick". But it is too long. Yes, I know there are longer FAs, but this one could be shortened (and besides, maybe they need shortening too). One way may be to go down the route that the Jan Smuts editors have chosen: make a number of sub-articles that are in-depth expositions of the main article. I know that the "history" section already does this, but I think it ould be done more; ie on this page there needs to be less text, and on the sub-pages more. I would definitely support if that was done. As it is, I am weakly opposing, but if lots of people support I will change to neutral. Batmanand 11:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Support. We've done a lot of work here, and I think we've improved it substantially. I'll try to cater to your request; but besides maybe the hardware part most of the sections are too short to merit "outsourcing". But we've all come a long way (Wackymacs forgot to mention that it was the improvement drive article once) and I think that for all of this work the article should be recognized. --HereToHelp (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support—It's very good, thanks to Wackymacs et al. Other longish FACs have been approved—e.g., Microsoft—and here, I think readers will want to access the info in one place.Tony 03:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Support—Good, well written information. Useful images that contribute well to the article. --TangentIdea 02:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Support—Good article, just slightly above 40KB, but justified with the depth and clarity of the information presented. Good number of pictures. Altogether a great FA. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 08:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Information presented in a clear and well-organized way; length is adequate without being overbearing. Please don't ruin it with a Trivia section. Anville 10:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As you wish; no trivia section! I couldn't find anything to put in it, so I had given up anyway. --HereToHelp (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, mostly because it's way too long. Also, the color coding in the Timleline of Macintosh models needs to be explained. Another problem is that that section consists entirely of a single-use template, which should be subst'ed and then deleted. --Angr (t·c) 13:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• As others have said, the length of the article is because the article covers all the topics of the subject in the same place in a great length of detail which is good because its really comprehensive. There are other featured articles that are over 60k, this is only just over 40k. — Wackymacs 14:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Just because other FAs were too long doesn't make it okay. I would have opposed them too if I had known about them. I think a lot of the history can be moved to History of Apple Computer or Mac OS history, and duplication with those articles can be deleted. --Angr (t·c) 16:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Here's a classic example of an article that many readers will want to be inclusive; areas such as the history, the software, and market share are integrally linked in their technical and historical details. Perhaps a few details could be trimmed, but not much, in my view, without detracting from what is a logical, flowing, comprehensive account. I'm happy for the length to be retained. Tony 01:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Angr, check out {{Timeline of Macintosh models}} now that some of us have added a legend. Please don't hesitate to leave comments on that template's talk page.—t-bte288-c 01:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object on the following grounds: First, Macintosh and Mac are both registered trademarks of Apple, shouldn't this be indicated? Second, speaking of those trademarks, there's nothing in the article about the fight they had with the speaker company Macintosh (I hope I've got that spelling right, it's been a while) over the computer's name. Third, nothing is included about the infighting to keep the Apple ][ family going while trying to sell the Mac as well - I know it's in the History of Apple Computer article, but don't these things deserve slight mentions? On this point I disagree in part with Angr - I think you should touch on some things in brief, and THEN let readers get the in depth information. Yes it leads to some duplication, but I don't think this can/should be avoided. And what about Guy Kawasaki's official role as the "Mac Evangelist" (an idea copied way too late and far less successfully by Atari for their STs, TTs and Falcons in the early 90s). Or what about the "Apple Masters" program? One other thing, and I'm admittedly nitpicking here: the Power Macs also ship with a Mighty Mouse, and the Mini has no monitor, keyboard OR mouse. Plus you might add that the Power Mac towers don't come with monitors either... --JohnDBuell 00:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• I know there is lots missing that you have mentioned such as the Apple II and Guy Kawasaki. Why should we mention they are trademarks? this is an encyclopedia, I know it led to a conflict with another company, but I don't think its very relevant because I *think* it was settled out of court. People reading the article already have enough information, an encyclopedia is not here to cover every single subject and bit of trivia about the Mac and Apple. — Wackymacs 08:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, I thought your WikiProject goals stated otherwise. :P --JohnDBuell 13:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• The goal is to (quote) " improve and standardize the quality of all Apple Macintosh related articles to featured article standard." Since length is a factor in an article—although not an important one, at least in this article—that means that we don't have to knitpick at the details. It has to be comprehensive, yes, but not so much as to include every nuance of the subject. This article is already unfairly receiving compaints about the legnth; a trivia section would just exasorbate that.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Funny, I read "The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has concise and detailed articles about every subject relating to the Apple Macintosh and Apple Computers." My objection stands. --JohnDBuell 22:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, that's true. And the article in question is relatively concise. Because it's long enough to provide useful information ("detailed", another word from above) but short enough to not ramble or go into too much extraneous info. There's nothing in that article that shouldn't be there. That's concise. There's everything in that article that should (pertains to the topic and belongs in an encyclopedia) be there. That's detailed. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The legnth is fine. We took the time to write that stuff, please, don't delete it. --HereToHelp (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• I wasn't proposing any deletions, please re-read my original objection. --JohnDBuell 23:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Then why are some people angry about the legnth and you want it more in depth? The point is, if you want to add such a section do so yourself. But it is not needed. As Wackymacs and my above comment say, we are here to strike a balance between legnth and content. I think we've done a good job in that area. --HereToHelp (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• "The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has concise and detailed articles about every subject relating to the Apple Macintosh and Apple Computers." This does not imply that the project means to cover every subject relating to the Apple Macinotsh and Apple Computers in one single article. The goals of the project are all encompassing. However, there are several hundred Apple Macintosh related articles that the project has to work with. Your objection based on a lack of trivial facts (facts that are included in other Apple-related articles) can not justified by restating the goals of Wikiproject Macintosh --t-bte288-c 02:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• The only thing I found in a sub-article was my statement about the Macintosh division and the Apple ][ division fighting each other for marketing and sales dollars. I have found none of the other points addressed in any of the other 'sub-articles.' I hardly find Apple's ongoing history of trademark disputes trivial, although the one for Macintosh itself WAS settled, and has not resurfaced, unlike the Apple Computer vs. Apple Corps suits. I also don't think that the roles of the Mac Evangelist or the Apple Masters were trivial either - they did foster some outreach - Apple has had some user groups going on for well over twenty years because of these relationships. I'm still NOT budging from my vote. --JohnDBuell 02:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• The reasons many of these facts (not trivia... I apologize for making that assertion) have not been addressed in sub-articles resides in the fact that WikiProject Macintosh is brand new. Apple Macintosh was the WikiProject's first focus, and therefore we have not polished any sub-articles yet. This is no reason to keep the article-at-hand from being a FA, instead it is the reason that WikiProject Macintosh exists. This gives us incentive to polish all the sub-articles, not to add to the length of the main article. --t-bte288-c 02:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so why NOT fork off History of the Apple Macintosh, leave a summary on this page, move and develop the new page, reduce the SIZE of this page, as others have objected to, and everyone wins? --JohnDBuell 02:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Because people wan everything in one place. It's fine. Really.--HereToHelp (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Peer review comments were ignored and the same ones have been brought up here. Imagine that. It's still too long. Ignoring valid peer review is why that process doesn't get more involvment. - Taxman ^Talk 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Taxman, will you please specify exactly which PR comments you're referring to, and how, in your view, these might be addressed. Otherwise, your objection is not actionable. Tony 02:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't want to put words in someone else's mouth, but I would guess that Taxman is objecting to his comments in the second peer review not receiving any direct answer. I won't quote them here, since the link is at the top of this section. --JohnDBuell 02:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think he means the part about trimming it down that he posted there himself. I personaly redid that last paragraph of the history section.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I left detailed comments in the peer review on what the article needs thus it's very actionable. Tpny, please understand what actionable means before saying an objection is not actionable. The history section specifically is too long, and fixing that alone could solve the problem. It's 5 out of the 11 pages of text in the article. Is it worthy of 45% of the article? To support that the history would have to be the most important thing about the Macintosh. Is the history 2.5 times more important than the hardware itself? (That gets 2 pages). And I don't understand, HereToHelp, that paragraph still contains the exact same problem. It claims "Apple has seen a significant boost in sales of Macs, largely because of the success of the iPod." I believe that is far from established fact. The halo effect gets a lot of press and you can cite a lot of sources that discuss it, but many don't believe it is true. Much better would be to say something like X analyst, or Forbes magazine believes a large portion of the growth is..., or whatever the reliable sources would support (Apple's SEC filings might be good things to look at). Some prominent POV's would claim the improved sales of the Mac's are due to OSX being ahead of the comptetition. Point is, what is there is POV, and there's a lot more like that in the article. That one and the length of the history section are just the most egregious. - Taxman ^Talk 14:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I tweaked that paragraph again; care to have another look?--HereToHelp (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, that's better, but attributing the Halo effect idea would be better. You could even attribute it to Apple, because they state it in their annual report that they believe it. Also, the Mac unit sales is a qtr to qtr increase comparison. Probably better would be to use the year over year increase (which was still 38%). Choosing the qtr to qtr gain because it has the higher number is a bit POV. I will have to continue to object with the history section overemphasized as it is. There is nothing supporting it being the most important topic and worth 45% of the article. Balance is key to NPOV too. - Taxman ^Talk 16:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that we can't accommodate you. Oh—I don't appreciate that edit summary. --HereToHelp (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry for the lack of clarity, I was moving fast. FU was short for Follow up, and we use it commonly for that at work. I can see now how it could be misinterpreted. Sorry. But I feel the length of the history section is an obvious problem. - Taxman ^Talk 12:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oh...*laughs with hindsight*.--HereToHelp (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support despite the article's length. This is a topic that is impossible to narrow down any more. After editing by plenty of Wikipedians the article has been refined to the most important information. The peer reviews were heeded, but it would not be beneficial to shorten this article anymore. The additioin of a trivia section would undermine the encyclopedic nature of the article, and any more product specifics would simply add to the already contested length. After hard work by several people, this article receives my support. --t-bte288-c 22:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• "This is a topic that is impossible to narrow down any more." Thank you! I agree entirely. We have to sarifice being concise for being comprehensive. Being over 32k does not instantly disqualify an article. We had all of Wikiproject Macintosh working on this; it's good enough for a FA.--HereToHelp (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm a machead myself, but this article seems someone incomplete. It's very good of course, but there are no references to either the Macintosh TV or the Power Mac G4 Cube, two of the most important (design wise, not sales wise) macintoshes created. I think a paragraph about "failed" designs would do the article well - Apple tries a lot of experimental, avant garde stuff that sets them apart, and the article should reflect this and the price for such. Also there are dubious image copyrights, the worst of which is Image:Steve_Jobs_with_iMac.jpg which has *no* rationale at all, despite being copyrighted and ultra high resolution to boot! - JustinWick 02:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point there - there was a 'coffeetable' book about Apple's designs a few years ago (with a cube prototype from the early 1980s!) that I'm still kicking myself for not buying at Borders.... --JohnDBuell 02:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I would suggest putting the table of current models further down below the timeline and before the hardware details, as this seems the more appropriate logical sequence of the page. David | Talk 15:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Very strong support per all other supporter's comments. (DISCLAIMER: I use a Mac PowerBook G4. :)) --Cjmarsicano 19:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support. It would be odd to shorten the article. I think other encyclopedias have much longer articles, and this article is very comprehensive and thus needs to have many sections. There aren't really any sections that are much too detailed in comparison to the other sections. Ronline ✉ 02:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• support. I don't think the length is a problem in this case. 43kb isn't all that long anyway, and it looks like a great article. Tuf-Kat 02:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. One of the best articles on wikipedia in a long time. What a great read, good use of images aswell. Don't shorten it. Great stuff!---(Smerk)

• Support. I also put a lot of work into this article (shortening it from 52k to a bit below its present length), and I can say with confidence that it's long, but not too long. Right now it's a good compromise between shortness and details.  grm_wnr Esc 11:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment... well, okay, nitpick. The image at the top is captioned as the "first" Macintosh, but if one looks closely at the dialogue box on screen it says it's Finder version 4.1 -- and "512K", which would indicate the second Macintosh release... ～J.K. 06:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• This has been highlighted before, the website it is from states that it is a 128K Macintosh. — Wackymacs 08:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• There's a difference between "128k" and "first". I noticed that the menus were not in English (Spanish?); could it be that this was the first Mac released outside the US, or in that language, or some other early "first" that wasn't the 128k? If the site actualy says 128k and we can't find a better PD image, keep it. If it says "first"...well, we got problems.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Italian, if I'm any judge (Spanish doesn't have double z's), but as Wikipedians, we should be better aware than anyone that web sites are capable of being wrong. ;o) Seriously -- were there any design differences between the "original" 128k and other pre-Plus Macs, besides the amount of RAM? If not, we can keep the image and weasel out of the problem by saying this is the first Mac "case design" or something along those lines. ～J.K. (who's never used a Mac older than a Plus) 23:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Was the 512k Mac even put into any other languages? That aside, I think that a new image is preferable. Yes, all websites are fallible, but an unvandalized FA should be accurate.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I note that a recent edit has delinked a few of the remaining (and thus inconsistent) trivial date links, e.g., 1998. The article is otherwise heavily linked, since it coveres relatively technical information, so this is a welcome move; I note that not linking trivial chronological items is now WP policy—see Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. Additional information is available at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous. If you support the use of the newly developed bot to bring articles into line with the MoS in this respect, please add your voice to Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Bot_permission_please.3F. Tony 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. So, other than length and a few nitpicks, I thinkthat the article on the whole is ready for featured.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Something else I noticed that really IS lacking is any discussion of Apple's various attempts at making servers. There was an attempt in the 1980s to make a workgroup server after desktop publishing took off, but it never materialized (although it has been documented, and I think some prototypes were photographed). Then there were the servers that ran A/UX and AIX, which, like the later Power Macintosh G3 and G4 servers were really just "off the shelf" models with server software (A/UX, AIX, AppleShare, AppleShare IP, Mac OS X Server 1.x or 10.x) preloaded. I think some models had various build-to-order options as well. Then came XServe, which already has its own article. It MIGHT be worth a mention, but it's certainly fodder for a whole new article, if one isn't planned already. --JohnDBuell 18:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The information you mention is already included in sister articles about the Apple servers, including Xserve and the Workgroup servers. I don't see any reason to mention these as they are not really Macintoshes as such. Apple don't class them as being in the Macintosh family of products. A/UX itself is already mentioned in the Apple Macintosh article. Xserve also has its own mention (in the current line-up section and the lead). Adding more information to the article would extend its length even further, a very disputed fact that a lot of people don't like and have used as objections for this featured article candidate; we don't need to make the article longer. — Wackymacs 18:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I only said that it MIGHT be worth a mention - please don't put the proverbial words in my mouth. I found some of the information in the pertinent XServe article, but I'll be darned if I could find anything on the previous attempts, except in the A/UX article. I do think it really would behoove the project to eventually create a history sub-article, within which all of these projects could and probably should be included. --JohnDBuell 18:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well suggestions like this and this type of discussion may be better suited for Talk:Apple Macintosh because its making this FAC page really long as it is. I'm not sure about a History sister article, because I think readers prefer it when all the information they need is in one concise article without the need of having to read several different pages. A history article for the Apple Macintosh article would also clash with History of Apple Computer. — Wackymacs 18:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object The article is fairly well-written and easy enough to read, and covers the general hardware and software evolution of the Mac in reasonable detail. However, it lacks critical balance, largely by failing to properly explain how the Mac has been marketed. The article recognizes the (albeit very one-sided) "Mac vs PC" two-platform PC market with frequent references to Windows throughout. However, a clear explanation of what the Mac is and how it is "different" from Windows, is not presented. We have instead more of a product-brochure level of coverage, with the addition of phrases like "the Mac has been criticized for" to create a sense of balance. I therefore have a problem with both comprehensiveness and POV. (The "common knowledge" framework I'm assuming is that "most" people reading Wikipedia use either a Windows or Mac machine, and have heard of both, but are not necessarily familiar with anything beyond the fact that they are "competing brands".) Specific problem areas:

• The Macintosh is not adequately described - It is not made clear that the Mac is essentially a hardware-plus-operating system package deal (with a minor exception during the "clone" period)--a closed system, as it were, with Apple controlling everything--while Windows as an operating system that is run on any number of hardware packages by any nunber of manufacturers. This is not esoteric, it is fundamental to understanding many things about the Mac, including how it always has high-concept design (compared to the old Windows beige box), high-profile advertising campaigns--an overall massive brand push compared to "PC"s--and has been two to three times the cost of a comparable Win PC. This has been added to the lead.

The basic information is now there. However, the lead needs a good rewrite to make it a little more easy to read, clear and...compelling. For one, there is some confusion and redundancy between the first sentence of the article, and the third paragraph of the lead section, which together make up what should be one piece of information. Furthermore, having introduced this "unique" aspect of the Mac (hardware+software), the body of the article doesn't elaborate. Why this marketing approach? The Apple II wasn't closed in this way. So what happened to set Apple on the h/w+s/w course?

• Apple's history of "leaving behind" of its customers through fundamental changes in OS and hardwre is not clearly noted A defining feature of the Mac's evolution is the periodic changes it has made to move the product forward that have essentially forced customers to buy new software and/or new machines. This is not necessarily good or bad, but it is notable (and not the case with Windows). The article fails to mention that when Mac moved to PowerPC, old software was not compatible with the new architecture, and s/w developers did not offer free upgrades, so users were forced to upgrade both hardware and s/w (often expensive DTP and image editing packages). The next two instances of are wrapped up in the article in one sentence: "Older Mac OS programs can still run under Mac OS X in a special virtual machine called Classic, but this will no longer be possible when Apple switches from the PowerPC architecture to Intel processors in 2007." In fact, the "virtual machine" mode was far from a transparent and effective solution (lots of problems were caused, new software was often required), so the upcoming switch to Intel will actually be the third time existing customers are forced to reinvest simply because of major platform change. To maintain NPOV, these two points should be clearly explained in context, as they are simple, technical facts (which had and will have significant practical impact on existing Mac users). This, along with all of the flaws of the Mac, are addressed in a new section.

This is not adequately covered in the new section, and in any case, the proper place would be in the appropriate areas of the hardware and software histories. To say, "They changed the computer architecture" (PowerPC) and not say "which made all of the old software obsolete" is IMO a big omission. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• The software situation is not clearly explained The desktop publishing and Software sections neither explain the basic situation that the first great DTP and graphic design software -- Pagemaker, QuarkXPress, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc -- came out first on Mac. With or without an explanation that this provided a first inroads into the graphic design and publishing world, this is important Mac history. Design houses, small publishers and the like made a commitment to Mac hardware that was triple the cost of comparable Win machines, because of the availability of key software that was later fully ported to Windows.

Still unaddressed; see comments further down... --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Effects on the technology industry" section is not clear and not sufficiently supported The impression I'm left with is that the Mac blazed trails. Did they R&D this products? Did they find ways to bring them to the market affordably before all others? Or did they simply provide existing options earlier, because they were selling higher priced machines?

The new paragraph certainly adds a new perspective. However, I'm not sure where it lies in the POV department, and should at least have citations. I think it addresses/fixes the point, but since this is FAC, I have to consider that it doesn't seem to meet FA other criteria, like verifiability and NPOV. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• The Mac vs PC controversy is not directly addressed This is an enduring feature of the Macs existence. A brief closing paragraph, beginning: "Some Macintosh owners may be said to belong to a so-called "cult of Mac", and indeed many self-identify as such. does not at all properly represent the major debate that has surround the choice of Mac over Windows, from DTP to the different desktop video options today. A brief summary of the traditional and ongoing arguments is necessary. It is now very clearly adressed in the new section.

What I'm referring to here is the ongoing Mac vs PC consumer-level debate. This is a distinct and noteworthy part of Macs history (more so, if comparisons need be made, than the single instance of that Superbowl add). I'm talking about everyone from regular home users to all types of professionals (typically, artists and video editors), engaged in the: "Which is easier/better/more reliable/etc" debate. This is a cultural phenomenon all its own (encouraged by Apple all along, as in their Switch campaign). It could be summarized in as little as one well-written paragraph. It should be. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• There is no Critics of the Mac section In many different types of Wikipedia article, there is a criticisms or issues section. Certainly, for the Mac, there is enough well-documented criticism of the overall marketing practices to merit the same. Generally, the idea that the Mac is a heavily-marketed, slickly packaged, over-priced computer that appeals to fear of technology in a certain segment of the market ("the Mac is easy to use, promotes freedom"), deserves at least the same paragraph or three devoted to "Advertising". See the new section.

Yes, some of this is now mentioned, but it is not well-integrated. The "Advertising" section is still out of place. It should be "Marketing and Advertsing" or something like that, and discuss Apple's overall approach, not just highlight an ad or two. There were a few main campaigns that should be mentioned. All of this could be accomplished in more or less the same space that Advertising takes up now. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Extremely POV, pro-Mac, speculative, and poorly supported summary paragraph What is this about? Why is it suppored by things like "surely" and link to the definition of "conventional wisdom"? Because I see Macs in every other Hollywood movie, does that mean that directors and their set designers also "use Macs"? Market research indicates that Apple draws its customer base from an unusually artistic, creative, and well-educated population, which may explain the platform's visibility within certain youthful, avant-garde subcultures. [14] [15] Furthermore, conventional wisdom holds that the platform appeals especially to the politically liberal-minded; even Steve Jobs speculates that that “maybe a little less” than half of Apple's customers are Republicans, “maybe more Dell than ours.” [16] [17] This particular stereotype is reinforced, surely, by the company's pattern of political donations, by Al Gore’s membership on its board, and not least by Jobs’ personal history (most recently in his role as advisor to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry). [18] Nevertheless, well-known Mac users include the likes of conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, an outspoken Apple evangelist, and even George W. Bush.

This is still there. It's kind of interesting, but just because there are citations doesn't make it NPOV. It's really a reiteration of what seems to me like Mac's marketing objective, to maintain its small market share with loyal, affluent, new-product motivated segment. A more "objective" summary may be that: "Mac markets specifically to affluent people who want to avoid dealing with tech" or something like that. To imply that somehow Macs are "more suited" to artistic and creative people requires more than sales surveys and demographics of Mac owners. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it's easy to read my points as Mac-bashing. That isn't at all the case. If I come to this article wondering, "So, what makes the Mac so different?" (as I imagine many readers would), I'd leave with no new understanding or insight, just some extra trivia about models and a sort of timeline sense of product development. A comprehensive article on the Mac has to be more than hardware and software specs. --Tsavage 01:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC) UPDATE: I'm sorry, I still haven't had time to fully reread the article, and probably won't be able to for another day or so. I did skim it, and the more complete description in the lead is good, however, at least some points were apparently not addressed (for example, making clear all of the killer desktop programs that appeared first on the Mac, like Freehand, QuarkXpress, Photoshop, etc). If this nom hangs out here for a couple more days, I will definitely do my bit and follow-up, otherwise, it's in the hands of the Arbiter of Consensus... Thanks! --Tsavage 00:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Jaw drops to the floor Well, I'm glad that you're so...concerned with our article. We'll try to implement these at once...but if you could help, we'd sure appreciate it. I'm not sure if I can galvanize WikiProject Macintosh before this article gets processed for FAC. I've been looking for something to do—really—and it looks like you just made my day. Breathes a deep breath and prepares for a very long night --HereToHelp (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm writing a section to adress the all the POV issues and kill about half a dozen stones in one throw. --HereToHelp (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad you're having fun! I unstruck the objections of mine that you crossed out, not because I don't think they've been addressed (I haven't even checked), but simply 'cause, I wrote 'em, I get to strike 'em... ;) Really, though, if anyone can cross out other people's objections, there's no way to keep track of what's going on... Later on... --Tsavage 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What? I spent all of thirty seconds formatting the strikeouts...

I'm glad to see that someone's working on this with me. Have you considered joining WikiProject Macintosh? Oh—thanks for copyediting my userpage. --HereToHelp (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

We've got a problem with the footnote numbering. I can't quite pinpoint the problem, can someone take a look at it? --HereToHelp (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that's done. Sheesh, this page is now 32k.--HereToHelp (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The changes seem to have broadly addressed at least some my concerns. I know time may be running out on this FAC (though they do tend to go on...), so I'll go over it all hopefully sometime today. Meanwhile, an enhanced suggestion (partially mentioned above): more complete coverage of the "killer apps" that first emerged around the Mac would greatly benefit this story. Pagemaker is mentioned in 1985 for DTP. However, Adobe Illustrator (1985?), for vector graphics, with typography applications, and bringing forward PostScript, is not mentioned. And, over the next 4-5 years, QuarkXPress (1987), Freehand (1988?), Sound Tools (1988) and Photoshop (1990) emerged. All were, initially, for Mac-only. These became defining "desktop" digital tools for DTP, digital photo editing and image manipulation, graphic design and audio editing, and in many cases remain so today. A succinct account of these events in one place would go a long way to establishing part of the reason for the buzz surrounding the Mac from its incepetion, and specifically in illustrating why many "creative" types had reason to embrace the Mac hardware--for the software--because it could do on the PC level what no other (Win) option could come near. At the time. --Tsavage 16:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm on it.--HereToHelp (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. So much for the WikiProject helping out...if there's anything else, just say so and I'll try to get to it.--HereToHelp (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about not helping out with you much HereToHelp - I've been at school all day. I might be able to help out a bit more now that I'm on a school holiday for Christmas. The article looks even better now, but on the Talk page someone requested for a section about legal issues involving the Mac, see Talk:Apple Macintosh at the bottom. — Wackymacs 18:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't blaming you specifically, I was just saying that there are 18 members and only one of them is helping, but it's alright, I overreacted. As for the legal issues, I hink that shouldn't be too hard considering we now have a ready-made source.--HereToHelp (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If anything else needs to be done, I'm available. Oh—don't indent the next section.--HereToHelp (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So much for not indenting...but you'll find the section on the killer desktop publishing apps in the first paragraph of that section. if it still isn't clear enough (and it is clearer), you can clarify it further with a few easy edits.--HereToHelp (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I started to review, but it's hard to tell what's going on with all of the recent revisions. For example, the killer apps mention, which was there a couple dozen revisions ago (I had to check back in the history) is now gone. That's weird, and the excision leaves a reference that no longer makes sense ("All of these items were unique to the Macintosh..."). Therefore, I have to conclude that the article is not stable. --Tsavage 23:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you had to come to that conclusion. I'll read over the whole thing again and remove such statements. Plase continue to check back and hopefully change your vote.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What I was explaining (as you'll see when you read it) is that someone has already removed the (your?) recent mention of Photoshop and the other killer aps (an in so doing, left a sentence that doesn't make sense). I don't see the point of reading through the whole thing again, if people are actively undoing changes made during this FAC process.

Yes, I saw that, but there were other changes that I fixed. As for DP, 216.165.224.71 keeps reverting me but I think we've reached a compromise. I don't blame you for citing stability, though.--HereToHelp (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to implement your suggestions on Desktop Publishing, but these anons keep reverting my changes! Take a look at the page history if you want to see their comments in the edit summaries (they seem to explain their logic reasonably well but I am more or less unfamiliar with desktop publishing). Instead of me being the middle man, I'd appreciate that you go settle this, or something along those lines.--HereToHelp (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's the anon comment you referred to: Actually by 1987 the leading dtp software for the mac was pagemaker, macpublisher II/III and ready set go. xpress didn't make its mark til later. PS wasn't released til 1990 (note heading is 85-89 Regarding that, there are two problems with the "fix" based on my objection. First, your entry, while indeed mentioning the programs, was simply an insertion into the existing text, which didn't really put things into context or explain anything new. Next, reasons the anon deletion don't make much sense. Your edit didn't say those were the leading programs at the time; in fact, during that early period, both h/w and s/w were just muscling up, and the early adopters were looking at everything that became available. From its launch, Quark was a strong page layout competitor (whether or not it was the "leading" one, which meant little in those early days), and soon enough emerged as the leader which I believe it is to today. Photoshop (1990 release) doesn't fit by date into that section (not a reason for deletion, simply a move), and that only underscores my point that there are problems with the article that can't be fixed by a few minor alterations. In this case, it should make clear the basic fact that the early Mac was the first platform for a whole range of new desktop applications, including DTP, graphic design and audio (musicans and the electronic music/production revolution is as much a part of the Mac story as DTP/graphics). Photoshop is typical of the omissions here: it is a household word these days, and was developed entirely in the Apple/Mac follwer zone that certain software developers of the day gravitated to (i.e. Photoshop was developed as a "Mac" application)--a Mac article that covers third-party software has to mention this. --Tsavage 20:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and put all those software programs back in, taking measures to compromise: Pagemaker was first, but the rest of these were important, too. Hopefuly that version will stay put... --HereToHelp (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Good work done to the article. Lots of information to readers. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 05:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support-Good article covering the entire historyCuBiXcRaYfIsH 02:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

At last: someone who doesn't want the history section trimmed.--HereToHelp (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John F. Kennedy

This is a good quality article that I think should be a FA. It went through a peer review back in July (there wasn't much of a response, unfortunately) and I believe the issues raised have been addressed. As to my participation in this article, I have made some minor edits, nothing substantial as far as I can remember, mostly copyedits. Akamad 12:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. I'm concerned with the level of unattributed opinion in the article. A quick scan read throws up "some people", "some sources", "some claimed", "some critics", "critics, some of whom", "many other critics", "leading many to deem", "many who listened", "many military officials" and "many civil rights leaders". Who are these people? Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  • There are entirely too many one- and two-sentence paragraphs, which really chops up the prose and doesn't allow for a good flow to the article.
  • I'd like to see some better organization to the article; for example, under "Early political career" there are details about Kennedy's marriage and stillborn child. These have nothing to do with his political career, so I'd recommend creating a specific section dedicated to his personal life. (You could probably put it under "Image, social life and family" but I think that deserves a full section and not just a subsection.)
  • At points, the article reads like a "list in prose". It's not a list per se, but it seems to be little more than an annotated timeline at times. (In 1950, this happened. In 1952, this happened. Then in 1953, this happened. ...and so forth)

Good luck! PacknCanes | say something! 17:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  • Very unevenly written. Some paragraphs are excellent, but between them are one sentence paragraphs that often seem out of place. For example, "Years later, it would be revealed that Kennedy had been diagnosed as a young man with Addison's Disease, a rare endocrine disorder. This and other medical disorders were kept from the press and the public throughout Kennedy's life." is the second paragraph of early life. Not only does it not fit, it is hardly important in the overall role his childhood played in his becoming president and the greater influence that had on US and world politics.Dtaw2001 19:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The images Image:JFKPT109.jpg, Image:JFKSENATE.jpg, Image:Jfknixon.jpg, Image:Jfkspeech.jpg, Image:JFKNASA.jpg, Image:KennedyCabinet.jpg, Image:2005 proof Kennedy half dollar.png have no source information.
  2. The image Image:Jfkatbcin56.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  3. The image Image:JFKMLK.jpg has no source information. "Fair use" cannot be claimed without knowing the source of the image. Also, there's no reason to use a non-free image here.
  4. The image Image:Kennedy bros.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but it appears to be for decorative purposes only. This isn't allowed under Wikipedia:Fair use.
  5. The image Image:JFKCasketLeavesCapitolHill.JPG is claimed as "fair use", but I'm sure there's a public-domain replacement somewhere.
  6. The image Image:Democratslogo.png, used in the template {{USDemPresNominees}}, is tagged as "fair use". Non-free images are not permitted in templates.
  7. The image Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but has no source information. It also has what appears to be a copyright statement dating from 1992 in the lower-left corner. If at all possible, this image needs to be replaced with a free image; if not, source information and a fair-use rationale need to be supplied.

  --Carnildo 23:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object, although it's nicely structured with a lot of good material. I'm not an expert in US history or culture, as you will be able to tell from my comments. (a) Almost all of the links in the See also section should be included in the main text of the article (in fact after looking more closely, I notice some of them already are). (b) While I don't necessarily disagree with the assessment, could the statement that the Cuban Missile Crisis "brought the world closer to nuclear war than at any point before or since" be argued rather than asserted? This assertion is even stronger than the assertion in the Cuban Missile Crisis article, which is itself not backed up by direct evidence. (c) "Patsy" is US slang, and not in common usage elsewhere afaik (I had to look it up, anyway :-) - can this be reworded? (d) What exactly does the phrase "he was the last Democrat from the North" mean? (e) The intro states the assassination is often considered a defining moment in American history both because of its traumatic impact on the entire nation, and because of Kennedy's elevation as an icon for a new generation of Americans and American aspirations. However this is not discussed in the article, even in the section "Assassination and aftermath", and there is no mention anywhere of the impact of Kennedy's assassination (if any) on the rest of the world. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] M1 Garand

Last time this was up for FA status it failed, but I think a good amount of work has been done into cleaning up and referencing the page. There are abundant sources, good pictures, and quality, well-written information. Plus, it is a very important rifle (and not just for gun buffs). I guess that's it. Deleuze 07:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object:
  • Image:Dodgarand2.jpg has no fair use rationale, and I'm not convinced that it qualifies for fair use.
  • You've got {{note}} templates used inside ref tags, which causes dead backlinks. I'm not sure what is being attempted with this.Fixed this one myself. Pagrashtak 18:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Lead sentence:The M1 Garand (more formally the United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1) was the first semi-automatic rifle in the world to be generally issued to infantry. - shouldn't you say "The United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1, commonly known as the M1 Garand, ..." or something similar? The phrase "in the world" is not needed.
  • Insufficient references - for example, the entire History section contains only one inline citation. The Accessories section has none.
  • Prose needs some work. Examples: At the time, it was believed that a detachable magazine on a general-issue service rifle would be easily lost by U.S. soldiers (a criticism made of British soldiers and the Lee-Enfield 50 years previously), would render the weapon too susceptible to clogging from dirt and debris (a belief that proved unfounded with the adoption of the M1 Carbine), and that a protruding magazine would complicate existing manual-of-arms drills. - long and awkward. The M1 was developed by Springfield Armory firearms designer John Garand. The prototypes were refined during the 1920s and 1930s. - Does not flow well. As stated earlier, the M1 Garand was the direct predecessor of the M14 rifle that replaced it. - contains redundant text, and the phrase "As stated earlier" should be avoided.

Pagrashtak 02:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I feel the article would benefit from more background. The introductory remark about being the "first general issue self-loading rifle" may be confusing as the article doesn't explain why the qualifier "general issue" is needed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This article lacks a separate "criticism" paragraph about the disadvantages of the M1 rifle. Mieciu K 00:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  Why is that necessary? Disadvantages compared to what? A criticism header would probably be fairly disjointed, as this was a service rifle for just under thirty years. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a and 1c. Here are random problems at the top, which indicate that the whole text needs sifting and weeding, preferably by a copy-editor who's unfamiliar with it. Particular problems are redundancies, false contrasts and undesirable repetitions.
  • "It officially replaced the Springfield M1903 rifle as the standard service rifle of the United States military in 1936, and was in turn replaced by the M14 (which was derived from the M1) in 1957." As soon as you say "officially", I start to want a reference.
  • "The majority of M1 rifles"—Do you mean "Most"?
  • "It is still used by various drill teams"—Spot the redundant word.
  • "The word "Garand" is pronounced variably as [gəˈrand] or [ˈgærənd], although descendants (and close friend Julian Hatcher) of the rifle's designer, John Garand, generally agree it should be the latter." False contrast: replace the comma + "although" with a semicolon. We have "though" and "although" in the lead. The other one is a false contrast too, strictly speaking. And I see "although" two lines later, where it's not a false contrast, but is starting to be repetitive.
  • "Springfield Armory produced modest quantities of the M1 Garand in the late 1930s and in ever-increasing numbers from 1940 to late 1945"—You're the expert, so please provide verification via a reference. The status of the article then increases.
  • "as well as"—this is an amplified version of "and". Is it necessary?
  • "the Department of Defense determined a need for additional production of the Garand, and two new contracts were awarded." Do you have access to the archival papers, reports, decisions? This type of assertion is under-referenced throughout. Tony 01:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MMORPG

It has been about a year since the last nomination and the article has been improved further. Although the article is relatively long, this is becoming an increasingly important subject (with over 15 million worldwide players of MMORPGs, according to industry estimates) that I believe justifies the length. The quality of the prose and content has improved during this time.

Previous comments are here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/MMORPG/archive1

Tarinth 14:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• object article had 5 citation needed tags in it before the FAC even started. Lacks real inline citations in general... just 4 external links used to cite facts throughout the entire article. See WP:CITE. --W.marsh 15:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object - It isn't long at all... heck with all the markup it's only 35k! However, It's barely referenced, which is a a huge problem. Almost NOTHING is cited. In a moment, I'll go through the article and tag everything that needs a citation. Expect it to be a lot. Fieari 19:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC) -- Actually, I take it back. I won't mark it up, because almost EVERY SENTENCE requires a cite in this article, and NONE OF THEM HAVE ONE. I've used the {{unreferenced}} tag instead to cover the whole article. Also, in looking through it more closely, the prose leaves much to be desired, and though I agree that MMORPGs are an encyclopedic topic, the language used is not encyclopedic. Also: why on earth is there talk about WOW's Korean playerbase in the lead section? Why is this notable enough to be in the lead, as this is not an article about WOW in specific, but MMORPGs in general? Fieari 19:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The comment on the length was in responses to the archived FaC comments that included a complaint about the article being too long.Tarinth 22:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I thought article titles weren't supposed to have abbreviations in them? Rlevse 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment MMORPG is the most commonly used form of the concept, few do people refer to a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. Also, there should be some more citations in the MMORPG article... a lot more.

Common only to those who play it. Most people will have no idea what it means.Rlevse 00:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Acronyms and abbreviations are only to be used in situations where the acronym has become a word, such as SCUBA, LASER, or NATO. MMORPG is not that recognizable to the general English speaker. Jay32183 04:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object I agree that lack of referencing is a serious problem. There's also quite a few fair-use screenshots and some aren't even the best quality. While the article covers many aspects, it lacks a strong lead section and over all organization. Shell ^babelfish 06:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I added a couple of references, and rewrote the lead paragraph slightly, but there's not enough here to make a FA yet. Article needs a LOT of work. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object & comment nomination should be retracted. It's not a bad article but it clearly fails on references alone and it's just not ready. It could be sent to peer review instead. Pascal.Tesson 20:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I nominated it for AID. Clearly not ready. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 20:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object: I object as per User:Shell_Kinney. He has stated just about everything I need to say except that if I created the article, I would look to combine some of the shorter sections, such as "Browser-based MMORPGs" and "Genre challenges". Not that I would combine those two specifically, just to merge those in with another section (possibly).-Hairchrm 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J. R. R. Tolkien

This article has come a long way, and after its nomination last November, copious amounts of work have been done to address critiques from the last FAC nomination (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. R. Tolkien/archive1) related to prose, pictures and a lack of discussion of Tolkien's work on languages and philology. In light of this work, I proudly present this nomination, on behalf of those who worked so hard on it, for featured article status Judgesurreal777 09:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - There appears to be only one note. I hope that, being a fairly famous person, there should be more notes on him; and most things appear to be just written, as in simply stating things but not proving them. For example, there are numerous sentences stating he is a Catholic, but there is no place to prove that he actually was. Once the inline citations have been expanded, I will support. Kilo-Lima ^{Vous pouvez parler} 13:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment While I would love to see this featured, I'm afraid that I have to agree with Kilo-Lima. It needs inline citations. Citing that he was a Catholic seems excessive, but I think I will go through the article now and tag what does need citations with {{fact}}. It shouldn't be too hard to cite anything from the references provided. See WP:FN for how to create quality footnote citations. For an example of what citations should look like when complete, see Saffron. —Cuiviénen, 13:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  I have to question whether the article will really be 'improved' by having (Carpenter 1977) or (Carpenter 1981) at the end of every other line - rather than just the current complete citation of those sources in the 'References' section. Inline references are generally suggested when disparate sources are being cited. Carpenter's biography covers the majority of the facts in this article... Tolkien's letters (edited by Carpenter) cover nearly everything else. Putting inline references to those two sources over and over against strikes me as pointless clutter. --CBDunkerson 19:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not going to debate anyone on the issue, but I do think it important that there be inline citations. Readibility is greatly hampered by the {{fact}} tag because it is very large, but the footnote links are not. I also wonder how you know that all of the information comes from this single source -- and you think that we should be using only two sources for a person who was famous enough to have many books written about himself. I'm not going to object to this FAC, but I think the points raised are important, and it would be foolish to overlook them just because the article is very well-written. —Cuiviénen, 19:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  I've changed all of the Letters references to footnotes. Of course, that hasn't changed the level of citation at all, but it's a start. Someone who has access to the books referenced (preferably the person who wrote the bulk of the article) should add in the citations where needed. As Fieari said, there needs to be at least one citation per paragraph. —Cuiviénen, 01:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Nice to see the inline citations! —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Object. Requires inline citations. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Strong article with details, pictures, and properly cited references section per Wiki-standards. Inline references would be redundant. --CBDunkerson 19:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The inline citation requests that were recently added illustrate the damage done to readability by over-heavy inline citations. It could, perhaps, use a handful of additional inline citatiosn to clarify which sources apply to which sections of text, but the article is overall well sourced as is (note that some of the citation requests added were added to sentences that were citations). The article complies in every way that I can determine with all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -Harmil 19:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

They don't look nearly so bad as numbers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support, per above. Great article. Phoenix2 20:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. It's not too much to ask to have at least one inline citation per section. One footnote per paragraph even doesn't make things ugly at all. One citation per sentence may be a bit much, but at least per section! One citation is simply not enough for featured status in my opinion. I have not read the content of the article yet, but will do so and evaluate it further if the citation problem is taken care of. Fieari 20:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - I've read the article now, and it looks both comprehensive and well written. Fill in those last few little citations, and you have my support. Good job, getting all those references in this time span. Fieari 16:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• I'd be inclined to support, but I am wondering how comprehensive the coverage of his academic career is. What was the influence of his academic work, how is it percieved today by students of language, that sort of thing. There must be journal articles he wrote, or that were written about his work, that can be looked at. The examination of his career seems to be, like the rest of the article, very much tied into his private mythology, but he was a Don for many years before he published any of that work. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  His primary legacy in academic fields has been on the study of Beowulf, where his work is still the standard by which others are judged... while there are several other 'academic accomplishments' I suspect that is the only area where he'd have risen to 'encyclopedic notability' without his fictional work. --CBDunkerson 01:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. One line, which refers to a lecture that apparently had influence, is that all he ever did? I doubt that very strongly. How did it influence Beowulf study? It doesn't say. I want to support, especially now it is extensively cited (bravo contributers!) but this is still bothering me. Tolkein will always be remebered for middle earth, a comprehensive encyclopedia article on the man would give more than a few lines to his proffesional life. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Can someone who knows where these references could be sited in the article please fix this? There are so many Tolkien experts on Wikipedia, I am astonished that the in line references cannot be fixed in short order. Judgesurreal777 21:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, if the references are fixed. —Nightstallion (?) 21:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Fieari is correct on this one. There are simply too many facts being cited to have an inline citation over each one. There should be a compromise between having none and having a veritable forest of cites. RyanGerbil10 22:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose; article does not properly cite its sources, instead giving some "Further reading" under a section header lablled "References". Jkelly 23:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  The irony is that the policy you quote explicitly lists that as a viable way to cite sources. If people are really going to oppose making things featured articles unless they follow the inline citation style and no other then Wikipedia's stated style guidelines should be updated to reflect that. That said, since people are being odd (as I see it) about requiring inline citations... I will add them. --CBDunkerson 01:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- relvent section is: "Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a "References" section at the end of the article, containing an alphabetized list of general references and authoritative overviews of a subject (such as textbooks and review articles). In other cases this is not enough, and in addition you should use in-line citations such as the Harvard references or footnotes described below". I don't think that this applies to this article. Jkelly 02:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite an article which it does apply to? I can't imagine that the basic facts of Tolkien's life are controversial or that Carpenter's work on him would be described as anything other than "widely accepted" and an "authoritative overview". As requested, I've put in a few dozen redundant citations so far. Is this really preferable? I can continue through the remainder of the article (after sleeping), but I put to you that no printed encyclopedia is so excessively OVER cited. --CBDunkerson 03:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

With respect, no other encyclopedia is likely to have a radically different article a year from now. I sincerely do not understand what the potential danger is in "over-referencing". I do know that I could not use our current article as a start point for a serious inquiry into the subject, being unable to use the article's referencing system to ensure that the facts we are presenting are accurate. Page-specific cites add value to readers and future editors. I am unconvinced that we are currently discussing our most comprehensive work, and am therefore unconvinced we are discussing our best work. Jkelly 06:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

wrt. non-inline references, if no particular statement in the article, or a large number of insignificant ones, then it would be preferable surely to cite it in a Further Reading section. In this context, there's no useful point in the article to cite it inline, and I'm sure that this is fairly easy to arrive at if you have a source such as a biographical novel. BigBlueFish 17:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jkelly. --Bcrowell 23:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

After Judgesurreal777's 01:40, 13 March 2006 post, I went back and looked again. The article is still heavily sprinkled with "citation needed" markers. Almost all of the footnotes that have been added are to a single source. A bunch of the "citation needed" markers aren't really needed; e.g., the one about the asteroid named after him can just link to the article on the asteroid, and that's sufficient. But a lot of them are on more important things that need to be made verifiable, e.g., the statement about his impact on Beowulf research. If the article depends almost entirely on two sources (Carpenter and the letters), then that in itself is a problem --- shouldn't the article be discussing, for example, what literary critics have said about Tolkein? And even if it was going to be a two-source article, we'd at least need to know which statements were from Carpenter and which from the letters.--Bcrowell 02:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a cite for Tolkien's importance in Beowulf studies, but in truth that is already established by Wikipedia's Beowulf article... which mentions Tolkien's importance several times. On the question of 'which facts are from Letters and which from the Biography'... in truth most of them can be found in both. And Shippey's Author of the Century, and The Tolkien Family Album, and half a dozen less prominent books on my shelf. This is basic biographical info... most of it can be found all over the place. We could go to the effort of 'balancing' the citations from numerous sources.... but why? --CBDunkerson 03:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed my vote, since the problem with verifiability has been fixed. This isn't signed the normal way, because I've intentionally disabled my WP account.--Bcrowell —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.52.254.62 (talk • contribs).

---

Ok, there are now many inline citations, and the reference section has been restructured, using the Teddy Roosevelt article as a model, to address concerns that it did not properly cite it's sources.

Please take another look, and state if there are enough citations and reformatting to meet your objections, or if others in specific places need to be done. Thanks everyone! Judgesurreal777 01:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

---

OK! There are now 55 properly formatted citations from 27 different sources, including the New York Times and National Geographic, along with various books... ALSO, the BEOWULF section has been significently expanded, and has begun discussing his signifient role in the field of Anglo Saxon literature. Please let it be known if you support the article now, as there are vastly more and very credible citations :) Within a day or two, all of them will be filled in, but 53 is certainly better than 2 Judgesurreal777 08:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• support, the article is now very well referenced. dab (ᛏ) 17:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Some idea for further improvement - the long bibliography section could be moved to a separate sub-article and summarised here (I see there is already a poems sub-article, but I think you need to be a bit more ruthless - I know, he is an author; but the important works should be mentioned in the prose already); a timeline could help - see Neil Armstrong, Isembard Kingdom Brunel or John Vanbrugh for examples. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great job at referencing. I can support it now. —Cuiviénen, 21:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, well done. --Terence Ong 09:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - An excellent example of an article! Dee man45 16:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

---

All citations are filled now (all 62) Anything else? Let us know! Otherwise, line out those objections :) Great job everyone that is helping/commenting. Judgesurreal777 01:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, support. I think more could be asaid about his academic career but at lest it gets a mention now and what I'm after probably could go in a daughter article. A challange for the legions of Tolkein and linguistics fans, how about it? Sabine's Sunbird talk 13:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  The 'Academic Works' section hits the highlights, but is missing alot of minor items. I'll try to put together some more info and then we can figure out where to include it. --CBDunkerson 14:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Lots of hard work on this article! I think it's great (I even like the lead pic)! Staxringold 16:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Incredibly detailed and well-organized. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The article is detailed and comprehensive without being overlong, and is now very well referenced. It reads well too. ▫ UrbaneLegend ^talk 14:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Jon Harald Søby 20:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment - so is this to FA or not !!! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evan Mecham

Article dealing with one of the more unusual political figures of the 1980s. Has been previously nominated on FAC with a more recent Peer review. Self-nom. --Allen3 ^talk 14:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Nobody seemed to be interested, so I let myself be the first one. After a quick read through - informative, interesting, looks thorough. One thing bothers me, though... only one image? --Ouro 15:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The single image is limiting, but unless some free images of Mecham are found there is little that can be done. I have made multiple searches and had a request at Wikipedia:Requested pictures for several months. To date every image located has been under tight copyright restrictions, thus forcing the use of a single fair use image. --Allen3 ^talk 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Well, in a situation like this very little can be done. Too bad all your efforts and work brought nothing. --Ouro 17:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the Arizona State Archives or a similar body and seeing if they have anything? Newyorkbrad 01:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The current fair use image is from the state archives. Arizona law (§ARS 39-121.03) prevents the archives from releasing its images under a GFDL or Creative Commons compatible license so fair use is the best we can do. --Allen3 ^talk 01:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up to my support vote. Apart from the photo the rest is FA-quality if you ask me, only one thing: the first paragraph of After office reads: In 1995 Mecham became chairman of the Constitutionalist Networking Center, a group attempting to create grassroots group called the Constitutionally Unified Republic for Everybody. The purpose of this group was to advocate political candidates supporting a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution. Is it possible to reword this to reduce the amount of groups here? --Ouro 12:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentences now read:In 1995 Mecham became chairman of the Constitutionalist Networking Center, a group attempting to create a grassroots organization called the Constitutionally Unified Republic for Everybody (CURE). CURE's purpose was then to advocate political candidates supporting a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution. --Allen3 ^talk 13:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Sounds way better. Thanks. --Ouro 13:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Every sentence in the opening paragraph needs fixing.
  • First sentence is a problem: "Evan Mecham (IPA: [ˈmik.ɑm]; born 12 May 1924) is a former American politician and the 19th Governor of Arizona." Tension between "former" and "the 19th". Perhaps insert "was" after "and"?
  • Second sentence: "Mecham worked most of his life as the owner of ..." FOR most of his life?
  • Third sentence: "while becoming a perennial candidate making periodic runs for political office"—This is very strange.
  • "During his time as governor,"—Why not just "While governor"?

Can you get someone to run through the whole text thoroughly? Tony 07:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The lead has been reworked and a new copyedit has been performed on the article. As for your recommendation that I "get someone to run through the whole text thoroughly", multiple peer review requests and requests to the Wikiproject covering the topic have had very limited success in finding editors and reviewers willing to go over the article. Even this FAC nomination has only had limited participation despite the request having been active for 17 days. --Allen3 ^talk 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Try researching the edit histories of similar FAs and others. Identify contributors who effectively copy-edited, particularly during the FAC process. Ask them each to spend 20 mins of their time on this one, nominating a particular section, perhaps. Or ask them to do the whole lot. Tony 01:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The FAC instructions require all objections to reference a specific rationale that can be addressed. I have been making period attempts to gather additional feedback on the article, both on and off Wikipedia, for close to a year. Unless you have some evidence that additional contributors willing to assist in a timely manner exist, it is clear that your recommendation in nothing more than an attempt to add further delay and not an actionable objection. If you have any actionable items that have not yet been addressed please provide them, but please do not add any more objections that can not be addressed. --Allen3 ^talk 02:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what part wasn't actionable? Tony 10:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You request that I "get someone to run through the whole text thoroughly". As detailed above, multiple good faith efforts have been made through the available Wikipedia channels. Unless you have some special method to overcome Raul's 3^rd law, such a request is not actionable as there is no way to force some other contributor to perform the requested effort. If you do have an effective method of obtaining additional skilled contributors when needed, please share your method with the community as it would be a boon to all seeking to improve Wikipedia. --Allen3 ^talk 11:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to play this game. I've provided more than enough evidence that the text fails 1a. It's your problem. If you're saying that you can't edit well enought to satisfy the criterion, and can't find anyone else who's interested in doing so, the nomination fails. Simple. Tony 11:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Now, to reinforce my opinion that the whole text fails 1a, let's go through the lead that you say above "has been reworked".
  • There are still problems with the clash of tenses in the first sentence: "Evan Mecham (IPA: [ˈmik.ɑm]; born 12 May 1924) is a former American politician and was the 19th Governor of Arizona." Why not "Evan Mecham (IPA: [ˈmik.ɑm]; born 12 May 1924) was an American politician and the 19th Governor of Arizona." Then all we need to address is the category problem: if he was a state governor, you don't need to tell us that he was an American politician—one is a subset of the other. The opening sentence is still a mess.
  • "As governor, Mecham was plagued by controversy and he became the first U.S. governor to simultaneously face removal from office through impeachment, a scheduled recall election, and felony indictment." It may appear a small point, but I'll say it anyway: remove "he". Should "a" be inserted before "felony"?
  • "His victory during the 1986 election began with a surprise win of his party's nomination followed by a split of the opposition party during the general election." Um ... does "victory" refer to the fact that he won the election? If so, "during" is not the right word ("in"). You refer to "his party" and "the opposition party", but we still don't know whether he was a Democrat or a Republican. You have "during the 1986 election" and "during the general election", raising issues of repetition and lack of cohesion ("general" = the same, 1986 election?)
  • "While governor, Mecham became known for a number of statements and actions that were ..."—You could remove "a number of", which adds nothing at all to the meaning.
  • "causing damage to the state's tourism industry by the cancellation of multiple conventions."—"Damaging" would be better than "causing damage". "Through" rather than "by". What do you mean by "multiple"? Several simultaneous conventions?
  • "A rift between the governor and fellow Republicans in the Arizona Legislature also developed after a series of ..."—Remove "also" as redundant, unless there were other rifts between him and his party colleagues that you're not telling us about.
  • "charges of obstruction of justice and misuse of government funds"—Insert "the" before "obstruction" and before "misuse".
  • "A later criminal trial acquitted Mecham on related charges." I'm pretty sure it should be "of", not "on".
  • "and made his final runs for Governor and to the U.S. Senate"—run to the Senate?

Just about every sentence in this supposedly revamped lead requires fixing. A cursory look through the rest of the text shows many further problems. This is why I contend that the article fails 1a. Tony 10:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Does not conform to WP:LAYOUT, appears to heavily rely on one source (Watkins), raising questions of neutrality, problems with WP:WTA throughout, possible weasle words throughout (example, "While governor, Mecham became known for statements and actions that were widely perceived insensitive to minorities." — does the source use these words?) and prose issues as raised by Tony. Sandy (Talk) 15:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Notes", "References", "Further reading", and "Bibliography" sections have been reordered to comply with WP:LAYOUT. Was there any other section of this MOS overview that you spotted an issue with?

As to your concerns about neutrality, the article's reliance on the Watkins book is based primarily on Watkins providing the most detailed reliable source currently available (a 396 page book vs single chapters available in other book sources). If you look at the actual source of the article you will notice that many of the more inflammatory claims have additional sources commented out. This was done specifically to demonstrate a consistency of heme through all available reliable sources.

For your concerns about the listed example the text of the cited source says:

"Mecham's insensitivity toward minorities, his high-handed political activities, and his inability to recognize his shortcomings often made him a laughingstock. He gave new meaning to the term "gadfly," thank to his mostly unsuccessful forays for political office. His appearance and personality made him the butt of numerous jokes. A slight man at five-foot-six and 138 pounds, he wore an ill-fitting hairpiece. Sam Steiger, who was special assistant to Mecham, said most of the criticism of the governor had to do with his style, "like his toupee, his inappropriate grammar ... the idea that he's overly simplistic ... his unwillingness to compromise.

"Nonetheless, he had a loyal following among the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, senior citizens, and members of the Church o fJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which he was a member." — Johnson, James W. (2002). Arizona Politicians: The Noble and the Notorious. University of Arizona Press, 36. ISBN 0-8165-2204-0.

It should also be noted that the sentence in question is located in the lead and the body of the article provides further details and source citations. If you can suggest a better wording that does not violate WP:BLP or venture into intentional character assassination, please feel free to make appropriate updates. My primary concern was to provide Mecham the benefit of the doubt whenever possible while still being true to the available sources. It should also be noted that it is not just this one source that is strongly worded. Even without seeing the article text, titles such as "When Evan Mecham Talks, Arizona Shudders" (Business Week), "Up in Arms in Arizona" (New York Times), "Inside the Wacky World of Evan Mecham" (U.S. News & World Report), and "Evan Mecham, Please Go Home" (Time) should give you some idea of the public's general view of Mecham. With the exception of self-published books by Mecham and his supporters, the former governor's press is consistently negative. --Allen3 ^talk 18:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] God

There is only one God in the world. I think this article can be featured. What do you think? 219.77.51.65 13:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• object -- purely on the basis of the spectacularly POV wording of the proposal. Get your Jesus on elsewhere buddy.

• object -- it is reasonably fair up to "Theology" (although it is unclear what this "Theology" section is doing on an article proclaimed to be exclusively about the monotheistic concept), but the "Conceptions" section needs a lot of work. So far it seems a more or less random brainstorming of editors, dwelling on Kabbalah, Hinduism and Rosicrucians in particular for some reason (it is also unclear why "Quranic" should appear under the "Jewish, Christian" heading). I suppose the "Conceptions" and "Theology" sections should be merged, with much material exported to specialized articles, and brought in some sort of intuitive sequence. A size of maybe 40k should be a reasonable aim. In its present state, I would be reluctant to give it even a {{GA}}. dab (ᛏ) 14:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • To add to that, I'd consider grouping Judaic, Christian and Islamic conceptions of God under the title "Abrahamic conceptions". --Oldak Quill 23:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - This article is currently a Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive candidate. KingTT 16:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — Uh, I wouldn't exactly say that "There is only one God in the world" cuts it in terms of well-reasoned nomination rationale. And what is the issue with the numerous stray bolded words and image captions? Is someone trying to make some sort of a point? Saravask 17:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC).
• Comment — It needs a picture of God. Since He's everywhere, this should not be difficult to get. Daniel Case 03:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems he's a bit protective of his rights: there are no free images out there. Filiocht | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 08:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object needs a lot of structural work as outlined by dab and others. Filiocht | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 08:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object It needs to be broken up into specialized articles. It just tries to do too much while not doing enough, I'm afraid! InvictaHOG 20:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, this article just doesn't work for me. Try again. 64.231.177.76 00:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object and refer to peer review, Lead paragraph is very short, weak, and POV since it randomly namedrops Christianity and no other faiths.—jiy (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object for all the reasons given above, also because it does not address the burrito question. I'm also wary of the disambiguation notice: can henotheism be called a "derived faith" if, chronologically speaking, civilizations were henotheist before they were monotheist? Anville 10:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. If it's on WP:AID it already indicates it's not perfect. Also needs its formatting fixed. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object Lead in far too short, lead in mentions Christianity especially, even though it is a monotheistic page, lead in is poorly formatted (why is supreme being capitalised and bolded, for example? I thought only God was meant to be important enough to refer to the being?). And that is just the lead in. Need I go on... Batmanand 16:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Supreme Being is a synonym for God and is conventionally capitalized. —jiy (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support Well written article, and it might give Wikipedia some good karma. (Previous unsigned comment by DiceDiceBaby on 19:03 18 November 2005)

Comment The religions upon which this article focuses don't trade heavily in karma, methinks. And by listing the phonetic values given to the Tetragrammaton, we seem to be bucking for a lightning bolt, no? Anville 21:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Objection:
  

This article suffers from what I like to refer to as the "In God we Trust" problem as well as two other POV problems.

It has a section devoted to idea that other religions have other names for God. This seems to imply that everyone is worshiping the same deity; the "same" god just another name-the same tea cup in the sky. I.E. Jehovah and Allah and Ngai and God are the same deity. This brings me to the “In God we Trust” problem. When "In God we Trust" is said, the word "God" is assumed to mean everyone else’s god too. Except it remains to be shown that supporters of "In God we Trust" would equally support "In Allah we trust" or "In Ngai we trust". This is because [in my opinion] supporters believe that even though God is Ngai and God is Allah, Allah is not God and Ngai is not God. And, we are left with the idea that the list of other names in this article are not really acceptable either; everyone else using all these other names are all worshiping god, but worshipers that call their deity god are not worshiping Ngai, or Allah or Zeus or Shiva etc., etc. ad nausea.

Go ahead and change the word god to random selected alternate names proposed in this very article and see if that doesn't cause some anger. That will prove case and point very quickly.

This article does go on to explain that in relation to the idea of the name of God that there are varied sides of the argument; but the fact that this article speaks of other names of god in other religions as equivalent to the name "God" as used in a Western Christian concept clearly puts this article on a specific side of the debate and therefore gives it a very specific POV. God, is the Christian name for the deity in those monotheistic [Christian] religions; that coupled with the "In God we Trust" problem that exists here clearly gives this article a Christian POV. The section with varied other deities of monotheistic religions should probably go under an article about monotheism or in an article all by itself describing various names of gods in monotheistic religions around the world. Perhaps the Christian POV cannot entirely be avoided, so it would be better to more specifically state its dominance of use with Christianity, instead of tip toeing around it. And, then branch out from there to explain "very" specifically the use of the "actual" term (not equivalent term or terms) in other religions, places, peoples, regions, creeds, beliefs etc.

Finally, the de facto use of subjective male pronouns gives this article another specific POV. Related back the numerous alternate names: we see examples of this POV in the listing under the Hindu entry. This entry ignores the polytheistic perspectives of Hinduism; or the monotheistic polytheism that they practice casting it in the Christian POV mentioned above, and neglects to mention Shaktism, a denomination of Hinduism that worships Shakti, or Devi Mata -- the Hindu name for the Great Divine Mother. This is a female monotheistic example; which highlights the Male POV used.

These are just a few of the ways in which this article still has some POVs that need to be worked out. The concept of God should be in Wiki, but it is a highly charged idea that tends to come with a lot of personal POVs. We need to work extra hard to get to neutral ground. Until that point is reached this should not be an example of a "Featured Article". cprockhill Friday November 3, 2006 2:00 AM

[edit] Emperor Taizong of Tang China

Tang Taizong is the best empror in China history. I choose this article for nomination. Feel free to leave comments. 202.40.210.174 04:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Has zero references, has only one image, and half of the article is dominated by a big list. Avoid unnecessary capitalization in section headers, like "Early Achievements". Article needs expansion, paragraphs need to be broken up a little more, and a copyedit wouldn't hurt. Also, note that subject matter is irrelevant in determining Featured Article status; almost any subject matter can, hypothetically, be "featured". Most of the most important articles on Wikipedia aren't featured, and many amazingly trivial ones are. It's a matter of article quality alone. -Silence 08:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object as per Silence. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• 'Object, agree with above. It is far too short, has too few references, &c.. --Oldak Quill 23:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, not nearly enough. Everyking 05:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tram

Self-nomination. 202.40.210.174 04:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Looks very promising. Lacks references - see WP:CITE.
• Object for now. With refs would be a strong candidate. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references. --Oldak Quill 23:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object as per above, plus the see also section is too long. Remove duplicates used in the text, try to incorporate others into the main body. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bayreuth Festival

Article is being resubmitted after addressing various objections (see Peer Review and archive). Current article is complete with references to sources and other data and covers the history of the festival from its conception to the current day.

Can we have a link to the archive please? Giano | talk 15:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Linked it, but the PR is extremely short. AndyZ 20:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• That's its peer review, I'm looking for all the FA comments. There is something odd here [3] if you check the history comments seem to have disappeared. I'm sure when it was on FA I last time. I made more comments than are listed here. Why has the FAC failed been removed from the talk page here [4]? - which should link to all previous discussion - but doesn't seem to - am I comfusing it with another recent Wagneresque page? Giano | talk 13:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Article contains rather many short 1-sentence paragraphs. There are no inline citations, 2(c) of FA criteria, and the years should be delinked except for those with months/dates: see Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. AndyZ 20:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Three of those one sentence paragaphs actually belonged to a single paragraph and for some reason didn't appear that way. I have fixed that. That leaves three more. The first is in the introduction and relates to an expanded discussion of the topic in the text. The other two were fixed by combining them with other related paragraphs, including moving one to another section. Hopefully, this addresses the objection. Dtaw2001 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As per the inline references, these are not needed when the topic is "uncontrovercial" and cites few sources. According to Wikipedia Style Guidelines:"The system of presenting references in a Wikipedia article may change over time; it is more important to have clarity and consistency in an article than to adhere to any particular system. Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a "References" section at the end of the article..."see Wikipedia:Citing sources However, there were two paragraphs that relate to specific sources and I have added inline reference links for those paragraphs. Dtaw2001 21:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • My idea is that whatever should be verified is verified. That ensures than an article is factually accurate. AndyZ 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I added the origins of the festival section based on objections I raised in the first FA. It is not, however, sourced or referenced and should be verified before this becomes FA. Eusebeus 16:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Eusebeus, since you added the section, only you can reference the sources (assuming they are different than those already cited). I think the history provided in this section is also covered in Spotts' book. Dtaw2001 21:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think we actually have to bother with actually citing sources/references since the content is not a matter of dispute. What I meant to say (rather garbled way of expressing myself above) is that someone with a greater familiarity with the topic should confirm the accuracy of my account. Eusebeus 10:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I've read several books covering the topic and nothing you have written appears to conflict with my understanding. The only slight difference might be that Ludwig II was an enthusiastic supporter of Wagner, and any misgivings probably originated from his advisors rather than the king himself. Dtaw2001 15:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm sorry but this is a malformed nomination, created by deleting the text of the first nom--just look at the History and you'll see all those November edits. That's why there is no link to an archive: there is no archive. I'm afraid you'll have to start over. Please revert this page to this version to restore the November discussion, then follow the instructions on the FAC page for "Adding nominations". Note especially point 4, how to move the archive of the November discussion. Once you've created the new, January, version — Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bayreuth Festival 2 — I suggest you paste in the comments that people have already started to make this time round. All right? If the process is unfamiliar and you'd rather someone else did it, I'm sure someone will pitch in — just ask here. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Not sure how to restore the old discussion archive. Dtaw2001 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valence electron

I feel that this article should act as Wikipedia's Featured Article due to its comprehensive format and various information. In my opinion, this article is the epitome of excellence, and should be recognized. I do acknowledge that it is a rather small article, but it has more to offer than large, unorganized articles.

EinsteinMC2 01:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Lacks a lead section and references as required by the Features Article criteria. --Allen3 ^talk 02:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Shuffling of the article text has created a lead, but has also reduced the article to the point were the table of contents is not automatically displayed. This has shifted my objection from lack of a lead to a lack of a substantial table of contents (requirement 3c). --Allen3 ^talk 02:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object strongly. See Allen3's comment. Could have been lifted from the Web for all we know. --AnOddName 06:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. The article had not been proofread carefully, and a mistake was visible. I would love to support this in the future, once it is expanded further. Don't give up though! Brisvegas 07:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object not comprehensive as required by criteria. Large organized articles are possible too. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong object Many basic faulty judgements like "To determine the quantity of valence electrons an element has, you must look at the family (vertical column) in which the element is categorized." Uurghh! And how did Mendeleev to choose where to place the atoms in the table? The number of valence electron is the number of electrons which can be ripped off the atom without using too much energy. Look at ionization. This article should be merged with electron shell, electron configuration, atomic orbital, molecular orbital and other wellknown stubs on WP. This topic needs many expert editing and a big collaboration between physicists and chemists. Vb 13:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Refer to peer review. No references, not comprehensive, not enough context, requires previous knowledge of the subject. Almost everything in the lead is questionable: electrons cannot be "located" in an energy level; post-Heisenberg, an encyclopedia should not be giving the impression that atomic electrons are little billiard balls; it is strange to talk about an "outermost" energy level; some words have unusual meanings when used in a chemical context, such as "reactive", "unreactive", "shell" - all are unlikely to make much sense to a non-chemist without explanation; "shell" and "energy level" are not simply interchangeable. Nowhere is the word "valence" defined or linked. The experimental history of the subject is surely fascinating, and would make an ideal start for setting the context, but is not mentioned. Possibly this article should be merged with the little Valence bond theory stub. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

Self-Nomination. Lula is a recognized a leader in the emergent global environmental problems debates and a global leader (words from George W. Bush). Since the third world are gainning attention for their potential consummer markets is very important for Wikipedia feature the leader of this movement. India, China and Brazil lead the new movements of the emergent world and Lula for their life history and for being spokesman of the masses, him becames a very important person in this scenerio. --Phair 15:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object, the importance of the article's subject doesn't make the article a FA. The article lacks references and inline citations. Also see Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_not_be_linked; years without full dates should not be linked. AndyZ 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object; POV issues—the entire article extols Lula except for a small paragraph at the end and a few quickly dismissed objections over Brazil's hunger problem and his economic policy. While many in the West are more concerned about Chavez, this guy isn't exactly revered. Much more development is necessary as well: "Political orientation" should have at least a few sizable paragraphs, and the biography section is a collection of 1-2 sentence "paragraphs". And what about free trade (does he support Bush or not, etc.) and his position on the Iraq war? Some of the language needs to be toned down/made more encyclopedic: "The single most important member", "Fortunately, Brazilian economy wasn't severely affected", etc. And inline citations are extremely important—you can't say things like "it achieved a US$ 29 billion surplus due to substantial changes in its commercial focus", "This is mainly because of the current disassociation between the political and the economic reality", and "Lula states that one of the main problems in Brazil today is hunger" without giving a source. And obviously, there has to be a references section. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 22:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This is the 2nd FAC for this article, but the nominator did not archive it properly (s/he simply blanked the old nomination). Could an admin who knows how (I can't remember) take care of the history move? —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 02:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Done. The first fac is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva the first. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I am inclined to object to this nomination as da Silva is still president of Brazil. George W. Bush was opposed as an FA because he is still in power, and for the same reasons I don't think da Silva can be an FA at this time, especially given the current relevance of South American politics. However, I also agree with other users, this article has POV issues, and needs footnotes. RyanGerbil10 04:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There was heavy objection to the George W. Bush article not because he was still in power (Nicolas Sarkozy [sp?] is a FA, although it is currently a FARC candidate) and he is still in power. In the case of the article on George W. Bush it was judged that it would be too difficult to maintain a sense of stability and therefore did not qualify under FA criteria 2 (e). If the article on Lula is not the subject of frequent vandalism and/or edit wars the "he's still in power" argument is invalid and objection on those grounds should be counted as inactionable. Thethinredline 07:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Very well, but I still object on the grounds that the article has no footnotes and has POV issues. RyanGerbil10 21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object Needs references, plus the Biography section is plainly a list. Although re. currently president, above : Tony Blair got frontpaged. --PopUpPirate 00:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scrooge McDuck

Incredibly comprehensive article, detailing history of the character in real life and fiction terms. Arniep 20:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's quite comprehensive. While I see that it has references at the bottom, the article's nomination would be aided by using inline references throughout. —thames 21:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. A Carl Barks picture is "fair use"? No no. I don't think so. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

is this artist's work any more exempt from fair use than any other 2D artwork? Arniep 22:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, what I mean to say is that like many other images used in our articles, it has a dubious, uninformative fair use tag, with no reason given why the use of it should be considered fair, see image description page. Most of these images would probably never make any trouble for Wikipedia (though they're still not approved for Featured Articles, plus they're being deleted by decree from Jimbo Wales as we speak), but I believe one connected with Disney is quite likely to. Disney has a reputation for defending copyright very proactively, not to say aggressively. I'm no expert, though—the copyright of Barks' work may not belong to Disney anymore. I should think it would be actively defended in any case. To put it another way: what makes you think we can use this image? Bishonen | talk 23:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I would cite the standard fair use principles, (i) the image is accompanied by critical commentary, (ii) is of resolution too low for print reproduction, and (iii) Wikipedia's use of the image in this context in an article on the subject of the artwork is unlikely to damage Disney's profits or reputation. Arniep 23:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What critical commentary? The image isn't dated, no provenance or context is given for it, thus none of the article's commentary on Scrooge's changing appearance and personality relates to it. Moreover, the article is appropriately encyclopedic, which means it does not exactly discuss Bark's work "critically". I remain concerned. Bishonen | talk 00:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely you are interpreting critical commentary slightly too literally? I don't think the commentary necessarily has to cricitise the artistic style, it just has to be commentary directly related to the work i.e. a cartoon character. Admittedly no source is given, which is a problem but it is pretty certain it would have been published by Disney, in fact in the bottom right corner it says copyright Walt Disney. Arniep 15:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added the source, it is from the cover of Walt Disney's Uncle Scrooge McDuck: His life & times by Carl Barks, published 1981 by Celestial Arts, ISBN: 0890872902. Arniep 15:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Wow! Who would have thought there would be so much to write about an imaginary duck? :) Brisvegas 07:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support since I'm a huge fan of Scrooge, Donald and co. The page isn't "100%"...igordebraga ≠ 21:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lacks references. See WP:CITE. The "External links" used as references need to be called out into their own section, and the text, through footnotes, Harvard-style referencing, or other means, should direct you to which reference supplies facts and quotes found in the article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, per Bunchofgrapes. Also, the lead is a bit short. --Spangineer 04:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object as per Bunchofgrapes and Spangineer. The article needs both references and inline citations to aid verifiability. Saravask 06:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1957 World Series

A well-written top class article, thuroughly researched with good and interesting information. A couple of pictures and a couple of interesting facts. Very featurable article. CollieBreath 04:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This article isn't ready to be an FA at this point; no references, one section is marked as a stub, etc... Take a look at some of the recently featured articles to see what kind of comprehensiveness we look for here, CollieBreath. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong object per Bunchofgrapes. Short introduction with inappropriately placed "Umpires" "MVP" and "Television" sections (more appropriate as an infobox), zero references and one external link, and some poor prose (Statements such as "His only slightly worse performance than in Game 5 was incredible" are POV). Rampart 04:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object per above objections. In addition to the need for references, there are many red links. The introduction needs to be expanded to at least 3 paragraphs. The signed photograph really isn't too clear. With photographs of this nature you could easily claim fair use. In addition, inline citations would be quite useful! Good start to the article, though! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 14:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GG Allin

Well written article with good facts and plenty of information. A true testament as to how Wikipedia articles should be written. It's also come a long way. Gold Stur 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose a good article but the lead isn't long enough(See:Wikipedia:Lead) and there are no references. Falphin 01:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object.
  • Image:Gg47.jpg lacks fair-use rationale.
  • Image:GGALLIN.jpg lacks any copyright information and is currently at-risk of deletion.
  • The lead is too short.
  • The writing features far too many "(see below)", or "(see this link)" parentheticals. In many cases the links could be worked easily into the prose.
  • Statements like "Tensions within The Jabbers began to swell as GG became increasingly uncontrollable, vicious, and uncompromising" need some according-to-who attribution.
  • In general the writing feels narrative rather than encyclopedic.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object per above objections. In addition, this article is desperate for incline citations and a good copyedit. Certainly a very nice start to the article! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 15:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object as per Bunchofgrapes and Ganymead. Saravask 22:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object a truely impressive improvment from where it was when I first saw it but its not quite to featured status. Dalf | Talk 07:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Race of Jesus

Intereseting topic, and has been added and improved to become, in my opinion, featured article material. IF it makes it, give the medal to User:V. Molotov (creator of article). Thanks. Oh, anf if two editors debate all of the sudden, block both of them. I am editting under an IP now, because I pretty much got tired of Wikipedia. 65.35.197.181 23:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional support, the article is a good read. Fair use rationales and sources are necessary for the fair use images in the article. Please convert html links in the text to footnotes (I can only see one that isn't done). And the date fields need to be filled in of the web reference template or they say Date, Month, Year.--nixie 02:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The image Image:RFJesus.jpg has no source information or fair-use rationale.
  2. The image Image:Blackjesus05.jpg has no source information.
  3. The image Image:Sturmer Nordic Jesus.JPG has no fair-use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed.

  --Carnildo 06:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  I want to first state that you are probably the most unfriendly person I have encountered here. Also, all image sources have been fixed. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object; same issues as Carnildo. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

After some research I was able to correct some of the problems. 65.35.197.181 16:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Objection stands; The only change seems to have been changing BlackJesus.JPG from fair-use to public-domain, still with no indication of what the source of the image is, which is needed to support the contention that it is in fact public domain. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. 65.35.197.181 05:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There are hardly any references. NatusRoma 06:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support 131.247.142.109 18:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, per Carnildo, andBunchofgrapes. Jkelly 22:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Needs many more references, atricle suffers heavily from use of weasel words. Definitely a good start, and an impressive achievement for its chief creator, V. Molotov—though, as a side-note, I'd be slightly more comfortable with it if he didn't feel a need to create a sockpuppet account, User:65.35.197.181, to secretly self-nominate the article. I know he's been pushing for this to become featured article since the day he made it, but a little patience can go a long way. Not that my vote is in any way based on the user's activities; he's a fantastic contributor, this article is a testament to that. It just needs to meet more of the FA requirements. -Silence 00:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

As it happens, I am the main contributor, having written about half of the current text. I don't think it is ready to be a featured article, but could get there. Could you explain on the talk page what "weasel words" you find problematic. Paul B 13:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't use a sock puppet account, I am used this because I LEFT WIKIPEDIA. I hate when people make accusations against me. It is not like I turned around and voted under both my IP and user name. 65.35.197.181 15:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object for the same reasons stated above. Additionally, some important context seems to be missing. The debate over Jesus' race was part of an attempt to domesticise Christ within different ethnic traditions (note the connection of the question with missionary activity and early theories of racial difference). This is a good beginning, but not yet ready to stand as a FA. Dottore So 18:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Please explain on the talk page what "important context" is missing. It would be a great help. Paul B 13:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I promise to all of you, that I will try my best to get this up to featured article standards, even if that is what I do for the rest of my time here on Wikipedia. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 15:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I PLAN TO DO MAJOR UPDATES ON THIS ARTICLE IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!!!! εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 20:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind the above. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 06:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Article has NOW BEEN CLEANED of bad images, OTHER ARTICLES HAVE TWO REFERENCES BUT THEY WERE ALLOWED ON THE FRONT PAGE - THE ONE ON THE FRONT PAGE NOW HAS ONLY SEVEN WHAT YOUY ARE SAYING MAKES NO SENSE!!!!! I THINK THAT THE WHOLE IDEA OF RACE INTERTWINED WITH JESUS IS TOO MUCH FOR YOU ALLεγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And guess what Richard O'Connor this has no citation on it. I have gotten very upset by reading this. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that I was not trying to insult these articles, but only to state that these points are off target. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xanadu House

FAC 1 | FAC 2 | FAC 3

4th self-nomination. I really do believe it is ready this time! Having been through FAC three times before, lots of issues have been addressed by various great and experienced users on Wikipedia. It has sufficient images, with sufficient copyright status, and lots of References and external links. It has been copy-edited a few times, and gives a good read. It has also been through peer review once. — Wackymacs 18:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A good article that introduced me to a topic that was totally new to me. It seems that the previous issues have been pretty much resolved. The only thing that worries me is the contradictory copyright templates on Image:Xanadu-bedroom.jpg - you should fix that. rspeer 07:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support. The image Image:Xanadu-bedroom.jpg was scanned from a copyrighted book, and is as fair use with a rationale. I dont think there is anything wrong with that. What tag would you suggest instead? — Wackymacs 07:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, got the wrong one. I meant Image:Xanadukitchen.jpg, which has two copyright templates that say different things on it. rspeer 01:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, I removed one of the copyright templates from it. — Wackymacs 08:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak support -- Interesting article on a difficult topic. I covered several issues by communicating with the Wackymacs, and I'm willing to support the article. I'm slightly uncomfortable with the relatively sparse number of footnotes, and the smallish number of sources; I'd feel more comfortable if some of the External Links were made into References and cited in the article. But I'm happy with where things are. -- Creidieki 23:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A good article that enlightens us on a seldom-heard of topic, this deserves to be featured. As homes are increasingly computer-driven, this time capsule of late 70s "home of tomorrow" ambitions becomes more and more relevant. NickDupree 5 December 2005

• Support. Good stuff, though is there a way to prevent four sentences in a row in the Xanadu in Print section from starting with "The book" ? Rampart 15:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support, I've improved the wording in this section slightly. — Wackymacs 15:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting article on one aspect of the history of alternate housing, enough images.--Dakota ^{t e} 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guns, Germs, and Steel

Guns, Germs, and Steel should definitely be a featured article. The book itself is amazing and the article on it is almost there. Too many people are racist because of some perceived difference in people, when what they really should be looking at is the geographical imbalances. Especially in these racially-charged times it helps to focus on something that downplays the lies of bigotry and replaces them with science. --Cyde 08:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support - It would be great if more people were exposed to Diamond's ideas. --Cyde 09:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is still was under peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Guns, Germs, and Steel. --maclean25 09:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This has been resolved as per Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy. --Allen3 ^talk 11:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Why don't closed PRs get a blue screen like closed VfDs or something of the sort? My oppose vote still stands based on comments at the peer review. --maclean25 19:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose there are some very good points brought up by the peer review that should be addressed.--nixie 10:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you list which are still valid and significant? Some have been fixed.--JWB 11:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Those of maclean25, the article doesn't actually describe the book releases, sales and so on.--nixie 12:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose per nixie. Along the same line, I still don't think the article covers Diamond's hypothesis about Eurasia being more successful because it is long in the east-west direction completely enough. To my recollection, that was an absolutely crucial point of the book: that societies could successfully transplant their "toolsets" (crops, agricultural and housing technology, food preservation techniques) only to places with similar climates, effectively isolating the peoples in the north-south oriented Americas and Africa. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, this is Wikipedia, you know ... if it's so important maybe you could, say, add it in there and then Support it. --Cyde 04:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll restrain my intense burning urge to be sarcastic here, and merely point out that describing what an article is missing is often a less time-consuming process than actually producing good writing in an article to that effect. In addition, my "oppose per nixie" indicates that I agree with the other problems raised in the peer review, especially the lack of discussion of the book's sales etc. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This line is very odd: "- this is a more extensive discussion of the effects of geography on comparative Chinese and European development than is allowed in the final section of Professor Diamond's book, and predates it by sixteen years." Jkelly 04:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As a person who nominated this to PR I don't think that it is ready for FA status yet, although I think that with some work to address the raised issues this can be back here in short order. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Planar graph

This article has extremely useful diagrams (as would be expected in an article about graph theory), and contains very useful, relevant, and succinct information about planar graphs. --Leapfrog314 04:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong object This article is very far from the FA status. It is a typical math article for mathematicians. The lead does not give any reason for the layman to read this. Theorems are provided without explaining why they are interesting or important. No possible application is provided. Many important concepts are defined in other articles and the reader needs all the time to click on the links. The articles linked are themselves complicated and the reader needs basically to read all maths articles before beginning to understand what is told about in this. Examples: complete graph, K_3,3, etc... Vb 09:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons listed above. PedanticallySpeaking 17:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object Inaccessible to non-mathematicians. It's unreasonable to assume the reader will be able to understand terms such as "4-partite". Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islam

Great article, I learned a lot from it. There's certainly enough information, even if it's a topic some people won't like, not to mention a magnet for vandals. --Jibbajabba 22:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• (withdrawing support vote - changed to no opinion) - featured articles desperately needs more non-western articles.Bwithh 23:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You gave that reason for something else, plus it's not really much of a reason in the first place... Can you please say something about the quality so it sounds credible? No offense. --Jibbajabba 23:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The image Image:Masjidnabawi.jpg has no source or copyright information.

     Image has been replaced with a Common Creative Licensed image.

  2. What do the two different shades of green in Image:Islam by country.png mean?

     Sunnite vs. Shiite distribution, have a look at the Image page dab (ᛏ)

     Does it say that in the German description? The English description doesn't. --Carnildo 20:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  3. There's a "citation needed" note in "Symbols of Islam". This needs to be taken care of.

  --Carnildo 00:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. People in general could benefit from some NPOV information about Islam! --Striver 00:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• The article lacks inline citations, and the introduction is unacceptable. →Raul654 01:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Lead is far too short; several one-paragraph (and one sentence) subsections. As an aside, the FAC process should be, I think, totally agnostic toward such arguments as "we need more non-western FAs" and "people could benefit from some NPOV information about Islam". Those are great reasons to go work on an article and bring it up to FA quality but meaningless reasons to vote support for an article. That said, I don't think this article is all that far from the goal, and with supporters like those here, I look forward to seeing it as an FA soon. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Those are great reasons to go work on an article and bring it up to FA quality but meaningless reasons to vote support for an article. - AMEN, brother. →Raul654 03:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object Sadly, article is not stable. At least 18 vandalisms and one linkspam in the past 3 days. I believe the lead should be 3 paragraphs, not one sentence. Contents are too long and ungainly, it could use better referencing, and there's a number of red links. Proto t c 12:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Vandalism does not an unstable article make. →Raul654 17:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No, but incessant POV edit wars (q.v. this morning) do.Timothy Usher 20:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• comment, the introduction needs some work. I give it a {{GA}} at the very least, though. dab (ᛏ) 13:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment I feel as one of the regular editors on the article that it could use some more work, but it is definitely a good article at least. Maybe in a month it can be renominated for FAC. Also the article faces vandalism problems just like every other religion article, but that shouldn't affect it's FAC. Editors should list some of their concerns here, so that the article can be improved. I added the demographics picture description after Carnildo's concern and I also think that the introduction can be expanded. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment. i don't think the article is professional and encyclopedic enough yet. --Juan Muslim 02:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• object for purely selfish reasons. If we make it a featured article the already ridiculous levels of vandalism will increase, as will the partisan sniping, of which we already have quite enough. I think. Other people who work on the article regularly may feel differently, of course. Want to take this opportunity to point out that there is certainly much to be proud of in this article, and that credit for this is due in large measure to User:Zora. She's just done a superb job. BrandonYusufToropov 15:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That objection probably falls afoul of WP:FAC's "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." If it's any consolation, I don't think being featured usually has much effect on vandalism levels, except for the day it's on the front page. Its effect on partisan sniping is harder to guess at. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This objection is invalid. →Raul654 17:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I hear what you're saying, and I understand that this objection of mine is off base. BrandonYusufToropov 19:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Strong Support As a Muslim, I say it is a good article providing a good link to resources and the basics and the details of the religion. 195.229.242.54 14:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob McEwen

Self nom. Third time's the charm? I've nominated this before here and here. I've got a photo--taken from his campaign site. I've got an annotated bibliography. I've noted, using parenthetical cites, material from articles. General information, such as his background and his district, aren't specifically cited because they are drawn from general resources of first instance such as the Congressional Directory. (Those books are, however, in the bibliography.) Some material from the Congressional Record and Thomas is cited via web-links. PedanticallySpeaking 19:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Footnotes have been added throughout the article. PedanticallySpeaking 18:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That's quite a references section. Might I suggest (given what Wikipedia:Inline Citation says about Inline Citation being mandatory for FA's) that you convert it to inline citation? Ex: STATEMENT^[1], and in References 1. ^ REFERENCE INFO. Staxringold 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. If inline citations are added, I will support, otherwise, looks very good. RyanGerbil10 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Reply of PS. Okay, I'm converting references to footnotes. But I'm out of time today so I'll pick it up later. Is what I'm doing so far what people are looking for? PedanticallySpeaking 21:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Reply. Yep. Basically use each source to confirm something in the article, and if it doesn't confirm anything it's not really a source (or if it's a general information site it's an external link). Staxringold 02:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Okay. I'm done with my notes. I've added some material too. I hope those conditional votes will switch to unconditional support ;) PedanticallySpeaking 18:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Now I support. My concerns are taken care of. Sorry about the delay, I am setting up a new computer at my house and things are kind of hectic at the moment. RyanGerbil10 03:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Although a nicer image would be nice, and that annotated bib is pretty long for none of them to confirm anything in the article (and therefore belong as a ref). Staxringold 19:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• I was taught in school that if one used footnotes, there should still be a list of references in alphabetical order. I have asked for his official House photograph from the U.S. House Historical Office but I am awaiting a reply. This photo is from his campaign site. Thanks for your support vote. PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support The short paragraphs and sections should be made longer or worked into the rest of the article. Specifically, "namesake", "Challenging Schmidt in 2006", "Following the primary, McEwen campaigned", "Returns to private life" (that's a poor title too, IMO), "Following the primary, the Dayton Daily News criticized", "Strickland said, "I ran against Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan" and "Miller decides to run" (also bad title). Tuf-Kat 02:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• I merged a couple of the sections and paragraph per your comment, but the "returns to private life" section really ought to stand alone. Thank you for your support vote. PedanticallySpeaking 18:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Support - right degree of detail, references look good, very well written. Rossrs 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your vote. PedanticallySpeaking 16:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Support; a perusal of this massive article reveals good work. -Litefantastic 19:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support, very well done. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shoe polish

I've worked hard on this article, at first as an exercise to improve my editing, but then to see just how good I could make an article on such a prosaic subject. Thanks to a very helpful peer review, I think it's finally become a very good article, and I humbly submit it to become a featured article. Proto t c 13:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Mild object It lacks appropriate reference. A bit more pix are preferred. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC) It looks much nicer now...but the article seems to be pretty short in structure. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Support -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thoughts, Jerry. Please give more detail. What do you mean by 'lacks appropriate reference'? What 'pix' would you like to see a bit more of? Proto t c 15:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • See other FAs, and you'll find that most of them do contain a detailed list of reference. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, thank you. Inline citation is now done as per many other FAs (but not all, interestingly). I am also waiting for a pic to be uploaded by another Wikipedia user. Proto t c 16:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • That's because they use {{inote}}s =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Further pics have been added (one kindly provided by Nichalp) Proto t c 09:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please expand on what you mean by 'short in structure'. The Featured Article guidelines do state that length of the article is of secondary importance to quality. Proto t c 15:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. References are fine, IMO (though by convention they should be above external links, not below). However, the lead section is too short (should be one to three paragraphs, not two sentences). I also think the "using shoe polish" and "alternate uses" sections are too short and should be combined. Johnleemk | Talk 16:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, thanks! Amended as per Johnleemk's comments also. Proto t c 16:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Looking good, but I think the lead appears a bit incomplete. It should be a summary of the article in full, and it has been proposed that a print Wikipedia include as articles only the lead section. Therefore, a lead ought to encompass all the important aspects of the article's topic without going overboard. It might be relevant to mention its number one producer (Kiwi). Johnleemk | Talk 16:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I've rewritten the introduction, summarising the rest of the article. It's now three cogent paragraphs. At least, I hope they're cogent. Thanks (yet again) for the advice. Proto t c 16:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work on a relatively insignificant topic. Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. But it needs references to printed sources instead of being entirely web-based. PedanticallySpeaking 17:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement, for featured articles or otherwise, that printed sources be cited for an article. It's always nice, but not essential. —Morven 02:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've found the ISBN for the print version of one of the references. Hope that helps this concern. Proto t c 12:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose – 1) Too many subheadings. Please reduce them to top level headings. 2) Merge the trivia section with the rest of the article 3) =Manufacture= section needs to be written into prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Nichalp! 1) Done. 2) Done. 3) Done. Proto t c 11:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've copyedited now so that I can support =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• see one comment below. Oppose, based mostly on awkward structure and lack of comprehensive details. There is some good research here but it needs to go deeper. Did nothing happen to the shoe polish industry between 1950 and 2005 (maybe retitle section to 'Origin')? More detailed analysis can help the awkwardly titled section "Appearance / other products" (perhaps merge this with the Chemistry section as they both describe qualitative/quantitative details of the product):Why are they packaged in those small flat round tins (so it can fit in my pocket)? Smell? Feel? Probably shouldn't taste it. Are all the shoe polishes (Kiwi, Shinola, etc.) the same? No market niches? Deeper research can make those two-sentence paragraphs more clear and descriptive. Why the one paragraph sub-section at "Using shoe polish"? The "...now seen as racist." remark is a value-judgement stab at a past practise - reference, elaborate or omit it. Reference the "Shoe polish sandwiches" thing, I hear a lot of stories about people getting high/wasted off a lot of things, so I'm a little doubtful. The article says burning shoe polish produces COx and NOx. However, burning anything produces this. How does this make shoe polish special? Does the article mean there are no harsh or toxic polluntants? Are there no carcinogens in it? Can not the trivia be merged into the body? If it can't is it really that necessary? --maclean25 20:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi Maclean, thanks for your thoughts. I think I've dealt with all the issues you raised, please take a second look. I've expanded on the appearance of the can, and branding. Remark omitted. The only one I haven't dealt with is the shoe polish sandwiches. I know it happened, but am having difficulty finding a verification online or in books. It is omitted for now, but if I can find a reference I'll put it back in. The burning thing means there are no harsh or toxic pollutants, so shoe polish can be disposed of safely through incineration. I have tried to make this clearer. Trivia merged as per your and others comments. Proto t c 11:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not a perfect article but it is one of the better ones out there. I support it for FA status but would still like to see further work done to make it more comprehensive. There are numerous good suggestions in this FAC debate for further points/topics that could be addressed. --maclean25 05:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The image Image:Kiwi shoe polish.jpg is tagged as "fair use". For such a common object, there's no reason to use fair-use images of it.
  2. The image Image:Jeanbartpolish.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but is not discussed in the article. It does not qualify for "fair use".
  3. The image Image:KiwiExpress.jpg has the same problem as Image:Kiwi shoe polish.jpg did.

  --Carnildo 21:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Image:KiwiExpress.jpg has been removed for a few days now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I do not have a digital camera. The Kiwi shoe polish image was taken from a website which stated all images were not subject to copyright (see the image for attribution informaiton. I am not expert with fair use tags, but I think this would be sufficient. Please advise if I have misunderstood. The Jean Bart image is fair use. Images of historical characters were often used in association with shoe polish advertisements in the early 20th century. This is now discussed in the article, better qualifying the picture as fair use. Again, please advise if this is incorrect. Proto t c 11:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see anything on http://www.design-technology.org/ that states that the images are not copyrighted, and they seem to be using "free" to mean "zero cost" rather than "not copyrighted". Also, Wikipedia has additional rules for the use of fair-use images beyond that of copyright law; see Wikipedia:Fair use for details, but in general, any time it's possible for a Wikipedian to create an image that's under a free license, a non-free image shouldn't be used. --Carnildo 20:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • A GFDL image has been taken and added to the photo, replacing the questionable image. Proto t c 10:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object: (But I have to confess I'm eager to have my objections dealt with and turn this into a support— I really like this article. I just gave it a copyedit for things like &mdash;s and &nbsp;s.)
  • Images, per Carnildo.
  • Overly-short sections. Sections should be at least two big paragraphs or three or four short ones long. Struck
  • Agree with others that the article would be much-improved by finding a home in the main writing for the items currently under "Trivia." Struck.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• • See above, done, done. Proto t c 11:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

    • A GFDL image has been taken and added to the photo, replacing the questionable image.Proto t c 10:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you should remove the fair-use Image:KiwiExpress.jpg; at this point the article gets little additional benefit from this additional non-free image. If that's done, or it is replaced with a free image, you'll have my support.—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC) I removed it myself. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Provided that the image use and copyright problems are fixed, please consider my vote a
• Support. Excellent work. The succinct three paragraph introduction (when it is so common to have overblown or single sentence introductions), the crisp, easy to read, and encyclopedic tone, and the extensive referencing all factor into my conditional support. Again, please correct the image use problems somehow. If these image problems are not fixed (as per Carnildo), my input should be considered as just a comment instead. Good luck. Saravask 18:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  I think (with the advice of Bunchofgrapes) that we've got it down to just one image of dubious copyright, which is the tin of Kiwi shoe polish. I am trying to loan a camera so I can take a photo. Thank you for your other comments also. Proto t c 09:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  • A GFDL image has been taken and added to the photo, replacing the questionable image. Proto t c 10:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object Non-relevent wikilinking, especially of dates. As a random example, animals and children are not relevent wikilinks for an article about shoe polish. Article is too vague about what types of shoes shoe polish is used for. —jiy (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for your thoughts, jiy. Shoe polish is used on leather shoes. I have clarified that in the introduction. I have also removed the extraneous wikilinks. Proto t c 09:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support—jiy (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Object It's coming along, but in order to represent Wikipedia's very best work it still needs some more copyediting. The information in the article is scattered and overlapping in places. As one example (but not the only one), the Ingredients section talks about applicators and sponges when that should be in the Uses section, while the Uses section talks about toxicity when that would be more approriate in the Ingredients/Chemistry section. I'm of the opinion that entire article needs to be restructured and information be consolidated under appropriate headings. I've been working on this article a bit myself but it still needs more work. As a side note, the "burial place" reference is 404.—jiy (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, the article is well done for a pretty dull subject and the changes made during this FAC have made a big difference. I have made some additional images if you need them Image:Kiwi polish black.jpg and Image:Kiwi with brush.jpg. One question, the article doesn't mention the liquid wax shoe polishes in the squeezy bottle made by Kiwi and other companies is there a reason for leaving them out?--nixie 11:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Those images are loads better than mine, so I will use them! Thanks. I will also put in a mention of the squeezy bottles (think they're the ones with the sponge applicator at the top). Proto t c 11:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Dull subject? Nonsense, shoe polish is almost by definition shiny! I really like this article; all my objections above have been handled. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support this great over-view of shoe polish. A few too many commas at points but otherwise no complaints. Marskell 18:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• I like this article very much and support it. One niggling criticism, however. It might be appropriate to include a short section—or at least a link at the end of the article—on shoe polishing, i.e., the actual act of using shoe polish to polish shoes. It is of course arguable that such a section would not be about the material of shoe polish, but I think it's a very closely related subject. As I've said, though, I think it would be very good to at least include a link to somewhere else on the internet or perhaps a link to a related article on shoe polishing, if it exists. Hydriotaphia
• Comment. User jiy (who offered an Object vote above) is in violation of Wikipedia's FAC objector guidelines by not reevaluating his object vote in a timely fashion. I believe Proto has addressed his/her concerns, yet he/she has not removed the objection nor has he explained why his vote is still an object. I left him a message in an attempt to remind him of the guidelines. Regards, Saravask 23:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC).
• Support. Great read. Wim van Dorst 23:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC).
• Support. Object. If it says in the "usage" section that "shoe polish is not a cleaning product," why is the article in Category:Cleaning products Neutrality^talk 23:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Easily fixed - removed from category. Was this the only reason for your objection? Proto t c 11:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, thanks for responding. Support. Neutrality^talk 20:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, although it would be nice if the market section were expanded. Ambi 23:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support I loved it! InvictaHOG 03:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Billings, Montana

Changes have been fixed and it's time this goes through again. FireSpike 03:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article lacks a reference section, contains too many lists which should be turned into prose, also, has too many one sentence paragraphs. RyanGerbil10 04:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fails 2b by a wide mark. Tony 04:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a very good start to the article, but all of the sections are too short and should be expanded. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 04:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As per above, "Goverment" & "Economy" should be substantial sections. "History" is way too short & "Future" needs some serious work... etc. More images would also be nice... Mikkerpikker 05:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Too many short sections/subsections - too many short paragraphs,sentences. Too many lists (these need to be converted into prose). No references? Please see the FA criteria and refer to peer review. — Wackymacs 07:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: as above Giano | talk 09:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object per all of other arguments. The article needs to be fixed up to be written better; just one example:

More widely famous people who have lived in Billings include Charles Lindbergh, who once worked as a mechanic at the Billings Logan Airport and performed as a barn stormer. - More widely famous? Needs to be corrected

The article needs copyediting{1 and 2a,b). It also needs references and inline citations(2c). There are way too many sections (3c). AndyZ 15:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Water resources

This article was nominated beacause it talks about a very important world issue and people need to be more aware of what is going on with the earths water supply. Tarret 01:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Way too many headings. See Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Also, references need citations, not simply a list of external links labelled "References". That said, I think the topic is of great importance, and would love to read a FA-standard article on the subject. Jkelly 01:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. Needs a very through copyediting -- "alot" isn't a word.
  2. Many of the images need better captions, or need to be removed -- I think everyone knows what a lake looks like, for example.
  3. The image Image:Iwimi.jpg is tagged as "copyrighted free-use", but there's no evidence that that's correct.

  --Carnildo 21:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Around the Horn

I love the show and like the article too. The page is well written, detailed, and thorough. I'd love to see this as a featured article.

• Support- Per Nomination. FireSpike 18:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object: It's almost entirely lists. Featured Articles should feature prose. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object per Bunchofgrapes. If it weren't for the lists, this article would be a very good stub. Jkelly 01:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, this is just a stub with some lists tacked on. Andrew Levine 21:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turku

Partial self-nom. The issues raised in the two previous FAC nominations (archive1, archive2) have been met, and I think the article is good enough to be a FA. - ulayiti (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. No inline citations, especially for statistics. AndyZ 20:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. What AndyZ said. Otherwise I'm ready to support.--Jyril 20:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just referenced all statistics and a whole load of other information with the {{inote}} template. (Having footnotes would, in my opinion, make the article look ugly, since there would be quite a lot of them.) - ulayiti (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree witgh ulayiti, and I still don't in the least believe that inline citations should be a requirement since statistics on Turku are hardly a controversial subject. Making a sub-section in References listing all the statistical sources should be more than enough. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. No inline citations, weasel terms, no mention of the city problems. JoaoRicardo^talk 00:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See above. Can you provide examples of weasel terms in the article (because I can't find any)? As to problems, you must have missed the following paragraph in the 'Economy' section: 'As of 2004, the city's unemployment rate is 13.1%, well above the national average of 8.9%. The problem of unemployment is particularly troublesome in the districts of Pansio, Lauste, and Varissuo, where it hovers at around 23%.' I've added a few more sentences about some other problems as well. - ulayiti (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Some weasel terms and some comments in which the author's opinion has crept into the article text:

1. "the Port of Turku is considered one of the most important seaports in Finland." Considered by whom?

   Changed to 'one of the busiest'. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

   Fine, but now it needs a source. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

2. "Turku has a strong cultural identity" A matter of opinion.

   Removed 'strong'. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

   Well, "Turku has a cultural identity" isn't much useful. I believe it is better to drop this. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

3. "Turku is usually considered Finland's 'second city'." Considered by whom?

   A lot of people, but it's a bit difficult to change this, since attributing this statement to a specific body would be quite difficult. I did a Google search for turku finland's second city and it came up with a lot of stuff, including this. And somehow saying VIA Magazine considers Turku Finland's second city wouldn't sound very good. Any ideas on how to improve this one? - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

   I recommend dropping it. We should stick to verifiable sources. If there are no verifiable sources, then it is better not the include this in the article. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

4. "the city became the most important location in medieval Finland." Important by what standard? Number of inhabitants? Economy?

   It's explained in the following paragraph. It was the archbishop's seat, the only city to trade with the Hanseatic League, the largest city, and the capital of Finland. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

   But don't you think it is better to leave this judgement to the reader? JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

5. "Turku has been viewed during the 20th century as 'Finland's gateway to the West' as a result of its good connections with other Western European countries and cities." Viewed by whom?

   Clarified that this is the opinion of Jarmo Virmavirta. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

6. "Since the 1940s, there have been particularly strong ties with Stockholm" Strong by what standards?

   This is from Virmavirta as well. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

7. "The region is usually considered to include, in addition to the city itself, at least the neighbouring cities..." Considered by whom?

   Well, they're part of the metropolitan area, which has quite a specific definition. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

8. "Turku is an important administrative centre" By what standard?

   It's explained in the same sentence. It's the capital of both the province and the region, it has a Court of Appeal, and the Archbishop of Finland sits in Turku. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

9. "Olavi Mäenpää, chairman of the far-right organisation Suomen Kansan Sinivalkoiset (SKS), is a highly controversial figure in the city's municipal politics." In whose opinion?

   Changed to 'has provoked some controversy in the local media'. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

10. "In the last municipal elections in 2004, he received more votes than any other candidate in Turku, probably in large part due to protest votes." Speculation.

    But true. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

    It may be true, but it is speculation nonetheless. Better drop it. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

11. "For a city of its size, Turku has a good public transportation network of bus routes." By what standard?

    By frequency of services. It's explained two sentences later. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

12. "Turku has always welcomed new influences" A matter of opinion.

    Explained in the same sentence. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

13. "Turku has a long educational history" Peacock statement.

    Changed to 'longer educational history than any other Finnish city'. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

14. "The city also hosts another rock festival, Down by the Laituri, and boasts a vibrant nightlife" The vibrant nightlife is a matter of opinion.

    Actually it's pretty much a given, and something that most Finnish people know. How do you suggest it should be phrased? - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

    Again, it is dificult to write about people's intuitions. Saying that this is something most people in Finland know is not verifiable. If there is no source for it, writing about it yourself might be viewed as original research. I recommend removing it. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the problems, I was wrong. There are indeed some mentions of them. How about expanding it? ;-) JoaoRicardo^talk 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

See the 'People' section and the end of the 'History' section. I don't think there's much more that could be added. I mean, I could write a lot about the primary school in Kakskerta closing down, but that would not be very relevant to the article. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support, the article about Turku looks really good. Can we have a nomination for Helsinki as well? JIP | Talk 14:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lostprophets

All articles drawn from have now been fully referenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.25.247.75 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 November 2005.

Old nomination subpages shouldn't be written over; you have to transfer them to an archive page using the "Move" function available to logged in users. The previous nomination page is here. Also, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Extraordinary Machine 17:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's good that the magazine article references are now there, but the images still don't have any source or copyright information, and there seem to be quite a few one or two-line paragraphs that could be merged into larger ones. Additionally, sentences such as "such credibility sapping magazines as J-17 and Cosmo Girl" and "lostprophets sold-out the cavernous Cardiff International Arena, a once unimaginable feat that served as concrete proof of just how big the band had become" should be reworded, as they are a little POV. Extraordinary Machine 17:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The two things that can be done to improve this article (and I mentioned some of them in Peer Review and all of them in the last FAC nomination) are:

1. Add a source for who credits them with popularizing studded belts, low-slung jeans, etc. If they really are "largely credited with popularising [these] items" it shouldn't be difficult to find at least one source. You can phrase it in such a way as "Rolling Stone credits..."
2. Add the Infobox_band template.

Cedars 09:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object per Extraordinary Machine. Also, please get rid of wikilinks in the section headings (especially ones that don't link anywhere). See WP:CITE for improving the referencing. I don't agree that you should add Template:Infobox band. It is unstable and, in my opinion, not helpful. It is absolutely not a requirement of Wikipedia:WikiProject Music to have it. Jkelly 01:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• The template is used by a number of featured articles on bands including The Beatles, Iron Maiden and Nirvana. It offers a good summary of information and is helpful to those who visit the page to find a piece of information such as whether the band is still active, who its members are or what the band's genre or label is. It also encourages the editors to place a picture of the band near the top of the article and this article needs that. Cedars 10:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beatles For Sale

Passed peer review with not many comments. Self-nom. Johnleemk | Talk 09:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• I had some minor issues with the described relationship between the UK and US albums, but I went ahead and addressed them myself. Assuming you are OK with the changes, I support this nom. Jgm 13:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article is inadequately researched. The bulk of the text is a set of quotations drawn from a single webpage, http://www.geocities.com/~beatleboy1/dba04sale.html , (which is listed iin the article references) filled out by unsourced commentary with, at best, NPOV issues. Monicasdude 23:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Revised: Although my initial objections have been met to some degree, I find the patched version less suitable as an FA candidate than the original. The extensive inclusion of AMG commentary greatly unbalances the article; it now is dominated by the recent opinions of a single, not terribly distinguished writer (with virtually no contemporaneous commentary). And the covers section calls for a discussion of the songs themselves to be comprehensive. Monicasdude 20:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is why I've been rather reluctant to nominate the article for FAC, actually — there's not much that can be said about the album besides the various Beatles' reminiscing and perhaps some description of the songs. I agree the commentary reads as a bit POV at times, and will try to sort that out, but the fact is that Beatles for Sale is probably the Beatles' most unremarkable album. The only commentary I can see is the description of the songs, which I think is always going to sound a bit POV, since any work of art is going to have many interpretations, and most 3rd-party commentary is probably hidden away in archives, considering how old this album is. I'll see what I can find at AMG and Q, though. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Changed to Support. Jkelly 23:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Object, unfortunately. Per Monicasdude, with two added concerns. One is that there is so much literature on The Beatles that a truly comprehensive article is going to need an awful lot of research, which pretty much precludes using any material from geocities websites at all. In the case of artists without much secondary literature, fansites can be a great resource. With The Beatles, it is problematic. Secondly, the article over-uses fair use images. The cover of the preceding and next albums aren't being added under WP:FU policy. Images for The Beatles are particularly tricky, I am sure, but this isn't the way to go. Jkelly 02:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If I understand what you are saying, no album article using the current album box template (which includes album cover art) can make feautred status. If so this issue is bigger than this nomination and needs to be addressed where the template is discussed. Jgm 04:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The current album box template, as given at WP:ALBUM, which is the associated Wikiproject for album articles, and to whose standards FACs about albums must meet is Template:Album infobox. Template:Album infobox 2, used in this article, is a variant upon it. I'm unwilling to start FARC'ing album articles that use it, but I am also unwilling to support new FAs that don't adhere to Project guidelines. Jkelly 04:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, the album infobox was an oversight on my part — I think it's most inappropriate to call those images "fair use". I've since removed it. Simply classifying the Geocities webpage as unreliable is inaccurate, I think, since it's an online repository of Beatles quotes collated from sources directly cited by the website. Books in Malaysia are expensive, but I may be able to look at local libraries and get some books from there. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have some Beatles books on hand; I'll take a look and see if I can help. Jgm 16:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I hate to be a pain, but, well, the (very short) lead currently states "by their relentless recording and performing schedule, the Beatles chose to return to the inclusion of a number of cover versions in Beatles for Sale." I have no idea how to evaluate this statement, because, while the article now lists several references, there's no link between the statements and each reference. Is this something a member said, or speculation by a critic, or what? I want to support this article, but I feel that clear referencing is especially important for articles on the arts. Is there any chance that I will see footnotes? The "Personnel" section is also not formatted to WP:ALBUM suggestions, but I will happily fix that myself, if I hear that there are no objections. Jkelly 02:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I've now somewhat explicitly attributed where those quotes came from. Go ahead and fix up the Personnel section. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object: The images Image:HelpUK.jpg and Image:HardDayUK.jpg are tagged as fair use, but they are used only for decorative purposes. This does not meet the requirements for fair use. They should be removed. --Carnildo 06:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Removed. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Jgm has been a kind soul and added print sources to corroborate the article. I've soothed my conscience by NPOVing the article with commentary from AMG and Q that, at any rate, at least sounds a lot better than the pedestrian stuff we used to have. Johnleemk | Talk 10:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object to it appearing on the main page, at least. It seems the majority of music related FAs that have made the main page are Beatles related. While I'm a fan, and realize the great significance of the band, there are plenty of other music subjects out there, and the Beatles are getting to much attention in this respect. -R. fiend 17:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, that's unactionable, and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I've never explicitly requested any of the articles I've worked on substantially to be featured on the front page (at least, as far as I can remember), and I will oppose such a motion if and only if it comes up as a suggestion precisely for the same reason as you. This is not the place to discuss it, however. Johnleemk | Talk 17:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Out of curiosity, what is the right place to discuss it? -R. fiend 04:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As per Monicasdude, nearly half of the article is quotations and there is wayy too much dependence on All Music Guide. Article suffers from overlinking of dates. Overall, article is bare in terms of relevent wikilinks. —jiy (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paper Mario

I think this is a pretty good possibility for a featured article.

I looked over the page, and I didn't see that much wrong with it at all. All of the party members and characters are listed there, without too much detail, the battle mechanics are described wonderfully, and I personally don't see any glaring errors. I edited a few names to fix their spelling, but other than that I think this is totally ready to become a featured article! This was a wonderful game to play, and I think it would be very welcome in the library of featured articles. Any way I can help make this even better if it's not ready, please do say. Toastypk 01:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Object.

There is content for the plotline, but it shouldn't be in the lead, but in its own section.

It has no references.

It has no discussion on its critical acclaim, its sales figures or the Mario RPG series as a whole.

Characters section is too excessive. All NPCs should be merged into the plot section.

No mention of Princess Peach's playability. The playable characters should be unlistified, and made into a section about the partners and talk about how they work in and outside of battles.

No discussion about audio, and barely anything discussing the graphical style.

No discussion about the varying enemies, such as how a flying enemy is immune to most hammer techniques, or that spiked enemies will injure Mario or anyone who jumps on them when they attack. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Kind of short - refer to Peer Review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mormonism and Judaism

Article Created 7 Aug 2004. As of 16 Apr 2006, there have been 136 Contributers, 60 are IP addresses, 76 are registered Users

Total 7 Aug 2004 to 16 Apr 2006, 924 Edits
Stats from (VChapman 16 APR 2006)

Previous submission archive Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mormonism and Judaism/archive 1 There has been a huge effort to bring this page upto wikipedia standards, and the activity has settled down. With many individuals and a complex issue, the spirit of wikipedia came alive to correct this article and allow it to meet wikipedia standards. (14 April 2006)

• Strong object:
  • No explicit listing of references. In addition, much of the material (particularly as regards Judaism itelf) is simply unreferenced.
  • The existence of article borders on original research; certainly there is no reputable source provided to demonstrate that a comparison between Mormonism and Judaism is particularly meaningful (versus, say, Mormonism and Shinto or Mormonism and Zoroastrianism), or that the article's choice of topics for comparison is appropriate. Kirill Lokshin 01:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • RESPONSE Included it a list of other book on same issue, discrediting the original research, and reputable source complaint
      • Covenant and Chosenness in Judaism and Mormonism, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, November 2001, ISBN 0838639275
      • Spiritual Vision: Hebrew Cryptograms -- The Key to Unlocking Parallels Between Mormonism and Judaism, David B. Cohen and Irving Cohen, Deseret Books, SKU: 4702961
      • Mormons and Jews: Early Mormon Theologies of Israel,Signature Books, January 1993, ISBN 156085006X
      • MY BURNING BUSH, THE SPIRITUAL JOURNEY OF NANCY GOLDBERG HILTON, AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY By Nancy Goldberg Hilton PhD, ISBN 0-9776403-0-2, Library of Congress Registration Number TX 6-288-494
        • Nancy tells about her spiritual journey from Judaism to joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It also explains the points of LDS doctrine which Nancy found fulfills her ancient Judaism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.104.145.145 (talk • contribs).

Huh? None of these are even mentioned in the article, and they don't seem particularly representative of mainstream theological literature, either. Kirill Lokshin 20:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm dealing with over 12 76 to 136 different contributers, on the topic of religion. The Origianl research issue was raised in the first archive and shot down, I'm simply demonstarting that the issue has more merit than the other topics you suggested. Mormons claims Israelite decent is a well founded and well established belief. All you have to do is hit the web to uncover that issue. I wish this article had ISBN numbers also, but it isn't the work of any ONE individual. I am going to try to compile a list. And these have actually been added to the articel under a heading of Similar Works. Anyone got the ISBN # for the Torah? VChapman 16APR06

My First source cited is going to be The Book of Mormon, Church of Jesus Christ of, July 1981, ISBN 0967686563

2nd Source Pearl of Great Price, January 2003, ISBN 0766136531

3rd The Holy Bible, King James Version, National Publishing Company, January 2000, ISBN 0834003465

Now I'll start on the other references, I'd hate for this article to not make it based on this issue. Any help locating published sourced for cited information would be appreciated, I'm going to try to locate said sources based on the 25+ reference links in the article. VCHAPMAN 16APR06

I can see where that would make sense for a Mormon views of Judaism aricle; but this article attempts to do a rather broader comparison. I'm asking for some evidence that such a comparison is considered meaningful by anyone other than the LDS; or, if it isn't, suggesting that the article be renamed and trimmed accordingly. Kirill Lokshin 21:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Name Change is out, please refer to Talk:Mormonism and Judaism#18, VCHAPMAN 16APR06

In that case, it may be appropriate (as was mentioned by several people in that discussion) to edit the contents to be something more than a side-by-side listing of several arbitrary points from the two religions. Kirill Lokshin 22:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not easy, there are many Mormon and Jewish Contributers, after that discussion on dec 2005, this is the reworked article, and the LDS contributers had little to say on the issue. It happened very fast and effecently. Also addressed in the talk session. When dealing with a religious comparision, you have to not offend either party, and successfully maintain a NPOV. Not easy, I'm ready to move on from this topic, unless someone else weighs in, but I feel all of this is adressed on the talk page, about 3x the size of the article page plus the archived page mentioned above. Best Regards, I guess its upto the community to decided. I'm getting too much into this, and I feel like even though the entire page has been completely restructered, by the Jewish Community of Wikipedia, its still the same complaint. VCHAPMAN 16 APR 06

• Object. Although I don't agree with Kirill Lokshin about the original research claim, I must object that the lead section is completely unacceotable in its current state. RyanGerbil10 03:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have expanded on lead section. Probally the last part to be adressed, I had to but great thought into a NPOV approach to the beginning of the article. Something I have been struggling with for over a year now. (VCHAPMAN 15 Apr 06)

*Object - Almost no references whatsoever, and the first paragraph is a grammar train wreck. "Mormons just as Jews, consider themselves to be full and entitled members of The House of Israel, and God's covenant with Israel. A claim not well accepted in the Jewish Community." is a terribly written sentence. Dee man45 22:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• My concerns have been rectified, so I now support. Dee man45 01:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Help on the grammer if possible, I think I cleaned the sentence up. (VChapman 15 APR 06)

• Object imbedded external links should be converted to WP:FOOTNOTEs (I'll do the conversion, but WP:CITE (see also WP:CITE/ES) information will be needed- consider {{Cite web}}). My main objection is that the article does not have a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents . At 64kb, this article is too large, and needs to implement Wikipedia:Summary style. Please use a proper system of subpages to shortern down the length of the article. AndyZ _t 14:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak Support. The article is definitely too large. My personal concerns are with things that are not so much documentation of beliefs as much as "proofs" or apologetics (the date correllations between events in Mormonism and the Jewish calender comes first to mind, mostly because, if you consider the day before the day before the new moon to be a Jewish holiday, than there are about 150 of them). I'm also concerned about references that are not primary sources for this article, but instead were sources for a referenced article. You could be compounding and passing on a mistaken understanding. As for grammar, I've fixed some in the past, and can find time this week to take another look. FiveRings 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• The writing in the lead section is particularly bad. When I read the first sentence - "Mormonism and Judaism have significant differences and some similarities." - I cringed. This definitely needs improvement. Raul654 13:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object This article is not titled properly. When I saw the title, I thought that it was an article on both mormanism and judaism, and for some reason they were combined. Only after reading a while did I descover that it was a comparison article. How about something like: Compasrison between mMrmonism and Judaism. The title of this article creates imidiate confusion. How could we possibly have a featured article which is not even titled correctly?
• Object I am not sure that there is even a reason for this article, it seems to me that any similarities are probably not meaningful, and they are definitely not meaningful to *both* religions. Some sections also seem quite superficial.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object In my opinion, this is original research. PDXblazers 00:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fox River Grove level crossing accident

Self-nom, and my first attempt to raise the bar for Wikipedia articles and entries. I have tried to highlight the importance of the event while still respecting the community, the memory of the victims, while maintaining a level of journalistic accuracy that I would expect to read in either a newspaper or a magazine. Possible objections: top image has no source, middle image has attributions to another company, bottom image is OK. I was assuming that if they were in the NTSB report, they were considered works of the government. --Rob 19:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• While I'd love to see more rail transport related articles reach featured status, I must object right now because 1) Cite your sources in a References section; 2) "... Metra train number 624 ... slammed into the back of a school bus ..." sounds too sensationalistic and makes it sound like Metra was at fault when further down it's stated "[t]he primary cause of the accident was the failure of the bus driver, Patricia Catencamp, to properly judge the distance ..."; 3) There is no mention of any recommendations by NTSB, FRA or any other agency on how to prevent a similar accident from occurring in the future except for one sentence in the lead; what legislation was proposed and what actions were taken? slambo 20:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. Noted — they're all in External links at the moment.
  2. This is just a matter of word choice in my opinion... "hit" sounds like an understatement, while "impacted" sounds odd. What about "crashed into"?
  3. There is a little bit of a mention in Consequences, but it can afford to be expanded. --Rob 21:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  On point 2, how about "collided with"? I usually use this for the timeline pages in Category:Timeline of rail transport. For point 3, my ideal solution would be a section like in Graniteville train disaster#Recommendations or Bourbonnais train accident#NTSB recommendations. As a minimum, something like the last two paragraphs of Clapham Junction rail crash should be included. slambo 22:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, fixed wording on the article. Points 1 and 3, I'll try to deal with later today. :-) --Rob 11:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Regarding NTSB recommendations, they're a good idea, but I want to do more than paste them word-for-word into the article (unless it's in a sidebar). Sometimes they're confusing even then, because the recommendations require the context of the entire report. It's definitely possible, however. --Rob 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Added NTSB recommendations. It's a bit rough around the edges—further edits will help clean this up. It will be difficult, but not impossible, to find resulting legislation. Also, going back helped uncover another cause of the accident, which I must add later, if not tonight (inability of the driver to hear audible warnings). --Rob 20:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you see anything further on the legislation that's mentioned in the lead? slambo 18:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• One other thing before I forget. The CNW was known for running "left-hand main" similar to British practice, rather than "right-hand main", which is more common on US railroads. UP continues this practice on former CNW lines such as the one involved in this accident. That means that the Metra train in the accident was travelling eastbound, and probably was well loaded with commuters bound for Chicago. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article too, but I'm not sure where at the moment. slambo 23:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object: It's not bad at all, but it needs some more work:
  • There are a lot of short (1-2 sentence) paragraphs. Could they be expanded? If not, merge them into an adjacent paragraph.
  • The timeline should probably be converted into prose, rather than being presented as a list. Ditto for the list of victims, although since that would be such a short section on its own I'd probably move the victims to the lead.
  • Make sure that all figures are connected to their unit by a non-breaking space (  click Edit to see an example of the code you need to use), so that the figure is on the same line as the unit.

Good luck! If I can help out, just let me know. PacknCanes | say something! 22:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • I would personally rather keep the timeline the way it is, for clarity. Lists are bad when they're really just a method of outlining that should be turned into prose. However, I believe the timeline would lose clarity if presented as paragraphs of prose. As to the list of victims, it would equally be a list if presented separated by commas or semicolons in a paragraph, rather than a bulleted list as present. I'm not sure I see the value of that, myself. It concerns me that 'remove all lists' is becoming a de-facto FAC requirement. —Morven 23:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I really believe that a featured article should have excellent prose from start to finish. Featured Lists combine good prose with a thorough list, and I think that's why you're seeing "remove all lists" become a standard objection in FACs. If Featured Lists didn't exist, then I don't think you'd see the number of remove-list objections. I'm willing to reconsider, but at least in my opinion a featured article should do everything possible to avoid listing information. PacknCanes | say something! 23:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think an article should present information in whatever way is most effective. Sometimes that is in list form. Featured Lists would not take an article like this: it is for articles that ARE lists, not that CONTAIN lists. I don't think the creation of Featured Lists was intended to bar list markup from ever being used in other articles seeking featured status.

That said, in many cases, lists are not the best way to present information. My main disagreement was in presenting the timeline as paragraphs, which I do not think could be easily done without reducing readability or removing information. It could be that the timeline contains a level of detail which is not needed in an article (as opposed to an accident report) - what do you think? As to the list of victims, I have no serious objection to them being listed in a paragraph rather than with bullets, but I simply feel the article neither gains nor loses thereby. —Morven 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'll come around to where I can take it or leave it. I'd still rather see it as prose, but I see your point and it's well taken. If that's the only thing remaining on my objection, I'll withdraw it. PacknCanes | say something! 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Reconsidered my objection to listing the victims as a list, and tried your suggestion of placing them in the lead. Do you think that looks better? Reason for my reconsideration was unhappiness with that too-short section. I also reworded as 'killed', not 'victims' - since the wounded also count as 'victims'. —Morven 23:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Looks good. I combined the list of those killed with the notation about the renaming of the crossing, since they seemed to go well together. Thanks -- PacknCanes | say something! 23:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I like it - that flows a lot better. —Morven 23:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll just note my agreement that the timeline as it is now looks fine. The presence of complete lists in articles is usually less of a problem than incomplete lists, and the timeline format helps with a time sequence that would be painful to visualize as prose. No vote. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Placed non-breaking spaces between numbers and units, except for seconds - do we do those too if 'seconds' is a word, not abbreviation? —Morven 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, you'd might as well. You don't really lose anything by making it a nbsp, except a little time to convert the spaces. PacknCanes | say something! 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Done that. —Morven 23:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you want those in between the 7:xx and the AM parts too? --Rob 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sure, might as well. Only thing you'll lose is a little time. PacknCanes | say something! 23:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object, although it has much potential. The diagrams add a lot to the article. However, the lead mentions that this was a "watershed moment," but the "Consequences" section is very sparse. The article should go into more detail about the coverage of the accident in the media, the reaction of politicians and other influential figures, and the specifics of what sort of legislation and regulations were handed down as a result of the tragedy. Was there any reaction on the national level? This sort of detail would flesh out the claim made in the lead, and also provide the reader with a lot more context about the accident's importance. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This is an interesting and mostly well-written article. Here are some things I think need attention:

1) I would rewrite the first sentence as, "The Fox River Grove level-crossing accident refers to a collision between a school bus and a commuter train that killed seven students in Fox River Grove, Illinois."

2) You do not define the following terms: crossing processor, thumbwheel, EMT and sound attenuation materials.

3) I question the appropriateness of the first graphic, since it is hard to decipher. You might want to redraw it to make it simpler.

4) From what I gather, the intersection is a T, with the train tracks running parallel to US 14. Presumably, the bus was traveling northeast, on Algonquin, but I don't think you say that in the text.

5) This sentence is very confusing:

"The primary cause of the accident was the failure of the bus driver, Patricia Catencamp, to properly judge the distance between the railroad tracks and the vehicle stopped at a traffic signal across the tracks."

Does "the vehicle" mean the bus? And does "across the tracks" mean north of the tracks?

6) AASHTO should be spelled out in the first reference, or you should create an article on it.

7) There are no references in the text, only a collection of links at the bottom. Mwalcoff 00:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object:This is a very good brief account and report of a tragedy, and that is the problem - it is just a factual report. It is not a featured article. It is too short, there must have been many after effects of such an occurrence, was the driver prosecuted, how experienced was she, what happened to her, and the many other survivors. I don't like the lack of a proper reference section, but I suppose links to official reports will do in a case like this. Giano | talk 09:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't deny that it's definitely a brief account and report, but at what point does information get included that belongs in another article? Some things I considered including in the article were background information, such as 1.) why Illinois has a history of being one of the leading states in grade-level crossings, and 2.) the accident history of the intersection. More information is better than none, but some of it may not be appropriate. The references section will be refined as I have free time. --Rob 18:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object - I agree with Giano. Bwithh 22:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• A lot better than it was recently, but object for now. (1) it needs a References section and (2) I'd like to see a bit more about the bus driver (e.g. in the timeline you mention a substitute bus driver, but is that the same person as Patricia Catencamp? Had she ever driven the route before? Was she disciplined for her error in judgement? etc.). JYolkowski // talk 02:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time to completion

These are all very good comments and will be addressed. I will keep referring to this page in the next week as I try to address each concern. --Rob 09:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] H5N1

After a failed featured nomination, this article was marked as a Wikipedia:good article, then nominated for Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week. Following this, the failings identified in the previous featured nomination (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/H5N1/archive1) appear to have been corrected. --Barberio 15:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The Avian flu box is cutting into the text... --Osbus 23:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• i fixed the box cutting.(and removed the "current" box, becuase they both served the same purpose. Vulcanstar6 02:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak object. I think the event in fact will be unstable for some time. Brand 18:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak object, for the same reason as above. --Doug (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object to title of the article. "H5N1" is rather slangish. A correct title would be H5N1 influenza virus or Influenza A virus H5N1 or Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 or some permutation thereof. Kosebamse 06:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object as per above. The article's title is misleading, the name should at least mention that it is a virus. --Ragib 07:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  The objections to the title not being lengthy enough don't seem to make sense in that every other article on a similar virus subtype is named in exactly the same way, as far as I can tell. For example: H1N1, H2N2, H3N2, H7N7, H1N2, H3N8, H5N2, H5N8, H5N9, H7N1, H7N2, H7N3, H7N4, H9N2, H10N7, SV40, HIV, etc. What's "slangish" about a scientific designation like H5N1? -Silence 20:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  If that is so, then they should all be renamed. An article title should make clear what the article is about. These do not. And the proper scientific designation is "Influenza A virus subtype H5N1" or something similar. Kosebamse 14:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  OK, then let's change 'em all. -Silence 15:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  Another unaddressed problem with renaming "H5N1" to "Influenza A virus subtype H5N1" or similar (which I've yet to see a single citation supporting, despite the claim that it's the standard form and "H5N1", the most common term used in the references, is "rather slangish"): what would it mean for the daughter articles of H5N1? Would H5N1 genetic structure be renamed to the nearly-indecipherable (to a layperson) "Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 genetic structure"? Will "Global spread of H5N1" be renamed to "Global spread of Influenza A virus subtype H5N1"? Will "Transmission and infection of H5N1" be renamed to the massive "Transmission and infection of Influenza A virus subtype H5N1"? Until authoritatively-referenced support is provided for the name-change so we can be sure it's not original research (or just plain unnecessary), and until it is specifically explained exactly how all the sister (H10N7, etc.) and daughter (H5N1 genetic structure, etc.) articles will be renamed, this trivial stylistic objection is unactionable. -Silence 02:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  These problems are relevant, but not under discussion here. The discussion is about the qualities of a single article. While "H5N1" is fine as everyday use, and as a redirect, it is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. If you write an article about lower California and call it Baja, you won't get it promoted until it is moved to Baja California. The same principle applies here. Popular names are, under some conditions, acceptable as article titles, but slang is not. And as for the "original research" matter, that is, excuse me please, quite ridiculous. The correct name of the virus is "Influenzavirus A subtype H5N1" or some variation of that, and there's is nothing to debate about that. If you want authoratively-referenced support for that, look up any virology textbook or scientific journal, ask a physician or biologist, or make yourself familiar with nomenclature in biology and medicine. Kosebamse 06:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  Baja is a false, and highly misleading, example. The sole reason Baja can't be a Featured Article is because it's a disambiguation page. As soon as you find something equally noteworthy that "H5N1" is likely to be confused with, I'll consider the analogy valid. :) A better example would be voting against Vienna because it's not called Vienna, Austria, voting against DNA because it's not called Deoxyribonucleic acid, or voting against HIV because it's not called Human immunodeficiency virus; that level of detail, though perhaps marginally less "slangy", is unnecessarily and unhelpfully elaborate, is not particularly consistent with most other articles of a similar nature, and is too much of a stylistic consideration in any case to be a valid and actionable FAC objection.

  And, if those clearly-related problems are not under discussion here, than neither is this article's title, as it is impossible to rename this article without renaming those; this article is no different from any of the aforementioned ones, and to half-implement a new naming scheme over a certain type of article is worse than to not implement it at all.

  I'm starting to come to the conclusion, though, that this business about renaming the article is nonsense. H5N1 is not "slang", it's just the shortened form of the full, "technically correct" name, used throughout articles much like one would use a human's last name throughout most of the article rather than constantly repeating "George Washington" or "Charles Darwin" in every line ("Washington" or "Darwin", better). And, like most people and other articles, the fully-extended name need not be the title; the name that's most common is used instead, e.g., Mahatma Gandhi rather than the more correct and complete Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. However, for such articles, while the article title uses the simpler, more widespread title, the beginning of the article has the more technically correct artitle title in bold so it is clearly marked. I see no reason not to put the exact same principle into practice here: keep the article at its useful, simple, efficient title of H5N1, but have the article begin with the fully-extended Influenzavirus A subtype H5N1 (or whatever the technically-correct designation is; noone in this discussion seems very clear about that, despite all the demands for a page-rename), then go on to use simply "H5N1" for the majority of the rest of the article. -Silence 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  I was not refering to our article Baja but to the improper and slangish use of, say, geographical, names, and the same principles apply to every science, be it biology, medicine, or whatnot. Your examples are not valid either: "Vienna, Austria" is an Americanism that is not used anywhere outside the U.S., "DNA" is a widely-recognized abbreviation (but should nevertheless be a redirect rather than an article title), and the same goes for "HIV". HIV and DNA are universally recognized, so one does not need to explain that it's a virus or the substance of genetic information, repectively, but H5N1 is not so universally known, and therefore our article should make clear that it is a subtype of a virus.

  My argument is that we should use the most correct and informative form of title that is available without getting totally unwieldy, because it helps our readers to understand what an article is about without having to look into it first, and also that slang should be avoided. There's a fine line between slang and useful abbreviations, and my feeling is that "H5N1" is on the wrong side of the line. But I accept that other views are acceptable here and am retracting my objection. Kosebamse 18:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think H5N1 is acceptable, because this is not exactly a "slang"; you can call it a popular name. The practical inconvenience of making the name Influenzavirus A subtype H5N1 would be the appropriate renaming of the daughter articles. Of course, the proposed name would be more scientific. Take the article "Lion", it would have been much more scientifically correct to have it named Panthera leo instead. But that sounds ridiculous! Most of the viruses do not have any common name, so we have to create article by their scientific names. Just a few virus (like HIV, H5N1) has got a rather "common" name. People (people of non-scientific community) can easily identify the viruses by that name. So, I do not think there is any flaw in retaining the present name of H5N1.Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 15:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object Although the article looks quite good, I am sorry to say that I agree with Brand that the issue is a little too unstable at the present time. AmbExThErMaL 02:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. The only partially agreeable point of objection here seems "Stability". However, this "unstability" is not due to edit wars, rather as a result of the subject being a current event. With more discoveries, and more spread, if any, one has to update the topic. This cannot be called unstability. Rather it reflects the article's up-to-date-ness. For example, the spread map may have to be changed as H5N1 spreads, but that is NOT unstability. In fact, in that sense, this article is not going to be "stable" in near future. I think the article meets all other criteria of an FA. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 08:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. WIAFA: "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day. current events have their own "current events" section on the mainpage. that is where this article belongs, along with the other daily-changing pages, not on the featured list. Zzzzz 22:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The article in question, as of April 2006, is An introduction to what was known about the Z genotype of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus of type A of the subtype with the fifth of several known types of the protein hemagglutinin and the first of several known types of the protein neuraminidase, as of April 2006. We could name it that and create a new article for data learned after April 2006. Then the article would meet all your criteria. Ha! I beg for help all over the place and the people with the most critisicm help the least. Silence has been a big help, only I wish he and others would help some more on the related H5N1 and Flu articles. Many people, myself included, don't want an article we are protecting from vandalism to receive a spotlight and receive even more vandalism. Actually the conclusion that this series of articles belongs more in current news rather than FA seems to me to be exactly accurate. Yes, that too will spotlight it, but that can't be helped. I'll just have to accept it. WAS 4.250 22:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Indian cricket team

A renomination after a substantial rewrite. I believe all comments on the previous nomination have been dealt with, jguk 21:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Very good article, but I particularly like the tabel of results in the 80s. Any reason why this hasn't been implemented for all years? Perhaps this should be done in another page, but I think it would be very useful. Harro5 06:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A table of all results for all time would be too long, I think. I take your point that it would be useful to have a summary of every result on another page though, jguk 07:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A fine piece of work which is hard to fault. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Object: After prompting from the comments below and re-reading the article, it does really need to expand beyond a history of West Indian cricket. Sorry, but it's not quite there yet. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:75 Years of West Indian cricket.PNG is claimed as "fair use", but does not have a fair use rationale.
  2. The image Image:Champions Trophy 2004.png is claimed as "fair use", but its use in the article appears to be strictly decorative. Therefore, it does not qualify for fair use.

  --Carnildo 21:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• • The "75 Years" image is used, with a clear description, to say that the West Indies Cricket Board authorised the book to celebrate 75 Years of West Indian Test cricket. The "Champions Trophy" logo is described in the text as being there because the West Indies won the competition. What's wrong with this? jguk 08:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • What's wrong with the "75 years" image is that the image description page has no fair use rationale: see Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. What's wrong with the "Champions Trophy" logo is that it provides no information to the article and is not discussed in the article: it exists only for decorative purposes. --Carnildo 18:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Just a query here about fair use for Carnildo: you say that "75 years" has no fair use rationale. Doesn't the 'book cover' copyright tag count as rationale? What more is needed? I'm just making sure I understand where you're coming from. This area seems much too complicated for me. Raven4x4x 10:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
        • The "book cover" tag counts as a fair use rationale in an article about the book. Any other use needs its own rationale. --Carnildo 20:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
          • One bit of the article is about the book - namely the bit about the WICB authorising it to celebrate 75 years of West Indian Test cricket. Isn't this enough? Anyway, I'm removing these two images for now, jguk 20:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support This looks solid. Good job, jg. -- Peripatetic 00:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object – The article only speaks on the history of the WICT. I feel this should be moved to so a separate article and a summary of the same be added here. The page size is also on the higher side. I think the following things need to be added: 1. Frank Worell's contribution: IIRC He was responsible for changing the fortunes of the WI team, using cricket as an outlet to unite the people against colonialism and poverty. 2. Nothing mentioned about the innovations introduced by WI -- Chinaman etc., 3. WI home grounds & culture --> calypso, noisy stadiums, flamboyant batsmen, fast bowlers etc. (I know, I should have reviewed earlier, but didn't have the time.) User:Nichalp/sg 07:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it would be somewhat POV to single out Worrell. Also, although I'd like to write a Social history of cricket sometime, I'm not sure this is the place (ie this article isn't meant to be a social history of West Indian cricket, which would be a separate article entirely - and quite an interesting one if it ever gets written:) ) jguk 16:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nichalp raises some good points which would improve this article further - perhaps this article should be moved to History of the West Indies cricket team and featured there, and his points added to a new more rounded article on the West Indian cricket team? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Has an ugly self-reference up the top of the page. Lead section should be more of a summary of the article and less of a narrative history. It also contains no content apart from history; almost the point where it could be named History of the West Indian cricket team with virtually no changes. The history, however, is excellent. Ambi 07:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What are you looking for apart from the history? jguk 16:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Uniforms? Grounds? Key records? Current squad? Supporters? Culture? There's quite a lot that could be added. See Arsenal F.C., which is today's main page article and a fantastic example of a club article. As an additional objection, the references aren't in the proper format. Ambi 02:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guitar

Partly self-nom (I have expanded the Inlays section, but the rest of the article isn't mine.) (However, this could be 'improved' by removing some of the too many external links.)

• Object Very far from FA status. Should make a peer review. For the following reasons
  • The article is missing 'national guitar'
  • The lists Significant Guitarists, Guitar makers and Guitar technique should be transferred to daughter articles and a summary with overview should replace them.
  • Guitar etc. is not an encyclopedic style
  • Acoustic and electric guitars should be change into something like Types of guitars
  • Expand Guitar amplifier
  • Expand Guitar festivals
  • Reduce the number of external links
  • I think the article could be improved by linking the different style of acoustic and electric guitars with significant guitarists who used them.

Vb 13:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Super400.jpg has no source information. --Carnildo 22:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object the article is too much of a list, lead should be longer and consist of only 2-3 paragraphs. User:Nichalp/sg 07:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drill bit

How to write a great article about something seemingly banal

• Object. There are several sections marked as "under construction", I don't think it's ready for this yet. Also, you didn't put the FAC tag on the talk page. Leithp 11:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object – "under construction"? just one reference? There are too many headings, if you intend this to be a list of drill bit types, then WP:FLC would be an appropriate place to nominate. User:Nichalp/sg 13:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It's a work in progress... right now we're mostly working on other WikiProject Metalworking tasks. Might be best to wait until it's looking closer to done. Bushytails 19:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Unfinished. Little more than an explained but incomplete list than a featured article. Giano | talk 10:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object: This seems more like a category waiting to happen. I'm not sure that putting all this in one article serves Wikipedia well, and even when finished I doubt it could really make it as a unified whole, much less an FA. Daniel Case 05:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• OBJECT You can't seriously be considering putting this article on the main page? Terribly written. Most, if not all, sections are small & pathetic. Plus, weigh this option: Historical article of use to mankind, or drill bit. Historical article of use to mankind, drill bit. Historical article, drill bit. Seems a no brainer to me! Spawn Man 02:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Definately expand (or just get rid of), the 'under construction' sections. It wouldnt look too bad without them Astrokey44 11:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Epistemology

Self-nomination. This article has finally become stable enough for nomination. It is also a rare example of a philosophy article with a relevant picture... Banno 22:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, for a number of reasons:

1. In-text citations need to be liberally inserted into the text.
2. The one-paragraph sections should somehow be merged into a more coherent whole.

Not sure how this could be done without a reduction in clarity. Banno

Some of the shorter sections could be slightly expanded, then. The middle portion of the article reads somewhat like a list at present, particularly the sections from "Idealism" to "Skepticism". Kirill Lokshin 21:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

1. The "See also" section needs to be shortened dramatically. The article shouldn't try to function as a List of epistemic philosphers.
2. More images would help; portraits of the philosophers mentioned can be used if nothing better is available.

While I agree that images would add to the appeal of the article, I don't want to see the situation develop were every main philosophy article has a picture of Socrates. Perhaps this is a field in which pictures are not that important? Banno

True, that. On the other hand, a picture of Edmund Gettier would be quite appropriate. I'll leave it up to your discretion, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 21:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

1. The lead section should be lengthened to several well-formed paragraphs.

Other than that, seems like a fairly good article. Kirill Lokshin 01:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the huge "See also" at the bottom of the page needs cleanup. You can remove links to anything linked in the main body text. If the section is still huge after that, it may indicate that the article needs to be expanded. JYolkowski // talk 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I've considerably reduced it. Banno 19:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, I'd like to see the references clearly identified and separated from "interest" external links. The signle sentence paragraphs need to be tidied up. I think that a bit more name dropping wouldn't hurt, for example in the lead the thinkers that have been particularly active in this field could be mentioned- since readers are probably more familiar with the names then they are with the subject matter.--nixie 23:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Gein

Self-nomination. facinating account of the murderer who is probably better known for the movie characters he inspired. Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs, Norman Bates from Psycho, Leatherface and on and on. --Fxer 16:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Egein2.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 20:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have added a source to that image, the same image is used on at least 10 different websites. I'm not sure what tag should go on it. — Wackymacs 13:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object I'm french and as you can see on this french article about Ed Gein (http://www.tueursenserie.org/Portraits/Gein_Ed/EdGein.htm) there's much much to say about this murderer. If someone speak very well both french and english, maybe it is possible to translate it in order to expand the wikipedia article? Kuxu 00:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object no references, some sections too short. User:Nichalp/sg 09:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object missing references, lead paragraph is too short, "Ed Gein's car" section is too short (maybe merge it with another section of the article?) — Wackymacs 13:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glacier

Non-self-nom. Nice, well-rounded article with lots of free pictures (especially the diagrams by User:Luis María Benítez). —Keenan Pepper 00:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I went through and cleaned up all the typos and grammar problems that I could find. In my opinion, there is still much work to be done in the writing department. I noticed a lot of style problems (switching back and forth between present, past, plural, singular, etc.) The article looks fine content-wise, just not writing-wise. If you went through, section-by-section, and tried to convey the same content with better, more fluid writing, it would work. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-27 01:10
  • I've edited the first few sections for style issues and removed a lot of redundancy. Tomorrow I'll finish polishing it up. —Keenan Pepper 05:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe it's my green text on black background, but the diagrams look oddly placed in the article, like they were tossed in at the end. You might try giving them all the same width throughout the article and/or switch some from right-side to left-side. I'm not sure. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-27 05:33
• Object:
  1. Needs a through proofreading.
  2. Too many one-sentence and two-sentence paragraphs.
  3. The red-linked technical terms need articles, or they need to be defined in the text.

  --Carnildo 06:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantis

This article contains errors. It purports to recount Plato's description but includes invented facts (e.g. that the island was 700 km across). It needs major fact-checking. Note that any re-telling of Plato's account is difficult. Since the original dialogues are not that long, and available many places on the net, IMO it is better to give only a very short summary and refer the reader to the "original" (i.e., translated) text.--Lindorm 13:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good article. Well sourced and very informative. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Question Three articles in FAC at once, Goodcontent? Following an FAC requires rigorous and diligent work: do you really want 3 going at once? Sandy 12:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like it Could do with a dramatic picture illustrating the island being submerged, but this would be a good FA. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes needs new picture, but besides that, it's great! Also per above. WikieZach| talk 20:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Commment I detest these quotes with the big blue marks, the quote marks are more dominating thant the quote itself.Rlevse 14:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object; poor referencing. The first level two section needs inline citations, especially where there are quotes. In one place, an entire sentence is lifted from somewhere and not incorporated into sentence in the article. Also needs a serious copyedit: things like "dialog" should have been picked up by now. And yes, the quotes are a little much. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not place more than one nomination at a time — this makes it difficult to do each article and its objections justice. Zzzzz 16:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: There's a translation of the featured German article in progress (User:Athenaios and me are doing it). In my mind the article is pretty much incomplete right now. --Bender235 16:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object. In addition to all of the above (especially the fact the article isn't stable judging by the translation effort), a two-sentence section (Atlantis in fiction) shouldn't be in a featured article, especially if the topic of the section has pages of content itself. Also, the article to be checked for NPOV - for example, a sentence like "More plausibly, the highly respected Plato scholar" can't be in the article. Jeronimo 21:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Not Ready. I'm a contributor to this article and I don't think it's ready. I'm unhappy with the summary of the Timaeus and Critias, and the "Modern" section is too small and poorly-sourced. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that means it will be even better in the future. I hope it gets FA eventually, but for now i've struck out my support. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Forgive me if I'm wrong but quick reading of the article gave me no description of the atlantian society described by Plato or other figures such as Edgar Cayce. There is a bunch of stuff about energy diamongs, flying transportation, spiritual beings/super human stuff being floated around. Some also wrote about connection of atlantis to the bermuda triangle. There is also no mention of theories about how the island was destroyed such as tsunami etc. Also no theories of surviving and migrating atlantians to other parts of the world such as mediterranean, egypt, africa etc. theories. All seem worth mentioning in my opinion. - Tutmosis 14:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually not - at least not that detailed -, because this has nothing to do with Plato's Atlantis. If we add everything to this article what some weird psychic imagined, we also have to add a detailed version of Walt Disney's Atlantis "theory" as seen in the 2001 movie. --Bender235 01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. A very interesting read, but I think I'd like to see more inline references. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment I agre with tutmosis. --Pedro 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I have read the article now and am not sure how applicable my previous point was unless the article has been changed since then. I have a few issues:

• I dont understand why the section "Receptions" is titled so. The section talks about various other claimed accounts and criticism and discussion of Atlantis by various figures, all mixed together. This type of information is rarely if ever called "Reception" to my knowledge unless you talking about a movie. Also I think this section needs to be split into "Other Accounts" and "Examination and Critism" for example. The names are self-explanatory.
• There are some prose issues. A copy-edit by a few editors should fix it. Example? one sentence starts with "Anyway,".
• There might also be some original research problems here with statements such as "are surely put into their mouths by Plato". Who is so sure? I hope its not the article author(s) opinion or if it is a notable figure than it should be stated who and why she/he states so.
• The two pictures of authors off-balance the text and it be nice if that would be fixed.
• What does Francis Bacon's novel have anything to do with accounts of atlantis? This bit looks like it belongs in "Atlantis in fiction" unless he actually states that his book is a real historical account.
• In the "Reception" section there is some information that is not properly explained.
  • "...proposed that Atlantis was somehow related to Mayan and Aztec culture." Ok, how? did they not give an explanation for this?
  • "As continental drift became better understood... theories of Atlantis were shown to be impossible" Ok... can you elaborate on who has proposed that continental drift proves atlantis to be false and how did they make that connection?
• I dont see the point of the quote by Julia Annas. Why do we need to know what someones opinion is unless they back it up? Im sure there are a million notable figures who have an opinion on the issue. People of interests are those who back there opinion up. She just states how she believes platos work should be interpreted...
• Why isnt there no information regarding evidence or search for evidence. Example? In recent history underwater rock formations have been discovered that look like a road which influenced some authors/researchers to try to tie atlantis to this. No matter how stupid some scarce claimed evidence sounds, I think its still notable if it has gained notability to be put into works like research literature or televised media.
• "Atlantis in fiction" section is a stub like already mentioned.

Thank you! - Tutmosis 23:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1997 Pacific hurricane season

Attempt 1
Peer Review

Second try. It is well-referenced, meets standards for the appropriate WikiProject, has many PD pictures, covers everything in detail, has appropriate use of spinoff articles. This is a self-nom. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Good. Everyking 01:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good work but there are several stub sections, short paragraphs and short sentences. — Wackymacs 07:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • • Support Looks excellent now. — Wackymacs 20:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I expanded the sections on Tropical Depressions a bit. Could you please name which other sections you find too short? Some of the sections are short because there isn't really a lot to say about a cyclone that lasted 2 days and never threatened land. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Almost all the sections are too short, because there are too many subheadings. For example, 'Tropical Depression Three-E' and Tropical Depression Five-E' are both only one sentence long. Each section should be up to two paragraphs long. If there isn't enough context to put there, then they should not have their own sections. — Wackymacs 07:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I put the depressions in their own section. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle
• Support, though I'd recommend expanding the stub sections. –Hollow Wilerding 14:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment -- would it be possible to reorganize the article so that the storms are treated by maximum intensity? That is, first cover tropical depressions, then tropical storms, then hurricanes, then Paka. Keep them in chronological order within each section, but cover all the tropical depressions in one section (no subsections) so that there aren't any super short sections, as there are now. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I put the depressions in their own section after the named storms. The named storms are in the order they formed during the season. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle
    • That's a start. Now I'm wondering if separating it by month would be helpful... the bottom line is that this article has a really big table of contents for the amount of information, and that means that sections should be consolidated. I'll make the change so you see what I mean. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 22:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• I've changed the navigational structure of the article so that there aren't any short sections, so I'll support now. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Because of the radical and bold changes, this article is very different from when it was first nominated. For that reason, I am closing the nomination and sending it to Peer Review because some of the original comments may not apply to the changed version. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coffee

This article was nominated previously, but I think that the reasons why it has been rejected have been resolved. This is a Good Article which has great pictures, well balanced sections, detailed, and acurate discriptions. I think it covers everything on the topic. Tobyk777 02:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose for a start - such a huge article the lead should be longer to summarise the content of the article. I think to reduce the huge size of the page the section of coffee drinks should be moved to a list of coffee drinks or something similar and a paragraph or two written in summary of the content. History seems under developed There is no consistent reference system, the aricle is a bit thin on sources. There are seveal short sections that are poorly developed like Coffee substitutes and Coffee as an artistic medium or not especially relevant sections like Coffee as a fertilizer - any organic matter can be used as fertilizer. I would suggest sending this article back to peer review.--nixie 04:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As far as sources go, the reason people often don't include them is becuase they didn't use them. Most of the time on wikipedia, people write from their personal knowlage. They can't site their brain as a source. I just knew the info I added to this article. I didn't get it from a soruce. By saying that anything which doesn't site sources for the whole thing is invalid to become an FA means that anything which people wrote from their own knowlage is invalid, which is dumb. Tobyk777 05:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No, actually, it isn't dumb at all. Read these: Wikipedia:No Original Research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. These two core policies should guide all our work, and most certainly Featured Articles. Research, not setting down what's in your brain, is what Wikipedia is all about. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Even if you write from the top of your head, you need to cite sources to prove what you think you remember is actually correct and supported by reliable sources. More common stuff like the color of coffee beans doesn't need any special sourcing, but as soon as you get into biological and historical facts, you can't go without. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, same as before:
  1. The image Image:Frappe.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  2. The image Image:Coffee cup.JPG has no source information, and no, "from Spanish Wikipedia" doesn't cut it -- the image was deleted from there due to questionable license information [5]

  --Carnildo 08:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. See above. --- Basileus Basileon Basileuon Basileuoton 03:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Fix the captions to include periods ("."), be more informative, and be complete sentances. I just skimmed the article, and if the captions are bad and other users object I think this needs work. Officialy, however, I'll leave this as a neutral comment. --HereToHelp (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:STYLE#Captions instructs "If the caption is a single sentence or a sentence fragment, it does not get a period at the end." There are currently 3 images: one is a fragment with no period, one is a genus/species label with no period, one is a sentence and a half with a period. DMacks 20:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Article is dominated by lists which need rewriting into detailed prose, there is a lack of citations and references and the lead is very short considering the length of the article. There are also lots of short sections and there are image source/copyright problems mentioned by Carnildo above. — Wackymacs 20:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think this article is too lengthy, and has too many external links. For example, why is http://www.coffeeblogging.com/ listed? The site isn't notable at all, and not that informative to merit inclusion in the external links. ---Aude 23:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Heavens no, the issues haven't been resolved! Nearly all of them still apply. It's nowhere near ready for consideration. Really, you should at least raise the issue on the talk page before nominating it to get a sense of what the contributors think about it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. (regarding others' objections). The lists have been removed. All images are now CreativeCommons or GNU-FDL. External links have (I think) been pared of non-"useful reference" sites. (what's the protocol here...do I place notes next to each Object above? DMacks 20:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The nomination's old enough that you should start fresh with a new nomination. --Carnildo 22:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sokol space suit

self-nom

Reasonably comprehensive, I think. Well referenced and illustrated with copyright free NASA pictures. Catsmeat

• Support. Yes, why not. It's snappy, engaging, has several pictures and the article sated my curiosity without making me feel angry or depressed, unlike many other Wikipedia articles. The only quibble I have is with the final sentence, regarding the legality of eBay Sokol suits - "Furthermore, the Russian Mafia is alleged to be involved in the trade". This really needs to be linked to a newspaper article or something similar. It's a plausible enough statement, but I hate passive things such as "it is alleged that" and "some people argue that" etc. Why oh why oh why oh why does Wikipedia show me a bloody preview when I quite clearly clicked on the "Save page" button and not the "Show preview" button? It angers me. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You've been having that problem too? Sometimes it makes me do that three or four times before it'll save! Aaargh! Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Life is pain. I've crossed out my objection above, because I hadn't noticed the link to Wired's article in the (spartan) links section. I want to add that I'm not the chap who nominated this article; the nominator didn't sign his name. And as I hit "Save page" it again makes me preview my writing. I don't want to preview my writing. If I don't get it right first time, every time, it's not worth saving. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm really sorry, your eyesight is fine; I fixed it when I saw your comment. Also, I forgot to sigh the self-nomination as I'm still a bit of a newbie. Catsmeat 15:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Prose is not exactly satisfactory; for example, "As of the end of 2002, a total of 309 flight suits had been made and 135 training and testing suits" or "Each cosmonaut is provided with a made-to-measure suit for flight. Though from the numbers made, it appears the suits provided for ground training are re-used." The three short sections should either be merged or expanded. Otherwise, a fine article. Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked it. Though I guess it might be an idea to submit if for peer review. Catsmeat 10:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, it has potential, but you're right, it needs a thorough peer-review first. Tony 16:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] October 2005

[edit] Intelligent design

[Sonam Yeshe] Not sure where it would fit in, but there *are* other angles which should be explored, IMHO, in this 'origin myth debate'. After all, Arthur C. Clarke's "2001" might be considered a story about "intelligent design". But all such explanations suffer from the problem of infinite regress: who (or what) created the [Cc]reator(s)?

[comment] Infinite regress would be "The Creator" then. [/comment]

Or intelligence (or any factors that produce this phenomena) is simply just a basic property with reality, an "absolute" (something without cause). There must exist one or more absolutes in order for reality as we know it to "work". That can be deduced logically. [/comment]. In fact, infinite regress

"Micro"evolution is clearly an irrefutable fact: regardless of one's belief system, bacteria & viruses adapt to everything we throw at them (and they are ahead of us at the moment!) Yet the "holes" in evolutionary theory, eg, "How can a leg become a wing, when the intermediate forms are clearly maladaptive?" deserve exploration. Such "gaps" in evolutionary theory are not a convincing argument for the existence of some form of Cosmic Designer, however. I believe there is a Hindu saying, "God is not proved", which would seem to apply here... (Yogananda, "Autobiography of a Yogi")

[comment] Microevolution: Is adaptation actually evolution? Where is the borderline between adaptation and evolution? [/comment]

All in all, I found it to be a very good article. Kudos!

I was just surfing Wikipedia when I found this article. This article is in my opinion worthy of being featured. I haven't worked on it myself. --Maitch 22:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• ITs pretty good a little bit excessive with the criticism but overall very good. My only worry is that it is a controversial topic, and therfore will have stability issues. It seems to be going ok right now so I will go ahead and Support.Falphin 01:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• No, please do work on it yourself, rather than shoving it straight onto this page, unedited. I was pleasantly surprised that it's not full of self-justifying religious hype; so it would be nice to see this article promoted, but it's not there yet. I've only looked properly at the lead; all of the text needs work. Here are a few things you can do to warm to the editing task:
  • Standardise the spacing of the numerical reference citations. (Best no space before, I think, but if you do retain a single space, insert &nbsp; to avoid line overhang.
  • 'Despite ID sometimes being referred to'—ungrammatical.
  • Comma before 'which'.
  • Remove 'As has been argued before' as redundant; sift through every phrase looking for redundancies.
  • Some sentences are rather long and need to be divided.
  • Use a simpler word than 'putative', or remove it.

Why not alert the contributors to such articles as 'Evolution', 'Darwin', 'Evolutionary psychology', 'Richard Dawkins', to this nomination; I'm sure some of them would be pleased to assist. Tony 05:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I'll fix those grammatical problems and dividing the sentences won't be to hard. How exactly would I standardize the reference citations? Falphin 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• It wasn't exactly shoved, the article has already been through Peer Review. Really most of the problems in the article are gramatical. I don't believe alerting them here is the best because along with the good editors will come more POV pushers. Perhaps alerting them on individual basis. But thats just my opinion. Falphin 01:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I thought it was getting closer, and working toward consensus and clear representation of both sides of the issue. But nearly every discussion on the Talk page gets side tracked into name-calling debate, and the long-term contributors jump right into the fray. Modest attempts to tone down the rhetoric and "hot-button" language have been thwarted. It seems too many contributors are concerned with winning the debate, rather than dispassionately summarizing it.--Gandalf2000 19:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It's getting closer, but I don't thinks it's yet up to par as one of Wikipedia's best. I say give it a while to develop some more clarity, and it would be a good candidate.Gandalf2000 15:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • What specifically can be done? This article seems close to FA and I might work on it a bit if there are some specific things suggested. Thanks Falphin 00:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Gandalf. Please do go ahead improving it; I'm keen to see it become a FA, whether sooner or later. Tony 02:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Article presently violates "Fairness and sympathetic tone" guidelines of Wikipedia NPOV policy, as I've previously pointed out and explained on it's discussion page. Also, it should be noted in the article that the particular claim "that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally" is false.--Johnstone 11:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you have a suggestion on how both views can be acommadated? Falphin 00:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • A few things that would help toward making the article follow the "Fairness and sympathetic tone" guidelines of the Wikipedia NPOV policy, which state, "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section." (I realize that this is not the only guideline for NPOV. None of the following suggestions implies otherwise.):

- Criticisms should be consolidated into a single section.

- The amount of criticism of ID greatly exceeds (by about 3 to 1) the positive presentation of ID. This is simply excessive. Reduce the ratio.

- The "Additional criticisms" section of the intelligent design article presents criticisms of things that are related to ID ("[Accusations of lack of] Scientific peer review", "Who designed the designer?", and "Argument from ignorance"). Since these issues are not directly related to actual ID concepts, but originate from critics, it would be only fair to present ID responses to them. For example, Dembski's book The Design Revolution has chapters (41, 27 and 30, respectively) dedicated to answering each of the above criticisms. Summaries from each could be added (in a single "Replies to additional criticisms section, of course).Johnstone 00:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • • There's a reason criticism exceeds positive representation - an overwhelming majority of experts in the fields ID affects dispute it vehemently. You'd find an equal disparate ratio in an article on, say, whether Stalin was a nice guy or not. — ceejayoz ^talk 22:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• I don't agree with previous comment; the article appears to be based on sound, scientific principles; I have no problem with the idea that computer simulations demonstrate the mechanisms of evolution—that's pretty basic. Tony 12:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Falphin, just insert &nbsp; between the previous character and the reference number, in all cases, with no intervening spaces; or better still, just jam the number up to the stop. Tony 01:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• As I suggested, Falphin, you'll need to enlist a few other people here. While some of the criticisms here are careful to avoid the appearance of religious ideology, I have no wish to have to defend the scientific view in such a basic way. Only to say to Johnstone that of course there are more criticisms than defence of ID—it's a pretty silly ideology. Keep the article purely in scientific terms. Tony 01:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly Object This article is not even about the philosophical concept of intelligent design. It is a discussion about Theists. Intelligent design has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The article is completely off-topic and looks more like a rant about not just Theists, which would at least make some sense, but about Christian Creationists.--Ben 01:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a section on Religion and ID but I'm not really sure on the philosophy infact I've read books by Idists and even they don't talk about philosophy. Read Michael Behes Black Box for example. The article clearly shows that ID is not science but an attempt at it. If you can guide me on how to add a philosophy section I will. And note to the others, I probably won't get done with Intelligent Design before this FAC is up, but I'll probably renominate it later. Falphin 20:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, the problem here is that "intelligent design" means different things to different people. Taken on its face in the context of philosophy or religion, it means simply that "an intelligent being designed the universe." However, it is often used differently. As a result, the talk pages are often filled with people (including me; I am trying to at least get a disambiguation link to Theism), who say things like "ID has nothing to do with creationism" or "ID is about complexity, not God" etc. etc. etc..... etc. This is because the article is more like a personal essay on the this Dembski guy's book, rather than an encyclopedic topic. It almost cannot be an encyclopedic topic. It would be very helpful to readers to have an article which can sort out the mish-mash of religion, science, pseudoscience, philosophy, and all that, but instead the article treats them as if this mash is a subject unto itself. The result is a lot of argument and a lot of dissatisfaction. There's not much reason for controversy when everything is in its proper place. Either you believe in God or you don't. Either you think evolutionary theory is sound or you don't. Either you think the existence of God can be proven with Dembski's "complexity theory", or you don't. Instead, people are arguing all over the place, and to me that doesn't even warrant a nomination for featured status, let alone receiving featured status. --Ben 03:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Shows Wikipedia At Its Worst Much too long. Readers will want to know what Intelligent Design is. The Introduction and Summary are quite adequate to explain that. The rest of the article is confusing and often incomprehensible. If it was translated into plain words some of it might be worth retaining but a lot would be clearly seen as meaningless. The article is not suitable for Featured Aticle status. It makes Wikipedia look like a home for self-indulgent contributors. --82.38.97.206 20:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)mikeL

• Object It's very difficult to talk about "Intelligent Design" without mentioning creationism. This article is way too long and should be merged into Creationism. 67.103.32.20 00:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Creationism represents a field of very specific ideas, while this article presents a theory in more general terms of scientific merit. However, I believe the tone in which it is written sacrifices professional objectivity. Doctor Love 07:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly Object Who nominated this diatribe? It's awful. Here's an example from the second paragraph: "...ID does not constitute serious research in biology." What is this phrase supposed to mean? And who wants to try to straighten it out, with the incessant and mean-spirited revert wars going on? This is one of the worst articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. ô¿ô 07:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Violates NPOV and frequently (albeit probably unintentionally) distorts ID Johnstone made some good points here, but there's something else that troubles me. The article often does not accurately represent the ID position it criticizes. For instance, the ID claim for the fine-tuning of the universe is that certain physical constants being changed would prevent any form of physical life, not just life as we know it (see Mere Creation or this article). Even if the view is wrong, it should at least be accurately represented. Whatever its faults, ID is also not an “argument from ignorance.” It isn't the mere fact that evolution doesn't have a means, it’s also the alleged barriers (e.g. irreducible complexity, chemical problems of abiogenesis) that exist in the natural world that allegedly require artificial intervention to overcome. Even if such views are wrong, they should be accurately represented. The claim, “By ID's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex” is a bit fishy, and the author provides no references (the same is true with "fundamental assumption of ID that every complex object requires a designer"). Behe himself (the guy who introduced irreducible complexity in Darwin's Black Box) concedes in Darwin's Black Box that maybe the designer is composed of something which could have come about naturally. Again, even if such views are wrong, they should at least be presented accurately. Until such matters are cleared up, I do not think this article should be a featured article. --Wade A. Tisthammer (10/26/2005)
  • That's the spirit! Throw a bunch of walls up and run for cover. The problem is, those walls are made of toothpicks, and you built them in quicksand... and you're not a particularly good builder to begin with. I call it intellectual filibustering. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-27 01:32
    • Why do you claim my “walls” are made of toothpicks built on quicksand? That the article puts forth a badly distorted version intelligent design theory is a very legitimate criticism. --Wade A. Tisthammer (10/27/2005)
• Article is too long, much ado about nothing, not unlike like the subject itself.

November 1, 2005 This article makes Wikipedia look bad; it's that simple. It is not doing justice to this site. I was dissapointed in reading this article on ID. It is not the standard objective type of writing in Wikipedia and I think it should be changed to read neutral. It's obviously written by someone with very strong feelings against ID and that comes across too clearly. ID is accepted by the scientific community because ID is made of scientists. That's why it's so controversial -the scientists are fighting the scientists. That the 'other', older, larger scientific community does not accept ID is true. In any case, please be neutral. It doesn't need to advocate ID anymore than it needs to say it's bologna. Inform your reader; don't push your views down our throats. (unsigned by 207.200.116.131 (talk • contribs))

What is this based on? No scientist in the world would advocate a theory that cannot ever be disproven. That's rule one of science.--Xiaphias 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Object, needs focus Intelligent design is presented as it is without the hype, duplicity, and sophistry (most likely a result of peer review). It is well-referenced and thorough. But it's still sloppy. It blurs the assertion and the movement too much. The crux of the "science" of ID is the assertion that intelligent design, the conscious arrangement of parts by an intelligent entity, is empirically observable. Other concepts have been proposed to elaborate/demonstrate this idea (most notably by Dembski). But the page is so mucked up switching between that mythology's meager (if even existent) evidence and its adherents (which when discussing ideas, is ad hominem) without demarcation it could very easily be accused of being a strawman and it is consistently accused of violating NPOV. It's somewhat of an unstable article, and thankfully its regular contributors are stubborn, but this is a double-edged sword. When I pointed out that its adherents have zeal is not reflective of the "theory" itself, my edits were reverted. My point is that cleanup probably won't be easy. - JustSomeKid

Support and with two notes:
1. Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article has received positive endorsements as being accurate and complete from several neutral sources:

• [6] Librarian in the Middle - Resources and News for Middle School Librarians: "IF there were an equivalent article to Wikepedia’s in an online or paper encyclopedia, we could expect expertise in choice of links, neutrality of language, balance in POV. But, especially in the case of ID, that article hasn’t been writen or is given only a cursory treatment (and sometimes in unsigned articles)."
• [7] Librarian and Information Science News: "The Wikipedia ID article [wikipedia.org] is fairly neutral."
• [8] Talk of the Nation. 2 November 2005 National Public Radio: "the Wikipedia entry for Intelligent Design... it is a good entry, perhaps even an excellent entry..."

2. At least 3 or 4 of those objecting here have had POV issues at the article. Their objections given here reflect the nature of their earlier issues there. The former point validates the article's content, whether it becomes a featured article or not. The latter point does not. FeloniousMonk 04:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Mild object. IMHO the amount and detail of criticism of ID burdens the article and indeed makes it (slightly) bloated, and subject to (in small part mind you) POV skirmishes. Needs to be trimmed down, made more succinct and in so doing creates a win-draw for everyone involved. (a win-win would simply be too optimistic at this point, maybe after the trial we can make further progress... what the heck is going on with that thing anyway) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I agree that exhausting battles with PoV-pushers have made this article longer than it needs to be, as with just about any article in this general area (and FM is clearly right that objecting here is a continuation of many of those pushers' battle), but I don't think that it's seriously bloated (look at Human for an example of real bloat, for the same reasons). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Article lacks knowledge of all the facts. Evolution is not science it's a theory or an idea developed by someone's thoughts to arrive to their conclusion, but it's not conclusive nor supported by solid scientific data. The said fact is we're teaching our kids to have faith in a theory that has yet to be proven. This unbiased opinion has skewed millions of children's thoughts in the United States. Let's get faith based ideas out of our schools!! Or at least be honest with the kids and teach them ALL the theories. What are you afraid of? Evolutionists that use the excuse of "Religion" to not have to teach all theories reminds me of Castro in Cuba. "Communism works!" Carl Marx wrote it in a book so it must be true... Think about it; 99.9% of Americans will never take the time to evaluate or study the facts of this debate. They're sheep. Even the people who read the article, and commented positively below, have been brain washed. What conclusive studies have they done? Where they there? How many carbon dating theory machines do we see in an average American's living room? They are kept by the few, and the true theory of how they work is known by less. Don't let a few people fill your mind with their theoretical ideas without asking questions. Don't kid your self evolution is a theory! Let your mind be open to all ideas. Let our children see the facts and hear the huge lies and mistakes that fill our history books. We do live in the United States? We don't live in a society that forces beliefs down ones throat? Let Freedom Ring! Let all the theories be studied!! NER --24.123.44.195 16:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved from top of page; new comments at the bottom. I'm glad this was posted, as it is fairly representative of some of the editors and their objections and methods we've had to deal with in writing the ID article. FeloniousMonk 17:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a good example of why articles should not be written and policed by the bitter opponents of the subject of the article. User:Stuckerj hit the nail on the head with his parody of FeloniousMonk's attitude here. Yes, the article has to be defended from creationists who are ignorant of science and who don't get or care for NPOV. But this fact should not keep us from writing for the enemy, which hasn't even been accomplished in the intro. The article has made progress since bad old days of when creationists were freely editing the page, but we can do better, and a featured article should be better. It should provide an account of ID from the perspective of its proponents. Making this a featured article would give right-wingers authentic ammunition in their claims that Wikipedia exhibits left-wing bias. Wikipedia has set some very high ideals for itself, and this article does not yet meet them. — goethean ॐ 23:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Should this article be given Featured status, I predict that a lot of (onesided) disccusion will forever go into removing that status. -- Ec5618 12:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This article is so often vandalised, that little energy is left to actually edit the article. I'm not sure it is at Featured quality. -- Ec5618 12:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Most of the oppose votes above mean nothing to me. They complain of POV, but are unable or unwilling to present a fairly rewritten section we could insert into the article. -- Ec5618 12:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This page highlights the fundamental problem with Wikipedia. At the bottom of this obvious war lies one tense argument: Does God exist? Some people insist that he must, and some cannot stand any implication that he might. Both sides push the evidence and arguments in their preferred direction with all their might, striving not for consensus but for victory, and because of the depth of the implications, this war will never end until God is proved or disproved. Therefore editing this page is a waste of time. It will never settle into a uniform consensus.

I must add that it is certainly currently biased against ID. All the one-sided references would be better left out and summed up by mentioning the conflict as a whole without taking sides, and letting the reader pursue it further if interested. This article has come a long, long way from simply and objectively explaining what ID is and the associated history. Just one detailed example of bias: it is stated flatly - in spite of many intelligent scientist adherents - that ID is based upon circular logic [by virtue of the fact that if the complexity proves a designer, that designer must be more complex, and herefore must itself have a designer, ad infinitum, which is not possible (reductio absurdem)]. This is a patently incorrect statement for two reasons: 1. As presented by the statement, the ID argument results in an INFINITE REGRESSION, not circular reasoning. The latter is an argument which logically depends upon one of its own conclusions. ID's conclusion that a designer must exist is not used as a premise in its argument. As presented above it only leads to a logical infinite recursion of the conclusion (a spiral, if you like). 2. It does not necessarily follow from the ID argument that the designer is only somewhat more complex than nature. Equally possible is that the designer is infinitely complex, and thus could not have been designed. Before any hasten to point out that an infinitely complex, undesigned designer is an absurd concept, it should be obvious that any theory whatsoever terminates finally at an infinite, uncreated existence. Take the Big Bang for example: where did the original point of condensed matter come from? Hopefully nobody is foolish enough to propose a cyclical Big Bang as a solution to this face-to-face clash with infinite existence.

These should be obvious points to anybody scientifically educated, mature and intelligent enough to take it upon themselves to edit a Wikipedia page. One could argue that perhaps the flaw of Wilkipedia's tolerance of all edits is that it allows faulty statements. However, there are many, many other examples of bias against ID in the current article. Rather than go through them painstakingly I will just name a few (and please note, I won't be back to waste my time further with this eternal argument): Constant references which carry negative overtones are made, such as ID being controversial (historically evolution has this role), being [neo-]creationism not accepted by the scientific community (should state the majority of), 'junk science' (argumentative and unfounded), not experimentally verifiable (Nobel Prize winner physicist and agnostic Leon Lederman does not believe this to be a requirement for a scientific theory, see 'The God Particle', page 389; furthermore macro-evolution is in the same camp), religious in nature and Christian specifically (false - it is purely scientific - of course a religion like Christianity would have major attraction, involvement and overlap with it, but this should not be presented as an attribute of ID itself; evolution and secularism have a similar relationship); and other simply incorrect statements concerning proofs and disproofs. I mention the above for the record, however, I do not expect any agreement from those whose POV is in line with the article, because ultimately this is about whether one can face the fact the God exists or does not exist, and proponents will hold to their camp with a tenacity as great as they hold to life itself. ant 14:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that this was User:Antandcharmi's ("Ant") very first edit to Wikipedia[9]. This is represents another tactic those working on the article have faced.

Much of Antandcharmi's criticism of the article arises from not understanding WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience, the policy governing how pseudoscience is covered at Wikipedia. The article's content is compliant with the policy. FeloniousMonk 16:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Object. I have no reason to think that any article in which claims of pseudoscience are inherent can ever achieve Featured Article status. It is too difficult to distinguish NPOV (essential) from SPOV (which is actually a POV). Any such article, such as this one or Creation science, will involve too much hostility and uncivil editing, and so is not likely to get to Featured Article status. Also, any article that is the subject of a user conduct RfC or an RfAr (even if a badly filed one) probably is too far from consensus to be worth trying to get consensus by FA process. Robert McClenon 17:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Though I still support the article for FA, sadly, I must admit Robert McClenon makes some very valid points and is likely right. FeloniousMonk 23:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article, in my view, has too many problems to be a featured article, although the work that has gone into it is admirably comprehensive and well-sourced. However, the problems are essentially threefold:

First, it is much too long. In an effort to accommodate the many arguments that whirl within the debate the article has ballooned to an unreasonable length; this makes it hard to get through and a cumbersome presentation of the central ideas.

Second, it is important to note that ID is, at the moment, essentially an American issue, insofar as school boards, religious and scientific communities, not to mention political leaders, outside of the US are not implicated in the debate. Unfortunately, I cannot think of how to rectify this particularly, but the fact remains that for a project of international scope, this article is addressing concerns that have surfaced in a public debate almost solely in the US. That should be of central importance, since it highlights the lively debate about the role of religion, and religious derived thinking, in US public and scholastic life. As it stands, this article reads like a painstaking attempt to provide an NPOV description of ID as it exists within its US context. I think that the Amero-centrism of the article further makes its FA status problematic. I speak only for myself here, but as I see it, ID's importance is less the raiments of the theory/hypothesis, as much as the way it is illustrative of current US politico-religious life. I invite other non-US editors, of course, to disagree and smack down this reservation. But ID is not taken seriously anywhere else in the world. That should be central.

Finally, as noted above, the ongoing polemicising and casuistry suggest the article is currently too unstable to make FA.

All that said, I wish to salute the amazing efforts of all the editors who have contributed to this effort. Politics, not competence, intervenes to make this currently not FA level. Dottore So 17:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The ID debate is not a solely U.S. (not American) issue. Because it is not about ID versus Natural Selection. It is about a bunch of people whose faith is challenged by discoveries of fact.

In places where facts intersect with their opinon, it isnecessary for the facts to give way, so these people have designed an attack using a mixture of religion and debate. Please understand that it is not theology. It is no more fostered by theology than the young men who blow themselves and others to pieces. They are unhappy and they can't reconcile themselves to their surroundings. They may mistake it for religion as a man mistakes lust for a nobler emotion. Howard Ahmanson, the man who funded the Center for Science and Culture, appears to favor the establishment of Biblical Law. This is similar to movements in other countries whether established or recent. Yes, ID is an "American" cancer, but examine the similar "turn the clock back" cancers. If we can't unite over this, we are a hopeless bunch.

The fact that the article is as stable as it is says much for the Wikipedia model. This is not just a run-of-the-mill bitching session. This article reaches across national boundaries because we keep our workers ignorant in every country. Wikipedia can do something about it. b_calder 00:00:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Support.There are so many people in the scientific community who are against Intelligent Design that I think comments on this topic would be overwhelmingly representative of the Community hired to teach and do research in public institutions. Not every ID supporter is going to rebuttal every point made (Personal comment: Unfortunately). Therefore, why would this article not be placed on Wikipedia's home page. I think this topic is vital to put forward since it is a hot-button issue to Americans. Americans who have knowledge on the topic also want to jump on the bandwagon and display what they know, so I support this article's advancement. --MEGOP, 2:58 (UTC) 13 June 06

OBJECT - Highly anti-ID with severe distortions Heavily edited against ID by those who do not understand how origin theories are modeled or how to disprove them. DLH 03:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• COMMENT: The above is yet one more example of bad faith attempts by pro-ID edtiors to scuttle the FA candidacy of any ID article that presents both sides of the topic fairly and in a balanced manner. DLH, a largely single topic, single viewpoint contributor [10], has a history of using Wikipedia to promote an aggressively partisan pro-ID viewpoint, and has consisently violated WP:NPOV in so doing. Objections in the same manner as his scuttled the last FA attempt, and his comments above serve to illustrate how those not dedicated to NPOV but to a particular POV will always try to derail any FA status for this article. I'm afraid until a method is adopted to properly weigh and deal with bad faith or just clueless objections, hot button topics like ID will always be vulnerable to such acts of partisan activism. FeloniousMonk 21:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

REBUTTAL: FeloniousMonk accuses of "bad faith" with no evidence. He is one of the primary causes of the anti-ID bias in this article. I have been working for many months to correct these biases by summarizing both sides. Overview ID & Conventional Science. Peer Review However, FeloniousMonk and those working with him systematically revert, refusing to allow any changes.DLH 17:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to FeloniousMonk's caricaturization of "single topic single viewpoint" contributor, I have participated in at least 63 pages. He accuses me of being "aggressively partisan" and having "consistently violated WP:NPOV". I have worked at providing objective cited material, correcting FelonousMonks overtly anti-ID editorials. This diatribe is another example where FeloniousMonk appears to be following WP:ABF.DLH 18:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC) There have been at least a dozen explicit wholesale reversions with no effort at editing or seriously pointing out what the objections are. I have worked with constructive criticism to revise the and improve the statements and citations.DLH

Support as featured (although given how much vandalism and junk I've had to deal with on previous occasions that I had an FA on my watchlist I'm almost inclined to oppose. This article is going to make many other articles seem like a cakewalk. ) JoshuaZ 23:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems a great shame that this article has been rejected due, frankly, to partisan ID supporters. It's an excellent article, and no less NPOV than an article on flat-earth science. Shame on the nay-sayers, and shame on wikipedia for allowing it to happen. Tomandlu 22:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eleanor Rigby (song)

I know, another Beatles article. At this rate, we'll have their whole repetoire. But I think it's FAC quality. Self-nom. Failed its first peer review. It's also been in peer review. It's come a long way in its FACness, and the issues the first time around have been resolved. Thanks! --The PNM 01:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Although I like the song, it's OBJECT for me sorry, Too short, not enough pics for FA, not very informative, not the best overall. Aren't I a meany? Spawn Man 08:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  • There are a couple of one-sentence paragraphs. Those need to either be expanded or merged into an adjacent paragraph.
    • Taken care of! Thanks to help from Johnleemk. --The PNM 20:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • External links should go in the references section at the bottom, not within the article itself. Footnote them using {{ref|name of reference}} in the article, and {{note|name of reference}} in the references.
    • Done with one thing, at least. Thanks! --The PNM 02:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The parenthetical asides throughout the article interrupt the flow of the prose. See if you can work those into the actual prose without setting them off in parentheses.
    • They're gone. --The PNM 20:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't worry much about finding additional pictures; there's not much else that you could add. If you stumbled across a licensed or uncopyrighted picture of the Beatles performing the song, then include that, but otherwise I think the pictures are fine as they are.

Good luck! Let me know if you need any help. PacknCanes | say something! 13:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking care of my concerns. I don't think it's fair to pile on more stuff to do after you've already met most of my objections, but this article badly needs a copyedit and the prose needs to flow better. I'll withdraw my objection on the grounds that the objection specifically has been addressed, but I'll have to abstain until it comes up to a better level of writing. Also, as Johnleemk notes below, be on the lookout for POV writing. PacknCanes | say something! 19:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• While I would love to support a Beatles song article that I didn't work on much, right now, I have to object. The length and pictures are fine, but there are far too many instances of unencyclopedic writing; to just cite one from the lead itself: "The songwriting credit is Lennon-McCartney, though it was originally written by just Paul McCartney and all the Beatles contributed bits of lyrics." The second paragraph of Significance, in particular, is full of such writing. I also dislike the incredibly short sections near the end, and would merge them if I could find an arrangement that would work. Johnleemk | Talk 14:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I rewrote the offending lines; is there anything else that is awkward? --The PNM 04:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I still had to make some minor changes, but after delving into the Signifance section more, I'm quite convinced I can't support until it is rewritten. I find the section rather overt in its POV (when it shouldn't even have one in the first place). If we could cite the opinion as that of a Beatles biographer or some of a music reviewer (or someone like that), then it would be great. Johnleemk | Talk 16:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Johnleemk, the opinion actually IS from Ian MacDonald, the Beatles' biographer and author of "Revolution in the Head" (just had a new edition this year). Specifically, his entry on Eleanor Rigby -- practically the whole entry is about its signficance. Is it okay now? I put a reference, but should I make some inline reference? (like: According to Beatles' biographer Ian MacDonald...).--The PNM 19:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
        • A textual reference would probably be best, but it seems a bit odd to me if we devote two paragraphs to the opinion of one Beatles biographer alone — that itself can appear biased. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'd like to see a lot more referencing. There are two inline links, and four "references", but I have no idea what fact is referenced by what. I'd also agree with Johnleemk that the writing is a little uneven. Some of it is quite good, while in other places it is awkward. I don't agree that any more images are necessary. Jkelly 23:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've gone through the article and my sources and done all in-line references. I added one more that I had forgotten (when I added the significance section) and removed one, since the section that that referenced is now deleted. Is that good now? Thanks. --The PNM 20:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I notice that something from the first peer review hasn't been addressed: Why is it at Eleanor Rigby (song) when Eleanor Rigby is a redirect there? — Laura Scudder | Talk 00:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've done a request for move to Eleanor Rigby. --The PNM 03:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC). It's on Talk:Eleanor Rigby (song).

Comment: It just seems like you are going in to too much detail on such a narrow area. I can't deinatively say yay or nay, but the premise is awfully small here. HereToHelp 19:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The long quoted passages should probably be re-written into prose. The sources should be in APA or MLA format, with a short description/excerpt of what is available at each site in case those sites ever go down.

Also:

• "a score by George Martin". A score for a song? Was Martin the song's arranger as well as the producer; did he write any of the instrumental?
• "the Shangri-Las...a Motown rendition". That should probably be "Motown-style", since the Shangri-Las weren't Motown artists.
• In general, the article is a bit on the short side to be about such an important song. There has to be a bit more that can be said about its impact on pop culture.
• A few POV problems, like "striking lyrics" (in the lead).

It has potential; it just needs some work to ge it there. --FuriousFreddy 20:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corinth

Self-nom.What do you think?--Astavrou 22:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object I don't want to come off sounding as mean, but do you have a list of sources used? Also, some of the prose could use a little bit of work (it's used incorrectly in place of its, and I'm also not sure about "the original isthmus" in the lead section). There's also a bit of repetitiveness regarding the namings of the ports that were available on the isthmus: compare "The city of Corinth historically had access to two ports. Lechaion lay to the west on the Gulf of Corinth and the port of Kenchreai lay to the east on the Saronic Gulf," at the end of the final lead paragraph to "The city had two main ports, one in the Corinthian Gulf and one in the Saronic Gulf, serving the trade routes of the western and eastern Mediterranean, respectively. In the Corinthian Gulf lied Lechaion, which connected the city to it's [sic] western colonies (Greek: apoikoiai) and Magna Graecia, while in the Saronic Gulf the port of Kenchreai served the ships coming from Athens, Ionia, Cyprus and the rest of the Levant. Both ports had docks for the large war fleet of the city-state," in the History section. --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1)Lacks references. 2)The history section is somewhat thin. It should be broken into subsections (city founding, Hellenic period, Hellenistic/Roman period, ...) and expanded. 3)More information is needed on modern-day Corinth such as population and demographics, current political structure, local cultural/tourism/sports activities, and institutes of higher education. Basically a good start that still has a ways to go before it is to FA standards. --Allen3 ^talk 23:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object 1. no references. 2. Sections can be expanded. 3) Map missing. 4. Images have an unknown source. User:Nichalp/sg 11:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The images Image:Corinth Temple of Apollon.jpg, Image:Corinthian statue.jpg, Image:Corinthian silver stater.jpg, Image:Corinthian silver stater reverse.jpg, Image:Corinth aerial.jpg have no copyright information.
  2. The image Image:Amphoreus Corinthian.jpg has no source or copyright information.

  --Carnildo 19:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Giuseppe Verdi (listen up, folks; seriously)

Self-nom, I guess. I'm nominating this article in order to convince myself that I've made a bona fide attempt to get it on the main page. I'm pretty certain it's not going there. So, you see, I'm doing this for selfish reasons: I propose to have a clear conscience after I'm done with the whole Verdi issue here. Let me assure you, though, that if getting myself embarrassed is what it takes to promote the Verdi entry, so be it. I don't mind. I don't mind at all.

I have seen the objections on the peer review page and I understand them fully, although I did find some of them pretty (expletive deleted) stupid. Now let me tell you what I think.

I think that the NPOV concept is a very good thing. In fact, it’s wonderful. Without it, we would all go to hell. However, with so many people contributing to the best and most informative source of information in the world today (I’m not kidding), it is inevitable that now and then things tend to get out of hand. Some of the contributors are, no doubt, sound thinkers and well-meaning people in general; the majority, however, will always be inclined to follow the rules to the letter. That’s one of the most annoying problems in any field these days: lots of people follow the rules to the letter and insist that others do so as well. Which is why there are neither artists, scientists, nor politicians today: just a lot of bureaucrats INVOLVED IN art, science, and politics.

Once in a while folks need to be reminded that it is the SPIRIT, and not the LETTER, of the law, that really matters. Without the spirit, the letter is worthless.

Now. The NPOV thing SHOULD be treated as some kind of, I don’t know, DOGMA - by most. However, once in a while, and only once in a while, someone who feels especially strong about CERTAIN THINGS should be, not merely allowed, but actually encouraged to express a point of view (within the boundaries of good taste, of course). Some folks had better remember that NOTHING in this world can EVER be presented without a point of view ANYWAY. Technically, any complete sentence IS a point of view. For instance:

The battle of Hastings occurred in 1066.

Yes, but only according to SOME people. There is plenty of disagreement about our dating methods, chronicles, documents, reputable sources, and so on. Is it commonly accepted that William the Conqueror kicked Harold’s ass sometime in the course of that year? Yes. Are there folks out there who disagree or (more commonly) HAVE NO OPINION? Yes. Conclusion: the fact that the battle of Hastings took place in the year 1066 is not a fact at all, but rather the majority’s POINT OF VIEW.

There are no facts without a point of view.

Let us now move on to the matter in question.

Unless one is determined to outdo the Pharisees in pedantry and hypocrisy, one would naturally agree that Philip Glass is not as good as Verdi or Wagner or Puccini. It is also pretty obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of opera and can appreciate it that not all of Verdi’s operas are equally brilliant. When pressed, a great deal of folks would probably admit that some of his pieces are actually pretty weak and generally boring.

Moreover. Avoiding making a distinction between “Rigoletto” and “Falstaff” IS tantamount to expressing a point of view.

Because it IS a point of view.

It is the Establishment’s point of view.

It cannot be commonly accepted since opera is not a common genre.

It is the Establishment’s fault that opera is in crisis today. It may therefore be a good thing, a quixotic thing, even, to contradict the Establishment’s opinion and re-establish the truth. Opera needs new blood; it needs new audiences; it needs young folks to buy tickets. If a young man or woman’s FIRST live opera is “Falstaff”, and not “Rigoletto”, he or she might NEVER AGAIN go to the opera. Ever.

Clear so far?

As I have mentioned before, I’m all for the NPOV thing. Seriously. However, I insist that in SOME instances, exceptions should, and MUST, be made. Yes: it is indeed my opinion, my point of view, my conviction that where opera is concerned, the Five Greats (Verdi, Wagner, Puccini, Bizet, Tchaikovsky) have to be given all the exposure they can get and THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO BE HYPED. The reason I rewrote nearly the entire article about Verdi is the previous article was an insult. I can say no less. I haven’t made up my mind about the Wagner entry, but it SEEMS okay. The Puccini article is not an insult: merely a damn shame. The one about Bizet is short and stupid. The one about Tchaikovsky seems to have been written by a fatuous obese spinster with a Russian accent.

I give you my word of honor, ladies and gentlemen, that when I’m the one providing the hype, it (the hype) can be neither tawdry nor tediously heart-warming. As a Second Renaissance man, I know the value of good taste. Believe you me. If you still doubt me, read the (expletive deleted) article (READ it, don’t skim through it).

That said, I very humbly ask those of you who feel the least bit pedantic to stay the (expletive deleted) away from the article. Seriously. You want to be all neutral about a composer – do Beethoven or Brahms or Mahler. Leave Verdi alone.

What, after all, is the main purpose of an encyclopedia? Isn’t it to provide information? Well, I have news for you. The implication that “Aida” and “Falstaff” are equal in value as works of art is NOT information: it is bureaucratic (COMMONLY ACCEPTED term for bovine excrement deleted). Ricardo the Texan 05:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC) (aka Ricardo the Impressionist)

• Oppose - POV. KingTT 05:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per KingTT. Sentences like "In it, Verdi's artistic generosity is at its highest. Unspeakably beautiful melodies are tossed right and left, passages of celestial beauty scattered like pearls and never repeated, numerous arias, duets, trios and a quartet follow one another in an unceasing celebration of musical genius; passions vibrate; comedy and tragedy merge seamlessly." are just unacceptable in an encyclopedia. The article is strewn with POV comments, and because of your rant above, I see no reason to believe this will be improved. Furthermore, the article has problems unrelated to POV. Entire sections, like the one describing "Verdi's role in the Risorgimento" are unsourced, despite making questionable statements. There is also an untagged image. Whether or not you appreciate it, NPOV is a foundation issue for Wikimedia, and is not negotiable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox designed to fulfill your agenda, and will most definitely not allow a POV article to become featured. Therefore, if you can not adhere to NPOV, which I strongly recommend, "I very humbly ask you to stay [...] away from" Wikipedia. Superm401 | Talk 06:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. If you feel the need to write a POV article on Verdi, please do it elsewhere. See also Wikipedia:What is a featured article, and note especially point 2d - a featured article, by definition, is required to be NPOV. You yourself admitted that this is a POV article; how can it ever be featured if it does not meet the basic criteria of a featured article? PacknCanes | say something! 06:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object For one, you've faulted by making a desperate plea for the NPOV status of the topic, right here on FAC. 1) Remove text in parenthesis and make it flow with the text. 2) arguably, the greatest opera yet written Arguably? according to whom? 3) It may have been Giuseppina herself Is this your point of view? See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. 4) Lead is too short, double the size 5) why should you compare his birth to Richard Wagner? 6) Parents' names? 7)His greatest works (e.g. Rigoletto, La Traviata, Aida) --> His greatest works, the Rigoletto, La Traviata, Aida... 8) Based on a play by Victor Hugo --> 'Based on a play by author Victor Hugo. Fix these and similar errors first before I review again. User:Nichalp/sg 07:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I listened up, and I seriously object. If I'm reading a Wikipedia article I want to know the facts and just the facts. If I'm sufficiently interested I'll explore deeper and then make up my mind, safe in the knowledge that nobody but me has the right to make up my mind. Don't presume to tell me what the "greatest" opera is, or tell me that music is "unspeakably beautiful". The article reeks of POV and of all the thousands of articles on Wikipedia I don't see why the rules for FA consideration should be changed for this particular one, simply because you feel passionate about it. Anybody could make a similar plea for their pet subject. We've managed to create some outstanding articles about some highly significant subjects and we've managed to keep it neutral, so if you're serious about the article you need to accept this is policy, and either improve the article or move on. The paragraph quoted by User:Superm401 (above) is nauseating. You know what's required or else you wouldn't have fatuously begged your case at such length, so I won't bother directing you to the relevant policy pages. If you leave the article as it is, other editors will eventually prune the POV from it. If you care about the article, perhaps you should be the one to do the pruning and your nomination might have some chance of success. I absolutely agree with every word of every previous objection. Rossrs 10:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support if only for the gutsy stance you took even though you knew it would not be a popular opinion. It took a lot of courage to do what you did, and not many people would do that. Although personally I would remove POV, I think your stance could fall under Wikipedia:Ignore all rules OmegaWikipedia 17:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Your interpretation of the ignore all rules guideline is appalingly wrong. Ignore-all-rule is about cutting through red tape, and is absolutely not applicable to this situation, which is about overlooking significantly quality issues when choosing featured articles. Your support is utterly vacuous →Raul654 23:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Omega, the idea is to support or oppose the article on its own merits, not on the gutsy stance of its author. If you truly believe that the article, as written, meets Wikipedia's standards for Featured Article, and that it is an example of Wikipedia's very best work, you should expand upon your support vote. Rossrs 11:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm a musician; I love Verdi. But this will not do. Aside from the obvious POV issues—which are not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia—the article is full of sparse and choppy paragraphs and lacks sufficient references. There's a lot of woodshedding to do before this one is ready for the Main Page. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep up the good work! The Quixotic Quest continues, and there’s yet some hope for a Second Renaissance! My 2 Percent Theory works like this. Take a whole bunch of people, selected and/or grouped based on ANY OLD criterium. They can be graduates of a certain not-too-prestigious school; or lesbians of a certain age; or hockey players; or writers; or politicians; or farmers; or lawyers; or just a whole bunch of folks from a certain neighborhood who decided to get some air last Tuesday and got wet because it suddenly started raining. It doesn’t matter. ANY old group. Chances are, 2 percent of them are worth one’s time, the remaining 98 being merely reluctant followers, the proverbial dead weight. And that is fine: because the so-called dead weight WILL contribute, at least in part, to the birth of the NEXT 2 percent.

• Well, this here project (Wikipedia, I mean) is actually doing BETTER than 2 percent. I sort of expected it. Miracles are never complete if you sort of expect them, I guess. Thus what we have here is an incomplete miracle. I see six votes, and already one of the six happens to be a member of the elite – and that’s 16 percent rather than 2. Thank you, Omega.

• As for the rest. I realize Verdi doesn’t deserve this; it’s disrespectful to use his name and legacy in such experiments. However, what’s done is done, so I might as well put together a bit of a summary (should more votes follow, I’ll revisit it; and should the results strike me as amusing, I’ll consider publishing them in my next book, I guess).

• So! This attempt to promote Verdi’s legacy has been shot down, chivalrously, by –

• Someone named KingTT whose Wikipedia contributions and expertise are summedup in this section of his user page: “What I’ve done. Uh . . . nothing much.”

• Someone called Superm401 whose contributions to this well of knowledge consists entirely of two article stubs, one on the Grace Building in New York, the other on John Lovewell, Jr. and who, paraphrasing me, asks me to stay the (expletive deleted) away from Wikipedia. That, I assume, is because he’s in charge around here.

• A night radio announcer down in Raleigh, North Carolina, called PackNCanes, whose interests, by his own admission, are limited to hockey, transportation, and geography, and who is fond of bureaucratic phraseology (“do it elsewhere”).

• A 22-year-old “electronic engineer” (whatever that means) from Bombay, India, named Nicolas, who claimed that if (!!) he’s reading Wikipedia (!!!), he wants (!!!!) “to know the facts and just the facts.” Here’s a fact for him: folks should not be so conceited, self-righteous, self-important, and/or fatuous when they’re only twenty-two unless they figure they would not mind becoming intolerable bores by the time they’re thirty.
  • Speaking of facts, it was not Nicholas who said he wants to know the facts. That was me. Get your facts right, stop being such a jackass, and get down off your soapbox because your utter rudeness does not sway me one bit. Rossrs 21:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You didn't spell my name correctly, you didn't ask me to clarify what an EE does, you completely misread my post, and chose to attack me because I am 22. Great! You've made yourself more of a troll now, and have completely blown your chances for getting this article featured. User:Nichalp/sg 08:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah! Vindictive, aren't we? Yes, sir, you're the boss around here. This isn't about the article, is it? The entire Wikipedia project's sole purpose is to make sure that folks respect you personally and view you as a figure of authority. What was I thinking. Ricardo the Texan 18:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Vindictive? I don't hold a grudge against you. I've only spoken the truth which needs to be bluntly told. Infact, I was kind enough to list some sentences and how to modify them. You unfortunately think I am/we are on some kind of vendatta campaign. Well, if you do take care of our objections, we'll lift our objections. User:Nichalp/sg 18:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
        • We? As in the magesterial "we"? Wow, that's lovely. Apart from that, you should really do something about your English. As it is, questions of credibility and, indeed, adequacy, spring irresistibly to mind when you voice your “objections”. Ricardo the Texan 19:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
          • My English hmmm...? That can be easily rectified, but something really drastic needs to be done about that belligerent attitude of yours. Please go through Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia: no personal attacks, it may do you some good. And once you've finished with that, please go through the second paragraph on this page which says: If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised. User:Nichalp/sg 19:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
            • ...make a good-faith effort to address objections - Absolutely, should those objections be valid and made in good faith.Ricardo the Texan 21:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• And the one musician gal from Florida who claims she loves Verdi (loving him from Florida suggests a long-distance relationship; the nearest semi-decent opera house is in Philly; quite romantic, though hardly credible) and cites choppy and sparse paragraphs in my article.
  • Perhaps a long-distance relationship, but I've had worse... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Stay tuned, folks. The Verdi adventure continues. Ricardo the Texan 20:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy. Serious business.

• Object on the following grounds: One: only TWO sources are referenced, and there are NO inline citations to ANY references. Arguments of style and neutrality aside, I can't see how an article could be an FAC with just two references, and certainly not possible without inline citations. I only bring this up because I've seen it brought up in many more featured article candidacy debates, and the debaters here seem to want to rant about neutrality, rather than citations. My own work in such matters is mixed, admittedly, but I HAVE been working to better cite my own sources. Two: no mention of the string quartet or the "Four Sacred Pieces." (though I will grant that this is a minor quibble, but I would like to see mentioned that Verdi DID write music aside from just the operatic works, and the Requiem, which leads me to) Three: no mention of the controversy surrounding Verdi's requiem (though I'm hard-pressed myself to find a source at the moment) - the story goes that the Requiem was quickly met with controversy for sounding "too operatic" in ways that some felt were inappropriate for a religious work (although the counter argument is that "too operatic" can hardly be a surprise). Also, the article states that the Requiem was composed in 1869 in honor of Rossini - both the dtv-Atlas zur Musik (in my 1992 edition published in Munich in association with Bärenreiter-Verlag) and the 1992 paperback printing of Theodore Karp's Dictionary of Music by Northwestern University Press state that Verdi's Requiem was completed in 1874, in honor of Alessandro Manzoni, who died the year before. --JohnDBuell | Talk 20:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Good points. However, the urgency I attempted to convey in the intro above is ignored. What do I need to say to get folks to understand? THE SHIP IS SINKING? We're taking on water, there are reefs anywhere we look, and you're concerned with painting the mate's bedpost? Get real. Opera is DYING. Puccini once said (and that's a VERY long time ago) that opera is finished because audiences are WILLING TO TOLERATE music without melodies and the public has lost its taste for melody. This is strikingly true when you consider THE VAST MAJORITY of today's performances in which conductors SLOW DOWN the tempi in order to satisfy their egoes - and this is taken as a matter of course by one and all. The performance of Tosca at City Opera, on a regular week night, took place in front of a house that wasn't even HALF-filled. They presented a new set which "updated" the action to Mussolini's times. Scarpia paraded in Nazi attire. This is supposed to be "modern." The orchestra was out of whack a lot of times. And you're concerned about REFERENCES? Sheesh. Ricardo the Texan 21:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • All of "classical music" (and I hate using the term) is dying, slowly, but dying all the same. Classical music sections in many music stores are dwindling (even Borders, which was one of my last great choices, remodeled and cut the section down to a small fraction of its previous size). This article would, if approved, be only the the THIRD classical composer to have an article reach FA. So in my opinion, you're preaching to the choir (thank (insert deity name here) for the CSO and Lyric Opera, both of which are doing well, not great, but well). In contrast to attempting to continue the POV/NPOV debate, I brought up items which HAVE impaired other articles for reaching FA status, and you still choose to be combative? --JohnDBuell | Talk 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Minor correction: it would be the sixth featured classical composer. Still, considering how many composers there are... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
        • You're right, and well spotted. Trying to make out all the names when about every other article is boldfaced, and the others are not can sure play tricks on the eyes. :) I only caught the two bold-faced ones (the two that have been featured articles of the day), and completely missed the three that are not. --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
          • The point (which seems to be getting lost on Ricardo) is that this article will not be promoted, no matter how bad the 'opera is dying' syndrome is, unless this article meets our standards for what a featured article should be. →Raul654 23:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There are lots of things wrong with it. Just on style, the information is vague (wonderful gift for melody? Every composer has that ...) Counterpoint is not how you exemplify it. Tony 02:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well no, everybody who has ever been called or called themselves a composer does NOT have a wonderful gift for melody, but it IS hard to quantify. This gets right back into the POV/NPOV debate (unless multiple sources are cited all saying Verdi DID have "a wonderful gift for melody," then it falls to the sources, not the editors here). And I'm not taking a high road or a low road, I'm just trying to stay OUT of the POV/NPOV debate here altogether. (blah, it'd help if I sign my comments) --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Clarification (since a whole bunch of folks trying to shoot down the article in question seem to need it badly). In art, no matter what genre you happen to be dealing with, there is a nucleus, a principle matter, a little something that more or less CONSTITUTES THE ART PART in the finished product. The difference between the art part and the other parts is the art part cannot be taught. It can be awakened, developed, nurtured, ignored, honed, etc, but either you have it or you don't. In painting (to pick a genre at random) this nucleus happens to be the line and its offshoot, the stroke. In music, the one thing that cannot be taught (as oppose to the various technical matters including, but not limited to, orchestration, harmonization, counterpoint, voice, theory, etc) is melody. Despite the popular opinion (expressed by Tony here), there have been VERY FEW composes who could boast a genuine melodic gift. Less than twenty, in fact. In the entire history of music as we know it. There have been a sufficient number of plausible fakes, of course, of hacks who could compile and build melodies, etc - but not in opera. Poor Tony, like myself, was born in an era when a whole lot of people in key positions are confused about this whole issue. Folks don't know what a melody IS anymore. Opera may be dying (and is, in my opinion, well worth saving); but popular music (to pick a genre at random) has long been dead. Make no mistake. Popular music is dead. I don't know whether I should laugh, weep, or just shrug, when I hear the term "contemporary", or, worse, "modern" applied to today's popular music. The b-flat-square and its branches are so unbelieveably primitive that even Monteverdi, a 17th Century semi-innovator in his own right, would have been ashamed of them; and the actual style (monotonous drumming, one mode, usually fortissimo, used throughout each piece, no modulation) from which all of today's popular music stems, was devised long before I was born, and I'm nearly forty. I was sort of counting on the new generation to rebel against this boring state of things, but they have turned out to be far more conformist and philistine than my coevals ever dreamed of being.Ricardo the Texan 04:52, 24 October 2005

(UTC)

• Some perspective, just in case. One of the October featured articles was about a character based on another video game character. It met all the proper criteria. Apparently, relevancy, or relevance (choose your poison) isn't one of those. How very symbolic. Thunder and lightning. Ricardo the Texan 04:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As I already said once above, importance/notoriety are not considerations when determing if something should be a featured article. A potential featured article must meet all of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:What is a featured article - notice that fame is not one of the criteria. So, to reiterate a phrase I coined - pretty much an article that could survive a listing on the Votes for Deletion page could theoretically become featured articles. All it takes is someone to put enough energy into that article to get it up to the propery standards. →Raul654 05:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, Ricardo, you're right. It is kind of pathetic that you couldn't address even a single objection preventing a world-renowned composer's article from being featured, while A Link to the Past was able to get the article of a fictional character no one even liked chosen. I guess we can see who's the real fan and who's just pretending. Superm401 | Talk 05:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Most things in this world that have any genuine spiritual value have appeared and continue to exist despite the unceasing objections from people whose outlooks are similar to yours, sir. Including, I hasten to add, Wikipedia.Ricardo the Texan 08:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • As I've said, Verdi is renowned composer, and he deserves that reputation. I certainly don't object to his music, or believe it has no spiritual value. I was merely pondering your incompetence in attempting to get the article featured. It certainly is not due to any fault of Verdi, who is by far notable enough. Superm401 | Talk 19:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The article is amazing. Honestly. If I could, I would perhaps move a thing or two around, but I adore the way this article has been crafted. It definitely deserves my vote. --Winnermario 20:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object Rigoletto is, arguably, the greatest opera yet written. Really? According to whom? Although his orchestration is often masterful, While I agree, I do not read Wikipedia for editor's opinions. A good start would be toning down the POV. - orioneight (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's not because the contributor is abusive towards the reviewers and has reacted negatively to criticism that the article must fail: it's because the article is poorly written and structured, and falls far short of 'comprehensive'. Next time, please write only a minimal amount at the top of your nomination. Tony 02:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Great music, I agree Verdi is cool, although Mozart gives him a run for his money. This article is so POV it made me smile, someone has written this for a laugh; but for an encyclopedia it is really dreadful, it's awful, it needs to be edited of all POV, then extended considerably, the political implications of his works could be an FA on their own. The descriptions of his operas are to brief, and lacking in information on plot, theory, ways of interpretation etc. If the nominator is serious (and I doubt this) in his wish to see this featured, he need to do a great deal more research. Giano | talk 11:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. POV problems abound. For example, "Although masterfully orchestrated, it lacks the melodic lustre so characteristic of Verdi's earlier, great, operas." – says who? Please attribute these statements to actual people rather than leaving the reader guessing. Extraordinary Machine 14:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Boys High School

This page has undergone quite a bit of renovation and comprehensively describes one of sydney's premiere boys public schools.

• Object. Too damn short. If it weren't for the extensive list of former students, I'd list it for deletion. --Carnildo 05:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object per Carnildo. Please refer to the path to a featured article, and take this through peer review. I note that this is the second time this has been in FAC, and the earlier recommendation for peer review was apparently not followed. I'd highly recommend you follow that advice before you list this on FAC again. Also, please make sure to sign your name using ~~~~ henceforth. PacknCanes | say something! 06:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object per above responses. The article is long on lists and short on prose. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 06:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Please remove from this list before it causes yet more embarrassment. Tony 17:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Look at Caulfield Grammar School, a featured article, or other articles at Portal:Schools for some inspiration on how to improve. Drop me a line on my talk page for any help wanted. Harro5 10:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As above. Enochlau 20:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cooperative

Very comprehensive article, describing multiple aspects of cooperative movement. dml 21:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment It smells a lot like anglo-saxon POV. A big effort should be done to present on a same level the cooperative systems in the world. A single example: Agricultural cooperative. Compare the size of both sections: in the US and in other parts of the world. Vb 10:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Definitely too focused on the West; other uses of co-operatives (for example, many Malaysian schools have their own co-operatives) seem to have been ignored. The lead section is far too long; two or three paragraphs should be the maximum. The references are also not formatted properly. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Might be salvagable; I agree with the culturocentric concerns of the previous reviewer.

I wonder about this:

'Membership is open, meaning that anyone who satisfies certain non-discriminatory conditions may join. Unlike a union, in some jurisdictions a cooperative may assign different numbers of votes to different members.'

You're presenting a general (worldwide?) definition of the cooperative, but aren't these conditions rather exclusive? What does 'open' mean? I was a member of a cooperative that restricted membership in a number of ways. Don't some cooperatives discriminate—some jurisdictions have relatively lax anit-discrimination laws. Do you mean 'trade union'? Are you referring to unions in certain countries? Tony 16:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual band

Self-nom This has gone through two peer reviews (you can read them here and here), and I think I have it up to a level that is suitable for featured article. --JB Adder | Talk 12:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: "The popularity of the group opened the door for many other cartoon bands, especially Josie and the Pussycats, The Banana Splits and Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem." Does Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem work in this sentence? For one thing, they're puppets, a "cartoon band". If Virtual Bands can include puppets at all, the intro should say so. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that the popularity of the Archies had much if anything to so with opening the door to The Muppet Show and the creation of this virtual band. --Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—Prose needs editing. Here are examples of what I mean, drawn from the top.
  • '(like in The Archies and Gorillaz)'—ungrammatical.
  • Overuse of parentheses, which makes it harder to read—try commas, m dashes, and rewording to vary your usage in this respect.
  • 'This' occurs twice in a relatively short sentence.
  • 'A virtual band (or virtual group), in music, is any group whose members are not flesh-and-blood musicians, but animated characters.' Try: 'A virtual band (or virtual group), is a group of animated characters that represent musical performers.'
  • Get rid of 'etc'.
  • 'Stage appearances are complex, because they not only require pre-animated sequences, ready to play, but also need the actual musicians behind the screen, performing in perfect sync.' What about: 'The mechanics of stage appearances are complex, requiring the preparation of ready-to-play animated sequences and the presence of human musicians behind a screen, performing in perfect sync.'
  • One-sentence paragraph is not a good look.

It has potential, but you'll have to find some language-nerds to help out. Tony 05:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the indication; why they weren't brought up in Peer Review, I'll never know. --JB Adder | Talk 08:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• You know what: most reviewers barely have time to cope with this list, and don't often attend to the PR list thoroughly. There's a good case for recommending that contributors who put up articles for PR directly ask (nicely) five or six contributors to related articles to have a look. It's no good just posting it there and hoping the right 'peers' will come along. Tony 16:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• An article that concerns such a visual phenomenon needs a lot more than just one image. Still mistakes in the prose (e.g., 1980's). The first few sentences are not well written (please remove 'etc' for a start). It's rather stubby for a FA. Tony 04:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About-Picard law

(Largely self-nom) What do you think? It's a dry legal topic, on a somewhat controversial issue, but I think all points of view are reflected. There's a single picture, but I don't quite see what kind of pictures could illustrate the article better (this is about a legal text, after all). David.Monniaux 08:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The Bibliography section should be named "References" according to common practice and guidelines. And what's with the "Opinions"-section? If the internet links are relevant, then thy should go under "External links". The books cited under this section should either go under a "Further reading"-section or be removed if they've not actually been used to reference the article. The external links section is also very large. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  I reorganized the section. The external links section is very large because people used to scream bloody murder and censorship if any link criticizing the French government was removed! What do you think about the issue? David.Monniaux 20:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  I'd say that we're not a link repository. Any notable criticism should be described in the article. If it's not notable, it shouldn't be snuck in by adding criticism-links. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  Agreed, with the article size 10-15 links is really over doing it but that would be the goal. The article is good but could Main points be changed to prose? Falphin 02:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. David, you do good stuff (such interesting topics), but I can't cope with the torrent. Although your English is better than that of many native speakers, you need a trusted native collaborator to review your texts before nominating them. There's also a certain looseness in some of your prose, which weakens the clarity and precision of the meaning. Your topics seem to demand great clarity and precision. Here are some examples from the lead.
  • 'parliament' should be 'parliamentary'.
  • 'makes it possible to act against organisations (legal entities) when these organisations have been involved in certain crimes'
    • Consider using this: 'makes it possible for the state to act against organisations that have been involved in certain crimes', relocating mention of 'legal entities' to later in the article.
  • 'The law was, in its own words, aimed at cultic movements (mouvements sectaires) that, "undermine human rights and fundamental freedoms". The law does not define new crimes, except in association with existing crimes. It never mentions religion.'
    • You use terminology that is not explained until the reader gets to the next section. The four words and parentheses make it a complicated sentence; can you find a simple, translated expression here that won't beg further questions? Then you can go into the details later.
    • 'Was'—you mean the law has been extinguished? And when was it enacted? Tell us at the start.
    • 'Never' should be 'does not'.
  • 'Proponents of the law allege, on the contrary, that it reinforces religious freedom, since it aims at protecting people who are in a weak position, including children, from being forced into religious and other activities by criminal organizations.'
    • Consider instead: 'On the contrary, proponents of the law allege that it reinforces religious freedom, because it aims to protect people who are in a weak position, including school children, from being forced by criminal organizations into religious and other activities.' But what are these 'other activities'? Homework? ' ...and activities that the legislators regarded as being a threat to ...'?

[edit] Dungeons & Dragons

Self nom. This article was formerly nominated as a FAC and, rightfully, failed. Since then I and several people have worked hard to whip the article into shape. The article has also been peer reviewed recently. The primary objections to the previous FAC were: (1) A lack of references. (2) Poor copyediting. (3) Size of the article. (4) Lack of organization. (5) Failure to cover certain subjects (such as related products) in sufficient detail. These problems have been fixed and the article polished up above-and-beyond. I think it's ready to become a featured article. Justin Bacon 05:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support it passes now... last time it just wasnt ready for the prime time.  ALKIVAR™ 06:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object I have tried to re-edit the page but my English is quite poor so that I fear the page (or at least my contribtutions) should be re-edited. I have tried to change the following points:
  1. The article provides the impression to the reader that D&D is a simple tabletop game requiring some items which can be purchased and not a role-playing game. One does not need to have the v3.5 to be able to play in the D&D universe with D&D rules! One can also invent one's own rules and settings! This is said in the article but should be said in the game overview or in the lead.
  2. One should remove all standard D&D abbreviation (DM, RPG,... except D&D, AD&D when clear)
  3. Criticisms should be expanded with comparision with other RPGs
  4. The tone is sometimes condescendant with earlier versions. See caption of the cover of the D&D 4th edition printing.
  5. Many lists and very short (1 or 2 sentence) paragraphs should be merged into prose
  6. What are Game Board (Cloth?) and computer programs (in the Play overview section)?

I think I am not finished yet and that someone should continue this in order improve the article. Vb 09:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's a substantial article that might come up to scratch with four or five hours of intensive work. Here are a few problems that I notice without yet having read it properly.
  • Lots of stop-start paragraphing. One solution might be to insert more bullets, which will require rewording and proper punctuation. Another may be to merge paragraphs. At the moment, the flow is adversely affected.
  • I see that you assume women don't/can't/shouldn't play the game. Please change the sexist language. A common way of avoiding the generic male pronoun is to pluralise ('When players choose to have their character attempt an action' rather than 'When a player chooses to have his character attempt an action').
  • The prose needs a BIG clean up—in many places there's a looseness or awkwardness. For example:
    • 'a random die roll' might be clearer as 'a random roll of the die';
    • 'The results of those actions are determined using the game's rules, which govern almost everything from combat to social interaction. However, the Dungeon Master is responsible for interpreting the rules and most simple actions can be resolved from simple logic without referring to the rules.' The logic of 'However' escapes me; then there's a statement that seems to flow better straight from the first sentence. And try 'responsible for interpreting the rules, and most simple actions can be resolved using simple logic without reference to the rules.' It will confuse readers, this shunting from A1 to B and then back to A2.
    • 'Races include elves, dwarves, humans, and halflings among others.' But 'include' does mean 'among others'—you don't need both.
    • 'They help the master to create some story and backgrounds.'—'some story' is not idiomatic English.

Now, it's all like this, so you need to enlist a language-nerd who hasn't seen the text yet. It will be worth it to make it read smoothly—then you'll be proud of it, and frankly, nothing less will do for a FA. (Mind you, I haven't looked at the content; others may have suggestions there.) Tony 09:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • I've made a pass through the article and changed the language to be gender-neutral. It looks to me like other editors have addressed some of your other constructive critiques as well. Nandesuka 12:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This FA nomination seems to have gone off track rather rapidly. We have one person with poor English skills complaining about the presence of imaginary material that never appeared in the article (a caption mentioning a "4th edition" of the game which doesn't exist) and the lack of material which aleady appeared in the article (an explanation of game boards that can be used with the game). He introduces clumsy language into the article... which is then cited by the next person as a reason to object before the problem can be corrected. Oh, plus a push to make the Wikipedia article on D&D the best place to push an agenda on revising the English language.
  • Reply I had mistaken edition with printing. I am sorry. I think my clumsy language is better than nothing. I still believe some important elements were and (to some extend still are) missing in the article. However I am happy the editors of the article have not reversed my edits but make copyedit instead. The article mentioned game boards and computer programs without explaining at all what they are. I am sorry also for my misunderstanding of notoriety my mother tongue is French and in French notoriété can be positive as well as negative. I have looked in a dictionary. Thanks. Vb 20:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Non-native speakers can often make valuable contributions to the eng.WP; there's a case for arranging a pairing system with native-speakers so that we can express information and views from outside anglophonia in good English. Over to the Board on that. Will the reviewer who complained of a 'push' please explain what s/he meant? Tony 08:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I was guessing they were referring to your comments on sexist language, making a rather uncivil and unclear defense of the position that English allows "he" to be used as the generic third-person pronoun. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object. There's quite a bit of abbreviation used that demands that the reader makes the connection between the introduction of the terms and their acronyms. Also, the prose needs a little polishing. What is the difference between a "random die roll" and a "die roll"? The sentence "Much of the potential for parody in Dungeons & Dragons may exist because, with its heroic millieu and imagination-based gameplay, it exaggerates the visibility of the gap between the actuality of the players' self-image and the personas they adopt when interacting with others" is laboured. Having said that, the article is quite good at explaining what the game is, so long as the reader is willing to follow the wikilinks to important terms like "roleplaying game". Jkelly 17:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. (Full disclosure: I've done quite a bit of editing on this article in the past couple of months). I concur with Justin Bacon. I think it's ready. I'll make a pass through again to address some of the specific grammar concerns raised by some editors. Nandesuka 12:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Babe Ruth

Nominating for a featured article. Article length to some people will be a drawback, and having wrote the great majority of the article, I take responsibility for the length. Nevertheless, I believe the article is quite comprehensive. Whether or not this is a featured article, I would recommend and encourage a separate article on Babe Ruth that is much shorter for the reader who do not want this much information. It would also be much easier writing a separate article than cutting this one down. --LibraryLion 23:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's pretty well written, although the prose needs a little tweaking throughout. One particularly annoying aspect is the wholesale linking of common nouns. Here's an example:

'Young George was known for mischievous behavior. He skipped school, ran the streets, and committed petty crime. By age seven, he was drinking, chewing tobacco ...'

WP is not a dictionary, and there's a bunch of reasons that common words—and for that matter, low-value years and decades—should not clutter the appearance of the text. If your readers don't know what these words mean, they should take lessons in basic English. If they do know what these words mean, I fail to see how hitting the links will help them to understand/enjoy reading your article. See Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context. Overall, well done. Tony 05:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I do claim to getting carried away linking everything, although I admit I was not aware of Wikipedia's preference to link only subjects that relate directly to the text. In a couple of days, I'll try to have this fixed. --LibraryLion 21:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have taken out numerous links, although honestly I'm not sure why this really is an issue as it seems rather trivial when judging the quality of the article. --LibraryLion 08:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images need work:
  • Image:Ruthbatting.jpg, if it was indeed taken in 1923 and was published in the same year (that's very important; it's the publication date that determines public domain, not the date the picture was taken), is public domain as indicated. However, without a source, the year of publication can't be verified.
  • Image:RuthStMary's.jpg has a good justification for fair use, but are you claiming that it's fair use or public domain? Rather hard to tell; make sure to tag the picture with the appropriate tag.
  • Image:Ruthsoxdk.jpg has no source or copyright-status information.
  • Image:Ruth1918.jpg and Image:Ruth1920.jpg have no source information, which makes a public-domain claim rather dubious without knowing for certain the publication date of the photos.
  • Image:FrazeeRedsox.JPG, Image:BRuth1921-2.jpg, Image:RuthMcgraw1922.jpg, Image:Yankeestad2.jpg, Image:3BRuth1925.jpg, Image:Ruth1926-3.jpg, Image:1927NYYankees5.jpg, Image:Ruth1927.jpg, Image:RuthGehrig.jpg, Image:Ruthcharity.jpg, Image:Ruth1929.jpg, Image:RuthClaire1930.jpg, Image:Ruth1930-2.jpg, Image:Ruth1932.jpg, Image:Ruth1935.jpg, Image:Ruth1938.jpg, Image:Ruth1948.jpg, and Image:Ruthfuneral.jpg are all (properly) claimed as fair use, but they need to be tagged as such. I'd recommend using the tag {{fairusein|Babe Ruth}} to tag them.
  • Also, make sure you stay away from anything that isn't NPOV. Be on the lookout for copy like the caption of "the greatest slugging duo" under the picture of Ruth and Gehrig; either qualify it with something like "statistically", or don't use it. But the copy is excellent, and even given the length -- which, admittedly, is VERY long, but just as good -- I'd be happy to support as long as the image concerns are cleared up. Good luck! PacknCanes | say something! 14:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Not tagging the photos was an oversight on my part. I have tagged every picture and gave sources on the Ruth 1918 photo and the 1920 photo. I did not download the pictures Image:Ruthbatting.jpg nor Image:Ruthsoxdk.jpg. Since I do not know their sources, I will replace these two photos with ones where I know their specific references. --LibraryLion 21:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

All photographs have been tagged. --LibraryLion 22:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see it. The article is still a bit long, but it's certainly comprehensive, so I can't really argue with the length. Weak support on the condition that Tony's concerns about over-linking are addressed. (Rule of thumb: if it's already been linked, don't link it again, especially for things like years and positions..."pitcher", for example, only needs one or maybe two links.) Good job! PacknCanes | say something! 06:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object at 80+ kb the page size is massive. Please summarise the text so that it is cut by more than half. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Please also reduce the image width and cut the numerous headings. User:Nichalp/sg 07:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Summary style would be completely incompatible with this article. To do this, I would have to make seperate articles on sections by themselves that do not warrant seperate articles. If I did this, none of these seperated sections would even be a full page. I know Wikipedia touts summary style, and it has its uses, but I admit I generally do not like it. It often diverts the reader from the main article, and it fragments your article and interferes with the pace. Summary style is also often distracting and cumbersome to read, even when reading some featured articles. Sorry, but summary style is not is a good option for this article. --LibraryLion 08:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Support- I took out info about the other teams rosters in those world series that Ruth which is irrelavent played trimming the article from 88kb to 85kb but still long. Why not create a few subpages --JAranda | watz sup 19:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Government of France

Self-nom I think it's rather complete. Some people thought I should discuss the budget in more detail, but this is, I think, another topic, worth of a separate article. David.Monniaux 01:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment — I'm working through the article now, and it is well-written. However, may I ask if all those section headings starting with the definite article ae really necessary. I would advocate removing all the thes from the beginning of section headings here. --Gareth Hughes 15:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok. Fixed. David.Monniaux 16:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — It is clear to me what cabinet and gouvernement mean in different sections of this article, but the interchange between the two words isn't all that helpful. Would it be possible to define gouvernement and then use that term exclusively? --Gareth Hughes 15:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — The capitalisation of certain titles, like president and prime minister is erratic. I tried correcting a few before I realised that I was probably doing it wrong. See titles. --Gareth Hughes 15:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Regretfully object: the article is very good, but the complete lack of English-language references is unacceptable, as there's no way for the average reader to examine the cited sources. Kirill Lokshin 23:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I added a bunch of English references (many reference texts had official English translations). Do you think it's enough? David.Monniaux 07:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that looks just fine; I have no further objections. Support from me. Kirill Lokshin 12:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Was about to support, but I have to ask: Are those italicised "see below" notices in parentheses really necessary? I'm not sure about the policy/convention on them, but I found them a bit offputting at times. Johnleemk | Talk 17:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed most of them but one — the one linking to the difference between statute law and regulations, which is I think quite a central topic of French constitutional law after 1958. David.Monniaux 20:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object at the moment. This is a very important article that I'd like to see featured. But it needs heavy editing—you could call it rewriting. Here are some comments on the lead.
  • Opening sentence
  • I've wikified by starting with the title in bold.
  • You may wish to revert to the 'laique = roughly secular' thing in the middle of the list, but it was cluttering what should be a strong, clear opening.
    • What does 'social' mean in this context? (Remove or reword.)
      • This is a quote from the preamble of the Constitution, so any rewording is surely out of question. The precise meaning of such words probably warrants detailed constitutional analysis by constitutional scholars. David.Monniaux 06:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • 'Provides for', not 'enacts' (parliaments, not constitutions enact).
    • Is my change to 'human rights' correct?
  • Appointment of PM—this sentence was a mess. How about: 'The President's choice for Prime Minister must be approved by the French National Assembly, the lower house of Parliament; in practice, the Prime Minister is drawn from the majority party in that house.'
  • Then: 'The government includes various bodies checking against possible abuses of power and independent agencies.'
    • Let's be careful to distinguish 'government' (that of a particular President/PM) from the constitutional framework in which governments function. Is there appropriate terminology to do this throughout?
    • Do you mean '... that check abuses of power by the government and its independent agencies.'? What are these 'independent agencies? You've said twice that the judiciary is 'independent', so the reader will wonder whether the statement refers to it.
    • I wonder whether a bullet-pointed list of the basic structure—or even a diagram—is required at the top, so that we're not confused when you first refer to the components.
  • And: 'However, the various legal subdivisions—the régions, départements and communes—have various attributions, and the national government is prohibited from intruding into their normal legal operations.'
    • I've inserted the m dashes, which make sentences with lots of commas a little clearer and easier to read.
    • Are these entities equivalent to 'local goverment'?
    • Why name these categories here if you don't distinguish between them? (Better to use a generic term here, and explain in detail later.) What are 'attributions' in this context? (Powers and responsibilities?)
    • 'Various' appears twice in this sentence.

Do I have time to go through the whole article like this? Tony 03:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Re 'social'—presumably you've translated it, so you have a degree of license to get across the intended meaning in English. As it stands, social is vague and ambiguous, and should be removed if the courts need to interpret the word. Here, some readers will take it as 'socialist'; others might think it means 'democratic'. So it can't stand as is. (That's unwise drafting, in my view.) Tony 13:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The word social is used in the official English translation. It would be unfair to try and change this. Social means here that the state is responsible for some welfare system but interpreting further would be original research. I have changed the head (and cited the source) such that it comes clearer. Vb 15:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot vote because I have not read everything. The article is much too long and should boil down to something more reasonable like 30-35 KB. Vb 15:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object poor flow - needs longer and less paragraphs. Could use another run through peer review probably. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brain

This article about the most important part of the body has much improved. It has an excellent illustration for the cover page. --EncephalonSeven 05:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

For previous nomination, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brain (archive) --Andrew Levine 07:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object. 'Brain Regions in Vertebrates' subsection is a long list which needs converting into prose and written into detailed explanation for every link it contains. The Notes section needs to be a numbered list instead of bullet list. Image:Brains.jpg is missing a license template. External links section needs to be at the bottom below the Refs and Notes sections. — Wackymacs 15:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I just changed the Notes to a numbered list and moved External links - The Catfish 19:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object and comment. Main objection occurs under the Brain Regions in Vertebrates list, where all of the parts of the brain should receive some sort of explanation besides what it stands for in Greek. Putting the greek definitions for the parts of the brain probably isn't the most relevant way to describe the regions. Also, many parts of the sublists are either capitalized or placed in bold font, which isn't incorrect, but is overused especially under the subdivisions of the brain. As for the comment, first off the Related topics is generally called See also. Virtuallly all of the links in the Invertebrates section are red and don't have any article at all. Usually, the History section of an article comes closer to the top as opposed to its location in the bottom of the article. Also, in the The biology of the brain section, the summary is placed at the end; perhaps it would be better to shift it upwards so that readers don't have to read the entire thing just to find there was a succint summary at the bottom. Some of the paragraphs in the history section could use a tiny bit of improvement; most are just 2 sentences. Other than that, it's okay. AndyZ 20:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The intro is too long and disjointed. The history section should come immediately after the intro. The brain regions section clutters up the page and it already has its own article over in list of regions in the human brain. Pathology is strangely listed before anatomy, so people have no clue what is being said. Wikification is disjointed and repetative with weird capitalizations. Phrases such as "the human brain is a collection of 100 billion neurons, each linked with up to 25,000 others" in the intro have no reference whatsoever... Ugh. I hate to be a shit but a lot of work needs to be done before this goes to FA. I'll work on fixing what I can over the next few days or so. Semiconscious (talk · home) 09:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

From this discussion, it appears that someone experienced in wikipedia formatting should reorganize the article. It could be polished further then. --68.55.196.15 18:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article needs a lot of work. While some subsections are great, the article needs to be reorganized considerably. Also, the internal logic has to be made-consistent. For example the intro states that invertebrates use ganglia rather than brains, but then the article spends a lot of time talking about invertebrate brains. There are a lot of unsourced facts, and a lot of extraneous information. Some of the headings have nothing to do with the section that follows them, see for example The importance of the brain. The sections that follow are general descriptive paragraphs about brains that state nothing about its importance. Importance for what?? Also some subsections occur at weird places and out of order. The list of brain regions should really be taken out and linked to its own article, the section should then be converted to a paragraph outlining the MAJOR subdivisions and the logic behing the various ways of subdividing the brain (eg. anatomical, developmental, functional). This should ideally be accompanied by a helpful diagram. The only useful diagram in the article is the one of a neuron, and the intro picture is nice. The other 2 are basically 'fluff' and convey no useful information related to the article. I think all the elements are there to make a great article, but it still needs tons of work. I'll be happy to work to improve the article over the next few weeks and will contribute where I can, but as of now it certainly is not ready for FA. Nrets 01:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object - needs reorganizing, needs a lot of pictures (I know it's hard to get them; btw I think we have a featured animation of human brains), needs clear & simple clasification & description of brains in different organisms (now it has overhelmingly too much about humans/mammals). Renata3 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Vaslui

self-nom

We need more battles on Wiki. I think this article, for being a battle article, is cool. It involves many different parties and nations. The article seems to be rather complete, but I'm sure people can still improve it in certain areas. --Anittas 15:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references and no pictures. Johnleemk | Talk 16:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you highlight specific passages where wokr needs to be done?. Unsigned: user:Thethinredline

• Like John said, we need more references, but to say that we have no references would be wrong. I will add those that I know of and I'll ask another dude to do the same. As for pictures; unfortunatelly, there aren't any pictures of the battle, that I know of, but I do know that pictures aren't required. I guess we could add the picture of some of the leaders. Would that be relevant? --Anittas 18:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, the current references are not formatted properly; please see WP:CITE. And yes, pictures of the leaders would be fine. Johnleemk | Talk 13:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • How are they supposed to be? --Anittas 21:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style. Johnleemk | Talk 13:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object due to lack of references. Direct citations are necessary at least for the size of the Ottoman army and its casualties (I see three different numbers given with no explanation of where they come from) and for the assertion that the "invasion was the worst ever defeat for the Ottomans at that time"; and some more English-language references would be helpful in general. Kirill Lokshin 21:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree with what others have said regarding references, though this shouldn't be too difficult to overcome as the article seems to cover the subject matter in sufficient depth (one web article I saw refers to this as the "Battle of the Buglers"). As far as images go, if there's not a nice painting of the Battle (as have been prepared for many other conflicts) something depicting the armies would be helpful; however, a map would be the most beneficial in terms of conveying information. Unfortunately, the City article for Vaslui is only a stub.--Lordkinbote 07:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm working on adding more references. Give me 4 days. As for pictures, I don't know where to find them. I have a drawing of the battle, from a book, from the communist times; the picture is not copyrighted (communist times). Is it allowed to add it? If not, we could just add photos of the leaders. Thanks for your contribution. --Anittas 14:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • If it has no copyright, it is in the public domain, so sure, go ahead! Johnleemk | Talk 15:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I agree with Kirill. He and I read, write and edit A LOT of battle articles. This one is simply not yet up to the standards. There are some factual and wording problems, which I helped a bit to address in my edits (such as referring to the sipahis as light cavalry. They were actually heavy by Ottoman standards, but they often get confused in the west with the Timariots, who were the light horse, feudal levies). A map would most certainly be helpful. The author obviously has a great knowledge of the battle itself, but English is not their primary language. I would gladly help them with this. Towards these ends, I suggest it go to Peer Review for some more work, then be resubmitted.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You're more than welcome to help out, Ghost. You don't need my permission. As for the rest, I still ask for about 4 days, so that I can add references, etc. --Anittas 20:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Here's an example of what I consider a very well done battle article, worthy of FA support: Battle of Nicopolis--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I think that the red links should be addressed. Also, any political implications of the battle? InvictaHOG 00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to write a stub on Grigore, soon, if no one else is doing it. No problem there. I'm not sure what you mean when saying "political implications". I thought everything was described in the background section. Btw., is that you who made the map for the battle of nicopolis? If so, can you do the same for this article? Thanks. Be back later. --Anittas 00:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support OmegaWikipedia 12:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Addentum: Okay, I've added new references and two pictures of the leaders. The article seems a bit messy, now. There are many red links, now. That's because the historians that I've used in my references, are not well-known. Should I un-link their names? Other than that, I don't think I can do much more. I've looked at other battle articles and they don't have that many references; probably because no-one forced them cite everything they said. I also added new information. If anyone can help, please do. I don't think the article has a chance to be nomindated. I checked on the Battle of Kadesh. If that article was not featured, then my article has no chance. I think this sucks. Most featured articles are dull. They're about train companies and stuff; and just recently someone nominated an article for chicken soup. Bad timing, dude! --Anittas 19:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Half-Life 2

Previous FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Half-Life 2/Archive 1

Self-nomination and renomination. I have picked up where User:Thunderbrand has left off. The article itself has been further cleaned up, including the following:

1.) A more concise lead intro
2.) A lot more references
3.) Stabilization of past and present tense
4.) Addition of a reception section
5.) Fixed nit-picky complaints in last FA attempt

As far as why it should be featured, the article itself is beautifully written. It's easy to read, it's informative, and it's pretty exhaustive. It's one of the best games out there, and it's been hailed as one of the most influential games of all time. I think that's something that we should give credence to. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 05:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This article has less than 30KB of prose as of 23 May 2006

This article has 33KB of prose as of 22 May 2006. I make it 44.4... Worldtraveller 16:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Um, some of those images we're claiming "fair use" on are really high-res. Jkelly 05:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Which? If you're referring to the game images, the rationale given seems to be fine:
    • Valve Software has not released any screenshots to the public domain
    • The image is used to show the game's distinctive graphical style
    • The image is being used in an informative way and should not detract from the game
    • The image does not limit Valve's ability to sell the game
  • So... I suppose one could lessen the size, but it should be fine.. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 05:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The images have the potential to reduce the commercial value of the screenshots; if Valve wants to, say, make posters or T-shirts, someone could compete with them by taking the images from Wikipedia and using them. We're probably better off safer than sorry and replacing the images with lower-resolution versions; how much harm could this do to the article if the article is using low-res images anyway? Johnleemk | Talk 11:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Alright then. I'll reduce the size of the images later today. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Done. The image sizes have been reduced to more acceptable levels. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. They're still rather large, though - is that really necessary for a reason I'm not getting? For example, I don't think we need such a large screenshot of a simple interface. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • For later computer and video games featuring anti-aliasing, screenshots should be large enough to illustrate any details that the game's graphic engine creates, especially those including complex scenes with a large number of elements (bump mapping, level of detail in textures, draw distance, etc.) The 800x640 resolution limit is reasonable enough by my book, and is also comparable to the size of the depicted scene when viewed from a standard computer or television screen. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 17:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC) ╫
      • Well, yes, but the image I linked to isn't a complicated one by any means. The fair use template used also inaccurately describes the images as "web-resolution" (more like wallpaper res), but it's a minor detail. Johnleemk | Talk 19:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
        • My previous post referred specifically to game screenshots, but I do agree with you on the image you pointed to - applications in windowed environments should be depicted under a lower resolution if its general content is minimal. In addition, 800x600 pixel images contain 72 pixels per inch, exactly the (1998?-2000?) standard of a web image resolution. [11] ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 15:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC) ╫
• Comment. Could you replace the map of the world icon with International. The icon is not very clear and rarely used. CG 07:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Linuxbeak has done an incredible job fixing this up for an FAC run. I think it is definately worthy. Thunderbrand 15:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A large section from the middle appears to be from direct observation of the game. A very-strict reading of WP:RS#Some_definitions would disallow that. Can this material (descriptions of the levels and scenes, etc.) be sourced instead from reviews or strategy guides instead? Preferably print ones, to avoid further issues about reliability of sources. I'd also like to see Category:Killer games taken off. brenneman^{L} 15:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the category as you requested. I'll work on trying to get more sources for this section, but I don't think that it's entirely critical. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've got a ton of references for you now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Support I also approve of the re-adding of the soundtrack, by the way. We may be stretching the number of screen shots that are "fair use" here, but that's more an observation than a complaint as there is no denying they look great. Well done all around, I'd say. - brenneman^{L} 01:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support – I can't see anything significantly wrong with this article – Gurch 16:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Nicely written, interesting article. Lots of references and overall good compliance with WP:MOS. - Matveims 19:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support-Well referenced, well written article. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 19:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well written and more comprehensive than previous FAC versions, along with having better reference use. Worthy of FA status. Nufy8 20:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object - the article is not, in my opinion, an appropriate length. 55kb of text is something that only a tiny proportion of readers are likely to want to wade through, and I fear the effort that has gone into making this article so large will not result in it actually being read very much. Exceeding 32kb is seldom justified, and you could hugely increase the appeal of the article by writing much more concisely. The plot section alone is the size of Silverpit crater, a featured article - I don't see how that can realistically be justified. The verbosity is overwhelming, and the article could probably say everything it says now in about half the space, if the writing was better. This is my fundamental problem with the article, but others include
  • "Rise and shine, Mr. Freeman. Rise and shine..." --The G-Man - why is this quote present, just underneath a section heading? What's the relevance? Same for the longer quote at the end of that section, quote at the beginning of 'narration'
  • Why have a box listing the chapter sequence? What does this actually tell me about the game?
  • Why have a list of official maps? This is not synthesising and summarising, as encyclopaedia articles are supposed to.
  • The description of the journey in 'Cuts...' is a bullet-pointed list - why not prose?
  • Why list all the tracks on the soundtrack? Worldtraveller 01:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Er, this article has, by my estimate, 33KB of prose. Length of prose is the only thing that Wikipedia:Summary style is worried about. Granted, 30KB is the starting point of getting too long, depending on the topic (some topics need more space). That said, I do agree that some parts of this article could be trimmed (an article on a video game need not be so long). --mav 16:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Hm, well when I stripped out all the formatting and tables just now there was still 44kb of actual prose... Worldtraveller 16:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Allow me to show you a couple of examples of other featured articles that are beyond 32kbs...
      • Civil Air Patrol, at 62kb
      • Final Fantasy X, at 44kb
    • So, this article would be right smack in the middle. There's nothing terribly wrong with that. As far "if the writing was better", please, tell me how I could improve it.
      • I just did some analysis of FA lengths - 87% of them are shorter than this. I can see loads of ways in which the writing could be made more concise - far too many to list. It's flabby writing that makes the article too long, not breadth of subject or quantity of information. Worldtraveller 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I would like to know how you arrived with this number. "87%" indicates a very precise figure, and seeing that there are nearly one thousand featured articles, I find it difficult to believe that you went through each and every one to determine their actual size. In terms of "loads of ways in which the writing could be made more concise", I'm only asking for a few examples. The purpose of going through FAC is to figure out how to make the article better so that it may be promoted. I can't help you/the article if you don't help me out first. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I wrote a script to get all the lengths. It needs polishing but I may put it online somewhere - the only way to get sizes at the moment is to use the search button for every article you want to know the size of.
          • As for flabby text, well fundamentally the plot section seems way over-detailed to me. Bits like ...which Kleiner has been upgraded from a Mark IV version to a Mark V... are confusing to anyone who hasn't played the game and don't really add anything to the description. According to my script your plot section alone is longer than featured articles on Franklin B. Gowen, Warren County Canal and the First Battle of the Stronghold. I don't see how you can justify describing the plot at such length. Summary and synthesis of information to make it accessible to as wide a body of readers as possible is the aim of an encyclopaedia, and I don't think this fulfils that aim. Also, the plot section entirely lacks references. Where is all this information coming from?
          • Beyond 'plot', things get better in terms of the space allocated to each section, but there's still enormous verbosity. For example:
            • The usage of Steam has not gone without controversy. Users have had numerous problems with Steam, sometimes being serious enough to prevent a reviewer from recommending a given title available on the service. In other cases, review scores have been lowered - you could say all that as The Steam game engine has proved unpopular with some players and game reviewers., cutting out two thirds of the text.
            • A 1 gigabyte portion of Half-Life 2 became available for pre-load through Steam on August 26, 2004. This meant that customers could begin to download encrypted game files to their computer before the game was released. When the game's release date arrived, customers were able to pay for the game through Steam, unlock the files on their hard drives and play the game immediately, without having to wait for the whole game to download. The pre-load period lasted for several weeks, with several subsequent portions of the game being made available, to ensure all customers had a chance to download the content before the game was released. - how about For several weeks before Half life 2 was officially released, customers could download game files, which were then activated when the game was subsequently purchased. With a skillful wielding of an editorial scalpel you could easily say everything that's said in about half the space. Worldtraveller 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
              • The potential problem I see with that is a sacrifice of detail. The article as it is is very rich in detail, as this presents information in a more complete manner. I have tried to cut down a little but frankly I'm not an amateur when it comes to writing. If I do more in terms of compression, I'm going to end up cutting off parts that I'd rather not let go. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
                • In the two examples I gave, I do not see that any detail has been sacrificed by cutting the amount of text by two thirds. My whole point is that you can say everything that needs to be said in half the space, by writing more concisely. This will increase the appeal of the article considerably. Worldtraveller 00:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • In your first modified example, I find "The Steam game engine has proved unpopular with some players and game reviewers" to be overly general. First, although this is purely me being picky, Steam isn't a game engine. It's a content delivery system. The revised example doesn't mention that Steam itself led to what would have been higher review ratings. The second example doesn't describe how the Steam pre-load works, nor does it mention the benefits to which one would want to do such a pre-load. That's the problem I have with your examples here. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
                • In the first one, I think it would be implicitly obvious that if Steam was unpopular with reviewers it would have led to lower ratings. And in the second, it is also implicitly obvious that you'd download early to save time. Even if my trimmed versions are not perfect, I think they still show that making the article much more concise is very possible. Worldtraveller 09:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The quotes are a colorful addition. What's wrong with them? They don't detract from the article in any way.
        • Yes, they do - they are not relevant to the text and they don't explain anything about the game. They make it look like a piece of journalism or fan writing rather than an encyclopaedia article. They are not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Worldtraveller 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Seeing that there has been significant speculation from several sources on what the G-Man means or actually is, the quotes add a touch of color and taste to the article. Wikipedia is not supposed to be dry, and a game article doesn't need to be as academicly uniform as, say, an article on astrophysics. It's not fan writing; it's a quote from the game, and a rather significant one at that. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
            • At the moment, the quote tells me nothing at all about the game - it doesn't enlighten me in any way. It just looks like a fan's unnecessary addition. If you want to use it to explain something, it needs to be done in the text. Worldtraveller 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
              • What I did with those quotes is a writing technique called a epigraph. I'm afraid that in this case, it's wholly a matter of taste, as there is no rule allowing or forbiding them in Wikipedia. I like them as they add taste, but they're not critical. I will remove them for now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
                • Yes, it's a technique that's fine for novels, but not really fine for an encyclopaedia article. Worldtraveller 00:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, THAT list. I removed it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The list of maps that you're referring to (I think) is not a list of maps. It's the story line, and it's akin to a table of contents for the game.
        • Looks like you removed the list I was referring to originally. There is still the chapter box, which I think you are referring to here. This doesn't tell the reader anything about the game - it adds no value to the article. Worldtraveller 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Why not a bullet-pointed list?
        • Bullet points are for lists, not for separating paragraphs. Worldtraveller 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I ask that you read that section out loud. You will see that there are parts that would just not jive inside of a paragraph. There's nothing wrong with a list format here. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I removed the soundtrack; that could be put into another article. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see how anyone can write a featured article without (if not exceeding) treading dangerously close to the 32kb limit. In the first place, it was there for technical reasons. The issue should be whether or not the length makes the article hard to read. Johnleemk | Talk 05:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, 378 current FAs are less than 30K long, and 147 are less than 20kb. I think one of the real skills of writing an FA is to say all that needs to be said in the fewest words possible. Beyond a certain limit, the longer an encyclopaedia article on a given topic, the fewer people will actually read it, and while many people would want to read 55Kb about the second world war, or the Inca empire, or Einstein, far fewer people are likely to want to read 55Kb about a computer game. Worldtraveller 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Is there anything wrong with a longer article? I would rather have more information than less. As I mentioned above, I would like to see how you came up with these figures. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
        • As I said, it's flabby writing that's leading to size here. If you can say all that you need to say in 20kb of text, you shouldn't use 55kb of text to say it. Worldtraveller 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Eloquence and conciseness are very important qualities for an article. However, I do not share your criticism that this article has "flabby writing". There is a lot to be said about this influential video game and there should not be an arbitrary technical restriction on how large an article should be. There are plenty of featured articles that exceed the 32KB restriction (Antarctic krill, Robert Lawson (architect), El Lissitzky, AIDS, Albatross, Aquarium, Asperger syndrome, Asthma, the list goes on..) If you have any concrete criticism of the language being used in the article, then that would be constructive criticism. As it stands your main caveat seems to be with the length of the article, and your vague accusations on the writing do little but confirm this. jaco♫plane 02:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave two examples above of pieces of writing which could be cut by a third without losing any information. Worldtraveller 09:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have taken a hard look at the article (especially the plot) and I have talked to others who have been watching the article and FAC in length. At this point, I am going to disagree with your stance. The examples that you did give cut out details that I would much prefer to have left there. I also am against your summarization of my writing as "flabby". That's way too vague for me to make any constructive changes to, and others disagree with your statement that this article can be significantly tightened up. The fact of the matter is that Half-Life 2 is a very in-depth game with a great amount of detail involved, and that detail deserves to be conveyed. You stated on your talk page that you think that the article could be roughly halfed in terms of size. I am not going to cut down the article to half the size it is now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's very disingenuous to claim that my objection to flabby writing is too vague, when I gave two very specific examples. Who disagrees, by the way? I looked through your contributions and couldn't find any discussion you've had about this issue with other editors. I'm sure the game is very detailed, but the skill of writing an encyclopaedia article is to give an account of the detail in as few words as possible, thus maximising the article's potential audience. As it is, quite frankly, I find this article overwhelmingly dull - much too long to enjoy. Sad to see, I feel the effort put into writing an article this large is somewhat wasted, because not nearly as many people will feel like reading it as they would if it was much shorter. My contention is that you can halve the article without sacrificing any detail, and you seem to be saying it has to be verbose. All I can do, then, is reiterate that I oppose this nomination. Worldtraveller 14:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The two examples you gave are not examples of "flabby writing". I already stated that the examples that you gave eliminated detail that I did not want to eliminate. As far as who disagrees, there are multiple people, including but not limited to jacoplane, gurch, and Greentryst. We talk on IRC, so that's why you haven't seen in-wiki conversations regarding it. You may find it dull, but is there a chance that you just may not be interested in the subject matter? I'm going to risk a fallacy of appealing to the masses, but as of right now you're the only opposer out of fourteen supporters. I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone who reads this will be intrigued. I have addressed most of your concerns, but I'm afraid that this one objection is one that I do not see as practical or actionable. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not interested in the subject matter? An easy accusation to make at someone who is objecting to your article, but not accurate in this case. FAC is not a vote, and numbers of supporters is irrelevant if actionable objections are raised. Ignore my objection if you want but you shouldn't try to dismiss it as unactionable - it is completely actionable, you're just choosing not to take any action on it. Greentryst says he likes yams - not sure I see how that makes my objections untenable. Rather than claiming that people are backing you up on IRC, why not get them to discuss here? Quite honestly, if I can write an article about an entire planet in 35kb, I think you can write an article about a computer game in the same or less. 55kb is massively indulgent. I'd like there to be an article about Half-life 2 that would appeal to a large number of potential readers, and I'm afraid this isn't it. Worldtraveller 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything, Worldtraveller. I was asking if it was possible and if it had some affect on your position. I know better to not make ad-hominem circumstantial fallacies. I do not think it's actionable, because I've reviewed the article three times over since you last posted and my writing is tight. Half-Life 2 is a long game (it can easily take 70 hours or more to finish), and it's chock-full of detail. You're asking me to shave off more than 20 kb worth of text, which is something that I simply am unable to do without affecting the quality of the article. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You may not be able to do it, but it can be done. Like I say, if I can summarise all that's known about Mercury into a 35kb article, I am sure you can do better still with a computer game. You might think your writing is tight, but perhaps mine is a less partial view, and I disagree. In the two examples above, apart from my calling Steam something it's not, your text does not actually tell the reader anything more than my text does. Honestly - from reading yours I come away with not a bit more knowledge than from reading mine. You've just used a lot more words to say exactly the same thing. Worldtraveller 16:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been chatting to LinuxBeak on IRC, and I think that the plot summary should be cut to oe or two paragraphs max. Other than that, i'm pretty happy with how this has turned out, it might be verbose in parts but overll I'm happy with what I read. Check 16:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be a very positive step. I really don't see the need to describe the plot in such excessive detail - I just looked through seven or eight film and book FAs, and none had a plot section longer than 5 paragraphs. Worldtraveller 16:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You might consider doing what the peeps over at the Starcraft FA did and create another sub article. - Hahnchen 01:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to Worldtraveller, Perfect Dark, which was recently on the main page, has a box listing the missions. Thunderbrand 15:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Nice job. The only minor caveat I have with this article is that besides the track listing and the name of the composer, the article doesn't actually say what kind of music is included with the game. I haven't played the game, so I have no idea whether the score is headthumping techno or classical music. jaco♫plane 23:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Neutral, I see the entire section on the soundtrack has now been removed. I think the article needs to mention the musical score before it can be a FA. jaco♫plane 20:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It has been readded. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support It is definitely ready by most technical standards, but I would really like to see some serious improvements, and see it a little more concise, meeting the size limit, before it hits the front page. I have been paying too much attention to the sub articles, perhaps I should shift my efforts.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The Half-Life 2 article would be a good choice for FA. Its well written, organized, and as far as I can see there are no errors. SarcasticPirate 16:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support - It's a very good article. However, I would personally prefer the plot and deleted scenes sections to be reduced. Yet I thought that the list of DM maps were not of detriment to the article. I'd rather have more comment on things that are in the game than things that are not. - Hahnchen 18:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Actually, I've changed my mind about this. It is a good article, but I think the cuts are being made to the wrong places. The cut of the DM maps as well as the soundtrack, I think, were not good "additions" to the article. I think the soundtrack track listing was encyclopedic, as it was released on a separate CD. Personally, I would shorten the "cuts from the game" section and possibly move it onto a subpage, although I don't think the length was a problem in the first place (contrary to others). And a further question, are the cuts from the game derived purely from "Raising the Bar"? Or does it include scenes from the source code leak, or would that be OR territory? And I would also like to see expansion to the Reception section, could we have some reasons to why the press loved the game? And how about a comment on some of the awards it has won? [12]- Hahnchen 20:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll restore the soundtrack and maps later tonight, if that's the case. I can work on what you listed as well. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, this is what I've done:
        • I've readded the soundtrack information.
        • I've shortened the cuts section and I made a seperate sister article out of it. All of the cuts information was from Raising the Bar.
        • I expanded the reception section as well as added a tidbit about the awards. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Support Major issues fixed. - Hahnchen 01:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Now that the epigraph has been removed, I pledge my full support for the Half-Life 2 article as a Featured Article. The length may be questionable, but Linuxbeak cut the article up nicely and removed what was unnecessary. --Tristam 00:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. ^^^ who doesn't?? (oh yeah, the article is nice too...) -Mysekurity^[m!] 05:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nicely done! ~ Vic Vipr 13:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A damn good FAC. Sasquatch t|c 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Check 16:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support good page (though I think that Perfect Dark, with half the size, is better) igordebraga ≠ 16:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Thought of holding my vote for a while, but the hell with that. Article length and minor little mistakes (fixed, btw) withstanding, everything seems to be in order. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 17:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC) ╫
• Support. Yep, Linuxbeak poked me on IRC, I read the article, and it's great! Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 01:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support, a good read to be sure, however, I must say that although I support the article in its current form for FAC status that I am worried that its plot section may be a bit too extensive. A better summary could perhaps be made by removing some of the more inconsequential parts of the story. Perhaps a story/"timeline"-like article could be made to lighten this section. K1Bond007 06:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As mentioned above, the plot section is far too long. We only need enough to tell the reader what the game is about, not a blow-by-blow account. There are still a lot of problems with the writing: "Gordon is provided an air boat, allowing him greater expediency"; "The fate of many of the major characters... go unexplained"; "the majority of the game is spent", etc. The Narration section consists almost entirely of speculation. Henry^Flower 10:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have created a sister article called Half-Life 2 plot and have moved the plot there. The plot in Half-Life 2 has been substantially reduced in size. The narration section has been trimmed and another source has been added. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Much better, thanks. Henry^Flower 15:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Maryland, College Park

Self-nomination; more or less, since I have done a lot with this article. However, I feel it is at the point of being a model article for most universities. -James Howard (talk/web) 18:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Lack of pictures, and a lack of external references for certain key facts stated. Overall it is an acceptable article.83.77.128.225
  • In a somewhat ironic twist of fate, I have a quiz bowl tournament there on October 22. I'll bring my camera and grab some pics. →Raul654 18:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Looks good to me. I don't believe it needs more pictures. Nice work. :) --Syrthiss 18:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I am also working on getting a university article featured. However, after looking at this article, I would not use it as an example for a featured university article, for the following reasons:

1. There are too many lists, especially for the academics section. I would recommend that you move the list to a sub-article and summarize the material into prose. In fact, it is preferable that the article use prose instead of lists.
2. Little or no information on student life (what is it like attending/living at the University of Maryland? What special activities/groups make the university stand out?)
3. No information concerning the campus (is the campus compact? Spread-out? Modern or classical in appearance?).
4. Reference section must be separate, and the number of references is lacking (surely there must be printed publications on the flagship campus of the University of Maryland).
5. Try to avoid having external links within the main article.
6. History section must be summarized in this article, with the current form moved into a sub-article.

Another concern I have is that the article didn't go through peer review first (especially with this many problems). Unless you have the time to address these problems, I personally can't see this article being featured on the first try. Pentawing 01:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object - For the following reasons (among others):

1. The campus is not adaquately described and there are no pictures illustrating it.
2. The long list of academic subjects interrupts the article.
3. There is no description of the social and cultural life of the campus.
4. The discussion of past research the university has done is lacking.
5. There is no discussion of the mission, values and goals of the University as an organisation.

The truth is this article does not compare well to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology article. Yet that article failed to recieve featured status in January. From the alumni this appears to be a great university and I really think this article does not do the university justice. Every useful contribution to Wikipedia is valuable, but for an article to be featured it must be comprehensive and exemplify Wikipedia's best work. Cedars 09:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Object (although I did a lot of the writing on it) The sports ... and to a lesser expent the ancient history section, which I think I started ... have a lot of arbitrary (football unsuccessful between 1953 and today?) and excessive detail. The "Diamondback" section is pretty bizarre as well. And shouldn't that humongous list be tucked away somewhere, if included at all? I usually try to improve articles rather than just take shots at'm, but I already did my part on this one.Sfahey 02:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object no chance in hell this time around... WAAAAAAAY too much list. Not even 1 photo of the campus in question! This needs a total overhaul/rewrite.  ALKIVAR™ 03:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I see external links in the "living learning programs" section. Could you convert those to footnotes, please? Mamawrites ^{& listens} 10:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New England Patriots

Nomination (self). For a few days, I have worked to try and bring this article to FA status. The previous nomination served as a peer review, of sorts. Another peer review was started, but most of the feedback from my friends and fellow editors was corrected beforehand. 25 citations have been inserted, the detailed history has been moved to its own page, one or two pictures have been added (with brief captions), and so on. I feel that it's ready. As for stability: the only major edits during the past four-five days have been by me, except for the occasional wording or link fix. Furthermore, the article has featured only one vandal over the past several days. Moreover, the fact that there is a subarticle for history will divert cruft. Deckiller 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support (nomination). Deckiller 21:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Best american football team article in Wikipedia, cruft free, needs a slight copyedit in a few lines but still good. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: User:Wayward was kind enough to copyedit the article. Deckiller 17:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Although I'm not the biggest Patriots fan in the universe (Go Falcons!) the layout of this page is outstanding, and its main editors seem dedicated to keeping it in the best condition possible, I think it deserves recognition. AdmiralTreyDavid 02:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:CoachMacsyr.JPG has no source or copyright information. Such images may be deleted at any time.
  2. The image Image:Patskick1.jpg is tagged as "fair use". It's quite possible for a Wikipedian to make a replacement image, so there's no reason to use a fair-use image here.

  --Carnildo 22:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I removed the first image Image:CoachMacsyr.JPG out of the article. I'm not so sure about the second one. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I replaced the coach image with Belichick's image, since it is a book cover. I'm not so sure what to do with the second image. Deckiller 23:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Using a book cover to illustrate something that's part of the cover image is not allowed under either Wikipedia's fair use policy or fair use law. --Carnildo 04:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Deckiller 05:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I decided to just remove the patskick image and replace it with a more stable image from a previous version. Deckiller 23:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I've helped Deckiller with this article a bit and I must say, this deserves to be a featured article. Gflores ^Talk 18:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I wish Green Bay Packers was this good. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Deckiller and the other editors have done a great job, this looks very well done. Griz 22:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support! - Nice job on the page...deserves to be featured IMO. Great to see that American sports can get well-written pages as well.  :) -- transaspie 05:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

(BTW, if this gets featured status quickly enough, can we put it on the main page for Super Bowl Sunday?) - transaspie

I think that would only make sense if the Pats had made it this year, and if they had it would probably be seen as POV on Wikipedia's part (The only way it wouldn't be in that situation would be if they were in, won and you had it as the main page article the next day). Daniel Case 16:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support It was I who brought the initial nomination forward a few months back and did some initioal cleanup work on it, but I'm glad someone else has taken some real responsability ;). Anyway. Maybe a better indication should be incléuded that the history page is where week-to-week updates can and should be included. This'll help keep up the pages' standards.Thethinredline 09:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support; seems rather short but what else is there to write? One thing—is the Doug Flutie dropkick that important in franchise history? Seems to fragment the paragraph somewhat, but I'll admit it is pretty cool. Maybe restructuring that sentence and the ones around it would help. But anyway, nice work, and go Steelers! =) --Spangineer (háblame) 21:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I moved the dropkick mention up a couple of sentences so that it fits with the rest of the in-season info. Thanks for pointing that out! Deckiller 21:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object. This article leaves out virtually every significant off-field/business-related event concerning the team, but does manage to discuss logos and uniforms. It's high-grade fancruft. A sports franchise is also a business, and the business aspects need to be discussed in the article for it to meet the comprehensiveness standard. Monicasdude 23:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see how that qualifies as fancruft, though I do respect your point about explaining the business aspects. I'll create a section tonight. However, I felt that detailed ownership information would be better suited for the History of the New England Patriots page. Do you suggest a seperate section to cover business aspects or covering the information within the current prose? Deckiller 23:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I think a few more details on business aspects would be a good way to balance items out, but details should be moved to the history subarticle per Deckiller and others. Griz 00:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Off-field/Business information to add: Here is a list of items that I plan on adding to the article to add balance:

*Paragraph on shifts in ownership during the late 1980s (Sullivan investments/change in hands, GM leaving)

* 1-2 sentences on the Sexual harrassment case in early 90s.

I've added a few sentances on the Lisa Olson scandal, but it's far more than 2, maybe it needs a bit of trimming. Thethinredline 14:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Attendence flows (perhaps a sentence marking the sell-out streak and the period of half-empty stadiums)
• Another sentence or two on Gillette Stadium.
• Some more minor details in Kraft's ownserhip change.
• Identify the saint louis owner outside of the logo and uniform section (st. louis shift rumors)
• One or two significant injuries (and off-field impacts)

These all look like good things to add to the article. My suggestion would be to integrate them into the text rather than adding a separate section. I also think the early history needs a bit of expansion, particularly an explanation as to why the team played in four stadiums over 10 years before getting its own (e.g, did fan base/attendance grow substantially, etc.) Monicasdude 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

-=Nods=- okay, many thanks for the criticism! I'll get to work on those additions, although it probably won't be until after 24 is over. Deckiller 01:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm busy tonight, but I will definitely have those tasks done as soon as possible. Sorry for the delay. Deckiller 03:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've informed Monicasdude that Deckiller and to a lesser extent myself have attempted to rectify the objections, and as all current objections have been dealt with (although not sure yet whether or not to the satisfaction of the dissidents) so I think we're pending at the moment... Thethinredline 21:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think, although significantly improved, the article still needs a bit more work, particularly in these areas (list order signifies nothing):

• Explanation of why team moved through so many stadiums (stadia?) in the 1960s
• Copyedit/spellcheck ("rejuvination"; "ablow 60%"; "Schiefer Stadium"; and so on)
• I think the presentation of the business/ownership history is oversimplified at best; I'd suggest checking out references like this one [13] which present a substantially different (and more interesting) account of events. (And this one [14] too, which has other interesting points.
• There's a reference to the "AFC" in reference to the 9/9/60 game that I don't understand, and isn't explained.

I probably could have been a bit more specific on this point in my first comment; the article still includes very little information on player personnel actions (cuts/signings, drafts, trades, etc), which I think of as off-field/business matters. Other than the Plunkett draft and the Bledsoe trade, I didn't notice any others mentioned, I expect the team made other significant personnel moves over 40 years (unlike, say, the Mets ;-)).A year-by-year report certainly isn't called for, but something in the area would seem appropriate. Monicasdude 00:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you say that something in the area of 4-5 other key draft picks and trades would be balanced? Also, I like those references; thanks for pointing them out. Deckiller 00:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My off-the-cuff estimate is that NFL teams make really major personnel moves about twice a decade, on the average, so I'd say in that area, but a little higher. Also, as I think on this, didn't they get a pile of draft choices when they let Parcell go to the Jets? (If so, worth mentioning as well) Monicasdude 01:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a big period where players were swapped. Okay, I'll get to work on that later tonight. Deckiller 01:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object. List of comments/concerns:
  • Wikilink full dates like "On September 9, 1960..." so my date preferences appear.
  • Explain the purpose of this sentence "Although the team made only two AFL playoff appearances, it had numerous stars." in that second "Franchise history" paragraph. Was it originally a transition sentence to a separate paragraph? It does not make much sense in the middle of that paragraph.
  • Clarify the last sentence of that same paragraph. It reads like Jim Nance won the MVP in 1967, but the reference says 1966.
  • "Player highlights during the early 1970s include Heisman Trophy[5] winner Jim Plunkett[6]..." probably best to add a verb in there so that the sentence can be more specific. The reference says he was drafted in 1971, but doesn't mention anything about his playing abilities, so perhaps add "drafted".
  • "Chuck Fairbanks was fired as head coach in 1973." After reading the rest of that paragraph, this intro statement doesn't seem right.
  • These two sentences, one right after another (albeit in two separate paragraphs) seems redundent: "Berry would ultimately coach the Patriots to their first Super Bowl appearance in 1985. In 1985 the Patriots obtained a wild card slot under new head coach Raymond Berry."
  • "Local product Doug Flutie..." perhaps there is a better term than 'product'.
  • Can an explanation or reference be found for "and controversy within the organization, namely, the Sullivan ownership."
  • The two consectutive " NFL's Longest Winning Streaks" references, when referring to the same streak is probably overkill.
  • Please provide a link in the reference:"Patriots History. Logo naming information. Accessed 26 January 2006.":
  • "The team also started to wear blue pants with their white jerseys.[23]" This statement is not supported by the reference.
  • If all the links in the "References" are in the "Notes", then they can be merged into "References and notes" or simply "References".
  • Also, I agree with the above reviewer's comments about needing off-field/business-related info. --maclean25 19:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

maclean25's objection have been dealt, with, as have the majority of Monicasdude's. To both dissidents ( ;) ) have you been satisfied, or are there still points that need adressing? Thethinredline 22:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should probably make those changes first, just to make sure everything is to their liking. Deckiller 22:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmkay... I have a good half hour now, i'll see if i can adress some more of Monicasdude's objections. But Maclean's objection have seen solved, except for the business side argument, which is covered by the others. I'm not a PAts fan, do you know anything about the potential St. Louis move? Thethinredline 22:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah; I'm looking for decent sources to talk about that for a bit. Do you want to take the early years and I'll take the later years? Deckiller 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I just padded the referrence to Gillette Stadium a bit more and added two nice link, but i have to call it a day. Should be able to eke out a bit more tomorrow. Good luck. Hopefully we'll be able to adress all major remaining concerns by this time tomoz.Thethinredline 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done a paragraph on the attendance (although I could only find date from the 1980s onwards) so i'd say we've dealt with most complainst and improved the article. Thethinredline 09:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I crossed off some of the accomplished fixes. However, could you clarify what you mean by wikilinking dates? Should they be "January 31 2006 or January 31, 2006? Also, I plan on citing and developing upon that sullivan leadership shift today. Many thanks for the criticism. Deckiller 20:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The latter date format, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ordnance Survey

Partial self-nom, archive from previous submission, comments actioned. --PopUpPirate 23:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC) No mention of William Mudge. how can this be ? Object with sadness.  :-( I think this is, overall, a good article, and about a great subject. I actually think it's pretty close. But there are a few points I think need fixing:

• Sorry to say this, but I think you're going to have an issue with the map images. Doing an article on the OS without them is going to be a pain, of course, but the licence looks to me like a "non-commercial" licence as per Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. A pic of a trig point would be good though...

Just found the discussion you've already had on this. If Fair Use applies, and I guess it does, then I think you're OK. — Johantheghost 19:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

One solution for this -- & would add to the value of the article immensely -- would be to include parts of older OS survey maps. I believe these maps are all Crown copyright (well, the two I own are), so that those more than 50 years old would be PD. A portion of one of the surveyors' sketches (which are available at some UK public libraries on microfiche/microfilm), & a portion of a pre-1950s map would help illustrate the historical value of these documents, a feature that the British historian W.G. Hoskins often emphasizes in his writings. -- llywrch 17:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Following a fire at its headquarters at the Tower of London in 1841 ... he saw how photography could be used ..." — needs more fleshing out, it looks like he started using photography in 1841 — isn't that a bit early? Or is it? Also some info on how he actually used photography would be good.

• "Mapping Britain" section jumps up to 1969, then we jump back to WW1. Same in the next section, where we have WWII, then 1920. Maybe re-org a little?

• "Some of the remaining buildings ... are now used as part of the court complex." What court? (Clarify.)

• The multi-layered "See also" is cool, but on reflection, I think this is not the best way to do this — I think using categories would be better, at least for some of this. If I want a list of mapping agencies, for example, it's not logical to look under OS (or to ask all editors who write about mapping agencies to add their one to the OS article). Ditto with the world's many grid systems.

• The References aren't linked from the text — should these be called "Further reading"? OTOH, I think you need references which are linked from the text.

• No, anything that is consulted to write the article should be listed as a reference as has been done here.--nixie 03:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• In the reference ' "Official Homepage". Official Homepage ', I think the title needs fixing.  :-)

• Probably "Mapping Britain" and "20th Century" should be sub-sections of a section called "History"...? Likewise, it looks like "UK Map Range" and "OS MasterMap" should be sub-sections of a section called "Products", or something like.

• My overall impression is that the article is just a little "light". I don't think an article has to cover every aspect of a subject to be FA-worthy, but maybe this one could use just a little more meat? Kind of hard to put my finger on it, but eg. covering the mapping techniques used throughout the history, and today, in a little more depth would be good. I guess I would see "Cartography" being more than just a summary of the "National Grid" page, but also covering actual mapping.

Sorry I couldn't actually fix some of the above points, rather than just whinging about them. Cheers... Johantheghost 19:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, I still notice a number of things that I brought up during the previous nomiation that haven't been addressed.--nixie 03:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Poorly written. Let's take apart a few statements at the top.

'Ramsden theodolite'—This appears unexplained in a prominent part of the text, but very few readers will have a clue what it is, and will have to hit the link. The linked article needs work (by the end of the first paragraph of that article, you finally understand that it's an instrument for dividing angular scales with great precision, and that it was a significant step in map-making).

Reverse the order of the opening info—'national mapping agency ...' is more obvious than 'executive agency'. Can you use a consistent term for the country? Since you can't use 'the UK' historically, why not keep to just 'Britain' and 'British'.

Link the 's in 'Great Britain' to avoid blue/black conflict.

'In addition to producing a wide range of maps of Great Britain, the organisation is also working in over sixty countries worldwide.' Like 'also', 'in addition' should be reserved for where it's really needed. Almost every sentence is 'in addition' to what you've just said. 'is working' is just too vivid for something that has been occurring for quite a while. 'The organisation produces maps of Great Britain, and performs a valuable role in .... in more than (not 'over') 60 countries.' Maybe this needs to be split into two sentences.

'one-third'—why not 'a third'; keep it as plain and simple as possible.

And further down, at random:

'In 1920 O. G. S. Crawford was appointed Archaeology Officer and played a prominent role in developing the use of aerial photography to deepen understanding of archaeology.' The reader is hit with this fascinating idea without preparation or further explanation. No link; nothing about whether this was a first. Who got the brainwave of making this appointment—the Minister? How does it work? Perhaps a couple of sentences might do it; the paragraph is rather short, in any case. // 'OGS Crawford' might look better on the page, and consider delinking the useless simple-year '1920' so that it doesn't jostle with the man's name. Why link simple years at all? No one will hit those links. // Just a few more commas would improve the readability.

Tony 02:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Test cricket (1890 to 1900)

Self nom (though others have also contributed), jguk 15:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I did a rather massive edit and combined a lot of those ultra-short paragraphs. I think that part of it is close to FA standard now, however there are still some minor grammer & pov issues that need work, and there are still some short paragraphs there. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:Lord Hawke.jpg and Image:Joe Darling.jpg have no source or copyright information. In case you missed it, that's grounds for speedy deletion of the image these days. --Carnildo 06:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• I've fixed the image copyrights. Stephen Turner 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—Prose needs work. Lots of broken links. More pictures, PLEASE.

'Stoddart's tour of Australia in 1897/8 ended in an emphatic victory for Australia by 4 tests to 1.' What, they played five tests right at the end of the tour?

'The first Test was delayed, at the instigation of the SCG to allow time for Ranjitsinhji to recover from tonsillitis and because Andrew Stoddart's mother had died.' Just one example of poor punctuation in the article.

'The tour matches before the tests were well attended, with 69,195 attending the game against New South Wales, of whom 32,253 attended on the Saturday, but attendances tailed off later.' Clumsy: 'with' + '-ing' is poor style; 'but' as a contrastive is not entirely transparent, and the last clause is a bit stubby. 'Tailed off'—is this the correct expression?

Where possible, spell out numbers less than 10.

Jones'—two syllables, so I'd make it s's.

'day 2'—'Day 2' or 'Day Two', even? Tony 14:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, prose isn't up to par; too much like sensationalist journalism. --Spangineer (háblame) 00:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother (TV series)

I nominate this article because in my opinion the writing is of high quality, it is informative and every aspect of an, in someways complicated show, is explained fully ellisjm 10:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support (see my reasons above) ellisjm 10:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object, Wikipedia:Verifiability - no references at all, and the list of "facts" is really just a list of unencyclopedic trivia. Thanks/wangi 14:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object does not seem to meet any of the FA criteria. No references, inadequate lead, check out this one sentence for prose problems: Originally shown in the Netherlands in September 1999, and subsequently cloned across the world, the "housemates" are confined inside a specially designed house where every single point in the house is within view of a video camera, and not permitted any contact with the outside world (although some versions, like the ones from Philippines, Australia, Thailand, Mexico, Germany or Spain have introduced in some seasons precise changes, allowing the contact with the outside in certain situations): no TV, radio, telephone, Internet or other media are available to the housemates, not even writing materials. Sandy 15:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: I should indicate my bias against this show due to its exploitation of Tourette syndrome, by including Pete Bennett as a participant. Others should decide if my analysis of the prose problems is unbiased. Sandy 15:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Sandy. Tony 16:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object per Sandy. Rlevse 23:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object Lead is far too short, no references, prose style isn't hugely encyclopaedic throughout, far too few sections, and a good half of the article consists of lists and/or tables. The lack of images, meanwhile, while not strictly an FA criteria, certainly don't help the impenetrable blocks of text. I've no doubt that the genesis of a good article is in there somewhere, but it desperately needs an overhaul - most notably, the structure needs drastically sorting. Seb Patrick 08:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• In this case, the lack of images is a point in its favor, since any images would almost certainly be so-called "fair use" images, of which featured articles should have a bare minimum. User:Angr 18:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - for the reasons stated by the nominating party.

[edit] Manichaeism

This article's come a long way. A bunch of editors have fleshed it out, given it structure, and added useful photos. Right now it is very informative and deserves recognition. Ashibaka (tock) 23:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support PHG 00:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object sorrowfully. It is not complete by too long a shot. The "and Christianity" fails too greatly for support. Manicheism is a widespread and difficult heresy in Christianity, and Augustine preached against it, but so did virtually every other Father. The term "manicheism" is not simply a "synonym for heresy," as the article states, but a specific type of heresy. It is the dualist heresy. Thus, the Bogomils and Cathars were manicheans, even if they were never in any way connected to the religion of Manicheism. I.e. they had the manicheist heresy of dualism. Their particular heresy has been revived in recent years, incidentally. I'm not sure that the Albigensians were ever orthodox in any sense, much less superficially. More people will encounter "Manicheism" as a type of heresy than as a religion, I suspect, but, even if the numbers are even, it's irresponsible for the present article to have such a stunted (and incorrect) section. The rest of the article seems ok to me, except that there are copyedit issues, such as '"scriptures.", resulting,' where the period inside the closing quote (American style) is left, while a comma outside (British style) is put in to make it part of the next sentence. That's ticky-tacky and easily fixed, but the Christianity section needs a big injection. I'll be happy to help as I am able from my sources, if the authors are interested. Geogre 02:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've done some addition from an NPOV source (one unaware that anyone would try to revive it and therefore not interested in saying anything good or bad about it), but I have other objections, which are now on the talk page of the article. I have to remain objecting, so long as much of the article is reliant upon a very, very highly POV source and maintains that this is a "major world religion." I'm not sure at what point a heresy becomes a sect or a sect a denomination or a denomination a religion, but the lead suggests that this independent thing met, some time later, Christianity, and such does not appear to be the case at all. Geogre 00:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Tiffany Window of St Augustine - Lightner Museum.JPG has no copyright information. --Carnildo 07:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It was taken by the uploader and is thus GFDL. Fixed. Ashibaka (tock) 15:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• No vote. I have no clear idea whether this article should be FA or not. But I like to clarify some points:
  1. I don't think Manicheism is a widespread and difficult heresy in Christianity. In my view Manicheism is a religion similar to Christianity, but independent.
  2. The statement the term "manicheism" is simply a "synonym for heresy" is an ancient simplification. Actually, not every dualist heresy / religion is Manicheism, for instance Christian Gnosticism / Gnosticism.
  3. Bogomils and Cathars weren't manicheans, but their teaching originated from Manicheism.
  4. Albigensians were Cathars, that's why dualistic. But Waldensians were nearly orthodox, they were first of all schismatic. -- Vít Zvánovec 16:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Well, if it originated in a Gnostic section of eastern Persia, and if it originated also in a Christian area of Persia, then it would seem to me to be of Christian origin. Again, whether it develops into a religion, as opposed to a heresy, is another matter altogether. At any rate, the article has too many undocumented and highly controversial claims -- that it was universalist, that it was not, in fact, syncretic, but rather something akin to deistic. The rest, of course, I agree with, except that I'm not sure the poor Waldensians are part of this. Geogre 18:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Further objection: Given that some of the statements in the article are commonplaces and some are...esoteric...inline references or note-style citations should be used, so the sources of particular statements can be determined and examined for accuracy. WP:NOR may be at play. Geogre 02:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

    I don't see purely Christian origin (contrary to Christian heresies like Arianism). In my view Manicheism was syncretic. But distinction between religion and heresy is vague. Some consider Islam as Christian heresy, some consider Christianity as Judaistic heresy.

    Concerning Waldensians there is no connection to Manicheism, I just liked to distinguish between Albigensians and Waldensians. -- Vít Zvánovec 08:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object I didn't know anything about Manecheism before reading this article. So I thank the authors and therefore think this article should get featured maybe not this time but maybe in the future. However I knew the word manichean which means binary or polar. See [15] for a discussion. I think this article must states this meaning already in the head. This would really help. -- Vb 12:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object — I cannot see any evidence that this artcle has been through peer review. It would have benefitted from that. There is so much more that can be said on this subject: the theology section is woefully inadequate and not enough background on the religious environment of Persia is given. The article is a good introduction, but is decidedly lightweight. --Gareth Hughes 13:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Those We Don't Speak Of

I worked a lot on this article, and with the major help of a few peer reviewers, I think the article turned out to be of outstanding quality. -- SoothingR 09:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Far too short and insignificant to be a featured article - this is not a comment on the subject of the article (doesn't matter here) but the general fact that the article is lacking everywhere. The use of colour in the text at one point is terribly tacky, the Manual of Style is not followed where the film name is mentioned, the reference quoted (ie. the film itself) is not enough including where you draw parallels to Harry Potter (borders very closely on original research), and the spoiler warning is in a weird place. Essentially, this is not Wikipedia's finest work and is far from it. Harro5 09:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose 1) the sections are too small, it should be increased. 2) Would like to see more references 3) Lead should be expanded 4) bulleted text converted to prose. User:Nichalp/sg 09:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: Too short, as others have said, and it simply has no material. This is not a question of bytes, but of content. All it says is that this is a feature of a film and then proceed to give the plot! To add substance would mean taking the article far away from its purported subject and into a discussion of psychological film, the mismarketing of this film (as a horror movie), the expectation of movie "secrets," etc. None of that would be germane. In other words, I don't believe this object can be overcome. Geogre 02:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosaur

After it was denied for FA status last time, I made major repairs & hopefully fixed this great article. Please vote support & get this article to the main page... Spawn Man 08:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC) BTW, I'll scratch out requests I think I have completed, please unscratch if they are not....

Please don't unilaterally alter objections from other editors. Only the person who makes the objection should declare it resolved. You've missed the point on objections I made that you struck out, and I've restored them. Monicasdude 03:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Noone else has had a problem with it. You came in here, with a flimsy opposition. I fixed most of what you said, & as my right to be able to see what is checked off, I am able to strike out what I think is resolved. No one else has had a problem. I asked you to ellaborate, so do so or I'm afraid I have to strike the opposition so I can keep track! I'm not going to ruin my whole effort because I can't keep track of what I've done. Spawn Man 03:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Spawn Man, please do not alter other people's votes, no matter what the circumstances. Raul654 uses these votes to determine whether to promote an article. Chick Bowen 23:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not alter them. I was merely making an innocent attempt to keep track of what I'd done. Never knew there were so many rules.... Spawn Man 22:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. hopefully it'll make it this time.... Spawn Man 23:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good enough for my liking. —Hollow Wilerding 14:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, nice article. Dinosaurs will always be a part of history. Rawr! --DrippingInk 14:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object NeutralWeak Support.

1. Get a better picture for the lead. The only reason to have a B&W photo would be if it was the first dino bone discovered (which was later lost) at the discovery site. Try to get a drawing of a living dino.

   I've made the same proposal here. CG 18:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Captions. Expand them, and add periods.
3. Expand the content. Get help; yes it's the AID (change the template on the talk) and was the Collaboration of the Week, but see if you can interest a WikiProject.
4. There are numerous objections on the talk page. Don't delete the stuff in the todo list; use strikethroughs (<s> and </s>). Fix just about all of them.

Meanwhile, it is a good article; with nice references and size. Try to keep it under 50k. But for now, I'm opposed. --HereToHelp (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Try to expand the captions, and keep copyediting.You'll get there. --HereToHelp (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

By captions, you mean the picture captions, am I right? If so, I do not know how I could possibly add dates to them... Spawn Man 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No, not dates. make them informative. Add links and periods. Make them useful. --HereToHelp (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh! Periods, as in "."s and making the captions complete sentances! Time frame would be nice (one of the three eras is fine), but the main thing is to make the captions whole, useful, gramatically correct sentances. --HereToHelp (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My bidding? Right....Well, this looks pretty good. Not an instant hit...but good enough. Gor for it. Congrats. --HereToHelp (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, your bidding master.... You rang???. Spawn Man 00:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I'll try my best, but you have to be blunt with me, for example I have no idea what B&W means, so therefore cannot fix the problemo. For this request, Captions. Expand them, and add periods, could you please give me an example of what you want, as this I do not also understand. I will also try & enlist the help of the Dinosaur wikiproject, but I fear they are pretty much dormant. So other than that, thanks for feedback & try to explain what needs doing in "simple english" if you will. Spawn Man 22:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • As an alternative, I could swap the opening T rex skull photo for the photo of the triceratop's skeleton, so as it is not just a skull picture that opens, or even swap it for the sauropod picture further below that. Comments would be appreciated. Spawn Man 22:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC) BTW, We did have a "drawing of a living dino", but it was on the verge of copyright infringement.

• Support. The pictures are fine, can't get much better without copyright issues. The content is just enough to not clutter the article, and there are many auxillary articles listed that expand on it. Dinoguy2 23:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, regrettably. It's a good article, but the single-sentence sections all need to be merged into something more coherent. —Kirill Lokshin 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've lengthened out the one sentence sections. Hope this sways your vote? Spawn Man 23:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Support now (although "Saurischians" and "Ornithischians" probably don't need their own section headings). As an aside, is it a good idea to indicate Molecular paleontology as a main article if it doesn't exist? —Kirill Lokshin 23:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It wasn't my idea to put that title there, but I think it should stay incase someone with the expertese in the field wanted to create an article about it. Could everyone please say whether they would like this link to stay or go? thanks, Spawn Man 23:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support This article has truly improved thanks to the article improvement drive. Tarret 23:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't mention the 6 hours of work I did..... :) Spawn Man 23:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is now a very strong article on a doubtlessly fundamental topic. Soo 01:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Article does not cite about 80% of the assertions it makes. As one example, "while it was once believed that birds simply evolved from dinosaurs and went their separate way, some scientists now believe that some dinosaurs, such as the dromaeosaurs, may have actually evolved from birds, losing the power of flight while keeping the feathers in a manner similar to the Ostrich and other ratites" is a uncited generalization, and the paragraph to which it belongs is vague, weasle-ish, and its other claims are also uncited. By extension, most of the paragraphs in the article are similarly flawed. The lead section is weak, being both vague in its summary of dinosaurs but also containing overly-specific information that is not found anywhere else in the article. John Ostrom's discovery of Deinonychus and the renaissance it supposedly triggered is mentioned no where else in the article. The only place that explains where dinosaur knowledge comes from is the second sentence of the lead, leaving much to be desired—Where are fossils found? What does this suggest about dinosaurs (that they reigned the entire Earth? that certain species were restricted to certain areas?)? What is the geologic window in which dinosaur fossils are found and how do they fit into the broader natural history? The first two sentences expect you to do math to figure out when the dinosaurs reigned. Why is information about fossilization and reconstruction in the "Size" section? The mystery and controversy over the KT extinction event in relation to dinosaurs is not given proper weight, failing to mention how it has implication in things like religion and future possibility of species extinction. The information in the classification section contradicts what is said in say, the pterosaurs article, and that section is additionally badly structured and difficult to follow. Years that are irrelevent to this topic are being linked to despite Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) recommending against it. The article uses self references like "this article" and "see below" and phrases that will be invalid soon ("five years ago", "recently found"). The interesting topic of how people thought of dinosaurs in earlier times is limited to a sentence. After reading this article I have come away feeling unlearned about such an important topic.—jiy (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am saddened to hear that Jiy. Although we strive for complete perfection in FA's, we cannot always do so. I'll try to fix as many things as I can & will reply personally to you soon. Alas, I did not write most of the uncited sentences you suggested above, so I alone would not be able to cite them. Another point I'd like to discuss is that of the KT extinction. How, may I ask, does the extinction affect the future possibility of species extinction? Also, if you read on the dinosaur talk page you would notice the discussion on whether to actually involve creationism or religion in the dinosaur article. Please leave your comments on this subject there. I personally think the section on extinction is quite adequate; It not oly gives an indepth, overall summary of extinction theories, but also gives the link to the main article on the subject, allowing the reader to delve further into the subject. Why add to this section, which has its own page, when there are other sections in need of bigger work which do not have their own page? We have been told to keep the page size to under 50k, so in satisfying your requests, we may be failing another. Please take this under consideration. I would assume that the information which editors have gotten their information from is from the books & papers & sites under the references section & the external links section. I will reply further on your talk, but will try my hardest to adequately fix your shown problems.... Spawn Man 04:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) BTW, I hope this oppose is not because I gave you an earfull about disrupting the images?

(following posted at jiy talk)

In reply to your lengthy paragraph about why you oppose, I would like you to do one thing first, to make it much easier for both of us, please divide your reasons into bullet points. I cannot quickly flip through & search for what is needed when all I see is one giant block. I'll try & address all your problems now, but I can't promise I did not miss one or two.

As per subpage, I did not write most of the uncited sentences you suggested above, so I alone would not be able to cite them, but I would assume they were taken from the references stated. If wish to dig through the 1,000 plus edits on dinosaur, find the editor who wrote them & ask him which sources he used for the sentence he wrote a few months ago, then be my guest. I would assume that zero would remember, & since you said that "over 80%" is uncited (I would assume this is a definite exaggeration), pleasing you would require deleting 80% of the article, meaning there would be nothing left. We could complain about it, but lets admit it, over 3 quarters of wikipedia article are uncited & will never be cited. So although your request is legitimit, it is practically impossible.

I will work on the lead section. It absolutley needs work, you are right.

Some of your questions are answered if you read in depth, such as "Where are fossils found? ". Under the history of discovery section it states what some of the general hotspots are & where they can be found. If you want something more specific, please explain.

From my post on the subpage; Another point I'd like to discuss is that of the KT extinction. How, may I ask, does the extinction affect the future possibility of species extinction? Also, if you read on the dinosaur talk page you would notice the discussion on whether to actually involve creationism or religion in the dinosaur article. Please leave your comments on this subject there. I personally think the section on extinction is quite adequate; It not oly gives an indepth, overall summary of extinction theories, but also gives the link to the main article on the subject, allowing the reader to delve further into the subject. Why add to this section, which has its own page, when there are other sections in need of bigger work which do not have their own page? We have been told to keep the page size to under 50k, so in satisfying your requests, we may be failing another. Please take this under consideration.

I do not understand what you are talking about involving the pterosaur article, please explain.

I will change the "5 years ago" reference etc. lso, what would you like me to change the "see below" statements to? "See this section" or something else? Please elaborate.

That's basically it. I'll get on it as soon as I can. Kind Regards, Spawn Man 04:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - This may be a somewhat lengthy article, but is just enough to give enough details, without getting lost into the details. It gives a good overview of the new insights in taxonomy. In other words : it's a good starting point if you want to know more about dinosaurs. Just a pity that there are no better pictures available; they would give even more credit to this article. JoJan 09:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, the text is less than brilliant, much of the article is single sentence paragraphs, there are uncomfortable self referential links, the TOC is overly long sections broken down unnecessarily, particularly the bird/dinosaur section and the fields of study section, and as jiy point out there is too much weasel langauge, where primary research backs up the point, cite it. There shouldn't be {{main}} links to unwritten articles. There is a mix of footnotes and harvard notes, references should be in a standard format throughout the article. And while on the references, WP:CITE states you should actively search for authoritative references to cite, so in an ideal world the primary research discussed in all the footnotes would actaully be listed, rather than (or in addition to) the regurgitated simplified media version.--nixie 11:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have fixed the single sentence paragraphs, funnily, a while before you posted your complaints on here. I fail to see which paragraphs are still single sentences. In regard to the "uncomfortable self referential links", could you please explain what you mean by this? The way I'm reading it, it sounds like I should give them a pillow & a personal massage? The weasel language will be fixed, but alas I did have to sleep last night, & now since there has been an outcry to remove the molecular paleontology link, it will be removed. Spawn Man 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, there are too many redlinks. I removed one "Main article:redlink" which shouldnt have been there, but there are still a few remaining. Also not sure about the pic layout changed in this edit which sounds like a threat. It was an interesting easy to read article though, I think its close. ---- Astrokey44|talk 12:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • (i) Presence or absence of redlinks is not mentioned in the criteria. It is better keep redlinks for articles that are needed than tactically delink to remove them. (ii) What bearing does the putative "threat" have on whether or nto the article meets the featured article criteria (the only potential relevance I can see is 2(e) - "stability" - but moving images does not amount to an edit war). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with ALoan here. Astrokey44, you have given me no problems to fix what so ever! Red links are inevitable & I cannot change what happened in the past with the image re arranging. Either come up with something I can fix or remove your vote.... Spawn Man 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Astrokey44, I have checked all the article for as you say, "there are too many redlinks". I only found six. For an article this size, it is excellent. Plus all the red links were to key articles that may be created by someone with experience. Your objection is looking rediculous if I may say so. It has nothing to stand on what so ever. There are little red links, no main article redlink any more & the edit summary cannot be changed. Spawn Man 23:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

ok since the main article redlink isnt there anymore Ill remove my objection. Are there any other pictures which would work here, it the sort of article you would expect to have alot of good pictures. I found a couple from commons which might work ---- Astrokey44|talk 03:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Support now. I didnt mean to give the wrong impression before, I do think its well written and comprehensive, there were just minor things which I think have been fixed now. It would make a great featured article ---- Astrokey44|talk 05:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: I have completed the following tasks from everyone:

• Gotten a better picture for the lead.
• Change the AID template on the talk page.
• Wrote to get help from a WikiProject.
• Fixed just about all of the to do's on the talk page.
• Merged & rewrote the single-sentence sections.
• Removed the phrases, "five years ago" & "recently found" from text.
• Reduced ToC, particularly in the bird/dinosaur section.
• Removed the main article redlink.
• Have removed all self references.
• Have removed all links to years, per manual of style.
• Have expanded captions.
• Have added periods/full stops to all captions.
• Removed double punctuations.
• Moved all citaion boxes to directly behind the punctuation.
• Merged short paragraphs in the definition section.
• Got a citation for the Oort Cloud section.
• Got a citation for Bakker's work in the warm blooded section.
• Replaced "The study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, is detailed in the July 14 issue of the journal Nature." with a citation.
• Rearranged hip structure paragraphs to suitable liking.
• Most foot notes now point to actual printed references.
• Corrected dino dates in the lead so readers do not have to do the math.
• Removed all harvard style references into footnotes per MoS.
• Expanded & cited parts of the evolution section.
• Sourced that darstardly Cretacious changes section.
• Sourced part of the history section, as well as many other sections.
• Explained the theory of the Gondwanaland break up & dinosaurs.
• Removed all POV problems in the popular clture section that I could see.
• Deleted turok evolution picture.
• Deleted Barney picture.

• • Please, could everyone tell me if the like the way the pics of the dinosaur hips, set out by ALoan is adequate? Spawn Man 22:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object—Good work on this so far, but there is a lack of inline citations in portions of the text (the last three level 2 sections have none, and the "Areas of debate", which should arguably have the most citations of any section, has only three). Additionally, none of the notes point to actual print references. Also, the formatting of the citations is poor -- the number should immediately follow the punctuation, and there should be no repeat punctuation (see no. 15 especially -- to make it right, just remove that last period). I'll fix this tomorrow if I get a chance. Last thing I'll mention is that there are a number of very short paragraphs in the "Definition" section. Combining some of those would be helpful, but others seem very poorly placed ("Dinosaurs are extremely varied...", for example). Hope this helps. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I still think the history section needs a source, even if it's only one at the end of the section (if one source covers all the material there). And there are still weasel words and unreferenced claims in the debates and extinction sections:

• "It has been claimed that..." in Evidence for Cenozoic dinosaurs
• "some scientists, most notably Gregory S. Paul," in Skeleton
• "The study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, is detailed in the July 14 issue of the journal Nature." in Lungs (replace with citation) Done, can you see if I've done it properly?
• "according to an investigation led by Patrick O'Connor" in Lungs (documentation?) Completed with above.
• Gizzard and Care of Young don't have any source (maybe incorporate care of young into the reproduction section, and gizzard into a new section called "anatomy" or the like -- that would help reduce the size of the TOC as well)
• "The theory first proposed by Walter Alvarez in the late 1970s" in asteroid collision (publication info?)
• "The environment during the late Cretaceous was changing dramatically." in environment changes. To me, a non-scientist, that sounds rather speculative. Is there a source for that info?

Note that when I say inline citation, I mean either footnote or parenthetical citation -- I believe that's common usage but I thought I'd be explicit. I say that because I'd like to see page numbers on those sources, if at all possible, and including them might look better if done in footnotes. In that case, the note itself might simply list the first author's last name and the page number, allowing the reader to refer to the references for the full bibliography (see welding, for example). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 01:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, one more thing -- re the hip image, I'd prefer to see most of the caption text in the article itself. Just keep "Blah hip structure" in the image caption. I don't have a problem with the actual placements of the images, since there really isn't any other option other than galleries (won't be able to read the text) and stacking them (looks bad, unless that section doubles in length). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 01:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Support—A few more inline citations need to be added, but I'm planning to do a little work on that this afternoon. Overall, a really well-done article; Spawn Man has done a great job. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, I'll see what I can do. I admit however, I may need help with the citations part, I'm new to it... Spawn Man 00:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Support, This article has been GREATLY improved. The time and effort clearly shows. And while there could still be some tweaks, here and there, it makes the grade as a good general overview article. Inline citations are more a question of style preference than a requirement.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Conditional Support, so long as no one else objects to unreferenced factual statements, I think this article is very good and shows what's great about wikipedia. - JustinWick 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Support. There are certainly some sections that could benefit from some expansion, and perhaps a few things that ought to be wikilinked. I'll admit I haven't read through the article word-for-word, so I cannot really speak to the language, but it's certainly a more than long enough article, with plenty of pictures, and most if not all of the relevant headings/sections. LordAmeth 03:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Object. The article still needs a thorough copyedit to remove sharp changes in tone (e.g., "The Jurassic Park movies also inspired a couple of console games"; "In fact, most dinosaurs were much smaller than we would expect".) Some texts that fail the verifiability test survive (e.g, the intro comment about Gondwanaland; the fossils may corroborate the theory, but certainly don't prove it). The bringing-back-to-life section is speculative at best, not encyclopedic; the pop culture discussions, in general, have NPOV problems, and suggest that the idea of humans and dinosaurs being contemporaneous is in some way plausible. Monicasdude 16:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have said on your talk page, I feel I have completed your tasks. You have not ellaborated on how I can do more, but instead attack me. Plus, if you want a request done promptly, do not use "long" "waffle" words, (usually said to make the user sound more important), like contemporaneous. I have not idea what the heck that means & it isn't in the text. Use proper words please. Spawn Man 22:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:Triceratops 1.jpg is tagged as GFDL and Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike. Both of these require the creator's name and copyright statement to be included with the image, but there's no sign of it. I could delete the image or keep it, but I cannot find any sign of creator other than the person who uploaded it... Please ellaborate..
     • You could try emailing the uploader and ask if he created it. --Carnildo 00:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. The image Image:Barneythedinosaur.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but Barney is only mentioned briefly in the article. This does not seem to qualify for fair use. Removed picture
  3. The image Image:Turokevolutionbox.jpg is tagged as fair use, but seems to be used for decorative purposes only. This is not allowed under Wikipedia:Fair use.Removed Picture
  4. Much of the "in popular culture" section is unsourced. For example, what is the claim that "Jurassic Park, brought dinosaurs into the media spotlight"? Dinosaurs were popular well before that. I do not understand the problem here. I have rewritten the example above to sound less POV, but I did not know you needed to cite obvious things like "Jurrasic park lead to two sequels" or "dinosaurs have been used in these games..." Please explain
     • The statement "Jurassic Park had two sequels" is a fairly self-evident fact and does not need to be sourced. The statement "Due to the popularity of the movies...dinosaurs have become a permanent fixture in today's world" is an opinion, and needs to be sourced. --Carnildo 00:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  --Carnildo 07:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, I feel I've fixed most of what you've asked... Spawn Man 22:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - tremendous piece of work for a fourteen year old. Some of issues identified above are real, but I'm certain SM will get to work on them over the weekend.--File Éireann 10:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support: This article has really turned around. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck

[edit] Coeliac disease

I've not had anything to do with this article - just had reason to read it and thought it was very informative. A doctor or two has read it and approved the content (see talk page). Pcb21| Pete 17:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) Are the references under the =external links=? 2) Picture? User:Nichalp/sg 18:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It is chaotic and lacks crucial information (e.g. rate of occurrence). It is thin on references. I added the discovery of anti-tTG2 and its cross-reactivity with gluten, but there are many more crucial papers that could be cited, such as the review in The Lancet 2 years ago. A picture will be hard - unless someone can arrange a microscopy photo of villous atrophy. JFW | T@lk 19:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Perhaps a picture of related nutrients would be appropriate?

1. Lead needs to be tightened.
2. Please seperate the external links and the references.
3. It needs a copyedit for overly academic terms. Some are bound to be neccesary, but I think some of them cane be pruned or replaced.

Templates and categorization appears to be fully in order. I think it's an FA in the making. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone else that has doubts about this disease? It just seems to me that mankind evolved with wheat. Any links to medical journals or discussions?

Doubts about the disease? there are chapters and entire books about it! S Holland, M.D. Kd4ttc 21:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article is not correct on a number of details regarding celiac disease. It is an admirable effort by what appears to be motivated and well read non-physicians about the disease, and is very good in the big picture. A lot of details, however, are incorrect. Also, the thinking on pathophysiology needs to reworked. The sections on treatment are missing a number of comments about dieticians and resources. Well, I said a while ago I was going to work on this. That will happen over the next few months. Kd4ttc 21:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nevada-tan

Nice informative article, unusual subject matter, referenced, covers everything known about the case from english-language media sources, peer reviewed, worth featuring? Niz 21:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:Nevada-Tan.jpg is tagged as "public domain". However, the upload summary describes it as a combination of a public domain photo and a "fair use" image, which does not result in a public domain derivative work. Also, there is no indication as to why the photo is public domain.
  2. The images Image:SMitarai.jpg and Image:Nevada-tan Cosplayer.jpg are tagged as "fair use", but neither indicates the source. It's not possible to claim fair use without knowing the source.

  --Carnildo 23:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object ToC is ugly. Do not use single subheadings under a heading. Also avoid sub-sub headings. User:Nichalp/sg 07:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object I love Nevada-tan but the image of her is copyright (and probably illegal in Japan); we can't feature pages with that status. Additionally, the External Links section is far too large. Ashibaka (tock) 01:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sleep

Fantastic article! Satisfies all FAC criteria (neutral, well researched, factual, referenced). I really believe that it covers the topic sleep very well. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No. It doesn't. Request opinion of sleep experts.Jclerman 13:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears I was premature here. This should be sent to peer review. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review.

1. A lot of unexplained jargon.
2. Lead is too short.
3. Has numerous (too) short sections.
4. Should have a summary of the article on dreaming in a section with a link to the main article.
5. A lot of the terms in the "see also" section need to be discussed in the article itself; not comprehensive. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• The Medicine Collobaration of the Week might be interested in taking this one on.--nixie 01:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment This article isn't there yet, by any means. But please take another look. Substantial changes have been made since this (premature) nomination was entered. Except perhaps for the back-and-forth on the caffeine issue, which may have been resolved already, I don't see that it needs peer review at this point. Sfahey 09:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The caffeine issue has not a verifiable peer-reviewed reference. Jclerman 12:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

See the Discussion page. Jclerman 03:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I see how contentious that seemingly minor point had become. I rewrote the claim in perhaps a more palatable way, and put it in a footnote, which I believe is appropriate in the English wikipedia. Parenthetically, there IS some rationale for serving coffee at bedtime(the use of caffeine in infants) and while it for sure wouldn't work for me I see no reason to question that it is done. My efforts to translate the relevant paper myself were unsuccessful. Sfahey 04:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As above, request reviewers to give this article another look. I believe the objections have largely been addressed. Sfahey 04:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• The objections I had 3 days ago have not been addressed. I still think this would benefit peer review. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, the lead has been rewritten, over half of the old "see also" list is now eliminated and incorporated into the article, and the only "short" section is the one on "measuring sleep." This could be merged with the "Physiology" section, but since I was the only critic who chose to work on, rather than simply disparage, this nomination I didn't get as far as doing that, or writing a new section on "Dreams". Sfahey 01:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• More comments:
• If the Caffeine Note refers to: <<(CoffeeInElderlyDe In verbatim, this source states under "Sonstiges": "Coffee: Helps in many elderly people because of the decrease in respiratory rate". German text: "Evtl. Kaffee: hilft bei vielen älteren Menschen wegen des nächtlichen RR-Abfalls")>>, the German quotation is NEITHER from what is understood to be a "paper" NOR it has been peer-reviewed: it is just a list of points without references, thus not a "verifiable source." See numerous entries in the Discussion page.Jclerman 12:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The need for a close scrutiny of the verifiability and reliability of sources on which the article is based has been emphasized by the comments on an edit by "user 80.129.140.252" who stated: "(→Notes - german 'RR' is Riva-Rocci (method of measuring blood pressure, used as synonym with blood pressure), not respiratory resistance!)". See full discussion of this point in the article's discussion page which contains numerous exchanges about the caffeine issue and its repercussion on other web articles. Jclerman 20:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, to reach a consensus text a detailed verification of its statements, based on reliable sources, and the opinion of sleep experts will be needed. Jclerman 20:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought that is what I have been doing for the last few months. I have been working on a grant for the last couple of weeks... So I have been busy, but I have put a lot of effort into this article. When I found it, this article was a shambles. I have added properly referenced materials, and useful information. Unfortunately, whenever I remove less relevant information, it turns into an edit war (just look at the discussion page). While some of the "fat" on this page does need to be trimmed, that is almost an impossibility in this format. It is difficult to keep a page like this clean when people start posting their own unsubstantiated pet theories, and hold on to them until the bitter end.However, I will continue adding and subtracting based on what is happening in the field (which I am a part of) because of the time I have already invested. Sleep is an issue that few people know much about, and, as a sleep researcher, I feel it's part of my job as a responsible scientist to direct the public to information that reflects the popular consensus in the field.

MrSandman 03:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment re above issues: I still do not understand why this point seems so controversial. This is a tempest in a teapot. User "Keimzelle" has presented:

1. A (sloppily) translated quotation supported coffee at bedtime.

2. A personal report from a German nursing home confirming this.

Additionally, there is a physiological rationale (caffeine's demonstrable ability to stimulate respiration) for this unusual practice. As for a documented source, how about the German wikipedia article on Sleep. In its "Pharmacology" section the authors describe the paradoxical benefit of caffeine in the elderly:

Es klingt paradox – in der Pflege wird Kaffee manchmal gebraucht, um das Ein- und Durchschlafen zu fördern. Besonders bei älteren Menschen hilft das Koffein, den Abfall der Atemfrequenz zu bekämpfen.

This German translation is affected by the loss in translation pointed out above under "more comments"; plainly stated: the original German cited means "blood pressure" incorrectly translated as "Atemfrequenz = respiratory rate".Jclerman 15:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not to suggest that this article is up to "F.A." quality. But it is a lot closer than the current flock of naysayers insist. Sfahey 02:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Daily Show

I must say that, for a featured article, the content completely ignores 33% of the show. There is virtually no content regarding the fresh new years of TDS when Craig Kilborn was the host. I realize Jon Stewart is more well-known but my opinion is the best writing years of the show were 1996-1999. If you want to make this a featured article, it should exemplify the thoroughness of the content, which this doesn't. If you want to ignore that content as unimportant, the article should be renamed The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and NOT The Daily Show. --Davidp 18:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never edited this article. I stumbled across it and I think it's featured article calibre. moink 03:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's got potential, but it's a bit list heavy -- nothing that a good copyedit couldn't take care of. . →Raul654 03:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object I saw this article before over the template debate and it's quite good, but its got three main issues still (both are more than doable within the FAC timeframe)

1. There are quite a few short paragraphs, esp. towards the beginning (and why is the awards section first? Consider putting it towards the end...)
2. Too list-heavy where there should be prose or something similar
3. You're gonna need a fair-use explanation for Image:Dailyshow-invite.jpg most likely. I'd double-check the others too.

Also, consider sorting the see also section like Autism#See also, for example. In addition, the lead seems like a bunch of facts mashed together, but its not too bad at all. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object the lead is too long- and is not a summary of the rest of the article- much of it could be split off into a history of the daily show section. The position of awards as the first thing in the body of the article seems misplaced. I see the list of daily show guests made it though vfd- since this is the case why is there such a massive list of guests in the article- should be condensed to a couple of paragraphs with a {{main}} link to the list. There are html links in the text that don't appear in the list of references, and they should so that there is a record of the source if/when it is moved or removed from the source site.--nixie 03:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't this should go to peer review first? - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khaosworks (talk • contribs).
  • No, peer review is an optional part of the FAC process. →Raul654 05:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Far too many "fair use" images. I'd suggest reducing it to the logo plus the one or two most representative images. --Carnildo 07:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object too jumbled, too many lists, too many images (many of which are questionable fair use). -Greg Asche (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object per too many fair use images comment above. Just doesn't look tidy either. Nick Catalano (Talk) 05:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, if for no other reason than this is a good example of a recurring problem with wikipedia: anything from the past 3 years (the years wikipedia has been profusely edited) gets coverage in great detail, while anything from circa 2002 or earlier gets little mention. For several years the show had a substanitally different format and was hosted by Craig Kilbourn (who I never liked), but he gets the briefest of mention while Colbert and company get extreme coverage. Its current form should get more attention, but this is almost like an article on SNL with several paragraphs on Horatio Sanz and a one line mention of Chevy Chase. -R. fiend 06:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, Sorry but I have to agree with my fellow conscientious objectors. This article is off to a promising start, but it needs work to get it up to FA status. Send it in for peer review and tune up, then renominate it later. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, when I am signed in I have been active in editing this page...and to be honest it is nowhere NEAR ready to be featured. Maybe as a featured TV article maybe, but the whole issue of the guest list has to be solved before any further moves should be undertaken. --136.159.142.84 15:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (User:J L C Leung)

[edit] Removal from the Order of Canada

Self-renom. I had two attempts before, but since the last one, I had it spell and grammar checked and the images have not changed a bit. Zach (Sound Off) 02:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Since the book depicted in Image:AlanEaglesonbookcover.jpg is not discussed in the article, use of the image is not "fair use". --Carnildo 07:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Removed. Zach (Sound Off) 13:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure it really makes sense to me to have an article about removal from the order as a standalone. Should this not be merged into Order of Canada? It seems to me on reading it that the prose is far from concise and could be condensed substantially in any case. There are also numerous spelling errors at the moment. Worldtraveller 11:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There was an AFD that asked for this article to be merged into the main Order of Canada (also an FA), but after I beefed it up, many who voted merge said to vote keep instead. I still believe this can stand out on its own. I also fixed the spelling errors and I also made the article into British English. Zach (Sound Off) 13:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would change anything, but shouldn't this be in Canadian English? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I will get the Firefox spell check add in for the Canadian EN and run that through all Order of Canada related articles. Zach (Sound Off) 16:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The only word that seems to have issues is "criticised," but I am not sure how it is spelt in Canada EN. Other than that, the article is fine on the "spelling" front, unless something is added to it. Zach (Sound Off) 16:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Canadian spelling typically uses -ize over -ise. — mendel ☎ 20:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—prose not good enough. Here's just one example:

'though the removal process is started by individual Canadians or by various groups inside of Canada'.

It's a false contrast to use 'though' (better 'although') here. 'Initiated' rather than 'started'. Remove redundant 'of'. 'Inside Canada', in any case, is another false contrast, because the institution is also that. Needs thorough editing to be considered for nomination. I agree with the comments above about the need to merge this with the related article. Tony 01:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I fixed the above statement, but I had the article copyedited before I sent it here. I am still against the idea of a merge, since the AFD I pointed out earlier called for a merge, but was defeated. I personally believe this article can stand out on its own. Tony, if you think my grammar is not that great (which you said this at other FAC's I started/worked on), then I welcome you to come in and fix it yourself. Zach (Sound Off) 02:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose The process of removal may be interesting, but it has only been successfully applied against two OoC recipients (Alan Eagleson and David Ahenakew) and is therefore not significant enough (i.e., there are other worthy candidate articles) for nomination. As well, more of Eagleson's situation should be described (being the first inductee removed), and the syntax and content of the article can be improved upon (e.g., Christie or Christy)? E Pluribus Anthony 07:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sinclair Research Ltd

self-nomination, I worked a lot on this article, it's very detailed and includes lots of pictures, and has a good lead paragraph (might need expanding though). It went through peer review and got some good comments. Includes references, further reading, external links and see also section. — Wackymacs 08:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a good article, but it just not sufficiently comprehensive and detailed, therefore object. Also the only reference is from 1985 - I should like to know where the post-1985 stuff comes from. Basically everything Sinclair did after 1983 was a failure (and in some cases was very dodgy), there are underlying reasons for this that need mentioning. (Sinclair got lucky with a good design team for the Spectrum and then thought he was the one responsible for its success). The failure of QL is attributed here due to "it's strong competition", and not the nearly total loss of confidence in Sinclair after his actions "launching" it before they even had a prototype.

There's an online exposé of the downfall of Sinclair that I'll try to find. Morwen - Talk

*Most of the post 1985 information is from the 'Planet Sinclair' website (linked in the external links section), a very informative website all about Sinclair himself, and all the products the company ever made. I'll see how I can improve it, if you can help it'd be very useful in getting this closer to FA status. — Wackymacs 15:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  1. The images Image:Tv1a.jpg, Image:Sinclairblackwatch.jpg, Image:SinclairStereo25.jpg, Image:SinclairC5.jpg are claimed as "fair use", but it should be possible to create or find free-use replacements, so there's no reason to use "fair use" images here.
  2. The image Image:SinclairC5.jpg is tagged as being under the Creative Commons Attribution license, but does not indicate the creator. This needs to be fixed, or the image needs to be deleted.

  --Carnildo 19:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Image sources have been added to all the images you mentioned, and the SinclairC5.jpg image was tagged wrong, it has been replaced with the promotional tag. — Wackymacs 20:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, good work but some improvements could still be made. The lead should be longer and more than one section. There should be more descriptive section headings for the history section than simply date ranges. The long and thin financial data column needs to be better placed. I would suggest having it as a side bar to the history section. See for instance how I did this with a long thin table at voter turnout. The article also seems lacking in some areas. It needs to be more on the company today, how many employees, what it is working on etc. The article is too focused on the company's products with very little on corporate structure, leading figures, or facilities. Specific figures, such as most of the financial figures, should be sourced with footnotes. The table especially needs a source. - SimonP 01:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion of putting the finance table as a sidebar to the history section, this has now been done. — Wackymacs 15:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—Lots of prose problems. Just a FEW examples at the top:
  • 'founded Sinclair Radionics, a company developing hi-fi products'—so the company was already developing these products WHEN it was founded?
  • Is a calculator a hi-fi product?
  • 'In 1965 the "Micro-FM" debuted as "the world"s first pocket-size FM tuner-receiver", but was poorly acclaimed due to technical difficulties, though in the far-east illegal clones of the product were being produced'—many problems:
    • why 'but'? Are you contradicting the first clause in some way?
    • better to insert 'it' after 'but'
    • punctuation needs a thorough audit for clarity and ease of reading
    • 'though' (better 'although') comes after 'but', and I can't see why it's yet another contradiction of what precedes it—you need to spell out why 'poorly acclaimed' (better 'reviewed'?) somehow makes the illegal cloning surprising. Or break up the sentence to avoid these false contrasts.

How did this ever find its way straight into the FAC list? Withdraw, rewrite, possibly resubmit. Tony 05:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object - A company information box should be added to the article. Cedars 09:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• A company information box has been added, and I'm working on the prose problems and other grammar issues. I'm also trying to add more info about the company itself, and will look into moving the financial data table to the side of the article rather than in it's own section. Some more references are going to be added too.— Wackymacs 19:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Good work. Though the company type field is very important and still not filled in yet. The revenue field should also be filled in but because the success of this company was largely in past years you may want to use historical data. "N/A" could also be used if you so desired. Cedars 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• I put N/A in the company type entry, because it is almost impossible to find out if they are LTD, PLC or sole trader. For the revenue entry I added the data for 1984, Sinclair's best financial year, with a revenue of £77.69 million. I think the company infobox is now done. — Wackymacs 17:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miami, Florida

This page I been protecting from vandals for a while now and its mostly written by others but this is also well-written, informative, and very intresting as well. Its Intro is Very Good as well. --JAranda | yeah 01:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, see Ann Arbor, Michigan for a good article of this type, history is long and there are too many lists.--nixie 02:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references, which is a requirement for articles to be featured. Also, Image:Miami sunset.jpg has no copyright tags (which can be an issue with others) and Image:Metro cc.jpg is marked as copyrighted without fair use (articles must have GFDL-licensed images unless there is no choice. I believe someone can take a picture of the Miami Metro instead). Pentawing 03:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Pentawing, the article must have GFDL-compatible licences, not necessarily GFDL-licensed ones. User:Nichalp/sg 05:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Point taken. Thanks for the clarification. Pentawing 07:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The images Image:Miamiflag.jpg and Image:Miamiseal.JPG are tagged as public domain, but there's no evidence that this is the case.
  2. The image Image:Miami sunset.jpg has no source or copyright information. In case you missed the announcement, that's grounds for speedy deletion these days.
  3. The image Image:Metro cc.jpg is tagged as {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}}, but no conditions are specified in the tag, indicating that the tag is probably incorrect. This needs to be cleared up.

  --Carnildo 05:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object – as nixie says, model the article as per Ann Arbor which is well written and balanced. User:Nichalp/sg 05:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] West Indian cricket team

A renomination after a substantial rewrite. I believe all comments on the previous nomination have been dealt with, jguk 21:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Very good article, but I particularly like the tabel of results in the 80s. Any reason why this hasn't been implemented for all years? Perhaps this should be done in another page, but I think it would be very useful. Harro5 06:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A table of all results for all time would be too long, I think. I take your point that it would be useful to have a summary of every result on another page though, jguk 07:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A fine piece of work which is hard to fault. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Object: After prompting from the comments below and re-reading the article, it does really need to expand beyond a history of West Indian cricket. Sorry, but it's not quite there yet. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:75 Years of West Indian cricket.PNG is claimed as "fair use", but does not have a fair use rationale.
  2. The image Image:Champions Trophy 2004.png is claimed as "fair use", but its use in the article appears to be strictly decorative. Therefore, it does not qualify for fair use.

  --Carnildo 21:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• • The "75 Years" image is used, with a clear description, to say that the West Indies Cricket Board authorised the book to celebrate 75 Years of West Indian Test cricket. The "Champions Trophy" logo is described in the text as being there because the West Indies won the competition. What's wrong with this? jguk 08:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • What's wrong with the "75 years" image is that the image description page has no fair use rationale: see Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. What's wrong with the "Champions Trophy" logo is that it provides no information to the article and is not discussed in the article: it exists only for decorative purposes. --Carnildo 18:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Just a query here about fair use for Carnildo: you say that "75 years" has no fair use rationale. Doesn't the 'book cover' copyright tag count as rationale? What more is needed? I'm just making sure I understand where you're coming from. This area seems much too complicated for me. Raven4x4x 10:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
        • The "book cover" tag counts as a fair use rationale in an article about the book. Any other use needs its own rationale. --Carnildo 20:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
          • One bit of the article is about the book - namely the bit about the WICB authorising it to celebrate 75 years of West Indian Test cricket. Isn't this enough? Anyway, I'm removing these two images for now, jguk 20:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support This looks solid. Good job, jg. -- Peripatetic 00:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object – The article only speaks on the history of the WICT. I feel this should be moved to so a separate article and a summary of the same be added here. The page size is also on the higher side. I think the following things need to be added: 1. Frank Worell's contribution: IIRC He was responsible for changing the fortunes of the WI team, using cricket as an outlet to unite the people against colonialism and poverty. 2. Nothing mentioned about the innovations introduced by WI -- Chinaman etc., 3. WI home grounds & culture --> calypso, noisy stadiums, flamboyant batsmen, fast bowlers etc. (I know, I should have reviewed earlier, but didn't have the time.) User:Nichalp/sg 07:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it would be somewhat POV to single out Worrell. Also, although I'd like to write a Social history of cricket sometime, I'm not sure this is the place (ie this article isn't meant to be a social history of West Indian cricket, which would be a separate article entirely - and quite an interesting one if it ever gets written:) ) jguk 16:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nichalp raises some good points which would improve this article further - perhaps this article should be moved to History of the West Indies cricket team and featured there, and his points added to a new more rounded article on the West Indian cricket team? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Has an ugly self-reference up the top of the page. Lead section should be more of a summary of the article and less of a narrative history. It also contains no content apart from history; almost the point where it could be named History of the West Indian cricket team with virtually no changes. The history, however, is excellent. Ambi 07:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What are you looking for apart from the history? jguk 16:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Uniforms? Grounds? Key records? Current squad? Supporters? Culture? There's quite a lot that could be added. See Arsenal F.C., which is today's main page article and a fantastic example of a club article. As an additional objection, the references aren't in the proper format. Ambi 02:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft Jet Database Engine

A Ta bu shi da yu-driven article. He did a heck of a lot of work during and after the first FAC, and I went ahead and added another paragraph to the intro and delistified a list. It seems readable even to a layman. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Supported it the first time, and think it is even better now. WegianWarrior 07:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Still not accessible to a non-computer bod like myself. The explanation of a database engine as being "...the underlying component that a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) uses to create, retrieve, update and delete (CRUD) data from a database, and is accessed by the user interface part of the RDBMS." might as well be in Greek to me. I don't think the article needs to expand greatly to explain this to everyone - just a bit - but it is essential that it can be understood by a layman if it is to be an example of WP's best work, jguk 15:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... not sure the best way of rephrasing that. There are wikilinks to the terms, but was wondering if you want a short explanation of each of those terms? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I asked on his talk page a while ago too... he's still actively editing so hopefully we'll get a response :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The lead is now updated - hopefully it satisfies the objection. - 203.134.166.99 23:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Apologies for not getting back earlier (I was unfortunately distracted onto less enjoyable things). I still can't understand the sentence "A database engine is the underlying component that a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) uses to create, retrieve, update and delete (CRUD) data from a database, and is accessed by the user interface part of the RDBMS (an RDBMS generally consists of a component that manages the data itself and a component that allows a user to manipulate the data that resides in the database)." Can it really not be explained to a layman? Without using jargon, what does a database engine do, and why is it important? I appreciate explaining a technical subject to a layman is difficult, and if you are patient with me and see me on IRC, feel free to page me and I'll help, jguk 19:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm disappointed. Many of the questions I had asked in the first FAC are still unanswered, in particular my questions #1 (locking/data integrity/transaction processing are standard, nothing unusual, and should be treated in their own articles), #2 (the optimistic/pessimistic locking paragraph needs to be rewritten by an expert and outsourced to its own article, see 1), #3 (2PL?), #4 (read locks? Only write locks makes no sense at all!), #6 (what is a "user"?), #7 (on SQL queries), and #8 (when was is phased out?). Lupo 07:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ya, I didn't resubmit it however. The truth on this matter is... I'm not rightly sure how to action the stuff (I'm not saying they shouldn't be actioned, I'm just saying I don't rightly know the best way of doing it). I'm still not sure about 2PL - the article, regrettably, is pretty unclear! I think we should move this to peer review. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Seems perfectly readable to me. If they want a definition, they can click the interwiki links (one of the great advantages to an online encyclopedia). This is well-written and researched, but it could definitely use a defining picture (I like the idea of putting the manual up.) -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Battle of Stalingrad

No self-nom. Very good article about a very important historical event. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 10:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment please reduce the image sizes to around 240-270 px. Images larger than these take a longer time to load on narrowband connections. (ref to that 650px image) User:Nichalp/sg 10:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment It's a while since I read Beevors's Stalingrad but I recall him reporting that the German forces included a large number of Russian auxiliaries (Soviet POWs who had changed "sides"). This doesn't seem to be brought out in the article.

--Sf 11:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment "helpworkers" (hilfs-somethingorother in german) were not a significant factory in Army Group South, Vlasovites were even less significant. Should be treated under Vlasov / helpworkers. Fifelfoo 04:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Reply Russian/Soviet "Hiwis" or Hilfswilligers may have comprised up to 60,000 of the 6th Army's strength (Not Army Group South) at the time that operation Uranus closed the "Kessel". --Sf 08:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Casualty figures must be agreed upon and substantiated by reliable sources. See the articles talk-page.--itpastorn 13:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Further to this issue of casualty figures there is clearly an ongoing dispute happening on the page regarding this matter which (IMHO) is unlikely to be resolved very soon. --Sf 12:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This can use more ilinks and pics. Also, I'd like to read more about post-IIWW impact - for example, on the city's inhabitans (were there any memorials, festivities, special statuses?). The 'Dramatization' section should be expand into a normal text section describing the related texts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As I recall (imperfectly), the initial defence of the city was conducted by young women volunteer aa gunners who stayed at their posts and actually stopped the advancing panzer columns until they ran out of ammunition and were overrun. This isn't in the article either. It may seem a minor point but it sets the tone for what followed. --Sf 14:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds a tad idealized to me. Are you sure it's not just Soviet propaganda? / Peter ^Isotalo 19:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Trivia like this doesn't belong on the battle page. Probably Soviet depictions of heroic women fighters in the Great Patriotic War would be a better place for this stuff, placing them alongside the nightwitches, partisans, logistic, communication, command and medical Soviet women soldiers would be more appropriate. Fifelfoo 04:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Talk about a super-crufty (and POV:ed) title. I'd say it's pretty darned sexist to imply that female participation in the Soviet-German war should be considered "trivia". / Peter ^Isotalo 13:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support: If the article contains a Historiography section covering the major historical attitudes towards the battle before the end of the vote, great. Otherwise, nope. A major historical article like this must address the historiographical issues before becoming a featured article. Fifelfoo 04:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object: I've now firmed up to an object on this. In my view "The battle in the city" section needs to be either expanded or reworked. Much of the fighting, particularly initially, involved not just trained troops but workers from factory militias - including defending their own factories and trying to keep them in production at the same time. There is also the issue of the use of civilians by both sides - eg women and children in mine clearing units. Also some possibly unique features of the battle don't come out. E.g. Tanks being produced in Stalingrad during the battle and being driven straight to the front line by volunteer crews (without even being painted and not even having gunsights). --Sf 09:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Forgot to mention that I can't find reference to Nikita Khrushchev's role as a senior political commissar in the battle. --Sf 10:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Re mine clearing - now realised where I got this. Much of the mine clearing and disposal of unexploded munitions after the battle was done by women and teenagers. This aspect and the aftermath of the battle in the city warrants exploration. --Sf 13:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• this looks like a good article which deserves to become featured, unfortunately reluctantly but strongly object. a) It's impossible to tell which reference backs up which fact. This article is one in which facts may easily be disputed; Neo-Nazis may vandalise etc. Please provide inline references. b) From my understanding, Stalingrad is one of the first places where Hitler's interference with the German army had serious negative consequences. This context should be covered, and particularly the later disasters which it foreshadowed (see German WWII strongholds to start with). Mozzerati 20:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support It could use a few more references and perhaps some "tidying up", but I don't think I could have done a better job at tackling such a long, complex and decisive battle. Neo-Nazis be damned! It deserves FA status. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Surrender of Japan

user:Wwoods wrote most of this, with Taku and myself making some minor tweaks. I think it's a wonderfully well-written article. →Raul654 23:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  • The image Image:Hiro2.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  • Some other minor points: The intro says the day is called "Shusen-kinenbi" in Japan. What does that mean in English? Also, IIRC, the last military action of the US against Japan was a thousand-aircraft bombing raid after the decision to surrender was made, but before the Emperor made his broadcast. I see no mention of this in the article.

  --Carnildo 00:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  • • Erm, I could be wrong, but thousand-bomber raids were confined to the European theatre of operations. The pacific saw smaller raids of B-29s flying much longer distances. You might be thinking of the Tokyo firebombing (consisting of 330 bombers on March 9-10, 1945) →Raul654 00:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I found the reference I was looking for. It was a raid targeting eight cities, carried out by 800 bombers and 200 fighters. I've added it to the article. --Carnildo 05:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object, from a preliminary scan (1) no cats (2) ex link not not descriptive (or realted? It's a blog) (3) no ex or wikisource links to the source documents which are heavily quoted from (4) There should be a summary section at the end to better lead into Occupied Japan putting the surrender in context with what followed, main link should probably also be made more obvious for the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (5) Are all quotes in MoS sytle- the indentation seems to switch around, as do the quotation marks.--nixie 02:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object – seems more like an anthology of quotes rather than brilliant prose. User:Nichalp/sg 04:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object – too many quotations, and not enough prose between them. Potsdam Declaration, for example. Decide which quotes are unnecessary and reword them as general statements. KingTT 05:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George Galloway

• Support yeah it should be, why not

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.150.220 (talk • contribs) 18:43, October 3, 2005 (UTC).

• Object. There is too much doubt about the status of the images. The first relies on a dubious fair use claim (the article is not about the TV programme); then the second is a "not for commercial use" photo uploaded after 19 May 2005; and then another fair use one. Stephen Turner 19:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It should be easy enough to get overt permission to use an image of Galloway. He just did a speaking tour of the U.S., and there were plenty of publicity materials. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The newsnight screenshot has been replaced by a picture taken from election publicity.--JK the unwise 13:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's quite close, but it needs more on his time as a Labour MP - I remember him winning debating contests in the House of Commons, and he must have done something else during those years. It should also mention his position against taking an average worker's wage as this has been a major bone of contention for some socialist groups, although that's quite a minor thing. Warofdreams talk 13:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I've added the average workers wage information and a little more on his time as a Labour MP, but that section still looks a bit short. Rethinking the structure as per Worldtraveller's comment might also be wise. Warofdreams talk 09:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Amazing how stable it is for such as controvercial bloke. I'm sure some more free photo's can be found. It would be nice if we could find some more copyright appropreate photo's but including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article[16].--JK the unwise 18:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support u cant fault the content though, it seems pretty thorough. -- LJ
• Object for the moment - there's lots of great content but the sructure seems awkward to me. Would be better arranged more chronologically, and the sub-sub-subsectioning is a bit much. John Malkovich and the Muslim/Progressive alliance sections are too short and should be merged into the rest of the text. I think it also needs less emphasis on recent years and more about what he was doing in the 80s and early 90s. There are also some POV issues, for example In the speech, Galloway clearly is addressing Saddam in support of his fight against U.N. sanctions. Worldtraveller 12:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very complete and well written article, but perhaps too detailed and too long - it is currenty 55kb which is about twice the recommended length. The level of detail particularly in sections 4 and 5 is distracting for casual readers. I think that much of this material should be moved to dedicated daughter articles, such as Corruption allegations against George Galloway. On the issue of images, we could try politely emailing Mr Galloway's office on press@respectcoalition.org and ask for copyright free images. I have tried this approach in the past and I usually get a favourable response. Seabhcán 18:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lostprophets

All articles drawn from have now been fully referenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.25.247.75 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 November 2005.

Old nomination subpages shouldn't be written over; you have to transfer them to an archive page using the "Move" function available to logged in users. The previous nomination page is here. Also, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Extraordinary Machine 17:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's good that the magazine article references are now there, but the images still don't have any source or copyright information, and there seem to be quite a few one or two-line paragraphs that could be merged into larger ones. Additionally, sentences such as "such credibility sapping magazines as J-17 and Cosmo Girl" and "lostprophets sold-out the cavernous Cardiff International Arena, a once unimaginable feat that served as concrete proof of just how big the band had become" should be reworded, as they are a little POV. Extraordinary Machine 17:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The two things that can be done to improve this article (and I mentioned some of them in Peer Review and all of them in the last FAC nomination) are:

1. Add a source for who credits them with popularizing studded belts, low-slung jeans, etc. If they really are "largely credited with popularising [these] items" it shouldn't be difficult to find at least one source. You can phrase it in such a way as "Rolling Stone credits..."
2. Add the Infobox_band template.

Cedars 09:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object per Extraordinary Machine. Also, please get rid of wikilinks in the section headings (especially ones that don't link anywhere). See WP:CITE for improving the referencing. I don't agree that you should add Template:Infobox band. It is unstable and, in my opinion, not helpful. It is absolutely not a requirement of Wikipedia:WikiProject Music to have it. Jkelly 01:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• The template is used by a number of featured articles on bands including The Beatles, Iron Maiden and Nirvana. It offers a good summary of information and is helpful to those who visit the page to find a piece of information such as whether the band is still active, who its members are or what the band's genre or label is. It also encourages the editors to place a picture of the band near the top of the article and this article needs that. Cedars 10:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ordnance Survey

Partial self-nom, archive from previous submission, comments actioned. --PopUpPirate 23:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC) No mention of William Mudge. how can this be ? Object with sadness.  :-( I think this is, overall, a good article, and about a great subject. I actually think it's pretty close. But there are a few points I think need fixing:

• Sorry to say this, but I think you're going to have an issue with the map images. Doing an article on the OS without them is going to be a pain, of course, but the licence looks to me like a "non-commercial" licence as per Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. A pic of a trig point would be good though...

Just found the discussion you've already had on this. If Fair Use applies, and I guess it does, then I think you're OK. — Johantheghost 19:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

One solution for this -- & would add to the value of the article immensely -- would be to include parts of older OS survey maps. I believe these maps are all Crown copyright (well, the two I own are), so that those more than 50 years old would be PD. A portion of one of the surveyors' sketches (which are available at some UK public libraries on microfiche/microfilm), & a portion of a pre-1950s map would help illustrate the historical value of these documents, a feature that the British historian W.G. Hoskins often emphasizes in his writings. -- llywrch 17:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Following a fire at its headquarters at the Tower of London in 1841 ... he saw how photography could be used ..." — needs more fleshing out, it looks like he started using photography in 1841 — isn't that a bit early? Or is it? Also some info on how he actually used photography would be good.

• "Mapping Britain" section jumps up to 1969, then we jump back to WW1. Same in the next section, where we have WWII, then 1920. Maybe re-org a little?

• "Some of the remaining buildings ... are now used as part of the court complex." What court? (Clarify.)

• The multi-layered "See also" is cool, but on reflection, I think this is not the best way to do this — I think using categories would be better, at least for some of this. If I want a list of mapping agencies, for example, it's not logical to look under OS (or to ask all editors who write about mapping agencies to add their one to the OS article). Ditto with the world's many grid systems.

• The References aren't linked from the text — should these be called "Further reading"? OTOH, I think you need references which are linked from the text.

• No, anything that is consulted to write the article should be listed as a reference as has been done here.--nixie 03:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• In the reference ' "Official Homepage". Official Homepage ', I think the title needs fixing.  :-)

• Probably "Mapping Britain" and "20th Century" should be sub-sections of a section called "History"...? Likewise, it looks like "UK Map Range" and "OS MasterMap" should be sub-sections of a section called "Products", or something like.

• My overall impression is that the article is just a little "light". I don't think an article has to cover every aspect of a subject to be FA-worthy, but maybe this one could use just a little more meat? Kind of hard to put my finger on it, but eg. covering the mapping techniques used throughout the history, and today, in a little more depth would be good. I guess I would see "Cartography" being more than just a summary of the "National Grid" page, but also covering actual mapping.

Sorry I couldn't actually fix some of the above points, rather than just whinging about them. Cheers... Johantheghost 19:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, I still notice a number of things that I brought up during the previous nomiation that haven't been addressed.--nixie 03:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Poorly written. Let's take apart a few statements at the top.

'Ramsden theodolite'—This appears unexplained in a prominent part of the text, but very few readers will have a clue what it is, and will have to hit the link. The linked article needs work (by the end of the first paragraph of that article, you finally understand that it's an instrument for dividing angular scales with great precision, and that it was a significant step in map-making).

Reverse the order of the opening info—'national mapping agency ...' is more obvious than 'executive agency'. Can you use a consistent term for the country? Since you can't use 'the UK' historically, why not keep to just 'Britain' and 'British'.

Link the 's in 'Great Britain' to avoid blue/black conflict.

'In addition to producing a wide range of maps of Great Britain, the organisation is also working in over sixty countries worldwide.' Like 'also', 'in addition' should be reserved for where it's really needed. Almost every sentence is 'in addition' to what you've just said. 'is working' is just too vivid for something that has been occurring for quite a while. 'The organisation produces maps of Great Britain, and performs a valuable role in .... in more than (not 'over') 60 countries.' Maybe this needs to be split into two sentences.

'one-third'—why not 'a third'; keep it as plain and simple as possible.

And further down, at random:

'In 1920 O. G. S. Crawford was appointed Archaeology Officer and played a prominent role in developing the use of aerial photography to deepen understanding of archaeology.' The reader is hit with this fascinating idea without preparation or further explanation. No link; nothing about whether this was a first. Who got the brainwave of making this appointment—the Minister? How does it work? Perhaps a couple of sentences might do it; the paragraph is rather short, in any case. // 'OGS Crawford' might look better on the page, and consider delinking the useless simple-year '1920' so that it doesn't jostle with the man's name. Why link simple years at all? No one will hit those links. // Just a few more commas would improve the readability.

Tony 02:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gimli Glider

Not self-nom; I had nothing to do with this article, but IMHO it is extremely well written, has relevant and interesting photos, and above all, it's quite a great tale. --Fo0bar 07:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object – no references, lead too short. Last section also too short. User:Nichalp/sg 07:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object: needs to be more comprehensive for a FA. For example, more information is required on the aftermath; investigations into aviation incidents are usually involved and complex. What was learnt from the investigation? Did heads roll? Not all measurements include the metric equivalent, and the vexed process of metric conversion in Canada (from 1984?) might be relevant, and requires mention.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 16:03, September 26, 2005.

• Object. The image Image:Gimlix.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 20:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I copyedited the article some time ago (including breaking the middle section into sub-sections). Nevertheless, much of it read more like a story/essay than an encyclopedia article. Someone needs to look into the wording and change it appropriately. Pentawing 20:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Engrossing article. More images would be nice, though. It would be good to get permission for a photo similar to the removed image[17]. I have sent a request to another photographer to see if we can include [18] instead. Pburka 15:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Slight support The article can be enhanced (improving its structure and readability), but this aviation event is interesting and definitely worth noting. E Pluribus Anthony 07:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American popular music

I split this off music of the United States because that article was way too big. I worked quite a bit on it after that, also including bits and pieces from various other articles (e.g. disco). Please note that pop music and popular music are different, and that this is not intended to be a historical article (music history of the United States exists), merely an overview of the major fields of American popular music. As such, the content is chronological based on when the top-level heading became a major part of popular music -- for example, country music is placed just after blues, but then the whole spectrum of country is explained before going on to the next field, jazz. The article is long, at 93 kb (72 without refs, images and such), but I don't think anything can be cut without losing important information. Tuf-Kat 21:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:RayCharles.jpeg is tagged as "public domain", but I can't verify that, as the source website appears to be down. However, as I recall, much of the media on the "Centennial of Flight" page was not in the public domain, despite the page being a ".gov" domain. --Carnildo 22:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That image was uploaded by a respected Wikipedian more than a year ago and has an entirely reasonable claim for being a public domain US government work. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that an image can't be used because the website that supplied its copyright info eventually goes down -- that's why we have an image description page. You can't verify Image:Willie Nelson 1996-05.png either, but luckily the person who uploaded it made a reasonable claim of its copyright status. Tuf-Kat 23:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It is entirely possible for a respected Wikipedian to upload an image and, believing that because it was from a US government web site, in good faith tag it as "public domain", and still be wrong. There are some US government websites, such as NARA and many .mil sites, that contain mostly or exclusively public domain material. There are other web sites, such as the Library of Congress and assorted Library of Congress projects, which contain material that is mostly not public domain. It is often neccessary to visit the web site to tell the difference.
      
      I can verify Image:Willie Nelson 1996-05.png to my satisfaction by contacting User:Hattrem on Commons and asking him if he took that photograph and licensed it under the terms on the image description page: if he says "yes", I can take him at his word.
      
      I cannot do the same for Image:RayCharles.jpeg. I could certainly contact the uploader, but what would I ask him? "Did you upload it from 'centennialofflight.gov'?" I know that already, and that wouldn't tell me anything about the image's copyright status. --Carnildo 00:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I don't think it's proper to assume an individual doesn't know how/didn't check on an image's copyright status. Hephaestos' talk page indicates he had discussed a different pic and said he was aware that not all .gov pics are pd and that he had checked on the image in question. WRT to Hattrem, what's the difference between trusting Hattrem at his word and trusting Hephaestos at his word? Either way, you have no way of knowing aside from trusting an individual you don't know. Tuf-Kat 01:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I have visited the Internet Archive. Most of the images on that site won't display, but it does say Generally, the information contained on the Web site is in the public domain, and permission for its use is not required as long as the Commission is acknowledged as the source of the information. However, there are certain materials on our Web site, such as photographs, images, narratives, movies, web casts, etc., that have source information provided for them. If there is source information provided for these materials, permission for their use should be obtained from their providers. Since Hephaestos said on his talk page that he specifically looks for "an author or a disclaimer on it" and the page in question says that source information is provided for non-pd material, I think it's reasonable to assume he did not see any source information and that it is therefore pd. Tuf-Kat 01:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
          • That's good enough for me. I tried the Internet Archive, but I couldn't get it to load. --Carnildo 06:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
            • I've copied this convo to the image page for future users. Tuf-Kat

Object - As is, the article is a collection of summaries of the genres of American Popular music instead of really being about American popular music (there is a very important difference: read on). Also, the article is huge and thus takes a very long time to read (even w/o refs, notes, and external links, it is well over twice the size when an article may start to be considered too long: See Article size and Summary style). By itself size is not a reason to object since some topics do require more space. However the burden of proof is with a nominator when an article is this size. Here is a run-down of my reasoning:

• Instead of taking the topic holistically, it breaks it up into summaries of the different genres of American popular music.
• An article is not supposed to be just a collection of sections of related sub-topics; it needs to be a cohesive whole. Or in Yoda speak, a collection of related sections does not an article make.
• The current structure is not optimal since each section links to a daughter article that is started by a lead section that is similar in size to the summary section in this article.
• This reminds me of the nomination of History of science, which was, and still pretty much is, a collection of 'history of ...' summaries of the sub-disciplines. A proper article on that topic would take the reader through the development of science, from the start in pre-historic times, through the development of the scientific method, explain how science was first used by religion and then later how the schism between the two developed, etc.

In short, this article needs to take the reader through the development of popular music in the United States instead of merely summarizing each sub-genre. --mav 01:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I either disagree or don't understand your objection. This article does take the reader through the development of popular music in the United States. It starts at the beginning in the late 19th century and ends with hip hop (actually with the international and social impact, but that's rather separate from the rest of the article and wouldn't make sense until after the rest has been introduced). It is divided into sections by genre, with each genre explaining how it developed, how it's related to other genres and how it changed over time, especially regarding popularity. It is about American popular music, which is made up of various genres -- it's not like "history of science" because a) this is not a history of anything (would you rather see a stricter history focus?), and b) "science" is itself something that can be documented over time (i.e. one can talk about how the process of scientific discovery changed, irrespective of the general development of chemistry or physics) -- "popular music" is "any of a number of musical styles that..." (i.e. one can not talk about popular music except in the context of a specific style). I have three books specifically on "popular music", and all three are divided into chapters based on styles. You said "As is, the article is a collection of summaries of the genres of American Popular music instead of really being about American popular music (there is a very important difference: read on)", but I don't see any explanation of what you think this difference is. I think this is about as cohesive as it can be -- it explains how the different genres are connected with each other, and how they evolved in tandem with each other, providing links to more specific articles on each individual genre. Popular music is a kind or type of music, distinct from folk or classical music; thus, an article on "American popular music" should be primarily about what kinds or types of American music are examples of popular music; more detailed info on how each style developed is better for their respective genre pages or for the music history of the United States. WRT to length, I agree that it is long, as noted above, but don't see what can be removed -- since you feel the whole article (or most of it) should be rewritten, this point is presumably secondary. Tuf-Kat

Tuf-Kat, I have to say that I think there's some substance to Maveric's comments. You might be able to integrate the currently 'lumpy' feel to the structure by adding some statements at strategic points that remind the reader of the historical flow, and point to interrelationships between the genres.

In addition, I'd like to see the sound excerpts more closely embedded in their associated text by referring the reader to specific musical features in the excerpt; this would strengthen the case for fair use, too. In a few cases, you've done this, but perhaps this aspect could become a more robust feature. (I may be of assistance in this respect, although it's not my musical area.)

Can you think of ways of delineating the scope more tightly? Must jazz be included in popular music? Some would disagree that it's that. Can you create a chronological boundary, splitting the article into two: say, pre- and post-World-War-II? That might allow you to fill out information that is a little thin, still; for example, Tin Pan Alley should mention the wave of European immigration (much of it Jewish) that fed into it. At the moment it's too little and too much at the same time.

The prose still needs a good massage, and my time-budget for big jobs is a bit limited over the next few weeks. The opening section is problematic in a number of ways. I think that there are too many external references, whereas Wikipedia should itself be an authority, and shouldn't need to tip its hat to them so early on in an article. Is the quotation necessary, or can we make a general assertion from scratch? I'm not sure that I want to hear about other histories and authors in the second paragraph.

As you know, I'm thoroughly on-side with respect to many aspects of the article; but it needs a big rethink. Tony 06:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Undecided I'm not sure I object to this, but at the moment I'm not sure I really want to support it either. Why isn't there a category for pop music? I mean I know the general definition of pop can sometimes refer to anything popular, but I think there needs to be an article for the pop music genre. Teen pop can be put under pop, along with A/C pop and Pop-Rock which should also be put in there. Can Soul and R&B be brought next to each other? It would help the article to flow better since Soul and R&B are related. I know the two genres jumped back and forth over the years, but maybe soul should be placed first since the R&B article talks about contemporary R&B. Can we also add something about the current music scene with the popularity of the hip-hop colloborations? Also mainstream rock and alternative rock have kind of meshed together in today's music. Can we mention that alternative and mainstream are pretty much equal in a way today? Maybe indie rock could be more emphasized in the alternative rock section. OmegaWikipedia 08:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have begun working on a reorganized article at American popular music/temp. Opinions are welcome. The section I've written out is about 20k, which is disheartening because it only goes up to the 1920s and I can't think of what to cut, so it's still going to be very long. Tuf-Kat
  • Okay, American popular music/temp is more or less done. It needs a lead, and refs, links et al moved over, and I'm going to fiddle with images and sound samples. It's at 56k at the moment. Tuf-Kat 04:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • And it's done. Does this satisfy anyone? It's now at 72k total, and about 55k without all the bells and whistles. Tuf-Kat 17:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've written a new suggested opening on the discussion page, which is much shorter at just one paragraph long. I really think the last three paras of the existing opening are a problem, and need to go. See what you think. Tony 05:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• The section on the 90s/00s seems a bit awkward. I see what you're trying to do, but is it possible for you to to combine your prose on the early 90s with your musical definitions of the early 90s? Like...

Perhaps the most important change in the 1990s in American popular music was the rise of alternative rock and grunge. This was previously an explicitly anti-mainstream grouping of genres that rose to great fame beginning in the early 1990s. At roughly the same time, a kind of hard-edged hip hop called gangsta rap also became very popular among mainstream audiences. Grunge music is an independent-rooted music genre that was inspired by hardcore punk, thrash metal, and alternative rock. Grunge has a "dark, brooding guitar-based sludge" sound ^[19], drawing on elements of earlier bands like Sonic Youth and their use of "unconventional tunings to bend otherwise standard pop songs completely out of shape" ^[20]. With the addition of a "melodic, Beatlesque element" to the sound of bands like Nirvana, grunge became wildly popular across the United States ^[21]. Grunge became commercially successful in the early 1990s, peaking between 1991 and 1994. Bands from cities in the U.S. Pacific Northwest especially Seattle, Washington, were responsible for creating grunge and later made it popular with mainstream audiences. The supposed Generation X, who had just reached adulthood as grunge's popularity peaked, were closely associated with grunge, the sound which helped "define the desperation of (that) generation" ^[22].

Gangsta rap is a kind of hip hop, most importantly characterized by a lyrical focus on macho sexuality, physicality and a dangerous, criminal image. Though the origins of gangsta rap can be traced back to the mid-1980s raps of Philadelphia's Schoolly D and the West Coast's Ice-T, the style is usually said to have begun in the Los Angeles and Oakland area, where Too $hort, NWA and others found their fame. This West Coast rap scene spawned the early 1990s G-funk sound, which paired gangsta rap lyrics with a thick and hazy tone, often relying on samples from 1970s P-funk; the best-known proponents of this sound were the breakthrough rappers Dr. Dre and Snoop Doggy Dogg.

By the end of the decade and into the early 2000s, however, pop music consisted mostly of a combination of pop-hip hop and R&B-tinged pop, including a number of boy bands and female divas. The predominant sound in 90s country music was pop with only very limited elements of country. This includes many of the best-selling artists of the 1990s, like Clint Black, Shania Twain, Faith Hill and the first of these crossover stars, Garth Brooks ^[23].

It makes the section flow better imo here. Of course that was just a rough idea, and so the transitions werent smooth, but something along the lines of keeping things in order from when they happened. And also could you talk about more current sounds in today's music? (Like pop rock and the hip-hop collaboration). Thanks OmegaWikipedia 13:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've put a slightly revised version of those three paragraphs in. I don't really think more info on current music is warranted -- it's not possible to put stuff in its historical context right away. And I'm not sure what you mean by "hip hop collaborations". Collaborations are not unique to modern hip hop, and aren't unique to hip hop at all, and aren't a particularly notable part of hip hop AFAICT. Tuf-Kat 18:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional support, I enjoyed the rewritten version. Two little things, the number of the notes is messed up- there are 80ish inline notes and only 30ish in the notes section, in long articles I have used footnote 3, so that I can specify the number of the note and multiple inline notes can link to the one reference- it keeps the list a managable length for a long and detailed article, however you decide to do it the numbers in the text should have corresponding notes. Why does the same pic of Willie Nelson appear twice?--nixie 23:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Because Willie Nelson RAWKS! Footnote3 looks nice, but complicated. I guess I'll look at an article that uses it and see if I can figure it out. Tuf-Kat 02:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• To be a FA, I think it still needs copy editing by a fresh pair of eyes. Tuf-Kat has really improved the article since it came onto this list, but I'm still uneasy about the depth, authority and cohesion of the text. I wish I had more expertise in this musical area, because I'd love to help on a deep, stylistic level. It involves some very subtle and complex issues that are beyond me. Tony 13:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: there is a real shortage of discussion of the music industry as an industry: the rise and fall of sheet music, the importance of intellectual property rights, the growth of A&R departments, the consolidation of the major record labels, the shifts of power and influence between an industry based in NYC and later in LA and between various regional musics, the rise of popular music criticism, you name it. It's as if all of this music occurred in a vacuum. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object with great regret. There are some POV and bias issues that need to be worked out in respect to ACTUAL pop music, as bland etc. one may think it be. Maybe you could have something about them being manufactured if you want. However, it should probably split off 1990 into its own section and expand it, and have a careful sifting through for bias and POV, and just in general EXPAND the pop music parts. I also echo all the above comments. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] September 2005

[edit] Opus Dei

This is partially --very partially-- self nom because there are many others who helped in writing this article. From what I've read in the Talk Page, the article swung from an edit war last year to a stalemate, then a short NPOV issue last April due to some overenthusiastic newbies, and since May, a time of harmony and peace when NPOV rules were quoted, ratios established, and details worked on. It has grown since then. It has been under Peer Review since September 9: Peer Review of Opus Dei article And changes have been made based on the feedback. Please see Talk Page as well, for it contains many explanations on why the article appears as it is. Thomas S. Major 05:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:EscrivaJ.jpg has no source information. Without knowing the source, it's impossible to judge a claim of "fair use".
  2. The image Image:Popebenedictxvi firsttimeonthrone.jpg has no copyright information. {{Vatican}} does not indicate the copyright status of an image.
  3. The image Image:Pope-john-paul-ii-01.jpg is tagged as a copyvio. This needs to be cleared up, or the image needs to be removed.
  4. The image Image:1francisco-franco.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but since Francisco Franco is not the subject of the article, any fair-use claim is doubtful.

  --Carnildo 07:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Carnildo. My friend, R Davidson, removed all the images with copyright problems (those not uploaded by Walter). I suppose you can already remove your objection? Thomas S. Major 11:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object: In line references should be footnoted. I am too suspicious of the copyright status of many images in the article. In many places the text does not flow, and is hard to follow, eg: "The teachings of Opus Dei, and of other Catholic organizations and saints, on the universal call to holiness and apostolate were made a most central doctrine of the Second Vatican Council" I know what it means (I think) how many non Catholics would? Its all very convoluted and "Catholic" much of the page needs to be rewritten in more readable prose. The enormous reference section! has the author used all of these books? Giano | talk 07:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Giano. I just checked what my friend, R Davidson, did. He corrected that long sentence by taking out the reference to other Catholic orgs and saints. He also made the universal call more understandable. I thank him of course, but I disagree that the phrase universal call to holiness is not understandable. It has a link. I suppose that is the system that is being followed by this encyclopedia. Anyway, thanks, Davidson, for the move to improve the text.

Some other editors placed the books that are in the bibliography. I suppose they read those books before they placed them there. I've read most of them myself.

I also checked out the other feature articles. So far I've seen several which do not have any footnotes. I suppose it is not a must for a featured article to have footnotes. This article has 52 ref links. The one of People's Republic of China, a featured article, has 4. The one of John Major does not have any, and it has quite a number of quotes. :) Thomas S. Major 11:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• It is not necessary to have footnotes, but the external links contained within the text, should not be there. They should be footnoted and then referenced at the bottom of the page. There is more than just the one corrected sentence what about "This family, of which St. Josemaría was the head and the "first vocation," had to find a legal structure that fits its foundational idea or charism, according to Catholic theology" To a non catholic this is probably meaningless. If a sentence has to be analysed, then it needs to be changed. These sentences occur time and time again in this page. I don't doubt the authors have read the huge reference section, but were they actually used to source this article? Giano | talk 22:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that there might be books there that do not belong to the study, e.g. the Hanssen book. I will remove it and look for others that have to be removed. I will also look for texts which are not immediately intelligible.

A far as I know Turabian and other Manuals of Style and of thesis writing do not require that only books used to source the article are placed in the bibliography, if by source you mean actually quoted or referred to in the text.

As regards your statement: "It is not necessary to have footnotes, but the external links contained within the text, should not be there. They should be footnoted and then referenced at the bottom of the page." The statement echoes with some authority, and I respect that. But could I just know if it is a rule in Wikipedia? Where can that be found? Thanks for your help. Thomas S. Major 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• The footnote question has been answered far more eloquently than I could lower down the page by Bishonen. Regarding the reference section. Which books were or were not used to source this article? Why were books included in the references which were not used in the first instance? Giano | talk 11:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I checked out Wikipedia:Cite sources and it answers some of the questions. Please see below my reply to Bishonen. Thanks. :)Thomas S. Major 00:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support: I placed most of the images in the article except the ones mentioned by Carnildo. I did not contribute much in the text. I replaced:
  1. The image Image:EscrivaJ.jpg with another image which has been granted GFDL license from the copyright holder.

IMO the article should be "Catholic". Because it is under the categories of Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholic prelatures, Roman Catholic history, Catholic doctrine and Catholic theology and doctrines. The article will be strange if it is not Catholic. Walter Ching 08:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not the Catholic Encyclopedia. When we write about the Roman Catholic Church, we do it from a neutral point of view and in a manner that is accessible to all readers.--Eloquence* 02:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Eloquence. Giano | talk 09:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments and I assume good faith. I would like to ask both of you --and the others -- to read the NPOV tutorial rules, so we can understand each other.

"Wikipedia should report all major points of views; however, it should do so in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses.

One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view. What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:

• the reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works
• whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones
• whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms
• whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims
• whether the expert's point of view belongs in a different article (e.g. evolution vs. creationism)

In other words, an idea's popularity alone does not determine its importance." (Italics mine)

Kindly read the Talk Page of Opus where the editors have discussed (based on Wikipedia method of consensus) who the reputable, credible experts are in this field who use the common methods of the field. If both of you can mention other credible experts on the field, then all of us will listen, and then we can work out a consensus based on the above rules. If we agree that their credible expertise is above the following experts who support each other: John Paul II, Benedict XVI, John Allen, V. Messori, James V. Schall, Bryan R. Wilson, Dr. Kliever, St. Josemaria himself, and the Catholic leaders whose testimonies are found in a separate article, then I suppose we will just have to decide to give them more space than these people, and change the whole tone of this article. R Davidson 14:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

May I add to the list of Davidson--Prof. Philip Jenkins, a Protestant Scholar. Thomas S. Major 05:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support: I totally support this article, as I said in the Peer Review. This is perhaps the single best, short, comprehensive and neutral article on the subject that one can find. And so I understand why there are so many references, a copious bibliography worthy of a serious encyclopedia and serious theological science, as I said before. That is why I also understand if the references are in another page, anyway as Thomas Major explained there are 52 reference links throughout the article! I beg to disagree with Giano that the text does not flow, the text is convoluted. I am sorry, but as I said in the Peer Review, this article has a rational framework. It is logical and I like it. Arturo Cruz 14:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object on technical grounds. External links should be moved from main body to appopriate section and linked with footnotes with main body. I am also not happy with ALL 'bibliography and external links' being apparently moved to a subarticle - definetly the sources for the article should be present in it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Piotrus. Yes! I plan to propose that a part of the bibliography at least a basic core appear in the main article. Thanks again! :) Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I know that this article has taken great pains to avoid the cliched "what is and what is not true about Opus Dei in 'The Da Vinci Code'" route. However, has it gone far? The book is mentioned once in the whole article; even though Opus Dei's portrayal in the book is surely the gravest crisis to have afflicted the group for a long time. Should there be more Da Vinci Code stuff in there? eg A section about the reaction to the book, the group's reaction, the public's, the Vatican's etc? Just a thought. Batmanand 22:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

There was a section on it before. But some editors took it away. I copy their exchange below: Thomas S. Major 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest the removal of the section regarding The DaVinci Code as mostly irrelevant to the purpose of portraying Opus Dei and as more accurate belonging with a discussion of the book itself. Its being a work of fiction means that any and all claims and allegations included within are made to further the plot of the novel, not as a form of attack or commentary on any organization.

A mention of the reference and responses thereto are appropriate, but any further indepth discussion ought to take place on the page for the novel itself, where claims of its veracity can be placed into proper context.

--Agamemnon2 13:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. That section does not belong here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. There are three red-links in the introduction to the article. Red-links aren't forbidden in FAs, but I'd prefer to at least not have any in the introductory paragraphs. Pburka 01:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

They were not there when I nominated it. Somebody who tried to help, added them. I'll fix that. Thomas S. Major 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support: I think the article is comprehensive and neutral enough for someone who does not have any idea about Opus Dei.Bonrussell 02:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This is the user's first edit on Wikipedia.--Eloquence* 02:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly object. There are very serious issues of NPOV and structure. There are many unhelpful headings like "Opus Dei and the Catholic Church's first purpose" and "Response: Sociology of religion and Christ-centered theology". Sub-articles are not consistently pointed out; e.g., Opus Dei and the Cult Issue: Allegations and Responses (an entirely unacceptable title for a sub-article, by the way) is clearly pointed out under its section header, other sub-articles are mentioned briefly in the flow of the text. The structure makes it very difficult to find specific facts, e.g. Opus Dei's business activities.

The NPOV problems go deeper than that, and will be very difficult to fix. They are fundamentally related to the way the prose is written, both about Opus Dei and its critics. The article very frequently transitions from attributing an opinion to stating it as fact. Just a few quotes: "For example, to push his conclusions, he makes absurd assumptions: priests go to seminary only to improve their lot." — "The world is a gift of God, a place where one can --and should!-- become a saint" — "members use aggressive recruitment methods" — "Thus, mainline scientists reject as 'unscholarly'"

There are two problems with this. It comes across as POV, even if it is intended to be a continuation of a prior attributed opinion, and it blurs the line between what is attributed and what the person or source actually said. In the extreme cases, we find entire paragraphs like this:

Jesus Christ single-mindedly focused his entire life on saving all souls to please his Father. While he loved his mother, he left her in favor of his divine mission. For this, he showered affection on people, but also issued many threats out of love for them: against easy-going and fruitless Christians, against infidelity, etc. While he searched for friends and clearly spoke the truth, he allowed them to freely do whatever they wanted--including rejecting him. He also told his disciples, "As the Father has sent me so do I send you." To glorify God and sanctify men, Christ enjoyed pleasures and pleasantries with them, and he also voluntarily practiced mortification of the flesh: fasting, sleeping on the ground, and allowing himself to be tortured and crucified. He taught that his disciple should “renounce himself, take up his cross daily and follow me.”

This is just one example of the article quietly adopting a POV, rather than presenting it, and utterly unacceptable in terms of NPOV.

Beyond that, there are various smaller NPOV issues both in the main article and the sub-articles. I'm not sure to what extent the sub-articles should be commented on, but the cult article in particular is a mess. Compare, for example, the first and second image caption in this revision. The main article basically traces all modern criticism to early theological criticism, and does not present this stance with a counterpoint. The notion that secular criticism results from the prelature's actual activities cannot be so easily dismissed.

To conclude, the article needs to be restructured, and the writing needs to be substantially edited to make it NPOV. As it concerns an organization that very much operates in real world business and politics, the theological writing needs to be toned down, and the structure must allow easy access to key information about OD's acitvities. The line between fact and opinion should never be blurry; opinions need to be clearly and precisely attributed, and facts need to be backed up with citations.--Eloquence* 02:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss this well with you and I assume good faith in all of your comments. (Please also see my comments above re the issue on the "Catholic" tendency of the article}. I would just like to say that I do not agree with Eloquence's comments:

I believe that this article follows the NPOV policies:

"Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates. Of course, one might well doubt that this can be done at all without somehow subtly implying or insinuating that one position is correct. But experienced academics, polemical writers, and rhetoricians are well-attuned to bias, both their own and others', so that they can usually spot a description of a debate that tends to favor one side. If they so choose, with some creativity, they can usually remove that bias.

Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. To give such undue weight to the lesser held view may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

These policies say that editors should "represent" disputes. As far as I can understand it, it does not say that the text should quote something verbatim to turn them into facts. If this is the case, won't it turn the whole Wikipedia into a mere interconnection of quotes?

In my opinion, his examples show that he has not read much of the reference links or reference materials and is merely submitting his opinion --very personal to my mind--on those examples. It his own personal POV that "There are two problems with this. It comes across as POV, even if it is intended to be a continuation of a prior attributed opinion, and it blurs the line between what is attributed and what the person or source actually said." For example the line "members use aggressive methods" is almost taken verbatim from ODAN website; "The world is a gift of God, a place where one can --and should!-- become a saint" is found in the writings of the bishops; the paragraph on Jesus Christ like the whole section on teachings is a summary of doctrine contained in the writings of Escriva. Perhaps yes the tone of that paragraph on Jesus Christ can be improved, but I don't think that presenting a short reply to the accusations leveled against OD is POV. If so then the paragraph of ODAN's accusations are POV.

I'd also like to understand more about the unhelpfulness of the section titles. In general, I'd like to listen more to understand the strong objection. R Davidson 14:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me just say that I appreciate the detailed objection of Eloquence, and I am grateful he is bringing out his personal opinion. As regards what he says: the article "transitions from attributing an opinion to stating it as fact." Somehow this was mentioned by Zantastic and I saw that the problem is this: Some sentences, for one reason or another, do not have the phrase like "critics say" or "supporters say". Thus the main issue is writing method, rather than NPOV (with this I agree with Kevin Marshall). If these phrases are linked to all the sentences of a particular proponent or writer, then the article will sound monotonous, or sound like a sing song. In general I think Wikipedia readers can distinguish that a second or third sentence of an author still belongs to the author. For example: the second sentence of Introvigne "Thus, mainline scientists reject as 'unscholarly'" is almost a paraphrase of a statement from CESNUR of which Introvigne is the Director.

I do think that the article is merely "representing disputes," summarizing positions as Wikipedia wants articles to do. But yes, things can be improved. The statement "For example, to push his conclusions, he makes absurd assumptions" can also be drawn by reading the article of Schall, but maybe it could be better phrased. I will re-read the article and study how to improve it.

As regards the business activities of Opus Dei, these are contained in the "conspiracy theories of Walsh" under the sub-section on Secularity, humility, privacy vs. secrecy to pursue power. Some of the editors in fact wanted to remove any mention of Walsh because he is considered by many as a "dubious source". He is a writer for tabloid-level newspapers. And according to Wikipedia, and I quote:

Title: Dubious Sources "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research. Hence, anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others. In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources."

Somebody placed Walsh again into the text just recently, perhaps to improve NPOV. However, that move is a substantial change which should have been discussed first in the Talk Page. Perhaps you can join in when this issue is brought up there. Thomas S. Major 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I just placed the phrase "supporters say" in three parts of the Opus Dei cult-responses. E.g.

Opus Dei's Christ-centeredness, supporters say, urges Christians to live like Christ in everything, even if their behaviour "clashes" with a "paganized environment". [3] Supporters say that the cult-like behavior described by the anti-cult groups was the behavior of Jesus Christ: He single-mindedly focused his entire life on saving all souls to please his Father...

I hope this npoving is enough for that part, as it was for Zantastik and Rama. Thomas S. Major 03:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It was not enough for me, actually. This article, along with some other related articles, fails to meet NPOV standards, and I think Eloquence's statement makes the nature of its problems perfectly clear. For instance, simply adding "supporters say," into the following sentence does not make it npov.

Opus Dei's Christ-centeredness, supporters say, urges Christians to live like Christ in everything, even if their behaviour "clashes" with a "paganized environment".

After all, is Opus Dei "Christ-centered" at all? What is the nature of "Christ-centeredness?" Would different people have different definitions of this term? I'm sorry, but this article has a ways to go before deserving featured status. --Zantastik talk 14:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that by "is enough for that part, as it was for Zantastik and Rama", Thomas S. Major is refering to the end of [[24]] ("I would assume that you think that I have already addressed your NPOV concerns if I don't hear from you before 0900 UTC. Then I will remove the NPOV tag"); it is correct that I did not react to this at the moment, but I have always been a rather distant observer of the situations here, and I was busy with other articles (and even real life things, can you believe that :p). So my silence there should not be interpreted as a full and inconditional approval of the state of the article at the moment. Actually, I still think that there is room for improvements, and I think that recent edits were going in the right direction. Rama 14:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Rama and Zantastik, for responding. The Christ-centeredness is discussed in a subsection above that. Let's see what we can do about your comment...:) Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I also placed this for the cult critics: "Critics say the following: Opus Dei members use aggressive recruitment methods: love bombing and issuing threats of condemnation. New recruits lack "informed consent.""

Thank you, Eloquence, for bringing up your points. They are helping keep the creative juices running to improve NPOV in this article. Like Davidson, I am interested to understand more your objection. E.g. "The main article basically traces all modern criticism to early theological criticism, and does not present this stance with a counterpoint. The notion that secular criticism results from the prelature's actual activities cannot be so easily dismissed." I am not that intelligent really. I need a bit more of an explanation. Thanks. :) Thomas S. Major 04:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Object. I have similar complaints to those listed by Eloquence above. The sub-pages are a huge mess--I don't think a single one of them is nicely formatted. And they're thrown about the main article rather randomly. As Eloquence also pointed out, attributions aren't always clear. However, overall I don't think the POV problems are too bad. I think if the format and subpages were more clear, the page wouldn't have POV problems. But when a subpage is devoted just to positive comments, it looks like non-NPOV, even if there's stuff in the main article or on another subpage balancing a positive comment.Kevin M Marshall 14:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to make the format and subpages more clear. I just have a small question: is this article going to be judged as well based on its sub-pages? If yes, I will make sure that we do a better job in the subpages. If not, whew, what a relief that will be! Thanks for your comments. :) Thomas S. Major 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I won't speak for anyone else, but unless the subpages are improved considerably I won't support the article. I'll see what I can do to help out with the article.Kevin M Marshall 02:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. It's good to separate myth from truth, especially for a controversial group like Opus Dei. Some people should be undeceived of their deception. Baboyako 07:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• What exactly is going on here The Italian Inquistion has arrived. It seems we now have yet another editor User: Baboyako making their first ever edit here [25]. User: Bonrussell also made his first edit here; and this editor too is hardly an "old hand either" Edits of Arturo Cruz. I am beginning to grow suspicious here, very suspicious indeed. I hope one or two of our friends here do not need to go to confession 11:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC). [Comment by Giano]

I told my friends a few days ago that I proposed this article for feature article status and they started to act. I've just told them to back off. Sorry about that. :( Thomas S. Major 00:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support: I took part in writing this article. I believe it "reports all major points of the views in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses." (NPOV policy) If one looks at the extensive bibliography, the proportions and the structure of the article reflect existing scholarship: a great deal of literature on theology, some juridical studies, historical and sociological literature, and some cult and anti-Opus Dei issues. The article also reflects the contents of the monographs.

Anybody who wants to propose changes to the structure of the article should read these books written by credible experts. If calculus, econometrics, molecular biology are not for amateurs, a fortiori dogmatic, moral and ascetical theology, Church history, general history, sociology of religion, and canon law are not. Marax 09:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I have three problems with this article. (1.) POV. This is the big one. I agree with Eloquence that this is a skewed and partisan account, told much too much from the inside, rather than encyclopedically. The defender above who quotes ""Wikipedia should report all major points of views" from the NPOV tutorial, in defence of the article's present state (I'm sorry, but with the interleaved comments I find if impossible to tell who quotes it) shows a misunderstanding. The key word in that quote is report. To report is not to repeat, still less to endorse. To report is to report neutrally, with attribution. It's not merely Wikipedia as a whole that needs to be balanced and neutral, as some of the arguments above seem to suggest, it's each article. And while in a well-written text it can be possible to tell whether an attributed expert is also responsible for the views in the next few sentences, it requires rhetorical skills to make it so. Please listen to the people here who are telling you in good faith that some attributions aren't in fact clear: the judge of clarity is the reader, not the author. A minor point: please refer consistently to the founder as Escrivá, rather than as St. Josemaría, unless his canonisation is the point at issue. (2.) Prose. I'm afraid there are also some problems of less than brilliant prose, especially with the attributions, which read as if they were fitted awkwardly (reluctantly?) into what was originally a smooth text. Please try to formulate the whole thing with the attributions as an integral part, rather than putting them in as alien speed bumps. Too may short paragraphs, also. (3.) Footnotes/inline references. The reader too often has no way of knowing which work in the bibliography is being used to reference a particular point. I dislike footnotes and try to avoid the need for them in my own articles, but when the sourcing situation is this complex, they are necessary. Please don't ask whether any Wikipedia policy explicitly requires this or that form of reference; instead ask your common sense: "How can I make the sourcing unambiguously clear to the reader?" Because the purpose of the reference policies is to ensure such clarity. The answer in this article is that you need either footnotes or a prohibitive amount of parenthetic inline references; in other words, you need footnotes. Some articles with a simpler source situation don't need them, that's why there's no hard and fast rule. Summary. I realise that my objections may be a bit abstract, especially no. 2), so I've just now edited the section "A personal prelature of the Catholic Church" to give an example of changes both for 1), NPOV, and 2), better flow, please take a look. I'm sorry I couldn't at the same time illustrate 3), what footnotes are required: that's unfortunately impossible, since the problem with the present sourcing is precisely that it doesn't give me enough information. The italics for quotes I left alone (although they're non-standard), as I've no plans for going over the rest of the article — too much work, which I realise is pretty likely to get reverted anyway. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tutorial, Bishonen! I will take your example into account when I try to rewrite the article to make it more encyclopedic and have more flow. I made a slight change to your version, but it has been useful. Thomas S. Major 02:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

OK. I see the point. In reality there were many in-text references with dates and pages.But they were removed as a way of cutting the bulk of the text. I will try to bring them back.

I will also work on inserting footnotes. However, I found this in the Wikipedia:Cite sources:

"On the other hand, in-text references can be very useful if there is a long list of references and it is not clear which one the reader should consult for more information on a specific topic. In-text citations can also be valuable if there is doubt or disagreement on some point—you can parenthetically indicate exactly what source made a particular claim. (Articles that involve strong opposing viewpoints may need to have numerous in-text citations for this reason.)

Footnotes are sometimes useful for relevant text that would distract from the main point if embedded in the main text, yet are helpful in explaining a point in greater detail. Such footnotes can be especially helpful for later fact-checkers, to ensure that the article text is well-supported. Thus, using footnotes to provide useful clarifying information outside the main point is fine where this is needed.

Footnotes can also be used to simply cite sources, and there are some styles which do so. However, citations using numbered footnotes are controversial in Wikipedia. The current MediaWiki software does not support footnotes very well. In particular, automatic numbering of footnotes conflicts with a common editing practice of bare URLs in single square brackets and the same footnote cannot be used multiple times with automatic numbering, rather a new number and note has to be used. In contrast, the software is currently quite sufficient to support the parenthetical author citation format suggested above."

• Object per Bishonen and Eloquence. This article was clearly written from a pro-Opus Dei POV. The criticisms of OD aren't mentioned in the intro except as an afterthought given a sentence in the final paragraph. Also from the intro: Opus Dei offers the faithful the "necessary training" to attain "sanctity or inner union with God". St Josemaria is often referred to as "St. Josemaria", when he should be known as "Escriva" — when first introduced, St Josemaria should be "St Josemaria Escriva", then "Escriva" from then on until we get to the Canonisation bit (by the way, have a gold spelling star). The "message" of OD is aggressively put forth, when it should at most gain a mere mention. OD is even referred to as "the Work"; such a phrase is often used by those doing "the Work" (whatever that may be) in various religions, sects, and cults, but never by those who are not. The "criticisms" section does not enlighten one to criticisms, I fear, but to "misunderstandings". The article attempts to argue — putting the words into the mouth of a weasel — that OD is a "sign of contradiction". I recommend someone with no relationship towards OD, the Catholic Church, or any anti-cult group take a look at the article and pare it down as much as they can.

I'm also concerned about the attempts at balance. When criticisms are included at all, they and Opus Dei are not discussed objectively. Rather, we have what news organisations laughingly describe as "balance": "Person X says the critics are wrong, but critics say they're not", or vice versa.

The neutrality policy states:

"NPOV policy means that we say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z." Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, one particular POV is treated as a monolithic "Catholic people's" POV — this is a serious issue, bringing as it does memories of "can we trust them to follow their countries issues over what the Bishop of Rome says?" and all that. For example: "on the other hand, Catholics say that this accusation is a slur on their bishops." I have never said such a thing, and am not certain that I would — am I not Catholic? This section has other problems: it concludes that critics are wrong, and its English is awkward (take a look at the progression of "however"-equivalents).

You are right. I will correct the weasel statements! Thanks. Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hope this helps, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

As regards the Catholic/Opus Dei POV, please read R Davidson's exchange with Eloquence regarding the Catholic tone of the article. That is the key to understand the neutrality of this article. That has to be resolved first before we can talk about NPOV here. Thanks for your comments. Thomas S. Major 00:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object – Notwithstanding POV issues (I won't check for that for now), the page has serious style problems. 1) Too many subheadings; The ToC is granulated and bloated. 2) Inline links to be converted to footnote style like we have for other featured articles 3) Placement of left-aligned images which shift headings to the right. That is to say: please don't start a paragraph with a left-aligned image, also do not float left-images so that the headings of the following paragraph are moved. 4) References not formatted properly. Please see recent featured articles such as Economy of India on how to format correctly. 5) Page size indicates that a summary is needed. Use the summary style. 6) No external links? 7) The page has a lot of quotes, this needs to be reduced and made into an objective summary. 8) Needs a copyedit. User:Nichalp/sg 17:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the article lingers a little too long on some of the more "sensational" criticisms. On the other hand I noticed two media pieces in the last fortnight that cited this piece as an important source (both Australian), and one of them called it called it even-handed, so what do I know? Re the comment that a long piece on Opus Dei should contain at most a brief mention of its aims, I can't help thinking that would be rather as if the article on General Motors were to contain no more than a brief mention that it sells cars. Asoane 20:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I didn't even get past the lead before I came across sentences like this one: "Built on the idea that Christians attain great joy from an awareness of being children of God, Opus Dei teaches them about their personal freedom and responsibility in pursuing the first purpose of the Catholic Church: sanctity or inner union with God." This is Opus Dei-propaganda, plain and simple. It might not be illicit, but it's inherently POV. Most of the article reads like some sort of brochure or pamphlet. It's simply not even close to being NPOV and at times barely encyclopedic. It's bristling with more or less subtle religious peacock terms, and obviously irrelevant publicity images like this don't exactly help. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object Several of the image captions are overly long. Image:Arnoldhallopusdeiconferencecenter.jpg looks like someone tried to airbrush the grass with Microsoft Paint (regardless, the image doesn't add much to the article). Image:JohnPaulIIordainingfirstbishopprelateofopusdeialvarodelportillo.jpg and Image:StjosemariaMagpakabanal sa gawainBe a saint thru work.jpg need to be cropped (and renamed). Many of the image pages could do with some better formatting/organization. I'm not sure how the current sub-headings under "Formation and training" relate to that topic. The article is POV in tone in several places ("Opus Dei was founded by St. Josemaria Escriva, who as a young lad saw footprints in the snow..."), and reads like a pamphlet in others (the 3rd paragraph Wow Peter, we had the same exact thoughts/vocabulary with regards to that third paragraph). As someone unfamiliar with the subject, I cannot understand 75% of this article. —jiy (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, jiy. I will study what I can do about your comments. Thanks again. :) Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

As regards the Catholic/Opus Dei POV, kindly read R Davidson's exchange with Eloquence regarding the Catholic tone of the article. That is the key to understand the neutrality of this article. That has to be resolved first before we can talk about NPOV here. The editors resolved in the Talk Page that the images should be proportionate to the credible experts view. Thanks for your comments. Thomas S. Major 00:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. I agree with your comments above: (a) policy we should give more credence to credible sources, and (b) the Pope is a credible source. However, your conclusion is incorrect. The Pope's views may be given more credence, sure, but that doesn't mean you're supposed to write from the Pope's point of view. Please re-read the NPOV page, and when you're finished there move on to WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK. Neither the weasel or peacock pages are official policy, but they're important guidelines to help people attain a NPOV, and should be followed by any article that wants FA status. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark. Sorry I was too much in a hurry I was not able to answer you properly. Yes I totally agree with you as regards weasel and peacock terms. Will also work on that :) Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a million for all your comments: I see we still have a lot of work to do

Thanks a million for all those who spent some time to give detailed ways of improving this article to achieve feature article status. I am truly grateful, and I appreciate your efforts.

It is clear from the comments that this article has to do a lot of work in terms of attributions, footnotes, formatting, copyediting, style, flow, etc. etc. etc.

I just need your help to resolving once and for all the basic issue raised by my friend R Davidson as regards neutrality. It's an issue which will continue to hound this article if it is not resolved.

The basic issue is how this article is implementing the following NPOV policies:

"We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. To give such undue weight to the lesser held view may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

From Jimbo:

"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts"

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

From the NPOV tutorial:

"Wikipedia should report all major points of views; however, it should do so in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses.

One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view. What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:

• the reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works
• whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones
• whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms
• whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims
• whether the expert's point of view belongs in a different article (e.g. evolution vs. creationism)

In other words, an idea's popularity alone does not determine its importance."

Right now the editors are one in saying that the majority position is held by the following credible experts: reputable investigative journalists who studied Opus Dei: (John Allen, V. Messori, Thierry, West), theologians and philosophers: (James V. Schall, Fuenmayor, Rodriguez, Ocariz, et al), Sociology of religion scholars: (atheist Bryan R. Wilson, protestant Dr. Kliever and Jenkins), Catholic officials (John Paul II, Benedict XVI, JPI, bishops, etc.) ,St. Josemaria himself (JE=OD according to Samuel Howard and other scholars), and other Catholic leaders, and non-Catholic leaders (I intend to collect these as well in a separate sub-page).

According to the editors, the view of these experts and their credibility and expertise has an overwhelming and lopsided advantage over the other positions in terms of their view on Opus Dei, and thus most of their views are quoted or reported, giving what some people said is a "Catholic" tone to the article, or a “Pope’s point of view,” even if some of the sources are atheists or Protestants.

Should the editors change their opinion on who has the expertise? Are there other experts on these subject who should be given the majority position? That's basically the question of my friend, Davidson. And we still do not have a clear answer.

I need your help to resolve this basic issue. Of course, we can also assume that "silence means consent." But I'd prefer a clearer "outside" opinion on this.

Needless to say, I see the great need to address the other important issues brought up here to improve the article. Thanks again for your help. Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object: notes are woeful. - 203.134.166.99 03:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Houston, Texas

I have had nothing to do with the writing of this article at all. I was simply thumbing through Wikipedia and discovered this nicely written article, which looks to me to be very close to FA status. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. References are totally inadequate. And unless the original writers are still around and have references handy, it will be a big job to source an article this size. Mark¹ 02:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Where should I get sources? I am one of the original writers. However, I may not have access after Rita. WhisperToMe 03:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • What sources did you use when writing? Mark¹ 03:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, this article may or may not dramatically change following Rita. Phoenix2 02:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'd advise waiting a week or two to see if the city is substantially affected by the storm. If it is, then this article will undergo a lot of revisions so it would make sense to only vote on it after that. Everyking 04:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object – 1) History section should be continous, 2) No references 3) Page size too large. Summarise 4) ToC granulated. User:Nichalp/sg 05:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The images Image:Houston.jpg, Image:Uptown Houston Skyline.jpg have no source or copyright information, and may vanish at any time.
  2. The image Image:Downtown Houston 2.jpg has no source information, and may vanish at any time.
  3. The image Image:Tropical Storm Allison.jpg has no source or copyright information, and is listed on WP:PUI.
  4. The images Image:Houston Panoramic.jpg, Image:Tranquility Park Houston.jpg, Image:HOU095.JPG, Image:HOU032.JPG, Image:Hobby Center.jpg, Image:Space Center Houston.jpg, Image:Bayou Place Houston.JPG, Image:Astroworld.jpg, Image:UH100.jpg, Image:Rice University.jpg, Image:HOU002.jpg, Image:HOU069.JPG, Image:Minute Maid Park.JPG have no source information, and are listed on WP:PUI.
  5. The images Image:Houston Industries Plaza.jpg, Image:WilliamsTower.jpg, Image:Houston City Hall.jpg are claimed as "fair use", but have no source information, making a "fair use" claim impossible to evaluate.
  6. The image Image:Texas state seal.png in the "State of Texas" navbox is tagged as {{coatofarms}}. This does not specify a copyright status.
  7. The image Image:CitySeal.PNG is tagged as fair use. Is there a more precise tag that can be used, that specifies why "fair use" is justified? If not, a fair-use rationale needs to be provided.

  --Carnildo 06:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object, at the moment. The article is currently unstable due to Hurricane Rita (and let's hope it doesn't strike Houston directly as a Category 4 or 5 storm). The lack of references could easily be rectified with a visit to the local library (or Google Print). The fact that an article of this size (52 kB -- should be reduced to less than 40 kB) has not gone through peer review is, to me, a red flag unless someone is willing to spend a lot of time cleaning up the article and addressing other people's concerns while it is on FAC. Though I have spent time cleaning up the article's layout, I am not knowledgeable enough of Houston to vouch for the information in the article. Pentawing 21:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture studies

Although I added a picture, cleaned the formatting and added some external links, this is not a self nomination. Very good article with extensive references. For some reason it was in some cleanup category from September 2004! Diamonds in the rough, eh? TreveX^talk 00:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I find the fair use claims on Image:Superman14.jpg and Image:HorrorFiction.jpg to be quite dubious, as neither is directly discussed in the article. --Carnildo 05:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree completely:

Umberto Eco's studies on Superman and James Bond (1988:211-256, 315-362) as myths of a static good-and-evil world view, should be mentioned as very early and lucid examples of a combination of semiotic and political analysis.

"Bad taste" products such as pornography and horror fiction, says for instance Andrew Ross (1989:231), draw their popular appeal precisely from their expressions of disrespect for the imposed lessons of educated taste. They are expressions of social resentment on the part of groups which have been subordinated and excluded by todays "civilized society".

Although these are not discussed at great length in the article, they are still important elements in and of themselves. As well as relating to particular discussions on "bad taste products" and constructed world-views, the pictures serve to illustrate that even components of "low culture" such as comic books and horror fiction are worthy of scholarly attention and discussion under the rubric of popular culture studies. This is a relatively recent development (Mukerji & Schudson 1991). I will adjust the fair use rationales to further emphasise this point. TreveX^talk 13:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "Superman" and "horror fiction" are referred to briefly in the article. However, "Superman comic number 14" and "A Dark Night's Dreaming: Contemporary American Horror Fiction" are not directly discussed in the article. This second part is what's needed to meet the fair use requirement of "use for criticism, comment, or scholarship". --Carnildo 20:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I find it strange that the article doesn't mention the words 'game', 'fantasy' or 'science fiction', 'sport', 'fan', 'fandom' or 'anime', which makes me doubt the article is comprehensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is not about popular culture, it is about the theory of popular culture. The absence of these words does not suggest any holes in this article's coverage. An article on literary theory might discuss the major movements in such theory: phenomenology, hermeneutics, reception theory, structuralism, semiotics, post-structuralism etc. Likewise, this article is an overview of the discourse of popular culture studies.

To dismiss this article as uncomprehensive because it misses out these 'keywords' is rather like dismissing a literary theory article because it fails to mention Charles Dickens, or, for that matter, fantasy fiction. The point is that these articles discuss theory which can be applied to a broad range of output within those artistic/cultural fields. They may not mention each genre exhaustively but this does not mean that the theories discussed cannot be validly applied in different contexts than those mentioned in the articles.

The words 'anime' and 'fandom' are never mentioned once in the 512-page tome Rethinking Popular Culture: Contemporary Perspectives in Cultural Studies, which would appear to be a pretty standard work on the subject.

'Science fiction' is mentioned twice (pgs 6, 238), once in the context of new theoretical approaches to the study of culture no longer excluding topics such as romance novels, science fiction, TV soap operas etc, and once in relation to the production and distribution of cultural items, specifically that coverage in book review columns is more important to the success of literary novels than to detective or science fiction. This article deals with the former using other examples and the latter (appearing in an essay entitled Processing fads and fashions) is probably out of the scope of an encyclopedia article. Sport is covered in an essay entitled Sport and social class. It is not, however, mentioned anywhere else in the book, including the instroduction, which would suggest that a discussion of sport is not an essential prerequisite for a discussion of popular culture studies.

Anyway, Google Print has stopped working for some reason but I think you get my point. TreveX^talk 09:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, I feel better about this article seeing that you seem to know a few things about the subject. I am withdrawing my objection, but I am not supporting. Yes, the article is probably fairly comprehensive and similar or better to Britannica/Encarta standard - but I think we can do better then that. Wiki is not paper and we should be able to give a comprehensive review even of the 'fringe' aspects of the popular culture. Google Scholar search on "popular culture studies"+1)"anime"=8 2) game=67 3) fandom=18 4) fantasy=71 5) science-fiction=36 6) sport=36 7) fan= 61. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terri Schiavo

With great trepidation I renominate this article for FAC. I know it has a horrible history, which can be found here here and here. But in the midst of it all, it IS a good article, well-referenced and very comprehensive. While length is a problem, other articles of similar length have passed FAC which IMHO have similar or less quality. All the issues are resolved and edit warring has stopped, in fact, no one has edited this article for even a copyedit in a week. The Schiavo episode has passed on long enough that no new information is relevant to the case, which I think makes it meet the stability criteria. I think this article is a great example of the Wikipedia process. We've had several editors from differing viewpoints contribute, and they have came up with an examplary piece of work- WP-style cosensus building in action. I really hope when you vote consider the article on its merits, and not on its history here on FAC. Borisblue 05:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. There are some floating sentences that need to find homes in paragraphs. I did a little of that, and changed one usage of "Terri" to "Schiavo". Jkelly 05:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak support as long as the article remains stable. It's the best guide to the whole debacle fiasco shebang event available on the internet. It's also perhaps too long (would upgrade to a full support if the article was trimmed). Proto t c 11:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I am also tending to support now, but I need time to read thoroughly. My main comment at the moment is (as expected) also length. The article has been pared down considerably, but, with 20 sections and three levels of headings, I wonder if some more could be floated out to separate articles. It does seem quite stable now - diff for the last 500 edits (back to 21:38, 17 October 2005) but query whether we should wait another few weeks to make sure. In any event, I would like to see advocates on both sides of the debate supporting this version. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think the length is OK as is. Much better article now. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• I haven't read through the whole thing, so I can't support yet. The length seems ok to me, but the referencing is a little hectic. Instead of inline comments every 4th word, could page numbers be incorporated into the actual references? That way they're useful to a reader, and since the note is there anyway, it makes sense to put all the information there. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

---

[the following comment added after the article failed FAC -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)]

It doeth appear that two Anon IP's have just fixed all the referencing problems; Do tell to not mess up what they have wrought.--64.12.116.14 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

There also appear to be some pretty serious numbering problems within the notes (note 9 links to ref 40, for example, and note 8 links to a pdf, not the citation in the article). Those should be fixed before being featured. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment! Please be patient as I try to call in some of the article's main contributors- they might know best where each of the references go. Strange that they haven't discovered this page yet.... --Borisblue 01:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

---

[the following comment added after the article failed FAC -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)]

Some Anons apparently discovered the reference problems and appeared to have corrected them all; I would not mess with the references section unless I knew how to do it; It can get hairy.--64.12.116.14 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

• Weak object -- There are no references in the Initial Medical Crisis section. This section includes a lot of specific factual information regarding Schiavo's medical condition, and each such statement should be footnoted. Other than that, the article looks good. -- Creidieki 02:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object -- The page needs to be trimmed according to summary style =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  Large parts are written in summary style, and in fact it has already been pared down from the previous rfas. The huge problem is the 25kb long references section. I know this may be unprecedented, but would it be OK to move them to another page, eg References for Terri Schiavo? Otherwise, I can't see how I cut through the size significantly. Borisblue 05:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  Its not written in summary style. I ignore the references/see alsos/ext links/infoboxes while calculating the article size. The article can still be heavily summarised. It contains a high level of detail which need not be present on this page. Specific instances, people (unless they are key people) should be moved to detailed articles. References should never be put in a new page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  Minus the stuff at the end that makes slightly more than 50kb. Not really that excessive compared to other stuff that gets passed here imho. However, I do grant that there is quite a bit of trivia here- let me consult with the article's regular contributors to see what can be moved/removed. Borisblue 08:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the page is at this time too long. It is otherwise a fine candidate for featuring. Stifle 09:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Better than before, but still too long-winded even without the references and external links. Oh, and don't ever remove those from the article just to pass some lower KB threshold; Summary style clearly says to ignore that type of thing and to concentrate on the amount of readable prose: anything above 30KB of readable prose has an increasing burden of proof that the extra text is necessary and it is rare for subjects above 50KB of readable prose to efficiently cover its topic in an encyclopedic manor. --mav 19:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object; I will support as soon as there are citations given to support the facts in the "Initial Medical Crisis" section. Otherwise, I support the nomination. This is as short as it can get, I think. Hydriotaphia 22:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Mav it still has too much superfluous detail. It needs to meet summary style, and still does not. Beyond that it's not terribly well written either. There are tons of orphan paragraphs and poorly flowing, choppy prose. I reallize the article has been worked on very hard by a lot of people, but that doesn't mean it meets the criteria. The article is so contentious that I'm not sure it would be possible to fix the prose and summarize it properly anytime soon. - Taxman ^Talk 22:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose far to long (please use summary style!) and the numbering of the footnotes does not seem to match by the end of the article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Can we leave this? For like, six f***ing months, can this article be nominated for nothing and referred to nowhere? Just let it sit and have the information settle and become fresh again. This is an oppose I suppose...but really, it's a matter of not being able to judge disinterestedly because so much has happened to this article with so much gnashing of teeth that I don't think an FAC is right thing to do with it at the moment. Marskell 22:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support it is a good article and 50 kb is a little much but with article's quality I believe it edeserves a support. I'm not sure how much more summary can really be done other than combining sections. See if all of the references are necessary because not every little fact has to be referenced. Falphin 03:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I too find the article far too long and detailed. It is important to put things in perspective and summarize accordingly, and while this level of detail might be interesting at present, it would be far less so in ten years time. Sortan 03:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • To clarify further, whats the relevance of the "Early Life" section? I feel that that section could be condensed to perhaps two sentences. Is it really necessary to know that she met "Michael Schiavo in 1982 in a sociology class at Bucks County Community College in Newtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania", and that he was her first boyfriend? Why do we care that "they were married on November 10, 1984, at Our Lady of Good Counsel Church in Southampton, Pennsylvania"? I feel that most of the other sections should likewise be trimmed. Sortan 03:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

---

[the following comments added after the article failed FAC -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)]

• Oppose. I tried to edit down just that - details about how she met Michael Schiavo, the church they were married at, her siblings' names - and was promptly slapped down by Patsw. (An unsigned comment by Anonamous IP address: 22:06, 12 December 2005 71.57.95.94)
• Support. If one anon can oppose, then another can support: Perhaps these details belong, and perhaps Pat Sweeney was right in "slapping down" your edit (he did not mean to slap you down). Of course, our anon votes don't count, but vote count doesn't matter in FAC nominations anyhow: It is up to FAC Editor Raul654, no matter the vote count.--71.101.34.26 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Despite the length this is a very good article and better than most for readability. Wjbean 18:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy in Love

Support Huge improvement from the article which I think deserves to be an FA. If there is anything for me to edit, let me know. Person22 18:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The original nomination page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crazy in Love/archive1. Extraordinary Machine 19:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Image:BeyonceGrammy.jpg has fair use rationale, but no source or copyright information. The prose is awkward in places (definitely needs a copyedit), and some of it seems fawning, e.g. "New Musical Express provided the single with the highest praise they could offer by voting it the best single release of the year" – well, for all we (the readers) know, the highest praise NME could offer would be to declare it as the best song in history. The "Chart performance" section needs cleaning up and trimming, and I don't think we need to have descriptions of Beyonce's costume changes during the music video in the "Music video" section. The "Live performances" section could do with a little condensing as well. Extraordinary Machine 19:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I can also tell you that the NME actually has several levels of hyperbole above that anyway, as a former long-suffering reader. There's also a good chance that the following week they declared it the worst song ever. Leithp (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Although the article is certainly on its way to becoming featured, I don't believe it has apexed just yet. My objection stands until the above comments made by User:Extraordinary Machine are corrected. —Hollow Wilerding 20:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  • The article contains many instances of non-encyclopedic/"fanzine"-type writing, along with awkward prose that could be cleaned up with a copyedit.
  • Most of the article's content is "Chart performance". Where's the information about the song itself — its lyrical content, meaning, songwriting process, impact, anything? Look at "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)" for examples of what I mean.
  • The "Music charts" section is a beast; it's a quarter of the article on its own, and half of the table's cells are question marks. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts for guidelines on redoing the chart.
  • The image Image:BeyoncePrice.jpg is tagged as a promotional photo, but is credited to WireImage, which provides photos under a non-free license. No source is given for Image:BeyonceGrammy.jpg, but it appears to be a news photo and probably also non-free.
  • The link to the sample points to a non-existent page. --keepsleeping say what 21:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The sample seems to have been deleted. Either the link from the article needs to be removed, or the sample needs to be re-uploaded and tagged as "yes, this really is used". I think there's a template for that. --Carnildo 00:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Yet another single/song nomination which doesn't include information about the instrumental musicians who performed on the track, and therefore fails the comprehensiveness test. The "Live Performances" section also includes lengthy discussion of occasions where Beyonce did not perform the song, but lip-synched it, which seems rather odd. Roughly half the article space is devoted to presentation and discussion of charting information. The most interesting thing in the article, to me, was the fact that New Zealand releases are certified gold for selling 5000-6000, a standard which demonstrates, to me, the lack of overall insignificance of being certified gold in New Zealand; I therefore wonder whether such reports about sales and chart performance in such minor markets are even worth mentioning in articles. Monicasdude 16:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beyoncé Knowles

Support She deserves to be in the featured article because this shows her accomplishment, life and success during her solo music career. If there is anything I need to fix, let me know.

• Oppose. One of the images is being used incorrectly (album covers are only meant to illustrate articles about the album), and two have no sources. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I just removed the album cover image. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The images Image:Bey and Prince.jpg, Image:Beyonce.JPG have no source or copyright information, and could be deleted at any time.
  2. The image Image:Bkbrits.jpg has no copyright information.
  3. The image Image:Soulbk.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but does not have a fair use rationale explaining why the use in Beyoncé Knowles constitutes "fair use". See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for details on what's needed.
  4. Lists appear to take up about two-thirds of the article. These should be removed or worked into the prose.
  5. I can't be sure because of all the lists, but there don't appear to be any references.

  --Carnildo 07:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I deleted the first three photos Carnildo mentioned since they did meet the new WP:CSD criteria. Zach (Sound Off) 17:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - lack of references and copyright info is a major problem. I think the three photos of Beyoncé accepting awards is overkill. One could be justified perhaps. Three can't possibly constitute fair use. What is the second and third photo showing us that we haven't seen in the first one? Writing style is disjointed - the career section reads like a stream of unrelated facts - it just does not flow very well. I agree that Knowles is a great candidate for a featured article. I suggest looking at some of the featured articles in the categories of "Media" and "Music" to get a feel for the standard. KaDee Strickland is an excellent one to refer to, especially in relation to using and citing references. Rossrs 10:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very very short for an article about a prominent artist. Check Kylie Minogue for a FA about a female singer. CG 19:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• A while ago I asked about something on the talk page and there's never been an answer. Everyking 04:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too short, choppy, and listy. Does not follow a chronological biographical scheme, makes little mention of the singer's heavily documented childhood and pre-Michelle Williams career with Destiny's Child. The article does not once even mention mention the singer's mother and costume designer. --FuriousFreddy 01:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object strongly: no references, and the following sentence is POV (though maybe true): "In the same year, Beyoncé was Punk'd by Ashton Kutcher just a couple of minutes after ruining Christmas at Universal Studios Hollywood." - 211.30.179.151 12:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose this article really really really sucks -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Destiny's Child

Support The Supergroup band Destiny's Child deserves to be in the featured articles for their great achievement in music! They have comprehensive articles and also very detailed profiles. They also are not complicated. They write to the point about this band very well. -Person22 03:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Not well organized: the "fashion" section is a joke, as is the endorsements and products and filmography (both of which seem better suited to the individual members' articles). Discography and Awards need a summary here and a pointer to the main article. The section heading "Final Destiny and the Future" sounds like advertising, not an encyclopedia. "Records and Facts" needs to be incorporated into the rest of the article. Needs references, preferably with inline citations. The article is in general not very well-written (lots of passive voice, for example), and there are a lot of one sentence paragraphs. Tuf-Kat 04:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, then. What do we need to do to improve this article? Furthermore, the endorsements and the fasion shows proof that they have accomplished and supported by helping that company, so it is vital. How can we improve? What can we fix?
    • I think his comment is pretty clear about what needs to be done - remove the passive voice, condense the one sentence paragraphs, add inline citations, 'etc. →Raul654 04:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The issue with the fashion section that is that it's marketing speak. I've read it and have no idea what it's about. Apparently, one or more members of Destiny's Child, in collaboration with some other people, did something involving some kind of company that does something related to fashion. That's all I can get out of it. What is "infrastructure for licensing and brand management"? They brought "trend-setting style and a creative take on fashion to stylish women everywhere" -- please! I know oodles of stylish women, none of whom would be caught dead wearing anything promoted by trash like Destiny's Child. Cite your opinions to whoever holds them. And the endorsements appear to be specific to each individual, so why list them here instead of in their articles? Tuf-Kat 04:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support Looks great OmegaWikipedia 06:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Destinyschild.jpg is of much higher resolution than is needed. It should be reduced to a size of 480 pixels or smaller to comply with fair-use requirements.
  2. The image Image:DestinyFulfilled-photo.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but does not indicate the source or copyright holder. Without those, it's impossible to claim fair use. Further, the image seems to be unneccesary to the article, and should be removed. (the image appears to have been cropped from the Destiny Fulfilled album cover, Image:DestinyFulfilled.jpg, and therefore can not be classed as fair use, and should be removed for that reason. Rossrs 14:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC))
  3. The last quarter of the article is lists of various sorts. Most of these should be removed or worked into the prose.
  4. I can't be sure about this because of how many lists there are at the end, but there don't appear to be any references.

  --Carnildo 07:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with the previous criticisms relating to the lack of references, image copyrights and writing style. There are errors throughout the article that could easily be fixed and just look careless. Simple things like using capital letters for "Destiny's Child" and in song titles. "Fanzine" type language is a problem - for example "supergroup" is not a real word and it appears in two sentences in a row. "Independent Women ...raced up the charts and spent an astounding 11 weeks... is another example. Stevie Wonder and Al Green should not be referred to as "Soul legend"(s). This type of language needs to be removed. Be consistent in use of the members' names. Kelly Rowland is referred to as "Kelly" and as "Rowland" for example. Standard format should be either full name or surname only, never just the first name. Lead paragraph is far too brief and should be a synopsis of the article. "Final Destiny and The Future" is a very cheesy non encyclopedic heading. The "Fashion" section - completely meaningless. If it needs to be there at least explain why it's there. It reads like a publicity blurb - its style is totally different to the rest of the article, and needs to be reworded or removed. The "Records and Facts" section is a bit like a "Trivia" section, something to be avoided. Any facts worth keeping need to be absorbed into the article, and the section deleted. Having said all that, there are some very good things about the article, so take heart, but a lot of work is required to get it up to FA standard. Rossrs 13:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Supergroup" is a perfectly-good term in several scientific fields, including mathematics and theoretical physics. It's just that this isn't science. --Carnildo 17:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Supergroup is a perfectly valid word in music too. See Supergroup (bands). I don't see how Destiny's Child could qualify as one, though. Tuf-Kat 19:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I stand (somewhat) corrected. "Supergroup" is a word. When I go to work tomorrow, I'll aim to use it in a sentence at least once, if I can somehow steer the conversation to theoretical physics, which I'm sure I'll manage. Perhaps I should have said "Destiny's Child is not a supergroup". Perhaps if they'd been salvaged from the remnants of a bunch of other old bands, maybe. OK, somebody calling them a "supergroup", and me calling them not, are both examples of POV, and more than a good enough reason to excise the word from the article. Rossrs 11:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review, and welcome back with the article to FAC when it fits the FAC criteria. Bishonen | talk 23:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Revew as per Bishonen. I put a "cleanup" tag on the article, and discovered it was an FAC when I clicked the talk page to stay why it needs cleaning up: This article reads like a fan page, has no cohesive style, is improperly formatted, and is hard-to-read.. --FuriousFreddy 00:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Megatokyo

This article was close to featured standard at the end of its third nomination (first, second), and I think it's been improved to the point where it can be featured. If not, this should kick-start edits on the article again. --L33tminion (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong support! --Masamage 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is a real nitpick, but the last sentence of piro and largo is kind of repetitive and trivia-ish where it is. Best merged in the beginning of the section(s) if possible. RN 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well...hmm. I guess I disagree! It seems to me like it would disrupt the flow a lot worse at the top than at the bottom, and I think more generally that it's interesting enough to stay. Maybe someone else is more creative than I. --Masamage 06:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Edit: Okay, so Jimmy did it and it looks excelent. Fine, be like that! ^_^;; --Masamage 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Amazing! It looks great - thanks :). RN 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support — I supported this article during its last nomination and — near the end of it — agreed to User:JimmyBlackwing's request that I give it a copyedit, so as to improve quality further and dispell concerns over the prose. This has been a very informative article on the subject since at least the third nomination (I wasn't here for the first two), and I've felt like it was either at FA or really close to it during that last process. Though I haven't participated in any further improvement since the last FAC, I know its regular editors have and I do believe this article is now ready. Ryu Kaze 14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Structure. I'd really like to see the "History" section go at the top of the article. I've also given thought that some of the other sections could possibly be reordered a little, such as moving the themes section up, having plot before characters, but I'm less dead set on those. Additionally, for comprehensiveness' sake, I believe that it would be notable to talk (at least briefly) about the comic's fanbase, which has on a number of occasions overwhelmed conventions Fred has appeared at. Some mention of the author's reputation as being too self-disparaging might also be in line (particularly the penny-arcade thing). Fieari 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: I've moved the sections around. Is that better? Also, Characters is above Plot on purpose - see articles like Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy X or Shadow of the Colossus. While these are all articles about video games, the principle is the same. As for the comic's fanbase... while it may be notable, I'm having a hard time believing it's verifiable. The only semi-usable comments about the fanbase I've heard are from Gallagher himself, but even they are questionable. And discussing the author's reputation seems to veer off into non-notable trivia, to me - he has an article of his own for mentioning stuff like that. JimmyBlackwing 19:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Characters should be before Story in my opinion. It's easier to talk about a story when the characters have already been introduced. That's why those three articles JimmyBlackwing mentioned (which I wrote in large part) are organized as they are. If you don't put the Characters section first, it's not going to serve very much purpose since the Story section would then have to go about introducing the characters anyway. That just ends up making the Story section unnecessarily bloated, unfocused and incoherent. Ryu Kaze 20:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I've read through it and have some more notes (I'm sure after 2/3 FACs the editors of this article are getting sick of me - sorry about that :)) :

1. (feel free to ignore this one, as I'm not sure how much MoS-style factors in here) "now" is used in the first sentence - perhaps "as of" or similar should be used
2. " it has received negative criticism as a result of Gallagher's changes" - this seems like a POV statement to me, and perhaps is best left to the reception section

   That's not POV. It's a fact that the comic has recieved criticism for this reason, and sources for that fact are cited in the article. (On the other hand, isn't "negative criticism" redundant?) --L33tminion (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   "Negative criticism" isn't redundant, no. "Criticism" isn't inherently negative. It's just rigid analysis. Criticism can be positive. Ryu Kaze 01:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   Okay, thanks. --L33tminion (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

3. The intro paragraphs are missing the comic's IMPACT. For example, there should be some kind of BANG that says "this is unquestionably popular." Maybe website hits i.e. "is a webcomic which at the height of its popularity brought in X visitors a day." Right now it just says it is a webcomic that has a positive reception...

   I don't follow your reasoning behind this, actually. Why is that required for the article to meet featured standard? If someone can think of a way to add that sort of information that's NPOV, I don't oppose that, but still. --L33tminion (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

4. What is "Dead Piro" filler art? This really interrupts the flow of that part of the article for me, as it doesn't seem obvious to me what it is

   Fixed that bit. Piro (Gallagher) refers to the days where he publishes filler art instead of a full comic as "Dead Piro Days". I found the easy solution was to remove the reference to that piece of trivia. If someone wants to readd it, then that will need to be explained. --L33tminion (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

5. "pitting Ping against Largo in video game battle" this whole sentence doesn't make much sense to me - is it one video game battle, multiple ones?

   Multiple (if you ignore the fact that Ping is a video game in some sense). Personally, I think "in video game battle" sounds better and is more accurate than either "in a video game battle" or "in video game battles". Largo's conflict with Ping (and Miho) is ongoing. Nonetheless, if it's really confusing, it should be changed. --L33tminion (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

6. The reception section is really good, but is a bit disjointed and goes back and forth between comments on the art, Caston's influence, and the story. For example, in the last paragraph in the first two sentences we see it talk about the art of it, but then it goes back to the story and Caston's influence in the same paragraph when parts of that were already discussed at the beginning...

I would be very happy to finally support this after these are addressed. It is obvious the editors have worked hard on it. RN 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support To sum up what I said last time this is a quality article that deserves featured article status. --Vcelloho 01:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support looks good :). RN 02:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - why is there an RSS feed link in the infobox? It seems to be a parameter in the infobox, presumably agreed upon by WikiProject Webcomics. But surely an RSS feed is just a way of subscribing to the comic? Why should Wikipedia provide a link to that service? We should link to the website, but to actually provide an RSS feed link seems like advertising: "subscribe to this comic here". I know this is a general WikiProject Comics thing, but I'd like to know what people here think, and whether anyone can provide links to discussions at the WikiProject. Carcharoth 14:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics hasn't had a debate on the subject. IMO, providing a link to the RSS isn't any more "advertising" than providing a link to the translations. --L33tminion (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It is a great article, thanks to the efforts of its editors. Nifboy 23:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberpunk

Self-nom. OK, for a while now, I've been trying to throw good information after bad in an effort to make SF coverage less, well, fannish. This is why I hacked on Three Laws of Robotics until it made FA, and lately, I've been trying the same thing at Cyberpunk. My fellow editors and I have tried to break down the writings of lit-crit professors and role-playing gamers, two of the most abstruse subcultures H. sapiens has yet to generate. I'm pretty proud of the result. The article has gone through two previous FACs, the first in April and the second in September. The first time it failed, deservedly; the second, it got a pretty favourable reception. I believe we managed to address several of the objections which the commentators hadn't struck out (summarized on talk), and there've been a few improvements besides. As always, I look forward to reading your comments. Anville 22:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Some comments:

• This is really close; the lead is great.
• Quite a few weasel terms in there, particularly the pernicious "some" (people, critics, readers, etc.). Also, though less problematically, there is overuse of "often", particularly in the Style section.
• The Film and Television section still seems like a fairly random list with a jumpy chronology and little indication of what import the various entities mentioned have. I also think the detailed and rather snarky commentary on the box office results and critical response to the various Matrices is a veer off-topic. This section needs the most work, IMO.
• Likewise, the Games section jumps around chronologically (and appears to ignore anything pre-1990; seems like some early text-adventure games (A Mind Forever Voyaging) may deserve mention), and includes a digression about Steve Jackson games.
• I can't help but think that at least some history from the Literature section needs to come before the Style section, as it is describing the style of writing, which we know nothing about at this juncture; conversely, there is some philosophical/analytical stuff in the Literature section (the Brin quote) that seems like it would be better elsewhere.
• The aside about "aggrandizing the genre" is too clever by half (maybe three quarters), stopping the article in its tracks while really adding nothing to the reader's understanding.
• I think the sub-genres need their own sub-section.

Jgm 02:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. It was close enough last time, it should pass this time. Some notes: merge small paras into larger ones, try to reformat lead into 3 paras. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object for a couple minor reasons. 1) We have way too many "fair use" images on here, get a few more gfdl/cc-by-sa's on there. 2) way too many see also's... you have some after sections (which is ok) and then an entire see also section. More of these links should be worked into the text somehow. And whats with the Futher Reading section, is it or is it not linked into the text? if so its notes, if not its merely external links. Getting better but theres still stuff in need of work.  ALKIVAR™ 02:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I really enjoyed this article. I see no issue with the images since it is hard to come by non-commercial material on the subject, and the rationale provided for each fair use image was adequate. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 02:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - This was enjoyable enough, quite peppy to read, informative -- I mean, I think it is a good, solid encyclopedia article for someone looking up cyberpunk. I don't think I have the literary qualifications to cast a vote, mainly because I haven't read widely enough in the genre to get a feel for whether the article is...representative. All of the high profile stuff I could think of offhand is there and in seemingly useful context, Gibson, Blade Runner, Max Headroom, Snow Crash, "steampunk", film noir/Chandler, RPGs, etc, etc. I disqualify myself from voting because I feel perhaps there's something missing, maybe in the synthesis area, but I'm not at all sure what it is, and I suspect that's due to my not knowing the territory well enough. My one specific criticism: the Matrix paragraph, which obviously deviates from the proceedings, and reads more like a mildly veiled fan trilogy critique (reference to the original Matrix, with passing mention of the others, is likely sufficient)... --Tsavage 18:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, well-written and comprehensive. And I got a nice ego-boost by finding out that a book I read as a twelve year old had "prose..too dense for novice or casual readers". There are also a few cyberpunk comics, Hard Boiled & Transmetropolitan for example, but I wouldn't say their inclusion is vital in what is a fairly long page anyway. Leithp (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, What he said. Let's crank up the Billy Idol, and jack in:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A lot of effort has gone into this one, and it shows. Ambi 00:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support I liked the article, but would make a few suggestions. 1) Cut out the discussion of Matrix sequels. It's out of place and not needed (and I didn't like the sequels at all!) 2) Better incorporate the Max Headroom information. It's currently a one-sentence paragraph. Subcategories for live action and anime might help break up the long text 3) The section on Operation Sundevil is odd. Either give more information or cut it all together. What were the real reasons for the raid? It needs some attention. 4) Consider making a list of topics related to cyberpunk and then linking that in the see also. All in all, though, great work! InvictaHOG 17:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Highway 66

self-nom. I feel this article does a great job in both discussing the highway and its impact on people and vice-versa. It keeps both the aspects which have become standard for articles on highways (e.g., route infobox and related routes) as well as discussing how the highway was created, evolved, and eventually decommissioned and the impact that all of this has had on the people traveling on it and popular culture. Rt66lt 03:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. No map of the route.
  2. The image Image:Chain of Rocks.jpg has no source or copyright information.

  --Carnildo 04:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I have corrected the copyright issue. I had personally taken the photo and didn't know there was a specific template that needed to be used. Also, a map is on the way, courtesy of SPUI. Thanks.Rt66lt 14:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The second paragraph of the lead needs work. It says that politics and publicity made it famous, but the rest of the paragraph doesn't support that. The lead should explain how 66 had iconic significance for so many people, and should give the year it opened. The first pic is too big -- it squishes the TOC an awful lot. Section headings should follow normal rules of capitalization -- only proper nouns and the first word. It needs a thorough copyedit (The following year... would officially disband in 1976. for example, is in dire need of changes), then the next sentence refers to something Avery "claimed", but I don't see where he ever said why traffic would grow on the highway. The paragraph about GIs after World War 2 doesn't make much sense to me -- it seems to imply that soldiers used the road to return home after the war, but since the war was not fought in North America, I don't see how they could have. It claims there are several novels about Route 66, but only gives the one example and doesn't explain why that one is so important. Tuf-Kat 04:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrote opening line of the second paragraph, removed parts of it. Picture has been moved to the History section. Section headings have been fixed (thanks to SPUI), removed Avery's claim and the returning GIs has been removed (the intent, I believe (I didn't write it) was that after the war, they would return to Route 66 to go to California, which was often the case according to the references, but I simply wrote about vacationers in general). Removed "several novels" about Route 66. Rt66lt 01:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the article is really very interesting but in needs a good copyedit. From the lead on the phrasing is awkward and there are there are places where the tense changes - and probably shouldn't, particularly in the Early 20th Century American pop culture section. Other minor things include the capitalisation of section heading where they should be in lowercase; a map, which although not necessary, would make a useful addition; and some of the items listed in the see also section would probably make interesting additions to the text rahter than in appearing in a list where they have no context, anything that already appears in the text shouldn't be on the list.--nixie 05:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization of section headings (along with shortening of titles) has been done and I moved most of the "see also" list into the article and discussed them. Currently, only the "List of cities on US 66" remains, removed rest. Rt66lt 01:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• I can make a rough map; if I haven't within a few days let me know on my talk page. --SPUI (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object—Substandard prose, I'm afraid. Take the first sentence:

'U.S. Highway 66 or Route 66 was and is the most famous road in the U.S. Highway system and quite possibly the most famous and storied highway in the world.'

Why clutter the opening clause with 'was and is'? Why not just 'is'? What's a 'storied' highway? Why use both 'road' and 'highway'? (Better: 'Highway 66 is the most famous highway in the United States, and possibly in the world.') And why not name the article simply 'Route 66'? Much neater. Have you read the criteria for FAs? Tony 14:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Highway 66 is the official name of the road; Route 66 is generic. The article was originally titled "Route 66", but was changed. There is a lengthy discussion of this on Talk:U.S. Highway 66.Rt66lt 14:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrote mentioned section. Currently reads "Route 66 was a highway in the US highway system." Sorry, I see no way to retitle the article and keep it standard with the other highway articles.Rt66lt 01:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object – the prose does not have an encyclopedic tone in some places: But it became more than a highway. It was a major migratory path west, arguably the "Oregon Trail" of the automobile era.; many Americans enjoy Route 66 nostalgia 2) Route 66 sign should be placed below, in the first section. 3) No route map. 4) Headings too wordy (it should be as terse as possible) and should be in small casing. 5) Business, Bypass, Optional, and Alternate US 66? Plz explain 6) Plz go through Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units (8 point) regarding the units and use of the &nbsp; 7) Claims such as arguably the "Oregon Trail" ; possibly the most famous and storied highway in the world references needed to support this. User:Nichalp/sg 18:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed "Oregon Trail" and the "nostalgia" statments from the article. I had moved the sign picture to the Revival section, but moved it to top of "History". Retitled most of the headings. Retitled the Business, etc. to "Bannered Routes" and gave a definition. Fixed the spacing on measurements. Rt66lt 01:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have went through and cleaned up prose and unencyclopedic statements. I think I got all of it, but I will re-read the article again tomorrow, after I've been away from it to give me a new look at it.Rt66lt 01:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with the cleanup: It was a major migratory path west. It would give livelihoods to... should be edited to Route 66 was a major migratory path west, and helped improve the economy of towns along the route.... And what is meant by "decommissioning" of a highway? Is the highway abandoned completely? User:Nichalp/sg 12:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Support Thanks to recent minor changes, this is now a great article. --PopUpPirate 09:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Regretful Object Well, I just tore through the entire article changing it to one, single tense, changing spellings, etc. I don't really think this article is stable enough yet to be a FA. It might be a good idea to flesh stuff out a bit more. --Matt Yeager 06:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benzene

This a nomination, but most certainly not a self-nom. I know little about chemistry, even less about benzene, however I stumbled across this article totally by accident (I pressed Random Article!) and , having read it through, feel this article has just about everything I could want in an article about an element/molecule/chemical. It has the "sciency" stuff (I know, sounds like a bad shampoo advert), the history, uses, methods of extraction, health risks, reactions, and has a reasonable set of references and external links. Although admittedly it has no photos, there are images, and at least there are no copyright issues. It is stable, uncontroversial and not too long. My one reseravtion is the shoryt lead, but I do not think that is enough not to nominate it. Finally (and I know this is not part of the FAC criteria, but I think it is worth mentioning still), the Chemistry section of FA is a little... anaemic. It currently has 8 articles. Let's make it 9 with this excellent example of how science on Wikipedia SHOULD be done. Batmanand 09:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object—Nowhere near comprehensive; too short; needs editing, although not too badly written. Why isn't this on the peer review list instead? Tony 14:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object-Although I agree that the Chemistry section strongly needs more FA articles, I would recommend the Benzene article to a peer review process first. There are definitely good points in it, but also sufficient opportunities for improvement. The article is also part of the Chemicals WikiProject and its current status there is merely B-Class. Better alternatives can be found on the List of A-Class articles of that WikiProject. Wim van Dorst 20:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC).
• Object at present: this is a good article but not quite there yet. I would welcome it going to Wikipedia:Peer review to get some comments from the wider community on Chemistry articles, but this is not the best article to have come out of WP:Chem. Physchim62 20:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object, but it's on its way. It doesn't have full FA quality now, although it certainly is an above-average chemistry article. We should get a peer review first. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I agree with the above. I think that sometime soon we at WP:Chem should put another article through the sort of intense peer review that hydrochloric acid had. But this is certainly cloase and a good potential FA, thanks for pointing it out, Batmanand! Walkerma 04:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magneto (comics)

self-nom, article seems worthy of being a featured article to me. zen master T 08:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object – no references User:Nichalp/sg 09:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object—Poorly written and superficial.Tony 14:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because it wasn't written by snooty english majors doesn't mean it's poorly written. And lack of references seems like a poor excuse to deny something fa status but I digress. zen master T 18:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually references are a requirement ( see featured article criteria). Without them, the article can't be verified. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Zen, instead of being combative, why don't you read the above instructions here: What is a Featured article; and address the objections? User:Nichalp/sg 05:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't care that much about this particular FAC nom, I just think the current FAC policy is biased against certain subjects and is too formal/red tape oriented, among other, separate issues. zen master T 06:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. No references are given
  2. There's far too much emphasis on the character history, and the history focuses too much on "Magneto as person in the X-Men universe" and not enough on "Magneto as a comic book character".
  3. There are too many non-free images in the article. I'd suggest removing everything but Image:Magneto.png, Image:Uncanny1.jpg, and Image:Magnetomoviex2.jpg].

  --Carnildo 20:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is there this requirement for references? A comic book character article isn't likely to have many direct references (except the original source material). And the majority of reference sections I've seen do not point to free sources so why is there this glaring hypocrisy that separately requires only free images? Is the goal to control what people are reading with the reference sections (regardless of whether the sources are free or not [of course])? zen master T 21:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

References are required because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. See WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NOR, and Wikipedia:What is a featured article for more information. I see no hypocracy about requiring free images but not free references: the images are directly included in the article, while the reference material isn't. --Carnildo 21:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Citations are more than enough evidence, the points needing referencing are lost by the time readers get to the reference section and the reference section really just seems like a "book of the month" club for that particular subject. Reference sections should be a sub page of every article perhaps (size concerns). I am somewhat familiar with wikipedia policy but they kind of don't make sense. If free images are preferred over non-free then to be consistent free source content should be preferred over non-free? Why make it easier for people to buy books from amazon.com if a goal or preference is for free content sources? Does it even make sense for a comic book character article to have references? zen master T 21:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Zen-master, please take a positive attitude to the reviews; far from being written by 'snooty English majors', they are bona fide attempts to maximise Wikipedia's readability and value. We like plain, crisp, easy-to-read text that flows smoothly and has authority. It's not about intellectual snobbery. Tony 07:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I apologize, I nominated the article on a whim while grumpy after an edit war so it was bound to happen like this. I think my point is why are there such specific/strict wiki criteria for featured articles when, for example, something seemingly just as important, the AfD process, is almost totally determined on a case by case basis. Can featured article status also be determined more on a case by case basis? Is the requirement of a reference section not as applicable to an article on a comic book character? zen master T 08:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• If you take a look at the list of featured articles you can see loads of different topics have been covered. Any possible bias to topics is caused by what people prefer to work on. References are just as necessary for articles on comic book characters as other articles. We need them to back up what's said in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Any serious literary works (this does not include fanguides and fictional canon) should be referenced for an FAC. If no such works exists, I would recommend FAC:ing higher-level articles instead. In this instance X-Men or simply comic book would be appropriate. Particularly the latter is in an absolutely unacceptable state for a top-level article. Wikipedia gains little or nothing from focusing the attention of the average reader on more in-depth coverage of heavily over-represented subjects that concern themselves almost exclusively with the hobbies of young, white, mainly American and/or Western European males. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose; too focused on Magneto as a real person in the fictional Marvel universe, but needs to include information on Magneto as a fictional character in the real world. My suggestion is to retool the article away from a fannish fictional history of the character to an objective overview of the character's development in Marvel comic books. For example, devote a different section to Magneto's development under each of the major writers and/or artists who used the character extensively. Concentrate not only on the narrative ("Magneto killed this guy"; "Magneto became a good guy"); discuss Magneto's personality and character development under different creators. The character's biography will thus still be there, but it'll be presented in a real-world context that a non-fan will appreciate. As for sources, I'd wager they exist. There are all sorts of critical analyses of animation available; there's bound to be some stuff on comic books. Good luck. BrianSmithson 11:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nicolas Sarkozy

archives for earlier nominations: 1

The problems of the preceding nomination should now be fixed. David.Monniaux 07:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• support All my preceeding comments have been correctly addressed. The article is now comprehensive and as far as I can judge well written. Vb 12:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The image Image:Nicolas Sarkozy.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but has no source or fair use rationale.
  2. The image Image:Sarkozy raffarin police2.jpg is not public domain, it's under simple copyright, and should not have been uploaded.

  --Carnildo 04:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments The second image is provided by the services of the prime minister and is free to use for any purpose; I do not understand why you tagged it as a "copyright violation". The first image has a source, as written in the image's history: the photographic library of the European Commission. David.Monniaux 07:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The second image appears to be by "David Mendiboure" of the "Matignon Photo Service", which doesn't sound too terribly much like the Prime Minister's office to me. --Carnildo 07:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Carnildo , if you cared to do the slightest research (such as for instance checking Matignon on Wikipedia...), you would know that Matignon in the palace where the French Prime Minister's office are located, and a general collocution for the Prime Ministry. Rama 08:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, but wait, the disambiguation page Matignon has only existed for what... a year and a half? notafish }<';> 08:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the first image by a photo from an UMP press release (Nicolas Sarkozy is the head of UMP). This surely qualifies under fair use. David.Monniaux 08:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support Comprehensive and well-written. An excellent English source of information about Sarkozy. Demi ^T/_C 17:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, jguk 10:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• I can't support this yet. It's not badly written in some ways, but there's an odd awkwardness about much of the prose. Here are some examples:
  • 'Previously, he was a deputy to the French National Assembly. He was forced to resign this position in favour of his ministerial appointment.' —'in', not 'to'? 'in favour of' is not quite idiomatic here ('to take up a ministerial ...').
  • 'He often is nicknamed Sarko'—that would have occurred once, not often. And the adverb is in the wrong place, anyway.
  • 'simply known as Nicolas Sarkozy'—word order is wrong.
  • 'is active in a wide range of political fields'—'Fields' is not quite right—research fields, yes, but not political.
  • 'He previously also held several ministerial posts'—remove 'also', and go through the whole text and remove this word where possible.
  • 'His ministerial responsibilities include law enforcement and working to co-ordinate relationships between the national and local governments'—'Include' means that there are other responsibilities you're not telling us about (which may be the case, but check this). 'and the coordination of the relationships between national and local governments' is what you want.

Now, I've exemplified a few things at the opening. They're subtle, but need to be fixed throughout. A native speaker is required to sift through the article. (I'm not being rude, just practical; there's a lot to commend the article.) Tony 15:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belarus

After a good session at Peer Review, I feel that this article is ready for FAC. While I have worked on Belarusian related articles before, I was asked to edit the main Belarus page. I took the user up on the suggestion and made significant improvements to the article (Diffs [26]). While I worked with two great editors at Peer Review, I welcome others comments as well. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Why this article doesn't use the Template:Infobox country? CG 12:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Because I used the template so we can stick more things into the article (eg free up space). Plus, I went off the format of Belguim's article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer you use the infobox. User:Nichalp/sg 15:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I saw the box, and it could be easily turned to the template. I prefer that at least featured articles follows a little more standarisation. CG 18:07, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed the infobox due to the suggestions at the talk page. Zach (Sound Off) 08:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:Stanislav Shushkevich.jpg is claimed under fair use, but does not indicate the creator/copyright holder. Without that, it's not possible to claim fair use.
  2. The image Image:Belarus dress.jpg is claimed as "public domain" on the grounds that it's from a US Government web site. However, images on the Library of Congress are in general not works of the federal government. The actual copyright status of this image needs to be determined.
  3. The image Image:BelarusHistoricalCoatOfArms.png is claimed as "fair use and permission". This is far from an ideal license: would it be possible to get the creator of the image to release it under the GFDL or the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license?

  --Carnildo 22:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• • For the third image, I will just remove it outright. Though, IMHO, it falls under {{PD-BY-exempt}} since it is a former national symbol. The second one, I will provide information on the copyright holder. For the first image, I have the copyright of the website that hosted the image, but I do not know much about the copyright. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The law, at least as expressed in English, doesn't seem to cover former symbols. --Carnildo 23:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I removed the third image, I added the copyright of the website hosting the first image and I reverted to the fair use image for the second one (since I know the author and copyright). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I've found copyright information for the newer version of Image:Belarus dress.jpg. It's from the Library of Congress Country Studies series: one of the few cases where something on the LOC website is public domain as being a work of the federal government. I've reverted to that image and updated the description page accordingly. --Carnildo 20:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Wipes forehead Ok, while I know you still object about the first photo, I did not get a response from the website on who made the photo I am using. While I know where it came from and the copyright of the website, I have no clue who took the photo or when it was taken (but it is from 1991-1994, if that helps). I am also using this photo because it has a photo of the 1991 flag. I have drew a photo of the 1991 flag, and we could use that instead if you choose. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
            • You should replace the photo. Without knowing the copyright holder for the image, it's not possible to claim fair use. --Carnildo 21:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
              • Replaced the image with the w/r/w flag I drew myself. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW, the flag drawing is PD-user. Zach (Sound Off) 08:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Support. --Carnildo 03:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support as long as there are no objections and the lead clearly states it is a dictatorship. Impressive - Zscout is doing great job (as usual), but I am not sure if this is comprehensive - I fixed some links/problems in the history section (which partially overlaps with Polish one). There may be some other links which can benefit from fixing. If there are no objections, I assume it is comprehensive and support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The lead states "Since independence, Belarus has been the focus of international attention due to the authoritarian leadership of President Alexander Lukashenko, who has ruled the country since 1994. Due to this, Belarus has been excluded from joining the Council of Europe. Belarus is considered to be Europe's last dictatorship." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Changed to Oppose – I would like Tony's comments resolved.Conditional Support Neutral – I've helped Zscout in PR, but I still feel it needs a copyedit. User:Nichalp/sg 10:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC) Prose at the moment is acceptable, though would like to see my inline comments addressed. User:Nichalp/sg 13:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments addressed. Zach (Sound Off) 17:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Concern that the text needs a thorough run-through to bring it up to standard (Wikipedia says 'brilliant' prose). I'll give it a go some time after Tuesday, after which I'll decide whether to support the nomination. Tony 16:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Some other users have been copy-editing the article. Zach (Sound Off) 08:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

---

• • Comment

Considering the size of the country - This article has a large and expansive scope and I feel it adequately begins to address the lives and people of the land. Nice anthropological work Zscout! 69.161.109.170 07:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• • It needs thorough editing. I've gone through the first section making numerous small changes. The bit about the name of the country is very messy—so much information, scripts, 'Lacusa', transliteration—and could be simplified and shifted down to introduce the next section on the origin of the name. As is, the impact of the opening is compromised. Tony 09:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose—Poorly written and poorly organised. The opening needs to prepare the reader for the topic, but contains messy information about the name in a number of languages, or it did before I moved that stuff to the second section. The first section now needs more relevant, quality information, and most of the 'Name' section below it needs to be binned, or savagely pruned. Who cares about what people call the country in other languages, except perhaps for Belarussan and English? The history jumps from 1994 until 1986; wasn't the Soviet experience worth talking about? It's very densely linked, so I've removed the low-value years, which won't help the reader at all. I haven't read the rest, but already I oppose the nomination. Tony 14:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I reverted some of the changes, because India (an FA), has information about the name. I believe it is important, since not only Belarus has more than one official language, people would want to know why this country got it's current name. Plus, it is significant, since Belarus was called Byelorussia, and we have to note that someone will take offense to that. I did add information that Belarus was a founding member of the UN, in 1945, but nothing significant stood out of my mind of what happened in Belarus since after the war but before Chernobyl, unless you want to make a very, very minor note that JFK's assassin lived in Minsk. As for the interwiki links, I might get rid of duplicates. However, I believe some of the things you put in the article as i-notes were insulting. Zach (Sound Off) 20:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC) While I put some changes back in, what you done to the article, IMHO, caused more hurt than good for the article. Zach (Sound Off) 20:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I see nothing worth mentioning that would sway my vote to oppose. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm changing my vote to Strongly oppose. The main author has reverted my recent work on the opening, so that typos (e.g., 'though' rather than 'through'), grammatical errors (countries mixed up with nationalities in a list), other stylistic problems, and inappropriate organisation of information are back again. Most reviewers don't bother to roll up their sleeves and try to improve the articles they oppose; I do, and if you don't want my help, I'll just go through picking out example after example of why this article is substandard, to support the case that it should not be considered for promotion to FA status (at the moment, it would be an embarrassment). I note the following statement at the top of the page: 'you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised'. By the way, I don't care what you interpret or misinterpret in the article on India, or Belgium, or any other country: if it's poorly done here, it doesn't bear comparison. Tony 00:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I added some of your stuff back in, but as I mentioned in the edit summaries, some of the information I cannot provide because it does not exist, like who selected Suskhvich to be the first leader. But, while I welcome the grammar errors, the gutting of the lead was what caused me to revert. But I am also adding back the useful information you have provided. Zach (Sound Off) 00:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• OK, let's get down to work. First, some random examples of what you've reverted after my numerous improvements to the opening sections.
  • 'The area of Belarus was settled by the Slavs'—It wasn't called 'Belarus' in those days; I'd fixed this nicely.
  • 'the 6th and the 8th century'—one or two of them?
  • 'caused the state to be impacted gravely'—nice one.
  • 'Belarus first declared their independence'—one country or several?
  • 'which still dominate the country today'—they don't just still dominate it, they still dominate it today, do they?
  • 'the invasion of the Mongols into Rus'—invasion into?
  • 'which was headed by under one monarch'—hello?
  • 'Belarus being officially called the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic during the Soviet-era'—um....
  • 'Byelorussia and Ukrainian Soviet republics and the Soviet Union'—couple of things wrong here.
  • 'upon the issuing of May Constitution, Europe's first modern codified national constitution, which abolished all subdivisions of the states and were merged into the Kingdom of Poland'—illiterate.

I must stress that these are only a small number of examples of the poor writing that pervades most sentences. I'm not dealing yet with what can only be described as an obsession with names and titles in the opening and the first section, including the information about informal surveys conducted by some obscure website to see which version of the name of the country was used on a majority of websites. This, before we've been informed of the major issues in summary, bird's-eye fashion, so we know just a little about the subject we're going to read about. This is where you need to engage the readers in your topic, convince them that it's worth reading on, not make them wade through endless names for the country in various languages at various historical times, complete with cyrillic script and transliterations, nested in a forest of parentheses. If you have to have this name stuff, it goes much further down, sequestered into its own section to warn off the majority of readers who won't want to wade through it. It can't possibly qualify. Tony 00:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I am having a few folks copyediting the article. As for the names, like I said before, it is important. People need to know that when they see Byelorussia on the Internet, they need to know that it is an informal name for Belarus and is considered offensive to some. Plus, I included the informal survery in, since it was linked to the article before I even touched it. I thought it would be interesting to present in the article what name was used the most and used the least. Zach (Sound Off) 06:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well keep going—there's lots to do. I hope someone's writing about the Soviet period. The section on Ecomony needs considerable work. Tony 07:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I will try to find out more information about the Soviet-period, and I am finding out a little bit more on Belarus trading with the European Union. I also could write about the use (or delay of use) of the Russian rouble. Zach (Sound Off) 13:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Particularly as the Soviet experience must have partly shaped Belarus as it now is. Some important matters may be:

• • to describe succinctly the Stalinist system in political and economic terms, as it applied throughout the Russian empire, with brief references to historical milestones within the period (the death of Stalin being one of them);
  • to describe how this may have applied in Belarus in particular, bearing in mind its economic strengths and weaknesses;
  • to describe how Belarus dealt with the fall of the centralised economy and Russian control: how is this still felt in the country?

These are major issues, don't you think? Tony 15:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, these are major issues that shoudl be dealt with, though I cannot promise on what else could be added. While Belarus did undergo an overhaul after the Wehrmacht left, I just do not know how much. As for the centralized economy, Belarus still uses that now, but Belarus was one of the last republics to leave the USSR. Though, IMHO, Russia still plays a key factor in Belarusian affairs, since Putin and Lukashenko usually meet each other a lot and have a good friendship. Zach (Sound Off) 22:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony, to give you a heads up, the article is 33kb big now. I am now getting warnings about the article is too large. If you wish, I can reformat the whole History of Belarus and add the fine details that you request. While I want to add as much as I can to please you, but I do not want to make the article too big for anyone. Zach (Sound Off) 23:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment at Zach's request, I've gone through and copyedited the article as best I can. Could those pointing to spelling/grammatical errors in the text please check to see if they're still there (and if I've introduced any new ones!)? Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'll go through it later today. With respect to the Soviet period 'black hole' in this article, this is kind of information that would be of great value to some readers, is probably not easily findable on the net, and will give a deeper picture of the country today (and wouldn't hardly count as 'original research'). Is there any foreign investment in the country, given that it has apparently been slow to open up to capitalism? Is there resistance to attempts to internationalise the economy? (I'm sure this can be done in a NPOV way.) People considering doing business there might end up going to Wikipedia: now that would count toward's W's 'unique presence on the Internet', as stated in the criteria. We want to know about this. Tony 00:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not a huge secret that Belarus is going back to the Soviet-era, and many websites on both sides of the fence state the same thing. While the information is hard to come by, it will not count as original research if it has been published on the Net or in another source. If I made it up, then it would be original research. As for the foreign investment, I have read that some McDonalds are in there, but many of the industries are nationalized, such as the Belarus Tractor Factory. NPOV is not a problem, since (surprisingly) most people when coming to my articles about Belarus mention the grammar issues, not POV issues. Sorry about the earlier reverting and misunderstanding Tony. Zach (Sound Off) 00:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• PS It's not about pleasing me, but the readers. The section on government, which needs massaging, starts 'Belarus is a republic governed by a President.' Then we learn that there's a parliament. The caption about national dress implies that what you see is the only national dress. Is this the case? Tony 01:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I reworded the first part of the government and fixed the caption of the photo. The dress is not the only one that can be worn in Belarus, but during various cultural and ceremonial events, there will be people dressed like that in some way. Zach (Sound Off) 01:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

More on the basic structure of goverment, please. Can the President veto legislation, and can the veto be overriden by the legislature? Is the current president the inaugural holder of that office? Surely each chamber by itself can't create laws: that's what it says currently. What is the process for changing the constitution (two-thirds majority in both houses, possibly)? Surely the Consititutional Court isn't a 'sub-court' ....? Does the upper house have no choice but to confirm judicial nominations (not 'appointments', please) by the President.

These are basic matters that readers deserve to find when they go to Wikipedia after hearing of some crisis in Belarus's government. Tony 03:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I also happened to write the article Constitution of Belarus. While I do not know much about the governmental functions, but from what I seen, if Luka wants something done, he will decree it. Even if it is important like national symbols, he institutes them via decree. While Lukashenko is the first and only elected head of state, there was a guy before him that served from 1991-1994 at the position of Speaker of the Supreme Soviet. Zach (Sound Off) 03:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I added some of the information you wanted in above, and some was already there in the history section. However, I am at 34kb now and my edits are not saving at all. Zach (Sound Off) 04:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Edits that don't save are a general problem at the moment, unrelated to the size of an article. Check whether they are in fact saved, even if you get the notice that they haven't. The suggested size of 32 kb is only a guideline. Many country articles exceed this. More history is needed (Soviet period), and I don't think it matters it you go over, even up to 40 if absolutely necessary. Tony 09:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

At least 40 gives me some type of benchmark to reach for, since Australia is about 40kb. Zach (Sound Off) 17:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, after seeing oppositions from above. Article is well written in many ways, but needs some more work. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Some of the claims in the Economy section require referencing. I've made a few changes where it was looking a little POV. I still think the lead:
  • requires a few sentences at the end of the paragraph, giving a bird's-eye view of the topic
  • should have only very brief mention of the name, in English and Belarussian only, without the cyrillic script (leave that for the articles in cyrillic, since here, it complicates matters for the reader, where we want to captivate them)
  • should be followed by a briefer section on the history of the name of the country.

Nice job on the Soviet period. Tony 09:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Which particular claims do you think need citing? As for the name part, I was asked to expand it earlier at this FAC. Even with a short statement about the name, people will still ask who started it, when did it start and other things. What else are you suggesting for the lead? Zach (Sound Off) 06:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • One more thing, as for the "birds-eye view," did you want it at the economy article and what do you want me to say in it? Usally, if the section is going to sound like a lead, then it should be at the head of the section. Zach (Sound Off) 06:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stroke order

A shortish yet complete article on an unusual and interesting topic. Largely a self-nom. Well illustrated, well laid out, and well written (if I may say so). One potential objection may be that there are only three references, but they are well-known and highly respected sources, and much of the information presented in the article is common knowledge (to those who are familiar with Chinese characters). Exploding Boy 21:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object, information is laid out nicely, but the article is just too short, IMHO. Phoenix2 22:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Shortness is not really a valid objection in this case. If you'll take a look at Wikipedia:What is a featured article, point 2 states that "[a featured article should cover] the topic in its entirety, and . . . not neglect any major facts or details," while point 5 states that "[a featured article] should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." This article both covers the topic in its entirety and is of appropriate length for the subject matter. In other words, the questions really are "is the subject of sufficient importance to be covered in some detail" and "does the article cover the subject in sufficient detail". The answer to both is yes. Exploding Boy 22:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• CommentObject How did the stroking come to be? What was the previous writing system before it and what advantages did it have over it? Just not comprehensive enough, unfortunately. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object slightly - images are great but badly laid out, fix that and maybe pad it out a bit, and it'll be great imo --PopUpPirate 22:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment—Quite well written, although I'll suggest a few minor changes to the language when the article has been extended. Tony 01:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This is not comprehensive. What about - comparison with other systems of writing? Is standard stroke order unheard of elsewhere? I seem to recall stroke order is used in various input methods for CJK. Additionally, the lead section should be a summary of the article, not what it is at present. Morwen - Talk 08:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not comprehensive. To the authors'/collaborators' credit however, I must say the illustrations in the article are really great. Phils 11:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I'm not disappointed, but (and this comment isn't just sour grapes) I disagree with the comments posted, and it seems to me that some voters are not thoroughly reading articles before voting on them. But anyway. Another time. Exploding Boy 02:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The examples in the Stroke order rules section would be much clearer if they showed each stroke being added in order (presumably only possible with an image). The right uptick in the Types of strokes section doesn't show what the stroke looks like. How do the rules make writing easier? Why is stroke order of more importance is brush-writing (presumably as opposed to pen writing)? Mark¹ 05:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. And what about Chinese character? Turning the focus on the top-level article instead of a very specific sub-article would be far more enlightening to those who want to learn about Chinese characters. I might add that it barely mentions stroke order and does so in the rather oddly named section "Orthography". / Peter ^Isotalo 06:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Excuse me for butting in here, since I'm not an experienced reviewer of Wikipedia articles, I won't venture an opinion on whether this article is suitable or not, but since one of the criteria mentioned is not being part of an ongoing edit war, and since the other reviewers don't know who User:Exploding Boy is, I'd like to point out that my experience is that any and every article edited by User:Exploding Boy is part of an ongoing edit war. I've detailed my complaints at the talk page of the stroke order article. --DannyWilde 03:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This is, of course, both inappropriate for discussion here and absolute nonsense. As can be plainly seen, the recent issue at Stroke order seems to have stemmed from a misunderstanding. At any rate, it's a moot point since the article has be soundly rejected as an FA candidate and since I've agreed to work on it further and have in fact actively solicited input from DannyWilde. This proposal should really be retired from voting, since it's not going to go anywhere from here anyway. Exploding Boy 06:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object: Right now, the article is missing important aspects: for example, what is the correct stroke direction? This is no trivial desicion, as for example the ノ in 文: should it be written from bottom left to top right, or from top right to bottom left? My lecturer told me it should be from bottom left to top right, yet the stroke is confusingly called Right diagonal stroke in the article. Another objection is the given Dots and minor strokes last rule next to the stroke order image of 火, which shows the dots written as first. Exceptions are bad for an example. --Abdull 15:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oh My Goddess!

Self nom: I think article qualifies to be a FAC, there is always room for improvement but lack of suggetions in peer review suggests this is perfect. So hence a FAC. --Cool Cat ^Talk 03:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Support -- Your images are all fair use, but that can't helped. More importanatly though, I didn't see a reference section. If you can get one or two references on the page you will have my full support. TomStar81 03:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Better as far as referances are concerned? --Cool Cat ^Talk 04:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Unilateral Support -- Sorry about not getting back here sooner, collage work has started piling up again. Yes, thats much better, and it solves my objection. Good Luck (and by the look of things, you need alot of it 8-) TomStar81 07:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  • No references.
  • Most of the article is lists. Is is really necessary to have an episode listing and soundtrack listing?
  • No fair use rationale on any of the images.
  • The placement of the {{Spoken Wikipedia}} template looks pretty bad on this end. Is it supposed to be at the top like that?
  • It's also rather short when you look at it sans the list content. Is there anything about this anime besides the name and story that could be written about? Has it had an impact on anime in general? -- Bobdoe (Talk) 04:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It has been around for over a decade under diferent titles. I'll include those referances (so as not to make this original research, help is welcome :)). I am not sure where the spoken wikipedia template supposed to be at. People place it on diferent locations. So I am inclined to believe there isnt a rule. Where do you think it will look best? --Cool Cat ^Talk 04:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok both sountrack and epuside list tables are gone. --Cool Cat ^Talk 14:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, first with the breakdown of text to list ratio I would suggest that this might be better on featured lists or it needs the content restructured. Second the text that is there is fannish and the grammar needs work. The story section is the only substantive block of text and after reading it I only have a vague idea about the story of this anime, it reads like a confused review rather than a summary of the plot and presents fan opinion as fact and an example:

Belldandy is one of the most recognized characters in anime, (really?) and is considered the inspiration to dozens of demure magical characters (like whom?). The series is well-loved by fans for several reasons: its artwork is generally recognized as beautiful without any of the characters being victims of gratuitous fanservice, and the storylines balance screwball comedy with sweet romance that never gets saccharine (sounds like it came from a fan site rather than an encyclopedia).

--nixie 04:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not write it I merely added stuff, I need ideas to improve it ;) --Cool Cat ^Talk 04:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Per all the above. Phils 09:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I have itoduced shot summaries for each character. Also working on history asap. --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article consists of an extremely brief lead, a story recap, a crufty naming discussion (only fans care about these kind of details) and then some lists of episodes, characters and songs from the soundtrack. It has virtually no information about how the subject relates to other anime, why it's popular, it's cultural influences, etc. This needs to go back to the drawing board and (hopefully) return with severly shortened lists, preferably none at all, much shorter story recap and a serious in-depth article. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure how to expand the article in that direction without jumping into original research. --Cool Cat ^Talk 11:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's okay to make observations of the obvious as long as you don't make subjective judgements. I'm sure you can find quotes made by the makers of the series about influences and such in interviews and the likes. / Peter ^Isotalo 18:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Pretty much agree with exactly what Peter said. The article lacks the depth of research needed for a FA. Two websites and two links to the sound track don't come close. FA's should be well written, meaning almost entirely prose. The lists need to be moved off to separte list articles and linked to in the appropriate place. Then replace them with prose reflecting what about the list is important to the topic. You say no comments in PR mean its perfect, but it also can be that people see the article has no chance to be a FA in the current state and don't want to be rude, or people just don't happen to get to that article. Either or both appear to be the case here. - Taxman ^Talk 14:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I realise that was wishfull thinking on my part. Take a look at the progress. I am rewriting most of the story section. I needed coments from people to improve the article that is all, if I can make it a FA in the process, its not a loss. Peer review is dead. :P --Cool Cat ^Talk 15:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Peer review is not dead, there are just not enough reviewers to get to all the listings and some don't get many comments. Some do though, if you look at the page. If you think peer review is dead, the real question is how many listings have you reviewed and offered suggestions on what it needs to be a FA? Of course, first you need to spend time knowing the criteria and how they are applied. Anyway keep improving the article, but FA status doesn't appear in the cards anytime soon. - Taxman ^Talk 17:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• What channel in Japan was it broadcast on? In what timeslot? What were the ratings and reviews like? Morwen - Talk 08:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The recent AIC version? TBS and affiliates, in post-midnight timeslot like most anime for older guys. [27] You want japanese reviews or english? The 'fan' reception was lukewarm, from where I'm sitting. --zippedmartin 14:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool. However I was saying the article should say that. This article is currently written from the point of view of a Western anime fan, which is not really appropriate for an international project. It needs more info about its original context. Morwen - Talk 16:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree completely, see comments below, but was replying here so coolcat and others had the answer with the question. Have dug up some interesting ratings stuff from Newtype too, page 159 of the 2005.07 issue, ratings table: 4.04-4.10 - 2.6; 4.11-4.17 - 2.4; 4.18-4.24 - 2.2; 4.25-5.01 - 1.9; 5.02-5.08 - 1.5. In perspective, lower than shounen stuff (Bleach gets between 3.8 and 4.7), and way less than the big hitters (Sazae-san 18.3-22.3), but on par for this kinda (post-midnight seinen) thing, Monster 's 2.5-3.6, Mahoraba 's 1.2-2.1. What's actually interesting is the huge tail off in viewers - supports my impression that there were a lot of very high expectations that weren't fulfilled by the slow meandering through the weaker early stories of the manga rather than skipping forward to where Fujishima gets up to speed. I'd be writing all this into the article rather than here... but there's nowhere to put it, execept under the dreaded 'plot' section. --zippedmartin 17:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, how do you suggest we add that to the article? :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. I sympathise that peer review got you nowhere, but this is the *last* anime article I'd want to hold up as a template of how to do things.

• Article needs a proper head. Take out the fallicy about it being a shōjo manga (it's in Afternoon ffs...) and then read Wikipedia:Lead_section - needs to be a summary of the article not a (misleading) definition.
• Manga cover pls (fair use), at the top. I can do this later propably.
• Something about the animators. Why is it all anime articles are giant plot summaries and lists of seiyuu and ep titles? ja:合田浩章 (Gōda Hiroaki) is a big part of this series and the article manages to not even mention him.
• Some kind of references for the few bits of the article that aren't plot summary or lists-of-stuff would be nice. And then hunt for more actual information to put in the article.
• The whole plot section. Write one summary common to the original and the adaptations there, a couple of paragraphs long, and relegate the rest to where it won't be frightening off poor readers who've only had a single sentence head to prepare them for pages of plot. Going straight from lead to Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow. is ridiculous, write the spoilers out of it.
• Other stuff. Lots of other stuff. Like, bug me on my talk if you need help on anything specific. --zippedmartin 14:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

  I tried to answer to all of your points. The plot section is almost completely gone as this article has grown too large to be broken into smaller peices (its something about 66 additional articles now). Anything else you want done? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. As much as I'd like to see this featured, it is far cry from FAC standards. The lead is too short, references are non-existing, Soundtracks is a stub section, Oh My Goddess! (TV) can probably have the episode summaries moved to the separate articles (and they are missing from 1x12 onward anyway). I'd like to see something more about how the series was invented and how it influenced other anime and international otaku fandom - it is, after all, one of the best well known anime/manga series. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

  All done, thats 24 new articles for TV and 5 for ova plus one for the movie. Although this leaves little on the article. Recently added cast section. As much as I want to write about how this serries influenced anime and manga world, I sadly lack the knowlege to do so. You seem to know what you are talking about, I kindly ask you enlighted us. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  As much as I wish, I know little beyond the fact that it did. It seems to be one of the best well-known anime series - this should be described. I am sure some Googling would provide useful information, unfortunately, I don't have time to do so myself.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object it's far from what a FAC should be: Why is this manga important or popular ? How popular it is, anyway? Something like criticism or professional reviews, how it influenced the anime genre, etc. It currently just tells the plot. bogdan 15:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  I do not know why it is important. If I write criticism myself its going to be original research. I do not have any access to professional reviews. The reviews I have my hands on only explains the manga for a paragraph and those are comercial ones which just cover the first episodes plot. I can only write about things I know and knowlege I can acquire. Insisting on something I cannot acquire is wrong. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Southeastern Anatolia Project

Self nom: Article gives knowlege about the project with graphs and stuff. Hence FAC --Cool Cat ^Talk 03:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object until it is copyedited and some of the pictures are removed. I know you asked me to help me, but I didn't know it was for FA. Acetic'^Acid 03:22, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. Too many images for the amount of text.
  2. The images Image:AtaturkDam.jpg and Image:GAP Region.jpg are claimed as "fair use". However, there's no reason why they can't be replaced with free-license images, so they should be removed.

  --Carnildo 04:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I can expand the topics though I need to now what to write about. I do want to keep it at reasonable technicality. I could not find any good airborn picture of the dams aside from one satelite image. --Cool Cat ^Talk 05:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Not very close to a FA either. Please spend some time getting familiar with the FA criteria and how they are applied to other articles. If you need to know what to write about, do some good research on the topic. Find the best sources available. Anything less than 6 or 7 good sources and some citations for the most important or contentious points means we don't have any idea if the article is factually accurate. - Taxman ^Talk 14:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Looks generally disorganised. The article moves straight from a short summary to a large graph of cotton yields. The acronym USDA is used without explanation. There appears to be a neutrality dispute as well. Compare with other FA's such as Kylie Minogue. Dmn € Դմն 23:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John III of Portugal

Partial self-nom. After the Biography Collaboration I think it is now a fine article. Underwent countless improvements on language issues, image problems and the content itself. Gameiro 00:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support, well-referenced, fine lead and apparently complete (can't vouch for accuracy). Minor issue: Under Inquisition Pope links to the current one. Could someone find out who was Pope at the time. The text isn't very clear whether the Inquisitor was appointed in 1515, 1536 or a completely different year. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Kudos to the collaborators, but this still needs some work. It seems to be missing a fairly large section. The article goes straight from outlining his life to discussing the declining state of Portugal during the later part of his reign. Where is the description of the nation's condition during the early part of his reign? The writing also needs improvement. Trade is not generally described as being "intense" and scholarships are not generally "attributed." The article also has some formatting problems. There are far too many one sentence paragraphs, and the images are poorly arranged. The article fails to use the standard footnote style for the quotations and other in text references. - SimonP 17:53, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • FA's use different reference styles I don't see anything wrong with current system.
• There is a section John_III_of_Portugal#The_Portuguese_Empire_under_John_III, I think this can be solved with just a bit rearranging of existing sections. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral I will support if SimonP's objections are met. This should probably be archived as a FAiled FAC considering its been a month. I hope to see this one up again. I don't think there is anytrhing wrong with the images or references though. Falphin 15:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support with minor issue. It would be nice to see the lead be organized into three summary paragraphs. While it may or may not be complete it is just a bunch of 2 sentence paragraphs which doest not follow Wikipedia:Lead. Newbie222 17:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The João III article is a mess. The first thing it needs is for someone to get the Paulo Braga biography and use it for the facts. Get those straight first. Then go on to the other stuff. The statement that the head of the Inquisition always came from the royal family is dead wrong, for example. Where did the writer get that howler?

[edit] Warez

Self-Nom (I've edited this on more than one occaision but not all content is mine.) This article has been used on several occaisions as a reference for media publications. The article is quite in depth but I know its missing stuff, I'd like to hear what objections are out there so as to get this up to snuff... If the media likes it we damn well better make sure its done right!  ALKIVAR™ 07:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object – reasons
  • No images, a screenshot of a popular site or program perhaps?, a diagram depicting the bootlegging process?
    • Taken care of now.
  • Just one references. Would like more references
    • Filled in some additional references I was too lazy to add before.
  • Inline references not correctly formatted. See Bhutan for an example.
    • Is the new inline reference format correct?
  • often based in mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand and Russia I would like to see a reference for these countries.
    • See the references, in particular the BSA Global Piracy Report for 2004 or 2005.
  • ISO (in this case, an image file intended for a writable DVD). (it can also be written on a CD)
    • This is correct as written. It specifically mentions that in this case the ISO is referring to a DVD image not a CD image. CD based Vid rips are typically in VCD format or DivX which may or may not be released in a CD burnable ISO image.
  • It should be more of prose than bulletted text.
    • Working on this.
  • Sections such as legality etc are too small.
    • Working on this as well.  ALKIVAR™ 09:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Nichalp/sg 10:03, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Object – the lead needs improvement, as prose it is difficult to read. Maybe this article would benefit more from peer review? Cedars 12:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Significant concerns about the faulty, awkward prose. POV may be a problem in parts ('Even worse,' with respect to piracy—let's stand back and just provide the fact in this instance, unless you want to specify whose interests are at issue.) Pointillistic paragraphing towards the end. Tony 14:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Prose has been gone mostly over and condensed, cleaned up, and rewritten in sections. Do you still see problems with the prose?  ALKIVAR™ 22:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. "Common wisdom" sentences (such as the mention of China, HK, Russia as powerhouses of piracy), unsourced, sweeping POV claims ("The software piracy "scene" typically isn't profit based, most members of the warez community openly detest and campaign against those making a profit from copytheft."), poor structure and formatting (use of bold and lists) make this article unfit for FA status. Also, it is not comprehensive. Some very important topics recieve little coverage (especially, as mentionned above, "Legality"). Phils 14:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • One, common wisdom is usually right. Two, it has been sourced now. As for the rest the listing is being worked on , but I cant think of a way to express the arguments pro and con in any clearer way than that list. And I will soon be working on the Legality section... Is there anything else you think needs work?  ALKIVAR™ 22:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Bad style throughout. Poor grammar and phrasing, every section title is Unnecessarily Capitalized, generally hard to read. RSpeer 05:36, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Grammar and phrasing has been worked on, all section capitalization is fixed as of this point in time.  ALKIVAR™ 22:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry - though it has improved, there are still style problems that are hard to quantify. Parts of the article come across as using pretentiously inflated language. Some examples:
      • "profit-orientated" to mean "profit-oriented"
      • Excessive passive voice, like "File verification is accomplished" and "thus the need for an efficient system of handling files was apparent" (which incidentally conflicts in tense with the phrase before it, too)
      • Empty words, like in "This method also creates the facility of downloading..."
      • Confused language, like using "RAR file extension" to mean "RAR file format"

In your comment the same language inflation shows through, when you used "as of this point in time" to mean "now". The article isn't bad, it just isn't one of Wikipedia's best. RSpeer 00:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review. Big time. I looked through the article, and it is a mess (grammar, and in some cases incomplete sentences). Some of the listed references are questionable as well. Pentawing 23:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I went through and cleaned up much of the wording and grammar. Nevertheless, I am not sure of the accuracy or comprehensiveness of the content. My vote still stands. Pentawing 01:13, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates

A very important book in the history of computing and statistics based on Monte Carlo methods. The article is well written and has a high quality picture which gives a sense of what the article is about. Klonimus 03:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Too short:
  • I see where the "million random digits" comes from, but what about the "100,000 normal deviates"?
    • 100,000 numbers distrubuted under a normal distribution
  • How high-quality are the random numbers? What tests were used to determine randomness?
  • More detail is needed on the generating system: what did the electronic simulation of the roulette wheel consist of, what computer was used, and what was the computer's part in the whole thing?
    • It collected data from the roulette wheel
      • What, did they have a guy spinning a roulette wheel a million times and manually writting down each number as it came up? Or was there a contraption that detected which slot the ball landed in, and there was a non-human spinning it a million times? If so, how could they ensure that the robotic precision of, well, a robot, wouldn't interfere with the randomness of the numbers? Are there pictures of this wheel anywhere? Fieari 06:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • The article says that the book was the largest table of random numbers ever produced. What was the typical table size for earlier books?
    • 10,000 digits or less, the largest table up to that time period was 100,000 digits
  • How much did the book cost to produce?
  • How much did the book cost to buy?
  • How many copies were sold?
  • Who was the typical buyer?
    • Researches, and sleepless people.
  • Which machines were the punch cards for? Was it the standard IBM card, or another format? Or multiple formats?
    • IBM punch format, other machines could read it or required a simple conversions routine,
  • Do we have an article on books of random numbers as a whole? If we do, this needs to link there. If we don't, one is needed.
    • Alot of this is described in the article on random numbers. Klonimus 05:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • --Carnildo 04:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object: too short (Carnildo objecting for that same reason, that's a new one). A good start, but you're gonna need to stretch it out to at least about three times this length to meet a bare minimum of what people will be willing to consider featured quality. This is only two paragraphs so far. Everyking 04:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• The article is too short and is missing a lot of information. Much of the information can be obtained from the introduction of the book (linked to from the page), the rest can be obtained from the "Short history" reference I put on there. I'm happy to add to it and turn it into a good article, but I haven't done it yet. Of Carnildo's questions, the only ones which simply cannot be answered in general are how much it cost to produce, how many copies were sold, and who was the typical buyer (the data for that information just isn't out there, I happen to know). The rest are very easy to answer and would be required for a featured article.--Fastfission 05:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Sevenpenny seizure. The book of tables was an important 20th century work in the field of statistics and random numbers. The article needs to explain, in greater depth, why it was an important 20th century work in the field of statistics and random etc. Which important projects would otherwise have been impossible without it? Which machines, which computers, which devices were built with this book? How important was it, really? The impression I get from reading the Tom Jennings link - and who is Tom Jennings? - is that it is a little curiosity, and amusing thing to have on one's coffee table but hardly even notable as an individual Wikipedia entry, let alone a featured article. If it is to remain, could we have an ISBN and author details (presumably "The RAND Corporation", but was there a foreword). Did you know that it's still on sale? [28] Well, you know now. The top review in the non-featured section is priceless; the reviewer drolly complains about the non-random nature of the numbers printed in the outer lower margins of the page. How were the digits determined? The article skims over that bit. "an electronic simulation of a roulette wheel attached to a computer" confuses me; "attached" in particular. -Ashley Pomeroy 23:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Mathematics can come across as quite dull and difficult to understand for a lot of readers, and this article isn't hardly going to spark any major popular interest, no matter how important the book is. If you really want people to get interested in math, improve any number of higher-lever articles like logarithm, statistics and equation. Or why not take on a real challange, like mathematics? / Peter ^Isotalo 18:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The word table is used a lot but it is never explained what exactly it means in this context. Is it a Table (database), Table (information), Mathematical table, or something else? There is also no precise definition within the first few sentences that addresses what this book is about—the reader shouldn't have to guess based on the book's title alone. It should say something like "blah blah is a book that lists tables of random numbers generated from blah blah..." Random numbers is also linked to twice within the article. —jiy (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Guerre

This is a self-nomination of an article that has been nominated and failed before (see old discussion). I believe all the objections expressed at the time have now been met. AxelBoldt 23:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written and documented. Phils 13:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Wikipedia, being as it is editable by anyone, needs to go to extra lengths to support its information, and that includes inline references, which this article lacks. For every, or at least most facts presented, there should be an immediate link to a reference supporting that information, so someone researching the topic can easily determine whether or not the wiki is accurate at that time or not (such as in the case of stumbling across vandalism). Fieari 21:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The reference for the historical information is the book by Davis; I wrote that in a later section, but maybe it's better to write it at the beginning? AxelBoldt 00:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I know of no autoritative reference publication, online or not, that explicitly backs every statement with an inline reference. This would mean about 30-50 inline references per page (on A4/US letter paper). Phils 11:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Phils - the requirement is for citations "where appropriate", which in my interpretation (as featured article director) means that statistics, quotations, judgements, disputed/controversial facts, 'etc; it does not mean you need a citation for every statement. →Raul654 21:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Johnson

Self nom. Biography of Ohio's lieutenant governor. Illustrated, referenced, thorough account. Previously had a FAC nomination here and a peer review here. PedanticallySpeaking 21:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Much better! —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Neutral. Some sections, including the last sentence of the lead section, could do with a rewrite. Once the prose is improved, even just by a tiny margain, I'll support the nomination. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've redone the second paragraph of the lead and proofread other parts of it. PedanticallySpeaking 19:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm still not so sure, it appears that the whole article may require a copy-edit. The final section is also awkwardly-worded in specific places. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Would you identify some of those "specific places" so I might be able to work on them? PedanticallySpeaking 14:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain. The article is good, but needs a bit of rewriting. Some of the subsections are too short, and the section headings themselves are unencyclopedic in tone. Very close, would be prepared to support. RyanGerbil10 21:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Several sections have been merged and renamed. PedanticallySpeaking 19:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased with the size and number of the sections now, as well as their order. The tone of the section titles still strikes me as a bit uncyclopedic, but I'm not going to be that picky. My only remaining concern is that other users have found problems with the copyright status of pictures. As soon as that is cleared up, I will support. RyanGerbil10 00:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Picture license tags need to be updated. Gflores ^Talk 21:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I can't speak to all the license tags, but those should always be kept up to date. As for the article, there is quite a lot of it, maybe a slight bit of trimming? However, the issue I have that would sway my vote is the "Runs in Columbus" section. The text makes numerous references to what The Columbus Dispatch says, it would be nice to have individual refs for each article with the given quote, rather than the giant ref #7 that is there right now. Staxringold 22:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, but if I did that, then there would be an objection to too many footnotes. See the comments here and here. PedanticallySpeaking 18:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Over-refing is better than underrefing, and this is nowhere near the level of Katie Holmes. To start off with, I added in div resizing so the refs don't take up as much space. This still uses the old ref style which isn't great (though not enough by itself to downvote), has a massive ref #7 that has no sense being grouped together, and a massive bibliography of sources that have unknown connections to the article. Staxringold 17:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object, same as last time. The images Image:BobTaft.jpg, Image:Bruce Johnson's family at swearing in.jpg, Image:Bruce Johnson giving inaugural speech.jpg, Image:Bruce Johnson and Jennette Bradley.jpg are claimed as being in the public domain. However, works of individual states are not automatically in the public domain: it varies from state to state, and sometimes from department to department within the state government. --Carnildo 22:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• And same as last time I would ask what information do you have about Ohio's copyrights? The page from which these pictures was taken, http://ltgovernor.ohio.gov/ , contains no copyright notices. PedanticallySpeaking 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• We must assume that an image is copyrighted unless otherwise stated. Why don't you just email the webmaster and ask if the images are copyrighted? That's what I did once with another US government website. Johnleemk | Talk 18:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• There are no contact e-mail addresses on any page on this site. And what is the basis for "assum[ing] an image is copyrighted unless otherwise stated"? I have never seen a copyright notice on anything produced by the State of Ohio. PedanticallySpeaking 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Uh...our copyright policy? Or how about American law? See public domain -- anything that meets the criteria for copyright but lacks a copyright notice is still copyrighted. And I really doubt that you can't contact the webmaster. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's a basic part of American copyright law that all creative works produced on or after March 1, 1989 are copyrighted, regardless of the presence or absence of a copyright statement or copyright registration with the Library of Congress. --Carnildo 07:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The press office of the Ohio Department of Development, of which Johnson is director, informs me by e-mail "We do not have copyright on the photos." PedanticallySpeaking 14:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

And I repeat, do you have specific information on the State of Ohio's stance on copyrights? PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The onus is on the person claiming the material to be PD to prove his claim, not the other way round. I would support, but the header image is fair use, and is supposedly produced by the Ohio government -- would this not indicate that the Ohio government does claim copyright on its materials? And the four other images of people in the article are all tagged with {{PD-OHGov}}, yet the tag states the image "was produced by the State of Ohio, which does claim copyright in the work." Furthermore, the Ohio Department of Development message you quote is a bit ambiguous -- does the Department alone not have copyright, or is it the whole state government? If, as I am presuming, a number of those photos were not produced by the Department, the Department would not be able to claim copyright on those photos -- but that doesn't make them public domain. Johnleemk | Talk 08:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I omitted the word "not" from the template. I have corrected this. And if the Department of Development, which Johnson is head of, can't release the photographs, I don't who I am expected to contact. PedanticallySpeaking 16:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting concerned -- the template is currently on TfD. Anyway, I have contacted the webmaster to enquire about the copyright status of content published on the website, so hopefully we should be able to settle this soon. Also, the Department that Johnson heads has no more claim on copyright of photos of him than, say, General Motors would on the copyright of photos of Bill Ford, so it's not surprising that they would deny copyright on images not taken by their personnel. The only copyright they would have is on photos of Johnson taken by the Department. (Anyway, this is probably a moot point.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of this entire exasperating discussion. I've removed every image save the one at the top. Will that earn your support vote? PedanticallySpeaking 16:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I will not object for now; if we can confirm that the images are PD and they are added back to the article, I will support then. Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Two or more external links will be better. Brandmeister 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know what else I could link to besides his official site.PedanticallySpeaking 18:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object as per Carnildo. Otherwise, it's very good, though. Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If I removed all the photographs would that lead to a support vote? PedanticallySpeaking 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No. The article should illustrate him, at least. Perhaps show a picture of him on the campaign trail, and tag it as fair use. If the campaign is discussed by the article, that would be fair use, I think (IANAL). Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I would note that when I removed the offending photos from the article the last time to address these concerns, the nomination still failed so its hard to see what I can do to satisfy people. As for "a picture of him on the campaign trail", I have no such photos. PedanticallySpeaking 15:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Needs a copyedit, especially the WP:LEAD: lots of pronouns, "He managed his campaign and he was appointed." Instead, try "becoming Mayor Joe Mayors Chief of Staff after managing Mayor's 1991 campaign, and leaving that post when appointed by Mr. Appointment Guy to the Ohio Senate in 1994." Also try, "After being elected to two [Senate] terms and rising to the second highest post in the Senate, Governor Bob Taft in 2001 asked [Johnson] to join the cabinet as Director of the Ohio Department of Development and then appointed [Johnson] [Lieutenant Governor] in 2005 [why? who retired or died or what?] to complete the lieutenant governor's unexpired term. If the office of governor became vacant, Johnson would succeed to that office. Johnson is thus currently first in the order of succession for the Ohio governorship. Kaisershatner 18:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Done, except for explaining why there was a vacancy. That seems too much information for the lead but the information is contained in the article's body. PedanticallySpeaking 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support while I feel that the photo copyright issue is significant, I am not educated enough on the topic, in terms of this article or in general, and since it has been mentioned enough, I feel it is unfair for me to drag it on. Therefore, the article is superb otherwise. Another great work! Nice photos, the external links section is a little short and looks out of place being so short after such a long references section (perhaps could be rearanged? but is that customary otherwise?), but I know it may be tough to find external links. Anyway, great overall, very nicely done! --Lan56 06:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting article and I suspect that a politician might not be the easiest to write about in finding good references. Overall welldone.--Dakota ~ ° 08:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Mainly per DakotaKahn; but shouldn't there be an infobox on the politican like the one on Dick Cheney, or similar? Also, I think the references section size should be reduced to something along the lines of, say, 90%; or was this not considered "the thing" nowadays. Kilo-Lima ^{Vous pouvez parler} 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. 17:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Neutral. This is a very well-written and exhaustively researched article, and it's an interesting read even though I hadn't heard of the subject before. However, I feel that the issue involving the copyright status of the images is important. Also, there appear to be several duplicate wikilinks to The Columbus Dispatch and others, and some of the solitary year links could be removed in accordance with WP:CONTEXT. If those images, as well as the links, were removed (or their status as public domain material confirmed), I'd definitely vote support. Extraordinary Machine 21:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Another user went through and removed these links and was then reverted just prior to your edit to the article, Extraordinary. PedanticallySpeaking 15:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the edits that removed the year links, and have also removed the duplicate wikilinks. Thanks for clarifying the image copyrights situation. Once again, very nice work. Extraordinary Machine 17:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Comprehensive and meets all FA criteria. Only nitpicky suggestion is that I'd suggest using the cite.php reference format.--Fallout boy 02:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good to me, but could you add Wikipedia:Persondata please? That'd be great. Good job. Gflores ^Talk 01:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting article, well researched. Well done. AriGold 18:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrogen

Is currently a GA, was last nominated for FA in September 2005 (see archive). Much improved since, and ever topical with the presumed advent of the hydrogen economy. Looking forward to your suggestions. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support: until that "citation needed" tag is replaced with a citation. It's a pretty clear scientific article but should definetely be checked over by other experts in the field. For some reason though I feel some information might be missing from the article. The only thing that caught me is the 1 or 2 sentences where water is mentioned. Can you add why/how oxygen and hydrogen merge together to become water? Also were there any discoveries by the space programs where an abundant amount of hydrogen was found on a planet? if there was might be a good thing to mention but I'm just throwing out ideas here. - Tutmosis 15:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up two out of three, and corrected a misstatement (since there is no such thing as pure orthohydrogen, any physical property measurements compare the para to the normal form). I'm not sure the remaining unsourced statement (on the solubility of hydrogen vs oxygen) really needs to stay, since the next sentence is about metal adsorption. Regarding your first question, molecular hydrogen and molecular oxygen don't just "merge" to make water, although hydrogen can undergo combustion in the presence of oxygen to form water and heat. Opabinia regalis 23:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'm ashamed to say I have no idea how two elements become a compound. I hope I got that right, Anyway thanks for replying. - Tutmosis 23:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's just that "merge" is so much gentler a word that what actually happens. This reaction is used in rocket fuel :) Opabinia regalis 00:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Tentative Support: Pending citation to the solubility of hydrogen in water. Otherwise a generally great article -- Nbound 03:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Solubility claim has been replaced with new, sourced information more relevant to the matter of hydrogen storage and metal adsorption. Opabinia regalis 04:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment "Adsorption" is the correct term, properly spelt and all? Non-science major that I am, I thought at first glance it was a mangling of "absorption". The very thought of such a crucial term being mispelt in a FA was...unpleasant. --Fsotrain₀₉ 04:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, adsorption is the right term in this context. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Per above fix i fully back this article as an FA (vote changed) -- Nbound

• CommentOppose: For general tidyness, I'd like to see a reference for the synthesis of the 4H - 7H isotopes. The "Role in history of quantum theory" section may need a bit of 'dumbing down' without losing content. Further elaboration of the catalysed orto-para interconversion may be useful (i.e. why is it done? and please cite a source there too). The cause of the Hindenburg explosion in the Combustion section should also cite its source (and thanks for avoiding the rocket fuel meme there!); the last paragraph in that section (rxns with halides) seems a tad out of place and should probably be relocated. The "compounds" section would benefit from general citations to a standard organic chem textbook. My greatest complaint, however, is the Applications section, which should be greatly expanded and provide actual examples of use (preferably in industrial processes). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I neglected to post after I did this, but the isotopes, compounds, and Hindenburg sections now have more thorough references. Also, Samsara has rewritten the applications section. Opabinia regalis 21:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Overall, it is quite good. I would prefer that the Applications section be converted to prose from a list, but I don't feel terribly strongly on that. Maybe one or two more photos would jazz up the article too - maybe the Sun or a Hydrogen bomb or a plant where H2 is produced or something.--DaveOinSF 18:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support: great article, covers every detail of the subject (and there are many!).igordebraga ≠ 22:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Generally good article, but the bulleted list in Applications lets it down, particularly the repetition of "H₂ is used..." If this is converted to prose I'll have no qualms about supporting. Oldelpaso 18:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support good article. Rama's arrow 00:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support/Comment — Overall it's a good article. I just saw three items that I think need to be addressed:
  • The word "emmissivity" should be changed to "emissivity".
  • These sentences have some redundancy: "Thus hydrogen is both ubiquitous in the universe and difficult to produce in concentrated form on Earth. Although H atoms and H2 molecules are abundant in interstellar space, they are difficult to generate, concentrate, and purify on Earth."
  • More importantly there appears to be no mention of 21-cm line radiation, which is very important in radio astronomy.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed the first two points. I don't know anything about the third, so feel free to add something about it! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks like the last is already covered adequately by the 21 centimeter radiation and Hydrogen line articles. I added a link to the "See also" section, so that should cover it. — RJH (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent job. --ScienceApologist 13:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulk vending

This article is just awesome. 24.54.208.177 03:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Too Many Images. The section in the center with nothing but images is ... not very encyclopedic. Text, please! --FOo 05:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose: Too many images. Putting off for those who have narrow band connections. Use the <gallery> tag sparingly User:Nichalp/sg 05:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC) 1) ToC granulated: too many headings. 2) Are bulk vending machines only available in the US? 3) Inline formatting of references is incorrectly done. Take a look at some recently Featured articles for how this has been done. User:Nichalp/sg 19:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:6way.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but since it's quite easy for a Wikipedian to create a free-license image to replace it, there's no reason to use it. --Carnildo 07:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • All right, those images have been removed. 205.217.105.2 12:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Get rid of the watermarked images. Like Carnildo said, just take some pictures of vending machines. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The lead is too short, there are too many lists, the article reads like a promotion for the upsides of bulk vending and it contains the section "Miscellaneous tips", which is a very obvious usage guide. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppossum. After the second sentence of the main body it becomes entirely US-centric. The article has a very informal, fannish style. I get the impression that the writer is enthusiastic, probably quite knowledgeable in the field, which are not always positive attributes when writing for an encyclopedia. A good encyclopedia writer should be a skilled researcher and a talented writer, not a specialist. He should be able to take the words of several specialists and turn them into encyclopaedic-quality writing; this page reads like unprocessed crude oil rather than high-quality petrol. In particular, it has led in this case to lots of bald assertions and formulations along the lines of "the consensus seems to be" and "it is generally regarded", because the writer - being a specialist - has not sourced and cited things which he believes to be self-evident. The 'Business opportunities' section seems libellous. The numerous instances of current prices will be a nightmare to keep up-to-date. Certainly, the wealth of detail is interesting, and I envisage this being forwarded around people's email inboxes for the photograph of a machine's internals alone, but it's not of encyclopaedic standard. Given the fact that it reads like the work of one man, I doubt it will ever be of encyclopaedic standard. Certainly not featured article standard. The picture of a laundromat doesn't seem to have a bulk vending machine in it; and the caption mentions 'quarters', what are they? -Ashley Pomeroy 23:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If you hang out on the Yahoo vending boards long enough, you'll understand the reasons for putting "it is generally regarded," "the consensus seems to be," etc. These guys can't agree on anything, and they usually don't like to be quoted, either. As on Wikipedia, though, the rough consensus tends to get it right eventually. 205.217.105.2 19:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hulk Hogan

Not a self Nomination, I just think this is a well written and interesting artical and I don't even watch professional wrestling. --Richy 14:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article needs a lot of cleanup for content and layout. And more importantly, there's no references. With some work, I think this will get to Featured Article status eventually. ;) --Jtalledo (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. None of the images has source or copyright information. --Carnildo 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Despite having worked on this article quite a bit myself, it's not ready, mainly for the two reasons given above. --Chrysaor 05:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Phelps

Ok, lets try this one again. Comprehensive, well referenced, extremely detailed account of Phelps' life and works, and as NPOV as possible given his extreme views. Covering his entire life from birth to the present day with substantial content on all periods. If you're going to object, do so objectively if you'll pardon the pun, not because of personal feelings about the guy. exolon 02:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral/Comment. I'll pass on saying yea or nay, but I will say this: the only thing I'd nominate him for is a firing squad. Blech. -- Cjmarsicano 02:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. This is well on its way to Featured Article status. I will have to read through the whole thing more carefully later, but what strikes me most is the use of inline references, which should be avoided in featured articles. I prefer a footnoted system (like that used in Hugo Chávez or Rosa Parks). Andrew Levine 03:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, detailed and surprisingly neutral account. The citations have been improved greatly. Andrew Levine 18:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Inline citations (all the html links in the context) need to be converted to footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnote. The references section is extremely disappointing with only three refs for an article that is 64.6k!, the suggested limit is 32k, see Wikipedia:Article Size, you need to copy-edit and seriously cut down on the info in the article, its just too long. — Wackymacs 07:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Those of you wanting footnotes, rather than inline citations - can you point me at the FA criteria for this? I can't see it on there. 84.68.106.31 18:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. 32k limit is decidedly NOT a feature article criteria.. We have a couple dozen very good FAs that are over that limit (some of the best are over 60k), and are much more interesting to read because of their comprehensiveness. It is much more important for a FA to provide a very detailed look at its subject than for it to be compatible with a tiny minority of legacy browsers. Andrew Levine 17:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • True, and I would object to just removing information from the article to cut it down to size. However, Wikipedia:Summary style - division of the articles into detailed sub-articles which are summarized in the main one - is a good thing, and while not a criterion, is starting to look like a good idea in this particular case.--Eloquence* 15:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object, as before: The image Image:Phelps51.JPG has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 07:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I know he's an asshole, but do we really need such an ugly picture of him as the lead image? --Carnildo 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You could move the 2001 pic to the top, and put the 2004 in the health section? 84.65.180.192 13:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Reminder: There is no preference in FA's for inline vs. footnotes, and length is more impressionistic than bytes. Some really, really long articles have been FA's, because they've really, really needed to be that long (e.g. Restoration literature), and the 32 kb is a now otiose "preference" more than requirement. Geogre 19:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Footnote comment: Inline references are as Geogre points out absolutely fine, and footnotes are by no means mandated over them. Please see John Vanbrugh for the kind of inline references that are recommended. These work well for print sources, but inline links are deprecated for FAs, and should indeed be converted to footnotes. A couple of reasons: automatically-numbered links in the text cannot be mixed with automatically-numbered footnotes (which somebody might need to add at any time, to refer to a printed source), as the numbering of both kinds will get seriously screwed up; and inline links won't carry any information at all in the coming print Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • See the discussion on the talk page about reference styles. Raven4x4x 06:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Well written article with solid citations, and considering the circumstances, does an excellent job of being NPOV. Oh, and to the user above, the copyright info for that pic has been fixed, so you might want to consider changing your object status.Timmybiscool 04:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Ditto from above commentors. Plus I just finished (*PHEW*) footnoting the damn thing, so maybe some above detractors objecting on the isssue of footnoting can now go back.Mistergrind 06:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I'm impressed by this. Everyking 07:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Despicable man, but I support. Hydriotaphia 08:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's very comprehensive and detailed and about as neutral as possible when it comes to the man. User:Medico_Dinamico
• Support, though as I nominated it not sure if that counts or is intrinsic to the nomination. Apologies for not getting to the objections before others, my online time has taken a sudden drastic cut due to personal circumstances. Appreciations to the other editors who've looked at and sorted the objections. exolon 20:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support I forsee great strife if it ever makes the Main Page. Anville 10:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Good article, but would benefit from being written in Wikipedia:summary style. Borisblue 06:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the article reflects a lot of hard work put into it, it's way too long for the subject matter. You could begin making the size managable by cutting some of the extraneous details about Phelps' family members. Here are some other things I noticed:

1. The introduction section does not really explain why Phelps is notable. In addition, I really dislike the phrase "an alleged cult." Alleged by whom?
2. I would eliminate the following sentence: "Ironically, his boxing ability would become the subject of one of his most infamous quotes, when he would later advocate spousal abuse as being Biblical." Foreshadowing doesn't really belong in a Wikipedia article, and it's a misuse of the word "ironically."
3. Why is there a section titled "Conversion?" The prior section says he was already a devout Baptist.
4. The phrase "citing Biblical restrictions on marrying divorcees" makes it sound as if there really is a Biblical restriction on doing so for laypeople.
5. The following segment is very confusing: "the only Phelps children to meet him were Mark and Fred Jr; Mark, Nate, and Dorothy claim they never knew their grandfather's name until the Topeka Capital-Journal ran an article in 1994." For one, the children are not mentioned before; also, Mark is listed in both sections.
6. The following sentence is confusing: "Phelps left Mississippi for Bob Jones University. While there, he was part of an unsuccessful mission to convert Mormons in the town of Vernal, Utah." That makes it sound as if BJU is in Utah.
7. There is no reference for the claims about shooting the dog and making racial slurs.
8. Was Jonathan's attacker a woman dressed as a man or vice versa? You would think the latter, but you call the attacker a "woman" and use "she." (The story doesn't really need to be in anyway.)
9. This segment is also hard to understand: "In order to become an attorney in Kansas, the applicant must have a signed affidavit from a judge attesting to the applicant's good character. Because of the reputation Phelps had garnered during his time at Washburn, not to mention his actions at Eastside and later Westboro, no judge was willing to sign the affidavit. Phelps finally managed to bypass this by submitting affidavits from his friends the Hockenbargers, and copies of letters of good conduct from his days as an Eagle Scout." Was Hockenbarger a judge? If not, how can you say that he needed an affidavit from one?

Sometimes, the most difficult part of writing can be choosing what to include. I think you have a ways to go on that part with this article. Mwalcoff 01:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Darwin

Self-submit that objections raised previously (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Darwin/archive 1) have now been met, and this is a reasonably worthy candidate...dave souza 06:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Qualified support; good article overall, but I'd like to see better captions. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Captions revised..dave souza 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support - captions seem to be quite good now. There are a few small changes that I will make in the article, but overall it seems like a totally appropriate FA. I would like to see careful, each fact footnoting, but I know I am in a very small minority on this, and it's hardly a FA criteria. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, a few format issues should be addresses, first the main article links breaking up the Orchids, Variation, Descent of Man and Worms section don't do much for readibility, would it be possible work them into the text, after all a blue link in the text is effectively the same as a {{main}} link in this case. I also think the works section of the article is poorly organised, list of publications would be nicer on the eye if it was presented as a table, (Year!Title/URL1!Alternate URL), even if you don't make a table this section needs to be tidied up. Why is there a section on links to his works, when all his works are listed as links anyway? The Alternative links also repeats the resources already listed. Finally the Commemoration section should be written as prose rather that a list of points.--nixie 04:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

These issues have been addressed, but I don't have the expertise to make a table of the works section so have tried revising the formatting....dave souza 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, but a little reluctantly. Since every major subsection under "Biography" seems to have its own satelite article, it seems like a lot of page space is wasted in duplicating those articles. That being said, I think the overall quality of this article is better than the quality of the satelite articles (the "inception of theory" section is much better written than the Inception of Darwin's theory article, IMO), and the overall quality of the article itself is quite good. It just needs to be a little more controlled in layout, IMO. – Seancdaug 16:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Layout being tightened, any further ideas welcome...dave souza 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• This is a good article related to one of the most important scientific topics ever. I'll probably support the nomination after going through the article to tweak the text on the clause level. Tony 01:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC) At the opening, I wonder about the statement 'who achieved lasting fame as originator of the theory of evolution through natural selection'. The two planks of the theory are natural selection and sexual selection; if you feel that it's inappropriate to mention the latter at the opening, can 'through natural selection' simply be removed at this point? Tony 01:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The reason for qualifying evolution as "through natural selection" is that Darwin is often wrongly characterised as having introduced evolution as an idea, though theories of evolution were current and controversial throughout his early life. My non-expert thought was that sexual selection is a sub-set of natural selection, and as it wasn't covered in the famous Origin but added in Descent of Man, having it in the intro might confuse some people. Thanks for tackling the layout/style concerns, work in progress....dave souza 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a subset of natural selection. Victorian and 20th-century scientists had a history of neglecting this second half of the theory for 'moral' reasons, and it is still all too common for people to ignore sexual selection; yet it is so important. Accordingly, I strongly argue that it be announced at the start. For this reason, I strongly argue that it be announced at the start. Tony 10:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Will go along with that. In his intro to his abridged Origin Richard Leakey describes sexual selection as an "accessory mechanism" (not necessarily a great authority, just had the book to hand), but it's certainly an important part of the theory....dave souza 11:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Not happy at all with the section entitled 'Return to celebrity and science', which I've just slightly edited.

• • Was he a celebrity before he left? I don't think so.
  • 'printed for distribution': isn't that just 'published'?
  • Lots of things hit you unexplained: 'plants'—are they the fossils previously mentioned? 'radicalism', 'controversial', 'hazards', 'Grant'—all a jumble that needs to be disentangled and explained to the poor reader.
  • 'Chile, and the South American landmass, was slowly rising'—Isn't Chile part of that landmass?
  • Why 'startling'? Making the account colourful is fine, but it's becoming opaque.
  • 'the collections of others'—other finches? other islands?
  • 'Eras's lady friend'—Is that your abbreviation?

And on and on ...

I'm starting to wonder whether this is too big a job to bring up to standard. Can you entice some other editors to help? It's a very important article, and I want this nomination to succeed. However, at the moment, I must oppose it. Tony 08:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This is extremely valuable feedback. The aim of minimising article size while including a lot of information has resulted in obscurity. I'll go over this section now and aim for clarity...dave souza 18:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through the next section—'Family, work, and development of theory', the title of which sums up a problem I have: the detail in which relatively inconsequential aspects of his life are treated, compared with his intellectual, scientific development. His relationship with Aldous Huxley is dismissed in one, stubby little sentence (six words, is it?). I think some of the account of the more mundane aspects of his life should be trimmed in this summary article. I've gone through this section making numerous alterations to the language. Please look at the commas I've inserted. Tony 01:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 19:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)I've gone through the whole article except Darwin's family. I hope I've improved it. Please check.

[edit] Ashlee Simpson

Another Everyking-driven article on Ashlee Simpson, although this one I spent a lot of time on. Its a very good article on a pop star :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - contains too much fancruft and trivia, and a pro-Simpson POV pervades throughout. Also, the fact that this and related articles have led to several arbitration cases against the main author for his steadfast refusal to let anyone else make substantial edits does not do much for this article's claim to be representative of the best of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 19:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Could you please give an example so I can fix it? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• RN, please see the comment I made about your other current FAC, I think the same issues apply here as well. Worldtraveller 23:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• If you mean the album your comment is exactly the same as here.... please ignore your dispute with Everyking and try to help me out here and give me an example or something to work with :-) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• World, are your objections the same as raised by Johnleemk? You're falling silent on the issue which is kind of troubling (your objection veers on being too broad to act upon) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Big surprise. Hey, at least you're not actively warring over it anymore. Everyking 23:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • At one stage you were banned from editing this article for a year because of your behaviour - I have never remotely been 'actively warring'. Worldtraveller 23:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Some detailed objections here, but I also strongly advise looking through the extensive talk archives in which numerous editors raised strong objections to the style of the article. In general it reads like a magazine article or a fan page rather than an encyclopaedia article.

• highly rated MTV reality series - who rated it highly?
• ...used a pre-recorded vocal track...This led to accusations that she had lip synced... - what is using a pre-recorded vocal track if not lip synching?
• The U.K.-sourced "La La" single - what does that mean?
• Simpson cut her hair shorter... - trivial, only of interest to hard core fans.
• Frequent use of 'Ashlee' instead of 'Simpson'
• Simpson often wears shirts with "punk"-style designs and typically has her fingernails and toenails painted black - trivia, not notable.
• are sometimes described (positively or negatively) as raspy - defensive tone here
• Ashlee got a tattoo of a star on her left wrist after the release of her album, and another tattoo of two cherries was seen on her ankle in 2005. [13] As of August 2005 Simpson has a new tattoo, of the word "love", located on her right wrist.[14] - trivia, only of interest to die-hard fans.
• Criticisms and controversy should be woven into the narrative rather than given a separate section.
• Due to some of her actions and performances... - which ones? Why? This is extremely speculative and vague
• a more popular theory - by what reckoning?
• "completely [lost] [her] voice" - what is she actually saying here? Either quote directly or paraphrase and drop the speech marks.
• the incident was made apparent when her drummer hit the wrong button - why 'was made apparent' instead of 'was caused' or something like that?
• Various explanations for the booing have been suggested - why not just cut this altogether? It has an extremely defensive tone and seems to be pure speculation.
• which was originally said to be called In Another Life - said by whom?
• although "L.O.V.E." was originally said to be the first single - said by whom?
• although there have been rumors that Simpson stole Valderrama from Lohan - according to whom?

Worldtraveller 21:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks - I'm working on these and others at the moment - please check back in a few days :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks again World - those helped out a lot.... I'm pretty sure I addressed those and some more, sans a couple cases. Namely the tattoo/punk-style thing - instead of just removing it I tried to highlight its notability. Anyway, thanks again, and even if this doesn't pass I think your comments really helped me tone down the NPOV in the article. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It has improved and I commend you on the work you've put in, but I think there's still an awful lot here that's superficial and unencyclopaedic. Why is the fact that she's apparently going to appear on Oprah notable at all, let alone notable enough to appear in the intro? used a pre-recorded vocal track...led to accusations that she had lip synced: the former is the latter - this clearly seeks to tone down what happened. Her next tour is planned for the fall of 2005 - reads like promo material. The whole section offering opinions about why she got booed makes me cringe - as I said before, not our place to speculate, and it reads like a defensive fan article. Around the time of the petition looks like an attempt to belittle the negative point about the petition. Set list from tour dates is not encyclopaedic in my opinion. A point of writing style - there's a paragraph that contains stuff about her voice and then her worst-dressed accolade - a jarring non sequitur. "I decided that I didn't want to talk about that because it's super personal," she said of the situation - that's extraneous, you can just give the reference to support the fact, and generally there are too many quotes from Simpson, they make it read like promo material.

The article looks well written, I just don't think it is encyclopaedic enough in content at the moment. Worldtraveller 20:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have an idea: why don't you write your own version of the article in your user space, and then everyone can look at it and decide whether any of its changes are worth including? I think this would actually be very easy work because all you'd be doing is chopping it back to a few paragraphs. Everyking 21:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

When people take the time to offer extensive constructive criticism, it's astonishingly rude to respond with inane and snide remarks. Be civil and avoid personal attacks. If you can't do that I will have to file an RfC or RfA. Worldtraveller 21:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Are threats any better than a sneering—but quite truthful—remark? In fact I think they're worse. But I encourage you to start an RfC or an RfAr or whatever else you like, and see how much support you have. Everyking 21:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Everyking.... please understand that he's trying to give criticism on how to improve the article in HIS OPINION.... it doesn't neccesarily mean we have to do that exact thing to get his support. Often times we can just reword something rather than eliminating it. To clarify, many of the problems he points out are valid, but he's just giving what he thinks is the best solution (in some cases axing it completely) which could very well be wrong. The important thing is to look at the problem and try to work with it rather than doing what he suggests as a solution. Does that make sense? (Hopefully it does).Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

EK, he's got some good points - although, I don't know if simply "chopping" them up is the best solution. Perhaps we should try to come to a comprimise on the talk page. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

RN: Redundent double positives like "...through the success of her chart-topping..." sound POV/fannish; either one is sufficient--having both sounds like hype. Also, "...popular reality show..." is somewhat POV and ambiguous. Should be more fact-based, such as highly rated (if that was the case). Similar issues with "...successful two-month North American tour." Would be much better if "successful" was replaced with something more tangible, like something relating to profitability, or number of sold out shows, or if applicable lack of cancellations due to low ticket sales. Anything quantifiable is superior to generic adjectives. Waterguy 03:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Waterguy - I went ahead and tried to quantify all of those a bit.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm abstaining for the moment at least, because I think it's generally good but doesn't really flow very well. Tuf-Kat 22:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Fair enough... I'll see what I can do:) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Change to support. Reads a bit better now. Tuf-Kat 16:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Everyking 23:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I applaud the efforts to slim this article down, but it still has some issues. I won't object further if the following are fixed: 1) It's too positive and I'll give specific examples. The lead fails to mention she is generally panned heavily by the critics. The phrasing regarding the critics refers to it as mixed while pretty much giving examples of negative press. I've never seen honest positive press about her to balance the negative, so mixed is a stretch. Pretty much everyone outside her fanbase that buys her music in droves thinks she's horrible as a singer and artist. Yes that's my observation, but it's a lot more widespread than this article even attempts to address. Most artists are simply ignored by those that don't like them, but not her. The 'controversial incidents' aren't that at all, but very simply indications of how much she is disliked. There's not much controversial about them. You don't need to be negative about her everywhere, and it's not and won't be if these issues are adressed since it notes how well her albums have sold and all her fame. 2) The lead is too short. Wikipedia:Lead section calls for 2 or 3 paragraphs for an article this size. Autobiography has basically the same problems. - Taxman ^Talk 03:13, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I finally have an idea of what to fix now :). BTW on the converse I really haven't too many serious reviews that universally pan the album either - could you live with it characterized as recieving "mediocre" reviews? Thanks again :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think what I mean is the new intro I just did for Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I can live with whatever is the case, and yes that lead captures it fine as far as I can tell. "Critical reviews were mixed" sounds like some were negative and some positive. It does seem like most were just mediocre, so clarity on that would be good. - Taxman ^Talk 04:23, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • Autobiography received a fair bit of critical praise—and even the critics who didn't praise it generally gave it so-so, not dismal reviews. Read our article on the album to see this. So to characterize her critical reception the way you want would be just plain inaccurate. I think "mixed" is fair and accurate in that regard. Everyking 07:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Everyking what he's saying is that in that section we don't any positive reviews to back it up though... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
          • OK, well grab one from the album article then if you like. Also, as to critical reception, there was also the tour—I think I read pretty much every article published about it and the impression I got was that the reviews were mostly good, that people thought she put on a good show. There was some negative press as well, I'll grant, but it mainly consisted of lingering SNL barbs. Everyking 07:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Nothing's going to change the fact that she is pretty much laughed at. Brushing it off as lingering SNL barbs is part of the problem. There's always going to be positive critics because their job depends on it and everyone knows that. So go back to mixed reviews and make it clear some were positive and some were negative, if it is the case that they were about even. The article doesn't need to move to a negative POV, but it can't be hagiographic and pretend in the lead that she is not viewed negatively by a large number of people. - Taxman ^Talk 14:28, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
            • I changed the lead quite a bit to reflect the impact of the SNL incident - in your opinion what else needs to be done? Should I try to emphasize more in the intro that she's more of a mediocre/average singer, maybe point out more the differences of opinion between the negative and positive reviews? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
              • Ok, it seems a lot more balanced now. Biggest problem left is there are just way too many short pragraphs that makes the prose choppy and flow poorly. A great article shouldn't need them. Either expand or merge with related material. - Taxman ^Talk 15:23, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
            • OK, thanks a lot for your help Taxman. I've crunched the paragraphs as much as I can and me (and possibly EK too) are out of ideas at this point.... do you think its good now, or...? Thanks again. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
              • In the interests of being fair, the lead has swung too far the other way. In my best attempt to be neutral I think it is clear that while the criticisms are strong and common, it is also clear she is very successful and her music sells well. If the lead has two sentences clearly stating the negative criticism (well done I think), it could now use one mentioning how succesful. Instead of chart topping, which sounds promotional, just mention her albums have sold very well and she had her own show on MTV that did well (try to specify how well). Try to keep it short too. One sentence should really do it, two could easily overdo it. After that is fixed, I'll probably go neutral. I don't think the article is great, no offense, but I don't think I could motivate myself to find specific issues. Maybe that's just my bias against pop culture topics in general, so sorry, but neutral won't hurt the article. Autobiography has the opposite problem, in that the only non positive mention is that reviews where mixed. Some mention of the negative publicity/criticism that came from the promotion of the album should be mentioned in the lead. Again, probably only one additional sentence. Sorry for combining the advice, but they're related and it saves an edit. - Taxman ^Talk 14:03, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Seems NPOV. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

*Object. Perhaps after many incidents whether good or bad surely will have more info than this. Furthermore, it seems like Ashlee is receiving only kids awards and no major awards have been said. Maybe if they focus on the history of Ashlee Simpaon a bit further. Also, like other popstars, each album should be explained and analysed in detail. It's too little so far. I however congratulate you on this nomination." *Support: It is now better. Keep up the good work! I have now seen that she has won a substantial award. (Which is a Billboard award). Well Done!

• • Sadly, the article used to be fairly rich in detail, but has been trimmed back a good bit since January or so due to deletionist criticism. (On the other hand, I think it still has a reasonable length, and it's been growing recently.) So I don't think an objection is actionable if implementing it would mean a flare-up of massive conflict. Anyway, you need to sign. Everyking 07:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What exactly is your objection? What specific parts need to be added/removed for your support :)? The album itself is described in excrutiating detail in its own article... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, well I added another (substantial) award Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Perhaps I'm a glutton for punishment (seeing how James doesn't really like me), but I'll weigh in anyhow. The article struck me as being "almost there"; not bad enough to object to, but nowhere near good enough to support. The captioning isn't in line with Wikipedia:Captions. I think the article is a bit fancruft-heavy; does it matter what/how many tattoos Ashlee has? The list of various minor performances is something I'm unsure about; on the one hand, most of them seem irrelevant to me, but on the other, take them out, and there's not much of an article. Who is Mr. Blackwell? The personal life section implies Simpson and Cabrera are together, but the "current activities" section indicates Simpson stole Lindsay Lohan's boyfriend, Wilmer Valderrama. I'm not sure we need a detailed description of how Ashlee got Punk'd, either. Nevertheless, I remain neutral; let's see what happens next. Johnleemk | Talk 14:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments:
  1. As for the tattoos etc., they are relevant because they are widely reported by the media (maybe unfortunately but that's a POV), so it would seem to me a bit intellectually dishonest not to record them, in fact what's in the article right now is mostly just the media has widely reported - sans some stuff about her doing commercials earlier there isn't a whole lot of fancruft in there (and yes, the hair is even more relevant whether anyone likes it or not). Maybe the importance of image could be expanded upon though.
  2. You may be right about the captions - I'll fix that today :)
  3. You're definately right on the boyfriend thing, it is confusing and I'll rework it
  4. About the punk'd part though you may be right that it verges on fancruft... I'll think about that one
• Thanks again for the comments :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • • OK John we took care of the captions, removed the Punk'd mention, clarified the boyfriend thing and more.... let me know what you think :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've clarified and linked Mr. Blackwell. Waterguy 03:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Got a couple of problems here — the criticism of Ashlee appears to be rather weaselly; might we cite one or two editorials or columns slamming her for these actions? Second problem is that that paragraph does not segue well into the SNL incident. The Valderrama incident isn't too clear — shouldn't there be a slight mention of that in the personal life section? Also, the references/notes are whispered, but I could have sworn that somewhere in policy, it is advised not to whisper them because readers with deteriorating eyesight (i.e. aging academics) may have trouble reading them. Like Worldtraveller, I am still a bit concerned about the pro-Simpson POV of this article. I ignored it before, but now that there's a paragraph on criticism, it seems to me that the article is rather imbalanced (especially as much of what I've heard about Simpson is indeed negative); might the criticism be expanded to cover an extra paragraph or two? I'm not objecting yet, just having a lot of trouble with supporting. Johnleemk | Talk 13:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You want something added to the article? Well, this is certainly a change of heart. Problematically it only pertains to criticism, criticism which is already explained in adequate detail. Everyking 14:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Damnit, I knew it was only a matter of time. Oh, well. "Adequate" you say? Perhaps 80% to 90% of comments I have heard about Ashlee are negative, and either refer to her lip syncing or being an artificially produced pop star. The former is covered well by the article; the latter is not. Since arguably more print is devoted to criticising Ashlee than discussing the colour of her finger- and toenails, the least we could do is have a couple of paragraphs about her other negative press. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, as mentioned to taxman and WT I've done everything I can think of to balance this, in addition footnotes like this are standard in FA as far as I know.... your comments have been very helpful, thank you. If you have any more please don't hesitate to share them :).
• Object. It is great that this article has been slimmed down. It is much better than it was when there was only one editor, a policy which was thankfully tackled by the arbitration committee. The input from a second editor has toned down the kind of excess still on display at Pieces of Me, where we learn that Ashlee's single "debuted [in Denmark] at 5 and peaked at 4, after which it fell off the chart; in Sweden, it reached a peak of number 31 on the singles chart, while in Norway it stayed on the top 20 singles chart for 12 weeks, peaking at 3 in its fifth week". And it is nice to see that subsequent editors have added negative criticisms of the much-maligned Ashlee. But the article is compromised, in my eyes, by the "Controversial incidents" section, which reeks of spin. That was the reason I disliked the article back then; not so much the excessive detail, which is hilarious, but the spin, which makes it hard to trust either the article or the person writing it. A lesser criticism is that the article says nothing about the process of manufacturing Ashlee. I have a rough idea how people such as this transition from being competent singers and the sisters of famous people into actual pop stars, with a contract and a product and songs, but this article skips the process entirely. The fact that this lady's parents cannot spell my good name, and dare to impugne my muscular masculinity by naming their daughter after me, has no bearing on my decision. (Subsequent edit: to be fair, some of the later objects - the process of pop rather than my name - are addressed in the article on Autobiography, her album, although it still reads like a massaged press effusion).-Ashley Pomeroy 16:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how we can talk about "manufacturing" Ashlee. For one thing, that would be POV; for another, the only side of the story we have access to, if you even believe there is another side, is the official side. So how can this be addressed? Everyking 16:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd already reworked the controversy section many times before and just now reworked it again for factual accuracy, and I really don't see any more spin in it. What are the remaining spin problems in your opinion? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Every serious (ie, not just a press release) media account I've read about this woman puts her in the same category as Hilary Duff and Lindsay Lohan. They were, according to these accounts, celebrities first, and then were signed to record deals as a way to 'cash in' by stamping their names on a formulaic product. Ashlee Simpson is depicted as a spin-off of the already successful Jessica Simpson franchise. An encyclopedia article about Ashlee Simpson cannot just ignore this. Her career, after all, follows a pattern established by child stars like Rick Nelson, Patty Duke, and Alyssa Milano (to name just three), and people shouldn't have to read between the lines to figure that out.67.67.120.228 22:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point - I put this into the critcism section. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • As mentioned I've got several editorials slamming her now and all the cricism I can think of... thanks for your comments :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object --Revolución (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, you just can't object without a reason - it has to be actionable Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

General comment- Everyone, please stop taking things so personal around here. There is a difference between constructive criticism and a personal attack, and everyone here is taking everything as a personal attack. Also, these edit wars and arbitration cases were MONTHS ago - there may be some lingering stuff left, but as you can see the article is improving rapidly and will hopefully be featured article quality before this FAC is over.... so please keep your comment strictly to the article at hand. Thank you and thanks to everyone for their criticism, help and comments Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Writing is not up to featured standard, and needs work for flow and style. Format of numbers inconsistent -- numbers that can be expressed in one or two words should be written out, other numbers are given numerically. Exploding Boy 06:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I reworked the prose mercilessly and I believe I have addressed this objection... if not could you please give me an example of the flow/style? Thanks for your comments :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article is much improved, but there's still work to be done:

• In the "Awards and More Controversy" section, we offer speculation as to the reasons for the Orange Bowl booing (off key singing, halftime show "too MTV"), but no inline citations for those opinions.
• In the "Early 2005" mention of the "Stop Ashlee" petition, we provde a link to a story about the petition but not the petition itself.
• In "Style and Personal Life", it's noteworthy that she has tattoos, it's even worth mentioning that she has 3 of them. But I don't believe the specifics about what the images are and where they're located on her body are of interest to a general reader seeking information about Ashlee Simpson.
• In "Criticism" : Assuming she is a manufactured artist, much of the media speculate that Simpson was pushed to fame through the aggressive management style and contacts of her father, Joe Simpson, who is her manager and was the executive producer of her reality show on MTV. I don't think we should be attributing assumptions to anyone in the media, let alone "much of the media" collectively.
• The "Astroturfing" text in the same section should mention the Wired Magazine "Jargon Watch" entry for "Ashleeturfing".
• External links are not balanced, and sites with any negativity have been repeatedly removed. Of the 7 present links, 3 are unarguably "pro" (the official site, the official online team, and the unofficial fan site), three are neutral (TV.COM, IMDB, Notable Names), and one has a mild "pro" pov IMO, but is neutral at best (wikicities). Skyraider 15:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

1. True
2. Petition is www.petitiononline.com/StopAsh/ of course
3. Fair enough..... I guess the references can take care of that
4. As mentioned below that's a tough one
5. I guess so
6. Again, WP:NOT a link farm and there should only be a minimal set of links, although maybe the fan site could be taken out (it really doesn't make sense to have an "anti" ashlee link as there are several references for that and besides the WP:NOT rule it opens up the externals links to silly edit wars (on any article)) basically from what I understand you're just supposed to have the imdb links etc. and then the official sites, including an official fan site. However, since there is no official fan site we have an unofficial one here instead. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C</sup&amp;gt;} 15:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• • OK, it looks like Johnleemk took care of some of the criticism part. I removed one of the pro links anyway since there was a pro since, and took care of the rest of your problems Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm still very much dissatisfied about the criticism section being weaselly, as many assertions we make there are not being backed up by the references, which only make one or two broad generalisations. The Orange Bowl incident has some speculation that is not referenced (i.e. backlash against MTV-isation of the halftime show). Overall, the article is starting to look a lot better than it used to be, but I'm not ready to support just yet. A lot of the sentences don't flow well (although there are slightly fewer of them than before), and their phrasing often sounds similar to what you'd find in a fan magazine. Johnleemk | Talk 15:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, well I'm not sure what to do here except attribute them specifically to the editorials. As for the sentence flow I've tried my best, and I guess its up to someone else at this point I'll take one more shot at it. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I took one last shot at the prose and backed up the orange bowl claims. As for the criticism the references do back them up (I believe) and I couldn't find any good sources for any other claims (and I don't really know of any others...) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Another criticism I forgot to mention: description of future events is not encyclopaedic. Exploding Boy 15:55, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • Saying "scheduled" isn't enough :)? Ryan Norton ^{;T | @ | C} 16:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. If the article does not begin with the fact that she has no talent at all and would not be notable or have an article at all but for her sister, then it is extremely unbalanced and this subject should never be a FAC. I mean, name me one thing she is notable for except for being a sibling and screwing up the opportunities she got? --Noitall 19:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, saying that and an edit summary "forget it", its no wonder people get defensive when putting a lot of effort into these. Anyway, if you have a specific objection I'd like to hear it, but that is completely unactionable Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, I have not edited one thing on this article even though I think it is wildly out of balance. I figure it is your article and the subject is too unimportant that I would leave it alone. But as for FAC, forget it. The article states, "Ashlee Simpson eventually rose to prominence in her own right", which is ridiculous. Ashlee has had constant and total media exposure with the world's best media companies on all forms, movie, records, cable, etc. Yet she is only truly notable "in her own right" for Saturday Night Live and the Orange Bowl incidents. Actually, now that I type this, I would probably support FAC if this article was entirely re-written to show what a no-talent person could accomplish when married to a talented and popular sister and having a media savvy father dedicated to making his daughters famous. But the article has none of that flavor. --Noitall 19:51, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

See also: Paris Hilton (vacant whore). Exploding Boy 19:56, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • This seems rediculous... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Paris, at least she is notable for "famous for being famous" and for being in the tabloids on her own right for her wild antics. Further, the article clearly addresses what is notable about Paris. In this case, it is "famous for being a sister of someone famous" and "famous for screwing up the incredible opportunities presented to her after having years of professional training and the world's best media exposure." The article does not come close to addressing this and is much more suited to a fan site. --Noitall 20:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • If I change the intro a bit to note the varying opinions on why she is successful (assuming I can find a credible reference(s)) and expand the criticism to note this would that address your objection? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of changes, including changing the flavor of the article, rather than just tweeking. I will reconsider anything. --Noitall 06:23, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• *sigh* I've searched through over 1000 links on google in an effort to come up with credible sources for anti-ashlee claims such as these, with basically just coming up with just [29] (which ends up being pro-ashlee in an odd way). I guess if you want something overly critical you could see the talk page, lol (I still don't have any sources to back up the riding coattails of sister claim though...). That what's makes this subject hard is the lack of sources. Anyway, I'll see what I can mash together with what I've got :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• I am beginning to think I will support this article, but only after some minor issues I have are clarified. For example, certain pieces of information don't fit into some sections, such as the paragraph about her backing band in her biography, or the sentence about her vocal range in the middle of her personal life section. Also, I won't support until we clear up that commented out paragraph near the end of the article; either we reference it, or we get rid of it. By the way, I don't think iMDB lists Ashlee as having starred in Raise Your Voice any more. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ryan, you are buried way too deep in the issues to see the big picture. Here is a true measure of notability, 2,220 google references for "Ashlee Simpson sucks". [30] and 574 for the huge sentence "Ashlee Simpson has no talent"[31]. I mean, really, she is notable for having no talent. --Noitall 14:37, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Not that I want to knock James or anything, but you honestly can't say that until you look back at what he (Everyking) inadvertently caused because of the huge misunderstanding we had about Ashlee Simpson and her related articles. Ryan is being extremely reasonable, if you ask me, especially considering some of your statements seem to imply you'd prefer us to distort the article with POVed assertions. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think if you vote in a way that would require the article to be reworked in a manner that would dissatisfy everyone but yourself, your vote is inactionable. Opposing votes need to be at least vaguely compatible with majority sentiment in order to be actionable. Everyking 22:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Come on now EK, I think I've even seen you present a better understanding of "actionable" than that. Actionable means literally able to be acted upon, and certainly working the article so it would be entirely anti-Ashlee is possible, therefore actionable. But it is also possible to be actionable, but not help an article follow the policies and get closer to meeting the criteria. In that case we just think the objection is improper or whatever word you want, but it is actionable. We can still get a consensus for ignoring the objection. - 18:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I should note that Raul removed this from FAC so it failed. Anyway, I digged through about 100 links on both the search queries Noitall mentions - but they are almost all message board posts, blogs, or student newspapers without references to back it up. Ergo, not credible enough for here. I also searched for '"Ashlee Simpson" criticism' '"Ashlee Simpson" critique' '"Ashlee Simpson" coattails' and much more. It's not that I disagree at all its just that credible sources for claims like that are nearly impossible to find (and pretty much all the ones we have now are opinion columns from reputable papers which have wild speculation). Its not like Paris Hilton where there's an actual porno to back it up, and if we just put that kind of criticism in without references to back it up it will be massacred on the next FAC. Anyway, Carnildo mentioned a spokesman review column that might be useful which I'll see if I can get ahold of. In the mean time we've got a month till we can put this on FAC again, so we should try to do what we can until then. Plus with another album coming out lengthening the article should be slightly easier to do by then. Noitall, remember next time you comment on FAC you need to make it clear what needs to be done, and not say you "might" support, otherwise Raul is probably just going to ignore it when he filters the FACs. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Whoops, Raul just put it back... so the show is still going on.... I'll update the talk page again :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, there is no "expert" opinion or research to decide such issues. The references are valid only to what the general public generally thinks of her. And they generally think that she has no talent. That said, I have not edited on this article and don't intend to. My only true and "actionable" statement is that, as it stands now, this article comes nowhere close, even in the universe, of FAC status. You and others are welcome to ignore my comments and continue building an "I love Ashlee" fan site, and that will be fine with me. It just does not qualify for FAC. --Noitall 23:13, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Listen, at least the FAs here I've seen about celebs here have little to no criticism of the person - this one at least has somewhat of an in-depth NPOVing of the controversies and a brief overview of the criticisms. Also, believe me when I say that I'd get more specific and critical if I could (you can see the stuff on the talk page that is over-the-top criticism of her father etc.), and you may vote support - but many others here will oppose if I do it without credible references, and probably some others who arn't here will jump in just to oppose on that note. Of course, someone here can correct me if I'm wrong :). In the mean time, I'll try to rework the intro and criticisms as much as I can - also, I do agree with johnleemc's comments about the structure - but I'm not sure what to do about it - I'll try to think of something about that :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This article seems shallow to me. On reading this I get no impression of how she fits into the history of American popular music. I'm not even sure what genre of music she performs, other than "pop" or "pop rock." The closest thing to this is the single dismissive statement by a critic that her music is a "mundane melange of Avril-ish brat pop and Sheryl Crow cod rock." Which artists have influenced her? Whom does she acknowledge as her musical mentors? Whom are the artists she has influenced? There is a great deal about her life and career, very little about her music. For that matter, there is very little about her voice. We are told that Mariah Carey sings in a whistle register, but all we learn about Simpson's voice is that on occasion it has been damaged by acid reflux. The whole article reads like something from People magazine (which is high praise, of a sort). A hundred years from now, people reading this article would have some idea of what kind of celebrity she was, but very little idea of what kind of singer she was. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taoism

Inherently readable, referenced, great article. --PopUpPirate 23:32, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• A couple of relatively minor objections. First, since Pinyin is the preferred romanization system, shouldn't the article be titled "Dao" rather than "Tao"? Second, there seems to be a rather random mix of Pinyin and Wade Giles in the article. Third, the tone and style verge into the chatty in some areas: academic writing prefers to avoid terms like "I" and "we" ("one does" rather than "we do" is preferrable). The Chinese character dao really should be explained closer to the beginning of the article, and does it not still mean "road" or "way" in Chinese as it does in Japanese? And lastly, and most nitpickily, the image of the character is a bit large... Otherwise looks good. Exploding Boy 07:07, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding Tao/Dao, doesn't Wikipedia use the most common name in article titles? The Google test upholds using Tao over Dao, as would (I assume) any newspaper headline search. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Tao" is far more common in Western countries. Users of the en wiki are more likely to search for "Tao". The name should be kept. Phils 13:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Taoism is more common. see Daoism-Taoism Romanization issue --Jiang 17:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Concerns addressed : image size fixed by someone else, I've copyedited it all and changed some wording. Tao is imo preferable to Dao, also. --PopUpPirate 20:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• minor objection: "overview" should not be a section heading. the lead section is the overview. Come up with some other label, merge the overview section with the lead, merge the overview section with the rest of the article, or do both--Jiang 04:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree - overview section has been integrated in other parts of the article, yep much more suitable mixed in. --PopUpPirate 20:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed the I/we problem (we --> one). It is a good article though. With some further tightening would make a great feature. Sunray 10:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Salvatore Riina

Self Nominated, Mafia boss from Sicily. I've worked quite a bit on this article from it's original stub (most of it used to reside at "Toto Riina" before a redirect to his full name) and I think I've managed to create a fairly thorough piece that hopefully fits the criteria for a Featured Article. If it it doesn't make the grade then constructive criticism is appreciated so I that I can work on it some more. Thanks. Robert Mercer 19:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I'm pretty sure there's no free images on the subject, so I doubt you can avoid fair use, but still the images need a fair use rationale. - 131.211.210.12 11:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support, it is a very well written article, has several good images. I don't see any reason not to have this as a featured article. --DA Roc 22:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rosicrucian

It is an article about an ancient esoteric movement, which is very active in current-days. It presents the inception, history and legend surrounding the movement and the mysterious "Rosicrucian Order" (including internal links to the articles on their main XVII century foudation documents: "The Manifestos"). It presents also a list of deceased notorious world persons, at different periods, known or considered to have been Rosicrucianists (or at least to have influenced the movement). It also gives an insight into the foudation of modern groups, current aims and studies, and establishes a NPOV relation among all the current-day groups (i.e. instead of having long texts about each group in the article, as some wiki languages have, each group - at least the main ones - has its own article accessible from this main article). It has many internal related references and also external links to groups and to the most deep studies available on the Rosicrucians from a variety of old and current authors, for readers who might want to learn more about it. It may be an example to other articles on similiar subject. The Portuguese language version "Rosa-cruz", which absorved some material from this article, is already a "featured article" and the French version "Rose-Croix" is at this time also nominated. It is currently available in 13 languages at Wikipedia. --GalaazV 01:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. It's an interesting topic, the prose is very well-written, and it has lots of great free images; but there are some improvements that need to be made before it's ready to be featured.
  1. All images need descriptive captions in complete sentences
  2. The lead section should have two paragraphs for an article of this size. The second paragraph could summarize the content in the article.
  3. The last sentence in the first paragraph refers to "some": does that mean "some modern societies" mentioned in the previous sentence? Or "some critics"? This ought to be specified, preferably with a footnote to an example of one who holds this view.
  4. You say that the early Rosicrucians "held certain views in common". Which ones?
  5. You state that the pamphlets "caused immense excitement throughout Europe", but the article doesn't say why. What was in the pamplets?
  6. The Lutheranism paragraph contains only one sentence and seems out of place. Perhaps you could flesh that out into a longer paragraph that give many of their teachings? Maybe that should even go in the lead section, as a summary.
  7. How were so many greats (such as Mozart and Shakespeare) associated with Rosicrucianism? Were they known followers? Did they influence Rosicrucianism without knowing it? More detail (where known) would be helpful.
  8. You mentioned that Rosicrucianism probably had little influence on Freemasonry. It probably had little influence on Islam as well, but why is that noteworthy? I assume that you note its lack of influence because others have contended that it did in fact have such influence. If you were to add a paragraph here giving information on the former view, preferably with a footnote, it would help.
  9. The «» symbols aren't used in English.
  10. I've re-written the "modern groups" section to conform to certain style guidelines and to add clarity. It would be better if the subsections were entitled "para-Masonic groups" and "Esoteric Christianity groups" (without the "Personalities related to. . ."), and if the sections each began with a paragraph explaining what each category was about. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:42, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Object beyone the points made by Quadell there are too many lists and too little prose.--nixie 03:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support this is an interesting article and a piece of knowledge vital for understanding the esotericism movement and its undercurrents in the enlightenment. General public knowledge in the matter is very scarce. Nixdorf 06:50:58, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
• Support most of the objections above are fairly likely to be addressed and repaired as a result of its appearance on the front page. This article is worth featuring, as it's actually a whole constellation of related articles. Featuring this article would show off several other articles of near-feature-worthiness. Pedant 09:17, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
• Object - a good start, but the lead section is inadequate, and there are too many lists of people - move them to List of Rosicrucians or whatever and mention a few of the more important personalities in paragraphs explaining who they were and why they are relevant. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object - On principle. The article is okay now and could become better with editing. But whatever state it gets into from this process, the subject matter is such that future revisions will inevitably become weighted down with true-believer claptrap. These future revisions will continue to hold the "Featured Article" seal of approval, and I don't think that's desirable. Bacchiad 15:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This objection does not look actionable to me, and seems to display a lack of belief in the wiki process. If an article meets the featured article criteria (comprehensive, stable, NPOV, well-referenced article, etc), we should feature it. We should not withhold featured status for fear of what later editors may or may not do. Subsequent revisions that do not improve the article further can always be reverted. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I second ALoan's comments. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:22, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• The prose is nowhere near good enough yet. Can you find someone to go through it? For example, the opening paragraph doesn't really tell me what the movement is all about. Instead, we're told that 'Several modern societies have been formed for the study of Rosicrucianism and allied subjects.' That belongs lower down. Origins in the 15th or 17th centuries: the fact that they're not contiguous centuries is unusual and interesting; it needs some type of acknowledgement, such as 'is believed to date from either the 15th or 17th centuries ....'. Please don't finish a sentence with 'thereof' in modern English! Tony 01:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support, and I request that everyone lend a hand to address the objections. Sam Spade 17:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Howard Dean

After having read this article many times, I have found it to be exhaustively researched, minutely detailed, and remarkably even-handed. I believe that it meets all of the criteria in spades and I therefore submit it as a candidate to become a featured article. --12.217.121.245 02:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, while I agree the article is well written and quite balanced it comletely lacks references of any sort.--nixie 02:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean aside from the "Further Reading" section and the rather lengthy list of websites at the end?--12.217.121.245 02:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, facts should be easily verifiable, this is important for things like $ in campaign donations and so on to be given as inline cites.--nixie 02:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
      • How difficult is it to verify information by scrolling down to the bottom of the page? (By the way, I count seven in-line citations in the presidential candidacy section.) --12.217.121.245 02:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Html links in text should not be used in the place of a proppper footnoting system which allows the reader to view the URL and records the URL for future reference if the site goes down. These links also don't address the verifiability of other parts of the article, the reader should not have to guess which one of 20 external links or books contains the information they may want to check.--nixie 02:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I note that the articles on Barack Obama, Margaret Thatcher, Jean Schmidt, Joshua A. Norton, Sid McMath, Ralph Yarborough, and John Major all lack proper footnoting. Shall we strip them of featured article status? --12.217.121.245 03:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Mabye, but rather than being combatitive why don't you fix this article, it shouldn't take very long since you appear to know the subject matter well?--nixie 03:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
              • 1. I don't know how to footnote. 2. Even if I did know how to footnote, I don't know which link goes where because I didn't write the article. The fact is that nowhere does it say that a featured article has to have footnoting. It says that it must have sources, which the Dean article has in spades. If a skeptical reader doesn't believe what he reads and wants to check the facts, I fail to see how the writers have any responsibility to him other than to provide their sources. --12.217.121.245 03:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
              • The Schmidt article went to great lenghts, even without using a footnoting system, to make that article easily verifiable. It would benetit the reader if this article at least attempted to verfiy some of the more specific facts mentioned.--nixie 03:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
                • Nixie - The featured article criteria call for inline citations (which html links in the article are a perfectly acceptable form of), and a complete listing of references in a references section at the bottom. →Raul654 06:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
                  • Even if that's the case, there's still the fact that the article already has seven inline citations. --12.217.121.245 06:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
                    • Using the footnote style is definately neater and more helpful. You may also see the print version where the raw link displayed spoils the text. User:Nichalp/sg 10:21, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• To clarify (1) More things in the article should have inline cites for verifiabily (2) It is not clear if the external links listed at the end of the article are in fact references that were used to write the text or if they are general interst articles about Dean the same is true for the further reading section, where those books actaully consulted to write the text (3) 3/6 html links in text that were assumedly used as refernces are dead, and one is a link to an ad - not a reference (4) There are incomplete citations in the text like the Time one, that are not included in a list of references, and the websites linked to in text are also not listed in a list of references.--nixie 07:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:Howarddean.jpg and Image:AlGoreHowardDean.jpg are claimed under "fair use". However, I see no reason to use them, since we've got a GFDL picture of him at Image:DSCN4189 howarddeanstatehouseportrait e.jpg. --Carnildo 04:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm pretty sure that Image:Howarddean.jpg qualifies as a publicity photo. The Al Gore photo, on the other hand, is clearly the property of Reuters and is therefore banned under Wikipedia policy. I'll just nip over to the page and remove it, then mention why in the talk page. --12.217.121.245 04:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • In that case, Image:Howarddean.jpg needs a fair use rationale, as described in Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. --Carnildo 18:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, Image:Howarddean.jpg does not need a fair use rationale, because publicity photos are not considered fair use. Wikipedia policy says, and I quote, "Since such photos are distributed for reuse by the media, there is an implicit license for their use. Such photos are not fair use, and are not subject to the fair use restrictions." As I read it, that means there is no problem with using the picture. --12.217.121.245 21:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support with reservations. The article is well done, well researched, and balanced. The main controversy here seems to be over the use of citations. I personally prefer inlined cites that look like this [32]; not all websites referenced in cites like that need to appear in the bibliography (or "references") section IMO; however, if the FA guidelines specify a particular format, I guess that's the law. In general, I don't see any statements in the article that are controversial or strange enough for me to be like "woah, WTF, let me see the source." Also, I am a little worried -- we just had an FA about Jean Schmidt, should we have another US politician so soon? Sdedeo 22:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with you in many aspects, perhaps you should start editing the way the featured articles would have you edit, as every article has FA potential. In response to your worry about too many US politicians, I should let you know that those who select the order of the FAs make sure that their order gets varied. (This is to nominate for FA status, it doesn't go directly to the front page, look at the WP:FA page). -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{11:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Hopkins School

First Peer Review, First FAC, Second Peer Review

Info sourced from the unpublished manuscript has been removed until a policy change allows its use, and the two remaining contested fair use images have been removed pending free release or a new free version.

This article has undergone some extremely large edits, in large part by me but also with enormous help from WP:Schools members such as Harro5 and Bishonen (who, while not a member, was a key contributor to Wikipedia's only current FA school article, Caulfield Grammar School). The first FAC failed due to my naivete at Wikipedia and I believe all the issues present in the first PR/FAC cycle and the second PR have been addressed. The article is listed as a Good Article, is a showcase article on and features a showcase picture from Portal:Schools, and deserves to be a FA IMHO.

• Nominate and support Staxringold 16:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. When this article first came up for a FAC vote, I objected because the history section of the "second oldest secondary school in continuous existence in North America" was woefully lacking. Since then, the authors have done a bang-up job in improving the article and researching the fascinating history of this school while also addressing all of concerns other editors had. Excellent work and deserving of Featured Article status.--Alabamaboy 18:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. If I weren't so partisan, I'd say this article trumps Caulfield's. There are no flaws left in this one. Harro5 20:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support I would say however, that there could be a slight readjusment of the picutres, you need really to break the article up by having at least one picture on the left hand side, apart from that pretty good. --Wisden17 20:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, great job. jacoplane 20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Support: Seven of the sources are from "Unpublished Manscripts by School Archivist Thom Peters, ca 2005". WP:RS requires published sources. (Also per this ArbCom decision) My objection has been remedied. -- Gnetwerker 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reply The definition on WP:RS for primary sources directly fits this information, and while it has not been published to the public WP:RS states "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication" and the school's archivist is most definetly credible and reliable IMO. I can remove the information if it's a serious problem, but the original research issue was already pushed through (from both PRs) with no one complaining about the manuscript. As I said, I'd be happy to remove the information if others feel this way, but it seems like WP:RS just wants to make sure people aren't sourcing things with imaginary text, this is coming directly from the archivist and school historian. Staxringold 00:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but I am getting reprimanded by ArbCom for using unpublished archival material from Reed College. It seems like a good page (yours, that is), and I am sorry to spread the pain, but one way or the other we need to be consistent. On the other hand, there is always WP:IAR. -- Gnetwerker 00:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I understand, but I don't think archival material should be punished just because it isn't published. In fact, I think the IAR acronym that applies to this situation isn't ignore all rules, but Wikipedia:Interpret all rules. WP:NOR and WP:RS exist to ensure data is verified by credible sources, and there is no one more credible on Hopkins School information than the Hopkins School archivist. Staxringold 01:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the unpublished references in this case are acceptable. If there is a choice between published and unpublished references, then we should always go with the published ones. But in this case the needed info isn't available in a published format. In addition, Gnetwerker states that he is being reprimanded by ArbCom for unpublished archival material. This is not quite true. According to the Proposed_decision, they have problems with Gnetwerker using original research, namely interviews he did with people and internal documents of the college. These types of unpublished references are different than the ones in this case, which are from an unpublished manuscript and materials in the school's archives. The ArbCom has an issue with references which are only available to one person, not to unpublished references in a publically accessible school archive. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, the ArbCom case in question is about references used only in Talk (!) and ones available to college "insiders" (not a single individual), but they declined to address the issue in any depth. There certainly is an argument that this case is different, but insofar as ArbCom has precedent, it is "no unpublished sources". -- Gnetwerker 16:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Arbcom only has precedent over the actions of individual editors who have been through Arbitration. As they state in their pending ruling, "Gnetwerker is cautioned to avoid using unpublished material as a source." This ruling doesn't apply to other editors. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Basically my thoughts, Alabamaboy. I have put this issue up for comment to get a more general idea that applies to this situation. Staxringold 17:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Good work. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object as before, only more so: The images Image:Hopkins campus map 01.JPG, Image:HopkinsSchoolHeathCommons2.jpg, and Image:HopkinsMascotGoat1.gif are claimed as "fair use". However, it's quite possble for a Wikipedian to make a free-license replacement, so there's no reason to use non-free images in the article. Image:Hopkins stuco prez.jpg might be a little harder, but it doesn't add much to the article. --Carnildo 04:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reply Since when are fair use images a reason to object to an FAC? In fact, the only section on images in "What is a featured article" states "It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article." I believe the images are appropriate (I can remove the STUCO one if you think it's pointless), captions are all succinct as possible (and that wasn't a complaint of yours), and all the images have correct copyright status. Simply having fair use images in an article is not a violation of WP:WIAFA. Nonetheless, I believe I have a self-created image (actually higher-res) of the goat that I'll upload to replace HopkinsMascotGoat1, and the campus map was explicitly stated to be all right to use and clearly given to me to use in the Wikipedia article. Maybe there's a better license than fairuse, but I thought that's what applied. As for HopkinsSchoolHeathCommons, maybe you could create a non-fair use version but I think it's a gorgeous photo, and articles are allowed to use fair use images.. I can remove StucoPrez if you don't think it's useful, but I think it's nice to show the pomp and ceremony involved in student government (and, as you said, it would likely be difficult to get a free versions as only Hopkins staff gets that close to the stage with a camera). Staxringold 11:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you are a student at the school, is it possible to get permission to have the images released by the school or whoever took them under the GNU Free Documentation License, per instructions at Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission?--Alabamaboy 15:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That what I've been working on since I read Carnildo's comments. I have already replaced the goat image with a GFDL version I took, and I've sent an email off to the person I got the campus map from if she will release it under GFDL or Creative Commons (I included Creative Commons since it's at least possible Hopkins doesn't want it to be commercially reused). I'll send out a request to the yearbook editors if they can release the Heath image as well. Staxringold 17:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Improper fair-use images have been a reason to object since the beginning of time, or at least since the beginning of the formal FAC process. Point 4 of "what is a featured article" specifies "It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status", and fair-use images are only appropriate when they add significantly to the article and are impossible to replace with free-license images. --Carnildo 19:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That is why I am attempting to get the images released if possible, but theoretically anything could be replaced by a free image. The image of Heath (which may or may not be free-released, I'm trying) is a very high-quality shot that displays a brand-new facility. I would say that adds significantly to the article. Ditto for the campus map (and I've already fixed the goat image). Staxringold 19:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Some images can't be replaced with free versions, such as the crash of the Hindenburg, or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. However, if it's possible for the image to be replaced, it should be. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, and free images should be used even if they're lower-quality than non-free images. --Carnildo 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the only way I could get you to change your vote to get both remaining images either free-released, or remove them from the article? I can maybe understand your opinion that the Heath Commons image doesn't add enough to be a clear fair use, but certainly the campus map adds a great deal. Staxringold 19:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The campus map is also the easier one to replace. Anyone with a good drafting program and a survey of the campus (or even an orthophoto of the area) could make a replacement. Or someone with tinkering skills, a camera, a kite, and a good deal of luck could replace it with a photograph. --Carnildo 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What kind of standard is that though? WP:WIAFA in no way requires free images if they are physically possible over fair use image, and until I hear back on my request to GFDL/CC-release it the map is as released as possible for a fair use image, given easily for use on Wikipedia. If you can link me to or suggest a good free "drafting program" I'd be happy to throw something together. See the subsection below to try and solve these issues. Staxringold 20:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Free drafting programs seem to be a bit thin on the ground, but Inkscape is a pretty good vector-art program which could be used to produce a map. --Carnildo 09:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I continue to wait on the two removed images, hopefully I can add them back with a free license. For Raul, whenever he reviews this FAC: I have now twice asked Carnildo what his remaining issue with this article on his talk page. The STUCO President image is irreplaceable until graduation, and even then would be incredibly difficult given how graduation is laid out (also, he did not outright state that image as an issue here). Until I figure out what Carnildo wants, there is nothing further actionable I can do to fix this article for him. Staxringold 02:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How long is it until graduation? Two months? Three? I think the article can survive without the image until then. --Carnildo 07:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo, will you support if the image is removed? I don't think it adds a lot. Harro5 08:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I usually don't support FACs, but I will withdraw my objection. --Carnildo 06:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, with the kind words about me in the nominiation this is probably not what is expected, but Oppose, I have to agree with Carnildo. The map of the campus and the yearbook photos may have been okayed for Wikipedia to use, but from the Fair Use rationales provided, they'll make re-use of this article by others difficult. Featured articles are supposed to resolve such problems; it's only if that is impossible, or really, really hard, that such use as this becomes fair. It doesn't to me look to be even a little hard to replace Image:HopkinsSchoolHeathCommons2.jpg, provided one of you has a camera. The map is very nice, perhaps you can't draw an equally pretty one, but I'm sure you can draw a map. Bishonen talk 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC).

• P. S. Er, and do you realize that the nice sort of touching pic of the dininghall from 1928 appears twice...? Bishonen talk 20:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC).

• I have retagged the campus map from fair use to {{PermissionAndFairUse}} since it was used with permission for Wikipedia. Staxringold 20:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reply to PS That's very odd... Must've gotten left behind when I was rearranging the images. Thanks for pointing it out, I moved the 1911 student body pic under the Modern Day header, and deleted the 1928 dining hall instance from the history section entirely (now only under student priveleges). Staxringold 20:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• PROPOSED SOLUTION TO IMAGE COPYRIGHT ISSUES The two remaining images that are currently at issue are Image:Hopkins campus map 01.JPG and Image:HopkinsSchoolHeathCommons2.jpg. I have a request out for the map to be GFDL/CC released and requests both to GFDL-release the Heath image and/or to replace it with an image created by a freind of mine with a nice camera and photographic sense. Until these are replied to, what would be appropriate solutions? I could create a quick, boxy, birds-eye view of the campus on Photoshop to replace the much better map to keep that section of the article free until I hear back. As for the Heath image, shall I remove it until hearing back from either request? If I undertook these actions, would you two (Carnildo and Bishonen) be willing to support the article, or do you see other issues requiring resolution. Staxringold 20:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Er, Staxringgold, you're asking the wrong question there: withdrawing objections isn't the same thing as supporting. Yes, I would withdraw my objection if you did that, but I'm not ready to support. I want to congratulate you on the nice historical research, but I think the prose is now a bit too choppy — it doesn't flow. It would be great if you had a shot at fixing it — mainly, by linking some of the short "subject+verb+a few words more" sentences together into more sophisticated units — but if that's a problem, I'll have a go myself tomorrow, see what I can do, and then decide whether I feel I can support. (I'm sorry I didn't look at this earlier, but I've been a bit busy.) Bishonen talk 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC).

• That's why I asked if you had any further issues. I'll take a good look at the history section as well. Staxringold 21:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I withdraw my objection. Bishonen talk 22:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC).

• Oppose until issue of unpublished sources is resolved. Kaldari 22:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Since the unpublished material has been removed, I change my vote to Support. Kaldari 22:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I've read more closely (and also copyedited a little), and it's looking good, with good use made of terrific, intrinsically interesting, historical material. I'm ready to support, even though there's IMO too much detail under "facilities", of a kind better suited for attracting parents, or even helping students find their way around, than informing readers of an international encyclopedia—why would such readers care which building the teachers' lounge is in, etc, etc? But I have avoided taking out any information, as I may be in a minority here. Please do think about it, though. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC).
• Support Good article, well cited, and with good information. Also I think it is about time we get some schools for FACs. SorryGuy 06:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Many say "We need more featured article quality school articles on Wikipedia," but almost no one says "I think I'll try doing it myself!" Staxringold (talk • contribs) has taken this and made it into what we see here today. Congratulations on a well-sourced, well-written quality school featured article. May this be start of many more. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] El Ángel

This is mostly a self-nomination, and my first FAC. This is an article on one of the most important landmarks in Mexico City, and I've been working on it since last May. I followed most of the recommendations I received during peer review, and in the process I created many articles related to important figures of the Mexican independence movement too. Overall I think the article is quite complete at this point and meets all the criteria to become a FA -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 19:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Object- while this article is well-written, I don't think it is quite comprehensive enough. Aside from the list of people entombed, there are only a few paragraphs on the history, and the only other section is the description. I would recommend expanding the history, making it more comprehensive, adding sections on the cultural impact, etc. See Statue of Liberty (which is NOT a FA) for example. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. While I agree with your comment, I honestly don't think I could add much more material without falling into original reasearch, specially when it comes to cultural impact. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 21:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Image:ANGEL OF INDEPENDENCE.JPG has an unverified tag. Unless the source of the picture can be nailed down that photo will keep the article from becoming featured. TomStar81 20:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Fixed -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 21:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Technical Note: for some reason the above has appeared on the Spoo FAC subpage, yet when one goes to edit it, it does not appear. I haven't a clue how to fix this. Whoever does may obviously remove this note entirely. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Fixed; {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/El Ángel}} was listed on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spoo. The {{...}} simply "adds" the page content. I've removed it from the FAC for Spoo and instead listed it directly on the FAC page. Hopefully, if I did it right, there should be no visible changes, except that it doesn't show up at the Spoo subpage. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Concern—It needs a bit of copy edit, but is not too bad; however, the main problem is that it's just too short. Can you expand it significantly, contextualising the monument in terms of the history of commissioning, designing and building these structures? I'm not sure that there is and can be enough meat here to qualify as a featured article. Tony 23:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)

Been on FAC twice already, here's the last one. I think its ready or pretty much ready now. Everyking did most of the work, and I reworked the references and writing style. Rather thurough article Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

First nomination here, second here. Extraordinary Machine 21:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• SupportObject. The article only mentions in passing her SNL troubles. However, this lipsync controvery spanned a much larger media circus than one would know by reading this article. First off, the incident made massive news (inspiring such sites as this: [33]). In addition, the incident lead to SImpson being severely booed at her next big appearance (at the Orange Bowl in Jan, 2005) [34]. Simpson was also repeatedly compared to Milli Vanilli (sp?). However, according to this FAC article, the cultural and media response to all of this was, "The following week the incident was the subject of several skits." For an article on a pop album to be FA, it should address all of the cultural responses arising from the album's release. If all of this controvery is covered in detail (and referenced) I will vote to support.--Alabamaboy 01:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is about the album. The coverage SNL gets is generous, considering that. There is considerably more coverage in the Ashlee Simpson article, an entire section devoted to the incident, and that's where the info generally belongs. Everyking 03:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • AlabamaMan check your talk page I left a message about this hours ago :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I posted a response. As for Everyking's comments, all of this controvery came about while Simpson was promoting this album and playing songs from this album. As a result, it needs more here than a brief mention.--Alabamaboy 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support, of course; thanks to RN for helping out a bit with it recently. Everyking 03:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support - comprehensive and well-written but not excessively long given the subject matter. Cedars 07:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - contains far too much fancruft and trivia, and a pro-Simpson POV pervades throughout. Also, the fact that this and related articles have led to several arbitration cases against the main author for his steadfast refusal to let anyone else make substantial edits does not do much for this article's claim to be representative of the best of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 19:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Could you please give an example so I can fix it? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• • The article has been reworked a bit for POV - in addition there is very little fancruft/trivia left in the article (if any) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • He defines fancruft as anything more than a few paragraphs, what most of us consider near stub length. And I don't think that's an exaggeration—I know what he thinks from hard experience. His objection is not actionable because if it was done nobody but him would think it was even close to featured quality. Everyking 08:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
      • That's so untrue it's offensive. See here and here.
        • This is actually considerably more moderate than what was done a few days later. At the time I was obviously outraged by that, but by comparison to the total butchering of the article that came later it was mild. But, lest I rehash this stuff excessively, the key point of it all is that none of these radical revisions, removal of huge amounts of content, was ever done with any attempt at compromise or consensus beforehand (compared with my emphasis on meeting halfway, which fell on deaf ears literally for months before something began to be achieved). Everyking 18:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • As I see it, the tone of the article is essentially, "This album was a hit on the charts, but not with critics", which I think reflects the reality of the situation. In my opinion, the article is several steps above most other articles on recently released albums in Wikipedia; some of which are little more than track listings, others are swamped by minutiae trivia and crufty detail, and precious few are supported by references. I'm sorry, but I can't see the "pro-Simpson POV" that supposedly "pervades" throughout the article. Please give specific examples of POV, or else your criticisms may be considered inactionable. Extraordinary Machine 21:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Some specific examples of POV and other problems:
      • Ashlee claimed they were inspired... - claimed? They're her lyrics aren't they?
      • she wanted to do more rock-oriented music that some of her bigger influences did - that's just awful phrasing
      • For its part, The Village Voice... - this phrasing seems to be trying to give particular emphasis to what this one magazine is saying
      • "Autobiography" opens the album with retro instrumentation and dark chords... - this paragraph combines opinion, excessive quotes from the lyrics and a single positive review.
      • The description of pieces of me is also opinion followed by a quote from one positive review.
      • ...arguably the album's most rock-oriented... - who's arguing? Why? This is pure opinion.
      • "Better Off", described by People magazine... - only positive reviews quoted.
      • "Don't you know you're only wasting time", she sings; by stalling "you make your misery my company." - this is not encyclopaedic writing at all.
      • as she has said... - this one's come up repeatedly - this phrasing makes it look like Wikipedia endorses what she is saying. Many editors have tried to correct this but have had their edits reverted.
      • a melancholy song - POV
      • Lengthy descriptions of how the album sold in Norway and Switzerland are pure cruft, only of interest to hardcore fans.
      • The chart diagram is uninformative and illustrates nothing unique about this album.
      • the most rapidly added song on radio - what does this mean?
      • her voice had been weak in rehearsal due to acid reflux - a regurgitation of her PR. No source, unverifiable.
      • It appeared to viewers that Simpson had been lip synching - singing along to a pre-recorded track is lip synching, this phrasing is that of a defensive fan trying to deny that she was doing so.
      • although other explanations were that the crowd thought her voice was off-key or that they were expressing dissatisfaction with the half-time show in general - completely unnecessary fannish defence.
      • may have caused "La La", promotion for which began in the U.S. in November 2004, to have fared more poorly on the charts than it otherwise would have. - pure speculation
      • enabled Simpson to end the Autobiography era of her career on a high note - POV
      • The album's photography is credited to Mark Liddell, and its design is credited to Soap Design Co - trivia. Not encyclopaedic. Worldtraveller 15:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
        • What's the point of trying to satisfy any of your objections, some of which are sane, when others are wildly unreasonable, asking for the violation of consensus that has held for months now and for the removal of information that survived through long revert wars? Everyking 18:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks World - I'll work on these - please check back in 2 or 3 days Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • OK World, me (and apparently ExtraordinaryMachine) took care of most of these and more. Sans the chart and the performance in other countries, which was just tweaked a bit, there shouldn't be many if any POV issues/unreferenced stuff left. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. 21:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Abstain. While I'm very impressed by this article, I encountered "hidden" ref/notes and editorial comments while performing some minor edits, leading me to believe that this article is still very much a "work-in-progress". However, I still think it's a great article nonetheless, which is why I am abstaining rather than voting "object". Extraordinary Machine 21:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Nah, the hidden ref/notes are just noting which references (from the references section) are used where. Editorial comments are just notes from me being pedantic... there are no real problems as far as I know in the article Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I removed (Well, userfied) the comments... any change in opinion :)? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Very well. If there is nothing else to be done, I now vote support. Just so long as you're sure everything is referenced and in order. Extraordinary Machine 21:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's quite good. My only suggestion is to provide a link in the references section for the two chart compiling companyes. Tuf-Kat 22:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral, as with Ashlee Simpson. I can't shake the feeling that the tone of the article wouldn't be out of place in a fan club publication. I'm sorry, I really do want to see this article featured, but I can't in good faith support an article that I feel doesn't make the cut. I won't stand in its way, however; it is a good possibility that my opinion may be clouded by the huge conflict Everyking had with myself and several other editors. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • John, your comments on the Ashlee Simpson article were quite helpful... is there anything in particular you see wrong with this? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Like I said, it's difficult to quantify in words. I think it's a decent article, but the tone of writing just sounds too positive. Then again, most articles about celebrities on Wikipedia seem that way to me, so, like I said, I'm not sure if that's sufficient grounds to object. Johnleemk | Talk 13:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object --Revolución (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • How is this an actionable objection? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. That's the best I'll give considering it's pop culture. But it seems as neutral as possible I suppose. There's been good work done dealing with objections and balancing the article, so I won't stand in the way any more. Object. Agree with John Lee. Same problems as her article. Short paragraphs make for poor flow. The SNL bit gives only the pro Ashlee explanation. If you're going to go into 6 paragraphs on how it did in the charts, sqeezing the SNL bit and the Orange bowl into one paragraph under 'promotion and publicity' is a bit much. - Taxman ^Talk 03:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • What would be your suggestion? (aside from delving deep into the incedent as the ashlee simpson article already does this) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I maintain that the SNL and Orange Bowl incidents should only be dealt with briefly in this article, which is about an album. The chart stuff, on the other hand, is directly relevant to this specific subject so warrants a bit more detail. Everyking 04:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Erm... what I mean is should I extend the criticism somehow or try to make the chart stuff more pithy? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I guess I agree, it shouldn't be expanded, it just shouldn't toe the PRO Ashlee line only. For ex. Acid reflux is a claim that I don't think many people beleive. My opinion on that doesn't matter, but we can't promote that claim as correct. Have your chart details of how the album did in 233 countries around the world week to week, I don't care, other than it makes the article look a little silly. My point was more that hiding the criticism under that heading is whitewashing it. Maybe make it promotion and criticism or something. The elminating the short paragraphs helped a lot in my opinion. - Taxman ^Talk 17:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, heading renamed and we took out most of the POV stuff out of the criticism (which made it shorter but more damning) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Some phrasing is still POVed, and on occasion, the prose reminds me of what you'd find in a fan magazine. For example, "It appeared to viewers", although readable in a neutral manner, implies that the situation was different, and that Ashlee wasn't lip synching, although there's no way we can tell for sure. It should be clarified that numerous media sources do not believe the official explanation of Ashlee's camp about the incident. Johnleemk | Talk 15:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Are there any official media sources that seriously doubt that explanation? I mean beyond sarcasm and jokes. Everyking 18:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, some phrasing is still POVed and WorldTraveller pointed out many of them (which I'm still working on on this particular article). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• OK, the POV issues should be mostly gone folks. let me know what you think. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Tentative support after making several changes to tighten the prose and smooth the flow (and some snipping at POV portions of the commentary on the tracks). I'm not quite sure about the reviews section, though — it seems to me that it leans ever so slightly in favour of Ashlee. (Compare the length of the quotes from positive and negative reviews.) Johnleemk | Talk 13:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just added a few quotes from another negative review. Hopefully, that should make sure things are balanced out. Extraordinary Machine 18:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. If my comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ashlee Simpson were any indication, my only question is, how did she get a separate page for an single nothing album??? Don't answer. I know the answer: her fans wrote it. This FAC would truly make Wiki the laughingstock of encyclopedias. People magazine doesn't even gush this much. No way. --Noitall 07:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You may want to note that even among radical deletionists the idea that #1 albums should not have articles is seldom heard. As for your other point, this article has no "gush" at all. Did you actually read it? Everyking 07:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Noitall, it would be appreciated by many here if you were to list specific examples of "gush" within the article (like Worldtraveller did) instead of accusing its editors of "building an "I love Ashlee" fan site". Otherwise, your objection may be considered inactionable and thus ignored by Raul. Extraordinary Machine 17:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I specifically referenced my comments on the Ashley Simpson FAC, which is obviously related and they obviously apply. I am not going to repeat them all, because I already referenced them and they occureed at the same time. It gushes because she is notable for having no talent and the article makes her look like Madonna. It is entirely misleading, and, yes, looks like a fan site (which it actually is -- nobody does this much work for such a non-notable talent, notable non-talent). You have to get half way into the article (nowhere in the summary), before you get "Critical reviews of Autobiography were mixed." You have to be kidding me. How about something like, "a substantial number of people state that she has no talent and only had the opportunity to make this album because of the success of her sister, her father's dedicated star-pushing, connections in the industry, and media manipulation." --Noitall 02:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Google searches for terms such as "Ashlee Simpson sucks" do not count as references. The objections you raised on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ashlee Simpson refer to the Ashlee Simpson article, and not Autobiography. I'm beginning to doubt you have read the Autobiography article at all, or at least thoroughly, as it states in the second sentence of the lead section that critical reception was mixed (and it has done for at least a week). Also included in the article is a direct quote from the Billboard director of charts stating that Ashlee's success would not have occurred if not for her sister, along with several negative reviews in the article. You're here to comment on the article, not its subject. Unless you provide specific examples of "gush" within the article, your objection may be considered inactionable. Extraordinary Machine 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too much unskeptical presentation of information that's ultimately sourced from the performer's publicity machinations. Monicasdude 02:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you give us an example, please? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Other than the material sourced as "Simpson said," to interviews with her, to comments from her label and her publicists? It's the bulk of the article. Monicasdude 16:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

What sources shall we use instead, or in addition? Everyking 18:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Division of Korea

I think this article does a very good job at meeting the requirements of a featured article. It seems to show the various sides and opinions in a very neutral way. It's a reasonable sized article, with an adequate level of formatting and pictures. And it's nicely informative and educational! --Rebroad 19:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose: It seems to have an essay like quality, particularly the beginning of the Historical Background section. I also noticed some copyediting mistakes. It lacks any references, and recapitulates much which (I would assume) should be in the History of Korea, History of Japan, and World War Two articles. Take it to Wikipedia:Peer review first. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose no references and {{fac}} has to be in the talk page. User:Nichalp/sg 06:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Korean dmz map.png has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 22:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose—Not well written, in particular, flawed approach to punctuation, a certain 'jerkiness' in places; paragraphing often detroys the flow. At the top, it would be good to broadly locate this issue in its historical period.

[edit] Don't Speak

An article that originally took a lot of time to work on — although the English was not perfect and the image of the CD single cover was a bit blurry, those problems are now a thing of the past. This article has been nominated for featured article because it is rare to see a song actually on the front page of Wikipedia. Other reasons include the time taken to work on the article, the information and the references. I hope you agree with me. The final choice is up to you. DrippingInk 21:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I like the article. It explains the success of "Don't Speak" throughly from start to finish. Good references, and much better job on this article than the Spice Girls. That's a different story though. Excellent job. Winnermario 22:07, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Send to peer review. Needs a lot more work. See Yesterday (song) for an example of a featured article about a song. --Michael Snow 22:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review, lead is ok in my opinion, but sections are too short. As above, compare to Yesterday (song). Phoenix2 22:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Send to peer review. There are major problems. I'm sure it's not comprehensive. It doesn't explain the lead-up to the song very well, for example, and there are oddities throughout (like the calling the men in the video "pathetic" - what's pathetic about them? Or that "The road was not straight" line, which is not encyclopedic in tone). It's a good start, but it needs work to be featured. Tuf-Kat 22:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, needs some more info. But I am glad to see that blurry single cover was fixed. Everyking 23:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. 64.231.176.176 00:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The above anon. must have been drunk writing that line. What does it have to do with the article status? Actually, I would gladly help improve this article since "Don't Speak" is one of my favourite songs. Winnermario 00:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. I remember this. The first single of 1997 to spend more than a week at the top of the charts in the UK. I think it knocked Orbital's Satan off the top spot. It would probably have been a monster hit if the record company had released it later on in the year, but they snuck it out in the January graveyard because the group was unknown. Still, though, I have to oppose. The article is fairly good as far as it goes, but it's just too short. And the reason the article is too short is because there isn't enough to write about Don't Speak without resorting to padding of the "in Denmark, the single entered the chart on (date) before climbing to (position) on (date) and dropping to (position) a week later before leaving the chart altogether on (date)" variety. There's not enough meat to make a meal out of it. Although far from non-notable, the song just isn't-notable-enough; very few pop songs are worth more than a bare summary of dates, chart positions and personnel, especially as the 1980s and 1990s and 2000s has seen pop music - actual pop music singles, individual songs, rather than the phenomenon of pop stars - become such a trivial, tangental part of popular culture. You could write a lengthy article about, say, Do They Know It's Christmas or We Didn't Start the Fire or possibly even Men at Work's Down Under, but not this. The song is not about anything more than a lost love, it didn't play any part in a big cultural movement. And it doesn't really encapsulate 1997 or the late 1990s in any way. Unlike, for example, In the Air Tonight by Phil Collins, you can't write about how it has come to be an aural metaphor for its time period, either through association with popular television or literally because the production techniques were widely imitated. The guitar solo is pleasant. I'm petering out. -Ashley Pomeroy 16:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • A) I believe you can deal with music-related topics without taking jabs at me. B) This song was one of the biggest hits of the '90s in the U.S., and if you feel it should not have an article, go ahead and put it on VfD, where I'm sure the result would be a very decisive keep. Everyking 20:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article looks like it needs TONS of work. Like this statement

"...the song is generally thought of as a number one hit in No Doubt's home country, this being demonstrated through its success on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay, where it held the zenith position for sixteen consecutive weeks...."

No, it's not generally thought of as that here. Most people don't consider the Hot 100 Airplay to be indicative of charts, only the actual Hot 100 itself. The charts are also not placed in their correct hieracy. Why is Adult Top 40 listed TWICE?! There is no need to list a chart position twice just because it crossed over two years. Pick a year and list its peak OmegaWikipedia 18:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. If it was a number one during two years, there is no reason that it cannot be listed twice. Your arguement is not very effective, I must say.

Huh? Peaks should be listed. Anyway, I hope no one gets offended, but the article looked a bit messy, so I gave it a facelift. OmegaWikipedia 00:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Everyking is right, this was one of the biggest songs of the 1990s, and even if it's only about bittersweet heartbreak (aren't the majority of songs about that these days?), it had depth and structure. Love will always be the strongest thing in the world, and songs about love (or this being the reverse) are just as notable as any other topic out there.

A heartbreak is a story to tell. So are all those other mentionables above. Winnermario 22:07, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Just not enough information under each of the sections. The beginnings to the tables are not enough. This thing's got a loooooooooong way to go yet; it just needs much more writing. --Matt Yeager 00:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, for an article on a song it is notably missing any description of the lyrics or the music (melody, cords etc), it also makes some pretty big claims that aren't supported, for example how did a notably un-ska song start the ska revivial of the mid 90s?--nixie 05:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, most of your comments are acceptable. This song will be worked on immediately. DrippingInk 20:08, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Repetitious, writing needs much improvement, lack of consistency in spelling (eg: break-up, breakup), seems too short, unsupported claims, and I second the question of how a totally un-ska song led to a ska revival. Exploding Boy 06:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

They were an overall ska band, you idiot. 64.231.163.4 20:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh really?? Exploding Boy 23:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to seem like I'm attacking you, Exploding Boy, but they were an overall ska/rock group. Winnermario 00:17, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I know that. But it really wasn't clear in the article. Exploding Boy 15:29, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose—Writing not good enough. Tony 04:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Solarquest

Fantabulous article about the most splendiferous game in the galaxy. Kaptain Krunk 12:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object – no references, images are too large, sections have hardly any content. Ref to Peer Review. User:Nichalp/sg 12:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review, 1) lead is too short 2) Article doesn't contain games project info box 3) there's too many large fair use pictures without a reason on why it has been claimed fair use 4) I don't think you need 3 images of the game board and accessoiries. One will suffice to illustrate it and avoid a lot of copyright problems. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Object—Lacking in content; superficial. Simply describing the features of a game and wacking in a few pictures does not make a featured article. Try writing an article on a whole class of such games, and saying something a little more useful about them, if you want to author a FA. Tony 13:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Send to peer review -- This needs a peer review. Then maybe it will survive voting. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not yet FA standard. Much of it is a description of the game and its rules. Before resubmitting this, compare it to the Monopoly article, which is a Featured Article. The difference is staggering. Granted, Solarquest does not have the history that Monopoly has, but still. There needs to a be a dramatic reorganisation of the article (put all the "gameplay and rules" stuff together, have one history section, not bits of history scattered through the article). As people have said, peer review may be the best way to have a fresh start for this article. Batmanand 14:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, a lot of articles placed on Peer Review used to not get enough feedback to make it worthwhile, but maybe involvement in Peer Review has improved in the past six months. 205.217.105.2 16:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TV-FM DX

I believe all the objections from last time have been addressed. Andre (talk) 18:46, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Support Slightly too techy in parts but it's unavoidable I guess. It's certainly the place I'd look if I wanted information on it. --PopUpPirate 22:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Object, but may support later if it's cleaned up. The itty-bitty paragraphing is a real problem—needs some flow. Why 'miles' and 'feet', at least mostly? The spelling is not US, so why not use metrics consistently? Tony 06:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC) Comment. Well if it's written from a UK perspective, miles and feet are still the most pre-dominantly used measurements of distance. Not very scientific, I know, when we're metric in just about everything else. How this sort of thing should be handled on Wikipedia, I don't know. Angmering 14:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The UK is now a metric country. As a matter of practicality, and to be inclusive rather than exclusive, metrics should appear, possibly with US measurements in parentheses. Tony 08:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not a mostly UK thing, but someone recently changed all the spellings from US to UK. I don't know why, but I didn't revert it. Andre (talk) 15:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. metric equivalents absent. A significant population of readers come from countries that do not use the imperial system. It would be unfair for them to keep using convertors.
  2. User the non breaking space when connecting numbers to units. eg. 15&nbsp;MHz. which renders it as 15 MHz; 16&nbsp;mm etc.
  3. All inline links should be formatted using a footnote style. eg. the {{ref}} type.
  4. Federal Communications Commission is introduced without also defining acronym, which is used later on in the article. It should be mentioned that it is a US govt. agency.
  5. The history section lists only three four countries. Any more notable events in other countries?
  6. ...pre-war band to a new band at 88–108 MHz you've not mentioned the significance of the move. This band is known as "broadcast band" and was adopted my by most countries for commercial FM. (at least that's what I recollect)
  7. ...India, Middle East, North... --> "...the Middle East....
  8. The cities are not formatted properly. You've used CITY, STATE for US locations and CITY, COUNTRY for non-US. For example you've used Chicago, Illinois, and Monterey, Mexico. Since this article is on a global topic, I'd suggest you drop the display of the state as Chicago is globally well known. So [[Chicago, Illinois|Chicago]] and Monterey in Mexico would be more appropriate. (there's also no other Chicago in the US so the name of the city won't conflict) Similarly with Riverhead, Long Island, New York, and Melbourne, Victoria. This problem also is present in =Notable tropospheric DX receptions=. The main problem here is that it is assumed that readers would know of all of US states.
  9. Who is George Palmer?
  10. 'Roger Bunney also published... reads more like a promo for the author, not needed.
  11. Australia and South Africa are linked multiple times. Please remove duplicate wikifying.
  12. =Afternoon TEP= needs expansion
  13. Woodruff T. Sullivan III? ---> astronomer and physicist Woodruff....
  14. Use of single sub-headings under a heading. 4.1, 6.1, 9.1. Either merge with parent topic or have two subheadings.
  15. Anthony Mann? Todd Emslie? format as I've shown for Woodruff.
• There may be more issues I might catch later, but that's all I can muster up for now. User:Nichalp/sg 08:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  1. With the exception of Image:Arecibo.arp.750pix.jpg, all the images are under a license of "fair use with permission". This is far from an ideal license: would it be possible to contact the creators of the pictures and ask for the images to be licensed under the GFDL or the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license?
  2. The image Image:Arecibo.arp.750pix.jpg is under a license of {{noncommercial}}. This is not an acceptable license for Wikipedia.

  --Carnildo 20:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I agree with most of Nichalp's points, but would add that the article is just too long in its current state (39KB, by my count). Considering the highly technical content of the article, this is deadly. It should either be scaled back, or split up. Plus, some of it just seems to meander rather randomly: the list of major meteor showers is kind of silly, IMO, as this is the sort of information better covered by an astronomy article. It seems sufficient to point out that meteor showers can and do affect DX reception. – Seancdaug 16:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Virtually all of the DX television reception reports were sourced from 1960s-1980s U.S. and U.K. radio/television/scientific technical journals. Because these journals almost invariably used miles as a distance reference, I felt it was proper to avoid metrics in the article. Even today, U.S. TV FM DX groups such as the WTFDA, commonly use miles in connection with distant reception reports.

Bivariate-correlator 13:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

As a compromise, I recently added metric measurements in parentheses.

Bivariate-correlator 10:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy VI

• Previous nomination last year

I think this article is close to the level of Final Fantasy VIII. Both articles have similar styles and whatnot; the prose may need work, but I'll leave you guys as the judges of that. I'll keep this nom short, since I basically explained everything on the FF8 nomination below. — Deckiller 15:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Co-nom/Support: Pretty much what Deckiller said above and what we both said below. This article's pretty solid, I think. There might be a few spots where things could be better, but that's what you guys are here to determine. Overall, like Deck, I feel that it's about level with FFVIII below. Ryu Kaze 15:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Co-nom/support. Improved a lot since it was last nominated and failed. Then, the censorship section was overdone, now it has been toned down. Then, there were only three references, now there are thirty-five. It's definitely on par with FFVIII (and in a way I feel it's better, but that's just me). Redundancies and weasel words are pretty much gone. Crazyswordsman 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And talk about consistency; FF8 is 43 KB long, and this article is 45 KB long o.O — Deckiller 16:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow. We have identical twins, just about different things! Like I said, we should have put them up together, heh. Crazyswordsman 16:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Technically they are close to being nominated at the same time. Just one nomination is older than the other.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - It is truly amazing to see how the article has changed since I nominated it last year. The quality of it has improved dramatically and the editors who lead the recent round of improvements to it should be commended. Great job guys. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support The development section doesn't have a single inline citation. Once that's fixed, full support. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll see if we can fix that sometime soon. Ryu Kaze 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Alright, I got us some references in there. Ryu Kaze 00:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The reception section is pretty skimpy considering this is commonly listed by critics as one on the greatest games of all time. This article is well on its way, but it's lacking significant discussion of what the critics particularly found so great about it --someone who had never played this game would not have a sense of what made it so special and historically important, ie, the unusual depth (and length) of story, the unique visual aesthetic, etc. Also, am I correct in my recollection that this was the first RPG to juggle such a large cast of playable characters? I would love to see an FA on this, but considering it's one of the most beloved games of all time, I feel this article is incomplete without giving the reader a sense of what set it apart from other games of its era. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Problem is, it would be difficult to reference. Crazyswordsman 22:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, we do make mention of FFVI having the largest FF cast, but the problem with what critics thought of the game is how old it is. There's certainly reviews buried in 12 year old issues of gaming magazines somewhere, but most of us don't have those and the most we've been able to find online were some scores that were given out back then (which I was surprised to find even that). Nonetheless, I certainly understand the concern with this section and felt much the same. It's just that given our limitations, I'm not sure what we'll be able to do about it. Of course, that just makes the information all the more valuable. Ryu Kaze 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I found a retroreview by RPGamer and a review from IGN for the Anthology version. They make some comments about the effect rendered at the time of the original release, so that'll have to do, I think. I'll try working them in. Ryu Kaze 00:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Alright, I've gone back and made a ton of edits to the Reception area. I believe it should now address your concerns, Lee. Thank you for your input and please let us know if there's more that could be done. Ryu Kaze 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Reception and criticism looks much better now, Ryu. I'll see if I can find anything to fix later tonight.— Deckiller 02:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Looking better -- speedy work! I'd still like to see a smidge more in the "gameplay" section acknowledging what was new to FF in this game (the esper-system, and possibly the degree of customization allowed for by the equipment/relic system). Also, if I'm correctly remembering that this was the first FF to allow the player to use hi-tech weaponry, that's probably deserving of a nod. Incidentally, has anyone tried a proquest/magazine database search at their local libray? I'm not sure how commonly game magazines are archived, but I'd be willing to give it a shot, if no one else has. I believe in particular, old Nintendo Power magazines are not especially rare. Overall, good work, though. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 18:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the fast response. I'll see if there's a way to fit in the stuff about Relics, as I believe you're right with regard to their innovative inclusion. As for hi-tech weaponry, there's only one character who uses any (Edgar), but I'll see if there's any way to fit it into the flow. Thanks. I'll leave you a message on your talk page after I've addressed these matters. Ryu Kaze 19:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Okay, Lee, I've made several changes and accomodated everything you mentioned. Ryu Kaze 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support wonderful game, and the article is more deserving of the FA than ever. igordebraga ≠ 15:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Object – The Game Boy Advance section should probably have a future game tag. The Reception and criticism has absolutely no criticism whatsoever. Additionally, the PlayStation section needs work:

The only notable changes to gameplay involve the correction of a few software bugs from the original, the addition of new bugs and the addition of a new "memo save" feature, allowing players to quickly save their progress to the PlayStation's RAM. The rerelease included other special features, such as a bestiary and artwork gallery.

I believe the addition of a cutscene is also notable. What bugs were fixed, what bugs were created in the process? Source, if possible. ♠ SG →Talk 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There's one in the story section. Crazyswordsman 17:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll add the future game tag, but I'm not seeing quite how the Reception and criticism section is lacking in criticism. It features two paragraphs of it. Two paragraphs of substantial size, in fact. Criticism isn't just negative views of something. Criticism can be positive or negative. It's merely the act of analyzing something and passing judgement on it. Even were it only negative, though, there's quite a bit of negative criticism in the second paragraph.

I'll see if I can find out what added cutscene you're referring for adding to that sentence you quoted, by the way (you weren't referring to the FMVs were you? Those are mentioned earlier in the paragraph and aren't changes to gameplay anyway), and also see if I can get us a source on the bugs. Ryu Kaze 19:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

SG, I've added the future game template and gotten some references for the bugs, as well as added a few other references throughout the article. Ryu Kaze 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Great work. Nothing but support from me. ♠ SG →Talk 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you very much! Ryu Kaze 01:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Crazyswordsman 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support This article has come a long way. Tarret 00:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Ryu Kaze 00:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks from me, too. Crazyswordsman 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support This article is good, even someone who didn't play the game like me can follow it easily Renmiri 01:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much. ^_^ Ryu Kaze 01:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ren. Crazyswordsman 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment many thanks for your supports. — Deckiller 03:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctantly, I have to object. It's well written, and the flurry of activity recently has only served to improve it further. But that's a problem in and of itself: the last time this was brought up for FAC, I had to concede that the article was just being too much, and too quickly, following the initial FAC posting. At this point, the article does not appear to be stable, one of the listed requirements for featured articles. Obviously, this is no fault of the editors who've toiled away at the thing, and I'm loathe to respond this way, but there you go. – Seancdaug 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • During an FAC, changes made in accordance with other things brought up wouldn't count toward an instability problem I would think. It would either be leave things that people are saying is wrong with it, or fix them. Unless you mean all the work done immediately prior to the FAC, in which case no one would have nominated it for FA in the first place without that. All that work was performed for the purpose of getting it ready for the nomination. Looking at it with these newest changes, it's very likely to remain as it is unless another problem is brought up here that needs to be addressed. Ryu Kaze 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Like Ryu said, addressing concerns during an FAC doesn't count towards instability. The article was pretty much stable for several months, and edits made in good faith don't necessarilly make an article instable, especially when only three or four editors are touching it. Crazyswordsman 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Sean, the stability criteria was designed for instances where the article was undergoing massive swings of changes based on an edit war, not improvements. — Deckiller 02:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I respectfully disagree. The stability required was designed to ensure that the article was stable. Period. Featured articles should be the kind of article that we can cite in a scholarly manner, and feel reasonably safe that, when we come back in a few months, little of substance will have changed. In particular, Crazyswordsman, it's not an issue of good vs. bad faith, and I appreciate that the changes have not only been made in good faith, but have served to improve the article. There's nothing wrong with an article being edited and adjusted to improve it as needed. And, quite frankly, I'd prefer that such positive changes be made even if it results a period of relative instability. But until the article reaches a point where it is obvious that it will "not change significantly from day to day" ("and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars," not "because it is the subject of ongoing edit wars"), it's cannot be cited as a reliable, scholarly source. And if it cannot be cited as such, for whatever reason, it's not ready to be featured. It tears me up to vote like this, and I don't want to slap you guys in the face for all your hard work and the superb article you've produced, but there's still the one additional factor of time, and and that's pretty much out of anyone's hands. Again, I'm really horribly sorry, everyone. – Seancdaug 03:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I can understand that viewpoint, which is why Raul often waits several days when a objection based on a stability viewpoint is raised. — Deckiller 03:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, we're still waiting on Lee Bailey to come back and review some recent changes anyway. Ryu Kaze 12:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Seancdaug, after rereading the stability requirement that is currently in place, all I can say about the argument is that it is a matter of interpretation, which would inevitably be left up to Raul. Is there anything beyond the stability requirement that would cause you not to support this article? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 13:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
            • No, that's pretty much it. – Seancdaug 15:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support This has gone a long way. I also looked at the edit summary and saw Crazyswordman, Ryu Kaze, Hibana, and deckiller's hard work to make this of FA status. Extreme support here. -ScotchMB 01:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for the support and nice words. Ryu Kaze 01:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Kudos, buddy. Crazyswordsman 03:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Renmiri; I've never played the game either and I've always been a bit mystified as to the frenzy it invokes among FF fans; the article explains it well. I imagine that's a large part of what brings people to this article - "what's the big deal about this game, anyway?" - and that's definitely answered. Great job, guys. -RaCha'ar 15:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks :) — Deckiller 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I imagine every FF game will one day be featured! Did a thorough read of the article and liked it. Nice work. Thunderbrand 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! — Deckiller 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry to hold things up! The changes that have been made here are all for the better -- good work again. I had a few little nagging qualms about the respresentation of critical response, so I went looking for sources, and found some old Nintendo Power issues that cover the game, as well as a reference to EGM's coverage. I was going to quickly add these things in order to avoid slowing things up, but by the time I re-touched the relevant sections, I felt iffy about it, especially considering that stability issues have been raised above. I decided to split the difference and place what I came up with in my sandbox, here. The article is really well done in any case, so please consider my vote a Weak Support without any changes, or Full Support with some reference to mention of the game's critical standing in the lead -- my version does not have to be taken literally, but take whatever's useful. Sorry to be extra-picky. ^_^ -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much, Lee. Your research into this matter is also very much appreciated. I'll certainly be adding some of that info to the article. I realize Sean has some concerns over stability, but making the article's content the best it can be comes first. Thanks again! Ryu Kaze 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Like I said earlier, the stability requirement is subject to interpretation which in the end Raul will look at. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Thanks from me for everybody's input. I don't have much time during the week to monitor the article and debates, so I'll just make this a universal thanks for everyone's input from today. Crazyswordsman 00:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Objections all satisfied now, and as I read this over, it looks very much like an FA to me. Thanks for a great CVG article. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 12:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for your constructive input and the aid you offered with those additional criticism references. Ryu Kaze 13:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support, good job at bringing out the interesting aspects of the game and its significance in the broader world. However, I noticed that one of your references, #54, is broken-GameFAQs doesn't allow you to link to FAQs directly. The same guide is hosted elsewhere, [35] if you prefer.--BigCow 20:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks a million. Sir Crazyswordsman 22:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Much thanks to ya. Ryu Kaze 23:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support, Great game with a great article that has more than enough to be the FA. GShton 03:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Sir Crazyswordsman 11:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• I've been lazy in thank yous, so...many thanks all! — Deckiller 15:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - You guys are the greatest, thanks for working so hard on making game-relatd articles up to FA status. --PresN 03:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support - add spoiler tags. Would it really harm the article to add spoiler tags to the plot? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks to both of you. About spoiler tags, I understand your point, but most of us at WP:CVG feel that spoiler tags are redundant and excessive. One of this disclaimers on Wikipedia specifically mentions that spoilers will be given without warning. Sir Crazyswordsman 12:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, they're in the most obvious section they could possibly be in: "Plot". Plot details will obviously be in a section marked "Plot". Anyway, thanks to both A Link to the Past and PresN. Ryu Kaze 13:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Godfather

The article has been worked on by the Featured Article Drive team.

I've worked on this article over the past month, and I now feel it meets the criteria for what film articles should be. I'd like to think this article could be featured, and perhaps appear on the Main Page. The Godfather is an excellent film, and I hope this is considered to be an excellent article. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 14:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object, for the following reasons:
  • The lead section needs to be expanded, and the blatant spoiler in the opening paragraph removed.
  • Cite your sources so that others can verify your work.
  • The images Image:Godfather vhs.jpg and Image:Al Pacino and Robert Duvall in the Godfather.jpg need information on their copyright holder (most likely Paramount Pictures), as well as fair use rationale.
  • The section headers need to be modified to conform to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings).
  • Statements such as "The role of Don Vito Corleone was memorably acted by Marlon Brando" violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.
  • Last, but definitely not least, is that it's not comprehensive enough. Most of the sections are only a short paragraph or two long (the longest contains three paragraphs). Much more information is needed to expand them. I suggest modelling the structure of the article in a similar way to how the Casablanca and Sunset Boulevard articles are presented. Extraordinary Machine 16:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  • needs more depth to qualify as featured. Many very short sections give it a choppy effect. For example "Critical acclaim" - it's one of the most discussed films of the last 30 years - what did the critics say?
  • Images are tagged, but neither have a fair use rationale on the image description pages as per Wikipedia:Image description page. The screenshot for example - why that particular one? What is it adding to the article?
  • The two references quoted seem to have been used only for a few minor points in the article, which suggests that most of the article is not referenced. (The two references are back to front also - the information that is supposed to be referenced by reference 1 actually cites reference 2 and vice versa).
  • Trivia section should be merged into article and then trivia header removed.
  • some POV (Brando's "memorably acted") and issues with colloquial style should be reworded. ("smashing" records, "rocketed into the limelight" as examples
  • lead section contains an absolute spoiler - should not be there. Rossrs 16:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Will address these AFAP shortly. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 15:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Object. This article was not ready for the FAC. However, I do understand that people didn't properly address problems with the article in the Peer Review, a case I commonly see. Rob, fix the complaints stated above and I will change to support. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Thanks for all the feedback so far. As Link mentioned, none of this was brought up in the Peer Review. I'll take this page as a to-do list and make the article better. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 21:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: adding to this to-do list, a Trivia section is usually frowned upon (I personally am not a fan). While the stuff here is good, it really should be included into another area of the article and the Trivia section deleted. Thanks. Harro5 21:45, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Most of the text isn't mine; rather, my work is more the cleanup and copyediting and tweaking. I'll see about incorporating that "trivia" elsewhere. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 15:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Needs info on the various themes in the film: good and evil, the end of innocence, etc. Andre (talk) 00:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you mean, "the end of innocence"? Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 15:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object: I think it need some work somehow. 2 or 3 references seem to be not enough but it not actionable objection anyway. Disclamier: I am a member of the FAD team.--Kiba 01:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What claims need referencing? I may have missed a couple. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 15:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleon I of France

This article is a former featured article candidate. You can view its previous nomination here

This was a failed FAC from several months ago, but it has had around 700 edits since then, and I think it deserves another shot at featured status. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) those headings make the ToC ugly. 2) Some sections are too short. 3) Overall page size 50kb! The article should be written in summary style. 3) Phrases such as It appeared the Napoleon of old was back.... This is not written in encyclopedic style. User:Nichalp/sg 05:48, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:NapLogo copy.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 07:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I took that out to avoid your objection, but I guess some friendly fellow decided to put it back in. Oh well --Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Article should be written in summary style, sections which have more information than necessary should split off into their own article. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I agree about the summary style. This article is too long, and some of the information is redundant with related articles like Napoleonic Wars. Phils 10:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object, and think it should go back to Peer review. "In May, 2005 a team of Swiss physicians claimed… A team of physicians from the University of Monterspertoli led by Professor Biondi recently [when?] confirmed this." No citations for any of this, and pretty obviously the sort of thing that needs a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Support, I am a Napolean expert and this article is pretty good in summarizing him. This article failed previously to mentioned in Featured Article, but after more than 1000 edits. I think it deserves another chance.

-- Mercenary2k | Talk 12:18 AM, March 4, 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

• Object. I don't think that the article is too long, but I am dissapointed that there are so few inline citations. Out of 5 notes, nr 1 and 2 seem to be broken (not linked in main body). As for comprehensivness, I realize the article is already long (but there are FAs close to twice his lenght), and I'd like to see Polish Legions in Italy linked somewhere in the article. Finally, there seem to be a copyvio problem.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Oppose. No response to any objections, no improvement to the article. See comments below. The article has a serious shortage of line citations and violates WP:NPOV. For example, the introduction praises the Napoleonic Code and describes Napoleon as a benevolent despot. Nowhere in this article do I see that he also reimposed slavery on the French Caribbean (the revolution had ended it) or that the Napoleonic Code not only erased all the revolution's advances in women's rights, but imposed new inequalities that had not been a part of the Ancien Régime. Married women in France had enjoyed property rights until Napoleon's era. Moreover, his continuous wars decimated the adult male population so badly that after he escaped from Elba he could scarcely raise an army. A pro-France and pro-Napoleon POV seeps into other issues, such as the unqualified assertion of the rather controversial view that the Russians deliberately burned Moscow in 1812. Durova 06:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, strangely, this nomination includes a reposting of several unanswered objections from six months ago. I've tried to solicit attention at the Napoleonic Era group of the military history project. If no one is interested in attending this nomination and bringing the article up to FA quality I'll convert my objection to an opposing vote (quite sadly, since Wikipedia clearly needs a feature quality biography of this man). Durova 20:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Support, I don't see how the following can be interrpreted as Pro-Bonaparte/Pro-french POV:

After all, the military record is unquestioned—17 years of wars, perhaps six million Europeans dead, France bankrupt, her overseas colonies lost. And it was all such a great waste, for when the self-proclaimed tête d'armée was done, France's "losses were permanent" and she "began to slip from her position as the leading power in Europe to second-class status—that was Bonaparte's true legacy."^[36]

This is a balanced, comprehensive and well-written if not consistantly brillant article. It passes my review. Especially since I still feel somewhat "dirty" about giving a passing grade to World War II, which is not IMO, as good as this one.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. It's just too long, there isn't much else wrong. I would also note that 5 references for 53kb of text, especially when each is only cited once, is a little bit on the short side. I'd add refs and shorten the text. Staxringold 12:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apple typography

I stumbled across this article while browsing pages about fonts, and was instantly taken with how well it presents the history of an influential typographical design of the past few decades. I was moreover pleased to find that the article has a number of cited sources and credited images. This seems to me to be featured article material. --FOo 03:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• comment needs a longer lead, though I agree -- it's a great article! Tuf-Kat 05:41, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. A very informative article, but it is not well-formatted, and has a poor structure. As mentionned above, the lead section should be longer, and there are too many micro-headers. I'll see what I can do about that myself, but until then, I object this becoming an FA: Phils 11:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object Besides the above points, info on support for OpenType fonts can be put in a para rather than scattering it all over. Points that can be added:

What are the differences between support for opentype that exists in Tiger and in Windows XP? What type of fonts are being used for displaying asian & Complex text languages now? Are there moves to switch to opentype fonts for these? You can find some pointers at the kannada wikipedia (in english). Otherwise, a very good article. pamri 18:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this article doesn't seem to be intending to deal with font support in OS X so much as Apple's use and styles of typography. The first is a software technical issue; the second is an artistic and industrial design issue. --FOo 18:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but can the title or lead be reworked to make this clear? My questions on asian language support/OpenType fonts(OTF) were not that far off since my doubts are based on the section on Apple Advanced Typography (AAT) and a bit of googling has cleared some of my doubts. The question is a technical one but answers an artistic design issue, because the choice of fonttype for asian languages (especially indic) play a role in the quality of its rendering (See http://sharma-home.net/people/arun/languages/kannada/ for an example) and it hardly takes a line or two to answer. The section on AAT didn't make it clear what made it different from OTF's and whether it supported features like GPOS/GSUB that OTF provides for Indian languages and if not, how are Gujarathi and Hindi being displayed now. I have taken the liberty to rename the line 'Features exclusive to AAT currently include:', since most of them are available in OTF. See http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/featurelist.htm This fontforge document answered my 2nd doubt. I will try to see, if I can add these myself. pamri 07:04, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

OpenType does not provide very good support for Indic languages when compared against that provided by AAT. All of the slack is taken up by Uniscribe, and this means it cannot be changed by font developers. This is the SIL's primary reason for developing their own Windows/Linux technology called Graphite (Macs are hard to come by in the far-flung areas where the SIL do their work), and is one of the areas where AAT differs substantially from OpenType. I wrote the section on AAT in the Apple typography article, and also the section at the Kannada wikipedia cited above. If anything is not clear to you please let me know and I will do my best to improve upon it. Nicholas 23:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Nick. It would be good if you can add a bit about Indic support to the AAT section. Pamri • Talk 04:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support Tlogmer 00:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No lead. Mark¹ 02:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burning Man

Featuring the Burning Man festival while it was running would be a nice community gesture. (unsigned by JimD)

• First of all, featured articles don't work that way. It is much more likly to get on the "In the news" section, if the page is updated for this year. Secondly, I object to this page being featured as it has no references at all. Gentgeen 05:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Not FA level. Also lacking references.--Alabamaboy 17:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Has this even been through peer review? Too much insider/fannish writing. No references. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Needs references, and frankly, the article reads more like a press release than an encylcopedia article (in agreement with Jmabel). The getting around section, as well as many others, are blatantly POV ("Walking is also a great way to get around"). Please avoid peacock terms -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] 21:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It has no references, which are a requirement for a FA. The travelogue-esque nature of several parts of the article is also a problem; it should read like an encyclopedia article, not an advice guide. It should have been peer reviewed before being put here. I also find it lacking in information as to what kinds of events go on there; I've seen numerous new articles about noteworthy artwork, tech, and other curiousities at Burning Man, yet I see none of them mentioned in this article (even that kid in the bubble at this year's event isn't mentioned, and he's been given quite a lot of coverage). Increase the details on what exactly goes on there. -- LGagnon 22:15, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elton John

I am nominating this article because I think it is representive of Wikipedia's finest work. It has good images, as well as a detailed (but not unnecesarily long) overview of the subject.

• Object. It's not a bad article, but there are several important obstacles to it becoming a featured article. Some of the images, such as Image:Oct272.jpg and Image:Wik-elton.jpg, have no copyright information, others, such as Image:Ejohn4.jpg and Image:Ejohn2.jpg, are claimed to be fairuse without enough justification. The article also lacks a references section, which is required for a featured article. There are also several smaller stylistic issues. - SimonP 02:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article still needs work (I'm one of the recent contributors to it). In particular, coverage of Elton's work in the 1980s is very threadbare. Also, I think having 'Film work' and 'Musicals' as separate sections from the main timeline is probably a mistake; it would be better to fold them in, so you can see where The Lion King happened in relation to his other work. Ditto for "That's What Friends Are For" from the 'Personal life' section. Wasted Time R 03:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Wik-elton.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  2. The image Image:Oct272.jpg has no source or copyright information, and doesn't seem to be linked to anything in the article, so it should be removed.
  3. The image Image:Ejohn3.jpg has no source information. It's impossible to claim "fair use" without providing the source and copyright holder.
  4. The image Image:Ejohn2.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but does not specify the source, and has no fair use rationale.
  5. The image Image:Ejohn4.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but is not particularly important for the article. Any fair use claim is dubious.
  6. The image Image:Elton Tommy.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but has no source information or fair-use rationale.
  7. The image Image:Furnish.jpg has no source or copyright information.

  --Carnildo 07:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object - no references, and the issue with the images needs to be addressed. There is no critical comment about him or his music and for someone of his stature, I think that's needed. I also think there are some very minor POV issues. Why, for example single out a relatively inconsequential (my opinion) hit such as "I'm Still Standing" and include it in the lead paragraph where it assumes a distinction that it may or may not be worthy of. I think it's a great song, but it was not a major turning point in his career. I don't think it's practical to discuss each and every album, and I'm glad you haven't, but it's essential to discuss each and every phase of his career comprehensively. The writing style changes dramatically at "1980s and onwards" - the earlier sections are free flowing prose, for the most part well written. In "1980s" there are numerous short unrelated sentences that completely break the flow of the article and create a choppy, incomplete effect, which suggests that section was rushed through in order to finish the article. These are all things that can be fixed though. Rossrs 11:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Until the images are credited (I added the unverified template to Image:Oct272.jpg as per those above), I cannot support the article. Also, the musicals section is almost empty, there are no references, the quotations should be moved to wikiquote with a link, the discography section is empty, and the article needs to be cleaned up. Other than that, it's well done, and has very few redlinks (until the end—perhaps these should be filled in, or removed?). -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{21:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Brisbane

Well written, informed article of this transforational city. Mathieumcguire 00:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review, this is not how a city article should look and it is missing basic information, and references.--nixie 01:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • See Johannesburg for an example of a featured city article.--The Brain of Morbius 01:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review: it has a long way to go.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Peer review - I agree it's missing a lot, in fact missing such basic necessities as references. I live in Brisbane too, and the main impression I get is that the article doesn't really represent the Brisbane that I know. That may be POV on my part - I'd have to read it through several times to be sure. Move it to peer review and I'll be happy to discuss my thoughts further, because here is not the place to do that in detail. I've heard of "Brissie", I've heard of "BrisVegas" but I've never heard of "Brisneyland". I should get out more perhaps. ;-) Rossrs 10:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object—It's not ready yet. -- Tony 00:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object -- article does not have completed sections, lead to short, and long lists instead of prose. User:Nichalp/sg 06:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Too many redlinks, and no references. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{21:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Modified Newtonian dynamics

This article does a wonderful job of covering all the major points in a in-depth yet accessible way. It also explains the underlying mathametics for the expert. Even for the layman, the topic is described both conceptually and with equations. Every point is addressed in a methodical and analytical manner, a great example being the section Consistence with Observations. In short, it is a great example of what an encyclopedic article should be, both accessible and in-depth, offering something for everyone. There could hardly be a candidate more suited to being a featured article. I nominate Modified Newtonian dynamics. Loom91 07:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Tally: The current opposition tally is- 6 Loom91 18:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:Newtonianfig3.png has no source or copyright information.
  2. The image Image:Newtonianfig4.png is under a license of {{permission}}. This is not an acceptable license for Wikipedia.

  --Carnildo 08:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references. Lead secion is a brief mention of the name and author rather than a summary, see this page. 119 08:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

  Responding to the submitter's request I reconsider, I still object on the lead section. It does not summarize the rather weighty sections 'Consistence with the observations' and 'Discussion and Criticisms' and so is not a complete summary, in my opinion. 119 04:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

  Your wish is my command. I've added yet another paragraph to the intro, briefly touching on the main points of the two sections mentioned by you. I'm afraid of making it too lengthy. Loom91 17:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) The lead section is too short to adequately summarize an article of this length. 2) Cite your sources in a References section. 3) The image captions in the first section do not adequately describe the images. 4) The image placement in the first section leaves too much whitespace. 5) The mathematical description in the second section doesn't need to show every algebraic step from the initial equation to the last; show the initial equation, state assumptions (e.g. "We assume that, at this large distance r, a is smaller than a0 and thus..."), then show the solution for the variable that you are reducing to (i.e. "Solving for v, the equation is reduced to..."). 6) There are several places in the prose that need a copyedit for grammar (e.g. "As an effective theory, it describe the dynamics of accelerated object with an equation, without any physical justification." from the beginning of the Discussion and Criticisms section). slambo 16:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Has Slambo gone on a vacation or forgotten this page. He has made no changes to his objections since the first day! Loom91 18:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems Slambo has abandoned this discussion. What can be done about this? Loom91 18:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object, per above: no references. Phoenix2 17:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good enough for me, now that there are references. Images/diagrams seem well placed. Support. Phoenix2 21:12, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Slambo's objections 1 through 5 addressed(i hope adequately). However my first language is not English and therefore I'm ill equipped to do grmmatical and spelling corrections(6th objection). A little help in this direction from anyone will be highly appreciated. On the two objections raised by Carnildo, the first image is nothing more than line diagrams which can be drawn by anyone and no copyright can be claimed on them anymore than a copyright can be claimed on a drawing of a circle. The objection raised about the second image is a valid one, thus I'm removing the image. Please help me in correcting grammer and change your votes to accept. Thank you. Loom91 18:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to claim copyright on an image such as Image:Newtonianfig3.png. --Carnildo 19:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems CArnildos is the only objection remaining, and I could solve it in 5 minutes but unfortunately I have lost my copy of Microsoft Paint to a virus attack on my XP. If anyone mails me a copy of MS Paint at loom91@yahoo.com then I will upload an alternate image. Alternatively, someone kind can do the image themself and upload it. Thanks.Loom91 07:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The final objection has been addressed! I've replaced Newtonianfig3.png with a public domain drawing by me, DarkMatterHalo.png. That takes care of the lot. Now will you please change your votes to support? Loom91 07:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have rectified the grammer and spelling errors. I believe that takes care of all existing objections. Anyhing else? Loom91 19:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support as all claims above seem to have been addressed, and it is a well written article. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] 21:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose the link LSBs should be repaired. Vb10:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)~

Repaired? How? I don't get what's wrong with the link.Loom91 17:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. Alright, fixed the link well and proper. Loom91 17:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I didn't know this theory. I've learned something. Why haven't you put a nice picture of the universe to make it a bit more appealing and allow the administrators to put it on the main page. Vb19:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object—I'm surprised that it was nominated before a thorough copy-edit: I've made numerous small changes to the opening; the authors should try harder. Tony 13:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you please be a little more specific as to exactly which grammatical errors remain, I unfortunately fail to find them. Loom91 17:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

In any case, I've touched up the intro some more, see embedded comments for rationales. Loom91 17:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I've edited another section. However, please let me know whether you'll be able to address the concerns below; if not, I won't go ahead with the edit. Why isn't that extraordinary photo on the discussion page in the article? It's an ideal article for photos. Tony 02:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not inserting the photo as it does not provide copyright information and is thus not suitable for a Featured Article. If you know that it fits in Wikkipedia policy, please let me know and I'll include it. And thank you for your work in the article. Loom91 18:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The standard applied to (all) other math and physics articles is to have the article start with the words In physics, ..., although in this case, In astronomy, modified Newtonian dynamics is .... Discussions about style and etc. can be carried out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. linas 18:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Addressed! Loom91 17:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. My main point is that I believe this theory is not accepted by the community of physicists, not even as an alternative, and this should be noted in the lead section (I'm not a physicist, so I've asked the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics to comment). It's not clear what happens if multiple forces act on a body: should one first add up the forces and then apply the modified second law to find the acceleration, or the other way around; this is the same in Newtonian mechanics, but not in this modification. Some more comments, all from Modified Newtonian dynamics#The change:
  • the difference between and is not explained;
  • the formula should say instead of ;
  • the sentence below does not seem correct English to me;
  • I don't believe that "the form of µ doesn't change the consequences of the theory", only that it does not change some consequences of the theory (like the rotation curve);
  • "doesn't" should be written "does not";
  • "every day world" should be "everyday world";
  • "a is greater than a₀" should be "a is much greater than a₀" (and why the font tag in the subscript?).

Having so many questionable aspects in such a short fragment does not bode well. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Your first point is addressed. The final sentence in the intro uses almost your exact phrasing. On your second point, it is most certainly not appropriate to explain basic vector notation. The article is long enough already. On your third point, the difference is of spacing, but I'm not familiar with LaTeX. As you know LaTeX, perhaps you can change the formula. The difference is trivial. Your other points are all now addressed. Loom91 18:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Of course, the points noted by Jitse should be addressed. About Jitse's first point: Only a handful of scientists advocate MOND as an alternative to dark matter. But this theory is taken seriously by the rest of the scientific community. They take it as a challenge to try to disprove it. See e.g. Joseph Silk's article cited in this article. So, I suggest that the fact that the theory has only a limited number of advocates be mentioned in the introduction. Another point are the links in the references. If possible try to also link to preprints. You need a subscription to APJ to access Silk's article, but this article is also available on the Arxiv preprint server. Count Iblis 21:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I haven't contributed to this article, but I work in the field. The article could one day be good, but there are lots of small scale problems. For example, just to take the introduction, what does "Although Milgrom and others have demonstrated consistently ratifying evidence in favor of MOND, there has been little truly conclusive research" mean? It leaves the reader (and me) 100% confused about the observational status of MOND. How about "(beyond the mitigating influence of the Sun's gravitational field)"? What is "mitigating" about the Sun's field? There are also lots of examples of improperly informal language.

"Overview" section needs rework. The image of the dark matter halo is ugly and needs to be redone.

The mathematical derivation of the predicted rotation curve is too technical for an encyclopedia article, and also is rather laborious.

"Consistence with the observations" is a bit too much editorializing for my tastes, and misrepresents the scientific process as a form of "box checking". A good version of this section would focus on the actual criticisms and responses on the question of MOND, not just rehash a debate on the scientific method (imagine if every article on controversal science had this section.) That would be very interesting and encyclopedic: what were the actual methodological criticisms laid against MOND over its history?

An important fact is only obliquely mentioned: that MOND, as it was first stated, violates the (considered fundamental principle of) Lorentz invariance by postulating a preferred frame of reference. This has been rectified by the TVS paper, very recently, which recasts MOND in terms of a Lagrangian. A classic objection to MOND was that it could not explain the cosmological evidence for dark matter (e.g., spatial flatness); it remains to be seen whether or not the TVS formulation can do it.

In any case, I find the discussion of the impact of TVS on MOND, and the general question of general and special relativistic effects in MOND, to be severly lacking.

My general suggestion here is that this article could be great, but it needs serious work. A problem is that it is rather cluttered and poorly organized. I would suggest future editors start by cutting out lots of stuff, and trying to get a better outline format.

All the best, Sdedeo 02:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The intro has been reworked, all the sentences you objected to removed. Can you be more specific about which points in Overview need to be reworked? It's very difficult for me to edit if you give only vaugue impressions about your objections. I can not see how MOND postulates a 'preffered' frame of reference. Which frame does it prefer? How can you call that simple algebra techinical when articles on physics routinely make use of exotic and little-undertood mathematics such as Hilbert Spaces, Bra-ket notation and that sort of things? That's what I call techinical! About TeVeS, I know little about it. As you said you are working in the field, how about adding what you know to a new section about TeVeS? Also perhaps TeVeS should be treated as a separate matter, since it deviates from MOND in its native form.A good article is born from many people working together, everyone adding to the part they know most about. Please consider taking some time to improve the article. I have edited out the preamble about scientific method and instead placed a link to the original article for reference. Please let me know your thoughts Loom91 18:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Loom. My feeling is that this article is quite a ways from being a featured article candidate, which is why some of my objections are broad.

The algebra demonstrating that MOND gives flat rotation curves is not necessary. You don't have to prove statements in the article; you can just state them, and (hopefully) provide a reference if the statement is in any way contentious. Similarly, in the "mathematics of MOND", you should really not be busting out with the gradient operator. This is just a general tradition in popular science articles: avoid equations unless absolutely necessary; describe results with words and metaphor. It should be possible to describe the essentials of MOND without using the gradient, e.g..

As I've said (and so has SCZenz), one of the major objections to MOND was its conflict with Relativity. Another (connected) objection is the fact that "classic" (i.e., non-TVS) MOND could not make any cosmological predictions. Since cosmological evidence for dark matter has been a major thing since the early 1990s (at least), MOND's failure there is extremely notable, and not covered in the article.

The discussions of MOND vis a vis scientific methods are still pretty contentious. As I've said, you should really source any statements that suggest MOND is criticised because of a conflict with Occam's Razor. AFAIK, astronomers have not really challenged MOND on such broad grounds, but you might be able to find references.

Re: preferred frame stuff. This is part of MOND's conflict with General Relativity I've discussed above. In a nutshell, the local physics inside a freely-falling reference frame should be universal. However, MOND says that some freely falling reference frames (e.g., that of a spaceship free-falling into the Sun) are different from others (e.g., one on the outskirts of the galaxy.) The two experimenters will measure different values of the inertial mass of (e.g.) the electron, according to MOND. You would be able to distinguish the two reference frames, which is a violation of relativity even in the weak field limit.

I hope this helps you improve the article. Unfortunately, I don't think it will make FA status this time around, but perhaps in the future. I'll definitely put it on my list of things to look at later in the year.

All the best, Sdedeo 00:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object, as per Sdedeo. In particular, I am concerned with the treatment of the scientific method in the article. And inconsistency with General Relativity is not to be ignored lightly. -- SCZenz 04:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ignored lightly? How? MOND is not a relativistic theory, niether does it claim to be one. That is the ream of TeVeS. Loom91 18:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems quite strange to have a large-scale theory of gravity and motion that's not compatible with GR. We already have one theoretical divide, between QM and GR--we don't need more unless absolutely necessary. But this really comes back to treatment of the scientific method. To say MOND is a phenomenological model that may give quantitatively accurate values for the rotation curves is one thing, but the article's claims are considerably stronger. -- SCZenz 21:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

References are not correctly cited; missing are the volume and page numbers. Authors should be given a first name as well as a last name. Suggest using the WP reference templates to provide a uniformity of style. See Wikipedia:Cite sources for pointers to templates. linas 18:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

You might even want to organize references according to whether they are historical or popular, etc. See Riemann hypothesis for such an example. linas 19:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The section called "external links" should be merged with the section "references". The external links should be credited with authors and dates as well. The reason for this is that many journal articles are now available on pre-print/reprint servers on the web; and so there is often no real difference between a print reference and a web reference. It also eliminates the bad habit of citing random web links wihtout given an author credit or dating the thing. linas 19:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I take it that you are commenting rather than making a formal objection since you haven't used an Object to begin, but I will try to answer your concerns anyway. First off, page numbers? You are being too strict. The featured article criterias are not that strict! I have mentioned the date in each case, which makes finding the issue trivial, and from there the mentioned article can be tracked from the Index.I'm taking your suggestion and merging "external links" with "references", and the links are credited with authors whenever appropriate. I can't cite an author for a pre-print server! Loom91 17:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cathedral of the Assumption (Louisville)

I think that this is a very complete article with lots of nice photos.--Exir Kamalabadi^{Feel free to criticize me} 05:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. What, if anything, does the copyright tag {{Church}} mean? Are the images public domain? Are they copyrighted-free-use? Are they "fair use"? It's used on the images Image:Churchfont.jpg, Image:Steeple.jpg, Image:Bapistry.jpg, Image:Font.jpg, Image:Coronation window.jpg, Image:Cathedra.jpg, Image:Cathedral organ.gif, and Image:Nave.jpg, and on the sound files Image:Glorylord.ogg and Image:Verbumcaro.ogg. --Carnildo 06:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object – 1) No references 2) Misuse of subheadings. Please increase the length of each subheading or merge with the parent heading. User:Nichalp/sg 06:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - images are a problem as stated above. Perhaps you could ask User:Essjay, who seems to have added most or all of them, to clarify the copyright status of them. If they are indeed fair use, then a fair use rationale should be put on each image description page, and you may consider reducing the number of images used, if this is the case. The use of references is essential, and the article is lacking in these. Lead paragraph needs to be expanded, and the number of small (one paragraph and even one sentence) sections should be condensed into broader headings. At first glance it looks like the subject has been covered with extreme brevity - this is a somewhat misleading impression created by the number of headings and small sections. On the whole it's well written, but these a fairly major issues that need to be addressed. Rossrs 14:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If the images are fair use, then every last one of them should be removed, and replaced with a free-license image. There's nothing here that can't be replaced by a Wikipedian with a camera. --Carnildo 18:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • yes of course, quite correct. Rossrs 10:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vishnu sahasranama

I am requesting comments on whether Vishnu sahasranama should be a featured article candidate.

Thanks,

Raj2004 19:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Object – 1) the references have to be moved to the end of the article. 2) Some sections are too short. 3) If you want comments please go through the Peer review. Will review more thoroughly later. User:Nichalp/sg 21:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - the image has no copyright status. Much of the text reads very well, but I know nothing about this subject. Peer review is a good suggestion. Rossrs 14:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review. This is not the place to solicit comments on FA suitability. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In-N-Out

I would like to nominate In-N-Out as a featured article. This article is one of the most comprehensive works on this restaurant that I have ever seen. Anything you would like to know about this place has been added to this article. There are plenty of references to prove factuality. The article is stable; there hasn’t been any major revision for a while. This article is surprising well written and is actually compelling to read. Since it is just a burger place it can’t be too controversial of an article. It has been written in appropriate Wikipedia style standards. The article contains a lot of images in appropriate places. Even though the article is comprehensive it is not too long. Topics are divided into different section and stay on topic. SenorAnderson 23:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral Oppose. I previously put this article on peer review, but I do not think that all of the comments that were posted there have been applied yet. There still seems to be a lot of lists on the article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, the copyright status of Image:IN-N-OUT BURGER MENU BOARD.JPG (which I raised on its talk page) still has not been addressed yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And another thing: The history section looks like it still needs work. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object, due to the following:
  • "just-in-time" isn't really a business model, its an inventory strategy and it hyperlinks to the wrong article. Maybe it might be better to just say the food is "made-to-order"?
  • "locations's" is grammatically incorrect.
  • "food preparation area (where the tomatoes, onions," is an incomplete sentence.
  • Dedicated "mechanical/electrical rooms" strike me as unusual for small fast-food outlets. Please elaborate.
  • "employee locker rooms" are important to understanding the corporate culture, are these just a set of lockers or are they part of a set of employee facilities. Please elaborate.
  • "concrete tables and benches" sound awfully uncomfortable, are they really concrete or are they just set in a paved area?
  • The "two-box" design could use something visual to aid understanding (either a diagram or a photograph).
  • "larger restaurant site, newer restaurants" - the first noun is singular, the second is plural.
  • "the Snyders" are introduced in Advertising without any mention of who they are.
  • The list for the "secret" menu is a bit overwhelming - maybe you could move it to a new article?
  • Link 666x666 in Trivia to the Number of the Beast (numerology), non-Christians might otherwise be baffled by the reference.
  • Details of store numbers would be appreciated.
  • The History could be a bit more detailed.
  • The menu photograph should be relabelled as being in the public domain.

I'll probably be back to add more comments. From the WikiProject on business, "each article should have a section discussing the company's business model, which intimately tied to how a company is put together and one of the major factors usually shaping a companies history" and "management philosophy, vision, and values is also a major element of coporations and their behaviour which often go under-reported". I think you do a pretty good job of outlining both but any enhancements would be welcome. Good luck with the nomination. Cedars 03:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, "the Snyders" are introduced in the history section: In-N-Out's first location was opened in October 1948 by Harry and Esther Snyder Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The copyright status of Image:IN-N-OUT BURGER MENU BOARD.JPG needs to be clarified. Is it GFDL as implied by the upload comment, public domain/no rights reserved as implied by the rights summary, or "fair use" as implied by the discussion page?
  2. The "trivia" section should be worked into the prose or removed.
  3. There seems to be too much emphasis on the menu.

  --Carnildo 07:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• This one's a little overboard. A guy drove up and took a picture of the menu board. In-N-Out may be abe to trademark the menu board, but as a photo of a menu board I don't think there's much claim for copyright of the photo. Now a transcription of the text they may, but not the photo this user took. Besides the template on that image page is wrong. It claims no source information, while the user clearly claims he took the photo. - Taxman ^Talk 20:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

  There are three conflicting statements as to the copyright status of the image. Before the article can be considered to be of featured status, this needs to be straightened out, or the image needs to be removed from the article. I don't see what's "overboard" about that. --Carnildo 21:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  Agree with removal, especially since this photo can be easily retaken and properly tagged by any number of people. -- Norvy (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose featured article candidacy. Except for the recent notation, this is one of the most boring articles on Wiki. It looks like someone dumped their Business 101 weekend writing assignment on here. --Noitall 06:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry but I must agree..... it's unbelivably, unreadably dull. --PopUpPirate 23:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I concur with all those who say this article is boring to read. I liked it better when it was a stub. :) sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 08:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tupac Shakur

====Nomination Withdrawn==== SqlPac

I am nominating this article because its quality has been greatly improved since its previous review, thanks to the thorough and exhaustive efforts of the community of contributors. It is well-sourced, re-formatted, re-organized, re-edited and all images have had Fair Use rationales added. It will make an excellent starting point for any research projects into the life of the highly controversial and popular subject of the article, rapper Tupac Amaru Shakur. Notes: I am a contributor to the Tupac Shakur article and a prior version of this article was submitted as a featured article candidate. SqlPac 01:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

*Weak Object Good article, but the gallery of album covers has to be removed as fair use doesn't count in that case --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support concern is met, good article, but I do agree with Tuf-Kat on the referncing sections. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed gallery of album covers.SqlPac 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object paragraphs too short and the album covers need to go. Not part of my objection, but I think the table about the albums/stuff released after his death is excessive. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Album covers gone. Combined paragraphs to make them longer.SqlPac

He did release more than twice as much material after death than before death, so any complete discography will reflect a large number of items. I have combined all "while living" and "posthumous" listings into single listings that do not differentiate.SqlPac 20:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done, it looks like a pretty decent article now. Take care of TUF-KAT's criticisms and you'll have my support as well. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 23:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The gallery has got to go. Wikipedia is supposed to be a free content encyclopedia; large groups of gratuitous non-free images don't further that goal.

Gallery gone.SqlPac 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• 1. The album covers scattered throughout the article should be removed. There's no discussion of any of the covers, and decorative use of non-free images is not permitted under Wikipedia's fair use policy.

The 2 - 3 album covers scattered throughtout the article were being used as a reference to the albums that were being discussed in the sections in which they appeared. They are now removed.SqlPac 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• 1. Either Image:2Pac2.jpg or Image:2pac-diamond.jpeg needs to be removed. There's no reason to use two non-free images of someone when one will do.

Removed 2pac-diamond.jpeg publicity photo.SqlPac 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• 1. The image Image:2pac-diamond.jpeg has no source information.

Removed.SqlPac 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• --Carnildo 02:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object, though it's shaping up fairly nicely.
  • More inline citations. "Style and influences" is completely without them; "Legacy" needs more, anything that purports to know Shakur's mind needs a citation (e.g. "Post-prison")
  • Trim the TOC considerably (splitting discog. into living and posthumous is not necessary, I think, and if the notable features are so notable, they should be in the body of the article and if not, link to a subarticle like List of Tupac Shakur collaborations).

Some of the notable features were mentioned in the body of the article, though not all of them. The Notable Features section has been removed. Living and posthumous splitting of discography, etc., has been eliminated. The listings do not now differentiate between material released while living and that released after his death.SqlPac 20:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks better. Tuf-Kat 20:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• • For a subject like Tupac, I'd really like to see some more scholarly sources. Almost all of the sources appear to be web articles, mostly newspapers and the like. The only two print sources are one biography and one of what appears to be a tell-all about his murder. This isn't enough to place such a major figure in his historical and social context -- for some performers, it might be adequate, but Tupac needs more.

So that other readers of this don't misunderstand and automatically believe we sourced a bunch of "fan sites", I'd like to list some of the online sources used in the article here: 1) The BBC News website, 2) The Harvard Gazette, 3) U.C.-Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism online paper, 4) BET website, 5) MTV2 website, 6) AOL Music website, 7) 2PacLegacy (the official TASF website). Additionally, the following print sources were used: 1) The New York Times, 2) The San Francisco Chronicle, 3) Tupac:Resurrection, 4) LAbyrinth. The "tell-all" about his murder was used as a source for information about ... well, his murder. In addition, Tupac interviews with renowned hip-hop reporter Davey D were used. SqlPac 20:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Tuf-Kat 18:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is not that the current references are bad, just that they are insufficient. The article does not adequately place Tupac in a historical and social context, and I don't think that can be remedied using the current array of sources. Find some scholarly works on hip hop, American pop culture, etc and incorporate their thoughts on Tupac. Tuf-Kat 20:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your comments and point of view. The contributors to the Tupac Shakur article discussed the Harvard Conference, and some of the dozen or so scholars and professors in attendance who placed Tupac in a historical and social context. Using the article as a starting point for research into Tupac will lead those interested in the scholarly aspects of his life to purchase those academic papers. I would propose that a full academic treatment of Tupac Shakur which speculates on the proper historical and social context of his life and work would consume an entire article unto itself, and would expand an article discussing the simple facts of his life and work (like this one) to at least double its current size. In fact, looking at previous edits of the article, one can see that there was an expanded summary of the works put forth at the Harvard Conference alone which exploded the article to nearly 50% larger than its current 40+ KB size. SqlPac 16:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Tupac's of sufficient importance he could and probably should have subarticle(s). The Harvard Conference is insufficient -- this article needs to explain in what ways Emmett Price believes Tupac is a "trickster", for example, and please define or link "organic intellectual". The sentence "Still other renowned academics spoke of Shakur's impact on entertainment, race relations, politics and the "hero/martyr" status to which he was elevated by fans after his death." is far too vague and begs the question of how the reader could learn something about this topic. Tuf-Kat 01:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a bunch of stuff. At this point I'd prefer to just withdraw the nomination. What's the procedure for that? SqlPac 02:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terri Schiavo

With great trepidation I renominate this article for FAC. I know it has a horrible history, which can be found here here and here. But in the midst of it all, it IS a good article, well-referenced and very comprehensive. While length is a problem, other articles of similar length have passed FAC which IMHO have similar or less quality. All the issues are resolved and edit warring has stopped, in fact, no one has edited this article for even a copyedit in a week. The Schiavo episode has passed on long enough that no new information is relevant to the case, which I think makes it meet the stability criteria. I think this article is a great example of the Wikipedia process. We've had several editors from differing viewpoints contribute, and they have came up with an examplary piece of work- WP-style cosensus building in action. I really hope when you vote consider the article on its merits, and not on its history here on FAC. Borisblue 05:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. There are some floating sentences that need to find homes in paragraphs. I did a little of that, and changed one usage of "Terri" to "Schiavo". Jkelly 05:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak support as long as the article remains stable. It's the best guide to the whole debacle fiasco shebang event available on the internet. It's also perhaps too long (would upgrade to a full support if the article was trimmed). Proto t c 11:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I am also tending to support now, but I need time to read thoroughly. My main comment at the moment is (as expected) also length. The article has been pared down considerably, but, with 20 sections and three levels of headings, I wonder if some more could be floated out to separate articles. It does seem quite stable now - diff for the last 500 edits (back to 21:38, 17 October 2005) but query whether we should wait another few weeks to make sure. In any event, I would like to see advocates on both sides of the debate supporting this version. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think the length is OK as is. Much better article now. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• I haven't read through the whole thing, so I can't support yet. The length seems ok to me, but the referencing is a little hectic. Instead of inline comments every 4th word, could page numbers be incorporated into the actual references? That way they're useful to a reader, and since the note is there anyway, it makes sense to put all the information there. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

---

[the following comment added after the article failed FAC -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)]

It doeth appear that two Anon IP's have just fixed all the referencing problems; Do tell to not mess up what they have wrought.--64.12.116.14 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

There also appear to be some pretty serious numbering problems within the notes (note 9 links to ref 40, for example, and note 8 links to a pdf, not the citation in the article). Those should be fixed before being featured. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment! Please be patient as I try to call in some of the article's main contributors- they might know best where each of the references go. Strange that they haven't discovered this page yet.... --Borisblue 01:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

---

[the following comment added after the article failed FAC -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)]

Some Anons apparently discovered the reference problems and appeared to have corrected them all; I would not mess with the references section unless I knew how to do it; It can get hairy.--64.12.116.14 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

• Weak object -- There are no references in the Initial Medical Crisis section. This section includes a lot of specific factual information regarding Schiavo's medical condition, and each such statement should be footnoted. Other than that, the article looks good. -- Creidieki 02:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object -- The page needs to be trimmed according to summary style =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  Large parts are written in summary style, and in fact it has already been pared down from the previous rfas. The huge problem is the 25kb long references section. I know this may be unprecedented, but would it be OK to move them to another page, eg References for Terri Schiavo? Otherwise, I can't see how I cut through the size significantly. Borisblue 05:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  Its not written in summary style. I ignore the references/see alsos/ext links/infoboxes while calculating the article size. The article can still be heavily summarised. It contains a high level of detail which need not be present on this page. Specific instances, people (unless they are key people) should be moved to detailed articles. References should never be put in a new page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  Minus the stuff at the end that makes slightly more than 50kb. Not really that excessive compared to other stuff that gets passed here imho. However, I do grant that there is quite a bit of trivia here- let me consult with the article's regular contributors to see what can be moved/removed. Borisblue 08:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the page is at this time too long. It is otherwise a fine candidate for featuring. Stifle 09:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Better than before, but still too long-winded even without the references and external links. Oh, and don't ever remove those from the article just to pass some lower KB threshold; Summary style clearly says to ignore that type of thing and to concentrate on the amount of readable prose: anything above 30KB of readable prose has an increasing burden of proof that the extra text is necessary and it is rare for subjects above 50KB of readable prose to efficiently cover its topic in an encyclopedic manor. --mav 19:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object; I will support as soon as there are citations given to support the facts in the "Initial Medical Crisis" section. Otherwise, I support the nomination. This is as short as it can get, I think. Hydriotaphia 22:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Mav it still has too much superfluous detail. It needs to meet summary style, and still does not. Beyond that it's not terribly well written either. There are tons of orphan paragraphs and poorly flowing, choppy prose. I reallize the article has been worked on very hard by a lot of people, but that doesn't mean it meets the criteria. The article is so contentious that I'm not sure it would be possible to fix the prose and summarize it properly anytime soon. - Taxman ^Talk 22:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose far to long (please use summary style!) and the numbering of the footnotes does not seem to match by the end of the article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Can we leave this? For like, six f***ing months, can this article be nominated for nothing and referred to nowhere? Just let it sit and have the information settle and become fresh again. This is an oppose I suppose...but really, it's a matter of not being able to judge disinterestedly because so much has happened to this article with so much gnashing of teeth that I don't think an FAC is right thing to do with it at the moment. Marskell 22:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support it is a good article and 50 kb is a little much but with article's quality I believe it edeserves a support. I'm not sure how much more summary can really be done other than combining sections. See if all of the references are necessary because not every little fact has to be referenced. Falphin 03:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I too find the article far too long and detailed. It is important to put things in perspective and summarize accordingly, and while this level of detail might be interesting at present, it would be far less so in ten years time. Sortan 03:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • To clarify further, whats the relevance of the "Early Life" section? I feel that that section could be condensed to perhaps two sentences. Is it really necessary to know that she met "Michael Schiavo in 1982 in a sociology class at Bucks County Community College in Newtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania", and that he was her first boyfriend? Why do we care that "they were married on November 10, 1984, at Our Lady of Good Counsel Church in Southampton, Pennsylvania"? I feel that most of the other sections should likewise be trimmed. Sortan 03:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

---

[the following comments added after the article failed FAC -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)]

• Oppose. I tried to edit down just that - details about how she met Michael Schiavo, the church they were married at, her siblings' names - and was promptly slapped down by Patsw. (An unsigned comment by Anonamous IP address: 22:06, 12 December 2005 71.57.95.94)
• Support. If one anon can oppose, then another can support: Perhaps these details belong, and perhaps Pat Sweeney was right in "slapping down" your edit (he did not mean to slap you down). Of course, our anon votes don't count, but vote count doesn't matter in FAC nominations anyhow: It is up to FAC Editor Raul654, no matter the vote count.--71.101.34.26 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Despite the length this is a very good article and better than most for readability. Wjbean 18:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CF-101 Voodoo

This is a self-nomination (my first). I think this article is a valuable addition to the store of information about the post-Second World War history of the Canadian Air Force. Comments and suggestions for further improvement would be most welcome.

• Comment--I'd love to support, but all the images are under crown copyright, which doesn't allow commercial use and is therefore incompatible with the GFDL. If the planes themselves were run jointly with the U.S. govt., as per the article, would it be possible to get some public domain photos? Or perhaps an enterprising Wikipedian could get a photo of one of them in a museum? Meelar (talk) 21:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

If you take a look at the F-101 page you will see that all the images are CF-101s. The USAF hasn't been very forth coming releasing more then a handful of their older photos in high quality, and IMO, a featured article deserves more then a static photo from a museum. In particular when dealing with UK and Canadian military subjects finding a free photo will be kind of hard since they do no release into the Public Domain like the US Government does. Overall the article looks good I am going to read it over, a check it against Jane's for basic details tonight. PPGMD 19:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the lead would not be complete without briefly mentioning the information in "Squadron operations" and whether they saw combat. 119 19:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made an adjustment to the lead, and to the squadron operations section that should address this. --Voodude 13:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] August 2005

[edit] Cerebellum

A lot of work was put into this article by Nrets and me. It was sent to peer review and had an excellent reception. It's clean, it's thorough, and I think it will help fill out the number of biology Featured Articles.

• Self-nominate and support. Semiconscious (talk · home) 18:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support, I think (or rather hope) that we managed to merge general overviews with more technical details fairly effectively. We also addressed comments/concerns that came up during the peer review. Most of the illustrations were done by me or User:Semiconscious so they can be edited further if anyone has any comments on those. Nrets 20:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

*It's not there yet; needs some cleaning up, and more importantly, careful references to diagrams in the text to help the non-specialist reader to navigate her way through a lexically complicated text.Tony 07:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• I incorporated the changes you suggested on the talk pages as well as made references to the figures in the text. I know the article is a bit technical, but I think that there is enough there to satisfy a general audience, plus a lot more to provide in-depth information to whomever is looking for it. Nrets 15:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support, though I still think some terms could be better explained in the text or linked. For example, "Lesions of the cerebellum cause not paralysis but feedback deficits, manifesting as disorders in fine movement, equilibrium, posture, and motor learning" is a sentence in the lead section. Feedback deficits could be linked to, or even more fully explained. What is defined as "fine movement" and "equilibrium" in this context? --Oldak Quill 10:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've rewritten to intro to make it more clear and accessible. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - The intro section needs expansion, and the random and strange bolding of certain terms needs to be removed. The term "figure" should also be removed from the article as the images should be placed next to where they are first introduced. I would also like to see the images right-aligned so that they don't push text. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 19:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've addresses several of your concerns, expanding the first introduction a bit by including some brief history. I've removed the seemingly random bolding of phrases. The term "figure" appears at the request of another user on the talk page in response to the placement as a FAC; the user felt by adding those pointers it would assist the reader. Due to the size and number of images, we can't always place the images next to the text where they are the most relevent. However, I have cleaned up the placement of some of the images. Semiconscious (talk · home) 20:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I've continued and made some edits of my own, but I'd also like to see citing of information in the article as well as more external links. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 23:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've added many more external links that are pretty cool, I think. So much of the stuff in this article is "general" knowledge, so the three non-numbered references given at the bottom cover just about all this material. However I will continue to go through the article and look for less-than-general pieces of information so I may provide references for them. I've added one more reference already. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, I've added a few more references. I'm still working on it... Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support—the authors have used their considerable research and teaching experience to produce an authoritative and well written summary of the subject. Tony 01:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've addressed your further concerns on the talk pages. Great work; thanks for your help! Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - I've been reading through this article more closely now than in the peer review. I think that there is *great* work here, and that you guys have really done your homework. However, I think the writing quality of this article is still too uneven to represent Wikipedia's best. It's close, but not quite there. All you need is some more copyediting and clarification. What I think needs to be looked at:

:*Introduction: fragmented and not neccesarily the best 5 sentence overview of the cerebellum

• I've rewritten the introduction. I feel my briefcase example gives a very succinct view of what the cerebellum does. Let me know your thoughts. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• General features: Some technical terms thrown around here that are never explained: "perpendicular circuits"? Also, why compare the cerebellum to the optic nerve? I don't see how that analogy makes anything clearer.

• Well, another user removed my briefcase example. Let me know what you think. Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• I've tried to be aware of the jargon used all throughout this article but it's difficult for someone so accustomed to the terminology. I've addressed the one particular instance you've mentioned here, so let me know what you think. If you find any more instances, I will try to address those as well. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Re: the optic nerve, it was in there when I began my massive re-edits, and I never thought to remove it? :) It just seems as though vision is such a complicated system, so comparing the cerebellum tracts to that system makes it seem all the more remarkable. I can remove it, but I think it gives the casual reader a sense of the enormous responsibility of this structure. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:*Development and evolution: Try to make this a little more user-friendly. Some of the sentences are very awkward. Also "thisis is one of many of the ironies of the “little brain.”" I don't see what the irony is, and I think that statement is somewhat silly for an anatomy article, especially since none of the other "ironies" are pointed out.

• Tony addressed the awkwardness issues with his awesome editing. The irony issue... I've fixed the wording here, but we discuss many of the other ironies at the end of the article, such as this "motor" structure now proving to be involved in cogntive and language functions, as well as how people who have lost their cerebellum seem to function so well. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:*Anatomy: This section is generally quite good, but I would really like to see a lot more wikification - more links!

• Thanks! I can wikify a lot of the links here, but I haven't becasue they would mostly be redundant (i.e., "motor cortex" was already wikified earlier in the article) or self-referential. Suggestions? Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

These are just things off the top of my head, not the only things that can be fixed. Try to read these sections out loud and see how they flow, and you'll get what I mean. In my opinion, if this stuff is addressed, this is a featured article. I hope you guys tackle other neuroanatomy projects. Interested in brain stem, basal ganglia, or frontal lobe? Mr.Bip 05:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, if you check the talk page, you'll see basal ganglia is my next project! :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Support - A lot of the jargon has been left untouched, but I understand that this comes with the territory. Maybe I'll take a stab at explaining a few terms over the next few weeks. Still, this is quality science writing, folks. Keep up the good work. Mr.Bip 04:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• For my future projects (most immediately basal ganglia), I will try to keep the jargon to a minimum. Nearly all my experience with this is in relation to colleagues, so writing for a general audience often does not cross my mind. Always write to your audience. Thanks for the help and advice. Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support - still a bit heavy on the jargon, but I'm assuming thats unavoidable when dealing with a subject like this. Despite that, however, it's resonable easy to read, and very interesting even to a layman like me. Awesome illustrations. WegianWarrior 03:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. See my comment directly above yours regarding the jargon. I'll work on it in this article, and I'll keep it to a minimum in future writings. Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support. This beautiful effort by Semiconscious and Nrets is fully deserving of Featured status. It is well written, explains unfamiliar technical and scientific concepts clearly, has good diagrams (some drawn by the two editors themselves), and is reasonably well-referenced. The section on cerebellar dysfunction can perhaps be expanded — I particularly expected to see some allusion to the seminal work of Gordon Holmes — but still, one would not expect a treatise on the disorders of the cerebellum in what is a general encyclopedia article; I will see if I can round it out in the next few days (as it stands however, it should not be a reason to deny FA status, IMO). The reference section can do with a little cleaning up — inline references in the text are currently of the Harvard form, and link externally, whereas there is a preference on WP for intext notes that link to references, as I understand it. This is not very difficult, Semiconscious, I could show you how to Scratch that, I think I'll just wander over and patch it up for you. Some technical terms are not defined when they first occur (or linked to an article that defines them). For example, ipsilateral occurs at least twice, but I cannot see an explanation of what it means anywhere (link such terms to this article guys). I'm glad to see reference to some of the work being currently done on the cognitive functions of the cerebellum. However, the concluding sentence of the article is misleading. You might see this in the lower mammals, but in the human, getting relieved of one's cerebellum is not an altogether pleasant experience - the pancerebellar syndrome is not fun, and is conspicuously disabling (although chronic lesions often have muted effects). Would you consider removing or editing it? Kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ  04:14:18, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

• Thanks Encephalon. The cerebellum is not my "specialty" in as much as I can be said to have a specialty, so I'll have to look into some of the works you've mentioned. The sentence in regards to the pancerebellar lesions was indeed misleading... I'd written it but it didn't come across as I had intended to write it. And as I head over there to rewrite it, I see you've just corrected my error. Thanks. In regards to the anatomical location terms, I tried to cover that with a blanket "link here for help with anatomical terms" link at the top of the page. I'll be sure to follow the format you've offered in the future. The references look really good now, too; I like the separation of the general reference books into a "selected readings" section. You've done this wikipedia thing before, I see. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Really nice effort. I changed 2 headings in hope of clarity; change them back if you think they are less clear. alteripse 16:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• I hope you don't mind I edited your post to bold your support response. This is for my own clarity so I can parse users' responses as I check this page, to see if I can make any improvements to the article. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to replace the MRI (which I find blurry and difficult to use) with Image:Human brain NIH.jpg (take the picture, highlight the cerebellum, reupload and put it into the article) →Raul654 01:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• I took your suggestion and replaced the image. I left the old one as well because: I'm still partial to it, it shows techniques that scientists use to study the cerebellum, and it fills up some white space next to the TOC. Nrets 15:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avatar: The Last Airbender

Please consider this article as it just lost in the last nomination and I think it has improved enough to be a feature article. jeremybelpois 18:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support even though 1d From Overview->Premise "fantastic animals" (Fantastic? Looks POV to me). --SonicChao ^talk 18:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are few deficiencies. Though there is some POV, a lot of the seemingly opinion is realy the intended opinion set by the creators of the show. This means that through logical deduction the powers or abilities the animals contain (in your example) are made to amaze the show's audience.

• Comment"Fantastic" isn't POV. It this context, it refers to something being "Existing in or constructed from fantasy"--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Striked as per Fyre2387. --SonicChao ^talk 00:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The website references should use {{cite web}}, and more inline citations are needed, some sections don't have any. The images need fair use rationales. Jay32183 20:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Striked as per Parent5446. Problem addressed and completely resolved. (note, only the striked out part.)
• Comment The {{cite web}} template makes the article too messy as it puts a title, language, etc. about the source. However, I do agree that more citations are needed.

• At the very least the url, title, and accessdate fields would need values. The more complete the source information the better. Sources aren't there to make the article pretty, they're there to make it verifiable. Jay32183 20:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment OK, I filled in all I could do by using the {{cite web}} template on all non-inline citations. You an check it out. jeremybelpois 21:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• I converted the first inline citation, can you handle the rest of those on your own? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jay32183 (talk • contribs).

• OK. I figured out how to do it now. I'll change them as fast as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs).
• Please don't strike other people comments, report that it's done and I'll strike it myself. Actually, you missed numbers 2 and 3 of the inline citations. Jay32183 20:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I support this article due to that I feel it is superior and it is well-written, unlike what it was four months ago. The only flaws are that there is not a list of the episodes on the page (since there is a seperate article for the epsiodes) and that there are only 19 inline citations. That is not much of a deficiency.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
• No Vote Due to my extensive editing of all Avatar: The Last Airbender related articles, I refrain from voting on the subject of Bias. I hope that my other editors do the same. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 03:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support The article itself is definitely good enough to be featured, but I'm not quite sure about the links. The character bios linked to this page are mostly biased and some do not have their fiction made clear.Stretchyrubberbands^{( Tell me how to overcome my stupidity)} 07:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support per Stretchyrubberbands. --Twlighter 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as an editor of the aricle, I belive that this article has improved vastly from last time. (Actually I can't edit the article because McAffee stops the page from coming up completley, but thats another story) Cnriaczoy42 01:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Missing a lot of key information. No Production information, no critcal reaction, except for some rewards, no information on it sucess or how popular it is. The subsections in Influence are short, stubby and uneeded. They can easily be one or two sections. Media Information section just lists whats in another article instead of summarizing it in prose (with facts). There is also a citation needed tag. See also section shouldn't have links that are already in the article. All images need fair use rationale. Sokka image has incorrect copyright info. Medvedenko 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There does not have to be information on how poplar it is, it is just an article on what the show is about. In addition, there may not be a lot of rsources for some information such as influence and production information. If you can come and find enough resources to write one or two sections of influence, then tell me and you can prove me wrong. Otherwise, a lot of your objection may not be possible to complete. Besides, the purpoose of the article is to draw people in and inform them about the show, not tell them about idols from a religion that influenced the show. The only reason anyone would put that would be for people really researching Avatar: The Last Airbender or to just make the article longer (which is not the point as a literary piece, including an article, only ha to be as long as it takes to make a point, which the article has clearly done).

The article is NOT on what the show is about its about the show. No where in the body of the article (not the intro which only sumarizes what is in the article) does it say when the show aired, how it came about, who created it, where it was animated. All that information may not be available, but some of it is and it must be in there. Same goes for popularity and critical reaction. The article's focus should be on facts outside the show's story. If there is no reference on an Influence than it can't be in the article because that would original research. I said nothing about going into detail about the influences, I just wanted you to merge the subsections in influneces. Every Influence doesn't need its own section when they are only one or two sentences. Medvedenko 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The comment about "how popular" the show is refers not to what fanboys are saying but to the opinions of notable television critics and ratings inforamtion to show how large the audience is. I agree that that type of information should be included in all articles about television shows. Jay32183 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused, why doesn't this work again?

• Originally slated to start November of 2004, Avatar: The Last Airbender debuted on TV February 21, 2005 and is available on DVD or for download at the iTunes Store and the XBOX Marketplace. Produced at the Nickelodeon Animation Studios in Burbank, California, and animated in South Korea (where many animated television series are animated), it was co-created and executively produced by Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko.
• A consistently high ratings performer in the Nicktoons lineup, even outside of its intended six-to-eleven-year-old demographic, Avatar: The Last Airbender is popular with both audiences and critics. The series' success prompted Nickelodeon to order a second twenty-episode season, which began airing on March 17, 2006,^[1] and a third season has been announced to begin airing in 2007.^[2] Notable merchandise based on the series include five DVD sets of episodes, six-inch scale action figures, a video game, stuffed animals distrubited by Paramount Parks, and two Lego sets.^[3]

H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Medvedenko, are you by any chance suggesting that we try to make the production information end up like the one in the House article? [37] Or am I completely off the wall in saying that? Whydoit ^{(Strangle Me for My Mistakes)} 08:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes a section similar to House or other television articles is what I'm getting at. The Introduction shouldn't contain information that isn't found elsewhere in the article. Though I hope you'll be able to find more related information than whats already in the Introduction.Medvedenko 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the sokka problem and the catation needed tag. Will work on free-use images. Cnriaczoy42 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

added Fair Use Rational to all images. Cnriaczoy42 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent images of Chinese characters do not have Fair Use rationale, but they should not be used anyway since it should be easy to get a free to use symbols. Also the use of lines in the Characters section makes the section look very ugly.Medvedenko 21:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that those images are not fair use at all, since they are not directly taken from the show, but were made by a Wikipedian, and depict ordinary (albeit archaic) Chinese characters that just happen to be in the show, and were not specifically created for the show itself. But I don't know enough to say for sure. And I really like the lines in the Characters section. I think they divide it up much better than just space, but I guess that's just one opinion. --Herald Alberich 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The images clearly say they are a from a television show. They certainly look like they are from Avatar as well. Same art style. Medvedenko 00:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support After reading the above I think all we really need to do is re-arrange some of the popularity and influence notes (maybe even elaborating/adding on a few?), but I also think along with H2P that I might only be supporting because of my own personal bias. Other than that the article had com a long way since the last nomination. Whydoit ^{(Strangle Me for My Mistakes)} 08:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support: It is a good article, but with the tag about the lead on it, I can only give it my weak support. I believe that the lead is okay, but at the same time I respect the talk page. On the talk page they claim that it does have some shortcomings, and I agree it is not perfect, but this article is still worthy of FA status.-Hairchrm 03:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've never heard of the show before and so approached the article with a blank slate. I think that for someone in my position, the article gives a pretty good summary of the show. But I think more is needed to make the show a featured article:
  • "Media information" section simply is a link to the daughter page. It should be written to include several paragraphs or two in summary style.
    • Done, although it could use some cleaning up. Y BCZ 17:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There's only two critical reactions listed, and it's a pseudonymous toonzone.net review and a SciFi.com piece, which is probably not sufficient. See The Wire (TV series) and Arrested Development for examples. I would like to know how general TV critics (i.e. those who don't work in a particular genre) have reviewed the show.
    • I will find more critics and list there sources within the next few days. Keep checking.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs).
  • "However, given that even Spirit-infused characters such as Princess Yue have been shown incapable of bending, there is also a likely genetic factor involved." How does this conclusion follow from that premise?
    • The article used to not have that sentance in it. I believe it flowed better without it and took it out.Cnriaczoy42 14:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Also, according to an interview with the artists involved in creating Avatar" not cited.
    • It is mentioned on the Book 1 DVD Box Set, 6th dvd. This is form the Appa Page. How do we cite a DVD refrence? Cnriaczoy42 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I think you can use {{cite visual}} for DVD references. Jay32183 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Done Cnriaczoy42 20:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Zuko's principal rival throughout Book One." What is Book One? What is Book Two?
    • Added sentance explaining this. Cnriaczoy42 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Avatar also draws on a mix of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian, Tibetan, Persian, Mongolian, and even Inuit philosophy, religion, language, clothing, martial arts and culture. " Where's the Inuit/Persian/Mongolian influence? The Chinese, Tibetan, etc. are all explained in the article but not the others. Where's the source for them?
  • "its intended 6-to-11-year-old demographic" Source?
  • "With consistently high ratings... Avatar is popular with both audiences and critics" I've mentioned the critics already, but what is the source for the ratings? Andrew Levine 00:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know how to add sources. Someone tack this on: [38]Y BCZ 17:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • <ref>{{cite web| url = |title = |accessdate= YYYY-MM-DD}}</ref> is how you source webcites. If you have to use it more than once use <ref name="insertnamehere"> in place of <ref> the first time and then <ref name="insertnamehere"/> every other time. Jay32183 17:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • see {{cite web}} and WP:CITE for further details. Jay32183 17:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Much thanks, problem taken care of. Y BCZ 17:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of South Carolina

This is a bit of an unusual case. This article was promoted previously, but there was controversy. Some people thought it amounted to gaming the system. As a compromise, I said I'd renominate it here. First nom, second nom. →Raul654 17:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Well-written article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Overdependence on only two references (only one of which is a history) -- this verges on being a summary of a single work. Are there no topics in South Carolina's history that would benefit from more than one interpretation? As a sidenote, I find the whole business with the quick renomination rather distasteful, and hope that we can avoid allowing such things to take place in the future. - Bantman 18:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support as previous--it's a well-written and cogent article, though I can see the problems that Bantman has with the low number of references. Meelar (talk) 19:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Was the territory named after the ship that finally made it to the continent or was there some other reason for calling it Carolina? The text isn't really clear on this point. slambo 19:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  Fixed. It was named after the Latin form of Charles I's name. Toothpaste 20:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks. Now that I've had a chance to read the rest of it, Support. slambo 19:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Support I'd prefer more references, but I think this is worthy of being a featured article Tuf-Kat 21:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Object- besides the low number of refs, I still stand by my previous objection that the lead section is too long. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Eliminating the last paragraph was certainly a bold move. While the lead is still (IMO) long, it looks better now. Also, the last paragraph that was deleted was a summary of "current" South Carolina, so it may not have been appropriate for the "history" article. However, I still would like to see more refs (along with the appropriate addition of facts and expansion) and some in-line refs would be nice. In addition, the "Recent" section, IMHO, should be trimmed down- we really don't need that much detail about lotteries and college scholarships that are irrelevant to South Carolina's history. Otherwise, I stand by my comment last time that it's a well-written article on its way to FA status. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Still support: I'll be happy to work with Toothpaste or anyone else in addressing the lead issue, as it is long. (Actually, it's not so much long, IMO, as it is sutured. The seams need to be obscured somewhat from its first and second incarnations.) As for the renomination, the author had nothing to do with that. It's purely procedural and done by Raul. I also think that the two references are not the only two sources of information, but they are the sources of information that required a reference, so I wouldn't object to that, myself. N.b. I've not edited the article, that I recall, except once on its first nomination, to do a little copy editing. Geogre 00:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I like it, and it is as FAish as at least half of our FAs. Func 08:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Still support - it's a very good article and definately worthy of FA status in my opinion. However I do agree that it would be even better if other sources were checked, but that doesn't alter my vote nor my high opinion of the article -- Joolz 18:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support Phroziac ^(talk) 19:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support.Conditional object: tons of efforts are seen on post-war history, however the amount of photos and images is still inadequate and I wonder if no photos can be put onto the current events section? I'll support if more photos are added with at least one of them in the current events section. (well, as it says, current events, can anybody go and just take a picture?) Deryck C. 12:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC) The amount of pictures have increased and the arrangement of the article is good. I've no more opinions to object this as FA. However, adding more pictures can make this a better FA. Deryck C. 14:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Added a picure to the Recent events section. I'm looking for one on desegregation relevant to South Carolina, but there appear to be none on Wikimedia. Toothpaste 17:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Sorry I didn't see this before, but I agree with Bantman, two sources is just (very) inadequate. In addition there is no citation of any kind to show what material came from what sources, so verification is made much more difficult. - Taxman ^Talk 22:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, maybe object - I agree with Taxman and Bantman on this. I am also assuming that the external links were used as resources. If so, it may be best to place them in the reference section. As for the more recent events, I am assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that the sources are from news media rather than the listed sources. If so, please note them using inline notations. Pentawing 23:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't use the external links as resources. Toothpaste 23:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, how about the last point I brought up? I need this clarified and resolved before I can change my vote. Pentawing 01:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't use the news media as a source, though the sources I used might have. Toothpaste 01:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, what I need to know is the source of the section concerning recent events, since I am currently under the assumption that the listed sources didn't cover the entire thing. Some statistics might warrent inline citations since that would make it more difficult for a vandal to change the numbers and have no one noticing it. Pentawing 22:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Economic booms and busts, Desegregation, and Recent events come from Siglas, Mike (2003). South Carolina. Emeryville, CA: Avalon Travel Publishing. ISBN 1566915457. Edgar, Walter B. (1998). South Carolina: A History. Columbia, SC: USC Press. ISBN 1570032556 was used for events prior to those, and both were fact-checked against each other. Toothpaste 22:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, can you then use inline citations for the statistics (especially for the scholarship passage)? Otherwise, I can't support this article without questioning my own judgement. Pentawing 23:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Better? Toothpaste 00:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Object. The history is not properly balanced: important topics are treated cursorily, and recent events of no great moment are treated at length. In particular, the treatment of nullification and Calhoun are exceptionally superficial. Nullification is a key issue in American political history, and framing the matter as "John C. Calhoun decided . . ." without even a suggestion of Calhoun's importance or the back-history of the issue should be unacceptable. The relative size of the slave population to the white population in the early 1800s should be treated in more depth. The discussion of the Indian Removal Act, requested in an earlier FAC, is too generic, and gives no substantial information about the impact on the state. There is no discussion of desegregation of primary and secondary public schools, which, according to one of the websites referenced in the article, was more contentious than the article indicates. The discussion of recent events is far too long for the relatively minor events actually reported, and should be more comprehensive. The last paragraph, devoted to a lunatic fringe group's self-proclaimed plans, without any reason to believe the plans will bear (bitter) fruit, takes up more space than "the state's mishandling of the Hurricane Floyd evacuation in 1999," an apparently substantial matter mentioned only in passing, or the Abbeville education lawsuit, an entirely ignored matter despite its great importance. In terms of details, I think that the article's description of a British military strategy in the American Revolution as a plan to land troops in (Spanish) Florida and march north to corner George Washington is . . . more than a little curious. The discussion of the Fort Sumter battle is longer and more detailed than the rest of the discussion of the Civil War and its impact on the state. I don't believe the problems with this article can be resolved in the FAC time frame, but require extensive attention.Monicasdude 03:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support thats stronge than Monicasdude's strong object. What an immature vote. However I haven't seen him support any state history articles FAC. I think its fine with things like the Fort Sumter being longer as that was probably the biggest part of SC in the Civil War. There were no really important battles there, were there? It should be the most important part. Anyways if I were to address every concern I'd probably make a three paragraph comment which would get so long no one would bother reading it... So I'll just sign now... Redwolf24 (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I was going to let this comment speak for itself, but I came across a profile of an novelist recently which makes the relevant point far better than I would have: "Kate [Wilhelm] wrote about her first [writers'] workshop experience: she turned in an ambitious story and had it shredded. The man sitting next to her turned in some trivial fluff and got gentle, kid-glove critiques. After the workshop drubbing, Kate went down to the nearby stream and threw rocks at the water as hard as she could, until she realized her fellow workshoppers treated her story firmly because they respected her and felt the story had potential." Monicasdude 21:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support! Great article. Long lead sections are good. Andre (talk) 18:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, while Monicasdude's comments seem a bit vociferous, the article does seem poorly balanced across time. For instance: one sentence for "Throughout the Colonial Period, the Carolinas participated in many wars against the Spanish and the Native Americans, particularly the Yamassee[2] and Cherokee tribes" and a full paragraph on disputes over video gambling. This problem exists because the first three periods of the history have been broken out to substantial subarticles while the later periods have not; breaking out a couple more subarticles for the later periods and culling some of the ephemera would fix this issue (and also bring the article closer to an ideal size). Christopher Parham (talk) 18:53, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

There is a bit of backstory here, spread out over several talk pages. Several members (not all, and not the self-nominator of the article) of an FAC-promoting wikiproject have made strong and disparaging replies to previous comments I made describing the faults of articles in general terms and calling for more extensive details. However, providing details produces an equally hostile response, as shown here. The underlying problem, as I see, comes from the relatively low standards the project applies to substantive FAC criteria, and the unwillingness of some members of the project to accept in practice the FAC guideline that proponents of a nomination are "expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised." The tone of such responses is quite unfortunate. Monicasdude 23:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the dispute over FAC criteria should carry dispute to this article. Deryck C. 13:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support - well written and informative article. I was able to read this and learn things about a subject which, previously, I had no knowledge of. That, to my mind, is an indicator of what articles should be. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support comprehensive. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm going to stand by my original nomination of support. See the second nom (I think it is) for my reasons; they still stand true today. --JB Adder | Talk 05:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object, the section on Desegregation is totally inadequate and misleading. To suggest that desegregation in South Carolina went smoothly, even in comparison to "hot spots" like Mississippi and Alabama, ignores the incredible efforts that South Carolina's white elites put in to their attempts to undermine the Supreme Court's order to end seperate but equal facilities--they were prepared to spend 75 million dollars "equalizing" facilities rather than desegregate and African Americans who led the movement in the State lost their jobs, were assaluted, had their homes destroyed and forced to flee SC for their lives. There is also no mention of Briggs v. Elliot, the case from Clarendon County that began the legal process that culminated in Brown v Board or of the fact that the majority of South Carolina's schools effectively remain segregated today. --Sjappleford 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support. Well written article. Per the opinions I stated in the previous nominations. Deryck C. 08:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. First off, I still voice concerns about the references, since there are only 6 for the entire 43 kb article, and for that matter there are only 6 inline citations through the entire article. Second off, it is comprehensive, but by the point left by Monicasdude, the article is slightly too comprehensive in the wrong areas. A lot of that falls in the Recent Events section, which goes into a 5 paragraph summary of Hodges governorship, but stops abruptly upon reaching 2002. An addition, images and lead section should both be succint. And finally, the reference subsection under the Desegration part has to be fixed. AndyZ 22:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belgium

Partial self-nom and Support. This former featured article had failed to be re-featured for the following reasons:

• Ugly pictures
• Bad English
• Too many lists and short paragraphs
• Lengthy history section

The reasons can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belgium/archive2. It has been since reviewed by JoJan, Tony, and Nichalp. Some comments can be found in Wikipedia:Peer review/Belgium. I have put a lot of work into this article to make it comprehensive and well balanced with respect to the Belgian communities. I think some equilibrium has now been reached. I hope you will have fun reading it. Vb 11:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• If I hadn't edited it, my vote might count: it would be a 'yes'. One point:
  • It is a very complicated governmental system, and I hope that it's described as simply as possible; we need to understand this attempt to mollify the squabbling Dutch/French-speaking communities. (I wonder why it's been so much easier for the Swiss? And other European countries have similar communities: 20% of Finns are Swedish-speakers. Would brief comparisons be useful (maybe not)?) Tony 05:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply. The Swiss system is not that simple either. It is also much older. The Belgian federal system is only 30 years old and is still evolving. I think comparing with similar federal systems is a very difficult task which should require its own article. The answer to the question why this system is so complicated could be the following: One of the problems is the (legitimate?) frustration felt by the Flemings because the French segment of the population was dominant and arrogant during the first 150 years of the country. The problem is also due to different interpretations of the Belgian splitting. Is it due to some ethnic, cultural, economic or linguistic variety? The answers to this kind of questions is usually different in Flanders, in Wallonia, or in Brussels and leads to distinct interpretations of the Belgian federal structure. Vb 07:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, I guess, the 60/40 split makes both factions powerful players, so long-term assymetry would be untenable. But there's hope: the recent Franco-German love-in, within the EU, bodes well for Belgian harmony. Tony 08:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Support-Its for the most part a very good article and I believe it deserves FA status. My only issue is the Culture section. The writing's flow is broken up with several short paragraphs. Falphin 19:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to support, but I would prefer the first map to be removed. Its too complicated to be there. User:Nichalp/sg 18:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed but I can't find a good map to replace it. What would you suggest? Falphin 19:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll try and draw my own map tomorrow, are there any online resources I can base it on? (copyrighted maps will do) User:Nichalp/sg 04:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes it is true one could make a simpler map. I however personally think it is not that easy to make it better. You'll find many historical maps of the region at this time on the site: http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/lowcountries/haxbelgium.html One of the difficulty you're going to meet is that it is difficult to establish the exact border at an exact time. Those borders were not very stable depending on the alliances and wars with the neighbouring states. It is also difficult to know how to count the 17 provinces. Have a look at the article Seventeen Provinces and its discussion page for details about the controversy. I think what should appear clearly on the map is the following:
        • The internal borders in order to show that there is no border corresponding to the current Belgo-Netherlandish border
        • A clear different color for the bishopric of Liege which does not belong to the 17 provinces
      • About the culture section. I have seen Falphin is taking care of Culture of the Netherlands. I think the Netherlandish culture is also quite difficult to describe in a few paragraphs. In my opinion this is because both cultures are quite rich. It is therefore difficult to merge paragraphs on music and literature or on food and sports or folk festivals. However if you should see a way to improve the flow without reducing the containt of this section please don't hesitate to copyedit. Vb 09:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good to me. Ambi 07:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object – 1. The politics section needs a summary 2. 16th and 17th century in the lead should be spelled out. 3. The =Communities and regions= paragraphs on the governments should be sumamrised into prose. 4. Text such as " these figures must be interpreted cautiously,.."; " Nevertheless, in recent years, concern..." need to be copyedited. 5. Text in parenthesis needs to be merged with the text to maintain the flow. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I am very sorry Nicholas but I am not able to do the change you request. Not because I don't want to but because I don't feel they are required. 1. I don't see how to summarize this section. 2. I did it to make you a favor even if don't understand why you ask for this or why you didn't do that yourself (that's so easy); 3. I oppose to this change. This poltical system is so complex that it really required such a tabular presentation in the French article, this is even presented as an array. I think the version here reads much easier. 4. I am not fluent enough in English to understand why these sentences could be copyedited in a positive way; 5. I have checked all parentheses in the text and I don't think I am able to improve the formulation. I am not disturbed by the parentheses and any alternative wording I can imagine is worst than the present version. I have seen how you did that for eigenvalues etc... I am not able to do this as well as you can. Vb 21:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

    I don't believe its too difficult to summarise the politics. Speak on general instances, not specifics. You'll have to turn that section onto prose and I don't see why you're opposing the change. I see a great scope to summarise the section. I'm sorry but I'll be only free to copyedit the article over the weekend. I'm too busy during the week. I'll try and summarise on Sat/Sun. I know I promised a map, but I can't find the time to make one. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The structure of the section politics is in my opinion very standard. This is very similar to South Sfrica or Australia.
  • I know the section "communities and regions" is special. This is also a very specific system which is difficult to understand for strangers. The structure as it is now is due to Tony and I think it has reach an optimum in its concise and precise presentation. I really think this section should not be turned into prose. This would diminish the value of the section. Vb 10:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. One of the best articles on Wikipedia.Logophile 07:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Suppport, although the positioning of the images in the History section really needs to be changed - they force the entire section beneath the infobox.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I know. I agree with you. Ask =Nichalp «Talk»= why he did it like that. He seems to be dogmatic on this point. And basically I don't mind. Vb 17:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • That's more of a browser bug perhaps? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see how it could be, as it occurs in at least two different browsers (IE and FF) and with and without text justification. It's happening because the image won't align against the infobox (which would look horrible anyway) and forces itself and the text beneath it.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Object Generally a very fine article, but several quibbles. First, the history section is constrained. Some mention of confessional politics needs to be made, given its importance to the development of the country's identity. Second, the importance of language politics is insufficiently covered given the degree to which it informs national (and local) political debates. If these could be amended, or if reasons for their exclusion could be provided, I would change to support since overall the article looks very good. Dottore So 12:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: I will be copyediting the article on 2005-11-13 =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notre Dame de Paris

Partial Self Nomination - Well written and referenced, with plenty of high quality images. Not too long, not too short.--Primalchaos 18:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Partial Support - It's very well written, but the paragraphs are kind of brief. It could benefit from longer descriptions, but if other users don't have a problem with this, I will support it. - PRueda29 - 15:48 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Object - Expand the paragrpahs. The article has great potential but its paragraphs are too short. Fix this and I'll support it. - PRueda29 - 17:28 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Mild oppose. While this could be a great article, I think it needs to be expanded. As it is now, the sections read more as factoids. Develop and expand the sections.--Alabamaboy 16:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It is a good article but it still needs some work. There are a few too many lists. The significant events bullet point should be merged into the prose history sections. Good articles do not have a miscellaneous trivia section, these points need to find a home elsewhere in the article. Something also need to be done with the statistics and in the media lists. There are also several important omissions. For instance there is no coverage of the long controversy over the cathedral in post-revolutionary France, or the campaign led by Victor Hugo that eventually saw it restored. The Lead is also somewhat too short. - SimonP 16:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comments. The first photo needs to be rotated a little. A good way to expand the article would be to add some close-up photos of the three portals, and discuss their symbolism; from what recall, it was very interesting, and the interpretation was not at all obvious to me as a non-Catholic.--Bcrowell 04:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article just doesn't read well. Huge amounts of information need to be grouped into larger, better paragraphs instead of the numerous subsections in the current version. The use of Notre Dame in the media is surely a lot greater than two movies and a video game? Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 16:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity test

I find this article very well written and meticulously cited. While it is a bit on the short side, there are exemplary pictures that add substantially to the content of the article. Moreover, this was a significant historical event and should be given due notice. Eszett 12:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. No "after" pictures of ground zero.
  2. No mention is made of instrumentation used to record the test.
  3. You really should work a link to rainout into the last paragraph of the "preparing the test" section.
  4. No mention is made of the actual yield.
  5. No mention is made of the window-breaking effects of the explosion.
  6. No mention is made of the reaction of area residents to the explosion.
  7. No mention is made of the fallout effects of the test (ruined photographic plates in New York, for example).

  --Carnildo 07:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Re #1, The article already had a aerial photo from 1945, and a photo of the site today. I've added a 1945 photo of two men standing in the crater.--Bcrowell 18:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the lead section needs to be lengthened and better written. --Oldak Quill 11:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object
  1. This sentence needs to be rewritten: "For the actual test, the plutonium-core nuclear weapon, nicknamed the gadget, was hoisted on the top of a 20-metre steel tower for detonation — the height would give a better indication of what the weapon would be like when dropped from an airplane, as detonation in the air would maximize the amount of energy applied directly to the target (as it expanded in a spherical shape), and would kick up the least nuclear fallout." I didn't rewrite it myself, because I wasn't sure what it was saying. Maybe the thought would be clearer if it was broken up into several short sentences.
  2. I agree with Oldak that the lead should be longer.
  3. I agree with Carnildo about the need for more discussion of the instrumentation (even at a basic level: photography, seismometers, ...?) I'm guessing that the lack of information about the public reaction was because there was not much public reaction: the announcement came after the bombs were dropped on Japan, which meant the war was over, and people were a lot more likely to be interested in that than in the fact that the bombs had previously been tested. But anyhow, this should be made more clear in the article, and from the discussion on the article's talk page, it looks like that's going to require more research.

Carnildo's points 5, and 7 seem to hint that he has relevant information, so Carnildo, could you point us to the information? Re point 3, I assume there was no rainout, since the test was done in a desert, so I don't think the link would be relevant. Re point 7, I don't think it's physically plausible that this would have happened; this may be an urban folk tale.

This is a great article that's marred by only a few flaws, and I'd be happy to change my vote to support if the issues about the lead and the instrumentation were fixed.--Bcrowell 17:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The source was a book I read a few years ago called "The Day the Sun Rose Twice". I don't have access to it anymore -- those are just some of the things I remember from it. --Carnildo 19:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Demographic transition

Good article on an important topic in human geography. 70.57.82.114 03:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It needs sources, the copyright of the images needs to be clear. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, good article, may be a tad too short, but does indeed need sources. Phoenix2 05:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As Phoenix2 said, it is well written and a very interesting subject, but a little short. Detailed summaries of stage 1 and 4 (to me the most interesting stages) are necessary. At the moment it simply covers the process of the transition, are there many theories related to it? Are there any examples counter to it? Any cultural references to it? Does the theory have a history? (an example containing no truth: "The works of Aristotle contain the first known reference to a notion of 'cultural transition'"). --Oldak Quill 12:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• VICIOUSLY STRONG OBJECT. This article does a pretty crummy job for a FA. There's almost no description of anything important. And there's no way that an article can possibly be feautured if it doesn't include all the important parts (1, 4)... and the sections on 2 and 3 are too short. There's also no description or even a mention of stage 5 (which Russia is entering), where population starts to decrease because of an ever-lowering birth rate (and as the population ages, a corresponding rise in the death rate). No way in the world should this come within a mile of FA status as written. --Matt Yeager 23:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Detail stage 1 and 4 like you did stage 2 and 3. I'd also like to hear about this stage 5 that Matt there says exists. Way too short to cover a topic that's as important as you say it is. Also, I see there's been no discussion on the talk page at all... seems pretty odd for an article wanting to be an FA. Has this gone through peer review at all? Give that a shot before nominating something, please. I know it doesn't always help, but it could have at least caught the fact that you really need more sections. Fieari 21:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pan American World Airways

Though it might appear to be a short time since this article was taken off the FAC page, but I have decided to renominate it. In the first attempt, the article got only one comment, which I addressed to the best of my abilities, and one support vote. I am hoping that this article will receive more votes and comments on the second try. Pentawing 21:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• First FAC listing
• Refer to peer review. No matter how the nominator feels the article was treated in its first FAC, it is very inappropriate to re-nominate an article only a day after the previous one failed. Without wanting to sound too angry, this screams of WP:POINT. Accept the decision and work to improve the article further with the help of others. Harro5 00:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • From the first FAC listing, the article was only on the nomination page for six days (it was removed on August 26), with the responses happening only on the first two days the article was listed (and no responses afterwards). I should note that the article has gone through peer review twice, and that I have attempted to address your concerns and was waiting for a reply. I am not trying to prove a point; instead, I am trying to get more feedback given that the article didn't get much on the first try (nor has it been noticed much since). Pentawing 16:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • The nominator has kindly explained to me their reasoning for this swift re-nomination, and I accept that they are right to feel the first FAC received a poor hearing. I have had a good look at the article, and am prepared to support this FA nomination. I am especially impressed that the timeline stuff doesn't just read like a timeline, and that all the photographs are well tagged - even the copyright images have explanations on their description pages as to why they are needed - Carnildo would be ecstatic. Well done Pentawing, and I'm sorry if I seemed brash in my reaction to this second listing. Harro5 04:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I think this is a well researched, well written article. I always wondered what happened to PanAm, and now I know. One thing that struck me, however, and this is very minor, is that the article perhaps does not quite capture how big and everpresent PanAm was during its heyday, and how such a seeming titan came to basically disappear. This may be due a bit to the style of the writing, but I can't think of any way to improve it. I really enjoyed the article and give it my full support as a FA. Nrets 00:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Seems to meet the standards enough after thinking about it. I'll always want more and better references though. There were a few supports and no objects in past FAC noms if I recall. Comments. It looks pretty good and I can see supporting with some improvements :). Specific remarks: 1) Six references is a bit light, do you have access to any other general aviation books that speak to Pan Am's importance in aviation or perhaps shed light on any more negative aspects? Not that there needs to be mention of anything unimportant, but 5 of the 6 sources are focused on Pan Am which could result in favoritism. Also the three external links listed as references need to be formatted as at Wikipedia:Cite sources. And the citation is pretty good, but I'd always like to see more, particularly for any of the most important points in the article. 2) The focus is pretty tilted. Is the historical company really 5 times as important as the recent incarnations? You've given it 5 times as much coverage, and well over half the article. It seems like it's possible that's justified but also possible the recent incarnations should be covered a bit more. You'd know, so just as long as you can justify it. 3) The lead is short, especially the second paragraph, and should be expanded a bit. It summarizes the article reasonably well, so maybe pick out a few of the most important points from the article that aren't in the lead already and cover them. Three full paragraphs wouldn't be too much, but it's up to you. Two full ones is fine too. 4) There are a number of one and two sentence paragraphs which hurt the flow and show areas that should either be expanded or merged with related material. 5) There is still some airline jargon and things that could be made more clear, like parastatal that I fixed. If you want me to point them out I can, but just look to add contextual definitions or explanation of most things the average reader wouldn't know. 6) Last, the history section makes reference to things that I can never see if they are later explained. For ex in the clipper era, "Pan Am also procured an airmail contract from Boston to Halifax, preparing for North Atlantic flights in the future." Were there ever such flights? That's all for now. :) - Taxman ^Talk 02:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I went through the article once more:

1. I found some more relevent sources and listed them. Though I only glanced through them, they did talk about Pan Am in some way.

Well that's not really what I meant. To be listed as sources they have to have been actually used to add or fact check material in the article. Listing them without that isn't a good idea. Does the coverage those sources have agree factually and in POV with the article? - Taxman ^Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

2. Unfortunately, this cannot be helped. The reason is that much has occurred with the original airline than with the latter incarnations, and that the original airline was more of a pioneering airline. When I looked at the latter incarnations of Pan Am, there isn't much worth mentioning about since the history of those two entities is similar to the history of other modern airline startups, though in this case these startups used the Pan Am name (one example I could easily think of whose history is similar is the recent incarnation of National Airlines, which folded a few years ago).

That is what I was getting at. If it really is just that much more important then the extra focus in the article is appropriate. I was just asking you to explicitly confirm that, since often articles have details out of proportion to importance. - Taxman ^Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

3. I tried to expand the lead to two full paragraphs.

Looks good. - Taxman ^Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

4. Went through and fixed them.

Also looks good. - Taxman ^Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

5. I am trying to address this, though I would appreciate your pointing out exactly which sections have the problem.

Well after fixing just a few it looks good, so I see now I assumed there were more than there were, sorry. I can't find any obvious ones now. - Taxman ^Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

6. I believed that I have addressed this issue, but I need a second look. Thanks.

Pentawing 21:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's probably fine. Good fixes, which hopefully weren't terribly difficult, but I do think the article is better now. The only remaining problem is the references. If you can spend a little more time with those two new ones to fact check and/or correct or adjust anything needed based on them that would be a lot better. Oh, and the accidents section seems a little mis-titled. Terrorist acts are done on purpose to an extent, so is there a more inclusive way of covering that? I won't be too much a stickler on this one since I can't think of anything better myself, besides 'accidents and terrorism'. Paragraphs in that section could probably still also use a bit of expansion. - Taxman ^Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I addressed the issues concerning the accident section. In the meantime, I am looking over the new sources and would be finished soon. Pentawing 21:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I checked the new sources, and was able to confirm information that is currently in the article. Pentawing 23:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

There were seriously no corrections or new important facts from those sources, and nothing worth citing. I don't see how that is possible. - Taxman ^Talk 23:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Is this data accurate in the article? Do you have some reference to support it? Where did it come from?

The airline also participated in several notable humanitarian flights. Pan Am operated 650 flights a week between West Germany and West Berlin, first with the DC-6B and, in 1966, with the Boeing 727

650 flights a week, that is about 93 flights a day, almost 4 flights an hour. That in 1966... Just checking if the data is accurate. Thanks. nacul19:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• • The information is indeed correct. I placed a footnote pointing to where the information had come from. Pentawing 23:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- ALoan (Talk) 12:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Mild concern at the faulty prose. A quick look revealed two clumsy instances of the possessive apostrophe at the opening, and numerous instances of 'aircrafts', which is incorrent. It's not too bad, but not yet "brilliant, as Wikipedia requires. Tony 16:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I did some more copyediting. Is there any other problems? Pentawing 22:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've gone through it up to 1962; please go through the rest and ensure that there's one space consistently after the stops; remove 'in order' to; check commas—some required for precision of meaning, a few are excess. Then my opinion will be neutral. Tony 01:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Went through the rest of the article - I believe that I have corrected the problems, but I need a second look. Pentawing 03:01, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turku

Partial self-nom. The issues raised in the two previous FAC nominations (archive1, archive2) have been met, and I think the article is good enough to be a FA. - ulayiti (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. No inline citations, especially for statistics. AndyZ 20:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. What AndyZ said. Otherwise I'm ready to support.--Jyril 20:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just referenced all statistics and a whole load of other information with the {{inote}} template. (Having footnotes would, in my opinion, make the article look ugly, since there would be quite a lot of them.) - ulayiti (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree witgh ulayiti, and I still don't in the least believe that inline citations should be a requirement since statistics on Turku are hardly a controversial subject. Making a sub-section in References listing all the statistical sources should be more than enough. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. No inline citations, weasel terms, no mention of the city problems. JoaoRicardo^talk 00:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See above. Can you provide examples of weasel terms in the article (because I can't find any)? As to problems, you must have missed the following paragraph in the 'Economy' section: 'As of 2004, the city's unemployment rate is 13.1%, well above the national average of 8.9%. The problem of unemployment is particularly troublesome in the districts of Pansio, Lauste, and Varissuo, where it hovers at around 23%.' I've added a few more sentences about some other problems as well. - ulayiti (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Some weasel terms and some comments in which the author's opinion has crept into the article text:

1. "the Port of Turku is considered one of the most important seaports in Finland." Considered by whom?

   Changed to 'one of the busiest'. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

   Fine, but now it needs a source. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

2. "Turku has a strong cultural identity" A matter of opinion.

   Removed 'strong'. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

   Well, "Turku has a cultural identity" isn't much useful. I believe it is better to drop this. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

3. "Turku is usually considered Finland's 'second city'." Considered by whom?

   A lot of people, but it's a bit difficult to change this, since attributing this statement to a specific body would be quite difficult. I did a Google search for turku finland's second city and it came up with a lot of stuff, including this. And somehow saying VIA Magazine considers Turku Finland's second city wouldn't sound very good. Any ideas on how to improve this one? - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

   I recommend dropping it. We should stick to verifiable sources. If there are no verifiable sources, then it is better not the include this in the article. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

4. "the city became the most important location in medieval Finland." Important by what standard? Number of inhabitants? Economy?

   It's explained in the following paragraph. It was the archbishop's seat, the only city to trade with the Hanseatic League, the largest city, and the capital of Finland. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

   But don't you think it is better to leave this judgement to the reader? JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

5. "Turku has been viewed during the 20th century as 'Finland's gateway to the West' as a result of its good connections with other Western European countries and cities." Viewed by whom?

   Clarified that this is the opinion of Jarmo Virmavirta. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

6. "Since the 1940s, there have been particularly strong ties with Stockholm" Strong by what standards?

   This is from Virmavirta as well. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

7. "The region is usually considered to include, in addition to the city itself, at least the neighbouring cities..." Considered by whom?

   Well, they're part of the metropolitan area, which has quite a specific definition. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

8. "Turku is an important administrative centre" By what standard?

   It's explained in the same sentence. It's the capital of both the province and the region, it has a Court of Appeal, and the Archbishop of Finland sits in Turku. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

9. "Olavi Mäenpää, chairman of the far-right organisation Suomen Kansan Sinivalkoiset (SKS), is a highly controversial figure in the city's municipal politics." In whose opinion?

   Changed to 'has provoked some controversy in the local media'. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

10. "In the last municipal elections in 2004, he received more votes than any other candidate in Turku, probably in large part due to protest votes." Speculation.

    But true. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

    It may be true, but it is speculation nonetheless. Better drop it. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

11. "For a city of its size, Turku has a good public transportation network of bus routes." By what standard?

    By frequency of services. It's explained two sentences later. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

12. "Turku has always welcomed new influences" A matter of opinion.

    Explained in the same sentence. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

13. "Turku has a long educational history" Peacock statement.

    Changed to 'longer educational history than any other Finnish city'. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

14. "The city also hosts another rock festival, Down by the Laituri, and boasts a vibrant nightlife" The vibrant nightlife is a matter of opinion.

    Actually it's pretty much a given, and something that most Finnish people know. How do you suggest it should be phrased? - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

    Again, it is dificult to write about people's intuitions. Saying that this is something most people in Finland know is not verifiable. If there is no source for it, writing about it yourself might be viewed as original research. I recommend removing it. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the problems, I was wrong. There are indeed some mentions of them. How about expanding it? ;-) JoaoRicardo^talk 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

See the 'People' section and the end of the 'History' section. I don't think there's much more that could be added. I mean, I could write a lot about the primary school in Kakskerta closing down, but that would not be very relevant to the article. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support, the article about Turku looks really good. Can we have a nomination for Helsinki as well? JIP | Talk 14:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Jews in Poland

Partial self-nom. Many editors have helped to prove that we can have a good NPOV article on a controversial subject. Has been through a Peer Review. Former FAC objections have been addressed, I hope - they were fairly minor, and I was supprised that the article had so few (2!) votes then. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. But, of course, I have also worked heavily on the article, and would be happy to deal with any objections that might be raised. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, it's definitely one of he best descriptions of the topic I've seen on the internet - and I did read a lot. Halibutt 18:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support; a very well-written and thorough article. A few questions/suggestions, though:

1. The two templates at the top, when combined with the TOC, form a continuous set of boxes across the screen, which looks somewhat strange; it may be better to space them out vertically, possibly by using {{TOCright}}.
2. Some of the section headings don't follow the MoS in that they have leading articles and non-standard capitalisation.
3. Most of the articles in the "See also" section are linked in the text; is this section necessary?

The issues are minor enough that they're not worth objecting over, but I think resolving them may improve the article further. Kirill Lokshin 18:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support a marvelous, important and thorough article. I agree with Kirill Lokshin that I don't believe the See Also section is really needed. I have seen the same section questioned on a number of articles here. Great job! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 18:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well done. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 18:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Balcer 19:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article is written in a wonderful style, is easy to read, seem to be comprehensive and is very interesting. I have found the term "Kahal" which should be explained in the text. I have however a quite strong objection. I have the feeling the article has a weak non NPOV. The lead and the last section (1989–present) are in my opinion a bit too positive with respect to the anti-semiticism in Poland. In the lead: " immediately prior to World War II it had a vibrant Jewish community" I wonder whether "vibrant" is the correctly chosen term: is this really NPOV? Is the expression "the increasingly anti-Semitic Russian Empire" really NPOV? From the lead one gains the impression that, if the Jews in Poland were victims of anti-semiticism, that was due to foreigners and not to the Poles themselves. I wonder whether this is not a trend towards minimizing the Polish participation to anti-semiticism and the holocaust. I think if the Poles did not participate actively to the holocaust that should be said explicitly. On the other hand if they did one should mention to which extent. This impression of NPOV is destroyed later on in the article but it should be mirrored in the lead. The last section ignores to discuss the anti-semitic movements in Poland in the 1990s. I have made a bit of google with the keyword antisemitism poland and found the following article on http://www.axt.org.uk/ : Nonetheless, the existence of xenophobic or ultra-nationalistic sentiments remains evident, to a lesser or greater degree, among large sections of Polish society. The parliamentary elections of 2001, in which a number of far right candidates were elected, show that ultra-nationalist and populist rhetoric—used particularly by candidates of the ultra-conservative Liga Polskich Rodzin and the protest party Samoobrona—is still able to attract support. The fact that Poland’s economic situation has visibly worsened recently almost certainly contributed to this electoral outcome, as did the ongoing cultural and political effects of the Polish bid to become a member of the European Union. While many mainstream political leaders willingly express support for initiatives that promote tolerance and that combat xenophobia, those on the far right continue to use xenophobic discourse in pursuit of their parties’ political goals.Furthermore, despite a certain amount of ‘good will’ among more liberal political circles, actual manifestations of prejudice are often downplayed, passed over in silence or even denied. At the same time antisemitic and xenophobic attitudes are demonstrably present to some degree among the young generation of Poles, and to a very high and visible degree among football fans and ultra-nationalist skinheads. Verbal and physical attacks on immigrants and members of 'visible minorities', as well as numerous cases of the desecration of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues, are of course the most spectacular evidence of these problems in Poland. I therefore think it would be a good idea to add a paragraph about antisemiticism in the 1990s in Poland. Vb
  • Thank you for your comments and providing the sourced quote - you do make a good point about the anti-Semitic propaganda of some elements of modern Polish society. And you make another good point that it should be stressed that Poles did not participate in the Holocaust (with a few, tragic exceptions) - instead, they were its victims. Be bold and suggest/edit in exact changes to the lead and other paragraphs that would satisfy you, I have already made some changes. Oh, Kahal is linked to its own article on the first occurence of this term. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know a lot about 1990s anti-Semitism, but that should be covered, perhaps some of the other editors could help, I will do some digging as well. As far as the participation in the Holocaust, it was more complicated to assign blame in Poland than elsewhere since the Poles were targeted by the Nazis, there was little direct cooperation with the Germans despite growing anti-Semitism in 1930s -- at the same time, there were some horrible pogroms like Jedwabne, and also acts of heroism. It is difficult to figure out how to make this much clearer in the article, since these interactions were at a much smaller level than the wholesale participation of countries like Romania, or even countries with many collaborators, like Lithuania. I don't find "vibrant" or "increasingly anti-Semitic" POV -- do you have any specific objections to them? --Goodoldpolonius2 16:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I have added a para about anti-semitic right-wing propaganda in modern Poland. I would polish it more (no pun intended), but need to go offline now. Let me know if you think it needs further expantion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• I would like to see just a word of explanation after Kahal and the newly introduced Sejm (like "Oświęcim (the site of the Auschwitz camp)") because clicking on the link is a strong flow break. Maybe changing "(called "Żydokomuna", or the belief in a Jewish-Communist conspiracy)" into "(this conspiracy is alled "Żydokomuna", or the belief in a Jewish-Communist conspiracy)" would be clearer but I am not sure. I simply think the new paragraph should be a bit copyedited but that its content is good and raise my objection with respect to the 1989–present section. I think this paragraph and others exemplifying the participation of the Polish people in anti-semitism should be mirrored in the lead. A sentence such as "Poles did not participate in the Holocaust (with a few, tragic exceptions)" could appear in the lead but also the section "Rising Anti-Semitism" could be summarized in the lead. I think this must be done because the lead as it is now provides the reader the impression of non NPOV, a trend to embellish the relationship between the Poles and the Jews. To the question why I object to the use of "vibrant". I have the feeling (but I am no native English speaker) this adjective provides the impression of a positive atmosphere (a happy Jewish community playing klezmer music in the street in a Chagall's painting) which contrast with the information in the section "Rising Anti-Semitism". My objection to "the increasingly anti-Semitic Russian Empire" is because I think one cannot say of a state (except Nazi Germany) that it is anti-Semitic. One can say that it has strong anti-Semitic political or popular movements but usually no state is explicitly anti-Semitic. The same objection is for the wording "the state-sponsored "anti-Zionist" anti-Semitic campaign". Since everybody knows the communist government was some kind of Russian puppet, this sentence seems to advocate for an intrisically non anti-Semitic Polish society. It sounds like the responsible ones for the antisemitism were not the Poles but the Russians. I think a good way to counterbalance this overall impression is to introduce some contra balancing arguments in the lead. Vb 08:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• I have found another source at the US gov which could help you http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35477.htm describing current concern about antisemitism in Poland. Vb 12:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I tried to address the issues with the introduction, Sejm, and Kahal. I left in the state-sponsored anti-Zionist campagin, because it was exactly that (you may want to read the article). The "increasingly anti-Semitic Russian Empire" also makes sense, semi-official attacks on Jews (pogroms) grew rapidly throughout the Empire, as did official anti-Semitism, it really does work as a description. I would also defend "vibrant" -- the community may have been poor and somewhat persecuted, but culture and learning florished in the pre-War years. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the changes you performed. However I think what is still missing is a sentence in the lead about the current concerns (you can find such sentences at both [39][40]). Those concerns are not very strong but they should be cited in order to improve the NPOV of the lead. I still believe "anti-Semitic Russian Empire" is not correct. Another way to describe the situation should be found. As far as I know only Nazi Germany can be qualified as "anti-Semitic". On the other hand I agree with you on the wording "state-sponsored anti-Zionist campaign" and with "vibrant": my point was not that these words were not correct but that they should be counterbalanced (this is what you did). The claims about Liga Polskich Rodzin and Samoobrona in the last section should be supported by references because they will lead to edit conflict as soon as the article get featured. However I still wonder whether the situation from 1918 to 1945 is well described. I quote from http://www.axt.org.uk/ : The first wave of antisemitic pogroms in independent Poland took place soon after independence had been regained in 1918. Antisemitism became particularly visible after 1935 when the extreme right and radical Catholic circles began depicting Jews as a foreign element and a threat to the Polish state and nation. Right-wing parties and militant groups pressed the government to impose anti-Jewish measures, including economic restrictions, such as the 1936 laws limiting ritual slaughter. As a result of pressure to introduce the numerus clausus law, after 1937 universities were allowed to create separate places for "national" and for Jewish students, and in 1938 the parliament voted in legislation regulating the number of new attorneys, which affected Jewish applicants. The same year a law was passed that aimed to deprive Jewish emigrants of Polish citizenship. Orchestrated by the extra-parliamentary nationalist opposition and supported by a large section of the Catholic Church, pogroms and boycotts of Jewish shops became frequent. (...) Although some Poles did help Jews to survive the Holocaust, most remained passive in the face of Nazi terror. Poland was the only country in Europe where the death penalty was imposed for assisting a person of Jewish origin. Some groups and individuals of Polish nationality were openly hostile to the Jews. Polish police (so-called policja granatowa) as well as some civilians collaborated with the Nazis by denouncing Jews who escaped the ghettos. A number of Poles acted as blackmailers (szmalcownicy) demanding that Jews pay ransoms, and threatening both Jews who were in hiding and gentiles who were assisting Jews. Among the anti-Jewish pogroms and other incidents initiated by fractions of the Polish population that occurred during the Nazi occupation the most violent and tragic took place during the summer of 1941 after the Nazis had entered the eastern territories that were annexed by the Soviet Union in September 1939. Some Poles, who opposed Communist rule and, inspired by the Polish nationalist and Nazi propaganda, associated Jews with the Soviet persecutors, felt encouraged by the presence of the Nazis and took part—often voluntarily—in pogrom-type killings of Jews. Several such cases have been documented, the most well-known, recently made public, being the Jedwabne pogrom of 10 July 1941, in which at least several hundred Jewish inhabitants of a town were murdered by a group of their Polish neighbours. Of course the Poles were victims of the Nazi and of course they collaborated to a less extent than some others but depicting them as ...with a few tragic exceptions, the non-Jewish Poles themselves did not participate in the destruction of the Jewish community, and some Poles protected their Jewish neighbors is maybe a bit of embellishing, isn't it? Vb 16:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I wonder whether ...with a few tragic exceptions, such as the Jedwabne pogrom, most of the non-Jewish Poles did not participate in the destruction of the Jewish community, and a few Poles protected their Jewish neighbors would not be better, more NPOV Vb 16:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Just a quick note. In the above quote, the sentence: Although some Poles did help Jews to survive the Holocaust, most remained passive in the face of Nazi terror. is misleading, as it implies that the only people who were not passive in the face of Nazi terror were those who were actively engaged in helping Jews. What about the millions who opposed Nazi Germany by participating in or supporting the huge Polish Underground, fought in the Home Army, or went to great lengths to join units of the Polish Army formed outside of Poland?Balcer 17:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I would invite you to compare the State Department warning about antisemitism in Poland with their information on : France, United Kingdom, and Germany, to give quick examples. This will put the problem of antisemitism in Poland in a proper perspective. In particular, desecration of Jewish cemeteries is a crime occuring all over Europe. In short, I would be really careful to avoid giving the impression that anti-semitism in Poland is (or was) somehow unique and exceptional. I would especially dispute the claim that it is somehow "rising". What is the quantitative evidence for that? Balcer 16:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You are fully right. I have already had a look. The warning of the State Department are not really NPOV. But they are an officially recognized POV which can be cited. I agree with you that one should not overestimate this testimony. However I know pretty well the situation in both France and Germany and the informations there are all exact. In both countries there is a real concern with respect to anti-semitism. Usually this antisemitism is interpreted as a respons of Muslim minorities to the Israelo-Palestinian conflict though the case of a CDU politician in Germany sounds more like an intrisic anti-Semitic case. I must admit this is a reason why I am surprised that the situation in Poland with respect to antisemitism is so positive. However since nobody's perfect depicting a to perfect situation often leads to the opposite result because one doubt about too perfect pictures and gains the feeling of a biased article -- what is not the case of this article: I insist. My only point is that the lead could have a better NPOV. Vb 17:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Vb, you may want to read the Talk:History of the Jews in Poland page, and especially Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#1918-1939 where there is a really detailed back-and-forth about prewar anti-Semitism, and in which many of these points are debated. I generally started from the same angle that you are coming from, but as I have done more reading on the Holocaust, I have moderated my views quite a bit, as the official cooperation by Poles (outside of the pogroms) was much lower than elsewhere in Europe. Perhaps I am being too moderate about WWII, but we do discuss Jedwabne in great detail, and the general story is one of the destruction of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis (with Lithuanian and Ukranian help), rather than at the hands of the Poles. Still, I think your suggestion makes sense, let me try it out. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Urgh. I had a look at Talk:History of the Jews in Poland. You are crazy men! I am really impressed by such a level of discussion and research. However, I think after such a discussion this maybe a good idea to have the help of a pair of fresh eyes. I might suggest a change in the lead : ...one of the largest in the world, though anti-Semitism was a growing problem --> ...one of the largest in the world, though anti-Semitic legal restrictions were a growing problem for the community. Because I have the feeling the word anti-Semitism might be a bit weak in this case since this antisemitism was supported by the state. Vb 17:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Well I think now my objection is raised with respect to the section 1989–present. I nevertheless wonder wether one should not find better references than ADL for supporting the claim. This page is so non NPOV that it sounds a bit ridiculous. I have found another source about Polish antisemitism which sounds much more authoritative Poland warms to other nations on BBC News. However, though, the lead section has been improved. I still disagree with the use of "anti-Semitic Russian Empire". Anti-Semitic should be removed or reworded. This qualification is not acceptable for a state except for some like Nazi Germany. As said above I still believe "though anti-Semitism was a growing problem" is too weak and should be replaced by something mirroring the fact that the government supported this movement such as "though anti-Semitic legal restrictions were a growing problem for the community". I also believe a word should be said in the lead in order to qualify more precisely what is meant by "the situation of Polish Jews has normalized". Does it mean "comparable with neighbour countries", "comparable with other jewish communities in Europe", "as it was when the community was vibrant"? The lead should be more precise about it. The above cited BBC article says that 46% of Poles declare disliking Jews. Is that really a normalized situation? Vb 13:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • On the ADL side, their methodology seems sound, and it is a much more detailed survey, with more information, than the BBC quote -- what is your objection, exactly? I also think that at this stage we are trying to cram a bit too much nuance into the introduction, but I will try to address the problem with the 1919-1939 section in the intro according to your thoughts. As far as Russian state anti-Semitism, until Nazi Germany, the persecutions in Russia were the worst in several hundred years (since the Cossack Uprisings), with thousands of Jews killed in increasingly bad (and increasingly state-supported) pogroms. The secret police created the Protocols, there were discriminatory laws (see May Laws) and Jews were restricted in where they could live and what they could do -- that certainly qualifies as anti-Semitic, and, in fact, was a key reason for the founding of Zionism. As far as "normalized," it makes perfect sense to me in contrast with the March 1968 events and other information described previously, it is neither glowing nor condemning, it just indicates that the back-and-forth precariousness of Jewish life in Poland has calmed down. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with your modification of the lead with respect to the governmental anti-Semitism. I also agree with your arguments for the wording "ant-Semitic Russian Empire". I also agree with the reference to ADL. I however suggest you the following change: "After the fall of the communist regime in Poland in 1989, the situation of Polish Jews has normalized." --> "After the fall of the communist regime in Poland in 1989, though some concerns have been raised recently with respect to anti-semitism, the situation of Polish Jews has normalized and is comparable to their situation in other European countries." Vb 17:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • though some concerns have been raised recently with respect to anti-semitism - please provide a source for this. As indicated on the article's talk page, the anti-semitic rethoric of Polish populist political parties has subsidied in the recent years; and besides, are some quotes important enough to merit a mention in the lead? I am not aware of any discrimnation against Jews in the modern Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I still think 46% of the population declaring disliking the jews [41] is not a normalized situation. My suggested wording was maybe not the best but the present word "normalized" doesn't describe the present situation well. I think this sentence should be reworded to mirror the present situation. Normalized with respect to what? Vb 13:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Many countries, unfortunately, dislike various minorities and/or other coutnries. As long as this does not translate into any harassment and/or discriminatory laws, I don't see why this would be worthy of mentioning in the lead. Btw, do you know of any similar surveys in another countries? Comparison may prove very interesting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
          • An extensive discussion of this survey (in Polish) is here. For comparison between Poland and other coutries in Europe, see this survey conducted by ADL in 2005. It appears to show that levels of anti-Semitism in Poland are not that divergent from the European norm.

Yes, I know. From ADL:

In responding "probably true" to the statement "Jews have too much power in international final markets," the 2005 survey found: Austria - 33%, down from 36% in 2004 Belgium - 33%, down from 36% Denmark - 21% up from 18% France - 24%, down from 29% Germany - 24%, down from 27% Italy - 32%, up from 31% The Netherlands - 19% no change Spain - 54%, up from 53% Switzerland - 30%, down from 38% The United Kingdom - 16% down from 18% Hungary - 55% Poland - 43%

Poles' mind about that issue is not that different (there are even countries 2 countries in this list where the situation is worse) but it is however more than two times the scores of Denmark, UK, and the Netherlands, and 10% more than Belgium and Austria which are known for their strong far-right parties (Vlaams Belang and FPÖ). I would not call that normalized. Of course there are no pogrom or appartheid laws, but I wouldn't describe this as normalized. You must really rewrite this sentence in a way which make clear what normalized means Vb 16:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Before you assign too much significance to these numbers, keep in mind that the methodology of the survey (explained here) gives a margin of error of +/- 4.5%, based on using a random sample of 500 people in each country.

The average score on this question in 32% (add all numbers, divide by 12). Poland scores 43% +/- 4.5%. So, is the situation in Poland so much worse than the average (i.e. not normal)? Balcer 16:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't give too much importance to these numbers but on the WP article Antisemitism one find : "Still, according to recent (June 7, 2005) results of research by B'nai Briths Anti-Defamation League, Poland remains among the European countries (with others being Italy, Spain and Germany) with the largest percentages of people holding anti-Semitic views." This should be somehow mirrored in the lead even if one can stay very vague. My suggestion above was not referring to those exact numbers. Vb 16:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have absolutely no problem with a statement: The level of anti-semitism in Poland today is comparable to that in Italy, Spain and Germany or something to that effect. Any objections? Balcer 16:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. That would raise my objection. Vb 16:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? That is what the statement you yourself quoted implies, does it not? Balcer 16:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I think it is OK. It makes the lead more NPOV and for me that's enough. By the way I have found a new reference [42] comparing the number of violent antisemitism incident by countries and according to those numbers Poland does very well. If the editors want to use this ref could counterbalance the ADL ref in the (1989-present) section. Vb 131.220.68.177 17:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to that very interesting graph. This is indeed one interesting feature of antisemitism in Poland: while it is unfortunately quite prevalent on a verbal level, so to speak, it very rarely translates into violent antisemitic incidents. On the other hand, the number of Jews in Poland is of course quite low, so there is little opportunity for such incidents to occur. I am glad we are edging towards some kind of an agreement on how to address the issue. I agree with you, though maybe for slightly different reasons, that the current formulation in the lead ("normalized" etc.) is somewhat unclear, and should be made more specific. I wonder what the other editors think about this. Balcer 18:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support. Now I think the article has reached the required NPOV level. Vb 10:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose because the "see also" section needs to go -- many of those links are in the article elsewhere anyway. I'm also not sure about the distinction between a "main article" and a "for more details" link under a header -- at "The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: 1572–1795", for example, I'd think the links should be switched, and I'm not really sure the History of Poland (1572-1795) link needs to be there. Support Tuf-Kat 08:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• So if "See also" is removed, you will support? --Goodoldpolonius2 09:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I will support if the se also section is removed. Tuf-Kat 16:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • 'See also' reworked as per your suggestions. I think that the main also and details are ok though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • • The see also is still too big. The "related countries and cities" (which includes no cities) seems arbitrary and unnecessary -- why not other countries instead? The "Other issues related to World War II and the Holocaust" probably could be placed into the article without too much difficulty, and since they are clearly relevant, that would be a positive addition. Of the remainder, Jewish culture (rdrcts to secular Jewish culture) and Culture of Poland don't seem too particularly relevant -- looking at both articles, I don't see what they add to my knowledge of the history of the Jews in Poland. The same is true of Relations of Pope John Paul II with the Jewish People, which redirects to Relations between Catholicism and Judaism, which doesn't really add anything. I could live leaving only list of Polish Jews as a see also, but I don't think that would be very useful either. Tuf-Kat 05:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
          • • Okay, again, I will trim as you suggest. Can you change your vote? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support as per Vb above. Excellent work. Saravask 02:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

We appear to have achieved 100% consensus on a controversal topic being made an FA, which is very exciting. When does the process conclude? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Another very large (60 kB) history FA which isn't even a top-level article. A somewhat more terse summary would be nice. / Peter ^Isotalo 02:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. I acknowledge tremendous amount of work done to this article during the past several months. However, it still contains questionable paragraphs which prevent me from recommending it as featured article. One objectionable paragraph is in the Interwar Period 1918-1939 section. It reads This was accompanied by physical violence: between May 1936 and January 1937, 118 Jews were killed, 1350 were wounded, and 137 Jewish stores were bombed in anti-Jewish violence in Poland. Western press continued to report about tragic situation of Jews in Poland, e.g. reporting that in Białystok alone in 1936 there were 248 assaults on Jews, including 21 mass riots or pogroms (New York Times, Feb 7, 1937). I have a copy of this article and have found one or two books referencing the article. However, the quoted numbers, especially those killed, are not supported by most historians writing on this subject. I don't think the New York Times should be used here as a primary source especially since there are no other collaborating references supporting these numbers. --Ttyre 04:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • By all means, if you have access to new sources, please add the appopriate and referenced info to the article. What other objectionable paragraphs in addition to the one cited have you found?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The New York Times was not the source for all of the stats on violent anti-Semitism. Hagen, a historian writing in a peer reviewed journal, specifically gives an account of at least 350 Jews killed in antisemtic violence between 1935 and 1939. He cites Bauer, p. 18, Marcus, pp. 241 ff.; Heller, chap. 4; Mendelsohn, The Jews of East Central Europe p. 74; Jerzy Tomaszewski, "The Role of Jews in Polish Commerce, 1918-1939," in Gutman et al., pp. 141-57; Simon Segal, The New Poland andthe Jews (New York, 1938), pp. 85 ff.; Raymond L. Buell, Poland: Key to Europe, 3ded. (New York, 1939), pp. 288-319; Jolanta Zyndul, "Cele ackji antyzydowskiej wPolsce w latach, 1935-1937," Biuletyn Zydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego w Polsce 161 (1992): 53-63. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
      • See my response in this discussion. --Ttyre 15:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak support. As Vb noted, he considers the article a tad too pro-Polish (sorry for the shortcut, I hope all of us will know what I mean). I initially wanted to oppose as of yet, mostly because I saw the article as still a tad too anti-Polish (see my disclaimer above), especially in regard to unsubstantiated claims of government-led anti-Semitism in pre-war Poland. However, after reading Vb's comment I realized that perhaps it's not that bad. Sure, it still needs a lot of work, especially with the sources, but... no article is ever finished, and this article is really, really close. Halibutt 07:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palladium

This article thouroughly desribes the major aspects of this chemical. It meets the criteria for feature articles and so should become one.

• Object. The article--let alone the lead--is way too short. In addition, the article has only one reference. Because the article is so short, interesting facts and events are only mentioned in passing. For example:
  • "In 2000, Ford Motor Company created a price bubble in palladium by stockpiling large amounts of the metal, fearing interrupted supplies from Russia. As prices fell in early 2001, Ford lost nearly $1 billion U.S. dollars."
  • "The element played an essential role in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, also known as cold fusion."

In my opinion, a Featured Article would go into much more detail on both of these items (along with similar areas throughout the article).--Alabamaboy 13:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Should there be some kind of restriction on nominating articles that are obviously too short? Phoenix2 17:36, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The one reference mentioned clearly doesn't contain anything like all the information provided in the article. Other references are needed. Some inline citations would be nice. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:57, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
• Object. It doesn't mention "everything" and isn't very long. This is a regular article that is so-so. Featured articles are examples of Wikipedia's very best work. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Westboro Baptist Church

I am nominating this article as a featured article. It is well-written and packed full of factual, verified information. 66.32.97.69 21:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. Lead section is too long, and there are no references. JYolkowski // talk 22:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. See its talk page - many people believe it may be NPOV. No references section either. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object As stated above: 1) the lead is too long. 2) Cite your sources. 3) There are too many single sentence paragraphs and a few single paragraph sections. 4) The writing seems too POV against the organization. slambo 01:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Must object. For starters, Image:WestboroBaptistChurch.jpg has no copyright information, the other images (while having copyright information) ought to be tagged properly, rampant POV and weasel words all over. I do realise that this is a subject that is hard to be neutral about, but I'm also sure it can be done better than it is at present. WegianWarrior 06:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object Writing style is not up to par here. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Aside from the irreparable NPOV problems, there's the erratic spelling. Monicasdude 00:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This topic matter is given space and detail far out of proportion to its actual significance, which I believe is a violation of NPOV. MrVoluntarist 03:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, trolling. The article has been nominated for deletion by the same IP who nominated it here, who there describes it as "far too long, has little to no references, mostly opinion, negative point of view, bad spelling, poor grammar". Most amusing, can it be removed now, please, Raul654? Bishonen | talk 00:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm removing this waste of time from the list now. Bishonen | talk 08:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I retroactively concur →Raul654 19:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Belarus

Self-renom Not much changes took place since the last FAC [43], since I corrected everything there. And I added some SVG images, though I kept some other images since I either cannot draw Coat of arms and also cannot use cyrillic in Inkscape. I also wish to point out that one of my sources was put on the meta spam list, so if you wish to see the website, check my invisible notes at the references section. Zach (Sound Off) 21:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm going to support this nom. Comprehensive without being over-long. Interesting background without being tangential. Random look at other flag pages shows it be a cut above. Marskell 16:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support User:Nichalp/sg 12:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. FAs should serve as model articles, and this one does so for flags. Jkelly 05:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. w00t, Belarusian cabal. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] USS Liberty incident

Well-researched, well-written, NPOV article about a relatively little-known, but important subject. ——Preost ^talk contribs 12:21, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• no Article still seems to be evolving, not in stable state. Gzuckier 15:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Article still not stable, and regularly subjected to POVing by partisans. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Jayjg , this article should have undergone a peer review before coming here. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• object a) some key elements are not sufficiently described. For example, the congressional enquiries are only covered from the critical point of view, some kind of "NPOV description" of at least the key ones is needed. b) there are a number of crucial documents referenced with direct links only. Given how volatile this subject is likely to be, proper references including author/date/summary/key points used etc. are needed. This applies particularly to the transcripts and interviews which are used in ways which aren't fully obvious from the text. Some form of footnoting system, e.g. footnotes or invisible references would help considerably Mozzerati 21:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Mild object. Need more sources and info, such as more details on this tantalizing item: "Captain William L. McGonagle, the USS Liberty's commander, received the highest U.S. medal, the Congressional Medal of Honor, for his actions during the incident. However, his medal is the only CMH not to be awarded by the U.S. President in a formal event." Why wasn't it presented in a formal event? If the editor addresses the concerns listed here, I will support. --Alabamaboy 01:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object for the reasons above. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DualDisc

This is a resubmission and a self-nom. Myself and all the people who worked on this article and submitted comments during the first round of FAC comments have made this article a shining example of the type of article that every Wikipedia article should strive to be.

Original comments from the first round are here. All objections from that round were resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

• Support. Mirror Vax 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not stable. In terms of the relatively short life of the subject, much of the information is already obsolete. The article also does not adequately describe the problems with potentially incompatible hardware (e.g., the details in the linked Pioneer alert notice). Monicasdude 13:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • From my talk page: "I don't want to seem too negative, but I don't think you could put anything in the article that would overcome my main objection, which is that the article can't be both comprehensive and stable, as required by FAC guidelines. The situation, for lack of a better word, is developing fairly rapidly -- I saw, for example, a "recent developments" article in the new ICE magazine this week. To oversimplify an analogy, I wouldn't support any FAC for an article on "The 2005 baseball season," no matter how good it was, until the season was over. FWIW, I also think the SACD discussion is out-of-date, given Sony's pullback, and there's a reference to a November 2005 article that I assume is misdated. Monicasdude 17:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)"

• Just to clarify a bit: I think this is an excellent piece of work. The way I read the FA guidelines, though, it's too soon to be possible to write an article that meets the stability requirement for this technology. The Sony pullback I mentioned is an example of this, with that matter becoming clear, as I recall, only a few weeks ago. Monicasdude 20:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Winston Churchill

This is one of the best written biography articles. Conforms to NPoV and is based on solid fact. Brings out the major points and summarises the not so major ones. Has lots of interesting info.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Self nom. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now - it would be nic with more inline citations of historicaly important information, and the section 'Role as wartime Prime Minister' has a tag on it requesting expansion. Fix that, and I'm likely to support. WegianWarrior 12:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you mind specifying this objection a bit? Just "more inline citations" is difficult to amend. I assume that you by now have read my take on the question of footnotes as well. Peter ^Isotalo 03:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as I can tell, there is no inline citations at all in the article - thus making it hard for me to verify the information without reading thru all the sources listed under referneces. May I suggest the system of {{ref|<name>}} and {{note|<name>}} outlined at Wikipedia:Footnote3. I've been using it in articles I've written with good effect. Use of inline citations are an aid to verifiability, which is imortant for Wikipedia. WegianWarrior 09:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Winstonchurchilltimemagazine.jpg needs a fair use rationale. The {{TIME}} tag only covers use in an article describing that issue.
  2. The image Image:Chrost.jpg needs source information and a fair use rationale. It's a particularly famous photograph, so fair use can easily be justified. I think the original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia, [44], has information you can use to track down the source.
  3. The image Image:Church5155.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  4. The image Image:Ac.eisenhower2.jpg is claimed under fair use. It isn't essential to the article, and should probably be removed.
  5. The image Image:ChurchillFuneralProcession.jpg needs a fair use rational. Alternatively, would it be possible to replace it with an image that doesn't have a watermark scrawled across the middle?
• Also, the "trivia" section should probably be eliminated, with the information from it integrated into the rest of the article. --Carnildo 19:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• yes, miscellany section needs merging into main body; "churchill as historian" needs subheadings; and "role as wartime PM" could be expanded. Image issues also need fixing. On the TIME image - {{TIME}} indicates use "to illustrate the publication of the issue in question", so the magazine issue should also be mentioned in the text. Quite close to FA but no cigar just yet. Rd232 23:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. Fails to adequately describe Churchill's role in post WWI Anglo-Irish negotiations; implication that his role was pro forma treaty signatory is misleading. Monicasdude 16:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object -- the trivia should be integrated within the text. I see no reason why we should have Churchill's cabinet members etc. here, move it to another page. User:Nichalp/sg 19:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• This article is tagged with {{expansion}}, which is utterly unacceptable on a featured article. Either the tag needs to come out, the section be expanded, or both. →Raul654 22:39, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monarchy in Canada

I hereby nominate this article for Featured Article status. This article clearly explains Canada's constitutional monarchy: How it started and how it works. Monarchy in Canada is a subject that many people are unfamiliar with. For example, many, if not most, people don't correctly understand the relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom. This article really has the has the potential to be a great main page article. That's all I have to say about that! --Mb1000 02:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The images Image:Queen canada throne.jpg, Image:Queencanada.jpg have no source or copyright information.
  2. The image Image:HM-tablet.jpg has no copyright information.

  --Carnildo 07:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Support I think that this is an excellent article and well deserving of featured article status, but the copyrights of those three images definitely need to be addressed. Once that is addressed, I will support. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 17:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The images Image:Queen canada throne.jpg & Image:HM-tablet.jpg have been tagged as {CanadaCopyright} and {promophoto} respectivley. For the third image Image:Queencanada.jpg I'm am requesting information from the person who uploaded it. If no information is found on this image, it could just be removed from the article. --Mb1000 19:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It is a good article, but still needs some work. It lacks a references section, which is required for a FA. The formatting also needs some work. The article over uses bullet points. Wikipedia articles should be prose not lists and the mass of bolding in the first paragraph is ugly. The "Royal visits" section needs more content than a single link, there certainly needs to be some content on the major royal visits in this article, perhaps in the history section. The point counterpoint arrangement of the "support and opposition" is also not ideal. It would be much better to merge the two sections and go by issue. - SimonP 01:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Object - Should undergo a Peer Review first. -maclean25 01:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object - I agree with SimonP's reasoning. The article contains interesting facts but should be rewritten in a more encyclopedia-like style. Mwalcoff 03:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Thevis

The vast majority of people don't know who Michael Thevis is, but he was one of the major players in the organized crime scene of the 1980s that also included the cocaine boom. His association with Ed Wood also makes for some truly bizarre trivia. (Self nom)Mistergrind 01:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment – The headings are not formatted properly. Please read the WP:MoS for details. 2) Single paragraphs in each heading do not make a FA. Expand the paragraphs. Ref to peer review. User:Nichalp/sg 07:43, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

OK, can you comment on the article now?

Support. Very nicely written. I had no real problems with the article. --Matt Yeager 06:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Object Further Reading/Sources Cited is confusing. Please cleary identify what references where used (as Wikipedia:Cite sources requires), this is a tiny article so you should be easily able to use Wikipedia:Footnotes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Support. I thought it was good. --Matt Yeager 23:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brave New World

Attempt one

Self-Nomination I have been working on this article for some time, and feel that the text is up to Wikipedia standards. The article now features an image, corrected links, and a well-sized introduction. These were the main reasons for its failed previous nomination, and now that they have been fixed, I believe the article is up to standard. Rusty2005 12:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Weak Object. Someone raised this point when I tried to push The Giver to FA, so I feel it's only cricket that I raise the same point here. The article is pretty good as far as it goes, but it doesn't really leave me with a sense of the novel's significance. How many copies has it sold? What awards has it won? Do some schools require it and others ban it? Also, I agree with 195.137.101.199 that the article should compare Brave New World with more than just Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. This comparison we have now, furthermore, sounds too much like Original Research. There must be scholarly articles on this topic; might we see citations to a couple? (I mean, I made that comparison in my 11th-grade English term paper.) I recall coming across (in a Huxley biography?) some talk of a BNW movie for which Huxley did some writing, but which never got off the ground. Information like that would make a valuable addition, though I don't think it's absolutely essential. Likewise, I believe the article could benefit from any biographical material about Huxley's writing the novel itself. (So what if it falls foul of the New Criticism's "intentional fallacy"?) Finally, I would like to see a couple more relevant pictures — say, images of later editions, if they have any aesthetic appeal at all. (And maybe we could scare up a good photo of Malpais?) This isn't a major point; I would probably change my vote to "support" even without more pictures, assuming my other points were addressed. Anville 16:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. All well and good, I can see the improvement, but were are the references?? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. As the others above said, the article needs more depth in several areas and needs to be references thoroughly (with in-line footnotes). If this is done I will support this as a FA b/c the novel is one of my favorites.--Alabamaboy 00:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Support. Nicely written through and through. I can't see your guys's objections as being worthwhile. I think this is just fine for being a featured article. --Matt Yeager 05:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Must object for now - no references, no citing of sources. Some of the sections might do with a bit of editing for brevity, or might do with branching out to seperate articles (for example to Characters in Brave New World, The World State (Brave New World) or something like that). The synopsis is anything but brief, again an idea might be to put most of it in a new article (named something like Synopsis of Brave New World perhaps?) and par it down significantly in the article. Refer to Wikipedia:What is a featured article. I do think it's a good article overall, but not FA-material as it stands now. Again, I repeat my plea for proper references and citing of sources.WegianWarrior 08:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Education in the United States

Since its last nomination, many changes have been made to the article, most by me. I addressed two lists of concerns and there are many inline citations. The article is long, but I feel that it's simple to skip over sections without losing anything. I hope it meets everyone's standards.--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object: The image Image:Harvard05commencement.jpg is tagged as "fair use". There's nothing particularly special about it, so it can't be used under Wikipedia's fair use policy. --Carnildo 00:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The image has been replaced with a free one.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • See image argument above. I'm sure we can find a free pic for that section.
  • History sections looks short to me.
    • Actually, several too short sections (including 2 single-paragrapph ones)
  • Education infobox should be in top right corner, not current template. I have fixed this (By adding clear:right; to {{Life in the United States}}, it'll automatically move directly under a preceding right-floated template)
  • TOC is awfully long: it takes the whole screen in a 1024x800 resolution
• Circeus 00:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the image, and you moved the infobox, which I'm okay with. However, I'm not sure how to make the TOC smaller, I don't really see how to eliminating structure in the article will make the article itself better.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Early objections taken care of. More objections below. As per above. There could also use some additional inline references... there are very few, entire swaths of the article have no notes stating where the information comes from. Fieari 01:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have specific points you wish to see cited? I was under the impression that cites aren't necessary for things which are common knowledge.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what may be common knowledge in one part of the world, might not be in another. I'm American myself, but the tone of the article is written for someone from another country like England (as it should be), for whom this ISN'T common knowledge, and thus must be sourced.

• • The "Grades" section has no sources at all, needs at least one source.
  • In "Primary and Secondary Education", Opposition to homeschooling comes from varied sources... definitely needs a source, and preferably some direct quotes.
  • The "Middle School" section should have at least one source.
  • The "High School" section is rife with needs for sources. Seperate campus for freshmen, not specializing yet, passing grade (also uses weasel words), minimum course sequences (should be easy to source), additional options like honors/gifted/AP, extracricular activities (competition between groups, major games for HS, greater interest, other clubs)...
    • Furthermore, you'll note that the High School section is much more detailed than the Elementary and Middle School sections. This creates an unbalanced feel to the article... those other sections should preferably be as detailed. Once this is done, however, the article may become too long... if that's the case, all three sections should be split to their own articles and better summarized in the main article per summary style.
  • No Child Left Behind Act should be sourced... wikilinking does not count; the article should be self sufficient, and that includes sourcing.
  • Criticism for midterms/finals should be sourced, as should attempts to ban them.
    • Also, potential POV here; article seems biased against midterms/finals. If attempts to ban them have been unsuccessful, that means there's definitely a mainstream prevelant opposing view here, which should be covered in more depth than the criticism.
  • SAT/ACT information needs to be sourced.
  • "Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004" must be sourced, esspecially since the wikilink is red. Even if the wikilink were blue, that's not enough.
  • Colleges requiring SAT scores should be sourced.
  • The types of degrees should be sourced.
  • "Primary and Secondary Education" should have at least one source.
  • Etc etc etc etc etc etc... I'm getting a little tired of looking for places that need sources. Basically, every section needs at least one source. Specific facts, laws, complaints, statements of opinion, these all need sources. Fieari 16:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Lots of improvements. Good work on the sourcing! I still have a couple little issues, however.
      • Some of the comments on homeschooling still seem a little POV to me, in particular, "For example, a creationist parent could remove a child from public school because the school's biology curriculum teaches evolution by natural selection." is a loaded statement, in that this is implied to be a bad thing. Is this a direct quote from anyone, because if so, it sould be attributed. Additionally, as someone who was homeschooled through highschool myself, I happen to know that advocates of homeschooling have fairly detailed counters to every one of those common objections. Now, I understand that this isn't an article on homeschooling, but the tone of the section seems biased against it... I'd reccomend trimming it down, and finding somewhere to merge the removed information to and linking there for a more detailed discussion. There's the potential for a full article there.
      • I'm finding in general that the article is getting a little too long. I think some splitting may need to be done, according to Summary Style. In addition to a History of Education in the United States article, you could have a Primary and Secondary Education in the United States article (for a major pruning of this one, which would cut down the size nicely and still keep all the information in wikipedia, which is important), possibly even a Public vs. private schools article... "Education in the United States" is a -hugely- broad topic, with scads and scads to write about, and it all should be written about, but not all in the same article. Summary Style is key, so that a person can find the information they're looking for.
      • Compare what is described in the Lead to what is actually in the article. A third of the lead is dedicated to talking about literacy, whereas literacy is barely touched on at all in the article itself. The article consists of
      • This will also help with comprehensiveness, which this article currently lacks. As much as is written here, I highly suspect that more could be written. It doesn't look that way now, simply because all this information that should be in seperate articles (in my opinion) is all mashed together in one place... but once you start splitting, I think it'll become evident that more topics could be discussed here... such as the literacy issue that takes up so much of the lead. The lead also talks of accreditation... that should be discussed (in summary style, linking to the main article). The article could also discuss U.S. territory schooling, such as Puerto Rico, mentioned in the lead but never touched on in the article. A discussion on how the Department of Education works could be included... in Summary Style, with a link to the main article.
    • The article has come a long way so far, but I think it still has a ways to go. Fieari 16:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• ObjectNeutral. The history section has nothing about the rise of public education, which started in the early 19th century became significant in the late 19th century, with high schools gradually replacing academies. A better distinction needs to be made between public and private education, and there needs to be data or at least a qualitative description of the scale of public vs. private education, and information about historical gender differences in education level. It also needs discussion of the changing curriculum and the secularization of schools. For sources, try Shaping of the American High School and Origins of the American High School.--ragesoss 03:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think what you're asking for is a little outside the range of a Wikipedia article. I'm not writing History of Education in the United States, after all. As for your other points, 1/4 of the article makes up a public v. private section, and the actual percentage of students attending each type is perfectly clear in the article.--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

But that's exactly the point. You can't fully discuss education in the United States without understanding its history. Because of this you have to either cover it satisfactorily in the main article, or write that History of Education in the United States article and do a split-off summary in the main. Either way it needs to be written to fill out a subject this broad. Staxringold 13:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I added 4 paragraphs to the history section; what do you think about it now? I'm working on cites for it, but please consider the content.--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You've done well with the history section at a very basic level; I'm not willing to support to article yet, but I'm withdrawing my objection. I would like to see more integration of the social and cultural factors involved in the rise of public schooling (and the gradual decline of academies), and still it needs something about the religious dimensions of public education, which have been very important throughout (for example, the lively debates in the last decades of the 19th century over state support for sectarian schools vs. nonsectarian religious schools vs. nonreligious schools). Some mention of the 20th centuries issues like creation/evolution, sex education, home economics (and other Progressive Era education reforms), etc., would also help.--ragesoss 07:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object as per above, but especially due to that history section. Staxringold 12:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Also more tables is needed, one at least :) Brandmeister 13:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I converted the bulleted list at the beginning to a table, I hope that helps allay your fears :)--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Conditional support. I think the history could be in the beginning and the further reading expanded (to about 5 or more works). Brandmeister 17:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

While I can't agree with you about the history section (I doubt anyone is going to come to the article wanting to read the history first), I definitely see your point about the further reading section; I'll incorporate the suggestions from ragesoss.--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • While technically an "actionable" objection, since something could be done to fix it, "Uses the very latest in mediawiki formatting" isn't actually anything remotely close to an FA criteria. It has references, these references are linked inline, are in their own section... that's about what was required. Not that this particular article is ready to be FA right now (see above objections), just that this point of contention here is silly. Fieari 15:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Withdrawing my oppose, consider it a strongly worded suggestion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed it over; I hope it meets your expectations.--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• A comment: since you are already touching the coverage of the US education in the works of art, I think you should somehow mention the Up the Down Staircase (novel) in it (actually, your nomination prompted me to look it up on the WP and to discover it in a pretty sad state, which, in turn, lead to some edits on the book author's WP page, so I came back to look at your article only now :-) ...) --BACbKA 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ummmmm...thanks I guess--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object per above. In addition, starting off with a bulleted list should be fixed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I created a table instead--better?--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suburbs of Johannesburg

Self-nom. I have worked extremely hard on this article and had great assistance from several other people. After User:NicholasTurnbull finished helping me slave away with the map, I feel comfortable nominating this article for FAC. It is an extremely comprehensive look at the suburbs of the city of Johannesburg, South Africa, itself already a featured article. I have tried to look at both the social and economic importance of all the different areas of the city. Previous nomination can be seen here. Thank you! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 16:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written, well-illustrated, and well-referenced, and I think it gives a good level of detail for an overview article. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons as Mindspillage. Nice job!--Bcrowell 23:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons 82.172.247.104 12:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC) --- Oops, forgot to log in Djadek 12:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No significant discussion of governance or governmental structures. I don't understand why there are separate articles on the city, its "regions," and its "suburbs." Seem to be 3 articles on the same general subject. If the details would overwhelm a single article, should be broken down into individual articles on individual regions or suburbs, not 3 different overviews. Monicasdude 13:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Because the significant discussion lives at the appropriate place, Government of Johannesburg. And no, the city, its regions, and its suburbs are completely independent entities. Its like asking why there should be an aritlce on New York City, on the boroughs of New York, and the different neighbourhoods of New York. They're related, but completely independent of each other so far as articles on Wikipedia are concerned. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 16:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

But there aren't separate articles on New York City, boroughs of NYC, and neighborhoods of NYC. There may be heirarchies of articles like NYC > Manhattan > Greenwich Village. But Johannesburg isn't part of a heirarchy; it's just part of a set of overlapping overviews. And if the suburbs and regions are as distinct as you say, there should be articles on Govt of suburbs of JBrg and Govt of regions of Jburg. The article you cite doesn't explain how subdivisions of Jbrg are governed; it just says the subdivisions have "operational responsiblity for some govtal functions. Monicasdude 17:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If there is nothing there, its just for the fact that it hasn't yet been written. I don't see these articles as overlapping in any way. And there are articles on the government of Regions of Johannesburg, see Regions of Johannesburg. That articles discusses the government structure of the regions. The reason there is no articles on the government of the suburbs is because there is none, although a few suburbs such as the City Centre have elected to create Ambassadors to the region that are neither police officers nor tourist officials. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 17:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sesame Street

FAC: September 2004, October 2004, August 2005, June 2006

PR: July 2005, September 2005, June 2006

Renominate. I took too long acting on corrections, due to my current ongoing internship. The previous objections seem to all have been corrected. -- Zanimum 19:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• (Mostly) Support - The article has been separated into new articles where appropriate which saves the it from being too long for reading. The information is also written well. One slight criticism is that there are quite a lot of links to pages that don't currently exist. However, this could be improved by either removing these links (many are not necessary) or creating small articles, if appropriate. --Bearbear 09:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support While I also share the concern of the number of red links, I think this flaw is easily corrected. The article is put together well, written in summary style where appropriate, and has lost the flowery language. Good job—D-Rock 10:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• My suggestions: Add a proper detailed footnote for the The Real Thing book quote, using a "<ref>" with a "{{cite book}} which specifies the ISBN and page number. Clarify that it is "a book of humorous essays". Find a replacement reference for the Muppet Wiki (muppet.wikia.com) which is not reliable, as anybody can write anything, with no fact-checking. --Rob 23:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written, throughly detailed, and compelling with good use of good sources, and a very balanced perspective. I would have liked to see a smidge more about the locally-produced foreign adaptations of the series -- not more than perhaps a paragraph about the commonalities and noteable differences, as well as the local development teams' relationship with the Sesame Workshop (the latter retains rather strict script approval over the foreign spin-offs' content). I'd also be slightly happier if there were some structural link in the article between the foreign-localizations section, and broadcast history section, which discusses the same topic. None of these seem like total deal-breakers, though. Good stuff. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 20:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Guerre

This is a self-nomination of an article that has been nominated and failed before (see old discussion). I believe all the objections expressed at the time have now been met. AxelBoldt 23:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written and documented. Phils 13:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Wikipedia, being as it is editable by anyone, needs to go to extra lengths to support its information, and that includes inline references, which this article lacks. For every, or at least most facts presented, there should be an immediate link to a reference supporting that information, so someone researching the topic can easily determine whether or not the wiki is accurate at that time or not (such as in the case of stumbling across vandalism). Fieari 21:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The reference for the historical information is the book by Davis; I wrote that in a later section, but maybe it's better to write it at the beginning? AxelBoldt 00:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I know of no autoritative reference publication, online or not, that explicitly backs every statement with an inline reference. This would mean about 30-50 inline references per page (on A4/US letter paper). Phils 11:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Phils - the requirement is for citations "where appropriate", which in my interpretation (as featured article director) means that statistics, quotations, judgements, disputed/controversial facts, 'etc; it does not mean you need a citation for every statement. →Raul654 21:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Walt Disney World College Program

I am proposing a "self-nomination" for this article because it is a full length, very well written, and neutral piece of work that meets the criteria for a featured article. (If I do say so myself) Taken from personal first person experiance, already several other people have contributed to it and it has grown. There are also quite a few supporting pages created that are well done. --Shifter55 19:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object - A reference section needs to be added (a must for FA). Second, try to minimize the use of lists and increase the amount of prose. Finally, the image does not have a copyright tag (though the source seems to be noted), though to me it looks like a logo. Hence, you should use the {{logo}} tag. Pentawing 23:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd love to support this article since I went through the program once (I was a lifeguard). Unfortunately, the article is rather dry and boring, even for one who went through the program. I agree with the above comment that references need to be added; enough media articles and press have been done about the program to make this possible. In addition, the article should list well-known people who went throught the program. First-person descriptions of the work and program, along with quotes, would also help.--Alabamaboy 00:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Panama Canal

self-nom: This is the third attempt to get this article to FA status (see its talk page for archived attempts). Since the last attempt, it has been completely overhauled, and a complete series of articles created around it. It's just had another peer review, and I think it's now ready to properly represent this significant and interesting topic. — Johantheghost 16:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't be objective. My own desire to see my contribution (however small) praised balances with my ignorance of the topic; I can't judge if it's covered adequately. And "featured" is a pretty hi standard, going by the Iowa-class BB page (which I can judge). Trekphiler 17:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Mild Oppose This is certainly a good article but it still needs work: pending a small change (see note 8 below) I feel the article is good enough to be featured. SUPPORT Mikkerpikker 16:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The first sentence is rather awkward & the grammar is a bit dubious (the use of present continuous "cutting" and "connecting" especially).
  • One does not refer to inanimate objects with "whose"
  • Reference for the 20 day time saving? Reference for number of workers killed during construction? Several more highly specific but unreferenced statements.
  • The term "man-made" is gendered
  • Proper organisation of the Panamax issue is lacking - basically the same information mentioned 3 times. Mikkerpikker 17:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Response:

• "The first sentence is rather awkward" — quite agree. I've had a go at re-wording it.

Your reformulation is certainly an improvement but I'm not over the moon with it (specifically, "cutting" in present continuous seems wrong - it is not currently, as we speak, busy cutting through the isthmus). What about "The Panama Canal is a major shipping canal which cuts through the isthmus of Panama in Central America thereby dividing the continents of North and South America and connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans."? Or perhaps even better would be to leave out the bit of dividing the continents... Mikkerpikker 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Done! — Johantheghost 21:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Inanimate objects with "whose" — re-phrased.
• References — I've added one for the savings and disease — what else needs it? I haven't added references for the "summary" sections which have a main article, because the main article should handle that.

I'm still not happy with the references.

1. the citation for the distance & time saving is a book published in 1913. Don't you think this figure would have changed since we were still using steamships back 1913?
2. The article says "A ship sailing from New York to San Francisco via the Canal travels a distance of 9,500 kilometres (6,000 mi), a saving of almost 13,000 kilometres (8,000 mi)" whilst the reference (in note 2) says "San Francisco is now 14,000 miles from New York around Cape Horn. Through the Panama Canal it will be 8,000 miles nearer, or a little more than 5,000 miles distant" (Ch XX). So the article and the reference agree on the distance saved (8000 mi) but not on the distance between San Fran & NY via the canal (5000 mi for the reference, 6000 mi for the article). Which is it?
3. Reference number 3 should point to http://www.pancanal.com/eng/history/history/end.html not http://www.pancanal.com/eng/history/index.html
4. Something I've also just noticed: the sentence "Approximately 800,000 ships have passed through the Panama Canal since its completion" should begin with "As of ...." (i.e. "As of 2001," or 2002 or whatever, "approximately"...
5. Reference 5 contains info for 2005 so why have the info for 2004 in the article and not the latest figures? (i.e. for the sentence "Canal traffic in 2004 consisted of 14,035 vessels carrying 203 million tonnes of cargo, an average of almost 40 vessels per day")
6. I can't find confirmation for the statement "Mean sea level at the Pacific end of the canal is on average 24 centimeters (9 in) higher than at the Atlantic end" at http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/biogeog/HILD1939.htm (the site referenced)
7. "Each lock chamber requires 101,000 cubic metres of water (26.7 million U.S. gallons) to fill; this enters the chamber by gravity via a network of culverts beneath each lock chamber." needs a reference I'd still prefer a ref but I see your point so OK Mikkerpikker 16:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
8. "As of July 1, 2003, this toll is $2.96 per ton for the first 10,000 tons, $2.90 per ton for the next 10,000 tons, and $2.85 per ton thereafter." needs a reference (and aren't there more up to date figures?)
9. "52 million gallons of fresh water from the lake are dumped into the sea by the locks every time a ship transits the canal." needs a citation

Thanks for the continued feedback...

1. Well, not the distance, at least... I've taken the time out, since I can't find a better ref, and time is meaningless (ie. depends on the boat).
2. The book is apparently approximating, since 5,000 + 8,000 /= 14,000. I've chosen figures that add up. The real figures depend hugely on routes chosen (which depend on winds and currents, even today), so this is always going to be approximate.
3. Done.
4. Done.
5. Done, and reworded tonnage to "capacity", not "cargo carried" (they don't count the latter).
6. Darn, sorry; I've added a ref.
7. I haven't put references into sections like this one, and History, which have a "main article" -- my feeling is that the main article should handle it (and will by the time I get them to FAC...  ;-). For this issue, I've added a reference in that article. OK?
8. The reference for the whole Tolls section is on the first sentence. How can I make this clearer (because I see your point)? As for more up-to-date, no, those are the current tolls, which became effective on the dates shown. I've now dispensed with the effective date, which is actually pointless.
9. Done. Johantheghost 00:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

for number 8 above: I have also had your problem before; one doesn't want to cite EVERY sentence... what about putting the ref at the end of the section with a blurb (under the ref section) that the website cited is the source for all the info in the above section? Alternatively, put a blurb by the current ref stating the same thing... Mikkerpikker 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I've had a go — a small change, but I hope it makes it clearer. What do you think? — Johantheghost 18:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that sorts it out... readers will (or should be able to) figure out the rest of the sub-section's info comes from the source just cited. (Although I'm changing "assigned" to "decided" - could also be "determined". Let me know if that's ok...) Mikkerpikker 19:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Thanks again for the help in getting this up to scratch. — Johantheghost 19:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Man-made" — absolutely, changed it to "artificial".
• The Panamax issue — I see what you're saying, but:

• It's mentioned under "Efficiency" to explain why tonnage is up, despite transits being down
• It's mentioned under "Capacity", because it is an outstanding issue
• It's mentioned under "Competition", because a competing post-Panamax canal (such as Nicaragua) would be a competition issue
• It's mentioned under "Future", because it could drive future changes.

Basically Panamax is a fundamental aspect of the canal which intrudes into everything. However, I think the "Capacity" section as a whole is an issue, and yes, it does look like repetition of the Panamax thing. I mean, "the canal has all the business it needs" — this is a problem? So I've re-phrased "Capacity" to be about capacity, not post-Panamax. What do you think?

Yeah, you're prob right about the panamax issue so I'm withdrawing my opposition wrt that reason Mikkerpikker 21:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have another pass over to look for references needed. — Johantheghost 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC) The references look OK to me now... — Johantheghost 22:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Poorly written (2a). Perhaps start by making the measurements consistent and logical (mi is linked more than on just its first occurrence; mixed up approach to abbreviating mi/kilometers—km will do). But the whole thing needs careful copy-editing. Tony 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Re "Poorly written", perhaps you could be a little more specific?
• Re linking units on more than just the first occurrence, I felt that in such a large article, requiring someone to scroll back to the start just to get a definition was unnecessarily obtuse. So once per major chunk of text has been my philosophy. Don't you think that's reasonable?
• Re "measurements consistent and logical" — I don't get it. Every measurement is metric (imperial), except TEU and "PC/UMS ton" which is defined in feet by international law. How is that inconsistent?
• Re "mixed up approach to abbreviating mi/kilometers" — in fact, it's always "## kilometers (## mi)". I just completed a major editing effort to make it that way. You'll notice that this is very consistent, even with imperial-first units: eg. "a volume of 100 cubic feet (2.8 m³)". Why? Because that's what the Manual of Style says. See WP:MOSNUM#Units:

Spell out source units in text. Use digits and unit symbols for converted values and for measurements in tables. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long".

So, is this another problem with the MoS? If so, can we please get the MoS fixed? — Johantheghost 01:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's a good article now—well done. Just two matters: I presume that British spelling is used (you'd expect US spelling here, but it's fine if that's the way it started). I'd still be happier with just 'km', rather than 'kilometres' throughout. I note that 'mile' is abbreviated to 'mi'. Tony 02:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment. As the Manual of Style says, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in)" is the correct style; hence "kilometeres" spelt out, and "mi" abbreviated in the converted units — this is exactly what the manual says to do. I guess you should raise this issue at WP:MOSNUM#Units. — Johantheghost 02:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Tony 02:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The Panama Canal is a great subject to feature. --DelftUser 11:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is true, but being an important subject is not one of the FA criteria. - The Catfish 04:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Now my support is unqualified, I just support. --DelftUser 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. All those lists should be converted into prose, maybe with the exception of "layout". -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Lists of upgrades, lists of bridges... to me these are lists, but you're not the first person to say this, so I've made the change you suggested. As for the "Layout" section, feel free to have a go at prosifying it; I tried, but it looked like a horrible mass of words and figures. As it is, people can extract information from it quite easily, eq. how many miles of fresh water, etc. Maybe it would look better as a table? What do you think? — Johantheghost 20:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • Personally I can't think of a way to make the "layout" list better, that's why I said it could be an exception. The article looks pretty good to me by now so I'll say conditional support upon satisfying the objections above. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 01:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object; this looks good, but needs a few paragraphs from History of the Panama Canal. It's apparent from that article that things did happen between 1914 and 1977, but by reading this article, one would never know. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment — that's a good point. Obviously I don't want this "summary" section to get too big, but that was a real omission. I've had a go at fixing it — comments welcome. — Johantheghost 01:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. The level of detail of the addition is consistent with that of the rest of the section, so I'll support. Also, I just thought of something—it might be interesting to make more comparisons to the Suez Canal: compare the volume of shipping sent, the cost of shipping, and the factors involved in the comparison (maybe Suez costs more because it's longer or Panama costs more because it has locks or whatever). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Here are the problems I've found on my scan of the article: Conditional Support, see below.

* Multiple statements which appear to be uncited opinions:

• "There is no question that the Panama Canal continues to be one of the most successful engineering projects of all time." Who says so?

• Yeah, that's pretty much just cheerleading; I changed it to "More than ninety years since its opening, the canal — one of the greatest engineering projects in history — continues to enjoy great success.". I think given the immediately following evidence that it's carrying cargo at all-time record levels, this is clearly justified. — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• That still seems to be pretty similar wording to the Yankees example at WP:AWW. I would just remove the 'greatest' designation entirely and let the facts speak for themselves - similar to citing the Yankees' World Series achievements and not calling them "the greatest franchise in baseball" The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Johantheghost 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Struck The Catfish 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• "There were widespread fears that efficiency and maintenance would suffer following the U.S. withdrawal." What polls showed this?

• I've taken out "widespread". The reference says "the Senate chamber echoed with dire fears and warnings", so I think the statement as it is now is justified. — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see where it says that in the reference. Is there a way of perhaps making it clearer that note [24] refers to the first 2 sentences of that paragraph. I assumed it only refered to the second The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Done - I merged the sentences. Johantheghost 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Struck The Catfish 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• "With demand rising, it seems certain that the canal will continue to be a significant feature of world shipping for the forseeable future." Who is certain?

• Me, of course! OK, kidding. Seriously, I have demonstrated — by quoting several sources — that demand is rising steadily, and that the canal is handling that demand. I think that that itself is clear proof that the canal will be important for the forseeable future. So I've changed the text to "With demand rising, the canal is in the positioned to be a significant feature of world shipping for the forseeable future", which I think looks less like a guess? What do you think? — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Fine by me. Struck. The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• For this statement: "The canal is presently handling more vessel traffic than had ever been envisioned by its builders" What was the amount of traffic the builders envisioned?

• Added statstics and references to back it up. — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent. Struck. The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• I would go ahead and import references from the main history article. My feel is that the reader shouldn't have to go to another article to verify this one. I'd rather err on the side of too many references, rather than too few.

• OK, I'll get to work on that.
• OK done. I haven't put references for things which are simply Wikilinks to their own aqrticles, like invasion of Panama — OK? — Johantheghost 14:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was only refering to the sections with a main article. =History= looks good, but the Locks and Lakes subsections still don't have any. They could use some for the specific figures (lock chamber dimensions, etc.) The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Johantheghost 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Looks good. Struck

:* I would suggest =tolls= be moved after =history=.

• My concept there is that "History" - "Current" - "Future" makes a logical sequence; "Tolls" is more related to "Description". What do you think of that? — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• No, on second thought, you're right — I moved Tolls down. — Johantheghost 14:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Struck The Catfish 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• The subsections ==Alajuela Lake== and ==The Anchorages== are rather small. They should be expanded. Single sentence paragraphs in ==The Anchorages== and ==Crossings== should be either expanded or merged into another paragraph.

• The Anchorages topic is too insignificant, so I merged it into Layout. I Merged the two lakes together. The last para in Crossings is a separate topic; it doesn't make sense to merge it, and there's nothing more to say about it. Yes, short paragraphs should generally be avoided, but I think this case is justified. What do you think? — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• You're right, it is a separate topic. If there really is nothing more to say about it, it should be fine. The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

These shouldn't be too much trouble to fix. Let me know if I can be of any help - The Catfish 04:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work in addressing these so quickly. I have changed to Conditional Support, pending resolution of my couple remaining issues. - The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your continuing help — I've actioned those comments (see above). Johantheghost 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work. Full Support now. The Catfish 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, there's still inconsistency in the spelling: we have 'centimeters' (US spelling) but 'kilometres' and 'metres' (non-US). There needs to be a piped link on 'centimteres' if UK spelling is in fact the norm for this article. Tony 10:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it to use SI spellings throughout. — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Great well written article. --WS 18:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Fun article to read, I might fiddle with the layout a little, but content is all good stuff. Oh, and maybe de-number the lead a little, especially the double unit stuff... --zippedmartin 02:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. I think the death breakdown is important enough to stay up there. Agree about too many numbers, and nice fix; but if by "double unit stuff" you mean metric/imperial, that's as per the Manual of Style. Cheers, Johantheghost 11:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• I was amazed to see no mention of the deaths in History, so I moved the death breakdown there as you suggested (see article history). Johantheghost 12:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I meant in the locale of the double unit stuff, not the units themselves. It had "x km (mi)... y km (mi)... y-x km (mi)" and the deaths bit had "french+us... french (year-year)... us (year-year)" which made for rather a lot of numbers all in a row, that repeat themselves somewhat. Being article summary 's good to keep the key numbers, but what mattered for the routes was their comparative distance rather than the exact difference between them (which is still there, for those with head calculators), and the deaths breakdown was a bit arbitrary without the explanation (were the french crueler, or just worse at building canals?). But, dealt with.

As for what to add in the extra bit of space, maybe a line bridging the end of the US construction and the current status? The third paragraph doesn't quite stand on its own at the moment.

I did fiddle with the layout a bit, but didn't get anything stunningly different with the preview button that I wanted to preserve. This minor nitpicking doesn't need to be on the FAC page really, it's a good article, whether I poke the odd bit or not. --zippedmartin 16:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. While the article doesn't flow brilliantly, it is detailed and informative, and good enough to support as an FA. Ambi 23:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denis Law

Self-nom. This article spent the full four weeks on peer review (link) and was on FAC in August (link). It failed for two reasons: not enough votes were cast (2 support, 1 object), and User:Carnildo objected to the images not having fair use rationales. I've added the rationales now so I consider all previous objections to have been dealt with. Please have a look at the article if you've got time. It would be a pity if it failed solely through a lack of votes.

Thanks, CTOAGN 10:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Very mild object, the Return home and After football sections should be merged as the first is terribly short. Will support if changed. -- Elisson • Talk 10:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Blimey, that was quick. I've merged the two sections now. CTOAGN 10:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. -- Elisson • Talk 14:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Definite support, lots of good information here. Phoenix2 16:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• my concerns have been addressed, support vote a couple of paragraphs down. Neutral for now - I like the article but I want to read it through a couple more times. Could you please reload the images with the black bands cropped from them? It detracts from overall look of the article. I love the first photo though - the two blokes on the left look like they're ready to snatch the contract out of his hands the moment he signs. Rossrs 16:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Jiy has got rid of the bands. CTOAGN 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm happy with the image, and I think the article is better off without that second one. I'll wait to see how User:Nichalp's comments are addressed, but I think the article is developing very well. Rossrs 12:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the only objections left from Nichalp are the references and the right-alignment of the table columns. I'll do the alignment as soon as I find out how (unless someone beats me to it - should only take a few seconds I think?). I don't think the references are a valid objection, but if you disagree let me know. I'd give it a bit more thought if I thought it was a majority opinion (although I'd still find it highly perplexing). CTOAGN 20:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Support I've right aligned the columns. I don't object to the references as you've done them, although I prefer Nichalp's suggestion. Nichalp frequently comments on FAs and as such has an excellent knowledge of what the standard is. Although I agree with his viewpoint, the type of references to be used are not part of policy, and are guidelines only. The referencing style you've used is one of several acceptable formats - not my favourite, but it's a valid choice in my opinion. Rossrs 14:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- One comment I do have, though, is that "squint" may be a little confusing to American readers--I've never heard "squint" used in the U.S. to refer to the condition indicated in the article you link to. I have no objection to the article's being in British English, but is there a more universally understood term you could use for his condition? Other than that, I cleaned up some of the prose that was a little bit funky. The article is nicely organized and well-researched. As a fan of the sport, I'm glad to see it have another well-written article.Kevin M Marshall 00:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know what term is commonly used for 'squint' outside the UK, but will be happy to put something in a footnote if you let me know what it's called where you live (I like footnotes...). 'Strabismus' might be too formal for a football bio imo. CTOAGN 19:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If I understand what you're describing, I think we'd call it "lazy eye" (if one eye wanders around) or "cross-eyed" (if the eyes both point in) in the U.S. The problem isn't really one of terminology; the problem is that strabismus is so vague and talks about so many things I can't figure out exactly what "squint" means. I'd never heard of the word "strabismus" either, so perhaps I'm just more ignorant than I should be when it comes to eye disorders. But I like to think that if it's a problem for me, it's a problem for a large number of US readers. All that being said, however, it's more of a problem for the strabismus article than for this one. If the average Brit knows exactly what you mean by squint, just leave it as is and let the editors of strabismus fix that page.Kevin M Marshall 01:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well researched article. In my opinion, it would read a bit better if each footnote were moved to the end of the sentence it occurs in. Pburka 01:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support The model Wikipedia article. Ruennsheng 02:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm genuinely flattered. Glad you like it. CTOAGN 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support Comprehensive and well-researched - well done! Brisvegas 09:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article – I remember doing some clean-up work on it ages ago, right after it was first created. It's grown a fair bit since then! Great piece. Angmering 20:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object I might just have ADD, but the article is quite boring for a FA. Very good article if you're interested in that sort of thing, but people want to really see interesting things on FA. Maybe some more pics too. Spawn Man 05:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The objection is unactionable. Mention what needs to be done to 'enhance' it. User:Nichalp/sg 05:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Nichalp here. Making it interesting to people who aren't interested in the subject is a lot to ask, and isn't in the guidelines. And I'd rather saw off my own legs than add more images. CTOAGN 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Well that's not my fault... Also, we are voting on which articles should be put on the main page, not what we should do to make them better!?! If you all want to vote on what to do to enhance the article, I suggest you move this article to the Peer Review page. As I said, people don't want boring topics on the main page, and I think this is a boring topic. I'm changing my vote to object. (unsigned. added by User:Spawn Man)
  • Your vote is still unactionable. Have you read the guidelines for voting at the top of the page? Objections need to state a specific rationale that can be addressed, otherwise they may be ignored. Your boredom is unfortunate, but it's something only you can deal with. Rossrs 09:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object - The images in this article are woeful. Both suffer from pixelation, the second suffers from gross colour distortion and is poorly cropped. I rarely object to articles based on images but these are exceptionally bad images. Cedars 06:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This has been sorted out now. The first has been cleaned up and cropped by User:Jiy (I only wish I'd noticed before I downloaded GIMP and made the same changes myself). The second has been removed, partly because its quality was poor and partly because someone seems to have introduced a new 'one screenshot per article' rule and it came from the same DVD as the first image. If there's still anything that you object to, please let me know. CTOAGN 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The first image is still fairly pixelated. It would be really desirable to get a better quality picture, preferably one of him actually playing football. Cedars 01:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I know, and I'd like to. The problem is that all of Law's career took place in the last fifty years, so all the images I'd like to include are copyrighted. I don't know how familiar you are with the rules of fair use/copyrighted images on Wikipedia but they really make life difficult for subjects where a copyright-free image is unavailable. Knowing this, I originally submitted this article as a featured-article-without-pictures (see /archive1) but PopUpPirate objected because he felt the article would really benefit from a picture (and I agree with him). If I upload anything here that even might be less than 100% ok, it will be objected to and that objection will be upheld. IIRC, at one stage recently something like half of FACs were being rejected on this basis. Promotional images are at best a grey area - there are people trying to get them removed from Wikipedia altoghether (this possibly includes Jimbo, although I can't remember off the top of my head), and even when a copyright holder gives their permission for an article to be used on WP, this is still not enough (whether someone's trying to get the article featured or not) - someone will remove the image as all mirrors need to be able to reuse the images for any purpose. Given that, the only copyright-acceptable images I've been able to find of Law's career have been screenshots uploaded under fair use. There is now a one-screenshot-per-article limit on WP, and I think the one image we need above all is one with Law's face in it from some point in his playing career. I don't have access to television archives so this one is the only one available (and as you can see, it's black and white footage from the early 60s). I might be able to tidy it up with GIMP (although I'm no expert with this - anyone else think they could have a go?) but can't promise I'll be able to make it any better. In any case, while I accept it's not perfect, and I'll happily upload a better image if I can find one with an acceptable copyright status, I really don't think it's so bad that it spoils the article to the point of turning it from featurable to not featurable, now that jiy has tidied it up, especially given Rossrs' comment above. CTOAGN 20:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object – 1) Sections such as ==Growing up==; ==World Cup 1974== are too short. 2) The equiv of £115,000 in today's terms value should be mentioned. 3) Parents names? 4) He was an avid Aberdeen supporter, and would go and watch them when he had enough money to do so, watching local non-league teams when he didn't this is not in the encyclopedic tone. 5) Internazionale, not introduced. Mention who or what the linked terms are about: eg Italian club Torino 6) Goal image is terrible. User:Nichalp/sg 06:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • 1) Sections such as ==Growing up==; ==World Cup 1974== are too short.
    • I disagree. His childhood wasn't notable and putting more about it would unbalance the article IMO. The 1974 World Cup was two weeks of Law's eighteen year career during which he played in one match, which as World Cup matches go wasn't that notable. Please conver
  • 2) The equiv of £115,000 in today's terms value should be mentioned.
    • Good idea. Done.
  • 3) Parents names?
    • Didn't seem relevant to me, but I had a look through the FA log and noticed the last featured bio had them, so I've put them in.
  • 4) He was an avid Aberdeen supporter, and would go and watch them when he had enough money to do so, watching local non-league teams when he didn't this is not in the encyclopedic tone.
    • Didn't look that bad (I know I've seen worse in recent FAs), but I've reworded it.
  • 5) Internazionale, not introduced. Mention who or what the linked terms are about: eg Italian club Torino
    • Internazionale is one of the most notable football clubs in the world. The article points out that he's in Italy at that time, and IMO it would be superflous to put something like 'the Italian club Internazionale', a bit like writing 'the English club Manchester United'. People can always click the link if they want to know more.
  • 6) Goal image is terrible.
    • I've removed it, for the reasons given in my response to Cedars' objection above.
  • CTOAGN 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • 1) The sections should be balanced, I look for a minimum of two paragraphs and so is currently unbalanced. I'm sure another paragraph could be added on his first 14 years, more about his schooling, family etc. The =world cup= and =after football= can be merged into a single heading =later career=, or something like that. Its currently too short. 2) I'd prefer if you could add the equivalents of £55,000, £110,000 and £115,000 in the text alongside instead of using footnotes. 3) Internazionale is one of the most notable football clubs... that may be true, but don't expect everyone to know that it is notable. We have a wide audience, and some may not have heard of the group. I don't think its too taxing to prefix 'Italian club etc before it? The use dependes on the context. He joined MU would directly imply that ManU is a club, but the wording here: Internazionale tried to... is ambigious. Internazionale could very well be the controlling body of Italian football. 4) Could you right-align the table in the and move it higher up in the text? It seems lost down there. 5) Please convert all those ibid notes (4-24) to {{inote}}? They aren't useful and are highly distracting. User:Nichalp/sg 06:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • 1) The sections should be balanced, I look for a minimum of two paragraphs and so is currently unbalanced. I'm sure another paragraph could be added on his first 14 years, more about his schooling, family etc. The =world cup= and =after football= can be merged into a single heading =later career=, or something like that. Its currently too short.
      • Merging it that way would be illogical, so I've merged =World Cup 1974= with =Back to Manchester City= instead. I think there's as much info on his childhood as there needs to be - it wasn't notable at all - but could have another look in his bios and see if there's anything I can add. Do you know of a link to anything saying what the minimum size for a section should be or how many paragraphs should be in one? I've looked but haven't been able to find one.
      • I found something to add, so the section's now a little longer and — wait for it — in two paragraphs! How good is that?
    • 2) I'd prefer if you could add the equivalents of £55,000, £110,000 and £115,000 in the text alongside instead of using footnotes.
      • Can't agree with this. It would make the sentences too clunky, and with this being in the introduction, that's a real no-no. I've added the values for £55k and £110k in footnotes though.
    • 3) Internazionale is one of the most notable football clubs... that may be true, but don't expect everyone to know that it is notable. We have a wide audience, and some may not have heard of the group. I don't think its too taxing to prefix 'Italian club etc before it? The use dependes on the context. He joined MU would directly imply that ManU is a club, but the wording here: Internazionale tried to... is ambigious. Internazionale could very well be the controlling body of Italian football.
      • I've put something in along these lines.
    • 4) Could you right-align the table in the and move it higher up in the text? It seems lost down there.
      • Good idea about right-aligning the figures, but I don't know how to do it. If you or anyone else reading this would like to make the change, please do. (done! Rossrs 14:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)) Where would you rather the table went? Above the Career Summary? I don't think that would improve anything. It definitely doesn't belong in the body of the article text.
    • 5) Please convert all those ibid notes (4-24) to {{inote}}? They aren't useful and are highly distracting.
      • No, I don't know of any requirement to do this and believe it would spoil the article rather than improve it. It's well known that a lot of people don't trust Wikipedia articles because they can be edited by anyone and you don't know where they got their information (or even if they just made it up themselves.) Citing sources properly goes a long way towards meeting this objection, and I think we'd really benefit if a lot more articles were had their sources shown in this way. Inotes are only useful to people who hit the edit button - people who are reading a 'mirror' of Wikipedia won't be able to see them and lot of people on Wikipedia won't know that they're there. See Template talk:Inote#Reasons not to use inote. While the number of citations in this article is somewhat high, I've tried to keep them to less well-known or more contentious facts. So "Denis Law scored in the 1963 cup final" isn't cited because it's easy to look up and few people would question it, while "Liverpool wanted to sign him but couldn't afford to" is, for the opposite reasons. It's also worth noting jiy's comment below.
      • Should point out that I'll be offline for the next 24 hours so there might be a delay before I reply. CTOAGN 19:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Object. Nichalp has good reasons to question the reference style. The requirement is the "appropriate use of inline citations" as per our FAC criteria. Using "Ibid" to refer to the same obvious source over and over in an online article is not making the article that much more verifiable; it's just adding a lot of fairly pointless footnotes for very obvious facts. Just look at notes 4, 7, 9-10, 12 and 17-27 (28-30 are so easily verified that I question using more than one source or even any source at all) and to a lesser extent 13, 16, 18. They all refer to quotes that aren't even full sentences or things like Law being refered to as the King which is going to be disputed by no one except people who are too sloppy to actually check out even the most basic of references before demanding footnotes. You don't need to refer to specific pages in a written source just to make people believe that someone used a rather bland experession like "very disappointed", for example. Footnotes are intended for comments that don't fit in the prose or to refer to complex or highly disputed facts, not just quote snippets and minor factoids. Otherwise they become mere eyecandy that needlessly disrupt the flow of the text. The reference section also isn't complete, since only two of the written sources are actually listed there. Also, several sections consist of almost only single-sentence paragraphs which is not an appropriate style of prose for any article. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • A suggestion - I think Nichalp makes valid points, but I don't think adding another paragraph about Law's childhood necessarily adds to the article. The short paragraph "Growing up" is a bit too brief. The other way you could deal with this, is to merge the "Growing up" and "Huddersfield Town" sections into one, such as "Early years" (I don't think it's the best title but I can't think of anything better). That way his early life is wrapped up in 3 paragraphs, the reader is taken to the beginning of his career without really going into it, and at this point he's still only 18 years old. That would make the article look a lot better if you can't significantly add to discussion of his childhood. Perhaps you could also merge the short paragraphs towards the end of the article "World Cup 1974" etc, into a larger section. Rossrs 12:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Merging the first two sections doesn't make sense to me as there's no obvious reason why the two subjects belong in a single section. He's 22 and an international footballer at the end of the Huddersfield section. I could move the first paragraph of Huddersfield into Early years, but then Nichalp would complain that Huddersfield was too short. I took your point about merging the world cup in with his last season at city - not sure it was necessary but if both of you think so then you've probably got a point. Anything else you think I could add? Should point out that I'll be offline for the next 24 hours so there might be a delay before I reply. CTOAGN 19:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
          • The first section is now a little longer. Does that seem ok? CTOAGN 20:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The expansion looks ok, but I still would prefer the inotes. Use of inotes does not mean that it is less referenced. See the Economy of India, where we've made good use of inotes and refs together. User:Nichalp/sg 11:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great work - nice job sorting all the image palaver out too!!! --PopUpPirate 19:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Mild object On reflection, the colour screencap of his goal for Man City is beneath the quality a FAC should have. A better-quality version (i.e. > 256 colours), correctly cropped, is needed. Qwghlm 20:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorted. See above. CTOAGN 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • In light of the above, change my vote to Support Qwghlm 23:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support Nicely referenced. —jiy (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object

1. One sentence paragraph in intro
2. Growing up Sentences short - and section is in whole quite short as compared to rest of articletoo. Either make a good-size paragraph or expand the current ones (actually on second look it doesn't look that bad)
3. Paragraphs in general are quite short (does not effect objection, just a comment)
4. No external links (will not affect objection)

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Support Just an excellent overall article Kingfisherswift 14:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran

All Iran-related articles have been subject to a WikiProject for quite a while. I think it is time for all the hard work to pay off. Therefore, I am nominating this article. Newguineafan 15:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Object--no references section; the "Culture" section is little more than a list of links. Meelar (talk) 18:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Object per Meelar. In addition, are all those links to Iranian gov't sites really appropriate? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Azadidown.jpg is tagged as being a copyvio.
  2. The image Image:Iranmoney.jpg is claimed as "public domain". I find this unlikely: does Iran have no legal protection on images of its money?
  3. The image Image:Afrigha.jpg is claimed as "fair use". There's nothing particularly special about this image, so I don't think this claim is acceptable -- it's easy enough to create a replacement.
  4. The image Image:Tehran stcok exchange external view.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  5. The image Image:Iranparliament.jpg is claimed as "public domain". In view of the copyright questions surrounding other images in this article, I'd like some evidence to back up this claim.

  --Carnildo 21:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the lead should expanded somewhat; the politics section is overly long; the order of sections should be closer to that suggested by WikiProject Countries; a topics box like that in India] or Australia should be added to clean up many of the stray see alsos and lists; the external links are ridiculous and should be reduced; there should be inline references for statistics; the culture section is too short and should mention media in Iran. --nixie 02:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object – the article is incomplete. User:Nichalp/sg 05:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not an actionable objection: it doesn't give any details as to what is needed to get the article up to featured quality. --Carnildo 06:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough: 1) Politics section is too long. 2) Images are not presented properly. 4) The provinces section creates a horizontal scrollbar at 800x600. The image should be reduced. 5) culture is incomplete. 6) the lead needs to be expanded. 7) external links should be pruned to topics which relate to Iran as a whole. 8) Is there a need for so many categories? 9) Inline references not formatted correctly. (see the discussion in Chennai below) 10) The history of iran template should not be there in this page. 11) no references 12) incorrect use of hyphens; use &ndash; instead. User:Nichalp/sg 08:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Proceed. When was the last time an article about Iran was featured? Probably never.--Nightryder84 04:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by proceed? User:Nichalp/sg 08:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Proceed means I do not object.--Nightryder84 21:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• I Do not object.--Zereshk 18:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• I give two thumbs up! Why shouldn't we do this? I do agree that the links to the government departments are a little much and should have their own page. But that is no reason! THIS IS A FEATURED ARTICLE!!--Aytakin 01:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John III of Portugal

Partial self-nom. After the Biography Collaboration I think it is now a fine article. Underwent countless improvements on language issues, image problems and the content itself. Gameiro 00:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support, well-referenced, fine lead and apparently complete (can't vouch for accuracy). Minor issue: Under Inquisition Pope links to the current one. Could someone find out who was Pope at the time. The text isn't very clear whether the Inquisitor was appointed in 1515, 1536 or a completely different year. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Kudos to the collaborators, but this still needs some work. It seems to be missing a fairly large section. The article goes straight from outlining his life to discussing the declining state of Portugal during the later part of his reign. Where is the description of the nation's condition during the early part of his reign? The writing also needs improvement. Trade is not generally described as being "intense" and scholarships are not generally "attributed." The article also has some formatting problems. There are far too many one sentence paragraphs, and the images are poorly arranged. The article fails to use the standard footnote style for the quotations and other in text references. - SimonP 17:53, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • FA's use different reference styles I don't see anything wrong with current system.
• There is a section John_III_of_Portugal#The_Portuguese_Empire_under_John_III, I think this can be solved with just a bit rearranging of existing sections. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral I will support if SimonP's objections are met. This should probably be archived as a FAiled FAC considering its been a month. I hope to see this one up again. I don't think there is anytrhing wrong with the images or references though. Falphin 15:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support with minor issue. It would be nice to see the lead be organized into three summary paragraphs. While it may or may not be complete it is just a bunch of 2 sentence paragraphs which doest not follow Wikipedia:Lead. Newbie222 17:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The João III article is a mess. The first thing it needs is for someone to get the Paulo Braga biography and use it for the facts. Get those straight first. Then go on to the other stuff. The statement that the head of the Inquisition always came from the royal family is dead wrong, for example. Where did the writer get that howler?

[edit] Queen's Guard

Self-Nomination. Hopefully, this article is fairly comprehensive about the subject it covers. I've added several different reference links to it, so if there is anything missing, please feel free to add it. I do feel that this article would be a worthy addition to the list of featured articles. Hammersfan, 7/8/05.

• Object
  1. The images Image:Towersentries.JPG, Image:Oldguardnewguard.jpg, Image:Stjamessentry.jpg, Image:Queen'slifeguard.JPG are claimed as "fair use", but are also claimed to have been produced by the uploader. This is unusual: is the creator providing them to Wikipedia without it be done so under the GFDL or a Creative Commons license?
  2. The image Image:Guardmounting.jpg has no source or copyright information.

  --Carnildo 23:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object - (i) I'm sure there is more to say: for example, what does the Hounslow battalion do? What about other royal residences (say, Clarence House, or Windsor, or Sandringham, or Balmoral)? Is the "monthly schedule" only for July 2005, in which case what is happening in August and later months, or for the foreseeable future? Are there any other public duties (for example, the guard for the Ceremony of the Keys at the Tower of London is mentioned in passing, but a paragraph could be added here easily). (ii) The lead section is inadequate. (iii) There is no "References" section: presumably some of the "External links" are references, but there must be relevant paper references too. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have rectified the objections to the various images by adding the correct copyright template to each. I have also inserted the situations regarding the named royal residences, and added a paragraph, as suggested, about the Tower and Windsor guards. However, as this is not an article about public duties, but rather one about a specific public duty, I have not added anything about other tasks, as there is an acceptable article about public duties which I have linked to. I have also added links to the various articles explaining that the Hounslow battalion is simply another public duties unit, performing the same tasks as the two battalions of Guards. -- Hammersfan 16:48, 9 August 2005
    • • Neutral - thanks for the response: I think my objections are dealt with adequately, although the additions could do with linkifying. I still can't help thinking that the article could and should be better, but as I can't think of anything specific, I will not object. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Image:Queen'slifeguard.JPG is still tagged as fair use. Did you simply forget to update the tag, or is it really under fair use? Also, the license terms on Image:Guardmounting.jpg appear to be {{noncommercial}} or possibly even more restrictive: this is not an acceptable license for images on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 18:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have changed the licence on Image:Queen'slifeguard.JPG; yes, I did forget to change it as it happens. I have also removed the Image:Guardmounting.jpg image and replaced it with one from another source. Hammersfan 21:45, 9 August 2005
    • If the image Image:RCRbuckinghampalace.JPG is going to be used under "fair use", it needs to comply with the rules at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. --Carnildo 22:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I have added rationale to the Image:RCRbuckinghampalace.JPG image. I have also looked at the rules of Fair Use and am confident that it meets them. I have also added the {{AustraliaGov}} tag to Image:Guardmounting.jpg; I would prefer that this image be included, as it is of better quality than the other image, but am prepared to accept if it is felt to go against any licence agreement. Hammersfan 09:45 10 August 2005
        • Since {{AustraliaGov}} is a fair-use tag, Image:Guardmounting.jpg can be used under "fair use" if you can come up with a rationale. Keep in mind that "public domain" is a specific legal status, and does not apply to images or derivative works of images that are currently under copyright. --Carnildo 18:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lots of facts, but it's just not dazzling prose. The article needs more context and flavor, and less rote exposition of which units, how many men, and where they're stationed. How long has there been a Queen's Guard? Is it a prestigious assignment for a unit? Has the Queen's Guard ever been involved in a significant security incident (like say an assassination attempt?) The intro especially needs rewriting. The first half of the first sentence is OK, but listing the royal residences and stating which residences have mounted guards is material for the body of the article, not the intro. The intro should be a short, reader-drawing summary. Isomorphic 08:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Trafalgar

This should be WP:FA for 21 October 2005 which will be the 200th anniversary of the battle.

Has gone through peer-review:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Trafalgar/Archive1
• Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Trafalgar

I believe the article is extensive and comprehensive. The objections raised in peer review was lack of references, but so much has been written about Trafalgar (and much more has come out this year) that a "further reading" section of suitable books is more appropriate. Dunc|☺ 17:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• It can be a featured article, but the main page featured article is not supposed to conflict with selected anniversaries (or In-the-News). →Raul654 18:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Where does it say that? I would have thought it a good idea to link anniversaries with FAs. Dunc|☺ 18:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, it's not written in stone or anything (none of the "rules" governing main page FAs are; they're conventions I choose to adopt), but that has been the operating procedure for quite a while now. The reasoning behind it is something like this: we already allot 1/4 of the main page specifically for historic anniversaries. It makes no sense, then, to have the featured article doing the job of that section (nor does it make any sense to have Battle of Trafalger linked prominently from the featured article, and then linked again from the selected anniversaries). →Raul654 18:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well I think it makes plenty of sense to do so where appropriate. The link of the date to the event is important in this case because of the tradition of Trafalgar Day. It is the 200th anniversary of Trafalgar and it's probably going to be all over the British press. A FA and anniversary would not duplicate each other, they complement each other. The anniversary section takes just two lines, and on 21 October also mentions four other events. The lead section on Battle of Trafalgar, as would be displayed on the main page is much longer and goes into a lot more detail. Dunc|☺ 19:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The idea sort of worries me... imagine a trend resulting in rather mediocre articles becoming FA in emergency mostly because of an anniversary; or more deserving articles not being featured because another "anniversary articles" gets in the way... I think that Raul's comments make lots of sense. Also, I rather like the idea of the encyclopedia being above as mundane contingencies as the news.

That being said, my feeling is that this article has lots of merits indeed. Rama 19:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that articles have any more merit because of their potential use as anniversary articles. Each article should be subjected to the same rigorous peer review before being featured. Neither should we get into featuring a particular article every year, just because it's on an anniversary. This anniversary won't come around for another hundred years (when it might be time to feature it again). And if I remember correctly, wasn't European Union a FA on an anniversary? Dunc|☺ 22:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going out on a limb here, but my I suggest that if an anniversery article is used as a featured article on its anniversery day it not be mentioned in the anniversery section? That would free up space for another event to be mention in the aniversery section. TomStar81 20:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries are selected based on relative majorness of the event. Since this is a very major event relative to what else happened on that day of the year, we need to have it as a selected anniversary. I also completely agree with Raul. Since the Main Page has such limited space, we need to absolutely minimize repetitive links and mentions of the same thing. Each section also needs to be stay distinct. --mav 17:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• object (light) ; I don't agree that the lack of references is justifiable just because references are common; the question is rather which reference actually was used to write this particular article. However, given your above position, I'm not going to call for proper references this time. Could you instead please fill in a bit more about what is covered in each of the further reading texts so that people know where to start reading for different areas.. Mozzerati 21:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't basically say what references were used because I didn't write the article. Dunc|☺ 22:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • worth leaving a message on the talk pages of major contributors asking for that information. Also it's appropriate to just give the references you used when you were verifying that it is reasonably correct before nominating, even if these are just the ones you originally learned about the battle from yourself. Mozzerati 06:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's an engaging article, worthy of being featured. I'm no history buff yet found it a very enjoyable read. Maybe a little bit more on the battle engagement itself would make it even better. Adidas 08:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. There has to be a proper reference section like with any other FA. I have no objection to a "Further reading"-list as long as it's kept fairly short and lists fairly general literature on the subject. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added a couple of references that I have used. The problem is that on a topic like this, there are so many books available and so many different editors of the page that it is impossible to know what everyone used. Its not as though there are a couple of standard references that everyone knows and can find. The library has shelves of books on Trafalgar (expanding daily in this bicentennial year) many of which tell much the same story. Dabbler 18:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DualDisc

This is a resubmission and a self-nom. Myself and all the people who worked on this article and submitted comments during the first round of FAC comments have made this article a shining example of the type of article that every Wikipedia article should strive to be.

Original comments from the first round are here. All objections from that round were resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

• Support. Mirror Vax 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not stable. In terms of the relatively short life of the subject, much of the information is already obsolete. The article also does not adequately describe the problems with potentially incompatible hardware (e.g., the details in the linked Pioneer alert notice). Monicasdude 13:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • From my talk page: "I don't want to seem too negative, but I don't think you could put anything in the article that would overcome my main objection, which is that the article can't be both comprehensive and stable, as required by FAC guidelines. The situation, for lack of a better word, is developing fairly rapidly -- I saw, for example, a "recent developments" article in the new ICE magazine this week. To oversimplify an analogy, I wouldn't support any FAC for an article on "The 2005 baseball season," no matter how good it was, until the season was over. FWIW, I also think the SACD discussion is out-of-date, given Sony's pullback, and there's a reference to a November 2005 article that I assume is misdated. Monicasdude 17:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)"

• Just to clarify a bit: I think this is an excellent piece of work. The way I read the FA guidelines, though, it's too soon to be possible to write an article that meets the stability requirement for this technology. The Sony pullback I mentioned is an example of this, with that matter becoming clear, as I recall, only a few weeks ago. Monicasdude 20:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brave New World

Attempt one

Self-Nomination I have been working on this article for some time, and feel that the text is up to Wikipedia standards. The article now features an image, corrected links, and a well-sized introduction. These were the main reasons for its failed previous nomination, and now that they have been fixed, I believe the article is up to standard. Rusty2005 12:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Weak Object. Someone raised this point when I tried to push The Giver to FA, so I feel it's only cricket that I raise the same point here. The article is pretty good as far as it goes, but it doesn't really leave me with a sense of the novel's significance. How many copies has it sold? What awards has it won? Do some schools require it and others ban it? Also, I agree with 195.137.101.199 that the article should compare Brave New World with more than just Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. This comparison we have now, furthermore, sounds too much like Original Research. There must be scholarly articles on this topic; might we see citations to a couple? (I mean, I made that comparison in my 11th-grade English term paper.) I recall coming across (in a Huxley biography?) some talk of a BNW movie for which Huxley did some writing, but which never got off the ground. Information like that would make a valuable addition, though I don't think it's absolutely essential. Likewise, I believe the article could benefit from any biographical material about Huxley's writing the novel itself. (So what if it falls foul of the New Criticism's "intentional fallacy"?) Finally, I would like to see a couple more relevant pictures — say, images of later editions, if they have any aesthetic appeal at all. (And maybe we could scare up a good photo of Malpais?) This isn't a major point; I would probably change my vote to "support" even without more pictures, assuming my other points were addressed. Anville 16:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. All well and good, I can see the improvement, but were are the references?? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. As the others above said, the article needs more depth in several areas and needs to be references thoroughly (with in-line footnotes). If this is done I will support this as a FA b/c the novel is one of my favorites.--Alabamaboy 00:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Support. Nicely written through and through. I can't see your guys's objections as being worthwhile. I think this is just fine for being a featured article. --Matt Yeager 05:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Must object for now - no references, no citing of sources. Some of the sections might do with a bit of editing for brevity, or might do with branching out to seperate articles (for example to Characters in Brave New World, The World State (Brave New World) or something like that). The synopsis is anything but brief, again an idea might be to put most of it in a new article (named something like Synopsis of Brave New World perhaps?) and par it down significantly in the article. Refer to Wikipedia:What is a featured article. I do think it's a good article overall, but not FA-material as it stands now. Again, I repeat my plea for proper references and citing of sources.WegianWarrior 08:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belarusian Republican Youth Union

While I have been working on other articles, the BRSM article has had a grammr, spelling and link check. There could be some links that could be dead, so I will use the way-back machine to see if I can get those back to life. I also wonder that, for this short article, if the photos are an overkill or not. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 05:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. You are doing a great job, Z! You definetly deserve some Belarusian medal :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support and Comment- Lead needs to be expanded. AndyZ 22:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Expanded. Is there anything that I am missing? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks good- I'm used to seeing FAs with 2 paragraph leads per Wikipedia:Lead section, but since this article only contains about 11,000 characters, a 1 paragraph lead is sufficient. AndyZ 21:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I do admit that this is a short article, but there was little I can find about the organization, either due to my lack of knowledge with Russian or due to most of the websites I found are being critical of the BRSM. There are still some figures I am missing, such as membership data, so perhap if some folks who can read the BRSM website and find out these details for me, that will be very helpful. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
        • What about "instill the group's moral values"? What moral values (especially since there is a lot about criticism of the group) were being instilled? AndyZ 19:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Another note, in the lead it says that some of the activities were "camping, sporting events and visiting memorials". Since the lead should be an overview, these (and others) should be explained in the Activities section. AndyZ 19:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
            • The moral values, I did not expand on, since I have no clue what specific moral values the group instills, and what one considers "moral values" is different from the person to my front, to my rear, to my left and to my right. I expanded about the sporting events and memorial visits. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 20:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
              • I can see what you are trying to point out- still though, "moral values" must mean something to the group as a whole. We aren't talking about individual moral values but of the group, so there should be differences. AndyZ 01:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
                • I changed it from group to individual, since I have no clue what the group moral values are, but I do think they instill some morals values, like honesty, hard work, family is important, duty to country, etc. But, since that is unknown, I left it at a general "individual moral values." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 04:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The reference formatting has to be all conformed into one type- probably <ref></ref> system. AndyZ 02:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Finished. I got started, but I had some dinner to take care of. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 02:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like the fact that this article is concise, there are too many bloated FAs around. Great work Z! Borisblue 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, comes very close, but it needs a copyedit. Some examples from the "Activities" section. I support. Tuf-Kat 15:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • " for their country. They accomplish this activity" "their"/"this" has no plural antecedent
  • " ribbon is worn on shirt or jacket and also might be tied into a bow" many problems, passive voice, missing an article in front of shirt, vagueness ("might"?)
  • "Most of the activities the BRSM does are very similar to those that were performed by the Soviet Komsomol." With no link to Komsomol, this isn't a helpful sentence. Add a link, move it to the beginning of the paragraph and explain why this is true.
  • "signed a letter signed"
  • "At a meeting of the 39th Congress of the BRSM" not clear why this sentence is relevant
    • I think I hit them all in the Activities section. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 16:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, the grammar and sentence structure problems have been dealt with. Andrew Levine 17:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• I think this one raises an important issue. You say you lack knowledge of Russian; I don't know if that means you know a little or none at all, but I think clearly knowledge of Russian would be a huge help in getting info. Also, I think there's a question about the availability of information. Does this group publish a paper? The article does mention a radio station; can't we expand on that some? What I'm basically wondering is whether it's possible to write an FA quality article on this unless you have access to substantial Belarusian media and print sources. Obviously this article is short, and that's a big problem; the question arises: is the difficulty of finding information a valid excuse for the brevity, or should we expect that, if the information exists—albeit in circumstances that make it difficult for most of us to get to it and read it—the article should work off of that as reference material in order to be FA quality? I'm not voting, but I think those are some important issues there. Everyking 08:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• To answer your point, I have no clue about a paper (gazette is a common name I seen in Russian papers), i'll try to expand on the radio station, but I have classes this morning. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 14:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Human Rights Watch did not mention about a paper, but I did find out the English name of the radio station, and what frequency it is on in Belarus. I managed to find the official website of the radio station at http://www.pixelhead.by/local/style/, which gives a little bit of information (in Russian). Still looking for the paper, though. Everyking, do you think it will be appropriate to create a section in the article displaying the differences and the similiar things that are common with the BRSM and the Soviet-era Komsomol? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 14:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Everyking that difficulty of finding information is not a valid excuse for the short featured articles. However, I was satisfied that the article covered all the basics, though there is much room for expansion and detail. I also suspect, by the sound of them, many of their sources will be exagerrated to make them look good and sell themselves to the Belarus masses. Some concerns:
  • "The Belarusian Youth Union was considered the "legal successor" of..." - the word "considered" and the quotes around "legal successor" make this statement ambiguous, does the article mean they actually are the leagal successors or that some people (members? critics?) believe they are the successors?
    • Lukashenko said in a speech that I cited that he says the BRSM is the "legal successor" (his words, not mine) to the Komsomol. While I do not believe this is in dispute, since the original Komsomol is no longer present in Belarus and the BRSM is headquarted in the old Komsomol building, I just need to see what sets the BRSM appart from the Komsomol. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Statement that are begging for references:
    • "President Lukashenko stated that while membership..." - controversial, could easily be disputed
      • [45] says "While President Lukashenka has stated publicly that membership in the BPSM would "never be" mandatory for appointment to government positions, it is clear that BPSM membership in this regard is advantageous." This statement is followed by a report from Interfax about how BRSM members get a leg-up in the employment food-chain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • "A person must also pay a one time fee of 1,400 rubles (0.65 USD)..." - 65 cents for a year's membership? Fees and currency are always subject to change, please provide a year for which this particular fee applied or a reference to where they state their membership fees.
      • The official website of the BRSM (now down for some reason) has the frees, and that was cited at footnote 5. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 23:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • "President Lukashenko has issued a decree that allows..."
    • "Belarusian political activists have also began to call the BRSM 'Lukamol'..." - provide at least one example of this happening
      • The political group "Zubr" (Bison) have an active campagin that says "Stop Lukamol" and Human Rights Watch also documents the use of Lukamol at http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/belarus/Belrus99-06.htm (footnote 39 at the link) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 23:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please format the Reference to be in line with Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style#Web sites and articles (not from periodicals) (& other related examples on that page). --maclean25 20:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I think I got everything. However, I probably want to send it through FAC again later, since some of the major things that this article needs have gone 404 during the course of the nomination, so I need to work with the above editors to get this article alright with them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 03:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support A consice and excellent article. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}10:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I like it! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Could you concatenate identical footnotes? See my last edit for an example. Circeus 19:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright. I think completed that little task. I still need to find out if the BRSM website is still down, and if it is, I still need to figure out how the website being down will affect this FAC. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 23:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I could have sworn there were more dupicates than that o.O. And if the site goes down definitely, you can always use Wayback Machinelinks. Circeus 23:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Your right, the Internews website was used a few times. At my last count, 16 sources are used (three of them are used more than once). I was wondering if there is anything that I am missing still? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 23:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • BRSM website is back up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 23:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, looks okay for featuring. Circeus 23:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if Everyking has come back yet, but dispite him not voting, I just need some backing on adding a section about similarities between the BRSM and the Komsomol. But, I think that would be OR, except for the stated obvious (same activities, BRSM membership is not forced). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 14:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal from the Order of Canada

Self-renom. I had two attempts before, but since the last one, I had it spell and grammar checked and the images have not changed a bit. Zach (Sound Off) 02:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Since the book depicted in Image:AlanEaglesonbookcover.jpg is not discussed in the article, use of the image is not "fair use". --Carnildo 07:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Removed. Zach (Sound Off) 13:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure it really makes sense to me to have an article about removal from the order as a standalone. Should this not be merged into Order of Canada? It seems to me on reading it that the prose is far from concise and could be condensed substantially in any case. There are also numerous spelling errors at the moment. Worldtraveller 11:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There was an AFD that asked for this article to be merged into the main Order of Canada (also an FA), but after I beefed it up, many who voted merge said to vote keep instead. I still believe this can stand out on its own. I also fixed the spelling errors and I also made the article into British English. Zach (Sound Off) 13:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would change anything, but shouldn't this be in Canadian English? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I will get the Firefox spell check add in for the Canadian EN and run that through all Order of Canada related articles. Zach (Sound Off) 16:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The only word that seems to have issues is "criticised," but I am not sure how it is spelt in Canada EN. Other than that, the article is fine on the "spelling" front, unless something is added to it. Zach (Sound Off) 16:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Canadian spelling typically uses -ize over -ise. — mendel ☎ 20:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—prose not good enough. Here's just one example:

'though the removal process is started by individual Canadians or by various groups inside of Canada'.

It's a false contrast to use 'though' (better 'although') here. 'Initiated' rather than 'started'. Remove redundant 'of'. 'Inside Canada', in any case, is another false contrast, because the institution is also that. Needs thorough editing to be considered for nomination. I agree with the comments above about the need to merge this with the related article. Tony 01:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I fixed the above statement, but I had the article copyedited before I sent it here. I am still against the idea of a merge, since the AFD I pointed out earlier called for a merge, but was defeated. I personally believe this article can stand out on its own. Tony, if you think my grammar is not that great (which you said this at other FAC's I started/worked on), then I welcome you to come in and fix it yourself. Zach (Sound Off) 02:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose The process of removal may be interesting, but it has only been successfully applied against two OoC recipients (Alan Eagleson and David Ahenakew) and is therefore not significant enough (i.e., there are other worthy candidate articles) for nomination. As well, more of Eagleson's situation should be described (being the first inductee removed), and the syntax and content of the article can be improved upon (e.g., Christie or Christy)? E Pluribus Anthony 07:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appointment to the Order of Canada

Self-renom. It failed before due to either lack or participation or because of my choice of photos. [46] Well, sadly, most of the photos I have found are either CanadaCopyright or an even more restricting license. Some, I can only find on Government websites. Well, let's see how this works out, again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. not well-written. This reads like the stuff I write in the morning before coffee kicks in. Example: "The other exception, which is not listed in the Order's Constitution, is that Canadians who are either politicians or judges serving in either the federal government or any provincial or territorial government. The Order is also not permitted to be awarded posthumously." Monicasdude 13:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reworded it as follows: "Canadian politicians and judges that currently hold office are also not eligible to be appointed to the Order. Membership the Order cannot be awarded posthumously." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

When an editor objects to an article, cites a general problem, and provides a specific example, fixing the specific example does not fix the general problem. I don't know how else to respond prudently. Monicasdude 17:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

While saying a general rewrite is a good idea, some people cite examples of confusing text. I will try to rewrite the whole thing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I rewrote the article, what do you think? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made examples of the kind of changes I think the text needs in the first part of the article. I think the writing needs to be more compact and more direct. Monicasdude 21:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you exposed a weakness of mine: I tend to make things wordy. Some of the material I removed are already present on the main Order of Canada article. I still have one more section to go, but other than it being too wordy, is there any problem you see? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't buy the idea that it took 13 years to find a date when Wayne Gretzky was free, but other than that . . . Probably a link to the Order's constitution, which is referred to, if it's online. (note: if/when my last concerns are met, I'll just withdraw the objection; I don't think it's appropriate to actively support without any real knowledge of the subject matter). Monicasdude 00:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Source of the Gretzky tidbit: http://slam.canoe.ca/Gretzky/orderofcanada.html. I have a link to the Order's Constitution at my references section (twice, actually). I just made it more noticable. As for other objections, just let me know what else you wish to be fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stonewall riots

The Stonewall riots were an extremely important turning point in the gay liberation movement. The Wikipedia article on this subject is well-written and well-documented. Earpol 05:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Is it possible to find a picture? —thames 15:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review - also be more descriptive - how were the police violent? Did they beat people up in the street? It doesn't really go into this much in the history section. Also use footnotes too if you need it. Generally a lot of annoying voice and grammer issues too. --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Article isn't bad - focuses however only on gay men, while according to several reports both lesbian and transgender people were also not only present, but on the frontline of the fight. As long as that is the case, the article surely is not a feartured candidate. Also, the Legacy part is a bit small. -- AlexR 18:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• It needs a more detailed introduction. A picture or two would also be an improvement →Raul654 05:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Should probably have more about the Stonewall Inn itself: it was almost certainly Mafia-owned, and even as West Village gay bars of the time went, it had a very non-mainstream crowd (there should be something on this in Duberman, op. cit.). Also would be good to know what year it opened, what year it closed. As for pictures, at the very least it should be possible to get a fair-use image of a newspaper story. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cat

In the past this article has had some edit wars, likely because everyone wants a picture of their cat somewhere on Wikipedia, but those have been resolved. This article is very detailed, covers every aspect, goes into the history of cats, and has plenty of inline citations and references. Toothpaste 00:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

*Neutral a good resource and an interesting read but the tone in some areas are not encyclopedic. Instances: "Virtually all...", "cats are very clean", "Indoor cats will also benefit from", "Cats enjoy many plants", "Cats are said to be 'the perfect carnivores'" Who said it? A reference needed. The diet, social and hygiene sections can do with some tweaking. Will support only after changes are made. Q: Does cats urine glow in the dark? User:Nichalp/sg 09:21, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• • I fixed the parts your first two quote reference, but I didn't write it, and I don't have reference material, so I can't say who said it. Having a cat, I could say that cat urine doesn't glow in the dark, if you're willing to accept my original research as an answer. Thanks for the commentary. Toothpaste 10:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

***1) I'm still not happy with the "perfect carnivores" claim. See WP:AWT. From what I've seen on Animal Planet there are many animals who can also dispute this claim. 2) "It should be cleaned daily and changed often (depending on the type of litter—clumping litter stays cleaner longer). A litterbox is recommended for indoor-outdoor cats as well." This reads more like a guide for keeping cats. User:Nichalp/sg 13:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I found some of the parts relating to cat behaviour to be questionable. As I understand it the best interpretation of purring is that it is connected to calmness: a cat that is calm will purr automatically, but a cat that needs to make itself calmer (eg if it has been injured) will make itself purr to calm itself down, slow down its heart rate etc. This isn't mentioned in the article. Also cat signals through displaying its tail are not mentioned: tail straight up to indicate interest and friendliness, tail curled to indicate concern and questioning, tail wagging to indicate frustration and anger, tail down to indicate defensiveness. And nothing about the cat's continuing belief that to really make friends, humans need to smell their cat's rear end, and continuing bemusement when even the friendliest human declines the offer. David | Talk 11:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment. There is a body language sub article for this type of content. Which is a good thing, since one of the criticisms here is that main article is already too large Psychofox 02:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This is an interesting nomination in that nearly everyone believes themselves to be an "expert" by virtue of having loving relationships with their cats. That compells the authors to meet a higher standard than is required for other featured articles; similarly to a highly controversial topic (GNAA comes to mind), every claim must be stated in careful NPOV language and clearly referenced to a demonstrably authoritative source. Otherwise, loads of people will object to any old thing, or point out tidbits to add. Whether or not this is "fair", it is what must be done for this article to pass this FAC nomination, and rightly so. As for myself, I'm no "expert" (cats make me sneeze!), so I'll count myself out of this one and watch from the sidelines. Bantman 18:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Doesn't mention that they taste good. --SPUI (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Things that in my opinion need inline links to references:
    • "the oldest-known cat lived to age 36"
    • "There are 32 muscles in each ear and the cat can move each ear independently."
    • "Humans and cats have a similar range of hearing"
    • "Cats can judge within three inches the location of a sound being made one yard away."
    • "A domestic cat's sense of smell is about 14 times stronger than a human's."
  • Calico and Tortoiseshell is listed as a variety but the former is a redirect to the latter.
  • "...Some environmentalists claim" - what enviromentalists?
  • —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:27:50, 2005-08-06 (UTC)
    • Unless these are actually controversial statements without consensus among biologists, only the "some environmentalists claim"-passage needs a specific reference. Wikipedia:Verifiability is about making sure we can support our claims with decent literature lists, not to pepper our article with an excess of footnotes. We have a quite serious over-usage of footnotes in a lot of our FAC's. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not much of a fan of footnotes myself, but here I have to agree with Sig - these are facts that could reasonably be questioned or disputed by a good-faith reader of the article; therefore they should be footnoted. - Bantman 18:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • How can one reasonable question any one of the facts except the weasel wording "some environmentalists"? All of the examples appear to be perfectly straightforward statements of physical facts, the kind than can even be proven beyond any reasonable doubt with practical experiments. If biologists are not disputing any of these facts, then there is no need to use footnotes just because people might be too lazy to actually reference the sources themselves. Footnotes can be very disruptive to a text either by distracting the reader or making it seem more academic than it actually is. They are not intended to state the obvious; that's what we do in the actual text, which is then scrutinized in the FAC process and approved by community consensus. Even if I personally don't know if these specific facts are true or not, I consider it completely unreasonable to question them merely on the basis of my own ignorance. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that we accept on faith all that we are not experts in. I think this is an easy way to get duped. If footnotes are disruptive, use an invisible system; the point is that facts such as these should be easily verifiable. - Bantman 03:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, we just misunderstood each other here. I fully support the use of {{inote}} since it does not effect the end result for the outside reader. Of course, some moderation would be prudent here too... / Peter ^Isotalo 03:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Great article! Very thorough. --K1vsr (talk) 20:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't see what was so wrong with it. Images appropriate (fair use at a minimum/not at all), much content without going overboard. -- A Link to the Past 01:18, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Support It meet the feature article standard (I think) --Kiba 01:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose at this time. Too much detail at this point for one article. Lead and table of contents too long. Has a classic problem of too many people trying to put too much into it without splitting off side articles. Also attracts a lot of editors putting up photos of their own personal cats that don't really help the article that much (feral cat photo clearly not feral, and so forth), although there are a few professional level ones on there now. (And to the above editor, if you aren't sure what the standards are, see Wikipedia:What is a featured article.) DreamGuy 02:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Question: By the way, the talk page says it failed to get featured candidate in the past, but the page it links to goes here and the archive doesn't have it. I'd like to know if the objections from the last time around were addressed at all, and what they were, and so forth. Anyone know where to see them? DreamGuy 02:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

The first attempt is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cat/archive1. I will try to address the table of contents, but I agree, we should do some forking. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, what the heck, his just failed a vote a few days ago. It's completely inappropriate to start a new page with new votes at this time. The old one should be unarchived and these votes (if they are new) should be merged into it. DreamGuy 03:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, though most of the things I saw on the first FAC were just comments. Oppose until items from the first FAC and this FAC are solved. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC) I am going to sit this one out. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Support *Object this time. Points raised by me last time have not been addressed. User:Nichalp/sg 07:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC) User:Nichalp/sg 06:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Support Redwolf24 21:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support A little long but I think it is FA worthy gkhan 21:48, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - at the risk of being lynched, I'd say we need to cuten up the wiki a bit. All this foreign stuff is getting boring. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 23:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Dude, hear that sound of someone running? That's me getting pitchforks and villagers :P Cuten the wiki........dear lord :D gkhan 08:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Possibly needs some trimming, but article content quality is good and material is suitably encyclopedic in character. Subjects raised cover a good range of topics applicable to the subject; possibly slightly long, but it isn't too long compared to some other featured articles. Nice photos, quite a delight to read and informative. I can't see any reason why this article specifically shouldn't receive FA status. --NicholasTurnbull 00:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Support - This article is extremely well done, and worthy of even print encyclopedias.--AirIntake 15:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object - I promised myself I'd never do this... but I object on the grounds of inadequate referencing. On such an accessible topic, we must use at least a couple book references. The internet references should also be formatted to indicate the source website without having to follow the link to find out. As it stands, the referencing section, although well-intentioned, has a suspect appearance. - Bantman 19:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Book references are needed, but missing. A reference is made to point out that this is not just made up. Toothpaste has been looking for book references. -- A Link to the Past 19:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Anyway, I was considering an urban legends section, since cats are popular figures in urban legends (Chinese food, suffocating of children, etc.). Comments? -- A Link to the Past 19:58, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Support I spent many hours a couple of months arbitrating a dispute between several people regarding the content of the images on this page. It had been protected for over a month... I am amazed how far it is come in that time. Psychofox 02:57, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose As long as the "Cat using the toilet" issues is unresolved. Please vote on this issue in Talk:Cat Psychofox 13:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. The lead section is too short for an article this size. 3 good sized paras needed. --mav 00:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you change if I edited it to your liking? Because the guy who said it was too long doesn't seem like he'll change his vote anyway. -- A Link to the Past 00:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh yes, mav's right, the lead section needs an extra paragraph. User:Nichalp/sg
    • I've tweaked the lead somewhat. Could still use work. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support, I'm no expert on cats so I have to trust the facts written, but the article seems fine in all other ways. -- Elisson • Talk 22:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: it seems odd to me that the article on the housecat is at Cat while the cat family is covered in a separate article; I'd expect the cat family to be the main topic at Cat and the domestic cat to be somewhere else, but maybe that's just me. And I agree with mav that the lead needs work; it should read like a mini-article in itself. Also, it's not necessary for featuring, but it'd be nice if someone could get audio of meowing and purring sounds. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked the lead now, since someone asked nicely :-), but it could still use work. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Orleans Mint

Previous FA nominations can be found here:

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Orleans Mint/Archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Orleans Mint/Archive2

Self-nomination. This article has been peer-reviewed multiple times, and I think that it's fairly comprehensive. There is a long list of coinage statistics as part of the article (which I think is necessary), but I think the text about the Mint speaks for itself fairly well. I've tried to make sure the article properly uses citations and attend to any comments fellow users have made regarding improving the article, and I think it meets the FA criteria pretty well. It's been rated an A-class article for numismatics, and is pretty stable; recent changes have been fairly minor. Absecon 59 18:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Is <pre> tags the best way to present the data? Would using tables be better? And on my computer, the images covered some of the data.WP 09:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Object. The giant poorly formatted list is a problem. Move the list to a sub article. --Maitch 09:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, you have fixed this problem. If you will decapitalize the headings as described in Wp:mos#Headings, use {{cite web}} for web references and convert external links within the article to references, then I will support. --Maitch 15:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think that these problems have now been fixed, but please let me know if I've missed anything. Absecon 59 16:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Great. I have changed my vote to support. --Maitch 21:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Agree, the list should be moved to a sub article as suggested by Maitch. If you find that as a result of the move, you have too many images then using a gallery format may solve the problem. Pending the above modifications, I would extend my support.--Riurik ^(discuss) 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

These are excellent suggestions. I've taken the stats for coinage and made them into a sub-page and linked that from the article. The "Coinage Produced" section has been reorganized into a table that I think displays relevant data nicely with images of the coinage. (Please comment if this table does not display properly on your computer). The article is, I think, slightly shorter now, as well. Absecon 59 14:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support I like this now, espcially the tables the coins are in. Rlevse 14:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but I would love if the image could be organized some other way. —Jared Hunt September 9, 2006, 04:02 (UTC)
• Support Great article and I believe it fits criteria for featured articles Hello32020 15:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Object The article is quite good. However, the "coinage produced" section is way too large for this article, and seems irrelevant. That section is not about the mint so much as it is about the coinage. If that section were completely removed, I would support this article for FA. At the least it needs to be drastically reduced, with at most one or two somewhat historically noteworthy examples. Also, how about some creativity with layout? All the photos are on the right side and all the same size--DaveOinSF 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hatshepsut

[edit] Paul Hackett

Self nom. Article on the Ohio lawyer who yesterday narrowly lost the Congressional race in the Second District to Jean Schmidt. Photos, references. Thorough account of the campaign. PedanticallySpeaking 16:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Support--well-referenced and thorough. Meelar (talk) 18:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Meelar. PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose-- Never a big fan of FAC that are a subject less then a week old, here we are about a subject that is a day old. Lets wait at least a week until we see what happens with the offical election results. If nothing changes I see no reason for a support if it has followed the correct FAC procedure. PPGMD 19:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the article was started in May or June and is not "less than a week old." PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think PPGMD is refering to the election, not the article itself. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Article was created on June 8, 2005. What "correct procedure" do you refer to? PedanticallySpeaking 16:10, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:PaulHackettinUniform.jpg, Image:PaulHackett and family.jpg, Image:JeanSchmidtportrait.gif are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be avoided if at all possible. If a fair use image must be used, the image description page must list the source or current copyright holder for the image, and an explanation of why the image can be used under fair use must be provided for each page the image is used on. --Carnildo 19:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

So your opposition is based solely on the photographs and not the content? Would an article without photos get your support vote? PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

No photos, or whichever one photo you think is most representative of the subject if you follow the rules for using fair use images at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. I can't promise it'll get my support, as photos are just the first thing I check. --Carnildo 04:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article looks good to me, but the election is still playing out. this article could drastically change still. Also, i'd prefer it to have a peer review first. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • How could it change? Schmidt won by a clear margin and Hackett has conceded. PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • The effects of how close this election was still have yet to be seen. An e-mail sent out by the DNC says now that the congressional republicans are worried because of how close this election was. overall, my main thought is run it through a peer review at least once.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crew Exploration Vehicle

Article is detailed and contains all available details on the program. Clearly written with few errors. Well-referenced and up-to-date. I'll call this a self-nomination as I wrote the majority of the content. --Captain Koloth 14:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. No section on criticism, e.g. the second half of this article (which is mirrored here if you don't have a subscription) or this one which I can email to you if you'd like. Dave (talk) 19:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The images Image:Boeing-CEV-Concept.jpg, Image:CEV Lockheed Martin.jpg, Image:H lockheed cev 050503 02.jpg, Image:A-northrop.jpg are claimed as "fair use". Since this is a NASA project, there should be no shortage of public domain images we can use.
  2. The lead section is too short.
  3. The lead states that the CEV is a replacement for the Space Shuttle, but the CEV seems to be crew-only, while the Shuttle is also a heavy cargo lifter. In that case, what's the replacement for the Shuttle's cargo duties?
  4. There are plenty of inline citations, but no references listed at the end. Are there any major references that could be added to a "references" or "bibliography" section?

  --Carnildo 19:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dave: I did not include such a section as the article's purpose is to describe purely the spacecraft hardware itself, not the Vision for Space Exploration as a whole which your cited article attacks.

Even if you don't include a whole section, you should mention that it is considered inefficient in cost-benefit terms in the section that talks about the costs. If you give me your email address, I can send you the second article, which is more specifically about the CEV. According to that article, the costs cited are "complete nonsense," so it would be extremely POV not to mention it. Dave (talk) 21:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Carnildo: The CEV succeeds the Shuttle as a manned space vehicle. Major references are in the external links section. They address the cargo issue. No NASA images have been released on this as the CEV is a contractor project and the ESAS has not been released. Virtually all the available artwork is in the article. --Captain Koloth 21:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's a successor to the Shuttle as a manned space vehicle, but not as a cargo lifter, that needs to be made clear in the article.

If all images available are fair use, then you need to follow the rules for fair use images: image use should be minimized, images should only be used on articles that directly relate to those images, images need to have the source or current copyright holder indicated, and the reason why the image can be used under fair use must be supplied for each page the image is used on. See Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for an example of this sort of explanation. --Carnildo 22:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• object; wikipedia is not an internet directory (so shouldn't just have external links) / the sources are listed without full references which means that if they get moved, it will be almost impossible to tell what was linked to from the article. Mozzerati 21:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Backgammon

Support: This article is thorough and has been lingering for a while. With the exception of Chouettes one thinks this article is interesting and accurate.

The fact that Backgammon is one of the oldest games in history is especially enticing and appealing. The pictures represent some of Wikipedias finest work.

• Oppose. While the early pictures are certainly very good (especially the first one), the article needs some areas addressed. No references, no note and ref system, and effectively a cleanup notice on the choutettes section. These issues all need to be addressed before the article can become featured. The "fact that Backgammon is one of the oldest games in history is especially enticing and appealing" also doesn't really factor in here...Harro5 09:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Images "Bg sg start.png", "Bg sg w1.png", "Bg sg b1.png", "Bg sg w2.png" lacks copyright information. The section on the rules is not an easy read - might be benefitial to branch it out as a seperate article and just give an overview in the article on backgammon. The subsection on Other variants ought (IMO) to be placed under the section on the rules, as it's variations on the rules. Red links should at least be stubified, or taken out (I just don't like red links in a featured article). And as Harro5 mentioned, references really should be added. WegianWarrior 10:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object Allow me to start from the top:
  1. Expand the lead paragraph and 'History'. They are way too short for a featured article.
  2. Sort out the accuracy dispute concerning 'Choulettes'.
  3. Merge 'Backgammon in the Middle East' and 'Other variants' into one section: 'Variants'. They are too short on their own.
  4. Turn 'See also' into a list; makes it a lot neater.
• I strongly suggest you put this through Peer review. --JB Adder | Talk 01:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, the above two points form one vote. --JB Adder | Talk 01:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Lead is too short, no references, large unwikified sections. Peer review is a must, this is not yet close to FA standard. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Irving

Self nomination, an extensive and detailed look into his controversial life and work. You can see the previous failed nomination from January here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Irving/archive1. Most of the objections from that time have been addressed and I feel we now have a genuinely NPOV, well written and well researched article on a delicate subject. GeneralPatton 01:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:Irving Speer 01.jpg, Image:Irving Spiegel01.jpg, Image:Irving trial02.jpg, Image:Irving deported canada1992.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be avoided if at all possible. If a fair use image must be used, the image description page must list the source or current copyright holder for the image, and an explanation of why the image can be used under fair use must be provided for each page the image is used on. --Carnildo 05:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

errr... all those images are provided by Irving at his website for further use, this really is an non-issue as it has nothing to do with the content of the article itself. GeneralPatton 08:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps to clarify this, you could write to him using Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission. I have a feeling he would agree to release them into the public domain or GDFL at the very least. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If they have nothing to do with the content of the article, then I don't suppose you'd mind if I were to remove them? --Carnildo 17:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, but why? Here's the notice on Irvings website "These photographs are provided for use copyright free unless otherwise indicated" [47]. GeneralPatton 17:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That text is a license grant and should be copied to the image description page. This should then be sufficient; no need to ask if it is clear that those are the licensing terms. Mozzerati 13:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Despite the controversy on its talk page I feel that this article is a well written and informative account of an interesting subject.GreatGodOm
• Support. Comprehensive, well-written and properly referenced article. I haven't bothered trying to wade through the talkpage controversies, but I've read the entire article (with some previous knowledge of both Irving and Holocaust denial) and can't see that it has tainted anything in it. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object the content is mostly good, although a section on his techniques in "historical research" such as mis-referencing, and details of how he misrepresented sources would be good. I believe that there were accusations that he stole historical sources, these should be covered. More importantly, for an article on Irving, it is difficult to relate specific facts in the article to the sources from whch they were taken. This is crucial in making this article verifiable, particularly days/page numbers for references taken from the trial which is difficult to search. Some form of inline references such as Footnote3 or inote is probably the only way to achieve this. Mozzerati 13:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Besides trial records, is there anything in specific that needs to be more clearly referenced? I am very skeptical to this very general objecting just because an article doesn't have footnotes (which are absolutely not a criterion in of themselves). The basic rule should be not to specifically reference anything that is either very obvious or uncontroversial. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Nobody is objecting "just because an article doesn't have footnotes". There are many alternatives to footnotes which could move the article towards verifiablity; it is possible to write extensively together with each source which facts it covers; it is possible to put comments inline, using for example the inote template. Look at the work of Emmsworth (who puts comments next to his sources) or David Helvarg for examples of each.
      • The objection concerning footnotes was somewhat unspecified and since I've been noticing an alarming overusage of footnotes in FACs and I felt I needed to point this out. For example, GNAA, which is a relativly small article, contained 24 (!) footnotes that were mostly concentrated to just two or three paragraphs before I along with a few other users pointed it out at the FAC. Using the inotes and actual inline citations is much more preferable, though. I have not participated in the writing of the article, though, so I can't comment on the other objections. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • also you haven't responded to my content objections which I will break down for easier reference:
      • the article is incomplete because it a) fails to cover accusations that Irving has stolen documents b) fails to cover the recovery of documents from Irving's home by the police c) fails to cover the accusation that "if Irving can't find a supporting document, he makes one" d) fails to cover Irving's (at least partial) success in spinning the Lipstadt trial as an issue of his freedom of speech even when it was him that had initiated the trial.
      • the article is non NPOV since it states as fact facts which, whilst clearly true to most of us, are in fact disputed without giving a reference to the source of those facts a) "contributed to a variety of extremist features" b) "Today, the Dresden bombing casualty figures are estimated as most likely in the range of 25,000 to 35,000 dead" (yes, I know this is true, but that is what makes it important to reference it). c) the article describes "evolutionary psychologist Kevin B. MacDonald" without reference to the common belief that he is an anti-semitic racist which, in this context seems to be quite important.
      • the article is difficult to verify, for example the statement that his figures "were repeated in many standard references and encyclopedias" appears to require a require extensive research and access to many encyclopedias, particularly to establish a causal link, but with either attribution or a simple listing could be much easier to cope with. Furthermore, FAs should "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work" and Wikipedia's best work is verifiable in the extreme.
      • the article makes statements, which, without clear reference could be seen as defamatory and as such should not be kept in wikipedia, for example "during that time Irving also made a number of public statements indicating that 100,000 or more Germans had been killed" contrasted with "later editions of the book [changed] downwards to a range of 50,000 to 100,000" this is clearly implies that Irving is duplicitous; references should be given.

      Mozzerati 19:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

      • • Ok, thanks for your suggestions, I'm working on it GeneralPatton 21:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object. Move external links from main body to notes/references, link via footnotes. The article looks good, and it should prove the wiki strenght if we can reach NPOV on this article and FA it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There's nothing in any criteria that deems it inappropriate to have external links in the text. Unless the footnotes are actually going to contain information about the source or perhaps about the footnoted paragraph, this seems quite uncalled for. It will only add to the article looking like a paper rather than an encyclopedia article. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tucker Max

I think that this ought to be a featured article. It is very interesting. The topic is interesting, although he is a very, very bad person. user: Albus Dumbledore

• Stop the nonsense. Hate to break it to you, but this will NEVER be a Featured Article. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously , SqueakBox 20:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nominated by troll. mikka (t) 21:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong oppose since this is missing nearly everything. Where is Snape when you need him? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: More fit for VfD than FAC. Each section is tagged a stub. Most sections are "Oh, dude, and another thing" style agglutinations. The whole of it is fannish POV. Geogre 16:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent Vfd idea. Done, SqueakBox 17:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luftwaffe

This article is a good strong article with lots of information and good picturers. Rentastrawberry 19:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. There are several things I see that ought to be fixed up. Lead should be longer, inline references should be added. Copyright status of pictures should be assertained. Has this article been thru a peer review? If not, that might be a good place to start for comments on how to imprive an already good article. WegianWarrior 20:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Ya, I agree with WegianWarrior: the lead is underdeveloped. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 20:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The lead has, I noticed, been developed. Christopher Crossley 01:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object.
  1. The images Image:MaxImmelmann.gif, Image:Fokker Dr.I.jpg need information on their copyright status. They're old enough that they're almost certainly in the public domain, but that needs to be verified.
  2. The image Image:Luftwaffe major collar insignia.jpg is claimed as public domain "since the rank insignia of a government air force are not considered to be copyrightable". I'd like a source for this claim. Also, the photograph may be copyrighted even if the subject of the photo isn't.
  3. The image Image:Euro luftwaffe.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  4. The images Image:Model of Canadair CL-13 Sabre in Luftwaffe markings.jpg, Image:Wolfram von Richthofen.jpg, Image:Ju287.jpg, Image:Ju 87D Stukas over Russia.jpg, Image:Gernika-bombardeo.jpg are claimed as public domain. I'd like source information or other evidence that they are indeed in the public domain.
  5. The images Image:Luftwaffe logo.jpg, Image:Me262 bw 01.jpg are claimed under fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, "fair use" images should be avoided if at all possible. If fair use images are used, the image source or current copyright holder must be listed on the image description page, and an explanation as to why "fair use" is justified must be provided for each page that the image is used on.

  --Carnildo 21:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment on copyright for images Some of the photos appearing in this article had already appeared in other related (hence, linked) Wikipedia articles, such as the Max Immelmann, the Baron von Richthofen and all the other black-and-white photos. I should know, because I started to make contributions to what had been an extremely small article back in February and searched for photos already in Wikipedia to support it. Hence, I suppose, one could say that original copyright information as regards as the sources of the images, claimed as public domain, including the colour one featuring the Eurofighter Typhoon in the postwar section, should be supplied by the persons who put them into "their" articles in the first place. (By the way, I am very happy to see that this article is a feature article candidate. I have greatly enjoyed contributing much of the present text, since the history of the Luftwaffe used to be such an intense interest of mine.) Christopher Crossley 01:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review. Promising article, but a PR is needed. A minor pointer about references, though: since this is most likely a fairly uncontroversial subject, inline references are not going to be needed. Everyone seems to have become so excited about the fact that references are one of the FA criteria that it has been forgotten that footnotes are anything but a critiera in themselves. A proper reference section is a must, though. A (rather large) bibliography won't do. /Peter ^Isotalo 14:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The "rather large" bibliography came mostly from my memory when I wrote it, although I did search the internet for the publishers' names, dates and ISBN numbers. Most of the article's text was also from my memory, since I have been interested in the history of the Luftwaffe since 1974! I refrained, as much as possible, from resorting to looking at books and at internet articles (including related Wikipedia articles), but I did so when I deemed it necessary to check up on a few facts just to make sure that they were correct. My choice of bibliography might seem "rather large" by "normal" Wikipedia standards when a few references are the norm, but, as I said, there have been literally hundreds of books and articles written about the history of the Luftwaffe and they continue to be written even now (as this article proves!). Hence, in my opinion, just two or three external references will not do this subject justice, considering what an interest the Luftwaffe has garnered amongst countless aviation enthusiasts over the decades since the end of the Second World War. Christopher Crossley 01:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm definetly a friend of slimmed down reference sections. If you can do it without adding notes (these are heavily overused and for some reason thought to be identical to "inline citations") I'll support you just for that. My point, though, is that even if we have many editors who can recall most details from memory (correctly so, even) we still need to actually claim sources. If you could find a handful of books that are both general in scope, well-written, unbiased and contain all the information found in the article there isn't much stopping the article from getting through the next FAC. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I can assure you that any external printed source I quoted would have been somewhere that I got some information from, including my memory, rather than my just rattling off a list of any old sources, but because that is not the idea of a bibliography! Imagine if I had just rattled off any old source for my MBA dissertation, I don't think that I would have got away with it! My list does include the two part-works, "Wings" and "World War II", even if they had been published (by Orbis, London) way back in the 1970s and 1980s, since they were my introduction to military aviation, and I absorbed a lot of facts from them at the time; hence, I believe in being justified in citing them, even if there have been absolutely tons of stuff published on the Luftwaffe since then, of which many are verifiable, provided that they are still in print or else available to buy even if they are not. I believe those sources to be authoritative and unbiased, since they ("Wings" especially) was a collection of articles produced by very many authors, not just one or a few, some of whom have been in the aviation history business for decades. I therefore included them because of both their generality and of their neutrality, not merely because I "had" them in my collection many moons ago. Thank you for your continued support for the article, it is much appreciated. Christopher Crossley 03:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I will certainly trust your judgement in choosing sources, then. There is a technical issue at hand here. The standard practice is to place all sources that have been referenced (or should be referenced) in a section called "References". "Bibliography" could be interpreted as "further reading", which is never bad to have, but anything in this kind of section doesn't need to be claimed as an actual source. So what's needed is simply to sort through the literature list and decide which of them should be claimed by the article as actual sources and what is merely recommended reading. You can always use inline citations and/or footnotes, but only if it's really needed, like with facts that are controversial or perhaps need a note to explain some sort of complexity that doesn't fit in the actual article text. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment 2. I just looked at the article and realized that there is virtually no information about the organization of the current Luftwaffe. Since German Air Force is a redirect to this article, there needs to a minimum of information about the current operations, units and equipment of the modern Luftwaffe. Perhaps some information about policies as well. No long lists of individual squadrons and such, though. A summary with perhaps a link to a separate List of modern Luftwaffe units or something like it will do fine. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marcel Junod

This article is based on a translation of a featured article (in German "Exzellenter Artikel") from the German Wikipedia. I'm the main author of the original German version, and most of the translation was done by User:Tfine80 with some minor edits by me. Thanks for your interest, --Uwe 21:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• One problem - it's not linked from a single other article on wikipedia (at least not from the english one) →Raul654 22:06, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the hint. The problem that it's not easy to find an article from which to link to this article. Possible candidates could include Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the International Committee of the Red Cross, but both would require a serious rework to fit in a link to the Junod article in a logical manner, without breaking the coherent style of these articles. A complete rework of the article about the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is in the making (as another cooperation between User:Tfine80 and myself), and the corresponding German article we're translating has Marcel Junod mentioned as part of a rather comprehensive history section. I expect the translation to be ready in the very near future. Best Regards, --Uwe 23:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose- besides not being linked to, the lead section is too short, there are too many quotes compromising a large quantity of the article (they would be more appropriate for WikiQuotes), and the pictures are copyrighted- I'm not sure if that's allowed. I would refer to peer review and see if it can be fixed and expanded. It definitely has FA potential, though. Great job! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The pictures have a "Copyrighted but free use" policy which includes the right to use them for any legal purpose without prior permission from the copyright holder, including copying them, modifying them and using them for any commercial purpose. The quotes are intended to illustrate Junods work from a more personal point of view, complementary to the strict neutral and factual style of the article text. In that, they serve the same purpose as the pictures. Regarding the lead section, it would be nice to know what information you miss there. As written above, the issue of not being linked from anywhere will be solved in the very near future. Thanks for your comments, --Uwe 19:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The copyright status on the pictures is good enough. "Copyrighted but you can use it for anything but slandering the subject" is a free enough license for me. --Carnildo 22:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sociocultural evolution

2nd attempt, self-nom. Hopefully it will get more then 4 votes it did last time. I think objections are adressed: pics have proper copyright notice, several references and footnotes are added and lead has been decresed by 25%. I feel that any further reduction of lead would damage the article (see also Wikipedia 1.0 lead requirements), besides, we have many FAs with longer leads. Click here for former nomination. Your comments, as always, much welcome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support A long read, but well presented and argued. The only change that I would make would be to shorten the sections that have their own articles (such as Neoevolutionism and Sociobiology). slambo 02:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Support Really well written. I don't understand the creation of the Overview section (I never though the intro was too long), but it doesn't matter. Also I don't know if you need to repeat all of the references that are also in the notes section. -MechBrowman 03:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Support Looks good, Piotrus. The lead is definitely more readable, and the rest of the article is quite comprehensive. --Pariah 03:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional support descriptive captions on the images would be good.--nixie 00:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enzyme

My first self-nom. Please don't be too harsh, guys~ :-D By the way, this biological article is pretty informative. The diagrams were well drawn to give a much clearer picture of the mechanism of enzymes. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support - looks great --PopUpPirate 15:26, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very comprehensive and well-explained. Easy to understand with even a very basic knowledge of chemistry. Phils 16:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support It took 2 minutes to load all the pictures on my computer. Very impressive Karmafist 17:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support, although I would recommend moving the list of enzymes to a separate page. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object, reluctantly. This article still needs some work, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results once these objections are addresssed:
  • Monomer discussion in "structure and function" is unclear
    • What do you mean by unclear? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I mean that it doesn't define its terms. My (very limited) background in chemistry tells me that monomers are single elements that, strung together, make a polymer like plastic, DNA, or a polypeptide. The article seems to be referring to polypeptides as monomers, which I find confusing. Assuming I understand the first few lines of the paragraph, either changing the word "monomer" to "polypeptide" or saying "each monomer is actually produced as a long, linear chain of amino acids..." earlier in the paragraph would help
        • Reconstructed. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Applications table is hard to follow (add lines to separate rows and/or columns)
    • Technical problems...could anyone help? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • "protein folding" should be linked to from something less ambiguous than the words "general principles," as the reader has to move the mouse over the text or click it to find out what's being linked to.
    • Any suggestion? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Fixed
  • The section on rate of reaction should probably be expanded. Saying it depends on "many factors" isn't really enough.
    • There is a sub-page. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC) fixed
  • In-line references (footnotes or parenthetical citations) would go a long way towards making this article more authoritative. Right now, it's difficult to verify many claims the article makes.
    • Is that really necessary? I saw some FAs like evolution that are without in-line references... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Editors are allowed to have their own guidelines/requirements for supporting articles, and this is one of mine, especially for scientific articles. I didn't support evolution. You could almost certainly get this featured even without addressing this objection, but only if you address everything else. Dave (talk) 13:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

**Long sentences like this one are hard to follow, even for a biology major like me:

Because the precise structure of each region tends to be fairly critical to correct function, and because the frequency of a mutation which would produce a nonfunctional active region is proportional to the length of the chain separating the amino acids involved, evolution works against having the amino acids from an active region widely dispersed, instead tending to keep the amino acids involved in each active region compacted fairly closely together in the chain and conserved against mutation, separating these regions by long stretches of 'spacer' amino acids where mutation is much less critical (although some mutations in these regions can also inactivate the product).

• • • Corrected sooner or later.
      • There will still be other readability problems even after you fix that sentence. I'll try to help. Dave (talk) 13:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • Reconstructed. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The discussion of energy in the structure and function section could probably be streamlined. I like the analogies, but it's hard to follow.
    • Fixed. -- User:TimBarrel 21:10, 10 August 2005
  • Links to names should be fixed: Fischer is a disambig (including two nobel-prize winning chemists, among others) and Koshland is a blank page. First names should probably be included as well.
    • Fixed. -- User:TimBarrel 21:10, 10 August 2005
  • The article needs a copyedit. Three examples include "short0lived" (lock and key hypothesis section), "fromevidence" and "breakdown" (in the induced fit section)
    • Fixed. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Making the kinetics section more accessible to non-biochemists may not be possible, but I hope someone tries.
    • Yup...pretty difficult... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• If all (or even most) of these are addressed, I'll support. Good luck! Dave (talk) 01:36, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

You know what, I could hardly find people knowing one or two about biology during the peer review. You are one of the guys who could give pretty clear and constructive feedback. :-) Btw, could you give us a hand in improving this article, please? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the process is sort of dumb. No one (including me, most of the time) pays attention to peer review. Maybe I should. I'll see what I can do with the article, but nixie is more knowledgeable than I am on the subject. I'm sure she'll give you a hand when she has time if you ask. Dave (talk) 13:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Support-This is a very interesting and well done article. It is exceptionally informative and explains the concept of enzymes quite clearly, even to someone who isnt in the field. I also like the diagrams, they add a lot to the article in terms of clearity and make it much more readable. --Gpyoung ^talk 03:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• For now I have to object. As a biochemist I noticed that there are several things that could be improved, there is little discussion of coenzymes (vitamins and metals), multi-subunit enzymes and where enzymes are actually active within a cell eg. organelle specificity, enzyme inhibition/allosteric enzymes. Basically this article should cover everything in the chapter TOC for a textbook like Matthews, Van Holde and Ahern or Voet and Voet (two widely used undergraduate level biochem texts).

As an editor I think the specific enzymes section should be renamed and include some more examples, and that the list is unnecessary given the link to the list on another page. The tables should also be fixed so that they are outlined.

As a general reader, the order of text could be improved, for example, the reader is hit with The advantage of enzymes compared to most other catalysts is their sterio-, regio- and chemoselectivity and specificity before something like this Enzymes are essential to living organisms, and a malfunction of even a single enzyme out of approximately 2,000 types present in our bodies can lead to severe or lethal illness - which is much easier to understand and would interest a general reader. There are similar examples throughout where diffuicult concepts are explained before the easy ones.--nixie 03:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm not the original editor, who seemed to have put the materials you are demanding into the page Rate of enzyme mediated reactions. Any ideas to improve? :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Fixed. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Coenzymes and other enzyme cofactors are now mentioned. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• For now I object.

1) I reconfigured two tables at the bottom and noticed there was a lot that could be improved in those tables. A lot of copy editing of the text in the table is required.

• Any suggestion?

2) I then looked at the main article. I did not get past the structure function section. Why the emphasise on monomeric versus oligomeric (quaternary structure)? Surely the most important thing is the residues at the active site (tertiary structure).

• This part would be deleted.

3) You cite the active site of the enzymes figure 2; I could not find firgure 2 (do you mean your first 5a-c figure?). Why is figure 2 cited in the text before figure 1? It looks like you have reaaranged everything without correcting the order of the figures. You have two figure 4's and two figure 5's. The second figure 4b has two panels a) and b. Worse your first figure 4b (i) ( as opposed to figure 4b (ii)) also has an a and b panel. Do you see how crazy this is? All the figures need to be relabelled since they are not consistent with the text or each other. If the figure has panels a) and b) you cannot label it 4 a) Label it 4 (a-b) and the second panel, 4c. For example, the succinate (is succinic correct?) dehydrogenase panel should be a 4c not a 4b.

• An anonymous user rearranged the figures. Problems fixed sooner or later.

4) The next sentence after the incorrect figure citation is "Sometimes enzymes contain additionally other binding sites." This is poor grammar and I presume not up to featured article standards. As with the tables, it looks like this article needs some proof reading.

• Any suggestion?

5) A quick scan through shows that you do not define EIS nomenclature.

• Enzyme-inhibitor-substrate

6) Is this correct with respect to non competitive inhibitors? "they disable or enable the ability of the enzyme to turn over its substrate" I don't think they can enable. You may be thinking of allosteric enzyme with regard to this statement.

• I don't write this. Let's see what we can do with it

7) Is metabolic feed back beyond the scope of this article? That is getting into the regulation of metabolism.

• If you read any book about enzyme, this part is often mentioned for good reasons.

8) Modifications seems to be too early in the article. That would be better suited with regard to the feedback control and the regulation of metabolism.

• Good advice.

9) Prosthetic groups seem to be an add on at the end. These should be discussed with respect to the active site right at the begining of the article.

• I don't think so. It's a kinda cofactors, which in most cases are discussed in the later parts. It's not desirable to have it next to the active site.

10) One of the most important aspects of enzymes that is absent in this article is conformation changes that occur during catalysis. These conformation changes are critical for enzyme function. Hexokinase is a good example of an enzyme with a large conformation change, almost like a Pac-Man.

• Induced-fit hypothesis? Did you see it?

:11) The thermodynamics section needs work and might not be appropriate for this article. The following is another example of a sentence in dire need of copy editing. "For instance, the high energy compound ATP is generated in the cell by coupling its synthesis to the oxidation of sugars, which releases more energy than the synthesis of ATP requires; then the ATP is broken down in turn by other enzymes coupled to other processes, releasing the energy stored in it to drive other, otherwise energetically unfavorable, chemical reactions."

• • Fixed. -- User:TimBarrel 21:10, 10 August 2005
• Well, it's worth mentioning as seen in all reference books. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Clearly this article has a lot of potential but it really needs to be cleaned up a lot before being a featured article. David D. (Talk) 01:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you don't hang around with the editing. I'll read it over more thoroughly and do some copy editing. I have already made quite a few changes to the table, I'll edit that some more too. I think your solution of just removing the figure numbers is perfect. Wikipedia does not need to be like a review paper. David D. (Talk) 05:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you're so good, man. Thanks a million dollars. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Javier Solana

I think this article has recovered from its antichrist believers POV, has lots of nice detail, and has had the input of many people. It covers all the sourced material available about his life, SqueakBox 02:42, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references, and lead-in is too short. - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object — no refs. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Javiersolana.jpg is claimed under fair use. As such, the source or current copyright holder must be provided, and an explanation as to why fair use is justified must be provided for each article that the image is used on. One possible format for fair use justification is provided at Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. --Carnildo 09:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object This was once an excellent article with references. SqueakBox acting in adulation of rather than fair reporting of Javier Solana removed most meat and references from article. Most of the research was mine, compiled from other internet sources. Basically it is a dumbed down version of what once existed and was treated web-wide as a credible article. Regrettably that is no longer the case and I personally have given up on sharing my vast body of information on Solana with Wikipedia because I am weary of correcting SqueakBox's damage only to have the serious editing labeled "vandalism" by SqueakBox. Good luck to all. I will do my posting from other sites and my own blogspot.User:Cumbey August 21, 2005

I have not accused Cumbey of vandalism, except of course on the 2-3 occasions when she did, but never to this article. It is not true that most of the research was done by her, that is pure vanity. She forgot to mention she thinks he is the anti-christ, which is a rather extreme POV, SqueakBox 16:23, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cimarron

Self Nom: This article has been expanded from barely a stub to an informative article reflecting the background, content, production, and reception of Edna Ferber's novel, the 1931 Best Picture, and 1960 remake. There are few film featured articles, and only one "classic", so I think this would be a fair addition to those that already exist. The article was up for Peer Review almost a month ago, and any issues have been addressed, but I welcome criticism and further contributions. Volatile 01:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object - lead too short. In addition, it seems that the article should be on the novel, not the movies. Perhaps just a brief mention of the movies, and move the movie sections to separate article? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I brought up the concern of having the films and novel in the same section at PR (see link in intro). Since the novel and films are so closely related, I figured they'd be better off in the same article. Of course, I'm open to other opinions regarding that. I will work on expanding the introduction and novel portions, as I admit they are a bit thin. Thank you. Volatile 21:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:Cimarronbook.jpg, Image:Ferber.jpg, Image:OkLandRush.jpg, Image:Cimarron.JPG, Image:Cimarron1960.jpg have no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 08:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • All copyright information has been accounted for. Volatile 03:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. More on the novel is needed. The movies can stay, as long as they're faithfully direct in their adaptations of the book. -- user:zanimum

[edit] Model minority

Interesting article, concept about a social inequality issue. I think it deserves to be a featured article.

Quantum bird 18:50 July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Object It's not really comprehensive. It's almost exclusively about Asian Americans, with one sentence on Jewish Americans, nothing on other "model minorities" (such as Carribean Americans) and a total of two sentences on the rest of the world. The "negatively viewed successes" should include the situation in Rwanda, where such distinctions played a role in the 1994 genocide. If the article were called something like "Asian Americans as a model minority," or were significantly expanded, I'd be more likely to support. Dave (talk) 19:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This should really be named Model minorities in the United States, as that is its current content. - SimonP 00:44, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Object per above. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not sure the term is used much outside the United States. The lead section should say that it is a political term used in the U.S. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:04, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As it was said before, this article have a very limited geographic scope, with no mention of Jewish-Americans, Carribean-Americans, and Arab-Americans. With no mention of same situations in other countries. CG 16:40, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Overwhelming US-centricism. --Oldak Quill 18:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: There still appears to be room for someone to do more research and bring more citations to the article.--Nectarflowed ^T 07:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Move elinks from text to reference section, link with Wikipedia:Footnotes. Lot of tiny sections, most of which would qualify as the section-stub, even though article is not that short. Consider expanding sections or merging them, the latter would also help with the large ToC. As others note, 'Other Countries' section is too tiny, so the name should be changed to reflect the actual content. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neptune (planet)

With Venus as a featured article, I figured I would try to help out the articles on the other important bodies in the solar system, and then I ran across this article. So far it's actually the only article on a planet in the solar system with plentiful inline citations and references. I found it to be quite an enjoyable read, more so even than the featured article Io (moon). Toothpaste 08:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object head section too short. Headbox needs conversion to be same format (at least) as Venus (planet). Preferably convert all other tables into {{prettytable}} or something alike. Circeus 22:26, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I converted the headbox into the same format as the one found in the Venus article. However, I am not sure about the other tables, given that the tables in both article are similar. Pentawing 19:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've converted the other tables using {{prettytable}}. Pentawing 23:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support-This looks like an excellent article with a lot of information. The tables really do not bother me, and the headbox looks perfectly acceptable as well (although I think it is the edited version). --Gpyoung ^talk 03:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment-I expanded the lead to three paragraphs. Does this take care of your objection, Circeus? Toothpaste 10:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object - A bit of explanation of retrogradation is necessary for the Visibility from Earth section (not much; it just didn't make sense to me how a planet can go from direct to retrograde in three months). Is there anything else that could get added to that section? A little description of the "Appearance" section would be nice, so that I (a non astronomer) know what I'm looking at. And could a listing of space missions to the planet be added? I'd also like {{prettytable}} in the table in Rings of Neptune. That's it for now; I'll let you know if I see anything else. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Nigger Association of America

• Attempt One

Self-nom. After a round of Peer Review and some more editing, Ta bu felt like this article was ready for FAC again. I, who helped Ta bu fix everything last time around, agree. What we took care of can be seen at Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America/FAC_Objections and I can assure you that this FAC will not be a pissing match as last time. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Withdrawn nomination, since people have left over it and I cannot resolve every objection. Evem if I do, people will still object. This is a battle that cannot be won. I went ahead and replaced this nom with Belarus. Zach (Sound Off) 22:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The article is good and exceeds most of our FA standards. The subject is silly, but so are a lot of other featured articles. Gmaxwell 21:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. -- Norvy (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC) Oppose. They are described as an organization, but there's no mention of their structure. It says they have a president. Was he elected, or was he the creator of the organization? What other positions are there within the organization? Are there specific targets decreed by the higher ups, or is it more a loose collaboration of trolls, who hit whatever they can? -- Norvy (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We do not know if he is elected and we do not know of other positions in the organization. I have no idea how they select their targets and who orders the targets. And there is a good chance that we cannot find this out, and if we tried to get it in there, we will be slammed with a WP:NOR warning. While your objection is valid, as all are, I am not sure what I will be able to do to fix it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If it isn't publically known, our article should say it's not publically known. "Background information" could easily say GNAA's internal structure is unclear; indeed GNAA may have no real structure or actual members. Its business is conducted in secret, and those acting in its name may simply be individuals working under the GNAA "brand". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:07, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • I owe you one Finlay. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I added Finlay's statement into the article, Norvy. Will this be acceptable to you, as a compromise? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
          • It's better, but it still doesn't answer my questions. The addition should also be reflected in the lead. -- Norvy (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Sure. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'll return from my wikibreak for one quick comment -- please, please, take a deep breath before commenting on this nomination. This is a controversial topic, but not worth using excessive bold text (Raul isn't stupid, he can tell what a valid objection is) or questioning people's character. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not waste hours yelling at each other. And, as last time, I support. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:19, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support. But no front page publicity Raul, K? Redwolf24 (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I will conduct a second straw-poll to see should this be on the front page. Personally, it will not kill me to have it not on the front page, but I am not sure how others feel. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. If this article is promoted, I won't be putting it on the main page. →Raul654 22:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - this article does not indicate in what way this group is notable, and why their activities should be of interest to a general reader. Most of the article is taken up with blow-by-blow descriptions of how people can annoy other people using the internet, and in my opinion this is not the best that Wikipedia can produce. Worldtraveller 22:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The article does. I think you should read the entire lead section again, as it most definitely establishes the groups notability. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It tells me they are an organisation that tries to irritate people, but that might not even be an organisation at all. I am left mystified as to why there is such a lengthy article on them. Worldtraveller 22:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The lead section says nothing of the sort. It quite clearly states it is an organisation. The significance of the organisation is found in the second paragraph. Allow me to break it down for you:
        1. Members engage in such nafarious activities as flooding weblogs, producing shock sites, prank-calling technical support telephone lines, and IRC channel disruption such as IRC floods.

           These are the notable activities they engage in. They are more than just nuisance, it is positive disruption

        2. As a consequence, targeted communities generally consider GNAA members a nuisance and frequently respond with technological and social anti-trolling measures such as moderation systems to limit future disruption caused by the trolling. The inner-workings of the GNAA are not well known, and some speculate that the GNAA only consists solely of unconnected individuals acting in the name of the group.

           This is how the communities respond to them, which is notable in itself.

      • I hope this clears up this issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Not really. I don't see how prank-calling technical support lines is in any way a notable activity, and I don't think a 'group' that does this is worthy of an encyclopaedia article. How people respond to nuisances is not inherently notable either. Worldtraveller 18:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object: the "Activities" section has become quite a mess. For instance, there is one OS X hoax listed in "Website disruption" and one in "Hoaxes and spoilers". Maybe the Freenode trivia should be moved to the "Backlash" section instead. Also, the "Notable members" subsection is too long and has a lot of uninteresting stuff. I would only keep Gary Niger, the "Why your Movable Type blog must die" author, the "Last Measure" developer and the "l0de radio hour" host, and move the other ones to that list of nicknames at the end. Apart from that, the article is quite better than last time and I would support it again. Sam Hocevar 22:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I took out the members you did not list, since I do not think they are either notable or even members of the GNAA. I also thought that the two OX references were for two different things. One OX release dealt with the GNAA crap-flooding their websites and the other was a hoax release. I also moved the Freenode sutff to the bottom of the article, as you requested. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, there are the crapfloods, but there are also the "In July 2005, the GNAA released a 2.2 gigabyte, falsified pirate copy of Mac OS 10.4" and the "In June 2005, the GNAA created a fake Mac OS X Tiger release" hoaxes. Sam Hocevar 00:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • So, you want all of those Apple-related events to go into one category/section. If so, where should it go? Hoaxes? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
        • No, I just want the two OS X for Intel hoaxes to be in the same subsection. I will do it. Sam Hocevar 13:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Done. I now understand why we were apparently both confused, the same information was mentioned in two different places. Sam Hocevar 13:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object article still doesnt seem worthy of being a featured article, content is good but I really dont think this is an example of "exemplary prose". I definately oppose front paging this one too.  ALKIVAR™ 23:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So, if I do a grammar check and conduct a poll to see if this stays off the front page, will you support the article getting Featured Status? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Alkivar, what parts need improvement in grammar? I would like to action your objection. I agree that the article should not be on the main page. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object—The register of the text is uneven, varying from formal to rant-like, over-personal utterances. Some of the sections are too short—the structure needs to be rethought. There's no wider placement of the topic in socio-political terms. I wonder what the motivation of the contributors is to have this promoted to FA status. It would be embarrassing to have this title prominently displayed in Wikipedia. Tony 06:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony1, could you give some specific examples? I would like to action your objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object, I don't think this is suitable for a featured article. — JIP | Talk 06:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there something that I could fix, or have the other folks have the same objection as you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We would like to action this. Unless you have a specific reason why you don't like the article that is related to its content, we will not be able to action your objection. If you are objecting to the subject matter, this object cannot be actioned. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Just chiming in here - Ta Bu is correct, in that simply stating that you don't think it's suitable isn't suffecient. As the top of the FAC page clearly says, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." →Raul654 22:32, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Wikipedia:What is a featured article says an article must be comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-written. This article is a constant target of vandalism. Zoe 06:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • While any article is the target for vandalism, the article has been stable and has not produced an edit war in the past few months. And, for future reference, the reverting of my edit by Ta bu one or two days ago was a mis-understanding, not an edit war. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Zscout. This article is pretty stable. Could you please advise what specific parts of the article are factually inaccurate, and could you please advise what still needs to be added to the article to make it comprehensive? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • No. I am quoting the criteria for FAC status. This article fails those criteria. If you feel otherwise, then change the criteria to say that a Featured Article can be one that is obsessively attacked by vandals on a daily basis. Zoe 08:20, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm well aware of that - I have read the FAC criteria also and having had at least 4 articles get to FA status I know all about this page. I asked you a specific question: you have told me that the article is not factually accurate and is not comprehensive. This means that you can see inaccuracies, which I have asked you to point out to me so that we may address them. It also means that you must know further information that we have not added to the article to make it comprehensive, I am asking you (politely) what that information might be so that we may action your objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Zoe - IIRC stable does not refer to simple vandalism Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I am not claiming that it's not factually accurate or comprehensive. I am claiming that it is not stable. Zoe 05:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
          • In that case, you are wrong and I cannot action your objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
            • I'm going to very respectfully disagree with Zoe's interpretation here. The stability requirement says that articles that are changing very much on a day-to-day basis cannot be featured articles. The stability requirement was put in place (by me) specifically to exclude timely articles that change significantly by the day. However, it is not intended to apply to articles that are the subject of a lot of vandalism (all article appearing on the main page get a lot of vandalism. Are we doing to de-feature them all?) because the vandalism disappears minutes or hours later and doesn't contribute to the "day to day" changes. Anyway, so I looked at the diffs for the GNAA article for the last week, and while there were some changes, it wasn't radical - it was about average for a FAC nom, which is why I have to disagree with Zoe here. While I might not agree that this article should be a featured article (I haven't really decided yet), I don't think it can be called unstable. →Raul654 22:43, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Object This organisation's principal claim to notability is that they have successfully trolled Wikipedia with amazing persistence. Not noteworthy outside Wikipedia, therefore, not article-worthy. Don't feed the trolls. Kosebamse 11:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • How can you say such a thing? The only thing they have about Wikipedia is a PR, while their Naruto hoax was downloaded by tens of thousands of people, and one of their OS X hoaxes hit countless tech news sites, and was even mentioned on TV. The article does not even mention Wikipedia! Sam Hocevar 13:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I can say such a thing because I have watched the whole "Gayniggers troll Wikipedia" opera from the beginning. Some Wikipedians may consider them notable because of their tireless trolling here, but's that's all. There are thousands of trolls elsewhere who are just as attention-craving as these and may be as successfull in trolling newssites and what not. Trolling as a phenomenon is notable and article-worthy. A gang of trolls is not. Kosebamse 14:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Considering that the GNAA article you are referring to actually does not even mention Wikipedia, I find this to be a very strange and most definitely unactionable objection (you want us to remove material that is not there!). - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
        • The relevance of GNAA is greatly overestimated here because trolling Wikipedia is a central activity of GNAA. Wikipedia articles, and far mor so Featured Articles should be about phenomena that are notable outside Wikipedia. The article is no more relevant than, say, Ta Bu's writing style or Kosebamse's reaction to trolls. And every piece of discussion about it gives those GNAA people a little more attention, and that's what they want - they did not start an article about themselves to contribute to a collection of the knowledge of mankind, but to promote themselves. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Kosebamse 05:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
          • The GNAA are notable outside of Wikipedia. You don't appear to know what you are talking about. What parts of the article overestimate the significance of the GNAA? Or are you objecting to the article as a whole? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Your polemics aside, I am indeed objecting to the article as a whole. I repeat that Wikipedians overestimate the GNAA's notability precisely because of their trolling Wikipedia. Making it a Featured Article amounts to shouting to the world "A gang of idiots has trolled us and we are stupid enough to take them seriously". Kosebamse 08:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
      • And, technically, I am not allowed to reference anything they have done on Wikipedia. There is a rule that I was made aware of that I cannot use our encyclopedia as examples of what the GNAA has done, since it is called self-referencing. But how, exactly, I am trying to "feed the trolls." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
        • That is a good rule, because it prevents people from creating their own noteworthiness on Wikipedia. And I believe that every bit of attention that is given to that "association" is food for them. So, technically, even discussing this FAC nomiation is feeding the trolls. Unlike Usenet however, Wikipedia cannot just choose to ignore them, because they have a great degree of freedom to create their own vanity articles and unless deleted after due process these will stay and annoy people, which is why they are created. But taking said gang seriously and regarding them as noteworthy outside Wikipedia IMO amounts to feeding them. Kosebamse 19:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Does not "Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work." While it is a good article, it does not reach FA status. I also agree with the above comments and raise a final issue of my own--how do we know that this article's FAC isn't another of this groups attempts to gain attention? If this article was selected as a FA, it is likely that the group will begin bragging about how they pulled one off on Wikipedia. --Alabamaboy 13:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • They are already bragging about themselves, and indeed that's the whole point of their existence. Look at their website and you know what I mean. Kosebamse 14:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a little vague. What in particular is it about the article that needs improvement? Please be specific so that we can action your objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The item I raised is an overall issue. On Wikipedia:What is a featured article, the number 1 issue is "Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet." To me, the article is not the best that Wikipedia can offer. As a subpart of this, the article is not stable or well written. Since the article's creation, it has not been stable for more than a few days (for proof of this, look at the massive, continual number of edits at [48]). I also have concerns about the accuracy of the article, since most of the references seem to be from either the GNAA, its members, or people tied in with the organization. Without references to independent source material, the article is not trustworthy.--Alabamaboy 14:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Will review the references, however the article is pretty stable. You can't say it is not stable due to edit warring because the last edit war happened at least 2-3 months ago, and this was resolved later. I might point out that when an article is submitted to FAC it will often go through changes: Windows 2000 did, as did Exploding whale. All the changes you mention happened because of FAC. If no changes are done to the article while on FAC, we're damned. If we make changes to the article to address concerns while on FAC, we are also damned. Thus I find this rather unfair. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, my point was that there was that the article has not been stable for more than a few days over the last year. For proof of this, look at the massive, continual number of edits at [49].
• Object. As per Tony on structure and register. I'm also very concerned about some of the references. For example: the article states that "They registered thousands of usernames en masse to mark Slashdot editor "michael" as their foe", but the referenced site shows only a few dozen; the 4chan site doesn't mention GNAA at all, despite being listed as a reference; the reference on the Xanga flooding of slashdot only mentions GNAA in a comment to a blog, which is pretty meaningless - how do we know they had anything to do with it at all?; the "membership", "notable members", "prank calls" and "shock sites" sections are totally unreferenced. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • The 4chan reference did refer to the GNAA at the time. It should have a date on the reference when it was last referenced: will check. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I reworded a the michael slashdot foe freak list setence to reduce the number of users. I took out the 4chan reference. While I know you wish to have me find references for every single attack, there was a problem I faced last time where I and Ta bu had objections for too many references. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The things that OpenToppedBus notes really do need to be referenced. Last time, the issue was more with the fact that some areas had way more references than necessary (like one Apple hoax having about five references in the same sentence when it wasn't particularly disputed), markedly interfering with flow. More references of genuinely disputed items is a good thing.
      • Given that this is a group which deliberately sets out to create misinformation, yes, I do think we need references for each claim. Also, given that they set out to create misinformation, I'm very wary about accepting references from the GNAA's own websites. If that's the best reference we have for one of their attacks, then the article should say no more than that they "claim to have" disrupted or trolled or whatever it is, rather than that they actually did. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
        • • Which references are unreliable, however? The attack of the show reference is reliable, the Harry Potter reference to shock images is least credible, we should change that to their claim. The spoilers is definitely reliable. All else seems OK to me. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
            • "The spoilers is definitely reliable" - really? I only have the GNAUK's word for that. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, poorly sourced/referenced, over-credulous, would feed the trolls even moreso than usual. WHBT, WHL. -Sean Curtin 00:57, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not poorly sourced. It has many, many sources in the notes section and every single fact is referenced. In fact, it was so well referenced that one of the objections last time was that there were too many references - which we addressed by taking out several of them. As for being over-credulous, could you refer to the exact sentences so that I may action this objection? As for feeding the trolls, that's hardly an actionable objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article makes little claim for the notability of this group outside of certain internet communities (who are far more vocal than their size would suggest). Parts of the article read, to me at least, as nothing more than a list of ways to annoy people in a juvenile manner. Apart from these reasons, this article is far from stable now, and would probably be even less so if were to becoma an FA, and as for being uncontroversial... Rje 01:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • The group is not really notable for activities performed outside of the Internet, it would be factually inaccurate to say otherwise. Please note that this does not make them unnotable. Which parts of the article read as a list of ways to annoy people in a juvenile manner? As for the article not being stable: this is incorrect. It is pretty stable, except for the odd spate of vandalism. Your objection to it being uncontroversial... what specific part of the material written is controversial? If it is the subject matter covered, then this will not be actionable. If it is a non-neutral POV or factual inaccuracy, we will sort this out. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If the group are not notable outside of certain internet forums then I personally think their notability is very small. It seems to me they are a group of prank-callers, both on the internet and on the phones, with a massive ego, "The GNAA runs a conference call system, which they use to troll various companies and people, including AOL. They have produced an MP3 which combines excerpts from their prank AOL calls with the "Hey, everybody! I'm looking at gay porno!". The article also contains little evidence that the GNAA are an organization, the membership section sounds like a big in-joke to me, rather than just a bunch of kids citing the GNAA when they mess around on the net. Also there is a lot of mention of individual events/attacks but hardly any of these are discussed in terms of the group, why do the "group" attack the sites they do? Finally: the article makes no mention of the group's objectives or motives. Rje 11:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Lack of notability is an issue with the subject matter itself. How you want me to fix their notability, I'm really not sure. Certainly the GNAA are notable enough to exist in Wikipedia, 6 VfDs have established this. As for the evidence that the GNAA are an organisation, we cited member names. How did you want me to action this? Do you want me to remove the whole section? Please state, for the record, how you want me to action your objection. I'd like to point out that one of the objections last time that the article was full of speculation, now you want us to speculate what their motives are, when noone really knows. I can't see how I can reasonably action your objection. Finally, could you please tell me which part is controversial due to being against NPOV policy? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Includes completely trivial source text; includes completely unimportant details; fails to convey the groups lack of importance. One illustration falsely suggests "GNAA" is a trademark. - Nunh-huh 02:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Please point out the trivial source text and unimportant details so that we may sort this out. The GNAA trademark is actually part of the GNAA's logo, however I'll clarify this with a caption. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That would be:

      GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY? Are you a NIGGER? Are you a GAY NIGGER?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!.

• • • • Then I must oppose the objection. This is quite notable as it's what they use in most of the crap floods that they perform. It's also in the screenshot. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't see it in the screenshot, but if it's there, It's twice as unnecessary. The article is already longer than its appropriate length, and goes into inappropriate detail. It thereby fails to meet the 6th criterion of Featured articles. You should be looking for things to cut, rather than avoiding cutting them, if you want featured article status. - Nunh-huh 21:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
          • It is necessary because the signature text identifies a GNAA attack. I have noted this to say why this is significant, thus it should resolve your objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
            • You say it is necessary, and I say it is not. That's not a resolution, it's a disagreement. Nor have you addressed the issue that a reader of this rather too lengthy article comes away from it with an unrealistically high assessment of the "group"'s importance. I believe the article is too long, you do not (we disagree over "appropriate length"); you feel the detail is appropriate, and I feel it is inappropriately excessive. So we have a fundamental disagreement over one of the criteria for featured article. - Nunh-huh 03:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
              • Which is it? Too long or too short... the last FAC objection by Ambi was it was too short. How do you expect me to sort out two totally seperate and conflicting objections?! And I have told you that the information is necessary. We originally pasted the whole sig in, then we cut it back. If someone stumbles over the article, they will be able to identify the GNAAs handiwork by this text. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
                • Which is it? Too long. It's just plain silly to include a lengthy sig on the grounds that someone might sometime backtrack a sig to Wikipedia. - Nunh-huh 02:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object Is it really right ot have a FA about a racist vandalistic orginization? Tobyk777 04:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. See Nazi. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • There does seem to be a difference in their historical significance, if I am not mistaken. Kosebamse 06:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Of course. That's not what he was asking. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Your comparison is plain ridiculous. Nazis deserve an article, and a featured one if you ask me. An internet troll gang doesn't. If I read him correctly, Toby seems to question their significance, and rightly so. Kosebamse 08:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
          • If I read him correctly, Toby mentions racism, vandalism and organisation. Nowhere in his objection do I see anything about Internet or troll gangs, nor could anyone infer that from what he wrote without further explanation from him. Sam Hocevar 09:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As Nunh-huh notes, fails to convey the group's general lack of importance. Methods section is still incomplete - for instance, doesn't cover any of their IRC behaviour. The "notable members" section needs work, particularly since it goes on about someone who a) isn't notable, and b) apparently isn't a member. There is no history section - the background information section should either be merged into the lead section or split off as the beginning of a history section. I'm also cynical that some of the information that this article says cannot be found actually cannot be found, particularly after the reluctance of the proponents of the last FAC for this to actually do any additional research at all. Ambi 07:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Will look into resolving these objections. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I actually posted a reply, but it seems to have been eaten by Wikipedia. The IRC behaviour is now complete, I have fixed up the membership section. It's almost impossible to get the history, and anything we did add would be redundant with the activities and background information sections. As for you feeling cynical, I might also be excused for feeling cynical considering that I have actually collaborated with you on another article before (Cyclone Tracy) and have already demonstrated that I am perfectly capable of researching topics and winkling out information about obscure topics. If you need further example of this, please see Exploding whale. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support can't see anything wrong with it. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't have a problem with this article being featured (perhaps not a main page candidate) as a general rule like some of the others, but I don't find this well written enough to qualify. It seems disjointed, which is a nebulous sort of objection that more or less sums up to "write it better". It seems... incoherant to me, and a little unorganized. More assertion of why it is interesting would be a good start, followed by organizing the various sections around a central theme of the article. Merely stating, "these guys did this and that" isn't enough for me to support it as a FA. I don't personally know much about the organization or what they've done, but on the talk and VfD pages and such there seem to be plenty who are more familiar with it. So, I'm objecting on grounds of coherance and comprehensiveness. Fieari 08:18, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not wish to be rude or offensive, but if you don't know anything about the GNAA, how can you say it is not comprehensive. However, I will start work on the style. I think part of the problem is too many headings. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • As I said, I got the impression it wasn't comprehensive from the comments made by others. It may well be comprehensive, but from comments I've seen made, it might not be. You're right though, I don't know for certain. Fieari 19:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I wish to address the structure issue. The structure is not too bad, IMO. The division into background information addresses the issue of a general lack of information about the GNAA's history (a history section would really be too short), the membership section is a good idea, because it discusses what is known about the GNAA members and also points out that they are all anonymous. I have coalesced "backlash" into the activities section, as this is really related to their activies, and I've also created a lot less sections. A grammar check is possibly needed to resolve disjointedness. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support I reworked the writing style of a lot of the article significantly to be more encyclopedic. In general though I think it seems a bit sympathitic to their aims and doesn't focus much on the damage caused, although it doesn't seem to be a huge problem, but it could do with some expansion. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Symbolic object (again) because I feel this is no different than a gang of hoodlums who have access to the internet, and I wouldn't want any ordinary gang of hoodlums to have an article. However, that objection is obviously not actionable so it shouldn't count. Everyking 08:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to support purely out of irritation with the other opposing votes. I labeled my vote clearly as symbolic because I recognized that such an objection could never be actionable. Others seem to have no hesitation about trying to make real objections on those grounds, however. Regardless of whether one thinks this should have an article or not, one is obligated to set that aside if one wants to vote. Everyking 04:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object As far as I can tell, this is an entire article comprised entirely of trivia. The reference section suggests thorough non-importance, as all the entries are forum threads, blogs and such. Has this group ever been featured in a published book? Newspaper? Magazine? Academic journal? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:25, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am in total agreement and I raised this very issue above. Worse, most of the references to forum threads, blogs and so on seem to be from either the GNAA, its members, or people tied in with the organization. Without references to independent source material, the article is not trustworthy. I suspect, though, that there are no solid references to this group since a Google search of "Gay Nigger Association of America" only turns up 880 hits.--Alabamaboy 13:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object, just on the princple of the thing, this article by definition cannot be "Wikipedia's best work." Adam Bishop 20:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Dattebayo.jpg is tagged as "copyrighted fair use". However, it has no source or copyright information, and if it is used under "fair use", it needs a fair use rationale, as outlined in Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. --Carnildo 03:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object, vandalism magnet.

• Comment the =pranking= section needs to be expanded. User:Nichalp/sg 06:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: I thought this had been removed once already. Oh well here goes: Basically, I think wikipedia can (and frequently does) better FAs than this. The very title is offensive to many people. However, these are not actionable reasons, the following are: The article needs to be longer and it needs some proper written references rather than internet sites. Is this organization globally notable, or even widely notable in the USA? The lead itself reports that: "The inner-workings of the GNAA are not well known, and some speculate that the GNAA consists solely of unconnected individuals acting in the name of the group" so how do we know this article is correct, the whole thing is too vague and too short of reliably attributed fact. I've read it in its entirity three times, no way is it anything approaching an FA Giano | talk 17:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Many-worlds interpretation

Interesting quantum physics theory hinting at the possibility of many possible worlds.

Quantum bird 01:36, 30, July 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. Something needs to be done about the dense block of mathematics in section 6. I got lost about a quarter of the way into it.
  2. Section 8 needs an explanation of exactly what is misleading about many-worlds in science fiction, in addition to the why.
  3. Section 9 needs expansion.

  --Carnildo 03:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object I couldn't understand what the intro was saying, so stopped there. Needs to be crafted so that a layman can gain an appreciation of what it being discussed, jguk 07:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I have to agree with jguk - even through I read about this theory earlier, and I am a fan of hard sf, this is worse then star trek technobabble. It may make sense for somebody familiar with quantum physics, but it needs explanation for laymen like most of us are, I am afraid. The lead is quite short, it can be expanded 3-4 times, hopefully with explanation of most of the terms like 'Copenhagen interpretation', Schrödinger's equation, state function, quantum superposition and such. The article seems comprehensive, but it is not easy to read. I don't suggest dumbing down - keep the math and such - but plese add some explanations that would allow most of this to be understood without the need to get a PhD in quantum physics first :) Section 'Speculative implications of many worlds' should be expanded or merged with sf section above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object Like the others before me, I can't consider this article well-written, primarily for the fact that it isn't well-written for a reader who doesn't understand the vast amount of detail that the article relies on. Perhaps if it had been written with us amateurs in mind. ConnorShlatz 2:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object Same as most of the other people above. The article is very vague and tends to go in circles, and even after disscusing the content with one of the main writers in the main talk page, I still have a vague idea of what MWI is about.

[edit] Chicago, Illinois

Mrmaroon25 (talk • contribs) (I think that's who put this up here) seems to be having difficulties with renominating, so I'll help him out a bit here. Old nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago, Illinois1. Fieari 05:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Not ready yet. See old nom. Fieari 05:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The article has no inline references, and is referenced poorly overall. However, I must say that my previous objections about picture alignment and placement have been nicely resolved. The article as a whole, however, is not ready. RyanGerbil10 13:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This is a current Good Article Collaboration of the Week article, which means major changes to the contents of the article are currently occuring and/or are likely to occur. The article should be listed only after it is stable enough to be considered for FAC. As much as I like the city, I would have to agree with the two objections above. AreJay 20:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Anonymous_anonymous Have a Nice Day 14:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object Needs MUCH BETTER Picture. ie. look at the other photo submittals for world class cities.
• Strong Object. Article highly underreferenced. I don't think use of Wikitravel as reference is allowed at all (=> Use primary references). No inline citations. External links section is cluttered. Article still having "Collaboration of the Week" hence not likely to be stable. Single entry sub-sections is a misuse of subsections. See also links not having proper format and even external links have been included in see also section. Single line paragraphs need to be merged or deleted. External links in prose to be avoided. There are many other problems. I would suggest that you go through some of the featured articles and model this on their structure. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asteroid

This article gives a lot of good information. I think it has the ability to be a featured article. Rentastrawberry 23:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. While this seems to be a comprehensive and well-written article, it needs references. --DanielNuyu 00:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object-Although the article is very comprehensive and well wirtten from what I can see, I do agree that it needs references. Also, I think more pictures have to be added into the article. I understand that there are not many "different looking" pictures of asteroids, however something has to be done to add pictures that do not all look the same if at all possible, and the pictures that are already there can be moved around the spread them out in the article if no new ones can be added. --Gpyoung ^talk 03:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Isle of Wight

This has literally ballooned into one of the most comprehenisve and noteworthy articles on a small but historically significant, place. It includes good summaries and links to further artciles extending sunjects. Dainamo 10:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose I think maybe the article is ok, but not quite enough for a feature. 內布拉斯加 01:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object There is no listing of references used, or any inline citations. Pentawing 21:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object – references not formatted correctly, some sections are too small while some others need a summary. The images too are poorly displayed. User:Nichalp/sg 07:51, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Acknowledged the observations above are noted for direction in getting the article to meet required standards. Not so sure about ctritcisms of brevity in sections, especially where summarised with link to longer article. Additionally when meeting the requirements of a reference article a lot of small sections can be appropriate. Nevertheless I will seek to address requirements with other contributors Dainamo 19:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Winter of Discontent

This was recently the UK collaboration of the fortnight and underwent major improvements bringing it I think to featured-standard. (I didn't do any of these changes, but will try to fix reasonable objections). The only reservation I have is that it has proved impossible apparently to obtain free images of the strikes - I think though, as famous historical images, these qualify as one of the stronger reasons for fair use, alongside covers of books and suchforth. Morwen - Talk 19:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support but then I did write it. I anticipate there may problems with the images. David | Talk 19:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose images. They are all copyvios! Dunc|☺ 20:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Not quite. There's one that might be public domain. --Carnildo 20:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. If you feel they are copyvios, can I suggest take it to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems and get them deleted entirely! I don't see why we should tolerate copyvios on non-featured articles. Morwen - Talk 21:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The images Image:Finsburyparkrubbish.jpg, Image:Callaghanwaitingatchurch.jpg, Image:Fordstrikers.jpg, Image:Outofpetrol1979.jpg, Image:Callaghancrisisiv.jpg, Image:Dayofaction220179.jpg, Image:Cohsepicket.jpg, Image:Gmwucemeterypicket.jpg, Image:Armyambulances79.jpg, Image:Crisiswhatcrisis.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be avoided if at all possible. If fair use images must be used, then the images need information on their sources and copyright owners, and need an explanation for why fair use can be claimed for each page that the image is used on. --Carnildo 20:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is just a general principle without any specific implications. "if at all possible" and "must" are vague, and could demand removal of all the images or just a few. Do you have any specific suggestions, as to, say, which images are more defensible, or how we might obtain free images of events that happened nearly 30 years ago? Morwen - Talk 21:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • For getting free images, you could contact the copyright holders and ask them to release the image under the GFDL or an acceptable Creative Commons license. You could look for images that aren't currently in the article, and ask the copyright owners to release the images. You could check places with known free-content images: Wikimedia Commons, ibiblio, the US government archives, etc. I'm not sure about British copyright law, but it's even possible that there are some images that were never copyrighted in the first place.
    • If you can't get free images, then you should trim the images used down to a minimum, and follow the rules for fair use. I'd say that the important images for the article are Image:Finsburyparkrubbish.jpg (a good lead image), Image:Fordstrikers.jpg (the Ford strike seems to have triggered most of the mess), Image:Dayofaction220179.jpg (a major event), Image:Armyambulances79.jpg (a major event).
      • If you look at the talk pages I have appealed for images from anyone around at the time. The pictures of the Ford strikers and the Day of Action are video stills from ITN; the rubbish in Finsbury Park and the Army Ambulances are probably from a large photo library which I have not yet identified. They were printed in Whitaker's Almanack for 1980. My impression is that UK copyright law is actually slightly stricter than US. David | Talk 08:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object in addition to the images issues, the lead is underdeveloped too.--nixie 23:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you suggest how it should be improved? I have expanded it a bit. David | Talk 08:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm a passing stranger who was interested in the topic, and that is why I am here. The text is informative and entertaining, and thorough. And I was impressed by the large number and diverse range of images. If the problems with regards image ownership were resolved - and I take the image policy seriously - I would support this article immediately. Without the images, or with relatively mundane stock photographs of the people involved, 10 Downing St, a lorry, striking people in general, I would still support it, although I would be less enthusiastic. If only Wikipedia had been around in the late 1970s, we would have photographs of all these things.-Ashley Pomeroy 14:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pope John Paul II

This is a marvelous article and deserves FAC status. SVera1NY 02:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. This article is virtually unreferenced except for the Pope's declining health and final days; although they are not, many sections appear highly unsystematic, perhaps because of their sheer length; a section labelled "Others" does not help the reader find anything and seems to contain a collection of factoids that ought to be integrated into the biographical material; and the vast majority of the images in it are copyrighted, added: many tagged as Fair Use but lacking supporting rationale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A more careful count shows that of the 18 images on the page (not counting the coat of arms and the Euro coin) 2 of them are {{nolicense}}, 6 are {{fair use}} with no rationale given, 1 is {{Vatican}} and {{nolicense}} and so may or may not be available, 1 is {{somewebsite}}, and 1 {{Promotional}} but doesn't really meet the requirements for that tag and has no source given anyway. At least one of the images tagged {{PD}} (Image:JPIIassinattem81.jpeg) is dubious; the uploader was asked back in April for source and release information and has not responded. So out of 18 that's 12 with a potential problem. This needs to be addressed quite apart from FA candidacy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The only point I agree with of the above is the general lack of references, but that a lone is a major problem. If this article were better cited, I would support it. - Cuivienen 03:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The images Image:Pjp2c.jpg, Image:JP1meetsJP2.jpg do not have known copyright information.
  2. The image Image:Karol Wojtyla at 12.jpg is tagged as "public domain", but has no indication as to why it is.
  3. The images Image:PalliumJPII.jpg, Image:Pjp2b.jpg, Image:Toronto.jpg, Image:Yad Vashem.jpg, Image:John Paul.jpg have no source information.
  4. The image Image:JPIIassinattem81.jpeg has no source information and no indication as to why it is in the public domain.
  5. The image gallery in "Relations with other religions" doesn't appear to have a point to it and should be removed.

  --Carnildo 09:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I normally would not care too much, but this is pretty blatant. Image:Pope-poland.jpg is an copyrighted Associated Press file photo (check google if you wish), and has a false public domain message. I'm not saying the pictures should be removed, mind you. The easy solution here would be fore wikipedia to register in Vanuatu, but until then, I suppose this would have to be looked into. --sansvoix 00:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object It could definatly use more on the changes he made to Vatican policy, such as his controversial decisions regarding Latin America. The Pope rather brutally clamped down on Liberation Theology. He excommunicated Marxist Bishops (who advocated "radical" things such as equality and land reform) but still supported clergy proping up right-wing dictatorships.--sansvoix 23:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object beacuse of too few inline citations for such an important article. See first and second failed nominations for some previous comments as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It seems to me that these problems have been fixed. It looks like an FA to me. -- Hurricane Ericarchive -- my dropsonde 03:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history of Canada

Mostly a self nom. This was a former candidate some months ago. Since then I've tried to resolve the remaining objections, and others have also made several improvements. - SimonP 00:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Canadian soldiers afghanistan.jpg has no copyright information. --Carnildo 07:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Resolved, an anon had removed the license some weeks ago. - SimonP 13:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• STRONG Support eh. A VERY thorough and well written survey/overview article, about a country that some are'nt even aware has a military...Dudley Do-Right aside of course:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• neutral support- I think the post-WWII section could be expanded a bit. It mentions peacekeeping, but does not mention the varying degree to which Canada has been commited to this. I think there could be some discussion of funding levels and operational problems in recent years, as well as other issues such as sovereignty assertion in the far north. The Cold War section is a bit sparse on details, I don't think it even mentions that troops were stationed in Europe as part of the defence of Europe. Discussion of WWI and the inter-war period is also a little bit sparse. Other than that all very good. Peregrine981 12:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that this is a summary article that's already approaching 50k, so I think further expansion would be a mistake. Separate articles should treat the details you are talking about. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added a bit on this, but I feel that most of the details of the evolution of the Canadian Forces are better covered in the history section of the Canadian Forces article. There is something of a difference between the "military history of Canada" and the "history of Canada's military." This article is the former, while the section the CF article is the latter. - SimonP 19:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral, but... I do not think it is yet a worthy candidate article, but no doubt can be (definitely moreso that another nomination). This article should be refined and enhanced: it's sufficiently different from Canadian Armed Forces, and (should be) detailed enough to satiate inquiring minds. Perhaps a clearly temporal overview and slight reorganisation of some content are required. E Pluribus Anthony 07:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yay! I'm elated the article has been nominated! Thanks and congrats to everyone. As well, one suggestion: I recommend the picture for inclusion on the main page be the The Death of General Wolfe painting appearing further down in the article (as it's rather well-known), not the 'Vimy' picture up-top. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 08:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but three minor comments. The War of 1812 section doesn't have a "see main article" heading. Is there a reason why not? Also, an entire article could easily be devoted to Canadian peacekeeping. I don't need someone to go write that article before supporting this nomination, but it would be nice if even a stub were to be created. Also, there is no mention of the White Paper of Defence, which I would have expected. Perhaps that is extraneous detail. Jkelly 00:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Spangineer has kindly added a see main heading to 1812. I agree having an article on Canadian peacekeeping would be great, but that isn't really my area of expertise. As to the White Paper, as mentioned above, the organizational details are already covered at Canadian Forces. - SimonP 19:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support, very nice summary article. Further expansion is not necessary; the article is already quite long. Trimming some sections would be nice, but difficult, so I think it's ok as it is. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support ... Looks good CanadianGuy 02:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Sorry, I feel like a spoiler on this FAC list, but the guidelines do say 'compelling, even brilliant' prose. Here are some examples of things that need to be fixed in the lead. I'm trying to encourage you to find collaborators who are distant from the text ('fresh eyes'), who will go through the whole text to make it kinder to the reader.
  • Opening sentence: 'The military history of Canada includes both those military actions centred on the territory encompassing modern Canada, and participation of the Canadian military in conflicts, and also in peacekeeping, around the world.'
    • 'includes' means that there are other functions you're not telling us about; if this is not the case, use 'comprises' or 'consists of' instead.
    • Why not remove 'those'?
    • Can 'centred on' be replaced with just 'in'? (Think of your poor readers.)
    • Insert 'the' before 'participation'?
    • 'in conflicts, and also in peacekeeping, around the world'—why not 'in conflicts and peacekeeping around the world' (so much nicer to read).
  • Second sentence: 'For many millennia, the area that would become Canada was the site of inter-tribal wars among First Nations groups. The arrival of Europeans led to conflicts between them and the Natives and also the importation of European conflicts to the New World.'
    • Remove 'many' as redundant, and because it's a jingle (en, en).
    • 'First Nations groups'—the double plural doesn't sound right.
    • The referent of 'them' is unclear, although I guess you mean the Europeans. (Could be the First Nation groups.)
    • Remove 'also' and insert 'to', but see next bullet ...
    • The importation bit is clumsy—why not 'and brought European ...'—nice and simple. But do you mean conflicts between the European groups, or European techniques of waging war?

Phew, that's two sentences. There's lots of work to do.

Tony 03:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through the whole text, oh boy, a big job. Next time, please seek help before nominating the article. Tony

• Object, as with last time. Anecdote: I check the article this morning to see what it has to say about the North-West Rebellion. Here's a precious nugget of "compelling, even brilliant prose":
  • "The Rebellion saw a series of battles between the Métis and their allies against the Militia and North West Mounted Police, from which the government forces emerging victorious."
    • Wow, I'm sold. Oh, and it doesn't help that Dominion forces actually lost every battle until Batoche. Albrecht 16:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Astrophysics Data System

The ADS is a vital research tool for astronomers, and contributes as much to annual astronomical output as all the astronomers in France. My PhD would probably have taken me about 40 years to do without it, so I thought it was deserving of a good article. I've worked on it over the last few days and thought I would propose it here as I think it is comprehensive and hopefully reasonably interesting and enlightening for non-astronomers. Worldtraveller 16:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. A good summary, but it seems to fall short of comprehensiveness. Note for instance the length of the sections. Everyking 17:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What more would you like to know? If you tell me I'll include it. Which sections are shorter than they could be? Worldtraveller 18:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Some of the sections are only a paragraph or two long. Everyking 18:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

A section doesn't necessarily need to be long to be comprehensive. Please indicate what you think is missing so I can rectify it. Worldtraveller 18:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support from this ex-astronomer. Well done, sir. ADS was fortunate to be there just as the web was taking off. Query whether it is worth mentioning other on-line sources of academic journal articles, such as http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph ? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point - I'll add details of astro-ph and ADS's integration with it. Worldtraveller 16:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • done that now - Worldtraveller 17:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support: Looks pretty good to me, and meets all the criteria. Giano | talk 19:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support, well organized and seems to provide a pretty comprehensive range of info. Uber nemo 04:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Object- for now. My main issue is with the references. You have them, but there is no way to tell what fact leads to what reference. (Subsequently, the requests for reference I list here would probably be solved by simply writing what the cite is, like this: People choking on chicken nuggets is bad for business (Smith, Jonsey) where a reference by Smith and Jonsey is listed in references below.) Okay, so what is the cite for these statements?:

Several studies have estimated quantitatively how much more efficient ADS has made astronomy; one estimated that ADS increased the efficiency of astronomical research by 333 full-time equivalent research years per year...

"one [study]" - which one?

...and another found that in 2002 its effect was equivalent to 736 full-time researchers, or all the astronomical research done in France.

"another [study]" - which one?

ADS has allowed literature searches that would previously have taken days or weeks to carry out to be completed in seconds, and it is estimated that ADS has increased the readership and use of the astronomical literature by a factor of about three since its inception.

Estimated by whom?

In monetary terms, this increase in efficiency represents a considerable amount. There are about 12,000 active astronomical researchers worldwide, so ADS is the equivalent of about 5% of the working population of astronomers. The global astronomical research budget is estimated at between 4,000 and 5,000 million USD...

Who's estimate is it? To put weight to the following statement, some verification would be helpful.

so the value of ADS to astronomy would be about 200–250 million USD annually. Its operating budget is a small fraction of this amount.

Not as an actionable objection, but as a matter of curiosity, what is its budget?

Studies reveal that the highest per-capita users of ADS are France and Netherlands-based astronomers, and while more developed countries (measured by GDP per capita) use the system more than less developed countries; the relationship between GDP per capita and ADS use is not linear. The range of ADS uses per capita far exceeds the range of GDPs per capita, and basic research carried out in a country, as measured by ADS usage, has been found to be proportional to the square of the country's GDP divided by its population.

Which studies?

ADS usage statistics also suggest that astronomers in more developed countries tend to be more productive than those in less developed countries.

Is there a link to this study?

Statistics also imply that astronomers in European cultures carry out about three times as much research as those in Asian cultures, perhaps implying cultural differences in the importance attached to astronomical research.

"Statistics also imply..." Which statistics? Can you provide any more information on the implication you provide, offer a counterargument to the implication, or provide a reference or link to one who has made it?

Citing these few things would also put weight to the significant claims mentioned in the opening paragraph.

Additionally, and this is just my curiosity again, to your knowledge does any search engine in wide use by the public contain language / code / technilogical advancements introduced by ADS? What about other scientific fields (medicine, for instance). Or is ADS's innovations remain limited to ADS itself. Also, does NASA fund ADS exclusively, or does it recieve help. And do journals have to pay to be listed?

Don't get me wrong, this was an amazing article about a fascinating subject. I look forward to changing my vote in the coming days. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jeffrey, for your very detailed and helpful comments, and sorry it's taken me a few days to respond fully (thanks to Raul for letting the nomination stay up for a few days longer as well). I've now added cites to the references used for these various claims. Regarding the Asian/European cultural claim I can't find any papers countering the claim made in the one I've referenced unfortunately. I've also not been able to find out yet what ADS's annual budget is, but will make enquiries. As far as I know, ADS's technology has not been directly adopted by other journal search engines, probably because it was designed by astronomers for astronomers and may not be easily applicable to other disciplines. NASA does fund ADS exclusively at the moment, I'll add a line about that to the article, and no, journals don't pay to be listed - they're included purely on the basis of astronomical merit. Thanks again! Worldtraveller 18:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Great work, and thanks for looking into that information. Enthusiastic Support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support without reservation. —Theo (Talk) 13:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft Jet Database Engine

A Ta bu shi da yu-driven article. He did a heck of a lot of work during and after the first FAC, and I went ahead and added another paragraph to the intro and delistified a list. It seems readable even to a layman. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Supported it the first time, and think it is even better now. WegianWarrior 07:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Still not accessible to a non-computer bod like myself. The explanation of a database engine as being "...the underlying component that a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) uses to create, retrieve, update and delete (CRUD) data from a database, and is accessed by the user interface part of the RDBMS." might as well be in Greek to me. I don't think the article needs to expand greatly to explain this to everyone - just a bit - but it is essential that it can be understood by a layman if it is to be an example of WP's best work, jguk 15:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... not sure the best way of rephrasing that. There are wikilinks to the terms, but was wondering if you want a short explanation of each of those terms? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I asked on his talk page a while ago too... he's still actively editing so hopefully we'll get a response :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The lead is now updated - hopefully it satisfies the objection. - 203.134.166.99 23:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Apologies for not getting back earlier (I was unfortunately distracted onto less enjoyable things). I still can't understand the sentence "A database engine is the underlying component that a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) uses to create, retrieve, update and delete (CRUD) data from a database, and is accessed by the user interface part of the RDBMS (an RDBMS generally consists of a component that manages the data itself and a component that allows a user to manipulate the data that resides in the database)." Can it really not be explained to a layman? Without using jargon, what does a database engine do, and why is it important? I appreciate explaining a technical subject to a layman is difficult, and if you are patient with me and see me on IRC, feel free to page me and I'll help, jguk 19:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm disappointed. Many of the questions I had asked in the first FAC are still unanswered, in particular my questions #1 (locking/data integrity/transaction processing are standard, nothing unusual, and should be treated in their own articles), #2 (the optimistic/pessimistic locking paragraph needs to be rewritten by an expert and outsourced to its own article, see 1), #3 (2PL?), #4 (read locks? Only write locks makes no sense at all!), #6 (what is a "user"?), #7 (on SQL queries), and #8 (when was is phased out?). Lupo 07:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ya, I didn't resubmit it however. The truth on this matter is... I'm not rightly sure how to action the stuff (I'm not saying they shouldn't be actioned, I'm just saying I don't rightly know the best way of doing it). I'm still not sure about 2PL - the article, regrettably, is pretty unclear! I think we should move this to peer review. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Seems perfectly readable to me. If they want a definition, they can click the interwiki links (one of the great advantages to an online encyclopedia). This is well-written and researched, but it could definitely use a defining picture (I like the idea of putting the manual up.) -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Cochineal

Previous discussion from July 2005 at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cochineal/archive1

This was previously a FAC, about eleven months ago. It seems to have come a long way since then; see [50]. It seems to be of high quality, and whilst I'm never entirely sure where the FA boundary lies, this is probably towards the right side of it. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very solid. Do we have any other entomology FAs to compare this to? WP:LEAD could still use a little tweaking to mirror the rest of the article in the level of detail in its summary. Also, there seems to be some Categories that actually belong to the Carmine article. Use of {{main}} under the Dye section to link to Carmine again might be helpful. Jkelly 23:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I didn't find an insect article, but see Wikipedia:Featured_articles for FAs on animals, bacteria, etc. Rlevse 13:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice job. Themillofkeytone 18:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• None of it's my work, but thanks ;-) Shimgray | talk | 22:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment—I'm almost ready to support, but the British/American thing needs to be fixed--I see four instances of "color" and about 15 of "colour", and check the -ize vs. -ise thing too. Personally I'd prefer to see American usage here (since this seems to be more related to the western hemisphere), but just make it consistent. Also, a few more citations in the history section would be welcome. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've fiddled the language (to br.eng., since I'm more comfortable with it and "colour" was pretty dominant), but I'm not sure about the history links. I'll see if I can find anything - I can spot a couple of possible details needing flagged. Shimgray | talk | 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I think that's a bit better cited now. Shimgray | talk | 20:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support, this is a great article. Perhaps though the references, sources and external links could be better organized. External links usually aren't put in that form (normally just the links are included), so perhaps it might be better to just link to [51]. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: two redlinks in the taxobox, need to get rid of them. EamonnPKeane 10:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: not every genus of insect needs its own article. A couple of redlinks of this type are OK I think. Matt Deres 20:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• If that's consensus, then they shouldn't be linked at all. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 12:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bart McQueary

• Support, he's planning on running for government office and this will be a great "pre-emptive" move to get people aware of who this guy is before any of the lies or mudslinging starts69.154.189.180 05:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is used for pre-emptive strikes?66.32.122.233 19:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That sounds more like grounds for deletion than grounds for featuring. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Carnildo 20:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Even though your comments have been noted and your zeal for participating in Featured Articles votes are appreciated I must inform you that your vote will not be counted when it comes time to count the votes, This is not personal and I urge you to create an account so that you can have your vote officially counted. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong object. In addition to needing a massive NPOVing, there is no copyright information on the pictures used.

WegianWarrior 05:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support, I'm sure that Bart couldn't be happier than to be featured on Wikipedia. He's determined that everyone will know his name - he subscribes to the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity." He makes it a point to make people dislike him. If he runs for office, he surely dosen't expect to win but rather use the publicity. He dosen't accept any money. So all it can do is help him. Go for it! 66.32.122.233 06:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Even though your comments have been noted and your zeal for participating in Featured Articles votes are appreciated I must inform you that your vote will not be counted when it comes time to count the votes, This is not personal and I urge you to create an account so that you can have your vote officially counted. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Terribly written, not at all notable or worthy of Wikipedia's time, no referencing system, no real information of any value...this nomination should be removed. Harro5 07:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

No Harro5 you are wrong. It says on the discussion page "A well written article that also will help serve to raise awareness."

In responce to the unsigned comment by 66.32.122.233; the article don't seem very well written to me. As it stands it is in need of NPOVing (I notice that a number of things that are, how to put it, less flattering have been edited out) as well as a rewrite to make it easier to read. WegianWarrior 10:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think more references should be cited, the lead article needs to be longer and the page could use a cleanup. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose: Right now, it's a "he said" and a "and then he did this, and then this" format, more like a news report than an encyclopedia article. Structurally, the page is focused so much on following every exploit that it's a celebration of him in the guise of a condemnation, and both POV's need to be removed. So far, he has had nearly zero effect on the world and only some slight effect on the digestion of Internet junkies, so it's not really dealing with a significant bit of history or news. The writing is choppy, and, most of all, there just isn't any logical presentation of the subject. And to the IP editor: these are actionable objections, and lawyering about it is absolutely no use. Geogre 16:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article definately needs a ton more references and a much more NPOV. Many times while reading this piece I felt that I was reading a self-promotional brochure about the guy instead of an encyclopedia article.--Alabamaboy 17:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object.
  1. The images Image:Bartley.jpg and Image:Bart 2.JPG have no copyright information
  2. The incidents described in "1.4: Internet Presence": is there any significance to this, or is it just normal forum squabbling?
  3. Overall organization: How is it organized? It certainly isn't chronological, but it probably should be.
  4. Health problems: How is his sleep apnea and other problems significant? And why is it important that he took time out from the announcement to call someone names?
  5. References: The article is completely lacking in third-party references, and much of the "so-and-so says" statements are completely unsourced.
  6. I'm sure there are other problems.

1. --Carnildo 18:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note: the article is up for WP:VFD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bart McQueary 2. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)