Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Aviation History 2 Music of Nigeria 3 Automobile 4 Iranian Revolution 5 Rubik's Cube 6 Indus Valley Civilization 7 Tennessee State Constitution 8 Dawson's Creek 9 Liverpool 10 MTR 11 Obesity 12 Festivus 13 Bernie Ecclestone 14 Salt Lake City, Utah 15 Newcastle upon Tyne 16 Chicago, Illinois 17 Arnold Schwarzenegger 18 Seattle, Washington 19 Do They Know It's Christmas? 20 Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) 21 Interstate 90 22 Alan Keyes 23 Renaissance Center 24 Ma On Shan (KCRC) 25 Pulaski Skyway 25.1 Old nomination 26 iPod 27 Graffiti 28 New York City 29 Extraterrestrial_skies 30 Norse mythology 31 Ammonia 32 Dungeons & Dragons (TV series) 33 List of Ohio county name etymologies 34 Brute force attack 35 Soviet Navy 36 Blackface 37 Rat Park 38 Knights Templar 39 Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri 40 Eastern Orthodoxy 41 Copyleft 42 Moved to "Former Featured Article Candidates" 43 Our Gang (The Little Rascals) 44 Bioterrorism 45 Cambodia 46 Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer 47 Second Congo War 48 Linked list 49 Music of Nigeria 50 Maneki Neko 51 Special relativity 52 HMS Dreadnought (1906) 53 1973 oil crisis 54 Habsburg Spain 55 Aramaic language 56 Patent medicine 57 Staten Island Ferry 58 Hawaiian architecture 59 Christmas 60 University of Nottingham 61 Summer Hill, New South Wales 62 The Jackson 5 63 Kardashev scale 64 Television 65 Thursday October Christian 66 Googie 67 Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory 68 Vitamin C 69 John Holmes 70 Vatican City 71 Pope 72 Internet 73 Windows XP 74 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator 75 Genghis Khan 76 Swastika 77 Dragon Rouge

[edit] Aviation History

kind of self nominated as I did some work (but not much). I like it specially as it takes away the idea of finding the father of aviation (a most disputed title), but show many creator from many countries inventing the airplane.--Alexandre Van de Sande 15:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. - this is nice. I suspect the writing could be tightened most of the way through, but it's not bad as yet - David Gerard 18:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. - sources are few and poorly formatted. Neutrality^talk 18:56, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment - haven't read the whole thing, but the very first sentence makes me pause: Humanity's desire to fly probably dates back to the first time prehistoric man observed birds. is not encyclopedic and is unverifiable. Tuf-Kat 00:34, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with the above. First paragraph reads too much like an essay. 2. Needs to be better referenced. I could only see one inline cite to a source. That should also be listed at the end for ease for the reader and much more sources used. - Taxman 04:43, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Object Makes use of informal language and at times the prose feels like its attempting to fascinate the reader for the subject. This is a good article, no doubt, but it still needs work. Phils 22:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Music of Nigeria

old nominations and peer review. I've expanded this considerably since the last nom, including a section on music festivals and holidays; I've also added inline citations and a few more references for various things. I also added three GFDL photos and some sound samples. I think the only previous concerns that I haven't addressed fully are 1) too many red links, some of which have been filled in, and 2) problems with the lack of a coherent explanation of what characterizes Nigerian music, which I've attempted to address but decided it's impossible -- Nigeria is a modern creation without anything particularly tying the various peoples together culturally. There is instead some info on more general West African and African characteristics. Thank you for your consideration. Tuf-Kat 05:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have a request - would it be possible to get any copyleft music on there [esp. full length songs]? There are sections for traditional instruments, Children's music and theatrical music, 'etc where it would be possible (albeit not easy) to find people willing to make their work available under a copyleft license. →Raul654 05:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I have not yet had much luck finding folk music recordings of any kind, much less copylefted. A couple messages to various likely organizations has also not turned up any takers; the Library of Congress has some recordings, but they're not PD and if IIRC, the LoC doesn't even know what the copyright status on them is (and even if I did get permission, it would be $100+ to get a copy since they're not on the web) -- I've been turned down by UNESCO, the University of Ohio, a couple other universities with musicology departments, and some other organizations. The best I've been able to do is find two copyrighted recordings I could upload a sample of, but they're .ram files and I haven't yet found a way to convert them to ogg. (I left a message at the VP asking for help, but no one has replied -- if anyone here knows how to do that, I'm using a Mac, but could e-mail them to someone with Windows if it's easier). I could still hear back from a couple musicological groups I contacted, but I'm not anticipating much at this point; especially over the last few years, I think such groups have become wary of being criticized for exploiting native performers. They don't want to freely license a folk recording and then be criticized for a "Return to Innocence" or Deep Forest-style fiasco (i.e. an elderly Taiwanese couple is recorded, then the recording is used in a major international hit, for which they are not compensated). If anyone has any further ideas on who to contact, let me know and I'll do the grunt work. Tuf-Kat 06:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. All the current sound clips are claimed as "fair use", but none of them has a fair use rationale. --Carnildo 07:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed Tuf-Kat 08:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I spent several hours editing this during its peer review, so I hope that doesn't weaken my opinion here (through conflict of interest). I think this is a rich and exciting topic that represents a summary of more detailed information in numerous daughter articles (which I haven't looked at, regrettably). Non-western musical styles often find it hard to compete in the global maelstrom—even in their original country—so making this body of information freely available on the Internet is a very welcome step, for Nigerians, other Africans, and worldwide. The author has brought to bear his considerable knowledge and experience in preparing this text, and has worked hard to improve it with images and sound excerpts, no easy task in this area. Without wishing to pre-empt further improvements that other reviewers may suggest, I congratulate him. I have a few comments:
  • It certainly wouldn't want to be any longer, particularly given the existence of daughter articles. After the start, it's a little like one long list, although adorned with examples and commentary in places. This is not uncommon in Wikipedia articles, and is probably inevitable in dealing with many topics. It's just something to keep in mind when assessing the readability and length.
  • The numerical references are separated by a space from the sentence they follow, which occasionally results in overhang on the next line. One way around this would be to replace the normal space with a non-breaking space—' '—which is a little tedious to do. Another way would be to remove the space. Or you could put the numeral immediately after the full stop, a very common method.

I changed to non-breaking spaces. Tuf-Kat 15:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I note the more explicit justification of fair use that you've inserted on the info pages of the excerpts. If you don't mind, I'll copy this to the Wikiproject:Composer page, where there's a section on using fair-use excerpts. You might remove the first sentence 'This is from a recording' as redundant, or you could add 'commercial' before 'recording'. Tony 01:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - this looks really good, certainly much better than when I commented on its first FAC. But there are a couple of things that I think need to be fixed before I would support.
  • First is the large number of redlinks - they make a lot of the article look unfinished, and if they were still there when the article appeared on the main page they would invite vandalism - hard to detect as no-one would be watching them. In particular, there are several redlinks in Main article subheaders, which seems redundant.
    • Filled in stubs for the main article subheaders. Regarding the rest, I could just fill them in with stubs, but I don't think that would be particularly useful. If vandalism is too great a concern, I don't care if this is ever on the main page. Tuf-Kat
      • Well, I'd probably say that if a stub would not be very useful then they shouldn't be linked at all. But a lot of the redlinks look like they would make for interesting and useful stubs.Worldtraveller 15:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
        • That's not what I'm saying. I don't have any, or very little, info to add that doesn't already appear in this article. An article on Segun Adewale would be very useful, a stub that repeats what music of Nigeria already says would be redundant. I've already done that in a few egregious cases, but I don't want to for individual performers and minor styles. Tuf-Kat
  • Second is some of the structuring, for example Fela Kuti's section being separated by several paragraphs from the Afrobeat section.
    • Fela Kuti merged Tuf-Kat
      • I think that works better; but I think the afrobeat section could do with a short introductory paragraph or two explaining what influences gave rise to afrobeat.Worldtraveller 15:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Reorganized, expanded a bit with an intro to the style and Kuti. Tuf-Kat
  • Third, I think the reference style is a bit overwhelming. You have a massive 64 notes, of which 40 refer to Graham and 13 to Afropop. I think it would make more sense for the refs in the text to direct the reader to the appropriate reference listing, rather than to a note which then gives the reference. Some of the notes should be retained, though, where they qualify or explain the reference. I think you have some facts sourced perhaps unnecessarily, while others are not sourced at all. For example, I think reference 22 is superfluous, while the claim that children make music using a live pufferfish could definitely do with a source. Some sections seem overwhelmed by references, others lack them entirely. Worldtraveller 10:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Note #22 is a source for there being Brazilian influences on Nigerian popular music -- how is this superfluous? It's certainly not intuitive. I agree that some sections sections would be better with citations, but the article I used to write the bulk of the folk music section is no longer on the web, so I can't reference it. My understanding was that it isn't possible for multiple text references to refer to the same source, so they each link to their own note that gives the source. Can you give me an example article that uses the method you'd prefer? Tuf-Kat 15:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm, there seems to be a numbering problem. #22 links to a ref that's #21. I don't have time to fix it now, but I'll see if I can figure it out tonight. Tuf-Kat 15:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah, fixed the ref numbering, there were two stray pipes in the note templates and an unused reference. The 22 I meant was a reference to Nigeria's history of political strife, which seems superfluous for a music article.
          As for multiple references to the same source, you can just re-use {{ref|xxx}} each time you want to indicate that something came from reference xxx. An example of where you could cut down on the number of individual citations is in the intro, where you have three separate superscripts pointing the reader to Graham - one superscript at the end of the paragraph would be sufficient. Worldtraveller 15:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Okay, down to 45 notes at the end and 48 total, meaning three link straight to Graham's work in the references section -- I conflated a number of individual citations together, as long as they were in the same paragraph and there was nothing extremely opinionated or potentially disputable involved; the ones that couldn't be easily conflated became identical citations to the references section. I kept the individual citations to the book by Karolyi because it's a whole book with no specific section on Nigeria, whereas Graham is a relatively short essay; a reader checking in Graham could find a reference fairly easily because there's only a few pages to look through, but Karolyi's got 277 pages. I guess I'll see about changing some of the Afropop and African Chorus references. Is this better? Tuf-Kat 21:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
            • 49 citations with 23 specific notes. Tuf-Kat

Support. A few more photographs or images might be nice, but not necessary to reach featured article status. I am impressed by this article's comprehensiveness on a topic that might otherwise fall victim to systemic bias. Hydriotaphia 21:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support, lots of content, great work. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment- section on Igbo music is much shorther than Yoruba and Hausa music, and Igbo music doesn't have a main article, but this is just a minor issue. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree this is not ideal, though I note that the Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo are the three largest ethnic groups in Nigeria, in that order (29, 21 and 15% respectively, according to demographics of Nigeria), and also that the highlife section under popular music is basically Igbo-specific, since highlife in Nigeria is mostly an Igbo thing, so this small difference in coverage is perhaps not as egregious as it may appear. Thanks for the kind words though!Tuf-Kat 07:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Just a note for full disclosure. I'm going to alert people who voted on previous nominations that this article is nominated again. This will include both people who supported and opposed. Tuf-Kat 06:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, well, a goodly number of both supports and opposes are no longer active, so I won't bother with them. Tuf-Kat
    • Holy crap! Out of 5, Cgorman, Ambi, Taxman, and Ta bu are all on break! →Raul654 06:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Cgorman and Ambi appear to have some activity, so I left them messages. The first nominator, User:Guido Dimicelli, is also inactive and has been for awhile (looks like he never got much past noob). That is quite a coincidence -- I wonder if this article carries some sort of anti-wiki disease... that only Michael Snow and myself are immune to... Spooky... Tuf-Kat 07:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Since that didn't really work, garnering only two neutrals, I'm going to try leaving a message at the countering systemic bias page to see if anyone there would like to comment. I realize that that may look like trolling for votes from people who will support on the principle of wanting a featured article on Nigerian music irregardless of the quality of the article, so I will explicitly mention the FA standards and suggest that they carefully read the entire article and give suggestions for improvement even if they support. Tuf-Kat
• Neutral. This seems to cover brilliantly all the different predominant forms of Nigerian music. What it seems to lack, however, is much of a combined historical narrative for those wanting to know how Nigerian music has evolved - there are sections for most of this, but they are spread through the article, which makes it somewhat hard to follow. Ambi 07:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• I sort of share Ambi's concerns that the article lacks a narrative flow (whether organized along a historical theme or otherwise). The nature of the topic makes this rather challenging to accomplish, I concede. For me, the frequent section breaks do as much to interrupt the structure of the article as they do to organize it. I understand their use, but it always seems quite abrupt, like a bunch of jumbled-up stub articles with little to tie them together. However, I recognize that much good work has gone into the article and it is significantly better than it was previously. My comments are hopes for further improvement, not outright objection. --Michael Snow 17:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I don't really understand either of your (Snow or Ambi) comments. There really isn't much that ties together Nigerian music (unlike American music, for example, where most everything's a derivative of the blues one way or another). The country's a recent construct and not a coherent nation-state like say France or Sweden. I can't just make up a "combined historical narrative" because it would look nice. Would having a separate music history of Nigeria help? Tuf-Kat 18:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Myself, I don't quite see how the nation-state issue matters that much, other than the obvious fact that the article isn't going to focus on the music of Cameroon, for example. Sure, "Nigerians" don't have a unitary history, musical or otherwise, but I don't think we're asking for one to be invented or forced into the article. Hence my point that a pure historical or chronological organization is not necessarily the way to go.
    • What I'd like to see more of is how the different aspects interact or relate to each other. The article already covers this in places, but could use still more, and I think this would help with what we're looking for. Even if the ethnic groups in Nigeria have only shared a country in recent times, they've lived in some geographic proximity for longer, and a certain level of cultural influence presumably shows in various directions. To take one of your counter-examples, in writing an article on French music you couldn't properly ignore the influence of German, Italian, or Spanish music (thought: writing Music of Nigeria is akin to writing Music of the EU). I understand that we can't trace things back using neat musical genealogies to a common origin in some Nigerian Eden, but the level of musical cross-fertilization can still be explored. When direct information isn't available, a compare-and-contrast approach to the subject is a possible alternative. --Michael Snow 16:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
      • While I now understand your concern, I don't know how to resolve it. While the ethnic groups in and near Nigeria have undoubtedly influenced each other, that doesn't really have anything to do with Nigeria itself -- the Yoruba may have music similar to the Ashante of Ghana and unlike the Temne of Sierra Leone, but then the Yoruba exist outside of Nigeria, as do the Ashante and Temne in Ghana and Sierra Leone, and there is much variation within each of those groupings anyway. In other words, it's possible to divide the West African ethnic groups into various interrelated music areas, but those music areas are completely independent of the countries' borders, so that's really a topic better suited for music of West Africa in a general sense, and Yoruba music more specifically. It's not really like a hypothetical "music of the EU" article since that can be subdivided into regions that share identifiable characteristics (i.e. Germanic music) and exist entirely or almost so within the EU itself. It'd be like writing music of France if all the ethnic groups in Europe were randomly redistributed while the national borders were randomly redrawn -- there would still be connections between the ethnic groups, but those would have nothing to do with the national boundaries. Tuf-Kat 19:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Automobile

Stumbled across this article and was surprised that it was not yet a feature article, because models of automobiles such as Ford Mustang and Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9 are already listed as such. Note that it has also a comprehensive gallery of photos from past to present. - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose - needs references. The structure seems dodgy to me too, but I'll see if I can phrase that as an actionable objection later. (I'd really like this one to make it, though.) - David Gerard 19:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Minor objections - the Major possible subsystems part should probably go to its own page (List of automobile subsystems maybe). Same for the images at the end, though maybe a few more could be put on the right through the article. And I guess it needs references. --SPUI 01:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian Revolution

This was an WP:COTW in June and it is pretty good (it even has good references). So far as I can see, the only substantial shortcoming is the paucity of images - a nice one from a news report would be excellent, but I imagine that suitable images out of copyright are few and far between. Anyway, I like it. Partial self nom, but mostly not me. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Weak support: I would like more information on the number of people killed, or fled the country under the new regime. The parts of my family there were still in the country after the new regime took power, report that a lot more than 200 were killed. PPGMD 19:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • ... on February 18 groups in a number of cities marched to honour the fallen and to protest against the rule of the Shah. This time violence erupted in Tabriz and over a hundred demonstrators were killed...; ...Tanks, helicopter gun ships, and machine guns killed hundreds...; The protests of 1978 culminated in December during the holy month of Muharram, the most important Shia holiday. Hundreds of demonstrators were killed each day, yet each day the protests grew.; Post-revolutionary impact ... More than 200 Baha'is have been executed or killed, hundreds more have been imprisoned... But I agree, better numbers (if they exist and can be verified) would be excellent. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, not bad. --SPUI 01:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1. No references. Further reading is not the same thing. That could denote books that are just offered for the interested reader but had nothing to do with creating or checking the material in the article, a very important distinction. 2. The section on post-revolutionary impact is very short for how important it is. Much could be said about that. I understand that may take some research, but that is the hallmark fo a great article anyway. - Taxman 17:43, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Weak object. No references. Precision in casulty stats. Plus there was a one sentence subsection (not just a paragraph but a subsection) amongst there. --ZayZayEM 04:08, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object: the article is written very much with an anti-shah and/or cleric POV. The tone in the article is as if everyone in the country was unhappy with the Shah's reforms. However, a lot of people, welcomed the modernization and westernization. Furthermore, women, lost a lot of their rights after the revolution. --Navidazizi 22:58, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rubik's Cube

It's a well written and full article and includes decent pictures.

posted by an anon, 09:37, Dec 17, 2004 --Spangineer ∞ 15:10, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Good article, but I still object. I think the description of the game should be moved to the lead, since it's short. Perhaps the patent information could be shortened or moved to another part to keep the lead moderately sized. Also, I'd prefer to see a picture of a new Rubik's cube at the top of the page, not one where the stickers are falling off. A picture of an opened Rubik's cube that displays the inner workings would be helpful for the Workings section. In the sections about solutions, why not explain some of the more common methods - solving the cube by layer versus by face (which way do experts do it?) or whatever. More info on the competitions would be great - what the official rules are, how they work. And finally, I'm not sure about the group theory section - it's interesting, but not particularly accessible to someone who is just doing research on the game. I don't think it's a good idea to have such a drastic shift in tone from the easy to read beginning to a mathematical section to an easy to read end. Could that section be summarized and/or moved to another article? --Spangineer ∞ 15:26, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Ah, Rubik's Cube, how you vexed me in my youth. Well, maybe the article could still use a little work, but I'm easily impressed by big numbers and formulas, so support. Everyking 08:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Note that I worked on this article in the past (am I eligible to vote then?) Sander123 10:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I've been cubing for about 3 monthes and can get it in about a minue, cubing is so horribly addictive, its like happy cocaine which is why I love this article and am in a state of full support
• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Wouldn't mind a few more pics though. Such as a tournament in progress, or the suggested "inner workings" diagram.--ZayZayEM 01:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• The lead section needs expanding. My suggestion is to give a brief one/two line summary of each different section in the lead section to flesh it out. It needs to have a "gee, isn't that interesting?" reader factor. Right now it doesn't! Once that's fixed, I'll most definitely support! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support if someone manages to get better images. like from this site . Those diagrams are horrible.--Alexandre Van de Sande 15:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• 'Object. Bad lead section and the external links are improperly formatted. Neutrality^talk 21:53, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Lead section needs to be expanded a bit. Should be a summary of the article and discuss its importance. Just listing sales numbers (unatributed) is not enough. Better pictures/diagrams would be great too. - Taxman 03:30, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. (1) I don't like the first two images. The drawn image looks like the perspective is wrong and the mention of a "diagonal tilt" is puzzling. The second image is of a rather worn cube on a distracting background. Surely someone has a mint-condition cube and can take a picture on a white background like [1]? (2) The article says "Ern? Rubik holds Hungarian patent #170062 for the mechanism". It should say when the patent was granted and when it expired. (3) The "workings" section needs a picture or diagram to illustrate the mechanism. (4) The "mathematical group" section suddenly goes into the first person plural. That's not Wikipedia style. (5) There's nothing about the history of the popularity of the cube, in particular the craze in the early 1980s. (6) The material on variants like the 2x2, 4x4, 5x5, 2x3, pyraminx etc should be broken out to a new section. (7) The section "A greater challenge" is rather confusing. Copyediting needed here. (8) The "Solutions" section should mention the number of orientations when face center orientations are considered significant. Gdr 13:28, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

[edit] Indus Valley Civilization

Invalid featured few weeks ago, see Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilization#Featured_article for details. Defeatured and renominated, since it is up to FAC status now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Old nomination

• Indus Valley Civilization An outstanding example of multiple authors evolving a well-written, polished and professional entry. Wetman 02:53, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Object; my complaint that I made when it appeared on the front page remains unresolved, there's no map. --Golbez 22:43, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Explain how it didn't go through FAC properly last time. Everyking 23:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe what he is saying is that it was a featured article, and it was defeatured (IE, listed on wikipedia:featured article removal candiadates where consensus was to remove it), and that he is renominating it now. →Raul654 02:28, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, yeah, but what caused it to be defeatured? I mean, I can't really talk about it being featured now unless I know why it was defeatured before. Everyking 12:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • See this. →Raul654 13:38, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• This is a whole civilization here. Granted it's a pretty obscure one, but can't we get some more detail? I'm not asking for the article to grow massively, but I'd like to see the article fleshed out enough that we can at least see a few more subarticles branched off. That's not an object per se, though, because that's partially not an objection that can be addressed with this particular article. Everyking 15:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. It doesn't matter why it was defeatured, we simply have to evaluate the present version for feature-worthiness. First of all, references are missing. A map is missing -- is the "larger than Mesopotamia+Egypt" claim justified, if most of the settlements are along the Indus? and, most difficult in this article, the "Sarasvati" conjectures have to be cleanly separated from the archaeological evidence. many wordings are suggestive, i.e. "we would like there to be a connection, but we cannot prove it". This is the stuff cranks thrive on, and we have to be very conscientous about what to include. Some parts sound more than dreams of a Golden Age than matter of fact description of archaeological remains. examples:
  • Its writing system, Indus script, remains undeciphered, and it is not known whether it gave birth to the later Brahmi script. — note: there is a 1000 years gap between the Indus "script" and Brahmi. We could as well say "it is not known whether it gave birth to the Japanese script".
  • The people of Indus were great lovers of the fine arts, and especially dancing, painting, and sculpture.
  • For 700 years, the Indus civilization provided its peoples with prosperity and abundance and its artisans produced goods of surpassing beauty and excellence.
  • geologists used satellite photographs to trace the course of ancient rivers through the Indus Valley, identifying them with the legendary Sarasvati River. (geologists 'identified' a prehisotoric river with a legendary one? reference?)
  • It is puzzling that the most ancient Vedic texts speak of a beautiful river, the Sarasvati. They recall a thriving, utopian lifestyle that emerged along its banks. it is puzzling that there are rivers mentioned in the vedas?? 'utopian lifestyle'? in the eye of the beholder, I should say
  • Perhaps the most important legacy of the Indus civilization, if such a legacy exists, was its apparent non-violence (in contrast to the warlike Indo-Europeans) — strike this blatant piece of pov
• Even after they are toned down, most of these statements could do with some sort of reference. dab (ᛏ) 15:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object strongly. No references. This is a subject that is almost impossible to be accurate and NPOV without good research. - Taxman 03:21, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tennessee State Constitution

This article is extremely detailed and addresses anything the reader would want to know. It covers all of its bases and conforms to all Wikipedia standards. It's chock-full of interesting and factual information, the exact reasons why someone would go to a professional written encyclopedia. RyanGerbil10 08:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. No references. Further, some judgments (The 1977 was the broadest call since the original writing of the constitution in 1870) need to be attributed. Mark¹ 08:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Needs references. Additionally, more comparisons and contrasts between the TN constitution and both the constitutions of other states (see State constitution (United States) etc) and the federal constitution should be given. It's a very good article, just a bit short of FA worthiness. Jacob1207 00:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. A very good first draft, but not Featured Article quality. RyanGerbil10 is correct in saying it has a lot of useful information, but it has several deficiencies:

1. It needs references. None of those interesting facts are backed up by documentation.
2. Problems with judgments:
   1. It needs attribution for specific judgments, such as "The third document was largely written as a response to the requirement that [the southern states] . . . explicitly [ban] slavery".
   2. There are some non-NPOV problems. In particular, the last paragraph is rather hostile to the recent amendments; the paragraph needs to be more neutral.
3. It needs copyediting. There are a number of run-on sentences, some typos, and several very confusing sentences.

Mateo SA | talk 19:52, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dawson's Creek

Self nom. Article on The WB's show which ran 1998-2003. I nominated this in December (see here) and its been worked on quite a bit since then. It has pictures, references, prose instead of some of the lists, and a longer lead. PedanticallySpeaking 17:05, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Support Everyking 20:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support, if you can tell me what "teenaged" in the caption "Main teenaged cast of Dawson's Creek." Oh, and perhaps fix the references to be more like cite your sources. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I've done some edits to it, but PedanticallySpeaking has certainly done all the 'heavy lifting on this article; most was lite touch-up like I've done on quite a few FAs and FACs. The last time it was an FAC I summarized some of PS' later detailed info to beef up the intro, added another ref or two, and made a few other tweaks suggested by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. PS has turned many lists into prose since then. I have since added a couple images, and helped start stubs for quite a number of the redlinks it had last time around (User:Niteowlneils/new_articles#Dawson.27s_Creek) (and yes, it should probably be either "teenage cast" or "teen-aged" cast). Niteowlneils 01:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liverpool

• Partial self-nom, I dont know about everyone else but I think this article is pretty good. G-Man 22:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. This is an interesting article but needs more work in integrating the various comments that have been set out as single sentence paragraphs. The coat of arms of the city should be featured as should the dialect. The list of liverpudlians is too long and should be an article on its own. In fact, there are too many lists. Some of the writing needs attention, for example: "...until Liverpool has now become second only to the metropolis of Great Britain: " Tiles 23:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Needs more work. See for example Birmingham which would be a better candidate. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. It's as good as Sarajevo, which is the featured article standard for cities. Also, the list of people from Liverpool should be moved to a separate article, and the media section should be expanded—two-line sections are not suffient for a featured article. The education section is also too short and discusses only colleges and universities, with no mention of primary or secondary education in Liverpool. Also, there's no "economy" section and no real geography or climate section. It's not a bad article–it's actually quite good–but it's not feature-quality yet. I think that soon it will be, though. Neutrality^talk 17:45, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Well, I don't support. IMO Liverpool should be a disambig page, as we have an extremely important council in Australia called Liverpool council. Our Federal opposition leader in Australia used to be mayor of the local council and so we have intense media scrutiny on this place every time Mark Latham's past history comes up. When Aussies come along to look for info on it on Wikipedia, they see Liverpool in England. Hardly encourages those users to stay on the site. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • There is a prominent link to the disambiguation page at the top, although if the place is important it could have its own link at the top rather than having to go through the disambig page. G-Man 21:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Thanks for the recomendations, I'll put this on the Liverpool talk page and see if things can be improved. G-Man 21:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] MTR

I want to promote this article on December 31, 2004. Do you agree with that? --202.40.210.174 08:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The colors sure are pretty...why is that date important to you? Do you mean that you want it on the main page on that date? Everyking 10:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Complete section on the trains on this system is missing, no references, lead section is too short and at least one included image does not have copyright info. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:39, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Lead section expanded somewhat, copyright info re: images ressolved, still needs work though. - Mailer Diablo 21:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object, as above. Filiocht 13:16, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• I believe that we should have an article for all stations before nominating it. Similarly, Provinces of Thailand was not nominated until each of the 76 provinces had a separate article. olivier 02:01, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Section on the trains? There is a decent article at Trains on the MTR, linked from the article. olivier
  • Still working on 'Trains on the MTR', I created it after this article was nominated. This info was avaliable in page history but someone apprently blanked it at one time. Needs improvement. I've sent it to Peer Review, if you can help me out it'd be greatly appreciated! - Mailer Diablo 21:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• There's a huge following regarding MTR from editors from Hong Kong so there's a great following. Tentative support pending more improvements. --JuntungWu 17:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Obesity

Looks like a featured article to me, except for the lack of pictures. Not a self-nom (User:Mike40033)

• Object for now as it really needs some pictures. Evil Monkey → Talk 03:39, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• We must have one wikipedia with a belly and a digital camera. For once, a .gov image search doesn't seem to yield much. Dunc|☺ 12:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • What about [2]? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Duncharris appears to be volunteering. JFW | T@lk 02:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object doesn't say anything about the number of obese people (by country) and See also needs trimming of links included in the text. Table in Complications section still has text on the right, needs to be fixed. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:44, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • No, these statistics are imprecise and just confuse the issue JFW | T@lk 02:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Yes, I find it of high quality now. Perhaps we need to trim off some self-appointed "authorities" on obesity who have said something controversial. JFW | T@lk 02:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Festivus

Festivus, the holiday created by Dan O'Keefe in 1966 and later made famous by Seinfeld (the show for which O'Keefe's son would write episodes) is tomorrow, 23 December. It would be timely if this growing holiday phenomenon were to be the featured article tomorrow. —ExplorerCDT 17:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object - There is no discernible lead section (a couple paragraphs to note the significance of the subject before the first section header); there is no history of the day from before its use on the show except to mention that it was created in 1966; did Mr. O'Keefe do anything to promote the holiday before it appeared on the show? leaving this to one sentence leaves me to wonder what happened in those 30 intervening years; if the external links were used as references, they should be labeled as such. As an aside, nominating an article just a day or two before its event and requesting it to be on the front page isn't very realistic unless the article is of truly exceptional quality; regardless of its quality, however, I don't think one day is sufficient lead time to get through the votes/feedback/update cycle. slambo 18:31, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Not a bad effort at all, but it needs a fair bit of expansion before I'd consider it featured quality, and obviously there's no way it can be on the main page tomorrow. The NYT article looks like it might be a good source for more info, and somebody could watch the episode over again and take notes on a few more jokes and details regarding Festivus. Everyking 18:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Tomorrow's featured article is Duran Duran. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 19:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Ah, o.k. They were innovative, but even that didn't save them from being a crappy band. ;-) —ExplorerCDT 19:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bernie Ecclestone

A self-nom which I believe is quite comprehensive and well-written. However, I'll gladly accept any advice or suggestions offered. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 18:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. I appreciate the hard work that you've put into this, but purely from a style standpoint however, the article needs better prose (too many one sentence paragraphs, that's not good) and the lead section needs expanding. I think the image needs a better caption (should be a full sentence and say something interesting and relevant about the subject). The page should be moved to Bernard Charles "Bernie" Ecclestone because that's what's in bold. The whole article seems a bit short. With the content: all the information about the subject appears to come from online news reports, which though not a totally bad thing, it seems to me that we can get other sources of information. Has he written an autobiography? If so, I'd suggest you get it from your local library and get info from there. There is a book written by a gentleman called Tony Lovell about Mr Eccleston. It's called "Bernie's Game: Inside the Formula One World of Bernie Ecclestone". ISBN 1843580861. See [3]. Perhaps you could borrow this book and get useful info? If you do, be sure to cite it. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • In fact I have linked to the book in the external links section. No bookstores or libraries carry it in my part of the world, and while I could order it from Amazon, I felt that the various online articles thoroughly covered his life and business, not to mention I'd rather not spend the money. As for the title, I think there are a great many articles whose bold text does not precisely match their titles, though I have edited the opening paragraph a bit as you suggested. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 07:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • That's cool about the title. It was only a minor point. I just think the article is a bit short and the paragraphs need fixing. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure a page move is required - lots of articles are titled under the normal usage, not the person's full name (e.g. Leonard Cohen) - David Gerard 14:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Salt Lake City, Utah

Good article. Would like to have it featured and on the main page by the end of the 2006 Olympic Games. It has been nominated several times and peer-reviewed. In the last round the only objections were to one list and several image tags, all of which have been fixed. I have read about the new inline citations but am unsure if this would be required of a city article (something not contreversial). The history section is largely from SLC's government web site and Encarta. The climate from NOAA. The Economy from SLC Government. The demographics from the Census. Etc. Its completely self-explanatory and states it at the bottom in the ref sectihttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Salt_Lake_City%2C_Utah&action=edit&section=1on. Do we really need to use an inline citation after every single sentence when its all from the same web site? I.e. do I need to use an inline citation on the demographics section after every single statement and have a link to the Census at the bottom or can I just keep the link at the bottom without putting a citation mark after every single sentence? And do I really need to prove that I-15 runs through the city by making an inline citation and having a link to maps.yahoo.com at the bottom? I would say no because the FAC requirements state: "complemented where appropriate by inline citations", which in something like a city article is relatively few, and we do have a few. Polisci 16:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Despite your impassioned argument against inline citations, I still would like to see them. I don't mean statement by statement, or sentence by sentence, but at least one inline citation for each section heading would be acceptable to me. If you reference where the information in the "History" section come from, if you reference where the source of the geography information comes from, etc. Again, just one inline citation per section would make me happy. Fieari 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I can certainly do that. I will remove the FAC nom. until I finish it later tonight. 144.35.254.12 18:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object, same as before:
  1. The "public domain" claim on Image:Saltlakecitydowntown2002.jpg is flat-out wrong. The work of a taxpayer-funded private organization is almost never owned by the funding government, and a state government is not the federal government. Further, the license statement cited is a "no-derivatives" license, which is unacceptable for Wikipedia.
  2. The "public domain" claim on Image:Salt lake city main street c1920 pc.jpg is incorrect. It may be public domain because of age (works published before 1923 are PD), but there is no evidence that it is a work of the federal government. Further, the cited source does not appear to be the actual source, and the image description page contains a copyright statement of "no derivative works".
  3. The "public domain" claim on Image:Saltlaketornado.jpeg is almost certainly wrong. It is quite likely that copyright is retained by KTVX news, and they are simply permitting NOAA to use the image.
  4. The "public domain" claim on Image:Iceskatersdowntownslc.jpg is wrong. The source website's detailed copyright statement is 404, but every page on the site has a very nice copyright statement of "Copyright © 2005 Salt Lake City Corporation. All Rights Reserved.", which is about as far from PD-USGov as you can get.
  5. The image Image:Cityweekly.jpg seems to be for decorative purposes only. It either needs to be discussed in the article, or the image needs to be removed.
  6. The images Image:Real Salt Lake logo.gif and Image:UtahJazz 100.png need captions explaining what they are.
  7. The "public domain" claim on Image:Slcinternationalairport.jpg is wrong, for the same reasons as Image:Iceskatersdowntownslc.jpg.

  --Carnildo 20:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have responded on the Wikipedia Commons page to your statements. On Image:Saltlakecitydowntown2002.jpg I now agree with you in light that Wikipedia now bans images which cannot be used for commercial purposes. Image:Salt lake city main street c1920 pc.jpg can stay because it was published before 1923. Image:Iceskatersdowntownslc.jpg and Image:Slcinternationalairport.jpg can stay because the copyright notice was posted on Wikipedia before the site's own went 404 and the detailed statement indicates that only pages with the copyright are such whereas the pages with the photos have no copyright marks. Image:Cityweekly.jpg is discussed in the article but we can expand it. Image:Real Salt Lake logo.gif and Image:UtahJazz 100.png can have captions added. Finally I will look into the Image:Saltlaketornado.jpeg but in the meantime I will write out a fair-use rationale because it is a majro historical event which cannot be reproduced or have alternative images. 71.213.75.226 00:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newcastle upon Tyne

This will be the featured article on December 28, 2004. Anyone have suggestions? --Cheung1303 02:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Added a public domain picture of Jesmond Dene. There are some nice public domain images (including one of Jesmond Dene that is probably better than the one I put up) of the Newcastle area available for download at the Library of Congress. My suggestion is to download the full size TIFF version, open it in Photoshop, resize it and then change it to indexed colors and save it as a PNG. If you need help with this, send me a message. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 03:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I'm struggling to understand this nomination. What does 'This will be the featured article on December 28, 2004.' mean? Filiocht 08:54, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • As I said on his talk page, I think it's shows a fundemental misunderstanding of how the process works. Just treat this like any other nom and ignore the comment. →Raul654 16:28, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The article needs to be expanded - at the moment the lists are almost as long as the article itself. There is quite a lot of material already out there, for example in aricles about universities. It should be used to expand the main city article. Also, I think that stubs should be written for current redlinks, there is quite a lot of those. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• "Object" the article is biased and inaccurate. Many of the elements that are claimed for Newcastle are features of Gateshead or Northumbria/County Durham.

[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] Arnold Schwarzenegger

This was nominated in June but got shot down because there was too much on his political career and too little on his acting career. The section about his acting career has now been expanded (old version for comparison). It is still much shorter than the section on his political career, but I think it is sufficiently comprehensive. Besides, his political career is arguably a more important than his acting career, seeing as over 30 million inhabitants of California are now affected by his decisions... - Fredrik | talk 20:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

comment: my heart goes out to the Californians who take it upon themselves to be affected by his decisions, so that the rest of us need no longer be affected by his acting :P dab (ᛏ) 21:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose. The acting career section is too list-like (whilst there is no list of his films). The political career has too much detail. Possibly it should become a Political career of Arnold Schwarzenegger subarticle - especially if you expect it to go much further :) - but maybe much of it just isn't encylopedia material. See also Wikinews [4]. Rd232 12:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Weak support: A very well written article, but the acting career section is a bit too short. --[[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 21:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose More emphasis on his earlier years is needed. Look for autobiographical information in "Education of a bodybuilder". He redefined the "sport" of bodybuilding and his success in this area is what enabled him to continue into business, acting and politics. At this stage, this article does not do his history justice. Sorry. As a guide you should break this article into early years (his life in Graz), his immigration to the US and his early bodybuilding career, his involvement in real estate (this is where he made the bulk of his money before T2), his late bodybuilding career including the films and his Golden Globe with "Stay Hungry", etc. Lots of information for you to include. :) prometheus1

comment if the 30 million Californians are seeking to find out about the sort of man their Governor is they are better off looking into more historical information rather than the spin. He is the epitomy of ambition but he has a good heart (very, very deep down). For example did you know that in his early days (pre $50 million wealth) he made a $1 million donation to the Weizmann foundation? Now is this an example of philanthropy or strategy? Only historical scrutiny can tell. prometheus1

Oppose: Need far more on his acting career and his iconic status. Sure he is the governor of 30 million; but probably 2 billion people have seen one or more of his films. :ChrisG 10:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the current discussion, please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seattle.

[edit] Seattle, Washington

Partial self-nom. We've been kicking around the possibility of nominating this for about half a year. I think it's at least very close. Most of what would normally be long lists has been either factored out or turned into prose. Lots of pics. As you can see from the enormous number of blue links, this leads to a rather dense collection of several hundred other Seattle-related articles, most of them far shorter but pretty decent in their own right. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:49, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I added the Mapit template (combines aerial, topographic, and street maps into one external link box), and fixed the latitude/longitude values listed in the article (they were switched). --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 19:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I know that one of the things that constantly comes up in this process is references. I've added specific citations for the few statements in the article I thought might be controversial, and a rather thorough set of references for the city's history. Because the article "sits atop a pile" of other, more detailed articles, many of the detailed references are at one remove. However, if there are any particular statements that someone thinks are controversial and require a specific reference to substantiate them, just give the specifics and I can probably track those down. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:38, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Mild and conditional oppose (sorry, Joe!). First, I have to say I really like the article overall, and am very pleased at the hard work Jmabel and several others have done to give my old hometown a great and detailed article. My few objections are as follows. First, there are too many 1-line/1-sentence paragraphs: this is especially noticeable in the Utilities section, but they occur elsewhere also. Second, the top of the article is pretty cluttered with a TOC, taxobox, and two photos -- can at least one photo move down in the article? Third, while I admit that the article must of course be brief in many ways as an overview, I think it is occasionally too brief: several sections (the one on education, for example) read in many places much like a recitation of links to allow people to jump to articles with explanatory content...the sentences themselves offer too little information, I think, to make them easily readable (especially given the link density). Finally, the notes at the end of the article about Seattle's existence in TV, film, and novels are very nice, but a little too brief (the absence of Ridley Pearson jumped out at me...perhaps it's the only one, but I think it bears another look). All of these objections are exceedingly minor, I think, and I have every confidence that they will be fixed. Once Now that they are, consider me an enthusiastic supporter. :-) Jwrosenzweig 04:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to take on some of these. Let's see if I can list your issues, so that we have a chance to address them. Tell me if I'm getting any of this wrong.

• too many 1-line/1-sentence paragraphs, especially in the Utilities section.
  • I've taken my shot at these. Some things were simply more natural as bullet-lists, so I've taken them that way. I added miscellaneous salient facts here and there to get slightly prosier style.
• Clutter at top of article should be reduced.
  • I think I've dealt with this one now, tell me what you think. That Infobox is a monster, but it appears to be the same for all major U.S. cities. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:57, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Education too much of a laundry list
  • I think I've dealt with this, you'll have to tell me if what I did is good enough to meet your standards.
• Want more on representation of Seattle in popular culture.
• In particular want mention of Ridley Pearson
  • I don't know Ridley Pearson's work, and our article on him doesn't mention Seattle, so Jay, if you can add what you think is relevant about him, it would be appreciated. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:01, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

General question (not just to JayJames): how unacceptable are bulleted lists? Some of these things (like hospitals) seem to me to be inherently lists, and the effort to make them prose just makes for dull clumsy prose instead of a clear, crisp list. We could say something about each hospital but this is already a longish article. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:57, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

• I don't expect that there will always be something to say -- in such cases I think bulleted lists are fine. And I recognize the limitations of the ~40K ceiling. But I do like very much the work you did to go beyond -- one example that sticks in my head is the paragraph on power in the Utilities section. You provided several links while simultaneously offering just enough sense of history and importance to make me more interested in selecting those links. Very well done! Jwrosenzweig 18:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The thing with the link density: we've probably got articles on as good a percentage of what is notable in Seattle as on any one place. Note that almost none of these links are red. I don't see us wanting to lose many of these links, and the article is already about 37K up to 41K as I address these other issues; if we add much more prose, it's going to become too long to be featured, right? -- Jmabel | Talk 10:27, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. If anything, prose in this article should be cut down, no? --Lukobe 19:36, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) (who has also worked on this article)

I don't know about others, but when a topic can't legitimately be split up any further (and I don't think Seattle can), I wouldn't object to an article that floats up around 50K or even more (eventually IE will get it sorted out, right? We have to hope so). Granted, the general issue of "will a reader sit still this long?" still applies. I can't speak for others though. Jwrosenzweig 18:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object for now. For my sins, I haven't actually worked on this article. Currently, the sports section is just a list of teams - this could certainly be prose, and perhaps a place to mention the Kingdome. And the demographics section could stand to be something other than Rambot data. If I have time, I may try and fix these things myself. --Michael Snow 23:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll admit, I really don't care about professional sports. Not even a little. I'm not sure I could have named some of these teams, and I've lived here half my life. Is someone else interested in working on that part? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've reworked it now, and I see the demographics looks better too. I still think the article could still use some more overall polishing to improve the style, but I don't know if that's a specific enough concern to be considered actionable on a featured article nomination. In any case, things have improved enough that I won't formally object at this point. --Michael Snow 08:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me: I see this has now been removed from the FAC page, and I believe I've met all the objections, but I see it is still listed on its talk page only as a Featured Article Candidate, not as a Featured Article. Has this been either accepted or turned down? Is it in limbo? Is there some further step I need to take? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:12, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

The man to ask, I think, is User:Raul654 - he usually knows about such things. I hope it's just a clerical error, since it looks to me as though the article is ready for FA (at least, after its seven days up it received comments from 5 users, none of whom objected to promotion), but I don't know the process well enough. Our standards in terms of number of votes may be higher than 5, but if so I'd hope it could stay on the page and receive more attention. Jwrosenzweig 01:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems to have been moved to the archived nominations page, which would indicate it was turned down. I'm not an expert on the criteria for promotion either, but I do wonder based on Jwrosenzweig's comment whether it fell short of five users. Not counting Jmabel on the assumption that the nominator is not included in the count, I only find four - myself, Jwrosenzweig, Brian0918, and Lukobe. --Michael Snow 03:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Do They Know It's Christmas?

There's quite a bit of depth to this article, and what better time of year to have a Featured Article with a Christmas subject? --Modemac 16:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. No references. Almost half the article is just a list; the other half is decent but hardly inspiring, considering we have longer non-featured song articles on arguably more trivial subjects (i.e. From Me To You). Johnleemk | Talk 17:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• This is an objection too. I realize that this year is a 20th anniversary and all, but the refs thing would help to help support some of the assertions (Western bias, Geldof's motivation, recording story, etc.). I know that there were documentaries and stuff at the time, maybe someone can dig this material up and have it in shape for next year. iMeowbot~Mw 18:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object for the moment - this article and Band Aid (band) are largely redundant and should probably be merged - David Gerard 14:13, 24 Dec 2004 (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: [5]). In addition, the incident lead to SImpson being severely booed at her next big appearance (at the Orange Bowl in Jan, 2005) [6]. 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] Interstate 90

I want to post this article as the featured article of December 28, 2004. I would like to let people know more about this interstate highway. Anyone have any answers? --cheung1303 06:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object: mainly lists. Filiocht 08:28, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Object: mainly lists and trivia. There is probably a lot to say about the history of building the road, of what was displaced by it where it goes through cities, of its economic effects, of places where alternate routes were considered, of where it simply upgraded existing road vs. creating a new route, etc. This is not even close to a featured article. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:41, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Object No way is this a featured article at the moment. Needs huge expansion on its construction, environment, history etc. etc. etc. Giano 10:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object this is more like a bunch of statistics about I-90 -- kaal 23:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object for reasons above. Also, "letting people know more about" something isn't a reason to give an article featured status. --Szyslak 09:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Keyes

I think this is a good article with lots of precise information. Good choice for a featured article.

• Your reason for nomination please User:Lst27? I'm already inclined to oppose simply on the grounds that you're unable to follow directions. Alkivar 02:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Let's try to have a little civility, please. →Raul654 02:17, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • That was civil, I did not name call, nor insult. If you chose to read that as rude when it was a mere statement of fact that's your problem. Alkivar 03:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Not to stir up an old fire, but telling someone they're "unable to follow directions" isn't particularly nice or civil. It certainly is an insult. Rhobite 07:18, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
        • I still call that civil considering the person in question didnt RTFM before posting. Alkivar 05:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Telling someone to RTFM is also not what I'd consider civil around here. Rhobite 05:55, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article has a disproportionate amount of material on his 2004 campaign. That section should either be spun off and summarized or simply cut down. DanKeshet 06:45, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
• oppose.quotes belong in wikiquote (Article already too long). 2004 campaign secn needs trimming to rm fluff/irrelevant details--Jiang 08:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object for same reasons as above. A previous nomination failed, also due to lack of balance. As I pointed out then, the article fails to discuss the controversy over whether he would be allowed to participate in the Bush/McCain debates during the 2000 Republican primary campaign. In spite of being expanded with lots of trivia and an overwhelming quotes section, nothing has been added in that area, making its absence all the more glaring. --Michael Snow 23:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Renaissance Center

This article was a stub for quite some time, and I was able to add a considerable amount of information about this interesting and well-known Detroit landmark. (Self-nomination) Gsgeorge 01:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object - extremely short and no references. There has to be more material to add - more info on the history, on who works in there, whatever. You include a link to "Detroit Renaissance" (http://www.detroitrenaissance.com/) and say that it is "the group that financed the construction", but you don't say anything about them in the article itself. You don't have the years and dates wikied, and the "Nonetheless" in the last sentence of the lead doesn't make sense. And the last paragraph of the article seems to disagree with what you say in the lead (that the center revitalized the city). --Spangineer ∞ 02:15, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Object needs expansion as Spangineer said. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 08:19, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I've corrected a few things mentioned by Spangineer. Personally, I feel the article is very nice, but I can understand when you say it needs expansion. If there are enough objections I'll work on it for consideration in the near future. Thanks! Gsgeorge 12:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• ObjectIt is a nice article and the images are fantastic, brilliant in fact. However, the page need to be expanded quite a lot, and the text tidied up for it to be a feature article. Giano 13:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object too short --ZayZayEM 01:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ma On Shan (KCRC)

Ma On Shan Rail will be commenced on December 21, 2004. I want to nominate this article as the featured article of that day. I want to let the world know more about Ma On Shan Rail. Please place this article as the featured article of that day, thank you. --218.103.188.199 12:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• object. Needs expansion and references. Check what is a featured article for more information. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 13:05, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This is in no way FA material. Jacob1207 18:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object for the record. Another confusion between "Today's featured article" and Wikipedia:Featured_articles. Not too hard to see why the confusion is so common considering under the article featured on the main page is a link to more featured articles, but oh well. - Taxman 21:44, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Even if this could get up to featured quality by Dec. 21 (and that would take a massive effort, since now it's little more than a stub), it would take longer than that for it to go through the process, and even then there's no certainty of getting it on the main page on a certain date. Everyking 08:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Object. Too many red links, no images, posted by an unregistered user, waaaay too short, not likely to ever be able to be an FA. Kiand 00:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object too short --ZayZayEM 01:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pulaski Skyway

I did some modifying; hopefully more people will give it a look this time. --SPUI 01:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support: I would like even more photos, but it's very informative. I think it's ready. --spinoza 16:55, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Heh, I had a few more taken along the road, but I removed them because I thought there were too many. I'd love a side view of one of the left-side ramps; anyone in the area want to go to Kearny and get one? --SPUI 21:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support: If we have to look at New Jersey...<gr>. Seriously, I find it interesting to see what was done long before we had the Interstate Highway System. A lot of work went into this article, and it is well-presented. Vaoverland 09:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, looking good. --Boothy443 11:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old nomination

Self-nomination. It's an important roadway that hasn't changed since it opened in 1932, except for the addition of a median barrier and repaving. Except for traffic data (which I haven't been able to find), I think it includes everything important.

• Minor objections. The first image shouldn't be placed above and outside the text. ==Introduction== should not be used as a header as the lead section is considered the introduction. The ===Jersey City end=== section needs at least a basic summary of the article to which it refers. Otherwise this is a good article. —No-One Jones 01:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Argh, I tried to fix the image but now it's all fucked up. And now the TOC is rather far down; that's why I had the intro section. --SPUI 01:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Eh, I think I got it decent now. --SPUI 07:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anyone else want to give it a look? --SPUI 18:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Well-referenced, informative. Only 2 minor objections: The {{fac}} blurb should go on the talk page, and the table and map make for some funky formating and alot of white space (maybe its my browser, though) Good work! --[jon] 20:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] iPod

Not a self-nom. Fantastic article - I'm amazed that it isn't featured already. Doesn't have a references section at the bottom, but is appropriately inline referenced. Ambi 13:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Good-looking article, but, man, that's a POV lead. The first paragraph goes like this: The iPod is a portable MP3 player designed and marketed by Apple Computer. It stores audio on a built-in hard drive, which gives it much larger capacity than other portable audio players that rely on flash memory. This also lets it serve as an external hard disk while connected to a computer; a user can store any kind of files on it. Lots of implications there: 1.) "than other portable audio players that rely on flash memory" suggests that all other players rely on flash memory. I realize that suggestion's not intended,but still, it's there. 2.) "This also lets it serve as an external hard disk... a user can store any kind of files on it" says that the fact of having a hard disk leads to these convenient features. That's not the case. While a flash memory player has much less storage space (as has already been mentioned in the previous sentence), it works just the same in this sense. I use mine to move Word files between computers sometimes, it's a lot more convenient than the CD "burning" hoo-haa. 3.) Isn't it a bit, uh, promotional, to make an explicit comparison with flash memory players and only mention the advantage (=memory size) of hard drive players? There's a good reason some people prefer flash memory, for instance for the gym or for running: having no moving parts, these players are extremely patient of being bounced about, dropped on the floor, etc. They're also very small and light. These things matter more in some contexts, having room for a lot of files like the iPod matters more in others. There ought to be either no comparison made, or else a fair comparison. (Incidentally, does the article mention the size or weight of the iPod at all? I can't find it, though that could be me. It's interesting info for a portable device. Steve Jobs, by contrast, is quoted as noting the size and weight of "competitors' video-supporting devices" as flaws.) I've fixed 1 myself, by simply removing "other", but 2 and 3 are beyond me, I'm not good enough with the terminology to get the lead to incorporate them and still stay nice and tight and concise.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 14:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now agree with Bishonen's objections. Clear them up and this turns to support. Alkivar 18:20, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I pulled the explicit comparison with flash memory (I'd rather not have to pad out the flash memory vs hard drive argument, as its not awfully relevant) and I think a couple of minor wording changes have seen the implications fixed up. Ambi 03:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • well you've got a point, i guess this really isnt the right place for a flash vs. hd based player comparison. however on a different note i'd like to see a photo for the First gen model, and for the Special edition black ipod. I'd also appreciate removal of the blatant "here's how to break the drm" part of the iTunes section. but you've overall almost got it right. Alkivar 04:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • There's a photo of the first generation model there already! ;) [7] Would a fair use picture of the special edition one be alright? I don't think I know anyone who has one. Ambi 09:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • I was pretty sure that photo is mislabelled, you sure thats not a 2nd Gen and a Mini? A fair use photo of the black one would be fine, but I think because its such a sharp contrast to the rest that it should be shown. Alkivar 13:40, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm still not happy. I agree that you don't want to go into the whole hd vs flash thing, at least not in the lead, but I think the answer to that is having no comparison in the lead. Changing explicit unfair comparison to implicit unfair comparison doesn't remove POV. On this principle (I presume), UTSRelativity has already reinstated the mention of flash in the lead over Ambi's rewrite, arguing in the edit field that it's misleading to speak of "earlier MP3 players" as if the iPod came along and replaced flash. (And yes, I agree with him/her that to people interested in these devices your rewrite implied that, even though you removed the word "flash" itself). See my comment above for the reason new flash players are still being made. Also, the second lead paragraph states that iPods "feature small size". Small compared to what, a Sony Walkman from the 70s? For an MP3 player, the iPod features big size. Again, as I said above, wouldn't a mention of size and weight be interesting in an article about a portable device? I had missed the claim to "small size" when I wrote that--the claim makes the omission of specifics look a bit worse.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 10:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Object. Surprised to see this nominated as I think it is a long way from being of featured article standard. Problems: very POV; the quality of the technical information is not generally high and is scattered through the article rather than being focused into a section for ppl to either read closely or skip over; likewise information on design aspects is also too scattered; it's sales record should also be better presented. Basically the article doesn't read well, is too much of a puff piece and is difficult to extract information from. Oska 07:58, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Object making this article a featured article is like marketing ipod which i dont think is the purpose of wikipedia. This article has no links to any other comparable harddisk players. An article on say the different types of portable music players or on the different types of music formats will be more useful and informative to people. -- kaal 00:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Graffiti

Self Nomination

Hi everyone,

I came accross this article a little while ago and, after learning that it's a former featured article, I decided to restore it to its former glory. I rewrote it, added refs etc., and it's just gone through peer review. I think that this would a good featered article because it's well-written, covers an important topic, and has lots of useful information on it. What do you guys think? Thanks,

Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 06:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you, but I see an evidence of {{fact}} tags at the bottom. Would you mind fixing that?--Rmky87 15:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the passive-aggressiveness, but seriously, this needs to be taken care of, and why is the {{citation style}} template still there?--Rmky87 21:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the citation template has been removed, but where is this aforementioned ^{[citation needed]} tag? I can't seem to find it. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 00:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Here. It's the only one I could find.--Rmky87 13:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been fixed. Anything else? Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing I can see, which unfortunately does not mean that nothing is there.--Rmky87 18:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object for being not comprehensive. It covers ancient graffiti only in ancient Rome, then briefly alludes to Mayans and skips straight to the 1970s. The only coverage of Asia is about an American being lashed in Singapore. Tuf-Kat 08:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object, insufficient referencing. Graffiti#Die_Hard_era has no sources, as does most of the section before it, so it comes off as original research. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, this wasn't listed on the FAC page, listing now. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Acually it was listed on the FAC page, but removed yesterday as a fail from Raul, redelisting.

[edit] New York City

Re-nominating this Aritlce. Great Article for a great city. Mercenary2k 01:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Old Nomination Comments [8]

• Support- Wow! Amazing article, lots of links, great job. Long, but necessary for a city of that importance. The only thing I saw was there were no references for:

• History section (actually there was one, but only for the last paragraph, unless that one reference covered the entire section
• Culture (The first paragraph)
• Sports section

Other than those errors, I thought that it was very well created, and very informative. Each section was well written with enough information to understand the city well, and it was referenced quite well, except for the above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hairchrm (talk • contribs) .

• Support The article in question is outstanding. I'm all for nomination. Slicedoranges 00:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Per WP:WIAFA 1a. Prose is not compelling, even brilliant. Examples: "...The social change was an earthquake." - Unnecessary. "...Lacking the bureaucratic civic structure of today, the city's infrastructure built as it was an a volunteer network of similar minded individuals collapsed." - Copyedit needed. "The battles in and around New York caused significant damage, which was worsened by a suspicious fire that leveled nearly half of the city" - what is a suspiscous fire?

Per WP:WIAFA 1c. Citations are conspicuously absent from important sections like "History".

Per WP:WIAFA 1d. Neutrality cannot be ascertained unless there is a good number of citations backing the text. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object History section really needs some citations. Also, needs a thorough copy-edit. Some random examples:
  • The region was inhabited by the Lenape Native Americans at the time of its European discovery by Italian Giovanni da Verrazzano. What region are we talking about here?
  • This transformation was among the first changes in New York which later spread to other cities and henceforward society in general looked to the city has the cutting edge of change. Huh?
  • New York's colonial heritage was arguably unique in British North America at the time of the Revolution, since New York was the one metropolitan city of note which started as a non-British colony of Dutch heritage. Weaselly
  • Although by the time of the Revolution, with nearly 80% of it's population of English origin, New York City was virtually uniform as a typical British community, it's Dutch commercial inheritance was crucial in making New York the most important city in North America in the 19th Century once the Erie Canal was built. Quite a confusing sentence. Note also "it's".
  • Due to the effects of war and the continual occupation of the city by the British for most of the war, it's population was nearly halved. Another "it's".
  • When General George Washington finally rode in triumph into New York, the city was almost deserted with most of it's upper classes Gzkn 07:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Honestly, I looked at this article yesterday and said, "Wow, for an FAC, this is kind of... dirty." That's pretty much the best way I can put it. Also, it obviously needs to cite a bunch of statements. -- Kicking222 15:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, where's the sources for history? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The History section in particular needs work, for example:
  • "The region was inhabited by the Lenape Native Americans at the time of its European discovery by Italian Giovanni da Verrazzano." It would be useful to include the date of this event.
  • "Under British rule the City of New York continued to develop, and while there was growing sentiment in the city for greater political independence, the area was decidedly split in its loyalties during the New York Campaign, a series of major early battles during the American Revolutionary War." It would help to include the date of the New York Campaign.
  • "In later years, known as the Gilded Age, the city became the first metropolitan American city to transform [...]" It would help to specify the dates of the Gilded Age, in place of the vague 'in later years.'
  • "Although by the time of the Revolution, with nearly 80% of it's population of English origin, New York City was virtually uniform as a typical British community, it's Dutch commercial inheritance was crucial in making New York the most important city in North America in the 19th Century once the Erie Canal was built." Is there a reference to support the italicised statement?
  • "Furthermore, once Great Britain recognized the United States and abandoned the city, thousands of Loyalists and the thousands more of troops and their families also left." The prose is awkward in this sentence, particularly the italicised part.
  • "When General George Washington finally rode in triumph into New York, the city was almost deserted with most of it's upper classes, including its merchants, traders, bankers, and builders gone when they left with the vast British fleet." It would help to include the date for this event. Also, as mentioned above, "it's upper classes" is incorrect - the whole article needs to be checked for incorrect "it's", there are numerous instances.
  • "From 1800-1840 the city grew in wealth and power and never again would the city have such a substantial stable society of American born citizens." I wouldn't include 'never again' in an encyclopedic article - who knows what will happen in the future.
  • "In it's place was born the modern city of professional police, fire, and other utility services, traffic control, neighborhood development, factories, foundries, and the whole panoply of what came to be known as Gotham." What exactly came to be known as Gotham and when? Also, what was the origin of the term Gotham, and why was it applied here?
  • "Additionally, while immigration spiked and fell between 1842 and 1892, a new wage of immigration began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries which once again transformed the city's demographics." - "wage" -> "wave"
  • "New York overtook London as the most populous city in the world in 1925, ending that city's century-old claim to the title." Is there a reference to support this statement? What was the population of New York in 1925?
  • "New York City's ever accelerating changes and rising crime and poverty rates ended when World War One disrupted trade routes, the Immigration Restriction Acts limited additional immigration after the war [...]" Acts or Act? What was the date(s) of the Act(s)? It would help to include links to the relevant wikipedia articles, e.g. Immigration Act of 1924.
  • Picture Caption: "Lower Manhattan's skyline with the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center" - it would help to include the year of the photograph in the caption. (I've added the year to the caption - Jazriel 11:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC))
  • Good luck with the article. Jazriel 13:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support New York City should obviously be a featured article. It covers just about everything essential on one of if not the biggest, most diverse, and most important cities in the world. Besides, it already has FA status in both German and French. Being linguistic in the latter, I don't see how the English version is in any way below that version, in fact it is even better, and therefore it seems illogical that it should not be an FA too. Everyone objecting this article is SO PICKY! I don't get how you can complain so much about an article as informative as this. If you look at the site's featured articles, most of them are extremely subpar to this one. Bottem line: NYC is an article of very high caliber. It more than deserves a bronze star. 2Pac 00:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, so you're saying that because it's featured in other languages it should be featured here as well? Did you read even a portion of the article? Not to worry, I'm a 2pac fan don't think I'm "hatin' on ya". Phoenix2 04:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Importance of subject is not a criterion for Featured Article status. Sockatume 21:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for the comments. I will fix up the history section and will get proper citations. Been busy with University stuff so havent had much time to fix this up. Mercenary2k 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Extra-strong support Needs more government info, but other than that, is pretty good, does every little detail, and really should have been chosen first time around, but as they say, first time you mess up, try again! -User:District Attorney

Oppose until citations are added and copyedit made. Feel free to strike this once you're done. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object: Nice article, but needs citations. Heimstern Läufer 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extraterrestrial_skies

I stumbled upon this article, and discovered a very interesting article. I state to all:

¡Extraterrestrial_skies deserves to be a featured article!

The article is a breathtaking tour of the skies of the other planets in our solar system. The has everything:

• Pictures
• Explanations
• About the right length
• An interesting subject

--Ŭalabio 02:29, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

• Object for now. Article needs quite a bit of work to make FA status.

1. - Article title, should be "Atmospheres of planetary objects" or "Atmospheres of solar system objects"
   • in order to include the Moon... which since NOT A PLANET! doesnt belong.

I proposed moving Skies of other planets to Extraterrestrial skies on its talk-page. If now of its other editors object, I shall move it tomorrow. Ŭalabio 16:40, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

1. - Lead in WAAAY too brief
2. - Information on Mercury reads stilted and broken.
3. - Information on Venus is 2 lines?!?!!
4. - Mars section needs reformatting badly
5. - Martian moons are NOT PLANETS! ... doesnt belong.
6. - Asteroids are NOT PLANETS!

This boils down to definition. Unfortunately, we define planets by fiat. as we explore the universe, we shall have to define by definition. My own personal definition of planets is a round object which experienced gravitational segregation. I suppose I shall have to move the page, but I shall discuss that on the talk-page before stepping on everyone's toes. -- Ŭalabio 10:51, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Yes and the scientific definition of a planet is based on mass and common consensus has us with 9 planets. Asteroids and Moons are not planetary bodies but have been classified as "minor planets" informally. I'm not entirely opposed to having them included, but only at having them listed as planets. using the Extraterrestrial Skies as suggest below for example allows for there to be 1 section for Major Planets, 1 section for Minor Planets and Moons, 1 section for Extrasolar moons and planets. Alkivar 17:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. - Jupiter needs serious work as 90% of its content regards its moons.

this entire thing needs so much work, plus its a rehash of content from other sources, I'd almost suggest VfD on this! Alkivar 08:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for this point, it is good to collate such information. It is like trying to find the names of all of the UN-Ambassadors by going to the UN-site versus going to the sites of each nation. The value of collation outweighs redundancy here. -- Ŭalabio 10:51, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Yes and I understand that, however this is not a list, and serves no purpose other than to replicate the content in the individual articles. This can be overcome if extensive editing of the article modifies the content to be more than just a brief rehash of individual articles. REGARDLESS of which it is not FA material Alkivar 17:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I moved Skies of other planets to Extraterrestrial skies. -- Ŭalabio 00:45, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

[edit] Norse mythology

This was nominated by user:Satanael. However he did not archive the old one correctly, so I have fixed it for him. (See Old nomination). User:Nichalp/sg 11:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support conditional on image wrangling: Note, I have tried to copy-edit and help out, especially by widening the story out a bit when it became too focused on a particular Scandinavian nation (e.g. conversion to Christianity was some places peaceful, some places not, some places by leader, some places not, so "more or less by force" is a statement true of some places, not others). The text looks good, IMO, although the screen does turn a bit blue with all the links. Geogre 01:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with nixie that the box is a stumbling rather than starting box at present, but I also can't see that as a reason to object. I worry, personally, that it's at the extreme end of taxoboxes, where we allow the taxobox to act as a stealth portal page, but, again, that's as much as to say, "I don't like it like that." Such a statement is not a reason to object. The images don't particularly bother me. I know that low resolution monitors are still in use, particularly in public libraries around the world and public schools in the US and UK, but, since the rest of the world is making no allowances for these resolutions and wiki pages should not be in tables, I think there is a time to say that image formatting at lowest resolution is unactionable as well. Geogre 00:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

IComment, I think the topic navagation box is overkill, is there any way more of these could be incorporated into the text- or the table shortened?--nixie 03:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support as it is now. Much improved article indeed. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• object one of the images as a really long description. Please shorten it. User:Nichalp/sg 15:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. →Raul654 00:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The references need to be trimmed (and actually placed under the header "references"). I count 24 separate sources right now, which is wholly unreasonable for such a general article. I don't know what the feeling is on "Further reading", but if that's all most of those books are, then they should at least be labeled apropriately. The information contained can't possibly require that many books. The image layout is just really bad right now and the infobox is not acceptable by any standard. It's merely a "list of..." disguised as a template. Such a creation can't possibly pass as a reasonable demand from any WikiProject. And then there's the Thor image caption... / Peter ^Isotalo 01:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If they have, in fact, been used as references, then they need to be listed as such. There is no limit; cite your sources means all of them, IMHO. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The references are supposed to be there to make the article easily verifiable, not to be a record of the article authors' reading habits. There is such a thing as over-usage of references. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid I have to disagree; not easily verifiable, just verifiable. And it is precisely for this reason that I believe that all works that were used to verify information should be listed. Otherwise, some information may not be verifiable from the references given. If any of the works listed under References were not used by the authors as sources for the information in the article, then they should be removed. However, it is my opinion that all references actually used should be listed, regardless of how many there are. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
        • If all those sources are actually required to reference everything in the article, then I'd like to see them properly attributed with footnotes and/or inline citations. If there are this many references to support a relativly short article (if you remove the reference section itself and the gigantic list-of-links-template, there really isn't all that much material left) then I feel I'm justified to suspect that a lot of content is referenced with more than once source, which is completely uncalled for. / Peter ^Isotalo 18:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak object as I am concerned about setting a precedent for this kind of image crowding. The caption on the Thor image is a place for improvement, can it be shortened significantly? The drowning image has some editorializing that strikes an odd tone for me. On a side note, please do not remove any sources that have actually been used as references for the article, but do place any books that duplicate information in a book already refrenced in a "Further reading" section or remove it. Surely between Davidson and de Vries most of the information in the article can be sourced. Oh, and that reminds me. Jan de Vries' middle name is not "de". He should be listed as "de Vries, Jan". I'll go fix that. Jkelly 00:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've sigifnicantly trimmed the Thor caption. Beyond that, I don't really see any issues with image overload. →Raul654 20:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've also fixed the drowning man caption. →Raul654 15:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Good images, poorly used. The image of Thor has a very long caption that should be merged into the text. The caption for the image should be as short and to the point as possible. "This is Thor" would be better than what's there, and which causes a huge gap to appear in the text. The other images aligned neatly on the right give it a static appearance, should be alternated left align, right align. The runestone image is way too big. The infobox template is also too big and breaks the text. There has to be a better way of doing it, but is it even necessary? I'll look closer at the text when these glaring problems are fixed. Rossrs 00:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This is still something a mess and I'd prefer to fix the underlying articles before improving the central one. (I'm currently working on Höðr.) As an aside I see nothing wrong with having a lot of works listed as sources and further reading, though maybe they should eventually be split off into a separate article à la Race and intelligence. Personally I think the verifiability objective is something of a chimera and that the most important rôle of those sections is to give the reader an idea of what the standard works in the field are. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Object My problem with the article is the crowed images and the Topics in Norse mythology box. Other than that I'd say its great. -Haon 22:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Expansion: I've checked out the Norwegian and Swedish articles ad I would say that they are pretty good, especially the Swedish one as it has a lot of info that the English one can implement. I suggest we adapt the info from the Swedish article that the English one doesn't have, into the English article. In that way the info will be greatly expanded, and the image and infobox issues won't be as pressing as it is. I'd do it right now if I could, but even though I'm Norwegian I can't read Swedish all that well. So if anyone knows Swedish, please read through both articles and implement the info that the English article doesn't have into the Swedish one. Satanael 11:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ammonia

This article's previous nomination was knocked down to a incomplete table but now everything is perfect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Protarion (talk • contribs) 12:00, June 4, 2006.

• Commentjust about sourcing I think its quite well sourced and considering the abundant information on Ammonia this aspect is quite good. User: Protarion
• Comment - I would love to support, but I am the person who nominated it for the Science Collaboration Of The Week, and thus helped clean up the page to close Featured Article status. Am I allowed to vote? Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 11:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As long as you really believe it to be up to standard, than no one will question your veracity. Judgesurreal777 16:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, many places don't have inline sources. Other than that, though, it looks pretty good. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - I'm sorry I wasn't aware of this article sooner. This is not at all to take away from the wonderful work that has been done on the article, but there are several areas which need work. First, stylistically there are several single sentence paragraphs/subheadings which are generally to be avoided. But more importantly, I would expect a featured article on ammonia to have at least some information about its crucial biologic roles in nitrogen and acid/base balance. The current article mentions them in passing under toxicity and biosynthesis, but I feel a dedicated section would be helpful. Also, some small discussion of urea cycle defects as a cause for human disease with resultant hyperammonemia would be nice. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal weekend for me to write the section - perhaps in a few days I can devote the amount of time needed. Sorry for the opposition, as you've done a great job! InvictaHOG 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've struck my opposition after adding a short section about the biology/biochemistry of ammonia. I will support once copy-edited with removal of those one sentence paragraphs and short subheadings! InvictaHOG 05:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support Pretty much perfect in all areas and a wealth of information. Felixboy 16:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. But it could be improved.
  • • Some sections are short. (eg Handling and storage of ammonium compounds)
    • As InvictaHOG mentioned, it needs to have at least some information about its crucial biologic roles in nitrogen and acid/base balance.

Nice job on the article though.

Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object; sorry, we should not be using online Encarta as a major source. Find a good chemistry textbook and use that instead. Also, the TOC is rather large for an article of this length—combining level 3 sections in "Safety precautions" would be a good idea. Maybe incorporate Biosynthesis into the Synthesis and production section. Wording is also a little clumsy and informal. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The 6 references two Encarta are all on points which do not really relate to chemistry and are minor points of information, so it is not really a major source. --Protarion
    • They do, however, speak about key points like the origins, history and uses of ammonia. That's important background information that can likely be found in sources more reputable than Encarta. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support I came here to nominate it! Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I read it and can find no criterium that it fails to meet, and it looks very thorough. -- Rmrfstar 21:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support per all above. —Coat of Arms (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

support Richardkselby 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose needs inline citations for figures, such as the chart under "Laboratory use of ammonia solutions". Consider moving the bolded term into the lead (presumably it redirects to this title?). There should be a paragraph or two summary under all section headings, such as "Safety precautions". Tuf-Kat 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose opposition as I'm not sure I understand what is wanted :). If by "figures" you mean the molarity values which correpond to certain percentage concentrations, the reference is the CRC Handbook listed at the Bibliography section ('twas I who added most of the Safety material). Physchim62 (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • By "figures", I mean essentially all numbers. The source needs to be cited using inline citations to make it clear which numbers come from which source. Tuf-Kat 22:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think people are missing the point of an encyclopedia. It covers everything you could want to know, referenced, neat, yeah, go ahead. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dungeons & Dragons (TV series)

Self-nom. I put about a week of research into this article, spent time contacting fansites for permission to use content, and extensively revamped it from its original. I think this is about as comprehensive an article on this TV series as any on the internet. Suggestions? Changes? Approval? :) Alkivar 03:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Where did the show start out? Presumably in the U.S.? It should say that, then. Now it just says it played in France and the U.K. at later dates. Otherwise, it's a pretty good article. Everyking 10:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Made an attempt to clarify. Is this better? Alkivar 13:03, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • That's fine with me, I support it. I like articles like this—so much that I didn't even arbitrarily add a NPOV header to the top, if you can believe that... Everyking 13:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • wiseass :P I get your point, however I will again repeat La La was marked with the {{POV Check}} template I simply made it {{NPOV}} instead. Alkivar 13:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The episode guide style for the season articles doesn't work very well - I'd much prefer to see this written in normal prose, summarising the whole season rather than each individual episode. In addition, could do with a slight copyedit (i.e. in the Premise section, and perhaps the Characters). Also, is the theme song copyrighted? The lead section is good, but I think much of the remainder of the article needs work before being ready. Ambi 11:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The episode guide comes word for word from Zakiyah's fansite and is used with permission. I really do believe an episode by episode guide works much better as the episodes really do stand alone, the only real continuous plot line is the search for a way home. As for the song copyright, I have been unable to find any copyright on the song in the US at this time. I will continue to search for it, as the song was never used in the USA its been exceedingly difficult since I do not speak or read french. Alkivar 13:03, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • By permission, do you mean they gave permission to Wikipedia to use their material, or they gave permission to release their material under the GFDL? Johnleemk | Talk 05:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Gave permission for use on Wikipedia, by default that allows GFDL does it not? I should point out that yes person is aware of what Wikipedia is, and does understand that it means giving up rights to content for reproduction. Alkivar 05:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Actually, strictly legally, no. They only granted permission to Wikipedia to use it. That means that while we have specific rights to the material, people who wish to reuse them don't unless the authors specifically grant permission to use the material under the GFDL. If they understand that, then everything's fine, I guess. Johnleemk | Talk 12:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Even though as far as content goes its short, it is pretty much as comprehensive as it can be. Support. (I'm also influenced by nostalgia of being forced to wtach this in after-school care)--ZayZayEM 01:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ohio county name etymologies

Self-nomination. This page, and its two subpages, have been up for some time with only minor tinkering from Wikipedians. Both are exhaustive--they certainly were exhausting to write--compilations of material, all sourced, on county names. PedanticallySpeaking 17:20, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Object lists are not acceptable for FAC. Alkivar 18:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I agree - as I said the last time one of these came up, one of the criteria for a featured article is good prose, and lists (which have none) do not meet this criteria. →Raul654 19:24, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Object for the reasons stated above. But good job putting the list together. Jacob1207 21:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was not aware lists were ineligible as the criteria page is silent on this. I have suggested on the criteria talk page that the ineligibility of lists be explicitly stated. PedanticallySpeaking 16:45, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Sure it does - A featurd article should have: Well-written: compelling, even "brilliant" prose—the former name for featured articles.. A list has no prose at all. QED. →Raul654 21:02, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Brute force attack

Seems like a great article. Has references, well written, interesting. - 203.35.154.254 03:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Don't you think it's a bit short? Everyking 03:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • What needs expanding? I thought it was good, but I might be wrong. - 203.35.154.254 03:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Compare: [9] — Matt Crypto 07:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment, what does the phrase "128 bits of entropy" mean? Paul August ☎ 03:42, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Far too short. Ambi 04:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I support if it is comprehensive. It explained the concept evry well to me, but length does worry.--ZayZayEM 10:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Navy

Self-nomination. It does need a little vetting, but I think it's pretty much there. -Joseph (Talk) 17:43, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

• Object - No references. And I'm not sure if the article is in-depth enough... I'm not particularly knowledagable on the topic, but the article doesn't look long enough and detailed enough to comprehensively cover the topic. Could you perhaps talk about the major commanders-in-chief - what they accomplished, what they focused on, their strengths and weaknesses? Spangineer 18:26, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. (1) There should be more about operations, especially in World War II (e.g. operations in support of Murmansk and Archangel convoys), and in the Cold War (especially the submarine warfare in the Arctic). (2) There should be something about bases. Gdr 20:43, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
• Object. Needs references, seems to need some expansion. This would be aided by references. Also the captions need to be turned into interesting sentences. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Expanded captions. -Joseph (Talk) 20:21, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with above objections, the history section is way too short. 25% of article lenght are the lists, a bit too much I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I am shoving a lot of content in now. I am still going to add a section on Operation Jennifer and need to lengthen the WWII section. Probably some other things. -Joseph (Talk) 21:36, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
• Object, for now at least, for the above stated reasons. Also, I am dubious that the Potemkin mutiny had anything to do with the Bolshevik party. Edeans 03:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Blackface

This article was nominated back in December (see Archive1), and failed. The two basic reasons were (1) a lack of references, and (2) complaints about section headers. Both of these problems have been fixed. It's a well-written article on an important and lesser-known part of American culture. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 17:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• For the record, a clarification: the section headers were changed satisfactorily during the old FAC process. deeceevoice 11:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• mild object Support The lead section is too short for an article of this length. While it is difficult to present material on this subject in an NPOV manner, the prominence of the terms "darky" in a section header and "nigger" in the Related Topics section stands out and overshadows the rest of the prose. As I read the article, I found it hard to ignore these terms. slambo 18:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I wrote most of the article in its current form -- and, in particular the lead paragraph which contains the language about which you express concerns. I am an African American and chose the words purposefully, as they go to the heart of what blackface is. (The original version read, "Blackface is a type of character performance in which performers paint their faces black (with burnt cork or greasepaint makeup) in a manner that presents a crude caricature of African features," which I viewed as completely unsatisfactory and did not address the essential, core racism of the genre, both in its style and substance.) I was not aware that the article would be resubmitted for featured article status and did not review it thoroughly beforehand, but noticing some activity with the article (during which time I, curiously, was inexplicably blocked from editing only it), I did notice that someone (when, I do not know) had included Nigger in the "Related topics" section. Once I was able to edit the article again, I removed the reference because I thought it gratuitous and inappropriate, before I even read your remarks. Generally, I share your concerns about the use of blatantly racist terms; however, one cannot frankly and honestly write about a subject such as blackface and not use them. (Contrast the treatment of the subject in this article and the treatment of it in Minstrel show, where "racism" was not mentioned even once before I interjected it after commenting on the piece oin the article's talk page and waiting and waiting to see what happened with the piece. The excuse given for the glaring omissions in the article was that the writers wished to avoid controversy. I think it is best to address such matters head on. To date, Blackface actually has generated little controversy of the type the contributors to Minstrel show feared -- nothing beyond the usual editing issues. While I often have critical things to say about this web site, I think Wikipedia editors and our readers are to be credited for the manner in which this article has been both created (by many editors) and received. The piece thus far also has not been the target of the usual racist vandalism that is so commonplace/pervasive with articles treating African Americans and blacks, geneerally, on the web site -- though that likely will change should "Blackface" be granted FAS). The Minstrel show, IMO, it remains weak and antiseptic and completely fails to address the pervasive influence of the form on race, race relations and the perception of blacks -- which is a travesty. The article, IMO, is little more than worthless and reads like something out of the 1940s. It's a dismal failure. Sorry, but that's my opinion.) Blackface, on the other hand, I think, is exemplary -- because of a spirit of openminded collaboration and, I think, a desire on the part of all involved to examine the topic honestly and directly. I may be mistaken, but such does not happen often on Wikipedia in potentially sensitive matters of "race" and ethnicity -- at least not in my experience. Once I realized the article had been resubmitted, I made other changes, as well (as have other contributors), to which I hope there will be no objection. I think the article in its present form is certainly featured article caliber. deeceevoice 10:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the lead section should be expanded. I'm not sure what to do about the "darky" and "nigger" complaints though. It isn't really possibly to fully cover the topic without those words. I'm sorry that overshadows the prose for you, but I'm not sure what to do about it. 19:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is tough on a subject like this to be uncontroversial. The terms should be included as they are a part of the culture of the time, they're just a little jarring to me. I'll re-read it later tonight and see what I think again. slambo 11:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Update - I have expanded the intro. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • The introductory section has been extended and then that has been revised extensively to be more general/inclusive. I think it's good to go. deeceevoice 01:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just re-read the article, and upgraded my vote to Support. Well done! The only thing that I can think of that may be left to mention is that many collectors are now specializing in the black icons from the first half of the 20th century. Whether it's to preserve history or out of a fascination for the subject is up for debate, but interesting nonetheless. BTW, as I grew up in Los Angeles, we often ate at the local Sambo's restaurant (themed on the story of Little Black Sambo). I remember the iconography and when they tried to clean it up (and before you ask, that's not the source of my online handle; that came from putting my first initial (S) and last name (Lamb) on my gym clothes in 6th grade (it looked like "SLamb"), and since Rambo was popular then, it was only natural to add the o). slambo 03:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

support The suggestion in the article that Zwarte Piet is very controversial has been corrected, but I find the "references" for Zwarte Piet unscholarly and flimsy: just an article on a website. I could easily go to the library and find better references (in Dutch language) for Zwarte Piet, please give me more time. Also I think that the lead section could be longer. I continue to object because the references and external links formats could be better. Also the lead section should include Zwarte Piet. Also some information on Zwarte Piet must be corrected: he is not really a Christmas figure. He appears on 5 or 6 December. The article falsely suggests or even says that Zwarte Piet is very controversial in the Netherlands. May be Zwarte Piet should be very controversial but it is only a bit controversial. Also, I find the statement that Zwarte Piet sometimes is associated with satan doubtful. Andries 18:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• • The article never made a pronouncment about the degree to which Zwarte Piet was controversial; it merely stated the issues on both sides. Andries raised this objection before, and others seemed to take my view. We assumed the matter was settled. However, Andries made a few addition which seem reasonable and which contribute to the article, and I think everyone is now pleased with the article in this respect. Further, the suggestion that ZP should appear in the lead is (no offense intended) ridiculous. deeceevoice 11:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The article also includes 7 external links about Zwarte Piet that I think, on the whole, back up the suggestion that it is controversial in the Netherlands and sometimes associated with Satan. I'm not sure that should be removed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have already discussed this on the talk page and I continue to disagree. I will look at the association with satan later. Andries 20:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Zwarte Piet's association with Knecht Ruprecht is accurate. As a matter of fact, at one time, Zwarte Piet redirected to KR -- before I removed the redirect and started a stub. deeceevoice 11:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The standing objection of Andries that Zwarte Piet should be included in the lead is a shaky one. There is absolutely no reason to mention ZP in the lead paragraphs of the piece. ZP is relevant to the article only insofar as he is an example of blackface darky iconography. In this manner, he is no more worthy of inclusion in the lead paragraph(s) than the Cape Coons, or Shirley Q. Liquor. deeceevoice 13:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that ZP should not be in the lead paragraph. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • You object, saying that the external links and references sections could be formatted better. I looked over them carefully, but I don't see how they could be improved. Could you be more specific? I take that back; I found ways to improve those sections, and I have done so. I hope this satisfies all you objections about this. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sheesh, you're tough one. Amazon lists exactly 2 books on Zwarte Piet, and one is long out of print with very little information. I added the other as a reference. I have also expanded the lead section again. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course, Dutch libraries have better info on Zwarte Piet, but as I said I need time to find and read them. I object to your addition as references of a book that you have not read and used for the article. The right section for that would be biblography, not references. Andries 19:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, that's been fixed now too. Of course the article can be improved, but have we finally satisfied all your objections? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 02:29, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  1. The image Image:Bert Williams blackface 2.jpg is listed as a promotional photo with known source, but the source is not listed. Further, the {{promophoto}} license is not a completely free license.
  2. The image Image:Al Jolson Jazz Singer.JPG is claimed as "fair use". Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, so fair use images should be avoided if at all possible.

  --Carnildo 18:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Hm, good point. I'll see if I can find some acceptable PD images. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Update - I have added three public domain images. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, make that two. The pics were moved to, IMO, more appropriate places in the article, and the number of sheet music images reduced to one (the caption was a bit off on one and less colorful, so I chose to delete that one). The only other image I had planned to add was something, probably, of my collection of artifacts -- to illustrate the breath of use of darky iconography in everyday objects. But I don't know when I'll get around to it. I had considered a photo gallery of sorts to illustrate the continuum of development of darky iconography from its beginnings to the present day, but, given the article size already, I don't know how feasible/desirable that would be.) As it stands now, I think the new images are valuable additions. As for the other images under discussion, I can't say. I do know the ones I added are free and clear. If the blackface Jolson cannot be cleared, I'm certain we can find another photo of a white in blackface that will do.deeceevoice 10:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Photo update - Photo of Jolsen replaced w/repro of old minstrel poster (expired copyright). This will do for now. deeceevoice 11:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • With the information I added on blacks in blackface (which also speaks to blackface's origins, or certainly its early days), I felt much of it didn't belong in "The shaping of racist archetypes." Moving that information to "Origins" wouldn't work, so I combined the two under one subhead, "History and the shaping of racist archetypes." ("Origins" was too short, anyway -- especially if one disregarded the photo.) I hope that meets with no opposition. deeceevoice 11:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support. It's a good article. But I should say I've been heavily involved in the writing of the piece. I guess, with this vote, I should disclose my inherent bias. :p I'm waiting to hear from another editor about something, but no article on Wikipedia is ever finished. As it stands, I think it's intelligent and thorough and imminently worthy of featured articcle status.deeceevoice 22:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support excellent article. Morwen - Talk 13:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support. One of the best articles I have read on the subject. I missed most of the earlier debates (see above) about the article but reading the current version I don't see why this shouldn't be a featured article.--Alabamaboy 13:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rat Park

The story of a largely forgotten psychology experiment. Self nomination. Slim 10:11, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. It has a POV problem, as evidenced by the concluding comment about the 'War on Drugs'. A good copyedit to remove POV could make it up to the required standard. Dbiv 12:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dbiv, thanks for your comment. Apart from the concluding comment, can you point to anything else you feel is specifically POV and should be removed?

• Object. My main problem is with the images. The first two seem both too big and somewhat out of place. I'd prefer to see the good Dr A as the first image. Not sure that the poppy or the junkie are needed at all. Filiocht 12:51, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I like the junkie a lot. Perhaps you're right about the poppy. I'll get rid of it. Slim

• Object. The article is detailed and very interesting, but it seems to be a one-sided story. I know that the scientific world can be sometimes quite conservative when it comes to accepting new ideas, but there are, surely, reasons why this work has been ignored. Was its methodology discussed? Etc. And, as Dbiv said, the final comment shows some POV (it could surely be reworded as something like "Dr Foobar deplored that so little was spent on such projects while considerable sums are expended on the War on Drugs [ref]"). David.Monniaux 13:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

David, the problem with this study is that it doesn't seem to have been criticized. Just not taken up. The author Lauren Slater goes into detail about how the drug czar Prof. Kleber and his colleagues are "disdainful of any research north of the Connecticut River." I didn't put that in because it's too POV even as a quote. But I've looked around a lot over the last couple of weeks for criticism of this experiment and couldn't find any. I have e-mailed the pharmacology journal who published it to ask if they received any critical responses, but so far I've had no reply. Slim 21:35, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm curious. I'm unaware of the usages of experimental psychology and drug studies, but in some other scientific fields it is common usage that the authors of papers refused by scholarly journals get a copy of the reviews of the referee that caused the paper to be refused. The mere fact that a "drug czar" and close associates were disdainful of the paper is not necessarily a good indication about this – good scholarly journals seek the opinion of several specialists, often in several countries. I doubt that whatever influence an American drug czar has, it probably cannot does not dictate his opinion to researchers in Europe or Japan. But, again, I don't know the particular usages of those fields and I don't know what happened to these papers.

Note that, on the other hand, the "drug czar" and disdain explanation may be appropriate for the absence of funding, since such things are generally set by committees staffed by national personalities. David.Monniaux 18:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object for reasons above. I really want to support, though. It's an interesting topic, but it does sound crankish and could do with NPOving. Johnleemk | Talk 14:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object in its present state. I've tidied up a lot of the bad punctuation, but there's far too much "quotes" said X, replied Y, etc., which needs to be cleaned up into normal prose. At the moment it reads more like a cheap thriller than a good wikipedia article. - MPF 14:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MPF, you put a Cleanup tag on the article, which I feel is inappropriate (as do others: another editor removed it, thinking it was there as a joke. Also, you made only a tiny number of changes, including changing "wild Norway rat" to "Brown Rat," which is not what the author said, and changing some North American punctuation to British. I'd appreciate it if you'd recommend and discuss changes here first. Slim 21:35, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

• Object: POV. The writing follows its hero so closely as to write a biography of an experiment, with a vested interest in its truth. Also, there is a very serious problem with the experiment, as it does not show in any way that there is no physical addiction to opiates, but only that, left to their own devices, rats will not choose to become addicted. I.e. the article argues that morphine isn't addictive, but that's not what the experiment shows. The experiment shows who will and will not grab morphine and get to the level of addiction, not that morphine is not addictive. It could conceivably show that rats with a plentiful supply of opiates are capable of withdrawing slowly when they get to self-administer. That's all well and good. It argues that unhappy people start taking the drugs. No shock there. However, the escalation of addiction and the physical basis of addiction isn't even argued against by the experiment. Either the professor wasn't trying to argue against physical addiction and the article misrepresents the aims, or he was making up one really terrible experimental design. Also, the physical basis of addiction is pretty darned empirical. What's not stated is that lots of rat brains have been chopped up and photographed to show the chemical alterations in the addicted brain. Geogre 15:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

George, the points you raise are interesting. First, the rats' brains: being able to view physical changes isn't enough. You have to be able to say why those physical changes led the animal to lose control of its intake. No scientist has shown that. (That goes to the heart of what the word "causation" means.) You also have to say something about what you mean when you refer to loss of control and choice. Again, to my knowledge, no scientist has done that. Second, Alexander started off with rats who were physically addicted to morphine, and who had been drinking nothing but morphine-laced water for 57 days. When he put them in Rat Park, where they had a choice, they started drinking plain tap water instead. Does this not show that morphine is not "addictive," in the sense of robbing the user of all, most or some control and choice; that is, in the sense of causing a degree of compulsion? Slim 21:35, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't see, in the article, that the rats at the outset had addiction of 57 days. That may be my fault. My point, however, is "addiction" as physiologic dependence vs. behavioral compulsion. Unhappy animals want relief, naturally. However, whether they are unhappy or happy, opiates produce a physiological change, and withdrawal causes a change. I.e. a rat or a human will become dependent upon the drug, something that the article mentions. However, the article says that the physical dependence was trivial, which is POV. Creatures that can communicate their status, and in particular humans, report pretty severe withdrawal problems, whether they were addicted by their own choice or not. E.g. patients who had received too much and too often a morphine dose in a hospital stay and were suddenly stopped were not psychologically or morally weak, and yet they became addicts upon release. This was a common enough problem with WW1 soldiers, and it continued to be a problem through the 1940's. These days, hospital protocols prevent it by tapering a dose. My problem is that the claim in the article for the experiment is that it shows a lack of physical basis for "addiction." Addiction can refer either to psychological or physical dependence. Geogre 02:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But George, don't you see that you're doing exactly what you say the article is doing. That is, you are, in my view, begging the question. First, I will make it clearer in the article that the Rat Park rats had already been fed morphine for 57 days, and where what the physicalists would call "addicted."

I1) You write "opiates produce a physiological change, and withdrawal causes a change." That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the extent to which the physical changes in the brain CAUSE. or whether they merely ACCOMPANY, the perceived physical and psychological addiction of the user. You are simply stating that there is a relationship of causation here. That has to be shown.

Actually I do dispute that withdrawal causes a change. The observation here is that when opiates are used to control pain, as in palliative care, provided that no more morphine has been given than is necessary to control the pain, then addiction does not result. If the level of pain reduces or the pain disappears, then the druig can be reduced or stopped (respectively) without the symptoms of addiction appearing. Therefore the effect that the drug has, in terms of addiction, is dependent on the degree of physical pain that the paitent is suffering. I don't think this point is covered here or elsewhere, and it may, of course not be relevant here. Matt Stan 20:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(2) SOME creatures who can communicate their status report severe withdrawal problems. Some do not. It's the same with cigarettes. Some long-term smokers end up dying because they say they cannot stop. Other long-term smokers stop cold turkey with very little difficulty. (I used to work as a smoking-cessation counsellor, so I saw these disparities firsthand and they are very pronounced.)

(3) Again, SOME patients who take morphine for long-term pain relief become what they say is "addicted." But many do not. In fact, I believe that most do not. (I will check the known figures). This is one of the issues that the psycho-social theorists rely on: that most patients who are prescribed morphine do not become either physically or psychologically addicted. Tapering a dose would not prevent addiction, if the argument is that you need ever-increasing doses to get the same hit.

(4) You talk about psychological addiction. What is that? It doesn't even have the perceived physical changes in the brain accompanying it. It is just a statement made by scientists who cannot find any physical basis for an addiction.

I can see why you feel this article is POV. But I argue that it is the physicalist side that is so POV and so completely accepted, that anything that argues against it looks POV. Take a look at Wikipedia's Drug addiction. There is no doubt expressed in that article, no room for any other debate, no questioning of results, no questioning of methodology. But the most funadamental problem is, as I said above, a confusion between a change in a physical state CAUSING a change in behavior, and the physical change ACCOMPANYING the behavioral change. This is a fundamental logical and epistemological error that all first-year undergraduate philosophy students are taught not to make. And yet all the drugs-are-addictive scientists are making that error, apparently unaware that it's cauing them to beg the very question they're seeking to answer.

That's why I find Rat Park impressive. It doesn't do anything fancy; doesn't commit any logical errors; doesn't use fancy equipment; doesn't interpret the fancy results of the fancy equipment; doesn't start talking about how the brain functions as though much is actually known about brain function. All Rat Park does is this: It takes a bunch of morphine-soaked rats ("addicts" by anyone else's standards) and it offers them morphine to see what they'll do. And what do they do? They don't want it. That has to tell us something. And Alexander is very cautious in what he claims Rat Park tells us: only that the theory of physical and psychological addiction has not been empirically proven. Slim 03:23, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Reluctant Object: Its an interesting subject, but its not featured article material, there must be another side of the coin here. The picture of the opium poppy seems to be there just to make the page attractive, and the one of the drug addict for unclear reasons, although it is hard to know what images could illustrate this page - certainly Dr. Alexander and the rat . Perhaps this needs to be incorporated in a biographical page of Bruce Alexander Giano 19:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abstain for now, there is a lot of work and thought going on here at the moment Giano 21:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the picture of the poppy is there to make the page attractive and to show readers what opium/morphine comes from. The drug addict is there to show what heroin/morphine does to people. The woman is in her early 30s but looks a great deal older.

Heroin produces dreadful effects, but do the images help explain Rat Park? Giano 21:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I felt they did. I felt the picture of the woman showed what a compulsion heroin use can become. The definition scientists use of "addictive" (I think I should make this clearer in the article) is if the activity becomes self-destructive or destructive of others, or of relationships. No matter how much you feel you need to take a substance, scientists will not say you are addicted until you start to want the substance more than you want other important things in life (food, love, work, health etc). I felt the picture of this young woman totally summed that up. The Rat Park author took rats who were the equivalent of that woman (they had drunk nothing but morphine-laced water for 57 days). Yet, he put them in Rat Park, and they suddenly didn't want it anymore.

I have a query about Wikipedia articles and illustrations in general. I would always prefer a nicely illustrated article, whether in a newspaper, magazine or encyclopedia, to one that isn't. Yet I've noticed some Wikipedia editors don't like photographs. I've had that criticism of my articles before: either that the pics are too big, or there are too many of them. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind that? Slim 22:03, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

• Object Interesting topic, worthy of an article. But not in this form. - DavidWBrooks 21:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) (whoops - typo'd by own signature)

• Support. Lead section includes the phrase "It was rat heaven". That's good enough for me! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

LOL I wouldn't mind being in there myself.  :-) Slim 03:24, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. As above, serious POV sections. This piece of pseudo-conspiracy theory doesn't need to have specific objections to the experiment itself mentioned (I'm not suprised an experimental conclusion based on the somewhat shaky foundation that the only evidence for physiological addiction comes from 'depressed lab rats' was largely ignored, actually), what needs to be described is evidence for physiological addiction and why this experiment doesn't address this. This should be done, preferably, not by the original authour of the article, but by someone who isn't trying to support the experiment's conclusion. This stinks of the 'all scientists are in a big conspiracy so they're ignoring this idea' argument used by pseudo scientists the world over. Psychobabble 09:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm . . . I think to be fair you should acknowledge that you're doing a degree in commerce/law, and the author of the book that drew attention to Rat Park has a PhD in psychology. The author of the original study, Bruce Alexander, is a professor of psychology; the sponsoring university is a reputable one; and the journal that published the results, and has subsequently published more material from the same man, is a reputable peer-reviewed academic journal. Based on these facts, I would suggest you have no reason to call this pseudo-science. What this was, and remains, was an experiment that went against the grain ideologically, as many rigorous scientific projects do every day. I apologize if I have created a conspiratorial tone; I will remove it when I do the re-write. The fault for that tone is mine, not Bruce Alexander's. Slim 21:05, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

I wrote after speaking to my wife, with a degree in behavioural neuroscience, who has looked fairly extensively at addiction. She assured me, as I thought, that the scientific consensus on addiction actually does exist for a reason. Gasp. Psychobabble 22:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Psychobabble, please be civil and realistic about this, and please assume good faith. It is simply false to call the Rat Park study "pseudo-science." It was funded by a major university. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal. The author has written a book about the issue, which has been published by a reputable publisher. There was a similar study showing similar results before it. There have been similar studies showing similar results since it. It is definitely a minority position, but not to the point of being "pseudo-science," or being so much in the minority that it is not worthy of a Wikipedia entry. If you want to see a real POV article on this issue, take a look at Drug addiction. To read that, you'd think no other view existed and that the matter had been settled.

I would be most grateful if your wife could supply a reference for her position and would happily incorporate it into the article. I am looking for the most reputable and most decisive studies that suggest opiates are physically and psychologically addictive. Over the last few days, I've been in touch with several scientists on the majority side of the debate, and have asked them to refer me to papers that most clearly show the opposite of the Bruce Alexander position. The papers show that the scientific community is having a great deal of difficulty in finding a consensus. For example, one recent paper I'll be quoting from in Science says: "[M]any people have at some time self-administered a potentially addictive drug, but very few become addicts"; "Mere self-administration [in rats] is not evidence of addiction"; and "There are no good animal models to distinguish mere drug self-administration behavior from the compulsive drug self-administration behavior that characterizes addiction." This paper is written by a scientist who appears to be on the drugs-are-addictive side of the debate, and the paper acknowledges that the empirical evidence to support this view is weak, though it ends by saying it hopes future studies may strengthen it. Slim 23:36, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

---

Dealing with the objections: The overriding objection seems to be POV, partly due to my writing style, but largely due to there being no reference to published criticism of the study. The latter is because, using all the normal research methods, I was not able to find any criticism other than the one sentence from the former drug czar in the Lauren Slater book, which I quoted. I've therefore e-mailed the current editor-in-chief of the pharmacology journal that published the Rat Park research in 1981 and have asked him whether he can help me to find any published responses to the experiment; and if there were none, at least then I can say in the article that there were none. And I've e-mailed Kleber, the former deputy drug tzar who was quoted by Lauren Slater as saying he recalled there was a methodology problem with Rat Park but couldn't remember what it was. I've asked him if he can direct me to some published criticism of Rat Park. I'll have to wait for a while for their responses, but I'll report back as soon as I receive more information. I've also removed the drawing of the poppy and the photograph of the heroin user, which a couple of editors felt were not appropriate. Slim 09:03, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

As a scientist, my reaction, when faced with the claims of some fellow scientist of having been unfairly disregarded by mainstream science and official policies, is always that of prudent scepticism. I do not exclude that such things happen. However, there are many examples of people who try to win in the arena of the popular press / book writing for the general population the recognition that they could not win among their peers due to shoddy experimentation or reasoning.

I really find the topic interesting, but due to its sensitivity and the risks for undue endorsement of a dubious theory, I would much prefer that somebody with some good knowledge of the field look into it, before making it a featured article. David.Monniaux 18:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

David, I take your point about scientists trying to score points in the court of popular opinion. But so far as I can tell, that is not what happened here. The author of this experiment was sought out by Lauren Slater, who is a psychologist and who had heard of Rat Park but wondered what had become of it. He actually said to her during the interview: "Why do you want to do Rat Park? It's forgotten." There was no impression given that he was seeking publicity. Anyway, I've written to a few scientists in the field today, including the editors-in-chief of a couple of pharmacology/psychopharmacology journals, and so far, I'm surprised and touched by the response. One of them has assigned two research assistants to find out whether published criticism of Rat Park exists. And all for Wikipedia. Slim 03:38, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The article is very interesting but: 1) The experiment results - wheter Dr.Alexander hypothesis was proven right or false, and how it was ignored and why - must be added to the lead. Also, the section 'The physicalist model of drug addiction' while interesting and fairly well written, seems out of place in that article - I think it should be moved to its own article instead. Finally, some more ilinks are in order (names, concepts...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Very interesting. I can think of a few Wikipedians who need such a park. - Xed 00:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 :-) Thank you, Xed. I'm one of them. Slim 00:16, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. POV issues appear to be, as far as I can tell, addressed. Informative and researched, AND interesting.--ZayZayEM 10:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. As it says in the talk page, it's not really POV - the problem is that the opposite theory has become so often repeated that people accept it as 'fact', and anything which does not agree with it seems POV. Dehumanizer 21:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knights Templar

The page describes a very interesting topic and is a striking example of good writing, the latter being quite the exception in most wikipedia articles. (Nominated by an anon, Dec 4 →Raul654 09:28, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC))

• Object: There are at least three references to the Templars having "connections," and yet these are never explained. There is an assumption that the Templars sort of walked into banking, with no explanation of how this came to be (crusaders need to travel & can't carry their money, so they leave it at one Templar place, get a ticket, and then travel with only the ticket, then withdraw when needed in Jerusalem or Byzantium). The heresy section is tepid on the motives of Philip the Fair, when I'm not sure anyone now doubts that he was making a grab for money and power (and, specifically, Papal power). Some plausible explanations for Baphomet are ignored in favor of some odd ones. References are weak. Templar dissolution was not overnight, but the break up of Templar power was. Discussion and link to Jacques de Molay not present. Council of Vienne not mentioned. The fact that the Hospitallers got the properties (except in Spain and Portugal) not mentioned. Dante as a defender is a sidelight that would be worth noting. Basically, it's a good overview article, but it needs to be more detailed, take its time more, and establish the story step by step. Geogre 03:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Fair, but not quite there. More details on the history of the order during the crusades. References. As a side note, it is not what I would call "a striking example of good writing", either. "What may have been all the Knights Templar in France were simultaneously arrested by agents of Philip the Fair, to later be tortured into admitting heresy" is not the apex of syntactic accomplishment. (but that alone is not sufficient reason to object, of course) Dbachmann 11:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I concur in the points raised by the two previous users and add the following. Significantly more information on the Templars' banking functions is needed. They received money and other gifts, which, being a monastic order, they didn't need to spend. So they saved it in their (very well fortified) castles. Others came to see these castles as excellent depositories and sent their riches there for safe keeping. Jacob1207 02:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

A very well-written and comprehensive article on a computer game that's very important for many gamers, and comes from one of the most famous game designers. Nice background information, as well as information on game specifics and related topics. Solver 13:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. No references. Johnleemk | Talk 13:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Minor object. No references. Most of the pictures need shrinking a little. It really needs a Wikipedia:Summary style section about Alien Crossfire as well, considering that Crossfire is an expansion pack. Apart from these minor gripes, I'd support - this is the best game article I've ever seen. Ambi 14:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• What exactly are references? Links to/from other articles? I suppose it's something I could try patch up. Solver 15:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Cite sources. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Can't really put such references there, though, I think. Most of the information comes from straight in the game, so there aren't exactly many sources to cite. And the tidbits that don't come from the game can be found at Apolyton, which is linked to at the end of the article.Solver 21:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Maybe not many, but it needs some. Where did all of the material for the article come from? Some is from direct observation, but there is other material that should be referenced. There is one citation to PC Gamer, there should be others that can be done similarly. Then please add them and other sources used in a references section as per the above link. Object until references are properly done. Look at Doom and the experimental Doom/References for how this can be done well. - Taxman 19:14, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Minor objection. Missing effect of the game on the computer game industry. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 16:41, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have added the Influence section to the article, please see what you think. Solver 21:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Some pics probably should be shrunk a little, and I guess the CrossFire expansion should be mentioned here. It's too short for its own entry. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 22:04, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree on shrinking images. However, Alien Crossfire has once been separated from the main article, and I think that generally expansions have their own articles, too. Solver 22:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I added the WikiProject Computer and Video Games infobox (stolen from AoE) which has shrunk the images. But I still have to object. There is a lot of detail on the story concept, game concept, and game features --- but not much on development/publishing, game play (selecting units, movement, keyboard usage), what platforms it is available on, and what multiplayer is like. Are there cheats? Was there any negative criticism, like Civ III received? --ZayZayEM 06:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Also think that Alien Crossfire's should have a small summary on this page.--ZayZayEM 06:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) No references. Certainly at least the manual can be added as a reference? Jeronimo 12:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2) Insufficient images. Screenshots are fair use, so we can use them. The current screenshot hardly gives a good idea of the game. 3) The storyline of the Voice is not mentioned, even though this is a vital part of the game (add a spoiler notification). And what about the mindworms (only a little is told), locusts of chiron, isles of the deep? 4) More background on several items in the games would be desirable. For example, specifically mentioning some of the technologies created (not all of them) or some of the secret projects would give a better idea for those who did not play the game. 5) More is needed on strategy. How can you win the game? For example, in my experience certain factions are easier to play than others. Similar for multi-player. 6) The influence section is incorrectly titled. It has a bit on which games influence AC, but not which games were influence by AC. The rest is about awards and popularity, about which we need more information. How many copies of the game were (approximately) sold? Are there many multiplayer communities? There's also too little information about the expansion pack (I know it has its own article, but more is needed). 7) The lead sectin is insufficient for an article of this lenght. It should give a summary of the article's contents. Jeronimo 12:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Good idea with the manual. There are not many references (books, articles) about computer games, although perhaps some search at ludology might net a useful thing. With manual and current 'further reading' and 'external links' I think references will be ok. On other things I support Jeronimo as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Man, do I remember the countless hours I spent playing this one. Sure, I'll support. Everyking 05:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Not a bad article, but it needs more references, such as the manual. Also, a longer lead section is necessary. I would like a section on how AC has impacted the genre and the industry. Andre (talk) 18:08, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, not least because it's a reminder of how I wasted all my time before discovering the Wikipedia ;o) — OwenBlacker 13:57, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Orthodoxy

A very complete article on a subject that is interesting, or at least was for me. After reading it through it seems NPOV, and well-written. Not a self-nomination yet, but I may be making some contributions to it in the near future. --CMcQueeny 04:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Ginormous unseemly lead. No pictures (Churches, services, clergy, tapestries, icons...)--ZayZayEM 08:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Clear POV problems - several unattributed assumptions and conclusions. Parts of this are quite good, but much of the article needs a serious copyedit, or even rewrite in an encyclopedic style. Ambi 08:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • In response to both of the above: Hmm... I didn't notice any POV to speak of, but admittedly it was rather late. I'd appreciate it if you could point out some instances or parts of the article that are POV, and I will NPOV them. As far as pictures are concerned, I've actually been seaching for some already, and there should be some soon. --CMcQueeny 18:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Article needs a concise and well-written intro section. Jacob1207 23:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Copyleft

The article is complete, well-structured, and well-written: it explains clearly what copyleft is; how and why it originated; the various forms it takes; and the views of both its opponents and proponents. The writing is of high quality. Sietse 13:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Insufficient references. Johnleemk | Talk 13:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I disagree, i think there are sufficient links for reference, this is more of a concept article than something with verifiable scientific resources. Support Alkivar 23:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I actually read this entire article, and found it to be very informative. Masterhomer 10:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. No references. External links are not enough. I would find it hard to beleive there is nothing in print that covers this. Also I'm sure there are available legal opinions on the concept. A reliable external link is acceptable as a reference if it is formatted properly as shown in the link I've just given. That is basically assurance that the author has used the material there for material in the article or to fact check it. Otherwise the link could be entirely for additional informative material for the interested reader. That is a critical difference. - Taxman 18:42, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Moved to "Former Featured Article Candidates"

End of January 2005 Copyleft was moved from FAC to FFAC. I didn't want to comment here before, because of having largely contributed to the article myself (well, call it false modesty).

Anyway, I thought making it a Featured Article would have been slightly to early. There are still some issues to be sorted out first:

• Discussions on whether copyleft should be primarily approached from GNU/FSF/RMS/software/license-by-copyright-law approach(es), or primarily from an umbrella approach about the copyleft principle keep popping up (very interesting discussion!)
• I tried twice to elaborate the example of how Wikipedia tackles the difficult problem of being copyleft for a unique object. Moved the second version (after being removed from the copyleft article) to BDFL, but there also it was removed. This second version of that contribution can now be found here. Still think this example might clarify the copyleft concept: not having been able to find a clear example not relating to wikipedia, the contribution however remains subject to both "self reference" and "original research" objections.
• ... see above ... e.g. more "source references" might be great!
• The article is still definitely too long (... I guess resulting from too many attempts of people to make their favourite approach crawl up to the first paragraph - see Talk:copyleft).
• The short definition (= first paragraph) is still not completely OK -IMHO-, as it seems to exclude copyleft being implemented outside a "license-by-copyright-law" framework...
• ...

I plan to contribute to such improvements as much as I can, and promise to relist copyleft as FAC, once I feel at ease most of it has been covered appropriately!

--Francis Schonken 11:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Our Gang (The Little Rascals)

Self Re-nomination. This is the third time I've nominated this. There have never been any outright objections, just minor comments to correct. This is a well-written, comprehensive article about one of the most popular film properties of all time. --FuriousFreddy 03:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support, third times the charm. Good work. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. How'd you feel about including the poster for the 1994 film too?--nixie 08:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure. Shall I or will you? --FuriousFreddy 12:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I guess I shall. And I did. :) --FuriousFreddy 16:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm sorry, but this article absolutely needs footnotes. Passages like Roach's anecdote of how he supposedly got the idea for the series' concept are next to useless if not explicitly attached to a source using a note. You cannot possibly expect readers to search through all the references mentionned at the end of the article to fact-check/source the anecdote. Other strong statements that either require backing by a quote from a source or de-NPOVing/rewording include:

*little Farina,[...] eventually became both the most popular member of the 1920s gang and the first true African-American child star.

• • ...mentioned in both Maltin/Bann and Bogle. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• though some historians do not look favorably upon the characters of the African-American children today. The words "some historians" should be enough to instill dread in anyone who believes in verifiability on Wikipedia.
  • ...perhaps reword it to just "some", as there are plenty of laymen who feel the same way? (and it should be easy to find a source to verify that). --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• The most important African-American child actors in the series were [...]. Most important in what sense? In terms of screen time? "popularity"? number of appearances in the series? later career achievements? influence?
  • I will reword it to "the four main," since those four were the only major black characters in the series. There were plenty of black guest stars and bit players, but those four were main characters. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

*After Sammy, Mickey, and Mary left the series in the mid-1920s, Our Gang declined slightly in popularity, although it remained financially successful. Figures to back this would be great, if available.

• • Exact figures aren't available. Review snippets are, however, as well as mentions from the Maltin/Bann book. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Spanky [...] popularized the expressions "Okey-dokey!" and "Okey-doke!" I doubt you can find a convincing source for this one, so I suppose this is an assumption the author made. I recommend toning the wording down a bit.
  • From the Maltin/Bann book. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• As the profit margins declined due to to double features, [...]
  • Also from Maltin/Bann book.
• The new Our Gangers recruited by MGM were more in the vein of the "cute" kids that Roach had despised than the original gang. Who says this? If the author believes it and has no quote (from an art/film critic with a minimum of respectability) to back it, then its POV.
  • Maltin and Bann state this in their book. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• The series dropped in both popularity and financial success after 1939,[...]
  • ...can be verified using figures from the Maltin/Bann book. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• The Little Rascals was a moderate success for Universal, and for a short time a sequel and a television series were planned, but nothing came to pass. Screams for box-office figures and source about the planned series.
  • Should be able to be found. If not, will delete the mention of it being a "moderate success". There should be articles on the projected sinoffs available online, however. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• The only remittances they received were their weekly salaries during their time in the gang, which ranged from $40 a week for newcomers to $300 or more a week for stars like Farina, Spanky, and Alfalfa. Precise figures require precise source citations.
  • Maltin/Bann book. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to say that apart from that, this article is clearly above average; I congratulate the authors. I will gladly support when my concern is adressed. Phils 20:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the source for nearly everything you mentioned is the Maltin/Bann book; a few of the items about the African-American kids comes from the Bogle book. I can take care of the footnotes within a few hours. Should I be using page-specific footnotes? --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I have added citations to all of the above-mentioned items, and other places where they appeared to be needed. I used paretheticals, since nearly all of my sources are print-based, not web-based. --FuriousFreddy 03:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Support. Thank you for adressing the objection so quickly, and good work. Now some others might want you to use a footnote system, but the way the article is referenced right now is ok by me. Phils 05:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how exactly to go about doing a footnote system for a Wiki article like this. Would I just be using superscript reference points, and a long list of footnotes at the ewend? If anyone decides a footnote system is neccessary, I will alter it. --FuriousFreddy 10:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

No, there is no such thing as "absolutely needs footnotes", your parenthetic references are fine. I'm not sure there are enough of them (don't have time for a really good look tonight) and they want just a little formatting (I'll fix that tomorrow), but they're fine. In some special cases footnotes can work better than parentheses, but that's not the case here. Please don't anybody let the very proper requirement for sourcing of particular statements drift into a requirement for footnotes! They're optional. Ample and exact sourcing is valuable, but a "learned" or academic look has no special value in itself (on the contrary, IMO). Bishonen | talk 02:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I've never seen another call for footnotes. This is an encyclopedia article, not a term paper! Quill 03:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent. Quill 03:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support, lovely. With a subject like this, it's impressive that the author manages to not assume all readers are Americans or even native English speakers, and makes the rest of us welcome, too. Great work.--Bishonen | talk 00:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support, whilst putting in footnotes, I noticed the following:

  In later years, a large number of adults falsely claimed to have been members of the popular group. A long list of people, including persons famous in other capacities such as Nanette Fabray [10] [11], Tony Dow's mother Muriel Montrose [12], Gloria Winters [13], and Jimmy Weldon [14] have had biographical write-ups that falsely claimed that they were Our Gang kids. Eddie Bracken's official biography was once altered to state that he appeared in Our Gang instead of The Kiddie Troupers, although he himself had no knowledge of the change. The obituaries of some of these people, such as Lucille Brown [15] and Sara Jane Roberts [16], stated falsely that they were in the series. Ms. Brown's obituary claimed that she had played Farina, who was actually played by Allen Hoskins, a male.

• There are wikilinks to old revisions of Wikipedia pages, which is most definitely a no-no. We don't refer back to ourselves. Also, the other websites given are, IMO, rather dubious. I think it would be better to remove this section altogether or find more notable examples of false claims. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand. I revised the section so that it refrences the Maltin-Bann book alone, removing the links back to ourselves and the other websites in the section. The only info that remains is drawn from pages 241-242 from the Maltin-Bann book. --FuriousFreddy 14:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Enjoyable, informative and well-illustrated. --Theo (Talk) 18:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bioterrorism

Good article, only needs a little more work (which tends to happen during a nomination process) to be featured, I think. I've just done a load of wikignomery, so it's arguably a self-nom. — OwenBlacker 13:49, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

• Object for now. while i agree this article looks good, I think it is lacking that oomph that a FAC should have. It seems well written but it just doesnt have a lot of impact. Perhaps this is due to the constant media coverage of this subject, but I do not feel this is the right time for this to be nominated. Now for specific complaints:
  1. lack of images.
  2. subsection labelled stub, needs content added there
  3. 0 reference to "first responders" and those responsible for cleanup.
  4. Category A entries all have a 1-3 line description, are Category B and Catagory C entries not worthy of this same treatment?
  5. Categories A and B have lists, Category C cops out with 1 sentance.
  6. Biological warfare programs seems to be a brief afterthought.

I have more but this is a good start Alkivar 19:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. I mostly agree with Alkivar. Most importantly, the article fails to draw a line between bioterrorism and biological warfare. These may be very closely connected, but then so should the articles. In addition, the history seems incomplete (where's the sarin attack in the Japanese metro), and most of the topics are "discussed" by adding a link only. Far from featured status IMO. Jeronimo 07:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. Category A has entries for all the mentioned biological agents, except for "viral hemorrhagic fevers". What are these?
  2. Category B has entries but not in summary form.
  3. Category C should be expanded.
  4. Biological warfare programmes and convention on biological weapons needs expansion. I'm sure there is much more material than that!
  5. Modern Bioterrorist incidents needs to be expanded in summary form.
  6. There is a sentence "Arguments given to justify this option is that people are used to plants much more than to chemical sensors and the use in public places would not worry the population. Another argument is that these GMO sentinels could be deployed on vast geographical areas and their system of detection could be introduced into the evergreen trees and the algae of the watery zones, making it possible for satellites to supervise and perceive any change of color due to an hostile agent." in Plants as sensors that is totally unqualified. Who give these arguments? How do we know this information is not just made up?
  7. Why is DARPA references in "See also"?

Ta bu shi da yu 05:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cambodia

Self Nomination This is the second time that this article has been nominated (First time and this time by me). I have built this article from the ground up (complete rewrite). In the previous time, I nominated this article there were issues which has to be addressed, they are now addressed. I have not only added expansion to the articles;but I have also make sure the article is up-to-date with the latest Wikipedia trends (New infobox etc.) I deem this article to be worthy of Featured article status. Squash 01:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cambodia/archive1

• Object: any "Trivia" heading is evil and must die. The content of that section (The Khmer language (Cambodia's official) consists of both a large number of consonants and subscripts, which makes it one of the longest languages in the world. It is also one of the hardest languages to master in writing.) is just as bad. I don't know what the difference is between References and Sources, and I very much doubt that the contents of those sections together account for all the material in the article. The lead needs beefing up: I would expect at least references to the Angkor temples and the genocide, since they are the country's main claims to fame. Mark¹ 04:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Trivia section - Removed
  • References condensed to Sources - Done
  • Lead section - Already beefed up from last time, no need to beef it up again
  • Add Khmer Rouge Section - Done
  • Angkor Wat - Done, under "Tourism" header. Squash 07:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • • Good work, but some more issues: the Sources section should be retitled References (the standard heading); a one-paragraph lead I think is still insufficient for an article of this length, and I stand by my earlier suggestions there; the Economy section stops at 2002; the International Rankings section is out of place and contains only one ranking, which could presumably be housed elsewhere; there are language problems requiring a thorough copyedit, notably with regard to capitalisation; the See Also links should be incorporated into the text; has anyone read Miss Becker's book? If not, why is it being recommended? If so, why has it not been used as a reference? Mark¹ 08:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Sources heading changed to References - Done
  • Expanded lead (introduction) - Done
  • Economy section expanded - Done
  • International ranking, expanded to 4 things (on par with Australia) - Done
  • Left Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit on article - Done
  • Becker, Futher reading removed - Done
  • See also links incorporated into text - Done Squash 23:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • • I'll do the copyediting, but I wasn't sure what to do about The name "Kampuchea" was kept during the rule of the Khmer Rouge. The list at the start of that section implies that the Khmer Rouge introduced the name. Mark¹ 01:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Corrected Questionable Khmer Rouge and Kampuchea name section - Done Squash 07:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Added 2004 economy information from CIA Website - Done
  • Added references to Angkor Wat and Khmer Rouge in introduction - Done
  • The see also etc. are condensed into the text of the article and is on par with other country articles - Done Squash 10:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • • • Picture overload- we now have far too many. In the Economy section, there must be growth figures available for 2003. What happened to tourist numbers after 911? That was three years ago. Mark¹ 05:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Reduced number of pictures - Done
  • Added economy rate for 2003 - Done Squash 06:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • All issues now resolved - Done (Except for the copyedit) Squash 11:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This is very close, but I have some small things. 1) I think subsections are a bit overused here. Most sections are very brief (a result of the sub-article style), and therefore it is usually not necessary to add subsections for 10 line sections. Examples of subsections that are not necessary: Origins of name|Uses of names , French colonial|Early colonial, Provinces|Municipalities (Krong), etc. 2) I think the "2003 Cambodia and Thailand riots" subsection doesn't belong in this article. It is very specific, and too detailed. Instead, make a brief mention about it, and move the main contents to either History of Cambodia or Foreign relations of Cambodia (or both). 3) I don't like the "International Rankings" section. It is incomplete (there must be 100s of such rankings), and the meaning and value of each ranking (how reliable are they?) are difficult to determine. If you want to include this info, I suggest you embed it in the text where appropriate. For example, the GPD could be mentioned in the Economy section: "Cambodia's GPD is USD 1900, which ranks it 175th (out of 232) in the CIA's GPD ranking [link here]". 4) I always think either the references or the further reading section should include written works (i.e. books, articles, etc.) There must be many books written about Cambodia, and it would be useful to have some listed as reference or further reading. Jeronimo 07:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Limited number of subsections to only those in the history section - Done
  • Cut down on information of 2003 Cambodia and Thailand riots - Done
  • Put the GDP ranking in economy section and got rid of the rest - Done
  • I added 4 more Cambodia-related books, which brings the total to 5 books in "Further reading" - Done
    • All issues now resolved. Squash 08:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Great, support now. Jeronimo 10:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Some more objections are on the article Talk page. ;) Mark¹ 09:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Replies on that very talk page... Squash 09:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There's also some minor grammar and spelling issues (i.e. "Khmer Rogue"). History section has virtually nothing after the fall of the Khmer Rouge. The Government and Politics section misses content on Government entirely. What's left in the politics section is more to do with recent events - it does little to describe the political situation in the country. The new Politics section is much improved, but I don't think mangling the two topics helps - there's room for a quite seperate distinction in this case, and doing it this way makes for badly flowing prose. I also don't like the "Political figures that have changed Cambodian history in one way" section - it's POV and awkward. The Provinces section could do with a little expansion and cleaning up, and Geography could also do with a minor copyedit. There's spelling and grammar issues in the Economy section. The tourism information in there says it was affected by September 11, but has no further details. Generally, the economy section could do with a copyedit too, as could most of the article (things like the occasional missing or excess "the"). The economy section is now much improved, but starting it off by discussing the recent changes is a little odd. Starting off the culture section by talking about its influence on Thailand is a wee bit strange, and some of the rest of that section is badly worded and could do with a cite. The transportation speaks about the rail lines in the past tense, but doesn't say what happened to them. The foreign relations section is decent initially, but then focuses a bit too much on recent events. The Tourism section needs a particularly good copyedit. I also suspect that far more references were used in writing this than are currently listed there. That said, despite all these criticisms, this is well on the way. Ambi 06:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: How is it possible to expand the provinces section, if almost (if not) all the other country articles are just merely a list of provinces. Some of the other issues have seem to be fixed by other people. Squash 08:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Some things have been addressed (thanks to whoever did that - it's much improved!), but there's still quite a lot remaining, and I've added a couple of changed ones. As to the provinces, I just think a little bit of a format wouldn't go astray - that section is a bit ugly. Ambi 11:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I've tried to clarify what was happening during the 1980s; spelling and grammar (I hope) are all fixed; 911, it turns out was a red herring- I've updated that and tried to put the economy and culture sections into a more coherent shape; transportation has been updated; foreign relations updated and the recent events trimmed; references added for the content which I've added. Mark¹ 06:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • This has improved so much since it was nominated - kudos to both of you. Would it be possible to fix the history section? It really needs some more post-1975 information - that's a big hole at the moment. Once that's done, I'll gladly support, as the other remaining issues are minor. Ambi 12:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Ambi, I'll be glad to help but I don't think I should bloat the article any further since the History is already big enough as it already is. There are links in the Related topics template which lead to History of Cambodia (1979-present). The 3 history sections are enough to cover as it is. Squash 21:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Fully support! Conditional support, once the public domain images have been shifted to commons and added to the Cambodia image gallery. Excellent article, I just wish there was more print references! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons: Cambodia - Done Squash 08:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work :-) Ta bu shi da yu 08:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I think we're done. (Still object as above, but) I'm optimistic of having this knocked into shape before the end of this week, so it would be nice to hold off a decision on the candidacy until then. Mark¹ 09:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Great job! Squash 09:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. 172 02:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Very close to support. The Khmer Rouge section has a picture of Pol Pot and links to his article, but never explains who he is or what relation he has to that material. Well, the caption does, but the text should too, to make it clearer. A tiny bit more about him should be covered there. - Taxman 16:04, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • A tiny bit added, one brief sentence but informative sentence - Done Squash 00:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer

Addressed previous objection over lack of an image that shows what the aircraft actually looks like. It's also very topical - Steve Fossett completed his latest world record in it on Saturday. All images and data in the article are vouched for by a team-member, and have been ratified with the engineering and project teams.

• Oppose No references or inline citations (Most common reason to reject too). Probably too short for such a thing,but I,mnot knowledgeable enoughto really judge on that. Circeus 17:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose 1)No references or inline citations (FA criteria 2c). 2)The current events tag at the top of the article and the description of events that have occured in the last three or four days shows the article is not yet stable (FA criteria 2e). 3)The article currently contains a large number of single sentence paragraphs. These need to be condensed or expanded into larger paragraphs. --Allen3 ^talk 17:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with the above. That's not to say that, with some work, this article can't become a FAC. However, it desperately needs references to back everything up. As well, as the article appears to currently be in the media, it might be best to wait a month or so to see how the events play out. That way, a more complete article can be written, as additional references will be available. --Ataricodfish 19:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Has the "current event" tag on top, meaning it does not meet Stability requirements. Also, no references. Fieari 03:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Can someone give some examples of what inline references and citations could be added? This is a new and unique aircraft, and there isn't any other reference material on it out there. Also, not clear on why previous submissions didn't cite lack of references as a reason for rejection. Any thoughts on that? Also, will remove current event tag, as all the information about the aircraft's record attempts is now out, and there's no reason to add to the article right now. poleydee 09:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Use a "References" section to list all the sources that were used to write the article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for a short list of types of sources that are acceptable (eg. newspapers, magazines, some websites are a few examples). Use inline citations like m:Cite/Cite.php (see an example of this in action at Hugo Chavez to make it easy to fact-check. --maclean25 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hey Poleydee, essentially, there are no references in the article, so as someone like myself who knows nothing of airplanes, I have no way of knowing whether the information presented in the article is accurate or made-up. If I wanted to learn more information, I don't have a single reference to click on to obtain more information (i.e., books, websites, etc.). There are statements such as "As a consequence of this, there was some concern that, if the aircraft was to use standard jet fuel, the fuel might freeze.". This statement is referencing someone's thoughts without a source, and whose concern are we referencing? The designers? Critics? Scientists? You? A general rule of thumb, you need a reference for numbers/statistics ("GlobalFlyer's fuel sensors indicated that the plane had possibly lost about 1,200 kg (2,600 lb) of fuel early in the flight."), people's thoughts/feelings/quotes, and anything which the layman wouldn't understand. There is a good deal of information in the article about the trip, the demonsions of the plane, the logic behind the design, etc. Source where you go this information and you'll be good. Otherwise, nothing stops someone from claiming the plane really lost 1,000 kg, or 12,000 kg, etc.
• As for previous submissions, I have never seen an article pass in recent history without references (See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Missingno for a recent article which was objected due to lack of references and taken off FAC as of today. If you scroll down, you'll see that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star is facing the same criticism), so I'll need to see an example to know what you are referring to. The article above, Wikipedia:What is a featured article mentions in 2C that featured articles must, "include the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations; these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations". Some older FAC's slipped through under the "brillant prose" rational, but those articles are being/have been deleted (i.e. Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us) or corrected.
• I hoped this explanation is helpful. Again, it's an informative article, but without references to back you up, there's nothing to verify how accurate it is, nor any way for me to learn more information outside of Wikipedia.--Ataricodfish 17:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You can use ref/note (which I prefer) or ref/ref for inline citations. See the FA History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) for a sample of the ref/note system. Rlevse 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object - needs refs. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Response These are all helpful, and thanks for that, but I'm no further forward. The information is gained first hand from my personal dealings with the team who put the aircaft together. In other words, this article IS the source reference. If you like, we can reference the official website, but seeing as this was put together in the same way, it's just as authorative. In fact the wikipedia article is more authorative as it's been through the wiki process, meaning that it's been checked and double checked by more people than the official website has. I'm getting a little disillusioned, because as someone who was a part of the team, I thought I'd be able to bring my experience to the wikipedia first hand to create an original entry, rather than creating an entry that is simply a cull of other pieces of information from the web. So help me out, how do we make this work? --poleydee 10:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! We value people who have firsthand experience of the topic, such as yourself. However, the featured article criteria states that FAs should be verifiable and well-referenced. Unfortunately, personal experience doesn't qualify as an authoratative source. Perhaps you could find some sources that deal with this topic? Check out some of the other featured articles to see the amount and different types of sources. I hope this helps. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Congo War

Originally nominated as Congo Civil War, now a disambiguation page

This is my first nomination for a featured article (so forgive me please if I break some sort of protocol or do anything wrong). After reading Congo Civil War I was struck by how well it seemed to be done. I thought that by submitting it to this process it would be given the broader readerships that it probably deserved. I did zero work on this article. Kevin Rector 15:29, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Definitely not out of line, don't worry, and yes it is a great article. I was sure to have seen it here before, and found the previous nomination in the archive. When nominating an article it's always a good idea to check for previous nominations and check if the objections listed back then have been worked on. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 21:29, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

"When nominating an article it's always a good idea to check for previous nominations and check if the objections listed back then have been worked on." See now, that's good advice. I went and added it to Template:FAC-instructions but it got ripped out quite quickly. Between that and Mirv's edit summary on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates when he fixed my first timer's faux pas (I added it to the bottom instead of the top of the list) this will most likely be my last FAC nomination. Kevin Rector 01:21, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Oeff, please do not be too easily offended by edit summaries, I'm sure Mirv meant no disrespect, we all make mistakes (that even sounds too grave) especially when first arriving. I agree that the "previous nomination check" should be listed in the template, but if enough other people disagree we might as well keep it like this. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 11:16, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has given me kind words. Yesterday I was having quite a bad day, with significant amounts of very stressful work due. So I took a break and turned to the Wikipedia as I often do. I read the Congo Civil War article and thought is was so good that I wanted to find a way to recognize the people who had worked on it. So I found my way here and nominated it. I agree that Mirv probably didn't mean any disrespect, and everyone makes mistakes, and I'm not holding a grudge (for all I know he was having a bad day himself). Anyway, weigh in with your opinion on adding the bits about looking for past versions at Template talk:FAC-instructions where I've put in my suggestions. Kevin Rector 15:29, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

• How about some references? Support, though. I'm pleased to see the inclusion of a map roughly outlining the extent of territory held by the factions, which I suggested during the last FAC nomination. Everyking 15:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Needs references. Otherwise pretty well done. Don't worry about harsh comments people make, just take them for what they are worth and try to improve articles the best you can. - Taxman 17:14, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

• Comment After much discussion on Talk:Congo Civil War revolving around the 1960, 1996 and 1998 Congo conflicts, I have stuck my neck out and volunteered to move Congo Civil War to Second Congo War, as part of what promises to be messy and tedious split. Congo Civil War will then become disambiguation, and the content on the 1996 conflict will be moved to First Congo War. This seems to be consensus, unless I hear an objection soon. The reasons for the move include: the 1996 war being vastly overshadowed in the article despite its importance; making the article a little easier to follow by putting at least one "and then everyone switched sides again"-type moment on another page and limiting mention of the shorter lived armed groups to one article or the other; and the fact that these are actually the names used to refer to the separate conflicts. Please feel free to comment or object on the CCR talk page and thanks to everyone who has said nice things and offered constructive criticism on the article as it stands now.
  • Also, in response to the helpful comments here I have made a reference section to which I have added the one book (that I am aware of) specifically dealing with the recent Congo conflict, as well as two other books that are useful. Almost all of the decent information and analyses are coming out of news articles and reports by humanitarian and human rights NGOs, think-tanks, etc, which I feel are well covered in the External Links section. BanyanTree 22:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • But if the external links are used to contribute or support specific material in the article, they should be cited properly as references, just like a print resource. Best would be to include links to primary material from the humanitarian organizations, etc that support the given claims. - Taxman 00:02, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Point taken. Somebody else has already pointed out that I misunderstood "References" to mean something like the "References Cited" in a paper rather than the external links that look like endnote numbers. I'm still learning... BanyanTree 00:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Well it is like that. But if a topic has no available published literature, then we need to use the best available resources to confirm the facts in the article. No apologies needed, just keep learning and we will be all set. - Taxman 18:30, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review. What article are you nominating now? I see no references in Second Congo War, only external links and further reading. My concern is that the material is shifting too much now for it so be a featured article. I suggest a move to peer review for a couple weeks or enough time to really iron out the changes properly. - Taxman 18:30, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Linked list

Quite comprehensive. Even has images to explain things! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. No references. Johnleemk | Talk 09:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • What references can we provide though? I know that if I'd written that article I'd have just taken it out of my head because I learned it so long ago. Still, if anyone knows of any authoritative references, we should be able to add these without any problems. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Where you learned it from would be a good start. :-p After all, surely you didn't invent the code out of thin air did you? That's original research. You need to reference a good book on C, Visual Basic, etc. Johnleemk | Talk 11:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • There are now references. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object (for now). Article reads like it could use some reorganization. Also, the Visual Basic example in the middle doesn't jibe with the use of pseudocode in the rest of the article (excepting the "language support" C example). --FOo 15:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The original author has corrected this. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The reason the VB code is in the middle of the article is because the VB code explains how languages that don't really have a strong pointer/reference section can still do linked lists. Heck, I'd put in a COBOL one I did ages ago at TAFE when challenged that it couldn't do that. Not that I admit to using COBOL... :P So I understand why this bit got reverted back from Wikicode to VB code. Ta bu shi da yu 10:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now. really seems that 90% of this article is JUST CODE. I think articles which are 90% example with minimal else, Who invented the idea of a linked list etc... doesnt belong on FAC yet. (as a side note I personally think any page which is mostly code should be non listable) and treated just like list of X articles. While I still feel there is a lot of code, it is now broken up and suits the article. In its current form I find this article both informational and clear, whereas when it was mostly code I easily got bored with it. So good job folks. SUPPORT Alkivar 22:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. The history of the linked list would be interesting. I should be able to find some info on this. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Information was found and added. Also, a linked list is mostly code. The descriptions are fine, so I don't see how your objection that it's "90% code" is actionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, I did a count of the amount of words in the article that are code. There are about 950 (maybe out by one or two words). There are about 4,300 words in the entire article now I've added some info on the history of the linked list. That's acually about only 22% of the article that is code! So, not 90% code. :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Object. My, you like to quarrel with objections. First, the above objection is entirely actionable. You would simply remove the code, an action. It is debatable whether that is better, but it is actionable. It does seem that the article is dominated by code, even if by word count it is 22%. It takes up much more than 22% of the column inches. 2) You complained you didn't know what references to add and now the article has 5 only four days later. Can you honestly confirm that all of them were used to add or validate material in the article? 3) The lead section is very short. It could stand to be simplified especially in a first paragraph entirely aimed at non programmers, then carry more detailed information. The terms used should be explained inline especially in a lead section. The intro (and in fact the article) should explain why linked lists are important and generally what they are for and what their advantages are. The article has very little of this and the lead section has practically none. - Taxman 14:14, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
          • Taxman, I got those references from the external links the article already had. You'll also notice I added additional information I got from elsewhere, so that should explain some additional references. So please don't imply that I added them without knowing where the information came from. That's quite unfair. For what it's worth, I've been talking to the original author and he's an old computer dog that was taught how to do linked lists when he first stated computing, so that will explain the lack of references, though he added links so I suppose he used them to clarify stuff. Also note that I didn't create the original article!!!! The lead section is pretty short, so I'll try to improve this. The reason that linked lists are important is a good point, so I'll try to improve this also.
            • Its not about knowing where the information came from, its about actually using the material in the references to add or fact check the material in the article. That is hard to do in 4 days, but certainly possible. It is just important to know that you did that, so that is why I am emphasizing it so much. As to the rest, please do work on those. - Taxman 20:50, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
          • With regards to the comment that the article is dominated by code, well, I must respectfully disagree. Exactly how are you going to write an article about a programming issue without using any code? Heck, it's wikicode, a form of pseudocode. My take on this issue: it's sort of like creating an article about a mathematics topic without including any formulas or proofs. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Well I can think of a good example. Mckusick's design and implementation series about the Berkely software distribution is well less than 1% code, and discusses the code and algorithms in depth. It is a very well regarded series of books, and is also very well referenced by the way.
          • P.S. sorry if I look like I'm arguing to cause problems. That's not my intention. I'm sometimes a little vigorous in my responses. Sorry if that has caused offense. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Just keep that vigor on implementing the suggestions and we'll be all set. - Taxman 20:50, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
• I'm not sure how I missed this whole discussion, but I wrote a lot of the article, including most of the code (I agree there is a bit too much), and the reason there aren't references is because I wrote from my head, having, like most programmers, internalized the concepts of linked lists long ago (this doesn't mean it's original research; I didn't invent them or anything). I could add some references to related material, such as the CLRS section, but this wasn't actually a source. Honestly I think that outside of advantages and disadvantages, very little can be said of linked lists in prose, because they are so basic; they are to computer science as cave-painting is to art, with no one originator or recorded history. Indeed, anyone who claimed credit for them would look rather silly.

However, I think demonstrating some of the operations using *diagrams*, in addition to code, would be very neat and elucidating. I plan to do something like this in the near future. I'm apathetic as to whether the article is featured, but I would like it to be as useful as possible. Deco 09:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, although I believed that when I wrote it, having read the history section I'm quite surprised and better-informed. Thanks to the writer. Deco 09:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some diagrams are added. Input is appreciated. Deco 10:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Music of Nigeria

old nominations and peer review. I've expanded this considerably since the last nom, including a section on music festivals and holidays; I've also added inline citations and a few more references for various things. I also added three GFDL photos and some sound samples. I think the only previous concerns that I haven't addressed fully are 1) too many red links, some of which have been filled in, and 2) problems with the lack of a coherent explanation of what characterizes Nigerian music, which I've attempted to address but decided it's impossible -- Nigeria is a modern creation without anything particularly tying the various peoples together culturally. There is instead some info on more general West African and African characteristics. Thank you for your consideration. Tuf-Kat 05:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have a request - would it be possible to get any copyleft music on there [esp. full length songs]? There are sections for traditional instruments, Children's music and theatrical music, 'etc where it would be possible (albeit not easy) to find people willing to make their work available under a copyleft license. →Raul654 05:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I have not yet had much luck finding folk music recordings of any kind, much less copylefted. A couple messages to various likely organizations has also not turned up any takers; the Library of Congress has some recordings, but they're not PD and if IIRC, the LoC doesn't even know what the copyright status on them is (and even if I did get permission, it would be $100+ to get a copy since they're not on the web) -- I've been turned down by UNESCO, the University of Ohio, a couple other universities with musicology departments, and some other organizations. The best I've been able to do is find two copyrighted recordings I could upload a sample of, but they're .ram files and I haven't yet found a way to convert them to ogg. (I left a message at the VP asking for help, but no one has replied -- if anyone here knows how to do that, I'm using a Mac, but could e-mail them to someone with Windows if it's easier). I could still hear back from a couple musicological groups I contacted, but I'm not anticipating much at this point; especially over the last few years, I think such groups have become wary of being criticized for exploiting native performers. They don't want to freely license a folk recording and then be criticized for a "Return to Innocence" or Deep Forest-style fiasco (i.e. an elderly Taiwanese couple is recorded, then the recording is used in a major international hit, for which they are not compensated). If anyone has any further ideas on who to contact, let me know and I'll do the grunt work. Tuf-Kat 06:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. All the current sound clips are claimed as "fair use", but none of them has a fair use rationale. --Carnildo 07:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed Tuf-Kat 08:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I spent several hours editing this during its peer review, so I hope that doesn't weaken my opinion here (through conflict of interest). I think this is a rich and exciting topic that represents a summary of more detailed information in numerous daughter articles (which I haven't looked at, regrettably). Non-western musical styles often find it hard to compete in the global maelstrom—even in their original country—so making this body of information freely available on the Internet is a very welcome step, for Nigerians, other Africans, and worldwide. The author has brought to bear his considerable knowledge and experience in preparing this text, and has worked hard to improve it with images and sound excerpts, no easy task in this area. Without wishing to pre-empt further improvements that other reviewers may suggest, I congratulate him. I have a few comments:
  • It certainly wouldn't want to be any longer, particularly given the existence of daughter articles. After the start, it's a little like one long list, although adorned with examples and commentary in places. This is not uncommon in Wikipedia articles, and is probably inevitable in dealing with many topics. It's just something to keep in mind when assessing the readability and length.
  • The numerical references are separated by a space from the sentence they follow, which occasionally results in overhang on the next line. One way around this would be to replace the normal space with a non-breaking space—' '—which is a little tedious to do. Another way would be to remove the space. Or you could put the numeral immediately after the full stop, a very common method.

I changed to non-breaking spaces. Tuf-Kat 15:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I note the more explicit justification of fair use that you've inserted on the info pages of the excerpts. If you don't mind, I'll copy this to the Wikiproject:Composer page, where there's a section on using fair-use excerpts. You might remove the first sentence 'This is from a recording' as redundant, or you could add 'commercial' before 'recording'. Tony 01:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - this looks really good, certainly much better than when I commented on its first FAC. But there are a couple of things that I think need to be fixed before I would support.
  • First is the large number of redlinks - they make a lot of the article look unfinished, and if they were still there when the article appeared on the main page they would invite vandalism - hard to detect as no-one would be watching them. In particular, there are several redlinks in Main article subheaders, which seems redundant.
    • Filled in stubs for the main article subheaders. Regarding the rest, I could just fill them in with stubs, but I don't think that would be particularly useful. If vandalism is too great a concern, I don't care if this is ever on the main page. Tuf-Kat
      • Well, I'd probably say that if a stub would not be very useful then they shouldn't be linked at all. But a lot of the redlinks look like they would make for interesting and useful stubs.Worldtraveller 15:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
        • That's not what I'm saying. I don't have any, or very little, info to add that doesn't already appear in this article. An article on Segun Adewale would be very useful, a stub that repeats what music of Nigeria already says would be redundant. I've already done that in a few egregious cases, but I don't want to for individual performers and minor styles. Tuf-Kat
  • Second is some of the structuring, for example Fela Kuti's section being separated by several paragraphs from the Afrobeat section.
    • Fela Kuti merged Tuf-Kat
      • I think that works better; but I think the afrobeat section could do with a short introductory paragraph or two explaining what influences gave rise to afrobeat.Worldtraveller 15:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Reorganized, expanded a bit with an intro to the style and Kuti. Tuf-Kat
  • Third, I think the reference style is a bit overwhelming. You have a massive 64 notes, of which 40 refer to Graham and 13 to Afropop. I think it would make more sense for the refs in the text to direct the reader to the appropriate reference listing, rather than to a note which then gives the reference. Some of the notes should be retained, though, where they qualify or explain the reference. I think you have some facts sourced perhaps unnecessarily, while others are not sourced at all. For example, I think reference 22 is superfluous, while the claim that children make music using a live pufferfish could definitely do with a source. Some sections seem overwhelmed by references, others lack them entirely. Worldtraveller 10:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Note #22 is a source for there being Brazilian influences on Nigerian popular music -- how is this superfluous? It's certainly not intuitive. I agree that some sections sections would be better with citations, but the article I used to write the bulk of the folk music section is no longer on the web, so I can't reference it. My understanding was that it isn't possible for multiple text references to refer to the same source, so they each link to their own note that gives the source. Can you give me an example article that uses the method you'd prefer? Tuf-Kat 15:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm, there seems to be a numbering problem. #22 links to a ref that's #21. I don't have time to fix it now, but I'll see if I can figure it out tonight. Tuf-Kat 15:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah, fixed the ref numbering, there were two stray pipes in the note templates and an unused reference. The 22 I meant was a reference to Nigeria's history of political strife, which seems superfluous for a music article.
          As for multiple references to the same source, you can just re-use {{ref|xxx}} each time you want to indicate that something came from reference xxx. An example of where you could cut down on the number of individual citations is in the intro, where you have three separate superscripts pointing the reader to Graham - one superscript at the end of the paragraph would be sufficient. Worldtraveller 15:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Okay, down to 45 notes at the end and 48 total, meaning three link straight to Graham's work in the references section -- I conflated a number of individual citations together, as long as they were in the same paragraph and there was nothing extremely opinionated or potentially disputable involved; the ones that couldn't be easily conflated became identical citations to the references section. I kept the individual citations to the book by Karolyi because it's a whole book with no specific section on Nigeria, whereas Graham is a relatively short essay; a reader checking in Graham could find a reference fairly easily because there's only a few pages to look through, but Karolyi's got 277 pages. I guess I'll see about changing some of the Afropop and African Chorus references. Is this better? Tuf-Kat 21:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
            • 49 citations with 23 specific notes. Tuf-Kat

Support. A few more photographs or images might be nice, but not necessary to reach featured article status. I am impressed by this article's comprehensiveness on a topic that might otherwise fall victim to systemic bias. Hydriotaphia 21:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support, lots of content, great work. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment- section on Igbo music is much shorther than Yoruba and Hausa music, and Igbo music doesn't have a main article, but this is just a minor issue. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree this is not ideal, though I note that the Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo are the three largest ethnic groups in Nigeria, in that order (29, 21 and 15% respectively, according to demographics of Nigeria), and also that the highlife section under popular music is basically Igbo-specific, since highlife in Nigeria is mostly an Igbo thing, so this small difference in coverage is perhaps not as egregious as it may appear. Thanks for the kind words though!Tuf-Kat 07:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Just a note for full disclosure. I'm going to alert people who voted on previous nominations that this article is nominated again. This will include both people who supported and opposed. Tuf-Kat 06:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, well, a goodly number of both supports and opposes are no longer active, so I won't bother with them. Tuf-Kat
    • Holy crap! Out of 5, Cgorman, Ambi, Taxman, and Ta bu are all on break! →Raul654 06:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Cgorman and Ambi appear to have some activity, so I left them messages. The first nominator, User:Guido Dimicelli, is also inactive and has been for awhile (looks like he never got much past noob). That is quite a coincidence -- I wonder if this article carries some sort of anti-wiki disease... that only Michael Snow and myself are immune to... Spooky... Tuf-Kat 07:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Since that didn't really work, garnering only two neutrals, I'm going to try leaving a message at the countering systemic bias page to see if anyone there would like to comment. I realize that that may look like trolling for votes from people who will support on the principle of wanting a featured article on Nigerian music irregardless of the quality of the article, so I will explicitly mention the FA standards and suggest that they carefully read the entire article and give suggestions for improvement even if they support. Tuf-Kat
• Neutral. This seems to cover brilliantly all the different predominant forms of Nigerian music. What it seems to lack, however, is much of a combined historical narrative for those wanting to know how Nigerian music has evolved - there are sections for most of this, but they are spread through the article, which makes it somewhat hard to follow. Ambi 07:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• I sort of share Ambi's concerns that the article lacks a narrative flow (whether organized along a historical theme or otherwise). The nature of the topic makes this rather challenging to accomplish, I concede. For me, the frequent section breaks do as much to interrupt the structure of the article as they do to organize it. I understand their use, but it always seems quite abrupt, like a bunch of jumbled-up stub articles with little to tie them together. However, I recognize that much good work has gone into the article and it is significantly better than it was previously. My comments are hopes for further improvement, not outright objection. --Michael Snow 17:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I don't really understand either of your (Snow or Ambi) comments. There really isn't much that ties together Nigerian music (unlike American music, for example, where most everything's a derivative of the blues one way or another). The country's a recent construct and not a coherent nation-state like say France or Sweden. I can't just make up a "combined historical narrative" because it would look nice. Would having a separate music history of Nigeria help? Tuf-Kat 18:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Myself, I don't quite see how the nation-state issue matters that much, other than the obvious fact that the article isn't going to focus on the music of Cameroon, for example. Sure, "Nigerians" don't have a unitary history, musical or otherwise, but I don't think we're asking for one to be invented or forced into the article. Hence my point that a pure historical or chronological organization is not necessarily the way to go.
    • What I'd like to see more of is how the different aspects interact or relate to each other. The article already covers this in places, but could use still more, and I think this would help with what we're looking for. Even if the ethnic groups in Nigeria have only shared a country in recent times, they've lived in some geographic proximity for longer, and a certain level of cultural influence presumably shows in various directions. To take one of your counter-examples, in writing an article on French music you couldn't properly ignore the influence of German, Italian, or Spanish music (thought: writing Music of Nigeria is akin to writing Music of the EU). I understand that we can't trace things back using neat musical genealogies to a common origin in some Nigerian Eden, but the level of musical cross-fertilization can still be explored. When direct information isn't available, a compare-and-contrast approach to the subject is a possible alternative. --Michael Snow 16:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
      • While I now understand your concern, I don't know how to resolve it. While the ethnic groups in and near Nigeria have undoubtedly influenced each other, that doesn't really have anything to do with Nigeria itself -- the Yoruba may have music similar to the Ashante of Ghana and unlike the Temne of Sierra Leone, but then the Yoruba exist outside of Nigeria, as do the Ashante and Temne in Ghana and Sierra Leone, and there is much variation within each of those groupings anyway. In other words, it's possible to divide the West African ethnic groups into various interrelated music areas, but those music areas are completely independent of the countries' borders, so that's really a topic better suited for music of West Africa in a general sense, and Yoruba music more specifically. It's not really like a hypothetical "music of the EU" article since that can be subdivided into regions that share identifiable characteristics (i.e. Germanic music) and exist entirely or almost so within the EU itself. It'd be like writing music of France if all the ethnic groups in Europe were randomly redistributed while the national borders were randomly redrawn -- there would still be connections between the ethnic groups, but those would have nothing to do with the national boundaries. Tuf-Kat 19:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maneki Neko

I think all the objections from last time have been addressed. Andre (talk) 18:37, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Special relativity

This was nominated back in 2004 and the main objection was lack of references, which has since been fixed. Comprehensive and excellently illustrated, and although it is highly technical there is a daughter article Special relativity for beginners. Note that despite my username, I am not actually a physicist and did not contribute to this article. Redquark 04:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Wikipedia guidelines state that the longer the article, the longer the introduction should be. There should be two or three solid paragraphs in introduction, not just one. Fieari 05:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support iff Fieari's suggestion is followed up. Thethinredline 10:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Needs a copy-edit. In particular, please merge some of the stubby little paragraphs, and reword the unencycopedic expressions such as 'As we shall see'. It's not a transcription of an oral presentation, or a fireside chat. Otherwise, it has a lot going for it. The animation is ... amazing! Tony 12:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a fine article, I don't think it is FA material yet. Here are some brief comments, which are by no means exhaustive:

• Reading through it, there is little sense of where the article is going. One (shortish) section seems to haphazardly follow another. Some sections, like "Relativity and unifying Electromagnetism" are embarassingly small. The structure of the article really needs to be better thought out.
• The history article is poor. I don't think having a separate article is any excuse for not having a (short, but good) history section in the main article.
• I'm not sure that special relativity applies only to inertial frames of reference. Like Newtonian mechanics, it seems perfectly possible to do calculations from non-inertial frames of reference, should one desire. It sure doesn't include gravity, though.
• The section about tests ("status") of special relativity should probably be moved up and emphasized.
• The animation is very cool.

So, I think it is a good article but needs a fair amount of work to meet today's FA criteria. –Joke 16:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I disagree that one paragraph for the introduction is enough to make an article lose FA status, are we really supposed to add a useless paragraph because someone arbitrarily decided this rule for Special Relativity without reading this article??? I think the structure is adequate, and the diagrams are good/excellent. I also disagree with the technical objection that Joke makes, it's not possible to do calculation in non-inertial frames, it's formally only possible to do calculations in inertial frames, and then work out what that looks like from a non-inertial frame. It's got good references. I think it's a featured article, but not suitable for the front page (too technical). I vote for.WolfKeeper 04:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If there's enough information on the subject to have an article that's so long, there's enough information that can reasonably be placed into the introduction. Fieari 18:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object for the following reasons:
  • "...frames in flat spacetime, where the effects of gravity can be ignored." is too complicated. Flat space time is a concept of general relativity not of special relativity.
  • "the state of inertial motion." is unclear. Why not velocity instead of this very pedantic formulation.
  • "Second postulate (invariance of c)" is a consequence of the first one. Light is an electromagnetic wave.

That's all for today. I'll have other comments later on. Vb 09:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object Needs a copy edit and a thorough work-over by a person who cares to get English prose really, really right. The pictures, however, are great. I should note that "flat spacetime" is what distinguishes Special Relativity from General: the Minkowski metric is "flat" in a sense which does not depend upon the specific cause of curvature in General Relativity. Statements like "the difference between SR and GR is that SR does not cover accelerations" are incorrect. SR was invented to describe situations involving accelerations, like the radiation from an accelerated charge. The real distinction is that SR spacetime is flat, while GR spacetime can be curved. See Misner, Taylor and Wheeler's Gravitation (a big thick book if you ever wanted one). Furthermore, a great many textbooks treat the second postulate as an independent case from the first one. By some reasoning, I suppose one could consider it a consequence or a "special case", but it is such an important special case that most books pull it out and treat it separately. (I'm almost sure Halliday and Resnick do, for example.) Anville 08:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above, needs some improvement in prose. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object While I have as of yet no edits in en:Wikipedia article space, this is an article I've been following for some time. I question the comprehensiveness of the article, especially as it barely addresses a central point that readers deserve to have answered, namely What is the value of special relativity within the context of today's theoretical physics? Furthermore, the article is not stable and is continually undergoing insertion and deletion of material with limited claims to the verifiability of such material. This leads to some subtle and sometimes rather serious biases being introduced into the article (and its ancillary articles as well). As I see it, there are three interrelated issues that should be dealt with:
  • Overall structure of the article lacks proper cohesion and direction
  • Poor separation of the physical, historical, and philosophical aspects of the subject
  • No clear attempt to base statements on the references provided (this article is crying out for in-line references)

Particluar issues and/or suggestions for improvement:

• Intro section
  • Does not correlate well with the rest of article
  • Important concepts (e.g. symmetry, Maxwell's equations) left out
  • Undefined and potentially confusing concepts (observer, material object) included
• "Lack of an absolute reference frame" section
  • Historical baggage about aether should be placed in a separate section or article
  • Could be expanded to address the concept of symmetry
• "Consequences" section
  • Claim of Einstein unsourced, potentially irrelevant to later or current 'consequences'
• "Relativistic mass" and "Force" sections
  • Notational issues not directly relevant to this article
  • Confusing and unencyclopedic, unreferenced
  • These sections should be removed
• "The geometry of space-time" and "Physics in spacetime" sections
  • Potentially valuable information presented without clear context
  • Appears too technical
  • Will benefit greatly from an overall coherent structure
• "Relativity and unifying electromagnetism" section
  • Could be merged with much needed section about symmetry
• "Status" section
  • Lacks strong conclusion
  • Will benefit greatly from an overall coherent structure
• "References" section
  • References to textbooks appear solid
  • Choice of jounal articles is questionable
  • A technical subject such as special relativity with an extensive number of possible references deserves an article that includes explicit in-line citations to its references, including page numbers. --Tim Shuba 03:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Dreadnought (1906)

Not at all timely or of contemporary relevance - although it will be in two years' time - I believe this article is well-written, informative, of a suitable size and possessed of an attractive illustration. It taught me things I didn't know about the ship and the writing is flawless. - Ashley Pomeroy 19:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Featured articles have nothing to do with being timely or having contemporary relevance. No need for a disclaimer. Everyking 19:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Mild object - needs section headings. Smerdis of Tlön 19:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I have added some section headings, and the word 'was' (which rather torpedoes - pun! - my premature clam - pun! - that the writing was 'flawless'. I nonetheless maintain that it flows well and is well-written). - Ashley Pomeroy 21:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Support - though I tend to agree with Jeronimo that some discussion of the Dreadnought Hoax in-text would be an improvement. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The lead section could be slightly expanded. 2) I would prefere to see some offline references as well, and have the references listed in the format recommended/proposed by Wikipedia:Cite your sources. 3) The lead section mentions that this was a very important ship, but little is said about that in the article (apart from repeating this fact). 4) Little is said about the actual operations this ship served in/on. More is needed on this. (Also, the sinking of the submarine is called "ironic" - why?). 5) The table needs links to articles about the terms mentioned. It should be possible to find out what Barbettes and Conning Towers are. 6) The Dreadnought Hoax, mentioned in the "See also" section, deserves attention in the article. Jeronimo 07:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I've taken these points on board and polished the article further, although having just read the Battle of the Bulge article I'm having a crisis of confidence, because that's much larger and more impressive. In order 1) I've left the intro pretty much as it is, because it's a 'sting' 2) As for physical paper books, I have added 'Jane's Battleships' (mostly for information on the turret layout), which I have been reading and which prompted me to have a look for 'Dreadnought' on Wikipedia, and Robert Massie's 'Dreadnought', which I borrowed from the library but got bored with because Massie's thing is politics rather than machinery 3) 4) Dreadnought's influence is hard to express in a way which connects with the heart; rather like the modern-day Space Shuttle or the Me-262 jet fighter it exists as a monolithic presence, a junction-point in history, but one with no emotional resonance. Its philosophy was hugely important, but as a ship it had a thoroughly uninteresting career. I have however explained why the sinking of U29 was ironic 5) I have linked those terms and others, but I believe the table is common to several ship-related artlces 6) I have briefly alluded to the hoax in the text, as a consequence of Dreadnought's fame. - Ashley Pomeroy 20:44, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I seperated links and References -- I wasn't sure if all external links had been used as references, please restore those which were. Other than that I Support this interesting well-written article--ZayZayEM 14:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 1973 oil crisis

Originally nominated as 1973 energy crisis

With the price of oil nearing $50 a barrel and fears that the price of oil could hurt economic growth next year [17], I've been finding myself explaining to a lot of younger people off Wiki the impact of a sudden oil shock (something far more overwhelming than any of the measured predictions for next year). With that in mind, in think that many readers these days will find this article an interesting one for the main page. Self-nom. 172 18:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Excellent writing for the most part, I scurried up a new image to accompany the lead section, I think it fits nicely. The one thing I am missing for sure is a references section, and maybe some external links/further reading. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 20:11, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Here's a start at expanding the notes and references section. [18] 172 22:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Mild object. Article is at 1973 energy crisis, but its not a crisis for solar energy, or nuclear energy, wind energy, etc... you see my point I think. Article should really be at 1973 gasoline crisis or 1973 oil crisis. Other than that good article (even if it is minus a few references). Alkivar 22:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. I've been wanting to change it to 1973 world oil shock for a while. Any objections to me moving the page? 172 22:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to me that 1973 oil crisis would be a better title, since "1973 world oil shock" gets about 90 google hits, and "1973 oil crisis" gets 6500. But I'm unfamiliar with the subject (born 11 years later), so I don't know how the event is generally referred to. Spangineer 23:51, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • As "the 1973 oil crisis"! Or even simply as "the oil crisis" (but that wouldn't be a good article name). I was 110 in 1973 and I've never even heard the term "oil shock". Please move it again.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 00:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The term "world oil shock" is very common in the academic literature, though. See the JSTOR search here [19]("Shock" is borrowed from a concept in social science and economics literature, e.g., endogenous shock and exogenous shock.) 172 03:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

JSTOR is subscription only. I'll just take your word for it.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 13:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • "Energy crisis" is by far the most common term. Also, while one can say that non-petrochemical energy sources didn't have a crisis, the world was more dependent on oil (and coal) then than any time since, so the oil crisis was an "energy" crisis. If the focus of the article were solely on the economic effects, then "oil shock" would be appropriate, since it was a "shock" to markets. To people who couldn't commute to work in their cars, it was a crisis. Geogre 20:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article. Ambi 00:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Clear, relevant and well written, although there is still some awkward phrasing in places. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|George\^talk ]] 02:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This article is very US centric. What happened in the other countries that were boycotted, Western Europe and Japan? There is virtually no information about this. In the Netherlands, for example, 6 so-called "car-free Sundays" were imposed by the government. A minor issue is that it is common to list references in normal font size in a sepearate section (title References). Jeronimo 07:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • There is indeed more coverage on the U.S. than any other country, which is warranted considering how these events were underpinned by the declining power of the U.S. to control the international economy. However, coverage is not at all U.S.-centric. (Perhaps this impression is given off by the pictures, which are all U.S.-related. This can be easily corrected.) The impact on Japan, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and other Western nations; the Eastern bloc; and the Third World is thoroughly presented. Please take another look... There is also a considerably greater amount of attention paid to oil producers in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa than in most write-ups on this subject found in other reference materials. Indeed, the article starts and ends with a look at the internal conditions of oil producers in the Third World. 172

08:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • • Can you point out where the article specifically mentions a European nation? I can't. Take the "Response in the industrialized countries" (previously "..in the US"). First paragraph: all but the first sentence is about the US. Second paragraph: entirely about the US. Third paragraph: entirely about the US (not explicitly, but f.e. in the Netherlands, DST was only reintroduced after the 1977 crisis). Fourth: same. Fifth: mostly US ("Fortune 500"). Sixth: Western world. Seventh: Australia. Eighth: US again. So only two countries are specifically mentioned in this entire section, and Australia only briefly. Call it what you want, but I call this US-centric. And that is why I object.
• As a survivor, I do not recognise the term 'oil shock' and would prefer 'oil crisis', which was what we called it at the time. I fail to see how non-U.S. impact can be said to be covered equally; where are the 'European/African/Asian/Latin American/etc. responses' sections? The article is very US centric to my reading. So Object for now. Filiocht 08:45, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Object - 1973 oil crisis is the right place, but the article is still exceptionally US-centric. We had queues for oil in the UK too, you know. There was even an issue of petrol rationing coupons, although I don't think they were used ultimately . -- ALoan (Talk) 11:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Habsburg Spain

In the previous nomination of this article, it was described by some as a "tour de force" and one of the "best pages" on Wikipedia. Consensus was not reached however. In evaluating the article now, I find that either 1) some objections previously raised were bogus; or 2) legit objections have certainly been reasonably accounted for. --DanielNuyu 08:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Habsburg Spain/archive1 is the old FACfailed discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• It's a nice overview, but I think it may be a bit picture-heavy. All those pictures don't have to be crammed into a single article. Everyking 13:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Everyking, especially since this article is not an article about art; all these pictures, while most are aesthetically pleasing, do not really add to the article. Please select a few a put the others somewhere else (or on Commons if you can't find an article to put them in). Otherwise, excellent article.Phils 18:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I haven't yet been able to find a Wikipedia policy on images (as far as quantity goes), but I feel that the pictures in this article add to its readability. I think that the pictures help retain the interest of people who might otherwise have only a passing curiosity for the subject, which might be a problem when talking about continental European history in the seventeenth century to an Anglo-American audience. Thinking about newsmagazines and (for instance) many current textbooks for schoolchildren, where keeping the reader's interest is at a premium, it seems clear to me that the editors view a lot of color as a means to that end. I did take one image out because it made for uncomfortable formatting, though, and I would be fine taking out others if that's the consensus. I was the crackpot who put them there in the first place. :) Adam Faanes 20:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC
    • I respect your opinion, but I personally feel the large number of pictures to be distracting, not to mention it probably dramatically increases load time for people with slower connections. Phils 22:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with Phils. --mav 23:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I happen to like the pics and I agree that they make for a much more readable article, though I also concur that if I didn't have Broadband, I'm sure my loading time would be miserable. I would keep most of the portraits (especially if they're not located anywhere else on Wikipedia) but do away with the majority of the battle and other scenes leaving maybe one or two of the better ones, as the most of them are harder to make out as thumbnails. I must say though, Phillip IV and Charles II of Spain were certainly good looking! My word! Hot! Hot! Hot! :-) Ganymead 03:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking about the download time, and it occurred to me that it might not be as big of a problem as we might think that it is; most browsers tend to load the text first, display that, and then put up the images as they come. Even if the images take a while to come, they can bide their time reading the text (as we should hope) and still keep their attention with the color that the images add to the page, when they come. And, personally, I think that even the battle images add something to the page, if only color. (The only really unclear image, I think, is the Battle of Pavia image; the rest of the images, particularly those in the later sections, tend to have more vibrant colors). And have a look at this picture of the Count of Olivares for a stunning example of male beauty in the seventeenth century. Adam Faanes 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Wiki is not paper. The pics are nice. I would like for all the pics to stay - their abundance is nice, and cetainly it doesn't constitute any official reason for objection. I'd like to receive a reply on article's talk page about the relevance of characters I mention there, though, before I support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • See talk page. Adam Faanes 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object. After looking through the article, I see some problems with internal links and disambiguation: while some mentioned rulers are not ilinked, others are linked to disambigs. I fixed Ferdinan II references in text, and before I remove my object - and likely support this otherwise good article - I'd like to hear from the author that he has went over all names, linked them and/or fixed disambigs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I went through the article; the links should be alright now. Adam Faanes 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Great, if you can add a map like Peter asks below I will definetly support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The objections about picture-heaviness are valid. There's no need to debate the details of official policy to see that this article is too burdened by an abundance of pictures. The paintings of monarchs, battles and high nobility should also be much balanced against those of peasant life by Pieter Brueghel the Elder and the likes. / Peter Isotalo 14:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, if there isn't an official policy then we are discussing style. It seems that, of the people who have commented so far, that it's at least an open question as to whether or not there are presently too many pictures. I would be more than happy to remove the pictures myself if there were such a consensus or such a standing policy. Adam Faanes 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

There is an official policy on this at Wikipedia:Image use policy. But even without that, objections on the overuse of images are still valid. Making almost all the images the default thumb width will help. Some other images will need to be removed or at least turned into (see image) inline links. See below for an example why (at standard resolution of 800x600).--mav 17:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Aha - I see what you mean. It looks a bit different on 800x600. I tried reformatting some of the pictures so that they would look better on lower resolutions. Adam Faanes 19:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I must also point out that out of the 33 pictures in the article right now, there is not a single historical map of Habsburg Spain or its colonies.

Peter Isotalo 21:31, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've copyedited large portions of the article and inserted comments on several issues that should be adressed. Judging from what I've seen so far, the text seems to be good, but there are many minor errors, inconsistencies and slightly illogical sentences that need to be proof-read. Peter Isotalo 15:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. One of the most attractive aspects of Spanish history during this period is the pageantry of the age, which included some of the greatest artists of all time. We should try to capture the reader's attention and try to engross him or her in that pageantry, even if it distracts them a bit from the text. The reader will get to that in his/her own time - the important thing is to capture his/her attention first and get them interested. I can't say for certain, but I feel that when people said that this article was a "tour de force" they were saying that not only out of respect for the prose, but also because the article captures some of the majesty, color, and emotion of the era in ways that only Velazquez could. That's what I was trying for when I put these images in to begin with. Adam Faanes 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • My comment is not an objection, just a comment. However, I'd like to remind you that this is an encyclopedia: our first goal is to provide people with the information they were looking for when they typed "Habsburg Spain" in the search box, not to have them wait 30 seconds to be "captivated" by an enourmous amount of picture. If someone wants to look at pretty pictures, they have Wikimedia Commons to do that. Speaking of Velazquez, look at the article about him, it's less crowded with pictures, yet it is only about him, a painter (whereas Habsburg Spain was an epoch/country). Notice how there is a link to a picture gallery of his works at the bottom of the page. Again, this is not an objection, it's just a comment. I will read the article in more detail when I have time - I happen to know a bit on the subject- before I vote. Phils 19:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Though some inline citations for important points would be even better. - Taxman 17:40, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• support very nice pics!!!! (except the one of charles II) -Pedro 01:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Of course it looks fine - that is at 1024x768 not the 800x600 (standard res). --mav 03:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• In 800x600 every article looks terrible. I admit we should remove one or two pics (priority to Charles II!!!!) eheheh -Pedro 13:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The removal of Charles II image would increase the quality of the article, people will stop reading the article if they see it. LOL. BTW, ending the voting, this image that I've created can be deleted, it is useless. -Pedro 02:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object, the lack of a map is quite an oversight, as is the lack of explanation for why it is called the Age of Expansion (I only know it is because of the series box). I agree that the amount of pics is a little overwhelming, especially on a small monitor (but I'm not objecting on this point), perhaps some could be moved to specific articles on a person etc. Support--nixie 03:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• • the Portuguese Empire and the spanish one were separated (obviously controled by the same people), I never saw one with them together. The Portuguese continued to settled and explore Brazil, Africa and southest asia, and Spain central and south America, along with the philipines. The articles explains what was the Empire of the H. Spain, if you read it you wouldnt complain "it lacks a map". Besides the map would be probably innacurate in colonial aspects and desnecessary. Maybe an Europe's map would be easier. I think the picture of Charles II should go. lol. it would reduce the amount of pictures and the article will continue a candy to the eyes. Besides, it will lokk better, because when a person sees that pictures after seing so many beautiful paitings will jumb from the chair if they see that. -Pedro 10:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Addressing some concerns: Piotr, nixie, see the new map that has now been included; As far as the issue of the pictures go, I have taken the liberty of removing some. They include: the second picture of Olivares, one of the king of Portugal, one of the Battle of Pavia, and Ricci's auto de fe. At all times, keeping proper format of the article was my goal. Although I am for the inclusion of these pictures, the current reduction is in an attempt to form a compromise with those who think the article contains too many. Please continue this dialogue—those who thought there were too many pictures, consider how the article appears now. --DanielNuyu 23:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks much better now, though two pictures per section seems like reasonable layout to me. A lot of them still have three, and most of those are still of a lot of royalty and nobility (they will seem dull to a lot of readers). There are also some pictures that I really think the article could do without:

The Vision of Teresa Avila

The allegory of Charles V - He's already depicted at the top of the article; it seems excessive to have two paintings.

Jakob Fugger - Though obviously a fairly important figure he is not mentioned in the article and is moreover Dutch.

Las Meninas by Velázquez - The picture is bigger than the section art and culture, which really doesn't look good at all. Consider expanding the section, though not adding more pictures. ;-)

And one thing that really strikes me as way too distracting is the huge picture of "The Glory of Spain" in the History of Spain article series template. Article series templates, when having pictures at all, should keep them to the size of the links in the template.

Peter Isotalo 07:50, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. All my objections are adressed. Just don't remove all the pics :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

New edits to address objections:

• Peter Isotalo
  • Each of the four images aforementioned has been removed in accordance with your suggestion
  • Two paintings by Pieter Brueghel the Elder now appear, even as I believe that the same logic used to remove Fugger from this article could apply against including Brueghel's work
  • I completely agree with you about The Glory of Spain in the template, and a smaller (but still essentially comprehensible) rendition appears now
  • A few sentences were added to the Art/Culture section, but I don't want to keep going with it and make it look like a rehash of the Golden Age article it already suggests to link to
    • Eeexcellent! If you could just add one final paragraph with some information on the most famous painters of the period and I'll be satisfied. Objection withdrawn. Peter Isotalo 21:23, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• nixie
  • See the map
  • That the Habsburg period was an "Age of Expansion" is a somewhat implicit consideration throughout the article, but an explicit mention now appears in the lead section

--DanielNuyu 04:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through and removed about half the images (mostly ones that were only peripherally related), and right alinged almost all the rest. It should look good on big and small resolutions. →Raul654 20:11, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Looks good without all the pics! Very nice article! Support. Ganymead 22:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Looking good indeed. Peter ^Isotalo 22:51, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aramaic language

This previously failed the FAC process (archived discussion from December), but has vastly improved since. It is very well researched, comprehensive and includes excellent sound samples in ogg format. It is also a successful example of the recently more dynamic peer review process. See the article's peer review entry here. Gareth Hughes has really done some impressive work on this. Not a self nomination, but I was minorly involved in its peer review process. - Taxman 17:22, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I'd recommend shortening it by spinning off some subarticles, but still support. Everyking 17:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support — I've put a fair ammount of work into this article, and felt it was still incomplete when it was last put up for FAC. It had a very good and positive peer review, and I now feel it's ready to be listed here. One constant comment is about the length of the article: I did spin off Biblical Aramaic and the Aramaic of Jesus (these two things dominated the old article) as well as separate pages for each of the modern Aramaic languages. I hope the history sections put the language in good context, but I feel that a history of Aramaic article might rob this article of its context. Gareth Hughes 18:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support: A very good article overall, one of the few things I thought could be improved would be to add a map of the current geographic distribution to the "Geographic distribution" section. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:24, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
• Support. Even last time I thought this was excellent. A map would be cool, though. - Mustafaa 05:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. One more that makes me so proud of Wikipedia; this is a magnificent article. Thanks Gareth! Agree with Mustafaa and <insert unspeakable username here> that a map really would be cool, though I understand that's difficult. — mark ✎ 16:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice work. Perhaps a lead can be expanded, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patent medicine

Self-nomination. Been on Peer review several weeks, and it seems to me to be interesting, readable, and as complete as I know to make it. — Smerdis of Tlön 21:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Very nice work. Minor objection. Looks pretty good overall. I've made some copyedits to fix most of the issues I saw, but one more requires someone with sources in hand. The coverage of Snake oil is one short and somewhat stilted paragraph. The term "snake oil" is arguably more common than that of patent medicine, and "snake oil salesmen" has become synonymous with any unscrupulous sales person. It could be different in Europe, but this is certainly the case in the US. So that coverage and information should be expanded. - Taxman 23:00, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC) +
  • I mentioned snake oil in the lead, and tied it to the point made below at greater length that the promoters talked up exotic ingredients that really didn't do much. -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Good pictures, well-researched and good references. Sayeth 20:02, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Extremely US-centric. No mention of modern trade in similar medicines in Asia (that also has long history); goanna oil in Australia (along with other goods tarded amongst miners, settlers and Aborigines), or much of cure-alls sold in England, of which there were several (if not many). If it weren't for this, it would be great.--ZayZayEM 01:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I always thought it was a purely American term. Then isn't that acceptable for it to be US-centric? The same issue in other contries could be covered elsewhere? Not sure, just thinking. - Taxman 13:32, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

• I've never seen the term used outside American literature. Johnleemk | Talk 13:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• How much non-American literature have you read on the subject? I was reading an English book on Pox, Plague, and Pestilence last year, it spoke quite a lot about panaceas paraded in England and Europe in the same eras (and before). Including treatments for siphilis, fish oils and gypsy herb mixes of the mediteranean. Nostrum is certainly an applicable term for those, along with traditional Asian herbal medicines and rhino horn etc., and similar anti-curse, anti-pox, anti-vampire medicines available in Africa (which probably partly inspired the American phenomenon through Hoodoo), as well as a copy of teh American phenomenon that occured in Australia amongst settlers (inspired by both American trends, and Aboriginal medicines). That it doesn't even consider the similarities between Patent Medicine and similar historical phenomenon is the reason why I don't think it should be featured. Perhaps nostrum should be seperated into a seperate article. It also doesn't mention modern hokey "cure for cancer/HIV/Diabetes" wonder-drug/vitamin "scams" that have occured of late.--ZayZayEM 03:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You do bring up a number of good points. I seem to remember some passages in Sterne that discussed eighteenth century patent medicines in England, and they probably do need to be looked up and added. Will try and track down this book if it can be had this side of the Atlantic. Some note should probably be taken of the contemporary "nutritional supplement" mess. Not sure if all traditional remedies or East Asian medical practices are quite the same thing, though. -- Smerdis of Tlön 03:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do understand that patent medicine is not the same as traditional medicine I just feel its odd that a lot of these aren't even mentioned. Traditional/holistic medicine is the inspiration/target of modern 20/21st century patent medicines (e.g. those multivitamin pyramid schemes). European and Australian patent medicine definitely falls under the scope of this particular article ("Patent" being more of a Western thing). I'll try and get that book out again next time I'm near campus.--ZayZayEM 13:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Staten Island Ferry

After tweaking this recently, I thought it might make a Featured Article. Illustrations. History. Factoids. Disasters. External links. It seems smoothly, knowledgeably and appropriately written. Am I just a prejudiced New Yorker? --Wetman 01:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. a) Very short. b) "Ferry incidents" needs to be converted to prose. c) Information about the boats could probably be in a seperate section. d) There's really too many pictures for such a short article - it screws up the formatting of the page. e) Some of the material reads like a promotional ad (Today the Staten Island Ferry annually carries... paragraph) f) The cultural references paragraph at the bottom could have its own section, and be significantly expanded. Ambi 02:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The "Ferry incidents" are very brief paragraphs that consist of complete sentences, putting the 2003 Staten Island Ferry crash entry in context. They could be more lurid. The statistics on current usage are essential to an article concerning public transportation. Separate Wikipedia entries on individual Staten Island Ferryboats? Perhaps not, but more detail on date of launching, tonnage etc is needed.--Wetman 09:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: Image:NYC-Skyline-s.jpg by User:Alex756 needs a license tag.
  • He's been notified: it's quite likely his own picture. --Wetman 09:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaiian architecture

Renominating. Previous nomination was shot down on insignificant copyright issues. I think its quite good and deserves to be featured. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 02:20, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

• Previous nomination here. I strongly doubt whether all the images tagged as Fair use actually qualify for that tag, copyright is not insignificant for a serious encyclopedia. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 07:23, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • How many Hawaiian Wikipedians do we have? Could some take photos of some of these sites, and then we'd have some GFDL pictures?--ZayZayEM 01:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• My original objection still stands: "Object, I'm afraid. This is a good article, but the majority of the photos in the article are copyrighted. A minor thing is the use of bold in each paragraph. This is not only unnecessary, but also discouraged by the WP:MOS." Jeronimo 07:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Bold section text removed. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 23:52, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas

Christmas originally gained feature status on Dec. 24, 2004. It lost feature status on Jan. 1, 2006. You can see the old versions of the article here. Since then, the article has been comprehensively re-edited. It now has a new set of illustrations (including several Old Masters) and a well-referenced history section. The history section is mostly new material, but also consolodates the historical material in the previous version. The historical interpretions are referenced to articles in History Today, a British magazine written by professional historians. There are links to the article summaries, although the full articles are available only by subscription. Another neat new feature is that Biblical verses have been linked to www.biblegateway.com, which allows you to read the verse in your choice of language and translation. Check out the "References" section -- 28 references, all given as footnotes. Kauffner 13:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Some section lack inline references. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object per RyanG. Also, could someone do something about the ugly infobox. Generally, we should never use red as a background colour for something there is text in. --Maitch 06:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. In a quick skim for WP:FN I saw two cites before periods and one extra period after a cite. The cites are scarce near the end of the article. Gimmetrow 14:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object—2b: the history section is pretty superficial. Needs to offer a deeper account than what you'd receive in Sunday School if it's to be FA material. Tony 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object: the real history of Christmas is missing, at least the controversy (such as the pagan origin of Christmas). See the talk-page (Talk:Christmas#"wildly unhistorical"?). __Maysara 09:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Too much focus on Western culture. Little or no reference to 3rd world. Last section is POV. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Having an entire section debating what year Jesus was born in is totally unneccessary in this article. The lengthy section on the Star of Bethlehem is also gratuitous. I'll try removing them and see what the reaction is. Hopefully the History section can be revised to actually be about Christmas. We don't need an exhaustive analysis of the nativity here, since that is well covered elsewhere. Kaldari 21:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Nottingham

(self-nomination) I have been working on this for some time, and thought I'd risk trying for featured article status. --Iceaxejuggler 13:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Multiple one- and two-sentence paragraphs show poor writing style. They need to be either expanded into a full idea worthy of a paragraph or merged with good style into other paragraphs covering related ground (to paraphrase Taxman below). Mark¹ 08:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Except for lists, I have now combined these into longer paragraphs. --Iceaxejuggler 10:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now - it all looks pretty good, but the list of campuses could be turned from a bullet point list into text, and some details could be summarised here from the halls of residence article. I'll support when these are done. As far as I can see, no other University is featured, so well done. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I've done my best to change these lists into paragraphs + add a word or two more about halls of residence. Please feel free to make any further improvements. --Iceaxejuggler 12:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Summer Hill, New South Wales

My objections helped shoot this article's last nomination down, but most of these have been picked up, and it really is the best example of this type of article that we have. I don't really agree with the author about the landmarks section, but nevertheless, it's featured-worthy. Ambi 12:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Multiple one sentence paragraphs show poor writing style. (Two is not good either :) They need to be either expanded into a full idea worthy of a paragraph or merged with good style into other paragraphs covering related ground. Also the notable people section is odd. Either they are not that notable or they a) would warrant an article of their own, or b) are worthy of at least a few sentences in a well formed paragraph instead of a list. - Taxman 23:45, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Fair enough - excluding lists and list-lead-ins, there are now no single sentence paragraphs. The Notable Citizens section is based on a similar section in the Marshall, Texas feature article. I can kill it if you like, but it does make the area more human by including a very quick blurb about previous notable inhabitants. I've deleted the least notable person (Max Wurcker), and if you'd like I can also delete Dr Henry Hinder who is a bit marginal, but the rest are noteworthy. All the best, -- Nickj 01:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Good work on much of that. But 1) for some there are lists were there is no need for them. Especially the transportation and politics sections have no good reason not to be rewritten as prose. 2) The section on local landmarks is in an odd half list, half paragraph form, with bold headings. Overall it seems quite jarring to me. In addition the St Patrick's church note is still one sentence, and the Chinese temple is two. Those both still fall under the one and two sentence paragraph problem above. 3) I happen to like all the pictures and find them very good, but they present a serious problem in readability especially in the landmarks section. Perhaps some could be moved to a subarticle that is listed in the see also section. 4) I don't know anything specific about whether those people are notable, but as noted above, the fact that they typically have only one sentence fragment each makes it hard for me to believe they are. If they are, please expand what is said about them and at least create stub articles. If they are not worth stub and eventually full articles, don't keep them as empty wikilinks, even if you want to keep a few sentences about each here. Having the section is not a problem in and of itself to me if it is well done. - Taxman 03:45, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the feedback. Re: 1) Have left message for copyedit guru Ambi - "Help me Ambi, you're my only hope!" (with apologies to Star Wars) 2) will come back to later Converted landmarks section from bolding to headings for each landmark; Have contacted St Patrick's church and the Buddhist temple asking if there's anything they'd like to add, awaiting responses. 3) I've tried scattering the pictures throughout the article, let me know if you think it works any better now. 4) The notable citizens section has been updated now so that either the links are gone (where it's less likely articles will be written), or stubs have been added (where it's more likely that others will expand them); Also Dr Henry Hinder has been deleted. All the best, -- Nickj 02:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) Nickj 00:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I think I've found a template to use when decide to retackle regional townships.--ZayZayEM 12:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Jackson 5

Partial self-nomination. Was originally nominated last November. All previous concerns have since been addressed, and the article and its related articles have beeen significantly improved since then. --FuriousFreddy 22:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Have been reading this in bits throughout the day, it's great. - Phoenix2 00:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Jacksons-victory.jpg is of significantly higher resolution than needed. Fair use images should be as small as possible: for an album cover, my recommendation is no larger than 480 pixels in any dimension.
  2. The images Image:Jacksons-an-american-dream.jpg and Image:Jackson-5-cartoon.jpg are claimed under fair use, but do not have explanations for why their use is allowed under fair use. See Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for an explanation of what needs to be included in the explanation, and Sunset Boulevard (film) and related image description pages for a particularly good example of using fair use images in an article.
  3. The image Image:Jackson-5-concert.jpg does not seem to illustrate any particular part of the article. Since it's claimed under fair use, it should probably be removed.

  --Carnildo 06:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The images in question have been given rationle for their use in the article (including Image:Jackson5-concert) on their image description pages, and the resolutions of said images have been lowered correctly. --FuriousFreddy 14:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is an excellent article, definitly worth FA status.--Richy 10:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I was worried about the bit about the elder brothers and the father being "said" to have slept with groupies while Michael watched etc, not being attributed to anyone. Just seems like a pretty extreme allegation to include without attribution. So have added links to the transcripts of the programs and cited that it was said by J. Randy Taraborrelli. Other than that, very nicely done. Rossrs 13:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I footnoted it to the show (they have transcripts of it online? Great.) --FuriousFreddy 14:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
    • They do. I never cease to be amazed at what's available. I just added the links after your footnote. I wish I'd seen the show now, it makes for pretty amazing reading! Rossrs 15:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article. Enjoyed reading it.--Alabamaboy 13:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very well done. pamri 06:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: At one point I was planning to add a EasyTimeline here, but the coding isn't working for me. Anyone want to take a shot? I really think a timeline would be useful in this article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support excellent Tuf-Kat 23:39, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kardashev scale

(self-nomination) I put this through peer review with no response. I believe it needs some more work, nothing very major, but I do not have the time right now to do it. Basically, I would like an opinion as to if this is to featured article specifications--in that does it need more work. My gripes and grievances are listed on the to-do list on the article's talk page- please look at it, in the "copy" of what I originally posted on peer review. I know this is nonstandard, but basically, I want to know if no one responded on peer review because the article was up to spec, or because they were not interested. Well on to the discussion.

[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 01:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revised by --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 00:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) so it did not take up so much of the page.

Please check the article's talk page.

• Object - no lead image (hardly any images at all); the lead is far too long and detailed. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Are you objecting on the idea that the first section really should be split into 5 (I think it should, see the talk page)? Or are you objecting because there is too much information? --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 00:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Images added and then removed, I can't win! --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 17:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Images addded
    • Lead shortenned, second half move to its own section, more appropriate due to the nature of applying the Kardashev scale to human civilization, whose type does not yet exist. Has the page been fixed to your satisfaction? --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 03:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Object. 1) The "hypothetical futures" section seems to be original research. 2) The "Current values" table and calculations report ten or even thirteen significant digits, which conveys false precision. 3) The calculations after the table need to be explained better. 4) Overall the article seems to be a mix of science, science fiction and unfalsifiable speculation. Maybe the science and the fiction should be split into separate articles. PRiis 20:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) PRiis 20:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • 1) I broght together many souces. A lot of people say this stuff, just that it is all over the place, from Issac Asimov to Carl Sagan to Stephen Hawking. That is why there are so many sources. That reminds me that I have to include Stephen Hawking's life in the universe cd as a source, it has a large discussion of hypotheticals by Hawking himself, but not in relation to Kardashev Scale, but into information expansion and anthorpic theory, but along pararell lines of discussion of net energy needed to maintain sentient being status (sentient beings are both entropic and anti-entropic) grows on a exponential scale in relation to the real information or technology produced by that being and not by its biological needs. 2)The lowest I can see going is to the thousandth decimal place, the percision is there because we are talking about a number that is 10^18, derived from values that are much smaller than it. You can know something to the trillionth place, especially if you are measuring it by in units that are one trillionth the size of what you are expressing it as in the end product. (ie. You can say there are 0.254233 trillion tribbles, if you have a report saying that there are 254,233,000,000 tribbles. Similarly, even though we are calculating using so-called exact values of the population, we are taking it to a percission where if we are off by 200,000 watts per person in energy consumption, and 10 million persons in the total population, changes would not be reprsented until appoximately the 13th signifcant figure if dealing with values in the 10^16 range. Note that, if the Kardashev scale value was closer to one, this type of percision would be inapproriate, but in the midsection of this logathmic scale, it is specially appropriate due to the statistical values we know. 3) Could you help me clean up the calculations, I though a page of explaination was enough. Also, from information I found, unfortunately we may not know what the true value is for 2005 due to changes in China's infrastructure (Three Gorges Dam) and the questionable numbers coming from a redeveloping Iraq (ie, do you count energy that was never consumed). 4) It is a mix of science that has been co-opted by science fiction. The specualtion is clearly noted, in my opinon. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 02:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, maybe I was too terse. Let me clarify. 1) Section 4.2, Hypothetical futures: you should probably say who--specifically--thought of this scenario and assigned the values to each step. If that person is you, then it's original research. So the way to resolve this would be to cite where the information in this section came from. 2) Significant figures: it's the number of figures in the mantissa that matters. Your example above has six significant figures whether you express it in nanotribbles or exatribbles. World population estimates have an error on the order of 1% according to the UN. I don't know what the error on the energy production estimate would be, but I'd guess it's on the same order. No answer you derive from these numbers can have more precision than that. Including more significant figures is just misleading. I'd guess three significant figures would be right, but I assume you did the calculations so you can say for sure. 3) I'm referring here to the calculation after the table, where, apparently, you're estimating the mtoes for years 2004 and 2005. I can't find the page of explanation for these calculations that you refer to above. I'm just saying you should state what you're showing in these calculations without forcing the reader to figure out what they are by trying to see what numbers match with what. Whether those calculations even need to be included at all is a separate question. 4) Maybe this is not actionable--I'll defer to the opionions of others on this. But look at Fermi paradox to see how this sort of material can be handled. PRiis 18:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • 1) I will put in the sources for each part, since I have now seperated them and made them into tables, making sources much easier 2)I will defer to you on significant figures. That said, I would go to the thousandths place (0.814 for example), which still delinates differences between years. 3) I was using page as an exagerative word, I misunderstood you, I was refering to the calculations as an explaination itself, but I will annotate them, or remove them, if others agree to the removal of 2004 and 2005. 4( I will look into the fermi paradox page --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 19:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • 1)sources added to hypothetical futures--[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 20:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • 2)Fixed current values table 3) Provided explaination --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 20:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*Support: This article meets all the main criteria for being a featured article - it is exceptionally informative and easy to read, even for the layman, it is comprehensive and well written. As for accuracy, there is no apparent disagreement in the talk pages, and it contains Italic textmany references as well as numerous explinations on errata by the chief contributor. It has a concise opening and table of contents, and contains well made graphics. All while being on an utterly fascinating subject - it is a great example of a featured article. Jeffrey O. Gustafson 7 Jan 2005

• Object. Article has improved a lot but it is still a mess. (1) I have tried very hard to understand the diagram at Image:Development-Diagram.gif and I have failed. What do the axes represent? What do the coloured areas and lines represent? The image description talks about features like "rotating triangles" and "red curve" that I cannot identify on the diagram. You can see at Image talk:Development-Diagram.gif that I am not the only one to have trouble. (2) The images in section 2 don't appear to illustrate the text. (3) The numbers in the table in section 5 have ludicrous precision. (4) Wikipedia is not a forum for speculation, nor for original research. We must include only verifiable claims. Because speculation inherently cannot be verified it is necessary to identify who is responsible for each piece of speculation. For example, section 1.1 says "predictions are from what seems most likely given current trends in research." That is no good: "what seems most likely" is someone's point of view. This section must say something like, "Professor X proposes the following timeline" and cite the paper where he or she proposes it. Section 2 needs to name the most notable people making the arguments for and against. Section 3 says "given the fact that there must be a transition between civilization periods for each level". I don't think it's a fact, but rather someone's theory. Whose is it and what do they mean by "transition"? And so on. Almost every paragraph has speculation masquerading as fact, or weasel words like "Many individuals have pointed to". Gdr 20:22, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Who reposted the nomination? I self-nomed a few weeks ago, but not this time. --Ctrl build^talk 15:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was posted by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson on 2005-01-07 [20] Gdr 18:37, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

[edit] Television

I think this article is very in-depth. It includes a comprehensive history of the medium, technical details, and how broadcast practices vary from country to country. Denelson83 03:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. In short: this article is a mess. It should be decided what is to be told in this article, and in what structure. Some technical details are in the history section, or in the tv set section and vice versa. In detail: 1) No lead section. 2) The top image is horrible and unnecessary. It should be very easy to make picture of your own tv and put it there. 3) The history section is good, but could use a copyedit. Still, it has little recent history (widescreen, digital). These are mentioned in the "New developments" section, which should be integrated. There is also a US/UK bias in here, and there are no pictures of old tv's. 4) The technology section is vague and incomplete. It does not at all become clear how televisions work, and we only learn some stuff about the screen dimensions. I would expect a far more extensive explanation here, with a least a diagram to illustrate. 5) "Tv standards" is not a section. 6) The article also writes a bit about television programmes, but I think these would fit better in a separate article. The current "section" (3 sentences) on advertising is pathetic, and while there is a long section on networks this is insuffiencent and should be at television network or so. 7) The rest of the article is lists - which should be moved to other articles - or single section paragraphs - which should be expanded to full sections, or embedded in other sections. 8) There are no references, although there are many links and further reading. Jeronimo 07:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. What he said, especially about the pictures. Generally this article feels like it was written by a whole bunch of people over a long period of time. Which I'm sure it has, but it shouldn't be so obvious, especially if it wants to be a featured article. Also, the section on video connections should be removed wholesale, or perhaps put in a seperate article. Oh, yeah, the section on harmful effects needs much better references than a few online news sources, I'm talking journal articles or reputable books. Also I don't think I'd support an article on TV unless it either talked in a fair bit of detail about TV's influence on culture and society or did so briefly with a link to a full article. Psychobabble 08:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I have similar concerns. I think this is a good basis for a featured article but needs more work. Perhaps Wikipedia:Peer review is a better place to go with this one? I went out and found a decent PD image of television watching to replace that diagrammatic monstrosity, so that's fixed (and somebody else added a couple others lower down), but it still needs reorganization, major infills, and some polishing. --Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The article is unbalanced and incomplete. Television is an industry, a social phenomenon and a technology. These aspects need to be separated in a disambiguation page, so that each can be treated fairly so as not to drown out the others. The subject is vast and one article can not do it justice. And right now the social aspects are a mere footnote to a long and in places quite technical piece. Haiduc 05:23, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object The article is not structured for the layman, providing many technical terms the average person may not know, thus detracting from one's ability to understand and fully comprehend it. Michael 05:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Umm... I may well object too, but I think this nomination expired about a year and half ago... Just saying... Mad Jack 05:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Oh, I see. Michael 05:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's like going to a cemetery and wishing the people buried there would die Mad Jack 05:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Michael 05:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thursday October Christian

This article is now the most complete on the web about this subject. I have drawn together virtually all of the extant facts regarding this fascinating individual. GeorgeStepanek 01:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. It's been on VFD as the subject may not be notable. If it survives there, the article is nowhere near long enough and has no proper headings. It reads more like a list of what other people have said about him. Why isn't his date of death in the opening para? Readers have to struggle through the article to find it hidden. Dbiv 01:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support, the article is short, but there may be no more to be written. Further expansion would of course be great if possible, but I strongly support hard work on more obscure historical topics like this. Everyking 02:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object: It's far too small, and more importantly, far too slight. This is a figure from a partially literate generation with extremely poor history available. The most important thing about him is his parentage and the fact that he had to mate with an older woman. Beyond that, there is very little to say about a man like him. If these are all of the facts on the individual, then there simply isn't enough to say about him. Geogre 03:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This is far, far too short. Surely, there is more information on this person especially since several books mention him. I also object to the VFD (and will comment there). Zerbey 03:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Since it's on VfD, some people obviously have problems with it. Also, it's too short and therefore unlikely to be a comprehensive article on the subject. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:07, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Nice VfD rescue, yes. Good article, yes. Worthwhile to have articles on "more obscure historical topics?" Yes. Featured article? Sorry, you gotta be kidding. Maybe you've dug up everything there is to dig up from secondary sources, but if so there just isn't enough known about this fellow. And to me the contemporary Pitcairn islanders like Steve Christian are far more "fascinating" (in a repulsive way). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • In my view, we ought to consider an article featured when it has become about the best and most comprehensive we can reasonably expect it to be, short of perfection. Can this really become much better and more comprehensive? I hope it can, but I have my doubts. Everyking 10:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Googie

An interesting article about an unusual type of architecture that everyone knows, even if they don't realize that it has a name (think Jetsons. I am promised that more pictures are forthcoming. Certainly worthy of people's attention. Danny 00:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• An interesting article, indeed, but not remotely in the ballpark of featured status. Compare Palladian architecture. Ambi 00:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I agree; compare it also to the Googie Architecture Online site that it references to see how much more comprehensive it could be. Still, the topic is interesting and the article is a good start. —Steven G. Johnson 00:41, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Object waaaay too early for this to be considered for FAC, has minimal information. Articles for FAC consideration should be comprehensive, this does not have that feeling. Alkivar 00:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Not comprehensive yet, but a good start. Try to compare to other architecture articles and expand. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:12, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Object: This is not a bad page, and its an interesting and promising article, but it needs a lot more information. A longer lead, then definitions or the rules of the form, or was it a free style of an era - that sort of thing. Then more examples, and if possible illustrations and plans, of exponent architects and their work. Was it domestic, civic, monumental or merely a gimmick? Why was it not given credence in its own lifetime? Is it confined to USA or known by an alternative name elsewhere? Why is it so called? It would be great to see this bought up to featured standard, suggest the nominator withdraws it for a couple of weeks, and addresses and expands a few points Giano 13:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have just made a small re-write to the lead section, but above comments still stand Giano 14:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The very first thing I wanted to know when I glanced at the article was "who coined the names Googie and/or Populuxe, what is their derivation, and what are they supposed to evoke?" The article doesn't say. Compare Art Deco... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Stall This is premature. The entry is still just a sketch. Great images are needed, and they are all around us. --Wetman 00:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory

Self Nomination This Canberra suburb article failed to reach consensus last time it was nominated. I believe all of the original objections have been adressed and the article has been noticably improved recently with help from WikiProject Canberra. See the previous nomination. --Martyman-(talk) 10:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object. It's very much improved, and is so nearly there. However, I still think it could do with a slight copyedit - most specifically in the history and notable places sections, as well as the education paragraph under "suburb amenities". There's a few capitalisation issues, quite a few sentences that could be worded better, and a few too many sentences that start with "In [year]...". It's certainly not bad, but I like to remember the "brilliant prose" origins of this page. Ambi 10:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Firstly, the copyedit fixed a lot of the issues; I've gone through it and fixed a few spelling errors and things - though there's still a few punctuation issues, and on a more thorough reading, I've found a few other small problems. Secondly, the chronology in the history section seems to be a bit jerky in the second half; things like the Commonwealth Forestry School section don't seem to fit too well with the rest of the section, and make the section a bit hard to follow. There are also a few cases of odd wording, though (i.e. The other land grant was to William Klensendorlffe. as the opening sentence of a paragraph). Thirdly, some of the paragraphs under "notable places" could do with some tightening up, and the second mention of the Forestry School seems a little repetitive. Fourthly, what does Many are in section 64 Yarralumla mean? Fifthly, I'd like to see Cyberjunkie, Petaholmes or Michaelgabrielsen give the prose a second look over, just to see if there's anything we've both missed. Ambi 13:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Support. There's a few lingering prose issues, but not substantial enough to continue to object to this great article being featured. Ambi 04:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  How long do articles stay up on FAC? I'll try to read through it properly and see if I can make any suggestions sometime this week, but I'm extremely busy and can't promise I'll get around to it. From a brief glance, the content looks great but there are a few formatting issues: notable places, for one, looks a bit messy. Also, (and this is ridiculously minor) is there any particular reason why the US, UK and China are mentioned in the lead as having missions in Yarralumla over other countries? Good luck with it, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  Normally at least five days, can be a lot longer if there's some debate going on and the article's getting edited in response to people's objections. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The best suburb article I've seen so far! Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 02:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but I still have some concerns. As Ambi has mentioned, there are a few prose issues that should be taken care of. It would be good to have another person go over the article - I'm hoping Nichalp might spot this. The main problem with the writing in some places is short sentences that interupt the flow. I think this is particularly so in the History section. The History section itself could do with a reworking. The first half reads like real estate history, detailing owner after owner without much context. That's a problem with the entire section in fact - a lot is said, but context is lacking: why is what being said important? how is it relevant? Elaborating would help, but that would probably require more research. There also seems to be some chronological inconsistencies. Aside from the History section, there appears to be an overlap between the Amenities and Notable places sections. IIRC, a playground is mentioned in Notable places instead of amenities. Other than that, great work!--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object – I echo what Cyberjunkie has to say. The text does need a copyedit and short paragraphs merged. There are a lot of odd sentences, and poetic phrases such as "This stigma began to fade.." coupled with one or two typos. The table on the embassies is not needed, it should be moved a a new page and linked from this page. I feel that $ in the infobox should be conveted to AU$. Those bus route timings and all are not needed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This stigma began to fade, was one of mine :P. I didn't know how else to put what was trying to be said: that the suburb got snazzy and people liked it all of a sudden, instead of deriding it as "working class".--Cyberjunkie | Talk 22:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The table of embassies emphasises the most notable thing about the suburb to foreign readers. I have moved the table to the bottom of the section to stop it interupting the flow of the text. I have changed the currency symbol. I don't see why mentioning the suburbs only public trasnport in detail should be objectionable. How does it detract from the article? --Martyman-(talk) 23:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I second Martyman's objection to the objection. Just as we would mention what railway line it was on if there were one, we should mention buses - it's of interest to many. While I disagreed with the table at first, there has been some good points made, and basically everyone in the Canberra WikiProject agrees that it's useful - particularly in showing notability to international readers. Ambi 23:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The table looks much better at the bottom.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 23:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • For the record, Petaholmes just fixed Nichalp's grammar and prose objection, and the others are all quite strongly disputed by the rest of the Canberra editors. Ambi 07:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm opposed to the bus timings. That reads like a tourist guide. Secondly, that table is not primary matter. Its more of a ancilliary list and I strongly feel it should be in a separate article. Just like can't have a list of UN missions in NYC on the New York page. Also, there's no category to the page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • So you are objecting to one sentence on bus timings and a table which everyone else thinks should stay in the article? We already have a Diplomatic missions in Canberra page, if there where pages created for individual suburbs, I would vote to delete them. This is not New York, this is a suburb of 3000 people with around 20% of its area dedicated to embassies. If 20% of New York was embassies I would expect them to be covered in great detail. The embassies located in the suburb should definately be listed, and doing so in prose would not work. I think the table is the neaatest way to do this. I have re-added the category, which got lost during recent edits.--Martyman-(talk) 21:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I'd have to say that as the transport problems arose with waterfall gully, im in favour of the bus times staying. It doesn't make it touristy, it simply makes the article more relevant to the actual suburb (which it is, a suburb - and offers suburb-relevant transport information). In regards to the diplomatic missions, that's a very important part of the suburb and definetely worth noting. Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 11:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

        1. ...offers suburb-relevant transport information..., that's the function of a tourist guide, not an encyclopedia. 2. =Notable places= should mention the notable places, not a list of all embassies in the area. I still strongly recommend that the table be moved to a separate article. The topic is on the suburb, and the list is secondary information. I've opposed all such lists in the past, be it schools, colleges etc. I'm sorry, but I cannot support this unless both are removed. (If you do remove it, please let me know so that I can change my vote.) Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

        Lots of things in this encylopedia could be considered 'touristy' but simply listing the accurate transport information for a suburb is not. In a city article, public transport, roads, etc are all detailed. In the context of an individual suburb, the information must also be relevant. Leaving out relevant information that could otherwise give the reader more knowledge does not make sense. This goes for the embassies objection aswell. I don't live in Yarralumla, but I've been there and the embassies are well worth mentioning. Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 15:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

        • I don't think this is worth worrying about any longer; FAC does not give users a veto over article content, and every single other user who has commented on this topic, both here and elsewhere, has supported the inclusion of this content. It is thus unactionable; to remove it would be to go against the consensus of everyone else. Ambi 00:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

          That's incorrect. My objection is certainly very actionable. I'm not sure why you assume that everyone has given their explicit support for the inclusion of the table. Its possible that may not have an opinion on it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

          Doesn't the fact that there is only the real options of support and object mean that a support is a 100% while an object is nothing? I don't mean to be rude at all, much less discount your opinion, but I fail to see how the inclusion of a table (which has relative and informative content) distracts from the overall quality of the article. As you have said yourself, your objection is actionable. Wouldn't the action to be whether community consenus is for or against the table? Would any other wikipedians please voice their opinion on it? Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 14:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

          • I'd prefer to keep the table. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. But what does "gazetted" mean in the lead? PedanticallySpeaking 17:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Created as an an official suburb. Ambi 23:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I have wikilinked to term now to avoid confusion. --Martyman-(talk) 00:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support. I can see why the table of embassies is where it is, but it breaks up the section by being there. If you move it to the bottom of the section or convince me that it needs to be where it is I'll support the nomination. Other really minor points that I won't object over:
  • The history section could do with a couple of subheadings as it's quite long.
  • It'd look better on some people's displays if the images just used the 'thumb' settings instead of having pixel sizes set. I use a laptop cranked up to its highest resolution, so images always look a little too small on my system when the image width is specified. People on low-res displays with largish screens are probably having the opposite problem. Just using the 'thumb' tag sets the image width to whatever the user has specified in their preferences, so it's more likely to suit everyone.
  • I think the References section should be renamed Notes and references in line with WP:CITE, unless some of the texts in Further reading were used to create the article, in which case they need to be in the references section. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have re-ordered the notable places section to stop the embassies table breaking the flow of the text. I am intending to try breaking up the history section with sub-headings some time today. I hate the default size of thumbnails they are way too small for any reasonable screen resolution. This means only poeple who have taken the time to register would see proper sized images. I have tried to pick sizes that will not cause formatting problems at any resolution and will look acceptable accross a wide range. I have renamed the references section, the further reading is just suggested books, not actually used in the writing of the article. --Martyman-(talk) 00:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Hadn't thought about the default resolution - good point. I've noticed one other thing - the map at the top would be more helpful if it had a scale on it. I'll support the article either way though - it's great. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I have added a scale to the infobox map. --Martyman-(talk) 09:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• I'm sorry to be difficult, but I'm not sure that some of the edits during this FAC have helped this article. I don't think the trimming of the notable places section was necessary, and it removed some interesting content, as well as forcing the piling up of images in big blocks (which looks fairly ugly). Ambi 02:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC) With Petaholmes latest copyedits and some of the changes made this afternoon, this has become very fine article of the standard of Waterfall Gully, and I can no longer fault it one bit. Ambi 07:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support (with the disclaimer that I have helped with the format of the article), revisions to the structure of the article- which seemed to be the most common objection (section x overlaps with section y) have been the only significant change during this FAC - no content has been lost, just moved. I think Martyman has done a great job making this article comprehensive and interesting.--nixie 02:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I too disclose that I have made a few very recent copyedits (mainly sp., punc., and minor style changes) to this article, but have not otherwise been involved in bringing it up to its current level. There is some repetition of information, and other minutae which could readily be omitted without harming it (eg the composition of the local shops, bus timings); but I don't think that these are sufficient to detract from what is a comprehensive, well-researched and referenced treatment.--cjllw | TALK 06:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Appears comprehenisive in terms of European settlement, has good photos, charts, and maps and is referenced. I wouldn't know, but was there no indigenous settlement in the vicinity of what is now Yarralumla? If there was, could that be given slight mention in the lead and elsewhere (other than the name's origin)? Otherwise, great article. Saravask 02:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I know there is no Indigenous Australian information specific to Yarralumla. It is a rather small area after all. If anyone comes across any they are welcome to add it to the article. --Martyman-(talk) 04:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vitamin C

Seems to me as a very nice and complete article, including the chemical, biological, and historical aspects. Donar Reiskoffer 15:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support - Well written, a fine example of a wikipedia article --Jarv 17:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• It might be a good idea to mention beriberi and scurvy earlier in the article (Where it says vitamin C prevents disease). Other than that, support. Great article. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 18:54, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - looks good: thorough, interesting, useful, and easy to read. Spangineer 20:32, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - only issue is that the image of the Goat has no image tag. Is from the USDA website but can't find any copyright info--Evil Monkey 22:06, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Minor object. Needs more references, and relies on list form a little too much. Great article otherwise. The table of fruit-to-vitamin-c content is also very large - could this be made smaller? Ambi 01:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor Object, I agree, the table on the Fruit -> Vitamin-C content definately needs shrinking, and is a classic example of when a table is unneccesary. Could be done in 1 table with 6 columns, not 3 tables with 2. Not to mention there are around 5-10 entries with same content that dont need their own rows.Alkivar 20:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The table used to be a 6 column one, I changed it to a two column table and split it into three parts. Using a 6 column table for two field data is a bad idea for many reasons, including the fact that the data then is stored in a different order from the way it is presented and interpreted. It makes it hard to modify: for example, inserting one entry near the top forces you to shift the contents of each row that follows, whereas with the three two-column tables you only have to move the ones at the top and the bottom for each table to adjust their heights. The way things are formatted right now, it is even a trivial operation to split the data into four tables whereas changing the 6-column table into an 8-column one requires a bit of markup-fighting. And the problem is not only with editing: you also get the data in the wrong order if you copy it as text in your browser from the 6-column table. Fredrik | talk 20:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Are all of those foods necessary? I know I haven't heard of a number of them (like Lychee and Loganberry), and others are definitely not common. It's definitely interesting information, but cutting a dozen or two out would help the problem, in my opinion. Spangineer 00:07, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Needs more and better (less bias) references - the one vanity press? reference is dubious and inadequate. Seems a bit heavy on advocacy and short on science. I just edited the section on harmful effects - fixed a number of errors, whole article needs careful copyedit. -Vsmith 02:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Please be more specific on what problems you see. Obviously others have tried copyediting and have not seen or been able to fix what you have seen. - Taxman 04:22, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
• I have made numerous edits to this page over the last year. Pleased to see it getting so much attention and improvement. I have plans to further update the advocacy section as its poorly written and to include a Claimed beneficial effects of Vitamin c section to balance the harmful effects one. (which I started) Lumos3 13:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, the copyedit part was the minor problem, I thought - "hmm did I fix em all?" - so went looking:

• synthesise 3 times, synthesize 1 time (maybe the s form is correct someplace, but not to me) - even so inconsistent.
• Intro section 1928 linked 1932 not - consistency? also ascorbic acid linked twice in one paragraph - ?
• Inconsistent capitalisation of Arctic. The inconsistent cap of the c in vitamin C was what first caught my attention (fixed that).

These from just a quick check on part of the article tells me no one is really looking. That said, my main objection was the lack of good references and the apparent bias that jumps out in several places. Those are the real problem. Example: the lead sentence in the Reported potential harmful effects section Reports of harmful effects of vitamin C tend to receive great prominence in the world's media. screams POV. -Vsmith 23:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Should Footnotes and References be merged?? Should some of history be moved to scurvy instead?--ZayZayEM 08:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] John Holmes

Self-nom. A short article, but the best anyone can find on the Internet. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:33, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral. I'd support, except I really wanted it to be about the other one. -- GWO 12:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Don't get me wrong - it is a good article, but it's just too short to be comprehensive. I write articles this length all the time. Maybe a bit of offline research would be useful. Ambi 12:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The fact there is nothing better on the internet says more about the internet than about this article: it's very far from being a featured article. The article is lacking on sufficient detail on all fronts: personal life, career, the book he wrote, context etc. The available text has some silly content as well, such as the prize of his book today ($150) and "opposed to Andrew Jackson (an "Anti-Jackson").". Also, the images have no source information. Judging by the text and sources, this is little more than a summary of all that could be found about him on the web, rather than a serious attempt to write an encyclopedia article about the man, which should involve use of further sources than just the web. Jeronimo 12:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object - Too short--Evil Monkey 20:58, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thought of the porn star before clicking the link? →Raul654 08:58, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

No. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:03, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

No *cough*. I'm up there, at the top. (I guess no one would be saying "too short" if it were about the other John Holmes) -- GWO

Yeah, I thought about the accused murderer too. (That's why he's famous, right? We don't watch his movies, right?) Geogre 14:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object: Same objections as others. At the very least, in terms of content, we need to know his principles. What did he fight for? What against? Not being a Democrat at that time had a specific meaning (alluded to by the link), but what did that mean to him? How did it represent his state? What about the book? What did it advocate? (Incidentally, $150 isn't all that much in the bibliophile world. I say that not to denigrate, but to say that it's not a remarkable enough price to warrant a mention in the article.) Geogre 14:31, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vatican City

I've come across this one too - seems good to me. jguk 21:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The "Transportation" and "Communications" sections need to be de-CIAfied (i.e. converted into prose) since encyclopedia articles should not be almanacs or factbooks. --Jiang 09:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object strongly. This article needs far more content. Only the history and politics sections are somewhat reasonable, but they could use some expansion too. The Transportation and Communication articles (from the CIA book) are not in the country template, and should be moved to separate articles (again, according to the template). Furthermore we need pictures. It shouldn't be to hard to get some pictures of the St. Peter, a pope, and the Swiss Guards. Jeronimo 07:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The Vatican City is so small that Transportation and Communication do not deserve their own articles. The template does not need to be strictly followed. --Jiang 02:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe they don't deserve their own article, but the information certainly doesn't belong in this article as it stands. Jeronimo 08:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support Does content exist to combat the above complaints?--ZayZayEM 03:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pope

--jguk 21:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. It's long enough and detailed enough but the article could do with better organisation. It seems that the paragraphs are in random order. With such a complicated subject some subclauses are inevitable but to have the very first sentence include a subclause in brackets which is longer than the part outside the brackets is an example of how the article is in need of some copyediting. Dbiv 01:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Internet

--Randy Johnston 17:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: What exactly is the difference between Internet and the World Wide Web featured on November 1? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:13, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • The World Wide Web is just one application of the Internet. There is a world of difference between the two terms. The Internet is 35 years old or something like that. The World Wide Web was created in the early 1990s. — David Remahl 13:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The image in the lead section of Internet is rather misleading, contributing to the misconception that the Internet == the WWW — it should really be a topological map of the structure of the Internet, not a map of the hyperlink structure of the WWW surrounding Wikipedia. 2) The history section could be expanded using some info from the main history article. 3) The role of the various core protocols such for example as IP and DNS should be expanded. 4) Censorship should be dealt with. By oppressive regimes and so-called voluntary censorship by censorware. 5) The Security section is lacking. Should mention some historically notable worm outbreaks. 6) The way that the Internet is decentralised, and delegates complexity to the edges of the network should be mentioned. Advantages and disadvantages. 7) The systems that form the backend of the Internet should be described in greater detail. Are there any potential vulnerabilities or single-points-of-failure? — 8) On top of all of this; references?David Remahl 13:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I agree mostly with David Remahl. Some additional comments: 1) The section on "Child abuse" is vague. What is the connection? Has child abuse increased because of the internet? Or only the number of convictions, perhaps with thanks to the internet? A (scientific) reference would also be useful here, since there may not be a relation at all. 2) There are no references, just a bunch of links. I would very much like some offline references or further reading as well. 3) The "See also" list needs to be cleaned up. Some articles are linked from within the article, others are more relevant to WWW than to Internet in general, others are contained within the Category scheme. Jeronimo 12:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object on similar reasons. Also, The section on viruses seems to suggest they are natural entities. Not malicious code actually introduced into a system by programmers.--ZayZayEM 09:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Windows XP

--Randy Johnston 17:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The article does present a lot of information in a fairly organized fashion, but it looks more like a PC World feature rundown than anything substantive. The later sections on criticisms etc. are detailed but need better organization, and there should be more information about the key differences between XP and predecessors. This article is good, but not (yet) great. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Here is its previous FAC nomination. Rhobite 04:40, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support: It presents a lot of information in a fairly organized fashion, and is very comparable if not better than most operation system articles on the Wiki, by my quick check of the 'pedia, and based on edits I have made to other Windows articles. Overall I think this an article worthy of note. PPGMD 04:25, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object, it is not complete enough on the technologies that power Windows XP and what Windows XP has borrowed from other OSs. It also seems a bit pro-micrososft and the writting is not well focused or organized. If these issues are rectified, I would happily support it. -Exigentsky 01:20, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • These are very general complaints. Could you please be more specific about what technologies you'd like to see mentioned? And I'm not sure that the "borrowing" issue is relevant, since (a) all OSes copy each other and (b) we already have Comparison of operating systems and (c) Windows XP is already very large. Rhobite 05:29, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that chart, in that case forget it. However, I think there should be more talk about Win2k features that are now in XP (which people do not know so well because Win2k was mostly for business.) NTFS is one such example, there should be a wiki link to the NTFS article and a brief explanation. Also, maybe a section on the future of the OS, how Indigo and Avalon will run on it for example. -Exigentsky 01:21, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

-- Alterego 3:56, 26 Nov 2004; self-nomination
Outlines the proper usage and dynamics of the MBTI. A unique resource not found elsewhere and unparalleled on the Internet, both in thoroughness, resources, and neutrality. Politely and neutrally describes the often-heated differences between the MBTI and Keirsey Temperament Sorter. Received very few suggested corrections on Peer Review. Includes custom-made images, complex tables, and authoritative citations.

• Object. First there's a few facts that even I (with limited understanding of Psychology) realise are missing, such as the unusual tale of the development of the test (a particularly strong shortcoming with no pages written on its developers) and what it means when you score a '0' (or nearly a 0) on one of the attributes. Actually it doesn't seem to have much of a description on the numerical score system at all, which seems fairly important to me, seeing as that's how the results are reported to the people who take the test. In addition the paragraphs under "type dynamic and table type" are full of jargon and is written in a way that I find hard to understand. I have had the MBTI types explained to me in terms that make sense, why not pitch the explanation at the level of organisational psychology explanations rather than in technical terms. And I'm sure there's a reason, but why are only 8 of the 16 categories given detailed explanations (under "descriptions of function-attributes")? If there is a reason, it should be explained because the tables attached to the section show all 16 types. It's got some good points (like the tables), but it's not quite there, I think. Psychobabble 21:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is possible to include a section on the development of the test, if that was viewed as important. I have perused around many other subjects, a few of which briefly mention their developments (notably not Microsoft Windows). It could be an entire article, or merely a couple of sentences (as is currently used). The unique history consists mostly of the fact that she and her family created the first version by writing likely items on note cards and then consulting with psychometricians from Educational Testing Services (sp). She considered other fields such as anthropology, biology, etc.. as unnecessary in the development in an indicator based on the premise that everyone knows people, therefore it should be the layman that describes them and not the doctor. I'm not sure what facts you are aware of, but it doesn't mean anything if you have a PCI score of 0. Especially on Form M, this is quite literally near impossible due to Item Response Theory. Because I am aware of the tests workings and structure I scored 0 on intuition and extroversion on my last taking. It means nothing. The "numerical score system" has been described. The article talks about the PCI score and emphasize that the "score system" you speak of is firstly nearly non-existant and secondly does not matter at all. It only matters what side of the line you fall on due to midpoint discrimination. There is a link to Psychometrics which touches on some of the key concepts used in the test's development. The jargon may be a key point here. I don't believe I have used any esoteric terms without describing them explicitly. The "fuction-attitudes" (not function-attributes) correctly point out a fact not found elsewhere on the internet: that the MBTI is highly dynamic and is very hard to properly understand. There is more than just Sensing/Intuition Thinking/Feeling. The first letter of the acronym tells you which attitude S/I T/F is in (e.g. if it is introverted or extroverted) and the last letter, J/P, tells you which is dominant in the personality. Understandably it was explained to you in the way that it would be explained to a lay client, and I took this into consideration. However, this is an encyclopedia and this information needs to be documented. This is the way the indicator actually is. When you are initially given the test you are not shown the dynamic qualities of type. The main interest is simply in figuring out which acronym best suits you so that you can move on to the description. Regarding the descriptions of the 16 types - we face a copyright issue here. I point out in the article that licensed psychologists with years of experience in interviewing and access to ~ a million tests taken write the descriptions. Many of those found on the internet were written for the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, a system in many ways incompatable with the MBTI. The best WP can do is link to the brief descriptions provided by CAPT, which is done. Not including inaccurate and custom made descriptions further and accurately emphasizes the dynamic activity of myersian typology, something which is very unique. You do not find it in this extremety in jungian typology or keirsey typology, which is often a source of oversimplification and confusion. Am taking your advice and will come up with a way to make the jargon more user friendly. Thank you. -- Alterego 07:00, 27 Nov 2004

Wow long reply. I'll only address the development point. I think mentioning the fact that one of the most widely used psychometric tests was developed by two women with no formal knowledge of psychology is worth mentioning even if in passing, as an interesting and salient fact. there doesn't need to be an essay on it. Psychobabble 01:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. All it really does is discuss the types, although it does that reasonably well. Briefly mentions skepticism about the MBTI, although this could stand a better discussion (the article is pretty NPOV in tone, but not in terms of balancing the content volume). But above all, what is glaringly absent from this article is any discussion of how the MBTI is actually used in the real world - what kinds of people use it, what they use it for, and what they do with the results. The article needs to address MBTI in contexts like pedagogy and employment screening, consider whether particular MBTI types suggest certain things socially or professionally, and deal with the possibility of cultural biases affecting the test. --Michael Snow 01:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you very much. You will see that I have revamped the Skeptical view section and will carry out the rest of your suggestions. --[User:Alterego|Alterego]] 5:16 12/1/2004

[edit] Genghis Khan

This is a perfect complete and un-biased article on Genghis Khan and his life that most people are very curious about. I think his life and achievements will be very academic. I think Wikipedia users would definitely enjoy it on front page. Let's show it! (nominated by an anon →Raul654 08:39, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC))

• Oppose. Only two inline references, which I think hardly covers all the material in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 09:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • There isn't much "all the material" on the topic of Genghis Khan per se. This is all we got and it is good. Can you suggest some more "material"? Try Google-ing "Genghis Khan" and compare the articles out there with this Wikipedia one.
    • The issue is not the content; the issue is that the article insufficiently cites third-party sources; only two references are provided, each for specific parts of the article; the rest of the article's content has no sources. For why we need references, see Wikipedia:Cite sources. Johnleemk | Talk 09:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I don't like seeing a hideous infobox taking up half the width of the page at the very beginning of the article. Remove it, or at least shrink it. Everyking 11:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. As mentioned before, the references are severely lacking, the modest infobox does not bother me, but the lead section could use some work, it is not too readable nor does it do a great job summarising the article. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 13:48, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. GeneralPatton 18:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. A list of website homepages as sources is not suffiencent for a featured article. Thousands of books and articles have been written about Genghis Khan—Go cite some! —Neutrality^talk]] 03:26, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Can you? Talk is cheap.
• Object. 1) I find the article to be rather short for a person this important, but I find it hard to indicate what exactly is missing. However, most topics can be probably be treated with more depth. 2) As others have pointed out, we need references. Also, some books and articles are definitely needed, if only as further reading. 3) There are several uncredited claims and vague sentences. E.g. "Asia is certainly quite different today than it would have been without the brief Mongol Empire.", "Some people argue ", "He is often associated", "He was one of the most charismatic leaders in the world", "probably was the founding father". The "Values of Genghis Khan" section is full of this kind of statements. 4) See also contains mostly terms that were already treated in the article. 5) The infobox is non-standard, and doesn't give much information. Also, I find it a bit strange to see his Mongolian names in Cyrillic; I'd much rather see his name in the real Mongolian script (not the communist-enforced Cyrillic). 6) Given his importance, and the fact that he has been dead for centuries, there must be more illustrations to add. Jeronimo 08:38, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I would expect at least a mention of The Secret History of the Mongols (a.k.a. The History and Life of Chinggis Khan, which, BTW, could certainly use an article). -- Jmabel | Talk 09:09, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I agree that references section needs to be expanded. Also most of the 'see also' should be incorporated into the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:39, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. While its big and certainly informative, it is lacking genuine references, and uses too many "some sources", "other sources", "some people" ambiguous phrasing.--ZayZayEM 08:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Swastika

Seldom do I find a page that so thoroughly addresses almost all my questions. Nuanced, detailed, richly endowed with images, and many helpful external links integrated into the main article text. Fishal 20:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support - my only concern is that the article may not be appropriate as a 'Today's featured article' because we would then end up with a swastika on the Main Page. Other than that an excellent article--Enceladus 20:37, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • That concern is not actionable (and you are supporting, after all). I don't think it is a problem to feature it on the main page either. People are intelligent enough to read the accompanying text and to realize that it is not used to support nazism. — David Remahl 21:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • As long as we don't use Nazi one, I don't see the problem. The Hindu one looks quite nice, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • In any case they are completely separate issues. Just because an article is a FA does not mean it will get on the main page. They are both called "featured" which is why this is sucha common confusion, but they are separate. The main page articles are picked from among featured articles. - Taxman 23:50, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • It would not be a problem to use the nazi one either. I guess (perhaps incorrectly) that it is the version that the highest number of people world wide through accumulated through all times have came in contact with. — David Remahl 12:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Covers the ground it needs, and will perhaps help to remove the stigma from an ancient symbol. Denni☯ 20:51, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
• Support: Interesting article, but still causes a shiver. Giano 21:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Needs more than one reference. References are a FA requirement. I could go on about pieces of flair, but I'll save that. :) It appears some of the external links are being used as references, but then those that have actually been used to reference material in the text need to be formatted as on the page I linked to in a section called 'References'. 2.) I really feel the intro needs to explicitly state that the swastika is not just what nearly 100% of English speaking readers will associate it with. But because that is such an overwhelming association, ignoring it seems very odd. Otherwise seems very well written and complete. Nice work. - Taxman 23:57, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • There are still only 2 print references, neither particularly relevant to most of the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I don't think the Unicode code points deserve to be in the lead section. The lead section needs to mention the use of the symbol by Nazi Germany since that is a very common understanding of the symbol today. Also, "Allegedly, the Nazis believed that ... Aryans ... were the prototypical white invaders." Did they or didn't they? Who alleges this? Does anyone dispute it? References definitely needed here. Gdr 00:48, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
  • I fixed the lead section part. Johnleemk | Talk 05:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I trust that this objection has been addressed - the Chinese unicode has moved lower doen, but some Sanskrit is there (quite properly, I think). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object: the lead is still inadequate. At the moment it seems to be a repository for trivia; it should be a summary of the most important points of the article. Mark¹ 06:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I moved the Unicode trivia, but the rest of the info is relevant: it describes the symbol, briefly states who it was used by, and tells the source of its name. Fishal 19:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The lead is not the place to tell us that a swastika is an "irregular icosagon"; that tells us something about icosagons, but nothing about a swastika. And the lead still makes no attempt to summarise the article: see Wikipedia:Lead_section#Lead_section. Mark¹ 01:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • This objection has been addressed, I think: I can't see any "trivia" there now. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely, a well done article on a controversial subject. Zerbey 01:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. For the main page, the Aryan pic with the dots rather than the tilted Nazi version should be used. Add a couple of references though. Chameleon 12:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A good NPOV article on a controversial subject - and it is important (and interesting) to know that the symbol is not only a Nazi one. A few more references wouldn't hurt, although there is quite a few in the external link sections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Tuf-Kat 21:10, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Andre (talk) 21:29, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Dbiv 01:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. The article includes the sentence, "The swastika symbol was found extensively in the ruins of the ancient city of Troy." There was no city called Troy - though often Ilium is the city to which this term refers; more importantly, this city has not yet been discovered. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 02:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know what you're getting at here. "Troy" and "Ilion"/"Ilium" are different names for the same place. The link you gave redirects to Troy. Proteus (Talk) 19:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. In general, I find the article a bit disorganised, and it reads like a huge collection of "swastika facts" rather than an encyclopedia article. The article should become far more coherent, and remove redundant parts. Some additional, specific objections: 1) The first section and the lead section have a lot of overlap. 2) The article has a lot of "single sentence facts", which bear little relation with the preceding or following paragraphs, and it reads like a list at times. The "Jainism" subsection is an extreme example of this. 3) The "worldwide taboo" section repeats itself a bit, and actually shows the taboo is not worldwide, making the title inappropriate. 4) References should preferably be organised according to the WP:MOS, and I would really like to see more books; even if just as further reading. 5) The article's subdivision is partially chronological, partially geographical, and partially by means of use, and this is not done consistently. For example, the use in religion/mythology results in works of art, and the Indians in North America also used it as a religious symbol. It seems that the geographical approach would work best, using chronological order within these sections. 6) The "origin of the swastika" section gives only one explanation apart from the "no idea" explanation (the reference to the book should (re)appear in the reference sections, by the way) It is not clear whether there are more theories. Jeronimo 20:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Objection challenged: The categorical structure makes sense, and it makes more sense now that I have moved the section I had added (in the wrong place) about its use in Native American religion. The article talks about its decorative uses, its religious uses, and finally its use in modern times. Fishal 05:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Only one part of my objection is "challenged" here. I'm not saying the categorical structure does not make sense, I'm only saying it isn't applied consistently, and it still isn't. The sections art&architecture and religion&mythology are largely overlapping, since the reason for its use in art is mostly religion (most of the buildings mentioned are temples of some sort). This leads to duplication, and I think duplication is undesirable and, in this case, unnecessary. Furthermore, "modern use" is not a categorical classification, but a chronological one. So again, this is inconsistent. Another minor error I spotted: a synagogue is mentioned under the "Christianity" section. Jeronimo 07:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• nice article, but I have to object until the following (minor?) gripes are satisfied: (a) either merge or expand the 1-sentence "Jainism" section; (b) the entire "Early Indo-European traditions" section reads like neo-pagan internet myths. either remove, or give sources (excavations, manuscripts...). remove the proto-indo-european part altogether (this is complete speculation). Where and in what contexts was a swsatika ever referred to as "Thor's hammer"?? dab 15:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • removed it myself. reluctant support as long as nobody re-introduces it without references. dab 10:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting article about widespread and longtime use of what is now a reviled symbol. A2Kafir 17:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support - could still do with more proper references. --ZayZayEM 04:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support - I also agree that it should have more references --Alex Krupp 06:19, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Object: Missing source info, copyright tags, or insufficiently justified copyright tags, on some images: Image:Swastikapistols.jpg, Image:Whirling log.jpg, Image:ASEA logo pre 1933.jpg, Image:Lotta Svärd.jpg, Image:Swastika.jpg. —Steven G. Johnson 01:18, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh dear - in extremis, I suppose these could be deleted? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support! Interesting and well written. Exigentsky
• Comment: maybe we should start over? The article has been substantially rewritten since the vote started. dab 15:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Is there a procedure for that? Fishal 22:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • well, we could argue that there are unaddressed objections, so the article failed to reach FA consensus for now, but rather than wait a couple of weeks, we could just archive this discussion and re-add it to the top of this page immediately (as it seems consensus is just around the corner, really). I don't think there is really an official procedure for this: it's my suggestion, and if others agree, just do it. dab 09:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, the article has changed so much since its nomination, it seems to be experiencing growing pains. I propose taking it off this list and re-nominating it once all the new matrerial is sorted out better. Fishal 04:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • agree. there is no hurry. dab 20:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Rouge

In my opinion, it is a very intersting topic and there has much work done in very short time. Please have a look at it, it is worth it to be at wikipedia'S front page!

• Object. Lead section too short. No references. Some instances of POV (e.g. calling the critical press "tabloid"). The whole section about opposition is poorly balanced. Again, references are needed. I live in Sweden but have never heard of this movement, despite the claim of "fame" in Sweden. Link to some of the "tabloid" articles. See also links to several articles that have already been mentioned. Do 500 members really make it the "leading magical organization" in northern Europe? Says who? Alchemy is listed in see also. Why? Does the movement have any official religious texts? The section The Initiatoric Draconian Magic is not clear on what each step actually constitutes; what does a follower have to do to achieve each step? How is the movement financed? What do the different elements in the "official logo" symbolise? In short: this article has some way to go before featured status. — David Remahl 13:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. "Initiatoric Draconian Magic" section is unintelligible to a reader with no prior knowledge of this group. The section also needs to be formatted properly. "Opposing Views" is POV. Section headers shouldn't capitalize every word. Rhobite 17:12, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Lead needs expansion. See also section needs to be more carefully linked (magic is a disambiguation) and info on why these "see-also links" are related needs to be included. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 17:38, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Impossible to understand for people unfamiliar with the subject. Needs references, for example in regard to Swedish fame. Haven't heard of it, and a find a worldwide organization with only 500 members quite small. I doubt it's as famous as the author would like it to be. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:10, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. is this for real? article reads more like a very bad joke. Are we sure this actually exists? Can we get soem verifyable sources. Perhaps a list of famous members? Some reason why this is even worthy of inclusion on Wiki? Alkivar 00:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object: Lead is almost non existent, but even if it were not, the content of the article is insubstantial. There are no references. At various times I've lived all over Europe and never heard of it. It may exist. It may be notable; but it is not featured article material. Giano 08:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object: No lead, POV issues, references--ZayZayEM 03:42, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)Support. 04:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)