Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] First Battle of the Stronghold

[edit] Julius Caesar

  • Julius Caesar - Definitely looks like brilliant prose to me. - Sarge Baldy 12:06, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree. The material is extensive and well-presented. If anything, I believe there should be more links from this page to the supporting material. Scooter 02:05, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Split infinitive

  • Split infinitive Well written, technically deep, logically presented. Dpbsmith 17:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Second, Gentgeen 12:34, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • And third Tuf-Kat 03:59, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • ...and fourth! It's well done. - Scooter 05:54, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] L. Paul Bremer

[edit] Hubble Space Telescope

The thought of trying to analyse under-exposed STIS spectra still gives me the horrors, but apart from that, I like the Hubble Space Telescope. This article was previously featured, then demoted. I've worked on getting it back to featurable, with help from peer review, and I think it's now time to give it a run past FAC. I realise it's very long (50kb); thoughts on whether it needs to be split most welcome. Worldtraveller 11:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, Yes, it's lengthy but it is comprehensive and has lots of relevant images. As far as I can tell it's impossible to split this up without mangling the brilliant prose (summaries would - intentional or not - leave out important details). - Mgm|(talk) 17:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The References seem to be partly broken for me; some of the links don't work, and the numbers in the text do not match those in the Reference section, which makes them useless if the document is printed. Once this is fixed, I will support (yes, I have thoroughly read the article; Worldtraveller pointed me to it some time ago, and I was about to suggest he nominate it here anyway). Phils 18:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Support. Phils 29 June 2005 19:30 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment - I checked all the links and they all seem to work for me. As for the numbers in the text matching the refs, this is a bit of a tricky one to fix because I've quoted several times from a couple of my references. I can make all the numbers match but then it won't update automatically if things are switched around; or I can remove the numbers from the refs section - then there's no disparity between the superscripts and the reference numbers, but it's still no good for a printed article. Any ideas on how to improve this?
  • Support, long but comprehensive article. One of the best complete summaries of the telescope. Phoenix2 20:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. As I wrote in PR, I'd support it a week ago. One note: you still have room to add several nice images without cluttering the text. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is an amazingly complete and well-organized article, however, I think the lead paragraph needs a bit of work in that there's no defninition -- we assert that the telescope is important without actually stating what it is (eg. something like "[The HST is] the only permanent orbiting telescope ever put into service and . . . "). Assuming this is fixed, I would support FA status. Jgm 04:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Adjusted the lead section, hope I've addressed this now. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Support as per Jgm. However, section 8.3's header should probably be changed from a question to a statement and I agree with Jgm that the introduction needs to be clearer on what the telescope is. Ben Babcock 05:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed the section title as suggested. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but only because of references. The references section should be split off the notes section, and the inline links, for instance [1] should be converted into Template:Ref and Template:Note. Until this is done, I can't support (though the content is great!) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)#
  • Have to say I'm not sure I agree with making inline external links into refs and notes, as there would be one more click between the reader and the external link. What would the advantages be? Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Whilst I think the article previously had too large a section on future space telescopes, as noted on peer review, now that the whole section has been removed some important information is now missing. For example:
Space telescopes are still essential for observing wavelengths which are absorbed in the atmosphere. In particular, Hubble has been increasingly used for observations of the near-ultraviolet wavelength range, for which no new telescopes are currently planned.
If information about Hubble's current usage due to it's strengths over current and proposed land-based and space telescopes were included I'd be happy to support. Other than that it's a great article, though I think the Conception, design and aims section could easily spawn a daughter article and be trimmed. CheekyMonkey 10:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've added a bit explaining more about Hubble's unique advantages in the section about the final serving mission, hope that covers everything you think it should. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
You say "its successor telescope will not be launched until possibly several years after Hubble's demise". I presume you mean successor as in the next telescope to perform observations of near-ultraviolet wavelengths and not as in the successor to the Hubble (i.e. the James Webb Telescope which the original statement in the future space telescopes section seemed to suggest wouldn't perfom observations at this wavelength). Can you please clarify? CheekyMonkey 29 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)
  • Comment: As noted this article was once featured, and was demoted. Of note is the Wikipedia:Former featured articles page, a concise listing of formerly featured articles, and a page worth noting in regards to the trejectory a FA can take. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 00:53, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but please remove the external link references and replace them with footnote references. - Cedars 29 June 2005 02:21 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! I'm not sure, though, about converting inline external links to footnotes - it would mean readers have to click twice to reach the external link rather than just once, and I can't see what advantage it brings. Will be glad to convert it if it's generally seen as desirable though. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • SupportI can't think there is a lot more to say on this subject about which I formerly knew nothing. I'm not too sure about the current epidemic for footnote everywhere! Giano | talk 29 June 2005 12:24 (UTC)

[edit] Trigonometric function

[edit] Shakers

  • Shakers - well-written. thorough. Kingturtle 05:03, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I would support this - but some patching is required to repair the hole created by the recent move of material, from which Ann Lee was created. Mkmcconn 16:27, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I added back in a shorter section on Mother Ann -- hopefully this addresses the issue... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 16:48, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Thank you.

[edit] Battle of Aljubarrota

[edit] Thou

  • Thou - as complete as I know to make it, and I think it's fairly interesting for an article on grammar. Smerdis of Tlön 16:20, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded. As near perfect an article on a pronoun as you could reasonably expect. Bmills 16:33, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Concur. Dandrake 07:16, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
      • added by Bmills 13:02, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Oxyrhynchus

[edit] Irish theatre

  • Irish theatre - second in a series (after Irish poetry) that is building up to be a major ornament to Wikipedia. seglea 23:27, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • added by Bmills 13:02, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Ackermann function

  • Ackermann function - I contributed a large amount to this article, and am even translating it over to es.wikipedia. I mention the use as a benchmark for compilers, and added a table of values. -- Pakaran 20:24, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Second. If I could follow this, it can't be bad. Bmills 10:19, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • added by Bmills 13:02, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Synapse

  • Synapse Guaranteed to be unputdownable, or your money back. 168... 21:29, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Synapse I don't fully understand. -- Pakaran 01:30, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I've been very busy in the past few days, and am sorry. I read over that one, and I now second it :) -- Pakaran 03:15, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • added by Bmills 13:02, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Irish theatre

  • Irish theatre - second in a series (after Irish poetry) that is building up to be a major ornament to Wikipedia. seglea 23:27, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • added by Bmills 13:02, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Gram Parsons

[edit] Charles Ives

  • Charles Ives - composer - Muriel Victoria 11:43, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded. A really good introduction to Ives' life and work. Bmills 11:50, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • added by Bmills 13:02, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

[edit] Action potential

[edit] Titanium

  • Titanium - self nomination. This is a reference article showing everything I want all the chemical element articles to be. If this isn't "brilliant prose" yet I would be very interested to know what else can be done to improve it (and then apply that to the whole WikiProject). --mav 07:47, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Second. --snoyes 16:22, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • added by Bmills 15:24, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Baroque

  • Baroque - educational. links nicely to other articles. Kingturtle 00:58, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Original sin

[edit] H. P. Lovecraft

[edit] Not the Nine O'Clock News

[edit] Superman

  • Superman and Batman - a whole bunch of users have given exhaustive (yet entertaining) detail about these comic book characters. (I commend Kchishol1970 especially for his contributions.) --Modemac 23:24, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Both seconded :ChrisG 00:56, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • added by Bmills 15:01, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Batman

  • Superman and Batman - a whole bunch of users have given exhaustive (yet entertaining) detail about these comic book characters. (I commend Kchishol1970 especially for his contributions.) --Modemac 23:24, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Both seconded :ChrisG 00:56, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • added by Bmills 15:01, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] RISC

  • RISC - Very informative and easy to understand. -- Taku 18:14, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • added by Bmills 14:51, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Pumping lemma

  • Pumping lemma - the article seems complete. -- Taku 06:23, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • added by Bmills 14:51, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism

  • Zionism - Adam, Zero, and Danny, et al. have done a great job of putting together a lot of different takes on a complex subject without the "critics say" crutches that so many of our articles rely on. Somebody new to the topic could come out with lots of useful information. DanKeshet
    • Seconded. Learnt a lot reading that article. Seemed very balanced : ChrisG 01:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Second that, especially the bit about non-use of "some say" weaseling. Dandrake 01:29, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
      • added by Bmills 14:51, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Western movie

[edit] Villain

  • Villain - an excelent read, complete article (with quote too) Muriel Victoria 10:26, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • added by Bmills 14:51, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Fancy cancel

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Featured_log_December_2003_c22e.html"