Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2005 to April 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 April 2005 1.1 Moresnet 1.2 First Council of Nicaea 1.3 Disneyland 1.3.1 April 05 bid 1.4 Google 1.5 Emory University 1.6 TV/FM DX 1.7 Mormonism and Christianity 1.8 Noel Gallagher 1.9 Charles de Gaulle 1.10 Fuck 1.11 Van Halen 1.12 E. E. Cummings 1.13 Portuguese Communist Party 1.14 Red Arrows 1.15 Alan Moore 1.16 Blade Runner 1.17 Khazars 1.18 Science fiction on television 1.19 S2 programming language 1.20 The Lion King 1.21 Hubbert peak 1.22 Structure of the British Army 1.23 Gowanus Canal 1.24 Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad 1.25 Genghis Khan 1.26 I am cuba 1.27 Helen Gandy 1.28 Turing test 1.29 Cyberpunk 1.30 Rock carvings at Alta 1.31 SAT 1.32 Funeral of Pope John Paul II 1.33 Magnetic resonance imaging 1.34 Lodz Ghetto 1.35 Iron Maiden (band) 1.36 Winston Churchill 1.37 Wikipedia 1.38 Papal conclave, 2005 1.39 Special Air Service 1.40 E-mail spam 1.41 Académie française 1.42 Google Gulp 1.43 Curtis Sittenfeld 1.44 Yield curve 1.45 New York City Subway nomenclature 1.46 Democratic Republic of Afghanistan 1.47 Buckingham Palace 1.48 Polish-Soviet War 1.49 Schutzstaffel 1.50 Jello Biafra 1.51 Collapse of the World Trade Center 2 March 2005 2.1 First Council of Nicaea 2.2 History of South Africa 2.3 Concorde 2.4 History of science 2.5 Vedem 2.6 Xanadu House 2.7 Hair 2.8 Diana, Princess of Wales 2.9 The Giver 2.10 Richard Wagner 2.11 Time Cube 2.12 Thug Ride 2.13 Friedrich Nietzsche 2.14 Boston molasses disaster 2.15 New Orleans, Louisiana 2.16 Otto von Bismarck 2.17 Singapore 2.18 Guns N' Roses 2.19 Steel 2.20 The Western Star 2.21 Louis Riel 2.22 Night (book) 2.23 New Deal 2.24 Iran-Iraq War 2.25 Duck and Cover (film) 2.26 My Lai Massacre 2.27 Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet 2.28 2001: A Space Odyssey 2.29 Jello Biafra 2.30 Red River Rebellion 2.31 Disgaea 2.32 Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2.33 Our Gang 2.34 Alexander Hamilton 2.35 Plymouth(England) 2.36 Diamond 2.37 Mars 2.38 History of music 2.39 kibbutz 2.40 Holocaust 2.41 Futurama (TV series) 2.42 Magnetic resonance imaging 2.43 South Africa 2.44 1755 Lisbon earthquake 2.44.1 the Theresa Carpanelli/Washington Post controversy 2.44.2 Back to the philosophy 2.45 Saturnian 2.46 Wankel engine 3 February 2005 3.1 Buckingham Palace 3.2 Beslan school hostage crisis 3.3 Bay Area Rapid Transit 3.4 Napoleon I of France 3.5 Game development 3.6 Nuclear reactor 3.7 Philippine Mythology 3.8 Bidder's Organ 3.9 Usog 3.10 Paris 3.11 Harlem Renaissance 3.12 Harold Clifton 3.13 Sollog 3.14 Singapore 3.15 James Bond 3.15.1 ORIGINAL SUPPORT/OBJECTIONS: 3.15.2 NEW SUPPORT/OBJECTIONS 3.16 World War II 3.17 Yield curve 3.18 Internet Explorer 3.19 Woodrow Wilson 3.20 Pruno 3.21 Esperanto 3.22 The Turk 3.23 Demoscene 3.24 Frankie Goes to Hollywood 3.25 Finnish language 3.26 Katana 3.27 Radio Caroline 3.28 User:Bishonen/Antique toilet paper holder 3.29 Municipality of Strathfield 3.30 Cascading Style Sheets 3.31 Geography of Canada 3.32 Tsunami 3.33 Diana, Princess of Wales 3.34 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake 3.35 Mouse (computing) 3.36 The Giver 3.37 John Titor 3.38 Virginian Railway 3.39 Zhao Ziyang 3.40 Formula One 3.41 Gymnopaedia 3.42 Washington gubernatorial election, 2004 3.43 Gangtok 3.44 Photography of female nudes before 1923 3.45 History of Bulgaria 3.46 Bolt Thrower 3.47 Berlin Wall 3.48 Page table 3.49 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3.50 Washington Monument 3.51 Blitzkrieg 3.52 Michael Schumacher 3.53 World Chess Championship

[edit] April 2005

[edit] Moresnet

A clearly written nothing-fancy article with good illustrations revealing a fact that few of us knew beforehand. I found it by pure accident. -- Egil 18:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object - good, as far as it goes, but could do with an image of something in the place (for example, an archive image of the mine) or of a person who is involved, and the article has no references. Also, is there anything to say about it more recently than 1920 or before 1815? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object agree with Aloan. 1)An image of the place today would also be nice. 2) The map is not too clear after clicking it. Is it possible to get the location drawn on a contemporary map? 3)Needs a copyedit too. Otherwise is an interesting article.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 19:04, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Article needs references. The content looks fine by me. One detail maybe though: the caption of the flag picture says it is an "unofficial flag", but there is no mention of the flag in the article. Where does it come from then? Were the colors taken from the coat of arms of a local noble/place? Also, I do not usually object articles because of pictures, but a photography sure would be nice. Phils 10:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First Council of Nicaea

A very well written article on a fascinating subject. The early Christian church has given the entire world a lasting legacy, and people tend not to have a large body of personal knowledge on the specifics. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:24, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Object:

• No coverage of differences of opinion before the council
• No coverage of the effects of the first council
• No references. :ChrisG 20:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The article on the "differences of opinion" is at Arianism and is linked in the intro. I admit it could cover the effects better, I'll look into writing a bit more on that. Also, while the formatting may suck at the moment, it is referenced as to its sources, check the bottom. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:50, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Object : no pictures / no references. Mozzerati 11:22, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
  • No pictures? Come on... it happened in 325, what do you want, a group photo? :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:50, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • A painting, engraving, or photo of something pertaining to the event that that still exists could be used. --mav 20:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object, the referencing needs to be made more informative. Does the note "Initial text from Schaff-Herzog Encyc of Religion. Please update as needed" mean that the article has been rephrased and wikified starting from a text dump of Schaff-Herzog...? Or not? If it does, not only publication information but author of the specific entry and some general information about this encyclopedia needs to be given: is it a NPOV source, or does it represent particular theological views? (And if so, is there some balancing information and views in the article, and where do they come from?). It's full title might give a clue. The external links provided seem, from the comments made on them, to be offered as further reading rather than sources. The important Χproblem isn't of formatting and formalia, but of lettiing the reader know where the information comes from, and giving the reader tools for evaluating possibilities of bias: which of the external links were used for what, how old is the dictionary, what kind of dictionary is it? That kind of thing. Oh, on another note, if you need another pic, here's a gorgeous "group photo", and here's a rather nicer version of the icon that you've got. --Bishonen | talk 09:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object, too many broken links...--Bastique 20:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Withdrawn, too many reasonable objections. I sure would like to see something on the early Christian church Featured though, any suggestions? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:27, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I think it would be a lovely article if we just get those wiki links in and put afew pretty pictures on it! I say let's dig in and work for it! --Bastique 20:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disneyland

[edit] April 05 bid

• OK. Me again. The last time I put Disneyland forward for this nomination, the article was turned down. The article being turned down ended up being favourable, as the article was improved significantly with re-organization and unnecessary information deletion. I believe the article is one of the finest Wikipedia has produced, and a lot of team effort from a lot of Wikipedians has made it what it is, and that certainly deserves a lot of recognition - there is no better way than to be a Featured Article on the Main Page.

Now a Featured Article on any day is better than no Featured Article at all, but if the article was featured on May 5 it would carry a great deal of significance as May 5 is the day that the official celebrations of Disneyland's fiftieth anniversary. That would be extra special if the article was featured on that day, but as I have said, the purpose of this bid is most importantly to actually get the article featured. I hope you understand what I mean.--Speedway 19:40, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Object - the article as a whole is exceptional, but the lead section places undue emphasis on the name of the place, rather than acting as a summary of the article. You hope this to be featured on the main page - the lead section is usually taken verbatim and put on the main page. If you imagine these paragraphs on the main page, more than half of what would be there, is getting into the specifics of its naming. I suggest moving the information about the copyright nature of the name etc to another part of the article, and then build up the lead paragraph so that it can stand by itself on the main page. This is my only criticism. Rossrs 02:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Lead is not a good summary of the article. "Political correctness" is entirely one-sided and without attribution of any kind, and appears to me to be a user's rant. References section is inadequate: while the article covers many things in detail, the references given is one book on Disneyland's early history, one brief webpage on the Skyway, and park brochures. Entirely missing is information on where, at the least, the detailed information on deaths in the park came from, how one car of skinheads was sitting outside the park, etc.--the article is very, very far from verifiable. There is no criticism. There are two-sentence headings. 119 02:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The lead section is inappropriate, references are inappropriate (too many unsourced claims, much of the info in the article clearly does not come from the sources mentioned in the "References" section). There should probably a single, much more homogenous history section with more actual dates (when were all the Theme Parks in the "Disney theme parks" section inaugurated?), with subheadings. Right now, we have an entire section on the opening day, then jumps 35 years foward to the "1990s". You'll note "Disneyland 2005 and beyond" doesn't actually any events that occured in 2005. The last sections (starting with "Political correctness") are all unsourced, and some are too short. Phils 10:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank-you to all so far have contributed, your points have been noted and are in the process of being rectified. --Speedway 15:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Google

previous FAC

[edit] Emory University

The article is well-written and provides in-depth information about a very important educational institution in the southern United States. It is a striking portrait of the history, traditions, and activities of students, administrators and faculty at Emory, and deserves to be recognized as such.

Note this was self-nominated by Absecon 59. plattopus^talk 10:48, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) Lead section needs an expansion. 2) Some pictures of the building/s itself would be useful. plattopus^talk 10:48, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm a grad student at Emory, but I'm not impressed by the article. Look at Yale University, University of Chicago or MIT for comparison; they're not featured articles. Some specific improvements needed: subheadings for History section, more on student clubs and organizations, a discription of the campus apart from its historical chronicle.Sayeth 21:36, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TV/FM DX

I think this is quite a good article. I created it, but I didn't write too much of it. Andre (talk) 20:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) No references. Please, please read the criteria before nominating. 2) There is a near complete lack of wikification outside of a couple sections. 3) The second paragraph in the lead section is conjecture. That would need to be factually restated. 4) The prose is choppy in places, making it not flow well. Try elmininating one or two sentence paragraphs. - Taxman 21:08, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are references, they're just in-line references. Last I checked, that was ok. Sorry. Andre (talk) 22:20, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • For those who are counting, I saw 24 in-line references. I don't think that's horrible by any means, and don't bite people, Taxman. Mike H 23:42, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well I apologize my comment was overly curt, in hindsight, and given my error, it was. Hmmm and I even checked for references in the wikisource. I guess I am spoiled by people that use Wikipedia:Footnote3 and Template_Talk:Inote, and I searched for those. Ideally the external links would use one of those methods or similar to collect all the inline links in a standard section at the bottom so they are easy to see. - Taxman 14:04, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • Apology accepted, no offense taken. At any rate, I've consolidated all the references on the bottom in a References section now, and I've attempted to address parts 2 and 3 of your objection. Could you be a bit more specific for #4? Andre (talk) 22:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
          • For 2, that is better, but there still seems to be many that can be done. I will do what I can. For 3, I tried to make it more direct. You could go even farther by simply saying that there is a hobby interest in the subject, and hobbyests find it interesting because... Ideally cite something from hobbyests that says or supports why. Which leads to the question, is this similar/related/or almost the same thing as ham radio as a hobby? Is it an oganized hobby thing, sporadic, etc. For 4, basically one or two sentence paragraphs are rarely complete ideas. If they are, they break up the flow of the text so much that the flow is very choppy, stopping and starting repeatedly. There's a lot of those in there. Try to build more narrative arc by merging or eliminating them. - Taxman 20:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Wikipedia:What is a featured article says that an article must have a "References" section, with inline citations as an enhancement. There is now a References section, but it has only one of the 25 references used, so I do not think it meets that critera. 119 18:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Addressed this. Andre (talk) 22:11, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Well I didn't start the article, but I wrote about 80% of the material, especially the technical details. Because I have written around 30 web articles on TV FM DX, based on 30 years of practical experience, I guess I am somewhat qualified. Bivariate-correlator May 1, 2005

[edit] Mormonism and Christianity

Had immense attention and focus in late 2003 and early 2004, and has been extremely stable since then. No images. Tom Haws

• Support, although article could use an appropriate image and the lead block should be trimmed. This article's journey highlights the benefits of group editing by wikipedians of varied backgrounds. Cool Hand Luke 07:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support This is an excellent example of collaboration from Mormon adherents, critics of Mormons and editors of other faiths. -Visorstuff 16:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some uncouth writing and unclear points. Cookiecaper 17:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Run on sentences and material that belongs elsewhere. Clean it up and separate the material into several articles. This should not be an article showcasing opposition to the LDS faith via mainstream Christianity. This article should be used to branch out intoseveral new articles or to salt existing articles with its work. --Vegasbright 18:57, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lead section is too long and I'd like to see more inline citations. As is, almost all are just associated with quotations. The other data presented in the article also need to be backed up when particular points are made. --mav 02:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support This is a well-balanced article on a potentially contentious subject. While improvements could be made, I'm fairly certain that will always be the case. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 16:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I agree that the lead might be successfully trimmed to the article's benefit, and I don't dispute that some minor tweaks still remain, but to deny FA status to one of the best examples of Wikipedia offering a neutral, accurate, informative article on an extremely controversial subject would not be right, in my opinion. If every article at Wikipedia was this good (including all the other controversial areas), we could be proud indeed. Jwrosenzweig 22:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is good for the reasons Jwrosenzweig says, but the writing needs to be improved first, and I think several sections could either be written more concisely or possibly have some material moved elsewhere. It deserves to be cleaned up and renominated, and to this end I've begun to give it some renewed attention. Can't imagine what image would go with the article. Wesley 03:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I think the lead section definitely needs to be tidied up: it's not only too long, it doesn't really fulfil the definitional and structuring role it really should. But hopefully that can be fixed during the period the article's under consideration. Alai 02:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Noel Gallagher

Recreated from incorrectly archived FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noel Gallagher

I've but it up before, but THIS TIME!!!! Oh Lordy, this time it's got to go up!

Then again...

Not quite self nom. anymore.

Come on! There's a comrehensive ,well researched biography (with refrences at the bottom), inshight into his songwriting, infamous public image and his relationship with Liam. Just read it. and do me a favour, if you spot a spelling mistake, don't come back here and complain, just correct it. Don't worry. It'll just be between you, me and these four. Go on! you know you want to! Crestville

• Object. Extremely biased, containing many personal assertions such as "Gallagher's bravado certainly warrants merit considering the commercial and critical success of Oasis", "which reveals his lonely, paranoid state", "the fiasco of Be Here Now", "Noel's arrogant front", "The arguments seem to pit Noel's calm, complacent wit, logic and canniness against Liam's arrogance, tendency to fly off the handle..."; the subject is constantly referred to by his first name; "fair use" images have no justification given. I suggest a rewrite/peer review. 119 21:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still, pretty great, eh?--Crestville 21:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fixed POV. However, I defend refferring to him by his first name as the article also makes regular referance to his brother, which could cause confusion if their surname was used. The most logical way to avoid this is to reffer to both by their first name.--Crestville 21:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I agree with User:119. This article is full of POV statements. The second sentence of the article already announces the "flavour" of the writing: "[...] though much of the stories of their brawls is the work of the media." Who says so? It it's Gallagher or his brother then quote him, otherwise it's POV. I assume the author(s) doesn't know him personally, ergo they know about him mainly through the media. As such, whether media outlets tend to exaggerate his conflictual relation with his brother is inherently a matter of opinion. Phils 11:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I have added more links to other Wikipedias with the aid of this excellent tool. See my comments on Dorset, above.--194.73.130.132 14:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This is still biased, and is also fairly poorly written in places (for example: the article makes it unclear whom Noel divorced, his wife, or his daughter). I support 119's suggestion that this article be either largely rewritten or sent to peer review.
• Object. Of course it's going to be biased, it's the article of a controversial guy! AS long as they make the article easier to read it's fine. Have your own opinions because you can't take all the opinion out of the article cause then it wouldn't be a feature article anymore and it would be damn boring. By the way I'm going to the Oasis concert in November!!!! YAY!

Rje 01:43, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles de Gaulle

Long, detailed, lots of pictures, excellent writing. It fits the criteria. User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 00:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object Please do not submit article without references, especially if they are about potentially controversial topics or public personalities. I will provide a more extensive review later. Phils 05:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Some works has to be done on governements : some ministers are referred as "Minister of State". A French governement is made of "Ministres d'Etat" (Minister of State), "Ministres" (Minister) and "Secrétaires d'Etat" (Secretary of State). The title of "Sous-Secrétaire d'Etat" (Sub-Secretary of State) has also been used (that's not very common but de Gaulle himself was one case). A "Ministre d'Etat" is in charge of something (for instance Justice) and will be referred as "Ministre d'Etat, Ministre de la Justice"). I noticed the same problem in several articles about French governements. Ericd 11:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Phils. Please read the criteria before nominating. Also the lists at the end should probably be moved into sub articles. - Taxman 16:52, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Object Though comprehensive, its got too many headings and too much text which may be moved to dedicated articles. I also am not sure if adding years in the headings is the right way to do so.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 18:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Too many headings ? Well 19, 14 for Richard Nixon, 10 for Bill Clinton and 19 for Winston Churchill. Ericd 13:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Nixon's headings are good. Clinton's and Churchill's are overwhelming. Ignore the bibliography, external links and references.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 19:23, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Except that dates were used in the article about de Gaulle, a choice than can be disputed, it has more or less the same chronological structure than Nixon. Ericd 21:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The majority of the images have no source nor copyright status information. -- Infrogmation 08:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I have added more links to other Wikipedias with the aid of this excellent tool. See my comments on Dorset, above. --194.73.130.132 14:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck

Ok. My apologies if this is a sensitive or controversial topic for anyone. I believe the subject is appropriate for a featured article, but will certainly understand if others disagree. I find this article to be entertaining, informative, and thorough. It meets all the featured article criteria handily with the possible exception of stability. I believe the article has reached the point where major changes are no longer made on a regular basis, but it will be impossible to halt the vandalism from immature individuals that are naturally drawn to articles on vulgarisms. However, wikipedians are generally good at reverting vandalism promptly, and I do not think that should be a bar to featuring such an outstanding article. Indrian 05:51, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

• It's pretty fucking long. Some subarticles wouldn't hurt. It also has the feeling of being very repetitive. But that may be because I'm fucking stupid. Everyking 06:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Fuck no. Bloat is not brilliance. And I would never support any article that featured the childish picture that adorns this one. F*ck! that.Grace Note 07:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is all right by itself but I don't think it qualifies for a featured article. — JIP | Talk 07:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object: too much list, not enough prose. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:30, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: too many lists, not enough proses. The structure should probably be rearranged - Acronyms section should be further down. Modern use and status could include some of the material from the Popular subsection. Some of the material in that subsection could be left out anyway ("fuck" is rather common in "pop culture"; why does Shaun of the Dead deserve special mention?). Also, I don't object articles because of pictures (unless they are not tagged/grossly inappropriate) but that "Middle Finger" picture is of rather poor quality. Phils 11:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The first picture seems kinda silly to me, since it's just text in image form. Everyking 18:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. As much as I love the word fuck, this article just isn't ready. We must give wikipedia a better fucking article, with more quality and less quantity of text. Edit: Fuck. AngryParsley 22:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. I do fucking like this fucking article, but I'm not fucking sure that it should appear on the Main Page, because I'm afraid that there would fucking be a lot of fucking fuckers out there who would fuck with it. Oh, and you may fucking want to send it to Peer Fucking Review (WP:PR). Just my fucking $.02. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 23:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Edit: I've noticed that it has gone through WP:PR. Dunno what to tell you then. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 23:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article needs some trimming. It is overlong, to the point of repetition in places. For such a ubiquitous word, I question the value of the "pop culture" section. I am not too sure we need all those acronyms either, the more widely used should be merged into the popular section and the rest disposed of. The foreign languages section strikes me as a little gratuitous too. Rje 01:31, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Fuck, fuckity, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck -- Eric Cartman 02:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's too fucking long. Probably because there's so many meanings. Is it really necessary to give an example of every possible usage? Some of the examples aren't very believeable. ("Fucking fucker's fucking fucked!")?? It's too much fun to edit this page so it just keeps growing every time some fuck gets a new idea. "Fuck" deserves an article but people have gotten a little carried away with this one. So, fuck it.--LStrong2K 02:27, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Previous FAC

[edit] Van Halen

It's well written and factual, with a good overview of the band. And fits all the criteria and more. I didn't personally add much to it, although I did verify the facts using references and added a picture, so Im not sure if it's a self nomination or not. --Richy 17:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm re-submitting this article. The writing is of a high quality, and it is quite interesting.

• Object 1) the lead section is way too short; it should summarize the major points in the article 2) not enough images for an article of this length; don't we have other images of band members and album covers already uploaded that could be used here? slambo 18:27, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

• • I added a lead in section, photographs and annotated the photos with as much copyright info. as I could find/rationalize. --Chevan 20:02, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) The lead section needs to be two or three paragraphs, not a single sentence. 2) References need to be cleaned up a little bit. 3) The heading titles are pretty messy. 4) As above, more pictures are needed and that group picture should be shown at a bigger size. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 18:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

• • Alright, I understand your comments and will fix those problems shortly, but other than that, what comments do people have? --Richy 00:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I've tried to address these concerns. --Chevan 23:03, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) I'm going to call copyvio on some of the material; it's obviously identical to material from elsewhere. (hint: look for sections of typical rock journalist "gushing" and cut and paste to your favourite search engine) 2) it could do with light copy editing. 3) you could do with more references and there should be a way to link specific bits of the text to the references they came from / are supported by. Mozzerati 06:51, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

• Object There is no lead section, and the entire article consists almost only of the History, which mixes the band's history with musical commentary, and anecdotes. I feel discussion of influence (the article needs more of that, too) and musical style, etc. belongs in separate sections. (See FA candidate Dream Theater for a good example of a structured article). The writing is also on the limit of POV. Statements like Nothing like it had ever been heard on record and "Eruption" granted Eddie Van Halen immediate guitar god status among players worldwide. and It was soon regarded as one of rock's most extraordinary albums. could easily be replaced with (sourced) quotes from critics or journalists. "Show, do not tell". Finally, and this is something I've seen User:Mozzerati request a few times for other candidates, and which strikes me as common sense, specific claims (sales figures, for example) should be directly referenced, with page/section/paragraph number. In other words, indicate which part of the references you used. This looks like a lot, but in fact I think the article is rather good, although it feels 'unfinished'. I started reading it with the yet-another-boring-rock-article mindset and was surprised to notice the writing is actually more than decent. All in all, good work, but not yet featured material. Phils 09:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object (but not strongly) 1) I did some "light copy editing," and attempted to make the first three sections less "gushy," more neutral. 2) Perhaps the headings should be changed to "With David Lee Roth," "with Sammy Hagar," etc. 3) I don't believe that any of this article has been plagarized. 4) I agree that there should be more photos--two or three more. 5) Perhaps a fleshing out of the "differing reports" behind the band's original break-up? With minor work, it'd be a good featured article; it's actually an interesting read.

• • I think the objections have been met. Unfortunately this was an anonymous post so I cannot solicit this user's feedback to remove the objection. Would appreciate someone else's point of view. --Chevan 20:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E. E. Cummings

Self-nomination. I've put a lot of work into this article, probably moreso than any other before, and it in all likelihood exemplifies my best work here. I've taken the article from little more than a blurb to what I think is a fine, expansive, polished article. I think I've done a passable job of maintaining a neutral point-of-view and balancing out praises of Cummings with criticisms. This article is also well-illustrated in my estimation, with seven images (six of which are PD-US, btw). That said, I am open to any and all suggestions. There's always room for improvement. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object for the moment, most of the images uploaded by Blankfaze seem to lack proper attribution and tagging, must therefore be presumed to be copyvios. Fawcett5 20:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) Also, there is virtually no narrative for almost 1/3 of Cummings life, the period from 1932-1952. Fawcett5 21:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Hmm, all images are tagged... I don't get it. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, its true that you slapped a PD tag on them, but every image has since been notated {{incomplete license}} by others. You didn't indicate WHERE they came from online, the photographer, or the date of publication, so we're left to take your word that they are PD. By the way, copyright doesn't date from the moment the photo was snapped, but from when it was published, so just because the image is from before a certain date is no guarantee that it is PD. Moreover, you didn't indicate a rationale for your fair use claim for the one photo not on commons. Fawcett5 20:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Let me elaborate on the images: the six images on commons are {{PD-US}}, that is, they are in the public domain in the United States, but not necessarily elsewhere. There are issues at commons as to whether they belong on commons or not because it's not 100% certain that they are 100% free in all countries. And, by the way, I'm well aware of the copyright law you mentioned. BLANKFAZE | (что??)
        • It should be no problem then for you to provide a source for the images. I do agree that they should be PD, just give us a bit more. Fawcett5 21:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I tried very hard to find some reason to object, but I just couldn't :p. I've done a quick bit of copyediting, hopefully eliminated the last few typos. (Note to blankfaze: as a "strong supporter of British English" on the wiki, you should start applying your own policies. :D I left all American spellings I found alone; I'll leave it to you to change them). Also the above objection is invalid, as it is based on an incorrect assumption. Phils 20:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, are there some? I'm not responsible for all of the content, so I may have missed something. Also, my personal writing style is somewhat of a mish-mash (probably about 85% BE, 15% AE), so feel free to go through it yourself... :-P BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• support seems like a good article Mozzerati 21:00, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• We don't need to put his name in lowercase as he used to write it? Everyking 21:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Read the article, my friend. His name should not be spelled in miniscules. That was a publishing design that got carried away. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • OK then, I was wrong about that. Everyking 21:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support; good work. I remember, as you mentioned, visiting this one in its more stubbish days, and I am impressed with the progress. One comment (sort of in Everyking's vein): while I understand the notion that the lowercase use of his name was not endorsed by Cummings, it is something that many people associate with him or know about him, and thus I think it should be mentioned (if not bolded) in the lead section. --DanielNuyu 03:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand your idea about the lead though I'm not quite sure how I'd implement it; you're welcome to try your hand. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • See it now. And one more suggestion: while I like the links to the poetry, I think including within the article one short poem, in my preference "a leaf falls..," would make it even stronger. --DanielNuyu 06:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I like the idea as well — the problem: most of Cummings' poems, including the one you prefer, are copyrighted works. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. To much on the life and not enough on the work, apart from a short comment on his development as a writer, and what their is is oddly slanted towards the plays and not the poetry. And yet, strangely, not enough on his relationship with Schofield Thayer, EEC's first real publisher as a writer and patron as a painter, whose name isn't even wikified. Not enough on who the influences on him were (Pound and Stein just mentioned in passing). The accusations of anti-Semitism need to be place in a wider modernist context (Pound, Woolf, Eliot, H.D. and others also exhibit this vice). Nothing at all on his legacy. Who, if anyone, did he influence, and how? I just feel it needs a lot more. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I agree with Filiocht. The Criticism section is aso extremely small and without any kind of attribution. POV: frequent use of "probably" and phrases such as "Cummings understood the importance of presentation" (the issue being an assumption that presentation is important). His writing style does not have any example that I see. 119 21:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object, I am afraid - I think the biography section is fine, but, in commong with Filiocht and 119, the sections on his works are just stubs, really, and need significant expansion - they should to be as comprehensive as the biography section. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese Communist Party

This is a self-nomination, altough it may seem political propaganda, and I admit that it may seem, I propose the nomination for the extensive history of the Party section and the detailed info about electoral results, the party's media and the pictures gallery. - Afonso Silva 16:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object: A) Seems somewhat slanted towards a pro-POV, and B) the writing is not very good (I just went through and fixed a whole bunch of minor things, like capitalizing "portuguese" and using past tense for past events). Everyking 17:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object: As noted above, the prose isn't up to the standard of featured articles. Phils 18:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: All right, but it would be better if someone pointed objective problems in the article, Everyking writes about the NPOV question, I assume that it might be a valid problem, but I'd like to know where are such non-NPOV parts, that would be a much better feed-back action and only that will lead to a concrete correction of the problem. The other question about the prose is the most important, but if I am the writer of the article I think that at a certain point it will become difficult to spot my own mistakes, because they have origin in something I don't know about. The sub-point related to the past events being reported with some little present tenses is a tricky question, mainly in the context in which it ocurrs, the history, that is a narrative part of the article and so, I don't find the contradiction. -Afonso Silva 22:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This is one of the most egregiously POV articles I have seen nominated on this page. I tried to make some fairly minor changes in order to get rid of the bias, but the user who nominated the article for featured status quickly reverted them without explanation. With due respect, I strongly object. Hydriotaphia 21:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with all the work you've done, it is a bit difficult for me, being a Party's supporter, to build a strictly NPOV article, with the exception of two changes that you made, which I reverted:

The one about the readers of Bandeira Vermelha, (you said that it was popular among those who were sympathetic to the Party's aims... Before the foundation of the Party itself...). The second one was the correction you made about the Colonial war, I think my correction is NPOV, you may read it, if you want. Both edits are commented, try to check the article history:

---> 18:01, 19 Apr 2005 Afonso Silva (→Outlawing of the Party and the long anti-fascist struggle - new prose about the colonial war, hope it is NPOV);

---> 17:46, 19 Apr 2005 Afonso Silva (how could that be before the foundation of the PCP?)

The other main change to your edit was made by Soman, and refers to the objective conditions to support the Agrarian Reform, which were not pro-POV, it was just a report about the objective conditions that the Party had to support it, maybe you don't understand the European political relations, there are more than only two parties here... Back to the edit talk, check what I've said, please. Afonso Silva 16:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red Arrows

This is a self nomination, I think it is intersting and meets all criteria, I hope you agree! thanks - Bluemoose 15:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support:Perhaps a little short, but I can't think what other there is to say, great photography. Well written. Giano | Talk 18:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Generally good article, object however, that a) their motto isn't covered although it's visible on the badge and b) it's difficult to work out which reference covers which part of the article, which makes it difficult to verify. Please improve the referencing system so that it's possible to know where different facts came from. For example, you could use invisible references or footnotes to help with this.Mozzerati 20:55, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
  • Is it ok if i reference more main facts how i have already in the last 2 paragraphs of "The Red Arrows arrive"?, and badge covered now - thanks Bluemoose 22:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • direct numbered external links aren't my preference. They are recommended against in the style guides because they are difficult to correct later if the break. I've tried to improve the references generally. Could you continue like that? Mozzerati 07:08, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Support good article covering all the key things I would want to know and easy to verify. Mozzerati 05:49, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Sorry, object - the content is pretty good, but it doesn't seem to flow all that logically for me. Wouldn't it make sense to deal with the last section (history) first, and then deal with pilots, planes, etc? Also, the left-right images at the top make the lead look a bit cluttered. Some of the writing patchy - for example, "The Pilots" includes a single-sentence paragraph: "During a routine, Red Arrows pilots regularly experience forces up to five times that of gravity (see g-force), when performing the Vixen Break forces up to 7g can be reached, the limit of the aircraft is 8g." which could easily be broken up and explained properly - what is the Vixen Break, for example? You could also describe some of their formations/routines, perhaps with some diagrams.-- ALoan (Talk) 13:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont think formation/routine descriptions would be a good addition, as it would require so much text as to dominate the article. This article is neither about flight routines or the physics of motion in a gravitational field, so doesnt need anymore explaining, not that I think it could not be improved (as i have just done). I can see the logic of putting history first, but it just doesnt look right, and I think flows better is the present order. Thanks for constructive criticism - Bluemoose 16:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

suggestion you might red-link the manoeuvers (maybe as sections of a not yet written article [[aerobatics manoeuvre#vixen break|vixen break]].) since they will be common for all aerobatics articles, but aren't yet written. Mozzerati 19:16, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

On your suggestion I linked to aerobatic maneuver, however i didnt red-link vixen break as a)it looks messy b)no guarrantee it will ever be created. Given enough time I will add more maneuvers to that page though, including vixen break. - thanks Bluemoose 20:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment on objections (after closing of FAC - so too late) - a) red-links are pretty much standard; don't worry, policy is to leave them in if you think an article should be creaetd b) I think that the ordering should be most likely to be valuable to reader to least; in the case of the Red Arrows, their history is only important because they are famous. Saying why they are famous should come first. Mozzerati 19:49, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Moore

A great article, easily a candidate for FA status! Gkhan 17:42, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• object a) no photo of Alan (if available) b) no references section and c) not possible to tell which reference would cover which area of facts so not verifiable d) within the limits of fair use, or even better, with specific permission it would be good to show a development of his style in drawings, not just cover art. e) parts are a bit over-wikified for my taste, might be better to reduce some of the less directly relevant / instersting links such as anarchist f) there are some single sentence paragraphs which could easily be joined to other paragraphs to make easier reading. Mozzerati 19:53, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
• Object. Good article, needs references though. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blade Runner

This page meets all standards for a Featured Article. Not only that, its topic is extremely prominent -- "The film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry in 1993." Finally, the topic of the film is perhaps the most important moral question of all: What is human?

No need to bore you with a hasty review -- please see the article yourself, and judge it on its merits. — Xiong熊talk 08:43, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Object. This page does not meet the standards for FA, I am afraid. 1) No references. If external links were used, format according to Wikipedia:Cite sources. 2) Too meny bullet points. Try converting into normal paragraphs. 3) Trivia section, especially in bullet form, is generally looked down upon, although I can understand it may have some room in the film articles. 4) move external links from the main body to external link section, use Wikipedia:Footnotes if you want to have main body linked directly to the source 5) the entire 'Further reading on this controversy' section needs to be rewritten/gone since it is essentially a bullet list of external links. 6) the article is NOT comprehensive - I see no mention of the fame of this film, of its gigantic influence on later science-fiction films (from Ghost In The Shell to Matrix and A.I., to name just a few) or its awards [1]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there are couple of references -- look down at the bottom for the mention of Future Noir, which is one of the 2 books listed. (And which is also a very good book on Blade Runner.) However, this merely supports your other criticism of this article -- that it needs better organization or structure. If these references could be tied back into the article with footnotes, I believe that would help in part to address these two points. -- llywrch 23:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Although I was pleasantly surprised by the way the article evolved since last time I read it (Dec 2004), I'm afraid I agree with Piotrus on all points. Phils 12:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Not really an objection, but I note that this has no comparison between the book and the movie. Morwen - Talk 17:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment only: It kind of can't be compared to the book, as the movie isn't really based on one Dick work, but two. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is only related to the movie in the vaguest of ways, so it may well be apropriate to discuss the film as a sui generis work that is only inspired by Dick's work, rather than based upon or adapted from it. Not meaning to be quarelsome, but that movie, in particular, seems so far away from its sources as to not really be considered in comparison at all. Geogre 02:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That para could probably be added to the article. Still, I object. Too many red links. And I mean that literally. The writers' names are linked at least three times, and they should be blue links to make this a featured-quality article. I also strongly object to inline external links. Put them in the External Links and References sections, that's what they're for. RickK 08:33, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with RickK - this therefore requires inclusion in the movie. Additionally, there seems to be no synopsis of the movie, or explanation of the plot - there are enough fragments scattered throughout the article so you could make a pretty good guess, but 90% of the analysis of the movie requires having actually seen it to make sense. Morwen - Talk 19:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I have been contributing specially to the debate over deckard is human or a replicant, and I agree with Piotrus. I would add that there is, for me, too much unreferenced analysis from a single author (RoyBoy), and that doesn't make it a good article, but some kind of original work about Blade Runner and not a real wikipedia article. vaceituno 00:00 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khazars

[edit] Science fiction on television

I found this a few weeks ago and it impressed me with its lenght and coverage. Now I think I brought it up to our FAC standards (lead, references, etc.). There seem to be no further comments on peer review for almost 2 weeks, so I would like to hear what you have to say about it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I see subheadings in the section on Japanese productions, but no subheadings under the much longer American, and even longer yet British production sections. slambo 11:17, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Mild Object until the article has been NPOV'd (most importantly in the lead section). plattopus^{is this thing on?} 14:03, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - content coverage not balanced (detail-wise). Please create UK television science fiction, move the ==British television science fiction== section there and leave a 8-12 paragraph summary of that here. Subsectioning is also needed per slambo's comment (not too many though). --mav 14:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object - needs many more subheadings. The "US television science fiction" section is too large considering that there is a main article for that aspect and should be further summarised. Needs NPOV (example: "As of 2005, there seems to be some degree of optimism for the future of the genre in the UK, with good reason"). Some comments need backing up with references (example: "The most significant US science fiction television series of the early 1980s..."). There are also many repeated links – I lost count on the number of times Doctor Who was wiki'd. violet/riga (t) 21:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] S2 programming language

Self-re-nomination. I have nominated this at some point last year. The only objection it received at the time was that "we shouldn't dilute our list of featured articles with such obscure topics" (paraphrase from memory). Since the rules now state that "each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed" (FAC-instructions) and this objection is not something I can address, I am re-nominating. — Timwi 15:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. Needs expansion (particularly the final two sections), and (a minor point) certain parts of it seem to be written for someone who is familiar with LiveJournal. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 16:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No reference sections (or references are improperly formatted as external links). The lead section is ok, but the rest of the article is lacking. Just a few from many, many problems I see with this article: 1) Not a single code excerpt or example is provided is provided. 2) I'm not quite sure the concept of "layers" is properly explained (I certainly couldn't understand simply from the text in the article). What are layers concretely? Source files, class libraries? 3) Sections 2 and 3 are way too short. 4) Section mentions a web interface, which isn't mention anywhere else. 5) How does S2 compare to other scripting languages/stylesheet languages (CSS, JS, PHP)? Could we see a list of major projects using S2 (is it proprietary to LiveJournal?) Phils 16:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object 1) as stated above cite your sources 2) I'd like to see some examples of the code (i.e. how would one program Hello World in this language?). slambo 16:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Lion King

Although I have played a part in writing this article, it is primarily by other people, so it's hardly a self-nomination. Please criticise :-) — Timwi 10:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The plot section looks kinda stubbish and weak. Everyking 12:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object Cite your sources. slambo 12:46, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Apart from the article not having sources, for some reason I can't quite put my finger on, this article just isn't as good as I expect a featured article to be. I can't pretend it isn't comprehensive, but somehow I'd expect there is more to say about this rather well known film (the two largest sections are essentially lists). Phils 13:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Darn - I was going to support until the lack of references was noted. I like the short - I would prefer to say succinct - plot section: do we really neeed a blow-by-blow description of each scene? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh dear - given the entirely justified criticisms below, clearly my standards are not high enough :( -- ALoan (Talk) 12:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No sources, article does not name supervising animators for the characters or identify particular voice actors/singing ghosts with their characters. No discussion of the making of the film as well. This article would need to be expanded significantly. BTW, ALoan, I think the plot section is just fine the way it is; what needs to be discussed is the making of the film and the musical. --FuriousFreddy 19:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• A few comments: I'm not sure the word "canon" is properly used in the first sentence, which is also grammatically borderline. The list of voice actors in the lead is tedious; these should be merged into the characters section (along with lead animators). The implied claim that this was the first Disney animated feature to use well-known actors for voices is dubious; see the credits for Aladdin (Robin Williams), Beauty and the Beast (Angela Lansbury, Robbie Benson), Rescuers (George C. Scott, John Candy, Bob Newhart), for example -- hell, The Jungle Book in the '60s had Terry-Thomas and Sebastian Cabot, well-known actors in the day. The first paragraph under "about the film" strikes me as desperately trying to put a very fine point on an essentially trivial distinction -- what are these if not anthropomorphic animals? The musical, which was ground-breaking and notable in many ways not covered, is under-represented in the article (actually it probably deserves a seperate article). The credits for the Soundtrack are muddled between performers and writers (a song isn't necessarily by the person who sings it); the wording of the entire soundtrack section is awkward. The reference to Ataturk seems random and shaky and doesn't add to understanding of the topic. Several places in the article use the nebulous assertions "it is said" and "could be". Not a bad start, but I'm afraid I agree that this would need significant improvement to make it to FA quality. Jgm 03:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The word "canon" is properly used in the first sentence, as there is an official canon of Disney animated films (see List of Disney animated features). The article doesn't say it was the first to use well-known voice actors; it was the first where most of the voice actors were well-known actors. Let me see if I can copyedit that. --FuriousFreddy 13:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There are structural problems that may speak to Phils' "for some reason I can't quite put my finger on" unease registered above: the short introductory section "About the film" is misplaced IMO; is unhelpfully titled (the whole article is about the film, right?); and is extremely unfocused: each of its three paragraphs has value in itself, but they're quite disconnected, they don't add up to anything, and so the impression is of a catch-all where the left-over bits were put, in other words of a trivia section—right at the start of the article. :-(. Something's wanted in this position—a general introduction—but this ain't it. I'm also not happy about the "Controversies" section, which is stretched to contain both criticism (in the negative sense, as in criticism of gender stereotypes in the film) and trivia like voice actors being fired. How about a separate section on criticism (in the general sense, i. e. how was the film received, both positive and negative aspects)? A short one, I agree with ALoan that succinct is good. Note that the wikiquote collection doesn't perform the function of a criticism section, as it consists of dialogue quotes from the film itself. It's clear that many hands have done excellent work on this article, but I do think that some bold overall restructuring of the fine input is wanted, as well as a little more material on the critical reception.--Bishonen|talk 08:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The reference to Kemal Ataturk makes no sense. And there should be some mention of the parallels between Lion King 1 1/2 and Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead. RickK 08:43, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Right now a large portion of the article is unreadable if you don't want the spoiler. Can it be reorged a bit, or it is it too tricky? Fawcett5 16:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hubbert peak

Another great-looking article that I just stumbled upon after a Pump question on when the oil will finally run out. Nothing to do with me - well done everyone. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comments. Close to supporting. I made a lot of copyedits, hopefully all good. There are a couple things left that I couldn't resolve quickly and wanted to discuss. 1) The Non OPEC, Non FSU graph seems to be horribly POV. It has great data, but after the vertical line where their data is actually, the severe downturn is pure prediction. That is possible, but certainly not indisputable. The data up to that line show little to no actual overall decline. It shows lots of individual declines, but overal increase primarily. That is worrisome POV. If a graph were available adding in OPEC and the former Soviet countries, then that could possibly balance the POV properly. Or maybe a graph showing much later prediction for the peak point or a slower decline, or even a graph of past predictions that did not come to pass. 2) The structure works really well for the table fo contents, but when reading through the fact that alternatives to oil is one of the major possible implications of a world peak is entirely missed until you get to that section. I think what is needed is a short section in the implications section stating more clearly that increased use of alternatives is a serious and even highly likely scenario. 3) Putting "Catastrophe" as the first implication of peak oil seems to be stating that as a fact instead of one potential option. Maybe title the section potential implications or something to balance that out. - Taxman 14:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Need to look at tenses. A number of things are suggested as happening in the future but have already passed - for example "In 2004, world consumption of crude oil is expected to surpass 82 million barrels per day". There's a similar problem in the summary, which says that the peak year will only be known once it has passed and then has 2007 as one of the suggestions. --194.73.130.132 14:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now - Seems to be oversectioned (one paragraph stub sections are hardly ever appropriate) and as a result the TOC is overwhelming. Consider either combining sections and/or make the 'Implications of a world peak' section into its own article and leave a 6 to 10 paragraph summary of that here. Dividing like that will allow for further expansion of the stub sections at the new article. --mav 16:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Negative. This article needs extreme editing. It's bloated with off-topic information, speculation, and opinion. Less is more. We don't get paid by the word, people. Mirror Vax 22:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Structure of the British Army

I'd like to nominate this page as a featured article. It's informative, lucid and well-structured. --Khendon 06:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object No references. Moreover, this article is essentially a collection of lists and tables (including some broken ones). While it does have a nice nested structure, lack of explanations and many subsections with next to no content makes this very hard to follow for anyone not familiar with the subject. Phils 09:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object - this is very informative, but I agree with Phils: it is essentially a collection of lists. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Precious little in the way of explicative narrative here. Fawcett5 13:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gowanus Canal

Self-nomination. Hoping to get featured status or at least some peer-review. --Howrealisreal 03:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support, looks pretty good, length seems adequate for an article on a local geographical feature Everyking 03:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object, sorry, but there ought to be a map.Dinopup 03:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know it's not the greatest specimen, but I added a map to the top of the article. Good idea. --Howrealisreal 04:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Is that map free? I've uploaded another at Image:Gowanusmap2.PNG. Can't give it much for art, but it is free.--Pharos 04:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the map. I added it instead. --Howrealisreal 04:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support, but I'd like to see landmarks and more/clearer labeling on the map to provide orientation for people unfamiliar with the region. A North indicator could help, but not necessary. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I think I've improved the map. If you don't see the new map in the article, click on the image description page. I didn't include a north indicator, it's north-oriented anyway and it didn't seem necessary. I do hope the neighborhood boundaries will stand scrutiny.--Pharos 06:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Looking good, I'd request one more label... a green one telling me what the entire region is. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I've now labeled the region Brooklyn, but in a way that seemed a little better to me. (I'm not sure if it's really necessary, though; this could just be noted more clearly in the caption).--Pharos 18:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - needs a copyedit. There's some strange capitalisation in places - the names of elements are unnecessarily capitalised, and I wasn't sure whether The Flushing Tunnel and The Flushing Pump are actually proper names that should be capitalised. Also, the prose in places veers uncomfortably towards the purple especially in the section headed "Canal Problems":

"pungently overwhelm the olfactories"

"The murky depths of the canal conceal much more than the remains of vanished mobsters"

"an ever-evolving Brooklyn postindustrial cityscape"

I'm also far from sure about the use of a slang term like "snafus". --194.73.130.132 08:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah some of those word choices could be troublesome for the large English-speaking wikipedia audience. I admit that I try to get creative with diction, but I think the things you went through and changed are appropriate. --Howrealisreal 14:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Lots of great additions to the article recently and I'm most grateful. I think we should ease on the pictures though so we don't overload it. I like Pharos' map without the box, and a caption seems redundant since it explains what neighborhoods border the canal right in the first paragraph. Otherwise it looks amazing. --Howrealisreal 00:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - looks great to me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 12:32, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Those are fixed, but I'll have to get a chance to review the whole thing before suporting. Object. Looks good, but some sketchy language and at least two pieces of apparent speculation: 1) "vanished mobsters" (Is that known and proven?), 2) " For the long stretch of economic depression, the waters of the Gowanus Canal lay stagnant.", 3) "it looks as though a new wave of economic boom might be in store for the canal area.". The first very well could be true but would need some substantiation, the second I can't figure out what is being said, and the third is pure speculation, which doesn't qualify as encyclopedic unless someone important or influential said it. Those are just the ones I saw, but were obvious enough that I am worried there are more. - Taxman 20:25, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I went through and changed the three examples you listed above. I tried to remove as much ambiguous language as possible to keep within the criteria of "being encyclopedic". I haven't noticed anything else that needs attention but please feel free to notify me if you come up with anything else. --Howrealisreal 22:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad

After a time on peer review, and searching for additional details to add, it's time to nominate this article for featured status. slambo 14:46, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The lead section doesn't reflect the article; the first paragraph I think is fine, but the second is more of a "future plans". It should instead make mention of the most significant points of the whole article. 119 06:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting comment since the largest section in the article deals with the railroad's construction into the Powder River Basin. I'll reword it later today to reflect the work that the railroad has done in order to build the extension. slambo 13:23, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the lead to include more details about the PRB project and events that have already occurred. slambo 22:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Object you have a fair number of sources, but it's not clear what each one is giving to the article. Please show what areas they cover. One way would be to use a footnote system. Mozzerati

comment above was unsigned, page history shows that it's from 13:57, Apr 3, 2005 Mozzerati.

This hasn't been an issue on previous nominations that I've seen on FAC, but I'll go through and footnote as appropriate. slambo 21:49, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through with footnoting as described on the page you linked to. slambo 22:20, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral towards support with comments (I could turn to support if at least some of these can be answered). There have been protests and possibly lawsuits against the coal transport by the railroad. It would be good for NPOV to mention these a bit more clearly. Some of the language is a little unencyclopedic, ( "not the fate that he had in mind") but probably more easy reading for it. One thing which is not made clear on this article (or related ones) are what the benefits of becoming a "Class 1" railroad would be. Mozzerati 19:30, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC) P.S.sorry for not signing last time..

Thanks for the review. I mentioned a few of the complaints in the section about the expansion (blocked grade crossings, especially), but I'll see if I can dig up some more. The sentence that you mention is leading into the next section, but it can easily be changed. The AAR Class grading has to do primarily with the railroad's annual revenues; I'll put some notes together on what Class I vs. Class II means for the railroad. slambo 20:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I finally got a chance to take a look at the two links you mentioned. I was hoping to get to it over the weekend, but family matters got in the way. I'll integrate the material in the next day or two. slambo 13:12, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've added information from the two articles that you've cited to the DM&E article. I think it still could be improved, but I'm a bit pressed for time right now. I'll probably revisit this later when things calm down again. slambo 11:05, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. 119 17:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. JYolkowski 21:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genghis Khan

Self nomination, clean, stable and good article.

• Object; some of the English is clearly non-native. For example, this sentence Traders, clergyman, and envoys were provided with security and guidance under Mongol Empire, in which, for example, some of them reached China including traveller Giovanni da Pian del Carpini under Ogedei Khan's rule and Italian traveller Marco Polo to Beijing under Kubilai Khan's rule, whom each of them wrote books on their travels. Filiocht | King of Regulars 07:54, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Object The concerns I raised about the structure when this was last nominated are mostly addressed, but the article is still in dire need of copyediting by a person with stronger English skills. Phils 10:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I concur that this needs copy editing. Since Genghis is an absolutely pivotal figure of world history that WP should have a really good article on, I'll do some work on it and see what I can do to improve it. Edeans 16:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I've since done a truly massive copyedit, but I'm sure there's still stuff in there that needs fixing. Could someone else please look at it? I'm a little burned out on the topic right now. Meelar (talk) 19:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The intro gives his birth as "1155/1162/1167" and then the Early life section gives only the 1162 date. Some explanation should be given for the different dates and why one may be prefered over the others. --Allen3 ^talk 19:44, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment- I'm curious as to why this article says the Mongol Empire was the largest ever, while the British Empire says that one is. Can someone clarify this in the article? --Dmcdevit 01:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The Mongol Empire was the largest contiguous empire. Whereas the British Empire was the largest when you add all the territory areas together. CheekyMonkey 12:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I knew that. I guess it was more of a pointed question. I should say: I wonder if one of the Genghis Khan editors could confirm this and amend the article's inaccuracy accordingly. --Dmcdevit 01:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I am cuba

-SelfNomination, but a lot of work has been donw since I was there last. Maybe it needs something more on the plot (it doesn´t even have a spoiler warning ! :) ) --Alexandre Van de Sande 20:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references, extremely short sections (as mentionned, virtually no information on the story). No offence, but this is nearer to a stub than it is to a featured article. Except for the History section, your typical WP:DYK article is about that size. Phils 21:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not even close to a featured article; I'd love to see a good article on this, though, it's an amazing movie. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:10, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Too short. Gerrit MUTE 10:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Featured articles are supposed to be comprehensive, this in no way, shape, or form fits that description. Put it on PR.  ALKIVAR™ 20:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Gandy

Self-nomination. This article is about Helen W. Gandy, who was J. Edgar Hoover's secretary at the FBI for 54 years. The article, which is longer than Hoover's, includes information on her background and career and a detailed account of her role in the destruction of Hoover's famed files. There is also a bibliography. The article, which was proposed for deletion in February, was earlier this month on WP:PR here. PedanticallySpeaking 16:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Good research work, however the sectionning strikes me as being a bit odd. The lead and 'Background' are too short compared to the other sections. Maybe using subheadings would be a good idea. Also, why not add a picture? Phils 16:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Afraid I don't have a picture to add. I'll look at sectioning, however. PedanticallySpeaking 17:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, the article has improved heaps, however it says nothing about her life after she left the FBI and how she died, I assume you have the obituaries since you listed them in the reference section, what happened?, its like an unfinished story as is--nixie 05:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The obits I cited were very brief. The Orlando Sentinel was a one sentence death notice. The Washington Post and New York Times obits were probably under 100 words and have nothing more than what is in the article. Cause of death was a heart attack, as it says in this article. PedanticallySpeaking 14:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turing test

A most interesting, thought-provoking topic.

• Object. Not enough explanations, and insufficiently sourced. Citing the paper as reference simply isn't enough, since the article makes a assertion about the redaction of the paper (did Turing himself say it was inspired by the imitation party game? when did he state that he proposed the test in order to replace the 'can computers think?' question). If those answers are all in the paper, then please quote it and indicate which section(s) was quoted. This applies particularly to the 'Objections' section. Some of the items listed there need more explanation (how does originality relate to 'Lady Lovelace'?). The 'Discussion of relevance' section is a perfect example of wishy-washy writing ('it has been argued', etc.) Except for the first item, there is no mention of who raised these objections, and the prose gets a little too casual for my taste (frequent use of we, numerous unverifiable/dubious assertions: 'many humans would probably fail this test', 'machines passing the test would probably most vehemently disagree'). Also, in my opinion, the contents of the 'Terminology' section might just as well be integrated into the lead section. Phils 10:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Sorry, very plain to read... could do with sections re-ordering and an obligatory pic --PopUpPirate 00:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • As a note, pictures are not obligatory. They are only obligatory for articles on the front page. A diagram or somthing in this instance would be nice though. BrokenSegue 00:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I agree that the sections could be re-ordered, and that a diagram could be useful. I added two references, with brief amounts of material drawn from both and inserted into the appropriate places. One could definitely do more using Kurzweil's The Age of Intelligent Machines, which seems to be the last useful book he wrote on the subject. Also, someone should find a copy of HAL's Legacy, a compendium of essays by various authors, which I recall speaks meaningfully on the Turing test and related topics. (I wrote an SF novel on the subject in tenth grade, but I wouldn't recommend that anybody read that. Ooh, heavens no.) Anville 20:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberpunk

Influential genre of fiction, and a good example of an article that has grown, and continues to grow, through collaboration and discussion. --Paul Soth 04:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object too many lists, not enough actual paragraphical writing. rewrite it then send it to peer review.  ALKIVAR™ 06:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I agree with Alkivar. Also, the article doesn't have a seperate references section. Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Object Alkivar is right on. The lists don't explain why the items included are important. So when you list Megacorporations as a common element in the cyberpunk genre, give a 2-3 sentence explanation/exploration. Lists of movies aren't really helpful to the reader unless the reader already knows most of them—change sections like that into a discussion of the major or epochal movies that developed the genre over time. Do the same with the list of authors and novels. It won't kill the article to only mention the big ones (only the notable stories/authors/movies), and let the readers discover the other novels by reading articles that this one links to. —thames 14:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object Agreed. Only readers of the books / viewers of the movies know anything about them. Common themes are only hinted at. Influences are scattered. Also notice a strong seepage of anime themes into this article, some of which are not necessarily related, per se. Politely disagree about only mentioning the big ones (books, especially, though a fair amount of movies can be removed) wouldn't kill the article. Zenorbital 05:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Object. This article is simply not there yet. Overall, it shows a strong tendency to claim any famous SF as either cyberpunk or a precursor thereto. It does not sufficiently address the criticisms raised against canonical cyberpunk works. Its organization is confused and overgrown. The lists are, by and large, worse than useless. Better to talk deeply about the smaller number of works which are definitively part of the genre than to include bullet points for all the movies, books and bands "which could possibly be considered cyberpunk". Anville 17:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rock carvings at Alta

I'm not sure if it's entirely proper to list this article in its current situation since the original article has been marked as a copyvio and my rewrite currently resides at Rock carvings at Alta/Temp, but that is not a permanent situation and I guess it will be resolved by the time the FAC procedure has been completed (if nobody objects, I'll just go ahead and delete the copyvio article - the original article contained no information that is not present in my rewrite). I tried to create a comprehensive overview of the site's location, history and background - the article certainly still needs some expansion, fact-checking and improvement in phrasing, but I'm confident we can get it up to Featured Article status. -- Ferkelparade π 22:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review. Well, no, I don't think it's entirely proper to nominate it right now. I don't have any problem with the copyvio situation, but you yourself describe your article as a typically appropriate peer review posting—"still needs some expansion, fact-checking and improvement in phrasing"—rather than an appropriate FAC nomination. I like the article, and I don't mean to be difficult, but peer review exists precisely "for nearly Featured-standard articles that need the final checking by peers before being nominated as Featured article candidates"[2], so why not use it? Bishonen|Talk 02:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Alright, I will place the article on PR now. Sorry, I wasn't quite aware of the proper peer review procedure before coming here, but I see your point. -- Ferkelparade π 09:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SAT

I nominate this article for Featured Article status because I believe it is good and reprsentative of what is good about Wikipedia in general. It has been peer reviewed and I have worked to address all of the reviewers complaints. I hope you agree. Note: This is a self-nomination. I have worked extensively on this article and have restructured much of it.--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 04:11, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Object - totally inadequate lead section and no references section. Please read Wikipedia:What is a featured article. --mav 12:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you don't like about the lead section. I've read Wikipedia:What is a featured article thank you, why do you people automatically assume that I haven't? Anyway, what references are there for the SAT? None. People don't write books about the test, period. It has links to websites that comment about it at the bottom under Links (wow, imagine that) and inline reference markers.--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 12:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

People don't write books about the test, period. Actually, yes they do. (People write books about *everything*.) One I've read and that you might find useful is None of the Above, by David Owen. (Revised version: ISBN 0847695077.) Alas, I neither own it nor remember its content in detail. There are many more; you just have to be able to weed them out from all the study guides when searching. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I should have said was that the test has changed and that the books all concern the old SAT, from which the new one differs dramatically (a whole section has been added). I don't really want to go on and on about the old test; it's not really important anymore.--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 21:21, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Object - I don't think the lead is that awful, but the article is still not at a level deserving featured status. For example, this is a subject matter that generates a lot of numbers, score distributions, performance differences, etc.. The discussion should be backed up with this data, and it should be illustrated using graphs. Furthermore, there should be example questions.. Lots of room for improvement. Gmaxwell 14:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well the problem is that the test just changed, if you'll notice, so no numbers are available yet. As for sample questions, they are copyrighted and that's a little different than using a logo. I'm not sure if it qualifies as fair use. I'd personally thought of adding my own that are similar, but I didn't want to uselessly lengthen the article.--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 21:08, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

That couldn't be more untrue. Without substantial statistical information schools would be unable to use the test to make decisions. For the GRE (which is also now a fairly new revision) there is a usage guide with all the statistical breakdowns, I haven't seen the corresponding paper for the SAT but I'm sure it exists. Also, the 'old' test has been taken by millions of people and is still of substantial interest, as are the changes from the old to the new (and every other instance of change throught the tests history). For example, during the 2000 election Bush was faulted for having an SAT score that was somewhat poor by post 1994(?) standards but his scores were much better when considered fairly. We should include information that would help people compare old scores and new (as much as they are comparable) and discuss how the changes are thought to make the test more fair. As far as questions go, I wasn't trying to suggest that you plagerize actual questions, but it would be useful to include a few example new questions of substantially simmlar style (as is used in many of the study guides). It's not pointless... We should give the reader a good idea of what it is like to take the SAT.Gmaxwell 23:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's just it, schools don't have statistical information and they aren't ready to make decisions about it. I've talked to several that say they want to "watch and wait" about the results. Statistical information for the new test is just not available. For the old test, common score ranges are already in the article. Also, for the same reason the schools are uncertain there is no real way to compare scores on the old and new tests, especially because the changes are so drastic. Entire types of questions have been dropped, which dispite the College Board's strenuous denails, likely have changed the way people earn their score. I'm not an expert, per se, but I do understand the basics behind these things. As for the questions, I'd be happy to add some.--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 22:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Object Marginally adequate info. (who invented it? what's it cost? how many now take it? who criticised it, and how?) Sub-FAC writing quality. Sfahey 05:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Object and suggest further peer review. Far, far from comprehensive. The History section, especially, needs much more information -- on revisions to the test's form and subject matter, and changes in its adoption and use in academia. Criticism section also needs to be more thorough and neutral. Style needs a lot of improvement -- it doesn't read smoothly and large sections look like random gatherings of trivia. I concur that the lead section is inadequate. I've just now added a real References section with some books that I think (off the top of my head) will help provide more depth if anyone feels like investigating and using them to improve this article. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Funeral of Pope John Paul II

In about a month's time (mid May 2005), Around the time of the papal election, I believe that this will make a great featured article. It's a very well written article, that is both current, is very detailed and highly relevant to this time. Furthermore, at that point in the future, after the Papal election, 2005 it will provide a much needed retrospective on this historic event and will be a great example of the style of Wikipedia in regard to current world events. 59.167.120.200 01:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Uh, there's a copyright issue because of the pictures. →Raul654 02:05, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Well, why not wait until mid-May, then? Everyking 02:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object, like the other JPII articles at the moment, it is too unstable. --Oldak Quill 02:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object because of the copyright and it being unstable. Also, articles aren't featured because of a significant date. That's what "selected anniversaries" and "in the news" are for. Mgm|^(talk) 16:26, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Support: This was undeniably a world event. I think the page is quite comprehensive and well written and topical. If a little macabre. I'm unsure why the Bush family (looking so pious) are singled out as the only members of that vast congregation to be photographed in the article. However, so long as all the photographs are legally here, and there is no other copyviolation, I don't see why it can't be featured. Giano | Talk 09:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I don't think most of those photographs are legally there - the notice which has been added to the photos since last week appears to take gross liberties with the Associated Press' copyrights, so regretfully object. -- Arwel 11:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magnetic resonance imaging

This is a well-written article that I happened across when hypertexting from other articles. I think it deserves to be listed because it's thorough, well-documented, and informative. Joshuaschroeder 07:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. References are one of the basic requirements of an article. This article doesn't have any. Jeronimo 07:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• True. I've worked on this article some, and will try soon to add references to the books I use. Xiggelee 10:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) P.S. While I'm happy to see this article nominated, I still feel like there's a lot of work to be done on it before it's featured.

• Please do. Also can you please elucidate what you feel needs to be done and place that on the talk page, here, or both? It would help both the commentors here and the future article. Agree with the others. Object until well referenced. - Taxman 22:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. With references, though, it's a must. GREAT images. --PopUpPirate 00:04, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lodz Ghetto

An interesting article about the last Jewish Ghetto to survive. Well written and well illustrated. Ausir 23:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references, at the least. 119 23:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, some references are given in the "further reading" section... Ausir 23:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Further reading are not references - see Wikipedia:References. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Fascinating article, very well written, superlative accompanying pictures. Googie Man 9 Apr 2005 Googie man 01:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Qualified Objection, I agree that the article is really interesting, but I wonder if the article is fully comprehensive. Youth movements are mentioned once at the end of the article in the context of resistance, but there isn't much about them before that. Many readers will not really understand what the youth movements were. Perhaps there should be more about ghetto cultural life in general. Also, what can be said about Catholic Poles and the ghetto? I think the article only needs some small additions though, I can imagine myself changing my vote. Dinopup 04:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object Needs longer lead section; the lead should provide a better summary of the article. For example, there is no mention of the ghetto being an important production facility for the Reich. Also, two references seems a bit shallow for an important article like this. How about referencing Werner Rings', as well as providing a reference for the "diarist's" quote (section 6). That would be a good start. Moreover, I'd like to see all those figures about deaths and deportations directly referenced per footnotes (with page and paragraph numbers). Phils 09:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lead is to short. No references. Seems fairly comprehensive to me - although I'd of course never object to any expantion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Maiden (band)

Partial self-nom - a LOT of hard work had gone into this article before I added several major edits towards the end. Several minor tweaks later by several parties and the piece is, we feel, ready to go. POV in particular has been greatly edited. Perhaps a bit off-beat to nominate a metal band, but hey aint that why Wikipedia is great? Thanks for reading. --PopUpPirate 23:27, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• object needs to go through peer review, needs spelling corrections and a copyedit desperately. lines like: "To wait for cash to be sent from England was taking forever, and the band entrusted $50 to their manager Rod Smallwood, who promptly set of to the casino and returned with $300 every night for 6 nights." do not make me feel good about this article right now.  ALKIVAR™ 23:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object concur that this piece should visit peer review.. plenty of non-encylopedic writing: "Harris and Murray went through a ridiculous number of band members throughout the 1970s", etc. Fawcett5 01:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article has been through Peer Review and the POV issues have been addressed. I've checked the official Iron Maiden family tree, and inserted the correct amount of band members (in place of "ridiculous number" !) and I'd agree that the casino tale is not necessary for the article and it has been removed. Thx. --PopUpPirate 22:43, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Made a few edits yesterday that hopefully improved readability and made it sound a bit more encyclopedic. --MordredKLB 21:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

• support I wrote an roiginal part of the article, some of it still reamisn after the great edit it went through. This article is extremely profesional, compared to any other article about metal bands. User: Coburnpharr04 April 7, 2004 6:30 ET

No offense but if your spelling here is any indication of your editing on the Iron Maiden article, I definately definitely wont won't be removing my objection til until someone comes through and spellchecks/copyedits it. :)  ALKIVAR™ 23:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fawcett: LOL ... ok so I don't spell good either, I still say it needs a spellcheck/copyedit :)  ALKIVAR™ 17:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I want through and spell-checked the entire document and hopefully brought it up to snuff. --MordredKLB 21:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Winston Churchill

This article is one of the best historical/biographical articles on Wikipedia. Deserves to be featured.--Mb1000 18:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It is POV, asserting things such as that he was an excellent writer and his state of mind at certain times. Trivia section should have its contents selectively merged or deleted. Quotes section is for Wikiquotes. Question, not necessarily an objection: was only one biography and one general history of the period used for this article? 119 18:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Same reasons as 119 (except I see no reason not to have a selected quotes section). Lead is also completely inadequate. --mav 09:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Same reasons as 119 and Mav. Plus remove external links from main body, I see at least one. Although I am pleasantly suprised the article does have 2 paras about Churchill-Poland issue in the late IIWW, but it may be further improved (both facts/links/pics and perhaps NPOVing) by using the material from Wladyslaw Sikorski FArticle. In addition I believe that Churchill pro Poland stance during Polish-Soviet War deserves a mention, as well as his after-IIWW policies that allowed communists to gain control over Poland. I will attempt to add this by myself when I have time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia

Not suitable for the Main Page, self-nomination. Previous FAC: 1, 2. Previous PR: 1, 2. 119 07:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sure I've seen some controversy over what licence we use (GFDL vs. Creative Commons or others)--should this be mentioned in the article? Sorry I can't be more specific. Anyway, support. Meelar (talk) 09:00, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• This article recently failed FAC. Address the concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wikipedia/2 and the first FAC first. --mav 12:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I have. Your history objection was the only one remaining, and having been ignored when I asked you to clarify in what way the history section is "inadequate", I can only say I've done what I can and any valid objection must from the new version (and actionable). 119 14:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I have added more links to other Wikipedias with the aid of this excellent tool. See my comments on Dorset, above.--194.73.130.132 14:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Wikipedia is already on the Main Page introduction. -- Tony Jin | (talk) 23:23, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Main Page" being the "Today's featured article" above. 119 00:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Seems excellent. Support. Andre (talk) 21:06, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Supprt 68.105.113.143 05:22, 28 Apr 2005 [3]
• Support. Fredrik | talk 16:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• SVPPORT. I think it is an interresting article (excess of references, but ok). -Pedro 21:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Shanes 06:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well-referenced and fair. Mark¹ 07:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • it has an excess of references, and 'excess' is not a good thing, I believe. Maybe to a book, or a paper. But not an article. I think the language edition numbers should be updated to May. -Pedro 22:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I do not understand the concept of an excess of references. Mark¹ 01:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Dont see the point It's not real, so why should it be FA? Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 02:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• occupies 1/3 of the article. What kind of article where a major part of it is references? it justifies to much. And has my Management teacher once told me: "people dont believe in those that justify to much." It is a defensive behaviour, besides excess is not a good thing in any field. It is close to justify every word that is written in the article! excess? try to drink water (aka article) with 1/3 of the glass with sugar (aka references). Even if sugar tastes good, it will be impleasant in that quantity. -Pedro 22:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • References can be ignored if you wish. Everything I can reference I do, and as a result you may check much of of this article's accuracy easily. I think that is more trustworthy than giving a good impression through rhetorical skills. 119 03:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. There is no such thing as too many references, and it really exemplifies what this is all about. It may just be our bias, but oh well. Deltabeignet 23:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Papal conclave, 2005

I am nominating this article. I know that as a currently being edited article it isn't stable but notwithstanding that I think it is a credit to wikipedia. It deals with an immediate issue of worldwide concern in a deeply factual, objective manner. It conveys context and history in a form that few other net sources on the conclave does. I think it is worth highlighting this article as an example of just what wikipedia can do, and of the calibre of all the people who had contributed. Indeed I would say a lot of media sources and members of the public would benefit greatly from seeing this article. This is the sort of 'up to the minute' deep analysis that shows just how good wikipedia can be and everyone who has contributed to it has added to its quality. Take a bow, wikipedia, and let the world know that the best and most comprehensive internet analysis of the forthcoming conclave can be found on wikipedia. FearÉIREANN 21:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object - one of the criteria is that the article is "Stable: a featured article should be mostly static, and not change rapidly from day to day". Evil Monkey∴Hello 23:15, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. Mostly static. There are no edit wars, no disputes on content. The only change taking place is that when someone else finds additional information (eg, today's in pectore information) it is added in. In fact, given that it is a live subject just 48 hours old it is astonishing static - work on it is all about information, not POV, edit wars, rows over content, etc. Most of the information it needs to cover is in there now. It is likely to remain largely as it is now, with minor tweaks on information. Many articles take weeks to achieve its stability and consensus. FearÉIREANN 23:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Just look at the page diff between yesterday and today. You'd be hard pressed to find a more unstable article on all of wikipedia. →Raul654 02:14, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Also, stability issues aside, since the conclave hasn't yet happened, the article itself is mostly speculation. Remember, Wikipedia is not original research, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. →Raul654 04:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Instability: articles with {{current}} tags are inherently not stable. No references. 119 00:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The only way this article could remain stable over the next few weeks is thorugh undesirable neglect. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:13, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Heavily fails stability test. -- Shauri 05:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Instabilty (which {current} by definition implies) and lack of refs are the least of its problems. The intro is too short and the discrepancy between the general article being titled papal "election", and this being titled papal "conclave" has to be corrected one way or the other (preferably, IMHO), or it at least has to be clearly addressed before the reader gets to the first "Main article" link. Also, the whole article needs a major copyedit by someone assuming the reader has zero knowledge of Catholicism--I learned more about the relationship between the terms "conclave" and "papal election" from the Talk page than I did the article; "Curialist" isn't defined and the article it links to doesn't provide much insight; "One should keep in mind how historically rare non-Italian popes are..."--if I don't know that, actual numbers would be a big help; "A selection of a pope from the United States or France would be seen as too controversial"--why?; that sort of thing... Niteowlneils 05:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object This is an article about an event that will start in the next fortnight and be over in the next 4 to 6 weeks! It'd be quite perverse to make it a FA now - try again in 2 months' time, jguk 18:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object—I'm flexible about this kind of thing, I supported the Dec. 2004 tsunami article, but making it FA before the conclave has even happened just takes it too far. I'd be happy to support it if it maintains a high level of quality in covering future events. Everyking 20:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support I was going to nominate this article if it hadn't already been nominated. I realize that it's an article on a current event, but the article's quality is so high and it covers its subject so comprehensively that I think it should be considered as a featured article regardless. This article is exactly the sort of writing we should be encouraging on Wikipedia; if stability is the only issue, then perhaps we should feature it after the conclave. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 20:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Article is currently subject to massive change without notice, and is mostly speculation. Try again in six months to a year. --Carnildo 20:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1. The article is not stable. However, I will withdraw this objection after the next Pope takes office. 2. The title, "Papal conclave, 2005," is redundant. There is no such thing as a non-papal conclave; all conclaves are for Popes. The adjective "papal," therefore, is superfluous. The title should include either just "conclave," or "papal election," but not "papal conclave." -- Emsworth 00:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object: Simply put, there is nothing to write about, as it does not yet exist. After the conclave meets, then it will be suitable for In-the-News. A featured article should assess its topic, contextualize it, and have references. All of these things are impossible with future events and almost impossible with recent events. Geogre 02:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Mmmm, no, it's as easy with future and recent events as with anything, if you ask me. So while I don't think this should be featured yet, I'm basing that on the lack of stability, which is a valid objection, while this isn't. Everyking 00:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object inherently unsuitable, at least until the dust settles. Fawcett5 15:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I don't disagree with the argument against the feature nomination. But I would just like to say that this is a fantastic article, and a way should be found to showcase it, probably under "In the News." --Tisco 15:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sure it'll go "In the News" on many days throughout the conclave itself and shortly thereafter, since, whilst it's ongoing, it'll always be one of the top 4 stories in the world, jguk 17:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Special Air Service

This is a well written and informative article about the legendary SAS. Pictures, history and other details are all included.

• object - generally a good and interesting article - 1) the use of numbered external links is considered bad style; please consider replacing with footnotes. 2) there should be some more references 3) it's not clear what sources are used for what, again, using footnotes would help this. 4) some more criticism should be included for balance, e.g. of "shoot to kill" policies as applied in Gibraltar 5) the list of operations would be better in chronological order. an alphabetical list would be better done using a category. Mozzerati 16:19, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with what User:Mozzerati said. Furthermore, I'm not sure about that picture at the end of the article; I think its evident it doesn't belong there, but it doesn't have source information, nor is it tagged or anything.. Phils 17:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, A good article, more picture of the SAS in action might be an idea. --Electricmoose 17:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now, currently the target of an edit war between User:b1link82 and the rest of the contributors. Decidedly POV at times, needs a copyedit. It also has never run through peer review, something it needs. After its been through PR i'll support, but definately not til then.  ALKIVAR™ 19:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Cheers for advice guys, pics of SAS in combat are almost impossoble to get. - B1LINK82
• Yeah good luck getting one try Google's "top secret image search"

[edit] E-mail spam

Okay, I'm not an expert on FAC, but this article really impressed me (I have never worked on it). It has quite a compilation of references. It has some pictures. It appears comprehensive to the best of my knowledge. The article is 44 kB, which is a bit long I suppose, but not too bad. All in all, a good example of Wikipedia's best. --Dmcdevit 05:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support: It's pretty darned comprehensive, although I think that some of the technical matter could be explained for neophytes. E.g. an article in Technology Review estimated that 94% of all spam targeting comes from web crawling. A single sentence could explain to folks that this is the "contact me" link on a web page and the directory at a company's web page. Also, there are print sources that could be useful. One that taught me a lot, when I was in charge of a system that had an open relay and needed to stop the spammers who were trying to work around my closing of the relay, was Steal This Computer Book, which teaches, alas, folks how to be black hats. Geogre 15:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, complete and interesting. Could use a minor copyedit, though. Mgm|^(talk) 17:41, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I've worked extensively on this article -- the sections Gathering of e-mail addresses, Using other people's computers, Spam-support services, and Related vocabulary are largely my work, as well as the image in the Using other people's computers section. However, I do not think it is ready to be a featured article. Notably:
  • The Miscellaneous facts about spam email section is both disorganized and out of date, and is composed largely of anecdotes and pseudostatistics;
  • The Current events section mixes important facts with press-release material, and is in any event not particularly current -- which is not to say that an encyclopedia article should have a "current events" section.
  • There are throughout the text (including in my contributions, I'll admit) time-dependent words such as "recent" and "increasingly" which render the article automatically dated.
  • There are still a number of passages which read as "how-to" material rather than encyclopedia article material.
  • All in all, I think the article needs to be peer-reviewed by more editors who are familiar with:
    • large-scale email system administration;
    • spam and computer-crime law, especially outside the U.S. -- and with a focus on law as it is actually used to sue or prosecute spammers, not just urban legends about laws such as CAN-SPAM;
    • actual statistical analysis of spam message corpuses -- not just guesswork or hearsay -- regarding obfuscation and other features of spam messages. --FOo 17:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose repeatedly uses direct links from text (Wikipedia is not a repository of links) and bare numbered links which are very bad style style. Ideally use footnotes instead.
  • Wikipedia:Footnote3 is a style proposal, not a policy or even a real part of the Manual of Style. Wikipedia:Footnote describes Current guidelines which state, "If the purpose of the footnote is to direct the reader to an outside source, simply put the link to the source in single brackets." As footnote style is presently an unsettled matter it is not appropriate to bring up here. --FOo 21:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The very page you quote directly states clearly that it is a "New Proposed Footnote format" which has now become old and recommends reading Footnote3, but that aside, I do not object to any system of footnotes, including "invisible footnotes" "template based" footnotes (as Wikipedia:Footnote3) or even the ugly (IMHO) author/name footnotes. However, Wikipedia:Cite your sources has depreciated numbered links for a long time and the manual of style has been clear that they are not a good idea. For a normal article, this might be acceptable, but a featured article should live up to a higher standard. Failure to resolve this should clearly be a blocking objection. Mozzerati 20:00, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
      • No, no, no, no, no. Footnotes are *not* a requirement to be a FAC - the style guide pretty much lets this up to the writer. Objecting because it doesn't follow your particular choice of style is not valid. →Raul654 02:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • Hi; the objection is specific (if material at the end of the link changes we won't be able to tell) actionable (three separate suggestions for addressing this have been discussed on the talk page, not including my own footnoting suggestion) and does not cover my "particular choice" (any of the other three is fine by me). I can accept being overrulled by a massive consensus that the article is FA standard even so, but declaring my opinion invalid because you don't agree with it isn't okay. Mozzerati 06:59, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
          • This article uses a format that the manual of style says is OK. The featured article criteria says that it needs to fulfill standards set by the relavant wikiproject and the manual of style, which it does. Objecting to it because it doesn't use the format you prefer is inherently an invalid objection - your preferences do not trump the manual of style. →Raul654 14:06, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
            • I am not objecting to it because it doesn't use the format I prefer. Mozzerati 18:44, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Oppose - Needs a much longer and better lead section. An article this size needs three rather hefty paragraphs for that. Could use some summarizing in the future per Wikipedia:Summary style, but is OK for now (if a bit long). --mav 01:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - nothing on MLM schemes, or multi-tiered spamming operations. - 203.35.154.254 02:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  What's a multi-tiered spamming operation? Is that like DHS Club? --FOo 02:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame this article failed as a FAC. The entire time I was reading it I was thinking that it was extremely well-written, and worthy of being a featured article. I guess consensus wasn't able to be obtained, but I wonder if anyone has considered a more recent push for making this article a FAC again. Thoughts? Justin 17:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've written a book on the subject. It's a subject riddled in technicality so bear with me sounding picky but there are many small errors in that add up to the wrong picture. This article would be better titled "Unsolicted bulk email" rather than spam and if the difference is not known then the article has not educated effectively. It's lobsided toward fraud spam and essentially ignores all other kinds of spam which is a disservice to the education goal.

From the get go, spammers are defined as anyone who sends an identical email to a list of recipients. Readers would infer that anyone who sends identical messages to lists are spammers. It goes on about fraud and thus infers the act of sending identical email to a list of recipients is wrong. In the vocabulary area, it says UBE is a synonym for spam. No, UBE is a permission status and not a synomym for spam.

There is no mention there that perfectly legit companies send legit email the exact (bulk to lists) same way. Newsletters for instance. They are not spam and not even in the realm of the Can Spam law. In commercial email, if the senders follow the rules and the recipient wants it (whether or not they opt in for it), then they are not spam. Most email sent via the biggest email service providers are monitored, sent to millions of recipients hourly and generate zip in complaint rates. The definition therefore breaks down right away and has inconsistencies later which I tried to change.

The intro second paragraph is outdated. Forget the word "unsolicted" when thinking of spam - permission is not the issue. It is correlated but not a cause nor conclusion. When asked if email should be opt in and if unsolicted is a problem, a major ISP spam director said, "People can send whatever they want, just don't get complaints." That is a supreme test for spam in the colloquial context.

While most people instantly think of bank scam emails or Nigerian royalty emails correctly as spam, heavily weighting the article about fraud spam is not balanced or an accurate depiction of what spam is.

Spam is a huge topic that has evolved in definition and emails have endured a myriad of absurd tests that simply don't work in defining/catching spam. There was an incorrect explanation in the article that opt in emails could render a commercial email as not spam. That is not accurate. Spam is any email that is unwelcome regardless of opt in status. It can be legit senders or scam senders. It can be from individuals or businesses.

In the U.S. the Can Spam law has regulations for all commercial email and it is legal to spam contrary to what the article wrote. I made a couple modifications to explain that (it said it was a crime to spam). It is a crime to spam without complying with the law .

The exploits section was good and a cause for the egregius spam as I updated to explain.

Sorry so long.

[edit] Académie française

Self-nomination. -- Emsworth 00:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Comprehensiveness: How has the Academy been perceived? Also, "Current members" is redundant to the List of page and won't age well. 119 03:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I beg to contradict this objection. The page does note that the body has been perceived as excessively conservative. Furthermore, the listing of current members of a body (if the list is not too long) is customary. The list will be regularly updated. -- Emsworth 15:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The only coverage of perceptions of the Académie are a brief mention of allegations of conservatism and that some government officials have ignored its advice. But why was the Académie formalised by Richelieu? Why was it abolished during the French Revolution? How much weight does it have with normal usage within the public? Are there popular opinions on the Académie? The members list should also note at what time it was last updated. 119 19:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Looks good as far as I can tell, but I'm not sure the rather large picture of Richelieu at the top of the article really belongs. Surely we can find a more appropriate one. Phils 17:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object, I endorse 119's objection about how the Academy has been perceived. A much fuller discussion is needed than the sentence you cite in response. I have a problem altogether with the article's proportions. It seems to me there's not nearly enough about the function, criticism, and perception of the Academy, and proportionately too much about trivia like the special green habits. The sentence on function, "The Académie is France's official authority on the usages, vocabulary, and grammar of the French language, although its recommendations carry no legal power" needs some background and explanation, it's mystifying. How—in what sense—is the academy "France's official authority"? Who recognizes that authority, and what does it mean to recognize it? What is the force of the word "official" and of the word "authority"? The second part of the sentence states that the force is not what common sense suggests, so what is it? This is a big question-mark to leave.

It seems to me necessary to discuss some background to the Academy's place in French history, with some attention paid to its cultural relation to the Enlightenment, the Encyclopedists, the French Revolution (not just the bare technical facts of discontinuites around 1800, though those are of course wanted too). Some sense of its ideology over time, and the history of mutating perceptions and criticisms of it, needs to be supplied. (Not of course in the editorial voice, but by acknowledging and attributing the ongoing French discussions of these subjects.) The sentence "The body, however, has sometimes been criticised for behaving in an excessively conservative fashion" is inadequate as the sole hint at such matters. It is too innocent of history, and the section "History", in its turn, is too innocent of ideology. I'm afraid I see this article as too superficial a treatment of its important subject, as yet, to be an FA. The three references show why: two of them are from around the year 1900 (one of them the Catholic Encyclopedia), the third is the homepage of the Academy itself. You urgently need to use some modern authority (other than the Academy's admiring self-description) or, preferably, authorities.

Btw, although the corresponding article in fr wiki is quite short, it's more specific about some things that would be useful here, especially about the original mission of the academy. This was to fix the French language, to stop it developing. Language change was in the 17th century seen as degeneration, and the unchanged language was seen as a valuable cultural "patrimony" for future generations. This is interesting stuff, which until recently colored the self-perception of the Academy and the criticisms against it—perhaps even still does to some extent, though the official mission statement has changed. (Again, some modern discussion of such matters needs to be consulted and referenced.) --Bishonen|Talk 20:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Google Gulp

Article on Google's recent April Fools Day joke. Plus nice graphics!--Mb1000 04:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Featured article criteria suggests that articles which are utterly short "should in most cases be merged into another article." I think a mention of this instance in the Google article would be appropriate in this case. Or, even if we believe it deserves its own article, I wouldn't label this Wikipedia's best work. --DanielNuyu 08:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Needs considerable expansion; if this is really all there is to say, a merge should perhaps be considered. Everyking 13:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Cite your sources. slambo 14:52, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No sources, really isn't deep enough, and the "notes" section at the end should be incorporated into the prose. – flamurai (t) 15:04, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• I'd prefer to see a substantive article on Google's hoaxes. A re-phrasing, albeit with extra commentary, of a single press release isn't enough to be an FA in my opinion. Pcb21| Pete 15:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur on the Google's hoaxes idea. --DanielNuyu 01:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The article is up for deletion, and several people (including myself) think that's the best solution. Dave (talk) 17:20, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also concur on the Google's hoaxes idea, however, some of what were considered to be hoaxes, like their Infinity+1 storage, and their predictive searches (now known as Google Suggest), are coming into the realm of possibility. Sure, Infinity+1 may be "impossible" but they didn't say how soon it would come into place, and with their Gmail space counter rising like it does, it lends some potential to the idea of Infinity+1. So, certainly not FAC material, but possibly the content should be moved to a page summarizing Google Hoaxes, as there will likely be others in future. Will also post this to the VFD page. --Kyrin\^talk 21:24, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
• Object. Not anything like featured article quality in length, detail or analysis. Perhaps nominator was trying for some sort of record for length of time from scratch to featured status

Dbiv 19:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. While I like the article so far, it is by no means ready for FAC for the reasons above.
• Object It is even a VFD at the moment and lacks information. Just plain bad. Squash 03:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object - use of plain numbered links is bad style. Mozzerati 17:16, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
• Object. Should be deleted, not canonized. RickK 22:57, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This is just a transformation of the Google Gulp page itself, heavily paraphrased, with fatuous explanations of the obvious. The only sources cited are the Google Gulp article itself, and a bogus eBay auction. Featured articles should be the result of reasonably serious research, using a number of reasonably good sources. I don't believe more than a couple of work-hours went into the making of this article. Is this FAC nomination an attempt to prove some point?. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Curtis Sittenfeld

Self nom. Profile of a writer from Cincinnati who has gotten good very notices for her first novel. It has photos (thank you, User:Niteowlneils) and a bibliography. Was previously on WP:PR here. PedanticallySpeaking 18:41, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

• mild Object 1) there is no differentiation between the lead section and the article body; it needs section headers 2) I'd like to see more about her earlier works as well as their critical responses, both praise and criticism 3) this is really a minor item, but to keep to common WP style, in the External links and References sections, the titles should be the links. slambo 19:44, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've sectioned and rearranged the article. This is her first novel. Everything else of hers I've seen has been non-fiction articles and essays. So I don't know that there is critical assessments of it. PedanticallySpeaking 16:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, looks much better with the sectioning, and I've updated the references and links to take care of the third point in my list. I did a little Googling today to see if I could find more info to take care of point number 2, but didn't find anything substantial beyond what you've already listed. So, at this point, my vote is upgraded to Neutral, but it could easily be pushed into a support if we can find more data to add to further describe the earlier works. For example, the earlier work is listed, but we don't know what she was writing about; were they all foreshadowing her book or were they on other subjects? slambo 20:00, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The subject has barely done enough to deserve any wikipedia article, much less a featured one. Almost looks like promo. Also contains trivial filler. It's relatively short, and I don't see how it can be expanded without the addition of more filler. -R. fiend 21:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The length is not a criteria for articles. The criteria does say an article should be "Comprehensive", that it "Covers the topic in its entirety; does not omit any major facts or details" and I covered all the relevant information. Second, yes, she is new, but we get articles on people in the news all the time. Write-ups in The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other places say there's a need for an article on her. PedanticallySpeaking 18:41, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Can't believe this is everything interesting that can be written about her. Article doesn't even have her birthday. Does she have a middle name? Her full name should be given at the start of the article. jguk 19:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)The picci looks like it's been stolen from her website - is this fair use? Is she married? Does she have children? The main thing she appears to have done is this book, Prep. What's it about? The article says it's semi-autobiographical - so there must be some more info about her in the book! Sales? International acclaim? What's she writing now? etc. etc. jguk 18:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Curtis" is her middle name, as the article states. The picture, as its file states, is a promotional one taken from her web-site and which has been used in the press, e.g. with the NY Times review. I've yet to read the novel, there being a big waiting list at the library for it, so I can't speak to its contents beyond what I read in the cited articles. However, the article states it is about a girl at a boarding school and Sittenfeld going to Groton is noted as well. Don't know if it's been published abroad. Sales have been good, it was on the NYT bestseller list. I'll look for some specific numbers. None of the articles I've seen have said anything about a husband or children, but I have the impression she has neither. PedanticallySpeaking 18:45, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yield curve

Second try for this nomination. I believe all the concerns that were expressed the last time around have been fairly addressed. Its a central concept in finance, clearly expounded, with valuable references for those who would like to study the matter further. I've contributed to it some (although the bulk of the credit goes to others) so I guess I should call this a self nomination. --Christofurio 17:02, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article is very confusing and flows poorly. Some initial suggestions:

1. 1. Use the normal yield curve as the top picture, and show the inverted one later (you wouldn't show a picture of a three legged dog in dog in the top section and then caption it "most dogs have four legs").
   2. Work in technical jargon slowly, and define, define, define. Why is it called a yield curve? What is yield? How is that relevant to the cost of money?
   3. The article needs to be reorganized -- maybe laid out to first establish a basic understanding of existing theory, then an example, then history. It's very confusing to introduce examples or history of development before the reader is made to understand the basic concepts.
   4. Consistency -- for example, on the table showing construction of the yield curve, it switches from % rate to (1 - % rate).

It's market convention to quote futures prices as 100-100*rate, so the article is correct in this respect. Pcb21| Pete 23:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. 1. Could use a thorough copy edit for spelling, grammar, and sentence structure too.

That should be enough to work on for now. - Bantman 19:08, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

• object although there are some references, it's not clear which reference to use to check which material and there could be more. You could, for example, use a footnoting system such as Wikipedia:Footnote3 or one of the other ones to make this clear. Mozzerati 09:41, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • The article is appropriately referenced - it is a synthesis of material in those five books. You use footnotes to provide a cite for specific facts that otherwise the reader may not have confidence in. Which facts fall into this category? P.s. is five books really too few for an FA these days? Pcb21| Pete 09:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • five books is approximately a basic minimum (though it's impossible to be absolute; sometimes there just aren't that many sources). There are many many facts which I have no reason to be sure about in the article. The nomenclature "curve" is used rather than "yield function" because when plotted on a graph, the function is a curve. - maybe this is true; maybe it isn't. A good reference telling me which of those five books to look at and preferably which page to look on would really make it much more practical to check. This theory perfectly explains perfectly? Really? Please at least give a reference for that. "Liquidity preference theory...is also the most accepted theory of the three" seems total common sense, but again, what are the proportions of people accepting them? or do you mean economists? etc. I don't want to pick too many nits, since I don't think the "perfect" article is what we are asking for. Just a level which stands out above other normal articles. 10 most interesting/important/surprising points would be great.
      • Excuse me, but these do seem to be rather small nits you're hunting. The explanation of the term "curve" will seem quite familiar to anyone with any background in economics, not to say finance -- even a single undergraduate course using Samuelson's textbook will render this familiar. I don't believe specific references of the sort you seem to want are necessary or appropriate where a point is notorious within the pertinent field, available virtually anywhere. --Christofurio 00:38, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • From a mathematical perspective, a curve is the result of plotting the graph of a function. I don't see the need for any more explanation of why the "yield curve" is called a curve. --Carnildo 21:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but it's exactly this kind of misunderstanding which needs to be cleared up. A curve is not just any function, it must be a continuous function. There is no obvious (to me) reason why the yield curve cannot be discontinous. For example, maybe there is a known night in the future when it is advantagous to have cash. Yields just before that day may be higher and those just after may be lower. Another point: Samuelson isn't in the reference list. Finally, if this really needs an undergraduate course to understand then it qualifies as too technical. As I mentioned, these are specific minor symptoms of the difficulty of following the references. If you rested more on your sources then less would have to be done in the article.. Mozzerati 19:45, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

• • • • • • "no obvious (to me) reason"... I'll lend you $1m for 1+delta years at 6% and you lend me $1m for (1-delta) years at 5%, for any delta of your choosing less than 1 second. You'll learn pretty quick :) Pcb21| Pete 10:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - the terms USD and GBP are used in the figures without definition. While I assume that they are US dollar and GB pound, this isn't immediately apparent to the reader. Assuming that they are, could you are least link your captions to the appropriate articles? Guettarda 14:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I changed the terms to US dollar and British pound in the image captions. - Marcika 22:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New York City Subway nomenclature

Self-nomination. This has gotten a total of zero comments in five days on peer review. I'd really like at least some comments on how to improve this, if not praise. --SPUI (talk) 02:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Can't this article be called the simpler New York City Subway nomenclature? Also, the lead section is insufficient in comprehensiveness and should have a bolded title. 119 02:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment--the naming suggestion from 119 is a good one. Also, there's lots of acronyms, which are often used without explanation (e.g. MTA, IND, etc.). Although these are wikilinked, they should probably be expanded on first use. Meelar (talk) 02:31, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the lead and moved the page, as well as expanding the acronyms. --SPUI (talk) 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The lead section is still inadequate, I think. It is more of a brief introduction than a small, standalone version of the main text.119 03:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• oppose .. more comment ; a) you should show a photo of the signs in use on a train. b) please make more careful references; have a look at Cite your sources and consider using a footnoting system to make your references precise and easy to find. Mozzerati 17:13, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • Would you happen to be in the area, and could get a photo? As for foornotes, I'd rather hold off until we have a better system, in which the numbers and references at the bottom are automatically generated. --SPUI (talk) 19:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi, sorry, I'm far from that area but there must be someone, I was going to suggest Requested pictures but I see you've been there ;-) As far as footnotes go, the time when you write the article is probably the only time you have a hope to remember most of your sources. It's even harder for others to find them later. Two alternative suggestions. There's a the new system at Wikipedia:Footnote3 provides automatic numbering with some limitations. It will probably be possible to use that system to generate footnotes using any future internal wikimedia feature. If you still object to that system for some reason, you can do what PedanticallySpeaking has done in Julia Stiles which explains which information was taken from each reference so that later verification can be done.. Mozzerati 22:03, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

I find it well-written and exceptionally well politically balanced. The only missing criterion is pictures, but they are not so important IMO for this type of article, and may easily be added. Mikkalai 23:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No lead section, nearly twice the recommended article size, does not follow WikiProject Countries standards, badly needs subsectioning (but given the size, that would create an overwhelming TOC). In general a more condensed treatment is needed for those who don't have the time to read all this. --mav 04:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • lead section. Sorry. My overlook at nomination.
  • size. A ridiculous, discriminating objection.
  • I don't see how countries standards apply. This is an article about a period of history, not "Afganistan" article.
    • Then I believe it should be made a bit clearer. I did expect to see a country, not an history page. Circeus 23:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Subsectioning without reason? 15 sections not enough?
  • condensed. Agreed. Some sections may be summarized and made subarticles from them. Mikkalai 17:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Overal. I agree. My nomination was premature. I was impressed by the text, and overlooked the structure. Mikkalai 17:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Objecting based on size is a perfectly valid. This is an encyclopedia and people very often have limited time to get the information they need about a topic. Having a treatment that is both comprehensive and can be read within the average adult’s attention span (~20 minutes) is very useful to the reader. The reason is due to limited time the reader may have and the fact that the writer has already done the work of prioritizing the more important parts for the reader. This makes the article much more useful as a jumping off point to more detailed treatments on sub-topics (which might be tied together with a series box). That can be done with sections that have links to daughter articles that go into detail on the topic summarized in that section. See USSR for an example of a country article about a dead nation. I was talking about subsectioning - many of the sections are rather long and therefore could use some structure (not too much since that can stifle further development of that section) --mav 17:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mav, just a week back you vehemently objected to my summary on the Singapore article after I had added the main points. It still conformed to the directions you later gave me.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 19:43, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Add an intro and split some content into subarticles. Everyking 10:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Once there's an introduction, I'll probably support this article. Hydriotaphia 21:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I take that back. There need to be sources. Hydriotaphia 21:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buckingham Palace

Well, since 1755 Lisbon earthquake seems so well-received, I'll try another renomination. This looks good to me, and all objections in the previous nomination (here) seem to be addressed. This is very little to do with me - mostly User:Giano. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support Well put together and informative article. Filiocht | Talk 11:10, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Inadequate wikipedia:lead section for an article this size. Please expand. --mav 13:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Still full of weasel words: "it is perhaps surprising"; "thought to have been designed"; "This may indicate". Also not NPOV: there appears to be no mention of the view, held by anyone with taste, that it is the ugliest building in London. Mark¹ 06:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polish-Soviet War

Resubmitting. I believe all objections have been adressed (see former failed nomination discussion). By use of subarticles the size have decreased from over 80kb to 45kb. Also, new maps have been added for your viewing pleasure - and expect to see some more over the coming days :) Again, I welcome any comments. Oh, and I see that the old archived discussion has already more supports then opposes - a good sign, I believe. Note: down to 29 paras in 1920 section :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• support This article is very well done. If Featured Articles are to be comprehensive then objections about length are uncalled for.Dinopup 03:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - all previous objections were answered (although I can't say I like the splitted article more than I liked the entire article in one chunk). Halibutt 06:36, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I thought this was already featured. The 1920 section still has too much detail for my taste, but that can be condensed some more later. --mav 14:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong object - no Russian sources used, making an article Polish-American POV. Example: "Polish win" is doubtful.Poland got its border 50-100 to the west from the one suggested by the Soviet Russia on Spring 1920 without the war. No mention of the fact, that mostly due to above reason Soviets, recognising their defeat in the battle of Warsaw, hold entire campaign as their victory. 213.115.184.126 13:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I think that is handled well. He's got a point there. How can you even come close to NPOV without consulting the sources from both sides? - Taxman 20:43, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Neither are any Polish sources used. This is an English Wiki, and we tried to keep to the sources available to an English speaker. Although at least one Russian source was used to prepeare/check some portions of the materials (Директивы командования фронтов Кр. Армии (1917-22) by Mikkalai, see Talk:Target Vistula for details). The article was read by at least two Russian Wikipedians I know of - Mikkalai and 172, both of whom had made significant contributions to it, and made no objections since it was nominated here. Some of the English sources for the article are in fact given by them, IIRC. Finally and perhaps most importantly, the Polish-Soviet war was a subject not covered in official communist history. As the biggest defeat of the Red Army, it was deemed a dangerous exception to the communist dialectic and such, and thus it was striken out from all Polish history books during the times of People's Republic of Poland (communists had their own 'better' version of history...*shivers*). It is quite possible that as anon writes (if I understand his English correctly) in some Soviet publications the war was portrayed as a Soviet victory. I doubt however that any of publications made in the Soviet Union are of any value except for the article on the communist version of real history (publications such as mentioned collected orders from 1917-22 are an exception only becaues they were written by soldiers on the field of battle without much thought to the political correctnes. For that very reason many useful Soviet documents were on the prohibited reading list, and declassified ony after 1991.). For similar reason we don't see - or demand - German Nazi references for the Second World War articles. I don't know of any post-91 publications in Russian on that subject, and as I can't read Russian I can't look for them on the net. I seriously doubt they would contain any major revalation, although perhaps the anon who objected (do we have any rules on anon objections to FA btw?) would like to prove me wrong by quoting the publication title, date, author, ISBN and the factual revelations that would force me to rewrite the article? Or at the very least a link to an English speaking site with such information? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Ok that sounds pretty reasonable. I guess I would like 172 to weigh in on the issue, but I think he isn't around anymore. Maybe Mikkalai can add his opinion. Well I'm not a history person and I suppose it is common knowledge the Soviets re-wrote their version of history, but maybe even that is worth noting? I could be wrong. As to anon objections, my understanding is they are treated just like any other. Many articles are promoted with one or even a few objections, Raul654 just judges them a bit based on their validity and weighs the support votes. Many support votes can outweigh a minor objection or one a number of people disagree with. And besides if that Russian source was used and is of high quality for the reasons you stated, then I am satisfied. This was just my first thought on the issue I'll have to read the article before I can give my support. - Taxman 01:10, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

It is worth noting and already noted in the aftermath section: Until 1989, while communists held power in a People's Republic of Poland, the Polish-Bolshevik War was either omitted or minimized in Polish and other Soviet block countries history books, or was presented so as to fit with the "truths" of communist propaganda. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The source mentioned (Direktivy Komandirovanya...) is simply a collection of all battle orders, orders of battle and reports issued during the war. As such, it is one of the two basic sources used by more or less all historians of that conflict (the other being a similar publication containing all Polish orders and reports). I can't say if it's 100% credible (which source is...), but it's definitely the best source out there, at least for the Red side. Halibutt 01:27, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I continue to strongly object, I removed one more strong POV, that Soviet Union allied itself with Hitler by the means of MR Pact, see talk page. Polish sources used indirectly: along with getting facts from Western books, Piotrus introduced his own opinion, which pretty well fits to the latest campaign of Hitler-whitewash-Soviet-blackwash in Eastern European countries, including Poland. I look at the article itself, not at "Russian" wikipedians, who "signed" it. Soviet propaganda was not much different from anti-Soviet propaganda in Western countries during the existence of the Soviet Union and also was not much different from nowadays propaganda in Eastern European countries. 213.115.184.126 15:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be much better if instead of attempting an edit war on the article and deleting whole paragraph without even being close to any consensus you'd try to advocate you POV on the talk page before :-( Lysy 13:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well summarized, organized, written, and researched. I can't comment in the slightest on the material, but it sounds like you guys have researched it well and done a good job there. Good work. - Taxman 03:01, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Support now that the accusation of POV has been addressed. KingTT 15:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - well structured, NPOV and well balanced. 213.115.184.126, if you think it's POV, try to express the alternative POV instead of forcibly deleting whole paragraphs Lysy 13:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support V1^t 03:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schutzstaffel

Self nomination of this article. Extensive historical research has gone into covering every branch of the SS including a history of the group's existence. References are cited and links are provided to several other SS related article -Husnock 22:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object, despite readability the article is not exactly aesthetically sublime. I think we could do better than one picture for the entire subject. —Oldak Quill 23:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. Very good coverage of controversial albeit magnetic topic, although as mentioned above it needs more pictures - tanks, perhaps, or people running with guns, or Derren Nesbitt from 'Where Eagles Dare'. There is however a picture of Himmler in the article on Gestapo. There doesn't seem to be anything about the SS tank divisions, which were extraordinary for a larger version of the Metropolitan Police; it's glaring, because the comics I used to read were full of "crack SS Panzer divisions", and this is still a cliche today.[4] I remember reading somewhere that the SS were forced by circumstance to progressively shelve their ideal of racial purity as casualities mounted, lowering their imaginary 'bar' in order to keep up the numbers; I don't know if this is true or not, but the article only mentions the increased use of non-German conscripts. I find it ironic that a generation of anti-Nazi education has ensured that some of the best articles on Wikipedia are on Nazi topics.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ashley, I dunno whether the general SS article should contain so much detailed information about one of its organizations i.e. the Waffen-SS. Andries 14:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral for the moment

Points Pro FA

1. Well resesearched and detailed (thanks Husnock)

Points Contra FA

1. Article contains some unattributed statements, like the SS is held responsible in the intro (by whom? by the IMT?) I think this is important because I believe there are quite a lot of ex-Waffen SS men who were stigmatized though they had nothing to do with the RSHA, war crimes or Holocaust. (can be fixed quickly)
2. The subject is very large and diverse (yes, even the SS was large and diverse) and as a result the article has become slightly difficult to understand quickly. I think the German version has a better organization of the topics
3. At least one more pic would be nice (can be fixed quickly)
4. May be the SS magazine Das schwarze Korps should be mentioned. (can be fixec quickly)
5. May be we should also mention that the SS had non-members who could contribute financially at a certain period
6. Didn't the SS members swear loyalty to the person of Adolf Hitler, not to Germany or the Nazi-party but to Hitler as a person? If so, this should be mentioned (quit scary and cult like)
7. The court system of the SS re-introduced duels for insults, I read. May be this should be mentioned too.

• Some sentences that I find doubtful that may be due to my ignorance

• The SS fighting units, called the Waffen-SS, were to prove highly distinguished and in many cases more distinguished than the German army, the Wehrmacht

(I thought that there a few excellent divisions but also a few below Wehrmacht standards)

• The most powerful men in the SS were the SS and Police Leaders,

(I though the SS heads of the Amter were more powerful and that the SSHPF were Himmler’s strategy against the growing power of the heads of the Amter)

• Since the SS was, by its very nature, a criminal organization

( the SS men believed that they were dealing with enemies of the Reich)

• SS Judges have themselves admitted that the mass murder of Jews and the shooting of women and children was against German law.

(this is something I was not aware of. I always thought that the SS men followed the law)

Andries 14:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Andries, actually, the SS gave little regard for German Law. With their own courts and police and no media investigative reporters (my speculation), they had little reason to. For example, German laws regarding cremation stipulated that each body to be cremated needed paperwork identifying the cause of death, signed by a physician. Each form had a unique number on it, which was also on a ceramic disc to go into the oven with the body and into the urn with the ashes. At first the SS forged all the certificates and randomly filled urns with mixed ashes and random id discs, but eventually they didn't bother. In my opinion, the "final solution" was in no way compatible with German law, but rather with the (barbaric) whims and (murderous) fancies of the SS. (the cremation law stuff I got from a special exhibit at the Jüdisches Museum in Berlin--the exhibit was about a little company called "Topf & Söhnen" that made ovens...)(http://www.topfundsoehne.de/) jethrotull4321 30. Sept 2006

• object
  • Several Waffen SS units turned out to be a fighting disaster, not all were a success.
  • The term "Freikorps" is not expanded on and is crucial for understanding the SS in the beginning and in particular Hitler's feelings for many of the SS men.
  • "some say" needs to be made more specific.
  • there needs to be a statement of the limitations of the effective powers of the SS in Germany. They were not all powerful and failed in a large number of their goals.
  • it is not true to say that the order police was fully integrated into the SS; they maintained a separate chain of command long into the war (Browning p7)
  • many other things I don't have immediate time to check. Please consider expanding your referencences and referencing each fact. You could use a footnoting system such as Wikipedia:Footnote3 or other equivalent system to show these matches.

Mozzerati 10:17, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

[edit] Jello Biafra

Self nomination. I've revised the article to meet all previous objections to it, plus added more information to expand apon the subject. -- LGagnon 21:12, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - very doubtful that at least two of the photos are fair use or public domain. One claims public domain but is a screenshot from a music video, the other claims fair use justified by the fact that the same photo appears on a DK website, which is highly dubious to say the least. Fawcett5 22:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It appears that screenshots are considered fair use, so that one should be tagged {{Screenshot}} and returned. The other is still probably no good. When I get a chance I'll look over the remainder of the article.Fawcett5 15:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've removed them for the time being, and won't put them back unless there's any varification to if we can use them or not. -- LGagnon 22:59, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Support: There's always room for Jello, even if he did act like a jerk to me back in '85. (The only problem I see is the repetition of the political beliefs in the lead and the Beliefs section. The phrasing needs to be different.) Geogre 00:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've shortened the intro a little bit, so it shouldn't be that redundant now. -- LGagnon 01:32, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• All it really says about his music is that it's punk, comedic, and often political, and names the bands he's been in. There must be more to say about the music of such a prominent singer. I have to abstain until the article does. Samaritan 21:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added a new section to give info on his music. Let me know if it needs more work. -- LGagnon 22:54, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Collapse of the World Trade Center

Self-nom (mostly), resubmitted from some months ago. Added schematic and improved text should settle minor objections from last time. JDG 07:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The introduction could use some polishing. The introduction talks about the collapse and how it prompted discussion, but doesn't give any hint as to what the article actually says. →Raul654 07:28, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Added a sentence. Does that help? JDG
    • It's an improvement, but a single sentence is insuffecient. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Lead section. →Raul654 20:27, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Just overhauled it. JDG
        • The introduction looks good now. The article is also in need of some wikification as well. I did some, but I think it could use more. →Raul654 17:17, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Raul. I was a slight bit annoyed when you objected to the short intro because I felt expanding it much would lead to redundancy for anyone who went on to read the full article. Now I see that it is indeed better if the intro acts as a sort of "executive summary" for articles of this length and longer. I'd say Collapse is right on the edge in this respect-- a shorter article would get quite redundant with a detailed intro... I'll be looking to wikify more too. JDG

• A few comments added to the talk page. Tempshill 22:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose No references. --mav 22:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I added the two main references. (One was already in the "external links", the other is a TV documentary.) - Marcika 00:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support; not too short, not too long. Wins points for including "... the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)" rather than just "FEMA", and even more points for mentioning a conspiracy theory without giving the impression that the writer either secretly believes in it, or has an axe to grind against it - which would make the axe sharper. Perhaps I need to think of a better metaphor. Perhaps if the diagram included an outline of a 767, as I once saw on television, that might be better.-Ashley Pomeroy 13:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose; detailed comments on the talk page. Jgm 03:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...Well, it looks like time is up and we have 2 supports to 1 objection. How does that play out? JDG 23:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not consensus - this nom is going to fail. →Raul654 16:32, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] March 2005

[edit] First Council of Nicaea

I believe that the great changes that this article has undergone since it was withdrawn from candidacy last year (see here) indicate that it's time may well have come. I also believe that all of the then-current objections have been addressed. Thoughts? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Previous debate archived at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Council of Nicaea/archive

• Comments
  • The box at the beginning is awfully wide and squeezes the lead unattractively.
    • Wholeheartedly agree withbox ugliness. Was WP:BOLD and edited it myself. Hopeit looks better now.
  • Second paragraph of the lead begins with a too long sentence.
  • Is the term "Character" as used in the section heading normal for this topic? I'm aware of the sense it's being used in, but seems odd to me. Not sure what I'd replace it with though.
  • The one-sentence paragraphs (such as under "Attendees" and "The Nicene Creed (symbol)") should be expanded or consolidated.
  • It's not clear what "A special prominence was also..." has to do with "Attendees".
  • Standardize citations -- a couple footnotes, at least one parenthetical, and an external link
• Tuf-Kat 06:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Looks good; appropriate use of illustration, generally well-written prose. However, some of the sections could use a little more detail, for example the section on 'Character' in particular could be expanded. Furthermore, all the red links need to be removed, as they are generally considered to be annoying clutter and are off-putting to some readers. A good, concise conclusion needs to be written to summarise and evaluate the topics covered by the article. Also a few more footnotes would be helpful. If some effort is put into addressing these relatively minor issues, I would consider changing my comment to a support. Bigdaddy1204 00:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Looks fine to me, from a language point of view. Tony 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose on a few issues:

1. Notes should be in numerical order in the text and in the notes list, ie the first not in the article shouldn't be note 4.
2. Html links in text need to be converted to notes and fully cited for future reference
3. There are "harvard style" cites fro sources texts like: According to Duchesne (Revue des questions historiques, xxviii. 37); that could also be converted to notes.
4. Only the first word in a section heading should be capitalised (unless it's a propper noun) see MoS
5. The format of the list in "other problems" is inconsistent with other lists in the article, the first words should probably be capitalised.
6. The lead is not a summary of the article and contiains information that only appears in the lead. it is also (probably) too long considering the articles length. I would suggest moving most of the information on the historical significance to the body of the article (where there is currently no mention of this) and adding some detail on Councils that followed and the impact this council had on the church.
7. There are lots of short paragraphs that could be merged into related paragraphs.

--nixie 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comments - Oh dear - why is there a {{POV-section}}? And are the items in your "Bibliography" section references? If so, please call them such. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Content disputes need to be settled before an article attempts FAC. Durova 07:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK article, but one comment I have is that it is written (correctly) that "No follower of Arius could say these words as a profession of faith." It would be nice to say why - I know why, but then again I did a course on Church History at Bible college. Outsiders most likely won't know — I fear that the average uninformed reader (this is why they read our encyclopedia you know!) won't know why this is the case without a bit of background. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Further to this, another issue is that it needs to be made very clear why the idea that Jesus was of one substance from the Father was so crucial to the debate. It should also be made clearer about the debate over the term "Homoousian" and why this was so crucial. Again this would be dealt with both by a brief overview of the Arian controversy. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: what is a conciliar letter and what is a circular letter? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of South Africa

Self-nom. I think this is a highly interesting and well-written article, with many pertinent and interesting images. Thank you! Páll 09:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well written article! DO'Иeil 09:39, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Lots of time and care was put into this article. A bit large, but then again, I think it's also unreasonable to cut down a history article on an entire country. Mike H 10:03, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose It is unreasonable to expect people to plod through such a large article when they have limited time (nearly twice as long as recommended). More summarizing of some sections and creation of daughter articles is in order. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Also the TOC is overwhelming and overall organization is poor (overuse of second level headings and hardly any subheads - certainly better division can be accomplished for this subject). Object until then. --mav 17:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, history articles are generally allowed to be as long as needed. Take a look at History of Russia, which is a recent featured article. That is nearly 20k longer than this! Also, each of the second level headings is about a completely seperate topic. It wouldn't work well to use any subheads. Páll 18:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just because another article slipped through, does not give leave for this article to be too long for most users. Most history articles are broken up in series with the main history of... article serving as a survey article that introduces each article of the series. Major organizational issues are still there. At a quick glance I can see the need for level 2 prehistory, colonization, wars, repression and resistance, reform, and more recent history sections with the current sections being subsections of those. This will also make it easier to see what new level 2 sections could be summarized with the current detail moved to a daughter article (at least so the article gets in the 30 to 45 KB range). --mav 19:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don 't think of it as slipping through, there was a major discussion over it. I implimented your suggestions over the headings, however the history of South Africa spans three million years. I think it is well within reason to have 20k per MILLION years on an article about the history of an entire nation. If it were about something else, yes, I'd say trim it, but this as it is is already very concicse and there are a lot of topics that I did not get into for fear of space. Besides, we are talking about the merits of an individual article, not whether or not people will read it. Páll 22:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"... not whether or not people will read it" Then what are we here for? You can't change the fact that the average attention span of people is 20 minutes and it takes the average person about that amount of time to read 30 to 35 KB of prose. So anything above that makes the article less useful. Temporarily having an article in the 35 to 45 KB range is OK so long as the long term plan is to spin off one or more of the sections into its own article and to leave a more condensed treatment in its place.

I'm not advocating that Wikipedia have less info on this topic - just that each article should be easily readable so that people who need a primer on the whole topic will likely get through the whole article. Readability is a very important aspect. The argument that no more summarizing can be done is specious since the lead section summarizes the topic down to 3 paragraphs and the history section at South Africa summarizes the topic in with several more paragraphs.--mav 20:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Lead sectioon is a bit too long. CGorman 20:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not for an article this size. --mav
    • Agree with mav, lead lenght is ok. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok. CGorman 17:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice and very interesting article! I made a few minor corrections. I would however make a suggestion that for design purposes some pictures should be placed on the left hand side of the page. It simply makes for a more varied presentation.Ganymead 04:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very complete, well-written article. I don't have any problem with the length. — mark ✎ 11:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support, Very good, nicely written. The length is justified by the sheer size of the topic. Inter\^Echo 16:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I will support after a map is added, preferably to the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What kind of map would you like? There is no one map of South Africa as the borders changed up until 1910. Páll 21:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Well, then a map showing the changing borders - or several maps. At least something showing south of Africa...well, any useful map will do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added a map. Páll 09:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support Nichalp 18:52, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Many of the "pertinent and interesting images" do not give sources or have dubious copyright status. Many of them were (until just now) clearly mislabeled as "GFDL". Sigh...does no one bother to check these things? —Steven G. Johnson 20:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, most of them do if you went to look at their source on Wikipedia Commons. They are publicly released images by the UN, or they were images publicly released by the South African government. Páll 21:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, having "most" of the images ok is not enough; for a FAC, I would say that all of the images should be clearly sourced and usable by Wikipedia. (e.g. Image:MrsPles.jpg has no source at all given.) Second, just because something was posted to the Commons doesn't mean it is usable, if it was posted wrongly to the commons (or at least, if no source or copyright status were given). Third, for the UN images, at least they are sourced, but I went to the UN Photo Archive, and it has no clear statement that the photos are in the public domain — on the contrary, it says that you have to contact them "for further information on the use of UN Photos". (If you contacted them and they pointed you to clear permission, please post it.) —Steven G. Johnson 03:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I took care of the Mrs Ples image, that was an oversight on my part. The UN images about apartheid are usable under the National Heritage Resources Act (1999) and the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 38 of 1997. Páll 03:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. I entirely agree with the concerns about the images. Of the three I was so surprised to see that I checked:
  1. Image:Soweto Riots.jpg no source with GFDL placed by User:PZFUN
  2. Image:South African Miners.jpg no source with GFDL placed by User:PZFUN
  3. Image:Nelson Mandela Being Sworn In.jpg with GFDL placed by User:PZFUN with source and saying "From the UN image archive, used with permission."

  On this evidence, I would have severe doubts about any copyright statement by User:PZFUN. I would be particularly interested to know what the permission from the UN said given about the GFDL. I read the comment above about the National Heritage Resources Act (1999)[5] and the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 38 of 1997[6]; I would be interested to know which sections apply (on a very quick skim I did not spot them) and, given this is South African domestic legislation, how they apply to either the United Nations or to Wikipedia. --Henrygb 22:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to the "Registration of Copyright in Cinematograph Films Act No. 62 of 11 May 1977", "This Act provides for the registration of copyright in cinematograph films on a voluntary basis. The duration of registration is for such period of time as provided for the subsistence of the copyright by virtue of the provisions of the Copyright Act, No. 98 of 1978, i.e. 50 years. A registration constitutes evidence of copyright." However, the images that I used have been used publicly, and are commonly found images. With no credit given. The relevant section of the National Heritage Act of 1999, Section 48, states that "[a] heritage resources authority may prescribe the manner in which an application is made to it for any permit in terms of this Act and other requirements for permit applications, including— (a) any particulars or information to be furnished in the application and any documents, drawings, plans, photographs and fees which should accompany the application [registration]." As of such, the UN has not made such a registration, and since these images are relevant to National Heritage, they may be used for issues pertaining to South African national heritage, until the UN makes a counter-claim that is accepted by a South African judge as a registry. Since these images are of South Africa and stored in South African webspace, South African law governs their use. Páll 21:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, these are not "Cinematograph Films" which means movies. Second, if as you say South African copyright lasts for 50 years, on the face of it you cannot use anything later than 1955 without the copyright holder's permission. Third, my reading of the National Heritage Act is that it is about protecting heritage items (e.g. Bushman paintings) and that permission is needed to use them in a way which might affect them; even if it applies to this which I doubt, it seems to prohibit unregistered use rather than allow it. Fourth, the fact that others on the Internet ignore copyright does not mean Wikipedia can. Fifth, you cannot just give a GFDLicence on something unless you are the copyright holder, especially if you do not know the source. --Henrygb 02:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, these are cinematograph films as this law is generaly used for photographs as well. South African copyright alsts for 50 years, if they were registered to be copyrighted, which the UN has not done. The National Heritage Act makes specific reference to photographs as well "3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, those heritage resources of South Africa which are of cultural significance or other special value for the present community and for future generations must be considered part of the national estate and fall within the sphere of operations of heritage resources authorities. 45 vii) books, records, documents, photographic positives and negatives, graphic, film or video material or sound recordings, excluding those that are public records as defined in section 1(xiv) of the National Archives of South Africa Act, 1996 (Act No. 43 of 1996)."

The law goes on to state that an image is "is to be considered part of the national estate if it has cultural significance or other special value because of— (a) its importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa’s history; [...] (c) its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa’s natural or cultural heritage; (d) its importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of South Africa’s [...] cultural places or objects; [...] (g) its strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons; (h) its strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organisation of importance in the history of South Africa (emphasis added); and (i) sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa. 30 35 40".

This clearly to me states that images that are part of the heritage resources of South Africa (of which all of those images clearly are seeing as they are all over the place inside of the apartheid museum, history books on South Africa, as well as the national psyche. It is not just online that I have seen these images, I've seen them in every single book on South African historyt hat I own. I will replace the GFDL licence with a non-commercial tag. Páll 09:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is clear to me that you do not understand either copyright or how it applies in Wikipedia. This is not the first time this has been an issue. You cannot neither simply give a non-commercial licence on copyright which is not yours, nor use a non-comercial image in Wikipedia. But I will stop arguing now, and simply maintain my objection. --Henrygb 17:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with mav on article length. In general, I would suggest amending the featured article criteria to say that articles above a certain length should use summary-style in the main article, with links to detailed articles on each section. This is more helpful to the reader than a very long article that just keeps growing, eventually reaching book-length. Remember, we are writing for a diverse audience of readers. The perfect encyclopedia article makes it possible to "zoom in" on as much detail as required. That also leads to some interesting side effects, such as the references in the main article being more general, and the ones in the specific areas being more targeted at readers who are already well-versed in the subject area in question.--Eloquence* 20:54, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

  sofixit :-) Kim Bruning 10:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While your suggestions regarding amending the criteria are valid, I do not think this is the forum for them, Instead, I recommend you bring them up at the valid talk page, because until they are changed, they should not be used as criteria, instead we should go by what has already been made a featured article. In this case, the most similar article, History of Russia, is considerably longer than this article and passed its FAC. This article is already quite concise considering the period of history we are discussing, and it links to side articles where it is possible. As I've said previously, I do not think that 22k per million years of history is excessive, or in any way in bad taste. Páll 21:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And there were many articles without references that went through before we added that requirement. Including many articles that I objected to based on them not having references. Looking at this article I can see two places where it would be natural to use summary style. The ==Apartheid== section and the ==Colonisation== section. Apartheid already exists as its own article. The detail here could be merged there and this section could be summarized with a Main article link to Apartheid (which itself may need to eventually go through the same treatment). Colonisation in South Africa does not exist. So setting that up will be even easier. --mav 21:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support, nicely written article. Kim Bruning 10:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concorde

Comprehensive and interesting. The photos are the highlight. I've made minor edits to the article, not enough to call it a self-nomination IMO, but there you are. Tempshill 22:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object, no references. 119 23:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Object.  ALKIVAR™ 04:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. No references
  2. Majority of article content is lists
  3. Section on Paris Crash is too small
  4. Other crashes/major accidents not covered
  5. No mention of how staff casually overlooked things like the "5 mile high club" and the "what happens onboard stays onboard" mentality of passengers and staff. (I've heard some rather interesting stories about in flight activity).
  6. Needs a copyedit/spellcheck.

[edit] History of science

This article has undergone extensive expansion since its recent creation in January and especially since its recent COTW in February. It now encompasses a huge general area quite well, not too in-depth, but captures the trends well. It's full of pictures, good wikiformat, and has references. Looks like a wonderful article to me.--Dmcdevit 03:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This is a good article, but still not ready for the big time. The peer review comments need to be adressed first - for example, there is no mention of economy and several other scientific disciplines at all, especially from the social sciences area - so the article fails on the grounds of being incomplete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The number of links to other disciplines has doubled. The navbox to them has correspondingly grown in size. Some of the content has been moved to pages in the respective disciplines. Ancheta Wis 14:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Nearly twice the recommended page size. Article size is very important given that the average attention span of people is 20 minutes and it takes the average person about that amount of time to read 30 to 35 KB of prose. So a person who needs a good primer on this topic would not likely finish reading this article. Nothing wrong with having a great deal of coverage on a topic, but having so much in one article is not optimal. See Wikipedia:Summary style on how to fix this (involves summarizing some sections and moving the more detailed text to daughter articles). --mav 20:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do we care whether the average person will actually finish something? Don't we care, rather, whether an interested person will read something? Besides, this is the history of science. Demanding that it be less than 32KB is, with due respect, just ignorant. Hydriotaphia 21:45, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes we do care - that is why we are here. A person who wants a primer on the whole topic should not have to be exhausted by reading. Expecting every user to need the same level of detail is, with due respect, ignorant. --mav 22:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I certainly considered the length, but thought that rule was obsolete with History of Russia's successful FAC. Especially with the more stringent rules, it's extemely hard to keep them that short.--Dmcdevit 22:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Many articles without references were featured before that was a requirement. --mav 22:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right... so you're saying this should be featured, because there is no rule against length? I don't see your point.--Dmcdevit 23:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My point is that there is a transition period before a new requirement is added where people object to articles based on that future requirement but since that requirement is not set yet some of those articles objected to get featured anyway. So some articles that would not pass after that requirement was added did pass before it was added. --mav

OK—but doesn't that beg the question of whether it's actually a valid requirement or not? Let's not just assume it's legitimate. Let's have a reasoned, civil discussion about it. Apropos of that, I do sincerely apologize for calling your earlier comment ignorant; that was hardly civil. Hydriotaphia 04:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirection. The article is currently at 66KB and growing. The work is attracting some excellent editors. Perhaps it is premature to seek to prune it until the content stabilizes. I quote from The Autobiography of Science, 2nd edition, edited by Forest Ray Moulton and Justus J. Schifferes: "... the history of science resembles a flowing river ... Its beginnings lie beyond the farthest horizons of the unknown. As rivulets join successively into larger and larger streams, finally becoming irrestible floods, so the elementary and isolated first elements of various branches of science progressively combine and develop into ... great syntheses of experience and reasoning." I am attempting to prune it, see the link below. But it seems a shame to stifle the flood right now. You are seeing a great article form before you. Perhaps one approach is to nominate a pruned Summary_style version after this big one stabilizes. FAC is not as important as keeping the interest up in this one, right now. Ancheta Wis 12:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article contains some great prose and most certainly has potential. However, I think this article needs a more detailed peer review. The article's talk page contains some problems I have with the first half of the article. Jan van Male 01:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I've worked a lot on this article after the CotW ended, I think it improved a lot. I put it up for peer review to get comments on it and to get more people interested again. It helped, but I have to agree the article is not ready for FA status yet. I've greatly shortened many paragraphs but it's difficult to preserve all the different fields and disciplines at the same time. -- Cugel 08:09, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Attn: Check out new page Talk:History of science/Summary style for new page construction. Considering the major revision to account for length, it may not be an immediate fix. It seems most of the consensus is that that is the major problem, and it has all, if not too much, of the required info, much of which is now being moved to daughter pages. --Dmcdevit 02:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I think the article does a fairly good job of an overview to an immensely large topic. The fact that it is only 66K is AMAZING in my opinion, considering the range of subjects and time periods it covers. It gives a nice broad overview of both the history of various disciplines, the professionalization of science, theories of scientific change, and manages to do it without being too Western-centric. The 32K limit has never been a hard and fast rule (and matters substantially less now thanks to section editing than it ever did before) and should not be applied in a knee-jerk manner. There are certain topics in which to try and sum them up in 32K would be more of an atrocity than going over it a bit. --Fastfission 20:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vedem

An amazing article, a gem of hope, a document of human struggle, worthy a film in fact. oscar 01:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support Waerth 01:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Though I wrote this article, I am voting for it because of Petr and all the boys who made Vedem possible. When I first heard their story, I thought about Wikipedia. Here were a bunch of young people with a dream. They wanted to document what they saw around them and share it with posterity. In many ways, that is just like us, but they did it, quite literally from hell. For me this is a chance to make sure that their message of hope in the face of all adversity continues to survive. Danny 01:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • apart from the quality of the article itself, concise and comprehensive, that is exactly why i nominated it :-) oscar 02:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly support. Antandrus 02:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A little known part of the history of the Holocaust that Wikipedia can help bring to wider audience. Great work! Googie man 02:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is what wikipedia is all about. --Jimbo Wales 02:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No references (the single link is obviously not the only source used). More elaboration on the magazine's content would be nice. The first image has a questionable copyright status: Danny uploaded it as being a "photo of dead boy died in 44" (although a fair use argument would be rather easy). No lead section - the first paragraph is a summary of the magazine's history from 1942 to 1944, information that is not elaborated further in the article, rather than a summary of the entire history of the magazine. No sections (I'm reading right off of Wikipedia:What is a featured article). ugen64 02:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No lead section/TOC/headings, no references. I just did a brief check on Amazon's search-inside-the-book, and there are quite a few works mentioning Vedem and putting it in context. I expect such additional context and background information from a featured-quality article. The images are lacking accurate and policy-compliant licensing information (NB: with regard to the photograph of the boy, it does not matter when the boy died, but when the person taking the photo did).--Eloquence* 02:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• support. If the article had normal subject matter I would agree with Ugen and Eloquence, but I think this story is worth promoting further. Two quesitons. Does "Shkid" mean "sh*t" in Czech? What happened to the fifteen survivors?Dinopup 04:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Some answers to your questions. Republic of Shkid is actually a Russian term (Республика ШКИД or Школа социально Индивидуального воспимчя именчь Достоевского -- Republic of Social Individual Upbringing [named] after Dostoevsky). The original was a school established by Anton Makarenko (1888-1939) for youths orphaned by the Russian Revolution. Most of the boys in Terezin Shkid came from secular, socialist backgrounds, and would have been very familiar with Makarenko's school, which highlighted collectivism (the barracks were organized by them as a collective), discipline and physical labor (two major features of life in Terezin). From what I have learned, most of the boys remained in Czechoslovakia, though some likely left for Europe, America, or Israel. The four cases I know of remained there. Danny 01:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Danny - could you add these details to the article? I think it would benefit from them. →Raul654 20:38, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are two ways to treat an article on a worthy topic differently from other articles. The POV way is to give that article special treatment in the featured article selection. The NPOV way is to give it special attention and to make sure that it is of the highest possible quality. I prefer the NPOV way, which I think ultimately does the subject greater justice than just trying to get it promoted on the Main Page.--Eloquence* 05:15, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Eloquence, your statement above is redundant and therefore unncessary, as you've already pointed out that you oppose this article's nomination for featured article. Furthermore, you really contradict the principles of NPOV which you so strongly espouse by making such a patently negative and POV statement. Therefore the above statement from you strikes me as something more personal and combative, than anything really about defending the integrity of Wikipedia. Then again, that's my POV, do or don't do with it what you please. But really, enough already. Googie man 02:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Googie man, please assume good faith. Eloquence's comment discusses the principle involved, it doesn't at all repeat what was in his vote, and I don't find it redundant, or combative either. I hope you'll want to strike out your response—which is basically five lines taken to say "Oh, shut up!"—after sleeping on it.--Bishonen | Talk 08:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: this article fails to meet basic FA requirements as outlined by others above. Also, as per Dinopup's questions, it is not comprehensive enough yet. Worthiness of subject matter is not a reason to grant FA status, just as trivial subject matter is no reason to deny it. Filiocht 08:28, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, same objections as others. Way too short, not comprehensive. This thing was published; a lot more could be written about its contents. And did it have any effect on the world? --SPUI (talk) 13:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I sectioned and rewrote it a bit. I too would love to see more information; a little background on the boy and the man looking after those kids, a little more on Home One, the size of the whole barracks; more about other people involved in the magazine, the initial date of publication in Paris. Where are the other surviving pages now? etc. +sj + 15:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. KingTT 21:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons stated by Ugen64, Eloquence and Filiocht. Great subject matter; but it needs to comply with the FA criteria just like any other article. — mark ✎ 10:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object - good, so far as it goes, but I am not convinced that this ic comprehensive: much more can and should be written. It may benefit from a time on Wikipedia:Peer review. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This does not even meet a basic and obvious present or not present requirement of having references. Are the above supporters who cite the subject's inspirational quality to them and so on familiar with the criteria for a featured article? 119 19:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The article does state its references, albeit in the text. Not a surprise that sources are limited given the topic. Dbiv 20:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Viajero 00:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Length alone should not disqualify. Trödel|talk 22:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xanadu House

This article should be nominated as a featured article because it is an interesting topic and the article covers all areas of the topic, while discussing certain views of other people and including several photos with good captions. Wackymacs 11:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Title needs to be in bold. Lead section should say who, what, where, when, how. Very poorly written. No print references. What influence did the house have on other architects and houses? To what extent could groceries "be bought by tele-shopping at the household work station"? Was this a concept or did it actually work? Gdr 13:21, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
• Object. Language needs working on, lots of problems with the tenses used (e.g., it's written mostly in the present, even when dealing with events and statements from the 70s and 80s). And why isn't 'The Book' referenced at the end, or made reference to outside the paragraph on it? And, surely, someone must have written some articles about this project? Finally, the article doesn't distinguish between concept, house(s), and commentary. Tobyox 17:53, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The lack of citations is a big problem and should disqualify the candidate. I'm ok with all internet references as long as some are citation-formatted and some are more than personal websites or bloggy-like, this last only satisfied by a single link. Courtland 18:21, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

[edit] Hair

Recently I found hair interesting (after linking an article to it). The article satisfied that interest and so I think it's suitable for inclusion in this category. I believe its faults, if any, are minor and can be taken care of quickly for this article to make the grade. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose No references, jguk 09:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, the article should have a summary section on hair cuts, strength of hair and hair color, instead of just a few external links. Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose until references: I think it's an excellent article otherwise. The article maintains a scientific and dispassionate tone and avoids getting into a fixation on head hair, so I appreciate the fact that puts all the haircut stuff in the See also section. However, there must be references. One of the authors must have used medical texts; these should be listed. Geogre 13:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. In agreement with Geogre, there must be citations for this article; otherwise it should not be featured. Courtland 18:23, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
• Object, although I like the article, as it has been said I'd love to see references added, besides from external links. -- Shauri 00:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diana, Princess of Wales

Nominated by User:Hic, self-nom. The article was previously nominated in February; the old FAC discussion is here. Most of the objections made at that time have now been addressed.

• mild object because: 1) Cite your sources in a References section 2) The order of the sections is a bit awkward, listing her charity work before her birth and youth. slambo 00:25, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Object Most of the article is about her death. Whilst this topic should be covered, I feel a biographical article should concentrate on the subject's life. She may have died young, but she did a lot - loads of long books have been written about her. I think it's a long way from featured status as it's nowhere near comprehensive enough. Also, you'll need to redact most of the stuff about her death (with the redacted bits going to a sub-article). Good luck with it! jguk 06:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object - I agree with jguk that there is too much detail on her death in this article. A summary of that is needed here and the current detail should go into creating a separate article. Then the whole remaining main Diana article needs to be significantly expanded (at least doubled in size). --mav 22:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Giver

I am resubmitting this as a FAC in the belief that recent work by User:Anville has addressed significantly the previous objections in the previously unsuccessful FAC in February of this year. That is, I feel it does an adequate job explaining how it is culturally and historically relevant now as well as explaining the many honors it has gained from the literary community, which were both objections. That, coupled with it being an interesting article and well written, leads me to conclude that it ought to be proposed to the community as a featured article. For full disclosure, I worked very minorly on this article, but not really enough to seriously claim that this is a self-nom. In any case, I'll be interested to read community comments in the hopes that this will be a FA soon. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support While I've worked on this article too much to be able to give a fully impartial vote, I do think that it adequately addresses the objections raised during its previous FAC cycle. (I hasten to add that I believe those objections were perfectly valid ones, and I'm glad that several users took the time to formulate them well.) Full disclosure: my problem right now is about keeping the article NPOV. While I believe I did this in a technical way, anchoring everything with lots of citations, I personally find that many "sources" advocating the censorship of this book read like what The Onion's staff writers would put into the mouth of a reactionary school board. They really do read like something a satirist would invent! In these cases, it makes me feel like the prosecution is pleading the case of the defense. . . . Anville 14:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I think it reads too much like a book review, and too little like an encyclopedia article. In the end, however, someone hoping to find out what the book is will be informed by the article--which is the basic function of a wikipedia article. I don't think it at all represents the best of the Wikipedia, but since my objections hold true for the bulk of Wikipedia articles on books, I'm not going to stand in the way of this article's opportunity for featured status. I do wish, however, that colorful (and POV) phrases like "written in simple yet evocative language" or "fans of The Giver are no doubt gratified that Lois Lowry went beyond the place she was tempted to stop; those who have attempted to ban the book from schools are probably less pleased" could be left out. They have no place in the article.

[edit] Richard Wagner

I stumbled across this and found it an enjoyable read. It both covers his life and his work, provides pictures, includes a sound sample, sources and a balanced lead section. I believe it fulfils all of the FA criteria and would be an excellent addition to our current Featured Articles. Any criticisms will likely be minor, so please try to be constructive and provide full reasoning for any objections—I will try to amend them in time. Afterall, we do not have enough FA on the subject of classical music at the moment. --Oldak Quill 10:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object, I'm afraid. Although I agree that there should be more FAs on classical music, I don't think this article is good enough yet (please feel free to move any of this to the article's Talk page):
  • The 'Operas' section needs to flow more smoothly (currently it feels too much like separate short statements), and is very short, and does somewhat mix all his operas together.
  • 'Other works' really should be 'Writings', the theatrical innovations could feasibly be either incorporated with his views on Gesamtkunstwerk, or the opera section. His writings really need to be discussed more thoroughly.
  • 'Exile' etc.: 'One of Schopenhauer's doctrines was that music held a supreme role amongst the arts, since it was the only one unconcerned with the material world. Wagner quickly embraced this claim, which must have resonated strongly despite its direct contradiction with his own arguments, in "Opera and Drama", that music in opera had to be subservient to the cause of drama.' I really think Dahlhaus' (Wagner's Music Dramas) argument regarding the misunderstanding drama=text should be mentioned here – Dahlhaus argues that the music became the main carrier for drama, and, as such, Wagner's embracing of Schopenhauer is not a contradiction. It could perhaps also be useful to mention that Schopenhauer’s view of music is in practically direct opposition to Kant's. Mention of Hanslick could perhaps also be useful, as his aesthetics, even though they also raise music to the highest level, are often discussed in terms of the Hanslick-Wagner debates. 'Nevertheless, the affair inspired Wagner to put aside his work on the Ring cycle (which would not be resumed for the next twelve years) and begin work on Tristan und Isolde, based on the Arthurian love story of the knight Tristan and the (already-married) lady Isolde.' – It could be useful to modify this cause and effect statement, based on arguments that the cause and effect of Tristan and the Wesendonck love story is the direct opposite of this idea (Magee, I think).
  • 'Final years' As some others have mentioned on the Talk pages, I’d reall like to see an authoritative reference for his 'last words'.
  • 'Anti-Semitism and Nazi appropriation': It’s a touchy subject, but I really think clear distinction should be made between Wagner's views and writings (which are hardly pretty, but...) set in their proper historical and cultural context on the one hand, and the 'Bayreuth Circle' (which Wagner is on record as not being terribly fond of) and Cosima, Siegfried, and the Nazis on the other. Nike Wagner (The Wagners, 2001) notes that 'the "Bayreuth circle," active in Wagner's lifetime as propagandists of his work, developed an ideology of cultish, nationalistic philistinism after the composer's death' (my emphasis). And British (and) left-wing Wagnerism should also be mentioned, cf. Shaw: '...[Wagner's] picture of Niblunghome under the reign of Alberic is a poetic vision of unregulated industrial capitalism as it was made known in Germany in the middle of the nineteenth century by Engel’s Condition of the Laboring Classes in England.' (The Perfect Wagnerite, 2nd ed. 1901).
  • A minor quibble: why are there two sections ('Media' and 'Sound sample') with one link to an .ogg file each? Tobyox 14:46, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I think it is pretty clear the Works section requires a more thorough discussion and copy-editing/rewriting. Phils 15:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time Cube

The Time Cube article is a good example of a reasonably article being written about a very weird subject. Any of it's shortcomings are easily explained by the subject matter. Furthermore, I think it would be an ideal article for April 1st ... far better than many of the proposed april 1st articles because it's an actual article. Being funny without being unprofessional is always an improvement over just being funny.Gmaxwell 21:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh gosh. Well, it needs a lead image and some references for a start. As for the subject matter... -- ALoan (Talk) 21:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Time_Cube to vote for Time Cube to be featured on April 1st. All the objections below have been resolved, so it is clearly a prime candidate.

• Object. Fails the stability test, with ongoing revert wars and POV conflicts. --Wahoofive 21:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • It is stable; the war seems to have been resolved, and anyway it only covered a few minor wording issues, with the majority of the article remaining static.

• Object. I agree, the page is not stable. It's also not correct. I've been trying to keep my arguments to the talk page and only making changes once things have become incontrovertible, but that's very very slow. The whole page really needs a vast overhaul. 65.95.160.205 22:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support! Time Cube is the ineffable truth of the universe. Wikipedia users deserve to be enlightened with magnificent 4-corner Cubic wisdom, such that they may avert the impending Armageddon in which their children and great-grandchildren will resort to cannibalism and mass destruction of Nature. They must overcome their educated stupidity and recognise 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth, and that Time is Cubic, not Linear. They must seek Time Cube! 211.28.24.120 05:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Not stable. Also, the bolded quotations should be indented using ":"-signs and italic instead of bolded. (as far as I know bolding should be used sparingly only in lead and a few other words in an article). Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Object Would make a good April 1st article, but as it's constantly being rewritten by a persisten fan of Gene Ray (see support vote above), there is not much NPOV there. Kosebamse

• Object. Article does not explain why the topic is encyclopedic. Many people have idiosyncratic and nonsensical theories about the universe; the article needs to explain what (if anything) is notable or interesting about this one. Also, the article appears to depend entirely on web sites for references. It needs printed references too before it can be featured. Gdr 12:33, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

• • Printed references: the following two St Petersburg Times articles: Mr. Marbles isn't playing a game anymore, Protester to risk jail by feeding the birds.
    
    It is encylopedic due to its fame. The Time Cube website is very well known on the internet, and Gene Ray has lectured about the Time Cube at MIT, and will lecture again in April, this time at Georgia Tech. He has also been interviewed on numerous web radio shows, and was interviewed on the TechTV show "Unscrewed".

• Object. No citations once more. Interesting theory, and theories can certainly be encyclopedic including those that are contrarian. Courtland 18:26, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

• Support. This article is almost as good a treatment for a crackpot theory as one could hope for—the "tenets" of the theory are enumerated and discussed, and the language is NPOV while acknowledging that Time Cube is considered nonesensical. A pretty good candidate for an April 1 article. --Ryanaxp 19:55, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A wonderful piece of reference work on an obscure system of thought. Deserves full commendation. Franc28 08:03, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

• object of course. elegible for April's Fool Featured Article, however. The "theory" is famous for being patent nonsense. The article seems to treat it as a serious pseudo-science. Take "postulating that time is cubic, not linear" — this is 'article voice', so it should be assumed the statement makes sense. It is entirely unclear, however, what "time is cubic" is supposed to mean. The theory may not be criticised, as it is devoid of statement, most of it does not even make sense grammatically. All the article can really do is quote Ray verbatim, and talk about his doings and goings about. dab (ᛏ) 18:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Time is linear - a line - 1 dimension

Time is cubic - a cube - 3 dimensions

I would have thought it self-explanatory.

• The following offensive objection was made by the same user who made the objection "65.95.160.205 22:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)". It should therefore not be counted.
  • Object. To be frank the page ought to be deleted. It consistently fails the NPOV due a single vigourous supporter with far too much time on his hands. The Gene Ray page covers everything of importance that can be said in any sort of NPOV way.

[edit] Thug Ride

Skraten' up!! This article gives a detailed track-by-track description of an important and often overlooked thugrap album of the late 90's. without White Dawg's innovations, where would the state of Crunk be today? the article is well-written and detailed. - DIRTYSOUTH 23:27, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I guess this is fairly complete considering that the subject is somewhat obscure. Is there anything more you can write? Maybe some more info on its critical reception, influence on later rappers? It looks pretty good, but I don't know if it's quite outstanding quality yet. Everyking 23:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and you need to add a track listing, so people don't have to dig through the paragraphs to find the info if they just want the basics. Everyking 23:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is one krunk-ass article. Enthusiastic support! silsor 23:45, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. The third paragraph of the lead is far from neutral (tell who sees the album as an ahead of the time example of crunk, as an example). Other uncited opinions throughout article (e.g. Many have praised the beat, considered controversial by some and feminists have derided its lyrics as sexist (all feminists?). Most importantly, there's essentially no content beyond a brief description of each song. We need some details on the album's history, recording, marketing, etc. Tuf-Kat 00:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. The analysis of the tracks is good but there is not yet enough here to engage anyone who is not already interested in the subject. I would like to see an explanation of 'thug rapper', a basic track list, solidification of phrases like "remains well-known among some hip hop fans" (which seems to diminish its own subject), and a fuller explanation of why the record was or became important. Perhaps it should be listed at RFC for peer review. --Theo (Talk) 00:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. No references, only a brief section on why the record is important, and no notation of when the album was recorded. THe article is essentially one long (over?) analysis of the album. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article. --b. Touch 02:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object. In addition to the above: 1) an article about music should include a sound sample. 2) The ??? in the table shouldn't be there. 3) Most importantly: Much of the article is vague ("reviews were mostly positive"), POV at times (" to impressive effect"), and mostly lists some of the lyrics, seemingly emphasizing the expletives. There's no serious overview of the album, its sales, its fans or its critics. Basically, this article is not even close to being comprehensive. Jeronimo 18:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Blimey, it's as if Goldie Lookin' Chain had been American. Oppose. For it to be acceptable as a Wikipedia article, let alone a featured article, it would need to have a much greater amount of "According to Dawg (source), the track (name of track) (optionally: - which was released as a single on (date), selling (copies) and reaching (number) in the (chart) in (location)) was written (as a commentary on / about the issue of / to attack rival rapper / etc) (source). Critics, meanwhile, described the track as (source) etc" rather than its current form, which reads like a clever white university graduate having a right old laugh at the perceived triviality of working class music. To add to the examples above, phrases such as "an epic beat", "one of the album's highlights", "White Dawg's first big hit" (in the context of saying that a song is particularly good, rather than an objective commercial success) and even describing someone as an "underground rapper" aren't really with-it. In its current form, I would recommend deleting the article and adding, to the page on White Dawg, the text "Dawg's first album, Thug Ride, was released in 1991. Although the album did not chart it received many favourable reviews (source), and the single "Restless" reached number 18 in Billboard's Hot Rap Singles chart".-Ashley Pomeroy 18:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon, Ashley, do you really need to be so harsh? The article needs improvement but suggesting that it is only fit for deletion seems unconstructive to me. --Theo (Talk) 21:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not really a bad article. You have to take into account that it only sold 30,000 copies. It needs a simple track list, some NPOVing in places, some critical cites if possible, and references to other rappers' opinion of the album if possible. And I thought calling this "working class music" was really funny. Everyking 22:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We'll have "popular beat combo" next! --Theo (Talk) 22:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) [And we may now be far enough off-topic]

That's my, er, socialist background coming through; I tend to see things in terms of class. 'Working class music' sounds a bit fogeyish but it's quite accurate in this context; notwithstanding the popular perception that rappers are mostly posh middle-class brats pretending to be "down" with "the street", viz The Beastie Boys, The Streets, The Rolling Stones etc, White Dawg seems to be the real deal. He's not 'urban' or 'black', except in the most euphemistic terms, and I absolutely refuse to use the word 'skrunk', and there's no other way for me to describe the man. My other critcisms still apply, as the article is nowhere near straight enough to be taken straight, or absurd enough to be taken as absurd humour, i.e. in the mould of Derek and Clive's 'Bo Duddley', where they over-analysise a blues standard through the prism of Oxbridge educations. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose OMG, you is voting for this illitereate piece of white trash writing as FA? O, an' where be de references, and what might youall say about de star o' de SHOW? An what you say about an article that is not as long as my =dick=? Huh? OMG!! (White Dawg and Dozia Slim shout over an epic beat. What ever!) Denni☯ 00:35, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
• SUPPORT I want a million so I'm grindin' for this fuckin' change. Fired up, skraten' up. Wikipedia, Skraten' up!!! SKRATEN' UP 04:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Friedrich Nietzsche

A pretty decent article on a philosopher widely misunderstood in popular culture. I have not edited this article.--Pharos 19:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• comment pretty decent, I agree. keep in mind "FA" does not mean "perfect". The intro could be a tad longer, and there should be a section on "reception". dab (ᛏ) 20:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I give this a no vote for now. The quotes (like most of the quotes in Wikipedia and Wikiquote) need sources, and it is very incomplete - no mention of eternal recurrence in the article (and Eternal return is fairly scanty), no working definition of nihilism, no strong discussion of Thus Spoke Zarathustra (and again, the Also sprach Zarathustra is scanty), and few sources for citations in the article to name just a few problems. Its also still constantly being edited, with major revisions happening all the time. So no, too little and too unstable. -Seth Mahoney 20:34, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

• There have been a lot of changes since that vote, but I still vote no, on pretty much the same grounds. -Seth Mahoney 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Doesn't go sufficiently in depth on his actual ideas, missing a discussion of his controversial attitude toward women, fails to be specific on his vast influence on later philosophers/culture, etc. In general I think it needs to be much longer and more comprehensive. I would love to see this be a featured article at some point, but it has much more potential as it stands. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No reason to vote against this article of interest being 'Featured' so as to attract more brainstorming rather than brainwashed. This seems no matter of decency but sort of grace. Yet decency might need a bench mark; I would suggest Chapter IX of Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy whose first section The Lineage of Nietzsche starts reading: "Nietzsche was the child of Darwin and the brother of Bismarck. It does not matter that he ridiculed the English evolutionists and the German nationalists: he was accustomed to denounce those who had most influenced him; it was his unconscious way of covering up his debts." --KYPark 17:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No reason except that its just not up to par. There's really very little talk about his philosophy. There are other places more beneficial for the article where it can go: Collaboration of the week sure, articles needing attention, sure. Featured article, no. -Seth Mahoney 20:45, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. One sentence does not a lead section make. As mentioned above, lacking in depth - famous concepts like his Übermensch ("superman") get no more than a one-line mention. Needs more discussion of Nietzsche's influence on subsequent developments in philosophy and culture (and not just vis-a-vis the Nazis; by the way, the text about that particular aspect is basically apologism and needs to be more neutral, as the issue is far more complex than its current presentation). --Michael Snow 23:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a terrible treatment of Nietzsche except for its biographical stuff. The treatment of his thinking is standard postmodernist junk. The analytic philosophers have taken an interest in him, but you would not know that from the article Not2plato 04:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your bias against postmodern philosophy and apparant bias for analytic philosophy doesn't really count as a good reason to discount the article. -Seth Mahoney 04:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you knew Nietzsche well, you'd know that the depth of his thought surpasses that of any 'postmodern' or 'analytic' philosopher by leaps and bounds. Their discourse is frankly boring and fetid. The only other philosopher that I can imagine Nietzsche would be intrigued by would be Yamamoto Tsunetomo. -- Chris 22:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boston molasses disaster

This is a good article about an improbable disaster (people being crushed to death by a wave of molasses in January). It's short, but there's not that much to say about the disaster; it's well referenced (although without specific footnote-style citations, since it's uncontroversial) and, reading the references, reasonably complete. If this becomes featured, it might be a candidate for an April 1 front-page article (but that should not sway the featuring decision).

• Support. This is to some extent a self-nomination, as I have done a certain amount of rewriting of the article. --Andrew 20:27, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Object; too short, does not appear comprehensive. Everyking 20:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "However, excellent short articles are also accepted." (Wikipedia:What is a featured article). Could you elaborate on what information you feel is missing? --Andrew 22:13, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not really, I can just see that it looks short, and knowing as I do that events like this in U.S. 20th century history tend to have been well-researched and have a lot written about them and a lot of info available, I would expect the article to be longer. A short article can really only be excellent if it's comprehensive, and I'm not convinced this deals with the disaster in comprehensive detail. If this really is as good as it can get, then I'll drop the objection. Everyking 22:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Please mention some questions whose answers are not readily answered in the article. →Raul654 03:54, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • All I can add in defense of Everyking's argument is that "Great Disasters" managed an hour-long television program on this topic. It should therefore be possible for a text article to be quite comprehensive. Denni☯ 00:51, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
        • I think there was a segment on a Modern Marvels disaster show about this topic as well. KellyCoinGuy 06:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • For comparing on what information should ideally be in there (if available), one could look at the already featured Galveston Hurricane of 1900. I should say that Boston molasses disaster already contains basically all the information available from the online references (excepting, I suppose, a detailed history of transfers of ownership of Purity Distilling). There is a book on the subject, although I'm not sure how the author padded it out to make a whole book. He seems to have included a lot of material on anarchism, racism, and terrorism (gauging from the Amazon review ). --Andrew 22:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, the book is mostly speculative padding. Massachusetts and Boston added design review and licensing requirements after this incident, that's why so little is known for certain about the cause of the failure. --iMb~Mw 23:23, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The book isn't even a reference - if someone's strung it out into a book, there must be quite a bit of additional information that's missing in the article - there's only so much speculative padding the author could have done, jguk 06:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • There you would be assuming that the book is really about the flood, when it really isn't. The author uses it as a jumping point for going into detail about the overall political, social and industrial situation at the time in a "stone soup" manner. --iMb~Mw 06:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This article may be short, but it may be that there is simply not a vast amount of information, as there would be in broader topics. Too much more would be overkill. – ClockworkSoul 05:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object; too short, does not appear comprehensive. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:15, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • According to the guidelines, "too short" is not a valid objection. Not comprehensive is; could you please elaborate? --Andrew 22:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • By itself, too short is not an actionable objection. You need to say specifically what questions you have that are not addressed by this article. →Raul654 02:53, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not only too short and not comprehensive (there is more information currently available at the web), but it is in large part an unellaborated transcription with some (very) minor copyedits of Laborlawtalk Encyclopedia's entry on the subject (it is curious that this website is not mentioned at the article's External links). Although it may not be labelled a copvio, since a few more sentences have been inserted in the text, it is still way too far from FA status to me. -- Crisbas 23:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • laborlawtalk.com is, of course, a GFDL-violating Wikipedia mirror. Obviously the content is the same as Wikipedia's! --iMb~Mw 23:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I have stricken out the incorrect section in the objection. →Raul654 02:54, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • There are certainly more places on the WWW that mention the incident, but what information in those other sources is a) not redundant and b) verifiable? I've certainly found a lot of nonsense stories out there, but.... --iMb~Mw 03:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • For comparison, the Brittanica has only a paragraph on the subject (as far as I can find, anyway). --Andrew 04:01, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This article needs a map showing where molasses swept through. Revth 03:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that would be nice. Is the information available, though? I'll look. --Andrew 04:01, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have maps of the region from 1895, 1915 and 1928, and with them and Boston Public library photos there is enough information to reconstruct the site. I'm drawing that map right now. --iMb~Mw 07:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, they're great! --Andrew 19:56, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • Perfect! Support. -- Revth 01:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral with a desire to support: There is one reference, and it would be nice if even a single other were added. Surely the Massachussetts Historical Society has had a monograph on the subject. If nothing else, grab that single book and go look in it has in it for other sources -- anything that will allow for further verification. A map of the area, even if a denatured mapquest gif (n.b. I am saying an original and GFL map that a person generates based on the streets, which can be found by the web). A single illustration is also weak. Surely a few pictures of treacle vats can be found, and they'd be out of copyright if from 1915 or thereabouts. If nothing else, it's a cute aside that Terry Pratchett seems to have adapted the story in his account of "Treacle Mine Road" in the Disc-World novels. Geogre 04:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not having read the discworld novels, I don't know if they actually contain a reference to this episode or treacle mining in general. Feel free to add a comment to that effect. --Andrew 19:56, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, especially if the map is added, if that information is available. – ClockworkSoul 05:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak support. Would be stronger if Geogre's and Revth's concerns were addressed. Johnleemk | Talk 06:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object What were some of the consequences of the disaster? Damages? Public reaction? Páll 09:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object Not comprehensive. The 3 references are all short online references, and some are of dubious quality. Yet the article mentions that someone has written a whole book about it - although that book has not been used as a reference. Surely there are more details in there that can be added. Also, it could do with a brief explanation of what "molasses" are - it's not a common term this side of the Pond, jguk 13:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Which one do you think is unreliable? Cecil Adams is pretty reliable, the Google Answers one is extensively referenced, and that leaves the CNN.com article, which references the book. I found an interview with the book's author, in which he says 'So I said, "Let me see what’s out there in the way of sources." There were a few newspaper accounts, a few retrospectives, a few magazine articles, but really nothing in the way of primary-source material.' So it sounds like the only solution is for somebody to get their hands on the paper book, if we're to have more information. It's not in the McGill university library; I checked. Anyone? --Andrew 19:56, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) (Oh and I mentioned that molasses is treacle; for more information you'll just have to click on the link)
    • I agree someone needs to get the book. When I looked on amazon.com there were 61 copies left, so I'm sure you'll be able to find a copy, jguk 21:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• mild Support. Most of the text deals with the incident itself and not so much with the periods before and after. I would like to see more about what was done to prevent a similar incident from occurring again. However, I'll lend my support mainly because it's a good candidate for the April 1 feature. slambo 17:00, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • You're saying that we should lower our standards just so this article is on the main page on 1 April? I have to strongly disagree with you and say that's not a good enough reason to support, jguk 09:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's not quite what I'm saying here. I think this article meets the current featured criteria, and it would make a good candidate for the front page feature on the first, but that the article could be improved by adding more information about the circumstances and consequences of the incident it describes. I don't think the lack of this information detracts from the article, it's just an avenue for improvement. slambo 16:33, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Reluctantly object. I think the topic is absolutely awesome, but the article needs to include information on the consequences of the disaster. Hydriotaphia 20:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Orleans, Louisiana

I think this page compares quite favorably with the U.S. cities that have reached featured status (Marshall, Texas; Seattle, Washington; San Jose, California; and Newark, New Jersey). I've done some editing on the page, but it's mostly been limited to cleaning things up, fixing clunky prose, and proofreading. Kevin M Marshall 16:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object — 1) infobox needed 2) images seem to float across section headings 3) History too long. Make a new article and provide a summary here. 4) Geography is full of lists so too famous residents 5)Climate and education section too small 6) celebrations would be better under culture. Nichalp 20:36, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• • I've added the infobox (although images of the seal and flag are still needed) and taken care of the history section. I'll try to work on the rest of your suggestions at some point this weekend or early next week. Thanks for your comments--the suggestions are all very good ideas.--Kevin M Marshall 15:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) Try and avoid the overuse of subheadings. Take a look at Johannesburg and Sarajevo on the use of minimal subheadings. It would be preferable if you could summarise the history into three to five paragraphs without the headings. 2)Push the infobox a little lower 3) Image placement is terrible. Its all over the place 4) Move the famous residents to a new page. Its not important here. 5) The neighbourhoods and parishes could do with a template in which the places spread horizontally rather than vertically. 6) NO REFERENCES (Please read the guidelines) 7) Transportation could be shortened. Nichalp 19:03, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. What's there so far seems pretty good, but comparing the size to Seattle (including its 'main article' and 'see also' subpages) and San Jose, I have to wonder if it's comprehensive/detailed enuf. SJ is 50k, and Seattle about the same size as NO, but has MANY subpages--the subpages of History of Seattle alone total about 60k (I haven't read them, so there is a possiblity that they are unnecessarily detailed or wordy, but I doubt they'd be bad enuf to be the cause of the entire disparity). Sarajevo is also about the same size, but has many more subpages. Unfortunately, I don't know enuf about the city to give many specifics, but poking about at NO tourism seems to imply there are many more attractions/museums worth mentioning. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities suggests discussing major parks. The table I made here when Seattle was an FAC may give ideas of other topics that could be added.

I have just completed Mumbai(its above on FAC). Most of the topics listed in the table are included inline. Geology, crime, education, sports are all in a summary. Page size is <30 kb. its better to have subpages rather than to have a long list. A featured article should also be asthetically appealing and by adding lists and numerous sub headings it makes the page gharish. Nichalp 19:37, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what direction to go with the size of the page. Some of the history sections on the main page of featured city articles are quite lengthy, with several subsections; others are very brief. I'm tempted to say that shorter is better and that subpages should be used, but it seems that there's no clear consensus on what length the history section should be. Quite a bit of the general outline for a city article is fleshed out, but I think we could have an even better guide as to what can be expected from the history section on a city's main page.

Do we want to adhere to the 32KB size limit or totally disregard it? If we're going to go with lots of subpages, there really isn't much reason to make 50 or 60 KB articles.

Also, while I can understand the visual disgust at a table of contents with too many headings, I think that in the body of the article subheadings are generally very useful.Kevin M Marshall 00:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I may have inadvertantly overly focused the discussion on the History section. I'm more concerned with things like the NO Online site listing 43 museums, while the article mentions three, only one of which has a Wikipedia article (they include the aquarium as a "museum" for some reason). Maybe not all 43 are worthy of note, but I would have to imagine at least a quarter to a third probably are. Also, I'm not suggesting it all has to be added in toto to the main city page, but right now the main page is about all there is. I personally prefer it consolidated like San Jose (even if it takes it to 50K--the 32K number was arbitrarily based on technical limitations of old browsers), rather than having to jump between dozens of subpages like Seattle, but either way, they both have so much more content it just seems like there has to be stuff missing. One thing it seems to be missing from the Project suggestions is parks; a couple things I'm used to seeing in comprehensive city articles are sister cities and 'city in literature' info. There also seem to be more festivals that could be mentioned, such as the Satchmo SummerFest and Essence Music Festival. Also there's hard to classify attractions like Six Flags New Orleans. The New Orleans Opera Association, is claimed to be the oldest opera in North America, and how about Louisiana Philharmonic, and local ballet and theater companies? And one comment about lists--I know a number of FAC voters oppose them, but they are seen by some as a more effective presentation of some kinds of information; while San Jose was an FAC, I converted lists in a number of sections into prose, but once the article was featured on the main page, most were converted back to lists. Niteowlneils 06:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Otto von Bismarck

Self-nomination. Nomination withdrawn. -- Emsworth 19:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I notice some problems in the first paragraph. I quote:

  A Junker, Bismarck held deep monarchist, aristocratic and Prussian nationalist views. His most significant policy objective was that of securing German unification; he took advantage of skilful diplomacy and a series of wars to achieve this goal

Firstly, calling him a Prussian nationalist doesn't make sense. I know what you are getting at, but this is an awkward term. He was a Prussian patriot, I guess, or some such. A Hohenzollern loyalist. Something along those lines. But he was not a Prussian nationalist, because Prussia was not a nation. As to whether his objective was to unify Germany, well, this is debatable. Without a doubt his objective was to secure Prussian domination of Germany. Whether this demanded unification seems questionable to me. Other points:

1. I feel like his titles are presented oddly. He was born simply "Otto von Bismarck." He was later made a Count, and then a Prince, and finally Duke of Lauenburg. This doesn't seem clear to me from the text, which explicitly says he was born a count (he was made a count in 1865, after the war with Denmark).
2. My understanding was that his conversion to pietism was as much the result of his falling for Joanna von Puttkamer as anything else
3. What the Vereinigte Landtag was should be made clear, since as it is it seems uncertain what the difference is between it and the post-1849 Landtag.
4. Perhaps something should be mentioned of his defense of the "capitulation" of Olmütz in 1850, and how he was seen as a friend of Austria when he was sent to Frankfurt.
5. Describing Bismarck in Frankfurt as becoming more moderate seems wrong. He became more anti-Austrian, and more inclined to use kleindeutsch sentiment against Austria.
6. In terms of Bismarck's appointment as Minister-president, I think his relationship with Roon needs to be discussed. Also some mention of him as the "Prussian Polignac" when he was appointed might be of use.
7. The Gastein Convention was not supposed to be a permanent solution - Austria certainly had no interest in keeping Holstein. Saying that Austria renigged is also POV, I think - Prussian provocations ought to be mentioned as well.
8. That almost all German states of note (save Baden, which was neutral) sided with Austria in the war should be mentioned.
9. I think the "German unification" section should perhaps be called "The Defeat of Austria," or some such, since it only goes up to 1867.
10. The Prussian elections of 1866 seem to be mischaracterized - the split among the liberals, with one wing now supporting Bismarck, is probably the most important factor here.
11. The 1866/7 settlement could be bettered described. Bismarck's annexations left Prussia as by far the most powerful state in Northern Germany. Save Saxony, none of the other states is even really worth mentioning. The continued independence of southern Germany should also be mentioned.
12. The Franco-Prussian War is also mischaracterized a bit, I think. The continuing French resistance after September 1870 deserves mention, especially in the context of Bismarck's negotiations with the south German states.
13. Bismarck was tight with the National Liberals even before the Kulturkampf - it was a tool for maintaining the connection, not for creating it.
14. That Austro-Russian, and not German-Russian, disputes were key to the falling out with Russia should be mentioned.
15. In terms of the scramble for Africa, we should perhaps mention "Bismarck's map of Africa", and how he saw German gains in Africa as a way of getting along better with France through keeping France and Britain opposed to each other.
16. I don't believe Friedrich III was in a coma. He was in terrible health, but not in a coma, so far as I know. Does anyone have a source for this assertion?
17. The legacy section should be much improved. Some sense of the historiographical debate over Bismarck should be given.
18. Lothar Gall's biography should be added to the references section.

That said, this is quite a good article, over all. I'll try to make some of these changes should I get the chance (I've just been reading unification related stuff for my exams, so I'm fairly up on this), but I'm not sure I'll have time. john k 20:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• An additional point - the "reptile fund," whereby Bismarck used money stolen from the exiled King of Hanover after the 1866 war to bribe politicians and newspaper editors, deserves some mention. john k 22:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object, at least for now. The prose style is defficient, and the contents fail to address many key points, just as john says. Crisbas 01:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I knew of most points john mentioned above from my meager high school history course, where we spent a grand total of 4 hours on Bismarck: if I know about it, then certainly this article should contain it to deserve FA. That said, good article. I also consider the claim made above that the article's prose is deficient to be a non sequitur. Phils 12:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore

After some major cleanup, copyediting, summarization and reorganisation (especially to conform with Wikiproject Countries), I think it should be ready to be a featured article. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This article is still listed at Peer review. It shouldn't be in both places at the same time, so please remove it from one of them before proceeding. -- Shauri 19:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object lead-in needs a rewrite. Infobox has strange information, History and Economy too long, Nothing on Media, Sports, Education, Utilities/Infrastructure, Transport. Images are lopsided and needs a cleanup (right align them)spellings are inconsitant. Please use British English instead of the current mix of AE and BENichalp 19:26, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There were two FACs before this where reverse objections were lodged (i.e., that it was too cluttered. JuntungWu 15:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That's exactly what I'm saying. What I want is a summary of the history and economy section, and move the airports to Transport. See India and Belgium for how a good summary can be written. Nichalp 18:59, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • That is a summary. A nice sized one too. Note that History of Singapore itself is a 36KB article. What is in the ==History== section here is fine. --mav 18:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • No, the fifth and sixth paragraphs can be compressed into three lines. I've compressed India 5,000 year old history into three paragraphs. It should be piece of cake to shorten the history of singapore. If I had the time (alas :( ) I would have done the compression myself. Nichalp 20:15, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Summarised the history in four paragraphs. Also made a transport section Nichalp 19:17, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC).

That is just stupid. Now the history section is in the size range that the Wikipedia:Lead section at History of Singapore should be (3 good sized paragraphs). Compare the length of the FA Yosemite National Park#History and the lead section of the FA History of the Yosemite area. I consider your length objection invalid since it flies in the face of established best practice. --mav 16:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you claim my objection is stupid. You have provided me no guidelines on the corelation between the lead-section of a main history article and the ==History== section. The Yosmite Park and Singapore are two vastly different topics. (I won't elaborate any further on the Park). Flies in the face of established best practice? Pray, what do you (*rudely*) mean by that? You have to provide me a wikipedia convention that supports your theory that it is an established practice. On my part I am perfectly in line with wikipedia guidelines to object. From Wikipedia:Summary#Size Longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. That way our content is useful to those people who just want a quick overview and to those people who want more detail. The sections on Singapore are discrete and a summary is definately reccomended. What I have done is a summary with a decent section length omitting the detailed points for easier readability. I consider your rebuke of my objection baseless. Nichalp 19:26, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Lead section. It very clearly says that articles of 32KB+ need to have 3 good sized paragraphs. Having the same size summary at Singapore#History and for the lead section at History of Singapore is, well, stupid duplication. And Wikipedia:Summary style says that the section summary at the survey article should be at least twice the size of the lead section at the daughter article. --mav

• • Infobox is odd. remove largest city, and I would like an explanation as to what is being conveyed in the time zone detail (not used?). Nichalp 20:41, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Media, education, utilities, transport sections are have either been integrated with the economy section, or the detail moved away to the main articles. That's what I've perceived, so I generally support this. -- Natalinasmpf 22:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please sign the nomination. Why should transport be under economy? What about the fabled rail network and buses? Nichalp 20:41, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Object This article needs to spend more time at Peer review. Crisbas 01:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have already removed it from peer review (just doing housekeeping). Mailer Diablo, please feel free to put it back if you wish (removing it in that case from FAC), or drop me a note and I'll do it. Bishonen | Talk 11:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not nearly is good as People's Republic of China, the standard for country articles. Neutrality^talk 02:40, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • While I agree it is not as good, I disagree that every FAC needs to be as good as the best example of an FA in that subject area in order to become an FA. No problem at all with having both great and outstanding FAs. It is also unreasonable to assume that an article on such a small nation (such as Singapore) would need to be as good/detailed as an article that covers such a huge and multifaceted nation (such as the PRC). --mav 18:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Most objections are inactionable, as they fly in the face of WikiProject Countries guidelines. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It doesn't conflict with the guidelines published in anyway. I'm not saying that the history and economy sections are bad, but I shouldn't be reading seven paragraphs when it can be easily shortened to three/four paragraphs given that there is a detailed article. Similarly as for the infobox: It is understood that Singapore is a city-state. Why have a largest city? I also don't understand what is being conveyed in the timezone part. Nichalp 18:59, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not too sure what is the reason for it being added back in there, but perhaps it does help in comparisons with other countries?--Huaiwei 19:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • No need to add redundant material just to compare. It looks odd seeing a largest city and capital since they are one and the same (there are no multiple cities in Singapore in which the inclusion of both would be justified). In other words, if its clearly understood, don't add. Nichalp 19:24, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • This article really really reminds me of the fable concerning a man, his son and his donkey. The reason those things in the infobox are there is because in a previous FAC nomination, somebody objected because we didn't use the country template. Last time we had more detail on the transportation, etc. until somebody objected because they conflicted with the Wikiproject guidelines. It's like there's no pleasing anybody on this article. Johnleemk | Talk 06:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I've got to concur with you on this one. It's very difficult to please everybody to pass this through FAC. - Mailer Diablo 13:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • More sections are certainally needed. The article needs an overall picture of Singapore. I don't know about sports, education, transport (since its also a city, these are important). Nichalp 20:15, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • Er....so now we have to add the sections back? (only to be told to get rid of them again later?) I am beginning to understand the frustrations espressed by Johnleemk and Mailer Diablo.--Huaiwei 10:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I too sympathise with them, but we also have to take into account that Singapore is also a city, and by omitting them it also conflicts with the city guidelines. If you can add a two paragraphs on transport, education, sports and media; I shall be happy to take care of any objections that may arise if the addition is later opposed. Nichalp 19:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The previous rounds of peer review has more or less cleaned up the problem areas in the article, and I would personally be generally receptive of its nomination.--Huaiwei 16:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object I'm sorry Mailer Diablo, but I think this still needs more work. The images should be right-aligned, and I'm sure there must be more quality images of Singapore. The ones that are on the page now are fairly washed out. Furthermore, due to the size of Singapore, I think some content that would also be featured on a city article is pertinent, such as transport, recreation, media, etc. Take a look at South Africa for some suggestions for subjects to include. Páll 09:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • All images need to be right aligned?! Why do you think we have a choice to right or left align images? Mixing it up looks much better and your personal stylistic preference is not supported by the image use policy. --mav 18:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Or perhaps rather, the lack of enough images to be added on the right-side of the article. The reason why the first and second images are on the left is because of the infobox. Now it's placed on the right, it is pushed down to the politics section. I'll see if I can snap more photos around SG in future. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: But Singapore is a city-state, and has some unique needs for presentation. The best thing, IMO, would be to present the national side of Singapore, and have the details of the city tucked away in another article. The article already mentions the standard of the transport system. -- Natalinasmpf 14:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support - This article has improved a great deal since I last saw it and looks FA-quality to me now. Good work! --mav 18:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Changing to Object now that the history section is as long as what would be expected for a lead section at History of Singapore. The history section in this article needs to go into more detail (and be as long as or a bit longer than it was before). See above. --mav 16:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agh. Do we have to please everyone?!! -- Natalinasmpf 20:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • With these objections, I guess a complete knock-down and rebuild is in order. - Mailer Diablo 10:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Jesus Christ. This is about the only time I've ever had to use Christ's name in vain, and hopefully it'll be the last. I've had it up to *here* with this bullshit. You won't be hearing from me again about this article. Johnleemk | Talk 07:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guns N' Roses

previous FAC

[edit] Steel

previous FAC

[edit] The Western Star

Self-nomination. A thorough life of Ohio's second oldest newspaper, with a photo, a map, and references. I had it up on WP:PR for eleven days and no comments were made so I hope no news is good news for its featured chances. PedanticallySpeaking 16:59, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Object this article reads more like a timeline than a history, the wikilinks are almost exclusively to dates. The article is also overall too short to be comprehensive. Needs a photo of the heading on the paper's mainpage preferably on an old issue. This time it shouldnt pass. I think this should go back thru Peer Review again.  ALKIVAR™ 00:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Most of the people mentioned are quite obscure. Had I wikilinked them, then someone else would be objecting to the abundance of red-links. I have linked what there are articles on or could be. I did look for an image of the paper on the net, but didn't find one. One problem is the generic name tends to dredge up all sorts of unrelated sites. Yes, the one section is mainly dates as I trace the varying names of the paper. But if I presented it as a list, there'd be objections to a long list. PedanticallySpeaking 17:22, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes but too many redlinks is not a valid objection for FAC. As it stands I still have to object since its not really long or "comprehensive" yet... but it is still a good article! so be proud of what you've done so far.  ALKIVAR™ 18:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Good article, but as Alkivar points out, besides from the rich details you provide on the history of the newspaper, I'd like to see more about its life within the community, i.e. influence in local politic events throughout history, if available. A bit more of graphical richness would be also desirable. Very nice work, nevertheless. - Shauri 11:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I will add that it was a Republican paper originally, but unfortunately I can't add too much else, there not being many printed sources available on Lebanon and Warren County. I'll look at Dallas Bogen's site while I'm at it. PedanticallySpeaking 17:22, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support (qualified). The basics are here, and it would benefit from some tweaking. It would be helpful to have some additional graphics, although I couldn't locate any from the LOC source. Vaoverland 01:11, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Riel

An interesting and comprehensive article on one of Canada's most enigmatic historical figures. Denni☯ 01:09, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

• Support. Great. Phils 12:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work; among the best Wikipedia articles on historical figures. (Disclaimer: I know little about Riel from other sources besides the Chester Brown comic, so I'm not the best judge of comprehensiveness or slant, but this looks really good to me.) I wish the article on John Brown were this good! -- Rbellin|Talk 16:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: A prior featured article nomination result for this article is here. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, it was not defeated in the previous FAC cycle, rather withdrawn to Peer Review. It has in fact undergone almost a complete rewrite in PR. Fawcett5 18:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Reviewers might choose to take this with a grain of salt&nbsp— I here disclose that I did much of the rewrite after it went back to peer review following the last FAC attempt (with able assistance from JamesTeterenko and CWood among others). Fawcett5 18:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• seems like a great article, but object that the references section is short and it isn't at all obvious which parts of the text to look up in which reference. Also, I notice that some phrases "Riel was the eldest of eleven children in a tight-knit, highly religious and well respected French Canadian-Métis family." are remarkably similar to the dictionary of Canada article[7] "Riel was the eldest of 11 children in a close-knit, devoutly religious, and affectionate family" this seems too close to a copyright violation for a featured article. Mozzerati 20:38, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

My response:

1. Number of References - the reference section includes 5 of the most important standard works on Riel, including Riel's own writings, Boulton's first person account from 1886, Stanley's 1963 classic, Siggin's respected 1994 update, and Flanagan's 1992 work suggesting the parallels between Riel's following and Millenarianism. For those less academically inclined, there is even a graphic novel. The bases are covered. The external links also have two more quality biographies.

   almost withdrawn - I've copied your descriptions into the article, can you just verify, and as needed correct or expand my text as needed.Mozzerati

   OK, I've made slight copyedits on your changes, and added the ref for the Flanagan bio (hadn't noticed before that the extant ref was just for his pamphlet, not his book). Note also that I didn't mean to imply that Sliggins text was based on Stanley's, just that it was a more modern treatment.Fawcett5 14:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. Finding what you want - The account sticks closely to a consensus version of Riel's activities - for 99% of the material you can refer to any of the standard texts. Footnotes or inline citations are therefore an unneccesary distraction for the vast majority of the article. There are two exceptions:
   1. Direct quotations from Boulton's account, which are attributed to him in the text where they occur.
   2. The "Reconsidering Riel" section is where non-consensus theories or interpretations are dealt with. In this section, the relevant historians are mentioned by name.

   thanks for that answer; I would still prefer if individual quotes had page numbers etc. The reason for this is that people who are once considered good historians can later be re-evaluated (see David Irving who was discovered to be a liar) and any material based on their work has to be carefully checked. If you give detailed sources then it easier for checking later. Even so, with the addition of the comments you gave earlier, your article will not nearly be worst within the FAC category, so once you've verified my edit, I withdraw this objection. Mozzerati 06:41, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

3. Copyright violation - The DCBO biography (actually by Stanley, Riel's best-known biographer) was obviously important source material for both myself and other editors. While the sentence you point out does have similarity, it most assuredly does not rise to the standard of a copyright violation. Nevertheless, I will change this, and any other instances that you can point out - I believe that very few such problems survived the rewrite. Fawcett5 21:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   I will try to check this further; in the case where the sentence actually was derived from an original source we would have to claim fair use. That would be okay only for a very limited amount of the article. Mozzerati 06:41, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

   I have checked this as far as I could (which wasn't much). That sentence was added in a small edit along with other material which appears to be original. Since that time the article has been almost entirely changed. I guess it's okay, probably the original contributor was trying to do their best and isn't fully copyright aware. I can say that this is a perfect example of where a full system of inline notes would allow much easier checking since we could see exactly which bit to lookup where. Please everybody be more careful in future. I consider this last objection answered and am striking out my object. Mozzerati 06:38, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

• Support - Covers all of his life in a well-balanced way and fits it all into the surrounding history. Great work! Radagast 02:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Just so everyone knows my bias, I have contributed a bit to the article. I also voted against it becoming a featured article a month ago. Fawcett5 has done an amazing job rewriting the article, and a few of us tried to help when we can. -- JamesTeterenko 07:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I also was a contributor to the article, so again, a bit of bias. This article has had an amazing transformation thanks to Fawcett5 and others. Riel was a complex figure in Canadian history and I think that this article does him justice. CWood 14:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I too contributed a bit, and my opinion is much like CWood's. The article now treats Riel as a historical figure; I think that was the intention of the article from the beginning, but when I first ran across it it tended towards hagiography. Riel is, despite what many prefer to think, one of the most important figures in Canadian history, and this article gives you a good idea why he is. John FitzGerald 19:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - an engrossing story of an interesting character - excellently written. Worldtraveller 21:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - This couple of sentences from the intro reads just very slightly oddly to me:

In 1884, he returned to what is now the province of Saskatchewan in order to represent Métis grievances to the Canadian government. But this resistance, known as the North-West Rebellion of 1885, escalated into a military confrontation.

"Representing grievances", which to me suggests a non-confrontational process of consultation, has become "resistance" in the next sentence. It's a very, very minor point, but pedantry is my stock-in-trade. --194.73.130.132 08:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, thats not a bad way to describe what actually happened. Took a few months in real life, rather than one sentence though... Fawcett5 11:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Object - The execution of Scott, if I remember my history correctly, hardened the public attitude in Canada against him. Yet I see no mention in that section, only of legal troubles. Can you clarify further? Burgundavia 21:40, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Burgundavia, this is comprehensively dealt with in the main article on this period of Riel's life. See Red River Rebellion. Much of the material there now was previously at Louis Riel, but was moved to conform with summary style and article length considerations. Fawcett5 23:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Night (book)

An informed and balanced personal response to a work of art, outstanding in its prose and in the selection of its illustrations. --Wetman 08:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I haven't read the article text yet (no vote yet), but the lead section seems awfully short for an article of this length. slambo 21:39, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose A very interesting article, and a good read - but not comprehensive, with most of the article being a long (though enjoyable to read) synopsis. In particular, I think we need to have some guide as to what did critics think of the book? Did German critics, say, approach it differently from American critics? What are sales like? My objection to FA status does not extend to my other constructive comments, which are as follows: By each quotation are page references, but they're only relevant if we know which edition of the book referred to. Some quotations are in italics, others aren't - one consistent style would be better. The list of books by Elie Wiesel does not belong here. Good luck with it!, jguk 22:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Jguk. The quotation marks first of all: short quotes are in quotation marks in the text. Long quotes are indented without quotation marks. When not in italics, it is the voice of the narrator: Wiesel speaking to the reader. When in italics, it is Wiesel speaking to himself or quoting another character. I'm going to move the list of books. I'm also going to be adding more about the sales of the book and critiques of it, which have been quite hard to get hold of, but I'm in the process of doing it.

SV, feel free to ask me on my talk page to have another look at it once you have added the sales and critique info (in case I miss it on this page). As I noted, it was a good read, and I'd happily support if my objections were dealt with, jguk 23:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Jguk, will do. I've clarified which edition of Night I used by including a note in the References section.

[edit] New Deal

An excellent cursory overview. JBurnham 05:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good article. I think it would be nice to have some more information on the other people who came up with some of the programs. Besides FDR, I see the Ickes is mentioned, but Arthur J. Altmeyer and Edwin E. Witte and Henry Morgenthau, Jr. contibuted too. (I just happened to be working on bio's of the original heads of the social security today, which is how I happen to know about these guys). You could also talk about the supreme court. It's probably relevent up to the resignations in 1937. Morris 05:13, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

A fair criticism, but Altmeyer, Witte, and Morgenthau may come up more in some of the individual entries on the specific programs. There is some detail on the "court-packing" scheme, but it can be expanded... I'll do it if you don't beat me to it first. Thanks. JBurnham 05:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) The article needs a decent lead section, giving an overview of the topic and summarizing the article. 2) It seems unnecessary to present a list of persons involved, when most of them are already mentioned in the article. "See also" would be a more commonly used title for this section. 3) The article should care not to mix opinion and fact. Sentences like "What many considered incoherence of the New Deal's ideology might more accurately be characterized as ..." should be reviewed. 4) I doesn't get clear to my why the First Hundred Days are singled out (and capitalized). 5) There's an explicit "historical assessment" of Roosevelt's second term, but not for his first. 6) Also, I'd like to see an overview of contemporary critique? What did Roosevelt's (political) opponents think, and why? Jeronimo 07:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iran-Iraq War

A pleasant surprise on Wikipedia. Possibly the best brief overview of the war that I have ever read. (In case this comes up as an objection, please note that while there is no section on references, there are extensive inline citations and links embedded in the text backing up the various claims made in the article.) JBurnham 05:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) The used references need to be collected and presented in a separate section. 2) How are the photo's public domain? At the least we need a source for them. 3) We need one or more maps showing the advancements of both armies and the major battlefields. 4) Several of the sections have incoherent writing, jumping from one topic to another. The section should not just present a list of facts, but make a well-flowing text with, and leave out unimportant details in favor of the main story (Details can go in detail articles). 5) Strangely, more text is spent on US involvement than on the war progress itself. Also, why an entire section about the US and (virtually) nothing about the USSR? Jeronimo 07:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am thankful for Jeronimos dissent on this Issue, The Article in question is hardly impartial and has more in common with the opinion of a frustrated 17 yr old Iranian In USA, than in the sacred duty of recording history. Also there seems to be some opinion meted out as truth, in that the US is highlighted and the Iranian war with Iraq is of secondary importance. Likewise the use of Persian gulf war vs the use of Gulf war. The_libo

• Object. 1) The role of the US in this war is of paramount importance because it was America's constant role as instigator and agitator that began the war and pushed it to an US-Iranian naval war at the end.

[edit] Duck and Cover (film)

• After two trips through the FAC, a brief nomination at the COTW and a sucessful nomination at the AID, nobody can say we're not trying. A self nom, but only to a point. A lot of dedicated people have put in work here, and I think it's ready at last. -Litefantastic 14:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is too short to be comprehensive. It doesn't say how long it was shown in schools. And a large chunk of the article is a list. Evil Monkey∴Hello 09:01, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cut me some slack. Even the IMDb doesn't know how long it was in schools. And did I mention this article also spent about three weeks on Peer Review? -Litefantastic 17:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an earnest effort to make a mountain out a mole hill. The cultural context of the cold war is deserving of its own article. And as Evil Monkey suggest, half of the article is a list Fawcett5 22:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Saying it isn't an important subject is A) POV and B) not a criterion on the 'what is a featured article' list. -Litefantastic 00:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't see any featured article High School or Pokemon character articles, no matter how thoroughly developed or well written so clearly this is something people DO consider. I'm not suggesting that Duck and Cover falls into this category, but by itself I just don't see how it can ever develop into a suitable length for a FA without resorting to lists, as is the case now. I DO think it would be a wonderful part of a larger and more comprehensive article on the cultural context of the cold war... Fawcett5 18:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting read, but still needs more development. I.e., there isn't a single mention to Anthony Rizzo, nor to his other work in the subject, Our Cities Must Fight. The fact that this info is available at an external link doesn't mean it shouldn't be at least mentioned in the article. -- Shauri 23:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Interesting but there has to be a way to beef it up more. Since this is old enough and a government work (making it PD) there must be a copy of the video somewhere. I will not support this without the video being on commons or at least a link to the video at an external site. The video itself is too critical to the article.  ALKIVAR™ 00:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, he has already provided a link to either download it or watch it online. See the article's External links. -- Shauri 01:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Hrm wierd, when I looked there was just the IMDB link in the Externals  ALKIVAR™ 18:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object Too short. I don't know how can this ever be long enough to become a FA. But the topic is just too short to even be expanded on. Squash 05:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My Lai Massacre

The My Lai Massacre is a symbol of US-American war crimes in Vietnam, and the guilt for this is today an important part of US-American identity.

Oppose. Needs reference section, which is a basic requirement for any featured article. Also, an image of where My Lai was would be nice, plus the pronunciation of the name in IPA. Páll 17:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose — this is an important and controversial article: I don't feel that it is near ready for featured status. As it hasn't been through peer review, I suggest it is moved there. Gareth Hughes 19:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, not fully NPOV'd and reviewed yet. Some awful POV lurking in important subtopics in other articles, as I found out today at Hugh Thompson, Jr.. Scanning My Lai Massacre shows mixed tense, poor wording choices; the article is generally written from an anti-war point of view. I'll work on it more later. silsor 21:15, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. An incredible amount has been written about this important incident, which this article does not reflect. Simply not detailed enough. Move to Peer review. - BanyanTree 05:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review. What they said. — mark ✎ 16:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet

As per the suggestion of User:Phil_Boswell, I hereby nominate this article as a Featured Article Candidate on Wikipedia as this single one quote was a key turning point in a particular Canadian election campaign. --GRider\^talk 17:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references and no picture, both of which are core FA requirements. Jeronimo 17:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • May I ask what you mean by "not referenced"? It appears to be highly referenced. A photograph has been added if you care to reconsider. --GRider\^talk 18:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Please see Wikipedia:Cite sources. Johnleemk | Talk 19:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you John, I am intimately familiar with our Wikipedia:Cite sources document. Where in your opinion is this article falling flat with regards to citing sources? How else can it be improved in order to become worthy of featured status? Is it not ready as it stands? --GRider\^talk 19:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Quoth the document: "At the end of an article, under a ==References== heading, list the complete reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one per reference work." Johnleemk | Talk 19:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This was nominated two minutes after I closed its vfd. Please note the nominator there. —Korath (Talk) 18:32, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's odd...to say the least. o_0 Johnleemk | Talk 19:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not odd -- this guy is just about disrupting Wikipedia and has done almost nothing but post spurious VfDs for the last few weeks. (he's on the fast track to ArbCom in my opinion, if there was a fast track) My bet is that this is just more disruption of one form or another. --Fastfission 20:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Was this nomination made simply to prove a point or something? Everyking 08:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Nowhere near featured article standards. Nominator should withdraw the nomination and stop wasting our time. Dbiv 15:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Barely above the stub status. -- Shauri 17:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, have to agree with Dbiv about the timewasting. It doesn't even have a TOC! Considering how much higher Featured standards are today than the last time it got rejected for FA, and the oddness commented on by Korath, and the nominator's VfD career, I also urge GRider to withdraw this nomination. Bishonen | Talk 22:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for bringing it to our attention that this article has already once been nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. As you may note on the VfD discussion, this article appears to be quite popular amongst the Wikipedia community and has since been improved. Structural changes such as a TOC and ==References== subsection are minor and easily made. Perhaps it will be considered again in the future. --GRider\^talk 22:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • As you may note on the previous VfD discussion, David Gerard complained on 26 June 2004 that the article had "no sections, structure insufficient to keep my eyes from sliding off the text". That's still the case, nine months later, in spite of the clear requirement for sections in the FA criteria: A Featured article should ... include headings (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)) and have a substantial, but not overwhelming, table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section). See also Wikipedia:Headings. For myself, I don't find a sectioned reader-friendly structure a small matter to provide, or the addition of references either, but apparently you do. If they're minor changes easily made, how about making them already, if you're not prepared to withdraw the nomination? Bishonen | Talk 23:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong object. This article should be deleted, not promoted to featured status. The title itself is POV, the content is nonencyclopedic, and the little information that this refers to could easily be subsumed either into the election article or into the articles about the people involved. RickK 07:54, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Object Subject is marginal at best. Where are sections? It may have a place in WP, as almost anything does, but as written, it is not comparable to the quality of most Featured Articles I've read to date. Vaoverland 19:10, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Object I agree with everything above. it simply has nothing strong about it, nothing that I can see stands out. it is stub length and the topic is not very important or worthwhile. --Lan56 08:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Are you kidding me? -- Riffsyphon1024 00:22, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Ignore. WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• In favour. --Spinboy 01:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2001: A Space Odyssey

I think that the page for the science fiction movie 2001: A Space Odyssey is deserving of a spot as a featured article on Wikipedia. This movie, by all account, is considered a masterpiece. Movie critics continue to heap praise on this movie, for reasons including its complex plot, underlying themes, and its realism in portraying space, among other reasons.

37 years after its release into theatres, 2001 still holds up well. It accurately portrays space as a vacuum with absoultely no sound whatsoever. Its special effects were groundbreaking for its time period, and there is no doubt that this film changed the science fiction genre of films forever, setting a much higher bar for science fiction than it had prior to its making.

Sure, many consider it boring... but it is an experience, and at 37 years old, it is still winning over converts.

• Object. Nice work, but: No references. To present one interpretation in its Synopsis when many exist is not neutral or comprehensive. Finally, the article begins with peacock term. Rather than hazily calling it an "immensely popular and influential" film, I think it is better to strictly qualify that in a way seen under Sequels where its specific rankings and awards are given. 119 00:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It's strange that there is no references regarding to Arthur C. Clarke. I believe the synopsis should be moved to allow the background of the book/movie to be presented first. There should be mentions of noted differences. There is no mention of popular culture references such as in Simpsons, Futurama, etc. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1) No references. At least the book itself should be referenced. 2) This is (apparently) an article about both the book and the film, but it seems to focus more on the film than the book. I'm not sure if combining the articles is a good idea. 3) The story itself is discussed in much less detail than the music and scientific accuracy. The level of detail (about moon dust blowing incorrectly) in these sections could be less, while more on the story would be welcome. 4) The article needs editing for POV, for example: "Moreover, the film's profound themes about the past, present and potential future of humanity still resonate powerfully today." 5) The lead section does not give a good overview of the article. 6) The names of the actors are only mentioned in the sidetable. 7) Any information about book sales, movie grossings? 8) The trivia section is not prose and the elements should be rewritten to be included with the main text when interesting. Other bits are simply not interesting enough ("Arthur C. Clarke is believed( to have made a brief non-speaking cameo appearance in one scene of the latter film" (emphasis added)). Jeronimo 18:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: I added a couple of different theories for HAL's motivations to the article. Obviously a lot of work on this remains and these are great comments on areas of improvement. I personally am facinated by 2001 (although a lot of people I know are not), and agree that the article needs improvement. RudolfRadna 15:23, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jello Biafra

Self nomination. I have extensively researched the subject and have found little else to add to this article. In the process, I've expanded the article to more than twice its previous size. I think it provides a comprehensive overview of one of the most unique activists of our time. -- LGagnon 07:52, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references. 119 08:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • References appear in the External links section; we have both his bio from Alternative Tentacles and the one written by All Music Guide. On top of that, there's his speeches from H2K and H2K2, which back up the Political beliefs section. -- LGagnon 08:09, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • And how is a a reader to know this? A references section is needed. --mav 17:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • From the link 119 provided: Note that it is a common alternative in Wikipedia to have a section labelled External links (after the References) and list various links to other sites and to pages within them. It says nothing about that being a bad way to cite sources; it just states that it is an alternative. As far as I can tell, the article is following the guidelines right. -- LGagnon 18:16, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:What is a featured article is the only link that matters here. --mav 20:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • A section labeled References is a requirement. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article; the section was made a requirement as of February 6, 2005 ([8]). Before then it was a recommendation. The discussion on this topic is at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article#References. Initially, I had objected to the requirement, but I've since been adding references to my articles as I write them (even to the point where some might think I'm over-referencing). It's trivial to add a reference line as you're using it, it's a bit more difficult after the fact. slambo 21:07, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've made a References section and moved some of the external links into there with proper citations. -- LGagnon 21:43, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - no info on his childhood and early adulthood. --mav 17:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added more info to the article. Note that I did already have info there on his early adulthood starting at age 19. -- LGagnon 18:59, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nice para. Good enough to remove my objection. --mav 01:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red River Rebellion

I believe this to be an excellent example of Canadian history and growth. SD6-Agent 10:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to Peer Review. Please hold articles against the Featured article criteria before nominating them. This article has no References, to start with; furthermore, it lacks images and headings; and I doubt if it complies with the standards of relevant Wikiprojects. I could remark a few other things, but that would be more like peer review. Thus: refer to Peer Review. — mark ✎ 11:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. A lot could be named, as above, but the most glaring problem is that it simply appears too short and not comprehensive. Everyking 12:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Barely more than a stub. Refer to Peer Review. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:31, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Object No way is this ready. One of my areas of interest is Canadian history, and this article has always struck me as both worthy of and in need of serious improvement. Not FAC material by a longshot. Fawcett5 22:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disgaea

Self-nomination. I've been working on this article off and on since July of last year, and it's come a long way since then. I believe it compares favorably with current video game featured articles like Super Mario 64 and Doom. A peer review request from last month is available. - RedWordSmith 03:54, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I find it hard to understand. Could perhaps do with greater clarity to overcome the inherent complexities of the fiction. Neutral. Everyking 07:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, could you give me an example of something you found confusing? Is the prose just a touch on the thick side? - RedWordSmith 21:52, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: the gameplay section needs some work, IMO. More information regarding the character creation system and the Dark Senate, in particular, would be useful, and it could probably stand to be broken up into pertinent subheaders, or at the very least have more frequent paragraph breaks: finding info on the item world, as it is, involves reading halfway through a rather sprawling block of text. And the last paragraph in the section doesn't really seem to relate to gameplay at all: the information is valuable, certainly, but it should be in another section, IMO.

  Also, it feels like there should be at least one screenshot from the game somewhere in there. But aside from these points, it's looking pretty good, and is only one or two edits away from featured status quality, IMO. – Seancdaug 03:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Question: What similiarities does it share with other games and what type of Console RPG Cliches does it suffer from? I don't see an article link for Disgaea (manga). -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It doesn't actually invoke too many cliches at all. Looking over the list gave me a few ideas of things to add (only one set of stores, characters don't sleep to restore HP, etc). As for the manga, I haven't been able to find any good information about it at all -- all of the hits Google has about it are stores selling it. - RedWordSmith 07:32, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)=

For the sake of RedWorthSmith's dream, I'm gonna devote my Wiki time to improving the quality of the Disgaea article! --A Link to the Past 02:09, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Its a very thurough article. I can't think of what else could be said about this movie.--The_stuart 00:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Quotes belong at Wikiquote. Neutrality^talk 01:49, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved, all though I have never moved anything to Wikiquote and may have done it wrong.[9]--The_stuart 02:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't read through the article yet, but I'd like to see more photos. As it is, there is only one image, an advertising poster, in the lead section. Are there images of the production (like photos of the actors interacting with the foam-rubber "character" props) or screencaps from the completed film (these qualify under fair use, right?) that could be added? slambo 14:30, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The criticism section needs references and attribution. Who consider it a modern classic? Who accuses it of "superfluous movement"? 2) "Trivia", "Errors" and "Cartoon characters that make cameo appearances" are list like sections, and not prose. They do not belong in a featured article in their current form, and are a sharp contrast with the other sections, which are well written. Rewrite/move/delete. 3) As slambo already pointed out, it would be nice to get some more pictures. At least a picture of Roger himself would b enice. 4) I like the section on previous films that combine animation and real action (even if it is not really about the movie itself); could it be expanded to also include later movies (possibly influenced)? Jeronimo 20:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. "a renaissance in the animation industry" is not only repeated, it's linked twice. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit is considered a modern film classic" - who considers it that? In fact, all of the criticism is unsubstantiated -- who holds these positions? What are "Held cels"? "Several Easter eggs were hidden into the film" - are you sure they're in the film and not in the DVD alone? "The issue of whether or not the writers intended Angelo to be referring to the stage or cinematic version is questionable and worth noting" - why? Clean up the red links, especially to Gary Wolf. A section on the massive differences between the movie and the book, or else a separate article on the book, is very strongly needed. RickK 07:13, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment made a few changes here and there. Added a accliam section, as I feel it's different then Significance, and added critics quotes as well. Added movie infobox. Added later films Roger Rabbit influenced, although maybe "films combining live action with animation" should be a seperate wikipedia article? --Poorpete 19:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Our Gang

Self Re-nomination. Better known to most as The Little Rascals, originally nominated last December (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Our Gang/archive1); didn't exactly fail, but didn't exactly pass either. The redlinked directors will get articles before the end of tomorrow. --b. Touch 23:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good, but I have some comments:

1. What does who were often paired together in both and a later teen-age version called The Boy Friends mean?
2. One of my biggest pet peeves about television shows and movies is that the writers are neglected. Some discussion of who wrote the shows needs to be included.
3. Make the red links to the directors blue.
4. Some of the links are duplicated. For example, Robert Blake is linked twice, and there are other cases. RickK 07:02, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

(1) I'll fix that sentence: who were often paired together in both Our Gang and a later teen-aged version of the series called The Boy Friends, which Roach produced from 1930 to 1932.. (2) Will do (was in today's plans as it was). (3) Our Gang writers generally went uncredited, but I will re-scour Leonard Maltin's book to produce a list of writers, two of whom were Frank Tashlin and Walter Lantz. (4) I will fix that. --b. Touch 13:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All done. Boy, that secion on Our Gang imitators just got a kickstart--there are (well, were) Wikipedia articles written by or about these frauders, claiming that they were Our Gang kids! Have they no shame?! --b. Touch 07:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• A comment: some of the bits about blacks and whites working together should probably be sourced. Who believes the black kids were Stepin Fetchit stereotypes? In particular, the sentence "In their adult years these actors became some of Our Gang's staunchest defenders, maintaining that its integrated cast and innocent storylines were far from racist." (which actors said this? a direct link or citation would be nice) It's not even clear at first who "these actors" are. I'll support if this is taken care of. Tuf-Kat 22:48, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Hamilton

Nice article, no flaws that I could see.-LtNOWIS 22:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: this will bring a knowing smile to many faces... ;-) --Plek 22:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

let's let everyone in on it--The_stuart 00:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This article presents arguments as fact and uses weasel words. To take one paragraph, "Hamilton did this brilliantly and forcefully, setting a high standard for administrative competence." "Arguably, Hamilton set the path for American economic and military might." I also think that the method of referencing would be of very little use to anyone who would try to fact-check this article later. Two very general histories are cited without any mention of what came from them being inline or in notes. It has a geographic bias in using America as synonymous with the Colonies or with United States.119 23:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Reads like the Alexander Hamilton fan club newsletter. A bit more on the Bank wars and a lot more justification of the claims highlighted by User:119, or a bit of toning down, in their objection would be welcome. Filiocht 09:47, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Didn't Robert McHenry find some flaws in it? We need to be real careful about this one; this ought to be showcase piece, a rebuttal of his argument in action. Everyking 02:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, and they were fixed within days of his article coming out back in November or something. Then the disputed facts were cited to two biographies of Hamilton. The power of the Wiki way. But object because I still think the article has innadequate references, and the contended facts could stand to be cited more directly to the most authoritative sources available. I believe there are some strong unresolved criticisms on the talk page too. - Taxman 13:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

You might want to actually read McHenry's piece. Many of the flaws are still there. The one sentence he cites as an example of poor writing is still there, unchanged, and the same sentence is mentioned again in the first objection on this page. 68.118.61.219 03:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, having now read McHenry's piece for the first time. He makes the point there that earlier verisons of of the article were better, and I agree. Sadly, the reason for their superiority is the fact that they were based closely on an article from a U.S. govt. source. It could well be said that the subsequent history is a case study in the dangers of the Wiki way, rather than its power. In addition to the sentence cited above and by McHenry, some further weaknesses include: numerous instances of redundant repetitions of the subject's name (where pronominalisation would make for a better reading experience), a number of sentences where missing introductory clause commas cause some confusion, the extraordinarily glowing pro-Hamilton tone of much of the prose, the equally POV dismissal of post-duel Aaron Burr. The fact that the article has been posted here with so much still in dispute on its talk page also beggars belief. Filiocht 08:41, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Object, on the reference issue, if no other. The two books cited were not the sources for the article. I know because I'm the one who added them. I used about 2 pages of each of those books to settle the date of birth question, and they were later moved to a separate references section, as if they were references for the entire article. I have no idea what sources were used; the only input I had into the artice was the settling and referencing of that issue (brought to wikipedia's attention by the Robert McHenry article mentioned above), and some minor cleanup. Much of this is discussed on the article's talk page. -R. fiend 16:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concurring Object--ZayZayEM 08:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plymouth(England)

This city article has developed very well and fulfils the criteria of a featured article. Although not my personal article it is one I have contributed to and advanced along with others. It has been on peer review for two weeks and has some good positive feedback. Any further suggestions for modification and expansion will be welcome. Plymouthguy 00:13, 4 March 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Shouldn't this be Plymouth, England? Even Chicago is Chicago, Illinois, and Plymouth has such a large and varied disambiguation page. 119 00:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No. US places use, for reasons i have not looked into, special convention of X, Y even if there is no other place called X in the world. Meanwhile, the rest of the wikipedia uses normal disambiguation only when collisions happen. I remember checking and discovering that 99% of the links to Plymouth were about the English city - this is usually sufficient to allow it to trump the disambiguation page.
• Weak Object The article is very good already, but 1) Cite your sources and 2) I would like to see a short description of why the people listed were included in this list (I only recognized a couple of the names). One quick comment about the page title, my first thought when I read the name was the automobile manufacturer, followed by Plymouth colony, but that's just me being a crazy 'Merkan. slambo 02:29, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

With the prominent people list moved to another article, that objection is now moot for this article (but it would still be nice on the breakout article). In looking again, my only objection now is that the Education, Sport and Media sections have a lot of one-sentence paragraphs. Can these be expanded? slambo 14:35, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Object there is mention of transport in the lead section, but no section for it in the article. as a major port, this deserves a long section. there is also no section for politics or demographics. Morwen - Talk 07:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Section on Transport added.
• Object 1) References are a basic requirement for a featured article. Please, don't nominate articles without them. 2) Two sections consisting only of lists near the end. It would be better to split them off to separate articles. 3) Several sections appear to be prose, but are only lists, such as "Schools" and "Sport". Several other sections have very little content. Jeronimo 14:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • References added and lists of places and people moved to separate pages.
    • Responses: 1) I'd suggest (not obligatory) to format the references according to the style outlined at: Wikipedia:Cite sources, especially the links. 2) Yes, this OK. I would not keep them as sections though, but only as "See also". If you really want sections, they need some content; you can wite a little prose on a few very famous persons/places in that case. 3) No changes. Jeronimo 18:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Created a See also section. I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what it is I need to do to modify the references to the required standard, could anyone please advise?
    • Exact (suggested) formatting rules are explained at the above link. In particular, adding ISBNs where available, and adding a date of retrieval for web references is common practice. But, as I said, this is suggested, not obligatory. Jeronimo 07:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Would be nice to have government, geography, and maybe demographics (altho' it might be a little pointless if all that can be said is 'over 98% are WASP Anglicans') and/or climate sections. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities is pretty US-centric, but the template at the bottom has some pretty generic suggested headings. For other ideas of topics that could be covered, see this table that lists topics covered in the current city FAs. Niteowlneils 03:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 98% WASP Anglicans is a very fair description of Plymouth's population. A section on Government would be equally pointless as it would only repeat what is in the politics section of the pink table.
    • Huh? "Leader & cabinet" is meaningless to me (probably because I'm not in the UK). How many people on the cabinet? How often (if ever) elected? At-large, or by district? What other city offices are elected? The pink table doesn't begin to cover the topic. And for geography, what latitude/longitude? Daylight saving time varience? Elevation variance? I'll give a bye on the demographics, but I still think some of the other topics are under-covered. What about crime/courts/jails? Neighborhoods and climate? City in literature? Libraries? Anyone nominating/supporting an FAC has two choices: address comments/objections, or argue against them. In my experience, choosing the latter is not effective. Niteowlneils 19:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. At least some of the people should probably me mentioned in the article. Also position of the Island photograph seems out of place (day-shot under section headed "nightlife"). 2020 section needs work.

[edit] Diamond

A great and well written overview of a fascinating subject including in one place information I could not find collected together elsewhere. Particularly strong on physical properties including the popular gem cuts. History, some commercial issues, trivia such as famous cutters and stones. In my opinion this featured article candidate, for once, truly shows off Wikipedia at its best. Paul Beardsell 21:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article is off to a good start, but it has some formatting issues to deal with first.
  1. In some sections, the text is written is a format that suggests it had been written one sentence at a time (the Cut section in particular).
  2. There are tons of external links, but no real references.
  3. I would like to see a mention of so-called "blood diamonds".

– ClockworkSoul 22:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) It does not cite its sources, a basic featured article requirement. Please check the criteria before nominating. 2) Multiple one and two sentence paragraphs break up the flow of the text too much. Either expand those into fully developed ideas or merge them in with related material. 3) The lead section is too short. Typically it is 2-3 paragraphs twice the size of that one. It should summarize all important facets of the topic. It should also try to avoid overly technical terms at first, and gently work them in and explain them in context. 4) Given the value and size of the world diamond market (Which is? This article doesn't say.), the issue of high quality, large synthetic diamonds should be covered much more thoroughly. They have the potential to undermine a very valuable market. 5) No mention of round brillian cut with even more facets than the standard as is increasingly popular. Many jewelry stores in the US market these as their own signature cuts. 6) The organization is a bit odd. Why are the cut color and clarity listed in the industry section. And no mention of carat almost at all by the way. Carat increase exponentially increases price. That could be noted. Clarity enhancements are covered, but aren't there some color enhancements too? Color is covered in two places, they should be combined, I'd think. I suppose that's enough for now. - Taxman 23:02, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, ditto above comments. --Oldak Quill 23:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The disorganization of this article, and resulting lack of flow, is epic. It reads poorly and contains many grammatical, structural, and spelling errors. It leaves out large topics (ex. production and supply chain information) and treats others poorly (ex. jumps into describing type Ia, Ib, II diamonds without really explaining what distinguishes the types). Could be a great article, and is more likely to be one by summarizing briefly separate articles on the large number of relevant topics. There are also many (probably unintentional) POV statements, which are likely the result of various marketing campaigns' influences on peoples' understanding, but nonetheless need to be rooted out ruthlessly. In short, I must disagree with the nominator and suggest instead that this article shows off the worst of what can happen in the collaborative editing environment of Wikipedia that we all know and love — lots of unsourced facts with no unification into a readable article. Let's see if we can fix it, shall we? Bantman 00:15, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• All right, I've worn myself out organizing the first half of the article (now split into material vs. gemological properties). I've exiled lots of the really detailed info to separate articles, and tried to write text for the main article that provides a comprehensive overview, but avoids minute detail (interested readers can see the specific articles) and is an easy and interesting read. The articles I've split off just contain the original text, which is obviously a problem -- fixing them is another boatload of work on my to-do list. The rest of the diamond article needs another type of work entirely -- rewriting, plus a lot of new information pulled in. That task I have to defer on, at this point. Nonetheless, I think that the first half is looking much better. Bantman 02:28, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Great work. That is much, much better. See if you can't find the time to do the rest. I still don't think this article can make it to featured soon because it does not cite its sources except for the one price listing, but it is substantially better. - Taxman 16:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• All right, twist my arm... :) I totally agree re: imminent featuredness; I think it will take another few weeks (at least) of hard work (hopefully not by me alone!) to whip this into shape. I've been meaning to take this article to FA-ship for some time; I guess I needed this dramatic (and utterly predictable) failure on FAC to kick myself into gear on the project. - Bantman 18:01, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Object, for the reasons stated above. Jeronimo 14:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support (although as proposer my vote should not be counted twice) on the basis that although the article does not meet all the FAC guidelines it seems to do so at least as well as several other recently featured articles. E.g. Johannesburg. Paul Beardsell 21:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• So your argument is that your article is as good as an article that you strenuously objected to as being of too poor quality to be a FA? Interesting. How about instead focus on handling the objections for this article, and make it a great one. - Taxman 22:06, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

No, the article is not "as good as" but is better than Johannesburg was at the time of its promotion, for which you voted despite its obvious flaws, several of which I had pointed out and which were not being addressed. Essentially my argument is for a higher level of consistency and for better quality control. There seems to be no objectively followed standard against which "featured" status is measured. To see this for yourself just look at the articles which are being promoted and those which are being rejected. And who votes consistently with who. Paul Beardsell 19:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No one said the process is perfect. I was clearly in an overly generous mood on that article you refer to. But consensus is that this article does not meet the criteria, and for two of them, references and lead section, that should have been obvious to you before nomination that they were deficient. - Taxman 16:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

The documented process seems pretty good to me, although that is not the same as saying there is no room for improvement. And I like the featured article criteria. It's a pity the documented process is not followed and that articles are not judged against the criteria. I have no problem with this article being rejected as long as I am not shouted down for pointing out the inconsistencies. Paul Beardsell 22:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But Johannesburg does cite sources. Sadly this otherwise good article, has to be rejected, until that is restored. (Also longer (or even more information) does not mean better)--ZayZayEM 04:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Examine the Johannesburg change log, its talk page and the FAC proposal for that article, all in chronological order. At the time of Johannesburg's promotion to Featured Article (i) it contained factual errors which had been recently noted on the Talk page, (ii) it did not cite its sources, (iii) it did not meet other FAC documented criteria. That that article is better now is creditable but beside the point but Johannesburg still does not meet the documented criteria fully. That this article, Diamond, does not meet all those criteria is true. But, in certain respects at least, it meets them better than several recently promoted articles. If, by rejecting this article (in its current form) for "featured" status, we improve the quality required and/or the articles are judged more consistently (perhaps by breaking the voting cabal) then I will be happy with that. Paul Beardsell 22:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mars

I can not believe that this article has not been nominated for Featured article status. It certainly meets the length requirements, it has subarticles, it has all the photos... I believe that it can be a featured article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object because 1) references are a requirement for featured status, and 2) the lead section is disproportionately short when compared with the rest of the article's content. slambo 13:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Some of the sections seem a little choppy. True, they have their own sub-articles associated with them, but a little more info would be helpful for sections like Mars fiction, etc. Rad Racer 13:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Please see the first step above on how to nominate an article. That would have led you to Slambo's first point. I also agree withe other points made above. - Taxman 16:52, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• support The external links are all references, they're just not under a "Reference" header. With astronomy, information changes so quickly, I don't blame the authors for not providing books.Dinopup 17:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If they were used as references, they should be formatted as references so we don't run into these kinds of problems with nominations. It really doesn't take that much more time to add the date the page was retrieved or to list any author and copyright date on the page. If the source data really changes that quickly, then I would think listing the retrieval date to be even more important. slambo 18:43, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Agree with the other objecters above. The sections "Mars in various cultures" and "Mars in fiction" are ridiculously short. Jeronimo 14:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC

Yes, but Mars in fiction already has it's own great arcticle, just add some of it to the Mars page. Peb1991 20:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object. But could be easily swayed the other direction. The basic material is quite good. Needs a formal reference to the Science article detailing ALH84001. Also introduces geologic concepts before discussion of exploration - introducting the Opportunity lander at an akward place. Cultural significance of Mars could use elaboration (I guess this is the "Mars in fiction" section. The lead para needs to brushed up too... the very first sentence is a mess. Fawcett5 16:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It is quite close, but not yet up to the level of our other FA, Venus (planet), which I'd recommend as a base. Especially the sectioning needs improvement - what Venus does nicely in in 6 main sections, Mars clutters over 11. References need proper formating and lead should be expanded. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Extremely odd Mars is mentioned in realtion to Roman mythos.--ZayZayEM 03:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of music

This was a recent collaboration of the week. I think it's turned out quite good. It was the first large scale use of the new listen templates. It's large, and (in my obviously biased opinion) well written. It's a partial self nom - I am the one who added most of the songs (all copyleft/PD). →Raul654 05:36, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

• A truly massive subject dealt with in a surprisingly concise fashion. Perhaps an appropriate image could be added to the top of the article by the lead section? I'll grant that it would be difficult to choose one. Everyking 06:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object: almost all of the content is about the western musical tradition. The cursory mentions of other cultures at the start are worse than nothing- I'd rather see them taken out and the article renamed "History of western music", or some such. And as a very minor point, the Monteverdi picture overlaps with some of the text for me. Mark¹ 06:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The picture thing is a rendering bug. You can't control it in the article. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't, and it happens in a lot of places. – flamurai (t) 06:16, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Object.
  1. I have a problem with heavy metal being listed while other rock sub-genres (punk, alternative rock, progressive rock, etc.) are not. I think those three are equally important and distinctive. I think heavy metal should be rolled up into the rock and roll section, and those other sub-genres should be mentioned there as well. Heavy metal just seems to be one deeper level of detail than the rest of the article.
  2. Renaissance music is disproportionately large and goes into too much detail for this top-level "history of" article. (In fact, the Ren. section here is pretty much the same size as the Renaissance music article.) It needs to be pared down significantly. Medieval could use a little bit of a haircut as well. I believe each major musical style/movement within the categories should get one paragraph. The 20th century section is a good example. It's a long section, but each paragraph briefly summarizes an important aspect of 20th c. music.

  – flamurai (t) 06:15, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) Some of the sub-topics get a lot of detailed info, while others don't. The longer ones should be shortened (more should be in the sub-articles), while the shorter ones should be expanded, or, if nothing more is to be said removed or merged with other sections. Especially the older civilizations need more attentions. What about the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, to mention just a few? The Middle Ages? 2) Many of the shorter sections consist for a large part of references to "Music of (country)" articles. 3) I also agree that there appears to be a bias towards the Western world (it even lists "History of European art music"), which should be lessened. 4) The choice of subtopics is sometimes hard to follow. Why is there a separate section on 20th century classical music (which stops in the 1950s)? Heavy metal was also mentioned already; why are "Disco, funk, hip hop, salsa, and soul" in a single section? 5) The "Popular and classical musics" section has way to many words in 'quotes' and even with some question marks. That doesn't appear to be encyclopaedic to me. 6) Especially the popular section could use a sample; plenty should be available. Jeronimo 07:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. When nominating any article of the 'history of...' something, one should make sure it is extensive - and this one is not, although it is a good start. In addition to above comments which I agree with, I'd also like to see something on the history of musical instruments - at the moment the article is more like 'history of music performers'. And isn't the lead a bit too short? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object, sadly. In addition to the previous objections, I'd like to add that it reads as if written by committee; i.e. the various contributions have not been brought together to form a coherent article, with the consequence that it is rather bitty. Filiocht 13:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I would not currently put this out as one of Wikipedia's best music articles, though it is a great start. Hyacinth 02:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, I have to vote Object. I don't think it is ready, due to the fact that it is truly a huge subject, it is still not complete. I agree with Filioct, it has too much info here, not enough there, etc. This is not to say that we should reject the article altogether. I just think it needs some more work before it should attain feature article status. On my part, I pledge to put some more work on this article. Let's keep going!. Bratsche 02:58, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Support: This is a very large subject, it can never be in depth at every level. James M 13:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object, the coverage is too uneven as others have noted. Recent pop variations are given far too detailed coverage for an overview like this, in comparison to earlier forms. --iMb~Mw
• Object, it doesn't mention anything about Japanese classical music. Revth 13:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] kibbutz

Admittedly a self nom, please review, post votes and comments.Dinopup 04:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support - well-written, very good article. Morwen - Talk 12:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This article needs extensive copyediting. The prose simply isn't at the level you'd expect from a featured article. I have no problem with adopting a more informal style in certain articles, but there are just too many sentences that require fixing in there. A few problems I see with the writing, in no particular order:
  • some sentences could use more precision or have dubious wording ("This part of the ideology can be best expressed in the Zionist-kibbutz saying "to make the desert bloom."" - it's easy the to understand the author meant the ideology at hand can be illustrated by the saying, but the sentence is somewhat strange).
  • a lot of inaccurate punctuation and typos, including inconsistent use of kibbutzim vs. kibbutz (ex.: "The place of primary kibbutz focus - the Galilee was a well-watered place.", "The first kibbutzniks hoped to be more than being farmers in Palestine, they even hoped for more than a Jewish homeland there, they wanted to create a new type of society where there would be no exploitation of anyone and where all would be equal.").
  • repetition (including recurrence of uncommon words - "hitherto" - and re-use of metaphors "fissure" used twice in 2-3 sentences to mean a "split in the movement")
  • inconsistent use of times - why are sections like "Life on a kibbutz" written in the past: there are next to no specific dates given in that section
  • lack of structure: "The Pioneers" touches subjects like the status of children in a kibbutz, military involvement of "kibbutzniks" in Isreal, questions of ownership, that should be treated in seperate sections (perhaps subsections of "Life on a kibbutz?")
  • I'm not sure I like the reference quoting style ((Gavron, 45)). I do not consider it a good reason to object though, because we don't really have a standard way of referencing inline quotes, but I doubt everyone will immediately understand where they need to go to find a specific quote when confronted with a reference given in this format.
  • "The Pioneers" section should be refocused on the historical Degania kibbutz, and give more dates and precise quantitative information about the early kibbutz movement. Throughout the whole section, it is unclear wether "kibbutzniks" refers only to the original Degania kibbutz members or to all members of early kibbutzim. More precise dates please. Also, "kibbutzim in Independent Israel" - is it correct to capitalize "independent"? - should become a subsection of "The Pioneers".
  • Although this is probably the least of this (quite good, don't get me wrong) article, I can't help suspecting the author has a certain admiration for the whole movement ("...fought very bravely", capitalized section name "The Pioneers"). I might very well be wrong, though.

Phils 16:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I made all of the edits based on Phils' suggestions. I got rid of repeated uncommon words, I clarified the "make the desert bloom" quotation. Since it wasn't clear when I was talking about Degania and when I was talking about the whole kibbutz movement I made things clearer there as well. (Degania was the first kibbutz, but in many ways it was not a typical kibbutz, hence the frequent references to it). I also explained the terms "kibbutznik" and "kibbutzim." A kibbutznik is just a member of a kibbutz. All the sources I read used "kibbutzniks" as the plural, rather than "kibbutznikim" (which I suppose is the Hebrew plural). In case of objection to my using "fought bravely," I changed that bit to "were widely considered to have fought bravely." I use the term Pioneers because traditional kibbutz historiography calls the earliest kibbutzniks "Pioneers."

There was also an issue with "Life on a Kibbutz" being in the past tense. Since I was discussing life on a kibbutz in the days of communal living (as opposed to the last 20 yrs), I changed that heading to "The Communal Life."

Phils, thank you for your suggestions, I can tell that you read the article very carefully.Dinopup 18:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Agree this needs further copyediting, wikilinks, and possibly further sectioning.--ZayZayEM 02:44, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust

Not a self-nom. It's comprehensive, well-written, and has lots of relevant links at the bottom of the page. Hasn't been flagged down for edit wars, no disputes on its neutrality. Lots of pictures, too.

• oppose for 2 reasons, 1) no mention of holocaust denial in that article (yes i know we have one on denial, but it deserves a mention). 2) pure flamebait, i will never support this for mainpage listing due to its potential to devolve into total chaos. I would however like to state I find this article very well written.  ALKIVAR™ 05:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that point two is not actionable. Furthermore, featured status does not automatically mean the page will be featured on the main page; that discussion is held elsewhere. Jeronimo 07:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I am aware point 2 is not actionable, but I was stating my reasons.  ALKIVAR™ 15:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah. Anyway, this kind of attitude is akin to giving in to vandals. Phils 14:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Say that when you've spent as much time reverting neo-nazi vandals, as people like Ta bu shi da yu and Neutrality have. I've watched, and helped. Neo-nazi vandalism and holocaust denial vandalism causes several admins to be on vandalism patrol 24/7. Theres reasons why people like Silsor have a Neo-nazi target topic watchlist. I dont think we need to give them a big fat target like the front page article. Its like teasing a starving person with a full dinner.  ALKIVAR™ 15:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Featured articles are often vandalised. This is life on Wiki. Objecting to featuring any article based on such argumentation would mean that the vandals have won. Have they? I certainly hope not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to point out that Objection 1 isn't true. Section 9.3 of the article deals with Holocaust denial. Ryan Anderson 22:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • My bad, the time I looked at it that section was not there (probably due to a vandal).  ALKIVAR™ 04:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• oppose because the article does not include that 5.5 million Poles died in its top portion but instead jumps from 6 million Jews to 220,000 Sinti and Roma. The jump is indicative of bias. Telling me that edits need to be discussed first, is violation of Wiki policy. The article does note 5.5 million Poles but one has to add up the numbers and has to read deep. The comment has been added.

The comment has been deleted again. The article notes jewish deaths, then jumps to Roma and Sinti deaths. The natural implication is that the death counts are listed in decreasing order. The absence of Pole deaths suggests a hiding of Pole deaths. A comment compromise has been added.

Yet again the comments were hidden.

• Commment - I don't think that the article is extensive enough - this is just a comment, not an objections, as I don't feel confident enough in that area. I slightly expanded info on Slavs and added note on Witold Pilecki to resistance, and that coupled with many single sentence paragraphs and quite long see also makes me wonder how many other important facts this article is missing. For such an important subject, the current 40kb doesn't seem enough for me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1) Not very well organized--basically poorly sectioned. There are section headings with nothing in them but another section. That one sentence orphan paragraphs lead off some sections seems very odd and doesn't seem to help anything. See other recent featured articles and compare at how well sectioned and organized they are. 2) Many one or two sentence paragraphs is poor form. They show areas that should either be expanded into a full idea or merged with related material. 3) Very little evidence is given for the death toll numbers. Since this is perhaps one of the most contentious and important bits of information in this century, that is unnaceptable. See the Shroud of Turin article for how evidence on a claim can be handled extraordinarily well. Direct citations to sources should be used. What are considered the most reliable sources for the death toll numbers? Supporting the claimed death numbers is only one link to a jpost.com article and the section refers to one book (which is incidentally not listed in the references section). I have a hard time believing scholars consider those the most reliable sources, but if they are thats great. These British and Soviet documents should be cited more directly if they are considered the best sources. So in summary this subject requires much better and more thorough research and citation to be a FA. Only two sources listed in the references section is very innadequate. In its defense the article does seem as NPOV as this topic could be, so great job from that aspect. With some research and the above improvents I would certainly support. - Taxman 18:05, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, mostly for reasons stated by Taxman. There is a lot of information contained in the article, but to become featured it has to be better organized. I also find the number of references rather poor for such an important and sometimes controversial topic. Jeronimo 18:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object. There is a much better Holocaust article around, if we can convince the author to put it up. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Futurama (TV series)

I just found this article incredibly impressive. Featured material? I think so! --L33tminion | (talk) 23:32, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references. 119 23:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  The problem with providing references is that the source for nearly all information is the series itself. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object, for the following reasons:

(1) No references, as 119 pointed out.(2) Nearly the entire article is made up of lists. The information contained in those lists needs to be re-written into prose. The list of characters is particularly cumbersome. There's no more than seven major characters in the series; list only those here and make a subarticle called Futurama characters and put the rest there.(3) More than a few redlinks. Stub the ones that require articles (I saw Bumper Robinson linked; his article is on my to-do list), and unlink the rest (for example, the year 2443) (4) Appearing on Cartoon Network does not mean it's in syndication (it just means its being re-run), and doesn't it come on the other Turner networks as well? (5) Needs more screencaps for an article about an animated series. b. Touch 00:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• red links are not a reason to deny FAC.  ALKIVAR™ 04:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay then. I've now crossed that one out. Someone once mentioned that to me when I had Our Gang nominated.
• Actually it is syndicated as its been released in multiple countries.  ALKIVAR™ 04:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  
  • The lead paragraph states "It is in syndication on the Cartoon Network, which is incorrect. "Syndication means that a series is made available to individual stations--not networks--who can choose whether or not to pick up the program and add it to their lineup. Masters of the Universe, The Huckleberry Hound Show, Mighty Max, and the pre-1990 episodes of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are examples of cartoon shows that are/were syndicated. Reruns of shows like The Cosby Show, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Friends, Living Single, and even Scooby-Doo were also syndicated. For example, the ABC affiliate in New York City might show Fresh Prince at 6 PM, but the ABC affiliate in Atlanta might show Friends instead. If a show is being broadcast on a major network at a fixed time, regaurdless of country (for example, on Teletoon in Canada), that is not syndication; it's just being re-run. --b. Touch 17:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• What kind of screencaps are necessary? I have the series on my hard drive and I can easily take any needed screenshots.--Etaonish 01:44, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Caps that show some of the futuristic settings. Head shots of Fry, Leela, and Bender would be good additions, as well. Also, get at least one shot of the opening credits to illustrate the trivia fact I added (if I get time, I will try to do a revision of this article)--b. Touch 17:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to take a whack at adding some more images shortly. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now, should go thru peer review, needs copyediting, non show external references lacking, the comments above about lists are also very valid. The language section mentions the alien language but gives no examples (a graph with a Squiggle:English Alphabet comparison would be nice too).  ALKIVAR™ 04:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Working on finding a good example of the alien language in the requested style (I know they exist, I just can't remember what episodes). -- Cyrius|✎ 05:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't think it'd get any nominations, it needs someone to go through it from top to bottom with a fine tooth comb as it's a bit of a patchwork at the moment. I think the nomination is a bit premature although I expect it to qualify eventually. - Diceman 12:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review, needs references and a bit more copyediting. Then come back here again. - Mailer Diablo 12:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object: It needs more work James M 13:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm a fan of the series, but this article is not feature-worthy (yet). 1) References are an absolute must for any featured article, and this one hasn't any. 2) A lot of facts and bits of information are crammed into this article, but they don't form a real story. Too many "lists of things" (such as the planet list, which should not be in this article) too little real overview of the topic. 3) There's no part about the actual story of the series. We don't even learn that fry is a 20th century guy that was frozen! We also need more on the developments in the series through the seasons. Don't forget to add a spoiler. -- THere are many other minor things, but let's get to that when the article's been through a workover and possible through Peer Review as well. Jeronimo 18:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks for all the constructive criticism. I'm going to refer this to peer review and work to deal with these objections. Thanks again! --L33tminion | (talk) 16:51, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magnetic resonance imaging

This is a well-written article that I happened across when hypertexting from other articles. I think it deserves to be listed because it's thorough, well-documented, and informative. Joshuaschroeder 07:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. References are one of the basic requirements of an article. This article doesn't have any. Jeronimo 07:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• True. I've worked on this article some, and will try soon to add references to the books I use. Xiggelee 10:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) P.S. While I'm happy to see this article nominated, I still feel like there's a lot of work to be done on it before it's featured.

• Please do. Also can you please elucidate what you feel needs to be done and place that on the talk page, here, or both? It would help both the commentors here and the future article. Agree with the others. Object until well referenced. - Taxman 22:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. With references, though, it's a must. GREAT images. --PopUpPirate 00:04, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] South Africa

Self-nomination. This article was recently up for Featured Article (old discussion here) status, but it failed. Unfortunately, I did not have enough time to respond to all the comments made before it failed. There was significant discussion over the fact that the infobox is near the bottom of the lead section, and not the top. However, WikiProject Countries has their template of style with the infobox at the bottom, but User:Ta bu shi da yu and I attempted to move the infobox as far forward as possible, with one edit placing the infobox at the top, but this was decided by both of us to look terrible so we attempted to move it down while including the image. Other things were changed, such as more links and more categories, as well as edits to the history and culture section. Thanks! Páll 00:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Usually I'd be against a new nomination so soon after it ended, but I felt Paul did not have adequate time to answer concerns. Support just as before. Mike H 01:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - This time I support since the issues that I pointed out (in the last FAC) have been addressed. Squash 06:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)'
• Supported this at the previous nomination; supporting it now. Jeronimo 07:40, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support — all issues that I pointed out in the last FAC have been adressed. but I've changed my vote to object until the serious copyright issues pointed out by Henrygb are adressed. — mark ✎ 10:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support, again. Dewet 11:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support, Alot of work has been put into this article. A great improvement --Jcw69 13:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks! Object. See my embedded HTML comments in the article. Neutrality^talk 14:44, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I've responded to your comments sufficiently. Páll 15:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Say, could you add a bit about the minimum voting age in the "government" section? Also, a military section and a few sentences about cusine/art/cinema in the "Culture" section would be nice. Neutrality^talk 04:06, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Just for clarification, do you support now? Páll 20:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We've still got some more issues to work out. For example, the sentence "The SANDF is extensively involved in peacekeeping operations in other parts of the continent" bothers me; I'd like to see some examples. See User:Neutrality/workshop for a transcript of some IRC comments. Neutrality^talk 05:02, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Note: examples on South African National Defence Force page. The size constraints (see other votes) limit enumerating. -- Dbroadwell 02:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object: for reasons mostly pertaining to the lead section:

• Look at the sentences in the first paragraph: "The Republic of South Africa is... / The South African economy is... / South Africa is... / South Africa has... / South Africa has... / South Africa ... posessed... / South Africa is...". Starting each sentence with the same words makes the intro sound bitty, reading like a fact sheet—it does not have the markings of brilliant prose. Try to rephrase, reword and refactor so that it becomes an engaging piece of text that guides the reader into the article. Cut down on the number of times "South Africa" is used.
• The lead section contains multiple POV statements, which should either be removed or neutralised:

• "South Africa is also arguably the most stable democracy in Africa": How does one measure the stability of a democracy? The use of the word "arguably" makes it a POV statement by definition.
• "South Africa has become an important force for diplomacy": Important to whom?
• "South Africa has the [...] most efficient military in Africa": How is the efficiency of a military measured?
• "South Africa is now a racially unified country": The formal abolishment of apartheid law does not make a unified country overnight. The main article itself states that an economic divide remains. Does everbody agree that the country is truly racially unified?
• "South Africa has become a vibrant [...] society": What's the measure of vibrancy? Would someone living in poverty in the country agree with that assessment?
• "sustained economic growth must occur in order to lift millions out of poverty": OK, this might be a case of semantics, but the "must" makes it sound as if the author is giving an advice to the SA government. "is needed" might be a better choice of words.

• The first paragraph ends with "South Africa is now a racially unified country...". The next paragraph begins with "South Africa was first unified...". The two unified's have a different meaning in the two sentences (if I'm not mistaken), which could lead to confusion. Try to reword one of them.
• The lead paragraph mentions SA has the largest military in Africa and once had nuclear weapons, but the rest of the article offers no information at all about this topic. As the lead section is seen as a summary of the rest of the article, this sets up an expectation that is not delivered upon.

Thanks. --Plek 18:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your great comments, but the lead section has been completely rewritten and trimmed down, and no longer contains your objectional statements. Would you mind looking again? Páll 20:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. The lead section is much better now. Changing my vote to support. --Plek 00:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Support Object — While I'm glad that most of my previous objections are resolved, I find the leadin section too long. Also, the page size stands at 40kb and I would like to see it shortened to near about 30kb, so that the article makes better reading -- focussing on main points rather than extraneous details. Nichalp 20:24, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

The lead section has been rewritten, however the article is not too long. Look at History of Russia, another Featured Article, for examples of length. There are articles two times this length that have been nominated. Páll 20:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A long article is certainally very putting off. A summary of main topics should be how such articles should be written. I'm sure the article can be further shortened by précis just like India was shortened. The India page coveys maximum information and at the same time has a healthy page size. Lead-in is now OK, but I wont support until the size is cut down. Nichalp 20:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

The article has been shortened from 42k down to 34k. There's really not much more that can be cut. I hope this is acceptable. Páll 02:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's much better, I'll offer full support if you remove the indentations before {Main articles}. Nichalp

• Support. A lot of good fixes. While, like any article, it could be improved more, what is there is very good and looks well researched. Object. Though I'm close to supporting. The lead section is too long, but not something I'd object over. As to the length of the article, some articles 2x this length have been promoted. Now to my objection, the culture section is very long (too long) and really only touches on the race and language points. What about all the other elements of culture such as dance, music, food, etc.? Oh yeah, and I agree with Plek's comments. - Taxman 21:37, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

• I added much more contnet to the culture section. 20:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, yes that is much better. Now I've noticed a few more things. The orphan paragraph at the end of the lead section could stand to be merged in somewhere or expanded a little, perhaps with other problems facing South Africa. The other issue is the 'Names' section does not really talk much at all about the names for South Africa, even though it lists names of SA as the main article for the section. Instead it mostly just talks about the different languages of the country. In an article this long, is the name for the country really one of the most important topics? Maybe rename the section Languages of SA and then discuss the naming issue as it relates to that. - Taxman 19:19, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

I just took care of what you mentioned. Thanks for paying attention to that. I removed the HIV/AIDS orphan information since it is proscriptive rather than descriptive, and is discussed later on in the article. I also renamed the Names section "Languages." There really isn't more information on the naming issue that hasn't already been discussed in taht section. Páll 23:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Henrygb 10:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) There seems to be a copyright issue which has not been resolved in the talk page. Quoting from Wikipedia:Copyright_problems 31 January 2005: Geography from [10] Flora and fauna from [11].

Wow, I am embarassed that this happened. I just completely rewrote those sections as pere this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Africa&diff=0&oldid=10773831 Páll 20:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have said the same thing using some different words. I will leave it to others to judge whether it is enough on copyright issues. --Henrygb 00:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support IMO, already of featured article quality. A couple of (helpful?) points: (1) with South Africa due to host the football World Cup in 2010, having hosted the most recent cricket World Cup, and being a big rugby union nation too, it would be nice to have something about its sporting credentials. (2) Also I agree it could do with a bit of shortening (by moving some articles to subpages), jguk 18:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support, After the work me and Pàll did last time. Inter\^Echo 12:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Please qualify the statement in the intro that "South Africa is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in Africa." What about Nigeria or the Congo? Neutrality^talk 17:57, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, that's why it says one of the most ethnically diverse countries, not the most ethnically diverse. And it is, indeed, one of the most ethnically diverse countries in Africa.Pall (sorry, can't log in ... on a slow public computer)

Quantify it. :) Neutrality^talk 04:40, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Not to be mean, but are you arguing just for argument's sake? You're not being really helpful as to how this can be done. Mike H 07:33, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not. A sentence that says "South Africa is ethnically diverse" tells me nothing at all. Neutrality^talk 21:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, come on, I think the two facts below cover that issue as well as it can be. Unless you can come up with a reasonable way to resolve what you are asking for, I would submit that your objection is not actionable. - Taxman 15:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

http://www.statssa.gov.za/ click on population census 2001 and build a bit of data the proves/disproves ethnic diversity. I'm not voting here, but it's a very good reference. -- Dbroadwell 00:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From Dictionary.com: Quantify: To determine or express the quantity of. There is no way to express the quantity of diversity. None. The only way to do so occurs in that sentence, when it is stated that South Africa has the largest population of Indian people outside of India, as well as the largest white and coloured population in Africa. I cannot say South Africa is 37.8% diverse. Your insistance on such is assinine. I rewrote the military section, but there is nothing wrong with saying that South Africa is one of the most diverse countries in Africa. If one said the United States were one of the largest countries in the world, you wouldn't then have to list the total area of Canada, China, and Russia and explain the difference of percentages between them all. Culture and diversity are notoriously hard to measure. About 8-10 native languages are spoken in Belgium, but Belgium is not a diverse country at all, while New York city has many, many different races but most everyone speaks English. Which one is more diverse? That's why only stating that South Africa is ONE of the most diverse (which it is) countries in Africa is the only appropriate form. Because its impossible to determine the most diverse because such a term is subjective and relative. Páll 09:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is an example immediately after the statement you object to of South Africa's peacekeeping successes. Are your reasons for objecting factually based? Páll 02:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support Rama 09:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Rossrs 14:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support AND now that the article is at 34K some should be recontacted about their votes. -- Dbroadwell 02:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• WOW! Excellente. Support--ZayZayEM 02:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I honestly say I didn't think we would be able to FA any country or big history of... articles so soon - and I am happy to be proven wrong. Two small notes: lead could be bigger and I think there are some templates/icons for the 'pronunciation' in the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• You have done an excellent article may I add a few tit bits having been involved. 1: the Good Hope Plan for SA was pulished in 1980 a scant 20 years after a negotiated 50 years servitude to British Empire at the end of the 2nd Boer war. This was part of prolonged negotiations for a truly democratic South Africa Started as far back as 1972 between the dominant political parties and the Nationalist party. The reason we in South Africa had no bloody conflicts was because of the overall goodwill that exsisted at grassroots level. No Media or political hype could destroy that. Having said that, your date 1990 for the dismantleing of apartheid laws is a bit belated In 1980 we already started to abolish some laws that were discriminatory espescially the Mining Act of 1956. I know this as I was part of that excercise. Otherwise you have a great article. 196.2.124.251 11:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Andrew Swan

[edit] 1755 Lisbon earthquake

A very readable, succinct, and highly syncretic Wikipedia feature. Reads like a thriller. Self-nomination. Sandover 05:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• support. i like sandover's self nomination very much indeed. i tweaked it a bit a removed a funny section about skin colour. if considered useful, i can make a compreensive list of buildings that were destroyed and buildings that survived. muriel@pt 10:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article looks pretty good, but: 1) The lead section says: "The earthquake had a strong impact on 18th century society.". First of all, I think this should be appended with "in Portugal". Second, I think the "Social implications" section doesn't quite give information. It mentions religious, philosophical and political implications, but doesn't quite get to the actual social implications. For example: " For the religious minds of the 18th century, this manifestation of the anger of God was difficult to explain." -> how did this manifest? Did people become less (or more) religious? Did they convert to other religions? 2) In the "The birth of seismology" section misses a reason why the query was conducted and what was done with it in the 18th century. Also, this section needs some explanation of geological terms (tectonic plate, subduction zone). An illustration with the plates near Lisbon might offer a good help here. Jeronimo 11:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "The earthquake had a strong impact on 18th century society." - Thats correct because it was not only in Portugal; the social implications section shows this. Now maybe you are right about this section. It does not deal exclusively with social things, also with philosophical implications. Maybe rename it? And if so to what? As for the geological terms (cf. your comment on Battle of Alesia :) ) i'll make them more clear. A drawing will be difficult because there is still hot debate about this theory. Scientists agree is a proto-subduction but the whereabouts of this is still not consensual. muriel@pt 11:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I made a few small changes, which satisfy (I hope) Jeronimo's relatively minor objections. Sandover 14:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It's an improvement, and I consider 1) fixed. As for 2), I still miss "a reason why the query was conducted and what was done with it in the 18th century". Also, I still think an image would illustrate the situation well. If there is debate, an image would be exceptionally interesting, since it could explain the debate more clearly. Jeronimo 07:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The Lisbon earthquake has traditionally been regarded as something of a philosophical/religious watershed in Enlightenment thought (something separate from the aesthetic concept of "the Sublime"). This may well be a simplified notion, but it needs to be acknowledged and somehow engaged with—I was quite taken aback to find only the sentence "Thinkers of the European Enlightenment drew varied inspiration from the Lisbon earthquake". I should think shockwaves from the earthquake can be traced in the philosophical/cultural/literary history of every European country. For the important "Enlightenment criticism of religion" aspect, the single sentence "For the religious minds of the 18th century, this manifestation of the anger of God was difficult to explain", which Jeronimo mentions, is still holding the whole theodicean fort alone (actually even doing so in a weakened state, from an addition that looks strangely irrelevant to me). That's far from enough—for one thing, the non-religious minds of the 18th century seized on the earthquake as proof that God was either dead or bad. Please get a philosophy student in there, if at all possible. (This is a "wanted" ad! I'd read up and make the addition myself, but I just don't have the time.) Otherwise a very interesting and well-written article which I would like to see featured. Bishonen | Talk 18:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Support. Bishonen | Talk 07:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I hardly understand your objection! :/ I'll see what i can do to help... muriel@pt 19:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, this earthquake was seen by most contemporary philosophers as an evil occurrence, since it had so many terrible consequences. For those who believed in God, it was difficult to find any theory which could satisfactorily explain "what sort of a God could allow this to happen" (I think that was Voltaire's Candide). I think this may have been the start of the idea in the insurance industry for "acts of God" being a synonym for natural disasters (but I'm not sure). 'Evil acts' like the Lisbon earthquake could not have been done by men or caused by sin (it was thought), therefore philosophical and religious theories of the time which had held that people were the cause of all evil were questioned very severely. The concept of 'natural evil' came up, even for atheistic philosophers. WhiteC 01:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with WhiteC above - that's broadly my understanding of the quake's philosophical impact. Voltaire's reaction is the most noted. Wombat 09:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object though I like this article a lot too. Bishonen is right; a truly comprehensive article on the quake would have a lot more on its philosophical and theological ramifications, which were extensive (and also much more on the social and political aftermath). I've added a little bit, but this is not a topic I know very much about. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object, if Bishonen is satistied you can strike mine, too. I'm amused that Bishonen and Jeronimo have opposite objections! I'm with Bishonen here, and think the article needs to be fleshed out to the point where this will be clear enough that no one will make Jeronimo's objection. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:49, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Object because of the issue regarding the Washington Post article. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Misinformation_on_Wikipedia). Let that die down first. --JuntungWu 14:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey! What is this got to do with the article?? It had something unreferenced, this Theresa made a fuss, i informed her (politely i guess) of wikipedia procedures, namely that it doesnt have to be me to correct something and that the article isnt mine but ours. She did nothing and now apparently is holding that back against wikipedia. The thing is not even in the article anymore. You can follow the thing in the talk page (which is very messed thanks to Theresa, btw). muriel@pt 16:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how The Washington Post issue provides valid grounds for an actionable objection. I don't see how this issue has anything to do with this article being an FA (It might not be politic to feature the article any time soon on the Main Page, but that's another matter, and I think we can let Raul be the judge of that). Paul August ☎ 20:29, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am interpreting the "no controversy" and "no edit war" stipulation for an FA in a very broad sense. I find this very unfortunate and I object with great reluctance but I would think it would be better to delay consideration of this. Raul can be the judge on if my interpretation is correct: if he believes there's no problem I'll withdraw my object and change my vote to support because I actually like the article. JuntungWu 12:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I thought more about this and digged through the talk pages. I guess it would be okay. I withdraw my object. JuntungWu 12:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Looks like the issues have been resolved and this is well referenced. - Taxman 16:14, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the Theresa Carpanelli/Washington Post controversy

I had no idea that misinformation deleted a month ago from the 1755 Lisbon earthquake entry ("roving priests" who exacted vengeance in the streets of Lisbon) appeared in the Washington Post, nor that Wikipedia was being blamed for originating the error. Thank you, Michael Snow, for writing it up, and for providing the links to the two online columns from a vigilant homeschooling parent in Canton, Ohio, Theresa Carpanelli (who apparently appears on her own religious radio show, "Truth Matters"). All of this yet another curious ripple effect of a sublime event which occurred just shy of 250 years ago. Just Fascinating.

According to Michael Snow, the offending Washington Post piece was published on December 31, 2004. (Theresa Carpanelli says December 30th in her article.) I only saw the 1755 Lisbon earthquake entry in the days following the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (I confess I was much more preoccupied with contributions to the tsunami article, which was little more than a stub at the time of the Dec 26 tsunami).

By the time I made my first edit, on January 19, the discussion page already raged with Carpanelli's (anonymous) objections. She altered the entry itself only to make a request for footnotes, but never troubled herself to actually delete the offending Wikipedia material on her own. The offending line was deleted on January 20th (and never restored). Carpanelli continued to rage about the line on the discussion page until January 29th.

If there's one thing that really troubles me about Carpanelli's seemingly well-researched complaint, it's the way she wilfully misrepresents the Wikipedia editing process. "I requested of Wikipedia that a source be cited for this allegation. The person with whom I was corresponding claimed not to have written the line, that it was a 'remnant' from a previous version; but she left it in anyway. She writes: 'i dont have a reference though i dont find the allegation strange, considering the power of the Jesuits at the time and the religious fanatism of the time' [sic]." Carpanelli doesn't mention the fact that this exchange occurred on the discussion page (where informal, uncapitalized language is commonplace) and that she herself was able (and, in fact, invited repeatedly) to delete the reference if she objected to it.

• "Willfully misrepresents the Wikipedia editing process." How did I "misrepresent the Wikipedia editing process"? And how do you know it was "willfull"? I stated earlier, very clearly, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute. Why have you (willfully?) left that out of your quotes of me? As for your charge that I don't "mention" where the exchange took place - that will be corrected in a part-three article I will be doing. I made an assumption - that my readers would be able to find their way to the discussion page when they found their way to the article, which they could easily do as I did - a search for "1755 Lisbon priests etc" brought the Wikipedia article up as the first google hit. As for my "continuing to rage" until January 29th, I am seeking a source for the original assertion - and that is made clear in my so-called "rages." Polycarp7 09:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An uninformed reader of Carpanelli's column (and I would surmise that the vast majority of Ms. Carpanelli's readers are unfamiliar with Wiki practices, and Carpanelli did nothing to enlighten them) would draw the conclusion that this exchange occurred with a spelling-challenged gatekeeper of some sort, someone in a formal administrative capacity at Wikipedia, someone with a grudge against Catholics, someone who refused to make a change, rather than with another contributor (a well-meaning one at that) who was actually trying to resolve the problem and help get to the bottom of the truth and the origins of the allegation.

• Once again, I happily will provide a link to the discussion page, now that it has been placed in chronological order as the discussion ensued. They will see for themselves that I was invited to make the change myself, but that I did not wish to alter the claim, just to find a source for it. Space was limited for me, and my beef was with the Washington Post, not with Wikipedia, except for noting how many people have used the unattributed (and seemingly false) allegation. Part of the problem also was that I did not feel the person I was corresponding with was not "trying to resolve the problem and ... get to the bottom of the truth of the origins..." I felt I being asked simply to delete it and forget about it - after it had been published in virtually every major newspaper that picked up the Washington Post and CBS News articles, and picked up all over the Internet and even in a school curriculum. For me, getting to the truth would have included giving me the original source. Why do you conclude the readers would draw the conclusion you outlined? I concluded that they would be smart enough to check out the Wikipedia article for themselves, and to read the discussion page. I do regret not providing a link for that purpose, but it was, at the time, the first hit one came to for those interested in reading it. And many did find it, without my adding a link.Polycarp7 09:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, truth matters. But if Carpanelli really cared about the truth, she would have resolved the matter on her own and edited the line out (as suggested to her). Instead, it's obvious that she preferred to see the error stand as long as possible. (Or should I say possible error -- because she has by no means proved the original allegation of "roaming priests" false. To my mind, Carpanelli's calculated misrepresentation of Wikipedia's editing process only shows me that she is capable of distorting a lot of other facts as well. Given how interesting this debate about "roving priests" has become, I intend to fully examine the allegation going back two and half centuries and incorporate them into the entry. It's obviously quite relevant to the social implications and effects of the 1755 earthquake, which continue to this day. It's interesting to note that the Portuguese Inquisition, which raged for centuries against suspected crypto-Jews or marranos, continued past the earthquake until 1765, and there's no doubt that the 1755 earthquake and tsunami affected the dynamic involved in Church authority. It's also interesting that Voltaire's Candide has a character who, yes, is hanged after being overheard discussing the earthquake outside of an orthodox religious context. "This was not customary", Voltaire writes, obviously in full satirical flourish -- though whether he is simply satirizing priests' actions, or exagerrating those actions for satirical effect, is something I've yet to determine. Perhaps Voltaire to blame for this anti-Catholic slur against priests; Carpanelli suggests as much. We'll see.)

• Now they are "calculated misrepresentations." Perhaps you think you see that because you are calculating? I am not. I simply state things as I see them, and unfortunately, leave things out that you think I should have put in. I will try to correct that in Part Three. You make an erroneous, derogatory, and wholly unknowable allegation about my intentions, then conclude that I am capable of "distorting" other facts as well. This strikes me as quite convenient for one who might like to believe the allegation is true, and would like to stretch the truth to make it so. Witness your "eagerness" at finally being shown the about.com picture, and what you, with no source cited, allege in your caption that it shows, yet when I attempted to edit the caption to say it was looters being executed, you state there is no "proof" they were looters. Yet the Kozak collection's caption, which your article links to, states: "Lisbon a few days after the earthquake. Camping outside the damaged town, executions of robbers and looters. (Copper engraving, Germany, 1755) Lisbon, Portugal." You seem to prefer about.com's wholly unsourced allegation, over Kozak's caption. I have cited several sources for my claims in the discussion page of the Lisbon article which state that looters, murderers, and arsonists were executed by hanging, by order of the civil, not Church, authorities. Witness also your decrying the fact that I wouldn't edit the allegation out. Because you would have edited the line out, and I didn't, you feel you can doubt my care for the truth? Why do you believe, in MY search for the truth, I would have tried to hide the fact that priests were hanging people, by deleting the allegation, if in fact it happened? Then you might have accused me of hiding the ugly truth? You practically state my real motives in the rest of your statements - I haven't proved the allegation false, and cannot. It is precisely because I do not know for sure that it was erroneous, unless the person who wrote it cannot provide a credible source, that I was not willing to delete it. I can prove only that there is no credible source for it that I have seen. The onus is on the person who wrote it to provide a source that makes it possible that it did happen. In my search for the truth, I was asking for a source, from the original author, but did not know how to do that due to my inexperience with Wikipedia's protocols. I am not a contributer, just a user. Somehow, that translates to you as "calculating" and "willfully distorting" Wikipedia protocol. I have checked a great many books and articles, (more detail in the discussion page), including many, many eyewitness accounts. None of them mention this event, and I believe, had this happened, ONE of the eyewitnesses would have mentioned it, or at least one original source book would have mentioned it. I freely admit that my research has not included every book written on the subject, and one cannot "prove" a negative - that it didn't happen. My assumption was that possibly the originator of the Wikipedia article might have a source. I doubted it, but I sincerely was asking for his/her source, and would be interested to see one. In Part Three, I will discuss the "source" the Washington Post put forth. If you think you can find a source, and I would prefer a credible one, I would be happy to see it. Polycarp7 09:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Carpanelli cannot prove that Wikipedia was the reporter's source. Her addendum to the article, which summarizes a conversation with the Washington Post reporter, reveals that he used other sources as well.

• I did not claim to have "proved" anything. I outlined my suspicions, and why I drew them in Part Two - perhaps you should have read it. I based my suspicion that it MIGHT have been Wikipedia for these reasons: 1). The article originated in October 2003, while the Post article, to which I was mainly objecting, originated in December, 2004, with many other more recent articles I listed showing up in January. 2). The language was very similar to the Wikipedia article, and I found other articles on the Internet, using the same language, even to the use of the misplaced modifier, most of them listing Wikipedia as their source. 3). Mr. Vargas told me he used Wikipedia, and noticed that the other sites he used, which he named, also used the same language as the Wikipedia article. I had already confirmed that some of the sites he named, which included the allegation, listed Wikipedia as their source. In addition, my Part Two article states clearly that Wikipedia was one of other sources Vargas used, but I believed, that since Wikipedia dated to October 2003, and was listed as the source for many of the other articles, it MIGHT have been the original source. That is precisely what I am still trying to discern, but cannot unless the originator of the article will come forward with his source - if he had one. This is speculation, but it's entirely possible he assumed it - one might do that after seeing the caption under the about.com picture, reproduced now in the Wikipedia article. If priests were "supervising" the hangings, which assumes, (contrary to what credible source materials state), that they had authoritative involvement, and it's not a far stretch to say they "roamed the streets" looking for people to hang.

And by the way, I was not, prior to this, affiliated in any way with Catholic Exchange, so my correspondence with Ms. Gottrop had no motive other than a search for a credible source. I asked CE them to help me get this information corrected, since it has proliferated so widely since the Post article came out, but had no idea of that during my corresponsence with Wikipedia. My beef was with the Post, and my intention for writing the Part Three article is to conclude with my discussion with the Washington Post. But now that I have read such ad hominem and hostile accounts of my alleged "intentions" with regard to Wikipedia, and the unjust charges to which I have been subjected, simply because I am trying to obtain the truth of the allegation, I feel I must spend some time discussing that, as well. Ms. Gottrop has apologized for offending my Faith, and it was probably my ignorance and frustration in how to ask for what I wanted on Wikipedia that led to her irritated reply to me. But as I have stated elsewhere, Wikipedia users - and that is what I was - NOT a contributer - should not have to go through this to get a simple question resolved. Polycarp7 09:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was completely unaware of any of this controversy until I opened my Wikipedia homepage this morning. It's funny to see my username cited in it, and to be given credit as the one who finally deleted the objectionable material. To be honest, I didn't give it too much thought. I deleted it merely because the discussion was getting hot, because Carpanelli's (anonymous and unsigned) objections on the entry itself were beginning to take over the page (nb: I never had any exchange or dialogue with Carpanelli myself). It was obvious -- although Carpanelli doesn't say this in her own article -- that no one seriously defended the allegation about roaming priests, apart from the one offhand comment (which Carpanelli quotes). On deleting the citation, I figured that if someone was going to re-insert that slur into the article, they could only do so only with supporting information. That's normal Wikipedia procedure, and the slur has not reappeared.

• My "anonymous and unsigned" objections were corrected when I learned, through Ms. Gottrop's help, how to do that. I didn't see the point in stating a negative - that no one defended the allegation. Once again, I didn't do what you think I should have done, but I don't feel the need to state the obvious. Polycarp7 10:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to let this issue die down now before reconsidering the article for FA. But the feature status shouldn't depend on whether at one point there was false information in the article (if, indeed, that information was false). The obstacle to feature status, as pointed out by a number of observers, is that the philosophical implications section needs to be fleshed out in a much more thorough way; since I haven't received other complaints, this section is going to be my future focus. I (and I hope others) will have to do a bit of homework on it. I also want to track down an image of the Marquis of Pombal and perhaps other illustrations.

I hope the entry keeps its quirky, concise character. One of the things I most admire about the 1755 Lisbon earthquake is that it manages a complex and varied topic with brevity: it has benefited from the surgical intervention of (among others) an amateur historian, geologist, a tourist who loves Lisbon (that would be me), and several philosophers, none of whom decided to make it their own magnum opus. I hope the entry stays that way and never becomes bloated. Notwithstanding my rather extended comments here, quantity is not quality. Thanks, everyone, for the good advice. Sandover 18:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Sandover 20:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) [revised] Sandover 02:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) [revised]]

I agree that the story alone is not a legitimate reason to keep this from being a featured article. It would be like rejecting an article just because of some vandalism in its history. The state of the article now is what's important. In this situation, the incident is a reason to be especially careful and thorough, making sure that facts are checked and references provided. But it shouldn't be a barrier to featuring, and it would be great to be able to say, "Yes, there was this mistake, but not only were we able to fix it, we improved the article so much that now it's one of our showcase products".

With respect to the timing of this nomination, it might still be possible to do the needed work relatively quickly, but that's for those involved in writing the article to determine. If all reasonable objections are addressed, whether now or later, the surrounding controversy shouldn't matter. --Michael Snow 18:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I've fallen in love with the page, but I look at the necessary improvements requiring some significant reading and research. It's going to take a few months for me to circle around to this project again. Unless someone else wants to jump in and go rah-rah on it right now, let's just table the feature consideration for now. By all means, read the entry in its present form. It will be all the better later on when we remember the evolutionary process, and to voice support when this pops up in time for the 250th anniversary (which is November 1st this year). Sandover 18:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As the person directly involved with Ms. Carpanelli i have to say a couple of things: i was never impolite (despite the hysterical, slightly irritating tone of her notes) and i tried to motivate her to edit the article, i even left welcoming message at her talk page. The whole affair can be followed in Talk:1755 Lisbon earthquake. I am quite amazed with what is said about her article. She acted in absolute bad faith with me and with the project and i'm finding very strange that the acts of a biased scandal-seeking person are depriving the article from feature status. I agree with Bishonen et al. objections about the philosophical section and i'm only sorry that my knowledge is not enough to answer their requirements. These are valid objections and I hope Sandover is successful in his attempt to clarify them. Ms. Carpanelli's article is not a valid objection and i cant believe that this will be held against the article in the future. muriel@pt 21:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Please read my response to Ms. Gottrop's above statements on the Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-14/Misinformation on Wikipedia at this address: (Not sure how to do the link - please spare me the criticisms for my ignorance in your protocols). Polycarp7 16:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

encyclopedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Misinformation_on_Wikipedia

[edit] Back to the philosophy

• Update: I think that leaves only my objection—not sure about Jeronimo's second one. I've hung back because I'd pick several arguments with WhiteC's version if it were offered in the article—a modern distinction between belief in God versus atheism just doesn't seem to me to enhance our understanding of how these issues were thought of in the 18th century—but Rbellin's additions to the article are excellent, and seem to be in process. I'm in two minds whether to strike my objections or not, because I would very much like to see just a little more from Rbellin first. Still, as Sandover says, the whole article has a pleasing quality of conciseness. OK, I'll strike my objections, provided only that the phrase "religious minds of the 18th century" goes, I do think it's anachronistic. Still hoping for a little more from Rbellin, but I won't insist on it. (Incidentally, not of course an objection, the copper engraving is fantastic, I'd make it a bit bigger if it was me.) Bishonen | Talk 09:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've now run out of sources on, and exhausted my own knowledge of, the quake's philosophical consequences. I guess it would be undecorous to continue my own objection until someone more knowledgeable than me showed up, so I'm striking it. The article is pretty good now, and can continue to improve later. Bishonen, thanks for the kind words; you can decide if this looks good enough for a featured article in its current state. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

maybe I put too much emphasis on that (God/atheism), but the problem was really trying to find the ultimate cause of this evil thing that happened, viz the earthquake killing people, etc. The modern viewpoint that natural disasters just occur without anyone being to blame for them (for whatever reason, including but not limited to divine punishment) developed as a result of lengthy arguments about the causes and blame for this earthquake. It is impossible to discuss this without delving into controversial philosophical and religious issues--this is why it generated so much discussion, because it WAS controversial.

Perhaps that is why I am reluctant to get involved here... I would have to describe C17 religious and philosophical viewpoints and arguments in a correct historical context, remain neutral, explain that they were historical views, and deal with people who took offense. In my opinion, the article would need to do these things in order to be completely successful, which is a tall order. WhiteC 20:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, even though this entry is my baby, I'm going to object for now, because I believe it should be made much better on a number of levels, including the historical and philosophical. Thanks, everyone, for putting those references onto the page; I have a little background myself in philosophy and look forward to following the syllabus. It will be a project of mine over the coming months. The Theresa Carpinelli controversy (described above) has piqued my interest and directed me to other resources I didn't know existed. Because Wikipedia is the second hit when a person googles "Lisbon earthquake", we deserve better before the 250th anniversary (November 1). Stay tuned.

I'm not the best with images and layout, and agree that the one added yesterday deserves to be a) larger and b) outfitted with a frame and caption. Perhaps -- even -- the central part of the image should be expanded as a "cameo." There are more images on the way. Also, if there are any Portuguese readers who can have a look the newly-published November 2004 book by Joao Duarte Fonseca (ISBN 972-8479-32-8, published by Argumentum in Lisbon under a UNESCO grant), I'm told its an excellent resource. Sandover 16:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object but this should be actionable. This has nothing to do with the Washington Post controversy, where I withdrew my object after studying it carefully. Two issues: (1) the intro's prose is weird: The 1755 Lisbon earthquake took place on November 1, 1755 at 9:20 in the morning. It was one of the most destructive and deadly earthquakes in history, killing well over 100,000 people". (2) What were the actual answers to those questions at the "The birth of seismology" section? If the answers are somewhere they should be alluded to in the article. JuntungWu 06:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Update 2: Sandover, I'm glad to hear it, though I'm ready to support now. I did an emergency "religious minds"-ectomy myself, leaving a rather childish sentence that does not well introduce the next paragraph, please improve it. I actually meant the top image, I've enlarged it a little now. Please see what you think. Note that while the image is PD under the {{PD-art}} principle, the description on the image description page shouldn't be used unchanged for the image, because I think it's a copyvio (lifted from here, probably shouldn't be on the image description page either). Juntung, the prose you quote isn't weird in any obvious way (except it needed a comma, now supplied), could you specify what's wrong with it? Bishonen | Talk 07:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It is most certainly not a copy-vio. The image comes from NISEE/Berkeley, not the site you pointed to, and I had a long telephone conversation with the head librarian there (as well as confirmation e-mail) before posting it to Wikipedia. Sandover 08:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Sandover...? The image is PD according to our policy, you don't actually need any permissions or head librarians for it. Let me expand the {{PD-art}} tag for you:

(Click on the Bridgeman link, it's very encouraging! :-)) The description on the image description page would seem to be a copyvio, that's all I was trying to say. It's taken verbatim from about.com. I was tempted to use the nice wording in it myself, but checked it out and saw it was a steal, that's why I thought I'd just caution others against improving my caption with it. Sorry it was confusing. Bishonen | Talk 10:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) P.S. Also, I was talking about the top image. Lisbon burning as seen from the tsunami-stricken harbor. I see that you're probably referring to the other one, the one that you uploaded, with a reference to NISEE. I haven't messed with that. The engraving of the harbor is the one I enlarged. Anyway, both of them are PD. Bishonen | Talk 11:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saturnian

This may technically be a self-nomination, since I began this article about the verse form of early Latin poetry some time ago. But its virtues are the work of Sauvagenoble, who has wholly rewritten the article from the viewpoint of recent research, as opposed to the nineteenth century sources I relied on. == Smerdis of Tlön 17:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now - a nice article on a relatively unusual topic for Wikipedia - and congratulations on finding a relevant image! - but it has no lead section. Not so important, but should the "bibilography" section be changed to a "references" section? And are there no relevant "external links" or other Wikipedia articles to add as "see also"s? Finally, it seems a little repetitive to analyse the three fragments you have chosen in series, and the layout produces lots of white space due to the indenting and new lines: would it be possible (merely a suggestion: this may not work very well in practice) to do the quantitative and accentual analyses of the three fragments, for example, using a table, so you can compare and contrast the two analyses of the same fragment at the same time, side by side? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:44, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yikes, careful. The word bibliography has two conflicting meanings. One is resources used in the writing of an article and more problematically it can also mean just a list of works relating to a given topic. If the second is true it would be entirely innapropriate to retitle it as references. - Taxman 21:42, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, my comment was ambiguous - I meant "is the bibliography section a references section? If so, it should be titled as such" (I assumed this was the case, given the contents of the section; if not, references are required.) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Needs a lead section, and proper references. - Taxman 21:42, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• The article shouldn't start with a TOC. There should be an intro (without a section heading), and then a TOC. Everyking 21:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object - 1. No lead section; what is there has too much emphasis on the technical analysis and very little social, historical, or literary context / 2. The bulk of the article relies on the readers' understanding of a particular notation system -- the text version doesn't match the version within the graphics insert on my browser either. Jgm 21:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Is there any reason all sections use level 2 headers instead of level 1? Phils 10:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks to everyone for the attention and efforts towards this article.

1. The bibliography section doubles as a "references" or "works cited", so I’ve renamed it.
2. I just added a little more of literary-historical material.
3. I tried to introduce the notational conventions at each first instance, but perhaps this still falls short of facilitating understanding. Admittedly, Unicode ∪[∪] is not the symbol I used in the graphics but is the closest. Metrical symbols are not in Unicode.
4. Regarding formatting in general, I rely on the more experienced for cleaning the article up, as this was my first contribution. The side-by-side accentual-vs.-quantitative comparison is a good idea; my only concern is possibly breaking lines where they shouldn’t and placing a lot of dependence on a reader’s font and screen size and resolution settings.

Sauvagenoble 14:20, Feb. 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wankel engine

I beefed it up quite a bit today, mostly history, mostly racing, but other stuff as well. Gzuckier 22:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A well-written engine on an interesting engineering topic. This article has been stable, is not in dispute, and includes two decent pictures and some references. --SFoskett 18:09, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - insufficient lead, insufficient references (external links are not reference). The structure of the article also seems a bit wrong: shouldn't the last section ("Rotary combustion engines versus rotary engines") be incorporated into the first, "How it works" or the second / third ("Advantages" and "Disadvantages")? The two uses one use of the exclamation mark seem a bit unencyclopaedic (!) -- ALoan (Talk) 20:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Much much better, but still object - the last section ("History") still contains eight short paragraphs that don't flow very well. It may be useful to get the page peer reviewed. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object, agree with the above. Lead section is too short and this article has no references. External links alone are not references, but websites (external links) can be formatted as references as at Wikipedia:Cite sources if they are properly used as references to cite facts in the article or to fact check what is there, and they are from reliable sources. In any case, even if all three of the external links listed were used properly, that is still pretty minimal. - Taxman 21:35, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not sure what else the lead would need, and what more would be required for reference or how that relates to external links (but I'm kind of new here). I moved that last section into its own article, though. Gzuckier 22:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I reformatted the References appropriately. Thanks for the suggestions! --SFoskett 00:28, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you confirm that those resources were properly used to fact check the article or add material to it? If you did not personally use them, it is innapropriate to characterize them as references. - Taxman 14:38, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • I personally own the two books listed and personally did consult them and the web site listed when making my own edits. They are excellent resources, by the way. --SFoskett 16:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
        • Works for me. But the lead section still needs expanding. - Taxman 18:43, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
          • I have expanded the lead section. This discussion has been very helpful - I went back and added references to many of the automobile articles I have written. --SFoskett 21:57, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: it is in dispute, but the dispute isn't active. nobody calls this a wankel engine in the real world and it's an incorrect name to begin with. the article is stable because the edit wars over the naming convention happened quite a while ago but the article is incomplete because of them. the real world name of "rotary engine" is used on wikipedia by some obsolete, centuries old, and rare even then airplane engine. the current production engines were designed by wankel, but the concept existed two hundred years earlier with steam.
  • ? The old airplane engine is a 'rotary engine', has been for about 100 years now; as for 'rare even then': "That the rotary engine dominated the early years of aviation is evident". The same site lists productions figures in the thousands for several rotary aircraft engines. Yes, many just call the Wankel engine a rotary engine, but 'nobody calls this a wankel engine'? Google comes up with > 40,000 sites for Wankel engine. Gzuckier 16:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Please include your name with posts. Regarding the Wankel vs. rotary debate, I believe that even Mazda would attribute the basic design to Wankel, even though they use the rotary name consistently. This is noted in the article. --SFoskett 16:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, in the UK it's commonly called a Wankel Rotary Engine, a name which is is cited by John Cleese as a sure-fire way of making British people grin. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] February 2005

[edit] Buckingham Palace

This is not a complete self nomination as there was a a page here before I re-wrote it a month or so ago, and there have been some good copy-edits since. I hesitated to nominate it here because I thought it needed more photographs etc, however, one can't just wander in and take a few snaps, all images of the rear facades and interiors are 'crown copyright'. For the British this is an important article, so it has to be right and correct. Giano 22:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I've done superficial copy-editing. Very nice well-balanced article, a pleasure to read and thoughtfully illustrated, with surprises like the vivid portrait of a young woman of 18, as Queen Victoria was when she moved into Buckingham Palace, in place of the expected grim/glum old lady in widow's weeds. It's a relief to see that the excesses of royal capitalization (like "The" Queen) that were introduced at one point have now been reverted to something more reasonable. Bishonen | Talk 23:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object: not NPOV. Littered with POV "magnificent"s, unsupported statements ("Buckingham Palace security is said to be very high") and combinations of the two ("All members of British society are considered to have an equal opportunity to be awarded an honour"). Mark¹ 03:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have taken out the "considered" I can't do any more to the statement as it is now "considered" to be true. The 3x "magnificents" have all gone. Security is said to be high,(various statements to House of Commons by Home Secretary) but as it seems to be almost constantly breached I think "said" is the correct word. Further details of security measures are not published. Giano 07:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yet more: entertaining on a majestic scale; is considered to be the most sumptuous and beautiful in the palace; It seems unlikely they would have left Mrs. Roosevelt in the empty palace to face the nightly blitz alone. Mark¹ 09:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand the points you are making, unfortunately these flowery adjectives are the one's used by many authors when describing the interiors of such places. One should remember that his building was designed to be magnificent, and overpoweringly glorious though I have attempted to tone the adjectives down. However, I think the adjective 'majestic' for describing the entertaining at Buckingham Palace during the Edwardian period, when the British Empire was at it zenith is justified, the palace did, and was expected, to reflect that imperial glory. Mark's point on the "most beautiful room" is now attributed. I have now removed the Eleanor Roosevelt anecdote, which I inserted as I thought it was quite amusing and may have been of interest to readers in the USA. I hope one of them re-inserts it! I think a long potentially boring page like this need one or two lighter paragraphs. Giano 13:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - the article currently refers somewhat obliquely to the bombing of the palace during WWII. I think a little bit more could be said about that - when did it happen? How much damage was done? Were any royals in the palace at the time? And the Queen Mother's quote about looking the East End in the face could be included. Otherwise, an excellent article. Worldtraveller 14:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

War time section now included, QM's quote is now there, and Eleanor Roosevelt is back! Giano 15:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A very interesting and useful addition, I think it has improved this excellent article and support the nomination. Worldtraveller 16:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Objection, this article's text is very well done, but its photo selection could be improved. There should be photos of the interior of the building and its gardens. Many people are familiar with the palace's facade, but few know its inner contents.Dinopup 20:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

I completely agree with you, however please see the nomination and explanation at the top of the page. The external link on the page does show a few rooms etc. Believe me that is the best that is possible - even those attending their own investitures, and garden parties are forbidden to take photos.Giano 21:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Shame about the interior photos, though. I love the picture of the Union Flag! Zerbey 05:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• "Following this event the British Government once again assured the nation that their sovereign's security had been subsequently increased."... Please! Wikipedia articles about Uk royalty and peerage have an almost unbearable royalist slant, this article is no exception. Morwen - Talk 14:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • I've removed the worst of this. Neutral on article now. Morwen - Talk 17:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I note that it could do with a site map, or at least a rough plan of the palace itself, showing the various wings/courtyards/whatever. Morwen - Talk 17:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am very surprised indeed Morwen feels this article has/had a Royal bias, her edit summary: "rm propaganda - gongs are still given mainly to civil servants " may be her view, but the reality that all Britons who commit a good deed are eligible - is an indisputable fact. Regarding Morwen's edit removing POV changing my "Buckingham Palace security is said to be very high" followed by a list of breaches, to Morwen's "Royal security is supposedly high, but is more well known for a series of high-profile intrusions, both at the Palace and elsewhere" does not seem to me to be an example of my POV - merely a change of word order. I have only reverted one of Morwen's edits, the Daily Mirror was not the only newspaper to publish photos of the last major breach of security. Finally in the present state of national security non copyright plans of Buckingham Palace are unsurprisingly not available. Giano 19:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's odd that you are suprised that I am objecting to the POV in the article, when there are other objections to the same thing above. All I am noting is that it hadn't been cleaned up entirely.

The sentence I removed said that "All members of British society have an equal opportunity to be awarded an honour." This is not what you are saying I removed. Certainly, a few awards are handed out to people who would previously have done so, but "equal opporunity" presents something much stronger. If you want to respond to that, move this bit of th conversation to Talk:Buckingham Palace and we argue there. The fact that it was a Daily Mirror reporter should certainly be mentioned. The word "gleefully" was certainly POV, as it had a tone of disapproval of the newspapers actions. And the sentence "Following this event the British Government once again assured the nation that their sovereign's security had been subsequently increased." is laughable, and presents the UK as a nation of placid subjects. The rest of edit that was indeed a tidyup. Exact plans are certainly not available, but there should be no problem rough plans. Aerial photography of the area is available, after all! Morwen - Talk 19:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, did the British Government not in fact say that? - I think you have a problem with the subject matter in general - which is why I hope this never makes the main page Giano 19:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) (that is Giano, but the server is playing up and I have not watch list, and now can't log in!

I did a bit of a search and couldn't find anything along the lines. If you can find anything specific, we can put something more appropriate in. I hope you get my point that it is the tone of this article generally that is a problem. Does this mean you are withdrawing this nomination? Morwen - Talk 20:29, 23 Feb

2005 (UTC)

No I never withdraw anything! - You obviously have a problem with the page, I don't. We shall see how the vote goes and that can decide Giano 21:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beslan school hostage crisis

Not a self-nom. This article went through a turbulent period in the couple of months after 1 September 2004, but has been pretty stable since November 2004, and looks quite good to me. One slight weakness is the descent into short one-sentence paragraphs towards the end, which I will try to address now. Another weakness is references, but I suspect that a large number of the "External links" are references. I doubt that there is much on paper yet (reportage? press coverage?). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• support -- I remember the disputes as it was written as the crisis evolved, and this is certainly a case where many eyes scrutinized the article's factuality. The lack of printed references is not an problem in this case imho, but it would be desirable to have a photograph of the siege (but I suppose they're all copyrighted by press agencies?) there seems to be some lingering dispute about use of the t-word, but that's a WP-wide issue and should not be held against this article. dab (ᛏ) 14:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • support. copyrighted images are not an issue, as long as its related to the subject a valid fair use claim can be made.  ALKIVAR™ 12:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. ALoan himself already addresses the chief weaknesses and I think these should be resolved. In addition, the article is vague at times, and should quote sources more. Examples "Some injured died in hospitals.", "allegedly" (which sound like an episode of HIGNFY), etc.. The article displays "telegram style" at times: "A few of the escapees were said to be cornered in a residential 2 story house within 40 metres from the gym. Whether or not they had hostages is unknown. The house was destroyed using tanks and flame throwers by 23:00 3 September 2004.". A good copyedit seems needed. Jeronimo 21:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with the above. If the external links were used properly as references, then format them as such. - Taxman 20:06, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. An article like this has a particular need of good references, as there were a lot of conflicting reports at the time, yet there is no references section and at least one of the inline links doesn't seem to be working. SlimVirgin 20:33, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not nearly enough information about the political background for the average reader to put it into context. Fawcett5 04:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bay Area Rapid Transit

BART is a continuos process and is the #1 transit system in America. This article properly defines BART and it's future.Romeoslion 00:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Needs to discuss things like the politics that went into the creation of BART, along with criticisms of the project both before and after creation. --Michael Snow 01:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Just a suggestion, but I would like to know more about the funding and financing. Was it a state or local project, did different jurisdictions have to collaborate, etc.? Also, what is the governing structure of BART? Have there been any controversies? Complaints from users? What are the system's plans and prospects for the future? Meelar (talk) 01:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• While I would love to see more railroad-related articles reach featured status, I'm afraid I must object in its current form due to 1) lack of references and 2) ridership figures, and 3) I'd like to see more photos of the stations, trains and infrastructure. slambo 02:39, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• There's a lot of good stuff there, but it seems to have a ways to go: Beyond what is mentioned above, the history section seems sparse compared to how many pages it gets at bart.gov, and doesn't mention the Berkeley delays/lawsuits. Mention of SFBARTD seems not only late (more than halfway into the article), but incomplete--when was it created, what does it stand for (easy to guess, but should be explicitly stated)I found the spell-out in the intro, but the disconnect still seems problematic, and 'created by the state of California' is a bit ambiguous--the legislature, governor, CalTrans, or the voters? Why was the UC, Berkeley connector bus called "Humphrey Go-Bart", and why is it no longer? When did Marin and San Mateo drop out, and what reason was given? Same time/reason or different? Also seems to need an overall copyedit for grammar and flow, as it's kinda awkward and jumpy/choppy in places (eg "...and possibly north to San Ramon, Dublin, Alamo to the existing Walnut Creek station via the I-680 corridor.") Peer review might be a good idea if it hasn't already been there. Oh, and the prose should be able to stand on its own, not relying on the headers (eg ==Infill stations==These are stations that are planned to be built..." Niteowlneils 05:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I happened to run across this webpage[12], which seems to suggest at least a paragraph or two about early controversy needs to be added. The page is probably too POV to be used as the primary source, but assuming the facts can be verified elsewhere, a state commission requiring the system to run at reduced speeds for 5 years, and a public bailout that involved changing the governing structure of the organization seems to really need to be discussed. Niteowlneils 16:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references, appears too short to be comprehensive. JYolkowski 14:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with the above on references. Also I may have missed it, but it needs a mention of about how much it costs for some example trips and the comparison of that to other similiar systems and other methods of transportation. - Taxman 22:36, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleon I of France

A well-written historical article, I find. --DanielNuyu 07:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. References are a basic requirement of a FA. This article doesn't have any. Jeronimo 07:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Several references were listed as external links by the authours of this article. I took a few significant ones, determined their dates of access by checking the history, and posted them as references. This is really a fine article on the whole, one that has passed through years of editing. --DanielNuyu 08:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If those resources were not properly used to add or fact check material in the article, then retitling them as references is unnaceptable and intellectually dishonest. That it is an otherwise great article doesn't mean it meets all the criteria if it ignores the importance of this one. Now if you have read through those resources and they are reliable and confirm what is in this article, then please let us know to what extent you confirmed that. - Taxman 17:55, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Object—barely even a start to what we need on Napoleon. Should be a well-organized collection of summaries linking off to a variety of subarticles. Everyking
  • Either provide a specific hole in the article's coverage or don't object on comprehensiveness-related grounds. Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I am new to Napoleon. Most people are not Napoleon experts. This article was perfect for what I needed. Other sites have endless lists of sub-articles, and they just confuse the new user. Besides, the sub articles can be accessed by clicking on the links. I vote for an award for this article, based on its usefulness to the largest number of people. - Chris
• Object, since I'm sure there must be more to Napoleon's legacy than just those few paragraphs given to it in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Based on the lack of response above, it doesn't appear the references were used properly, so there are in fact few or none. If that is incorrect, please confirm how. - Taxman 22:13, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Game development

I recently rewrote this article and it occurred to me that a lot of people might be interested in the topic. Pretty thorough walkthrough of the stages of computer and video game development. It's been through peer review and has had a few copyedits. Some people suggested that it should be renamed, but that was discarded since we don't have any articles on other types of game development (at least not yet), such as board game or card game development. The articles game design, game designer, game programmer and game programming are nice sister articles to this one. Self-nomination.— Frecklefoot | Talk 22:18, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Very interesting and informative but still need some work: 1) The two sidebars ("Regression testing" and "What's an asset?") make the sections next to them difficult to read. It's a combination of the spacing and colors. They might work better as separate sections. 2) There should be a separate section for "Completion" that details what happens when the game goes gold. 3)I'd like to see more specific examples of how long certain games took to make. Mention a few popular games, their development time and reason for that time duration. Carrp | Talk 22:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1) No lead section. 2) No references. These first two are basic requirementes for an FAC. Please don't nominate articles that do not even meet such basic requirements. Furthermore: 3) There's no history section. How did this field develop over the years? 4) We get no comparison with development of "ordinary" software - I am a software developer, and I see a lot of parallels (and differences). These should be highlighted. I'm especially missing information about the visual and audio parts of the game, which differ most from normal software.

5) The "The development process" is the only section with reasonable content, while it's contents do not appear very specific to game development (see 4)). The other sections are single paragraphs mostly. This indicates that the structure should be revised and/or the article is lacking content. Looking at the article, I think both should be addressed. 5) The "sidebars" are non-standard and look ugly in my browser. This is not a magazine article, but an encyclopedia. If the content of these bars is not relevant enough to be in the main article, remove them or put them in another article and link to it. 6) I don't get a good picture of the development of a typical game. How many people work on it? What kind of education/work experience do they have? What tasks do they perform? How many time does it take? Etc. etc. etc. 7) The article focusses mainly on "big, high profile games", and only briefly mentions "independent" developers (whatever "independent" may mean). What about simple games, for example for the web or even cell phones? What about simpler and smaller Games? Jeronimo 07:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Agreed with Jeronimo on all points. Get rid of/expand/merge non-sections like culture, locales, overview. Apart from the main development process section, none is really thorough/satisfying. An elegant way of addressing two of the concerns cited above by other users would be to move up content from the Overview section into the lead, after slight editing. Phils 10:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear reactor

I found this article, and while I am not involved in it, I think it is a brilliant example of what can be done on Wikipedia. It is very well researched, intersting, and torough. Páll 23:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose: The lead section does not work - it should give a general introduction to the article - however it contains a list of applications of nuclear reactors - this should be an individual section! Also the whole article only contains one image - why are there no diagrams of reactors or more precisely basic diagrams of the stages of a nuclear reactor? If an article about steam power was up for fa status i'd expect to see a basic diagram of a steam turbine in regard to the generation process. Oh, and the one image the page does contain is too large! It dominates the opening section. CGorman 23:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. 1) "Application" needs its own section separate from the lead. 2) Illustration needs to be thumbed. 3) "Process of fission" needs layman expansion and diagrams. 4) difference between pressure vessels and pressurized channels needs clarification. 5) Explain the diffence between pool and loop reactors. 6) A large number of technical terms are unexplained (peak supply, instantaneous power production, baseline supply, etc). 7) Major copyediting remains to be done to eliminate opaque paragraphs such as this: "In an attempt to encourage development of nuclear power, the US Department of Energy DOE has offered interested parties to introduce France model for licensing and to share 50% of a construction expenses. Several applications were made but project is still in its infancy." Denni☯ 01:43, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
• Although I've worked on it and I like it, I still have to oppose, in its current state. It refers to nuclear power plant for an explanation of how a nuclear reactor actually works, but there's not much of an explanation there either. Diagrams would be nice too (although there should be some Manhattan Project photos of an early one). More seriously, a lot of the nuclear technology articles could stand some refactoring. --Andrew 04:21, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philippine Mythology

Note: this was an ill-formed submission by IP 203.87.151.227 [13]. Submitting it correctly. User left no text. Phils 06:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Bad grammar, little wikification, bad use of headers, no references. RickK 07:07, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't meet most of the criteria of a featured article. I consider this a spam nomination. Jeronimo 07:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. User: AN A and Yellow Kewibe 08:42, Feb 18, 2005
  • The above is in reality User:203.87.151.226. There is no such user with the above name. RickK 20:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I had already revised the grammar and the headers. Furthermore, I believe that this article is very interesting
  • And the above vote is by User:203.87.151.227, probably the same user as 203.87.151.226. RickK 20:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I doubt this is comprehensive (surely there's a lot more to be said?). There's also no lead section nor references. Johnleemk | Talk 14:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Jeronimo, can we please remove this? - Taxman 15:05, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: This could probably be an interesting subject, but this page is too short, incomplete, and in no way does it meet the criteria. Is there no way of removing these articles which fail to meet the necessary specifications before they waste space here and our time clicking to look at them? Giano 22:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bidder's Organ

Note: this was an ill-formed submission by IP 203.87.151.227. Submitting it correctly. Phils 06:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Was suggested before; see Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bidder's_organ. Hasn't expanded significantly since. Still too stubby to be FA. Oppose. Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose the large text jumps out at you before you can even read it. Whew! In addition to the format, missing sources, internal and external links, and so forth. Maybe placement of a request in WP:PR could help improve it. Vaoverland 01:12, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As above, can we please remove this nomination? It currently has no chance. - Taxman 15:06, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Complete agreement with Taxman. Besides which the explanation of location is nauseating in so short a page. Giano 22:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Could you tell me why should we remove this nomination? Please reply so that I can improve this article more to a higher status. And also, what was the meaning of the 'large text jumps out at you before you can even read it'?; I already revised it because Mgm said that it was a stub, and now, someone says that it's too long. User:Matthewprc 18:41, Feb 24, 2005
  • Since you seem sincere, I'll offer what I can to help. Very simply, it doesn't meet many of the important featured article criteria. It has no references, no lead section (since it is not long enough to even have a table of contents), and is not likely comprehensive on its subject due to how short it is. It's not bad information, it is just not very close to being a FA. Nothing wrong with that. If you do want it to be a FA, read through the criteria and try to meet all of them. Especially by finding the most authoritative sources on the subject and write up their findings and cite them properly. That way you'll find what else there is to write about the subject, and it will be authoritative. Check through some of the other recently promoted FA's or even just some of the ones on this page with unanimous support to see the difference in level of quality of this one vs those. - Taxman 17:07, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Usog

Ill-formed submission by IP 203.87.151.227 [1]. Submitting it correctly. Phils 06:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. One paragraph, bad grammar, needs a lot of work. RickK 07:05, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't meet most of the criteria of a featured article. I consider this a spam nomination. Jeronimo 07:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not deserving of the title of FA at all. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 21:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very interesting. Serves as an eye-opener to the various cultures of the world. User:An A and Yellow Kewibe 08:41 February 18, 2005
  • The above is in reality User:203.87.151.226. There is no such User with the above name. RickK 20:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Is a reason really necessary in this case? Giano 23:02, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paris

I think this article should benominated because it is rich in detail. It is interesting to many people. This article is also rich in photos. (nominated by Wikipedian231 13:13, 17 Feb 2005 )

• Object for now - please do something about the two ugly preformatted tables and merge the two timelines (the timeline and population history may each be better placed in a separate page). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed the population. David.Monniaux 15:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Still object - on another look, there are lots of single-sentence paragraphs or lists which could be explained or expanded upon (I know there are several subsidiary "Main article"s, but they could be summarised more fully here too). The lead section is also rather inadequate. Does it (should it?) be consistent with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities, and would Template:Infobox City be useful? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. ALoan mentions the main problems already, but also there are no references. These are basic requirement for featured articles, so please do not nominate articles without them. They will not pass. Suggest to refer to peer review. Jeronimo 08:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with the above. Its like we're sharing the same mind. - Taxman 16:48, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harlem Renaissance

An absorbing article on a pivotal period in African-American intellectual and artistic life. I have not significantly edited this article.--Pharos 20:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for nominating the article. I've put a lot of work into it and it's one of which I am most proud working on. —ExplorerCDT 20:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• While it's a fine article, I have a couple objections yet for featured status: 1) The lead image has no caption, so I don't know how it relates to the theme of the article (yes, it mentions Harlem, and it looks like an Art Deco style of the 1920s, but how does it fit in here?); 2) as an avid jazz listener, I've always associated the phrase Harlem Renaissance with jazz, and I'd like to see this discussed further; 3) There is no References section; 4) I'm not sure that the list of artists can really be comprehensive and still concise (for example, Cab Calloway wasn't listed until I added it just now); 5) There really should be more about the movement's influence on "white" artists (for example, Fletcher Henderson was an arranger for the Benny Goodman orchestra (Goodman himself was criticized for hiring black musicians for his bands), and the Savoy Ballroom was fully integrated from very early on). slambo 21:15, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • 1 - It's primitivist, not art deco. 2- Agreed, though jazz was more than a New York phenomenon. 3) Coming soon. 4 - It's rather comprehensive. Just because I missed Cab Calloway doesn't mean it isn't comprehensive. Poor Min, Hi-dee, Hi-dee, Hi-dee, Ho. 5- White artists were largely accused of exploiting and mimicking black movements, even to the point of some black theorists accusing whites of perverse voyeurism. I doubt even I can find an NPOV way to write that up. White audiences should be covered, just never got around to it and the source material sucks regarding white audienceship in Harlem.—ExplorerCDT 04:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • 1) Okay, I'm not all that well versed in art styles, my bad. But it still should have a caption telling how the image relates to the article. 2) Indeed, Chicago, Kansas City and New Orleans (among many others) all feature prominently in the history of jazz, and discussing them is beyond the scope of this article; it's just that the music is the first thing that I think of when I hear the phrase. 4) Okay, we probably have different interpretations of "comprehensive". You've got a representative list of the most prominent artists and for the scope of this article, it's probably enough. I was thinking here that if the list grows much more, it should probably be split out into its own page (like List of artists in the Harlem Renaissance or something). slambo 02:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Slambo mostly. 1) Add references - this is a basic requirement of a featured article. 2) Move the quotations to WikiQuote. 3) Move the list of "notable figure" to a separate (list) article. Jeronimo 08:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 1 - Coming soon. 2 - No. 3 - No. —ExplorerCDT 22:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? slambo 02:37, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • In re: 2&3 Because several other page covering cultural periods have lists and a palette of quotes within the article. I hate the notion that articles should be split up just because someone doesn't like a list inside an article. Here, both the quotes and list of notable figures are appropriate. —ExplorerCDT 04:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok. I almost mentioned the quotes myself, but then thought that the ratio of prose to lists was acceptable, and the lists seemed appropriate to me. slambo 02:13, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Regarding 2 & 3. A section listing quotes is never complete or comprehensive, and the selection of quotes may also be POV. A featured article should be comprehensive and NPOV. A similar reasoning goes for the list. I'm not against lists, but they suggest completeness (which isn't true) and they do not always give sufficient information. For example, in this case we cannot see which of the works had most influence, or if poetry was more important in the Harlem Renaissance than music. So why not move this list elsewhere (where it can be expanded with to include artists) and replace it with a prose section here describing the same topic (alternatively, put that content in the article itself. I consider both serious problems with the article, and will keep objecting. 82.161.112.78 08:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• object I don’t think this article is that well written or comprehensive. The article talks about black soldiers in Europe in WWI, but doesn’t mention any names, (there was a bandleader whose last name was “Europe,” I can’t remember the full name, but he’s the kind of person who should be mentioned). Another omission is A’Lelia Walker, a major black patron of the arts. Nor are any white patrons of the Harlem Renaissance mentioned. It sounds a little corny to say “an explosion of culture.” Some words, like “labor” and “literature” are unnecessarily wikilinked, while other terms, like the Back to Africa Movement, are incorrectly wikilinked. I think perhaps with a few improvements this article could be at FA status.Dinopup 01:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That would be James Reese Europe. slambo 02:18, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I either removed A'Lelia Walker in the days when this article was just a list of people involved with the Harlem Renaissance (some so remote they didn't belong) or had considered to add her and chose to leave her out, whichever it was I don't remember, it was 4 months ago. Patrons may have put up the money, but that's it. Other than that, there's little they accomplished in furtherance of the artistic and cultural goals of the era. We don't list all the patrons who supported Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven or Jackson Pollack. Black soldiers in WWI...I listed the Harlem Hellfighters. Instead of criticising, why not add the name of James Reese Europe instead of bitching why it isn't there from the sidelines. Or did you not realize Europe was dead before the Renaissance even started? I've never seen you, Dinopup, even come close to contributing. The Back to Africa movement link was correct at the time I wrote the article. If things move, it's up to the people that move them to correct links. Other than that, how else is it not "well-written"? Considering my work has been published both in book form and by reputable journals, I take a smack like that seriously. —ExplorerCDT 05:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't suggest that the article was anything other than very good, I just didn't think it was at the Featured Article level. If someone like me, whose knowledge of the Harlem Renaissance is, at best, casual, can think of arguably significant things which are unmentioned, the article isn't comprehensive. I would think that articles on Beethoven, Pollack, and Mozart would likewise be less than comprehensive without discussion of patrons.Dinopup 02:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I guess that you having said "I don’t think this article is that well written or comprehensive" means that you thought it was very good? Nice try, bucko. —ExplorerCDT 04:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references. As a courtesy to editors that spend their time here, please do not nominate articles that do not meet the basic featured article criteria. And don't take comments here so personally. Your article has been nominated and by the rules of this process anyone can comment on whether it meets the criteria for FA's or not. Many very high quality articles come through here, and thus comments for those that don't meet the criteria are generally fairly curt and even blunt. That in no way means you didn't do good work on the article, but it also doesn't mean the comments are wrong. Commentors are not necesarily qualified to do a lot of work on the nominated article, but they often know a lot about whether it meets the FA criteria. You would be better to focus on improving the article and making sure it meets the criteria than attacking the people that comment on the article. I for one consider that an article written without reliable references at hand is much more suspect for having factual errors and missing information. But keep up the good work, and get ahold of the most reliable references on the topic and cite your sources. - Taxman 17:01, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Clifton

The Wikipedia page about Colonel Sir Harold Wilberforce Clifton is concise and complete, covers all important things, and as such is a good example for a dictionary page. Therefore I humbly think that it would be appropriate Featured Article.

Wim van Dorst 21:26, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

• Object: 1) References. 2) The biggest part of the article is a timeline. 3) Why has this character become one of the most loved, humorous comics heroes? 4) How has this character influenced other literature and comics? 5) The only image is a caricature portrait; with all of the publications, I'd think that an image of one of the book covers would be appropriate as well. 6) Has this character appeared anywhere else (for example, on a postage stamp)? slambo 21:46, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

• • Isn't it clear that this is an article about a comic book character? So the picture isn't a caricature: it is Harold Clifton. 1) and 6) There is very limited literature about Clifton. Believe me: I searched. Or do you mean that the given references are not good? 2) Yes, but is that wrong? Would you want an in-depth analysis about a comic book character? 4) He didn't: Clifton is rather stand-alone in comic books.

5). I considered indeed putting up book covers, but I think they are copyrighted, and thus cannot be used for publication. Can they? Wim van Dorst 22:06, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

• • • Yes, it is clear that it is a comic book character; surely, this isn't the only image of him? What resources were used to collect the data that is in the article? List the references that you used to gather the data in a format like is described on cite your sources. I believe we can have an in-depth analysis of a comic book character; compare the article content with that of Spider-Man, Robin (Batman) (himself a supporting character for Batman), Daffy Duck, X-men, Iron Man or even Dick Tracy. I don't think a character can be one of the most loved, humorous comics heroes without influencing other artists or authors. Before you ask, I have been through this process with two of my own articles Passenger car (failed nomination, I'm still gathering data to address the objections that were raised), and John Bull (locomotive) (reached featured status). slambo 22:38, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • I won't ask: you make a clear and useful point. I'll work on it Wim van Dorst 22:50, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

• • • • • The pictures you've added really help. I've updated the code for the pictures so that they display at a smaller size and don't crowd the text into a narrow column. slambo 02:43, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Object: I had never heard of this character, I know little more from reading this page. Giano 22:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • From the point of not knowing anything about it (reasonable start for a FA), you are fully right. I see that now too: the article is completely written from the 'I know a little about it, and need some background'. I'll elaborate the explanation text with in-depth analysis. Obviously, Slambo's comments falls into same place. Thanks both.

Wim van Dorst 22:50, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

• Object. As already pointed out, it has no references, one of the basic featured article criteria. As a courtesy to other editor's time, please do not nominate an article that does not meet the basic criteria. - Taxman 23:51, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comment answering above objections

• • The information has now been rescheduled and elaborated, as to present a clear picture of who the Clifton character is. I present it as answering to the first group of comments 'additional explanation needed.
  • Pictures have been added of two major contributors. I'm still hesitant to include actual book covers, as that kind of information is copyrighted. Is this enough?
  • References: there is no paper book or article about Clifton, so the major references, apart from the comic books themselves, will be reference websites. I'll add some more in the near future.

Wim van Dorst 00:42, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Wim, I accept you are really trying to improve this page, but it has a very very long way to go, perhaps it would be a good idea to have a look at some other already featured articles on similar subjects, then either withdraw it or place it on peer review while you work on it. Giano 16:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would have to second that. Refer to PR. - Taxman 16:09, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sollog

Not a bad article. I think that it could be a worthy featured article! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. A highly controversial article that has been subject to massive vandalism attempts. Putting it on the front page will merely encourage these attempts. Plus Sollog doesn't need the publicity. Like it says on the talk page, "Do not feed the Trolls". DJ Clayworth 23:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  If the trolls hate it it's hardly troll food. silsor 23:47, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

  How is this actionable? This sounds like you are arguing that it should be on VfD! Also, FAs don't necessarily go onto the front page. I should also note that I put that troll notice up, but it only applies to the talk page, which I hardly want to have featured. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  I do not think that that word means what you think it means. silsor 06:05, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  Eh? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  "Actionable" means that somebody could start legal action because of it. silsor 13:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  Silsor, many people have been using this terminology on FAC for quite some time now. In the context of FAC, it means that you cannot action the objection that is dealt with. That is what I meant, and in this context it should be clear. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object also. We don't need to give him any free advertising. --Sillydragon 23:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not actionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think it looks pretty good, especially considering what kind of topic it is. I don't care about advertising or troll food or whatever. Everyking 00:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • On second thought, it does seem kinda incomplete. When did Sollog first realize he was a prophet, or God, or whatever? Does he talk about some great revelation he received, or anything like that? Is there anything to be said about him pre-'95? Everyking 04:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. An FA candidate should have wider import than a usenet newsgroup. Besides, I am loathe to give any more credence to tin foil hattery than absolutely necessary. If I had my way, this =would= be on VfD. Denni☯ 00:51, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
  • Please place this on VfD then. Your objection is not actionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with TBSDY here. Theoretically any article that is deemed legitimate (i.e., survives VfD) should have the potential to be featured. Everyking 02:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Clearly not of high enough quality. And don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. Stability is one of the FA criteria, and you knew this would not meet that. - Taxman 03:16, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Could I have specific objections please? Also, please don't assume bad faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Hard to assume good faith when you nominate an article that has been the subject of such incredibly persistent total vandalism and profanities that it required several people to keep a constant watch on it and protect it for a total of at least a few days. That clearly violates the stability criteria and the uncontroversial also. Further violating the uncontroversial criteria is that the talk page requires such messages as "This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed." and "This article contains information that is considered troll food, i.e. it is used by people with a lot of time on their hands to create discord". In addition the article is full of weasel words where information is not known or has not been researched. Especially egregious in that regard is the legal problems section. The only source for that section appears to be Altman (hard to claim him as an entirely unbiased source). Some more, even primary sources for the arrests and trial would be needed since those claims are of course specifically contradicted by people claiming to be Sollog supporters. - Taxman 20:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you saying I'm a deliberately disruptive editor? Thank you for the reasons why this is not good enough for a featured article, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I did not say you are a disruptive editor. You are clearly not in general. But for the reasons above, which I would have thought were obvious to you too, I feel that this nomination had no merit. There is a difference between not liking one example of your behavior, and thinking you are a disruptive editor. I consistently value your overall contributions, but didn't think this one was helpful. It is since clear that you did not intend harm by nominating this, but again, for the reason given, at the time it did not appear that the nomination was made solely because the article met all the FA criteria. - Taxman 16:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• No vote, but the only objection I've seen so far that is even somewhat actionable is Taxman's. That this is about a troll means nothing; if necessary, the article can easily be flagged as one to never be featured on the main page. Johnleemk | Talk 05:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object that this character doesn't need further publicity, no matter how well-written the article might be. RickK 07:09, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not an actionable objection. Invalid. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • All right, then. Object. There is no picture of the subject, Sollog. RickK 20:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well yes there is, a mugshot under the header "Legal problems". Still an invalid objection. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 22:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Object: No details on his life pre-95, too many single-sentence paragraphs, seems to be randomly called Ennis or Sollog from sentence to sentence with no reason for preferring the name he has rejected and finds insulting, some lack of clarity in the writing (e.g In the sentence In early 1995, Sollog first came to public attention by buying large ads that promoted his e-books, prophecies, and religious views in several Philadelphia newspapers,, were the ads or his 'e-books, prophecies, and religious views' in these papers?) I see no reason why this article could not be featured if it ever becomes comprehensive and well-written enough. Filiocht 12:47, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Finally, some actionable objections! I think I perhaps should have placed this on peer review first. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment When did it become normal so say that because an objection is so funadmental it can't be fixed, we must ignore it? If there are good reasons not to make something an FAC then we should not make it an FAC, whether it's fixable or not. DJ Clayworth 15:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ever since I've been editing Wikipedia. The FAC page states that "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed (featured articles, despite being featured, may be marked so as not to be showcased on the Main Page)." - Ta bu shi da yu 22:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It came into play this summer or so primarily to avoid articles failing over objections that cannot be fixed such as the topic being objectionable or obscure. If there are good reasons for an article not to be featured, then it will fail other criteria. In this case, there are plenty of other issues with this article. See above. - Taxman 00:01, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Wrong. I had this argument with Denni over exploding whale. He was told by other editors and myself that his objection that it wasn't notable enough was not actionable and therefore invalid. The article became featured and hit the front page. I do appreciate knowing about the other objections, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • That's basically what I just said. - Taxman 16:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
          • Oh. Sorry! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A successful transformation of a vanity article into a well-written article, a triumph of NPOV over trolling, and a successful collaborative editing project in the face of constant vandalism. Gamaliel 16:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Neutral. I feel that while the article seems to be decent, that's not the only criterion we should be using to decide if something should be a featured article. For the frontpage, I feel that we also need to consider how candicates reflect on the project. Some kinds of topics, such as perhaps Zoophilia, detract from the project's image, regardless of how well-written the article is. Others act as a magnet for trouble. I understand TBSDY's perspective that the only thing that should count is "Is the article good", but I disagree with it. Understand that I don't feel that the article itself should be deleted, I just feel that the front stage should have a higher standard than other articles, measured seperately and both by article quality point of view and topic quality point of view. --Improv 17:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • We're just talking about featuring, not putting it on the front page. Everyking 17:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Ack, I'm sorry. I got mixed up on which page I was editing. Changing to neutral. --Improv 20:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support (reluctantly) only on the principle that the article is well-written, and we are trying to maintain NPOV on such subjects, even repugnant or silly ones. I have to state that I share the sentiment that he doesn't deserve any free advertising or promotion, though. Vaoverland 01:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Object I agree with all of the objections Taxman brought up. --Clngre 05:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore

This article failed FAC a month ago, but after some copyediting and substantial changes by good editors, I feel that the previous problems have been addressed and I strongly believe the article is ready to become a featured article. - Mailer Diablo 08:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Johnleemk | Talk 13:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support flockofpidgeons 00:22 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support 172 03:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support Natalinasmpf 02:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Small note: I can withdraw my support at any time if something undesirable occurs, right? Natalinasmpf 02:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Yes. Johnleemk | Talk 07:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent work. --Zappaz 03:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Not a vote because I don't want to make people do things they don't want to, but I'd like to see the sections reorganised to follow Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries more. At the moment the ToC is overlong and difficult to swallow: religion could go under demographics, for example, foreign relations under government, and communications and transportation under miscellaneous for a start. Also, since the singapore wiki at http://www.sgwiki.com/ has virtually no content, I find its inclusion in the external links unjustifiable. Mark¹ 05:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the site, it seems to be an offshoot of a wikipedia sponsored project, is it? Because if it is, it shouldn't be removed, just encourage people to contribute to it. It could be not, then we could simply remove it. -- Natalinasmpf 23:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of offshoots of wikimedia projects, but most of them (like this one) have failed to take off and are just embarrassing. I don't believe that this is an actual wikimedia project, so it's not comparable to wikiquote etc. Mark¹ 00:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I've done my best to fix this up, merging sections as I saw fit and reorganising those that were kept. Johnleemk | Talk 15:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, some of the reorganising you did Johnlee is good, but I dislike the term "miscellenous" and some should not be grouped under that, but really either moved or merged to other sections. Especially under education - maybe civil issues or demographics, because education does fit there.. I will try to do this myself if I have the time. -- Natalinasmpf 23:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. JuntungWu 13:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose (at the time being). Sections with separate main articles are too long. — Instantnood 22:14, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  • which ones?--Jiang
    • Basically all sections with separate main articles. — Instantnood 14:42, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
      • I think they ain't long enough already! JuntungWu 08:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Miscellaneous section should be reorganized. Transportation and Communications are long enough to be their own sections. Maybe move discussion of law to politics or provide a fitting heading? --Jiang 22:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The Miscellaneous section has been reverted to its original separate sections. - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the miscellaneous section has been reverted, wouldn't this be satisfactory to remove this particular oppose? -- Natalinasmpf 15:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose. Broadly same grounds as Jiang; I personally prefer if the communications, transport and education sections have their own sections proper.JuntungWu 06:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC). Also, I oppose the line "Public transportation in Singapore is relatively easy, convenient and cheap to use", specifically the word "cheap". JuntungWu 06:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Also, the bit about "Economy" does not mention financial services. JuntungWu 06:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Juntung, you cast a "support" vote already.. :-) — Instantnood 14:43, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
    • I changed my mind, but forgot to cross the support vote. But I've crossed the oppose vote anyway. JuntungWu 03:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Sections separated, see above. In regarding the word "cheap", I'm a bit surprised, it's basically the same justification used on the lead section of the MTR article but I guess I made the mistake of assumption, it should be fixed now. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Fine. Support again. JuntungWu 03:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Bond

NOTE: THIS PAGE FAILED ONCE BUT HAS BEEN RE-NOMINATED BY USER:HIGHFIELDS

[edit] ORIGINAL SUPPORT/OBJECTIONS:

Technically, this would be a self nomination, but I have only contributed minor corrections to the article. Thanks to the relentless work and fruitful collaboration of users User:K1Bond007 and User:23skidoo, James Bond has become what every article about a major fictional character should be: comprehensive, entertaining to read, neutral in its writing, and clearly the work of knowledgeable fans, without being too sensationalist. This article is about a popular, mainstream character, and thus is perfectly suited to become featured. Phils 11:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I maybe biased, as I am a great fan of Bonds movies (in particular the vintage ones)... but the article looks good, and I have learned a few things I did not know. --Zappaz 17:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article - interesting, comprehensive, balanced and fair. My only quibble, is that some books on the James Bond phenomenon as it were, should be added to the references section e.g. [14], [15] CGorman 18:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The article starts off quite nicely, but then becomes a series of lists, which hardly qualifies as "excellent prose". Although some lists or tables are fine in the article, they should be used as an illustration or additinional information, not as the core of a section or article. 2) At the end there are several non-sections like "Trivia" or "Parody" (containing only two sentences). 3) The only references are lists of box office numbers. 4) The article discusses several of the movies returning features (as it should), but omits the theme songs. Not to mention the James Bond tune (a brief sample might even be fair use, I think) 5) The lead section should briefly summarize the article, which this one doesn't. Jeronimo 22:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree about following points. 1) There is no alternative to listing novels and films. The article does this quite elegantly. Expanding on each of them would bring the article to unmanageable sizes. Omitting them would be making the article incomplete.

2) Where would you fit the info in the trivia section if not in said section?

3) My personal opinion on this point goes against the established view on references, but I guess I'll have to concede. Phils 00:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1) It's extremely hard to fit all of that onto the page. We're talking about 20+ films, 30+ novels (not even counting short stories) etc etc etc = the longest, most successful franchise in history. As it is the article is over 32KB and has been as high as something like 55K. I think for our "lists" we've done an excellent job. 2) The parody section was removed because it was huge, that's really all I can say about that. The trivia section is hard to do. This is really a general part of the franchise and the character and most of that information is covered per movie or per novel. I'd rather incorporate these into the character background. 3) Noted. Most reference information for this page comes from the films and the novels though - Regardless I'd like to see this expanded as well with such entries as what CGorman suggested. 4) True; this information however is found on their respective articles and those sections are thin as it is. I agree something should be written though - at least on the James Bond Theme, which coincidentally has it's own page. 5) I disagree. It gives the basic information of the film franchise, the novel series, the character written by Fleming and mentions other things having to do with Bond such as video games, parodies etc. Could it be written a little better? Sure, but I think it does the job adequately. Explain how it should be improved or how it is not fulfilling this adequately? Thank you for your suggestions. K1Bond007 06:08, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Replies to both K1Bond007 & Phil. 1) You don't actually have to fit them in here. In many cases, the full list is not very interesting, and can be moved to a separate article. In other cases, it can be kept as an "illustration". In either case, a good prozaic part should be listed instead. Also, not all lists are necessary here. Just a the "parody" list has been moved out, others can be moved away too. It may be necessary to have all Fleming's books here, and all the official movies, but other parts could (I'll leave that up to you) be put elsewhere without harming the article (of course leaving behind some information in textual form). 2) Removing a section entirely is not a good solution. Write one or two paragraphs about AND refer to the other article. I agree that the trivia may be hard to do, but you'll agree a list is not "well written" (one of the requirements of an FA). I think some of the points can be included in the text, while f.e. the asteroid's listing in the "See also" section would be enough on that issue. The "Bond Bits" section would be much better already when you just remove the bullets; a slight reordering and rewrite would make it fluent. 5) Wikipedia:Lead section writes that a lead should "briefly summarize the article". In this case, we get information on the producers (which isn't elsewhere in the artile), while nothing is said about the character, the storyline, etc. If you balance this better, the lead section would be great. Jeronimo 08:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review. After a great start, it devolves into lists. The bond bits is basically trivia that really should be incorporated into the article - somewhere. "Books" seems extremely disorganised, and I really beleive that should be split off into another article with two or three paragraphs summarising the material. "Unofficial films" is tantalising yet unsatisfying: why did Sean Connery appear in one?! The trivia section really should be killed or incorporated into the main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Connery's 1983 Never Say Never Again is mentioned earlier in the article as not being part of the official MGM/UA/EON Productions series - it was able to be made due to a lawsuit between Fleming and Kevin McClory over the rights to Thunderball that bloomed into MGM vs Sony up until 1999, it's mentioned in the article and the rest of the information is written at Never Say Never Again's and Thunderball's articles. K1Bond007 06:08, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NEW SUPPORT/OBJECTIONS

[edit] World War II

previous FAC

[edit] Yield curve

Second try for this nomination. I believe all the concerns that were expressed the last time around have been fairly addressed. Its a central concept in finance, clearly expounded, with valuable references for those who would like to study the matter further. I've contributed to it some (although the bulk of the credit goes to others) so I guess I should call this a self nomination. --Christofurio 17:02, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article is very confusing and flows poorly. Some initial suggestions:

1. 1. Use the normal yield curve as the top picture, and show the inverted one later (you wouldn't show a picture of a three legged dog in dog in the top section and then caption it "most dogs have four legs").
   2. Work in technical jargon slowly, and define, define, define. Why is it called a yield curve? What is yield? How is that relevant to the cost of money?
   3. The article needs to be reorganized -- maybe laid out to first establish a basic understanding of existing theory, then an example, then history. It's very confusing to introduce examples or history of development before the reader is made to understand the basic concepts.
   4. Consistency -- for example, on the table showing construction of the yield curve, it switches from % rate to (1 - % rate).

It's market convention to quote futures prices as 100-100*rate, so the article is correct in this respect. Pcb21| Pete 23:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. 1. Could use a thorough copy edit for spelling, grammar, and sentence structure too.

That should be enough to work on for now. - Bantman 19:08, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

• object although there are some references, it's not clear which reference to use to check which material and there could be more. You could, for example, use a footnoting system such as Wikipedia:Footnote3 or one of the other ones to make this clear. Mozzerati 09:41, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • The article is appropriately referenced - it is a synthesis of material in those five books. You use footnotes to provide a cite for specific facts that otherwise the reader may not have confidence in. Which facts fall into this category? P.s. is five books really too few for an FA these days? Pcb21| Pete 09:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • five books is approximately a basic minimum (though it's impossible to be absolute; sometimes there just aren't that many sources). There are many many facts which I have no reason to be sure about in the article. The nomenclature "curve" is used rather than "yield function" because when plotted on a graph, the function is a curve. - maybe this is true; maybe it isn't. A good reference telling me which of those five books to look at and preferably which page to look on would really make it much more practical to check. This theory perfectly explains perfectly? Really? Please at least give a reference for that. "Liquidity preference theory...is also the most accepted theory of the three" seems total common sense, but again, what are the proportions of people accepting them? or do you mean economists? etc. I don't want to pick too many nits, since I don't think the "perfect" article is what we are asking for. Just a level which stands out above other normal articles. 10 most interesting/important/surprising points would be great.
      • Excuse me, but these do seem to be rather small nits you're hunting. The explanation of the term "curve" will seem quite familiar to anyone with any background in economics, not to say finance -- even a single undergraduate course using Samuelson's textbook will render this familiar. I don't believe specific references of the sort you seem to want are necessary or appropriate where a point is notorious within the pertinent field, available virtually anywhere. --Christofurio 00:38, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • From a mathematical perspective, a curve is the result of plotting the graph of a function. I don't see the need for any more explanation of why the "yield curve" is called a curve. --Carnildo 21:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but it's exactly this kind of misunderstanding which needs to be cleared up. A curve is not just any function, it must be a continuous function. There is no obvious (to me) reason why the yield curve cannot be discontinous. For example, maybe there is a known night in the future when it is advantagous to have cash. Yields just before that day may be higher and those just after may be lower. Another point: Samuelson isn't in the reference list. Finally, if this really needs an undergraduate course to understand then it qualifies as too technical. As I mentioned, these are specific minor symptoms of the difficulty of following the references. If you rested more on your sources then less would have to be done in the article.. Mozzerati 19:45, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

• • • • • • "no obvious (to me) reason"... I'll lend you $1m for 1+delta years at 6% and you lend me $1m for (1-delta) years at 5%, for any delta of your choosing less than 1 second. You'll learn pretty quick :) Pcb21| Pete 10:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - the terms USD and GBP are used in the figures without definition. While I assume that they are US dollar and GB pound, this isn't immediately apparent to the reader. Assuming that they are, could you are least link your captions to the appropriate articles? Guettarda 14:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I changed the terms to US dollar and British pound in the image captions. - Marcika 22:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Explorer

A reasonably neutral, objective article about Internet Explorer. Well written and very informative! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object - not quite comprehensive yet. One point that immediately springs to mind is that there's nothing on its worldwide usage - what languages is it available in? are there differences depending which country you are in? There's not much on the history of IE either - there are 6 versions to describe, only the most recent developments are described. How did it come about that IE was launched in 1995? How does it compare to its competitors - is it more flexible/rigid/user-friendly? jguk 11:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I've fixed up the history section with info on each of the versions. The comparison to other competitors, I'm afraid, is fraught with danger as it could be construed as being POV. I don't want to go there, and I don't think its strictly necessary. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Usage figures are a problem. I don't think there is one universally accepted source of usage figures. And there is no easy way to determine usage figures anyway. User agent strings are easily spoofed, download figures mean nothing because you have no way of knowing whether the download is actually installed far less used... AlistairMcMillan 05:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Ta bu shi day du rightly notes that an extra section for comparison to competitors would invite POV and instability. Besides, flexibility and user-friendliness are subjective notions. The article already outlines features specific to IE, features it shares with others and features it misses: this is sufficient. Phils 15:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Extremely negative. Pages of speculation about causes of security problems, arbitrary requirements such as a list of "missing features". My TV doesn't wash my dishes - is that a missing feature? This article expresses the opinion that anything less than 100% adherence to web standards is negative, and drives this point home again and again in the "Web standards" section, which is all criticism. Rhobite 02:34, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Rhobite. Neutrality^talk 02:36, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Out of interest, which bits are speculation? If I could find out then I'll attempt to resolve these issues. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • One issue is the tone of the "web standards" section, which uses words such as "fails", "bug", etc. framing the issue to reflect negatively on IE. The security section has a paragraph of speculation on the practice and consequences of logging in as root - I think that whole para needs work (and personally I'm not convinced that most Linux desktop users don't also run as root, or at least use the same password for their root and user accounts). More importantly, root access doesn't mean much in practice - you don't need root access to spread a trojan, for example. It's a red herring. The next paragraph's Apache/IIS ubiquity comparison is also speculation, doesn't belong in an article about IE. COM section: "explosion" = pov language. "Microsoft has recognized the problem with ActiveX" sentence is an exaggeration based on a single old quote. Huge quotes by Ed Felten and the O'Reilly book need to go. For that matter the CERT quote doesn't belong in the article either. I could add three paragraph-long quotes of praise to the article copied verbatim from some MS publication, but let's not go there. The whole COM/ActiveX section is negative - not one mention of how it is actually used in practice. Removing IE paragraph: I know we went through the whole thing with that guy who advocates removing IE.. but 6 paragraphs is a whole lot of article, considering that almost nobody removes IE in practice. HTH. Rhobite 01:36, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for detailing your objections, Rhobite. As always, these are good to know and perhaps this article does need some more work. I just noticed a disputed tag in the article, so I'm thinking that I need to move this to peer review. I would like to keep this on FAC for the full time period, however, to gather more feedback. I have to do another review of the article and see what I can do. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object I agree strongly with Rhobite's comments above. There are very negative connotations throughout this article and it needs much attention to make it NPOV. -- 82.3.32.75 21:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support Good enough in my opinion Squash 03:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object This article is not stable, with numerous changes every week, and frequent accusations of anti-IE bias (often justified, even from my somewhat anti-IE POV). Much of the prose could do with some pounding for readability. I also agree or partially agree with some of Rhobite's comments above, namely: "missing features", "log in as root" (that's a problem, but a Windows/Windows Apps/Windows Usage problem, not directly an IE problem) "removing IE" (IMO, belongs in the antitrust article, or maybe an article of its own; in any case, six paras here is way too much) "web standards" (IE is the worst of the main browsers, with some really annoying limitations, but it's still pretty good, and a lot better than its contemporaries and immediate predecessors) "COM/ActiveX" (dangerous when misused/abused, but so's a chainsaw). In general, the whole article devotes lots of verbiage to a few controversial points, while other worthy subjects get minimal space. For example: IE6 introduced some major improvements to standards support; COM/ActiveX do provide benefits (which may or may not outweigh the problems, but are still worth a mention). I could add more , but that'll do for now. Blufive 20:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comments.
  • "as of 2004, although nineteen states have agreed to the settlement"
    • How about as of 2005?
  • "Content Advisor for screening out objectionable content by using industry-standard ratings"
    • What industry standard rating systems?
  • Support for vertical text, but in a syntax different from W3C CSS3 candidate recommendation.
    • A link to it perhaps?
  • Missing features:
    • "Full support for the W3C's CSS2 standard."
      • What browser has that? Mozilla at least does not.
  • "Full support for PNG images. IE renders PNG images without alpha channel transparency."
    • As I understand alpha transparency is an optional part of the standard, and therefor you cannot claim that IE does not have 100% support (unless some other part am missing, or I'm wrong) later in the article its stated that they're an optional part of the specification, remove this please.
      • Um... well, it doesn't conform to the full standard. The full standard would also include the optional bits... Ta bu shi da yu 00:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • If you support a standard minus its optional bits you have full support by definition, they're called optional for a reason, I maintain that IE has 100% PNG support. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:02, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
  • "However, Internet Explorer does not conform to several web standards defined by the W3C, and many web developers therefore consider the browser to be hindering further standard-based improvement of web technologies."
    • What does it 100% confirm to?
• —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:17, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
• Object as well. I agree with most of Rhobite's comments. The article has an inherent point of view that is biased against IE. --JuntungWu 16:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object because of the reader-unfriendly style of writing. Some examples:
  • Internet Explorer, abbreviated IE or MSIE, is a web browser made by Microsoft and currently available as part of Microsoft Windows - the introductory sentence (indeed the whole paragraph) does not even mention that Windows is a operating system for PCs.
  • The "history" section is to some extent not more than a list of versions and features written in a "...and then ... and then" style. There is not much context to explain what all these buzzwords mean and why this or that technology is relevant. I would expect a history section to tell me things like: Microsoft introduced technology X in 19XX, which caused users to complain about security issues related to Y but gained IE further market share because product Z by company A did not implement a similar feature before 19YY
  • Simply installing and using another browser does not prevent third party programs and core operating system components from using IE libraries - too technical, no link or explanation of what "library" means in this context or what "core operating system components" are. We should be writing for a general readership, so please don't assume technical knowledge on the readers' part.
  • There was an issue that occurred in Internet Explorer 4 where an error message would appear stating that "Explorer caused an invalid page fault in module MSHTML.DLL at 0137:703e34c" when Windows 95 or Windows NT started with the Active Desktop enabled or when Internet Explorer was started. - does this level of technical detail contribute to a reader's grasp of what IE is? Methinks not.
  • Componentized implementation on Windows allows a high level of integration with other applications... - reads rather like bloated marketing-speak. Couldn't we have that clear and concise, please? (BTW, is "componentized" a word of the English language? If it is, it's one of the ugliest I have seen)
  • Internet Explorer was designed with functionality in mind... - more hot air from the marketing department. Kosebamse 20:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object The article has been thoroughly raped by proponents of Firefox and other competitors. An example I recently corrected -- like all sections, the JavaScript paragraph had been twisted to make out that MS was trying to 'embrace extend and extinguish' the standard, that MS has unfairly extended the standard, that Microsoft had gone against the W3C spec. The unforgiveable flaw in all this anti-MS ranting was that the author had absolutely no clue about the JavaScript methods in question, and had criticised Internet Explorer for supporting addEventListener, when this is in fact a W3C DOM standard! It beggars belief that such unbalanced and incorrect rubbish is allowed to fester on this page. If only the MS developers would start contributing here and set the record straight, as they have been doing on the IEBlog. --Beachy 00:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Given that the standard Beachy is referring to came out in 2000, when Microsoft introduced the JavaScript method in 1998, either Microsoft have access to a time machine (someone needs to notify the authorities) or they weren't following any standard when they introduced this addition to their browser. AlistairMcMillan 01:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. With some more cleanups, this article would be great. But currently that is more enough content about the "good" thing of the browser (which personally I can't find any). --minghong 13:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

If you can't find anything good to say then maybe you should leave editing this article to those who are capable of portraying a balanced view of Internet Explorer? You've certainly contributed more than your fair share of anti-MS negativity to the proceedings. I don't hold anything against you personally and you seem like a very intelligent chap. However, the pro-Firefox agenda you describe in your user page is making your edits here extremely one-sided. --Beachy 17:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woodrow Wilson

Very detailed and well written. --Flockofpidgeons

• Object. 1) Lead section gives no summary. 2) References should be sorted out. Currently only two "what happened on this day" articles and one 1992 newspaper article. More references are mentioned in the article, list them here as well. 3) "Political career" is ridiculously short. 4) The "misc facts" section should be removed. Already most facts are incorporated in the article, so should the rest. Jeronimo 08:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. What Jeronimo wrote, plus consider moving the quotes to Wikiquote and bottom pic needs a caption. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Follow the suggested procedure: get it first in Peer Review. You'll get good pointers how to improve the article before submitting to FA.--Zappaz 03:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pruno

This is a well-written article on a subject that is a bit off the beaten path and was nominated to demonstrate the range of Wikipedia.

People expect a featured article to be pretty comprehensive. This one is quite short compared to the usual featured article. Is there nothing more worth writing about pruno? Everyking 01:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is the origin of the name? Also, a quick googlance shows there might be much more to be written. Mikkalai 01:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to Peer Review. Interesting and nicely written article, but it contains quite a few unsourced statements (see cite sources). Try listing this article at Peer Review first for creative comments and criticisms. — mark ✎ 01:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. With expansion, this otherwise well-written article has some hope. As it stands, it is only a teaser. Denni☯ 02:33, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Object. Far from a featured article, doesn't even meet basic criteria such as references or images. Please do not nominate articles that do not meet the criteria at Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Jeronimo 07:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanto

This is a very well written article, with much detail put into it. --Flockofpidgeons

Object I think this article has some serious NPOV issues. It reads like an Esperanto manifesto, especially the list headed by "More generally, there are five primary reasons for its strength". The article totally glosses over the fact that Esperanto has not lived up to its orignal stated purpose. With 2 million speakers, it might be the most common constructed language in the world, but so what? The article states that Esperanto was "to serve as an international auxiliary language, a second language for everyone in the world", and it has clearly failed reach that goal. The article should discuss this aspect to achieve a neutral point of view. It also uses the Mother of all Weasel Terms: "There is some evidence that suggests...", which doesn't help to establish NPOV. --Plek 08:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "There is some evidence that suggests..." is linked to an article which (though, last time I looked at it, it needed some grammar and style fixup) details the evidence: a number of studies in schools at various levels in various countries. Maybe it should be rephrased "Some studies suggest..." ?

There is an acknowledgement that Esperanto has "failed to live up to orignal stated purpose"; maybe it should be earlier and more prominent.

Overall I think this is pretty near being ready to be a featured article, but not quite. There are a few infelicities of phrasing, the "five reasons for its strength" could stand some work for better NPOV, and there are irrelevant digressions like the comment about Ethnologue's glitch asserting Esperanto is a language of France. --Jim Henry 17:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I think the changes you made address some minor issues, but my main concern about POV problems still stands. I'll try to be more specific. To do so, I'll deconstruct the "Language evolution" section, which I think is the most troublesome.

• First paragraph ("A declaration endorsed..."): good, factual information. No problems I can see, although an in-line link to the text of the declaration might be useful.
• 2nd paragraph ("Esperantists believe..."): the problems start here. Those two words are weasel terms. Is the text trying to say that all those 2 million people have the exact same opinion? That's hard to imagine. At least some of them are bound to have a different or opposing view. The phrase "this declaration stabilizing the language is a major reason why Esperanto is uniquely strong", suggests that the declaration has a strictly positive influence. Is that a fact? It seems to me that all languages evolve over time. We're not speaking mediaeval English anymore, either. The static nature of Esperanto is bound to have drawbacks. So what are they?
• "...they see five reasons for its strength": this phrase turns the section into a description of Esperantists' opinion, which is by definition POV. The article is named "Esperanto", not "Opinions about Esperanto". I would therefore suggest to take the factual information from those five points and turn them into descriptive prose, describing the language and its origins. Whether people think those characteristics are good or bad is a seperate issue and should be the subject of a different section.
• "as the legend goes" has no place in an encyclopaedic article.
• Either remove or make specific all adjectives and adverbs that are unquantifiable or opinionated. Some examples: "done an enormous amount of work", "exploit desirable features", "Constructed languages are often destroyed".

Some other observations (yes, I hate people who move the goal posts too ;-):

• The order of the sections seems haphazard: We're moving from history to classification and distribution (which is okay), but then to a very tangential section about Red Dwarf and computer games... Then back to general remarks about the status, followed by some sections about writing and speaking the language. Try to put those into an order that would make sense to the reader: from broad overview to detailed specifics, for instance. Put less important factoids (like the media stuff) at the end. Oh, and do get rid of the minor planet (but that's just because of my bias against gratuitous minor planet references :)...
• After deleting the one reference work about the minor planet (provided you follow my suggestion about dumping the thing), there's only one reference left, and just three pages at that. That seems to be a bit thin for an article that contains so much (most of it very good and interesting) information. I'd suggest to go over the article and find references for the most important facts mentioned in it. Again, in-line citations help to provide a direct link to the reference work (and will also help you spot unreferenced sections).

My fingers hurt, so I guess this will have to do for now. I hope you'll find my incoherent rambling useful in improving the article. One suggestion: you might want to consider dropping it back to peer review first, to get more people involved in the editing process. Good luck. --Plek 21:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the more detailed comments. I was going to delete the silly bit about the asteroid, but someone objected in the talk page; I'll wait awhile longer and try to get more consensus before deleting that. I'll try to add more references, edit the language evolution section, and reorder the sections, then link it from the peer review page. --Jim Henry 21:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) Lead section too brief, does not summarize the article. 2) No images (save for the flag, which is not explained - why does a constructed language have a flag?). At least an image of Zamenhoff should be possible. 3) Many sections are brief (just a single paragraph) or contain "litter", random sentences which connect badly with the surrounding text. "Classification" and "Namesake" are ridiculous as it stands, while "Geographic distribution" does not tell us anything at all about geographic distribution. "Media" just mentions some stuff about films, but doesn't really go into the topic of Esperanto media? Are there newspapers, magazines, books, web sites? Yes? Tell about them. Review all other sections for contents as well. 4) Other reviewers have already mentioned NPOV issues and weasel terms. Please, attribute opinions and statements. 5) References and external links should be sorted out. The references do not seem to be about esperanto at all, while several external links seem to be to vague to be relevant for the article. The see alsos could also use a clean-up. Jeronimo 07:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree on most of your points, but partly disagree on some:

• Lots of entities other than countries have flags, so I don't think the flag per se needs explanation in this article. But it would be good to add a separate article about the Esperanto flag and link to it from the image and maybe the See also section.
• One of the references relates to the asteroid; I'm planning to delete it. The other is relevant; it's a study on the ease of learning Esperanto and how it helps in learning other languages later.
• Classification seems to be a standard section in articles about languages. I don't see what's ridiculous about it. It states concisely that Esperanto is not genetically related to other languages, but was influence by some languages of the Indo-European family. It could use a bit more information on typology (SVO, AN default order).
• Which external links do you object to as irrelevant?
• What in the see alsos seems irrelevant or mis-sorted? Please be more specific.

I've already fixed some of the problems you and Plek pointed out, and am planning to work on others (media, NPOV problems, opening summary section) today and later in the week. --Jim Henry 16:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jim, some replies (while noting that this article is no longer on FAC, so has already failed nomination). 1) Still the same problem. 2) Still no other images. 3) With "ridicilous" I meant ridiculously short. I can see the classification section is sort of standard. Still, I think more can be said there on the influences from other languages, especially as this is also relevant for the argument how easy (or difficult) the language can be learnt by people not speaking an Indo-European language. Many other section still have several one-sentence sections, and the reading flow is bad. The media section is still the same, and although the title is more appriopriate now, this makes it less appropriate for the article. 4) I'd have to read the article as a whole again to verify any changes here. 5) They seem pretty ok now, I'm not sure anymore what my objection were about exactly. Jeronimo 08:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Turk

This is a most interesting article that touches such luminaries as Napoleon, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Babbage, and Edgar Allan Poe in a plot that hoaxed the world! --Flex 14:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Having actually read one of the referenced books, I can say that this article gives a decent overview, but could go into detail on several issues - it is not comprehensive, one of the main requirements for a featured article. For example, there are many descriptions of how a typical session with the Turk went; this needs to be here. Other objections include the strange ending in parentheses (also suggesting there is more to be said) and the match details, which seems unneccesary. The pictures section should also be removed, and the pictures properly included. Jeronimo 22:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I'm afraid, just from memory, and not having read one of the referenced books, I recall there was a lot more to be said about the Turk. So I concur with Jeronimo. The Turk is certainly an interesting subject, and this is a good start, but it's not there yet. In addition to what Jeronimo said, a picci of the final board, or a board just before the final moves, in the Napoleon game would help too, jguk 00:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Demoscene

An interesting article regarding an amazingly creative and artistic subculture which was born from the hands of software pirates during the 1980s and continues to thrive in the 21st century. I believe this document is worthy of being a featured article on Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 23:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object and refer to peer review. Needs copy-edit for one. Consider sentences like: When a cracked program was started, the cracker or his team would take credit via an increasingly impressive-looking graphical introduction or intro. Over what period of time does the impressiveness of the artwork increase? Or: Since any given computer platform before the PC age meant every computer of a given line had identical capabilities, a comparison between demos on earlier platforms was directly possible. This sentence is barely comprehensible. Generally, the prose is not outstanding.

The author is also obviously fascinated by the subject, as the article has a rather biased tone: Where games/application writers were concerned with stability/functionality of their software, the demo writer was typically interested in how many CPU cycles a routine would consume and how best to squeeze as much effects and activity onto the screen. or most demos were written by groups with interesting names. Moreover, the prose to links ratio is extraordinarily low. See for example the Parties section, a collection of over a dozen links, with little to no context. (What is a party in this context?)

Lastly, the use of two images by the same demoscene artist group also feels like advertising. Images are for representative illustration purposes: if the cultural movement in question is large enough to deserve an article, the images should represent a broader spectrum of demoscene graphics. Phils 00:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object Couldn't understand the first sentence, and stopped after there (sorry). Let me know when you've done a copyedit and I'll re-read, jguk 00:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Peer Review. Nice subject, and will be a good candidate with some work, specifically:

1. Technical aspects... most readers will associate a PC demo with either a) A preview of a video game or b) a product showcase. PC demos are much, much more than that - can we go into the technical aspects of what makes a PC Demo so special?
2. Parties are briefly skipped over, "Assembly" and "The Party in particular have had an enormous impact on the scene and this needs discussed
3. Groups are hardly mentioned (Farbrausch is singled out for fr-08, but that's about it). Some focus on some of the more influential groups is needed... off the top of my head Future Crew, Triton, TMD are particularly influential but there are others
4. Particular demos... can we go into a little more detail on this?
5. POV issues need to be resolved, it's not bad but it could be better. Zerbey 01:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to Peer Review. What they^ said. — mark ✎ 00:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The list-to-text ratio is pretty high. Only 7 paragraphs - it needs much more text, and the list of groups should probably be broken out into its own article, with mentions of notable groups in the main article. Rhobite 02:41, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frankie Goes to Hollywood

A good article about a band who changed European music scene and challenged attitudes to homosexuality. Plasmic Squonka! 17:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This article lacks several basic requirements of an FAC: 1) No images of the band itself; not even an album cover. 2) No references. 3) No lead section. Fix these and I'll take a look at the contesnts. Jeronimo 23:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• object for now. this article needs some serious work... put it through peer review.  ALKIVAR™ 01:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish language

I think it should be a featured article because there is much detail in it, and I just frankly think people need to know more about Finland! There haven't been that many featured articles about languages also. flockofpidgeons 23:52 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comments. There's a "Plenty more to add ..." at the end of the list in the Vocabulary section, and a lengthy 'to do' list in commented-out HTML. Have these things been done (the to do list seems like it probably mostly has)? I think there should be summaries in the Sounds and Grammar sections (if someone has trouble thinking what they should have, I'm not enuf of a language person to know about the actual content, but the size of the corresponding summaries at Spanish language seems to be about right). And this is may be just a nit, but "to date" in English can have two distinctly different meanings (social vs. calendar contexts); it seems unlikely to me that the Finnish word cited (at the bottom of the Borrowing section) happens to also mean both, in which case, the applicable def should be identified. Niteowlneils 03:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm not a linguist either, but it seems strange that the Uralo-Altaic grouping is described as "disputed" in the language infobox, while there is no discussion or mention of it or its disputedness in the two-sentence "Classification" section. I appreciate that it may not deserve a mention on account of the grouping being "almost universally rejected by historical linguists as a mistake" (see Ural-Altaic languages), but in that case how does it deserve to tantalize the reader by inclusion in the infobox...? Bishonen | Talk 06:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • sigh, the Hungarians were here. Just remove the 'disputed', or we'll have to tag pretty much every statement on Wikipedia. Better still, change the header to "From Wikipedia, the free disputed encyclopedia." dab sorry, I didn't read. Ural-Altaic is of course controversial. I wouldn't say "disputed" so much as "uncertain", but the matter is too complex to convey in the table anyway, so I'm still for just removing the qualifier. dab (ᛏ)
• the grammar article is quite nice too, but the grammar section should be a little bit more than just the link: it should be a paragraph briefly summarizing and putting in context the grammatical peculiarities of Finnish (same goes for "Sounds"). dab (ᛏ) 11:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) Has several sections without content. (Sounds, grammar). Also there are a lot of subsections with barely any content. Please restructure these. 2) This article needs images. I can imagine some map images for - for example - the dialects. Other illustrations, especially in the history section, seem possible too. 3) This article needs some samples of spoken Finnish. 4) Lead section is brief and does not summarize the article well. 4) Annotations for the references (use this instead of bibliography) are nice, but sometimes POV and unnecessary. 5) The article doesn't read well at times, often indicated by single-sentence paragraphs. 6) The article has a lot of vagueness: "Some linguists", "sometimes", "mostly", "usually", "some estimates", "mainly believed", etc. Please rewrite these, or attribute the statements to a source or to persons. Jeronimo 11:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I already objected above, but I'm afraid I have more objections to the infobox, sorry I didn't list them all before. 1) In other major language articles I've sampled (Swedish, German, English, Dutch) the infobox heading "Spoken in" is used for the countries the language is spoken in, while "Region" is used for the larger, umbrella, unit (Northern Europe, etc). Here, the "Region" box contains instead smaller units, as in parts of the countries, such as Tornio River Valley (which is incidentally a redirect to Torne Valley), Karelia, Finnmark. Is there a misunderstanding, or is there a dispute as to what this part of the infobox is for? 2) And, in any case, given the apparent principle, how can Finnmark (in Norway) be under "Region" when Norway isn't under "Spoken in"? And how, on any principle, can "Finland" appear in both places? 3) As with the Uralo-Altaic grouping I mentioned before, the infobox and the article text need to be put on speaking terms with each other on the subject of Meänkieli (a language, or perhaps a Finnish dialect, spoken in the Swedish Torne Valley region). The box doesn't mention Meänkieli, which is fine (that level of detail doesn't belong there), but the box has an obvious (to a specialist, ahem) reference to it in the only Swedish region it mentions, Tornio River Valley = Torne Valley. In the article proper, on the other hand, Meänkieli is ascribed to Västerbotten. OK, Torne Valley is in Västerbotten, but how is a non-Swedish reader of the article supposed to know that? It's completely confusing to use different geographical terms. Btw, also, the article needs to refer to Meänkieli in a more clarifying way than is done in the brief mention under "Western dialects", i.e. explain that the difference of opinion concerns whether it's a form of Finnish at all (see article Meänkieli), not what kind of Finnish dialect it is. Bishonen | Talk 15:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katana

This article contains lots of information regarding the Katana sword and its history an origin. Also much more information is provided that gives the user information on myths, techniques and also has some very informative pictures on the finer points of this sword. There are good external links available and the user is given a real insight into Katanas by the time they have read the article.

• Object:
  • To give you an idea about where I am coming from, I am a kobudo practitioner living in Japan.
  • First off, the main strength of the article seems to be in covering sword parts and styles. Kudos.
  • Generally speaking, there is quite a bit of good information, but there is also some not-so-good information. The way some of the information is given also seems a bit poorly written.
  • Error: The article claims that it is illegal to carry swords in Japan. That is incorrect. You have to register and get a license. The license must be kept with the sword at all times.
  • Poor turn of phrase: Kenjutsu has not turned into gendai budo. Any budo style is gendai(modern) if it was founded after the Meiji Isshin. It is kobudo if it was founded before that. As the article mentions, there are kobudo ryuha still around. Anyway, the relationship between modern budo and classical budo is complicated, and it is better to omit that topic than spend just one sentence on it.
  • Error: Emperor Jimmu, though traditionally attributed to the 6th century B.C., is considered to have lived closer to 400-600 AD. This is an error at the Jimmu page as well.
  • Sources: more, and better.
  • Someone below criticized "The Japanese Sword in Fiction" section. I think the point was supposed to be that it seems frivolous when nihonto are real objects, with a real place in history. I don't have too much of a problem with it so long as it stays after the sections with historical and technical information.
  • The fact that the article mentions "traditional japanese steel" without explaining how the steel is different than other steel, or using the actual term for it(tamahagane) speaks for itself.
  • Various other things. If I can scrape up some more free time, I will try to contribute to the article. -JD

• Weak object looks really well done, but:

  1) needs references badly

  2) minimal coverage of fantasy and myths (like the famous "river leaf" story contrasting Muramasa and Masamune swords)

  better, but still needs more on myths/fantasy passed down over the years.  ALKIVAR™ 09:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  3) nothing about katana use by the kamikaze during ww2 or other ww2 officer use for that matter.

  4) nothing about katana use in modern video games either. what was added fills the bill on this.

   ALKIVAR™ 01:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3) Katana were not typically used by the kamikaze, they used an ordnance sabre which is mentioned in the article ("katana were replaced by gunto: cheap sabers for navy officers."). Rama 10:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thats funny I own 3 former kamakazi swords all of them are curved and match the typical length/shape of a katana (and match the curve and shape of the 2 katanas I own)... years of martial arts tell me their katanas. They have such a similar heft and feel when swinging, I always assumed they were katanas. All of what i've previously read said that the kamakazi carried katana (and sometimes wakizashi) in a samurai fashion intentionally to show pride in the ancient warrior culture. This is definately news to me! thanks for clearing that up.  ALKIVAR™ 14:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a matter of term usage. In general English usage, it qualifies as a katana. However, it is not a genuine nihonto unless it was forged by traditional techniques(and by most accounts, traditional materials. I imagine that even if they are genuine kamikaze swords (historically speaking), they are almost certainly showa-to/gun-to. Mass-produced. Also, if I can point out that "katana" refers to how you wear it, technically speaking. -JD

On 4), I wrote a new section about works of fiction and katana with minimal informations intending to expand it into a full article. Because katana appears in so many fictions including video games, I think it deserves an article solely dedicated to it. On katana used for or by kamikaze, because pilots were all officers, they had to take katana with them as a part of their uniform. On those carried by army officers, they essentially served the same function as pistols carried around by officers in American and European armies, to point it to rally their troop. It was, of course, almost completely useless on the battlefield, so some simply reported to have "lost" their gunto(katana) and picked up a rifle instead. Revth 16:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This definately satisfies my request #4. I'd appreciate this information on #3 you mentioned being worked into the article somehow, you give more info here than I was able to learn reading the article regarding ww2 use.  ALKIVAR™ 16:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe some movies (and games) that focus heavily on this sword could be mentioned in the fiction section, for example Kill Bill, something like a mini list? Or would this list be too substantial and require a seperate article? -- 82.3.32.75 00:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Weak object. 1) References are my primary concern (I note some are used in the text - they need to be moved to reference section and possibly linked with ^notes. 2) Short, one sentnece paragraphs would benefit from merging 3) If rare words are used in lead (especially), they should be explained (buke is...?) 4) I'd like to see a section on famous historic katana users, and the section on schools of fighting could be expanded (and possibly merged with techniques?), but this is not an object per se. Good article, I am pretty sure it will make it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  • I think that the section on the use of katana's in anime, filmmaking, etc., (and the reference to role-playing) does more to define what sort of people write Wikipedia articles than anything else, and I think they should simply be dropped.
  • What's a sentence like "Okay, so now we've got a long iron stick. What makes it a katana?" in a Wikipedia article?
  • The article also could use some copy-editing to improve the overall quality of the writing (to avoid some less-than-stellar phrasings like "However, this also marked the beginning of the end for samurai in general, for guns had returned.")

  That said, I think that the article contains a lot of useful and interesting information, and that bringing the article up to featured standards is mainly a matter of cleaning up the writing a little bit and trimming excess information. Jun-Dai 08:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • • Object to the objection. Especially, the first one. That's an awful POV to make an objection upon. What's wrong with that? Revth 14:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • <Jun-Dai 21:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)> My objection with regards to the first item has to do with the fact that we are, in effect, emphasizing material that is of particular interest to a particular group (one that overlaps more than a little with the body of people that are Wikipedians) that is not really relevant to the topic (even though the topic may be quite relevant to the group). Obviously this is POV, but so is the emphasis to which I am objecting (or any emphasis, really). Any reference to the use of katana's in fiction/anime/role-playing, etc. needn't be more than a sentence long, or put on a separate page and added to a "see also" section. </Jun-Dai>
      • Please back the claim "one that overlaps more than a little with the body of people that are Wikipedians" up with sources to make it a credible argument. How many Wikipedians do you think have seen katana in fiction? It's certainly not a few of people who are Wikipedians. In the particular culture group that you belong to, katana in fiction may not mean much but you need to keep that view to yourself. There is only six paragraphs out of the entire article that talks about it with the article (to be started) to discuss anything further. This is hardly an emphasis. Revth 01:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • <Jun-Dai 02:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)> That the two groups overlap more than a little I observe based on (a) the types of articles that get written (I do not have the power to summon up statistics on anime-related articles, articles related to pop-Japanese culture, role-playing, and computer games, but I'd bet that they are out of proportion to other topics of similar breadth, popularity, and general level academic research done, and definitely disproportionate to, say, print encyclopedias or other non-specialized reference works), (b) the amount of effort put into particular articles (Bishojo_game, Hentai, Samurai, Ninja, D20 System, to name just five), and (c) the conspicuous emphases placed in certain articles (such as this one). After all, what encyclopedia, other than this one, would include mention in an article about ninja that the jedi in Star Wars resemble them because they can jump and disappear? Clearly (to me, at least), the Wikipedian community has a disproportionate representation of anime fans, gamers, computer geeks, etc. One effect of this is that we have a tremendous (and disproportionate) amount of content in those areas, which is by no means a bad thing (on the contrary, I welcome it). Another effect of this, however, is that some of the other content, such as this article, is tailored (through emphasis) towards that community. This I see as a bad thing, because it will limit us.
        • In any case, this article is not ready for featured article status. It needs some improvements (two cases are noted above) in the writing in general, as well as in the prioritization of information for a more general audience. In its current state I am not prepared to vote in favor of this article representing the Wikipedia as an example of its finest work. </Jun-Dai>

Object Great article ... but needs references and bibliography to make the cut (no pun intended). Has the article gone through Peer Review? That is what peer review can do for an article... editors can make comments on how to improve the article before submitting it for consideration as a featured article. Some good copyedit (e.g. Katana#Distinguishing_characteristics, some more wiki-linking, and a related articles section with more than just one reference, are also needed. --Zappaz 03:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Caroline

I found this article extremely informative and easy to follow. The story is a fascinating one with many bits of intrigue. Kingturtle 09:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Very interesting subject and a fine read, but 1) References? 2) There are no photos of the ships, the DJs or anything to do with the station 3) Summarize the station's history in a paragraph for the lead section. slambo 15:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

1a) The paragraph about frequency conversion doesn't really fit into the References section as it isn't a reference, more a discussion on how to do the conversion. slambo 15:22, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Agree with the above. Please read the featured article criteria and only nominate articles that meet them. References are a basic one. Checking the criteria first is simply polite to those who spend their time here. - Taxman 22:12, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the established feature article criteria. I don't see references as essential to a feature article. Kingturtle 23:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Well they are established, and that one for a very good reason. But this is not the place to discuss it. The criteria page or Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check or Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards are. Short answer: the information could be made up out of thin air if it is not properly cited to its source. - Taxman 00:05, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Interesting enough but no references. Some images must be possible if only of DJs etc, needs something to add some colour and life. Giano 22:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: for the record, Feature Article Sid McMath does not have any references. How true are we to this "references are a must" rule? Kingturtle 15:11, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bishonen/Antique toilet paper holder

Excellent article. I advise that this is the finest of the Wikipedia articles on our site! I hope for it to go to the front page. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Most flattered, but may I ask what the nominator was doing in my userspace...? Bishonen | Talk 12:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey. Just watching recent changes, that's all :-) Ta bu shi da yu 12:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• But, why is it still under User:Bishonen's space? -- Sundar 10:02, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Object Not yet comprehensive (see to do list on talk page, I personally have a lot more material to add) and perhaps just a tad over-referenced? Filiocht 10:08, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Ahem. Front page on 1 April? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Unicorn or Jackalope would both be better April 1st entries.  ALKIVAR™ 11:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Invisible pink unicorn or just a plain unicorn? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Either would be fine, although i think the Invisible pink unicorn "invisible image" would be better for the main page.  ALKIVAR™ 20:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Given a large push, we should be ready to go live by then, I hope. Filiocht 10:27, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• comment: why on earth is this in userspace?  ALKIVAR™ 10:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Hilarious! Object though...Jeronimo 11:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review. Not yet comprehensive, like Filiocht says. I'm particularly dissappointed that the Dutch connection is missing. (Does anybody still think that the mission of Willibrord of Northumbria and Saint Boniface of Devonshire was only to convert the inhabitants of the Low Countries to the Christian faith?). — mark ✎ 11:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You raise some interesting points: care to make these additions yourself? Filiocht 12:32, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Sheesh, caught with my pants down again! I fully intended to move this out into the article space at a future date (yeah guess which future date) and then self-nominate it. And to be on IRC to spread the word and receive encomia, which I'm not able to do today. Still, now that the cat's out of the bag, how would Unicorn or Jackalope be better on the front page, pray? Are they major scholarly contributions? Are they comprehensive? Are they fully referenced? I believe not. Alkivar, did you see our reference secion? (Over-referenced? What are you talking abouot, Filiocht? Go put in some more inline references, you know you love it.) Bishonen | Talk 12:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ObjectI am frankly amazed that this page has been nominated, and even more amazed at the lavatorialy light hearted, retentive, and juvenile way other editors have chosen to vote here. The information to date has barely scratched the surface of this important and under-researched subject. Why is there no mention of the holder in which Cleopatra secreted her Asp? There is also no mention of those depicted by Hogarth in his scenes of London, so far the page is quite good (mostly thanks to my own efforts) but a lot more information need to be supplied.Giano 20:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Giano, you and I are as one when it comes to the inappropriateness of toilet humour here (I just wrote a plea for the subject to be taken seriously on the article Talk page, to which I refer all jokesters)), but if you can't understand that a vast historical subject needs to be summarized, I pity you. Your efforts? Yeah, especially your efforts to sneakily insert your entire extended family. That image of your mother-in-law's toilet paper holder is still in the 18th century section, I see. Bishonen | Talk 21:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to bring my extended family into this, it is hardly my fault if they were pioneering and patronising the design of luxury items, while the tribes of certain northern nations were still utilising the fiords and flora (and probably fauna) for such functions. Giano 08:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the luxury items. This is still the brass-plated "Palladian revival" piece we're talking about.. ? To the people inquiring why it's in userspace: because I think in the article namespace it would get whisked off to VfD so fast we wouldn't even feel the draft. :-( Bishonen | Talk 12:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention of entering into futile debate with one who clearly could not distinguish Palladian from Prada:>( Giano 12:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The monastic sea-shell example in the article speaks to your fauna reference, does it not? Filiocht 12:44, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Support for April 1, although I think that this nomination will stir the necessary contributions by that time. I admit that the Marxist and Feminist perspectives are my own contributions to the pile. I think Jackalopes and Unicorns are a bit obvious, and the former admits straight off the bat that it is a fiction. Unlike the antique toilet paper holder, it's a made-up hoax, and the Jackalope and Unicorn have neither played as vital a role in history, class, gender, and revolution as the toilet paper holder. Geogre 12:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I assume it's a joke, although it's an extraordinarily weird one. Can't this nomination just be removed? Everyking 14:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why do you only "assume" it is a joke, and what exactly is "weird" about such a functional artefact? Giano 14:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• While this may be considered funny, please do not misuse references in this way. Sorry to be a wet blanket, but it would be just as funny without the false references. Yes, I see all the ones I checked are real books, but I somehow doubt any of them confirm much of the material in this article. - Taxman 14:33, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

A suprisingly large amount of the information in the article is confirmed in the references Giano 14:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please check out the online references, Taxman, especially Gorboduc, I think you may be surprised. Just because the story of Eric XIV of Sweden and Elizabeth I of England is little known doesn't mean I made it up. Practically all of it really happened. Bishonen | Talk 14:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For my part, I played the "like" and "some" game. "Critics SUCH AS Raymond Williams have said that items LIKE the toilet paper holder," and then the reference is spot on. No fabrication where I've been concerned. Geogre 20:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• A little info: to address concerns raised on the article's talk page, I have moved it to User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder and created global hub article User:Bishonen/Toilet paper holder to serve as the parent of sibling articles on the toilet paper holders of other continents. Please see User talk:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder. Bishonen | Talk 20:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Who are we to say what won't be reference material to future historians. Though this does bring up the question, since there are toilet paper holders in millions of homes around the world and well over 200,000 google hits, dont we need Toilet paper holder in our data? -- Dbroadwell 20:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Municipality of Strathfield

I've been working on this for a while (so self-nomination). I submitted it to peer review and Rd232 made some valuable comments (mainly that the corruption scandal was important, it needed a politics section, and needs a culture section) which I responded to. I'd like to put this forward to FAC now. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object but all should be fixable: (1) C in "Homebush council", "Strathfield Council" not standardised in capitalisation throughout the article (please explain if there's a specific reason for that; the reference about Australian English in Local Government Area is also confusing to me), (2) " for the elite and the rich" in intro sounds a bit non-encyclopedic; (3) are there any actual pictures of modern Strathfield? One historicla picture about a geographic area seems very limited. I know it's a tiny area with very limited population. Otherwise well-writtena and will support. JuntungWu 06:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed the C in Homebush Council (thanks for pointing that out), I disagree with the comment about the elite and rich, as that is what it was at one point. Getting pictures is hard for me as I don't own a digital camera. I think we can list this on requests for images, however. As a side note: The Municipality of Strathfield is one of Sydney's largest municipalities :) Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Also the historical picture that you uploaded has a weird reference about "The picture is copyright and owned by State Library of NSW." but you marked it PD. Why? It sounds like it's out of copyright in Australia so it's probably released. I am just confused about this. JuntungWu 06:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) Okay. JuntungWu 06:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I didn't. However, the copyright is the State Libraries, though it is still publicdomain as our copyright in Australia lasts 50 years only. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, (4) there is a link about "For NSW state elections, the Municipality of Strathfield is in the State Electoral District of Strathfield". What about the federal one? In the sense that there's a quip about three electoral districts in the table but only one mention in the text. Does the municipality lie entirely inside a federal seat? JuntungWu 06:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • The state and federal boundaries are totally seperate. They don't relate to each other at all. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • have noted that it is in the federal electorate of Lowe. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • OK, I've added a synopsis of how the 3-tiered system of govt. in Australia works. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Okay I've crossed out (2). I've also created a stub on Alfred Tsang to remove a redlink. But there's still a lot of red links though. JuntungWu 09:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I know :-) That's what why Wikipedia:Wikiproject Sydney was formed! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I'm going to object to this, really because of one misgiving: way too large a proportion of this page is about the recent mayoral scandal, and the information about this scandal is not really integrated into the local politics section. We don't find out how this relates to local politics more generally, what party Alfred Tsang is from, etc. Another thing that worries me, though it plays no part in my objection, is how we decide what information belongs in the Municipality information and what belongs in the suburb of Strathfield.--XmarkX 13:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Hoooold on a second! How is the former mayor of Strathfield Council stepping down because of corruption allegations not a part of the local policitical scene? However, I understand your concerns of dividing the information between the suburb of Strathfield with the Municipality of Strathfield. It's confusing, I know, but the information I have added to this article has to do with Muncipality as a whole, and information that has to do with just the suburb will later be added to the Strathfield article. That's why I got rid of the redirect and added a substub as a place holder for the meantime. Any suggestions of how to seperate this in a clearer fashion would be highly appreciated! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • it's not that it's not local politics - it's just this page doesn't tell me anything about the local politically scene that is the backdrop to the scandal, which is what I would want to know from this article. Instead it just recaps information I have heard umpteen times from every Australian news source--XmarkX 05:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I've attempted to update this with a bit of background information. Does this look good? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The local politics in that local neighbourhood is probably not very notable beyond that scandal . Just a view. JuntungWu 06:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I would agree. There is no policitical system just for that neighbourhood. Incidently, I live in Strathfield :-) I should know. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Hmmm... I think I misunderstood you. Some of it was interesting. I added info that detailed how developers gave money to the Labor party to get them into power. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Minor objection, though maybe it's just my unfamiliarity with Australian political entities. I found it very confusing to figure out how the 'suburbs' fit into the municipality. Maybe a close-up map showing the boundaries of the suburbs would help. --SPUI (talk) 13:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah... that could be... interesting. I can't find public domain images that can do this, and I'm no good at map drawing! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cascading Style Sheets

I was pleasantly surprised to find this much information on CSS here, and thought it looked like a featured article. grendel|khan 18:41, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

• Object. Not ready for featured status. Has no lead section, no images (yes I think these are possibly for this article), and about a quarter of the article consists of external links, many of which are duplicate or irrelevant. The article should also be clear on whether it is an article about CSS or an article for people who want to use it. There are various more smaller problems which I will not dicuss here now; I suggest to move this article Wikipedia:Peer Review before coming back here. Jeronimo 19:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review. In addition to Jeronimo's points: I think the article should include more info on the content of the CSS(2) specifications. Also, keywords are mentioned but not explained ('aural', 'paged'). Content is duplicated (e.g. the part about the nature of CSS2.1 is found in both the 'Difficulty with adoption' and 'Recommendations' sections). The distinction (if any) between 'recommendation' and 'specification' is not clear. The important issue of accessibility is touched upon only in tutorial style. — mark ✎ 00:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• agree with everything said so far. Object its not yet ready for FA status. I would also like to point out theres nothing on the CSS 3.0 standard proposal and what its going to break/fix.  ALKIVAR™ 01:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review - lead section too short. Not enough about incompatiblities (yes, I realise there are external links, but this should be noted in the article text itself) we have an article Internet Explorer box model bug for instance, User:WapCaplet noted in the talk page that "stylesheets were originally envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee in about 1994, and how they progressed over time to become a standard" and that there should be "some mention of the difficulties in getting the standards widely accepted and used in practice, and particularly in getting browsers to implement them". No information about the differences between CSS1, CSS2 and CSS3. More information about sites like CSS ZenGarden might be nice also. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Some discussion of advanced CSS syntax, like a[href ^="http://"]. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 05:59, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

[edit] Geography of Canada

I am nominating this article because I believe it is well written, and is one of the more exemplory articles on Wikipedia. --Spinboy 23:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um, do you realize that this is for featured article status and not for the collaboration of the week? If yes, then I will have to oppose as this article is not yet ready for even an average article yet. (At least get rid of the "Unorganized Content" sub-header. Earl Andrew 23:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object, for the following reasons:

• No references.
• Figures that are subject to change are undated (Human geography).
• Weird, empty "See also" section.
• "Geography - note: During the Cold War Canada had a strategic location between Russia and US via the north polar route." Ummm, as far as I know did the tectonic forces of the Earth not move Canada to a different location since the end of the Cold War.
• Wikilinks in section headers are a no-no.
• (This might just be me being unfamiliar with geographic articles, but) I find it strange to see a list of treaties in an geography article. Treaties are signed by a political entity (i.e. the government), not by the rocks, lakes and sand of a country.
• A section called "Unorganized Content" in a Featured Article? I think not.

--Plek 23:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object This is a good start for an article. Fill it full of information, organize it, and then resubmit it. -Jun-Dai 00:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object - It just ain't ready yet. -Lommer | ^talk 00:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object, with the same objections as the others. Also: no pictures. Go to Wikipedia:Peer review first. Jeronimo 07:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object Lacking both in content (the sections, while linking to theorically more complete articles, need to be develloped, what about the Badlands, what about the Torngat Mountains?) and organisation (Natural ressource includes lots of economic material). I must say there has been much improvement since being CCOTW, though. --Circeus 03:01, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tsunami

A good, long-scale history; a few choice images, including an excellent hand-drawn cartoon schematic of the process; a well-balanced and -linked TOC and descriptive text. It might be improved by a MediaWiki timeline, more thorough discussion of methods for detection, and further anecdotes about specific tsunamis and their effects; but I think it is already feature-quality. +sj + 07:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) References consist of only 1 article? Expand - likely some external links were used as references and are not notes as such. 2) Merge sections: 'Past tsunamis', 'Other historical tsunamis' and 'North American and Caribbean tsunamis' 3) Not an object, just a comment: the article is constantly vandalised. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I share Piotrus's concerns 1) and 2). Ad 1): Many of the external links seem to concern the 2004 tsunami specifically. Ad 2): I would suggest to merged virtually all content into prose; no subsections would be needed. This should only contain the most relevant events, all others should be moved to a list outside of the article. A table with the 10 most devastating tsunamis might be interesting to add to that section. Jeronimo 21:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diana, Princess of Wales

This is _not_ a self nomination (Although I tweaked and did some minor work on it). I came across the article whilst looking for articles on Humantarian workers to put in the Humantarian category after I started Geraldine Cox (I hope you get that). Anyway, This article looks comprehensive, has the depth of her life and so forth. I thought it make be a good FA. I think that this FAC is simply straight foward, no explanation needed. Squash 07:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support, but I'd like to see a bit more of her humanitarian work mentioned in the lead section. Mgm|^(talk) 08:19, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not a bad article overall, I even contributed the bit about the underpass being an accident black spot, but I am not in favour of it being a featured article unless 2 issues are addressed. Firstly, get rid of the astrological stuff at the end. Secondly, it claims that Prince Harry had a stillborn twin, this may be true but it's the first I've heard of this, this needs to be either sourced or removed.

PatGallacher 13:33, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

• • Astrology gone - Done (It was already removed)
  • Yes. That part I never heard of either: "On the same day as Prince Harry was born, the Princess gave birth to a stillborn baby girl, which led to the speculation that Prince Charles wanted a baby girl rather than a boy." is removed Squash 20:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object"On the same day as Prince Harry was born, the Princess gave birth to a stillborn baby girl, which led to the speculation that Prince Charles wanted a baby girl rather than a boy" this is complete rubbish! Solar eclipses aside there is far too much speculation and unproven "facts" Incidentally it was the late Queen Mother who found her at the bottom of the stairs not her mother-in-law! Half this page seems to be "servant's gossip" and idle speculation! Wikipedia and the Princess deserve better. Giano 14:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • All issues addressed. See above Squash 20:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These ridiculous statements are all still there - the page is garbage!Giano 21:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. A section about astrology? I don't think so. Seriously, this needs cleanup, NPOV checking and copy-editingPhils 18:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Astrology section gone - Done Squash 20:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1) Top image has no credits, others have "looks like fair use". Very dubious. 2) Article seems a bit disbalanced. We get more text about her death than her life, and almost nothing about her early life. She is listed as one of the most famous celebrities, but this is hardly discussed. 3) The lead section suddenly cuts off at "She is". 4) There are no references, although some links are given in the text. 5) In the "Legacy", we get some seemingly random bits of information, which are not all very relevant. Also, there is more on NBC showing tapes than about Diana's early life. 6) The article is full of non-qualified quotes and vagueness. "It has been suggested", "led to the speculation", "Perhaps". Tell us who said or wrote this, and where. Jeronimo 21:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Giano, the ridiculous statements aren't so much still there as they keep being again there. The astrology stuff has been lifted verbatim from Omen, where it was inserted 17 Jan (rendering a previously respectable stub ridiculous) by the same anon who then went on to insert it into Diana, Princess of Wales on 19 Jan. Since then it has been removed from "Diana" several times and each time promptly and sneakily reinserted by another IP. By a curious coincidence, perhaps amounting to an omen, these anons both have vandalism warnings on their talk pages. Something tells me (I can feel psychic powers coming on) that "Diana" hasn't seen the last of the astrology stuff! Bishonen | Talk 21:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object, if only because the page is a magnet for vandalism (check out the History tab). I know that's not "actionable", but it is part of the FA criteria that an article be "stable". Incidentally, I don't know whether to ascribe the reckless over-wikification to vandalism or to somebody's unfortunate idea of helping Wikipedia. Check out the crapload of links in the lead section alone: along with a small number of relevant links, these concepts are also linked: wife, mother, throne, marriage, death, car, accident, Paris, photograph, icon, and celebrity. All within in a few short sentences! (Go on, look at the articles they lead to, it's ridiculous.) Bishonen | Talk 09:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--

Most of the problems listed above have now been fixed. Is there a way to re-nominate the article? (self-nom). Hic 17:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Hic, it says how at the top of WP:FAC. I'll take my best shot at doing it for you, but I warn you I may mess up! --Bishonen | Talk 18:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

While this article was still in progress, it had already won acclaim from multiple news agencies (e.g., theUK Guardian, the ed-tech Insider). It managed to be npov despite a flood of potential scammers and conspiracy theorists, and remains more comprehensive than any other freely available overview of the subject. Well written, well illustrated, well linked to other projects [wikinews, commons] and to external news and multimedia. A model news-feature article. +sj+ 08:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jan 6 FAC discussion 

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/Archive 1

• Object. Still too soon: the situation is still changing far too quickly for us to go over this and get in into FA shape. There's no end of rewriting, copyediting, updating and pruning to be done. Mark¹ 06:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "No end" seems to sum up your feelings on the matter ;) FA's aren't perfect. No articles are. They're just brilliant, model articles. This one happens to be a brilliantly-written model of a news-related article-in-progress, covering changes in an ongoing situation, changing news sources, and changing statistics. This article is already FA quality even before you personally have time to give it a final writing/copyediting/pruning rub-down. I can't wait to see it improve. +sj + 06:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I was rather hoping that someone else would give it an overhaul. My own contributions have been minimal, while Curps and Banyantree especially have the background knowledge to do the job much better. Why can't you wait? ("No end" was a rhetorical flourish). At a minimum, the references to online news sources which we know will disappear need to be replaced with more durable ones; given the number of people who have contributed, including probably many subtle vandals and the plain ill-informed, we need to do a thorough fact-check and referencing; the external links need to be checked and severely pruned to eliminate duplication, and they need to be annotated so that users can tell the difference between them. This is still very much a work in progress. Mark¹ 05:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support I think it's been enough time. Tuf-Kat 06:45, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I read the whole thing and I'm very impressed. Has all the qualities and FA should have. I've also never seen such extensive use of inline references ; it looks like the whole article is fully referenced this way. Anybody objecting based on newness of the event need only look at the page history for this article to see that further development has settled down a great deal (most of the edits are vandalism and reverts of that vandalism). A great example of why Wikipedia is so much better than the competition. It is just sad, that it takes something like this to prove this fact. -07:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object until the external links are coalesced into references appropriately. Johnleemk | Talk 08:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Inline references are a perfectly valid way of referencing. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article. "Include references by extensive use of inline references and/or by including a ==References== section." --mav
    • No, they really aren't. For instance, let's say that we point to an online article by the Sydney Morning Herald. Three months later, they archive the story. Say goodbye to the reference! This is why they need to be placed into a references section. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The difference escapes me. Explain? In a references section, the link will still be dead. +sj + 06:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Was this directed at me? Your indent doesn't make it clear... anyway, I'll respond. The link may still be there, but the references section is meant to give you: a) the author b) the title c) the publication and d) the year. An inline link can't provide any of these things. We can always look at the archives if the link dies - I know that for a publication like the SMH that the State Library of NSW keeps copies we can lookup. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Whoops, didn't notice them. I see them so often, they just seem to fade into the background for me. Johnleemk | Talk 09:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Supported before, I'll support again. I've often referred to this article for updates on the casualty figures and such. It's excellent work, and a great example of what Wikipedians can do. Everyking 08:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object - poor references. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
  • You must be joking. Every section has at least several inline references. --mav
    • Uh, and yet: no references section! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • You very conveniently changed that criteria after the fact. --mav
        • I think that has been accepted as a recommended practice for a while now. I certainly agree the inline citations need to be collected somewhere. As noted above though, perhaps inline citations to one specific fact may be better suited to a 'Notes' section, and those sources used and suitable for a general reference for the article are better for the references section. I could be off base though. Object though until the inline citations are collected somewhere is useful form that shows they are used to cite facts. Overall though, appears fantastically well done. With the previous issue fixed, I would be comfortable supporting as a FA now and then if it degrades as new information become available, removing it from being featured then. - Taxman 21:57, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
          • I think that every article, even ones that have inline references, should include a separate reference section at the bottom of the article as well. Also, it won't hurt anything to have both at the bottom. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 05:13, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
            • Agreed. - Taxman 22:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Should have been promoted last time, jguk 15:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support - excellent piece of work Brookie 16:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support - though the stand-alone sentences in "Humanitarian, economic and environmental impact" should be consolidated into paragraphs or moved to the relevant country impact page. Otherwise, a remarkable article. An account of the development of this article would be fascinating. - BanyanTree 02:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object The article is excellent I have nothing against that. But it's the other bits that makes me object. 1) The number of deaths is still not even near complete, We _could_ make it a FA but then we must regret not accurately showing the disaster to its completion - only a near completion 2) Yhe article was a "In the news" article for like a week or something, why do we need to make it a FA? 3) Not even one reference, for an article of this size that is unbelievable 4) What about the rebuilding after the Tsunami? It only talks about humanitarian aid, but nothing about the actual use of the money to rebuild. Probably due to that this FAC is still too early for information of that kind to be put in. 5) [16] Still a article for target of vandals - but this might not be a valid reason. I am only pointing out it out Squash 07:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The vandalism is relevant in that it's stopping us from giving the article a good, cold-eyed overhaul. That would make it much tighter, and much better. Mark¹ 07:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object Its still too soon to give FA status to this article. It is undoubtably an excellent article, but several major events still have to take place - pledges being met, reconstruction, after the media leaves, etc. I think April at the earliest for promotion. Also I think that some more sections chould possibly be made into their own articles - the page currently carries the warning WARNING: This page is 44 kilobytes long. Please consider condensing the page and moving the detail to another article so it is not approaching or in excess of 32KB. CGorman 21:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Inline references are fine for the time being, although as more scholarly treatments get published they should be mentioned in a references section. --Michael Snow 01:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A superb job, and worthy of featuring despite analysis yet to come. Denni☯ 03:00, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
• Object. References need to be collected in a references or notes seection. - Taxman 22:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This was in the news for quite a while not long ago. Putting it back on the front page so soon gives the impression that there's only a small handful of articles worth being there - few enough that we have to repeat very often. I'm not saying the article isn't of the quality of a featured article, it just doesn't make sense to put it back on the main page right now. LizardWizard 22:53, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid objection to featuring the article. Mark¹ 04:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. And besides, being a FA and being on the main page are two different things. - Taxman 19:11, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The objections seem to be
  • "it is too early" - but it is over 6 weeks later, and no longer a "front page" news story;
  • "it is not comprehensive" - but it presents all that is known (it is certainly much more comprehensive than it was on 6 January);
  • "it has inadequate references" - references are scattered throughout; true, they could also be collected in one place, like H II region, but they are good enough for me;
  • "it is too long" - being over 32k is undesirable, but it has not stopped articles being Featured in the past. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object First I want to thank the vast contributions that have and are occuring on this important article, but to be honest it is not a feature, to be self-centered, I first posted this this message on Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, then after no response I posted this question (same question) on the talk page of Talk:Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and still I have found no reason why this has not been added; this added that I am refering to is, what is the status of the Indigenous Tribes? CBS News... I am curios and I am sure others would like to know what is going on... can someone please tell me why this has not been addressed? (Below is an part copy of info...)

AP article:

Government officials and anthropologists believe that ancient knowledge of the movement of wind, sea and birds may have saved the five indigenous tribes on the Indian archipelago of Andaman and Nicobar islands from the tsunami

...

only about 400 to 1,000 members alive today from the Great Andamanese, Onges, Jarawas, Sentinelese and Shompens. Some anthropological DNA studies indicate the generations may have spanned back 70,000 years

...

Thanks, PEACE ~ RoboAction 08:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

see Effect_of_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_on_India#Andaman_and_Nicobar. If it is inadequate, you are welcome to add more info on it. pamri 08:59, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Support This article has become famous and desperately needs to be a featured article BMWman

[edit] Mouse (computing)

previous FAC

[edit] The Giver

Self-nomination. I think this book is worth a hefty article, and I've put some time into making the article a good one. It sat on Peer Review for a while, and I believe the pertinent comments have been addressed. At the very least, pushing the article this far may get somebody else working on it, and I'd like to see that.

Anville 02:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object It's a good piece on the book, but there's at least one critical piece missing: Why is this book relevant? (i.e., why does it exist as an encyclopedia article?). Certainly we have a lot of articles on works that aren't necessarily all that relevant, but I'd think that for it to become a featured article, it is necessary that that question be addressed. Currently, the entry reads like a book review, not an encyclopedia entry, and it doesn't really exemplify the wikipedia's best work. Jun-Dai 03:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Jun-Dai. It's almost there, and it does describe some of the effects the book has on future work, but it's influence and cultural and historical significance need to be more clear. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:19, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I also agree that it is a very good piece. and I agree with Jun-Dai, in his comment that it is lacking a bit in the relevance. However, all it really needs is some information on how it is a recommended piece for use in many First World English Language Arts programs at the grades seven through nine levels, and the glowing endorsements that can be obtained from many educational organizations. Hunt them out. Notability and relevance is also partially achieved through the Newberry and other awards this book has won, but comonality of vigorously supported praise by educators should likely tip the balance. It should be noted that schools no longer value just the 3 R's, but place a larger scope emphasis on creating critical, responsible, socially conscientious adults. I hope this helps. Weaponofmassinstruction 01:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Titor

A well written, complete, very neutral article about a very interesting possible time traveler. Swhawking 03:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references. Extensive quotes and claims of his writings with no citations. Untagged images. 119 03:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Funny topic, but quite good. I hope "John Titor" reads the article. Everyking 04:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Regrettably object. Excellent article, but hampered by insufficient references. I added some, but at the very least, we need Robert Brown's criticisms as a source, and they are no longer available. Johnleemk | Talk 08:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I come from later this month in the year 2005, and it eventually gets enough votes anyway. So you might as well let it be. Superking 18:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Superking, they'll develop time travel later this month? w00t. --mathx314 22:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object The article needs significant reworking to be NPOV, grammatically correct, and better written. Jun-Dai 01:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Quite good, but still not NPOV. I hope that someone addresses the inconsistencies and ambiguities in Titor's quotes as well. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:29, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Awful, trivial, nonsensical, kookish, POV filled and unencyclopedic. Does anyone else think this should be deleted? I'm thinking of listing it on VFD.--Deglr6328 06:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support Brookie 16:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but as others say, it still needs work re: inconsistencies and too much direct quotage. --Vodex 21:28, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Fascinating topic, sufficient depth, but could do with some tidying up and more references. Don't just tell us the arguments for and against, tell us who made these arguments. Who are the main parties in this controversy? GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Interesting read, but too many weasel words and not NPOV. --mav 18:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Virginian Railway

This is very detailed, well-illustrated, and extensively referenced. Connects the past to the present well. A potentially very dry topic, the article is organized and written in a way that makes it a captivating story. I have three edits in the history, limited to VERY minor stuff, like removing nearby duplicate links, some dab work, standardized formatting/layout, and removing some puff words like "wonderful". Mostly the work of Vaoverland, who did a lot of work on Battle of Hampton Roads, which was recently a 'Today's Featured Article'. Niteowlneils 16:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Some of the images need to be tagged. Once that's done I will support, as the article is quite good. JYolkowski 00:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Wow - very nice. However, I was about to support but saw some fairly significant structural issues. While reading the first half of the ==Building the Virginian Railway== section I kept on thinking "why am I reading this - it doesn't seem too connected to the subject." Then I realized that the first half is detailed backstory. In fact it was not until the 8th subsection that I got to ===Virginian Railway born===. But that subsection and the ones following (which are very much so on topic) in ==Building the Virginian Railway== were less detailed than the first part (which is backstory; important, but not in such detail in this article). To fix this I suggest creating a daughter article (think of a good name), move all the content now in ==Building the Virginian Railway== to it, and leave a good-sized summary of that at Virginian Railway (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Also the ==End of steam: decline at servicing points== section only has one paragraph. Either this is an underdeveloped point that needs to be expanded, or pretty much all that needs to be said has been said and the paragraph should be merged into another, larger section. ===The VGN in the 21st century=== seems to be underdeveloped. One sentence paragraphs annoy me so I was tempted to combine some sentences, but realized that each was making a rather distinct point. This tells me that each sentence needs to be expanded a bit to become true paragraphs (each current sentence would make for a good topic sentence for those paragraphs). ===Preservation activity & gatherings=== has similar issues but due to large sentence length, these are not as pressing (but still important). Nice lead section, btw. --mav 06:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will be working on the revisions as suggested. They are fairly major, and to round out the article, we will need some new content, which is available. Perrhaps getting the article off of fac nomination to allow time to work on it is OK. It probably should have gone to WP-PR first, anyway. Vaoverland 23:51, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zhao Ziyang

I feel the article is well written and the person seems to deserve a page on the main page, not now (because of the news of his death) but later. -- Sundar 10:35, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• This paragraph needs copyediting: "In Hong Kong, 10,000-15,000 people went to the candlelight vigil of Zhao. The mainlanders such as Chen Juoyi said that it was illegal for any Hong Kong legislators to join any farewell ceremony "because under the one country two system Hong Kong legislator cannot care anything about mainland." The statement caused a political storm in Hong Kong for three days after his speech. Szeto Wah, the chairman of The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China, said that it was not right for the Communists to depress the memorial ceremony. The twenty-four pan-democrat legislators went against the chairperson of the Legco, insisting that security be tightened at Tiananmen Square and at Zhao's house, and that the authorities try to prevent any public displays of grief." --Jiang 22:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what to make of an article which has only newspaper reports from the past month as references. Jeronimo 08:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nicely written and seems comprehensive - as far as I can tell after reading some press articles ovet the past few days. Printed references (books) would be nice, but the current online references are quite sufficient, if they are amended with info like 'retrieved on' and 'print edition name and date'. It would be nice to see this featured ASAP, if it is passed as a FA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I would support if Print or non-obituary/death-related news articles added as references, and that a few of the ones there are culled, or put in single entry (say "news reports on Ziyang's death (BBC) (Reuters) (CNN) (XNA) ).--ZayZayEM 15:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formula One

A well-researched, comprehensive, and well-documented article; partially a self-nom, though I'm not by any means its primary contributor. The issues raised at its last nomination in October 2004 have been corrected as follows:

1. Indiscriminate use of copyrighted F1 logo in series box - this has been removed.
2. Article deals too much with specifics and is biased toward present - history section has been thoroughly balanced; specific information has been moved to many of the other related articles (those listed at Template:Formula One).
3. "People" section is unhelpful - this has been removed in favor of a link to the List of Formula One people.
4. "Future of F1" should be discussed more broadly - now an entire section is devoted to this topic.

— Dan | Talk 03:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It's nearly there, but I still have to object. Good job on the improvements, though. As noted within the article, safety is still a major issue in F1 racing and yet it hasn't been addressed in the main article. Also, I would've expected a short mention of racing legends Ayrton Senna (because of his death) and Niki Lauda. Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Improvement over the previous version, but still several issues.

1. The lead section should be a bit longer and present a better summary.
2. The history section has seemingly random subsections.
3. Maybe (not sure) it is better to split out the history of the evolvement of the car to the "The cars" section.
4. Writing of the history section is not very fluent. One sentence paragraphs should be avoided; make it more of a story and less of a list of facts. There are also several facts that are too specific or irrelevant; For example, the disappearance of Prost and Arrows should be combined with the downsizing of the field from 40 in the early 1990s to the present number. 5) As MGM noted, Senna and Lauda should certainly not be left out of this article.
5. I miss a section on the popularity of the sport, the size of the fanbase, coverage in the media, etc. etc.
6. The "Future of..." section discusses the main issues, but is still too much a collection of individual news facts. Also, historical perspective is needed; the three issues of internationalization, rule changes and financial problems for small teams are not new. Instead of only mentioning the new rules, mention the old rules as well (e.g. changes in the qualifying format, and the reasons to do so). Leave out specifics unless they are very important.
7. Move all see alsos to a separate list below. If you must keep them in the sections, put them at the bottom, save for the "main article" of course. Most of these are also mentioned in the table at the top too.
8. A comparison with other and similar motorsport classes would be good for perspective. Especially the Europe (F1) vs. America (Indy) should be discussed. Jeronimo 12:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gymnopaedia

Article covers in a compact description pretty much of the links that in several epochs of Ancient Greece existed between Martial arts - Dance - Religion - Ceremony - Performance - Nudity - Education - Gender role - Competition.

Referenced through quotes from contemporary writers in Wikiquote: Wikiquote:Gymnopaedia.

Draws discreetly attention to the all-time favourite compositions of Erik Satie, named after the gymnopaedia (see gymnopédie)

--Francis Schonken 11:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object Although made out to be comprehensive, it looks only a bit longer than a stub to me, jguk 13:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Compact is bad. Expand greatly. Everyking 22:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object Far too short. Also lacks references. --mathx314 23:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Concur with other reviewers: article is not comprehensive, lacks references, and writing is poor at times (especially the lead reads like a loose collection of sentences). Jeronimo 08:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No way is this a featured article. It is not comprehensive at all. Far too compact, and has no references. If there is a connection between the surreal "3 Gymnopedies" and these Greek athletes perhaps it should be explained rather than "discreetly" hinted at. Giano 10:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object To short, way to short. The external links and sources section is longer than all of the article. Waerth 15:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review, for reasons itemized in all the votes above. A "refer" vote doesn't seem to be in use much, although it's suggested in the FAC instructions at the top of the page for just this kind of case (it seems to me). Raul, considering the specific objections made, you might possibly want to take the unanimous votes above as also implying "Refer to peer review". Bishonen | Talk 18:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review - same reasons as Bishonen. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Refer to peer review" will only have a chance of working if there's at least one editor who will respond to any comments left. If Francis Schonken, or anyone else who wishes to contribute to the article wants to put it on WP:PR, that would be great. But we shouldn't refer it to peer review unless there is at least one volunteer! jguk 09:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• OK, volunteering --Francis Schonken 08:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• According to policy, we should. Jguk, if you disagree with the FAC instructions, maybe you want to go edit them, or take it to the talk page? Bishonen | Talk 10:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-> See Wikipedia:Peer_review/Gymnopaedia

[edit] Washington gubernatorial election, 2004

I think this is an interesting, well illustrated, and very factual article with good tables and photographs about the closest gubernatorial race in US history. I would like to see it as a FAC! Páll 02:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. An interesting circumstance and a well-crafted article, but IMO of little interest to readers outside the US. I know this is not an actionable concern, but it is a concern for me nonetheless. Denni☯ 03:36, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you came to that assessment, seeing as I'm from outside of the US and it interested me. Páll 03:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

International interest isn't a criterion of Featured articles. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 03:51, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 03:51, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Carrp 03:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

May I ask why you oppose? it is customary to justify an oppose or a support statement. Páll 03:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My opposition is based on the fact that there is still a pending legal challenge. I prefer that Featured Articles not be based on ongoing events. I agree with everything you stated about the article ("...interesting, well illustrated, and very factual article with good tables and photographs..."), and will support for FA once the legal challenge has been decided. Carrp 04:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not complete, and I gather will not be so for several months. Mark¹ 05:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm very confused by the remarks that we cannot have a featured article on a story that is "incomplete" because ongoing. So can we never have a featured article on (for example) a living person, or the history of an existing country? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:23, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • In any election article the crucial pieces of information concern who won and who lost. In the case of the Washington gubernatorial election, 2004, there is still a legal challenge pending. Thus, it is not yet possible to answer the question "Who won?". Without knowing the final result, an election article isn't complete. I would also vote against making an article such as Super Bowl XXXIX a featured article until the result is complete. Carrp 18:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. In addition to the problems raised above, the article needs some work. Non-Americans (like me) will not all be familiar with the primary system, so it may be a good idea to explain it briefly. The sections on the primaries themselves are brief, especially the Libertarian one. If little is to be said, make them less promiment (no need to subsection sections of a few lines) (And who or what is "Mike the Mover"?"). Jeronimo 08:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Mike is a libertarian political gadfly, and that is legally his name. He changed it before he first ran for office, because he was better known by what it said on his truck. I won't go on here, but he probably deserves an article... -- Jmabel | Talk 18:23, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Article is already quite a bit behind on the legal challenges raised to the election. I agree with Jeronimo that the structure of the sections on the primaries is disruptive to the flow of the article. --Michael Snow 21:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Looks fairly comprehensive and well referenced to me, but as I know very little about the subject I will wait with interest to see how Jeronomo and possible other factual objections (if any)are adressed. I don't mind if it is ongoing event or not , and international interest is not any criteria I heard about. Also, most terms used in the article seem to be explained or ilinked. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gangtok

A self nomination, since I am the sole author of the page. After visiting the town of Gangtok recently, I was charmed by this quaint town and decided to write all about it. Lots of images (my own) and meaty content, plus a plethora of links. It’s a comprehensive article and I've tried to touch on all points. I also ran it through Peer Review without any negative comments. Adhered to almost all Wikipedia MoS. Nichalp 19:05, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Exemplary city page. [jon] [talk] 20:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Im not objecting - but im a little concerned about having a FA with only one contributor, I feel that all FA's require several contributors to ensure a higher level of accuracy and absolutely no POV. I know that this is not a real grounds for objecting - this is undoubtably a well written article - but im not lending my support unless there is significant editing by others. CGorman 21:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • My Btreive article got to featured article status and I was the main contributor (with a few people chipping in to fixup grammar, etc). Same with Common Unix Printing System. I don't think it's a problem! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I did keep the article open for almost a fortnight and publicised it in many places including PR, but unfortunately no one edited the page. Nichalp
    • Fair enough you tried to get others to edit - but the fact remains it is your sole work. As a result, as others have pointed out the article - while informative and interesting - is tilted in POV. CGorman 21:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • If you could give me give instances of a POV, I'll try and soothe things up. Would the sections till Culture be an NPOV? Nichalp 20:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. While I do not dislike most of the content or even the subject, I feel that it is poorly written, more in the style of a travel guide instead of a factual encyclopaedia article. Furthermore, the article uses bizarre and arcane language, for example using "appellation" instead of name. IF the language can be cleaned up and the travel-guide like references can be rewritten, I would be happy to support. Páll 03:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

**Exactly what is so bizzare with the language? Appellation is also used in the India article which is a FA. I believe that simple wikipedia was created to address this issue so that the level of English can be of a higher quality on the English wikipedia. My take on this issue is if a word cannot be understood, consult a lexicon (or simple wiki) Nichalp 19:47, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Made major changes. Nichalp

• Oppose - agree it sounds like a travel brochure. And it is wordy - in the first paragraph alone we have 'salubrious', 'cynosure' and 'sybaritic'. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 03:22, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see the above point. Nichalp
    • There is a difference between using uncommon words because you must and using them because you can. Example:

A research team proceeded toward the apex of a natural geological protuberance, the purpose of their expedition being the procurement of a sample of fluid hydride of oxygen in a large vessel, the exact size of which was unspecified. One member of the team precipitently descended, sustaining severe fractional damage to the upper cranial portion of the anatomical structure. Subsequently the second member of the team performed a self rotation translation oriented in the direction taken by the first team member.

Translation: Jack and Jill went up a hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down and broke his crown, and Jill came tumbling after.

So what is the added value of appellation over name? Of cynosure over focal point? --Calton 02:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • • I've tempered most of the sections till culture. Nichalp 20:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Very excellently written and makes great use of illustrations. However, it is overly POV. Makes huge claims, especially in the introduction, that can't and aren't proven in the article. Masterhomer 04:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you be kind enough to guide me to areas which you find to be a POV?
    • Speaking for myself, ... its underlying zeitgeist in the first graf is pretty POV. --Calton 02:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Changed the first two paras. I hope that upto the Culture section it is sanitised. If you have any more POV please list it. Nichalp 20:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Commment/abstain. Fairly good, but not yet up to FA standard, as others noted. What comes to mind - it would fit very well to Wikitravel, where it would be much welcome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Minor Opposition This article is clearly off on a good foot, but it needs more time and more contributors before it is ready to be a featured article. Phrases like "arriving here to discover Sikkim's exotic culture" really don't belong in an entry like this. We are not publishing a travel guide. At the moment it contains too much flowery language and too much pretentiousness ("Though Gangtok is a modern city, with its internet cafés, satellite channels, discothèques and bars, it preserves its underlying zeitgeist, blending the eclectic flavours of its rich cultural history with the contemporary."? Give me a break). The article needs some citations to other sources, particularly with regard to demographic information (e.g.: 18% Buddhist? According to whom?). Comment: A better map of the city (the current one looks like an attempt at solving the travelling salesman puzzle), or a bird's eye view, would be extremely helpful in getting a sense of the geographical layout of the city. Also, more emphasis on historical context and cultural considerations would make the article seem more balanced. Currently it still seems like the article is written to be helpful to a potential tourist, rather than someone doing research on, say, the municipalities of Sikkim.</Jun-Dai 21:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)>

  Pretty soon, I expect I'll be able to remove my opposition to the piece, but being unable to easily verify any of the information contained within the article, I can't give it my support, especially becaase there aren't enough significant content contributors to convince me that the wiki process has really taken place with regards to ensuring the article's veracity. Perhaps this weekend or so, I will be able to take a trip to the main library and do a little research to satisfy myself, since the main author of the article clearly wants it to be worth something, but without that, and in the absence of time (it's a very young article) and more input (particularly some from people who live in Sikkim would be nice), I don't feel comfortable giving it my vote.</Jun-Dai>

There aren't any clear online maps of the city available, so I traced it out from a Government website which had scanned a map. The map however was of a poor quality. I have listed a few websites, maybe that should start you off. As far as the population is concerned, it is in one of the reference books I have listed. Nichalp 18:39, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 17:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)> In that case, citing it should be easy. As for the map, that was just a comment, and not part of my opposition to the article. At any rate, I'm very impressed with the work that you've done, and I think that if enough time simply goes by, the article will get that little bit of maturity it needs to be supportable as a featured article. Even if it were resubmitted now, I think it would meet with much less opposition than it did this time around. </Jun-Dai>

• Oppose. Good start, but it looks like something I'd read in a Sunday newspaper travel section. Less tourism talk, more information talk. --Calton 02:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, looks like everone has a problem with the opening paragraphs. I've removed the offending phrases, please have a look. I have tried and sanitised upto the Culture section. I hope it is now all encyclopedic fact. I would be obliged if you could provide me specific instances of what needs to be corrected till this point. Nichalp 20:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
    

    

    I cannot tell where Gangtok is very clearly on this picture

I've made major changes to the structure, removed the poetry and "Brochure" sections and modelled a few heading content on Newark and Sarajevo. Please have a look. Nichalp 09:15, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment with picture. --ZayZayEM 08:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gangtok; being the state capital is the red dot. Nichalp 18:39, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say I couldn't find it. I said it wasn't very clear. A red dot and slightly more bold text really doesn't stand out in this picture with too many other distractions. This picture looks more like it draws attention to "Sikkim"--ZayZayEM 09:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 18:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)> That's a pretty good point. Being an article on Gangtok, there's no reason Gangtok shouldn't be larger and bolder and more clearly indicated on the map than the other locations. </Jun-Dai>

[edit] Photography of female nudes before 1923

This article is concise, beautiful, and well-written. Its name was recently changed from vintage erotica. Here is the discussion that led to the name change. Cranberry 17:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Quote from mentioned discussion: "True, 1923 is an arbitrary cutoff; the main reason for choosing it was that I could use any pictures from that era without causing a copyvio". This is a ridiculous reason to name an article, to which I object. If you make such a cutoff, it must at least 1) a fixed cutoff (not a moving one) and 2) have a good reason for the cutoff. Also, it is not necessary to have a photo of each year to write an article about, "black and white erotic photos". As for the article itself, it very much seems like an excuse to have nude photos. The text is brief and jumps from fact to fact. It appears to be far from complete, and seems to mention only a few names and situations. We do not get a good overview of the scale and size of female nude photography in said era, public opinion - only a few indications are mentioned. There is no discussion of the ties with related topics (male nude photography, female nude photography after the "magical" 1923 border, photography in general), and it is unclear why the article is so specific. Right now, it would not even be a proper addition to "Female nude photography". Jeronimo 07:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, there is certainly nothing keeping someone from writing Photography of male nudes or expanding this article to bring it up to the present, and renaming it Photography of female nudes. In fact, if both articles are written, they might even be combined into Nude photography. The current title was chosen in order to accurately described the content, but does not limit future expansion in any way. Like many Wikipedians, I simply chose to limit my writing to the area of my expertise, photography of female nudes before 1923, rather than include photography of male nudes, or modern-day nude photography, which I am not as familiar with, and could not as competently write about. Cranberry 17:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• ObjectI completely agree with the above. The whole approach seems ill thought out, as a reason to put these photos in an article. They are good images (except for the 4th, where the poor woman seems to have unfortunate posture) and I'm sure an article on the subject can be featured, but not as it is now.Giano 09:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a problem here Vintage erotica still exists as a seperate article with a cheerful looking lady who does not seen very vintage. Vintage erotica's talk page is the same as Photography of female nudes before 1923 I think someone's either confused or having a joke! I think also one should remember that this is an educational site that children visit too, and images should not be to grafic. Giano 14:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While I concur with Jeronimo's assessment, I would note that the images accompanying this article would be considered quite decent in most countries. By almost any Western standard, they are restrained and in good taste. Considering what children are exposed to on network television, I would not consider these "graphic". Denni☯ 01:06, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Sorry I phrased that badly. The images in both articles are completely tame and harmless, I meant care should be taken that such an article does not attract a more graphic type of image being uploaded.Giano 09:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It should be noted that one of the principal authors of this article (an anon, 205.217.105.2) just committed voter fraud on this very page by attempting to impersonate 172 and RickK. This same anonymous user went on to impersonate other users on several user talk pages. I don't mean to suggest impropriety, but is 205.217.105.2 the same user as User:Cranberry? In any event, I oppose this nomination, in agreement with Jeronimo above. -- Hadal 14:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object The article's title is arbitrary, and the topic isn't sufficiently developed. The fact that someone could write more about the topic and how it relates to other topics does not seem to me to be a good reason for featuring it. I'm not so concerned with the motives for writing the article (as others are), but it is simply much too underdeveloped for such a broad topic. Jun-Dai 01:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Bulgaria

Quite complete, well illustrated.

• Object. This is barely even a beginning to what we need on the history of Bulgaria. This should be a collection of summaries linking off to a variety of subarticles. Everyking 17:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I object to this objection. This article deals with the topic quite well. Subarticle would eventually be desirable, but are not required. Jeronimo 19:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. This objection is not actionable, and therefore invalid unless you can point to specific things this article needs to cover, but fails too. - Taxman 16:39, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not bad, but this lacks several essential items. 1) No references. 2) Lead section is actually part of the story. Should be replaced by a summary of the article in 2-3 paragraphs. 3) History starts in the 7th century AD. What about prehistory? Roman times? 4) Some of the images have no source and or copyright information. Jeronimo 19:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references and no lead (as Jeronimo noted). As I know little about Bulgarian history, what follows in not an object but a comment: this seems very short for a history of a 1000+ years old nation. The 'Bulgaria under Ottoman rule' section is rather small - 400 years compressed into four paragraphs, and the last 200 years take 2/3 of the article - was the earler Bulgarian history of so little importance compared to the lat 2 centuries? I think that atm no 'history of a country' article of Wiki is ready for FAC, so after references are added and lead is improved, treat my vote as 'abstain'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• The article was written from my own general knowledge and from other encyclopaedias. I am not a specialist in Bulgarian history but one doesn't need to be to write at this level of detail.
• Articles should be judged by what they are, not by what they are not. I chose to write a single narrative history of Bulgaria since the arrival of the Bulgars. If someone wants to write more detailed spin-off articles, they are welcome to do so.
• As the article makes clear, the Bulgarians did not arrive in Europe until the 7th century. There is therefore no history of Bulgaria prior to that time.
• The Bulgaria under Ottoman Rule section is fairly short because nothing much happened, as the article makes clear. That was one of the defining characteristics of Ottoman rule.
• People who admit they nothing about the subject will have to take my word for it that the article covers the salient points of Bulgarian history. The article is a good deal more comprehensive than many of the other national history articles at Wikipedia. I re-wrote this one because the previous article was so awful. You are welcome to try to improve it but you had better know what you are talking about.
• I no longer argue about images. Feel free to delete any you object to.

Adam 16:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adam, one of important the requirements of a featured article is that it has references. The article needs to be verifiable for readers and editors. Second, Bulgaria is a country, so there is a history of it before the arrival of the Bulgarians. Just as the USA had a history before the arrival of the Europeans. Finally, my objection will remain as long as there are images without sources in the article. I may indeed remove them as I like, but the idea of the images is that they're there to illustrate the text (which they do nicely). Removing them will certainly not improve the article. If you, as the editor, aren't interested in making the article a featured one, don't expect us to. Jeronimo 08:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On your three points. First, of course the piece of land now called Bulgaria has always existed. But since it wasn't inhabited by Bulgarians until the 7th century, before that time its history belongs in some other article (Roman Empire, Moesia, Thrace etc). "Bulgaria" is by definition the land of the Bulgarians, and that's what this article is about. Secondly, personally I don't care if the article is featured or not. I write articles as I see fit, and others then edit them as they see fit. If you want to remove the images, go ahead. If you don't, don't. Thirdly, as I have said many times, the credibility of any encyclopaedia article depends on the credibility of the encyclopaedia, not on how many footnotes it is festooned with. That's why there are no footnotes in the Britannica. Adam 09:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia is not Brittanica. Why should we strive for no better than what paper encyclopedias do? Wikipedia suffers from a percieved lack of reliability. References will go a long way toward eliminating that. Academic papers cite their sources for a reason, to ease in checking the facts in the article, and for intellectual honesty. If you don't feel like citing sources in the articles you write, then just say that, but don't act like Wikipedia wouldn't be better of if it did consistently cite sources in its articles. I'll avoid rehashing all of Talk:Art_in_Ancient_Greece#Lack of References, but those interested can read there. In any case, if you don't care if it is featured or not then no big deal. It just won't be without good use of references. - Taxman 16:39, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll go so far as to say that a Wikipedia article can never have any inherent credibility, because its accuracy is based on the honesty of the last (often anonymous or pseudonymous) person who edited it. Therefore, citations are more important in Wikipedia than in other encyclopedias. Whenever anyone raises the credibility objection with me, I always answer that they should simply double-check what they read here. The easier we make that, the more useful Wikipedia will be as a resource.

--P3d0 06:30, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Taxman. Also, Adam - if you don't want the article featured, and are not prepared to work for it, why did you nominate this? To waste my time? Jeronimo 07:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article seems to have been nominated by User:Kostja who seems to have abandoned it. Adam does not seem to be bothered if it's featured or not. Subsequently that seems to be the end of the matter. I added the first lot of "references" supplied, they were reverted (probably correctly) as useless, and no-one seems to want to add the second alternative references provided. I do see Adam's point, and I'm sure all his info is 100% reliable, but it also has to be seen to be 100% reliable. Giano 08:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My experience in the past has been then when articles I have written have been given "feastured status" they attract a swarm of vandals and I have to spend all my time reverting their efforts. I then incur the wrath of the Politburo for breaking their silly 3R rule. Adam 03:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• The Bulgars arrived in Bulgaria in the 7th century. In Europe they arived perhaps as early the 3rd century. Kostja 19:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not according to any sources I have seen. It depends on how you define "Europe." They may have been somewhere west of the Urals, but they weren't within the zone of European civilisation as it then existed. Adam 02:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object but would quickly change to Support if: The lead is rewritten to summarise the page more broadly. References need to be provided (if only for further reading), if encyclopedias were used - fine, name them. At 40KB the article is quite long enough, some people (not me)may winge about the length as it is, to write a detailed history of any country in this space is always going to have to exclude something others consider relevant. As it is it seems salient,to the point and up to date. Giano 19:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lack of references, a basic featured article criteria. Oops, forgot to mention, very well written, so the lack of valid references is unfortunate. It is much harder to successfully and correctly add references after the fact than it is to do it while writing. - Taxman 16:39, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

The sum total of the rerefences for this article would have been:

• The author's personal knowledge (based on 30 years of reading European history)
• Encyclopedia Brittanica
• Collier's Encyclopedia
• Funk & Wagnall's Encyclopedia

Anyone is free to add that if they think it will add to the credibility of the article or of Wikipedia. Personally I don't. Also it amounts to signing the article which I believe is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Adam 16:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Its now referenced. Stop being chippy and give your work the deserving shove it's worth Giano 21:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seems its now not referenced again. Adam can you not just give a little here and conform? - a little? Giano 21:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? Those are the references I used. I can't make up references out of thin air. Everyking is right that they add nothing of value to the article, which is why he (not I) deleted them. Adam 02:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, here are some standard histories of Bulgaria, from the National Libriary of Australia catalogue. They can be added as further reading rather than references, since they were not used (by me at any rate) as references for writing this article:

• Balkans : a history of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Rumania, Turkey / by Nevill Forbes ... [et al.]. 1915.
• History of Bulgaria / Hristo Hristov ; [translated from the Bulgarian, Stefan Kostov ; editor, Dimiter Markovski]. Khristov, Khristo Angelov,. c1985.
• History of Bulgaria, 1393-1885 / [by] Mercia Macdermott. MacDermott, Mercia, 1927- [1962].
• Concise history of Bulgaria / R.J. Crampton. Crampton, R. J. 1997.
• Short history of Bulgaria / [by] D. Kossev, H. Hristov [and] D. Angelov ; [Translated by Marguerite Alexieva and Nicolai Koledarov ; illustrated by Ivan Bogdanov [and] Vladislav Paskalev]. Kossev, D. 1963.
• Short history of Bulgaria / Nikolai Todorov ; [L. Dimitrova, translator]. Todorov, Nikolai, 1921- 1975.

Adam 02:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They don't need to have been used while creating the text, but they do need to be useful in confirming the content in the article. If this is the case, then list them as references. --mav 06:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since I haven't read them, I have no idea what they confirm. Adam 08:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pity! It would have been good to have seen it on the front page. Giano 09:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well then add those references/further reading to the article! ATM it still has bad lead and no refrences - I can see virtually NO improvement since it was listed here few days ago :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I think we mostly all agree this is a good article that needs better references. This discussion seems to have devolved from Featured Article issues to just plain Article. Shouldn't we move this talk to Talk:History of Bulgaria? We can resume this here after detailed references are cited and used, which will likely change the article. -- A D Monroe III 23:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article contains POV edits by Vmoro, who is attempting to hide the evidence that points to Peter Asen being a Vlach, Peter Asen being the founder of the Empire of the Vlachs and Bulgars. Decius 00:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bolt Thrower

This article displays a complete overview of the death metal band Bolt Thrower.

Selfnomination.

Spearhead 09:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• It's good, I like it, although I'm not sure it's quite ready for featured status. Looks like there are a few things that could be reworded and refined. I'd love to see an article like this on the main page, though. Everyking 18:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Uh, hi. If you don't provide a bit more detail on what you think is deficient, there is nothing the nominator can do to fix the article. - Taxman 03:39, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm not a thrash metal fan. If I'm gonna read an article on a thrash band, I need some kinda hook to grab my interest. The tabletop angle sounds interesting; it needs to be treated more thoroughly. Is an interest in tabletop gaming common in hardcore bands? If not, that makes them unique; say so. If yes, do Bolt Thrower take it further? We need more specifics about how, if at all, the gaming thing makes their lyrics/music stand out from other bands of the same genre. It's interesting that they're not just fanboys, but they've actually had Games Workshop sponsorship. That should be in the introduction. Does GW do that kind of thing commonly, or was this a unique deal? Other than that, all I'll say is that the prose could use some polishing in places.

I made this a bit more clear. Altho for a music article the musical interest should be the main interest. I do acknowledge tho that some ppl got into them because of the game. Spearhead 16:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) Needs sound sample(s) to hear what the band actually sounds like. 2) Needs a photo of the band itself. 3) No references (although some of the ext. links may qualify as such). 4) Needs a copyedit for style and POV (cite the source). Some samples: "They did not feel quite happy", "And now in 2004", "and also because his hair fell out", "sounds very much Bolt Thrower", "a bit more hardcorish", "the heaviest label ever at that time", "the band's quality can be heard in some songs", etc. 5) The article should give an idea of the following of the band (how large, how international, maybe some sales figures?) Also, citing some professional reviews might be useful. 6) The related bands section should be integrated in the article. If there were bands that influenced Bolt Thrower, mention them in article; same for bands that were influence by Bolt Thrower. 7) It seems a redundant to have a line-up section when all line-ups are mentioned in the history. Also, the band members should be linked when first mentioned. Jeronimo 07:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1) Added a link to one song 2) done 3) added BTFAQ as reference. added some books. 4) fixed most of the mentioned stuff plus some other. 5) record sales are pretty much irrelevant in this genre. 6) original influences mentioned. will improve this. Furthermore some bands are mentioned in see also as a sort of similar band 7) The lineup provides a clear overview of bandmembers and has some more detail, similar to the discography. band member *were* linked. Spearhead 16:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to look at the rest later on, but re 5): if sales are irrelevant for the genre, why does the article start out with "becoming one of the best selling bands on that label"? Anyway, my main point was to get a picture of the size and shape of the following of the band. Record sales *might* be a way to do so, but it's certainly not the only way (see above). I think this is essential for the article. Jeronimo 08:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it was one way to more or less satifisfy one of your objections. I might go on and discuss tours, venue size and ticket sale states etc.

• Object. No references, a basic featured article criterion. Please make sure the article you nominate meets all of the basic criteria before nominating it. That is simple courtesy to the editors you are asking to consider your article. - Taxman 14:07, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

• fixed Spearhead 17:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Adding references after the fact is potentially problematic. Can you confirm to what extent you used the listed references to add or verify material in the article? - Taxman 21:44, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Taxman, I'm a bit confused here. You asked for references, something our (relatively) new user was not really aware of. As you requested for his references, which he duly added (and he wrote most of the article) exactly what do you want him to do? This request sounds bloody unreasonable. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I expect exactly what I just requested, that he properly used them to add or confirm material in the article. The problem that others have correctly pointed out with references added to an article after the request for such has been made is that someone simply added a list of works about the subject and did not actually use them properly. So it is entirely reasonable to ask the editor to confirm that they did use them properly. And for the record, I did not "ask for references", I objected to this article being featured because it had none. - Taxman 16:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

• All right, but here's the thing: you did request them when you objected to having no references because all objections must be actionable. The very fact you object to no references is an implied request he adds them as he must act on most reasonable objections. I'm not arguing that your objection is unreasonable, I feel it's unreasonable to object to the references, then have the original author add them and then object that he added them! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't object that he added them. As stated a number of times already, I asked him to confirm to what extent he added them properly, which has, as of yet, not been done. It is a very important distinction. References added without being used are entirely unnaceptable, as has been pointed out to me by other authors numerous times. - Taxman 13:42, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

• object. I just fixed some bad wordings in the lead and the first section, but the whole article still needs work (examples: It seemed that they hardly knew what death metal would be -- who does the they refer to, The production of this piece was not great, though it was an improvement on previous attempt. -- pluralization, After Games Workshop heard the recording of the songs for Bolt Thrower's second Peel session, which was recorded on 6 November 1988, they offered Bolt Thrower to do the expensive artwork for the album, which the band accepted. -- bad link format, run-on sentence, ambiguous pronoun, poor English in "offered to do the expensive artwork"). There are POV problems as well, in the bald claim that Vinyl Solutions did not know what death metal "would be", in the claims about quality of production, about how ingenius some songs are -- these claims need to be attributed to one of the sources cited in the references section. The "related bands" section needs to go (if they're related, they should be in the body of the article with an explanation of how they're related). The see also section is unnecessary, since both links are already in the article. Needs sound samples (in the wiki, not in an external link). Tuf-Kat 22:16, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

considering Vinyl Solution; the statement is not so bold as it may seem. We're speaking of 1988 here and the first death metal album ever was released only in 1987. Moreover, as stated in the article, VS was a pure hardcore label. Spearhead 17:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another needed tweak: song titles go in quotes, and albums in italics. Tuf-Kat 00:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - we still need a copyedit. I started, but I'll continue. Most of the other things have been fixed up, and this is an interesting article. This is almost ready, I feel. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Berlin Wall

All around good article, and very interesting. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 09:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Dbiv 13:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object, I'm afraid. This article is good; it is brief yet everything necessary seems to be in here. My only major problem with it is that it really needs a map of where the Berlin wall was located, and where the major entry/exit points were. A minor point is that the lead section is too short. It should give a summary of the article (see Wikipedia:Lead section), which in this case should probably be around one or two paragraphs. Jeronimo 20:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak support. I agree with Jeronimo's critiques, but I lean more in the direction of support. Edeans 20:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Just one comment; should the see also section not refer to a few German history articles and articles dealing with the fall of European Communism - e.g. GDR border system, History of the German Democratic Republic, East Berlin, West Berlin etc. CGorman 21:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "See also" section is meant to list links not yet used in the article. East and West Berlin are already mentioned in the lead section. Jeronimo 20:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was just trying to give a few examples to illustate my point - perhaps GDR border system then. CGorman 21:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object sorry, but I'm missing to much background, see de:Berliner Mauer for a comparison Several statements are factually incorrect: 238 people died not 192, Günter Schabowski never announced that the Wall was open, the people just understood him this way. that "The construction of the wall came as a complete surprise to the western Allies" is at least questionable - they knew that something important was going to happen in Berlin. "Helmstedt" was never a crossing point in the Berlin Wall because it lies over a hundred miles away from it. -- Zeitgeist 01:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lead section definitely inadequate. I agree that it could use checking against the German Wikipedia article; even if we don't translate it outright, it's a pretty decent guide for what this article could potentially accomplish. --Michael Snow 22:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to translate, actually I was just to lazy to point out exactly what I was missing :-) For an example: All the English article has is: " "The construction of the wall came as a complete surprise to the western Allies" The German article has about ten paragraphs plus additional quotes from main actors about who knew (or guessed) what in advance and why. Also I'm missing some crucial information that for example 400 persons were still able to flee while the Wall was being build. -- Zeitgeist 14:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support I agree that it would benefit from more under the See Also section, such as earlier suggested by CGorman Vaoverland 08:41, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Could use more on the role of the wall in the Cold War. 172 02:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page table

Raul suggested I submit this Danny's contest winner to FAC, so here it is. It has nice diagrams and some good explanation of modern VM. (Self-nomination) Dysprosia 22:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Object - Initally I supported this nomination but what Taxman had to said are valid. I can't support a nomination that lacks many things especially explaning many of technical terms to the average reader (I know nothing about Page table). Squash 05:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1.) Innadequate references. 2.) The lead section doesn't even make an attempt to explain many technical terms to the average reader. Highly technical topics are fine as FA's, but most people feel the first paragraph of the lead section should be understandable to someone with almost no knowledge of the subject. Also the grammar in the lead section is very tortured, it could be made much more understandable if it was simplified. 3.) The rest of the article doesn't do much to make it easy for someone who doesn't already know the subject to understand it either. My favorite is "clearly, the first memory access, to address 0xfff0dabe would be invalid". Well clearly, of course. At least some link to or inline explanation of hex addresses would be needed to make that accessable to more readers. You don't have to spoon feed everything, but the article should at least consider that the reader is not already entirely knowledgeable about the subject and try to offer inline explanations for all overly technical terms. 4.) A lot of dodgy language, that needs to be clarified. I could copy examples here, but I'll just try to fix what I can and ask others to do the same. 5.) Needs a lot of 'See also' links to connect it with other related topics and to be put in the proper categories to aid the reader in finding related material. Hope that helps - Taxman 13:56, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Let me begin by saying it's not necessarily always a desirable effect for an article to contain assumed knowledge (for example, if I look up Spin (physics), and don't understand what it's saying, I wouldn't blame the article, but ensure I have knowledge of some basic physics first). Regardless, I have provided a lengthy overview of how computers use memory.
    • But the article needs to at least introduce and reiterate the basics very quickly. In some spots it does indeed need to contain the assumed knowledge and weave it in well. It doesn't need to cover it in volume though. Basically the article doesn't need all the background material but the reader shouldn't have to already know the subject of the article to understand it, as this article required when I made the above comments. The lead section though does need at least the first paragraph to contain almost no undefined terms and ease the uninitiated reader in. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

To address your first concern, if I make use of only one reference in an article, need I force myself to make use of more?

Ideally yes. It is very hard to believe one reference would validate all of the material in an article. That you know the material personally isn't good enough. Someone reading the article doesn't know you, but they can verify with references, and eventually Wikipedia can have articles that have been verified against their references. That can't even be started unless articles are well referenced to begin with. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

This is not feasible for me to do right now, unless I can cobble up some web references (does that count?) Dysprosia 00:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Reliable, well regarded online sources are acceptable as references. You just need to make sure you read through them and that the article is substantially confirmed by them. Then just format the external links used a references as at Wikipedia:Cite sources. Ideally any potentially contentious points should be cited directly to a source. - Taxman 14:55, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

To address your second concern, to briefly explain what a page table does, one needs to mention what a virtual address is, and that it is part of a virtual memory. If you can explain what a page table is without mentioning virtual addresses, by all means, please edit the article.

Of course it doesn't need to do that, and the lead section actually does explain virtual addresses well. The problem is the grammar is very hard to parse. Thats not good for a FA for someone who doesn't already know the subject. The subject is already complicated so the difficult grammar hurts the article a lot. Even worse is that after explaining virtual memory, the lead section does not even tell what a page table is. I'm not saying it is easy to write a great lead section for an article like this, but it can be done. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'll try and fix the language. Dysprosia 00:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To address your third concern, for someone who knows hex addresses (and most people in CS do), it then is clear that 4293974718 (0xffff0dabe) > 16777216 (0x1000000). Granted, there was no mention of the hexadecimal notation, which has been rectified.

To address your fourth concern, by all means explain what you find "dodgy language".

I'll see if I can put some time together to list it out here or on the talk page. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

To address your fifth concern, there are three see alsos (how many do you think is enough?). It also need not always be put into an existing category, but categories can be created. Dysprosia 00:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I put those see also's there to start to address my own concern. It needs more, both for general and specific context though. Yes it may require the proper categories to be made. Perhaps operating systems would work. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I hope this adequately addresses your concerns. Dysprosia 02:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but unfortunately this article has a way to go before it can be a FA. It's great material, it just needs what I have pointed out. The diagram for the lead section is great btw. That really helps with understanding the topic, but the text needs to do as well. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• • • Can I get an update or some further feedback on this objection, given the current changes I've made? Dysprosia 01:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Concur with Taxman. JuntungWu 11:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

I think this article is quite in depth and covers pretty much everything everything that has to do with TMNT quite thoroughly. --The_stuart 20:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Objection. As much as I fondly remember this show and would like to see this featured, there are serious problems: 1) no references - if external links were used, they should be formatted properly 2) no screenshots - how can an article about what was mostly a cartoon can have no screenshots? :( 3) Section 'Other information' is as horrible as the Trivia section you can see from time to time in BAD articles. This article has lots of info - but it is very badly structured. I think it should start with a section about show/related products history, had a section on the story development (preferably as a subarticle with spoiler warning), main characters and such, and end with a description of all related products (games, comics, stickers...etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• There really should be a picture of all four turtles in cartoon form at the top. I would say that's almost essential for this to be featured quality. Everyking 23:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object for same reasons as Piotrus. I'm almost tempted to object because of stereotypical and bad Japanese informations. Too often, one of the first thing I had to do to a person who loved this show was to tell them that he or she needs to forget about all Japanese informations they learned from watching this! Revth 09:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object for same reasons as Piotrus. In addition, little is said about the movie.--Etaonish 22:56, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, the "Other information" section definitely needs to be fixed (i.e. the various titbits of info organized properly within the main article).--Eloquence* 23:03, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Please look again I've started what I hope will be a major edit of this article, and I think it's much better already. --Ntg
  • It is better, but still falls short of FA requirements. In addition to my previous comments, the abundance of tiny 1 sentence/1-2 lines paragraph doesn't look good. Try to merge them into fewer bigger paragraphs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object. If each cartoon series gets its own section, so should the live action film series. Apart from that, and considering this is a "gateway" article to the general phenomenon, it's allright. I think a bit more could be said about the blatant straight-to-child marketing "hidden" TNMT, and it being a bit of pioneer in that particular industry (AFAIK).--ZayZayEM 07:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Monument

Extensive and comprehensive history of the monument. I have done one minor edit on it (so not really self nomination) . Deus Ex 19:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• mild Object: 1) references? 2) move the history section up and the statistics down. 3) The statistics don't really seem appropriate under the heading "The motivation for the monument". slambo 12:30, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with slambo. I liked the article and am prepared to revisit after those comments are addresses. Vaoverland 01:50, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Slambo. References are a basic FA requirement, so please don't nominate articles without them. - Taxman 14:42, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Previous reviewer have sound remarks; I'll add that the statistics/measurements would probably be better off in a table. Also, there appears to be little recent history. Maybe there not too many interesting events, but the 2004 renovation (mentioned in a photo title) is not mentioned in the text. Also, as I (as a non-American) associate Washington Monument as the site of a great anti-war demonstration in the 1960s. This might be relevent for the article as well. Jeronimo 19:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blitzkrieg

Informative lead. Fairly long article. Quite a few nice pictures. Terms nicely ilinked. References. External links. Nominating. Especially considering rather poor shape of other articles on military tactics/doctrines (or complete lack of thereof). Your thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This looks quite good, but I have a few points: 1) This article needs a good copyedit. In a first quick lookthrough I already spotted three or four spelling and typing errors. There are probably many more. Putting the text through a spell checker should reveal most of these errors. 2) The lead section says: "[blitzkrieg] has became a synonym for any quick and desicive military operation", but the article stops in 1945. Were the blitzkrieg tactics used and/or improved after 1945? If so, tell us about it, if not, adjust the lead. 3) The "Notable persons" seems quite unnecessary and too short to be a section on its own. Most of the persons in here are already mentioned; those who are not should perhaps be. 4) A few of the images have no copyright information or no source mentioned. Jeronimo 07:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it has all been adressed now. Please look again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. There are quite a few red links (including Category:Military doctrines!!!), and the article needs copyediting. Scare quotes around "volunteers" in the Spain section is POV. RickK 07:56, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • This may not be as flagrant as it looks, because Spanish Civil War uses "volunteers" twice and though technically volunteers, they were obviously professionals who were equipped by their government. Nonetheless, a minor point--I changed it. 119 08:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Regarding the specific objections above, please check the article again. 119 22:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, the article isn't in much better shape then when I nominated it. You added an new empty (!) section on 'Soviet Union, 1942-45' - until it is filled or deleted (I'd prefer the first option) I myself have to object. Ummm...now is this the first - objection by the nominator? Also, you had deleted some ilinks and reverted my attempt to add them back to the article. As basically you are removing links to important people (like Erwin Rommel), I am afraid your actions DO NOT improve the article. I agree that the notable people section was not necessary, but simply deleting it togehter with useful links it contained is not the way to fix the problem. Care to explain why my addition of those links to the 'Guderian and German General Staff 'it makes no sense there'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You are overlooking the fact that I have been rewriting this article during most of January and you nominated it in the middle of this, apparently without checking the history seeing it's very unstable still. Compare this diff and tell me I'm not improving the article. If you think the Noteable persons section had valuable information, then you cannot simply paste it into a completely different section and say that it fits--it doesn't, wartime commanders of 1939-45 do not belong in a section preceding development during the 1936-39 Spanish War. Notice that the Heinz Guderian and German General Staff is under a section titled Development of theories and forces--did these commanders develop theories and forces before the Spanish Civil War? Your changes now are not working within the framework of the article or changing the framework to a more sensible format; you're just pasting things where they look half related. 119 21:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • True, you have visibly expanded the article, and I commend you for that. You did not, howevever, post a single thing on the discussion page that you were in the middle of something. I have no problem with you *moving* the generals paragraph (former notable people section) to a better fitting section, but simply removing it is not a good contribution to the article. Regarding your talk question 'where Where did you get that from?' - let me point you to history - Revision as of 03:54, 26 Jan 2005, by 119: Operations, Countermeasures, Notable persons. It appears you added it yourself some days ago... :> By all means, if you have better info now, correct *yourself*. Also, please tell me why do you consider the section 'Precusors', still visible in this old edit usless and deleted it without any info in talk or edit? I find your willingness to simply delete substantial amount of information you deem unnecessary from various article (we met before here, didn't we?) rather disturbing. I thought it was a single incident - now I begin to think I need to review your other 'contributions' as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • This is all discussed on Talk:Blitzkrieg where I point out that Poitrus' diff shows I added the correct information which he then changed to what was misleading, and the Precursors he claims are not acknowledged as such by any authors on blitzkrieg and belong in the broader Maneuver warfare. Furthermore, Piotrus, I demand an apology for accusing me to be vandalising articles (your words, Polish September Campaign) for not subscribing to your changes and the innuendo that I am an unreliable contributors whose edits must be monitored by you. I back my arguments up with facts--you need to do the same . 119 19:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • As for your demand for apology: I admit thar majority of your other contributions which I *did* review today are good contributions to the Wiki. I disagree with some of your changes to Blitz article and I think what you did to PSC would be called vandalism if it was did by an anon user, but I guess it was some one-time mistake on your part. The diffrence is that you added much valuable info to Blitz article in addition to removing some sections, while in PSC article you simply removed several paragraphs without adding anything of value. If anybody's is interested in the details, he can go to the relevant talk pages, we are getting OT here (T being Blitzkrieg as FAC here). Half of your objections concern me bringing back a small portion of your own text which you removed, and which I think should be mentioned in the article. Note: you do realize that in your recent rv of my addition you removed more then I added, for example - the only reference to Guderian's 'Achtung! Panzer!' book? Perhaps this can be called an 'accident' or 'collateral damage' - not to use the 'v' word again :(. Or do you think that mentioning the Guderian book title is wrong? As for 'prelude' and 'successor' sections, I wont mind if they are shortened/rewritten/moved off to another article, but simple removal of them - which seem to be your way of dealing with any section *you* deem questionable in some part - is not the best way to deal with such problems. Thus, comparing the changes to the Blitz article previous versions (before you started working on it), I think that the info from 'prelude' and 'succeors' sections must be brought back (in some form) for this article to be comprehensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Please take a look again. As 119 was apparently to busy/else? to work on the article, I have worked on it myself, hopefully adressing his objections and significantly expanding it (mostly by bringing back and rewriting large sections of material he deleted :>). Please take a look at it again - I think it is worthy of support and much better then it was at the moment of nomination. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Schumacher

I bumped into this page accidentally, and found it to be a well written and thoroughly researched piece of work. I've never nominated anything before, but I thought this article was worth an effort. Just interested to see what other people think of it. Vanky 17:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Object for now: it's extremely unclear on its references. I'm guessing that some of the external links were used as references, but most of them look like the type of sites that probably change regularly, and none of them indicates a date on which at was accessed. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:13, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) Lead section is too short and uninformative - half of consists of trivia on his salary. 2) The basic content is there, but it is all so brief. Books have been written about this guy; more can be said than is currently done. A full section section on each of his Formula I season is the least I would expect, and more can also be written about his pre-F1 career and personal life. I completely miss information about his popularity (he made F1 very popular in Germany), and his brother Ralf, also a F1 racer, is only mentioned in passing. 3) I'm not sure about the lists at the bottom. The contain vital information, but take too much space as it is. Maybe they should be spun off, converted to prose, made into a table, I don't know. I do know I don't like it how it is now. 4) References, please. --- all in all, I think this article should visit WP:PR first. Jeronimo 21:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The prose is flat. Bacchiad 06:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that Peer Review comment is fair- it definitely appears to have the potential to become a very good article (although everything exists in potential..), something about it just appealed to me... Vanky 11:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object (for now). I agree that WP:PR would be beneficial. I liked the article content, but it needs some work. 08:37, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Object Schumacher has done a lot in his life so far, this article is quite informative, but there's a lot more which could be researched and added. Giano 19:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World Chess Championship

Self-nomination. I've worked a tremendous deal on this page and significantly increased the scope. In my own judgement: Good parts: The gallery; the prose; the pictures; the detail Possible issues: No pictures for women, much less detail on their championship

*welcomes comments*

--Etaonish 02:58, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Object for now. Most of the images lack source and licensing information. Some of them are pre-1922 and hence in the public domain, but several are post-1922 and don't have licensing info. On another note (this is not an objection), can we move the history section above the list of champions? I believe this is the usual convention in wiki articles. --ashwatha 03:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Many of the images I uploaded come from my local stash of images, I don't quite recall where I got them. I'll look for them online. As for the list, I don't know what wiki convention is. I prefer it like this, but it makes little difference to me.--Etaonish 03:15, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Agree on photo sources--every one of them should be tagged. Additionally, consider the need for a portrait with every paragraph, and left-right what's more--with two columns of photos surrounding text, that text can be difficult to focus on. Original research/author's conjecture/style not suitable to an encyclopedia:
  • "Perhaps Anderssen would be able to quickly absorb modern theory and rise to the top again."
  • "Especially in today's world, with hundreds of possible challengers to the championship, longevity is a poor determinant of skill."
  • "Yet another complication in determining who was the greatest is the dichotomy between talent and hard work. Capablanca's natural gift for chess was arguably unrivaled, but he lost his title to Alekhine because Alekhine prepared much more diligently for their match. Is this evidence that Capablanca was in fact a better player who lost due to laziness, or evidence that due to his laziness Capablanca was in fact the inferior player?"
  • "and was surprisingly exciting, leading to a final game which Kramnik needed to win and did"
  • "freeing Kasparov from the grip of the Soviet state"
  • "fought numerous titanic battles""
  • "The general chess public did not take this claim to the championship seriously, since both of them were well past their prime, shadows of their former selves.""
  • "won it brilliantly""
  • "Smyslov had the dubious pleasure of being the shortest-reigning world champion; but this 'honour' soon switched hands"
  • "he was shockingly upset by a new challenger"
  • "his fearsome tactical skill"
  • "a deference to Morphy's supreme dominance"

119 03:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain. This is quite thorough and contains most of the things I would expect in an article on this subject. Unlike 119 I do not find the above quotes evidence of original research. Morphy's supreme dominance is an all but indisputable fact. The speculation on Capablanca and Alekhine is standard fare and certainly not original to this author. On the other hand I do agree that the style is slightly too personal and needs tweaking in many of 119's examples. I'd also like any image issues resolved before granting FA status. I guess we should also call for references. I'd suggest Kasparov's book on his predecessors, E.G. Winter's overview book and something recent describing the chaos of the last few years. Overall this is a good article and no worse than some of what is already featured but in the name of tightening the standards I cannot support FA-status for it at this time. -- Haukurth 14:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There is a lot of good stuff in this article, but it still several steps from feature status, IMO. Already mentioned problems that I also noted are: the image copyrights, unencyclopedic/unreference/POV contents, the list of winners before the history text (you may even consider splitting of the list from the article), and the lack of extensive information on the women's and junior/senior tournaments. In addition, I'd like to mention: 1) No references. You probably used several books and websites for this. They need to be listed. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. 2) The entire "The greatest of all time" section may be interesting, but does not belong in an article on World Champions - it probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all. 3) The part on the early history is short and vague. For example, on the 16th century "champions", it is said: "are sometimes considered the world champions of their time" - who considers this? If it is only considered, sometimes, are they worthy taking up such a large part of the list? Did they actually call themselves champions, or were these titles retroactively applied to them? In the pre-1886 part, there is more confusion. In the list you write "undisputed" - where their titles disputed? The term "generally considered" is used often in this context. I'm also interested if there were absolutely no self-pronounced World Champions in the pre-1948 era, where there was no governing body involved. 4) In the post-1948 part, the FIDE is introduced without further information. When was it founded, why did Euwe allow them to step in as organisers? 5) Most part of the "chaos" section is good, giving a good overview of the situation. Towards the end, though, it gets into to much detail. It could also use some view from observers - as I understand it, most chess fans don't like the "new" FIDE-style championships. Jeronimo 21:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I would like to see "The greatest of all time" section retained, although it might well be moved into an article of its own. I found it an interesting and suitably NPOV discussion of the issues that should be considered when comparing chess champions of different eras (as one inevitably does). GeorgeStepanek\^talk 22:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Response. Thanks for your comments. I will tone down many of 119's examples, however, there are some places where it is simply completely widespread opinion. 'numerous titanic battles' between Karpov and Kasparov is part of the history of their rivalry.

As for references, much of what I wrote was strictly from memory. In very few places did I actually consult a reference. Still, most of the information is public, such as the years of each reign, etc.

The part on early history is vague primarily because little is known about the time. It is generally accepted these were the strongest players, but we have almost no evidence of the time. Undisputed refers to 1886 on, when the first Championship match was proclaimed and recorded. Unlike, say, even Morphy (Staunton refused to play him so he could maintain he was strongest), no one could dispute the fact that Capablanca was champion. Technically it shouldn't be labeled undisputed, but the point is sufficiently minor to gloss over that.

Greatest of all time is a commonly occurring question among those new to the game. It is an interesting little sideby and I think it's sufficiently NPOV. The only part truly POV would be the list of the ten, but virtually everyone agrees those ten were superbly dominant. It is like saying Babe Ruth was one of the best baseball players: no one disputes it, though they may dispute the fact that he was the best player.

I don't think splitting the list is a good idea: it's a relatively important feature of the article. I will, however, move it to the end.--Etaonish 18:14, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Small question: what to do with images? I have the gallery up, and I agree that the current thumbnails in the article are distracting. However, we can't have a total text article either. Do we pick and choose which champions to showcase?--Etaonish 18:20, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• I feel quite strongly that the "strongest of all time" section does not belong in this article; I'll expand a little on the talk page. --Camembert 23:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• (Novote) Apart from lack of references and liscencing issues with photos, the article is quite great. The only other thing I'd suggest is a little more of the main article being summarised in the lead (i.e. the political nature of the contest). --ZayZayEM 06:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)