Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Wolf

This is a comprehensive article on the Grey Wolf. It has recently been through a peer review, where it was received positively with helpful notes for improvement of the article. The images shouldn't be any problem, and I think the ones that are claimed under fair use have justifiable reasoning. This is a self nomination. Sango123 20:39, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support--very informative and fascinating. I especially liked the skilled use of images. Meelar (talk) 20:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Very nice article: scientific, well-written, and it covers a broad range of topics. I'd personally like to see and expanded folklore/mythology section — or perhaps a link to a wolf (mythology) page as there is so much history there — but beyond that minor qualm it's an incredible article. Grat incorporation of multiple forms of media as well (images, charts, maps, and even sound!) Semiconscious (talk · home) 21:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Love it. Plenty of hard work put in and I hope it pays off. --PopUpPirate 22:02, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Well written article. Great pictures. I like it a lot. --ZeWrestler Talk 22:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Great Article that gives a thorough description of the wolf to the reader. Magicmonster 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support excellent Tuf-Kat 23:06, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object only to title. The article should be title "Grey Wolf." The text can/should identify the species as the one most commonly referred to simply as "wolf," but the one-word title should go to a page taxonomizing the various species (which can be relatively brief). Monicasdude 23:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Sorry, but shouldn't it be Gray Wolf, and not "Grey" Wolf, esp. as the wolf populations are primarily in the US and Canada? ("Grey" is one of the more irritating of the unconscious Anglicisms by Americans.) Geogre 02:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep title as it is. (common usage) =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nope, I agree, the title as it is is misleading. Articles should stay true to their topic. "Wolf" should be a general article about all wolves (or a disambig) and Gray Wolf should be the article about that specific wolf. - Taxman Talk 21:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • If no one opposes this suggestion, I'll move Wolf to Gray Wolf and turn the first into a (disambig?) page taxonomizing the different species. Sango123 23:08, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The images Image:Wolf-Pack.jpg and Image:HowlingGreyWolf.gif are used under "fair use". However, I see no reason to use "fair use" images on this article: the images may be of hard-to-photograph events, but they're hardly unique. You should be able to find public-domain replacements from US government websites. --Carnildo 23:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I replaced the HowlingGreyWolf.gif with Image:Wolf howling on glacial erratic.jpg. Its not a close up like the previous one was, but its in the pd. Do you guys agree with it? --ZeWrestler Talk 12:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's even better than the one it supplanted. Sango123 23:08, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've also found this picture of a wolf pack. The only reason I have not replaced the current image with the new one, (besides the fact i like the old one better even though its fair use), is because the website that is listed here on wikipedia is warned to have some copyrighted images uploaded in the guise of pd images. So, if this picture were to replace the otherone, its status would have to be varified. Added note, if the fairuse rationale were improved on the current wolfpack image, i would see no problem using one fairuse picture in this article.--ZeWrestler Talk 12:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
      • The image has been listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. [1] Sango123 01:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • How about this one? It's a National Park Service photo of a pack of wolves going after a bison. If you don't like that one, the NPS has quite a collection of wolf images at [2]: you might be able to find something suitable. --Carnildo 19:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
        • That's an excellent photo; it demonstrates both the wolf pack and hunting. I'll look through the collection (thanks for the link). Sango123 23:08, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
          • I've uploaded the photo and placed it in the article; Image:Wolf-Pack.jpg is now on WP:IFD. Sango123 01:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. Looks good. --Carnildo 06:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support User:Nichalp/sg 18:01, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support excellent article which will serve as a great example for future featured article candidates. Really good read also. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong super extreme support of doom. No reason not to. Plus, who doesn't like wolves? (/me gets spammed with forty people who hate wolves) Redwolf24 (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs more discussion of wolf subspecies. Neutralitytalk 04:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support if moved to Gray wolf, and wolf turned into a disambig page pointing to all the species of wolf, as well as other meanings of the word. Great article! WegianWarrior 05:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Would prefer it moved to Gray wolf but I'd support it anyway. Fieari 05:39, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. More than complete - pictures, maps, audiofiles, text. Just about every thing covered though I agree with Neutrality - more on subspecies. I also agree with Fieari's suggestion it should be moved to "Grey Wolf", then "Wolf" could grow as a general article to cover Grey, Red, Dire and Ethiopian. --Oldak Quill 09:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - very impressive! Rossrs 09:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, (sorry) the naming issue needs to be cleared up, I think that wolf should redirect to the Genus Canis which is already a wolf species disambig and this page should should be moved to Grey/Gray Wolf.--nixie 05:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved wolf to Gray wolf (I used gray because that's what the article uses) →Raul654 22:46, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Addendum (for the sake of completeness) - after rechecking the article, I saw it was inconsistent, using gray in some cases and grey in others. This is unacceptable for a featured article, so I've gone ahead and changed all instances to from grey to gray (sans one external link that wouldn't work if the URL were changed). →Raul654 23:00, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phishing

I nominated the article back in May: May 2005 nomination Since then, the article has received two extensive peer reviews. July-Aug 2005 peer review and the June 2005 peer review. Both reviews have been extremely helpful in improving this article. I believe the article is now ready to for becoming a featured article on wikipedia. It meets the criteria for becoming a featured article, and also has been cited as a source by three different media organizations. (See the article's talk page for more information on that.) Furthermore, phishing has become an important issue today as the number of phishing issues reported increases rapidly.

  • Nominate and Support --ZeWrestler Talk 15:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Much better than last time. Interesting article too. --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Two problems--first of all, the copyright status of the User Friendly strip isn't clear to me; all it says on the image description page is that it was "released to the internet", and that it's copyrighted by the strip's creator. Secondly, the section entitled "Attempts after AOL" is full of confusing technical jargon (sample sentence: "Secunia has issued a security advisory on the IDN spoofing issue[1], based on the IDN homograph attacks identified by Eric Johanson [2]. Users of web browsers that implement IDN are affected"). You should lead up to the technical stuff, rather than simply launching straight in after the easy-to-understand "early phishing on AOL" section. Meelar (talk) 15:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • The picture is can be used on Wikipedia, because of the following message in the Userfriendly FAQ section. I have already updated the image description page. I am going to update the userfriendly tag, so this issue can be avoided in the future. As for your second object, I will begin working on it.--ZeWrestler Talk 15:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the quick reply. I look forward to seeing your work--the rest of the article is very good. Not sure if the User-Friendly FAQ entry helps much, though--it appears to allow non-commercial use only, which violates the GFDL. Might want to either justify fair use or yank the strip (it doesn't seem essential to the article, esp. considering the large number of other excellent illustrations). Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 15:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • The user friendly copytag is not listed under GFDL. It is listed under Free licenses. GFDL does not apply to this image. Copyright for the image applys to this site, because the image is being used for educational purposes, as specified on the FAQ above. If the image becomes too much of an issue, i'll remove it from the article, but personally, I would preferr to keep it in. I believe it adds a nice touch to the article. --ZeWrestler Talk 17:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I have made corrections to the section per your suggestion. Are the changes good enough, or is there something else that needs to be changed? --ZeWrestler Talk 17:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Support--your changes address my concerns. The User Friendly image isn't compatible with Wikipedia, unfortunately. He says he's fine with re-use, "as long as no money changes hands"--this essentially prevents commercial sites from mirroring this image. Non-commercial-use-only images aren't acceptable. I personally would pull the image. But with or without it, this is a very feature-worthy article. Best, Meelar (talk) 17:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you. What I will do involving your image concerns are make a note of it on the takepage of the article. There it can be determined if the image stays are goes. talk page --ZeWrestler Talk 17:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Looking back at my original objections, it appears that they have been addressed. This is a marked improvement from the previous version. Well done! slambo 15:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks really good. --Alabamaboy 17:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    • One thing I noticed though (and this doesn't change my vote) is that the in-line notes don't add up. The body of the article has 14 in-line notes, but the note section lists 17. Obviously, three notes were deleted at some point but the in-line note system wasn't corrected. This causes the notes to not link up properly. I don't have time right now to fix it so I thought I'd point out the issue.--Alabamaboy 18:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I added one of the missing tags to the article. (honestly, i forgot to include the note tag for that one.) The other two articles, were used as references, but not cited directly. The information in them is reflected in the article, and because of that, they have been put in the reference section but given no direct reference in the article.--ZeWrestler Talk 18:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
        • They were still out of order in the notes section, causing text reference 1 to link to note reference 4, and so on. I think I have corrected this (although there appear to be two references in the notes section (#16 & 17) that have no corresponding note in the body of the article). Please verify that they are now correct and that I didn't mess anything up. --Alabamaboy 19:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I guess they had to be in order they were used in the article. I had them in alphabetical order. With 16 and 17, those two sources were used in the article, but not directly cited because content and idea were not directly taken from them. Because they were used, i thought it right to include them, without any reference notes. Thanks for making the fix.--ZeWrestler Talk 20:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Yeah, they have to go in the order they're used in the article. That's the most time consuming aspect of using the system. best, --Alabamaboy 20:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shrimp farm

A quick comment of mine led to some research that kept me occupied for several weeks. The peer review was rather unspectacular, and I think it's ready to be discussed here, although an anon recently said the article should be even more critical (see Talk:Shrimp farm). Lupo 09:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support The "Economy" section could be expanded but I think this article is ready for FA status anyway. Nice use of free license images, too. --malathion talk 09:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you have any particular ideas on how to expand that section on economy? Lupo 09:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Has been expanded and reworked significantly. Lupo 15:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Quality work. Everyking 11:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support interesting and informative, good work! --PopUpPirate 11:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I think the article has good "bones", but is a ways away from FA quality. Here's a few points to start with:
    First off, thanks for these pertinent comments. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Title - if there is a freshwater prawn farming article, this should probably be titled marine prawn farming or some such, not just "shrimp farm" seeing as it only covers half of that topic.
      • I disagree. In most cases, when people talk about "shrimp farms", they talk about the type of farms described in the article. Also, did you see the usage note on "shrimp" vs. "prawn"? "Shrimp farm" appears to be the common term. Feel free to create redirects as you feel are needed, though. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Maybe this can be addressed with a rewording of the message at the top. I will try to fix it. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Organization - I think it would read much better if the article were reorganized; I would like a section close to the beginning that explains the basic theory and methodology of shrimp farming; I would like "life cycle of shrimps" to be integrated with that explanation; I would like the various types of farms ("extensive" to "very intensive") sectioned separately and explained coherently. Other changes would fall out of such a reorganization.
      • We now have "History and geography", followed by "Life cycle", "Species", "Technologies". The latter gives a brief run-down of the basic theory and methodology. "Species" comes first because I thought it important to state first what these techniques are applied to. I'll make "Life-cycle" a sub-section of "Species", though. I won't do a more global reorganization because I'm content with the current one and I'm not sure what exactly you mean. Maybe you could show me? Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Will address on article talk page. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • We simply disagree on this one. Interested third parties: see the article's talk page. Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Avoid repetition - some facts are repeated a couple times in the body of the text (notably, production); the best data should be used once to make a table and the rest deleted.
      • Production data is all from FIGIS, rounded. It makes no sense to provide data with more accuracy: first, the FAO databases may contain estimates anyway, and second, production fluctuates regionally. There is some overlap between the "History" and the "Economy" sections (market share and such)—I'll see what I can do about this. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Fixed, IMO. Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Define techical terms - several technical terms are left undefined; these should be defined briefly and if necessary linked to an explanatory article. (Striking peremptorily assuming it will be addressed per talk page)
      • Which terms? Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Will address on talk page. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • Still waiting, despite my having asked twice more... Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
            • Calm down, doing the best I can. - Bantman 17:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Missing information:
      • There is very little discussion of "sustenance" shrimp farming - it is only implied.
        • That's because I have found no information on sustainable industrial shrimp farming. Note that programs to work in that direction are very recent; for instance, I have found no information that the World Bank/NACA/WWF/FAO programme had any noticeable impact on shrimp farming practices. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • I meant small-scale low-intensity shrimp farming. I found one link (on talk page), will look for more. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
            • Would like to see more, and more objective discussion. - Bantman 17:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
              • I don't seem to know what you are talking about. How about taking a shot at it yourself? Lupo 20:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
                • I don't think subsistence farming of shrimp is a widespread practice as I haven't found any information on that. Shrimp farming is an export-oriented business (note that most of the producer countries do not have sizeable home markets for shrimps). Lupo 11:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • A few years ago there was a big hubbub in the USA about farmed shrimp being too cheap and driving shrimp boaters on the Gulf of Mexico out of business. There was lots of arm waving and some discussion of tariffs, followed by counterthreats... a full-blown international trade fiasco. This needs to be explored in some depth.
        • Well, the interaction between shrimp farming and shrimp fishery could be explored... thanks for the idea. I think farming supplements fishing, though—IIRC, annual catches also rise constantly. I'll go check FIGIS. Do you have any links on the incident you mentioned? Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • One link found, will look for more. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
            • Allright, I think I got it. I think you mean the "anti-dumping case". Is mentioned now. Lupo 15:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
              • I want more discussion than half a sentence. - Bantman 17:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
                • This is an article on shrimp farming, not the U.S. foreign trade relations. Lupo 19:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • There is not discussion of the economics of the farms themselves - are they highly or barely profitable? Have poor rural rice farmers been able to supplement their income with small shrimp farms?
        • I'll see what I can write about the social impacts of shrimp farming. On the profitability of individual farms: I'm not sure this can be answered in any meaningful way because it depends on too many factors. The figures given in [3] and many of the assumptions made there for one particular experimental type of farm would be utterly meaningless for an extensive farm in, say, Ecuador. I'd expect the profitability to vary greatly by region and from year to year. It may be very difficult to find average values for farms in one region, but let's try. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • Dealt with, IMO. Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
            • Inadequate in length and colored by anti-shrimp farming POV. - Bantman 17:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
              • 'Scuse me?? Lupo 19:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Any information on benefits / risks of farmed shrimp as a food? Farmed salmon are controversial because they may have higher levels of certain pollutants (among other reasons). Maybe shrimp do too; or maybe they are bigger, firmer, more consistent... I'd like to know.
        • Do I understand you correctly that you basically want to know why the demand for shrimp has grown so much? I'm not sure I'll be able to answer that... Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • What I'm asking is whether or not the market discriminates at all between farm-raised and wild-caught shrimp, and if so for what reasons. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
            • Oh, I see. AFAIK, as far as the farmed species are considered, that does not appear to be the case. In fact, a recent import ban by the U.S. on Thai shrimp was issued because Thai fishers generally do not use TEDs, although 95% of the country's shrimp production comes from farms. (IIRC, this is the second time this happens, a first time was in 1996.) I would have to check, but I'd guess similar bans on shrimp imports due to Chloramphenicol contamination (a problem that is present only in farmed shrimp) also covered caught wild shrimp from these countries. Some caught shrimp are sold under a "turtle safe" certification, but I haven't investigated how serious this certification is and what its marketing importance is; that whole issue of turtle protection and bycatch is more appropriate for the Shrimp fishery article. Of course, there is a market segmentation between different species; the small shrimp caught in the North Sea (Pandalus borealis) widely consumed in Europe play in a different league than the much larger farmed Penaeids. Other than that, the reason why farming was "invented" at all are summarized at the beginning of the "technology" section. Lupo 14:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • POV - this is a biggie; the article is pretty strong on pointing out the detrimental effects of shrimp farming, but does not discuss the positives. Obviously, people in developing countries are employed or given a supplemental cash flow. Shrimp farming helps sate the global demand for shrimp. There must be some effect of decreased pressure on wild fishing stocks.
      • "People are employed..." - For some background, see Genuine Progress Indicator. It's not that simple. I'll see what I can do... (related to the social impacts mentioned above) "...helps sate the demand" is mentioned. "decreased pressure on wild stocks" - As I wrote above, I'll check the FIGIS databases, but I don't think so. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Furthermore, let me just point out a few more things: if the negative side of shrimp farming gets so much coverage, this is not through any intent of mine. Might it not just be an indication that shrimp farming is indeed a highly problematic industry, at least with current technologies? And shrimp fishery, BTW, is problematic, too. It uses bottom trawling with a massive bycatch problem and causing severe destruction in the benthic zone. From what I've discovered, the social side of shrimp farming isn't exactly rosy, either... For now, I'll just post at the article's talk page an assorted link collection I intend to use for a new "social impacts" section. If you find positive links, add them there! I'm a bit dismayed that I didn't find any... Lupo 10:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm concerned that you seem to be "against" shrimp farming (and for that matter shrimp fishing too). Obviously people engage in shrimp farming because it is in some way beneficial to them (increased income, productivity, etc.). You have explored the problems of shrimp farming, but there must be some benefits to somebody. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
            • Expanded the sections on "economy" (exploring some of the perceived benefits of shrimp farming) and on "ecology" (mentioning some of the industry's responses to come to grips with these problems). Still waiting for Bantman to review it. Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Some copyediting is also in order.
      • Please help, especially on the last two points. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Will help as I can, and strike out my objections as they are addressed; I will move further discussion to the article's talk page.
          • Still waiting. Bantman has stated on the article's talk page that he didn't want to rewrite the article himself. (That said, I don't think a rewrite is in order. But unless some native speaker fixes any grammatical goofs I may have made or points them out to me, I can't do anything about that.) Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • -Bantman 01:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • I really don't mean to be difficult, although I'm sure it appears otherwise. I firmly believe that the article should be reorganized as I suggested. The more I look at the article, the more it screams POV as anti-shrimp farming (honestly, I have half a mind to slap a {{NPOV}} tag on it, except that would be such poor manners). Unfortunately, Lupo has addressed my less important objections and ignored my biggest concerns. Therefore I will affirm my oppose vote with little expectation of changing it unless my concerns are addressed more fully. - Bantman 17:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • I have ignored your biggest concerns? I don't think so. Did I really misunderstand you that badly? Lupo 20:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
          • This is not a case of misunderstanding. We have agreed to disagree on the organization and overall structure of the article; in my opinion your refusal to reorganize constitutes a perfectly valid reason to object on the grounds of not being good writing. I have pointed out that the article is quite opinionated against shrimp farming; it continues to read that way and I will continue to call POV as I see it. Again IMO, this is an even more valid reason to object. Both of these objections are actionable. Under FAC guidelines, it is your responsibility to address actionable objections, not mine as a voter. I have tried to give you assistance via constructive criticism and suggestions; if you choose not to carry my suggestions through there is nothing I can do about it, short of doing it myself which I choose not to do. You also have to realize that your dedication to the article as an author is much higher than mine as a voter. I have no animosity toward you or your article, and I hope that we can continue to keep things cordial. - Bantman 00:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
            • I never questioned the validity of your vote or opinion, so don't insinuate that I did. However, I find your accusations of bias rather unspecific. This process is not about "author vs. others", it's about making articles better! Lupo 06:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
              • I don't want to quarrel. I apologize if I made any untoward insinuations - it was not my intention. That said, I'm afraid I'm losing interest in this topic. You can lead a horse to water, and all that. I suggest that you re-read my reorganization proposal and pay attention to the specifics; it is a big job (which is one reason I didn't want to tackle it) and is not much addressed by the rather cosmetic section move recently made. The POV issue is hard to point out specifics on because it is pervasive; I recommend you try to either a) find another editor with a more neutral POV who wants to help you, or b) rewrite the article from scratch playing "devil's advocate", and then use the two versions to create an NPOV mixture of the two. As it is, it is fairly obvious that the main author is quite against shrimp farming... the first step is admitting that is the case, and then trying to overcome it through careful attention to your biases. Good luck with the article; I really do hope it improves, but the article / topic just doesn't inspire me to do it myself. From now on, I will be limiting my further attention to this article and FAC nom to occasional reviews to see if my concerns have been addressed, at which time I would be happy to change my vote. - Bantman 17:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks like another great article, Lupo. Most of the above seems taken care of in my opinion, though I am certainly not an expert on the subject. I only have a few observations: 1) the difference between intensive and extensive methods doesn't seem explained anywhere, though I had thought it had been in past versions of the article. If that's an important distinction it should be explained early, if not, simply explain it quickly the first time either term is used. 2) The very prominent initial placement of the species list seems a bit out of place. That seems like too much detail for that soon in the article. How the farms work and their impact seems much more high level, overview information, which means it should be placed before the detailed species list. 3) This sentence in the economy section is not terribly clear: "This accounts for 25% of the total shrimp production from farming and wild catch that year." I think that means farming is 25% of the total shrimp production, and if so, even just parentheses around "from farming and wild catch" would make that clearer. Other than that, looks great. - Taxman Talk 01:31, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Taxman. I'll see what I can do about (1). On (2): User:Bantman thinks so, too. My problem is: I believe the life cycle must be explained before the technologies, otherwise there will be lots of forward references. The life cycle seems to be explained best in the "species" section. Maybe someone with greater language skills than I could move up the "technology" section before "species", but I don't see how to do it. The article currently explains "what do you farm?" before answering "how do you farm". On (3): done. Lupo 07:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see anything about the lifecycle information that needs to be right after the species stuff. Simply move the species section down, and leave the lifecycle as the first thing in what is now the technology section. You may want to rename the section from technology to reflect that it is about shrimp farming methods in general and not just the technology. - Taxman Talk 18:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • Hmmm... will try that out tomorrow. Lupo 19:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
          • Done. I'm not very happy with it, though, but what the heck. Should also take care of Bryan's (Bantman's) reorganization objection. Lupo 09:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Outstanding article. I am especially impressed by all the references in the body of the text. About the POV concerns of Bantman, I personally think the article is well rounded, and includes both the Pro's and Con's of shrimp farming. Judging which one is more important is difficult to do, and I think just stating the (available) facts is the best approach. Hence unconditional support for the article. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge

This was submitted previously. We have worked to address the concerns that were mentioned. This is the best example of an article of a bridge at Wikipedia. We are hoping to use this article as a model of what a bridge article should look like. -- Leonard G. and Samuel Wantman 18:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Support--looks good to me, and very interesting. Forgot to mention earlier, but the pictures greatly enhance the article, especially good work with those. Meelar (talk) 18:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--Incredibly good article, I like how you took most of the pictures yourself. PRueda29 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - No references. Please do not nominate articles before they meet basic FA requirements. - Bantman 21:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - Lacks a reference section. If some of the external links were references, please place them in a separate section. Also, I would like to see inline references for the bridge statistics so that it would be harder for someone to vandalize that information. Pentawing 00:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry about the reference section. They were mixed in with the external links. I've separated them and added some inline references for the statistics. I wasn't quite sure how to add the inline reference for the entire "The Bay Bridge at a glance section". I didn't want references on each line, so I added the comment "The following information..." -- Samuel Wantman 08:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this is as thorough an article as can be written about a single bridge. As far as the references go, a lot of this is a matter of public record, so it's difficult to reference. However you seem to have addressed this issue. Great job! My only real objection is the mirrored use of the phrase "at a glance" on this page and on the CalTrans facts page. Semiconscious (talk · home) 21:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Weak Object mainly on style considerations. 1) The images in the middle are all bunched up clubbing the sectional [edit] buttons together. Add an image just after a heading. 2) "5.1 Eastern span name proposed" : a single subheading under a heading is bad style. Merge contents with parent heading. 3) Use the inline footnote style of referencing {{inote}} or {{ref}} instead of directly putting the link. 4) Could you modify this Image:Wpdms usgs photo golden gate.jpg to show where exactly the bridge is located? 5) Is the section "In fiction and film" complete? 6) When I first read this article I thought I was reading about the Golden Gate Bridge, (the construction does look similar). Could you mention something in the lead so that a person not familiar with this topic would know immediately that there are two bridges? Thanks User:Nichalp/sg 09:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    1. I think this is fixed. There may be some differences in this problem from browser to browser, so let me know if this is still a problem. all the pictures are after the headings.
    2. This was changed to a heading "Official name" and I added some more information.
    3. You've lost me on this one. Virtually all the information in this article was found on-line. Most of the information comes from government websites, the California Dept. of Transportation site, and the SF Museum site. I don't understand what would be added by having the inline footnotes. It seems like just another layer of indirection. I can add the inline cites if you insist, I just don't understand why.
    4. I modified it, and added it at the bottem near the maps external links.
    5. I doubt this is complete. The bridge pops up all over the place in movies and TV shows. I think the most mentioned ones are here. These sections grow as people add trivia. I think most of these sections are way too long and mention far too much. If this keeps this from being a FA, I'll have to pass the ball to someone else. I don't particularly enjoy researching this sort of trivia.
    6. I've added a mention of the Golden Gate. Leonard and I are from the Bay Area, so we'd never confuse these bridges, but I'm sure you are not the only person to confuse them.
-- Samuel Wantman 06:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, the images don't conflict now. 1) I'd prefer you move "In fiction and film" to a separate article and link it from the =see also= section. Its more of a trivia section here, and as you say its incomplete. (FAs shouldn't be incomplete). Having a new page will allow people to expand the listing. 2) Some units are only in imperial units. I would strongly recommend metric equivalents be added for a wider audience. User:Nichalp/sg 18:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
1) A seperate article San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in fiction and film has been created and linked.
2) All measurements are now metric or have metric equivalents.
--Samuel Wantman 07:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. User:Nichalp/sg 13:20, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Schmidt

Self-nom. A second try at this (the previous FAC is here). Profile of the newest Member of Congress. I'd like to have it featured by September 6, the day she takes her oath. Photos, full bibilography. Was on peer review here. PedanticallySpeaking 17:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support; well-written, well-balanced and readable; to my eye it seems like a model of NPOV on a potentially divisive political figure. Impressive references list. Antandrus (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks. PedanticallySpeaking 16:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; ditto --WizardOfTheCDrive 17:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; ditto --Ian Pitchford 18:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--looked great on peer review, looks great now. Meelar (talk) 18:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--Very Nice PRueda29 (talk)
  • Support. Niteowlneils 21:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support For the most part it is a textbook example of how political articles should be written. --JamesB3 22:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank for your praise. PedanticallySpeaking 16:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object This is a very good, well referenced article that should be using inline notes in addition to the references. This is especially important since almost all of the direct reference links are to news reports. Within a few months, many of these news links will go dead. With inline notes, the information about which news sources were used as references for each part of the article will not be lost. If this is corrected, I will change my vote to support.--Alabamaboy 00:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I would note that most of the news links are to the Cincinnati Enquirer and Cincinnati Post which retain valid links for years. Some links are five years old or more and are still valid. I am aware of even older pages still available. PedanticallySpeaking 16:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support upon changing of citational style. I normally give much less than a fig about citational style, but in a breaking-news setting inline probably is better. I know it's a PiTA for something that's trivial, but there may be a good reason this time. Geogre 01:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support obviously great work: well referenced, many photos (although the last few parts are a bit dry in terms of photos, but its ok), superb grammar, lots of factual information, a great read. no question in my support --Lan56 03:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks so much. PedanticallySpeaking 16:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, support. Another classic piece of high quality writing by PedanticallySpeaking. Politics can be surprisingly interesting. :) — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I yearn to support, but the captions aren't exactly following the typical caption policy. Johnleemk | Talk 16:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Solid reporting, though I'd like to see the external links not go dead as well. Jokestress 17:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Columbine High School massacre

Self Nomination. I have been working on this article for eight months now, with the help of countless contributors. I believe this article now exemplifies the qualities for featured article status. It has been peer reviewed twice, and has gone through FAC status twice. Every issue brought up in all four reviews has been attended to. Almost every portion of the article can be supported with facts and information found through official investigations and several sources on the internet. It is comprehensive, concise, and should be featured as one of wikipedia's best works. - PRueda29 - 13:08 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Links to its archived candidate and peer review pages:

  • Support. After the recent edits and the addition of inline references, I fully support this article. I know I was initially hard on the article, but that was b/c the subject matter had to be fully researched and sourced to avoid future trouble with reverts and edits. In response to concerns raised, PRueda29 has done some amazing work on this article over the last day and it fully deserves to be a FA at this point.--Alabamaboy 14:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A great article that has addressed the concerns I had for it in Peer Review. Cedars 14:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild object. This is a detailed and extremely well written article, but I have a couple minor quibbles. Image:ColumbineLibrary.jpg does not meet the Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines, as it would possible for us to create a free version of it. I would also like some information on what happened prior to the shooting, specifically the bowling question is not covered in the article. - SimonP 17:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. The Bowling question was covered but I decided to remove it since I couldn't find a good place for it. I'll add it back. Thanks. - PRueda29 - 17:33 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Reference to bowling added. As for the image, even though it can be recreated, It is a screenshot placed in a relevant article and no larger than required for the web based article. So I believe its rationale is fine, but I could be wrong. I have replaced it. - PRueda29 - 10:45 23 August 2005 (UTC).

Support, thank you for the changes. Using the CNN map may very well have been legal, but overusing fair use conflicts with Wikipedia's own goals, since such images can only be used in the United States. - SimonP 13:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, text is great, the only thing I found distacting was the section headings in the Aftermath section, which could be shortened or done away with since the section is quite short anyway.--nixie 13:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral - The article lists "The final grand jury investigation was released in September 2004." In reguards to the county sheriff having prior knowledge. expand on it and this will have my support. --ZeWrestler Talk 15:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Suppport-Nice expansion on the investigation.ZeWrestler Talk 17:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The topic is still controversial as well as a touchy subject amongst many people. Nevertheless, the article is quite comprehensive and detailed. Pentawing 23:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support-Nicely researched article, and author surely went great extents to make sure everything is told about this subject. Airodyssey 01:58 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent article! Well thought and researched. Jigglz2003 19:28 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A very interesting article. I read it months ago and it was great. Front page is a maybe, I don't think its still that big of a deal 6 years later. (note: please don't go and shout me down for saying that.) I say that not in an insensitive way but in the most-people-don't-flinch-anymore-at-its-mention way. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Augustan drama

I hereby nominate this marvellous article for Featured Article status, as I believe it exemplifies what a featured article really should be. An informative, well-written, well-researched article, it provides an excellent overview of plays of England in the early 18th century with a good choice of images to accompany the text. It is well-organised and well-laid out; it is about the right length, in my view, and is perfectly comprehensive and accurate. I thus have no reservations in nominating this article. --NicholasTurnbull 21:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Won't vote, as I wrote it, but I will say that the article's thesis and purpose is not the same as Augustan literature, and I worked for 2 months to try to ensure that it was an independent article in spirit and letter and in no way a subpage. Geogre 02:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The article ought to be categorized. —thames 00:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I have added it to Category:English literature, which is the category inhabited by Augustan literature. I can't find any other category that seems applicable, though I encourage others to look. Jwrosenzweig 01:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A only slightly hesitant Support. Geogre, as usual, does a phenomenal and thorough job. I would personally like to see a little more use of sub-sectioning (the section on Spectacle, in particular, is big enough to make me feel overwhelmed without a little more guidance from subsection titles), but that may be a personal preference, and certainly, I think, should not stand as an obstacle to this being promoted to FA status. Jwrosenzweig 01:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I agree. It's one of my typical faults to make readers run a marathon just because I see the subject as unified. I have attempted to subdivide the "re-emergence of satirical drama" into a first generation/second generation split (they are different generations, but I don't discuss that, explicitly, in the article). I'll attempt to do the same for "Spectacle." It is rather vast, and I'm now attempting to create a Spectacle article, as well as articles for some of the little-known plays (such as Chrononhotonthologos) to take the narrative pressure off the section. I have created subdivisions now to separate the pantomime and opera "spectacles." Geogre 03:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
      • You're certainly welcome, Geogre! And thanks for the sectioning--they helped me make better, more fluid sense of that section. I hereby withdraw any hesitancy in my support for this being featured. :-) Jwrosenzweig 10:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. Not objecting because my issue is a bit vague. I find the prose of the article a bit leaden, and also in places a bit redundant. I made a few small edits myself, trying to tighten it, but I'm not taking this on. If at a later time someone feels they have addressed this, let me know and I may support. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Understandably, you can't tell me what's "leaden," as that's affective and not demonstrable, but you can tell me what's redundant. Needless to say, I think my prose style is pretty good, but, as you say, you're not objecting, and de gustibus non disputandum est. I do wish, though, you could show me redundancies, since I've been fairly careful and written from top to bottom more than once (i.e. not section by section, which is where redundancies usually creep in). I appreciate the copy edit you've done. Geogre 11:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Y'know, I've looked again and the latter sections are stronger than the early ones that I copy edited. I'm changing my vote to support. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Another excellent literary article from Geogre. --Alabamaboy 18:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support—comprehensive, scholarly, fascinating. This is an extremely under-researched and under-discussed area. Wikipedia now has great coverage of it, in contrast to the EB, and don't even talk to me about the rest of the web. Bishonen | talk 12:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My Belarusy

Self-nom: My Belarusy is an article about the national anthem of Belarus. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Too early. Needs lots of cleanup, in English language and in exposition. mikka (t) 23:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

*Object: Definately needs some help with the English. There's even some errors in the intro. Scott Ritchie 23:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

    • I ran a spell check throughout the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not just spell checking, it's some hefty grammar and style errors that make it hard to read. I've also noticed a few issues that seem a bit POV to me - sentences like "Several organizations, such as the United Nations, have stated that adopting the anthem was another step of Lukashenko to turn Belarus back to the days of the Soviet Union and away from independence" right in the article lead without reference or context are a problem. Scott Ritchie 22:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I have a reference to the UN report. I made the UN remark again later in the article and I ahve a footnote next to the quote from the report. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Changing to No Vote at the moment. There's still some touchup work being done on the article. It may be ready for FA within the next few days. Scott Ritchie 19:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since I know this is a lot about putting Belarus on the map, how about concentrating on improving the article about the country itself rather than its national anthem? / Peter Isotalo 23:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • My main interests are in national symbolics, such as the national anthem and flag. I could see what I can do the main Belarus article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I like it. :) Func( t, c, e,  ) 02:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak support I like the layout and section outline and media collection the very much, but the article must be looked throughly for sneaky minor problems.–Gnomz007(?) 05:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

(Sound Off) 05:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I have been through the article tidying up the grammar. Would someone please check that I have not introduced any inaccuracies. It would also be good to clarify in what sense "Young Belarus" was a favourite, and what if any links it has to the political party of the same name; and which bodies other than the UN commented on the choice of the anthem. If these issues are looked at, then it will have my support. Warofdreams 10:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, thats it, I think it is ok now, but taking in account my en-1, additional review should help–Gnomz007(?) 19:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Great, it now has my support. Warofdreams 13:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I've just gone through and made some minor stylistic and presentational changes to improve the article just a little. (Silverhelm 12:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC))
      • From what I checked online, I only found the UN body to officially condemn the anthem. Other bodies do not outright condemn the hymn, except they just call it "Lukashenko's symbols." I also checked on why Young Belarus was not selected as the hymn, and the only explanation I have found is the one that I was give: no music. As for the political party of the same name being connected with the hymn: none. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Provided you put a pic in the leadin paragraph. Perhaps the flag of the country. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ku Klux Klan

Self-nomination. This is a detailed and extensively footnoted article on a hot-button topic. It's just been through peer review, which gave some helpful comments leading to improvements. I think the photos are in pretty good shape legally; there is one that's claimed as fair use, Image:Lynching-of-michael-donald.jpg, and I've detailed in its image description page why I think it fits the guidelines at Wikipedia:Fair use. What might perhaps arouse stronger feelings is that two of the pictures in the article are of lynching victims. These are not just random pictures of Klan lynchings --- they're both of great historical importance, and I think they follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Profanity#Offensive_images.--Bcrowell 23:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support - Some of the pictures are poorly arranged on the page, at least in Firefox @ 1600x1200. Nick Catalano (Talk) 01:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone suggest a good strategy to make it look nice at a variety of resolutions? NickCatal, are there any sections that look particularly good or bad at 1600x1200? I'm using 1280x1024.--Bcrowell 03:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • SupportObjectThe content is good enough, but I have some nitpicks.
    • Rename sections to better reflect its contents. One has a vague title like Today and other has an unneccessarily long one like The Ku Klux Klan in the arts.
    • The Ku Klux Klan in the arts can surely be expanded to a para from the current 2 lines.
    • Switch to {{inote}} for references and {{mn}} for notes. See the Economy of India, for how it is done.
    • Some of the images like Image:Viola-liuzzo.jpg are marked PD based on some debatable assumptions. Probably, they can be marked as fair use or you can try to contact your primary source for more information.

pamri 03:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hi pamri -- Thanks for your comments! I've actually gone ahead and deleted the section on "The Ku Klux Klan in the arts," which has always been problematic; it was just acting as a magnet to attract lots of material about movies that just happened to have some content relating to the Klan. I've renamed the "Today" section to "The Ku Klux Klan today." Re the Liuzzo photo, as noted in its description page, the Detroit News apparently does not know the copyright owner either (all the other photos in the Detroit News article were credited, but this one wasn't). Although I think it would definitely qualify under fair use (not notably artistic, historically important, doesn't cut the commercial value of the original), I think that's unnecessary because it's almost certainly PD in the U.S., for the reasons given on the description page. Re the footnotes, can you fill me in on the relative pros and cons of the two styles? I've had another article accepted as an FA just recently with this style of footnotes, and I wasn't aware that it was an issue.--Bcrowell 17:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Its not mentioned how KKK influenced and was influenced by groups like Nation of Islam,Black Panthers,etc., "The Ku Klux Klan in the arts," is certainly needed, so you can either add a para and create a main article, which can be expanded or you can add everything in that article and link it from see also. You can probably experiment with right-aligning the images and see if it solves Nick's problem. If you switch to {{inote}}, links to websites will go under references, inline citations(page nos.,etc.,) will be visible only in edit mode and you will be left with 7/8 notes and you don't have to deal with the pain of updating the order of references everytime you insert a reference. Of course, this is secondary to the other objections and can be worked on later. I will switch to support if the other objections are resolved. pamri 06:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Hi -- Thanks for explaining about inote; it sounds like a good idea to switch to that style. I doubt that the Klan was influenced by the NOI or BPP, since the Klan's priorities and traditions were set in 1866-1871 and 1915, long before those groups existed. If the Klan influenced the NOI or BPP, there is no mention of that in those two WP articles, but if you have a verifiable source of information saying that there was such an influence, I'd be happy to hear about it. It's true that, e.g., David Duke portrays his NAAWP as simply the white counterpart of the NAACP, but of course black civil rights groups don't buy the analogy, and that type of claim of symmetry is more of a feature of recent post-Klan white supremacist groups. I disagree that the section on the KKK in the arts is necessary.--Bcrowell 14:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm...after reading the documentation on inote, I don't think it's necessarily appropriate here. It sounds nice not to have to worry about the ordering of the notes when you move text around, but I don't think it would be desirable, in this article, to make the notes invisible.--Bcrowell 03:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
It won't make the notes invisible, but only inline citations (page nos. referenced). You can still use {{mn}} for the notes.pamri 03:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Well written article. Haddock420 10:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong object. The post-World War II history is utterly inadequate. It omits, for example, any discussion of the Klan's role in supporting resistance to school desegregation and in attempts to disrupt voter registration drives; and it spends more text discussing COINTELPRO than on Klan activities during the decade that followed court-ordered desegregation. With regard to more contemporary material, it omits any mention of David Duke, and contains no discussion of the more media-savvy successor groups which avoid the Klan's name and most overtly offensive activities while continuing its paleopolitical activities. Monicasdude 14:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Monicasdude - Thanks for your comments. I had just recently moved a bunch of material, including the discussion of David Duke, from the KKK article into Notable Ku Klux Klan members in national politics, but in fact David Duke doesn't fit the criteria of the notable members article, so I've moved the discussion of him back. Thanks for the pointers about school desegregation and voter registration; I'll work on that ASAP. Re successor groups, I'm not sure if you're referring to the various current Klan groups (which are discussed) or to groups like Christian Identity, neo-Nazi groups, and racist skinheads, which are also mentioned, although they're only peripheral to the article's topic. In general, the article focuses on the time periods when the Klan was strongest and most influential, and had the greatest historical effects: 1866-1871, and 1915-1930.--Bcrowell 16:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I've moved the David Duke material back in, added to the discussion of the Klan's role in resisting the civil rights movement and voting rights, and added discussion of Klan resistance to court-ordered busing. Thanks for your comments, which have definitely led to an improvement in the article! I hope after seeing these changes you'll be willing to change your vote.--Bcrowell 17:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm still unsatisfied with the post-WWII discussion, which I don't think is well-developed enough. I think it needs more discussion as to both why the Klan regained strength -- most significantly, resistance to school desegregation -- and why resistance to it gained even more strength (the influence of Truman's integration of US military forces, and the effect that TV coverage of events had, especially after 1960). The successor organizations I mentioned are groups like this this one, http://www.southernmessenger.org/ , whose current efforts are concentrated on (relatively) PR-savvy falsification of history and corruption of public discourse rather than brute force. Some are more adept at this than others; that one is not among the more adept). Monicasdude 23:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The web page at southernmessenger.org isn't a Klan site at all, AFAICT. When you talk about "successor organizations," are you talking about Klan organizations, or non-Klan organizations? The article is only about the Klan, not Aryan Nation, White Aryan Resistance, NAAWP, etc. Oh, I see, in your original comment you referred to "the more media-savvy successor groups which avoid the Klan's name." This article isn't about those groups at all. The white supremacy article would cover them.--Bcrowell 23:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think any extensive discussion of the successor organizations is necessary, but their growth (and surprising respectability in some circles) is a nontrivial factor in the "klassic" Klan(s)' contemporary insignificance. Monicasdude 00:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree, but there's already a brief mention of that at the end of the section "Later Ku Klux Klans." I think part of the problem is that it's easy to miss things like that because of the way the article is organized. There's a lot of overlap between "The Ku Klux Klan today" and "Later Ku Klux Klans," and also between "Later Ku Klux Klans" and "Political influence." I think I'll do a little reorganization.--Bcrowell 02:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A well done article on a disturbing subject.--Alabamaboy 20:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-researched and well-written. Though many editors participate, Bcrowell deserves special credit for improving (and maintaining) this non-contentitous article on a contentious topic. -Willmcw 21:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Provided Raul never puts this on the front page, that would suck like nothing has ever sucked before. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! Assuming for the sake of argument that it achieves FA status, I agree that the result of front-paging it would probably be horrific. Even under normal conditions, this article gets vandalized much more often than any other article I've had experience with.--Bcrowell 05:37, 26 August 2005 (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] History of Arizona

I've worked tirelessly on this article since August 2, trying to bring it up to the same status as History of South Carolina, and I think it's finally there. With luck, this'll be my second state history FA. Toothpaste 21:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Better than most FACs I've seen. Support. -- A Link to the Past 22:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Object - The two first sections should be broken up into subsections Fine now Fornadan (t) 22:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support except for one thing - the intro mentions a "Father Kino" without saying who he is. It would be like starting out President of the United States with "Mr. Bush is the current president". Maybe it's just me. Otherwise, another mindboggingly awesome article from Toothpaste. --Golbez 22:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I fixed both of your complaints. Soon I'll be one FA away from the aclaimed FA medal!Toothpaste 22:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
If Cat makes it, I'll be 0 FAs away from the acclaimed FA medal. :D -- A Link to the Past 22:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object--the "recent events" section is very skimpy, as, indeed, is everything since the American acquisition of the territory. I count 11 screens of text dealing with pre-1846 Arizona, and 1.5 screens of text afterwards. Specifically, there's no mention of it's role as a retirement destination; there's no mention of its current rapid population growth; there's no mention of its current economic structure. In short, move some of the stuff from "European colonization" into a sub-article; use the space you gain to beef up the more modern history, especially the 20th-century stuff. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 02:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC) There's enough there for me to support, although I'd like to see more on demographic changes. Nevertheless, a solid article. Meelar (talk) 13:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Object -- agree with Meelar, recent events (the last 100 years) is really short. Otherwise good work. User:Nichalp/sg 04:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC) User:Nichalp/sg 06:19, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong object. The contemporary history is so plainly inadequate that this nomination should require no lengthy discussion before rejection. Monicasdude 14:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC) -- Even stronger objection At least two sections of the article are patent copyright violations; most of the recent history text is cut-and-pasted from a copyrighted website maintained by the state of Arizona, without credit or permission. Monicasdude 02:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Troll much? -- A Link to the Past 18:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nice deleting. You're for civility, and you're blatantly bashing the idea that it could be FA'd. And the eight year old is who now? -- A Link to the Past 00:08, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have fixed the offending sections and the new article can be seen at History_of_Arizona/Temp. Support when copyvio issues are done. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
        • The copyvio issue was resolved at [4]. The admin decided that the copyvio notice was not valid. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object; a great article, but the recent events has to be expanded a lot. ral315 18:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Support as reworded and expanded. Great job. ral315 23:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I think it's great. Andre (talk) 20:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The last 100 years is not all that short. It seems short because Arizona Territory and The Great Depression and the World Wars in Arizona are spun off into their own articles. The last 50 years is not long by any means, but I don't know what interesting material should be placed there that is not already in the existing six paragraphs of "Recent events." --Peter Kirby 00:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, more specifically, I would suggest adding information about the modern economic structure of Arizona; about the demographics of the state in recent times; about the rise of immigration (there isn't any introduction of the issue before the mention of the state of emergency): there's a lot of material that could be covered. Meelar (talk) 16:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the obvious omission is the King holiday controversy, which is simply papered over by the government-approved text text. The article presents the adoption of the King holiday as some sort of laudable initiative by the state's voters, when it actually was the result of an economic boycott, including the NFL's moving a scheduled Super Bowl out of the state. Arizone was the 49th of 50 states to establish the holiday, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing so. The article jsut whitewashes the institutional racism and ultra-right-wing influences invovled. I also find it quite odd that the article softpedals the Meachum impeachment and subordinates it to the state's first female governor's taking office. Impeached governors are quite rare, far more so than female governors in the US. Monicasdude 19:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Did I meet your objections? Toothpaste 20:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Not really. You've gone some distance toward resolving the problems with the specific areas that I identified -- although I think that adopting the state of Arizona's PR depts' POV regarding voter approval of the King holiday is a serious error -- but not toward the more general problem, which others have pointed out in different terms, that presenting a small set of discrete events isn't an effective or appropriate way of presenting recent history. It ought to be a reasonably coherent narrative, not a set of mostly disconnected "milestones." Monicasdude 15:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Toothpaste has worked very hard on this article. Its the perfect length and the headers are perfect and the images are fine. I <3 it. Redwolf24 03:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, too many short paragrahs, where two short paragraphs discuss the same event they should be merged into one; the Early Spanish Expeditions and Missionization of the Pimería Alta sections are candidates for this and since this part of the article is identical to European colonization of Arizona it could potentially be further summarised. Since recent events covers 60 years it could be expanded as already mentioned, and the short pargraphs expanded, the summary of the The Great Depression and the World Wars in Arizona could also be extended. I can see this is a summary article, but you're in a difficult position since the articles it summaries aren't done yet, you might want to flesh out the daughters and then you'll have a better picture of how much to include from each daughter in this article.--nixie 07:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I expanded the Great Depression and the World Wars section and summarized the European colonization section. Toothpaste 15:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
The balance of the text is much better now. I have removed my objection.--nixie 23:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong object. Only two references cited, only one of which appears scholarly, and no references to make any claims verifiable. Buffyg 20:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Added four website references. Are they good enough? Toothpaste 21:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
For scholarly references, this remains lean. I see only one general scholarly work on the subject, and it has not been cited specifically at any point. I would prefer to see evidence that a variety of scholarly accounts have been consulted, allowing controversies in the historiography to be identified. Also, the four notes that have been added seem lean. Verifiability should be given greater attention. I would, for example, note that the Anschluss article, the only FA to which I have substantially contributed, has 22 notes and cites 6 scholarly or primary sources — and we've still had disagreements since FA promotion about verifiability of some of the claims. I think this points to the need for a good deal more research. Buffyg 22:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore I think chalking up Goldwater's defeat to the JFK assassination is a substantial mischaraterisation of the 1964 presidential election. LBJ's campaign didn't just win a sympathy vote in promising fidelity to Kennedy's legacy, it persuaded quite a few people that Goldwater was not competent for the presidency (e.g. the famous "Daisy Girl" commercial) and too far to the right (his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and much of the New Deal). This makes me substantially concerned about the quality of research behind matters about which I know less. Buffyg 22:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Ahem... References are all that is needed according to the criteria as long as they contain the bulk of the information in the artilce. Footnotes and citations are at best a bonus. Do not compare articles based on amount of footnotes, since a lot of articles, whether they're good or not, tend to go absolutely bonkers in using footnotes. It's pretty easy to tell that it's people who've never written an academic paper in their life and have little previous experience with them. Use {{inote}}s when referencing uncontroversial and uncomplicated statements to avoid needless cluttering of the text. There is absolutely nothing in the criteria that demands notes, only that it be "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations", and "inline citations" is not a synonym for footnote to begin with. / Peter Isotalo 14:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Clarification accepted, but I begin to suspect that with this clarification alone, we may loose the plot. A single scholarly source is not sufficient research, particularly should that work approach tertiary literature (i.e. is a synthesis of the secondary literature), as can be the case with generalist texts on a large subject. Full stop. There needs to be some adherence to a "teach the conflicts" approach, expanded to "teach and attribute". I'll grant that there are plenty of ways to establish citation — my point here is that citation has been generally neglected, whether by inline notes, footnotes, or more mundane textual devices like "According to Karmosin," or "Buffyg argues in Some Book...". Buffyg 16:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support all the way. Toothpaste's obvious hard work and effort have paid off. All "touches", big or small, have made this article into something that's actually an interesting and comfortable read. Rob Church Talk | Desk 00:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Montréal-Mirabel International Airport

Myself and some others have worked hard on this article to bring it up to standard. It's been researched, illustrated, referenced and rewritten and reorganized. I think it's one of the best airport articles on Wikipedia. Self-nom. AlbertR 21:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak object. Solid content, yet there are grammatical and spelling errors all over the place (I did some copyediting but a second set of eyes is necessary). Also, what was the reason for Premier Bourassa's objection to placing the airport near the Ontario border? Finally, I am taking it that the dollar amount is in Canadian dollars rather than U.S. dollars. Please make this more explicit. Pentawing 02:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I changed the dollar amounts to specify Canadian currency. I think we need another editor to look at the copyedit issues (I tried peer review, but no-one commented on it except Maclean25). As for Mr. Bourassa, I have never seen any expaination as to why he objected to the airport's location (though I am inclined to suspect that suspect that the French/English enmity at the time played a part). AlbertR 02:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, all that is needed is for someone to look over the article and say that it is alright before I change my vote. Pentawing 05:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I've gone over the writing with a pretty close eye and fixed a number of odd phrasings and what-have-you (no offense intended to original author, of course). It should be fine now. Meelar (talk) 15:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
          • Looked over it once more. Seems alright, and hopefully there are no further problems. Support. Pentawing 02:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Sounds good, looks great. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great example for other airport articles to follow. --maclean25 02:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it would do just fine.. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good. JYolkowski // talk 22:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support fairly good example of a featured airport article, but I don't think that it is one of the "best" FA's. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • What can be done to make it better, then? Alr 01:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Great job! PRueda29 16:03 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spyware

I stumbled across this article recently, and found it to be one of the best written and most indepth articles we have on a computer subject here on Wikipedia. A true accomplishment! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 07:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Conditional Objection. Will support if more screenshots are added. Deryck C. 07:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Doesn't a "conditional objection" mean that you will object if he does fix your objection? :-D / Peter Isotalo 10:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
The license of the Ben Edelman screenshots is true as far as it goes: Edelman did indeed create these screenshots, and license them to us under the GFDL. He didn't upload them here; rather, I contacted him by email and asked his permission to reuse these images from his Web site, which he granted. It seems trivially true that they are derivative of the programs depicted; I would presume that Edelman believed their use both on his own Web site and on Wikipedia to be legal. Do we need to note this independently of simply referring to him as the image creator?
I've marked up the image Image:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG (which I produced) with a fair use rationale. --FOo 13:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I also updated some of the copyright information. Would you take another look, Carnildo? Páll (Die pienk olifant) 16:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Image:Ad-Aware Professional.png looks good, but I still don't think GFDL can be claimed for Image:Benedelman-spyware-whenu-license-image011.png, and Image:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG needs a fair use rationale. --Carnildo 18:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Image:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG already has one; thanks. The GFDL license on the Edelman images is simply correct; Edelman's work may itself use the programs' appearance in fair use, but we use Edelman's work under GFDL. --FOo 14:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Copyright doesn't work that way. Edelman's GFDL license applies to his creative work, of which that screenshot is a part. It does not apply to that screenshot separate from the rest of the work. --Carnildo 18:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I halfway agree with you. The screenshot is a work created by Edelman. The software depicted is not. The screenshot makes fair use of the software's appearance. Wikipedia makes licensed use of the screenshot, since its creator (Edelman) has offered it to us under specific terms (GFDL).
In any event, I suspect we are both to a certain extent speculating on the nature of copyright in screenshots, since I doubt there's any legal precedent in the matter. Unless you can offer case law or other documentation in favor of your position, I would appreciate if you would withdraw your objection. --FOo 01:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Not much speculation on my part. It's concievable that there's some obscure part of copyright law that lets you change the terms on a work you don't own, but I doubt it. In any case, I've asked for a professional opinion on this. --Carnildo 04:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: As one of the folks who's worked a lot on this article, I'm gratified that someone considers it to be of featured quality. I think it still can use plenty of work, but that's true of many featured articles as well. In particular I'd really appreciate it if someone with particular knowledge of the subject could review the User consent and legality section, particularly with an eye to recent legal cases involving spyware distributors. --FOo 14:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nicely written. It would be a good article to feature with nowadays sudden raised awareness of the spyware epidemic. Great article and relevant to everyone who signs onto Wikipedia...can't say that about most things that are featured.--Elysianfields 06:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this is a well written article, and it could help promote Spyware awareness in our users. About the only thing I don't like about the article are the moderately long image captions. It's not too bad, though, and I strongly suggest that we get this article featured. It could do with a bit of clean up, however. Syrae Faileas 20:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Sure, it's great; however, there is a definite contradiction with Elf Bowling. That article claims that the game was NOT spyware. The spyware article claims that it was. No FA should have that big of a contradiction (or, if it's right, please change the Elf Bowling article to reflect that). --Matt Yeager 08:38, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Its not a contradiction. The article for Elf Bowling says itself that it was originally not spyware, although some people added viruses to it later, making it spyware. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 16:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good writen article, actual theme. --Mateusc 04:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sunset Boulevard (film)

Self nomination (partial) : Article has been completely rewritten over the last few months, and has spent time on Peer Review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Sunset Boulevard (film) ). It has also had some points discussed here, at Talk:Sunset Boulevard (film). Have addressed/discussed points raised, and now nominate it "for your consideration". Thank you Wyss for some great polishing and editing. Rossrs 09:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Support. Nicely done. Anville 17:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. pamri 17:58, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. --Carnildo 20:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Probably the best film article on Wikipedia, however I disliked the many short sentences, but that is a minor complaint. MechBrowman 03:07, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Great! Nick Catalano (Talk) 03:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This article is orgasmic. Redwolf24 07:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Did you really? well.... thank you, I'm pleased and stunned :-D Rossrs 08:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Names of the Greeks

Self nomination. A history of the national names of the Greeks from antiquity to modern times. I re-wrote the old article almost from scratch adding an excellent reference source. Didnt receive any critic from its peer review so I moved it on to here. Comments are welcome. Colossus 10:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. It's a very informative article.Odysseas 18:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Provides information most people are ignorant with. It should be linked with all articles of Greek history. Miskin 02:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very impressive, and a marvelous addition to Wikipedia. Hydriotaphia 18:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very informative, and had it been featured earlier, might have kept me from having to do this explanation at Talk:Náfplio. --Jpbrenna 20:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The image Image:Greek colonization of Italy.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 22:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • If I include the source and a { fair use} tag will that suffice, copyright-wise? Or will I need to replace the map?
      • The map needs to be replaced. There's nothing about the article that permits the use of a fair-use image for that map. Images can be used under fair use only if the image is essential to the article, and there is no other way to get the image. --Carnildo 18:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Is the copyright of the map a serious reason to Object? Miskin 02:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes. As things stand right now, we've got a copyvio sitting at the top of the article. --Carnildo 07:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
            • I'm working on the image issue. It should be resolved shortly. Colossus 22:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Conditional support -- image status needs to be resolved. Comment -- There's just a fleeting mention of Yunan. Is this deliberate? User:Nichalp/sg 06:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
                • Fixed image problem. Colossus 00:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. An excellent article with lots of references. But Carnildo's objection above needs to be met. Lisiate 00:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Due to the lack of bibliography. No studies have been made on the word yunan, and those that do only care to scratch the surface. My knowledge of the matter would barely cover a paragraph, all of it un-referenced. Basicaly, that modern middle eastern nations trace Yunan to the ancient Persians who came into contact with the Ionians occupying the western coast of Asia Minor and then extended it to all Greeks. It seemed to me that such short and un-substantiated material didnt rise to the level of the rest of the article. Colossus 06:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
      • What more can be said other than Yunan being a corruption of Ionian? Miskin 02:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • nice article, but no vote: the title is inherently pov, suggesting that "the Greeks" were a sort of unchanging entity over 4000 years. The very first sentence smacks of nationalism, if not outright racism. If I click on Greeks, I am told that this nation populated Greece since the 17th century BC. "they"? The Mycenaeans were displaced in 1200 BC, and their dialect died out with Arcado-Cypriot. "Greece", the land they are supposed to have inhabited for 3700 years, I am told is also known as the "Hellenic Republic", established 1829. The third sencence talks about "The soldiers that fell at Thermopylae". What is this? A nationalist pamphlet? the only thing missing are adjectives like 'glorious' or 'noble'. It should be made clear that the only common factor tying these entities together is linguistic descendence from Proto-Greek. That's right, there is no "Greece" tied to the concept of "Greek". the Ρωμαίοι were centered in Byzantium, which is not in "Greece". They were called "Romans", not "Hellenes" for a good reason. I suggest a move to Names of the Greek speaking peoples or something. Also, a section about the Yavana (Indo-Greeks) would be nice. dab (ᛏ) 13:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The title only suggests that the Greeks have more than one national names - a statement of fact. The opening sentense is just the title reformated and the question of historical continuity isnt even raised indirectly. I cannot understand where you saw the racism in any of the above, or in the third line for that matter. Stating that a soldier fell when he did isnt nationalism. Also, in the later half of your post you mention that linguistic descendance is the only tying factor throughout Greek history, ostensibly implying that the Ancient Greeks, Byzantines and modern Greeks are distinct peoples. This theory defies academic consensus,other Wikipedia articles, and as orignal research doesnt belong here. Lingual descendance is partial, not exclusive, proof of Greek contintuity, and the History of Greece series makes that clear on every level. This article deals with terminology and its causes, so you'll have to be specific on your objections. On the Yavana issue, I dont think it requires a section of its own. The short number of Greeks that lived there reigned as kings or royalty and for a short period of time. They never diverged from existing terminology and as far as I know considered themselves Hellenes. If you know more please mention. Colossus 23:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the comment above is a big overreaction. As Colossus says, "fell" is a completely neutral word. (Come to think of it, it's a word that's used in all Indo-European languages to describe dying: cadere, fallen, πιπτειν, etc.) The article deals with the names of the peoples who have, over time, lived in the place we now call Greece. I don't think the title is inconsistent with that; I think a longer title would be awkward and wouldn't add much. I also think that, with due respect, accusations of racism are extraordinarily inappropriate here. Not only is the article devoid of racism—i.e., the deprecation or glorification of people based merely on ethnicity—but calling the article racist is just unproductive. Such name-calling obscures; it doesn't clarify. Hydriotaphia 00:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • They were called "Romans", not "Hellenes" for a good reason. They called Romans only by themselves, the foreigners referred to them as Greeks. Byzantines did use the word 'greek', it was the word 'Hellene' that had become synonymous to a Pagan (up until some time anyway). And besides, nobody said that the contemporary state of Greece is inhabited by the same Greek-speaking who were there in the middle-ages. Half of the modern Greek population are "Byzantine" immigrants from Asia Minor, Thrace and Constantinople, who started moving in after the Greco-Turkish war of 1922. Miskin 02:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        I didn't object to the expression "soldiers fell", entirely appropriate for the Thermopylae article. I am objecting that falling soldiers even appear in the intro of an article entitled Names of the Greeks. I'm sorry, that simply reeks of propaganda, the episode is entirely unrelated to the article's topic, and all it does is reinforce the "blut and boden" connection. "Greeks" historically are not defined as "inhabitants of Greece", but as "people speaking the Greek language", i.e. including all colonies etc. I did not vote 'oppose' because the article is well done, content-wise. You can really tell it was written by Greek patriots, that's all. That wouldn't matter much if the information is right, but I do think that our featured articles should have a little higher standard of NPOV. I do not object to the title, I was pointing out that Greeks has a problem, but that's not what we are discussing here. But seriously:
        The soldiers that fell at Thermopylae did so as Hellenes, while centuries later when Jesus preached his beliefs any person of non-Jewish faith was a Hellene.
        this is nonsense. "while centuries later" is already oxymoronic. "Jesus preached" in Palestine, and had likely never heard of "Hellenes". I suppose that sentence is an attempt at a literary style, but it really sticks out like an essayist's sore thumb. dab (ᛏ) 08:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually the New Testament (that was written in Greek by Jews) used the word Έλληνες to describe all people of non-jewish faith, you can look that up for yourself. I don't know whether it was personally Jesus who promoted it or just a trend of the Apostols. This terminology sources from the Hellenistic period of Israel and the Diadochs. It would be impossible for Jesus or any Jewish person to not know of the word "Hellen", if for no other reason just because of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. I agree that Greeks refers by default to all Greek-speaking people and not just the ones of Greece. Therefore the word Greeks doesn't have to be substituded with 'Greek-speaking' as you suggested earlier. Miskin 11:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
          • dab probably hasnt even read the article, otherwise he would've noticed that Saint Paul - a contemporary of Jesus - is mentioned as the earliest source using Hellene in a religious manner, which proves Jesus was aware of the word. He also insists on accusing the article of POV, that is of false facts, and all the while refrains from being specific which facts are distorted. His only argument was that Greek in antiquity implied Greek speakers only, despite the article making it clear that there existed a definite sense of Greek nationality that supersced common language. I suggest that dab first reads the entire article and then gathers enough points to back up his case in the article's talk page, which I promise I will reply to immediately if he chooses to continue. Colossus 14:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Having thought about it, I agree that "Greeks" refers to "Greek-speakers." However, the article isn't just about Greek-speakers, and here's why. To deal with the semantic twists and turns of the term "Hellene," you've got to deal, at least tangentially, with much of the ancient near east. This is especially true if you discuss the period during which Hellene took on a religious, not a primarily cultural or linguistic, meaning. Thus "Names of the Greek-speakers" is just as inaccurate a summary of the article's content as "Names of the Greeks." But unless we want to have a horribly awkward title—e.g., "The history of terms used during at least one period to refer to Greek speakers"—I think "Names of the Greeks" is a fine title. If you want to create a few redirect pages, that's also fine. I would again stress, however, that there is absolutely nothing nationalistic about the sentence to which dab refers, either explicitly or in its subtext. And how is "while centuries later" oxymoronic? I think you're perhaps looking for a different adjective. (I also think it's a fairly elegant sentence, especially given the fact that—like the rest of the article, I presume?—it wasn't written by a native speaker of English.) I would therefore suggest, dab, that if you want to object to the substance of the article, you object to something else. That would be much more productive. Hydriotaphia 22:56, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
              • Despite the support I've given, to be completely honest I can see where dab is coming from. I'm not referring to his POV on the continuity of Greek history of course, but on his remarks on the general literary character of the article. The information it provides its 100% correct, the language usage is good and the title is just fine (despite dab's POV to consider it POV), but the problem I see lies elsewhere. From the beginning 'till the end, it's just obvious that the article was compiled by a Greek, something which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I think that some sections need to be reorganised, for example Jesus' reference in the prologue does sound dubious and out of context (eventhough it's correct). On the other hand "the Hellenes who fell at Thermopylae" is not a very well-chosen example, if for no other good reason because those warriors fell more like Spartans rather than just Hellenes (although they were anyway). It should also be made more clear which names did Greeks used for themselves (Achaeans, Hellenes, Romioi etc) and which names were used for the Greeks by others (Greeks, Yunan, Romans, Byzantines etc). IMHO the reference on Jesus and the Spartans is not necessary. If it's made clear that Greeks of the Classical and Jews of the Hellenistic and Roman times referred to Greeks as "Hellenes", both matters are covered. Alternatively, the reference on Jesus and the Spartans could be more befitting in a specific context rather than the opening paragraph of the article. There are couple of small changes like those that should be done in order to reach a nearly perfect ancyclopedia article. I still vote for support because I find brilliant the idea of this article's existence. I repeat that it should be linked to all Greek history articles in order to enlighten the not-so-knowledgeable readers who for example randomly come across terms such as "Byzantines" or Greek-speaking Roman Empire" etc, etc. Miskin 01:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
                • The point of mentioning Jesus in the prologue is to connect the reader with a well known historical event crucial to the understanding of our subject: the use of Hellene at his time. And the point of mentioning Thermopylae is that, even though the battle serving no strategic purpose, it displayed with great fidelty Spartan solidarity to the pan-Hellenic cause. Greek nationalism peaked in the Greco-Persian Wars, and what other event more memorable than Thermopylae can represent as well the meaning of Hellene in classical antiquity? Colossus 14:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a great addition to Wikipedia, but it's not ready yet to be featured, because it should dedicate a section to Ίωνες, or "Yunan" the way Greeks are called by the Turks and the Arabs. No vote yet, expecting to add my support upon the inclusion of this. Etz Haim 02:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Like I said above, there isnt really much to say about it, aside from the fact that modern Yunan originates from the Ionians the Persians came into contact with in the late 6th century BC. Perhaps I can integrate it in the section about Greeks, making it a Greeks and Yunans, but it wont be more than a few lines and all of it will be un-referenced. Colossus 03:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I feel its not fully incomplete without the Yunan. Greece is known as Yunan in Hindi/Sanskrit texts: " युनान " . User:Nichalp/sg 11:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • I added a section on Yunani. It's short but as comprehensive as it can be. Colossus 11:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I believe it's a very interesting article. I'll try to help.MATIA 14:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment I found that about four of the references given at the end of the article weren't used at all, with gaps at various points (e.g. no. 1). It's very difficult to fix and be sure to be right. I've converted to template based footnotes, but using the original numbers rather than reference names. Somebody who knows the texts needs to go through and check that each reference in the article matches the correct footnote text, then remove the unused notes at the end of the article. Finally, I think that the literal "greek" characters should probably be replaced with HTML entities for ease of editing. I can't still tell if they remained correct after my work. Mozzerati 22:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments - I think that 'the Greeks' could be substituted with 'Greek-speaking peoples' for greater clarity. I also think the intro needs to summarise more of the article content, and be written in a more encyclopaedic tone. Why are the soldiers who fell at Thermopylae significant? Why mention Jesus when he had little to do with what people called Greek speakers? The sentence beginning 'The onset of every historical era...' bothers me - historical eras are generally defined by later historians and not by a change of name by which a people is known. And the final sentence also seems superfluous - of course a name by which a people are widely known is significant, and the final 'perhaps' indicates speculation rather than information. I also wonder whether 65 references is not a little excessive? It would be appropriate for an academic text but seems unnecessary for a more general text. Worldtraveller 13:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comments - for Worldtraveller: Jesus has to be mentioned for many reasons, one of them is that the Apostles choose to write New Testament in Greek language. The references must exist so anyone who doubts can check and verify the (ancient) sources. for Mozzerati: greek characters should be used with the polytonic template. I will try to check it and help with the references.MATIA 14:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
      • There are no Greek-speaking peoples, only Greeks. Greek-speakers presupposes that Greek is the first language of more than one nations or peoples, which is false. Colossus 14:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. There are no fewer than 65 footnotes. Probably a new record. Please don't use footnotes for simple quotes or uncontroversial facts. Use actual inline citations (as in "...in the Iliad, Homer wrote:...") and {{inote}}s as much as possible and reserve the footnotes for when there's a real need to explain some very complicated fact that does not fit in the actual article. Basically, footnotes are not meant to state the obvious; that's what the text is for. The use of notes for citations from classical literary works like the The Republic is particularly unjustified. It's somewhat like attaching a footnote to a Bible quote. Also, the article is more about the history of the Greeks than the various names. The article is bigger than Greeks, yet it actually contains more history information than the main article. No one is going to look for most of this info under this article title. It just doesn't make sense... / Peter Isotalo 15:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economy of India

A comprehensive overview of India's economy: its structure, determinants and performance. The article was a complete rewrite from scratch without using any content from the old article and was possible due to the work of many editors. Archive of peer review. A self-nomination. pamri 07:22, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support – since I helped out. User:Nichalp/sg 07:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support – very well shaped article. Congrats. --H P Nadig * \Talk \Contributions 11:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 19:08, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- a comprehensive article on an important subject. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:58, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -shuri 07:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Cool! utcursch | talk 11:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support – very well written. Congrats--Nam ismail 10:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: This is the user's only edit. User:Nichalp/sg 12:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Complete, detailed, well written, current, and good graphics. mydogategodshat 03:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- This is an example of what every Wikipedia article should strive to be! Nick Catalano (Talk) 03:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, the editors involved have done a great job.--nixie 04:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cat

Mougie likes this article.
Enlarge
Mougie likes this article.

In the past this article has had some edit wars, likely because everyone wants a picture of their cat somewhere on Wikipedia, but those have been resolved. This article is very detailed, covers every aspect, goes into the history of cats, and has plenty of inline citations and references. Toothpaste 00:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

*Neutral a good resource and an interesting read but the tone in some areas are not encyclopedic. Instances: "Virtually all...", "cats are very clean", "Indoor cats will also benefit from", "Cats enjoy many plants", "Cats are said to be 'the perfect carnivores'" Who said it? A reference needed. The diet, social and hygiene sections can do with some tweaking. Will support only after changes are made. Q: Does cats urine glow in the dark? User:Nichalp/sg 09:21, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

    • I fixed the parts your first two quote reference, but I didn't write it, and I don't have reference material, so I can't say who said it. Having a cat, I could say that cat urine doesn't glow in the dark, if you're willing to accept my original research as an answer. Thanks for the commentary. Toothpaste 10:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

***1) I'm still not happy with the "perfect carnivores" claim. See WP:AWT. From what I've seen on Animal Planet there are many animals who can also dispute this claim. 2) "It should be cleaned daily and changed often (depending on the type of litter—clumping litter stays cleaner longer). A litterbox is recommended for indoor-outdoor cats as well." This reads more like a guide for keeping cats. User:Nichalp/sg 13:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. I found some of the parts relating to cat behaviour to be questionable. As I understand it the best interpretation of purring is that it is connected to calmness: a cat that is calm will purr automatically, but a cat that needs to make itself calmer (eg if it has been injured) will make itself purr to calm itself down, slow down its heart rate etc. This isn't mentioned in the article. Also cat signals through displaying its tail are not mentioned: tail straight up to indicate interest and friendliness, tail curled to indicate concern and questioning, tail wagging to indicate frustration and anger, tail down to indicate defensiveness. And nothing about the cat's continuing belief that to really make friends, humans need to smell their cat's rear end, and continuing bemusement when even the friendliest human declines the offer. David | Talk 11:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment. There is a body language sub article for this type of content. Which is a good thing, since one of the criticisms here is that main article is already too large Psychofox 02:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is an interesting nomination in that nearly everyone believes themselves to be an "expert" by virtue of having loving relationships with their cats. That compells the authors to meet a higher standard than is required for other featured articles; similarly to a highly controversial topic (GNAA comes to mind), every claim must be stated in careful NPOV language and clearly referenced to a demonstrably authoritative source. Otherwise, loads of people will object to any old thing, or point out tidbits to add. Whether or not this is "fair", it is what must be done for this article to pass this FAC nomination, and rightly so. As for myself, I'm no "expert" (cats make me sneeze!), so I'll count myself out of this one and watch from the sidelines. Bantman 18:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Doesn't mention that they taste good. --SPUI (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments:
    • Things that in my opinion need inline links to references:
      • "the oldest-known cat lived to age 36"
      • "There are 32 muscles in each ear and the cat can move each ear independently."
      • "Humans and cats have a similar range of hearing"
      • "Cats can judge within three inches the location of a sound being made one yard away."
      • "A domestic cat's sense of smell is about 14 times stronger than a human's."
    • Calico and Tortoiseshell is listed as a variety but the former is a redirect to the latter.
    • "...Some environmentalists claim" - what enviromentalists?
    • —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:27:50, 2005-08-06 (UTC)
      • Unless these are actually controversial statements without consensus among biologists, only the "some environmentalists claim"-passage needs a specific reference. Wikipedia:Verifiability is about making sure we can support our claims with decent literature lists, not to pepper our article with an excess of footnotes. We have a quite serious over-usage of footnotes in a lot of our FAC's. / Peter Isotalo 13:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not much of a fan of footnotes myself, but here I have to agree with Sig - these are facts that could reasonably be questioned or disputed by a good-faith reader of the article; therefore they should be footnoted. - Bantman 18:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
          • How can one reasonable question any one of the facts except the weasel wording "some environmentalists"? All of the examples appear to be perfectly straightforward statements of physical facts, the kind than can even be proven beyond any reasonable doubt with practical experiments. If biologists are not disputing any of these facts, then there is no need to use footnotes just because people might be too lazy to actually reference the sources themselves. Footnotes can be very disruptive to a text either by distracting the reader or making it seem more academic than it actually is. They are not intended to state the obvious; that's what we do in the actual text, which is then scrutinized in the FAC process and approved by community consensus. Even if I personally don't know if these specific facts are true or not, I consider it completely unreasonable to question them merely on the basis of my own ignorance. / Peter Isotalo 16:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be suggesting that we accept on faith all that we are not experts in. I think this is an easy way to get duped. If footnotes are disruptive, use an invisible system; the point is that facts such as these should be easily verifiable. - Bantman 03:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, we just misunderstood each other here. I fully support the use of {{inote}} since it does not effect the end result for the outside reader. Of course, some moderation would be prudent here too... / Peter Isotalo 03:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Great article! Very thorough. --K1vsr (talk) 20:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't see what was so wrong with it. Images appropriate (fair use at a minimum/not at all), much content without going overboard. -- A Link to the Past 01:18, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support It meet the feature article standard (I think) --Kiba 01:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose at this time. Too much detail at this point for one article. Lead and table of contents too long. Has a classic problem of too many people trying to put too much into it without splitting off side articles. Also attracts a lot of editors putting up photos of their own personal cats that don't really help the article that much (feral cat photo clearly not feral, and so forth), although there are a few professional level ones on there now. (And to the above editor, if you aren't sure what the standards are, see Wikipedia:What is a featured article.) DreamGuy 02:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Question: By the way, the talk page says it failed to get featured candidate in the past, but the page it links to goes here and the archive doesn't have it. I'd like to know if the objections from the last time around were addressed at all, and what they were, and so forth. Anyone know where to see them? DreamGuy 02:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
The first attempt is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cat/archive1. I will try to address the table of contents, but I agree, we should do some forking. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, what the heck, his just failed a vote a few days ago. It's completely inappropriate to start a new page with new votes at this time. The old one should be unarchived and these votes (if they are new) should be merged into it. DreamGuy 03:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, though most of the things I saw on the first FAC were just comments. Oppose until items from the first FAC and this FAC are solved. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC) I am going to sit this one out. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Support *Object this time. Points raised by me last time have not been addressed. User:Nichalp/sg 07:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC) User:Nichalp/sg 06:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Redwolf24 21:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A little long but I think it is FA worthy gkhan 21:48, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - at the risk of being lynched, I'd say we need to cuten up the wiki a bit. All this foreign stuff is getting boring. Rob Church Talk | Desk 23:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Dude, hear that sound of someone running? That's me getting pitchforks and villagers :P Cuten the wiki........dear lord :D gkhan 08:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Possibly needs some trimming, but article content quality is good and material is suitably encyclopedic in character. Subjects raised cover a good range of topics applicable to the subject; possibly slightly long, but it isn't too long compared to some other featured articles. Nice photos, quite a delight to read and informative. I can't see any reason why this article specifically shouldn't receive FA status. --NicholasTurnbull 00:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Support - This article is extremely well done, and worthy of even print encyclopedias.--AirIntake 15:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Object - I promised myself I'd never do this... but I object on the grounds of inadequate referencing. On such an accessible topic, we must use at least a couple book references. The internet references should also be formatted to indicate the source website without having to follow the link to find out. As it stands, the referencing section, although well-intentioned, has a suspect appearance. - Bantman 19:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Book references are needed, but missing. A reference is made to point out that this is not just made up. Toothpaste has been looking for book references. -- A Link to the Past 19:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyway, I was considering an urban legends section, since cats are popular figures in urban legends (Chinese food, suffocating of children, etc.). Comments? -- A Link to the Past 19:58, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I spent many hours a couple of months arbitrating a dispute between several people regarding the content of the images on this page. It had been protected for over a month... I am amazed how far it is come in that time. Psychofox 02:57, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose As long as the "Cat using the toilet" issues is unresolved. Please vote on this issue in Talk:Cat Psychofox 13:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for now. The lead section is too short for an article this size. 3 good sized paras needed. --mav 00:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Would you change if I edited it to your liking? Because the guy who said it was too long doesn't seem like he'll change his vote anyway. -- A Link to the Past 00:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, mav's right, the lead section needs an extra paragraph. User:Nichalp/sg
  • Support, I'm no expert on cats so I have to trust the facts written, but the article seems fine in all other ways. -- Elisson • Talk 22:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: it seems odd to me that the article on the housecat is at Cat while the cat family is covered in a separate article; I'd expect the cat family to be the main topic at Cat and the domestic cat to be somewhere else, but maybe that's just me. And I agree with mav that the lead needs work; it should read like a mini-article in itself. Also, it's not necessary for featuring, but it'd be nice if someone could get audio of meowing and purring sounds. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I've tweaked the lead now, since someone asked nicely :-), but it could still use work. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sylvia (ballet)

I believe that this article exemplefies how all theater articles should be written, and is an excellent example of a wikipedia article. Therefore this article should be featured Cpl.Luke 03:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Object
    1. The images Image:Sylmurbel.jpg, Image:Sylherrera.jpg, Image:Sylkentsav.jpg are under a license of "used with permission". This is not an acceptable license for Wikipedia.
    2. The image Image:Sangalli edited.jpg has no copyright information.
    3. The image Image:Sylviascore.gif is claimed as "fair use". If it's a scan of part of the sheet music, it's probably in the public domain.
    --Carnildo 05:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair use also applies for 1 and 2 which makes it acceptable, no? I know its not ideal, but I thought that the images were so good it outweighs it. For number 3, the image must have been created over 100 years ago, however I found it in a ballet periodical (which is cited), would that be public domain?. Number 4 was found here, and while the sheet music might be public domain, this graphic of it doesn't seem to be. I claim fair-use. Could we recreated the graphic? -- Rmrfstar 11:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the with-permission images fit the guidelines at Wikipedia:Fair use, so if you add a fair-use justification to the image description page, that'll be ok.
      • Image:Sangalli edited.jpg is almost certainly a poster from the 1876 production: I've updated the image description page to indicate this.
      • For the sheet music, we can certainly re-create it, since the original is out of copyright. Doing so will give a better-quality image as well. --Carnildo 18:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • The relevant images are labeled as being presumed to be fair-use now.
        • Concerning remaking the sheet music image, I guess I could figure out how to do that... unless someone who actually knows how to do it properly can... -- Rmrfstar 04:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Update it seems that one cannot simply rewrite the sheet music from this source, it would be a copyvio. We need a free source of the sheet music before we can recreate it (in which case we probably wouldn't have to...). It seems that the current image is the best that we can do for the time being, however I plan on revisiting the Library of Performing Arts next weekend and I might be able to find a copy there. -- Rmrfstar 00:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Regarding the images listed at #1, would it be possible to contact the copyright holder and get them to release lower-resolution versions of the images under the GFDL or an appropriate Creative Commons license? --Carnildo 06:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I have requested this by email and await a reply. -- Rmrfstar 04:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object- recent productions section needs to be improved. For example, there is only an external link for the 2004 production. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Does the updated section satisfy? -- Rmrfstar 04:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's better. However, I still have an objection- from the lead section: "the ballet is typical classical ballet on the surface, but underneath, it is quite remarkable.", "...were even better received (partly because the audiences were starved for such a classical ballet).", and "Sylvia is notable for its mythological Arcadian setting, creative choreographies, expansive sets, its great influence on music, ballet and theatre, and, above all, its brilliant score." The first statement is quite POV and unreferenced, saying that it is remarkable. The second statement's parenthesis phrase seems to stick out, not only because it seems to be an opinion, but that it is irrelevant to the ballet. The third sentence also appears very POV, saying it has "brilliant score"- perhaps reword to say that "critics have cited its brilliant score", providing a citation? Finally, just a comment- there seems to be a lot of red links... Otherwise, this is a great article! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
        • First, thanks for the suggestions! By "remarkable" I mean "worthy of notice", the word has no positive denotation[5], but I put it where "brilliant" was and linked it to ===Music=== for proof of its notability. I also took out the parenthetic phrase because I don't have a good source for that bit, (though I do contend that such a fact is significant). Yes, there are too many redlinks, Wikipedian's have little interest in ballet. After I get this through FAC, I plan on making every one of them a stub. -- Rmrfstar 23:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: I ran this by a friend who is expert on classical ballet, travels to see companies around the U.S. and beyond, etc. She prefers not to be named here on Wikipedia, but here's what she has to say; I would be astounded if she is not right on all counts, but I myself have no expertise in this area; if anyone thinks she is wrong on any of this, I can carry on correspondence. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:15, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
There is one statement in particular that makes me question the author; there are a couple of factual things as well:
"The 1952 revival rechoreographed by Sir Frederick Ashton, however, drew significant positive attention and popularized the ballet. The 1997, 2004 and 2005 versions, all based off of Ashton, were even better received."
The 2004 version by Mark Morris was not based on Ashton. Morris saw a rehearsal of the Ashton/Royal Ballet version, but, according to this interview, was influenced by it by one detail, although there are a couple of small step quotes in as well.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/26/DDGPT6AEAS1.DTL
According to the program notes, excerpts of which I posted to Ballet Talk -- unfortunately the link to the full notes is no longer active on the San Francisco Ballet site --
"Enthusing about the magnificence of Léo Delibes' music, Morris explains that the stage directions from the original production have been written right into the manuscript score, and that he is choosing to follow them- "more or less."
"While he is preserving its essences, Morris says he has simplified some of the storyline, and for his SF Ballet staging has eliminated what he considers extraneous. "I want it to be clear and beautiful-not simple, but clear."
"Choreographer Mark Morris has elected to follow the original scenario which was handed to Delibes while he was composing the score. "This music was written to order, as yardage," Morris explains, "you know, 'give me 16 bars to get the girls off,' that's there in the score."
Morris' source was the original libretto, not anything that Ashton did, and Morris' choreography and style are much different than Ashton's. Also, in the article above, according to Morris' research, Ashton did 1-, 2-, and 3-act version.
The factual issues that I know off-hand:
1. Fonteyn was not a student of Ashton's; she was a student of Ninette de Valois and Valois' staff. Fonteyn was a young dancer that de Valois wanted to promote, and Ashton choreographer for her.
2. Two ballerinas are missing from the SFB cast: Yuan Yuan Tan, who danced the premiere, and Vanessa Zahorian.
Reactions to the 2004 revival of Sylvia at the Royal Ballet were mixed. At this point, ballet people are so starved for anything truly classical, it's the equivalent of finding a lost minor piece by Mozart.
Even for viewers and critics who didn't like the Morris version, or think that the Royal Ballet can no longer do the style of Sylvia, which was very 50's, or think ABT's version was sloppy, the common rave was for the music.
<end forwarded remarks>
    • I shall fix what I can and get back with any questions or comments about the changes. -- Rmrfstar 04:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Update I added Yuan Yuan Tan; corrected the Fonteyn thing (not technically a student of ashton); took out: 2004 was based off of ashton. I shall add some more about morris though... -- Rmrfstar 04:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Update I just added what I could about Morris from the San Francisco Chronicle article, however, I'd like to use some of those quotes which were in the program notes. If you could find the explicit source of them, we could. I hope this satisfies your qualms with the article. If you (or your ballet expert friend) could add any more, please do so. -- Rmrfstar 12:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
          • My friend says she doesn't have the program, and it's no longer on the SF Ballet site, but suggests that if you contact the SF Ballet they would probably be glad to help, and undoubtedly have either hard or soft copy somewhere. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:25, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
            • I have requested this by email and await a reply. -- Rmrfstar 04:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Oh, by the way support. It could probably get better in the future, but it certainly makes the cut. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:51, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • support every objection seems to have been met- see nominationCpl.Luke 03:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Yes there is room for improvement, but neither I nor anyone else (it seems) can find any reasons why it shouldn't be featured. -- Rmrfstar 12:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jarmann M1884

Selfnom. Has gone thru two rounds of peer review (first PR and second PR) - and I think all issues raised then has been addressed, as well as the article significantly expanded in all areas. I believe the article, as it stands now, give a comprehensive overview of the subject; one of the first repeating rifles adopted by any armed force, and also one of the first bolt action rifles to be adopted. I honestly believe this article is FA worthy, but if anyone spots anything needing fixing, I'll be happy to attempt to do so.

  • Support On condition that the objection to the lack-of-copyright statement is resolved.--Knucmo2 22:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
1. I'll ask the person suppling me with the photos if she can take a picture of the volley sight for us. However, she don't have access to any ammunition for her rifle (it's rendered non-usable for sale without a permit), so in regard to Image:Compare 10.15x61R.jpg no better picture can be taken.
2. Having re-read the US law on copyright more carefully, in particular sect 107, I believe that both images can be claimed as fair use under US law as well. I will update the description of the images accordingly.
WegianWarrior 07:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The image description pages for the fair use images still need explanations as to why the use is qualified under "fair use". Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale describes what is needed, and the images at Sunset Boulevard (film) provide an outstanding example of how this can be done. --Carnildo 06:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Fair use rationale has been added to the images in question. I've also heard back from the source of the two pictures of the M1884 manufactured in Sweden - her rifle is not equiped with a volleysight (s/n lower than 4330), so a public domain photo of the volley sight seems impossible to get at this point. Hopefully the rationale provided is enought - otherwise I will have to remove the pictures from the article, and I do feel they add a lot to it. WegianWarrior 01:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Looks quite good. I plan to use this article as an example of how to use fair-use images. --Carnildo 06:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. With that last copyedit, looks good. --Carnildo 21:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild object. Support (see below) This is an interesting article which I'd support fully if there were more references. Given that the facts in the article must have come from history books or other historic sources, there is no excuse for more of the facts not being documented. If more references are added, I will change my vote to support.--Alabamaboy 02:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I thought references meant the sources used when the article was written - and I've listed all of them. I've also spendt quite some time online trying to find more, without luck. Neither has I found any more in my bookshelfs or in the local library. So I cannot provide more references, allthought if anyone else can find anything I'll be happy.WegianWarrior 01:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
If that's what you have, then its okay. What you need to do is put footnotes throughout the article to show where the historical information is coming from. This can be in the style of (Book author's last name, page number) or inline notes.--Alabamaboy 13:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Something like this? WegianWarrior 07:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
That looks great. Excellent work. I changed my vote to support (see above)--Alabamaboy 13:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow! Support - amazing work :-) Ta bu shi da yu 06:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Surtsey

OK, well as it's been exactly a year since my first non-anonymous edits, I thought I would like to celebrate by nominating an article for FAC. I've been working on this one on and off for quite a while, and with a few recent additions I feel it's now a reasonably comprehensive article, about a fascinating island. Worldtraveller 23:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Looks good. One question: what is the cause of the strong red tint in Image:Surtsey eruption 1.jpg? --Carnildo 00:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the support! The red tint I presume is due to colour shifting in an old slide which has been scanned in - I tried to correct it a little bit before uploading but may be able to do a better job, I'll see what I can do. Image:Surtsey eruption 2.jpg also had a heavy red tint - I made that monochrome but thought it would be nice to retain a bit of colour where possible. Worldtraveller 08:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Perhaps the 1999 photo and the 1964 photo can swap places? Other than that, the "higher life" section needs some clarification, as spiders aren't really higher than seals. I tried to clarify a little by saying that higher life forms are now part of the "soil" of Surtsey, but the adjective either needs to go or the noun (Surtsey) needs more qualification. Geogre 18:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, well spotted - what I meant was higher forms of land animals, and I have tried to clarify that. Thanks! Worldtraveller 16:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A very clear and beautifully written overview, I can only support, but at the same time, the subject is so rivetting, and the pictures so haunting, that I can but ask for more detail, basically about every aspect (except the dull old French landing). The Heimaeyer who wrote at the old peer review (Feb 2005) that he might get to go to the island in late July never did, I suppose..? I was hoping he might supply some images to illustrate the settlement of life sections. But the page looks beautiful just as it is. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you! I dropped is:User:Spm a line asking if the Surtsey trip ever happened - not heard yet. Would be great to illustrate the life sections a bit more, I might at least just put in a generic seal or two to break up the text, in the absence of any appropriately licensed Surtsey ones. I'll continue to expand the text as much as possible. Worldtraveller 16:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Easy to read, nice pictures, providdes a good overview of the subject. Well done. WegianWarrior 07:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Enlarge
  • Support Weak oppose-- The =permanent island= is a little too short. I would like to see it expanded to merged. I've tried to somehow remove the red tint, is this better? User:Nichalp/sg 11:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments! I've expanded 'permanent island' a bit more now, anything else you would like to see there? I like the colour balance you've managed to get from the red image - the detail in the steam column looks to have been whited out though, any chance you could have a go at getting the nice colour balance but retaining detail in the steam? Worldtraveller 16:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll give it another shot, but I'm no professional and I can't find a way to reduce the contrast and tint at the same time, but I'll try some workarounds nevertheless. User:Nichalp/sg 20:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • I think it should look like [6] :-) Lupo 08:17, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
          • I've tried out something else. (Just referesh your browser cache to view it.) . Lupo's link is good, but I don't know if I can reproduce the same version. User:Nichalp/sg 08:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • object a) there are a large number of statements of fact which aren't clearly attributed, a system of inline references, for example Wikipedia:Footnote3, covering these statements would help considerably. b) there is no coverage of insect life which I had understood is important in conlonisation of volcanic islands. c) there should be some link and photo for the "small islands in the Vestmannaeyjar archipelago" to give a suggestion what the future might hold for Surtsey Mozzerati 20:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the helpful comments. I have provided cite points as suggested, added a bit about insect life, and an image of other islands to show what Surtsey might end up looking like. Worldtraveller 11:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sealand

I think this is an excellent article and is fully eligible for featured status. No further reasons! -Elrith, 11.8.05

The peer review has been archived. --Allen3 talk 12:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
In that cause, support WegianWarrior 04:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I think it looks good. I don't know much about copyright questions so I can't weigh in on that. So support. Also, does anyone remember the revert wars that got fought over this article well over a year ago? I'm struggling to remember what that was about, but I seem to have forgotten. Everyking 12:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support yep its good, odd bit could do with a slight copyedit but nothing major. --PopUpPirate 17:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support not every image can be a free image, because often they are about elusive subjects. They went out of their way to get the images authorized to wikipedia use, there is no reason to oppose them, unless Carnildo you want to pay for a flight out to Sealand to get pics? PPGMD 20:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not the point. They can change it to 'copyright-freeuse-permitted' which is acceptable. Whoever secured the permission should request a change in licence. User:Nichalp/sg 19:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
And if they choose not to? The article is worthy of FA status IMO, being nit picky over images particularly ones that would be extremely hard to reproduce (along the lines of $400-500 to produce in high quality if the photog is local) is doing Wikipedia a disservice. I generally come to Wikipedia because it's complete, but it's more and more becoming less about completeness instead free is taking precedence. PPGMD 21:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't deny that the article is a worthy candidate, but has anyone emailed them explaining the new licence criteria, and the possibility that the images may be deleted? I'd secured a lot of cc-nc images but after Jimbo Wales declared them unacceptable, I'd requested the owners for a change in licence. All were happy to release it under the "CFUP" tag, as long as the source and photographer are fully acknowledged. The images in question are not high resolution images. If they disagree that's a another issue, but I'm more optimistic that they will agree to a new licence. User:Nichalp/sg 05:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support This is definatly worthy of FA status. I'd never even heard of sealand before I came across it, and I found it to be very interesting and well written. Richy 14:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral – will support only if the current inline reference style is formatted using the footnote style. I'd also like the licence issue to be resolved. User:Nichalp/sg 19:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • object difficult to verify since few of the facts are linked to sources. Inline references of some kind (e.g. inote or Wikipedia:Footnote3) would help. The images are a problem since a key aim of Wikipedia is a freely redistributable encyclopedia. If there is no "fair use" claim they should be removed. Mozzerati 19:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Any uncomplicated statement of fact would at most require an {{inote}} and it is certainly not required according to the FA criteria. Please do not add visible footnotes for any variety of uncontroversial facts. Try to limit them when there's a need to explain something fairly complicated that would be disruptive if inluded in the text.. / Peter Isotalo 23:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object citations are neccessary, in my opinion, if this article is to become featured. Preferably using the ref/note convention. (Edited after Raul's comment). Cedars 00:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Um, no, it's not. The ref/note citation style is one of many it can use. →Raul654 19:24, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • True, but previous articles have recieved objections for using the inote convention. See here. Any convention may be fine, but the ref/note convention seems to be the prevailing method, so I would strongly recommend using that. Cedars 07:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
        • If you're talking about the quite recent footnote fad, it's nothing more than that; a fad. I have myself been doing plenty of objecting and explaining as to why footnotes are entirely inappropriate when overused for referencing uncontroversial and uncomplicated facts. For the most part an {{inote}} is the way to go or simply none at all. Visible footnotes should not be placed in an article merely because one of our editors doesn't know where to look up the population of Finland. / Peter Isotalo 10:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
          • The ability for readers to quickly verify facts is important especially for Wikipedia where anyone can edit articles. The peace of mind I get from being able to quickly cross-check facts is invaluable and I therefore believe visible inline citations are an essential part of a feature article. It would appear I'm not alone (see the bullet point on accuracy). Despite your claims, this fad also seems to be quite prevelant in academic papers. Cedars 12:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
            • The relevant quote here is appropriate use of inline citations. To begin with "inline citation" is not synonymous to "footnote" in any sense of the word. Mostly it's about simply stating the source in the text akin to this: (Jane Doe, 2005) or simply "Jane Doe in her book The State of Things in the State of Nowhere, writes...". And while it is true that academic papers use footnotes, Wikipedia is not in the business of producing academic papers, but rather encyclopedic articles. Furthermore, if you ask academics with any decent experience of using footnotes, which usually includes both PhD candidates and even lowly college students with some experience, they'll tell you the same thing; using footnotes for stating basic irrefutable facts is not appropriate. It's considered disruptive to texts and is generally done only by people who only recently have learned about footnotes. The overwhelming majority of our readers do not check facts, would not do so even if we provided them with footnotes and are not used to nor expecting to find academic-style texts in an encyclopedia. With the exception of providing a literature list and external links to references, which are very reasonable demands of verifiability, the editors of Wikipedia are the ones who should be assuring the factual accuracy of our articles. / Peter Isotalo 14:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
              • I don't object to using bracketed citations if the author feels that they are appropriate. What I do object to is hiding citations inside the article where no-one but editors can view them. How do you know many readers do not check the facts of their articles? If I see something that seems hard to believe, I check the facts. I never stated that footnotes should be used to check every fact, though clearly there are some who believe that, and I object to your implication that I did. But this article is on an obscure and esoteric subject - it, more than other articles, needs to be well backed-up by references. The History section in particular could do with better citations. The fact is Wikipedia is unique, in that it is not paper-based and easily editable - it needs to be more careful than most about making sure its facts are verifiable and its articles can afford a few minor symbols on the page (e.g. [7]) if it results in a better, more dependable article. Cedars 00:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Question. This article it seems was peer reviewed for one day (actually less than 12 hours). Does this short exposure allow the claim and use of the {{oldpeerreview}} template? hydnjo talk 20:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Single Transferable Vote

This is a partial self-nom. I first adopted this article a few days after British Columbia had a referendum on the subject - for such a seemingly important political issue, the content of the article was quite poor and there was a lack of voter knowledge about STV - something that may not have occured had they been reading a Wikipedia from the future :). Anyway, I'm hoping it can serve as a model article for the Voting Systems WikiProject - to this end I have been messaging some of the other major editors to get them to review my content, and together we've all vetted it quite extensively. Thanks for reading! Scott Ritchie 23:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Support the article does a great job of explaining an important concept --nixie 00:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. There were many spelling mistakes but I've corrected them all now. (Ran it through a spell check while keeping the Americanized spellings.) It is a very well researched and very well written article and from reading the discussions, it's been properly peer-reviewed too. --Mintchocicecream 00:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear and pretty comprehensive, too. Warofdreams 11:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. I wish I had this amount of time to do stuff at this level! --Msoos 13:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wario

Well, personally, I just think this has reached at least minimum standards. Other than a few minor things that can be quick-fixed, I can't see anything wrong with the article. -- A Link to the Past 03:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment I do not believe it can be peer reviewed while its in this process link... --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
The peer review is 12 days old, I'd say that's enough time. Plus, I was suggested by others that it'd be okay to nominate it now. -- A Link to the Past 03:58, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Nah, I mean you probably need to archive those peer reviews now :) --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Please address the comments in the Peer Review before putting an article up on FAC. No reference section. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:00, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
  • It is a problem with video games to cite references. These summaries of games were written by me, so it can't be referenced. I did reference the Spike idea and the Warui thing. And, since I'm a gamer, I can't solve the whole gamer's POV problem (NicholasT said that he would edit it to, yknow, not be in a gamer's perspective). I reduced the game descriptions, too. The gaming POV is nothing I can solve, but could you wait until Nick fixes that Gamer POV? -- A Link to the Past 04:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • That POV problem doesn't sound like 'a minor thing that can be quick-fixed'. And certainly, more references can be provided. For instance, it refers to a comic story in Nintendo Power -- issue #, pages, author? Christopher Parham (talk) 04:21, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
  • Support. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Why should anyone support an article that doesn't have references? If you want people to take you or video game articles seriously, you're not doing yourself or it a favor by supporting. / Peter Isotalo 10:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Good thing there ARE references. -- A Link to the Past 12:58, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • I guess I'm too stuck to the idea that one should support after a nomination fulfills the minimum criteria. Link, ZScout, my apologies to you both. It's a damned fine article. / Peter Isotalo 15:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
          • So, if I add some more stuff, would that garner a weak support? -- A Link to the Past 16:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The images Image:Wario.jpg, Image:Wariobounce.jpg, Image:Ss wl4 pre.gif, Image:Wario WWare.gif, Image:Vampwario.gif are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and so "fair use" images should be kept to a minimum. The images Image:Wariobounce.jpg, Image:Wario WWare.gif, and Image:Vampwario.gif seem to be surplus to the needs of the article, and should be removed. The remaining images need to comply with the rules at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. See the image description pages for the images on Sunset Boulevard (film) for a particularly good example of this. --Carnildo 06:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, okay, here are my rationales about the images:
    • 1. WarioWare image - requires an image of Wario's appearance in recent times
    • 2. Vampire Wario image - okay, maybe that can be dropped
    • 3. Spring Wario image - needs an example image of one of his powers
    • 4. Wario image - Intro image -- A Link to the Past 12:58, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • I put the rationalle on images 1,3 and 4 and I can conform that image two has been removed from the article. Also, Karmosin, no need to apologize. If there is something yall want us to fix, we can do that. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm curious. Super Mario 64 is a featured article yet none of the images linked to from that article have this fair use rationale. Is this a new policy? Otherwise, how did that article ever get through this process? Looking at it's candidature page no such objections were raised there. I want to support this article, but this needs to be clear I feel. Jacoplane 18:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I've added fair use rationale information to the images linked to in the article. I this provides enough justification. Jacoplane 19:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not a new policy, it just hasn't been enforced very often in the past. Around the beginning of July, I decided I'd start enforcing the image copyright policies, and I've been objecting to about half the featured article candidates ever since. --Carnildo 19:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok, I agree with you that it's a good idea to enforce this. Jacoplane 19:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good now. Jacoplane 20:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to me - certainly better than some old FAs. -- AlexR 07:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Definate FA material. --Celestianpower hab 12:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I did some extensive copyediting and I think it is now FA material. Support. Andre (talk) 20:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object - The image at the top needs a caption. Probably one explaining where that particular image is from. See Wikipedia:Captions Support Scott Ritchie 00:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely. The article is a fine piece of work through and through. It tells you all you need to know without going on for too long or ever being boring. If all the pages on Wikipedia were this good, we could all call it a day with the whole editing thing. --Matt Yeager 03:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - a well-written article about a subject that wouldn't ordinarily be seen featured. I think this deserves the spotlight, and it would certainly promote variety. Rob Church Talk | Desk 15:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I think it meet all the feature article standard--Kiba 16:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Great article. We only need Mario now at the FAC... igordebraga ≠ 18:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I believe this article is written well. --ZeWrestler Talk 20:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good to me. Optichan 19:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nirvana (band)

An important band, in a really good, unbiased article, that got a cleanup after the peer review [8]. The only thing that could ruin this nomination are not many references. igordebraga ≠ 01:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. Problems are still unresolved. I asked whether or not Celtic Frost's mention is legit, but that has never been answered, referenced, or removed. Also, a lot of "facts" are not cited by references. Like I said in the peer review, there are a lot of biographies out there that could be cited that aren't. There's also a few weasel terms in there here and there. -- LGagnon 02:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Since you're a regular contributor to this article, I'm disappointed that you chose to wait until the article got to this point to address your concerns. I (among others) have been making every effort possible to bring this article into acceptable status before now. Given that I can't read your mind, I would love to know the details as to which facts need to be referenced and what constitutes a "weasel term". Also, for the record, most of the available Nirvana biographies on the market are considered by the greater fanbase to be cash-in's on Nirvana's popularity and not worth the paper they're printed on as far as "facts" go. A sizeable portion of the fanbase believes Azerrad's book to be the only Nirvana biography worth considering. (Having read several others, I include myself in that category.) Additionally, if you can't find a reference for the Celtic Frost mention, feel free to remove it. I have no idea who added it, and I wouldn't balk at its removal. Feel free to respond to this in the Talk section rather than here if it would be more constructive. -- ChrisB 05:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms gives a good explaination of what weasel terms are; the 2nd paragraph of the In Utero section shows one example of it in its 1st sentence as well. As for whether or not I mentioned my grievences before, check the talk page of the article and the peer review. I have clearly mentioned both Celtic Frost and the references situation. I am withdrawing my objection now though, since the article is more up to standard (and I assume the weasel term problem will be solved soon). -- LGagnon 21:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • Understood. I believe I've caught the worst offenders (and may have removed some non-offenders in the process). Signal if you spot any others, or if any other points are out of line. -- ChrisB 22:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object
    1. The image Image:Nirvana inutero.png is of higher resolution than needed for the article. 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 sound clip Image:ComeAsYouAre.ogg is 37 seconds long. This is longer than the recommended 30-second limit for fair-use clips.
    3. The images need to comply with the rules at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. See the image description pages for the images on Sunset Boulevard (film) for a particularly good example of this.
    --Carnildo 03:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
comment I don't know about the other objections but I think it is unfair that you are objecting just because the source image is larger than fair use reccomendation even though the image is scaled down in the article, remember that this isn't the image that's up for featured canidacy it's the article, and downloading, resizing and re-uploading it wouldn't solve anything other than to use up space. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Downloading, resizing, re-uploading, and getting the older, larger version deleted will increase the odds that we're in compliance with United States copyright law. --Carnildo 05:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Carnildo, I think you are being unreasonable with respect to the album cover. I quote from section 107 of the United States Copyright Act:
the fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment...is not an infringement of copyright.
Clearly this image complies with that responsibility. Furthermore, the album cover in question, In Utero is specifically mentioned in the article as being a source of controversy and as such it is helpful to have an enlarged view of it. The act goes on to state that fair use should be considered in context of the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Presenting an album cover at resolutions insufficient for printing a poster has virtually no effect on the potential market for the album because practically everyone buys albums for their music not just their covers. Please reconsider this part of your nomination. Cedars 09:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
The idea is to make the image sufficiently low-resolution as to be utterly useless as a cover for a pirated CD: at 5 inches across, a 480-pixel image will look acceptable at a screen resolution of 96dpi. It will be completely useless for printing, as that is usually done at resolutions of 300dpi or higher. But that's a minor point. The fair-use justifications for the images and sound clips are absolutely essential. --Carnildo 18:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Apologies if this is not the correct way to solve this issue. If a 480x480 picture is acceptable for use, I certainly have no objection and think it's the correct move. (I made the change, but can revert if the move is not acceptable.) The controversial artwork in question with regard to In Utero is actually the back cover, which is not included. -- ChrisB 20:55 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe all the points Carnildo raised have now been addressed. If not, please elaborate on which ones have not. Cedars 09:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - This is an excellent article about a noteworthy subject. Cedars 09:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • objectsupport in specific support of Carnildo, valid and actionable objections should be acted upon prior to moving to a featured article,. Images are an integral part of the quality of articles and are even mentioned in the featured article criteria. If this was accepted even after someone raised a copyright objection that could be used (unfairly - Cedars doesn't "represent" the project) to show that Wikipedia "willfully" engaged in copying. objections appear to be addressed, article is reasonably comprehensive, informative and quite well referenced; to me it seems it is better than the average FA. An expansion of the introduction to talk briefly about their key albums would make this a worthy FA. Mozzerati 20:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - Lead section is too short for an article this size. --mav 16:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good article. Seems that previous objections have been fixed.--Alabamaboy 02:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. --Chan-Ho 09:42, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article. Very interesting and well formatted. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 06:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zambezi

As I said when I requested peer review of this article, I know the Zambezi well and thought it deserved a high quality article. Having received very helpful comments from peer review, I've expanded the article a good amount and think it may be ready for a run past FAC. Worldtraveller 12:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Support – I've also heard that the river is a favourite location for the reclusive bull sharks. I think this could be added. User:Nichalp/sg 12:23, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've got a mention of the Zambezi Shark, which in my zoological ignorance I didn't realise was actually just another name for the bull shark - I'll change that accordingly. Worldtraveller 17:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - provided something s done with the majority of the red links (just don't look good in a FA). Other than that, a most ineresting and well written article. WegianWarrior 12:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yep, the red links do look pretty bad. I will set to work on stub creation shortly! Worldtraveller 17:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: is there still enough material held over from the 1911 Britannica to require the 19ll tag? If not, it should be removed; if so, should it be featurable? - Bantman 17:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I've substantially re-written large chunks of it, but I'd probably say it's still similar enough to require attribution rather than be listed just as a reference. This is the diff between when I added the 1911 text and now, although it probably makes it look more different than it is. Worldtraveller 17:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • That given, I'd like to get some input from other editors before I feel comfortable supporting. I will bring it up on FAC talk. - Bantman 21:16, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
        • I've thought about this some more, and spent a little time comparing the article as it now stands to the 1911 EB version. In my opinion, if unattributed the current WP version would be a clear example of plagiarism, so the attribution must stay. Regrettably, that means that I'm going to have to object to this fine article. Though it seems to meet FA criteria, it does not represent sufficiently original content for us to claim as our own. - Bantman 23:42, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a fair criticism, but I would just like to point that while the course, tributaries and exploration sections are derived from 1911 content, wildlife, transport, economy, ecology and towns sections are new content. Worldtraveller 11:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't mean my vote to be taken as a criticism of your work, which is excellent. I recognize the value and range of new content, and commend it. I just don't feel that we should feature articles that have significant portions so closely adapted from public domain sources. - Bantman 23:44, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
No criticism of my work taken! There are precedents, though, for featured articles containing text adapted from public domain sources - Geology of the Death Valley area is one that I can think of offhand. Worldtraveller 09:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support- well-written article, though I think some of the "red links" should be written. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object
    1. The image Image:Victoria falls mists.jpg is under the Creative Commons CC-BY-NC license. This is not an acceptable license for Wikipedia.
      • Swapped it for a public domain image. Worldtraveller 23:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    2. The image Image:Zambezi River near Zambezi Town.jpg is claimed as GFDL, but the copyright statement on the linked website is "personal use, and limited non-commercial use". The two are not the same, so this needs to be clarified.
      • That's my own photograph, so I've clarified on the image page that I have released this version under the GFDL. Worldtraveller 23:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    --Carnildo 21:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • As I said on the talk page, this version of the article bears little similarity to the britannica article and the 1911 article should probably only be mentioned as a reference. I'm undecided if the 1911 template should stay or go, on one hand it impies that this article is similar to the original, but on the other hand it shows how a good contemporary article can be created based on the 1911 material. As long as all the images issues are cleared up I support.--nixie 02:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - there are some nice images on other language versions of this article (I especially like the river basin map on the serbian page; it is much clearer); have you considered using any of those (copyright questions might be difficult to resolve though)? - Bantman 21:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- AlexR 08:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 11:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Templon

This is a self-nom about an important piece of (Byzantine) church architecture for about 1000 years. It's been through peer-review twice, and I think it's reached featured quality (though I haven't been able to find any fair use photographs of a templon, I provided some external links to them). Any suggestions? Thanks! The PNM 05:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. --Briangotts (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It would be much easier to read if all the obscure church architectural terms were explained in-text, rather than having to follow links to figure out what is being talked about. - Bantman 18:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I added a bunch of parenthetical definitions to the architectural terms (both church-related and not). Is it still confusing? Did I miss anything? Or is it just cluttered now? Thanks. The PNM 01:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: In my opinion, said article is coherent, informative and exemplary, and therefore worthy of being featured. Great job! --Dr. Ebola 03:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article which is very nicely referenced. --Alabamaboy 02:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 11:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Court of the United States

Previously nominated by another user (see here). This is a self-nomination. -- Emsworth 15:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. PedanticallySpeaking 15:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • [[[[[[[[Slight object]]]]]]]]--very good, but what's missing is any discussion of the court's current status, except for that little blurb at the end about how Thomas and Scalia make up the conservative wing et cetera. Shouldn't there be a discussion of the current balance of the court (see also next point)? Also, there's no discussion of ways people group the justices (originalist vs. living Constitution, conservative vs. liberal, etc.) or what these groupings mean. Well-sourced discussions of these topics would greatly enhance the article. Also, maybe a discussion of the most prominent issues the court has dealt with recently; a few well-placed mentions of federalism and culture war wouldn't go amiss. Meelar (talk) 16:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • As to the groupings of Justices: I think that this is a broader issue of constitutional interpretation. It can apply not just to Justices, but also to scholars, lower court judges, politicians, or anyone else, for that matter. So, I felt that a discussion of that was not really relevant, or warranted; it is, however, found in a "See Also" link. I'll see what I can do about the rest. -- Emsworth 17:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that I've addressed all except the grouping of Justices as originalists, "loose constructionists," etc. -- Emsworth 13:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Fair enough--I can see your point about it being a broader issue of interpretation. Support. Meelar (talk) 15:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Aww, another one of my "to-dos"/"to make FA-worthy" has been taken... :-) Anyways, support, as Emsworth has done a lot of great work. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A few minor objections and comments. Support. Excellent article overall, as usual. A few things before I feel like I can support:
    • The article could be improved by adding something on test cases, sua sponte, and the nature of precedent.
    • You might mention court packing in the composition section, with the discussion about changes in size over time, to emphasize that there have been failed attempts to change it.
    • I wish there were in-line references, but I won't make an objection about it.
    • You might want to clarify how you came up with the number 12, i.e., does it include filibusters and Douglas Ginsburg.
    • The phrase "serves during 'good behavior,' or in other words, for life" can be improved. You might want to mention the whole clause of the constitution and/or how it has been interpreted to mean life.
    • Should "reporter of decisions" be capitalized?
    • Chisholm v. Georgia's description currently reads "it held that the federal judiciary could hear cases." Does that mean the courts couldn't hear cases before that? Is it an error?
    • You might want to mention incorporation immediately after Barron v. Baltimore, (just a few words) to prevent confusion
    • The history section is long and might be improved by splitting it somewhere, but that might not be possible.
    • Checks and Balances should probably mention Ex Parte Merryman, in which Lincoln essentially nullified a court decision by refusing to enforce it.
    • Can I ask why the history section is in the middle? It seems like the article would flow better if it were at the end.
  • I sincerely look forward to supporting this when these issues are dealt with. Dave (talk) 17:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've addressed most of these, but:
    • Could you clarify what you information you would suggest about sua sponte?
    • I'm not sure about whether it would be appropriate to mention Merryman, which was a decision of a lower court, not the Supreme Court.
    • How about putting the history section at the beginning? -
  • -- Emsworth 19:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected on Merryman. As for sua sponte, I was thinking that it could be useful to mention that the Supreme Court, like most (all?) other courts are supposed to decide existing cases, rather than bring them up. If they want to rule on, say, segregation, they have to find a test case. I'm not sure what to do with the history section. I feel like anything after it may not get read because it's so long. Thanks for dealing with the other issues. Dave (talk) 19:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Incidentally, in the article, you shouldn't put in a link to test case like I did above, because it links to an article about software, not law. Dave (talk) 19:38, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support
  • I made an edit to the Procedure section to reflect the Supreme Court rules regarding petitions for certiorari, mandamus, certified questions, and motions to appear as amici curiae. All changes are in line with Supreme Court Rules 18-20. See Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (2005 ed.) (pdf). TPB, Esq. (talk) 19:19, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Unsigned post by Jdhowens90.
  • Support spellchecks fine also, position of history: TOC is good, not too bad scroll over, putting this section at the end doesn't seem right somehow, and it's not really big enough for a Main article yet either. Is anyone tempted to add the Current events tags to this and Chief Justice of the United States? Alf melmac 01:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holkham Hall

This is a page about an English country house, I wrote sometime ago. Others have since done some copyediting etc. It is short! but it also seems to meet all the criteria for a featured article. Giano | talk 10:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. What's there is good, but it doesn't explain to me why this building belongs in an encyclopedia. For example, is it being used as anything besides a home today? Are tours available? Why was it notable when built/today? How many like it were built? Is it a famous landmark of a nearby town? History and architecture critique have their place, but can't make up the whole article. Meelar (talk) 20:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Holkham Hall's library had a significant collection of medieval manuscrpts many of which are now in the British Library (see description here). I don't know if they need to be mentioned here or in one of the owner's articles. (I'm not sure who collected them, if they indeed were collected by a single person. I'm inclined to suspect Thomas Coke, 1st Earl of Leicester since many of the manuscripts are of continental origin, and he collected a lot of art during his Grand Tour.) Otherwise Support: the statement "It is one of England's finest examples of the Palladian revival style of architecture, the severity of the design being closer to Palladio's ideals, than many of the other numerous Palladian style houses of the period." being a sufficient explaniation as to why the building belongs in an encylcopedia. Dsmdgold 13:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not to be flip, but, e.g., my house is one of the best examples of the "Sears Roebuck catalogue home" style in all of Illinois, and it's not notable. Significance should be explained better. Meelar (talk) 15:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Your house might not be notable, but there are tens of thousands Sears houses, but there are only dozens of Palladian revival mansions. Sears houses are all no more than about a century old, while the Palladian revival houses are all at least 200 years ols with some being almost 300 years old. Congrats on the cool house though. I would love to have a Sears house, they just aren't very common around here. (BTW, if your house is verifiably one of the best examples of a Sears home in Illinois, it would be, in my mind, notable enough for an article.) Dsmdgold 18:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • It's not that great, just a "Starlight" model (quite small, actually, and also quite common). But thanks for the clarification on the Palladian revival mansions--the information that there are only a handful, relatively speaking, should go in the article for people who aren't familiar with this style of architecture or why it's important. That alone would do a lot to address my objections, although I'd still want to know more about the current status of the house. Meelar (talk) 20:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Guys please don't fall out! Thanks for the interest. Meelar I have made one or two small alterations to address some of your points. Could I draw your attention to this phrase from the lead - "It is one of England's finest examples of the Palladian revival style of architecture, the severity of the design being closer to Palladio's ideals, than many of the other numerous Palladian style houses of the period" Actually it's not a handful they are "numerous" click on Palladian (yeah, I wrote that one too -sorry!). Regarding your own house: it sounds great - I'll do it, just send me details and photos of your house I will write it up, it could make the front page - Seriously it is just the sort of architecture that need publicising, tomorrows antiques etc. (3 NZ architects have made FA so far this year for their retrospective work). However, I do think to state the difference between Holkham and a "Sears Roebuck catalogue home" may be overstating the obvious just a little. This house is notable only as an historic house with specialist architecture. It has a good, but for England, not overwhelmingly exeptional, collection of art and furniture. The page is titled Holkham Hall not Holkham Estate. The external link gives the advertising plug. Regarding Dsmgold's points I'm not sure, Blenheim Palace went into far more detail, almost anyone who had ever used a bathroom there had a mention, and that too failed FA. I've nominated this to see what is required. I quite like the page (Well, I wrote it) for its compactness, and I think completion. Giano | talk 22:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • (Back to the right margin)...No falling out, and I respect all the work you've put into the article. But it still needs a few things--
  1. The location of the house--I had to click on a link just to find out it was near Norfolk. I am somewhat of a boob for having missed that...but the rest of my objections stand.
  2. The significance of Palladian architecture needs to be explained. A short sentence or two about what it was and how it affected England would do great things in making this a stand-alone encyclopedia article--remember, these might be published on paper some day.
  3. Is the house a major tourist attraction? What is its relationship with the surrounding area?
  4. (optional) The name of the current inhabitants would be nice, but not necessary. Meelar (talk) 14:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • There you go [9] just for you Meelar. I think stating it is open to the public though does infer it is a tourist attraction Giano | talk 06:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks--I wasn't sure how to word that. Support. Meelar (talk) 15:14, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is what I think would most appropriately be described as demanding shrubberies ("one that looks nice... and not too expensive!"), e.i. unreasonable or irrelevant demands of approval. That you choose to complain about having to click a link to find very basic facts, and not even bothering to amend this ridiculously revision yourself, does not convince me that you are trying to pass on particularly constructive criticism. My knowledge of architecture is quite limited, but I have absolutely no problem with an artcle about a fairly unique country house being concerned mainly with the building itself, eventhough this articles does elaborate on other details as well. I would say that this objection should be considered non-actionable. / Peter Isotalo 16:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written, referenced and illustrated. Without trying to demand a shrubbery of my own (or requesting the largest tree you can find to be cut down with a herring), it's a minor scandal that there are no pictures of the interiors. Going by the descriptions in the text, the pictures of the facade must be almost dull in comparison... / Peter Isotalo 16:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry here Meelar but the first line of the page states the house is in Norfolk. The conclusion says "it is still and the family home of the Earls of Leicester of Holkham". That is the owners name, he and his wife/Countess live there. Regarding you're comment on Palladian architecture, that is (I think) the point of a "blue link". If one explains every blue link then an article would run in excess of what anyone one could reasonably be expected to read. I meant it by the way about your house, I had never heard of a "Sears Roebuck catalogue home", it would be great to right that up, its obviously well known in your part of the world, and would be interesting to do. Giano | talk 22:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Sears Catalog Home Dsmdgold 22:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Dammit! Someone always beats me to do the best pages. 22:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I've always liked this sweetly-balanced short page, and don't think it would at all benefit from expansion. FACs seem to be getting longer and longer (mine too) and I do think this length is more inviting, as well as being in this case perfect for the subject. I did copyedit it once, but that was ages ago (December 2004) and pretty superficial at that. Bishonen | talk 10:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Hong Kong

After some weeks of collaboration by many wikipedians from Hong Kong, this article had gone through the Peer Review and lots of minor edits, which finally made it qualifying all the FAS criteria. Now as one of the editors of the page, I'll nominate this article as a Featured Article. Deryck C. 07:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Support: Deryck C.. Self-nom. See comments above. 07:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Fun to read! Jerry Crimson Mann 07:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Zscout370 07:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Thanks so much for Deryck's and Jerry's efforts, and Zscout370's pictures the pictures Zscout uploaded. :-D — Instantnood 08:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC) (modified 09:14, August 9, 2005 (UTC))
    • Disclaimer: The photos are not mine, but were taken by my friend in Hong Kong. He agree to release them under GFDL (I can provide the email if yall chose. Let me know on my talk page, please). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • In fact Jerry did most of the things (the contents) and what I did was just provided a little bit of material to the Jap occupation section and dug out all the problems after he finished writing the article. Deryck C. 09:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Users around the world can gain more knowledge about the flags of Hong Kong. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 12:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Hoping to see you in Golden Bauhinia Square. Deryck C. 15:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting. — Andrew Eng 13.30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support User:Nichalp/sg 14:50, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support CrossTimer 06:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

*Weak support Great article, but looks terrible on an 800x600 screen (thin strips of text between two pictures = ugly). Amend it so there's no side-by-side pictures, and it'd be a near-perfect article. Proto t c 21:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Now support with new layout. Great article. Proto t c 08:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I moved the table flag photo down and to the right. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak object- the "proper display of flag" section does not seem appropriate. It seems to be the same protocol regarding state/national flags, and does not seem unique to Hong Kong. I would prefer that this section be trimmed, and linked to a main article on the display of flags. Otherwise, it is a great article! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Each national and region has their own laws for the display of national and regional flags. We have to explain how to properly fly the HKSAR and PRC flag while in Hong Kong. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Zscout. Each country has its own laws on the display of the flag. User:Nichalp/sg 06:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added a link to the PRC's flag, likewise a bracketed remark. I hope this could do ambiguity away. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, sorry. I'll support, though I still think some of it could be moved to a "main article". Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. As mentioned in Wikipedia_talk:HK_wikipedians'_notice_board#Flag_of_Hong_Kong, has the article been copyedited to reduce the amount of lifted material from [10], or has it been fully established that information from that site is 100% public domain? If yes, it will be a support from me too.--Huaiwei 06:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • IMHO, it should be public domain. If the information was not going to be lifted from the above website, we would have found the laws and just copied the information from there. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I've also edited significant portions of the article so that much of the text deviates from the original source, if that helps. If handling procedures for the flag are codified into law, wouldn't it by definition be in the public domain? --HappyCamper 06:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • If the text has been edited, then I suppose it is ok (although I notice the opening lines in Flag_of_Hong_Kong#Proper_display_of_the_flag still looks similar to text in [11]. Btw, texts from statutes are not always in the public domain, as copyright rules differ between country/territory, and differs according to how this text is being presented. In addition, this site appears to be paraphrasing the regulations, and to copy their paraphrasing is not quite the same as copying texts from the statutes directly.--Huaiwei 06:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I went ahead and reworded the paragraph. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Thanks! Please all help to check through the rest of the article and edit accordingly.--Huaiwei 06:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Your welcome and I can see what I can do tomorrow morning. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Huaiwei I suppose you should have noticed my response at the notice board talk page before challenging on the same thing here. — Instantnood 11:05, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Of coz I have, but I am also looking for helpful, definitive answers, and not those trying to look for loopholes in the system and circumventing a very important issue here. There has been no improvement since I brought it up there, so I am compelled to bring it up here again. And see the difference? There are people here who are willing to improve on it instead of seeking excuses, and this is how articles are improved. And btw, this is not a "challenge" as you see it. That sounds rather hostile and provocative to me.--Huaiwei 13:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • May I know in what way the copyright notice is not a definitive one? — Instantnood 13:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
          • You cited a notice from another website, claiming that notice applies to this because the other organisation manages this site. Do you consider that definitive?--Huaiwei 14:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Thanks for telling. This copyright notice applies to most government websites, except for a few. — Instantnood 17:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just one note. Even slight editing of paragraphs create a new copyright license and therefore those paragraphs in the passage, although covers materials from external websites, have been edited and therefore don't come to copyright violation. Deryck C. 10:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but copyrighting also often includes forbidding people from amending the text and using it elsewhere.--Huaiwei 10:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • May I kindly suggest that perhaps you edit that paragraph yourself so that your concerns are met? It seems that you are unilateral on this position, and the best way to resolve it is to dive right in and edit! You're always most welcome to do so! This way, we do not have to dive into the subtleties of copyright law at all. What you have stated above is a particular interpretation of copyright law, which I will not attempt to refute nor dispute. What is more pertinent is that if you edit the article, it constitutes an intellectual effort on your part, which is then immediately released under the GFDL license. This is probably the best way to resolve your concerns, and it will only take 5 minutes! I'd say, we'll give this editor a chance to change it, and see how it works out. We can always revert and fix up things later. It seems apt to graciously extend this welcoming offer to you for editing, as it seems that you have not participated in editing the body of the article at all according to its edit history. Don't worry about making too many changes, there are lots of friendly editors around who can fix things up. That's how Wikipedia works! --HappyCamper 15:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for extending the offer, although I have to explain that the simple reason why I did not do the editing myself is my worry that I do not know enough of the topic in question beyond what is already available in that particular website. Now if everyone here thinks that copyright issues are not important to this project, and that I am the sole exception, then I suppose I have no choice but to just let it be. I find it disturbing, thou, that concerns over basic requirements such as copyright have to take the backseat in order to rush an article to be an FA.--Huaiwei 17:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I do not know what the HK Basic Law says about copyright issues, but if this is something in the USA, it would be in the public domain. What Huaiwei is saying is that not our information is a copyvio, but we have sections that are word for word what the HKSAR website says. We can just fix that using just a few word changes. I am going to go through it now and see what changes I can make. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Copyright laws are exceptionally important on Wikipedia, and this article is no exception to that. In this case, it is simply the matter that your interpretation of the limits of copyright law is somewhat more conservative than mine. There is no need to isolate oneself over this difference. Granted, you will encounter these situations quite frequently on Wikipedia. Just think: in one day, you can meet upwards of 20+ users! I am elated to encounter someone who is so passionate about this aspect of lawful righteousness, and Wikipedia benefits greatly from your critique. I'd still highly recommend that you edit the article though, as it would be so much more improved with your expertise. You can take the responsibility to learn about this subject more, and participate - lead by example, as they say! After thinking about it, some of the wording might be better kept linked with an external reference instead and quoted verbatim. This is simply another option. That way, there is recognition of fair usage and proper attribution to the publications done by public agents of Hong Kong. --HappyCamper 19:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As the FAC rule says, any comments have to be ACTIONABLE and I really hope that Huaiwei can demonstrate how to avoid possible copyright violations in this article (explicitly, to rewrite a paragraph) Deryck C. 05:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. People tell me the copyright stuff has been dealt with. I don't have time to read the article, so I can't support, but I'll withdraw my objection. Oppose until copyright issues are dealth with. I consider this actionable as it has been shown which paragraphs have been lifted from other sources. Even if Hong Kong law allows for this kind of use, we'd still need to say that the article incorporates their text, not just their ideas.Dave (talk) 03:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am going through it now and rewriting nearly everything that is there. However, what sections do you wish to be checked the most? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Aside from the ones that have been mentioned above? I'm not sure. I'll trust your judgment. Dave (talk) 06:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • I fixed the first section that was asked, and I went through a few more. While I can go through and fix every entry, I just do not know for sure what is being copied word for word or has been through a few copy edits. Just pointing them out to me will make things a lot easier. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
          • But that would require actually reading the article, instead of just complaining about it ;). I'll see what I can do, but right now, it's 2:24 in the morning here, and I'm going to go to sleep. I'm really impressed with your dilligence. Dave (talk) 06:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
            • Nothing stops the motivated Wikipedian! We might want to reword the technical description of the flag for starters (near the bottom where the 3:2 ratio is being discussed) --HappyCamper 06:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Fixed it. How is it? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
                • Better now. That entire technical paragraph has been rewritten. Can someone nudge the grey picture of how to construct the flag a bit lower? I don't know how to fiddle with images on Wikipedia yet :( --HappyCamper 15:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Stunning article. -- user:zanimum
  • Comment. Just an update on the above, that I have actually sent an email to that site's owners to enquire on the above copyright issue, and requested for their permission to use them should it indeed be a case of copyright violation. They are taking quite some time to reply, hence my failure to "demonstrate" above that my comments are "actionable"? :D--Huaiwei 15:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Just drop it. I personally don't think any reference to "actionable" things should have been made above as it is too much of an intensifier, but to some extent a consistent impression was made that no intervention on your part would occur to fix the problem. Anyway, let us know what news comes about it. --HappyCamper 15:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose See the list below --HappyCamper 15:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    1. Opening paragraph: on which date were the laws passed by the 58th executive meeting? This historical information is missing.
    2. Under "historical flags" --> repetitous use of the root word "authority" here
    3. The phrase "...pile of merchandise" sounds too colloquial for an encyclopedia
    4. The comment made by Ho regarding funny designs of the flags should be elaborated. That is, some mentioning of an implicit comparison between "communist Russia" and "communist China" should be addressed - briefly only.
    5. Minor typo --> "Ar" should be "At"
    6. Some fiddling needed to make the technical design requirements section layout for the flag look better. Can we get rid of that table, or perhaps make a new section to explain that the numbers on the left represent size types labeled 1,2,3,etc... ?--HappyCamper 15:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The meeting should be held in May 2002, gotta double check. The typo is fixed. — Instantnood 17:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, please check and add if you find anything useful. I did some searching myself and couldn't find anything authoritative. It seemed to me that the 58th meeting was actually a set of meetings spread out over a long period, so it is a very minor point and probably not worthwhile adding to the article. After some thought, its absence does not take away from the article's content. --HappyCamper 07:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Previous objects seem to have been fixed b/c the article is now an excellent piece.--Alabamaboy 02:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Simply support. - HenryLi 04:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Everything's fixed up, so there's no reason to hold up the article's promotion to FAC! --HappyCamper 07:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. It is a very, very impressive article and probably the best resource on the Hong Kong flag anywhere on the internet and probably anywhere in the world. However, there are two problems that needs to be addressed before I can give it my unconditional support. (1.) I just spent a few minutes correcting the many, many spelling errors. There are also minor grammatical problems and I've corrected some but there are still more. (Sometimes, it is a matter of the use of English - e.g. offence (correct) rather than offense (incorrect) or centre (correct) rather than center (incorrect) because the former represents the usage in Hong Kong - e.g. in the passage of the law.) (2.) Some things are unnecessarily duplicated - e.g. how many times is things like dipping the flag mentioned? I think the article can be further cleaned up. If I spot any more mistakes I will correct them - but I think everyone should read over the article again before it can be a featured article. --Mintchocicecream 13:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    I've read through the article and made some futher corrections (see the diff). As far as I can tell the spelling is fixed up now. Still need to address this dipping thing though. Also fixed the dipping. There are only two occurences of that verb or action in that article now. --HappyCamper 14:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. The corrections are excellent and the article is near perfect! I still have minor quibbles with a number of things but it's because I am not sure whether they sound right: 1. On the first paragraph, "and passed its preparatory committee of HKSAR on 10 August 1996" somewhat sounds wrong... 2. The colours of the colonial flags are all different -- are they meant to be that way? 3. I was intrigued to learn of the design competition of the flags. Are there any links to the rejected designs? (And, if copyright permits, it might be worth showing some samples here...) --Mintchocicecream 18:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
        1. I changed that sentence to read ...and received formalised approval from its preparatory committee on 10 August 1996.
        2. As far as I can tell, yes the colours are different. Also the dyes used during that time were probably not standardized like today, and also, the preservation of the colours would have been difficult considering that they are so old on record. --HappyCamper 19:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
        3. I haven't found any links to the rejected designs, the originals might actually have been destroyed after the flag competition. Would be a really neat addition to the article though I admit --HappyCamper 19:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Cheers for the edits - and thanks for the explanations. --Mintchocicecream 21:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


Follow up to copyright issue

To my slight amusement, the HKSAR govt finally replied to me with an email today which goes:

Thank you for your email message dated 11 Aug 2005. The content of your message has been noted and we shall reply to you, where appropriate, as soon as possible.
Administration Wing
HKSAR Government

In other words, I waited a entire week just to get an acknowledgement email and no answers...yet. --Huaiwei 05:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I have finally received a reply from the authorities, and yes, its a green light! ;) I reproduce the entire email conversation here for posterity:

To: flags&emblems@cso.gov.hk
Date: 11/08/2005

To whom who may be of assistance,

This was writen on behalf of members from the website http://en.wikipedia.org, an online encyclopedia aimed towards providing original or public domain information for the general public in an entirely non-commercial arrangement between viewer and content contributor.

We at wikipedia would like to enquire on the issue of copyright on content available through your website accessable at http://www.info.gov.hk/protocol/eng/index.htm. For the purpose of writing up an article in wikipedia entitled "Flag of Hong Kong" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Hong_Kong), we are concerned over the infringement of copyright, and hence would like your clarifications over this matter. If the content is indeed copyrighted, may we also request on behalf of wikipedia at this juncture for your kind permission in allowing us to reproduce the textual information in your site for the purpose of public education on a non-commercial basis.

Should it turn out that we have indeed violated any copyright laws, we apologies profusely for the oversight, and we will adhere to your requests to remove the content as soon as we can.

We look forward to your favourable reply, and we thank you in advance for your help.


To: protocol@cso.gov.hk
Date: 12/08/2005

To whom it may concern,

In light of the lack of a response for the email as attached below, I forward the enquiry to your email address in the hope of getting a prompt response.


From: flags&emblems@cso.gov.hk
Date: 18/08/2005

Thank you for your email message dated 11 Aug 2005. The content of your message has been noted and we shall reply to you, where appropriate, as soon as possible.


From: flags&emblems@cso.gov.hk
Date: 22/08/2005

Thank you for your email of 11 August 2005.

We have no objection for the Wikipedia to make the information on the Regional Flag contained within our website

(http://www.info.gov.hk/protocol/eng/index.htm) available in Wikipedia's website (http://en.wikipedia.org), on the provision that such reproduction and redessemination will not involve commercial interests or bring adverse effect to the public image of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. We shall not accept any responsibilities for any loss or damage arising from such use, re-dissemination or reproduction of the information.


To: flags&emblems@cso.gov.hk
Date: 22/08/2005

I refer to your reply dated 22 August, 2005.

I, on behalf of editors in Wikipedia, would like to thank you profusely for your understanding in our singular efforts to deliver information to the world on a purely non-commercial basis, and your willingness to allow us to utilise information provided in your website for this purpose. We will strive to the greatest of our capacity in adhering to your requests and conditions, and we accept all legal responsibility for the use of all materials from our site.

Once again, I thank you.

Cheers! :D --Huaiwei 14:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

That's great! --Mintchocicecream 17:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Radcliffe

Self-nom of the first full article that I wrote for Wikipedia, which I revisited and placed on peer review. The peer review comments are now addressed. I think that the result is an encyclopedic biography of an unusual sportsman. —Theo (Talk) 13:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. The image Image:Ted Radcliffe.JPG needs an explanation as to why its use in the article constitutes "fair use". An example explanation is at Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale --Carnildo 22:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    The rationale has been added to the article as a comment.—Theo (Talk) 00:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    Looks good. Support. --Carnildo 04:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    Er… since the commented text in the article was copied from the image's page (so already exists there), are you asking me to delete the commented text from the article? I would have a problem with that since Fair Use is entirely contextual. —Theo (Talk) 08:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    No, I just meant to put it in a section on the image page. I went ahead and did that for you now. Scott Ritchie 09:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I really like this article, but more importantly, it meets all criteria. Rossrs 10:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


  • not quite support excellent level of reference information, good and interesting article, important person; however, the "Pro ball" section seems a bit dry, and heavy on statistics. It could do with rewriting in a more flowing style with some more explanation of events (he retired, because he was old? because he got a better offer?; 850USD a month, is that good or bad? What did a white player average at that time? etc.) Generally I don't feel there is enough background information for those of us that know nothing of baseball and limited amounts about America: what is special about St Paul, Minnesota that he didn't have to stay in a segregated hotel?
    Thank you for the comments. I have tried to address them where I can. I have no explicit source explaining his retirement; I guess it was his age (52 is old to be playing ball) but I have no confirmation of that. I added a comparison to MLB earnings. The only special thing that I know about St Paul is that Negro Leagues teams stayed in integrated hotels; a quick check suggested that it still had segregated housing until 1954 (the year Radcliffe retired) so I guess that there was an integrated hotel where the players could stay. Again, I have no explicit sources for anything beyond what I say in the article. —Theo (Talk) 12:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I find the constant switching between 'Radcliffe' and 'Duty/Double Duty' rather off-putting, can't we just call the man by his name throughout? At the moment it seems to alternate between each paragraph. Other than that interesting article that I'd support. Lisiate 23:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)]]
    I have made the changes that you suggest. —Theo (Talk) 10:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    All sorted by Theo so I'm now in support. - Lisiate 21:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • support It would be appropriate to have it as a featured article in his memory, assuming it is edited to bring it up to date.--Richy 18:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    The article is now updated (sigh…) —Theo (Talk) 20:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chennai

Metropolis in south India. A lot of editors have worked on this article including anons since March this year.

  • Nominate and support User:Nichalp/sg 07:59, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The reference section is not correctly formatted. The footnotes should go under "Notes" and the actual sources used should be summarized and under "References". / Peter Isotalo 10:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Done User:Nichalp/sg 11:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Disclaimer: I have contributed to this article. I believe that it is provides a good overview of the topic in optimal detail, and that it has remained free of major controversies. While I believe that this article meets all the criteria mentioned in Wikipedia:What is a featured article, I support it chiefly for being comprehensive (including images), accurate, stable and uncontroversial, thereby demonstrating the benefits of collaborative editing. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 20:55, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Lavishly illustrated and seems very comprehensive. I for one had no idea that Chennai/Madras was so large. Lisiate 23:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A comprehensive article on this subject. I also thank Brhaspati for taking the initiative to add content to this article, Nichalp for carrying it forward to this stage and scores of other editors to have edited this article and the articles leading from here. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Definite support. Good job! -shuri 15:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Very well presented and comprehensive article. - Ram (59.92.97.89)
  • Support: pamri 10:35, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think the history section needs more about the history of the city past 1945. There's almost none apart from the name change. Also, the current problems should be merged with the rest of the article. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 16:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Post-1945 history has now been expanded. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 03:45, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Current problems have been merged with the rest of the article. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 04:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Much better, however I would also like to see some print references. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 12:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
would the books listed under ==further reading== suffice as print references? User:Nichalp/sg 12:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I generally don't like further reading sections. I'd prefer for them to be incorporated into the references themselves. Also, while the expanded history is good, I'm sure that more has happened in the previous 50 years than just that one event in the 70's. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 13:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
The books part has been merged. As for the history section, I'd leave to the other editors to deal with. User:Nichalp/sg 17:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
What is mentioned is only the notable stuff that happened in Chennai as a city. Most other events were not connected with the city in particular, but involved Tamil Nadu as a whole, and are therefore not appropriate in this article. The language riots and the separatist violence (which happened much after the 1970s) have been the most notable aspects of the last 30 years. Chennai has been relatively quiet in terms of political activity other than these two issues. Most of the changes have been in the economy and social life, neither of which merits inclusion in the history section. Minor events may of course be added to the separate article History of Chennai. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 02:19, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Brhaspati. Events after independence are not notable enough to list it here. The history section is a highlight of key events in the city's history. It shouldn't have to mention events every decade. I hope this is a satisfactory solution? User:Nichalp/sg 07:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Do you still hold an objection on this article over such a minor point? User:Nichalp/sg 15:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. While I consider this a good article worthy of being an FA, there is a fairly obvious overuse of footnotes. I know there has been somewhat of a footnote fad as of lately with people believing that "inline citations" are not only synonymous with footnotes, but they are required for basically any kind of statement, no matter if it deals with very controversial and complicated issues disputed by the general expertise in the field or just simple, easily verifiable figures. Footnotes can be fairly disruptive to a text and inserting them merely to explains exactly where simple, undeniable fact like the geology of Chennai, recent name changes or how many buses that are used in the city have been procured in the reference list will only add to the article looking overly academic. Footnotes are not intended to state the obvious; this is what the actual article text is for. Any statement which is not controversial, complicated or hotly disputed (by credible sources) should not have a footnote, or at least be replaced with an {{inote}}. / Peter Isotalo 15:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • But, unfortunately, such simple facts like "no of districts", "area" etc., are often subjected to fact vandalism. To avoid this, we need to cite sources. However, I agree that the citation can be something other than a footnote. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 15:36, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • I doubt that most fact vandals ever bother to read sources, but otherwise this is a good example of a problem dealt with by using an {{inote}}. Anyone who would be willing to actually check a source would notice the inote and refrain from fiddling with the article. Vandalism should not be dealt with in a manner so to effect the readability of the article, as overuse of footnotes does. This is making it more comfortable for ourselves at the expense of our much wider non-editing audience which is something I feel is quite unacceptable. And we are citing sources, just not right next to the statement, but rather in the "Reference"-section. / Peter Isotalo 17:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree with you that there footnotes can be disruptive, and wholeheartedly support your statement; but could you point me to the correct page where it is mentioned not to use the footnote style for inline references? I think I may have missed this page. I would like to clarify the differences between the two. Thanks. User:Nichalp/sg 17:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
          • There's nothing specifically stating we can't use footnotes for references, but Wikipedia:Cite sources#Citations in the text (inline citations) and at the end has a good summary of what "inline citation" means. There's also Wikipedia:Footnotes, which is a sub-page of our manual of style. / Peter Isotalo 18:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Inote work done. You should have mentioned the inote work in the beginning. It would have saved me extra work. User:Nichalp/sg 07:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
              • Sorry for causing the extra work. I would've gladly done it myself had I only had in-depth knowledge of the article and the subject. Objection stricken. I now support the article. Good work, everyone! / Peter Isotalo 21:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-capitalism

Resubmit. I think the POV issues as such are dealt with. View the earlier submission here : Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 1 Saswann 19:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Support It's as qualified as any other featured article I've seen. RJII 20:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support It will be even better if some pictorial explanation are shown on the Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism section. Deryck C. 07:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I placed a picture in the section, we'll see how other editors accept it Saswann 13:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Superb effort. Is it possible to use a map like the ones used in Political spectrum to illustrate its philosophy. pamri 10:58, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying there should be an example using one of the other existing maps listed in Political spectrum, (other than, or in addition to the existing one?) Saswann 12:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nice job on a controversial subject, detailed footnotes, good NPOV. It's a little dull, and could use some livening up, IMO. It might help if there were some images earlier in the article, and maybe some snappy quotes that aren't about economics.--Bcrowell 17:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with that. Maybe a picture of one of the anarcho-capitalism symbols can be put in. RJII 17:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The lead, in particular, is agonizing. A potential reader already has to overcome some barriers to get motivated to read the article (obscure topic, sounds like an oxymoron, never tried in practice as a real social system), and the boring lead is going to decrease readers' interest even more. --Bcrowell 17:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I switched the first two paragraphs around. That should make it a little more approachable, since the first was really tortuous. RJII 17:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. well written and NPOV, good history on something only tried in theory. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 17:24, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written and balanced, also on the criticism side. --Tmh 16:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hero of Ukraine

Self-nom: After some positive comments from the Peer Review, I am ready to take this article to here. A total number of heroes is unknown, and shown in the lead and in the article, the list is full of questionable figures. Some bits are still being translated, but overall, I think it is ready for this. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll go through the Verkhovna Rada database and count all awards in 1998 - 2003 to get the total number as of today. Sashazlv 21:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Poor English- needs a thorough copyedit. With a little more verbal buffing and fluffing, this would be a perfectly competent article. But what it lacks is any indication as to why I should be interested in the thing. For the purposes of FA criteria, you could file that under incomplete or not well written. Mark1 04:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I am going through it now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see why User talk:Markalexander100 thinks it's incomplete or not well written. "Interesting" has a very different meaning. Sashazlv 02:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • And I cannot fix it to where he finds the subject interesting. I had the some people with people calling for my other FA Hero of Belarus to not be featured anymore since it is not interesting to most of the Wikipedian readers. I, along with Sashazlv and Irpen, try to introduce to this encyclopedia articles about Eastern European countries, countries that seem to be neglected by a majority of the Wikipedians here. While I, myself, am not a Eastern European national, but I am willing to introduce to this world a side of the world full of magic, history and mystery that everyone seems to ignore. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I can't imagine why anyone would want to read this article. Not because I don't have a taste for articles about Ukrainian medals, but because this is not compelling, even "brilliant" prose. It's an article by numbers. I'm willing to believe that there is something interesting to say about the subject, but if so the article doesn't say it. Mark1 03:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
          • To me, the article satisfies all six criteria in Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article. Given the comments by User:Markalexander100, I think he improperly substituted "interesting" for compelling, even "brilliant" prose. These are not the same. Besides, the criteria do not mention "interesting" at all, even more so, they do not mention that the article has to be "interesting to User:Markalexander100". Sashazlv 03:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I've given it some copyediting. Wikipedia needs more articles like this on non-english topics. Graham 08:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak object. It still needs to go through a few copyedit "cycles". I'll go through it myself in the next few hours. Sashazlv 21:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
References and external links. I also noticed that the style of the heading can be improved. BTW, total number of awards as of today is 142. See List of heroes of Ukraine for details. Sashazlv 22:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I added the 142 reference in the lead section. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

* Weak support. One pass through by a native speaker of English and it should be ready. Sashazlv 00:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I am still trying to fix the English of the article, but I agree it has improved a lot over time. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've gone through the article giving it a copyedit, and I have a few questions:
  • Why is Mykhaylo D. Borysyuk wearing the medal on the left side of his chest?
    • He is wearing a miniature copy of the medal on his military uniform.
  • In "Procedure", what's a "regional authority"?
    • Leaders of the various regions of the Ukraine.
  • In "Design" (I just renamed it from "Construction"), I'm assuming that Ukranian law created one medal for each grade, making for a total of two medals.
    • Yes.
  • In "Order of the Gold Star", do the dimensions of the ribbon also apply to the order of the state?
    • Yes.
  • In "Questionable awardings", are Bartenev's legal problems related to the award?
    • To my knowledge, no, but I was pointing out an example that was printed in Ukrainian newspapers. The news source was the Embassy of the Ukraine in Estonia.
  • Also, I'd like to suggest that the table of four images be moved to the "Design" section, and probably reduced in size. The image of the wearer's copy might be added to the table as well. Is there any information on why the award was created? Any controversy at the beginning (before this year)? Also, I think the "Display" section needs to be incorporated somewhere or expanded; it's really short. Great work on this article though! --Spangineer (háblame) 12:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. The display section is short, because I explained on just how a person can display it in public, and that is all I could find. I will try and move the sections now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As for why, I have no clue. It took years for most Soviet republics to create an honors system, and titles were key in the honor system. Maybe, they were just following tradition. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
      • And I made display a subheading under the medal design section. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks better now. Support. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems ready to go. Sashazlv 01:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A quality article. Well structured to the level that all it needs is a slight polishing which goes on right now at an excellent speed. Special thanks to the two main participants. Also, the underrepresentment of the topic should be a great plus in promotion decision. --Irpen 05:13, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gyeongju

One of South Korea's most notable small cities, and last month's collaboration for the South Korean counties and cities Wikiproject. I think we did a pretty good job, and I'd like to add this to the yet-short list of Korea-related featured articles. I hope to use this article as a benchmark for other South Korean city articles. Whether you support or oppose this nomination, I look forward to your helpful comments. -- Visviva 13:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral--Very fine work and an enjoyable read, but I have one quibble--the usage of the term "city" was somewhat confusing to me. It seemed like you used "city" to describe what might be called a "metropolitan area" in the U.S. (for example, apparently the "city" includes both rural farming areas and a thriving urban core, unlike most usages of the term I've seen). You might want to clarify what exactly you mean--does the "city" of Gyeongju contain suburban areas and rural areas as well, and how does it relate to a more Western notion of a city? Aside from that minor point, I congratulate you on the article--it was fascinating. Meelar (talk) 14:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • City here is a subdivision of a province. See subdivisions of South Korea. — Instantnood 23:02, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, I missed that wikilink. I've changed the lead sentence very slightly to make this more prominent. Support fully. Meelar (talk) 03:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support- a well-written article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The images Image:Burial-Mounds-at-GyeongJu.jpg, Image:Temple-at-gyeongju.jpg, Image:Alley-Butchers-at-GyeongJu.jpg are listed as being from http://www.davejenkins.com/, and are claimed as being under a license of "can be used as long as credit is given". However, I can't find where on the site this is stated, and in any case, it is not equivalent to the {{GFDL}} tag on Image:Burial-Mounds-at-GyeongJu.jpg. --Carnildo 19:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The good Mr Jenkins has specifically released all images on the site under the GFDL. See [12]. -- Visviva 23:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. --Carnildo 23:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support If the image problem is fixed, I'll support then. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 20:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A very fascinating article on this great place with long history and rich heritage. The sections are of appropriate length, and the children articles are generally well written too. Nice footnotes for the references. Looking forward to seeing the image problem fixed. — Instantnood 23:02, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak and conditional support – Good work so far, but it needs a copyedit as the grammar doesn't seem quite right. Please ensure that it is copyedited. User:Nichalp/sg 08:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a close look. Although some examples would help... I edited it fairly closely before submission, but stuff always gets by me. Thanks as well for your own attention to the article -- but I must admit, frankly, that I don't understand the reasons for any of the changes you made. If you could explain them, that might help me to understand your general dissatisfaction. Cheers, and thanks again! -- Visviva 14:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I've commented on the article's talk page. I'm not really good at copyediting but there are quite a number of people who undertake such tasks. User:Nichalp/sg 15:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autism

OK, it's finally time to submit this to FAC. This is a fantastic article that has clearly seen contributions from several professionals in the field and parents of autistic children, and is most likely one of the definitive articles on the subject on the internet. Its kind of big, about 10k less than the George W. Bush article, but not too big IMHO. This is due to the fact that even an overview of the subject is huge (there are at least 3 main daughter articles) and you have to be extra careful because of the controversy.

Anyway, other people obviously did quite a bit before I came on the scene, and I did quite a bit too (NPOV everything, translated everything to layman-speak, got rid of dubious unreferenced text, translated all references to wikipedia style, etc. etc.).

It's been through two peer reviews, and you can see them both Here.

--RN 06:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Well done everyone. The content is great, and I'd like to support, but I have a few comments on format.
1. I really don't like {{TOCright}}. What is wrong with the basic TOC? Position of the TOC should be choice for the reader through CSS settings (or whatever) not forced by the editor through templates.
  • It was added by someone without explanation. I didn't really care that much about it. Changed back --Ryan Norton 11:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
2. The TOC is somewhat overwhelming, largely because (almost) every paragraph in some sections has its own heading ("5 Models", the end of "7 Remediation", "8 Sociology", and "9 Other neurological conditions"). This is not necessary: either the headings could be removed, possibly combined with the movement of some material to a subpage and better summarisation, or made simply bold ( ''' xxx ''' rather than === xxx === ), or the definition style could be used ( ; ''' xxx ''' : yyy ).
  • Condensed as suggested --Ryan Norton 11:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
3. The "See also" section does not need to include links to articles that are already linked, e.g. Asperger's syndrome.
  • Condensed as suggested --Ryan Norton 11:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
4. Please separate references (used to back up claims in the article) from further reading (not used as an explicit reference, but simply as somewhere else to look).
5. There must be around 50 external links - do we need "Discussion and Chat" and "Personal Pages"?
  • Both sections removed --Ryan Norton 11:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
6. I am surprised that none of the sections refer to a separate "main articles" that expands upon the summary here. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There are 3 - culture, community and increase in diagnoses of autism. If you think the article is too long PLEASE suggest something specific to move .... thanks!--Ryan Norton 11:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. Thanks for the prompt reponse. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I like the way the article deals with a new and to some extent controversial diagnosis and does it in a thorough NPOV way while remaining relatively easy to read. David | Talk 15:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I liked the article, but I think it could use some more pictures, especially one big picture in the right of the intro part, it makes the article more attractive. CG 19:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yea, I searched through google though and finding pictures is hard for this subject - plus they are all generally copyrighted --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what to do about these. I've searched the net and there are no public domain versions of these, and I can't read german so I don't know the copyright for it. However, these two are also on Aspergers syndrome which is already a featured article --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
If you can't read German, ask someone on Wikipedia:Babel to translate for you. --Carnildo 00:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
There is no copyright info on the images on that site - so for now I'm just claiming it as fair use (they could be public domain) and crediting the site --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, I made an attribution style as you outlined below --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    1. The image Image:Autism genome screen.jpg has no copyright information, and it looks like the only license we'll be able to get it under is the unacceptable "used with permission".
  • Not much I can do about that - it was uploaded nearly a year ago by someone else and there isn't really a viable alternative to it. This one I could just remove, but its quite useful --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
If you think you can justify fair use, do so. Otherwise, it needs to be removed from the article. --Carnildo 00:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Removed --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    1. The image Image:Grandin.jpg is claimed as "fair use". Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be avoided if at all possible. If a fair use image must be used, the image description page must list the source or current copyright holder for the image, and an explanation of why the image can be used under fair use must be provided for each page the image is used on.
  • Good grief. There's a link on the image to a discussion about it - basically one admin told me it should be ok --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
In order to use something as "fair use", the image source and the rationale for why it can be used under "fair use" on the Autism article must be provided on the image description page. See Sunset Boulevard (film) for a particularly good example of how this can be done. --Carnildo 00:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I honestly couldn't tell the difference looking at the wikilink there, so I just credited the site in the article as I did with the other two images --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
See Image:SunsetBoulevardfinaleGloriaSwanson.jpg for an example from one of the images. --Carnildo 04:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
For this image I found an alternative that just requires a simple acknowledgement (copyrighted, took many many hours) --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Thanks for taking care of the problems with the images. --Carnildo 06:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, links to external websites that have been used as sources should not be embedded in the text, they should be listed using {{ref}}, {{note}}, a consistent referencing system needs to be applied throughout the article. I think there are still too many sections, culture for example doesn't need to be broken up into those very small sections. What are the items listed in further reading, were they used to write the article? Id so they should be listed as references, if not what are they doing there? The link farm at the end of the article is overwhelming, please only include high quality external links.--nixie 00:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 1)Referencing is consistant - websites are listed inline while others are referenced at the bottom, just like most articles here.
  • 2)Nearly every article here has a further reading list... but for the sake of speeding this up I moved it to the talk page
  • 3)I also disagree with the link farm assessment but I, with great regret, condensed it down to 5 links or so
  • 4)I got rid of the subsections in the culture section - if there are others please be specific (or you can edit it yourself too)
Thanks --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for addressing the points so quickly, but I strongly disagree with you on the referencing. The html links should be listed in the reference list, firstly so that people know where they are going if they click on a link and secondly so there is some record of where the information came from if the site goes down. I can't think of many (or any) recently promoted featured article that have html links in the text.--nixie 03:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, done. Anything else that needs to be done? Thanks --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, I just ordered the footnotes correctly and moved them into a seperate section like I've seen on some pages and numbered them. Ordering in the article was helped tremendously by one of those automated perl scripts --Ryan Norton T | @ |

C 16:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Support, thanks.--nixie 01:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks very good to me. violet/riga (t) 11:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I feel very much better informed than I did before. And I kind of think that's the whole point. Denni☯ 02:19, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
  • Support I feel it is a very good informative article on the subject of autism. Thorn 05:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: I understand the reluctance, as this subject is a moving target, but the authors have a good net around it, generally, and remain active in editing it. Geogre 16:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • support: Hats off to RN for Herculean effort and for moving the article along in a positive direction. Ombudsman 14:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment: Please also note Wikipedia:Notice board for autism-related topics, the widening chasm between two versions of the Andrew Wakefield article, and that Vaccine has been nominated for Wikipedia:Medicine Collaboration of the Week. Ombudsman 15:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Maiden (band)

Partial self nom. Second time in FAC, it's been through 2 lots of peer review and has been much edited to bring the standard of prose up to scratch. --PopUpPirate 16:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Object. Move the detailed table about the band's membership to a subpage called Iron Maiden personnel or something similar. Need at least a partial discography on the front page (top ten, twenty, or forty singles and albums should be fine) in a list with the dates and chart positions, not just in the navagation bar. Reformat the Iron Maiden discography page to remove the glaring bold print, and place song titles in quote ("Running Free", "Sanctuary", etc.). Format ctations to be in APA style (see Wikipedia:Cite sources for templates). Also, you might get objections from others for not having in-line references or a few short (30 seconds or less) samples of notable songs. --FuriousFreddy 18:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Objections taken into account, will take 24 hours to sort sources out. --PopUpPirate 21:00, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • 30 second audio clips added, plus inline references painstakingly checked and added! APA sorted too--PopUpPirate 22:11, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Good work. The main article still needs a brief list of hit or notable singles. --FuriousFreddy 14:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Added and verified. --PopUpPirate 19:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object
    1. The image Image:Steve harris.jpg has no copyright or source information.
    2. The image Image:Powerslave Box.jpg has no copyright or source information.
    3. The image Image:Eddie the Head.jpg is claimed as "public domain". I find this claim improbable in the extreme.
    4. The image Image:Iron Stick 800.jpg is claimed as "fair use". Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, the use of images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be kept to a minimum. Images that are used under "fair use" need to have the current copyright holder listed, and need to have the reasons why it can be used under fair use listed for each page the image is used on.
    5. The sound clips Image:IronMaidenPhantom.ogg, Image:IronMaidenRTTH.ogg, Image:IronMaidenCSIT.ogg, Image:IronMaidenSOTC.ogg, Image:IronMaidenBNW.ogg do not have copyright or source information listed. If they are being used under fair use, they also need to have reasoning as to why that use is justified listed.
    --Carnildo 08:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Image:Steve harris.jpg is unsourced and has been replaced with an official promotional photo. Image:Eddie the Head.jpg has been replaced with a degraded image from official album art. Other images have been checked and tagged, as have sound clips. --PopUpPirate 10:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - If you ever wanted to know anything about Iron Maiden, this is the place. --Kvuo 01:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The loose anecdotes in the section "Tales Of The Beast" don't qualify as brilliant prose. Most of the content would be better incorporated in the history section and put into context. I suggest merging "Satanic accusations" with the text in "The Golden Years" (where the Satanic accusations are already mentioned), and "Chart breaking" with "Reunion" (great indication of their post-reunion popularity). The Dune controversy would be great indicator of the far-from-universal acceptance of heavy metal; this could also be elaborated upon and connected with the history. The "Teenage Dirtbag" anecdote doesn't seem noteworthy at all (unless it is more famous than the article indicates), "Trouble with the locals" should probably be in the article about Dave Murray (but can also be merged with the history). Sections "The Rising Force", "The Golden Years" and "Tales Of The Beast" should also be renamed to something more neutral/objective. Fredrik | talk 11:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Points taken into consideration and applied. Thx. --PopUpPirate 14:30, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • Good work. I think there's room for some additional streamlining, but I can't spot any major flaws. Support. Fredrik | talk 15:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Improvements look great.--ZeWrestler Talk 13:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Brinkman

Self nom. Profile of one of the most conservative state legislators in America, Ohio's Tom Brinkman, who is so conservative many in his own party disown him. Very interesting fellow, though. Fully researched, bibliography, lots of links to webpages. PedanticallySpeaking 14:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: What is the policy regarding copyrighted fair use pictures, as the one in this case? Also, the article could do with more pictures. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Would it be possible to get a free-license photograph of the guy, possibly from the US government archives? If not, the image page needs to indicate the source of the image and who the copyright holder is, and the reason why the image is usable under fair use needs to be provided for each page the image is used on. --Carnildo 18:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support: I'd like to see the photo issue resolved, and I'd like to see a date of birth before full support. Interesting bio, though! Jokestress 19:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - the text is really great, and this is yet another great article by PedanticallySpeaking. Though this is really a small issue, I would like to see a few images to be added into the article. Overall, great article, great work. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I finally found a birth date in a PDF and added it to the article. As for pix, if he had been successful at getting elected to Congress, then sure, PD ones would probably be available. However, state houses are not so forthcoming. One of the few pics of him I found not taken by a professional photog (and not just a variation on the one already included, except for a different patterned tie) is this group shot [13], which I don't think would add much to the article, but I will add it if doing so would change objector's minds. Niteowlneils 22:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Everyking 23:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Rossrs 06:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Once free images are added. Shouldn't be difficult in this case. pamri 12:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
"Shouldn't be difficult in this case."--based on what? His campaign site has a copyright notice, as does the Ohio House site's homepage. Since he's never held Federal office, there's no reason for the US Gov sites (the source of many if not most of Wikipedia's public domain images) to have his pic. Niteowlneils 01:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I like the article but there are a few things which might be done to improve it. As a general comment some of the mentions seem to be introduced in the wrong order - eg we learn first that he was re-elected in 2004, then we learn that he wasn't hurt by endorsing a Democrat, then finally we learn the reasons why he endorsed the Democrat. I have some specific questions: 1) What is Tom Brinkman's family background? The article simply says he lives in Mount Lookout and went to a particular school. What did his parents do? How long had they lived in the area? etc. 2) What subject did he study at GWU? 3) Was his founding of COAST a spontaneous decision, or inspired by a particular proposed tax? 4) What was the outcome of his suit against Cincinatti over its action against gun manufacturers? 5) The quote from the Cincinatti Post needs to be either italicised or indented or both. 6) I presume the Columbus Monthly survey was of other members of the legislature - this needs to be made clear. 7) Brinkman's opposition to capital punishment is interesting in that this is a policy stance generally associated with moderates. Could it be explained further? David | Talk 21:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
The missing quote indentation was my bad--when I moved the smaller pic down the page I inadvertently de-indented it--I've now fixed it. After much hunting I finally found his degree subject and added that, but found nothing about his parents or childhood. The article already had One of Brinkman's mailings said "Tom Brinkman believes all life is precious and must be protected. He has a 100% pro-life voting record." Brinkman's position was that he was "100% pro-life from conception to natural death."[37] While DeWine also stated his pro-life position, Brinkman noted on his web site "Because of [my] unwavering support of the Right to Life, from conception to natural death, Ohio Right to Life, Cincinnati Right to Life and Family First have again exclusively endorsed my election this year." [38] and I added In an AP article, Brinkman was quoted as putting it more simply, saying he's "pro-life all the way".[39]--not sure there's more to say; he's just more consistent in his 'killing is wrong' belief than most conservatives. Niteowlneils 01:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Object per David's comments, particularly background issues. I'm not sure this is our best work. Dave (talk) 02:30, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support great article, too few of photos but I know that photos are sometimes tough to get under a clean license. great job. --Lan56 03:40, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to me, and I have faith the minor issues raised aboved will be dealt with swiftly. Phils 16:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've spent hours looking for free-use pics and more background info, without finding anything besides what I've added. While I agree that those things would add to the article, I don't think it's possible (without phoning one of his offices, which seems to inherently lead to verifiability problems), so I think those remaining requests are unactionable. Niteowlneils 00:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Fonda

Self-nomination. I felt that the number of votes was inadequate, so I wanted to renominate it to collect more votes. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Support, excellent article, well-written, informative. Babajobu 00:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  • ??? This is already a featured article. Please withdraw this, this...what exactly is this? Harro5 00:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • An attempt at making a clearer FAC. While it succeeded, it only had three votes, and that's not enough to make a decision! - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you intend to have happen if it fails FAC this time around? Remove its FA status? If so, then it seems you should list this on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates instead, since that's basically what you are doing. If not, then this is a waste of time, right? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • But I don't WANT it removed, I want more people to vote on it. If it loses, then it shouldn't have won in the first place, should it? I'm arguing that it had inadequate votes to win. I think it's a great article, but I want confirmation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support looks tidy enough. I only give my opinion when people advertise anyway O:-) Kim Bruning 02:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Phroziac(talk) 04:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - well written, referenced, &c. --Oldak Quill 04:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Self-nomination. -- Emsworth 18:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Support- great article, though I don't think the picture is suitable for the article, being that he is only one of the many Speakers. Is there some seal of the speaker that we can place on the article? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--not sure I agree with Flcelloguy, I think the picture is OK. Another great piece of work from Emsworth. Meelar (talk) 19:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
What I mean is that a logo or seal of some kind would be a more appropriate picture. For example, see the bottom logo at this website: http://speaker.house.gov/features/multimedia.asp. If you hover your mouse over it, it says "Graphic: Seal of the Speaker of the House...". I feel that that would be a better image. I haven't uploaded it yet because I'm not sure that that would fit under GFDL conditions, or if someone can find a "bigger" and higher resolution version. Any thoughts? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
A quick Google search for "Seal, Speaker of the House" returns several seals, but none in higher resolution. However, there's a color one there. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, nearly a strong object. History of the last hundred years or so is spotty at best. Too much discussion of standard/generic powers of presiding officer of legislative body. Lack of clarity regarding current v. historical roles (e.g., if house rules limit speaker to 4 terms, why did so many speakers serve longer). Not a bad article, but not substantive enough. Monicasdude 14:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Information on the twentieth century added. -- Emsworth 15:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Better, but still not substantive enough, I'd say. Relies too much on the inadequate entries on individual speakers and gives virtually no sense of the substantive politics of the century. Monicasdude 02:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • One would tend to disagree. The article about the Speaker seeks to address the powers and the influence of the Speaker himself. General information about "substantive politics," partisanship, and party leadership is not, IMO, a topic for this article, but rather a topic for an article on American politics. -- Emsworth 14:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I disagree sharply. In sections, this article approaches the mythical description of Othello as a play about a black man who murders his white wife because she lost a handkerchief. Which is to, that by leaving out contextual material it conveys an essentially false historical impression. I would also note specific problems with regard to the late 20th Century -- absence of discussion of McCormack's problems with regard to corruption and the Vietnam War, for example; the complete absence of any text about Tom Foley and the unprecedented electoral targeting of a sitting speaker; the eclipse of Speaker Hastert in favor of majority leader DeLay. Too much of this article seems cobbled together from the entries on individual speakers, presenting institutional history as a string of thin biographical excerpts. It's like presenting a history of the US presidency and discussing the decline of presidential power post-Nixon without ever referring to Watergate and related abuses, or the expansion under GWBush without mentioning the 9/11 attacks and military aftermath. The more I reconsider my initial objections, the closer I come to a strong oppose position. Monicasdude 20:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
            • The point about Hastert is pure speculation. Surely, he has not taken a very public role (as the article notes); however, the assertion that he has been eclipsed in power by DeLay is not accurate. Secondly, McCormack's personal problems are not so closely related as you suggest: Watergate is different, as it clearly caused harm to the institution of the Presidency, being more publicly notable. -- Emsworth 21:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. (I am tempted to call this peerless work on Emsworth's part, but perhaps that's too lame a joke.) I agree with Emsworth's response to Monicasdude--the history article, it seems to me, does a fine job of dealing with the historical development of the office of Speaker and its changing roles and powers. Good work. Jwrosenzweig 07:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Conditional support - an interesting read but I the text on the speaker's election is unclear:
  1. Who is the Clark of the House? (article needed)
  2. I didn't understand his election bit. It is mentioned that the speaker is elected every odd numbered year. I want it clarified a bit: is the speaker chosen at the time of the swearing in of the new president? Does the speaker have a 2 year term, or the House has a two year term?
  3. Voted by an absolute majority or simple majority? What is the exact % if absolute? 75 (or 60)? The absolute majority article does not have an exact number.
  4. I believe he can cast a deciding vote if there is a deadlock (not explicitly mentioned)

User:Nichalp/sg 09:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • To respond in order:
  1. The Clerk of the House is an official entirely distinct from the Speaker: he is not a member, but a mere officer.
  2. Both have a two-year term, as the article explains.
  3. "Absolute majority" simply means just a majority, rather than a plurality. In U.S. English, 75% or 66% is called a "supermajority," instead of an "absolute majority."
  4. This is explained in the procedure section.

-- Emsworth 16:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Support- good article Astrotrain 20:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good and I think it's sufficiently comprehensive. JYolkowski // talk 22:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SS Andrea Doria

I ran across this article and saw that it has potential in becoming a Featured Article. I ran the article through Peer Review and addressed the concerns to the best of my ability. The question now becomes is the article indeed worthy of being featured? Pentawing 22:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  • There is discussion of this article on-going on its Talk page, including copy-editing and copyright issues, so don't fully rely on this page as the authoritative discussion. --Mddake 05:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good, well-written article. --Scimitar parley 22:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very informative --MechBrowman 16:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Impressive article with lots of references about an interesting incident. Lisiate 23:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration spectacular

Selfnom, with many thanks to Juno and her peacocks, Jupiter on a flying eagle, six dancing real live monkeys, and Geogre in a golden chariot. Special thanks to Giano in a crocodile suit for writing lots of great articles for the redlinks. Bishonen | talk 02:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Support: This is one of those few articles Wikipedia is lucky to have. I did make one or two "helpful" additions to this masterpiece, but Bishonen has reverted them all, so I can vote with a clear conscience. This page is Bishonen's masterpiece, giving details of the behind the scenes side of restoration theatre, plus heaps of other fascinating information, which I for one had never really thought about before - special effects it seems are not a phenomenum of our own era. Interesting to even those normally disinterested in historical drama and literature Giano | talk 08:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Question, are there any categories this article should be in?--nixie 13:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. I went to put it in Category:Restoration drama and Category:British drama last night before nominating it (I think I originally created those), but it turns out Restoration drama doesn't exist any more, and British drama has been abandoned by its mother Category:Drama. (This may be part of some abandoned large-scale cat scheme by User:Pcpcpc.) I've provisionally re-parented British drama to Drama, but I hope somebody reverts if that was a bad idea. I haven't really got my bearings in the wole cat jungle. Nixie, could you please check if you think the present cats are appropriate? Bishonen | talk 16:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support from the start. It's not only good, but it's a great skeleton key for unlocking a big, secret type of drama and theater history. If there were room, I'd like to see Dryden's smiling face staring back at D'Avenant's damaged nose and amblyopia, but that's too trifling for words. (Confession: I have been talking to Bishonen about the article, but not writing in it, from an early point. I believe that the only edits I ever are long gone, so my conscience is clear as well.) Geogre 14:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support- well-written article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Very interesting! A mouse-rolling page! -- Jerry Crimson Mann 20:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well outside my area of familiarity, but looks very well written and researched. I'd prefer more citations for any particularly important or contentious points though. - Taxman Talk 21:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Just for whatever it's worth, there aren't many Restoration/18th century editors on the project, and I won't make any autobiographical references, but, in my opinion as a person who researches this stuff, there really aren't any speculative or contentious parts in Bishonen's article. What she has done is present in a coherent narrative a subject that is very, very rarely discussed in the scholarly literature, and her facts that do not come from primary sources come from the 3-4 serious theater historians of the period who are not pursuing a narrow point of view. (By that I mean the historians who are just trying to be "flat" in their history, as opposed to those who write books like Sexual Underworlds in the Restoration Stage (which is an excellent book) or Women and Transgression in the Theatre -- the historians attempting to survey the whole of the theater of the period rather than to examine a particular generic or critical point of view.) I was just thinking, in fact, that her article is one of the ones where we not only surpass Britanica, but most scholarly encyclopedias, as well. Geogre 21:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll second that. Giano | talk 23:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I've never even heard of this before, and this has been very informative. Looks professional, well researched, and comprehensive. Neat. Fieari 03:43, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blaise Pascal

Self nom. Biography of an important figure in both math and religion. I think at this point it is fairly comprehensive. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:52, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

  • Support- well-written article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 17:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It's Featured quality, but I have things I don't like. (I.e. this is not an objection.) I feel like the material mid-way through presents a chronology that isn't reflected in the narrative summary at the top. Secondly, Pascal and Jansenism and the weird/scary politics of the Port Royal group is fascinating and under-represented here. I know that the site biases toward science and math, and I know that Pascal is very important there, but the misery and fear and controversy around that episode is worth discussing in more and more patient detail. Geogre 21:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I understood the first issue precisely, but I've tried to make the lead better reflect the chronology of his work, assuming this is what you meant. It seems like a bad idea to focus too much on dates, etc. in the lead though, so I'm not sure what else to do beside what is there.
Sorry for being imprecise. When I can be more precise, I'll list the concerns on the article's talk page, so you can address them away from FAC. Geogre 00:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Regarding the second issue, I'll see what I can do tonight, although a lot of the Port-Royal events seem better covered in depth at Port-Royal or Jansenism. Is there any topic in particular you have in mind? Much thanks for taking a look, in any case. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:20, 2005 July 30 (UTC)
Well, Pascal had to walk a tightrope with Jansenism. People were 'suppressed' for it, pretty hard. A small dose of the atmosphere and the inability of someone like him to be abroad and professing Jansenism (and consequently the widely held belief that he was secretly of that camp all along and never had religious fallings away), as well as a little explanation of why Jansenism was remarkable, would help flavor the presentation. Then again, I bias that way. Geogre 00:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been a bad voter & wasn't clear, above. Support. Geogre 00:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, a great article and all my concerns were addressed when it was on peer review. - SimonP 17:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, well written --nixie 00:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Astrophysics Data System

The ADS is a vital research tool for astronomers, and contributes as much to annual astronomical output as all the astronomers in France. My PhD would probably have taken me about 40 years to do without it, so I thought it was deserving of a good article. I've worked on it over the last few days and thought I would propose it here as I think it is comprehensive and hopefully reasonably interesting and enlightening for non-astronomers. Worldtraveller 16:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. A good summary, but it seems to fall short of comprehensiveness. Note for instance the length of the sections. Everyking 17:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
What more would you like to know? If you tell me I'll include it. Which sections are shorter than they could be? Worldtraveller 18:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Some of the sections are only a paragraph or two long. Everyking 18:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
A section doesn't necessarily need to be long to be comprehensive. Please indicate what you think is missing so I can rectify it. Worldtraveller 18:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support from this ex-astronomer. Well done, sir. ADS was fortunate to be there just as the web was taking off. Query whether it is worth mentioning other on-line sources of academic journal articles, such as http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph ? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point - I'll add details of astro-ph and ADS's integration with it. Worldtraveller 16:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • done that now - Worldtraveller 17:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Looks pretty good to me, and meets all the criteria. Giano | talk 19:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, well organized and seems to provide a pretty comprehensive range of info. Uber nemo 04:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object- for now. My main issue is with the references. You have them, but there is no way to tell what fact leads to what reference. (Subsequently, the requests for reference I list here would probably be solved by simply writing what the cite is, like this: People choking on chicken nuggets is bad for business (Smith, Jonsey) where a reference by Smith and Jonsey is listed in references below.) Okay, so what is the cite for these statements?:
Several studies have estimated quantitatively how much more efficient ADS has made astronomy; one estimated that ADS increased the efficiency of astronomical research by 333 full-time equivalent research years per year...
"one [study]" - which one?
...and another found that in 2002 its effect was equivalent to 736 full-time researchers, or all the astronomical research done in France.
"another [study]" - which one?
ADS has allowed literature searches that would previously have taken days or weeks to carry out to be completed in seconds, and it is estimated that ADS has increased the readership and use of the astronomical literature by a factor of about three since its inception.
Estimated by whom?
In monetary terms, this increase in efficiency represents a considerable amount. There are about 12,000 active astronomical researchers worldwide, so ADS is the equivalent of about 5% of the working population of astronomers. The global astronomical research budget is estimated at between 4,000 and 5,000 million USD...
Who's estimate is it? To put weight to the following statement, some verification would be helpful.
so the value of ADS to astronomy would be about 200–250 million USD annually. Its operating budget is a small fraction of this amount.
Not as an actionable objection, but as a matter of curiosity, what is its budget?
Studies reveal that the highest per-capita users of ADS are France and Netherlands-based astronomers, and while more developed countries (measured by GDP per capita) use the system more than less developed countries; the relationship between GDP per capita and ADS use is not linear. The range of ADS uses per capita far exceeds the range of GDPs per capita, and basic research carried out in a country, as measured by ADS usage, has been found to be proportional to the square of the country's GDP divided by its population.
Which studies?
ADS usage statistics also suggest that astronomers in more developed countries tend to be more productive than those in less developed countries.
Is there a link to this study?
Statistics also imply that astronomers in European cultures carry out about three times as much research as those in Asian cultures, perhaps implying cultural differences in the importance attached to astronomical research.
"Statistics also imply..." Which statistics? Can you provide any more information on the implication you provide, offer a counterargument to the implication, or provide a reference or link to one who has made it?
Citing these few things would also put weight to the significant claims mentioned in the opening paragraph.
Additionally, and this is just my curiosity again, to your knowledge does any search engine in wide use by the public contain language / code / technilogical advancements introduced by ADS? What about other scientific fields (medicine, for instance). Or is ADS's innovations remain limited to ADS itself. Also, does NASA fund ADS exclusively, or does it recieve help. And do journals have to pay to be listed?
Don't get me wrong, this was an amazing article about a fascinating subject. I look forward to changing my vote in the coming days. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Jeffrey, for your very detailed and helpful comments, and sorry it's taken me a few days to respond fully (thanks to Raul for letting the nomination stay up for a few days longer as well). I've now added cites to the references used for these various claims. Regarding the Asian/European cultural claim I can't find any papers countering the claim made in the one I've referenced unfortunately. I've also not been able to find out yet what ADS's annual budget is, but will make enquiries. As far as I know, ADS's technology has not been directly adopted by other journal search engines, probably because it was designed by astronomers for astronomers and may not be easily applicable to other disciplines. NASA does fund ADS exclusively at the moment, I'll add a line about that to the article, and no, journals don't pay to be listed - they're included purely on the basis of astronomical merit. Thanks again! Worldtraveller 18:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Great work, and thanks for looking into that information. Enthusiastic Support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support without reservation. —Theo (Talk) 13:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of South Carolina

This is a bit of an unusual case. This article was promoted previously, but there was controversy. Some people thought it amounted to gaming the system. As a compromise, I said I'd renominate it here. First nom, second nom. →Raul654 17:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Well-written article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Overdependence on only two references (only one of which is a history) -- this verges on being a summary of a single work. Are there no topics in South Carolina's history that would benefit from more than one interpretation? As a sidenote, I find the whole business with the quick renomination rather distasteful, and hope that we can avoid allowing such things to take place in the future. - Bantman 18:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support as previous--it's a well-written and cogent article, though I can see the problems that Bantman has with the low number of references. Meelar (talk) 19:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Was the territory named after the ship that finally made it to the continent or was there some other reason for calling it Carolina? The text isn't really clear on this point. slambo 19:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    Fixed. It was named after the Latin form of Charles I's name. Toothpaste 20:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks. Now that I've had a chance to read the rest of it, Support. slambo 19:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I'd prefer more references, but I think this is worthy of being a featured article Tuf-Kat 21:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object- besides the low number of refs, I still stand by my previous objection that the lead section is too long. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Eliminating the last paragraph was certainly a bold move. While the lead is still (IMO) long, it looks better now. Also, the last paragraph that was deleted was a summary of "current" South Carolina, so it may not have been appropriate for the "history" article. However, I still would like to see more refs (along with the appropriate addition of facts and expansion) and some in-line refs would be nice. In addition, the "Recent" section, IMHO, should be trimmed down- we really don't need that much detail about lotteries and college scholarships that are irrelevant to South Carolina's history. Otherwise, I stand by my comment last time that it's a well-written article on its way to FA status. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Still support: I'll be happy to work with Toothpaste or anyone else in addressing the lead issue, as it is long. (Actually, it's not so much long, IMO, as it is sutured. The seams need to be obscured somewhat from its first and second incarnations.) As for the renomination, the author had nothing to do with that. It's purely procedural and done by Raul. I also think that the two references are not the only two sources of information, but they are the sources of information that required a reference, so I wouldn't object to that, myself. N.b. I've not edited the article, that I recall, except once on its first nomination, to do a little copy editing. Geogre 00:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I like it, and it is as FAish as at least half of our FAs. Func 08:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Still support - it's a very good article and definately worthy of FA status in my opinion. However I do agree that it would be even better if other sources were checked, but that doesn't alter my vote nor my high opinion of the article -- Joolz 18:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Phroziac (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support.Conditional object: tons of efforts are seen on post-war history, however the amount of photos and images is still inadequate and I wonder if no photos can be put onto the current events section? I'll support if more photos are added with at least one of them in the current events section. (well, as it says, current events, can anybody go and just take a picture?) Deryck C. 12:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC) The amount of pictures have increased and the arrangement of the article is good. I've no more opinions to object this as FA. However, adding more pictures can make this a better FA. Deryck C. 14:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Added a picure to the Recent events section. I'm looking for one on desegregation relevant to South Carolina, but there appear to be none on Wikimedia. Toothpaste 17:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Sorry I didn't see this before, but I agree with Bantman, two sources is just (very) inadequate. In addition there is no citation of any kind to show what material came from what sources, so verification is made much more difficult. - Taxman Talk 22:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, maybe object - I agree with Taxman and Bantman on this. I am also assuming that the external links were used as resources. If so, it may be best to place them in the reference section. As for the more recent events, I am assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that the sources are from news media rather than the listed sources. If so, please note them using inline notations. Pentawing 23:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I didn't use the external links as resources. Toothpaste 23:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, how about the last point I brought up? I need this clarified and resolved before I can change my vote. Pentawing 01:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I didn't use the news media as a source, though the sources I used might have. Toothpaste 01:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
To clarify, what I need to know is the source of the section concerning recent events, since I am currently under the assumption that the listed sources didn't cover the entire thing. Some statistics might warrent inline citations since that would make it more difficult for a vandal to change the numbers and have no one noticing it. Pentawing 22:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Economic booms and busts, Desegregation, and Recent events come from Siglas, Mike (2003). South Carolina. Emeryville, CA: Avalon Travel Publishing. ISBN 1566915457. Edgar, Walter B. (1998). South Carolina: A History. Columbia, SC: USC Press. ISBN 1570032556 was used for events prior to those, and both were fact-checked against each other. Toothpaste 22:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, can you then use inline citations for the statistics (especially for the scholarship passage)? Otherwise, I can't support this article without questioning my own judgement. Pentawing 23:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Better? Toothpaste 00:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. The history is not properly balanced: important topics are treated cursorily, and recent events of no great moment are treated at length. In particular, the treatment of nullification and Calhoun are exceptionally superficial. Nullification is a key issue in American political history, and framing the matter as "John C. Calhoun decided . . ." without even a suggestion of Calhoun's importance or the back-history of the issue should be unacceptable. The relative size of the slave population to the white population in the early 1800s should be treated in more depth. The discussion of the Indian Removal Act, requested in an earlier FAC, is too generic, and gives no substantial information about the impact on the state. There is no discussion of desegregation of primary and secondary public schools, which, according to one of the websites referenced in the article, was more contentious than the article indicates. The discussion of recent events is far too long for the relatively minor events actually reported, and should be more comprehensive. The last paragraph, devoted to a lunatic fringe group's self-proclaimed plans, without any reason to believe the plans will bear (bitter) fruit, takes up more space than "the state's mishandling of the Hurricane Floyd evacuation in 1999," an apparently substantial matter mentioned only in passing, or the Abbeville education lawsuit, an entirely ignored matter despite its great importance. In terms of details, I think that the article's description of a British military strategy in the American Revolution as a plan to land troops in (Spanish) Florida and march north to corner George Washington is . . . more than a little curious. The discussion of the Fort Sumter battle is longer and more detailed than the rest of the discussion of the Civil War and its impact on the state. I don't believe the problems with this article can be resolved in the FAC time frame, but require extensive attention.Monicasdude 03:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support thats stronge than Monicasdude's strong object. What an immature vote. However I haven't seen him support any state history articles FAC. I think its fine with things like the Fort Sumter being longer as that was probably the biggest part of SC in the Civil War. There were no really important battles there, were there? It should be the most important part. Anyways if I were to address every concern I'd probably make a three paragraph comment which would get so long no one would bother reading it... So I'll just sign now... Redwolf24 (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I was going to let this comment speak for itself, but I came across a profile of an novelist recently which makes the relevant point far better than I would have: "Kate [Wilhelm] wrote about her first [writers'] workshop experience: she turned in an ambitious story and had it shredded. The man sitting next to her turned in some trivial fluff and got gentle, kid-glove critiques. After the workshop drubbing, Kate went down to the nearby stream and threw rocks at the water as hard as she could, until she realized her fellow workshoppers treated her story firmly because they respected her and felt the story had potential." Monicasdude 21:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support! Great article. Long lead sections are good. Andre (talk) 18:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, while Monicasdude's comments seem a bit vociferous, the article does seem poorly balanced across time. For instance: one sentence for "Throughout the Colonial Period, the Carolinas participated in many wars against the Spanish and the Native Americans, particularly the Yamassee[2] and Cherokee tribes" and a full paragraph on disputes over video gambling. This problem exists because the first three periods of the history have been broken out to substantial subarticles while the later periods have not; breaking out a couple more subarticles for the later periods and culling some of the ephemera would fix this issue (and also bring the article closer to an ideal size). Christopher Parham (talk) 18:53, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
There is a bit of backstory here, spread out over several talk pages. Several members (not all, and not the self-nominator of the article) of an FAC-promoting wikiproject have made strong and disparaging replies to previous comments I made describing the faults of articles in general terms and calling for more extensive details. However, providing details produces an equally hostile response, as shown here. The underlying problem, as I see, comes from the relatively low standards the project applies to substantive FAC criteria, and the unwillingness of some members of the project to accept in practice the FAC guideline that proponents of a nomination are "expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised." The tone of such responses is quite unfortunate. Monicasdude 23:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the dispute over FAC criteria should carry dispute to this article. Deryck C. 13:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - well written and informative article. I was able to read this and learn things about a subject which, previously, I had no knowledge of. That, to my mind, is an indicator of what articles should be. Rob Church Talk | Desk 19:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support comprehensive. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to stand by my original nomination of support. See the second nom (I think it is) for my reasons; they still stand true today. --JB Adder | Talk 05:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, the section on Desegregation is totally inadequate and misleading. To suggest that desegregation in South Carolina went smoothly, even in comparison to "hot spots" like Mississippi and Alabama, ignores the incredible efforts that South Carolina's white elites put in to their attempts to undermine the Supreme Court's order to end seperate but equal facilities--they were prepared to spend 75 million dollars "equalizing" facilities rather than desegregate and African Americans who led the movement in the State lost their jobs, were assaluted, had their homes destroyed and forced to flee SC for their lives. There is also no mention of Briggs v. Elliot, the case from Clarendon County that began the legal process that culminated in Brown v Board or of the fact that the majority of South Carolina's schools effectively remain segregated today. --Sjappleford 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Well written article. Per the opinions I stated in the previous nominations. Deryck C. 08:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. First off, I still voice concerns about the references, since there are only 6 for the entire 43 kb article, and for that matter there are only 6 inline citations through the entire article. Second off, it is comprehensive, but by the point left by Monicasdude, the article is slightly too comprehensive in the wrong areas. A lot of that falls in the Recent Events section, which goes into a 5 paragraph summary of Hodges governorship, but stops abruptly upon reaching 2002. An addition, images and lead section should both be succint. And finally, the reference subsection under the Desegration part has to be fixed. AndyZ 22:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Heraldic Authority

I'm nominating this article (which I started) because I think that it's pretty well written (it's been peer reviewed), and it deals with a topic (Heraldry & heraldic institutions) that many people are not familiar with. --Mb1000 19:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose - a very good start - well done - but the article is rather sparse: there must be more to say about it. What has it done since it was created in 1988? Who are the Heralds? (no Kings of Arms or Pursuivants?) Does it have premises? Does it have any staff, other than the heralds? What is its budget? Are there fees to pay? In what ways is it the same as, or different from, other heraldic bodies, such as the College of Arms or the Court of Lord Lyon. In any event, the article will need some references. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

*In response to your concerns: I did not feel it nessessary to include details about particular grants of arms granted since 1988. It can be easily understood that since 1988 the Canadian Heraldic Authority has been granting armorial bearings to Canadians, thus fulfilling it's purpose. The article does mention the main heralds of the Authority (e.g. The Saint-Laurent Herald, The Fraser Herald). Also mentioned is the fact that the Authority is the Canadian counterpart of the Collage of Arms, and the Court of the Lord Lyon.

  • The article deals with the fact that the grant process is, "financed by the "petitioner", that is the person requesting the grant or registration of arms, who pays the fees associated with the request and grant/registration." As fees differ from grant to grant I did not feel that it would be wise to estimate in this article. --Mb1000 20:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the response: I was really asking for more details, not information about individual grants. Are statistics available - for example, how many grants has it made? Have any grants been controversial or notable in any way (famous grantees; interesting achievements)? What are the names of the Heralds (rather than just their titles)? I know there are references to the College of Arms and Court of Lord Lyon, but they are quite different in scope and procedure: how does this authority operate? Is there no estimate of the fees involved (e.g. application fee, hourly rate?)? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The image Image:Coat of arms of the CHA.jpg has no copyright information. If it was drawn by the uploader, it is under whatever license the uploader wants; otherwise, it is probably copyrighted and falls under "fair use", in which case it should be tagged as {{coatofarms}}, and needs to indicate the image source. --Carnildo 21:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Object- not comprehensive or detailed. For example, several sections are merely bullet-point lists, with little or no description. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, due to the expansion of the article, support. Great work! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 15:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, I agree totally with the point raised by ALoan and Flcelloguy. This article needs to be significantly fleshed out.--nixie 06:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Support the current version, out of curiosity how long was this on peer review?--nixie 05:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Can't even remember! And I'd Like to thank you for supporting the article's nomination!--Mb1000 13:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for you suggestions. I have just added significant amounts of information to the article, including information regarding fees and processing time. I found it to be unnessesary to add the names of individual heralds, as little or no information is available online regarding them. I did some reserch but could not find any particularly famous grantees. I hope my new additions will make you reconsider your objections. Thank-you. --Mb1000 17:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks - you have gone a some way towards addressing my objections. However, sections 2 and 3 are still very skeletal - if there is no further information to add, perhaps they should be merged into another section (for example, section 2 would work reasonably well as a second paragraph in the lead). I still think there is more to say - I am not very surprised that there is little information available online: what about offline sources? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Made quite a few changes, so take a look! Merged what was section 2 (Purpose) into the lead section (Section 0 as I call it), reworded extensivly, and generally moved text around for better flow. Unfortunatly, there is less information offline then there is online! --Mb1000 20:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I also added a bunch of things into the article, and I wish to see if some of yall's objections have been met. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Support - an excellent response. I think the new additions need a light copyedit, but I will support now. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
A spell check has be completed, but I think this article should be in British English, IMHO. I will also support this article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I eventually noticed there was no actual categories to put it in, so I created one. Circeus 22:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Featured_log_August_2005_9425.html"