Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Battle of Alesia 2 Hrafnkels saga 3 Cambodia 4 Weight training 5 The Supremes 6 Roe v. Wade 7 H II region 8 San Jose, California 9 Mahatma Gandhi 10 Common Unix Printing System 11 Link (Legend of Zelda) 12 Johannesburg 13 MTR 14 Aquarium 15 Albert Einstein 16 Matthew Brettingham 17 Cat's Eye Nebula 18 Pulaski Skyway 18.1 Old nomination 19 Nintendo Entertainment System 20 Ryanair 21 Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve 22 Witold Pilecki 23 Liberal Party (Utah) 24 Chemical warfare

[edit] Battle of Alesia

What a lovely article. And a glorious hand-made map. We need a thousand more like this... +sj + 02:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• A lot more than a thousand. I won't object, but I'm not going to support either, because I wish it had more info on the actual siege and battle. Everyking 02:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Please elaborate your comment because i think i described the whole thing. muriel@pt 15:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, maybe you did. I would just think that such an important battle could have a lot written about it. T.A. Dodge has 26 pages on the siege and battle combined in Caesar (well, there are a few illustrations taking up a few pages), and we should do better than him. And of course, since it's an important battle in military history, assessment from historians throughout the years would be nice. Implications for strategists, siege warfare, that kind of thing. If possible. Everyking 15:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • You're not suggesting we write a 26 page article, are you? Adam Bishop 21:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, obviously a page in the book and a page in Wikipedia are not nearly equivalent. But we should be as comprehensive as possible. Everyking 23:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • This article is comprehensive enough, for an encyclopedia article. It far exceeds the content on Brittannica, for example. If you check other encyclopedias, I think, you'll find the same thing. You can always write more, that's what books are for. Paul August ☎ 03:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • That's what Wikipedia's for. I still think the article could do with greater detail, if possible, and an assessment of importance to military history/science. Everyking 17:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • That's hardly what Wikipedia is for - this is an encyclopedia article, not a book. Adam Bishop 17:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • We should aim to do better than any particular book. Anyway, perhaps I'll see if I can expand the article at all at some point, although it's not a subject I'm particularly well-versed in. Everyking 18:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • What? Why should an article be better than a book? Well I suppose this is not the place to discuss it. Adam Bishop 21:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, i'm almost sorry that i asked for elaboration! As for historiography, i'm not an historian and assessment of Alesia seems more like a topic of an MSc. I agree that some things may be added like details on the fortifications design. I can do a drawing of a cross-section through the circum and contravallation lines and expand a bit that part. muriel@pt 15:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The added details and drawing would be great. Paul August ☎ 14:57, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not bad, but: 1) More context and more links needed. Just take the opening sentence: Gallic, oppidum, Alesia and Mandubii are not even linked, and it should be explained what an oppidum is and where Gaul is. This problem is present throughout the article. 2) References should include more precise information, preferably as suggested in Wikipedia:Cite your sources.Jeronimo 08:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The links were already made (not by me) and i'll had the info you suggested. This problem is present throughout the article. Where? muriel@pt 15:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Jeronimo: 1) The article is now well linked. Why should Alesia be linked it is a redirect to this article? Mandubii is not linked, but no articles exist for this, do you think it should be anyway? Personally I don't like red links all that much. The article does say what a "oppidum" is: "a major town centre". Gaul is now explained: "roughly modern France". I don't know what you mean by this "problem is present throughout the article" could you elaborate. 2) I don't understand your "references" objection, can you explain? Paul August ☎ 03:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't know Alesia redirected to this article, but what I meant in general is that terms and names are barely explained. Even if there is a link to an article, the word should be briefly explained. Examples: "proconsul imperium", "triumvirate", various tribe names. As for the references: they should include author, publisher and ISBN, but this has been done now. External link should have a date added when they were retrieved. For more, see the aforementioned link. Jeronimo 07:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll add the dates as you suggested. As for explaining every concept i'm a bit reluctant because there are already articles about them and i think it would burden this article. Or do you mean a simple sentence between brackets, for instance? muriel@pt 15:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The goal should be that people with little or no knowledge of the subject and related matters can read the article without having to click every link or picking up a dictionary. It is not necessary to explain everything in detail - that's where the links are for. But briefly explaining them is simple. Sometimes it requires just a few words (e.g. Bush => American president Bush) or a by-sentence (or whatever that's called in English) (e.g. Bush, the American president). For most terms/names, little more is required - but it makes the article so much more readable. Jeronimo 21:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with your suggestions and i tweaked the text a bit. Is there anything else you would like to see explained? muriel@pt 11:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I added one word to the text; it looks fine to me now. Support. Jeronimo 20:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great article. Paul August ☎ 03:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: the "References and External links section is odd. If the external links are references, then the heading should just be References; if they aren't references, then they should be moved to a separate section so that we know what the references are. Mark¹ 04:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll fix that. muriel@pt 15:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain for now. A good article but it could use more pictures. A quick Google Image search found gave me some interesting pics - I added the sites to the External link section I created for that purpose. Can we use any of those images? The reconstruction towers are nice (anybody in that area with a camera? :>) At least one nice pic for the battlebox would be in order. Perpahs we could contact the page owners for pictures licences? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that a picture of the site would be lovely. About the links you provided: the drawing in [1] is wrong and the photos are not very nice. Maybe the ones in [2]. Did you found anything else? muriel@pt 11:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Nope, but that was just a 5-minutes search through 2 Google Images pages search. I am sure a more determined editor of this article would find much more external links/images in 15+ minutes :) But the amount in not the issue, the licence is - otherwise I'd have added the images myself yesterday. Hmmm, what is our policy on post-1935 paintings and similar art forms? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't particularly like any of the photos and drawings given in the links. I would encourage muriel@pt, to go ahead and make the drawing she suggested above, though. Paul August ☎ 14:57, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Awesome article, a Danny's Contest winner. Squash 04:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A good lead image would make it even better. --Michael Snow 21:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Piotrus managed to get permission to use a photo (thanks!) which is now in the box. However, this photo is not wonderful and for the lead picture i would rather see that gorgeous man instead. muriel@pt 10:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, whichever one gets used when it's on the main page, it's good to have a suitable picture to illustrate the box. Well done everyone. --Michael Snow 17:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Ambi 05:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I think my problem with this article is that there is too much on the "prelude" and "aftermath" and not enough on the battle itself and information directly pertaining to it. This article does not need to give a great deal of background—one, at most two paragraphs, is fine. But it seems to me that when you strip away the background, you're left with a pretty short article. I tend to be very reluctant to object to articles being featured, but in this case I feel I must. Everyking 19:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I feel that the "prelude" & "aftermath" are needed in at least close to their current form & size in order to put the battle into its historical context. A significant battle is more than two armies engaging in combat. -- llywrch 21:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The information should of course be available, but in other articles. This article should focus strongly on the siege and battle. A paragraph each on the prelude and aftermath would be adequate. And I just don't think this would be long enough to be featured quality if most of the background was removed. Everyking 21:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The "prelude" and "aftermath" are important parts of this story, a "paragraph each" would not be adequate. In my opinion, they are fine just the way they are. Also, there is no length requirement for FA. Everyking: what information about the battle should be added? Paul August ☎ 04:00, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • I feel that the prelude as it is is essential because of it describes events that had a crucial importance to the battle and that do not fit in any other article, unless you suggest the creation of Events previous to the Battle of Alesia. muriel@pt 21:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I mean the long-term prelude. Stuff better suited to an article or articles on the wars in general, and not to the article on this particular battle. Everyking 22:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I'd very much like to support this article, but I noticed a possible error in fact. Towards the end of the article, it states: "Not until the third century, would another rebellion occur"; however, what about the revolt of Vindex in AD 67? From the article, it's not clear whether it is making a claim about all of Gaul, or a specific province (Vindex's area of operations was in Gallia Lugudensis, which Alesia may not have been part of). Or Vindex's revolt could be considered part of the events of the civil war of 68-69; in either case, this later revolt needs to be acknowledged. For the record, I do believe that the general point of the paragraph which I took this sentence from is correct. -- llywrch 21:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • As i remember, Vindex rebellion was not aimed at independence of Gaul, but a move against Nero's imperial throne from a local governor that anticipated usual usurpation procedures of the 3rd century. This is why i omitted this event. But if you feel its important, its just a matter of adding a sentence. muriel@pt 21:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, this article implies that Gaul acquiesed to Roman rule for several centuries without any exception, & wannabe pendants like me tend bring up things like that. So please explain Vindex as an event better related to Nero. -- llywrch 21:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. 172 02:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hrafnkels saga

Self-nomination. I've done my best to make the article readable and well referenced. I think the subject is interesting and worthy of more than the four lines Britannica gives it. See Talk:Hrafnkels_saga for some more information.

Haukurth 01:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• support. I think this article is an overachiever. I love the photo of the Icelandic horse. My only suggestions for improvement would be to include more quotations from the work itself and to reorganize the article so that a plot summary comes in the middle. The plot summary takes up the bulk of the article now, the sections after the summary, like the ones on publishing history, almost read like they are afterthoughts. User:dinopup

Thank you! I'd like to have more quotations; I only included the two memorable sentences that I have actually seen people quote from the saga. I can pick some more myself if it's not considered original research. As for rearranging the sections I think it's probably wise to wait until more comments come in before making largish changes. My idea was that the pictures should go with the synopsis and the pictures sort of naturally come at the beginning. Haukurth 09:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is minor, but why not provide a phonetic pronunciation guide to the word "Hrafnkels" for people who aren't familiar with Norse languages? I am sure that I'm not the only person who wouldn't be sure of how to pronounce the article's title correctly. User:dinopup

Ooh... that's tough. There is no easy way to do it since some of the sounds, especially the one represented by 'hr', don't even exist in English. I could record my reading, though, and put it in an audio file. Would that be helpful and in accordance with Wikipedia policies? -- Haukurth 14:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That definately seems within the rules as long as your pronounciation is not disputed :)  ALKIVAR™ 18:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay! I'll start checking my recording equipment. Might take a day or two to get this up. -- Haukurth 18:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that quotations should be integrated into the plot summary. They can be copied to wikiquote too. User:dinopup

• Support If this is not featured material, three quarters of the current featured articles are not. One small gripe,though: the Quotes section feels a bit insignificant. Maybe more quotes should be added and moved to Wikiquote. Phils 10:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Something needs to be done about the quotes. That was my own biggest worry and since both you and dinopup think so too I guess it's a bit glaring. I'm mulling this over but I'd like to have some direct quotes in the article, to give a sense of the saga's style. One solution would be to simply integrate the two quotes into the synopsis. Would that be acceptable? -- Haukurth 10:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Second that... move quotes to wikiquote and link to it.  ALKIVAR™ 18:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All right. There seems to be a consensus for moving the quotes. I'll check Wikiquote and try to find the most appropriate solution. -- Haukurth 18:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support, though I would second the suggestion to reorganise so that the plot summary is less prominent. --ALargeElk | Talk 12:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand the idea but I'm somewhat at a loss as to how to implement it (as noted above). Would it improve the balance of the article if the other sections were made slightly longer? I've certainly got enough material to expand on some of the points. On another note I see that you made the captions in the article into whole sentences. Thank you, I didn't realize this was Wikipedia policy. I think the part about the settlers of Iceland bringing Icelandic horses might need some rewording. As for the axe picture I'm hoping I can get a picture of an Icelandic axe from the National Museum of Iceland. I'm going there tomorrow. -- Haukurth 12:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Though the lead image being to the left fo the table of contents and lead section is a bit odd and pretty jarring. - Taxman 13:07, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's odd. My problem is the conflict of three rules: 1. The lead picture should be on the right and 2. The pictures should alternate from right to left and 3. Pictures of people (and, I presume, animals) should have them looking into the article. One possible solution would be to reorder the pictures like this: i) Manuscript. ii) Axe. iii) Freyr. iv) Horse. I'll probably try that and at least see if it looks better. -- Haukurth 14:03, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have now done this. I hope it helped. As for the captions I noticed that the one for the picture of the manuscript still isn't technically a complete sentence. I'm not sure if it needs to be fixed or how best to fix it. -- Haukurth 14:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support looks good  ALKIVAR™ 18:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This can use more ilinks, the lead is too short and quotes should be moved to Wikiquote. The rest of the article is good and I expect I can support it soon after those objections are adressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This is very good, but it needs a few tweaks . 1) Lead should be slightly longer, presenting a summary of the article (see Wikipedia:Lead section). 2) Boldface is used for the name of the article only, per the WP:MOS. 3) The use of subsections in "From writer to reader" seems a bit overkill; the subsections are only three or four sentences; having them as paragraphs would make the text look less messy. 4) As Piotrus also mentions, the quotes should go to WikiQuote. Jeronimo 20:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have made the lead section longer and, I hope, more representative of the contents of the article. I have moved one quote into the text and put up a separate quote page on Wikiquote. I tried removing boldface from the alternative name but it didn't look right and I put it back. This is consistent with my use of boldface in the rest of the article and with the current practice in many featured articles. (I think I misunderstood that, see one of my comments below for a more sensible answer to the bold concerns.) The most serious lingering problem seems to be the imbalance between the length of the synopsis and the rest of the sections. There was a specific complaint that one section was too short to merit subsections. I think these concerns can be best addressed by adding some content to the right places. I'll attempt to do so. As for the audio file I'll try to do it tomorrow. There are now more internal links in the introduction. I'd like to thank User:Sfahey for polishing the language in several places. -- Haukurth 22:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object on several points which mainly is about ethics. First, both Hrafnkell and Sámr are caught when asleep but it is stupid to be caught while sleeping and more so to be caught the same way. There is, probably, some tricks here but both men seem to be simply unaware of dangers and I wonder why this is so. Second, both men chose to live but why did they not chose to be killed? Of course the story would have ended there and that ruins the story but what ethics beside the desire for revenge made them chose so? Third, unlike many old stories, there is nothing about love and romance in this story. Is this normal for Icelandic saga? Revth 00:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The only part of your comment where I have any idea what you're saying is the last question. There's no clear cut answer. Hrafnkels saga, indeed, does not have any love themes or romantic elements. This is perhaps somewhat unusual but in such a short and focused saga it is not very surprising. Many sagas have a prominent love theme. The best known love stories are Gunnlaugs saga and Laxdæla saga. It has been suggested that the latter may have been written by a woman. Getting back to the article I don't think Hrafnkels saga is unusual enough in this respect for a note on it to belong in the article. As for your ethical concerns I do not understand them and thus I cannot say if they are actionable. -- Haukurth 01:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the basis for this objection is that the article is faithful to the saga! Filiocht 08:34, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

That's what it looks like. Interpreting it charitably, however, he might be saying that the article needs a section on the "ethics of Hrafnkels saga". It would certainly be possible to write such a section, indeed the saga's ethics is a topic that has been subject to some research (notably by the scholar Óskar Halldórsson). I'm not sure if such a section should be absolutely required, however. Indeed it is not the next set of information pieces I would have planned to add. -- Haukurth 09:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. Also, object to the object, assuming the interpretation by Haukurth is correct. I think it doesn't need an ethics section. A line will do. --JuntungWu 10:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Withdraw the objection because I realized that differences in ethics should probably not be discussed on individual saga. 08:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Filiocht 08:34, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The suggestions in the MOS on the use of italics have now been implemented. There isn't much there on using boldface and I don't find anything suggesting that the way it is used in the article under discussion is inappropriate. In my opinion it makes the synopsis more readable to bold each personal name the first time it appears. In most Wikipedia texts names get a wiki-link the first time they appear, which serves some of the same purpose. This link practice is inappropriate here since most of the names refer to characters which only occur in this saga and don't need a separate page. (Though I guess it would be possible to write a separate article on Hrafnkell since he is mentioned briefly in some historical sources.) -- Haukurth 17:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. My wife kindly agreed to read the words "Hrafnkels saga". I couldn't seem to upload the wav-file so I made an external link to it. I hereby release it under the GFDL. Anyone is welcome to upload it and link to it the proper way. -- Haukurth 18:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support.--Bishonen | Talk 23:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Status report. The additions to the article today have hopefully improved the balance between the different sections. With that I think that just about every substantial complaint has been addressed one way or another. I think the article has improved by going through this process. There are still a few points I think I might add to the later sections - I should probably give Sigurður Nordal's seminal book some more space so the reader can get a better idea of its contents and influence. Another thing I was wondering about is whether the second section should have a subsection on English translations of the saga. That just didn't occur to me before now since I don't need them myself - but for the typical reader of this article that would possibly be somewhat useful. A simple bibliographical list of translations seems somewhat boring and redundant, though. Any library system search (or web search) can probably yield this information for those interested. A judgment of the merits of the different translations would be more useful but it would be very hard to source and probably end up as my, woe of woes, original research. So, I'm thinking out loud here, I guess I'll leave that alone for now unless someone sees a good way to do it. -- Haukurth 00:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's excellent. Tuf-Kat 01:40, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, my qustions have been answered Neutral. Several comments, I would like the paragraph on the manuscript transmission to be more clear. It sounds like the saga survived the medieval period in a single manuscript. Several paper copies were made that differ from one another, with one tradition having a longer version. After the paper copies were made the original manuscript was largely destroyed. Assuming my synopsis is correct, this raises several questions. How was the vellum manuscript destroyed? I assume that the paper copies are also manuscripts, but the article doesn't say so. Are they? Why are there at least two versions in the paper copies? Could one version have come from a separate, now lost manuscript? How many paper copies are there? Were they all copied directly from the source manuscripts or are some of them copies of copies? I would also like to see a more complete reference for the manuscripts - i.e. where are they kept (institution and shelf number).Dsmdgold 01:56, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hehe. :) I see from your page that you're a manuscript buff. I'd love to write more about the mss. I didn't really think anyone would be interested. Tell you what, I'll make a diagram to clear it up a little. I'll try to address all your questions one way or another. -- Haukurth 07:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have now added a diagram and some more text. I hope it answers most of your questions. I don't think it is known how most of the vellum ms. was lost. At least I have nowhere come across any information on that. You can follow the external 'sagnanet' link to find more information on the individual mss. All the mss. in the diagram are currently preserved in the Árni Magnússon Institute in Iceland (see http://tinyurl.com/6w9z4). -- Haukurth 15:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Exceedingly well done. Bacchiad 06:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support I love it. Thank you for writing it. SlimVirgin 08:31, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I added a Further reading section. These are interesting books on the subject which were not used in writing the article. My references happened to be only by Icelandic authors; I think that might have given the reader the wrong idea as to the nature of the scholarship on the saga. The combined list of works is still by no means comprehensive. Much more has been written on the saga but I think I've got the most important works covered now. -- Haukurth 15:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cambodia

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Weight training

Self-nomination. This area of Wikipedia has been very neglected, and I have been trying to bring it up to scratch. The peer review process really helped this article achieve a high standard. I want to see it become as good as it possibly can be, so I will work hard to address any new issues identified here. So, what do you think of it? GeorgeStepanek\^talk 22:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Great work on fixing those and citing facts. The article could use some further copyediting, but what article couldn't. I don't see any major problems and what is there is great. Object. Very few, if any facts cited directly to their source. This is a big problem only with broad, sweeping statements that could be disputed like "is the most efficient technique for developing the strength and size of skeletal muscles." Most efficient in what sense? Time, money, effort? And according to whom? Other examples include much of the benefits section, but especially "Moreover, intense workouts elevate the metabolism for several hours following the workout". That is widely accepted, but how can we know it is true? The weight training culture is full of beliefs based on practical experience without much evidence to support the beliefs. One of Wikipedia's best articles should not fall into that trap. 2.) The common misconceptions section is a bit odd because the subheadings are not misconceptions. Also, with the subheadings italicized for emphasis, that is a bit POV. The facts should stand on their own and let the reader decide. 3.) What about things like medicine ball and sand bag training where the point is to improve explosive force of the muscles, not bulk? Is that simply a form of isotonic training? I thought it was separate, but can't recall. So yes, I am asking for a high level for this article, and while what is there now is very good from what I know of the subject, I feel it can become much better with the above. I will certainly support wth those fixes. - Taxman 15:44, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful suggestions. I'll see what I can do (on Monday) to link to studies that support the assertions made in the article. The intro paragraph should summarise the remainder of the article, but I have not yet elaborated on and justified the "weight training is the most efficient technique for..." assertion. This will be rectified soonest.

• I added about a dozen citations to support the main assertions made in the article. Taxman, have I have I managed to catch all of the "broad, sweeping statements" that concerned you? Some of the assertions have been phrased a little more carefully, and I also removed one statement regarding RSI that I found couldn't be supported. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, that was excellent. Though perhaps the external links used to cite those facts could be collected at the end in the references section if they are of overall good quality. - Taxman 15:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

2. I had great difficulty finding good titles for these sections. Sfahey has just changed them from e.g. "weight training is not the same as bodybuilding" to e.g. " "weight training is the same as bodybuilding" "—but I don't like that either. It's too easy to misread them by taking their literal meanings. How about changing them to e.g. "weight training is often confused with bodybuilding"?

• Whoa! The way you wrote that sounds like I told a whopper. What I did was to restate the titles AS misconceptions, and put them in quotes to show that that was just what they were. I know that George S. realizes this, but the way he reported the change suggests the opposite. BTW, if you change to the last suggested phrase, then they're no longer really "misconceptions". I think the quotation marks under the title "misconceptions" make the intent pretty obvious. A compromise (unneeded, I think, 'cause it "weasels" out) might be to rephrase the "miscons" as questions. Sfahey 02:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, it was not my intention to imply that at all: I was just trying to explain why I found this issue so difficult. I actually rather like the idea of rephrasing them as questions, because it falls nicely between the POV poles of "is" and "is not". It lets people make up their own minds. The header and text should probably be adjusted to match this format. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 03:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• These headers have now been rephrased as questions, and it does read much better. Thank you for coming up with this cunning idea. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, that is better. - Taxman 15:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

3. Yes, I should mention these items of gym apparatus. Also the Swiss ball, which is commonly used in conjunction with weights.

• I addressed this (good) suggestion too.Sfahey 02:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• And I added info and a picture of the Swiss ball. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• We just call those "exercise balls", but I'm sure there are lots of names for them. Google shows both names are used, but that "exercise ball is about twice as common. I see the new plyometrics section, that is great. I couldn't think of the name for it. I can't believe that is not an article. Care to make that your next FA? - Taxman 15:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

4. Regarding your change to the disclaimer: ironically, this article has been reviewed by a medical professional: Sfahey. But Wikipedia being what it is, unreviewed changes could appear at any time, so there has to be some sort of disclaimer. Hmm, is there a standard template for this? If not, then perhaps it's time to create one. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 22:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The article now references the main Wikipedia medical disclaimer. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support This article is comprehensive and accurate, and with the pictures now added to illustrate most of the regimens it is quite practical as well. The writers did a fine job of avoiding the sort of foolish generalities and unfounded recommendations which abound in this topic (such as "no pain, no gain", ONLY free weights make you "practically stronger"). I think the above objections have been well-addressed (n.b. it now reads "effective", not "efficient"), except regarding the documentation of individual facts. I looked up several of them, including the one about the met. rate increasing after a workout, and think that if the references (as they do) confirm them, it's hard to say which ones warrant an individual footnote, as would a direct quote or piece of "new" information. Gosh, but I ramble! I am "sort of" an expert on this material, and the article is certainly good enough as is for me. Sfahey 16:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, a very comprehensive and interesting article. Lisiate 20:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support - wow! This has really improved since I first saw the article... I fully support it. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Supremes

Self-nomination. The Motown and soul music articles have sort of been my pet projects since I've gotten here; this is the first one that's completely developed to the point that I think it could possibly be featured. There are currently no featured soul music articles--jazz and hip hop are present--and The Supremes would be a good start, as they were Motown's most successful and best-known act. The article has, as breakout pages, a list of the various versions of the group, a discography page, and articles for the important songs (Motown was primarily a singles label until Marvin Gaye's What's Going On, so there would be no point in making articles for the individual Supremes' albums). --b. Touch 18:05, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've made a few minor changes, italicizing some uses of names and de-linking two of the hidden links to The Temptations. Terms should be italicized when they are being referred to as terms and not to what they actually represent. I think the extra Temptations links are redundant and potentially confusing. Overall, I'm saying object for the moment because of four minor issues. I'll fix these myself soon, if no one else does (because I aim to improve all members of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to featured-level, see User:TUF-KAT/Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees) Tuf-Kat 22:45, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC) (now supporting)

• I'll have to go back and refix some of them; you edited right when I was adding the"Influences" section (which is probably the most important thing IN the article now. I wasn't too sure about that stlye of formating, however--should the use of names (e.g. "Ballard chose 'The Supremes' as the group's name") be italicized as you had it? ("Ballard chose The Supremes as the group's name"). I wil remove the extra Temptations links. --b. Touch 23:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "Ballard chose The Supremes as the group's name" is correct, because "The Supremes" is not being used to refer to the group by that name -- it is a reference to the name, The Supremes. Tuf-Kat 02:19, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Got it. Changing. --b. Touch 03:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• ''The Supremes were the most successful black musical act of the 1960s: this should probably be attributed.
  • It's attributed as the Supremes having 12 #1 hit singles. Motown has never released exact sales figures from its pre-1972 era; they didn't even file for RIAA certification...*edit*. Oh! That factoid comes from allmusic.com. I'll link it. --b. Touch 23:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The first sentence under origins seems kind of sudden -- I know the lead already described the setting of Detroit, but that first sentence still reads like it's starting sometime after the beginning of the story.
  • Will look into it. --b. Touch 23:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The personnel and discography sections should have something here. Splitting off a subarticle is fine, but in general a summary should remain. A brief list of the major names and top, most-recognized, singles should be in the main article.
  • Ok. --b. Touch 23:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• It should have a few sound samples uploaded. I can do this, and will do so soon if no one else does (I can upload "Stop in the Name of Love", "I Hear a Symphony" and "Can't Hurry Love", and could undoubtedly download some others if necessary)
  • I can take care of the uploads. I was waiting to see if anyone thought it would be necessary before I did so, but I will go ahead and take care of it. I plan to upload 30-second clips of wach of the following: "Baby Love", "Stop! In the Name of Love", "You Can't Hurry Love", "Reflections", "Someday We'll Be Together", and "Stoned Love". The first four will be from 45 RPM mixes, and the last two from stereo LP mixes (to showcase the more definitive versions of each song) --b. Touch 23:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Great job! I suppose I'll still up "I Hear a Symphony" when I get a chance. I don't know much about the Supremes, but its article implies it's pretty notable and innovative. Tuf-Kat 02:19, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll get that for you. I was trying to do one song per year for each year that they charted (resulting in the seven chosen songs). But we'll squeeze it in. Should there be any others? --b. Touch 03:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • "Tears of Sorrow" and/or "When the Lovelight Starts Shining Through His Eyes" -- these would be interesting just to look back on their earliest work. Tuf-Kat 03:53, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • Done. Also added "Where Did Our Love Go" and "You Keep Me Hangin' On" because they serve historic importance as per their articles. But I think these should be enough...adding any of the other singles--even the other #1 hits--would be purely arbitrary. --b. Touch 06:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now. This looks pretty good, but I have some minor issues. 1) it seems more appropriate to me to first handle the history of the band and only then the impact and followers (although the influences may not) 2) Given the length of the article, a slightly longer lead section would be better. 3) The "Epilogue" section reads more like a bullet list than prose, while the rest of the history section reads fluently. It may be difficult, but I think a rewrite could make it easier and better to read. 4) A complete list of all successes in all countries may be impossible and unnecessary, but since this is not a US-encyclopedia, it may be good to also add top 10 listings for, say, the UK (or another major country) to the discography - just to get an idea of their overseas popularity. 5) I think all top 10 albums should also be listed in the discography section. Right now there is nothing about albums in that section, everything is in the subarticle. If this list gets too long, cut it back to top 5 or top 3 albums (and singles) only. Jeronimo 07:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • 1) I will take care of that. 2) Any suggestions for what to expand the lead to read as? I will make an attempt soon. 3) Will be done. 4) I will add UK Top ten listings as well. 5) I will add top ten albums as well (although, as mentioned above, Motown was a singles label during this period; albums were made up of the hit single(s), their b-sides, and filler tracks and covers). --b. Touch 13:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Done. This actually worked out for the better; we got three more Jean Terrell-led songs in the Top Ten list with the UK chart information. I also did a little more research on the post-history of the Supremes and the Diana Ross & the Supremes changeover in 1967.--b. Touch 15:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support now - all my objections are resolved, the article looks good to me. Jeronimo 07:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Momentum appears in favour of eventual success. --JuntungWu 12:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I think it's an excellent article. Rossrs 08:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support, on the condition that some minor grammatical issues (i.e. "the Primes no long existed") are cleaned up. This is one of the best articles on a band/group yet seen. Ambi 06:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I also saw an error with the lead--each of the three paragraphs began with "The Supremes"; that is now fixed as well.--b. Touch 17:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Good lead, made me want to read the rest. Nicely done. Vaoverland 08:49, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roe v. Wade

I have cleaned the article up, and met NPOV concerns. Now, the article seems to me totally neutral, and very comprehensive and well-written. It includes a complete history of the case and it tracks the controversy as it has developed from the 1970s. This is a self-nomination. Noah Peters 06:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters

• Object. No references. Lead section is too long. (Yes, I know, I know, but...Wikipedia:Lead section) Johnleemk | Talk 08:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Added references. Noah Peters 09:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters.
    • You can't just "add references". Adding them without using them either in the writing of the material or to substantially fact check the material that is in the article is intellectually dishonest. To what extent did you fact check with the added references or use them to add material? - Taxman 14:01, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • I see nothing in the phrase "added references" to infer intellectual dishonesty. I would give the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the author added "his" references until otherwise demonstrated, before weighing in so strongly. Sfahey 00:28, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I didn't say it was dishonest, I said it was if they were not used properly. I am saying that unless specifically affirmed that they were used properly by the person adding them after the request is made, then they should not be considered proper references. Therefore I asked to what extent were they properly used. That answer is very important. - Taxman 00:35, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Added long lead section 199.111.225.59 00:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters
• It does need a better lead. I also wish it was a bit longer. It's a very important case. Not an objection. Everyking 12:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object, not comprehensive. What Everyking said. Neutrality^talk 00:40, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is inactionable (and therefore invalid) unless you specify what exactly is missing that could be discussed. →Raul654 20:00, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • In what way is it not comprehensive? It's very thorough. I discuss almost every aspect of the case. 199.111.225.59 01:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters
  • I don't understand what the objection is. This page is just as long and comprehensive as the Lawrence v. Texas article, and indeed is much less speculative. I realize many would like it more if it had less focus on the resistance to Roe, but I have to be historically accurate. If you read any references I listed on the page, and none of those authors is a conservative, you cannot help but be struck by the resistance to the decision. So no, I can't replicate the triumphant tone of the Lawrence article. 199.111.225.59 04:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters
• Object. Lead paragraph needs triming. Material in the third and fourth para.s should be incorporated in other sections. Also see remaining POV problems in the main article. First, why the peculiar focus on Sarah Weddington in the "History of the case" section? Her role deserves mention, of course, but what is the evidence that the case originated at her particular "behest", particularly given the fact she was a law student, as the article says, when the case started? Also, why is her picture the only one appearing in the article? --Second, I am dubious that Blackmun originated the concept of the trimester, as the article seems to suggest. Should have more discussion of Blackmun's rationale for adopting this analysis. --Third, in the section "Controversy over Roe" the article uses the term "partial birth abortion". This is a political term, and a very loaded one at that. At the very least, quotation marks are needed. --Fourth, there is considerably more space and emphasis given to the arguments of anti-Roe / abortion forces than those of the pro-Roe / abortion rights forces in the "Controversy" section. --Fifth, other than the links for the opinion text and the oral argument, the only external link offered is for an anti-Roe / abortion advocacy organization. Edeans 02:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly concur with Edeans' criticism of the way the term "partial birth abortion" is used, and I don't think putting quote marks round it would be enough. There's a good discussion of the POV implications of the term at its own article, partial birth abortion. Bishonen | Talk 05:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The article seems balanced to me. For each alleged anti-Roe allusion, there appears to be sufficient pro- material, including the sole photo being of the protagonist herself. It is not unnatural for such an article, like a law text, to be bereft of pictures. I was mired in grad. school during "Roe", and had ... until reading this article and some other material to which it led me ... continued to be muddled about how it all came about. My only problem here is, as with others, the curious inclusion of the long quote in the overlong "lead". Instead of just criticizing, I will move it, and perhaps some of the prior voters might then rescind their objections. Sfahey 05:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article. I would like to see a longer References section, but that's a preference not an objection. Regarding long leads, I nominated an article for featured article status recently, and some of the objections were that the lead was too short and had to be 3-4 paragraphs. Yet this one is being criticized for being too long. Perhaps there are inconsistent recommendations somewhere? SlimVirgin 13:03, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • The "lead" went from three lines to four paragraphs/entire page during the nomination process, and has now settled at an appropriate length. previous "objectors" might take another look.Sfahey 21:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Well done, though I would appreciate some mention of the context of the decision, in particular the gradual state-by-state liberalization of abortion law since the 1960s and United States v. Vuitch. - BanyanTree 01:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I have no axe to grind here except that I think this is (now) an uncommonly well-written, well-documented, and balanced article. I believe the main editor answered the objections (whether they have been stricken and reconsidered or not). The arbiter of which articles pass and which go back to the drawing board needs to consider the difficulty of getting unanimity on ANY controversial subject, the danger of FA's thus becoming mostly "fluff" pieces, and the possibility that not just article content (which appears NPOV to me here), but "objections" as well, may be POV. Sfahey 00:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Well written and very comprehensive. Gkhan 17:46, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, done. Thank you. when Noah Peters, the editor that added a number of references after they were requested, confirms to what extent he used them. The editor has not been active since I left a message on his talk page. See above. - Taxman 18:34, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The choice has been made and it is now a featured article, but I needed to edit it for errors. The previous author clearly had not read the case but instead relied on second hand summaries. I made some major revisions to the "abortion" portion of the "Supreme Court's Decision, expanding on the Court's decision. Pencil Pusher 00:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] H II region

Cassini-Huygens? A mere passing fad :) H II regions are some of the most famous astronomical objects and we're lucky to have many beautiful Hubble Space Telescope images of them. I've been working on expanding the article on them from a couple of paragraphs to something more detailed. It's at a stage now where I think it's worthy of consideration for featured article status. Worldtraveller 16:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Im not really qualified to verify the actual content of this article, but assuming it is correct, the article is well written and is very visually pleasing. CGorman 23:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support--ZayZayEM 01:31, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support-- I'm just an amateur at astronomy but as far as I know this is accurate as well as comprehensive and visually pleasing. Great! :) Haukurth 22:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support but it needs more external links methinks. Also I wonder why we're using cropped Hubble pictures rather than the pictures in their full majestic glory (the black boxes are kind of ugly. It seems well written though so support. -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:42, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Added a couple more external links. The images are not cropped - the black boxes (I agree, they are not particularly attractive) result from the way the HST wide field and planetary camera (WFPC) was designed - it has three large (wide field) CCD chips, and one smaller, higher resolution chip, resulting in that image shape. Full explanation at WFPC2. Worldtraveller 12:45, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A slightly longer lead section wouldn't do any harm, though. Jeronimo 07:41, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Made the lead section a bit longer. Worldtraveller 12:45, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well written, good images. Jordi·✆ 11:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well written, well referenced, including citing points to specific sources. This is what a FA should be. Don't stop improving it if you have more you can do, but this helps set the bar. For ex you could cite more of the facts in the article and better would be to give page numbers to make it easier for later reviewer to check them. But still, great work. - Taxman 16:41, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. because I dont like stars to be in front page. I suggest: To use unanimity minus one as decision rule. To keep the article in front page for 2 days if nominated otherwise keep it away from the featured article candidate list for 4 months. Minimum voters I suggest to be 12 in a 5 days period. Iasson 12:30, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not liking stars is not, I am afraid, an actionable objection (I think it's an objectionable action though :)) and so is invalid. If you want to suggest new mechanisms for deciding on featured articles, you'd probably be better off posting them to the talk page. Worldtraveller 15:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Please do not use illicit substances before commenting at FAC. What you have left in your message has no internal consistency. It is also not properly written English, but that is not a crime in and of itself. It does make it harder to decide what you were trying to mean though. In any case, being a FA is not the same as being on the Main page. An article can be a featured article and be marked to not make it to the main page. - Taxman 18:44, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see the RfC on this user for documentation of this voting behavior. Sorry, folks. hfool/Roast me 01:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very well-written. There's a few redlink in the "Observations" section (electron transition) that seem like they should point somewhere, but nothing major. --Carnildo 23:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed a couple of the red links which were less than useful. Worldtraveller 10:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well I do like stars—and of course it doesn't matter if you like the content anyway as long as it is presented well :) The article seems well organized and referenced. The pictures are well placed with appropriate captions to give them needed context. The links are in the right places for those curious about those tangents. --Sketchee 09:52, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I would like the article to say somewhere how "H II" is pronounced ("H two"?) Paul August ☎ 05:15, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

You're correct, it's "H two", and I've added a note on pronunciation to the intro. It never occurred to me when writing the article that it's not obvious how to pronounce it! Worldtraveller 10:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] San Jose, California

This is a self nomination, although I'm not the only editor to work on it. I think it stacks up well with the articles on other large cities. Although I don't think it's perfect, no article really is, and this one has improved a lot in the last 16 months. Gentgeen 22:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, I forgot to mention, this article has been through peer review for the last several weeks, and many improvements have been made as a result. Gentgeen 22:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I still have concerns with the references. It would be best to place inline footnotes into a "Notes" section and use the rest of them into a Wikipedia:Cite sources format. Also, I'd suggest splitting some of those lists (like the notable people) into their own articles with a reference to them. This is very good though! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If I understand your first point, I think it may have been addressed. The notable people list has been broken off, and several other long lists reduced in a variety of ways. Niteowlneils 19:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support This is one of the better U.S. city articles I've read and article was steadily improved while in WP-PR. Perhaps it could use a little more tweaking through suggestions here to push it over the top. Vaoverland 09:12, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. There are a lot of red links.many taken care of, and I'm still working on it. I really would appreciate getting the city Council box out of there.Done. Do we really need articles on every member of the San Jose City Council? RickK 22:08, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC) (comments from Niteowlneils 03:11, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)) All right, I'll go along with Support, though there are still a lot of red links. But Niteowlneils has done an admirable job of cleanup. RickK 21:47, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I dunno. Are they notable? Sounds like they are. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Then we should have articles on every single city council member there has ever been, in every city in the world. Else, why are current members more notable than past members, and why are San Jose's members more notable than city council members of some 500-person town in Vermont or Sri Lanka? Another thing -- I seem to recall that San Jose initially experimented with lighting downtown with one gigantic light tower, instead of stringing lights all over the streets. Am I off on this? If it's true, it would be a nice addition. RickK 22:01, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, we probably should :-) However, we don't as not everyone is working on these things. But that lighting thing sounds interesting... - Ta bu shi da yu 13:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Exactly. In an encyclopedia that is supposed to cover the universe, for all time, people noted just for being a city councilperson for a couple years are just too microscopic a blip to cover. Oh, and FWIW, I haven't found info about why they built it, but the big light is covered a bit (with pic of scale replica) at History Park at Kelley Park. Niteowlneils 18:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Big sections based on lists look ugly put between sections of prose. Should teh sections on notable residents and Neighbourhoods be moved below Transportation?--ZayZayEM 01:02, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC))

All the list sections have been moved to the bottom. Good enuf? Niteowlneils 18:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okies. Support--ZayZayEM 06:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Several of the long lists have been taken care of in other ways, now, as well. Niteowlneils 19:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• AbstainSupport All my objections have been addressed. Disclosure: I've made 34 edits to it since 17:39, 16 Jan 2005, but most was organization, etc., not much change to the actual content.. Kinda agree with Rick about the council members box/links. It would be nice to see something about their recycling program--one of the most convenient (one-bin/no sorting), comprehensive (I don't know if any such program accepts so many things), and successful (over 50% of SJ waste is recycled instead of going into landfills). Also, mentioning SJ's sister cities would give a more international viewpoint. Also, I don't think it sufficiently reflects the cultural/ethinic diversity, especially since most people think California (other than concentrations of African Americans in parts of LA and Oakland) is all WASPs and Mexicans--I can help partially with that, adding articles about the Japanese garden at Happy Hollow, the Portuguese museum at History Park, the Chinese cultural garden at Overfelt park, etc (and more). Unfortunately, my knowledge about ethnicity of the general population is based on the South Bay in general, not necessarily SJ-proper, but maybe info can be gleaned from[3]--for example, [4] (linked from it) claims to be one of only three "remaining authentic Japantowns in the US". I can also help kill some of the school district redlinks, although the articles would be kinda boring, like Rhode Island schools--just tables. Niteowlneils 06:28, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've killed a few of the school district and attractions redlinks, added the Electric Light Tower, and some interesting firsts and bits I found thru 'what links here'. To elaborate on my objection to the city council member links, I believe if the articles are created, they are almost certain to be VfDed--I oppose any redlink that's likely to be VfDed, because of the don't bite the newcomers principle. I have similar concerns about the private high school redlinks, as well. Niteowlneils 21:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've killed a bunch more school district links, and reduced the number of long lists. Getting close to support. Niteowlneils 19:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rick that listing all the politicians is more detail than apprporiate in the WP setting, especially the main article. All the red links, especially the endless listing of schools could also be improved. (I still support, it's better than most of our city articles). Vaoverland 05:24, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Reads better now, and the light tower is interesting. I'll have to watch for it on historic blunders on the History Channel. --Vaoverland 23:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Support - very good! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I've been avoiding voting because (a) I live here and (b) I've contributed a lot to the article over time. But I think it's pretty good at the moment. Elf | Talk 05:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but a longer lead section and a city map would be very useful. Jeronimo 15:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've expanded the intro a bit, mostly clarifying why the nature of the area started one way, then changed. However, it is about the same length as Seattle, Chicago, and Detroit. Do you have examples of city articles with intros the length you're thinking is better? I haven't found an appropriate map, and, in fact, I am starting to believe the stick outline in the info box is way wrong in the southeast corner. Were you thinking of a street map (a la mapquest or Rand McNally), or a boundaries/highlights map like in the Seattle article, or something else? Niteowlneils 18:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mahatma Gandhi

I was not one of the main contributors to this article, but have dabbled in it. It is a well-written article with appropriate sources and references. Also has an extensive and useful set of external links. The article itself is to the point and clear, and comprehensively covers the topic. --ashwatha 06:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Article is very good, one of the better bios we have, but still has several problems. First, the lead section is inadaquate; most of the information on Gandhi's principles should be further down; the lead should really by a summary of Gandhi's life and work. It's also pretty short; entire books have been written about Gandhi, so I think it could be expanded a bit more. The quotes should be moved to Wikiquote. Neutrality^talk 06:57, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - I have moved the quotes to Wikiquote. Will take a shot at the lead section. --ashwatha 15:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Like any candidate for FAS, there is probably some room for improvement. Still, it seems the basic elements are all here. Edeans 22:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lacks completeness and balance. Devotes entire (albeit relatively short) sections to the title of "Mahatma", statues of Gandhi, and the Nobel Peace Prize he never got. At the same time, barely a paragraph on his formative experiences in South Africa, and the "Movement for Indian independence" section is littered with one-sentence paragraphs that positively cry out for expansion. --Michael Snow 22:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have added added more info regarding Gandhi's years in South Africa and the movement for Indian independence. Merged the data in "Nobel Peace Prize nominations" into Miscellaneous Info. --ashwatha 01:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

South African section is improved—at least enough that I wouldn't continue objecting only on that basis. Movement for Indian independence section still needs work. The expansion has been accomplished mainly by adding assorted events and combining them with those already mentioned. The effect is that much of it reads as a chronological list of various things Gandhi did, with little else to provide context. Items are placed together in the same paragraph even though nothing particularly indicates that they're related topics; the text has hardly any elaboration to give meaning to these events or indicate what might be of especial significance. --Michael Snow 22:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for the feedback. I reorganized the information in this section, along with some changes. Basically, I have tried to provide a better context to the events mentioned, as well as putting related events in the same paragraphs. I have also elaborated on some events so as to give the reader a better idea of the historical context and significance of the events. --ashwatha 03:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support One of the better biographical articles we've had nominated here. A good article, worth our efforts for any needed improvements. Vaoverland 20:43, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support--ZayZayEM 12:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It's a good article but it gets a bit brief in parts, especially during the 1930s where there is nothing between 1933 and 1939. Could this be expanded? Dbiv 13:47, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. --ashwatha 01:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support Ghandi did a lot for civil rights, and it would be nice to have Wikipedia bring awareness to this great man. --Iconoclast 21:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support But getting rid of all that whitespace at the bottom of the article would be nice. Awesome. Squash 07:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. --ashwatha 17:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Easily as good as articles in competing encyclopediae. Jordi·✆ 11:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object - the image of Gandhi has no source. I'll ask User:Netoholic - I am sure he reads his talk pages :-). Otherwise support but personally would prefer more images to illustrate the rich history. --JuntungWu 16:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I looked around, and several other wikis seem to have the same image. The French Wiki says that this image is in the public domain and is from www.pdimages.com - fr:Image:Gandhi.jpg --ashwatha 16:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The image from pdimages.com is different (see [5]). The information on the French Wikipedia is from when somebody originally uploaded it. Since then somebody uploaded this newer one there as well, without updating the source and license information. --Michael Snow 21:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Mahatma_Gandhi.jpg > Image:Maghandi.jpg No comment. Squash 01:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In otherwords, you'll have to ask User:J.J. Squash 01:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are right regarding the French wiki - I tried to find where the existing image might have been downloaded from, but couldn't find the source. We can wait for User:Netoholic or User:J.J. to respond. In anycase, I just uploaded another image - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mkgandhi.jpg - I downloaded it from http://www.consciouslivingfoundation.org, which says that all images there are believed to be in the public domain. I have placed the image under the "fairold" tag - please see the image page for rationale. We can use that image if there are no objections. --ashwatha 02:07, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The British government made a stamp with this image, so we could use it at the very least. [6] -- user:zanimum

I have replaced the image with one for which we have source information (see my reply above). --ashwatha 02:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I am suffering from copyright paranoia but please make sure that it works under fair use. --JuntungWu 01:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How do I do that? I am not sure of the Wiki procedure for making sure that it works - please provide further info (personally, I think it is pretty obvious that it falls into the fair use category). --ashwatha 02:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. I suggest the latter as a forum for further questions since I am not a lawyer and don't know enough to tell. --JuntungWu 05:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I got a public domain photo from the Dutch Wikipedia, and have used that image in the article: Image:Mohandas Gandhi.jpg. Please take a look. Thanks --ashwatha 02:52, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Common Unix Printing System

Self-nomination Have done quite a bit of work on it as it's my focus article. I have placed it on peer review for quite a while with no comment and as I've recently finished the architecture diagram I think this is pretty much complete. Any suggestions, however, I would love to hear and I'll attempt to sort them out! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I've not read the article fully yet, but before I do that the only pointer I have is to break the paragraphs into more paragraphs for easier reading. –– Constafrequent ^{(talk page)} 09:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support but yes, it would be nice if there was a little more white space in there. CUPS is a complicated beast, so getting away from that might be tough. iMeowbot~Mw 09:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've broken the paragraphs into smaller ones; Will read the actual article now. :-) –– Constafrequent ^{(talk page)} 10:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support: On the qualities of article structure. It's such a technological article that after sleep deprivation I can't focus sufficiently to absorb the knowledge, and it's not my field so can't vouch for accuracy or omissions. –– Constafrequent ^{(talk page)} 10:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)4
  • Suggestion: A section with definitions of terms used, so in the context of the article by itself the acronyms and terms used make enough sense for the lay person to grasp the information enough for them to have some level of understanding without having to venture into other articles. –– Constafrequent ^{(talk page)} 10:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer to work in the definitions into the article. I'm working at this now. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, article has improved. silsor 14:39, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm happy to do this. Do you have any suggestions though? My overview states the following:

CUPS provides a standard API to allow print jobs to be sent to printers. The API sends the data to a scheduler which then sends jobs to a filter system that converts the print job into a format the printer will understand. The filter system then passes the data on to a backend—a special filter that sends print data to a device or network connection. The system makes extensive use of PostScript and rasterization of data in order to convert the data into a language that the printer will understand. The primary advantage of CUPS is that it is a standard and modularised printing system that can process numerous data formats on the print server. Previously, it was difficult to find a solution that was standardised that would allow for the numerous printers that are on the market that use their own printer languages and formats. With CUPS, it is far easier for printer manufacturers and printer driver developers to create drivers that work natively on the print server. As the processing is done on the server, it is also far more easy to allow for network based printing than it was previously with other Unix printing system. One advantage is that when used with Samba printers can be used on remote Windows computers and in fact generic PostScript drivers can be used to print across the network.

I thought that was pretty good, what should I say to tighten it up? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very well-written. utcursch 09:08, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Concur with utcursch. JuntungWu 11:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I am a relative Luddite compared to many people here, and so my position on this may be unpopular. I believe that all technical articles should start off with a lead section that is comprehensible to someone totally unfamiliar with the topic. For starters, although I am usually not annoyed by red links, the print server link in the opening paragraph must be filled in with a substantive article (I have only a fuzzy idea of what it is, and I'm probably in the top 10% of the general population for understanding computers). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a technical reference work. At the very least, this means that the lead sections of good articles should be informative to the casual reader and introductory in scope. Under those criteria, the second sentence is a little early for the phrase "uniform rasterized data format", which frankly made my eyes glaze over and head hurt. Bantman 23:28, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I've filled in that article with a stub (whether it is a stub or not should not reflect on my article), I have given a very brief sentence of what a print server is and I have clarified why CUPS is important. I have removed the "uniform rasterized data format" info also. I hope that the lead section is a lot clearer now. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:45, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Much better — I can now get as far as the table of contents before wishing I paid more attention in CS lectures. I withdraw my objection and, lacking any ability to comprehend the rest of the article, will abstain (not the bad kind, the "pretend I wasn't here" kind). Bantman 19:07, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • I added another diagram to try to clarify the process a bit. Does this help in understanding? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link (Legend of Zelda)

I'm taking a major chance with this one, and I'm aware of it. Here are pros and cons, starting with con:

1) know that this is a self-nomination of the worst kind: I wrote over 75% of the article and corrected most of what was previously written (check out the last revision before I started work on the article).

2) I am aware of some slight modifications that could still be made, but those will only be apparent to very knowledgeable Zelda fans.

3) I am not familiar with at least one of the Zelda games (Majora's Mask).

Why I nominate this anyway? :

1) After having shown the page to people who had never played any Zelda games, I am confident that the article is comprehensive and precise despite a) the murky issue of Link's multiple incarnation b) the fact that this is about a video game character, a topic much harder to document/find sources on.

2) I have always motivated my claims with references to the titles.

3) After much examination of Wikipedia:Featured_articles, I'd say this conforms to the mean standard of featured articles on Wikipedia.

4) We have surprisingly few good video game related articles. It would be good to have something else to show than the POV-ridden fancruft Wikipedia is currently swimming in.

5) I am secretly hoping to attract attention to my article and get suggestions for improvement as well as editing help/contributions by knowledgeable Legend of Zelda players. I know this is not the place to do so, but listing this on Peer Review didn't help much.

I hope you enjoy the article. Phils 20:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Johnleemk | Talk 13:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Good article, but the lead section is way too short - three lines is really not enough. See Wikipedia:Lead section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Lead is good now, but there is still the problem of too many external links in text. They be moved to the external links section, and if necessary for references, linked by ¹ tags. Treat my vote as support after this is corrected. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support: I will support this as long as a) the lead is expanded and b) links are removed from headers. violet/riga (t) 23:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I would agree about the lead section, but what else could I put there that really belongs? A solid lead section looks good, and usually is, but adding wishy-washy prose just to get a few more lines seems foolish to me. I'm open to suggestions on that regard. Now I agree about the links in the headers. I'll just put a link to the article about each specific game inside the respective section.

Phils 06:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Concur with [User:Violetriga]], conditional support. I'd also like to see "Link in" removed from some section titles. We know it's all about Link and it only takes up too much space. Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed the links and headers. Phils 11:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Lead section is still two short and the article uses other Wikipedia articles as a reference. Much better to find out what references were used for those articles and then check those references to make sure this article got it right. --mav 16:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll see how I can expand the lead section... too bad I didn't think about it before submitting. But I'm afraid you're incorrect about the references: I did not reference other Wikipedia articles. I used information directly from the games, including instruction booklets for the three games mentioned in the reference section: you were probably confused by the internal links. Are you asking to list all video games Link appears in, in a scientific paper style? Phils 17:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support after expansion of lead section. Otherwise nice featured material. Good work. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:53, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: further expanded lead section to clarify "multiple Links" issue. Personally, I'm done with this article for now. Phils 20:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support Good job Masterhomer 06:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Support The game section seems to be in no discernible order, either by generally-accepted chronology or date of publication. Pretty anal, huh? Otherwise, nicely done. A lot of these VG articles are ripe for expansion. Khanartist 08:23, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
  • Re-ordered "game section" to match release dates. Any other chronology would probably be subjective. Phils 21:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support Nice article but a few points - LoZ usage is not consistent, sometimes in italics and sometimes using quotations. In weapon section, you should detail how precurement of new weapons is staggered throughout the game's story arc, and new weapons (e.g. hookshot) allow Link to access previously unreachable areas. Explain how navi and tatl aid link through providing information, rather than "normal" fairy methods. Mention the next untitled Gamecube Link as well? And I'm sure I remember reading an interview with Miyamoto-san on the inspiration behind the creation of Link, maybe that could be included in the lead? Great article, provided a Zelda fan enjoyment. Kmaguire 09:47, 2005 Jan 17
• Solid article. A question: Is the master sword really the most powerful sword in most games? I seem to remember the Master Sword being like the 2nd level sword and then there being usually a 3rd and maybe 4th level as well. But other than this minor technical detail, I'm pretty okay with supporting FA status. Maybe it needs more pictures? Anyway, I'll give this guarded support which would be unqualified support if there were more pictures and that one master sword question is briefly addressed. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I have to retag/replace some of the pictures anyway before this can get FA status. Maybe I'll add some more (and better quality) pictures in the process. I'm pretty busy right now but I'll try to do it before the end of the week. About the Master Sword, it is true that there are a few instances of more powerful items in the series (like the Biggoron I named) but usually the Master Sword is Link's last sword. In any case, it certainly isn't simply a better version of his normal sword: most games describe it as the only sword that can fight evil. What happens in some Zeldas (see Wind Waker; Minish Cap), though, is that Link has to restore its power and essence to the Master Sword before it reaches full power. Maybe thats what you were thinking of. Phils 10:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johannesburg

Quite a complete description on the city, I think. What do you think? Good enough for FA? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support,Good to put Johannesburg onto the wikimap--Jcw69 06:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:Object. Link to the media of Johannesburg except Sunday Times are not yet created. 219.77.51.74 07:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support, I think it's comprehensive and well written. To above anon. If you are a registered user, as I think you are, please log in to give your vote. Also, please note that red links in an article are not a valid reason to object. Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, Q. Is it a campus of Monash University (Australia) in Johannesburg, or a different university entirely?--ZayZayEM 12:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just phoned Monash SA and the receptionist said that they are owned by Monash University in Australia and operate as a campus. --Jcw69 12:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support, Well written and comprehensive, certainly deserving of Featured Article status. Impi 13:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support Well written (well, I'd have to ay that, wouldn't I?) and deserving of the FAC status. It also would be nice to see something South African as a FAC! Páll 20:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very informative, visually pleasing, good photos and plenty of detail. CGorman 20:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object. Skyline image and TOC cause formatting problems, overlapping with sentence about twin cities and generally looking messy. While this first one is mostly fixed, there's still problems with the header at the top of the infobox and overlapping text. My other two objections remain - I'd like to see the demographic section cleaned up a bit - it looks like Rambot output (even though it isn't). I'd also like to see some more information on the city's culture. Apart from that, it's really very good. Ambi 06:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support All-in-all, a good article. Vaoverland 21:03, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Wow, well done. I'd like to see more references though. Two seems pretty minimal and not representative of Wikipedia's best. Also, the sports section seems like it would be better turned into good prose discussing the most important features of sports in the city such as relative popularity of each and to other entertainment, etc., instead of a list of redlinks of teams. - Taxman 03:24, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I have found a whole lot of things wrong, unclear or which could be better phrased. Please see my recent changes to the article for just a few examples. I would like nothing better than Jhb to be featured. But there are so many candidates. One day this will be good enough. But, as the banner tells us: "A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. See what is a featured article for criteria." Paul Beardsell 12:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, not all your "corrections" were correct, an example being your addition under "Buses". That said, we do appreciate your effort to at least correct errors where you perceived them to be, and I hope you'll continue to correct errors where you see them and to help improve the overall standard of the article. Impi 13:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All I did with buses was make sarcastically explicit the falsely implied absence of buses. That any reviewer of the article could read the transportation section and not notice the obvious omission was my point, possibly poorly made: The article is not yet ready to be featured. Paul Beardsell 15:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. We frown on this. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, OK. But don't let my error of judgement result in another: Please don't approve a flawed and inaccurate article as a featured article candidate, We (heck, everyone else is allowed to speak on the community's behalf, why can't I?) frown on this. Paul Beardsell 09:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what, specifically, could be improved? To me, you just made a few minor changes and are now parading around saying that you've saved the article. Also, since when is sarcasm allowed on any article page, featured or otherwise? You've made a very poor case for your objection. And if you're really keen on seeing Johannesburg as a FAC (as you say), why don't you correct the more than "few" errors you see instead of being superior. Páll 16:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You make this personal. You should consider if any of your criticism of me applies to you. I criticise the article, not you. Fix the article. Paul Beardsell 11:02, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyone else here thinks the article is great. But any reading shows it needs work. I haven't claimed to save anything, all I have done is made a start. But now I am going out for supper. Edit boldly. Paul Beardsell 17:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So in order to make a point, you intentionally inserted false information into an article? Regardless of your motive, that qualifies as vandalism, and it would be best if you refrained from similar actions in future. What's more, the decision on whether or not this article reaches FA status is not yours alone, so no such points need to be made. As you evidently object, all you need to do on this page is list your objection and detailed reasons for your objection. This I guarantee will dissuade far more from voicing their support for this article than vague references to "a whole lot of things wrong" and vandalism. Impi 17:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see: It is OK that the article is flawed as long as you can shoot the messenger. I am (deeply) flawed and I never claimed otherwise. The issue here is not whether I am worthy of being exhibited as an example of Wikipedia's excellence but rather whether the article is worthy. It is not. Yet. Get in there, Impi, Páll and others, and fix it. Edit boldly. Paul Beardsell 10:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Shoot the messenger? The fault I find with you in respect of this article lies not with your opposition to its nomination as a FAC, but rather with your intentional vandalism and unnecessary and sarcastic edit comments. So once again, this has nothing to do with your "worthiness" (not sure where you got that idea from), and everything to do with responsible editing. Furthermore I have not claimed that the article is flawless, and neither have I attacked your motives for voting against it. I merely informed you about the polite and correct way of going about it. As an example, since when was it your job to direct those who voted for the article's nomination to "Get in there and fix it"? We will edit the article where we see fit to make it as good as possible, but we are under no obligation to you to seek out your vague errors. Instead, it would be far better for you to either fix errors where you see them, or alternatively provide a detailed list of what errors you see and cannot fix so that others could have a go. Impi 14:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is what I have been doing. Your (plural?) response to the issues I have raised on the Talk page has been sparse. Paul Beardsell 18:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I made clear in one of my previous comments, it is appreciated where you followed the guidelines (ie fixing errors where you see them and listing, in detail, areas you have problems with). As an example, witness the criticisms listed by Taxman and Bishonen. What is not appreciated are snide comments in comment boxes, intentional vandalism of an article to prove a point, and constant demands of others to "fix the article". Your criticism of my contribution to the article's Talk page is also unwarranted. I am but one person, and I do have obligations elsewhere. While I did not perhaps blitz through the article, righting all wrongs and making you happy, the link I provided did put you a step or two further along than you already were. In any case, as I said above, none of us are under any obligation to account to you for our contributions. Nor is it your responsibility to conduct a campaign to prevent this article reaching FAC status. Just as you are entitled to your opinion that it should not be one, you should respect that others have come to the opposite conclusion, for various reasons. Impi 14:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you put half as much thought and effort into fixing the article as you do in finding fault with me then the article would be closer to being a good featured article candidate. Since you voted "support" this article has been improved but many improvements are outstanding. You are seemingly happy with an article with obvious and known flaws being featured. Now you attack the person who makes this point. But you are not fixing the article. Seems to me you should change your vote as the article does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for a featured article. Or you should help fix the article. Which of those two options do you find more attractive? Paul Beardsell 09:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As pointed out to you earlier, none of us are accountable to you for our decisions to vote "Support:. As you should by now have noticed, nobody here has attempted to browbeat you into changing your vote, so why then do you attempt to force others to change theirs? All we have asked of you was to respect the polite etiquette of the FAC voting process, and to respect the decisions of others, whether you agree with them or not. Consensus is quite clearly not on your side. Impi 20:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You continue to misrepresent my position. (1) I never claimed you were accountable to me; but I note you are do not hold yourself accountable to the Wikipedia criteria for FAC; (2) I am not forcing anybody to do anything; I am trying to persuade you, you do not address the arguments but continue in ad hominem attack; (3) the "polite" etiquette I cannot respect for its own sake, the point is to have a good encyclopedia; (4) I cannot respect decisions which fly obviously in the face of FAC - they are poor decisions and I will not say otherwise for "politeness" sake. Paul Beardsell 22:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support, though perhaps more references were used than those that are listed in the references section? --Spangineer ∞ 19:34, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Bit too many red links, though. All in all, a featured article. --Emhoo 23:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, impressively well-written, professional-looking and comprehensive article, and it's neither Europe- nor Americentric, just what we need more of! I do agree with Spangineer and Taxman about the references, though, surely more refs can and should be added. (Please remember that classy websites are good references, the references section is not just for books.) Minor quibble 1: do chemical toilets and refuse removal and refrigerators really belong in the "Demographics" section? Not sure about this, but get the impression that the section has taken in various waifs and strays left on its doorstep becauses they lacked a natural parental section. Compare article Demographics. Minor quibble 2: the Soweto and Alexandria subsections of "Selected Neighbourhoods of Johannesburg" are empty. But these are far from being objections to a highly feature-worthy article. --Bishonen | Talk 17:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Before voting please read Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Or read it after voting if you haven't already. Paul Beardsell 09:37, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You've taken up two pages of text with your tirade against this article without listing here exactly what you think is wrong with the article. Detailed suggestions are much, much better than pleading with people to read the criteria. Give us a 23 point list if you need to. That helps an article get better, not what you have done so far. - Taxman 13:21, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Unless you mean you-plural then no I have not. There is no tirade. I have listed several things wrong with the article on the article's own Talk page any one of which is enough to cause anyone familiar with the FAC criteria to oppose. Further, despite one ill-judged edit, I have made numerous important fixes. I have helped the article get better. I note that my "tirade" precedes a very recent re-write which would not be necessary if the criteria were met. What is surprising is that there is so much uncritical support of a (then) very flawed article; my vote is the only oppose. Paul Beardsell 18:41, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MTR

Why am I nominating this? Usually I am against granting FA status to short articles, I like long leads and written references. Here, however, is a great example of a good article without any of the qualities I usually prefer: it is short, it has only one paragraph-long lead and only online references. But all those things are withing the FA guidelines, and I find the article quite comprehensive. And I just love the color text :) Comments? Oh, note that this a relisting of a failed December nomination, now much improved. Old nomination discussion is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/MTR (old nomination) and I believe all old objections have been adressed in the new article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Everyking 02:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Mailer Diablo 07:15, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Minor objection. "Currently, there are two different fare classes on the MTR" This can be outdated far too soon. I'd like to see an As of January 2005-link (with the date when the current fares were looked up, so the used date is more clear to the readers. Also, I don't think that the names of the lines need to be colored with every mention. First mention and the legend next to the chart should be enough. Otherwise, a fine article which I'm happy to support if tweaked. It's grown loads since the last nom. Support Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It seems to me that there are significant holes in the article in regards to funding and administration. Granted, public finance is my profession so maybe these are obscure and not of general interest, but anyways... questions I'd like to see answered include:
  • How much did the original system and extensions cost to construct?
    • HK$5.7 billion. Have added some figures. --JuntungWu 10:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Were they paid for with government funds (perhaps bonds?) or some sort of public-private partnership?
  • Do MTR's fares and other revenues cover the cost of operations, or is there some sort of government subsidy?
  • How has (partial) privatization affected operations and/or fares?
  • Was there controversy surrounding the public offering (one might expect something, since government owned entities exist to provide service at cost, while most private entities exist to make a profit)?
  • The lead section calls the system affordable. This needs justification >-- ideally a calculation of the ratio of average resident income to average ticket cost, and a comparison to the same ratio for other major public transit train systems around the world (perhaps Paris' Metro, NYC subway, Mexico City subway) and alternative modes of transportation (e.g. taxi fare across the city).

While much of this may be more appropriate for the MTR corporation article, I believe each of my questions merits at least brief mention in the nominated article. In short, I think the article as it stands looks only at the "front end" of the MTR - physical description, history of physical description, fares, and payment systems. It is missing a discussion of the entire "back end", which is neither adequately covered in the MTR corporation article, nor even alluded to in the nominated article. Bantman 17:38, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Much good information has been added, but is still lacking in some areas. I suppose I could live with supporting it even with its remaining gaps, but only after a good copyedit (a reorganization of the info in the history section wouldn't hurt either). Bantman 02:24, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

This article has improved greatly since it was nominated; I will now support it. Bantman 23:14, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Support featuring this article. We need more featured articles that aren't about the USA. would like to see some of Bantman's suggested improvements added as well. Pedant 02:13, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Support. All the colors in the text are a bit "busy", but it seems rather complete, well laid out, and balanced without being too long. Vaoverland 20:39, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. In the best spirit of non-US solidarity (teehee!), and in the pious hopes that one day our TTC will be similarly honoured. Hooray for the Bloor line! Long live the Spadina streetcar! QuartierLatin1968 01:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I'll get cracking and upload all of my MTR pictures tonight and clean up the history section and IPO stuff. --JuntungWu 09:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Aside: This is your idea of a short article?--ZayZayEM 12:54, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It was short at the time of the FAC listing. Not anymore now, but still it's FA quality!! ;) - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support. Very well written, would make a great FAC. Páll 18:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, great article --Spangineer ∞ 19:13, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, with a little dubiety: the article is very good right now (checking again: yes, still good), but it sure is in flux. I came here yesterday to post an Object screed about choppy prose, excessive length, intimidating TOC, and committee-written Lead, but was prevented from saving by the horribleness of the servers. This morning I find all those never-posted objections taken care of, just as if PFZUN and Bantman read my mind, so support. (Checking again, yes, article still good, phew, now hurry up and save comment.)--Bishonen | Talk 07:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heh... I agree... I ended up making a bunch of copyedits myself when the support momentum seemed to be rising to a consensus, despite the article's shortcomings. Really all these changes should have been made on peer review. I would have whined that it should have been posted there first, but (surprise!) it was, receiving no comments. And I flew right by it, commenting on other articles... peer review is just too long a list for people to read each article on it. Nonetheless, articles headed to FAC need substantive peer review before they are ready for a real vote. People pay attention here because it's the last step before the front page; really, more attention paid to PR articles would make all the articles that show up here better, and prevent major editing (like what happened here) from occuring during candidacy. I think that would be A Good Thing. The solution? Perhaps categorizing Peer Review so that articles whose next stop is FAC are separated out somehow from the rest, and could receive more attention from those interested in FAs. Bantman 19:16, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and since you raised the subject, here an inappropriate puff arising from desperation: someone please help with Shakespeare's reputation which has been sitting on Peer review like patience on a monument since forever!--Bishonen | Talk 07:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I would like those links in different colours through the main text to be changed to a normal colour (not the first ones next to the map, the other ones wikilinking to the lines), however that's a minor quibble. I fixed up the references, I enthusiastically support this article! Great work :-) Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Very pleased to support this article. It's well done and the pictures accompanying it just really add that extra touch of excellence. -SocratesJedi | Talk 02:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• This article has been posted on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 22, 2005. Do you agree with this action? 202.75.80.8 06:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer 24 January, as its my birthday! Páll 06:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this supposed to be Raul654's job? I think there are many very good reasons to leave it in his capable hands. It will be placed on the calendar in due time, no need to rush it. Bantman 06:55, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aquarium

Self nomination. After significantly expanding this article over the past couple months, and responding to all suggestions at peer review (now archived on the article's talk page), I believe it is ready for the big time. I believe it meets all FAC criteria, treats its topics thoroughly yet succinctly, and is well written (of course I wrote most of it, so I have to say that!). Your comments are as valuable as your votes. Bantman 18:08, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I find this article has brilliant prose and gives a comprehensive account of the world of aquaria. I would like to see a small mention of the etymology of the word in the lead, though. Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Yea for fish!!!--Boothy443 09:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great work. Vaoverland 09:48, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Looks excellent. However, it could be improved significantly by adding diagrams to illustrate aquarium design and possibly also the nitrogen and nutrient cycles. I'd draw, but I don't feel qualified in this area. (The text is informative, but it's hard to create useful visualizations without deeper understanding of the subject.) Fredrik | talk 19:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • One added, so I'll add an explicit support vote. Fredrik | talk 20:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This one's a slam dunk. Phils 20:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Though I know almost nothing about the subject, it looks very well written and has references. Very nice work. - Taxman 03:40, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great. --ZayZayEM 12:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --JuntungWu 10:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This was on peer review and all of my suggestions (and there were lots of them!) were carried out! The structure is fantastic now, the references great, the writing is superb and the information is interesting :-) I really like the photos too! All of them are GFDL (I think). Ta bu shi da yu 11:37, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but I would like to see a section devoted to educational and research functions of an aquarium, especially public ones. Revth 04:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great article. The only downpoint to it is the use of imperial measurements with SI units as alternatives. Jordi·✆ 12:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It would probably be better if more than one public aquarium was cited in the text examples. And it seems to be totally lacking a discussion of algae control--snails, algae-eaters (fish), and/or human scraping. Niteowlneils 21:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. - BanyanTree 02:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Einstein

Maybe it is once again a nomination, but still the article is better. The year 2005 is also the Einstein year/World Year Of Physics 2005. Because in 1905 he formulated the theory of relativity. --ThomasK 05:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very informative, well written and referenced. Befitting Einstein's genius. I learned something new: Einstein is trademarked... --[jon] 06:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I could think of no way to improve the depth and coverage of this article. It is a shining beacon of NPOV and completeness that definitely deserves this distinction. RyanGerbil10 06:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's as complete as it cane be in my opinion. Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Filiocht 09:13, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, simply fantastic. I cannot vouch for all of the material, but what I can seems very well done. - Taxman 19:43, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very well done. --mathx314
• Support. Minor nitpick. I think that external links from the main body should be moved to external links section and linked from main body by using ^[[#Note|1]] or similar syntax, would you agree? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, no. The article is already very well. Other opinions? --ThomasK 12:45, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't agree either, there's no special requirements for footnotes and they would merely be academic decoration in this case. Inline links are fine. However, it would be good if those links could be added to the "References" section as well as appearing inline. Any external links that have been used as sources ought also to be moved from "External links" to "References", incidentally. Those two sections aren't for distinguishing between web and print sources, but between non-sources and sources. Bishonen | Talk 11:10, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support.--Jirate 19:48, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent, even includes the famous photo of Einstein with his toungue out! CGorman 00:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, amazing.--Bishonen | Talk 11:10, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, nicely done! Zerbey 13:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, I'm impressed. --Spangineer ∞ 22:24, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Giano 21:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support (not that it needs any more, really!) violet/riga (t) 12:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, so far 14 pro votes, 0 contra votes . Is that a consensus,I suppose yes.I suggest,the FA should be on the January 19. Your statements? --ThomasK 18:37, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it is fairly unanimous and Raul654 will promote it soon, I'm sure. Please remember that the Featured Article status is different from appearing on the front page - see Wikipedia:Tomorrow's featured article for that, though you'll have to wait until this is officially an FA. violet/riga (t) 18:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I know,that´s why I underlined "so far". --ThomasK 05:42, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, one of the best written articles I have seen on WP. Edeans 06:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Brettingham

Another architectural page by Giano for your viewing pleasure. By no means a self-nom, although I have done a little copyediting.--Bishonen | Talk 00:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support, although I think the lead could be expanded a bit. Filiocht 12:52, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Lead expanded (a bit) Thanks for the vote Filiocht. Giano 16:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support PRiis 19:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A well written, informative article. Thryduulf 17:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support: We need more articles on real, historically significant folks in the arts. Geogre 01:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but some suggestions: 1. Are there any reliable online sources that could be used as references directly on Brettingham? 2. Some statements are POV without direct citation to a source. Things as simple as "one of the country's foremost architects" need citation to a source to be NPOV. What does foremost mean exactly anyway, is he one of the greatest architects ever, one of the best of his time, most well known of his time or now?, etc. 3. One of the external links, if I read it right does claim he at least re-designed Holkham. So that statement that he did not design it could use clarification and citation. Overall well written and good research has been done. Just needs a bit more. - Taxman 17:15, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote Taxman. I agree with your points and have made some small changes to address them. The problem is this man is very undocumented, I even suspect this may be the longest thing on the internet about him. He is often erroneously credited with the design of Holkham Hall, even by people who should know better! He did not. He was a sort of superior foreman and builder, I think I have made this clear in the article, and the written references, support this. I included the links more to provide pictures, and proof of his very existence, than anything else. Would it be better to delete the link? Holkham has never been rebuilt, and is today exactly as designed. Incidentally, I would love to have added that were it not for Robert Adam, he would be world famous today, but that would have been POV. Giano 21:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good points. If there are no very good online resources, then so be it. No need to remove links, you can cover in the article that a given reliable source disagrees with what so and so claims if need be. As to that statement you mentioned, it is not POV if you can find someone that claims similar and cite the comment to them. Especially if that is well supported by unbaised sources. Ideally use some form of inline citation like "example statement" (Example author, 2004), and then list that reference at the bottom too or use one that is there. As to your question on my talk page, yes I think it would be valuable on the talk page to discuss how you consulted various sources. There is certainly no downside to it. - Taxman 14:52, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have written a couple of paragraphs at Talk:Matthew Brettingham (with an explaining link in the reference section) explaining the lack of internet references and various contradictions concerning Brettingham; and why I have included in the main article only what is proven or generally held to be the truth by more authoritative sources than me. Giano 17:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cat's Eye Nebula

Professionally I've studied this nebula until my brain hurt. I've recently expanded the article about it a great deal, and I think it's now very detailed and informative, but hopefully not overly technical. Therefore I'm putting it forward for consideration for featured status. Worldtraveller 21:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Fredrik | talk 21:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support - seems very good. violet/riga (t) 22:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support Paul August ☎ 05:06, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

But, there is a small problem. In the section "General information", it says that the "… halo extends over a diameter of about 386 arcseconds (5.8 arcminutes)." But 386 arcseconds = 386/60 arcminutes = 6.433… arcminutes. Could someone verify the correct figure for the diameter? Paul August ☎ 06:23, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well spotted! A wrong conversion which seems to have been taken from another web page about the nebula. The original paper on the halo just quotes 386 arcsec, so I've changed the article to 6.4 arcmins. Worldtraveller 09:26, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the way I forgot to say that I liked this article alot. Paul August ☎ 22:25, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

• I support it, science-cruft that it is. Astronomy-cruft. Seems a bit short, but there's pretty pictures, that's worth a lot. I'll go through and make all the cites link to the reference section. Everyking 11:33, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Pretty! (Though the first image shouldn't appear on the Main Page anytime soon, it was there on New Year's Eve.) And I think the prose is as clear as possible, I was most impressed with myself for being able to nearly understand the final paragraph. ;-) Or, I nearly would have, if it hadn't been for the collisionally excited lines with their redlink. :-( The term is somewhat self-explanatory, but still, would you consider either putting in an explanatory sentence (what collided?), or writing the stub for the link? Secondly, that's a very unusual footnote organization, I was flummoxed by it at first. Now I've figured out why the footnote numbers are in random order, and why they all refer to the whole references section (there's a secret connection between the reasons ;-)), but it seems an unnecessary hurdle. Why not use what I think of as ordinary footnotes (consecutive), or inlined short refs? Either of those would allow page refs, which your system does not—are page refs really not needed? Right, those are two objections, I'm minorly objecting, but I'd like to support.--Bishonen | Talk 16:12, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I've just written an article about collisional excitation, which I hope is comprehensible and helps the final paragraph look better! Reference-wise, actually they should be numbered consecutively (but some are cited twice hence a [1] appearing after a [4]). The refs do have page numbers, and I've just altered them to make that clearer. Worldtraveller 12:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Normally, the references section should list the works referenced, in alphabetical order, by Author's last name (and year, for multiple works by the same author). Then citations of these references (including page numbers or otherwise located within the work cited) can be made either in-line, or can be in a footnotes section in which case they can be indicated by consecutively numbered superscripts in the text. For an example of this latter style see: Philetaerus. Paul August ☎ 16:50, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, but since the references are already very clear, the rest is more a minor formatting issue, which won't keep me from voting support on this well-written article.--Bishonen | Talk 11:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support! Well-written, well referenced, and lots of cool pics! [jon] 22:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support Jacob1207 16:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support great article, nice pictures Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Really well written. One suggestion: I think that a short section on observational data would be useful. JYolkowski 22:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comment. Section 2 is entitled 'Observations' - is there more that you'd like to see in that section than is already there? Worldtraveller 00:56, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, re-reading "General Information", I now see that it contains almost everything I would be looking for, other than the right ascension and declination of the object (although you do note that it's quite close to the North Ecliptic Pole). Sorry, missed some of that the first read. JYolkowski 03:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pulaski Skyway

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

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

[edit] Old nomination

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

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

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

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

[edit] Nintendo Entertainment System

One of my favorite articles. After reading this article I became adicted to the Wikipedia. It is the only place on the internet that gives a history of the development of emulators. Totally worthy of featured status--The_stuart 16:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I'll support it. Good article. Andre (talk) 18:13, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
• It's got my support (and not only because I spent a good deal of time working on it...). It's come along nicely and covers everything it should cover, really (one might even call it "encyclopedic" ;-)). Seancdaug 19:00, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
• I'd like to see it a little more polished before supporting. Some of the chronology is a little backwards (discussion of all the components available for the Famicom before mentioning its release date; similarly for the U.S. release, where peripherals, (un)successful games and units sold are discussed at length before mentioning the actual release and sales.) The language could be a little more neutral ("draconian" and "rabid", for instance), and continuity between writing styles could be improved. Aside from that, though, I think it's very close. -- Wapcaplet 21:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just addressed some of these concerns: I've changed some of the language to enhance neutrality, and rearranged the Japanese chronology. I didn't really touch the U.S. chronology, though: I'm not sure how best to handle it, as I can't think of a way of discuss the pricing of the two different packages without first discussing R.O.B. and why it was release in the first place. I'm worried that substantial alterations would interrupt the flow of the piece. But I'm sure someone else can think of some way to handle it, or otherwise I'll head back to the drawing board and rewrite the whole section from scratch. Seancdaug 00:59, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support looks good to me ... but I too agreed chronology looked screwed up ... this change is great.  ALKIVAR™ 05:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support—a fine example of tech-cruft. Everyking 12:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support Awesome Work. Very informative.--Alsocal 08:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object but this is minor - can you check if the Nintendo Family Computer (red and white one) was sold ONLY in Japan? I owned one as a kid I don't remember traveling to Japan to buy one. If this is okay then support. --JuntungWu 09:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • D'oh! You're right, actually: the Famicom was marketed in Japan and South Korea. I noticed this omission in the intro paragraph (and changed the wording earlier to reflect that) but completely forgot about it in the history section. I'll make the change, as well as adding a brief bit of information about the Dendy (the unlicensed NES clone in Russia). -Seancdaug 15:54, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Fine then. Support. --JuntungWu 04:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Excellent fix, support. Minor objection. The article covers a lot of greatly detailed information on the variations and on the market forces and coming to market, but for the US at least, the article covers very little on just exactly how dominating and successful the system was. Nintendo practically was synonymous with video game consoles. That lack of coverage is unusual in an article like this that is usually POV on the side of overly enthusiastic support. In order to not be POV with this addition, some good sources would be needed to cite just how succesful, widespread, and part of the culture the system was. Otherwise looks well done and extraordinarily comprehensive. - Taxman 05:13, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just added a paragraph in the The Later Years section that talks a little bit about the success of the system and its games. Hard to pin down exact sales numbers, though I did what I could. I added two more references documenting where I found what I did. Hope this helps! -Seancdaug 08:14, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• I'll support this. It's very well-written and interesting. I found the section on piracy especially thrilling. Good work to the many editors of this article. -SocratesJedi 07:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• support I love the sections, "Differences between the Famicom and the NES" and "Licensed vs. unlicensed". Both of them are informative for people that have played the NES but were not hardcore fans. *cough* --Anonymous Cow 06:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Almafeta 04:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryanair

Self-nomination. I've been working on bits of this since I joined wikipedia along with many others. Ryanair is a very well known company and has several quite interesting quirks about it. I feel this article does it justice. CGorman 15:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Just to let everyone know, this article was nominated before by someone else, it failed due to unbalanced criticism and being too short. Ifeel both have been address sufficently since. See Ryanair Nomination for details of the previous nomination. CGorman 15:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. --Ryan! | Talk 16:08, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Extremely impressive. Wally 23:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice piece of work. Lectonar 06:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --JuntungWu 06:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice article. JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán) 13:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but should declare that I've done quite a bit of work on this article as well. Worldtraveller 20:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Sfahey 22:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Much improved from last time. Filiocht 15:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve

Self nom. I wrote almost all of this and took many of the photos. --mav 04:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• well done! lovely photos. support--Deglr6328 05:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A good article both for readers and actual visitors. The only tiny complain I could have is that it is not connected to Wikitravel. Not that it should stop us from making it featured, but it would enhance it overall usefullnes, don't you think so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks both of you. :) Unfortunetely there isn't a Wikitravel article on Craters of the Moon yet, so I can't link it. Once one is created I'm sure somebody will add a link. --mav 17:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Good article over-all. I would like to see a bit more detail on the geology section: dates of those eight eruption events, detail on the chemistry of the eruptions, and maybe a tie in to the Columbia River Plateau basalt fields to the west. Maybe I'll put that on my to do list :-). It is good as it is. Vsmith 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks - Sadly the two sources I had did not go much into the geology and there isn't much on the Internet about that either. I'll see if I can buy a book on the subject. --mav 22:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Book bought, but it will be at least 4 days for it to arrive. Hopefully there is enough info for me to create a full article on the geology as well. --mav 07:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Sadly the info you want was not in my new source, but I was still able to double the size of the geology section. --mav 02:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Opps! I missed a large public domain source for this at http://www.nps.gov/crmo/geology/geology.htm . But it will take some time to adapt that into an encyclopedia article on the monument's geology. --mav 04:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Good article. Support. Neutrality^talk 07:06, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Interestingly written and informative text which is logically ordered so that one can know as little or as much as they need. Quite useful as an enclopedia reference. :)--Sketchee 14:36, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, wow, nice work. But for some of the external links it is noted they were used as references. Then just format those properly as in Wikipedia:Cite sources and put them in the references section too. - Taxman 19:33, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks all. :) I didn't use the BLM site for much info at all and there is already an NPS ref entry, so I just removed the ref note from the external links section. --mav 23:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I'm impressed by (and grateful for!) your hard work, including the pictures you've been kind enough to share. Nicely done. Beginning 01:58, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Objection, but should be an easy fix. [and was, too; nicely done. --Michael Snow 04:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)] History section starts off, "There is no archaeological evidence that Native Americans ever lived on the Craters of the Moon Lava Field." To begin the discussion of a topic with its absence is awkward unless it is patently obvious that its presence is to be expected. I don't think the article establishes such an expectation, so some kind of rewrite is called for. --Michael Snow 06:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Need the bit mentioned by Michael Snow tackled. --JuntungWu 06:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but very. Filiocht 16:04, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Great article, but I have a small problem with the following sentence: "There are excellent examples of pahoehoe, slabby pahoehoe, shelly pahoehoe, spiny pahoehoe, aa, and block lava, as well as rafted blocks, tree molds, lava tubes, and many other volcanic features." I don't know what most of theses things are. "lava tubes" is linked so I can figure that out. "pahoehoe" and "aa" are explained in lava (which is linked to two sentences above — perhaps these terms should also link to "lava") but I can find nothing which explains "slabby pahoehoe", "shelly pahoehoe", "spiny pahoehoe", "block lava", "rafted blocks", and "tree molds". Also some more pictures might be appropriate, perhaps some of those in "lava" (there are some there from Craters of the Moon). Paul August ☎ 17:15, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Good points. I will fix those when I expand the geology section (still waiting for the book to arrive). --mav

Fixed. --mav 02:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In fact, now that I've thought about it some more (and keeping in mind that an FA should be "comprehensive") perhaps this article should have a section "Lava fields" where a description of the lava fields at Craters of the Moon is given, including an explanation of the terms mentioned above? Paul August ☎ 17:30, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

That would go in the geography section. And that very expansion is planned (as soon as I get a good source for the info). --mav

• Abstain. A very good article, but 1) Mention of controversies (or lack thereof) relating to land use and creation or expansion of the park would be useful. 2) I would like to see info on the finances (or lack thereof), especially in context of the poor state of the park system in general, e.g. is it losing rangers, services, etc. 3) What is the park's economic impact on the surrounding area? Is it the base of a small local tourist industry with bed-and-breakfast spots for young backbackers? Are there hordes of pensioners on group holiday staying in rows of motels just outside the park entrance? 18:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Economic impact probably is not discussed because it's negligible (my personal assessment, so it's anecdotal). This park/monument is fairly remote, not very well-known, and accordingly relatively small at least in terms of facilities, paved roads, and sightseeing. Except for backcountry stuff, what's described in the article is about all there is. (Not that I'm knocking the place, I enjoyed going there.) --Michael Snow 04:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, that's about what I thought it implied but I couldn't be sure. A seasonal town forms to support the tourist industry at Denali National Park, so I got worried when the article didn't touch the subject. I'll change to support, but mention of any land issues and the average number of annual visitors would soothe me.  :) BanyanTree 05:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The number of visitors has been fairly steady for some time now (already in the park box). I did not uncover any info about land use controversies. The lava fields themselves are worthless for almost everything except recreational activities and the land between is only of marginal use for grazing, so I imagine that is why there wasn't much of a fuss when the monument was hugely expanded. But I'll look into it. --mav
        • I really should read the boxes in articles more carefully... Thanks! BanyanTree 08:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Turns out there was a bit of controversy, but was fixed in 2002 when most of the expanded area was redesignated a U.S. national preserve (that info is now in the article). --mav 02:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Witold Pilecki

Partial self-nom. A very interesting biography. May need minor English lang improvements, but I believe it is quite good atm. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I'd support this. I learned something new today. —ExplorerCDT 11:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support --brian0918™ 14:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• object: There are to many "red" links, unexistent reference articles. User talk: Coburnpharr04 11:36 Pm, 29 Dec 2004 (ET)
  • Several unimportant ones have been removed. There are ~13 red links left. I don't think this is against any featured rules, besides, red links serve as a reminded of 'to do', showing us what needs to be done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I support it now: looks much better with the sectioning. Although I'm strongly against "red articles", I do believe thats this article is quite interesting and should be featured. User talk: Coburnpharr04 1:44 Pm (ET), 30 Dec 2004
• Support - the story is interesting, short and well-described. Halibutt 02:29, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Support: This article presents, concisely and evocatively, an important story that is generally unknown to the broader world.
• Minor object. Desperately needs sectioning. Could do with a minor copyedit, and perhaps to be a bit longer (it's hard to judge length because the pictures are so big). Will consider supporting if just the first one is done, though. Ambi 04:45, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Good point. There is now sectioning. Lenght is ~2350 words, 16k letters or '6 article screens, plus 1 list screen'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I believe this could use some more work to conform to Wikipedia conventions: most obviously, put dates of birth and death in the intro and don't bold the subject's name more than once. I also believe a bit more length wouldn't hurt. However, those are just suggestions, I'm not objecting. Everyking 22:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• There was way too much overlinking before I edited this. For example Armia Krajowa, Polish and Polish Government in Exile were all linked each time they appeared in the text. The article on the whole also seems too short to me, but since I know nothing of the subject I can't say if the article is comprehensive. In short this is a non-vote (aka just a comment). --mav 06:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal Party (Utah)

This article was mostly written by User:Cool Hand Luke It is well researched and written and is one of the best Wikipedia articles I have read. It is about a subject that is not well known, and would make a quite edifying featured article.--[[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 23:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note: If this is used as a featured article, could it please be used after January 6? User:Cool Hand Luke is on vacation until then and I'm sure he wouldn't want to miss it. :) [[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 21:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• This is a fascinating topic. The article is well done, but I have two minor objections. First, the History section, and the article as a whole, needs to be a bit clearer on chronology. There's a little bit of chronological skipping around, but mostly I'd like to know what was going on between elections. (Perhaps that's not "chronology"; I suppose that's just a request for the article to be expanded in places.) Second, it would be nice to have more information on Baskin, Godbe, the People's Party, and the other folks who lack their own Wikpedia articles. I don't suggest that all these people need independent articles, but if we're not going to have independent articles on them it'd be nice to have a little bit more information on them included in the Liberal Party article itself. That's really about it. The article is approximately the right length for its topic, and the images are wonderful. Hydriotaphia 02:25, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • An addendum to my earlier message. I support this article for featured status; the above suggestions are things that would further improve an article that I believe already qualifies. Hydriotaphia 04:47, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. COGDEN 03:30, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Dbiv 01:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. iMeowbot~Mw 07:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --JuntungWu 18:07, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical warfare

Self nomination: I've been putting a huge amount of work into this subject, and I think it's just about ready for its first pass through the FAC process. Even if it doesn't pass, the crucible of the review process should help to mold my beloved article into something even better. -- ClockworkSoul 02:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've made a large number of the requested changes and improvements that were suggested; I will hopefully finish tomorrow, including that graph issue that was brought up. Sorry for the delay, the holidays have been holding me up. I look forward to any comments that the objectors may have. :) – ClockworkSoul 19:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. - Extensive, researched, referenced, edited. - Trick 02:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Minor quibbles: The Brussels Declaration (1874) is listed after the Hague Convention (1900) -- should they be chronological? The table for "Chemical weapon proliferation" is no longer "To the right...". The John Doughty story appears twice. The formatting of the two "Main article:" links is inconsistent (I don't know which format is preferred). Both "World War I" and "First World War" is used -- perhaps be consistent and use one or the other. In the WWI section, the paragraph on disposal talks about a US disposal program but I'm not clear whether that has anything to do with WWI weapons. Perhaps add a separate section on disposal of chemical weapons that covers all periods. Is it acceptable to cite sources using external links within the body of the article? Otherwise, congratulations. Geoff/Gsl 05:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I see you've started making fixes - thank you kindly. After staring at the same article for so long, it's easy to miss the same typos again and again. I'll take a look at your other points as well: my goal is perfection. -- ClockworkSoul 06:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I know you already supported, but I made changes according to your points. The "disposal" section is one that I will be doing later today (it is almost 2am here) -- ClockworkSoul 06:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Absolute brillance, ClockworkSoul. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 05:52, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow - high praise! Thank you sincerely, Neutrality. It's nice to know that my hard work seem to be paying off. -- ClockworkSoul 06:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Minor object. Lead section needs to be longer and I'm missing external links. BTW, what is the difference between suffocation and asphyxiation? Support as soon as other objections are resolved. Mgm|^{(talk) 09:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)}
  • ^{(Above post by MacGyverMagic) Lead section: I was thinking that also. I'll enhance it a bit tonight (I only have a couple minutes available to me now). Suffocation and asphyxiation are often used interchangably, but suffocation is the act of mechanically causing asphyxia – the restriction of oxygen to the brain. I'll clarify. -- ClockworkSoul 14:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)}
  • According to Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (30th edition): -

Asphyxia: pathological changes caused by a lack of oxygen in respired air, resulting in hypoxia and hypercapnia.

Suffocation: asphyxiation

The definition of asphyxia strikes me as rather odd, because a 'lack of oxygen in respired air' alone will not cause hypercapnia. In my opinion, the definition should be: -

pathological changes caused by a lack of respired air, resulting in hypoxia and hypercapnia.

[Note to pedants: my definition is slightly loose because one interpretation may include other causes of type 2 respiratory failure such as COPD or neuromuscular weakness, which are not normally considered as asphyxiation.] Axl

• Support. Rd232 11:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Sorry, as what is there is great, but in correcting the intro I noticed what could be a lot of missing information. The article seems to cover quite little about the actual technology and methods involved. What is there is almost entirely discussed interspersed in the history section. The rest is in the agents section, which is very short in comparison to the history section. What could be covered for ex is how they work, dispersal methods (conventional explosives, planes, crop dusters, etc). What has been tried and what is theorized?, etc. As I understand it, the reason they have not been used more is that they are so difficult to disperse and to get where they are supposed to go without causing casualties to the side using them. Now I did not have time to read the article so some of this may be mixed in, but for presentation sake it should be separate. - Taxman 00:32, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Why be sorry? This is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for, and I genuinely appreciate the constructive criticism. Dispersal methods would be an excellent addition, and I'll begin a section on them. As a side note, however, historically the main reason that CW weapons have not been used more often is fear of reprisal in kind (this is why the Nazis chose not to employ their new nerve agents against the Allies). Historically, societies have used CW's very successfully against foes that could not respond in kind. The agents themselves were mentioned somewhat briefly because they each already have their own section (nerve agent in particular is fairly detailed). -- ClockworkSoul 01:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Today added an entire section on chemical weapon delivery as part of a greater section on chemical weapon technology that may satisfy one point of your opposition. I'm looking forward to your comments and or criticisms. -- ClockworkSoul 06:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. - most of this should this excellent, and I want to support, but should it be at chemical weapon / chemical weapons instead (these are currently redirects)? The article mentions the use of Zyklon B in the Nazi concentration camps - while clearly genocide, is this really "chemical warfare" (or even the use of a chemical weapon)? The last section is entitled "Chemical weapons and terrorism" - notwithstanding the "war on terror", terrorists using chemical weapons are not really undertaking chemical warfare. Perhaps a daft question, but is napalm a chemical weapon? If not, why not? Shouldn't there be something about persistent versus non-persistent chemicals, decontamination, and NBC countermeasures (antidotes, NBC suits)? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Many people would not agree that the Nazi use of Zyklon B is chemical warfare (and I updated the sentence appropriately, but did not remove it entirely). It is the use of a chemical weapon: hydrogen cyanide, a potent blood agent.

Regardless of whether the use of chemical weapon agents by terrorists is "chemical warfare" according to the dictionary definition is not entirely the point: the terrorists themselves believe that they engaged in asymmetric warfare. To exclude the use of chemical weapons by terrorists from this article would be doing our readers a disservice.

Napalm is not a chemical weapon because its destructive effects are primarily due to fire, and not direct chemical action. I added that to the list of "not chemical weapons because". -- ClockworkSoul 06:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The "Chemical weapon proliferation" is poor and unbalanced. No mention of North Korea or Syria -probably the main proliferators but half the section was about Israel who is certainly not helping any other country gain chemical weapons. No mention of Western companies assisting countries like Libya, Syria and Iraq. More importantly, there is no section at all on the destruction of chemical weapons, armaments and production facilities under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Rmhermen 21:30, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • This section will require a great deal of effort, and this is the subtopic that I am weakest in. I am going to update this last, and tackle the low-hanging fruit first. Because you are a great deal more versed in this subtopic, if you have time, would you be able to lend a hand? -- ClockworkSoul 06:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• There is a sub-article Chemical_weapon_proliferation. And its lack of extensivity is slightly realted to lack of access to such (reliable and up-to-date) information to the public.--ZayZayEM 04:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't understand the graph (Image:Cw development.PNG). What do the numbers on the y-axis measure? If the numbers are purely qualititative, then I think it's highly misleading for the information to be in graph form (Edward Tufte would call it "chartjunk"). It would be much better to put the same information in a table (it would also be much easier to read). Gdr 13:11, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. Please fix up that graph (perhaps to convert to a 3/4 tiered timeline). Other than that a smashing article.--ZayZayEM 04:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article. Axl 11:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Brilliant work here, and I agree that it is at the right page. The amount of visual detail and exposition is stunning. Wally 23:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)