Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2004 Democratic National Convention/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 2004 Democratic National Convention

Self-Nomination. I started the speakers list back when it was just a wee stub, but how it's grown! A true testament to the massively-parallel power of Wikipedia that just a week after the convention ended, we have an excellent article comprehensively covering the event in a much more complete and balanced way than any of the traditional news sources. It also seems to have slipped out of the news cycle, so it has pretty much stabilized. Would love to get this accepted and featured around the time of the RNC, to inspire creating a great article for that too. Gregb 23:06, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Neutrality 00:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Fantastic article. This is what Wikipedia does best. Ambi 01:18, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It's a wealth of information and details we didn't get in the mainstream media. It's well packaged. --Gerald Farinas 17:30, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Good mix of raw fact-reporting and analysis. 81.168.80.170 20:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. 67.162.52.102 02:32, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now. Good article, great lead section but TOC is overwhelming. I suggest moving the timeline/quotes section to a separate page. That should make this article more manageable. --mav
  • I have proposed a possible alternate solution in a software feature request. Thoughts? Fredrik | talk 00:35, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The timeline/quotes should still be moved. --mav
      • I just tried my bestest to move the schedule of speakers to another document. I would appreciate peer review, as this is the first time I've tried to do something like this before, and mainly went off perceived norms of other articles. Full schedule at Speakers of 2004 Democratic National Convention. Do we have a 2004 US presidential campaign template/footer that we can place at the bottom of all these great articles we're making? --Gregb 17:18, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Good work, but the article could use a broader, historical perspective, looking back to when party conventions actually decided the nominations. Nominating conventions weren't always coronations, of course. 172 05:29, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)Support 172 19:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't all that kind of hashed out in the link to the separate Democratic National Convention article provided in the introductory paragraph? --Gerald Farinas 17:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What? This is about a specific convention 172. That type of info should be at Democratic National Convention. --mav 06:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Very well, I'll support. Though links to backgrounding articles could be more prominent. 172 19:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Much better! Full support. --mav 00:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Of utter irrelevance to most of the civilized world, regardless of its compositional quality. Denni☯ 00:35, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
  • This is not a legitimate objection. Nowhere at Wikipedia:What is a featured article does it say that the topic has to have relevance "to most of the civilized world". --Jiang 00:47, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Considering that it's one of the few widely-watched political events of the US Presidential Campaign and the outcome of THAT affects most of the world, I would argue that it has plenty of significance. Far moreso than most of the articles on here. Your critism is untrue, as well as not being a legitimate objection as mentioned above. --Gregb 01:15, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Invalid objection. Take your Anti-American bigotry elsewhere. --mav 03:29, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Nice roundup of significant speeches. prometheus1 07:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now.. needs at least *some* non-copyrighted images. +sj+ 02:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • There are currently two images taken by wikipedians in the article. One is the Kucinich interview pic near the bottom. I also added a pic of Boston in the venue paragraph, which also addressed one of the two pictures with no recorded source. Will this be enough? --Gregb 20:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • And I can't count. There are now four pictures that are under a GNU license. Two in the Venue section (one was ever-so-kindly added by Raul654 since my above comment), and two more down in the protests section. This is out of a total of 13 images used in the article. --Gregb 06:06, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I am really impressed. Acegikmo1 04:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Really well done article, comprehensive and enlightening. On the TV and such here (in Ireland), US domestic news is presented (or not at all) in such a way that one can dismiss the subject, much as the above objector did. Zoney 10:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Object - includes at least two images with no information on their source. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 11:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I moved the uncited Gore pic to the speakers page until its source can be cleared up. As for the Kerry picture, it's a really nice one and our only one within the article (besides the pseudo-generic kerry-edwards train pic). I'd love to keep it, and have left a note on the uploader's user page asking for a source. I seem to remember that specific photo being on my local newspaper's front page, but don't know the exact source. An alternate Kerry pic would certainly be welcomed from anyone.--Gregb 20:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, I just replaced the final uncited image with another image I found from a different angle of the same instant. As before, the old image was moved to the speakers page until we can clear the source up. I presume this'll be enough for support? --Gregb 03:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)