Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2003 and before

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Garry Kasparov

  • Garry Kasparov -- fun for anyone. comprehensive up the wazoo. Kingturtle 05:50, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Headlines and a TOC, please.—Eloquence 06:55, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
      • I have addressed this objection. I support adding this article whether the headings I added are kept or not. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:26, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Lots of info, but not "brilliant prose." moink 23:03, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • This has already been added, if you want to remove it, provide some more explanation, remove it from Wikipedia:Brilliant prose and add it to #Recently removed articles, and reason for removal on this page.—Eloquence 23:11, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
        • Comments along these lines have been made before... Maybe we could have a Wikipedia:Great articles page which could replace the BP page to de-emphasize the "prose" and re-emphasize that we write encyclopedia articles? If this is done, we should wait til after the refresh on administrative grounds. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:40, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • I (unsuccessfully) tried to get some feedback for a possible page rename on the wikien-l mailing list last Friday
          • I would agree with that. It seems people nominate things for this page based on content, not on whether or not it's well written. And of course, it makes sense to recognize good content, but it's disheartening to see some of these listed as "brilliant prose" when they're pretty humdrum. moink 23:05, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Pistols

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Saxophone

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Punk rock

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Roy Orbison

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Madonna (entertainer)

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Jazz

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Rock, Paper, Scissors

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Prisoner's dilemma

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Go (board game)

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Chess

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Blackjack

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Star Trek

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Have I Got News For You

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] London congestion charge

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Euro

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Economics

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Crime fiction

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Gramophone record

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Martha Stewart

This article was a former featured article removed because of a couple problems with neutrality and applying too much focus to the ImClone scandal. The section on ImClone has been moved to it's own article, and the neutrality issue is no longer a problem, so I think it's time to resubmit it. --Alex 05:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Object I believe Wikipedia:Inline Citations (as per WP:CITE) are now required in WP:FACs. It can be a nasty twist if you are not used to such a thing, however. Also, trivia sections almost always attract great opposition at FAC. RN 05:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: Alex, have you read this before? Honestly, I think the Martha Stewart article needs to be a lot of work before this can even be nominated. I'm not trying to be nasty or anything, but I think there would simply be too much work for you to do in order to get this up and running in the near future. (If you really want an elaboration, just ask). Also, has this article been nominated for an FA in the past? If so, where is the archive of the old FA?--P-Chan 06:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It was featured as part of the brilliant prose batches - see [1] RN 06:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Unduely strong? Yeah maybe you've right, but it's suprising that a person with so much coverage, fame, controversy, history and money surrounding her would have an article so small and incomplete. (But yes, the prose is nice I agree with you there).  :) --P-Chan 06:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Heh - I never commented on the prose myself :). Anyway, often what happens here with former FAs (and it seems to be happening more now) is a clash of sorts between FARC and FAC standards. That is, often the standards to "keep a article featured" are much lower then what it is to go to featured normally, so sometimes people think that can get close to the former only to find themselves coming up against the newer, much higher, standards such as the requirement of inline citations. RN 06:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I did not realize that the standrards have improved very much. I still believe that it is a strong article, much of it was expanded by myself and a few other users over the last 2-3 months. I've read it back when it was a FA, and it is much nicer that it was when it still had that designation. --Alex 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
            • To RN and Alex: it's nice to know that standards have improved over time. I'm a little suprised as to how much of a improvement there has been. For example, I dug this up from the Martha Stewart Archive and.... wow. [2]. (Yeah I agree with you Alex, you did add a lot to the article.) :)--P-Chan 06:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, it can be discouraging at times. I wouldn't think too much of it though - if you want to try for something less involving there is good articles now that is basically the same requirements as what featured articles used to be, so you can nominate yours there once you think it meets the good article criteria. (Good articles is, unlike WP:FAC, not a formal process, but the status is still basically close to a featured article). I'd also recommend taking a look at the article assessment table. RN 06:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Alex, you may also want to get it peer reviewed along with the GAnomination. It should hopefully help you scope out what content to focus on. The biggest thing you have to do right now is expand on the content. I can see every section in the article doubling in size, and act as headings for subheadings. (Make sure the pictures are properly sourced and have encyclopedic value, as you don't want to have 10 pictures of her smiling.) Best to you! --P-Chan 07:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I've expanded it a bit, andhow to I submit it for a good article?--Alex 03:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Dude, there's like hardly any difference from last time. I think you might be rushing things too much here. Building up a quality article takes a lot of care and is not something that can be done overnight. If you put it up for a GAnomination, I'm certain it's going to lose, but at least you might get some feedback from the one user. I suggest, instead that you go through a peer review first. And during that peer review say that you are trying to shape this article into FA status. Also, try to invite people who are knowledgable about the topic to peer review your article. The feedback that you will be getting, hopefully will move the article forward. If you have any questions feel free to ask.--P-Chan 03:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
First, I'm not a dude my friend! second, I was just stating that I had tried to expand it a little, I didn't mean that I though it was already in featured article shape. thanks for you imput anyways! --Alex 04:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Whoops! (Oh man I'm such a dork.) Err anyways.. maam, here is the info that you're looking for.
If you need any help, just ask!--P-Chan 04:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rembrandt

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Al-Razi

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Joshua A. Norton

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Jim Henson

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Leonardo da Vinci

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Humphrey Bogart

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

[edit] Milgram experiment

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Psychosis

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Menstrual cycle

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Tuberculosis

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Telephone exchange

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Typewriter

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Spam (electronic)

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Computer security

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Search engine

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Quantum computer

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Nuclear weapon

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Markup language

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Fountain pen

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Electronic amplifier

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Application programming interface

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Algorithm

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Rainbow

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Quantum mechanics

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Platypus

This was made a featured article so long ago that I can't find any record of why it was promoted. Anyway, it was demoted in July this year (See Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Platypus for its complete FA history). Over the past couple of months I've completely rewritten it - I think it is back up to FA standard now. Yomanganitalk 10:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. very nice. Rlevse 12:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, Informative, well-referenced, well-illustrated, well-written... overall everything a FA should be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ONUnicorn (talk • contribs).
  • Comment: The image map of the platypus distribution has no information in it, either as caption or in the image description. What does the color mean? I can guess, but since there are 2 different intensities of purple color, does it mean that platypuses are distributed throughout the continent? And also, to avoid WP:OR issue and for the accuracy of the image, there must be a source of this distribution map, isn't it? — Indon (reply) — 14:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out - I've added an explanation to the map. The OR concern is addressed by the referenced range details in the article - I don't think it is necessary to cite the map key as well. Yomanganitalk 15:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but which reference that was used as the source of the distribution image? — Indon (reply) — 15:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added a reference with a map that duplicates the info shown. Yomanganitalk 15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but actually it should be given in the image description, because then the image can be used in any articles without concerning its accuracy. So, here is my support for such a high-quality article. — Indon (reply) — 15:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to let editors know, that I've been bold to edit the image description in its Commons page. — Indon (reply) — 15:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article. Only two minor comments I wish to add.
    • Can a picture of a platypus egg be obtained? It would be very interesting since it is one of the few mammals that lay eggs.
      • I've only been able to find one decent photo - I emailed the owner for permission to use it but haven't heard back yet. Yomanganitalk 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I've added an external link to the picture in the meantime. Yomanganitalk 09:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • One sentences which appear akward to me: The platypus occupies much the same general distribution as it did prior to European settlement of Australia, except for its loss from the state of South Australia. Much the same general distribution is my concern. Joelito (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I've slightly reworded that now. Yomanganitalk 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Hmm. Well, that explains the difference between the German and English maps. Adam Cuerden talk 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent job. Definitely meets the FA criteria. Jay32183 17:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great work. Adam Cuerden talk 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Support Very comprehensive and well-cited. Some comments:
    • Keep dashes separating clauses in sentences consistent; I spotted "-", "–", and "—" all used.
    • Two red links: "interclavicle" and "defensin-like proteins".
Overall, good job. -Gzkn 01:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I've changed [[defensin-like proteins]] to [[defensin]]-like [[protein]]s. There's really not much I can do about the interclavicle link: an interclavicle exists in certain animals, so there's no use not having an article about it (not double negative because "not having" refers to nonexistence and "no use" refers the futility thereof; not entirely canceling each other out), but I wouldn't know enough to start an article about it. I also eliminated dash variation by removing the dashes (where they served as conjunctions) and finding a more appropriate way to logically connect two independent clauses. See here On that note, I

Support: Nice article. It's good, it's factual, and the popular culture section is intelligible prose, not just a list. Well done. Gracenotes T § 02:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there is enough information for both interclavicle and defensin-like protein for them to have their own article, which is why they are linked even though those articles don't yet exist (both are on my redlink list to be filled sometime soon). Yomanganitalk 09:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: I am disclosing I did a bit of editing on it as well but I reckon it satisfies all criteria - neutral, comprehensive, succinct and readable. Cas Liber 06:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Very good. Wiki-newbie 09:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support and a congratulatory salute for saving yet another neglected or demoted featured article. Sandy (Talk) 14:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. Nat91 18:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice!--Yannismarou 20:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well writen, interesting, well cited, and has good pictures. Well done. Darthgriz98 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Periodic table

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Paradox

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] LSD

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Helium

I would like to recertify this article. It is a holdover from the Brilliant prose days (see Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science) that was until very recently an almost certain candidate for de-featuring (not at all compressive and no references see [3]). So I greatly expanded it and added references. This expansion has created what is in effect a completely new article so it seems fit to put it through a proper FAC to see if it is FA quality now. So is this FA quality now? If this nomination fails, then the article should be de-featured. --mav 20:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, insofar as it is necessary to revalidate an article that is already featured. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Minor object. Now thats what I call a peremptory strike (before FARC) :) Uses section is mostly bulleted - try changing it to normal paragraphs (what goes around... ;p).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That is the format specified in Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. The FA criteria clearly state that I must follow those criteria. --mav 04:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The few bullet points that could be paragraphs in their own right are now broken-off from the list. This is all I can do (the reason why WikiProject Elements uses bullet lists in the uses section is to avoid one sentence paragraphs there). --mav 02:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I think it's too early for a full and fair FA assessment. The article still is in a freshly-poured and thoroughly-stirred state, with a few minor, yet unnecessary wrinkles, and should have some time for the froth to settle. Femto 17:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What specifically still needs to be done? Feedback - I want feedback! :) --mav 19:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It contains all you need to know and can't get much better after a much, much longer time. I still think that big texts are scary though, so this is (not really) on the condition that somebody promises it will contain an overview phase diagram in the near future. Femto 18:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for now. I like the article but have some comments. I did some editing myself but was unable to solve the following: Ok, my objections have been addressed.
  • The diagram at the top right corner lacks an explanation. Especially the figures above the periodic table need a guide. If such a guide exists, I was unable to find it. This my main objection, my other objections are just "wrinkles" as stated by Femto.
  • From the intro: "The properties of its rare stable isotope called helium-3 are important..." this is too vague. What is important about these properties? The rest of the sentence could use some rephrasing as well.
  • I don't know the validity of the source but "most production outside the U.S. coming from Canada and Poland" contradicts these numbers which suggest an important role for Algeria.
  • Speaking about production, the two paragraphs at the beginning under the heading "Production and use" show only the history of production in the US. While the majority of Helium was and currently is produced (I have a tendency to use the word purified) in the US, other countries do have a contribution as well. Jan van Male 19:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That is the standard diagram for all element articles. I planed to have an explanation on the image description page anyway, so I'll add one via a template (since it will be the same for each element). The lead section is already a bit overloaded - I needed to at least mention that helium-3 is important and link to the article on that subject. There simply is no space to explain why it is important but I’ll see what I can quickly add parenthetically. The source info I have is a combination of incomplete data from 2001 and complete data from the late 1960s. Thanks for the link. I’ll use that to update the article. --mav 19:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • There is now a key template at Image:He-TableImage-BIG.png and Template:ChemElementTableImageKey is linked via the word 'Key' under the displayed thumb in the article. Everything else should also be fixed. --mav 02:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Great save. I'd much rather see this than nomination on WP:FARC. I'm not sure it needs recertification here except comments for improvment. The only thing I saw was the verbose inline citations are pretty cumbersome. In spite of that they are excellent, and that is much much better than not having them at all. However, perhaps they would be less intrusive if they were made into superscripts using the Wikipedia:Footnote3 autonumbering system. - Taxman 23:27, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ack! A hacked note system. I'd love to just have [1] work the same way but have the notes section generated automatically. Argh - having to write the same thing twice is a pain. But I'll give it a try... --mav 00:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not doing that again. I tried using that template system but the result was a complete mess (too many of my refs are exactly the same - same book and same page). Until a real ref system is developed I've commented the inline references out. In the interim, these will still be visible to editors looking at the source text, but not by readers. --mav 02:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Factual errors. In particular, the article seems confused about viscosity. It claims "(superfluidity and almost no viscosity are also notable behaviors)"; later it claims that "[non-superfluid liquid helium] has a very low viscosity" and that for superfluid helium "its viscosity is very near zero". Now, I don't know about non-superfluid helium, but a superfluid has exactly zero viscosity. I'll fix that, but I don't feel confident about the article's truthfulness. There are more sections I find highly doubtful, but perhaps they belong on the article's talk page. --Andrew 05:36, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) OK, done one pass cleaning and raising objections on the talk page. There are a lot. --Andrew 06:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) My objections are satisfied; a few minor quirks remain, but I am now happy. --Andrew 03:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • This article is fully referenced with inline citations noting book and page number. I've used some of the best sources available to write this article. Almost all the discrepancies are likely due to the different way the different sources I used described things and the different context they are used. Other issues may be due to poor sentence structure on my part. I'll take a look at your specific feedback and respond to that later. But in the mean time it would be nice if you assumed good faith on my part. --mav 13:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, I assume you intended to produce a correct article, and that your sources are not wrong (although possibly out of date). But there are many places where it looks like you misunderstood what they are saying, or at least, rewrote it in a way that's highly confusing. Anyway, this generic talk is basically irrelevant; if someone cleans up the problems I listed I'll be much happier. (I cleaned up the ones I could, but someone needs to hit the books for the rest). --Andrew 18:44, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • It looks like the major problem was that one of the references I used was bad - really bad in fact - and poisoned much of the article with mis-information and downright wrong facts. We have now fixed this. This also goes to show that print references should not be trusted blindly just because they are in print. --mav 12:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not a vote, just a comment: the article is seeing significant attention (and, I think, improvements) from several users (including mav and myself); some of my objections are still unanswered, but I would like to urge people not to archive this too quickly, and to encourage people to take another look at the article in a few days (or now; help is welcome!). --Andrew 20:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think we've fixed all the major issues (and then some). The article is still not perfect, but then that is not a criteria for FAs. Please consider at least removing your objection (a support would be nice, but not needed). --mav 01:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • While there are still a few points that could use more information, I'm now happy with the article. I encourage people to go take another look at it now. --Andrew 03:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. --Andrew 03:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free will

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Comet

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Cladistics

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

[edit] Behistun Inscription

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

[edit] Byzantine Empire

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

[edit] History of Germany

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

[edit] History of Scotland

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

[edit] History of the Netherlands

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

[edit] Peloponnesian War

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

[edit] Christianity

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

[edit] End times

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

[edit] Greek mythology

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

[edit] Tea

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

[edit] Spacecraft propulsion

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

[edit] Leet

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

[edit] Hebrew calendar

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

[edit] Freemasonry

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

Strongly Object, it's only just lost FA status for the very good reason that it's suffered badly from vandalism recently and has some significant improvement to make before it's worthy of consideration.ALR 22:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Strongly Object. This has to be a joke... the article is a mess due to recent vandalism and POV postings. It needs a lot of work before it is worthy of being featured. In fact, it is currently up for being dropped from the former featured list because it is such a mess. Blueboar 22:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Object per Blueboar. Ardenn 01:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Object wha???? That link you linked to shows 1 keep vote and 2 remove votes, I really don't understand the point of this at all. It lost FA status less then 24 hrs ago. Seraphim 01:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Would love to see it featured, but in it's current state I must object. After the mess left by POVing vandals and the resulting editwars, it's going to take time to bring this article up to FA-level; even more so because the bar has been raised significantly since it was made a FA the first time. WegianWarrior 11:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

let the light shine and blind and burn and blister in brilliance! MCC ACEGRUNT!

[edit] Anno Domini

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

[edit] Summer Olympic Games

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

[edit] Montreal Canadiens

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

[edit] Bodyline

Former FA, (very) recently defeatured because of lack of inline citations, now fixed. Outstanding prose of a quality rarely encountered in WP, useful and enlightening illustrations and a sound retelling of the complex story of one of those exceptionally rare occasions where sporting controversy leads to serious political ramifications - in this case, just about averted. --Dweller 09:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Concerns raised at FAR were subsequently addressed. Sandy (Talk) 09:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Deserves its title back. Has proper citations now. - Mgm|(talk) 10:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A comprehensive and entertaining read. jguk 12:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support and Ouch! --Xtreambar 18:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support nice restoration work and in such a short time too. Jay32183 19:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - the FAR criteria have been fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support a restore of FA. One comment: the article refers to the TV miniseries as "Bodyline: It's just not cricket", whereas IMDB and the DVD cover in the article both make no reference to the subtitle? --Steve (Slf67) talk 02:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Acs4b 15:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—Needs a copy-edit throughout. Here are examples from the top.
    • "several of the Laws of Cricket were changed to prevent this kind of tactic being used again"—The last three words are redundant: beautiful example.
Thanks. Fixed (although I don't think it was dreadful as it was) --Dweller 23:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "that could be caught by one of several fielders located in the quadrant of the field behind square leg." Remove "located". Why is the "square leg" link piped to "Fielding" when there's a WP article on square leg? And if you're going to pipe it to "Fielding", why not to the specific section where s l is mentioned? I had to use my finder to locate it in that linked article.
Square Leg has nothing to do with cricket. Personally, I don't think that the fielding article is very good and there's no specific reference to square leg worth the mention. The best is the diagram. Anyone unfamiliar with the concept of fielding positions probably only needs to know that it is a fielding position... which the current link does admirably. --Dweller 23:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "and make the ball come up into the body of the batsman"—not well expressed: "into"? Sounds like a penetration. "Make" is a little awkward; what about "so that the ball would strike the batsman's body"?
    • "to fend the ball away"—fend away? Try "deflect". Tony 03:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I think that fend is more appropriate in this sense as we are talking about using gloves, etc at chest-neck height pushing the ball away at an awkward height. Using deflect gives the impression the batsman may have played a sublime leg glance or square cut or something... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree. Fend implies a defensive element that deflect does not. --Steve (Slf67) talk 06:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the DVD cover needs a justification for fair use. gren グレン 08:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

[edit] Gough Whitlam

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

[edit] Copyright

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Featured_log_October_2003_and_before_f784.html"