Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

We Belong Together

This article has gone through a lot of edit warring, fan-cruft, various chart and music-single tables, and non-stop rivalry between style and format. Finally, I believe that the article has been met with a gift: references, citations, and the whole entire package! Therefore, I nominate it to become a featured article! —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Great song, great article. Having worked on it with two great editors (Eternal Equinox and Extraordinary Machine), I think it's now ready; it meets all the FA criteria. Orane (t) (c) (e) 19:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Personally, I'd like to see some paper references, but the article looks solid to me. Circeus 20:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I moved your support to the front of your comment so that it is easier to locate. Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Erm, if you've worked on it is it a good idea to vote? Mikker ... 21:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Is it? I'm not sure. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's a problem; or I've never heard of any objections being raised about it. Orane (t) (c) (e) 21:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Just to be on the safe side, I've removed my support. As the nominator, I think that E.E's support vote isn't a problem (thought it's a given that if you are nominating an article, you'll most likely support it.) Orane (t) (c) (e) 21:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
          • On the one hand, FAC is not a vote in that if 51% of ppl oppose/support it fails/succeeds so voting may not be a problem (Raul could just ignore your vote). On the other hand, it seems slightly bad form to me... Mikker ... 21:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object A couple things I'd like to see sourced before this makes it through the FAC process. Also, the third suggestion I made during peer review [[1]] wasn't looked at, although I found the RIAA source and put it in the article myself. The RIAA site is great for information on Gold, Platinum, etc. singles, and might be a valuable source for future music articles, as I know you all have a history of bring them to FAC status.
  • I think that sources are needed for the Nielsen chart impressions (in Chart performance), the Launch's most watched video with 7.5 performances (Music Video) and for "Bronson also stated..." (Free Downloads Controversy).
  • A very minor detail (and you can yell at me if you want for being so minor!), but do you need to source song lyrics? I don't know if there's a Wiki policy or not, but I won't lose sleep over this issue.
  • Finally, just a Comment; is the song still in the Billboard 100 (I saw on Billboard.com it wasn't in the Top 50)? I personally don't think it should reach FA if it is, as it might be miscontrued as an advertisement if it reaches the front page (I know that's not your intention, but I can see the arguments already if it makes it while still in the Top 100). However, if it's not in the Billboard 100 and the objections above are addressed, I don't see any major problems. All in all, a decent overview of the single.
  • I wish you the best,--Ataricodfish 21:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The Bronson statement is sourced; the citiation is at the end of the paragraph. As the points are from same source, I thought it best to place the citation at the end of the entire statement. The "7.5 performances" are pending. I've just added another source. Also, the fact that the song is in the top fifty (or not) should not affect the article's promotion whatsoever. Orane (t) (c) (e) 22:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Orane, that's why I placed the current chart performance was placed as a "comment" and not an "objection". I'll withdraw my objection if the other issues are resolved even if it's still in the Top 100. I'm just saying that I won't personally support it unless it falls out of the Top 100, just my personal opinion, and other voters might feel differently. --Ataricodfish 22:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Understood. Orane (t) (c) (e) 22:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been looking for several "7.5 streamed performances" citations as well, but I have been unsuccessful. Journalist, do you know if there are any on the internet? Does Launch have a magazine that we could perhaps retrieve a print source from? —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The 7.5 thing is on the internet; I'm sure that Ive seen it somewhere. I dont know of any magazines that could help. I'll keep looking, but I have some schoolwork I gotta finish, so this may have to wait. Orane (t) (c) (e) 22:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Orane, I found the reference you meant for Bronson, but it came at the end of the paragraph before the quote I referenced, which is why I didn't notice it. I struck that and the Launch data, as well as my inquiry regarding lyrics since I see a link at the bottom of the page. Nielsen ratings will still need a link. Another Comment that came to mind; I noted most new FAC articles regarding musicians have an audio sample (see Wikipedia:Featured Music Project). I think a 30 second clip would be appropriate, if you could get one.--Ataricodfish 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. There are now about 22+ sources in the article (5 in the section that you pointed out)
  • Objection withdrawn, and I currently Abstain. As I mentioned previously, I don't think a Top 100 song should be promoted to FA only because its a current event and, if it makes it to the main page, it could be seen as commercial despite the intentions of the authors. Should I verify that the single is no longer a Billboard Hot 100 (which, admittingly, I haven't had a chance to verify), and if an audio sample of the song is added, I will change my vote to support. Thanks for addressing my concerns. I'm glad to see a song article which also features sales and awards and not just the "easy stuff" of what's in a video. More song articles should have this much information. --Ataricodfish 06:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, though I should mention that I did do some work on this. 18:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Reluctant object, I'm afraid. I have just noticed that the references section includes two Wikipedia articles, but we should never use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Extraordinary Machine 23:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
But now there's a problem concerning the material in the article previously supported by those two references now being uncited. Extraordinary Machine 17:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've repleced them with better, outside sources. Orane (t) (c) (e) 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay then, I now change my vote. Extraordinary Machine 18:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: The writing is dreadful. First, it has excessive explication of self-evident lyrics. It isn't as though the love ballad is a particularly complex form, nor that this one offers any innovations on it, and yet the article explains these lyrics not once, but three times. Secondly, there is horrendous redundancy throughout, but one example alone would be how the song's music is described (starts with a piano in C major ... not exactly an unusual piano key, there, so not really something that would deserve much note, and then 4/4 in quarter notes... 4/4 with quarter notes? is 4/4 frequently performed in some other way?). Next, we get a critic's sampler where the criticism is cherry picked to say generally self-evident things that the article has already stated three times (it's her anthem! we like it! it's a good song!). If one puts in a note, one does not generally need to go through and repeat the note's text over and over again. Essentially, there are stretch marks all over this article, as the informational content of two paragraphs has been stretched to fill two screens. I'm sorry that Peer Review didn't pick the prose clean, but I'd have to refer it back to Peer Review and another (non-fan would be good) editor. Geogre 23:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment.I'm not sure that I understand your objection. "First, it has excessive explication of self-evident lyrics. You are objecting because the writer(s) explain the lyrics of the song without providing innovations? Isnt that necessary in an article like this? Why should I provide innovation? The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to add to knowledge, it is to summarize existing knowledge.. Hence its nature as a general source. "the article explains these lyrics not once, but three times." What three times? Do you mean the introduction and the relevant section that deals with "lyrics and themes"? Isnt that where its supposed to be? Is something wrong here? You are objecting because the article states that the song starts in C major like may other songs? What if it was in G major like "A Hard Day's Night (song)" etc, would you have objected to it then? We need to make note of the obvious, unless you want me to find some secret in the song and explain it in the article. I really dont understand what you are saying here. Orane (t) (c) (e) 23:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The article explains what is going on in the lyrics, the story they tell, three times. Once would be more than enough, especially when it would take merely a single sentence to do the job, and not "it's this and then this and then this and then this." Indeed, a G major would be more unusual. There are natural keys for piano, natural keys for guitar, natural keys for woodwinds, etc. These keys are "home position" and require the least stretching to get all the notes in the scale. For a piano, C, B, and B flat are naturals. (Find a song in B, and you'll find one probably composed on piano -- e.g. Johnny B. Goode.) So note the usual features, the things that make it interesting, notable, worthy of discussion. There's not much point in saying, "Gosh, this piano song is in C!" Of course it's in C. If it were in D-minor, it would be weird. If it were in E, it would be weirder. The point is that unremarkable things are remarked upon, and then a few sentences later restated, and then things that cannot be otherwise (4/4 being 4 quarter notes per measure) being explained. Repetition and redundancy are valid objections in the writing. Geogre 01:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In order to deal with the music section of the article (fulfilling its comprehensiveness), then the writer has to talk about the basic and fundamental characteristics of the song, including the time signature/beat, instruments and the key in which the song is set, whether or not people will find it weird or redundant. You are assuming that everyone knows the song is in C major and we do not need to mention it, but that is just your (very subjective) opinion. Secondly, the mention of 4/4 etc is just a statement. There is no lengthy explanation as you imply, just a summary of the fundamentals. If Im describing the music, I have to describe the music, whether or not my description will shock the reader; if there is nothing strange, am I to just omit it like it does not exist? Orane (t) (c) (e) 01:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What makes you assume that two fans edited the peer review Geogre? I am not a fan of Mariah Carey at all. The only reason I helped edit the article is because I thought the song was notable since it broke numerous airplay records. If I'm not mistaken, I also pointed out that the prose was awkward in a few places. It should be corrected, yes, not all of it could be considered "brilliant". The comments about the lyrics being "self-evident" is unclear. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
What makes me think that is that the article has a fannish tone. A non-fan might well spot the repetition, if that non-fan is an active reader. A non-fan might also see the song in a wider context, if that editor is knowledgeable. The article has been submitted for FAC when it is not ready, when it still shows the flaws inherent in group editing. Geogre 01:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I do believe that the article is ready though, which is why I nominated it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The song lyrics do not need to be sourced, however, there is a link to them in the external links portion of the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I see the link now, thanks. --Ataricodfish 03:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to me. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Writing is awkward. Now, I agree with the above, that every topic in the article should be there, all the discussions and so forth are a good idea and contribute to the article in a positive manner. What it lacks is flowing prose. Each paragraph seems to be a series of unconnected sentences on tangentally related, leading to a very stilted reading experience. This problem is pandemic throughout the article, so the example I'm about to display (and correct) is not sufficient to change my vote to support. It may take a lot of work to get this fixed.
Former lead section:
"We Belong Together" is a pop–R&B song co-written and co-produced by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey. It was released in 2005 as the second single from her ninth studio album The Emancipation of Mimi (see 2005 in music), and was both a critical and commercial success. The song is an R&B ballad and has been noted for its quiet storm ambience, laid back piano-driven rhythm and Carey's subdued vocals. Its protagonist declares herself "stupid" and "foolish" for ending a relationship on the wrong terms, and she wants her former lover to return as she feels that they "belong together". The song has now become Carey's signature song. After winning two Grammy Awards and breaking many chart and airplay records on the U.S. Billboard charts, it is also considered her comeback single following the commercial failure of the singles from Glitter (2001) and Charmbracelet (2002). "We Belong Together" was also a success outside of the U.S.; apart from peaking at number one in countries including Australia and France, it was named the "song of the year" at the 2005 World Music Awards ceremony.
My changes:
"We Belong Together" is the title of a pop–R&B song co-written and co-produced by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey. Released in 2005 as the second single from her ninth studio album The Emancipation of Mimi (see 2005 in music), it was both a critical and commercial success, and has been noted for its "quiet storm ambience", laid back piano-driven rhythm and Carey's subdued vocals. The protagonist of the song declares herself "stupid" and "foolish" for ending a relationship on the wrong terms, and she wants her former lover to return as she feels that they "belong together".
This song has now become Carey's signature song, and after winning two Grammy Awards and breaking many chart and airplay records on the U.S. Billboard charts, and is also considered her comeback single following the commercial failure of the singles from Glitter (2001) and Charmbracelet (2002). "We Belong Together" was also a success outside of the U.S.; apart from peaking at number one in countries including Australia and France, it was named the "song of the year" at the 2005 World Music Awards ceremony.
Basically, by beginning each sentence with the article "It" or "The song", it appears to declare each sentence the topic sentence of what should be its own new paragraph. By rewording and rephrasing, it adds coherance to each paragraph, for better ease of reading, and making for more "brilliant prose".
The information I see here is fine for a FA, but the writting could use some work. Hope this helps to bring the article up to standard. Fieari 18:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the things that had set my teeth on edge was the lead, which begins with the "co-written by Mariah Carey." No one person can co-write anything. It was co-written by her and someone. The other authors are invisible until paragraph 5. It's that kind of thing that set the tone when I was reading it and made my hackles rise. Geogre 23:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem with saying "co-written by Mariah Carey and ..." is the fact that there are so many bloody co-writters for that song! Look at the list in the infobox! I'd rather not mention who it was written by at all than include all those names in the lead. Mariah Carey did sing it, however, so I think it's noteworthy enough to mention that she was involved in the process of writing and producing it. Perhaps the sentence could be re-written to include this information without using the words "co-written" or "co-produced"? Fieari 23:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem could be solved with "written by Mariah Carey and several of her album's producers" or "written by Mariah Carey in collaboration with others." In either of those cases, you'd indicate that hers was one hand among many and yet not have the incomplete phrase of "co-written by" and then a single name. The idea is that you at least mention that she was only one and yet that you're not obligated to mention them all; this avoids the sneakiness of listing only her (and thereby seemingly making her most important) and the messiness of listing all composers. Geogre 02:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
How's this? Fieari 05:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's great. Ive made some changes myself. Is the article any better? Orane (t) (c) (e) 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The writing has improved, which is a positive for the article. Good job! —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice work, but is saying "the title of" really necessary? Extraordinary Machine 18:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree, and have scratched my objection above. Good work. Fieari 02:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Appreciate the effort put into the piece, but the temptation to misconstrue the article as a piece of indirect marketing in very strong indeed. We may well be validating more than just a piece of pop ephemera by holding such themes up as good practice. HasBeen 11:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The users who edited We Belong Together are not attempting to market the single in any way whatsoever. If the article is promoted to a featured article, it does not necessarily have to appear on the main page. The candidacy it is currently going through is a process whereby the best articles on Wikipedia are noted and recognized for their content. I hope you choose to give the article a read-through and place a vote. If you support, then your effort will be appreciated. If you object, then your criticisms will hopefully be met. Thank you! —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentI agree with EE. No one is trying to promote the single. Let me finalise everything: the song has fallen off the Hot 100 chart (its now number two on the Billboard Hot 100 Singles Recurrent chart, according to http://www.mariahdaily.com/newsdesk.shtml). With that said, I'd also like to point out that it's over and done, and no amount of promotion (especially by Wikipedia) can propel the single back to number one. Call me defensive (thought that's not my intention) but I'd just like to point out that songs like "Cool" was featured within a month or two of its release, and no one brought up the discussion of "wikipedia promoting singles". I say, if the article's well written and meets all the FA criteria, then it deserves to be featured. Period. Orane (t) (c) (e) 21:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
See, this is where we disagree then, as I fully agree with HasBeen on this issue. The point isn't that you personally are promoting a Mariah Carey single currently on the market -- it's that if we allow currently promoted singles on the front page of Wikipedia (which all FA's can become), then we are creating an opening for others, such as marketers, to slip through onto the main page. As well, if a song is a current single, it's no different than a "current event", for the same reason that, say, Dick Cheney hunting incident would likely be disqualified if it were nominated today.
You have made reference to "songs like "Cool" was featured within a month or two of its release". As the ol' business maxim goes, past performance doesn't guarantee future results. Roy Orbison also made the front page recently, too, but we don't advocate using that as a model for a current music article. Old FA's used to not need references, either, but you won't get far today without them. The criteria for becoming a FA should get tougher as time goes by, and it has gotten tougher in the last few months alone. Personally, I don't think Cool should have made the front page so quickly after the song release, but I wasn't an active part of the Wiki community at the time and didn't put my vote one way or another.
Finally, you're right, I confirmed in today's issue of Billboard that "We Belong Together" isn't in the Top 100 anymore. It's still on some of the R&B charts, though, but I'm personally satisfied that it's not a current event. However, I remain an abstain until an audio sample is added, since that seems to be the standard for music FA articles now. --Ataricodfish 04:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Audio samples can only be uploaded in the OGG format. Unfortunately, I am not experienced in this field. Does one know how to create such a file and release it publicly? —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Poor and inexact prose throughout. I will give a few examples of misstatements and stylistic infelicities from the beginning of the article: To refer to — to mention or quote —other hits is not to "draw influence" from them. It's not "interpolation of these songs", either; that would mean the unlikely maneouver of putting the whole of the other songs in. Please remove all quaint, outdated, or facetious diction like "Said Carey, 'People ...'" or referring to the man the Carey persona of the song is in love with as a former "beau" (particularly inappropriate as the narrative is otherwise taken with great seriousness and reverence in the article). Please fix poor syntax like "It is then when she decides". Fix typos. Note, this objection can unfortunately not be taken care of by merely correcting the points mentioned. They're only examples, the whole needs a serious stylistic overhaul/rewrite. Please compare also Geogre's still standing objection above; the nominator saying "I do believe that the article is ready, though" is not exactly a responsive reply to a specific and detailed critique. Bishonen | talk 03:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC).
P. S. Also, I've thought of something that contributes to an uncritical, over-intimate tone: you should avoid telling us, as if it were incontestable truth, what Carey "felt" or "wanted". An encyclopedia doesn't know or claim to know such things. We're not in her head: tell us instead what she said or affirmed. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC).
Comment→I've done some extensive work on the language (not limited to the examples that you provided), and I've also tried to incorporate some of Geogre's suggestions. What do you think? Orane (t) (c) (e) 18:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Objection stands. I'm sorry, I do acknowledge the effort, but this isn't FA style. Looking at the way it reads now, the abbreviating of some very diffuse passages is certainly an improvement, as such. I'd like to see more of that, as the "stretch marks" that Geogre speaks of come close to tautology sometimes ("sings sadly, creating a sorrowful tone": the reader can surely figure what kind of tone is created by singing sadly). Stylistically, too much remains to be done altogether, and I suggest getting some fresh eyes and merciless scissors in from outside. That would make the article shorter, no doubt, but IMO there simply isn't enough material there for the present length anyway. My advice to narrate Carey's statements rather than her supposed thoughts hasn't been successfully carried out. E. g. the revised sentence "Carey had implied that she wanted her vocals to be the main force on "We Belong Together", and decided to alter her style of singing" is merely less clear than before ("implied"?) while still claiming access to Carey's thought processes ("decided"). And so it goes. Incidentally, I'm unhappy about so much of the narrative being uncritically — fannishly — based on self-congratulatory promotional material ("People have to learn the art of subtlety... We realized that once we did it, it was an inspiration in terms of how I was singing it."). Such material is naturally the bread and butter of mtv.com (quoted here in a "behind the scenes" story), but Wikipedia needs to take some critical distance to it. I can't withdraw my opposition, sorry. Bishonen | 美少年 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
  • Strong object. The credits section omits any mention of the musicians who performed on the track. Unless Carey played piano, bass, drums, and whatever other instruments are not mentioned in the article, this would certainly seem a glaring omission. Monicasdude 19:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand your objection, and have been looking in several places for information on the album credits. However, I've been unsuccessful and don't know if there is any other way to correct your concern. Do you know of any paperbacks or websites? Also, I'm not quite sure if one piece of criticism qualifies as "strong object" instead of "object", but it isn't much of a deal. I'll continue searching. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I understand the objection. However, the "strong" is a bit of a stretch, as it does not give the objection more merit. I'm assuming good faith, but I can't help but wonder...Anyway, we can do one of two things here: we can complete the personnel, or we can just omit the section altogether. I chose the former, so I'll look. Orane (t) (c) (e) 20:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've fixed some of the prose. I hope it attracts favourable reception. Are there any other suggestions, comments, objections, etc.? —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am unhappy that so many copyrighted images are used - are they all necessary. Obviously Image:Webelongtogether.jpg is justified, but are the others essential to the page. Could someone who knows more than me on this subject comment. Perhaps some limited sections of the score could be added - just a few bars, or are they like the images all copyright. Perhaps this could be overcome by transcribing a few notes into a different key from the original - just to demonstrate the melody either vocal or piano. I notice one ref. note which seems tp promise the music in fact leads to an internet shopping site - this is unlikely to be a permanent link. To download the music here involves downloading programs and licence agreements before being able to view the score. Hardly an encyclopedia arrangement. Giano | talk 10:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The images are supposed to enhance the flow of the writing. Two of the images are from the music video, presenting Carey in two of the three "phases" she goes through whilst singing the song; the third image presents Carey singing the song at the 2005 MTV Movie Awards, and enhances the text supporting the promotional state of the song; the fourth image presents Carey accepting an award for "Song of the Year", which is in honour in the music industry, and is positioned under "Awards". I condemn the removal of any images, but what suggestions do you wish to share? —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you Eternal. I can see quite clearly for myself what the images are, I am merely questioning if they are necessary for illustrating your description of the song, bearing in mind they are copyright. I am also aware that "Song of the Year" is an award, and I am quite prepared to take your word that Carey received it, without having an out-of-focus copyright image of a perma-tanned female waving at me to prove it. I note you do not comment on my question regarding an extract of the score. Finally, I am unsure of the reason you ask what suggestions do I wish to share. I merely question, before opposing or supporting, some content of the article. Giano | talk 15:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I asked if you had any suggestions because... I don't even know how to respond, sorry. Regarding the images, if you had worked on the article, perhaps you would have added different ones, but this is the way we chose to illustrate the article. Do you want me to search for different ones that are more to your liking? By the way, the images are indeed copyrighted, which is why we have added the fair use rationale. —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you are rather missing my point. Yes, I would prefer images not in copyright. I question the necessity 5 copyright images illustrating the same woman. I question if this quantity is indeed fair use. I again note you do not comment on my questions regarding the score. Giano | talk 17:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand what you had attempted to ask me. I believe you were not clear enough before, so I apologize for wasting your time. I looked over Wikipedia:Fair use, and it does not say that images of the same person (whatever the number may be) violate the fair use policy. Therefore, I suppose it is fair use. Did I answer your question correctly or is there something else you would like to know? —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "I understand what you had attempted to ask me. I believe you were not clear enough before" ???- Eternal please (pretty please) read my questions - read my comments. Yes there is a further question - for the third time! The score! , the score! , the score! How can we have a musical page we no hint of the score! The little black dots, (look like tadpoles) which hop about between 5 lines. Clear enough for you now? Giano | talk 21:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I had been perplexed, and I continue to be. Your intention was either to type something absurd, or you are communicating your comment clear enough. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Another comment, on the elaborate discussion of the first sentence above, and the various good suggestions made by reviewers for re-formulating it. I just noticed that the sentence doesn't follow any of them, but has instead been revised into incoherence: ""We Belong Together" is a pop–R&B song partially written and produced by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey in collaboration with others." (If Carey together with "others" wrote only part of it, who wrote the rest...?") Only a detail, but symptomatic of much of the article. The laboriousness of this improvement-by-FAC procedure does suggest, as Geogre says above, that the article was nominated before being ready. Bishonen | 美少年 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
I am starting to become overwhelmed. Fieari rewrote the sentence, however, it was once again changed to an option that Geogre had suggested. I already understand that Geogre and yourself believe that this article was nominated earlier than it should have been, but reiterating your feelings isn't actionable. As long as you provide criticism that can be corrected, the editors who worked on the article will be happy to attempt to resolve it. Bishonen, are there any other suggestions or objections that you have? —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I only reiterated my feelings because I was asked to by Journalist; I think I've made my objections clear, and will be very happy to stop posting here. For the particular sentence, Geogre certainly did not suggest such illogic and tautology as having both "partially" and "in collaboration with others" in it. Read his suggestions more carefully, please. Bishonen | 美少年 15:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
If you were asked to reiterate your feelings, then I apologize. I had figured you would respond to Geogre's suggestion in such a manner, so I'm going to refrain from further posting on this topic. The first sentence reads The problem could be solved with "written by Mariah Carey and several of her album's producers" or "written by Mariah Carey in collaboration with others." I believe I read his comment one-hundred percent most accurately. Are there any other suggestions and/or comments? —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
If you put the illogicality at the door of Geogre, of all people, you force me to respond even though I had not intended to. Your belief is 100% erroneous. You seem to have failed to read the word "or" in your quote from Geogre. Do you still not see it? "Or"? I'm becoming very unsure whether you're genuinely failing to see my point, or there is some other explanation for the way you reply to me. Let's by all means agree to refrain from further posting on the subject. There is no dent in my objection to Featured status for this article. It's not for the nominator to decide what's actionable, you know. Bishonen | 美少年 17:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
Why yes: either or. The other one is just as acceptable. The last comment, "It's not for the nominator..." indeed makes me want to respond, but you are right. It is time to refrain from dragging out the discussion, mainly because I did some research and discovered that you and Geogre are good friends. I would defend what my friend had said too (it's common sense!), so this is my final post regarding the situation. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, everyone. This FAC is getting a little too personal, so let's stop this. After reading the above argument, I fail to see the big deal. I've reworded the lead sentence (call it an experiment), and I think that it's now more accurate. If you dont like it, please come up with something better.

The writers of the article have done some labourous work, trying to follow suggestions and criticisms (very discouraging, especially when someone is so insensitive as to refer to your hard work as "dreadful", no matter how true that is). User:Bishonen, we have asked if the prose was any better, but you have ignored these questions, and have now focussed your attention on the lead sentence (which I've now altered). So I ask again: has your objection about the prose, been addressed? Bear in mind that all the examples that you provided have been corrected (and then some), so if you still choose to object, you have to find other, actionable examples. If you feel that your objection has been addressed, please strike your vote above (you don't have to support). User:Geogre also has not returned to comment on whether or not his vote still stands. I'm sure that the repetition he cited were removed. I can say though, that the info about the C major, 4/4 ... will not be omitted from the article, as it is basic info that fulfills the comprehensiveness criteria. If no one returns, its impossible to guage where the article stands, (and the FAC director will probably overlook these votes). Orane (t) (c) (e) 21:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I've just returned here because your lack of an edit summary suggested you may be addressing my very recent comment higher up. When I see: "will not be omitted from the article". Will not? - Do you imagine you own this article? You can make statements in bold wherever you like, but I think you will find Wikipedia editors and the FAC director have minds of their own - For your own good, an attempt to redress comments would be more advantageous to you than the rather aggressive stance you seem to be adopting. Giano | talk 21:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment→I have not adopted any agressive tone, nor have have I said that I own the article. The FAC is a very frustrating process, especially when voters' opinions conflict, and the writer(s) try to please everyone. For my comment about Geogre's vote. As you have seen, he assumes that everyone has his level of knowledge on majors and home keys, etc, so he opposes on the grounds that the article explains self evident information. What you have to realise is that, there is no such thing as a perfect article, and what you want might not necessarily be best for the article. Voters have to stop being so subjective and uncompromising in the FA process. They have even objected on grounds that are nether policies nor criteria. It's also unfair to the editors when people attempt to become part of the FAC process by voting, but never stick around to work with the editor and tell him how far he has come in meeting the requirements. The point of FAC voting is not to simply say "yes" or "no". Voters are supposed to want the best for the article, and as such, should be there to work through their objections. Finally, "for my own good"? I have done my best on this article and I'm very proud of the writers, but my welbeing does not depend on it's promotion. Orane (t) (c) (e) 22:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "User:Bishonen, we have asked if the prose was any better, but you have ignored these questions". You must have missed my rather full reply, here it is. Hope this helps. Of course my objection still stands. Bishonen | 美少年 22:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
  • Im sorry but it was very vague. You stated one example, then state that two much remains, without pointing them out. Additionally, you dont want me to use a source/quote because Carey congratulates herself? Orane (t) (c) (e) 23:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose : This is all becoming rather intense, isn't it? I do think it is unreasonable of you to expect Geogre and Bishon to respond instantaneously to your demands. None of us live permanently on this site - no matter how it may sometime seem. You must remember you have nominated this page and thus invited comment - and comment you have received. If you think some of that comment unfair, then perhaps it would be best if the page went for peer review where it shortcomings could be fully dissected in a less forthright and more subjective fashion which you would find less personally hurtful. I'm sure we all want to see this page put in its appropriate place. I shall now change my vote to "Oppose" - refer to peer review - which I hope will help you. Giano | talk 22:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment→You seem to lack knowledge of the FA process: you cannot simply vote "oppose" without stating exactly why. In other words, you must provide specific examples from the article, plus tell which FA criteria it goes against. Orane (t) (c) (e) 22:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read my comments above. All of them - which you have failed to answer, so I am opposing. You seem to want instantaneous response from others but appear unable to give satisfactory answers yourself. I have explained in my view the article is not comprehensive, and the fair-use rationale is debatable. I do not choose to support at this time. Giano | talk 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I have read your comments. I can't seem to pick up on your thoughts on the comprehensiveness of the article. Is it that bit about an inclusion of the score? This poses two problems. The score is copyrighted (and you claim that too much copyrighted images are in thae article). Secondly, why include score? Its not like many people can read sheet music. As an encyclopedia, we have to cater to as large an audience as possible. The average reader would just look at the lines and dots and say "huh?". Two, you believe that there are two many fair use images. Thats ok. However, as E.E has explained, some are very important eg:Image:WBT2.jpg and Image:Weddingdress.jpg. I suspect that removing some will have addressed the last section of your "oppose". Orane (t) (c) (e) 23:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I am objecting because Eternal has said "I condemn the removal of any images" which I have taken to understand no images will be removed. IMO one image of one individual is fair use - two or more of the same individual is abuse - Regarding your comments on the score: I can read music perfectly - to assume others cannot is patronising (this is a music page). A few bars (transcribed to a different key if necessary) from the copyrighted original merely to demonstrate the melody would be useful and make the article more comprehensive. I have placed the page on my watchlist so lease stop arguing with me here until you have acted on my comments. I note one copyright image has been removed and four remain. Giano | talk 23:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I do condemn the images being removed from the article. This does not mean it is not going to happen. As a matter of fact, one image has been taken out. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Giano, you know that is not what I meant, and to take it personally is to incite the No personal attacks policy. Just because you can read music, that does not mean that the majority of people in the world can. This article is not for you, its for the general reader (This is a perfect example of the subjectivity I mentioned earlier). "[P]lease stop arguing with me here until you have acted on my comments?" You do not order me to do anything. The article is as comprehensive as is, and the lack of written music is definitely not a strong enough reason to oppose. Orane (t) (c) (e) 03:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I will no longer be participating in this or any of the possible further FACs for the We Belong Together article. I had nominated this article because I believed that it deserved featured status; if you read between the lines, overall it is not a bad article. However, when there is a situation such as this one where three friends have objections, it isn't always easy to complete the pending suggestions. In this case, it has spiralled out of control, and several policies had to have been broken during the arguments. Remaining polite and staying civil appear to be rather difficult tasks for all of us, which is truly pitiful. What a ridiculous situation. I wish you luck with the article, my friend Journalist. You're going to need it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Its really a pitiful situation, and it has gotten out of hand. But, I have faced worse (Celine Dion). I'm not going to cast all the blame on others: I have had a huge part in it too, and I apologise. Bear in mind that the apology is not for saying the things I said: I mean them 100%. I'm convinced that the FAC system is broken, and this is a perfect example. Orane (t) (c) (e) 03:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You know what I really think would be fair? If the FAC director disregarded this entire FAC, then give it a clean start. I dont know if its actionable, but it would also be best if none of us on the present FAC voted or commented (leave it to other, uninterested parties). This has gotten far too corrupt and subjective, and nothing can be accomplished in such a situation. Thank you. Orane (t) (c) (e) 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The way a couple of recent contentious FAC reviews have been handled esssentially tossed into obscurity chunks of the discussion. S0, why not clear the decks here? Well, NOT, because this is the process, no, DISCUSSION...? Proper "wiki behavior" refactors, not shunts into archives... --Tsavage 07:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I should probably respond to Orane's and EE's latest posts, lest Raul thinks the objectors are in agreement about the "clean start" (even if it seems a bit remote that he would think that). I do understand that it's stressful to have one's work up on FAC and getting it criticized, but I'm still baffled by Orane's and the nominator EE's intolerance of contradiction. People are allowed to oppose, you know. To say stuff you disagree with, even. That's not "dirty", to require a "clean" start; it's kind of the point of FAC. Reviewers are also permitted to stick to their guns and explain that their objections remain in force after you tried to fix them (as I've done), no matter how outraged you are by such a stance. Oh, and reviewers are permitted to be busy with other things for days on end, as Geogre has been, to your indignation. Don't worry, I'm sure he'll be back before the article rolls off FAC, to take a look at what you've done to fix his objections, and either withdraw them or not. It's unpleasant to me to try to discuss the article and my objections to its style and syntax, with the resentful way you respond, and the peremptory way you insist that I must either keep on going into ever greater detail or go strike my objections. No; I'm not obliged to do either, and the law of diminishing returns set in long ago, with your mistrust of the simplest suggestion (see the "Lead sentence" debacle above, the one time I did try to go into detail and got pissed on for it). Lately you're even throwing around vague but reckless hints of collusion and corruption, and dark unexplained references to "a situation such as this one where three friends have objections".
Orane, your conclusion is that the really "fair" thing would be to have a "clean start" with a new set of reviewers. And also, you apologize, but quite emptily: "not for saying the things I said: I mean them 100%". Not, then, for your belligerence and suspiciousness of advice, or your dark hints at reviewers' bad faith and personal motives. OK. But for what, then? Bishonen | 美少年 17:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC).
No, actually, it was me who wrote "a situation such as this one where three friends have objections". Read the text more properly, please. : ) —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are allowed to oppose. But when one takes it another level, delving into downright nitpicking, it is a rather unfair and frustrating. You raised objections about prose. They were, for the most part addressed. Yet, you have said that your objections still stands because 1) I used Carey's thoughts. 2) I used a quote in which she congratulates herself, and 3)the porse is still not clean (though you have failed to tell me where. Your objection about prose are supposed to be specific: The entire article? What section? What sentences? What points do you believe to be belaboured?) I'm sure that anyone can oppose, but when they oppose on the grounds of personal stlye and preference, instead of the guidelines, policies and criteria of the FA and Wikipedia at large, then ofcourse I'm going to become perplexed. In addressing my opinions of Giano's objection. He believes that the article is not comprehensive because it does not have the music sheet included (though he vehemently opposes the inclusion of anymore copyrighted files), and if you look too, you'll notice that a large part of his objection has to do with his perception of me being authoritative. However, I told him that the music and notation will probably confuse the average reader. Moreover, there is no such thing as a perfect article: an article can always be improved on prose and comprehensiveness, but that does not mean that in its current state, "We Belong Together" isn't comprehensive enough to be promoted.
Finally, you said that I said "...situation such as this one where three friends have objections". Read my above comments; I have said nothing of the sort. Orane (t) (c) (e) 18:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Read mine, the both of you. It's addressed to you both: see how it starts "I should probably respond to Orane's and EE's latest posts"? I quote Orane and I quote EE. Is that a problem? Orane, yoou set forth your ever more irreconcilable demands on me very clearly above: if I criticize the article's prose in general terms, I'm failing to be "specific"; if I go into details, I'm "nitpicking". Bishonen | 美少年 18:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC).
  • Don't confuse youself. Look at this logic: You said the prose wasnt up to par. However, when I say "support you claim with specific", you set forth some minor, subjective examples like "self congratulatory quote", which, in my humble opinion, fails miserably at supporting your claim of poor writing. Orane (t) (c) (e) 19:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Objection remains: I've now re-read the article from start to last. First, you should be aware that I am not in the habit of debating and interlining comments with people on an FAC, as I think such things are shabby at best. It is not a debate. Second, after I object to something I like to give the authors a chance to do some work to see if the objection can be lifted, which is my goal as well as theirs. Third, an objection is not a checklist. I can and will mention some examples that decided for me that the objection was still valid, but it is not a case of "correct this and this, and then there are no objections." Such a thing may happen with a procedural or formatting objection, but not with a writing objection. That all said, let me congratulate the authors on improving the article's early sections enormously in the intervening time. The first sentence is still begging for attention ("partly co-written" is not logical; remove the "partially" or "partly"). However, after a number of people have commented on the prose in the early parts, we're now left with decaying prose quality as the article goes on. In the sections on the video, we have some strained sentence structures with passives that simply don't make sense, cumbersome wording, and incomplete comparisons. The article has improved, and so I have to say that the second part of my first entry is also valid: I really think this article would benefit most by having dispassionate hands working on it. If Peer Review isn't generating sufficient input, then perhaps the authors would consider asking someone who has no particular interest in the subject to give the writing a hard look. The writing here is not among the best Wikipedia has to offer, so it is not FA quality. Geogre 20:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, and for the rest of this...folderol...it is truly immature. "Research" reveals that Bishonen and I are friends -- such as reading either of our user pages, where we say, in the first screen, that we are real life friends. 'It was changed the way I said' -- please: either read what I wrote or what it says, for the change was an improvement but left a logical inconsistency. 'I haven't been back to answer for myself' -- well, that's sort of a good thing, as I was trying to avoid bickering, small minded, foot stomping, "says you" argument and let you guys take my criticisms in the spirit they were intended and find some disinterested parties to do some editing. Finally, though, Bishonen raised exceptionally acute objections about how poorly sourced the article is, and the authors didn't even make an effort at addressing that. Frankly, leaving my objection as merely stetim is as much as anyone should hope for. Geogre 20:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose my comments can stand the test of time, especially now. Anyway, in regard to the opening sentence concerning "partly" or "partially", it has been changed to "primarily" (and has been like this for several days now). The prose is not brilliant, but it does not fail in any way. As this appears to be your only objection (other than the information you requested that be removed which I must admit seemed rather peculiar), and if I feel in the mood to correct the prose sometime soon, you may be obliged to change your vote, which is, evidently, a good thing! However, if the article rolls off FAC, I'll be taking some time before renominating it since I am not really in the mood to rewrite the entire 10-some kilobytes. Anyway, thanks for your comments and suggestions. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You are calling an article that is supported by USA Today, Universal Music Group, Fox News, Billboard, New York Times and RIAA among others as "poorly sourced"? I'm not even gonna comment on that any further. Orane (t) (c) (e) 13:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you in that category. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Second nomination

A lot of work has gone into the article since it was last nominated. A sound sample has been added, a complete list of the credits and personnel has been included, and a heavy copy-edit was conducted. In my personal opinion the only thing that is missing from the article now is a chart of the U.S. and UK chart trajectories of which I have in my possession, but I can live without excess detail! Although it was not resubmitted to peer review, information at the most recent nomination was successfully engraved into the article (permanently)! This time around, I am convinced that the article is ready to become a featured article. It meets all of the criteria, and objections have been addressed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support, of course. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Could we get citations for the first paragraph of Structure and music? That seems to be more opinion, IMO, so we should just cite reviews describing the song (which shouldn't be too hard to find). The last paragraph of Chart performance has no inline citations. I find the article a bit uncomfortable to read at times, mainly because it's a bit hagiographic (IMO), but since I feel I might be too biased to judge and this is one of the better pop articles I've seen, I won't object yet. Johnleemk | Talk 15:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I've been searching for references concerning the structure and music paragraph but have been unsuccessful. Although it's not really the best example, would you feel more convinced if the song itself spoke for the paragraph? I'll continue searching for references, of course, but it has been difficult. Which portion of the chart performance are you referring to? Is it the part before "free downloads controversy" or the very last paragraph? —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I've gone ahead and sourced that section; it can be synthesized from the two sources.Orane (t) (c) (e) 15:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The part before the free downloads controversy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, that section has three inline citations. As the entire point is from one source (Billboard itself), it was best if we placed the citations at the end of the paragraphs, and not in individual sentences. Orane (t) (c) (e) 15:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The Canadian, UK, Australian, and French charts have been sourced. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Having worked on this, i think it now fits the criteria. Orane (t) (c) (e) 17:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It needs a lot of copyediting (punctuation, coordination of tenses). The images are all claimed as fair use, and appear to be there mostly for decoration. The "structure and music" section isn't very complete, uses nonstandard musical terminology ("phases"), and doesn't even mention, for example, whether the song is in a minor key or a major key. The lead doesn't do anything to convince a read who's not a Carey fan that there's anything noteworthy or interesting about the topic; it states that the song was a commercial success, and that it was well received by critics, but the footnote for the latter claim links to a fan site.--Bcrowell 19:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Please note that this user is no longer actively contributing to WP, so he is unable to reassess his oppose vote. The editors however, have addressed (or have attempted to address) the objection. Orane (t) (c) (e) 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't want to reassess my vote. I stand by my oppose vote. Please don't put words in my mouth.--Bcrowell
      • I have no intention of reassessing my vote, because the minor improvements have not been enough. I have already responded to this comment by saying that I'm still following this discussion, but someone deleted my comment. The fact that such a lousy article could be considered seriously for FA was one of the things that made me decide to quit WP and intentionally mung my password. Since orane feels the need to shout by boldfacing his/her comment, I've done the same in my reply. Note, however, that I would not sink so low as to delete orane's comment, as was done to my comment. You can't have it both ways. Either you believe me when I say that I'm really bcrowell, in which case it was sneaky and dishonest to delete my comment; or I'm you don't, in which case you can feel free to count this as an additional vote to oppose.--Bcrowell
      • Eternal equinox has deleted the above comment. This is the second time it has been deleted. Eternal equinox's comment on the second deletion was "Removed possible vandalism; if Bcrowell would like to make comments, he should do so from his own account." But of course the content of the comment makes it clear that I cannot make comments from my own account, because I've intentionally disabled my account. Also as explained in the comment, the supporters of this article can't have it both ways: either I'm who I claim to be, in which case it's dishonest and despicable to delete my comments, or I'm not who I claim to be, in which case this should be counted as a second vote against the article.--Bcrowell
      • Let me intervene (sorry EE). I have done some copyediting, and have replaced "phase" with the correct musical term — "section". I've also mentioned the key the song was in etc. Orane (t) (c) (e) 19:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
        • A lot of copy-editing has already been conducted, and the users who wrote this article feel as though it is ready to be accepted as a featured article. All of the images are tagged properly and none are being used in the article for decorative purposes. Mariah Carey accepting an award for "We Belong Together" is not decorative — it presents the singer in an uplifting mood because of her win. The images from the music video present Carey's sheer frustration when she pleads for her lover's return and to show her wedding dress which caused much publicity. The "music and structure" is an effort placed in the article based on research; it does not require proper "music terminology"; it needs to be communicated so that non-musicians understand the language. We could not find a reference or which key it is in, therefore it was not included in the article. If the lead doesn't convince you that the song was a commercial success, well then there's nothing we can do about it: we're here to summarize the facts, not convince a reader that it was a hit or a failure. There are links in the "Critical reception" portion of the article stating the positive and negative reviews it received, which makes the article stable instead of purely provided teeter-totter POV on either the good or bad side. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • If you can't find out whether the song is in a major or minor key, maybe you simply don't have enough sources of information to write an FA-quality article. It seems implausible to me, however, that you couldn't track down information of that kind. Why not just walk into a music shop, find the sheet music on the shelf, and look at the key signature, chords, and melody? It seems odd to me that you don't think standard musical terminology should be used in an article on a musical topic. If this was an article on geometry, we'd expect words like "line" and "angle" to be used correctly, rather than ad hoc, idiosyncratic terms like "straight thingy" and "wedgy bit." Someone who has a deep knowledge of a subject can often get across the relevant ideas while finding creative methods to avoid an excess of obscure terminology; but the impression I get here is that the people who wrote this section simply don't have the relevant musical knowledge. The lead does convince me that the song was a commercial success, but it does not convince me that it was a critical success, nor does the mixture of positive and negative reviews later in the article convince me of that. The biggest issue IMO is simply that if the article was well written, it would do something in the lead to capture the interest of someone who wasn't already a Carey fan. It simply didn't do that for me.--Bcrowell 20:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I found a source that says that the song is in C Major, but another editor told me to remove it as it was not note worthy; C Major is considered "home key". I can replace it if you wish. "Phases" could be changed to "verses" or something similar. I think that the images are appropriate (though I have my doubt about the last one at "awards"; its not particularly vital). The lead tells that the song is her comeback and signature song; and the article itself expands on this. I think that this is convincing and interesting enough. "It states that the song was a commercial success, and that it was well received by critics, but the footnote for the latter claim links to a fan site". I think that theres a litte confusion here. The bit about the song achieving huge commercial success is not sourced at all — the bit about it becoming her comeback is the point that is sourced, and in any case, none leads to a fansite. Lastly, I recognise the verb/tense shift. Its use here is correct in that, while discussing the song's success and recording preccess, it's appropriate to use past tense, but when discussing the plot and the lyrics, you should use present tense (a common rule in literature that applies to songs, poems, novels, etc) Orane (t) (c) (e) 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
What I said was that it was not a notable thing where it was, and it wasn't (it was in a sentence that said that it was composed on a piano in C major; on a piano, C major is a natural 'home position,' while on a guitar that would be an unusual key). I.e. "on a piano in C major" is no biggie. On the other hand, if you're going to talk about the music, though, as music, then it makes sense to use the proper terminology, to talk about the key, etc. My larger point was that the music wasn't very unusual, that the song isn't very unusual, that the whole song is rather run of the mill, and I felt like discussing the music was padding. This song isn't "Satisfaction" or "My Generation." It's a fairly standard R&B ballad. Geogre 04:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. All of my issues from the prior FAC, which I initially opposed, have been addressed. Changes and sources have been added, noted a song sample has been included, and song is no longer a "current event", as it has dropped off the Billboard 100 and most other charts. --Ataricodfish 20:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I think that the article is well written. Khalif 22:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A concise, well-written song article. If only every song article could be so to-the-point. RyanGerbil10 04:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, with regret, due to acknowledged omission of chart info, which is essential. But, aside from that, I do find this nom to be very pleasing. Would happily support if chart info was included. Everyking 07:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll also note that I'd be even happier if the chart info was not included in this article, but a subarticle dealing with all chart info in detail was created. That's really what we need here, especially considering how much chart info there is to talk about. But in the short term, I think it would suffice to have a trajectory table of at least the U.S. Everyking 07:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid that I disagree and believe that the article includes a well-balanced portion of the single's chart performance. Much of the information is focused on the U.S. market because that is where its success was most overwhelmed — the Canadian, UK, Australian, French, etc. chart performances are not as in-depth as the former because of the lack of sub-charts. Since the U.S. chooses to display over twenty charts on Billboard.com, we are capable of writing a vast outlook of the "We Belong Together" trajectory and what-not. The other nations do not have sub-charts that are displayed on the official websites—although sub-charts indeed do exist—and therefore it is not as simple to expand upon international appeal. There is a large amount of U.S. information included, beginning with the single's Hot 100 and Airplay success and its performance on the contemporary charts. I don't think that excess information should be added to the article — see Cool (song) for a recent single that reached featured article status: there is not much talk on its chart performance but more so on the writing and inspiration. You may want to see various Beatles' songs (Yesterday (song), I Want to Hold Your Hand, Something) for examples on articles with almost no chart history whatsoever. The article shouldn't go into over-drive on the international chart base. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't say you had to write it. Anyway, my vote stands. The chart information is important. Either include the trajectory or create a subarticle. I see disturbing hints of deletionism here. Everyking 04:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • And let me point out that those Beatles articles are the work of User:Johnleemk, a deletionist who has destroyed at least as much music-related content on WP as he has created. Those articles are hardly good examples to point to. If they are weak on chart info they should lose FA status. Everyking 04:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
          • A sub article just for the purpose of showing the chart performance of a pop ballad? Is it that notable? The chart performance is lengthy enough already (in fact, it is the longest section of the article). Oh, and you may also want to check out Request for comment/Pop music issues. Orane (t) (c) (e) 04:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Of course it's notable. Why are we limiting ourselves, and placing restrictions on our readers? I think we should have all the chart information on this song that there is to write. Everyking 04:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
                • We are placing restrictions on our readers because an encyclopedia is a general source that is supposed to summarize the most notable points of an entry. We are limiting readers becase "WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information". We are limiting readers because noone except a bonafied fan will read an article that stretches for 40 kilobites on a pop ballad. And finally, we are limiting our readers because the FA criteria states that the piece must be tightly focussed without delving into unnecessary info. Frankly, if fans of Carey need to know more, they can look at the external links of the article etc. And if you look closely, there is additional chart info in the "see also" section at "sales and chart achievement". Orane (t) (c) (e) 05:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • Well, you said I was jumping to accusations, but it looks like I was 100% correct: that's classic deletionist talk right there, right out of the textbook. Some people, I think, don't look at FA with enough theoretical grounding. I've been guilty of this myself before. If something looks nice, and obviously a lot of work went into it, the temptation is to support. You can see that up and down this page. "Oh, looks good, support." But being an FA is much more important than that. Look at how EE pointed to the Beatles articles as examples to bolster his position. FAs set examples, precedents, and collectively they shape the whole idea of what Wikipedia content is supposed to be about. So I refuse to let my guard down and support a deletionist-oriented article just because it looks nice and tidy and referenced. It's evident to me that wrongheaded thinking has been at work on the article, and unless I see some change in that respect I will continue to oppose. Everyking 05:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I think that you are taking this too personally. Secondly, while being a FA doesnt mean that it should look nice and well-referenced, it sure does not mean that the writers should plaster the article with every bit of information that they can find. What would be the focus there? I see that you have commented on EE's examples, but you havent commented on my quotes of the policies and conventions that everyone here seems to follow. And its funny how you think that you are the one who is right. Orane (t) (c) (e) 06:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Also, let's not jump to accusations here (User:Johnleemk and "hints of deletionism")Orane (t) (c) (e) 04:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Personally, I don't really see how mentioning every single weekly chart position of any single or album is useful in the context of an encyclopedia. Also, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't think FAC is the most appropriate place to discuss this, though. Extraordinary Machine 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • In response to Everyking, the Beatles articles are absolutely fantastic when looking at musical-related aspects of a song, which I had been attempting to note in my last edit toward your objection. I am not bolstering my position by selecting them because they lack the information you would like to see within them — I chose them because they are well-written, do not contain fan-cruft-related activity, and concentrate on what a song is principally about (which I have just noted): the music and lyrics. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I do—it informs the reader, which is the purpose of this whole project. You have a Britannica-based conception of an encyclopedia: a collection of tidy summaries fitted onto the printed page—well, it's worth remembering that if we were doing things Britannica-style we wouldn't even have an article on this song—or on Mariah Carey herself, since from that viewpoint, the elitist viewpoint, all of it's just trivia, mindless diversions for the "ignorant masses" and such, unworthy of inclusion in a real collection of knowledge. You should think a minute about the basis of your ideas about the nature of an encyclopedia. Where does your viewpoint start, in philosophical terms, and where does it lead? Everyking 04:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
          • The use of chart trajectories is a contentious point, but I think the purpose of this forum is to assess an article against established criteria. There is nothing about chart trajectories in any of the Wikipedia policy or guideline pages, nor in any of the project pages - if it does exist and I've missed it, please show me where it is. This should not be a forum where any of us push our own particular bias and bargain for a support/oppose vote. Push for the chart trajectories by all means, but do it in the correct forum so that when articles come up for nomination, the chart trajectory is part of the agreed requirement. What we should be deciding here, objectively and dispassionately, is : does the article meet the current established and agreed criteria for a featured article? Yes or no? How can a contributor work to create a featured article if it's going to be judged and condemned against unwritten criteria? That you have a vision for the future of the project is admirable, and possibly a lot of articles will need to be reviewed in time as they might no longer meet standards, but the article should be judged against the current standard, not the future standard that we haven't yet agreed upon. Rossrs 09:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
            • The issue is comprehensiveness, of course, and that's as standard an objection as they come. I believe the chart trajectory is necessary to comprehensively cover the subject. Everyking 10:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Sure, comprehensiveness is mandatory, I agree, and in general it's a standard, valid objection. Defining "comprehensiveness" is the grey area and I guess that's the point we really don't agree on; the line between comprehensiveness and excessive detail can be very fine. Rossrs 10:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Yeah, on one end there's a single sentence in an article on the history of music that mentions general trends in early 21st century Western popular music, and on the other end there's a whole family of lengthy articles dealing with every aspect of "We Belong Together" in delicious detail, enough to satisfy any and all readers. My real idea of what is comprehensive is the latter. But because that's years ahead of where we're generally at right now, my comprehensiveness standard in present-day practice is way less than that: I just want the inclusion of a basic chart trajectory that we already have access to and which we already know readers want. I see things in terms of movement to one end or the other of that spectrum and try to push for a goal that keeps things going in the right direction. Everyking 11:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • I don't think you're wrong to push, but I don't think this is the right venue. We'll have to disagree about that. "Delicious detail" won't necessarily "satisfy any and all readers", in fact it will repel many of them. If it's true that "we already know readers want" trajectories, I can only wonder why none of those readers seem to be commenting here, only the ones that don't want it. You seem to be suggesting that you are speaking on behalf of a majority, and I think that's doubtful. In any case, your oppose and my support effectively cancel each other out ;-) and the finer points of this conversation really should be discussed elsewhere. Rossrs 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my vote to support because of the addition of the chart. Everyking 03:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - it's well written, well referenced, as good as or better than other song related featured articles. Fair use images are well chosen and used sparingly - fair use rationales seem to be good. Comprehensive without delving into the mindless trivia that populates so many pop-culture articles - I like that it's thorough without being exhaustive - well done. In your nomination you said that it's missing chart trajectories and although I know the trajectories have their supporters, I think they clutter up articles with exactly the type of mindless trivia you've cleverly avoided. My opinion only, and I won't change my vote if you add them (but I hope you don't) Rossrs 14:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, in a quick read-over, it passed inspection. -- user:zanimum
  • Oppose as per Bcrowell. Plus too many copyrighted images to be reasonable, and the final image is out of focus and has little to do with the song itself. We have already got the message as to what she looks like. Giano | talk 09:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • There are not too many copyrighted images. Each image does not have to directly relate to the song itself — that would be unusual and would leave us with two images from the music video, which are both in the same section. The rest of the article would become full of text, and uncolourful. The image is not out of focus on my monitor. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • OK no problem! I'll stick with oppose. Giano | talk 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It should be noted that this user has already voted and that they have bolded two "oppose" votes. Also, Giano, please refrain from making such comments as "hollow". Please see Wikipedia:Civility. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Bcrowell. Also, the writing is too rigid, it lacks chutzpah. My biggest concern is that the images in the article all look blurry and out-of-focus. HeyNow10029 01:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • HeyNow10029 has been asked several times to reanalyze her vote but has simply ignored both Journalist and myself. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The writing is not supposed to contain "chutzpah". It is supposed to qualify as "brilliant prose" so that others are able to read it very clearly. None of the images are out-of-focus on my monitor. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It doesn't have to be bland for people to understand it clearly. And the images are out-of-focus, I wasn't the only one who mentioned it. HeyNow10029 01:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I strongly disagree: the writing does not have to be "exciting" as it is not listed on Wikipedia:What is a featured article. What images do you claim to be out of focus? —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Who said anything about exciting. All the images look blurry, but specifically the first one where she's leaning against the wall. Stick by my oppose. HeyNow10029 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia:Image use policy says in part "Wikipedia allows low-resolution images of copyrighted material if they are unlikely to affect the potential market for the material, are used for the purposes of analysis or criticism, and for which there is no alternative, non- or free-copyrighted replacement available" (the bold is also from the official policy page). Crystal clear, high resolution images are not to be used. The images are to be only of sufficient quality to do the job of illustrating/demonstrating points addressed in text. This part of your objection is therefore not actionable. With regards to the writing lacking "chutzpah", it would help people understand your position if you gave examples or suggested ways of improving it. Objections must be actionable, and it's up to you to make your opinions clear so that other users have the opportunity to fix what you identify as faults. Rossrs 09:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
              • My objections are actionable. First, fix the pictures: the pictures are blurry which has nothing to do with the resolution. The last picture was screengrabbed at a moment when she was waving her hand, which makes her hand look blurry and the picture poor. And like I commented on before, the first image where she has her back against the wall is way too blurry. Those are my biggest concerns, the writing isn't featured article-worthy but that's a secondary concern. HeyNow10029 21:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is stated in the licence "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots..." I fail to see under this statute the justification of three pictures of the same woman at the same stage in her life and career. This is pushing the spirit of the law too far. The same woman is also illustrated on the album cover featured in the lead thus negating the need for further images of her under this licence. There is also a world of difference between "low resolution" and "out of focus" as in the final image. Giano | talk 11:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It's odd. You and HeyNow10029 are both seeing the images as out of focus. Eternal Equinox said the images are not out of focus on his monitor, and they're not on mine either. On mine they have a "low resolution" look but they are all in focus (except for Mariah's hand in the last one). Rossrs 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have consistantly on this FA, and on the previous, only complained of the last picture being out of focus, I note you agree on that. The first image is just a poor reproduction, the others I query the reasonable legality of their inclusion due to their number. Giano | talk 13:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, sorry, my mistake. Only HeyNow10029 said they are all out of focus. And yes, I agree the hand is out of focus. Rossrs 14:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I also have concerns with the images, which apparently suffer from poor resolution and compression artifacts. I'm particularly unsettled by the unexplained presence of what closely resembles an NBC Olympics logo in the bottom right corner of the Radio Music Awards photo. Zoom-in analysis seems to indicate that it is superimposed on the scene, although it may be part of the backdrop curtain. What is it doing there? What does it mean? --Tsavage 15:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be removing that image; it is out of focus in a way and does present a logo of some sort in the bottom-right corner. I'll be replacing it with an image of better quality, in the least. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support This is weak for one missing ref, and will immediately be turned full if you can ref it. The phrase quiet storm is used twice in the article, once in the lead and once in the structure section. The structure line is fine, as it is sourced to Yahoo Music summarizing it as quiet storm (among other things). The lead, however, has a supposed direct quote from a critic, ""We Belong Together" has been noted by critics for its "quiet storm ambience", laid back piano-driven rhythm and Carey's subdued vocal delivery." that I would really love to see cited. I think it's a great article for a song! By removing the quote I feel fine about it nowStaxringold 01:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It has been cited. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • While I thank you for that, neither of the two sources you cited it with use the phrase "quiet storm ambience", or even just "quiet storm" anywhere in themselves. That still needs citing, or it shouldn't be a quote (and it would probably be POV in that case). Staxringold 01:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The 2005 Radio Music Awards image has been replaced with a clearer, logo-less image of Carey accepting an award at the 2005 Teen Choice Awards. Hope this makes everyone happy. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Please do not shout at us in "red". You are not a teacher shouting at pupils in school are you? Giano | talk 22:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not shouting. Some users (not intentionally) miss out on important information and therefore, I chose to make it obvious. And no, actually, I am one of those pupils. Why do you want to know about my professors? Please respond on my talk page since this is unrelated to the FAC. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I have no interest in your professors at all - merely a figure of speech. For some reason, I thought you were a teacher. I don't like the new picture, why is she standing next to a thing like a surf board, is that relevant? Giano | talk 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The surfboard is the award, as noted by the writing on it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a funny thing to give somebody for singing a song, is there a connection that should be in the page? Giano | talk 23:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't believe so, as far as I'm aware. It is, after all, just an award, regardless if it's a statuette, moon-man or surfboard. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Eternal Equinox, that latest picture, did you screengrab it yourself? HeyNow10029 03:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • No. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Well then you should check with whomever claims they screengrabbed it. Because the picture you uploaded with a screenshot tag is an almost exact copy of this picture: [2], which is not a screenshot but a photo released by the Reuters organization. A simple Google image search and you would have found that photo on the first page. If the picture is actually a copy of the one above, which I think it is, then Reuters would own the copyright not the network that aired the program. Furthermore, on the image's page, under summary, you credit: Copyright of the image is owned by MTV and related distributing networks. Do you have any proof that MTV owns the rights to the Teen Choice Awards. The 2005 Teen Choice Awards were aired on FOX, which is a subsidiary of News Corp., MTV is a subsidiary of Viacom. Two totally different groups that I'm sure wouldn't appreciate someone getting mixed up. Please address my concerns, which -considering this is up for FA status- are pressing.HeyNow10029 01:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • No, it did not come from that location, but from a UK media release. You are right about the copyright, however, and I have corrected the original distributer, who is indeed Reuters. The violation notice has been removed as the appropriate licensing was appointed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Hold on, not so fast. If it came from Reuters, it's obviously not a screenshot, and if it's not a screenshot you should change the screenshot licensing and fair use rationale that all refer to the image as a screenshot. And have you received permission from Reuters to use this image? If I'm correct Reuters is a subscription service that charges fees for the use of their images, I don't think Reuters licenses their images under a free license and I don't think their images are public domain. Plus, there's no link to where the image was copied from. You should really double-check all this before you upload an image on to an article. Eternal_Equinox. HeyNow10029 04:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        • And please don't remove the tag, Eternal. It's good that you corrected the mistake you made in crediting the distrubuter, but the issue still stands as to whether or not the use of that image is a copyright violation. Until the issue is resolved the tag needs to stay on the image.HeyNow10029 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


  • Support. Worthy of FA status. Gflores Talk 22:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many images, article looks cluttered. 3 copyrighted images for one single is definately stretching fair use, and the graph at the bottom is uneccesary. -AKMask 19:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there a policy that dictates the number of images that are to be used? I'm simply asking because some people say its enough, then others oppose on that ground. My knowledge of the policy is that the images are acceptable if they are used sparingly and are important to the article and adds to its content— the images in the article do add significantly to the content. Again, with conflicting views: Everyking opposed until the graph was put in the article, but here another editor is opposing because of it's inclusion. Can both of you discuss it further so the editors can decide which action to take? Orane (t) (c) (e) 19:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • At one level, it's simply a personal taste. a FA has to look good, and many feel too many images results in a cluttered page. It's a perfectly reasonable objection. On a completely different level, copyrighted images are utilized under the standard of 'fair use', which means we are legally allowed to use such images, generally in a non-perfect form (web-resolution and small in wikipedias case) just to the point of critiqueing and getting our point across. An album cover is fine. 3 fair use images for a single is pushing it too far, the points been made with one. Not a FA point, mind you, but fair use is the minimum to get the point out, not to make the point look pretty. cut the images from 3 to 2, only the cover being fair use, and dump the graph, and I'll support. -AKMask 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Considering Everyking suggested the inclusion of the chart, and changed his vote to support, I'm very reluctant on doing so. If it is removed, we still have take out another to receive your vote. That wouldn't work in favour of the FAC. The first image is supposed to indicate Carey's sheer frustration that is mentioned throughout the writing of the song. The second is supposed to present her wedding dress that was speculated as a publicity stunt; it also shows others that participated in the filming of the video such as Eric Roberts. The final image is of Carey accepting an award, which is appropriate for the section it is included in. "Article looks cluttered" is by far personal taste as I believe you have noted. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Up to you, but as of now, you're either at the 'no consensus' level or one more oppose vote away, depending on the closing admins favored percentage level. -AKMask 03:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Actually, only User:Raul654 is responsible for promoting articles, where (I think) he looks at the object votes and judges if they are actionable, valid, reasonable or just plain trivial, then he promotes it (or not). It's not done by percentage. Therefore, an article can probably receive 10 supports and 5 opposes, where the opposers nitpick and oppose on some really trivial, subjective and inactionable grounds, but still be promoted. Orane (t) (c) (e) 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You may wish to review wikipedia policy. Yes, Objections must be actionable, but all currently are. The goal is to reach a community consensus, which is generally felt to lie somewhere between 66 and 75 percent of the views expressed. -AKMask 05:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, you have misunderstood me: I wasn't implying that the objections here aren't actionable; they are. You, however, might want to review the policies, as you are wrong; its not, nor was it ever, about the percentage of support votes that an article received (you seem to have confused this with the RFA process). If you still have doubts, go to the FA director himself— or anyone else who has knowledge of the FAC process. Anyway, here isn't the place to discuss it. Orane (t) (c) (e) 17:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Images have been removed. All that remains are two from the video and the single cover. The single cover is important (obviously) and so is Image:WBT2.jpg, which depicts the singer's frustration that is mention and commented on in the article. Image:Weddingdress.jpg at music video is also vital— afterall I think that you will agree that we need a screencapture of the video if we are to discuss it at length. I hope that some of the objections here have been addressed. Orane (t) (c) (e) 18:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Not confused, I just throw that percentage out because it is whats most reffered to as consensus, since we dont go for a straight up or down vote. Alas, the graph is still there, which is fine from a copyright view, but I fail to see how it does anything but clutter the page. High points in the charts and overall sales are all that is needed. And while im still wary of 3 fair use images, it is a 25% drop that you did with little objection, so im fine with that. Find a way to dump the graph, and you have my vote -AKMask 18:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. However, can't we come to a compromise? If we remove the graph, we will have another oppose on our hands. The thing is, you can choose not to support, but still strike out your oppose vote i.e abstain. Does the graph really lessen its quality and makes it unworthy of FA status? Orane (t) (c) (e) 19:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The awards image has been removed. Now only two images from the music video and the one image of the chart trajectories remain. I would appreciate it if the objectors reanalyzed their votes. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Could the users who voted object please reanalyze their votes? The image at the awards ceremony is long gone now. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This just isn't really Featured-quality writing. The prose is uncompelling and there's really a dearth of encyclopedic information about the subject. Featured Articles on songs / singles like Layla, Get Back (song), or Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) present a vast amount of information on songwriting, recording, historical impact, and so forth, with nearly no divergence into (arguably) trivial stuff like describing the plot of a song's music video or listing its positions on the Top-Whatever charts. This article, however, gives us a couple of hundred words on those topics, some direct copy-and-paste quotations from various reviewers, and then the music-video rundown and charts data. When looking for Featured Articles, we must ask "what makes this particular article special among other articles on the same subject?"; the answer, in this case, is "absolutely nothing", and I cannot support it. --keepsleeping slack off! 04:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, your concern about the "historical impact" of the song is going to have to be overlooked mainly because it has only been public for eleven months. There is information in the article regarding recording and songwriting, it just is not very expandable. What is it that you would like us to accomplish? Perhaps search out for more information on the writing process? —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The thing is, you have given examples of the few songs where "songwriting", "recording", and "historical impact" are the strong points and the composers are known for their artistry (like the Beatles, or Temptations ). "We Belong Together" (like "Cool") is a contemporary pop song, where these things are not emphasized as much. ie, nothing was special about it as to merit lengthy discussion. You have to admit that today, there is bearly any real artistry behind pop songs— people just sit and write anything, then they make a good video to ensure its success. You can't use the examples of 70s songs to dictate what info is to be included on a 2005-06 pop song as 1)people's expectation of what info to look for has changed, 2)Unlike the 70s where no one cared about music videos and ficussed solely on music, music videos have now come to the forefront of any pop song, and 3)Chart placements dictate the commercial success of the single. However, I will try to incorporate some of your suggestions.Orane (t) (c) (e) 17:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It's not equally easy to write an FA-quality article about any topic. Although, for example, shoe polish made it to FA, if they had wanted an easy topic for an FA, that wouldn't have been it. Orane, my main complaint about the article has always been that it wasn't sufficiently well written to interest a reader who wasn't already a Carey fan, and that the lead, in particular, didn't explain what was noteworthy about the topic in a convincing way. The article on shoe polish didn't have to convince me to become a big fan of shoe polish; it merely had to convince me that it would tell me something noteworthy and interesting about the topic -- and it did. It seems as though you're saying now that the song is without artistic merit, and therefore there's no need to discuss the actual music in the article in any depth. If that's the case, then I'm more perplexed than ever as to what the article is claiming is noteworthy about the topic. It seems odd to me to state a POV value judgment about the artistic merits of the song -- one that the lead appears to contradict -- and use it to justify the article's lack of any musically literate discussion.--Bcrowell 18:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I understand. I'm now working on including the recording and songwriting, though there's little information to go on (online or off) with such a recent pop song. Orane (t) (c) (e) 19:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
            • The article has gone under some long and drastic changes. I've added info on the recording, inspiration, writing, studio sessions etc. Bcrowell, I've also changed the intro. Orane (t) (c) (e) 00:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great job, exceedingly well sourced and comprehensive, everything I would want to know if I liked that song :) Judgesurreal777 04:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the "music and recording" section has undergone a complete rewrite and an image of the opening notes from the song has been added. Could the users who objected please check their votes over to see if anything remains relevant? As it currently stands, I'm almost positive that a few objections have been addressed and are no longer applicable to this debate. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The article is too long for a single. Too many fair use screen shots of the video that don't really have anything to do with the song. Also, I strongly object to the image of the sheet music. This fails the fair use test because the subject of the article is the esthetic aspect of the song and its notability as a successful pop single, not a critical interpretation of its musciality. On this basis, the song is not very notable. The scant critical interpretation of this song is merely that it is in the key of C (a highly dubious statement in itself because most piano sheet music transposes to a key that is easy for a novice or intermediate player). Sheet music falls under the publishing license of copyright. The sound recording falls under the mechanical license. The article is about the sound recording and thus any argument of fair use of the publishing licence is moot. Furthermore, the image is taken from a site that sells sheet music. It is unclear if the uploader even purchesed the product or simply copied the image from the site. To paraphrase Tolkien, an administrator should know better. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
How do you mean that the article is too long? Is there a set limit for a single? It does not go over the 32 kb limit. Furthermore, all the information presented in it are notable for a pop song in this day and age. In order to make your oppose actionable, I (very kindly) ask that you take the time to go through the article and give examples of what section needs trimming.
Yes, the site sells the sheet, but they offer that small section (the first few notes and first two words of the song) for public viewing. I don't think its copyright infringement to use that single page in an article — it falls under one of the blanket categories of copyrighted images whose use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith. Orane (t) (c) (e) 20:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, how can you say that two images of the music video are too many? The first image (Image:WBT2.jpg), as explained earlier, is vital as it is used to identify and comment on the songs progression and the emotional states of the protagonist, which is discussed at length in the "music and structure" section. The other image Image:Weddingdress.jpg is used at the music video section to show the state of the protagonist, and it represents the theme and central plot of the song, which is also commented on in "music video". How are they meaningless to the article? Orane (t) (c) (e) 20:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
A music video is a work of art separate from the song. I wouldn't object to a FU image in a section describing a video based on the song, but a screenshot tells the average reader nothing about the quality of a song. I'm referring to Image:WBT2.jpg which is in a section titled "Music and structure." The argument that the fair use of this copyrighted image provides information about the musical structure of the song is equivocal.
As for being too long here are some examples: Carey and Dupri decided to include portions of what they considered classic R&B singles in an attempt to make "We Belong together" special. How? Where is a citation for how this is special? The section then goes on to paraphrase the lyrics of the song. It is somewhat notable that the song references other songs and borrows lyrics, but it's not entirely unusual. This section could be shortened to The song references and uses lyics from Two songs, Bobby Womack's "If You Think You're Lonely Now" (1981) and The Deele's "Two Occasions" (1987, featuring Babyface as lead vocalist). We can't conclude the meaning of the inclcusion of the references to these songs without a citation of a critical review pointing out the relevance. Carey transitions into the third and final section by raising her voice an octave, which is meant to emphasize the sheer frustration and desperation of the protagonist as she gives one last plea for her former lover to return. I find this statement questionable. How do we get into the composer's mind that going up an octave relates an emotion? I can't check the references at my location, but I hope that they include a critical review that states this. I always question the inclusion of chart performance because I doubt this will be useful information ten or twenty years from now, but that's a debate for another forum. However the inclusion of this material is one of the things contributing to the article being over-long. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
First, your above post requires that I go into detail to explain the point about the reference of other songs, not tweak it. And, yes there's a source for that section, which I will cite momentarily. The lyrics are notable enough to be included — all other featured articles have them, and no one has objection on its inclusion until now. Does it lessen the article's quality as a potential featured article? I really doubt it. I believe that the point about the octave shift is, in fact, sourced. No, its not a critical review, but an article from an interview with Carey herself. Yes, the source says the exact same thing —I could even quote it if you wish. Come to think of it, I do have a critical review that says the same thing; I could cite the two. Charts are important, and if we remove it, we risk being opposed by EveryKing. (See above discussion.) Orane (t) (c) (e) 22:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Given your objection, the sheet image has been removed, as it is too risky. However, I really think that its inclusion was harmless. Orane (t) (c) (e) 20:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Journalist, I don't believe that the sheet of music should be removed — it is perfectly acceptable in a music-single article. See various Beatles song articles for other examples. I'm not so sure if many of Malber's objections are actionable, especially considering the broken wikilink they have provided us with. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
A Hard Day's Night (song) contains a piece of sheet music and this article has featured article status. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Even though the sheet music from A Hard Day's Night (song) is public domain, it still boasts fair use rationale, and therefore, makes the situation similar to this one. Just because they are public domain, it doesn't make the image special (but it does make them free!). —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
A Hard Day's Night is NOT public domain and that image is certainly non-free (I've clarified the conflicting templates on the image descrption page). However, because the article discusses in detail the melodic structure of the song, the lead sheet qualifies as fair use. The We Belong Together article does not go into this deep of musical interpretation. Furthermore, the image of the sheet music not only infringes on the copyright of the composer, it infringes on the arranger of the sheet music as it is undoubtably an arrangement of the song, not the actual score. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
You're speaking nonsense; one sheet of paper attempting to present the first four lines of a song does not infringe any copyright holder and does not distort the article in any way. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use because you're currently overdoing this procedure. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose A lot of work has gone into this article, including much activity to meet FAC objections. A fair amount of information is present, however, I still find serious problems with many FA criteria. The actionable specifics (below) also add up in this case to a larger, separate, and quite disturbing problem: a relatively small amount of core material has been torturously fashioned into an overlong article that seems to be striving, painfully at some points, for a "scholarly" and "fully explored" feel. This fails, because of poor writing quality and ultimately, lack of substantial information. Some specific examples:

  • Inflated lead In describing the song, a third of the lead features redundancy and statements of the obvious. Phrases like "a blend of hip hop, soul and quiet storm ambience" are so vague (and oddly worded, how do you blend broad genres with an "ambience") and "classic sensibility" are near meaningless generalities that could be used to describe quite different-sounding songs. They don't put the reader further in the ballpark than would simply succinctly getting to the point with something like "R&B ballad", "hip hop-influenced ballad", "ballad", there are many easy picks... (The sources cited also don't seem to have been well-mined. The NY Times article referenced for these bland conclusions also notes, far more interestingly, "It's the most melancholy song to rule the summer in years." and traces Carey's "pioneering" of the "thug-love" duet, through rap-styled vocal and lyrical approaches, to "We Belong..."'s vocal style.) The lead then goes on to "analyze" the lyrics by quoting such emotionally evocative (?) words as "stupid", "foolish" and reminding us, despite the TITLE OF THE SONG, that she believes that they "belong together".
  • The lyrics are quoted because that is the way the protagonist feels in the song. I'm not sure what other may to put it. "She believes that they 'belong together'" is included because this is another emotion the protagonist expresses. We are not going to leave it out because the song is titled "We Belong Together"; it is important that all of the information is summarized and that we clearly communicate the message. It should not be vague or even misleading. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You've responded to only one of three specific examples, which may be summarized as 1) music description vague and inflated with ambiguous descriptive phrases, 2) relevant material from cited source not included, 3) analysis of lyrics vague and inflated with unnecessary, literal detail. Your reply to 3) doesn't address the central point of the objection, "inflation" (aka padding). FA concerns include writing style and summary. If this is a song about recriminations and regrets after a breakup, that or many other straightforward, succinct phrases are available to clearly convey the point. Particularly in a LEAD, drilling down to the point of quoting individual words the lyrics is absolutely unnecessary, and obscures the overall description of the song and its real-world context. And the other examples remain unaddressed. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comprehensiveness Even within the "quoting and echoing pop media" style, an examination of some of the sources shows that more interesting conclusions have simply been ignored. For instance, in addition to the NY Times above, the VH1 Road To The Grammys: The Story Behind Mariah Carey's 'We Belong Together', cited four times, presents a much clearer and compelling pop account to the song's creation, in one-third the words (and, although much of that material is included here, the cohesive reading experience of a light entertainment article is missing). The same potential goldmine of a NY Times article notes that, despite the simple sound, "the liner notes credit no fewer than 3 producers and 10 songwriters", and this is nowhere mentioned. The lead fails to mention that this was a "summer hit", when such a thing is a well-recognized, at least in harsher climates, and the article doesn't develop this simple fact, except for a cuople of mentions in critics' quotes). And so on...
  • I'm afraid that I don't understand this portion of your objection. One reviewer noted the song as a "summer hit", not all of them, so I don't see why this should be included in the lead section. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, you've selected only one of several examples. I clearly explained that I examined the source material and found information there that would seem to belong here. A "summer hit" is a common phenomenon, at least, in certain areas of the world like the US where this had its biggest success: a pervasive track that huge numbers of people will associate with the summer season of a particular year. This is interesting and relevant, and belongs at least in the lead, and developed more than in critics quotes. Then, that a song described as musically simple, stripped down, vocal-oriented still involved 3 producers and 10 songwriters is also interesting and notable. There are other examples. The selection of information included is questionable, and so comprehensiveness (and here from readily available, cited sources) is in doubt.
  • Awkward musical discussion (writing quality) While it's great to include a discussion of the music itself, here the language is often odd and stilted. "in an effort to attract attention to Carey's vocals", "A piano playing the melody of the refrain opens the song, and at once establishes its melody and harmonic structure., "she employs a state of vocal restraint, phrases several words per note, and occasionally sings counter to the rhythm", is an uncompelling and literal way to dissect music that doesn't read well.
  • What I gather from this objection is that you don't want the information to be literal. I'm going to correct some of the text, nonetheless. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, not simply "literal", but, awkwardly written. "Literal" was part of an attempt to describe the nature of the awkwardness. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Overemphasis of chart positions There is far too much detail of what, with the passing of time (like, a few months), becomes extraneous, trivial data. Four paragraphs of chart performance could be collapsed into one (the first para, with a sentence from the third). The article confuses the prevalence of chart chatter in pop music media and marketing (with countdown shows, radio patter about the current hits, and so forth), with what is of any lasting importance. Listing "weeks on", and what passed what is entirely meaningless in a general historical record. There may be a future use for trainspotting type recording of every detail of every music release, but an encyclopedia article isn't it. The Billboard et al archives are a good source for that source of thing.
  • See my comments below. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not an indiscriminate collection of facts applies here. 70% of the chart material is of no importance or use to the vast majority of general encyclopedia readers. How do I "know": common sense plays a part, as I can't conjure up a situtation where anyone but a hardcore fan or chart fanatic would want to know such specifics about a single song. For that audience, there are other sources (e.g. Billboard books and back issues). WP, or any general encyclopedia, is not a repository for all facts or even a majority of them, SUMMARY is the goal. An encyclopedia is essentially a shortcut and starting point to learning about many areas and topics, not a place to pack in lots of trivial detail. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I second that. It should be a starting position to give broad overview without leaving important information out. Encyclopedia is not an almanac or trivia book, that's for sure, even though I have a feeling that students (or other people) are going to start using wikipedia as primary source for their homeworks, which is sad. Temporary account 00:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No coverage of remixes As critical components of a modern pop song release, remixes are as important as music video. What about the DJ Clue remix — featuring Jadakiss and Styles P., and the Reconstruction radio and club mixes?
  • See my comments below. Mention of remixes are not incredibly notable, and one has been cited within the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In modern pop music, remixes ARE as integral a part of the story of a song as music videos. Remixes, which may bear little immediate resemblance to the album version, are used to reach different market segments, and may be responsible for breaking a song (e.g. a remix in a certain dance genre may cause a media buzz that leads to wider interest and so forth). World-class independent producers, DJs and artists work on essentially parallel versions of the release track. Remixes are as significant to the marketing effort and the cultural impact, as a music video. Whether a remix or the "primary" version (album track or edits thereof) had most impact for a particular release doesn't diminish the importance of covering the remixes; their substance, production, and impact should be noted for song coverage comprehensiveness. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary emphasis of "Free download controversy" As digital methods collide with traditional practices, these wrinkles occur. From the account, "We Belong..." happened into one of them. A sentence or two should suffice to sort it out, instead of a subsection that essentially retries the case.
  • See my comments below. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See my comment in answer to the comment about "chart positions". SUMMARY is the goal here. Balancing the relative importance of the various events and facts, and relaying them in a clear, concise, contextually cohesive manner is the goal. An overly long section 1) taxes the reader unduly with extra reading, 2) puts undue relative importance on an aspect of the whole topic, and thus, misrepresents. The download controversy did not impact the song itself, or its massive airplay and market penetration, and the resolution was routine. As described in the article, this is a notable minor event, given unnecessary prominence. And I'm not quibbling about a word or two, by word count this is around 10% of the main text, with its own subheading title. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Confusing, pointless sheetmusic image I imagine it will go before this is over, but it's there now. What is it meant to illustrate. Are we to equate the opening notes of "We Belong..." with the opening notes of, say, Beethoven's Fifth? Is it intended to add stature and depth (although what sheet music is a symbol of, I'm not sure, "culture", "serious music"?)? What does this image do for the aritcle? --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is featured to demonstrate the music explained in the article (time signature, quarter notes, rests, etc.) —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How many general readers are likely to want or even have the skills to examine sheet music to learn important details about a recorded pop song? People who want to play the song buy a songbook, not look it up in an encyclopedia. Indiscriminate collection of images applies as it does to facts. And is the actual score used in the recording, or a transcription of the music as recorded—what direct relationship does it bear to the recording in question, as the article is specifically about a recorded instance of a song? --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: Forcing the reviewer to reply in excruciating detail to back up objections does a disservice to common sense. This can't be the place for such things. But, given the FAC Director's apparently at times quite cursory way of evaluating objections, it seems necessary, if a review is to be "bothered with" at all, to follow up, lest any reply be seen as sign that an objection was "fixed". --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Overall, I don't have a problem with the topic, which seems quite notable as far as the category of current pop songs goes, and there is enough material here to do something with, but the way this article is assembled is not comprehensive, not summary, and far from a compelling read. As noted above, I got much of the info here in a more entertaining read, from one source that is a third this length. I'm not the "punisher": being blunt and...detailed seems to be the only way to even attempt to critique articles where counter-argument is a main support tactic. --Tsavage 16:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be an FAC without the backlash from Tsavage. Anyway, most of your objections confuse me. Do we need to include coverage of all Carey's remixes? By the way, in case you missed it, the DJ Clue remix is included in the article, though only briefly. I personally don't believe that the "Free downloads controversy" should be removed because it was a critical part of the song reaching number one on the U.S. Hot 100 and there were many accusations of Carey manipulating the charts. Your concern of the in-depth look at the chart performance also confuses me; Wikipedia is here to summarize the facts. If somebody wants to know what position it reached on the Billboard Pop 100 Airplay or the German Singles Chart, they should feel the need to access this website because we have the information. It's not a matter of what won't be relevant in six months or ten years. The rest of your objection—at least to me—appears personal and rather trivial. The piece of sheet music is supposed to illustrate the opening bars and melody of the song, the time signature, etc., which is included in the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, from what I've gathered, you've not been satisfied enough with any FAC. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, why not attack the reviewer along with, or even instead of, the review... I've still posted clear, actionable points against the criteria, and I'll conscientiously follow up if they're addressed for a reasonable length of time (let's say, up to a month). And it'll maybe be thumbs up, maybe thumbs down from the FAC Director. And all will be hunky dory in FAC... (Do you think I'm out of my mind and making up these objections from another dimension? And if you're so concerned with my overall FAC reviews, take a look...the archives are all there.) --Tsavage 22:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not attack you, it was merely a figure of speech. I still believe that most of your objections are trivial. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. And I guess it's nice to be missed. Hope the "non-trivial" objections help... --Tsavage 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey no kidding. I just found out that you (Eternal) supported the Ford Taurus FAC, and even said it is "good work." That FAC has clearly serious problem in prose and grammar, and why you supported or didn't mention a single word about the grammar is TOTALLY beyond me. This seems to confirm my stance that people have double standards or are not critical enough (or reasonably critical), as I have said on the infamous Bulba FAC. Anyways, don't take this as personal attack. Temporary account
And by the way, you (eternal) supported Philosophy of Mind, which I think also is good, but haven't finished reading. And you said that "writing could be improved at times." For a good article, you are pretty picky, but for Ford Taurus, you give unconditional support. Just boggles my mind. Temporary account 21:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Your rambling about a topic irrelevant to this FAC boggles my mind. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been keeping quiet about this FAC for a while because I don't really care whether this article becomes featured or not, but I should note that Tsavage provided a lot of helpful feedback on Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia. I know he and Monicasdude (talk • contribs) tend to be abrasive (and more than occasionally stubbornly pedantic) on FAC, but I found their objections a lot more helpful than the supports. (YMMV, though.) Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we just quit the quibbling? Aren't we all adults here? Please behave in this manner, and let's not get distracted here. I'm goint to get to work and try to address Tsavage's lenthly, but very helpful and detailed comments. Give me a couple days though. School is back in session :). Orane (t) (c) (e) 04:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I concur with most of what Tsavage (talk • contribs) has said. In my original comment I stated that the article was over-long. I believe Tsavage states it better that it's bloated without providing additional detail. For example, take a look at the referenced NY Times article. It concisely states that the song borrows from earlier R&B songs without resorting to quoting the material itself. Tsavage also re-iterates what I stated about the unnecessary and copyright infringing sheet music. Eternal Equinox: you seem to misunderstand the purpose of the FAC process. For every actionable item in this discussion, you have come back with a rationalization of why the edit should not be made. Tsavage has given you a gold mine here and you fail to recognize it. The FAC process is not supposed to be a popularity contest where you justify the article, it's supposed to be a crucible. You should welcome oppose votes as they are here to help you make the article better. You may want to step back, take a break, and try to look at things objectively. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I just went through the figures only, and it seems where's the source of that chart position graph? Did somebody just draw it? I am not familiar with the music industry, but is "chart trajectories" a proper way to title it? Temporary account 23:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The sources are provided under "References". Yes, "chart trajectory" (or chart run, whatever your preference) is the correct title for the graph. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment on misconduct by Eternal Equinox. There is a problem here with Eternal Equinox deleting people's comments. The edit history for this page shows both me and Tsavage complaining that Eternal Equinox has deleted our comments. As explained in my comments, I've intentionally disabled my original WP account (Bcrowell) because, after several years of participation and thousands of edits, I feel that WP is now headed in the wrong direction, due to fundamental flaws in its design. I had been responding to Eternal Equinox's deletions as an anon, appending the string "--Bcrowell". However, Eternal Equinox has been deleting everything I say, with transparently dishonest comments in the edit history. Therefore, I've created a Bcrowell2 account. I'm aware that this could be interpreted as a sockpuppet account, but since Eternal Equinox seems to feel free to delete anything I post without logging in, I don't seem to have any choice than to create a new account. I feel that Bcrowell2 does not really qualify as a sockpuppet account because (a) I'm being completely upfront with everyone about being the same person as Bcrowell; (b) I'm not attempting to vote as Bcrowell2, but merely to point out Eternal Equinox's misconduct; and (c) I'm in the same position as many other users who have forgotten their passwords and simply created a new account.--Bcrowell2 02:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This is not the way to get an article past FAC Eternal Equinox. As noted earlier, embrace the oppose votes and the discussion. They aren't here to fling crap on the candidate, they're there to tell you how to make it even better. This ones not gonna go through, looks pretty no concensus to me, but learn. The articles almost there. Most of your oppose votes are on formatting and images, not on content. Spend a couple weeks making it look pretty, resolve any last little copyright issues and you're there. So come on. Sit back. Deep Breath. We're just here to help. -Mask 04:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. Previous commentors have up a number of legitimate issues with this article. Since these issues have not been dealt with, the article should not be promoted to FA status.--Alabamaboy 20:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Third nomination

The last two nominations had failed (both are documented in the same project page), and this time I am really striving to have this article become a featured article, something I am more than convinced it has finally reached. The writing's good, images are used where appropriate, and the notes and references may have gone a bit over-board, yet more is always best when it comes to nomination time. Please provide any suggestions, comments and criticism, and please remember to sign your name with four tildes (~~~~)! Thanks! Let's begin this process.

Raul654 had delisted the original third nomination on the grounds that it had been too soon to renominate it. If my addition is accurate, I believe I have waited a further two weeks and would like to point out that this is the final FAC I participate in concerning this article. Hopefully, it will succeed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak support because: the chart trajectory image should be a scatterplot, to be accurate. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't own Microsoft Excel and had to ask another to create the graph. Does this scatterplot feature come with the same program? Or perhaps another? —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I think that Microsoft Excel, Quattro Pro, etc. can do it. I'm not sure though. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 16:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, I do not possess access to any of these programs. Your input is appreciated, of course, and I thank you for your support, however weak or strong it may be. :) —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object -- too many nominations too fast, also fancruft. -- Gnetwerker 19:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Too many nominations too fast is not an objectionable ground, and may be ignored. However, what do you believe contains fancruft? I will try and remove all of the content that you believe is classified as this. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I believe I removed the fancruft. Could you comment? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per the grounds I used on the previous three nominations, the graph is distracting and inaccurate. The song was never in posistion 3.6, or 4.7, but the graph shows it was. Also, it's too soon. That is actionable. Wait a month. Problem solved. Non-objectionable opposes are along the lines of 'I think Carey sucks and we shouldn't have this featured.' -Mask 19:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Please explain where it presents positions 3.6 or 4.7? I don't see such a rank. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I think what the person is saying is that the chart, having continuous lines and broad scales, appears to show the song ranking at non-integral positions. I agree with AKMask that the chart is of poor quality. However, since the chart (I hope) was based on the integral values in the tables provided below the chart, the article reader should look at the chart as showing the trends, and look at the data tables to see specific values. joturner 21:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • The image is gone. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The actionable items (especially the ones listed by User:Tsavage) from the last nomination have not been addressed. Simply renominating an article without improving it hoping it'll slip by is just too hollow. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 21:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Poor, poor hollow then. What are your objections? We are supposed to have a very good article here, and this article is certainly more than good. It will never be perfect, which is a shame, but then, not one article will ever be perfect. Do you have any specific objections to point out? I need to see them here so I can address them according to what you dislike and do like. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • No, people don't have to use up their wiki time repeating the same objections ad nauseam if the reason they give is that certain specified objections weren't addressed in the first place. If you're interested in getting a worthy FA, rather than one that is bullied and forced through the process, what you should do in the face of such an objection as Malber's here is not to demand yet another exhaustive and exhausting list of specifics; it's to go look up the last discussion and find the unaddressed objections and criticisms in it. That's your job, as nominator; it's not Malber's. Tip: when you do, look especially for the signature Tsavage, since Malber mentions that specifically. You see how it's done? Please stop demanding that the objectors do your job. What makes you think they should take the time to read through and make a précis of previous nominations, to save you reading them? Please be more reasonable. Bishonen | talk 22:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
        • You need to stop bothering me. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
          • That is an incredibly rude response. The user is correcting some appalling behavior here from you. Articles are not assumed to be featured quality untill shown otherwise, they are assumed to be less then that and it is up to you to prove that it is worthy. That means finding all the old opposes and seeing if you've fixed the concerns raised. Your behavior shows a massive misunderstanding on the way the FA process works, and the way our community at large works. -Mask 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
            • No, it is not a rude response. While on this website, I am completing encyclopedia articles, not brushing up on my perfectionism. You cannot tell me that I have brought the article here when it is not ready because that is incredibly POV; if I nominated it, then of course I am going to assume that it is ready. I have personally brought all of the old objections and brought them here to complete. I know precisely how the FAC process works, and I believe that some users are expecting too much out of an article about a song. I know what I am doing. In addition, Bishonen... I can't even comment. I'll just keep quiet. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Where are the nomination archives? I see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together/Archive 1, but shouldn't there be others? At least two more? joturner 21:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • There are two previous FACs, both of which are both in one archive. The third one was removed altogether because it was delisted. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Objectionable content that must be addressed:

  • Cut down the fancruft, as per the fancruft guidelines.
  • Tsavage believes that the lead section requires work. Although I believe this has been corrected, I will conduct a quick copy-edit.
  • Tsavage believes that the critical reception needs to be more comprehensive. This is being debated.
  • I believe this has been addressed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tsavage believes that the musical discussion is awkward and needs to be corrected to allow a flow and reads well.
  • Tsavage believes that the chart performance section is overemphasized. This has been trimmed excessively and has been completed, I think.
  • This has been addressed significantly. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tsavage believes that the sheet music image should be removed. It is gone.
  • Completed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tsavage believes that the free downloads controversy could do with trimming. This has been completed.
  • Trimmed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tsavage believes that the remixes should be expanded upon. This is being debated further.
  • Object For the same reason I objected last time. I just don't think the writing in the article is featured article status. I also think this is way too soon since the last candidacy was delisted. You should wait at least a month or two. HeyNow10029 22:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It should be noted that HeyNow10029 and myself are currently experiencing an edit war at Talk:Kelly Clarkson.
      Could you please point out a line or two that you do not consider "brilliant" prose? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • What are you suggesting, Eternal? HeyNow10029 23:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I am suggesting that you bring to my attention some of the writing that you do not believe qualifies as "featured article status". Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
          • That's not what I was referring to. What are you suggesting with this sentence, Eternal? It should be noted that HeyNow10029 and myself are currently experiencing an edit war at Talk:Kelly Clarkson. HeyNow10029 23:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, I would appreciate it if you borught to my attention what you think is not brilliant writing. I placed that message there because I have an intution that tells me you are objecting because of our discussion at Kelly Clarkson, similar to last time. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Excuse me? What discussion are you talking about that happened "last time" that makes you believe I voted oppose on any grounds other then the quality of the article? I don't like where you're going with this Eternal. I don't care what your intuition tells you but should keep it to yourself because those are some heavy allegations you're throwing around. You're being very rude and frankly, I don't appreciate it. HeyNow10029 23:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
                • All right, if it is not based on our discussion at Kelly Clarkson, please provide a few sentences which you believe are not featured article writing. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
                  • Please refrain from making allegations about people, Eternal_Equinox. And as per my objection, see my previous post in the last candidacy page, I'm not going to go back and fish it out, that's your job. HeyNow10029 00:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
                    • They were not allegations, so please refrain from making me look like I did something wrong. Intution is not shameful. Anyway, I did fish out your previous objections, and the ones concerning the images has been taken care of, since they are no longer here. However, your other objection is: "the writing lacks flavour, kathputz" (I'm not sure what you exactly wrote, but it was something like that). One problem: "kathputz" is not written at Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. Therefore, I don't believe from my opinion that this vote is any longer objectionable. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
                      • This is your M.O. on the FAC, you pick and pick at people who object until they give in and change their vote. I'm sorry if you disagree with me, but I don't think the writing in the article is featured article worthy. I'm done with responding to you because this has gotten way too personal and out of hand. (Like most things to, when you're involved.) And please don't quote me unless you plan on actually re-writing my quote, word for word. You misspelled chutzpah and I don't spell flavor with a u. . HeyNow10029 01:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
                    • I did not intend to quote you word-for-word. Anyway, I can't improve the writing further if you believe it is lacking chutzpah because no such guideline is written at WP:WIAFA?. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment by nominator: Please reconsider voting "object" because this article has spent a lot of time at FAC. Other articles came back consistently and were not removed because of their presence on FAC. Why should this article be treated differently? Just a thought. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made changes. What should be removed/added? Please comment. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Support: Well done --darkliight[πalk] 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, poor quality of scholarship. For instance, one of the broadest claims in the article, that WBT has become Carey's signture song, is referenced to 411hype.com, which is simply not an acceptable source for this sort of claim. It is not a reputable source of music scholarship. Similarly, the genre tags at Yahoo Music are not an acceptable source for a list of genres and music styles that the song employs. Yahoo Music is not a reputable source of music scholarship. The fact that the nomination has been relisted without any genuine attempt to remedy the previously addressed problems is also a mark against the nominator's integrity. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Please refrain from making such comments as "genuine attempt" because it is POV. How do you know this? Can you read my mind? I am doing my best to address all concerns. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Some of the writing is just plain weird and reads like someone resorting to a thesaurus to try to find more "intelligent" sounding words instead of just stating what they mean. For example: "an elongated discussion," "solicited to radio" and other such phrasing that has me going, "huh?" Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I couldn't acquiesce more exceedingly. Those are the words I paramountly wanted to emancipate from my computer keyboard, but I was having vexation conveying them. HeyNow10029 04:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • "Solicited to radio" is a term frequently used when a song is sent to radio. The other sentence I have changed. You could have said it yourself, HeyNow, but I see that you didn't. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Is it a frequently used phrase? There's only 10 distinct (of 50 total) Google hits for that phrase (and 4 for "Solicit to radio") and most, if not all, seem to be mirrors of this and another Wikipedia article you worked on. It certainly does not seem to be a commonly used phrase. I appreciate the effort you are making but sections of the writing are just too bizarre for me to support it as a FAC. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. The writing is a bit patchy in spots, but holds overall. RyanGerbil10 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Don't use words like summer (for obvious reasons), even though it says it spent the summer at the top of the US charts, be more specific. Cvene64 04:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm a bit confused. What do you mean? —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I think Cvene is suggesting you shouldn't use seasons to specify a period of time because they are ambiguous. The period of summer is different in different countries, so you should try to be more specific. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and Object I've been reading this page for months, I find it interesting to see what people see as the qualities a feature article needs. This article is good but not well written enough per users above. Also, the user that keeps putting this article up for nomination has got to be one of the most annoying on wikipedia. He actually tried to get posters to switch their votes, saying Please reconsider voting "object". Once people have objected, let it stand. I really don't like the aggressive aproach about these articles. It's just wikipedia and it's not worth making yourself look like an idiot and alienating half of the users, especially good ones like Bishonen who has done great work here. But all these discussions are pretty entertaining I will give you that, EE. Bremen 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • So... besides insulting me, is there anything besides the writing that you find needs improvement? And no, I am becoming rather irritated with all of the ganging up on me. I am trying my best here, and it appears that everybody else finds Bishonen did something right; she's merely ganging up on myself as well. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I think the writing is the main problem. But I did say it was a good article...just not ready yet. I still think you're pushy but you are trying hard that's for sure. By the way it looks like there isn't enough support for featured status yet. If I were you I'd take the next month to work on it or so and see what happens. Bremen 21:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly support. I have concerns about this article (mainly that I wish it was longer, and some parts are too weak on referencing), but ultimately I feel like I have to vote to support it simply to counter the horrible reasons given by some of the objectors here ("fancruft", nominating too soon, nominator "aggressive" or "annoying", and worst of all the notion that previous objections—which are essential but shall not be repeated!—were not addressed: I have encountered that old trick before, and it is one of the most obnoxious tactics people use in this whole process). Everyking 07:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Noting Everyking's comments above - How often do people have to keep stating their objections before this sinks in. The page is not good enough. Sarah Ewart makes some erudite objections, as does HeyNow10029 and Christopher Parham. I objected in the original nomination too. This user is attempting to have this page FAd not by significantly improving it, but by browbeating and wearing down the opposition. I for one am sick to death of seeing this page here, throw it out, and lets never see or hear of it again. Giano | talk 07:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I see no evidence at all that the user is trying to wear down the opposition. On the contrary, the user is always engaging the opposition and making concessions, some of which I believe are in fact harmful. And moreover it is absurd to say that FAC efforts on an article should cease just because you are tired of seeing it here. Everyking 07:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment by nominator: Please reconsider voting "object" because this article has spent a lot of time at FAC. Other articles came back consistently and were not removed because of their presence on FAC. Why should this article be treated differently? Just a thought. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This goes way beyond what I've seen from other nominators...really pushing people to see things his way. Bremen 08:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's a perfectly sound argument, written rather politely. Everyking 08:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Well we see things differently. By the way I didn't mean to object to the article because the nominator is annoying, I did because of other reasons which I stated. I just felt I had to mention what I felt were bad tactics and rude behaviour. Bremen 08:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am becoming more and more frustrated with each user who is consistently blaming and/or insulting me for bringing this page back to FAC every few weeks. I believe that it is ready, and I am absolutely not attempting to sway users to change their votes. I have addressed nearly all of Tsavage's complaints to the best of my ability and myself and Journalist and have our best to improve the writing as well as we could! Everyone should read up on Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility; as it stands, I did not insult people or refer to them as "annoying" or Bishonen as a good user for whatever reason it may be. The writing is supposed to be incredibly good in an article, and at this point, I believe as per my opinion that everyone is expecting perfection. I will not edit this article any further following this FAC. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed the following objections: the fancruft (to the best of my ability), the graph which is now a scatterplot, a good majority of Tsavage's complaints, and a few other nit-picky edits. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fox v. Franken

A well written article that meets featured article criteria Justforasecond 17:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - Putting aside my political views here, I believe the article needs to be built up a bit more. For starters include the case numbers, create a reference section. Couldn't hurt also to put this through a peer review. --ZeWrestler Talk 19:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - No references. Additionally, I'm concerned that an article consisting of three short sections of two, three, and four paragraphs could possibly be comprehensive. Length isn't a hard and fast determinant, but it sure is a key sign that something more could probably be written when it's so short. Compare lengths of other featured artcles. But at any rate, this doesn't even qualify for GA right now, due to a need for references, in a references section. Fieari 19:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - No peer review, no references. Kafziel 21:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Peer Review isn't obligatory, but would help. Sorry but this article is a way off at present, needs references, and could do with expansion and pictures. --PopUpPirate 01:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object No references. -- Siva1979Talk to me 16:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above.Gator (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object not comprehensive enough. AmbExThErMaL 20:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and Object I added references, but comprehensiveness needs to be worked on and the references should be cited correctly per WP:CITE. AndyZ 22:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Inadequate references. PedanticallySpeaking 19:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

All That

I grew up with this show, and the article features a brilliant prose, and amazing insight as far as the show's cancellation. It is either well on the way to become a featured article, or already is one. FireSpike 16:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. References need to be broken out seperately from the External links as per WP:CITE (the two sections serve different functions). In addition the embedded HTML links need to be expanded out into full citations. Further review pending the article's references have been brought up to sn acceptable level. --Allen3 talk 17:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Nomination.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FireSpike (talk • contribs) 18:38, February 20, 2006(UTC).
  • Object, for the following reasons:
    • in-text citations need to be converted to footnotes. A lot of statements also need sourcing, example: "Nick then paid Dan Schneider (the only original producer who agreed to stay with the show) a large sum of money to overhaul and relaunch All That." Also make sure to use a reliable source (imdb user comments aren't a reliable source)
    • wikilinks to non-existent articles (red links) should be de-wikilinked.
    • More background needs to be given. For example the sentence, "Kevin Kopelow and Dan Schneider ran All That together in the first four seasons." first needs to tell the reader who Kevin Kopelow and Dan Schneider are the first time they are referenced (not in the second paragraph).
    • I'd suggest using paraentheses with restraint, I found far too many run-on sentences. Example: "After the replacement of My Brother and Me (which only lasted for 13 episodes and was replaced by Roundhouse) on their 8:30 p.m. Saturday night time slot, Nickelodeon decided they needed their third sketch-comedy series (to succeed You Can't Do That On Television and the afordmentioned Roundhouse) to come on their schedule (hence, All That was born)." would be better structured as, "After the program My Brother and Me was cancelled after 13 episodes and replaced by Roundhouse at the 8:30 p.m. Saturday time slot, Nickelodeon decided that they needed a third sketch-comedy series to succeed You Can't Do That On Television and Roundhouse. As a result, All That was born.
    • Avoid contractions unless quoting someone directly (it is instead of it's, etc)
    • There is too much informal writing and weasel words (see WP:AWW), the best example being this paragraph:
The news of All That's cancellation was mostly met with indifference. Viewers who were never fans of the Seasons 7-10 version of All That pretty much welcomed the cancellation. So-called "golden age only" fans feel that All That really ended after Season 6. Whereas, they feel that the latter episodes were essentially a half-baked, poorly constructed attempt at continuing the franchise. Basically, some believe that after ten seasons, All That has pretty much run its course (and it's now time for Nickelodeon to develop brand new sketch comedy series).--Fallout boy 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Chadian-Sudanese conflict

I've worked on Chadian-Sudanese conflict for a while. Aldux suggested I nominate it for fac, but I was hesistant as the stability of the situation was unclear. Now that the situation is relatively stable, and the references are standardized, I believe it meets the requirements of a featured article. It's been my pet project and I think it exemplifies my best work. KI 00:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Reluctant object. It's a good article, but the prose is awkward in a few places and the images require fair use rationale. Also, is it really necessary to have such a small section ("Interview with Opheera McDoom")? It should either be split or merged with another part of the article. Overall, good work, but I'm not quite ready to support yet. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure this is presented properly. It's being characterized as a conflict between Sudan and Chad, but really I think it makes more sense to characterize it as a rebellion against Deby with some associated tension between the two governments. Everyking 06:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added the "interview with opheera mcdoom" content onto the "intention for further aggression" and added a section on "Chadian support for Sudanese rebels." KI 15:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The situation with the refugees from Central Africa needs to be put into context. Just why are people fleeing into a zone of conflict? Also there are far too many one-sentence paragraphs. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is still labeled as current event. Brandmeister 16:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - this article is still a current event, even if it's not tagged as such anymore; the present tense used in some cases add to that effect (i.e. Chad still wants...). (Oh, by the way, Chad doesn't want anything, the government of Chad wants something. That's a technicality, though, that's been in common use, but I thought I'd bring it up anyways.) In addition, several of the sections are extremely brief and need either more expanded or merging. Finally, in the "Chadian demands" section, I'd prefer that the bullet points for the four demands be turned into prose. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Flcelloguy. -- Siva1979Talk to me 14:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as it is still a current event. --Terence Ong 13:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cricket World Cup

I just decided to know that does article really deserve for featured articles? The article looks concise enough. The article is completed upto date. The article is well written and shows neutrality. The article does not change significantly from day to day. I ensure that all issues concerning the factual accuracy has been properly addressed. I would appreciate any help provided in improving this article and hopefully lead to a FA status. Thanks -- Shyam (T/C) 21:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - No references. Far too short, only goes -briefly- into history and has some tables with records. I would reccomend you compare this article to the articles that are already featured. Comprehensiveness is more important than conciseness. Stability and stagnation aren't quite the same thing. This article needs a lot more information. Also see the Feature Article Requirements, linked above. Fieari 21:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - not comprehensive enough; most FAs are more than a paragraph of prose. You may wish to use peer review in the future. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object- Lead is too short, too many lists and a lack of prose, no inline citations and references. If you are still trying to get it to FA status- consider Peer review. AndyZ 23:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - see my comments at the Peer review. --Celestianpower háblame 10:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - not comprehensive or easy to read. lists and tables are intrusive. pschemp | talk 03:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Not a comprehensive article. It is also a bit difficult to read. -- Siva1979Talk to me 14:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of sex

Article tackles a difficult and complex subject in a complete and clear manner. Much work has been done since the last submission as featured article (2004). Notably, it now has a good, clear intro; links to related wikipedia articles; presents all sides of the subject; terms and concepts are wikified. I think it is of similar quality compared to what you find in highly respectable scientific journals. Seb951

  • Object. Quite interesting, but there is only one internal reference and it's an external jump. Current requirements are to use inline citations (ref/note or ref/ref system). Rlevse 15:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs more references, specifically, inline citations. Also contains a number of stubby sections, consisting of merely one (or two) very short paragraphs. Occasionally, this is due to their being an in-depth article linked, but even then, the summary of that article could probably be given a little more depth. Fieari 15:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • comment: Reference criticism acknowledged. I'm working on it. seb951 17 feb 06
  • Object - sections need to be expanded, lead cleaned up (remove ennumeration), etc. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. As a contributor, I'm surprised this got nominated. It's clearly not ready yet. Removing enumeration would be good, incidentally. - Samsara contrib talk 13:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. A scientific style is too sharp, also there is a lack of pics :) Brandmeister 16:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can I remove the nomination status then? As I realise now, it is clearly not up to standards yet. I was being too optimistic and wanted to see what people though of it. seb951
You should instead try the Wikipedia peer review. - Samsara contrib talk 13:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Porcupine Tree

Very thorough and comprehensive article about the band, very well written and by extension easy to read.Bookmastaflex 18:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - please read Wikipedia:Lead section - one sentence does not a good introduction make. Found very little that actually told me what their music is like, bar the 'prog rock' label. And personally I find the music-journo chronological plod through their history rather difficult to read... --zippedmartin 19:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Right, as this has turned into a bit of a pile-on in my absence, let's try some constructive suggestions for making this more featured articley. First stop should be Wikipedia:Featured articles#Music which should show what's expected. Some ideas:
  • References. 15 years of band should mean there's a lot written about them - find it, use it, and cite it.
  • Value judgements, but only cited from reasonable sources. Music is good for this at least, the critics love dropping easy to quote catchphrases into their reviews, just takes a bit of poking through old mags, etc.
  • Place within musical spectrum, influences and legacy kinda thing. There's already some name checking in the history, but it's a bit hard to dig out.
  • Organisation. Currently almost all the prose is in the very long History section... it'd be nice if the history was shortened, and stuff about the music itself etc given its own bit. I prefer the presentation of The Beatles over The Temptations, but both are featured, so I guess 100% history is okay for bands.
  • Sound! Given the unlikelyhood that the record label would release any of the music under a free licence, the best that can be done is some fair use ogg samples, but better than nowt. See Wikipedia:Media for info.
Hope that's somewhat helpful. --zippedmartin 22:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object - agree with zippedmartin, article does not conform to WP:LEAD. Also, there is only one reference ("Porcupine Tree Official Biography" - and that's from the band's website), it contains no inline citations and the prose needs some serious work. Mikker ... 19:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Response - thanks for the compliment (Bookmastaflex) and the critiques (zippedmartin & Mikker). I'll try to elaborate a decent if not compelling introduction, because this band deserves to be known by more people. --Psychedelic Contributor 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The excessive use of peacock terms needs to be cleaned up. The single embedded HTML link used as a reference needs to be expanded to conform to WP:CITE (the date the site was visited is a must for webpages), and there is no apparent form of inline citation used by the article. The use of the band's website as a sole source, with the site's implicit pro-band bias, does not appear to fully conform with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Allen3 talk 22:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose For all above reason. Circeus 01:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - needs refs. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: The image Image:Porcupine Tree promo.jpg is tagged as "copyrighted free use", but there's no evidence that this is the case. --Carnildo 23:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Prose bogs the reader down and tense is odd. pschemp | talk 03:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese Communist Party

This is the third time the article is being submited. This is the most complete article on wikipedia about a Communist Party, a subject that lacks a FA. The article contains info on the Party's structure, its 84 year history, its electoral results, media, youth wing, supporters and other info. The last nominations were refused due to a lack of references and a weak grammar, I think that's improved now. I also think this can be a useful way to improve the article.Afonso Silva 23:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - The article is 60 kb long. While length is not a grounds for rejection on it's own, I sincerely believe that this article could be split apart into sub articles, and then rewritten in summary style. The electoral results, in particular, don't seem like they particularly need to be in this article, and would do well to be split off. Fieari 23:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Fieari; length actually is a valid objection because of criteria (5) for becoming a FA. Could the external link references be cited correctly, according to WP:CITE? AndyZ 23:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • <tangent> Hrm. I thought length wasn't a criteria... is that a recent addition to the FAC? Fieari 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Length is not a criteria. We have passed longer articles than this and continue to do so. Andrew Levine 00:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I realize that longer articles have been passed, but that doesn't mean that this article can pass critera (5). Certain articles cover such a broad and large topic that after more-minor details have been removed the article is still huge. It should be of appropriate length. However, as information is being shifted into sub-pages, I think this is becoming less of a problem. Still, other objections need to be cleaned up. AndyZ 23:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object:
    • I still keep finding grammatical mistakes in the article. I've fixed a few, but some I'm not sure I understand how to resolve them without knowing the facts.
    • Some of the pictures have dubious source quality, including untagged images (presumably fair use, but with neither tag nor source information nor fair-use rationale) and at least one (Image:Bento_gonçalves_pt.gif) which is claimed as Public Domain but with no reason why this is so.
    • There seems to be a great deal of point-of-view pushing. For example, there are unsourced statements like "While many historians consider that Salazar's dictatorship shared many aspects with Mussolini's Fascism, others find it more accurate to describe his dictatorship as conservative and authoritarian." Which historians? Also there is occasional use of loaded terms like "achieved thanks to the Socialist Bloc" and "political prisoner" (possibly a neutral term, but the term is loaded with meaning in English that could cause people to think of it as POV; perhaps "imprisoned Communists" or "imprisoned Party members" instead). But most of all, there isn't a section dedicated to legitimate criticism of the Party. What have notable present-day political opponents (on the right, on the center-left, etc.) had to say about Communists? Have they advanced any programs that turned out to be massively unpopular? Andrew Levine 00:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The length was reduced by 3KB, and there are Featured Articles bigger than this one. I've tried to find an native speaker that could make a good copy edit, but no one could do that, Iit would be great if someone could fix the grammar instead of criticize. I also removed the reference to the fascist origins of the regime and also that claim. The one related to the Socialist Bloc was also changed. The one related to the political prisoner status, I cannot change. I apologize for thinking that if someone is arrested for being communist, that someone is a political prisoner. About the criticisms I can't do much. Afonso Silva 13:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not about the length alone-- it's about summary style. I didn't want you to simply prune down length, but rather split the article into smaller peices (each peice containing all the details removed from the central article, and preferably even more) and then have the main article be a summary of the sub-articles, with relevant links. The size is just an indicator that this article could use some splitting. The longer FAs we have cannot reasonably be split further, and in fact, already are split quite a bit. Fieari 16:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, while the overall length of the article is not a huge problem in terms of it qualifying for featured article status, it is a lot of text to copyedit (I have made several passes through it). Why not split out the history into a separate article, leaving a summary in the main article. Then nominate History of the Portuguese Communist Party as a featured article candidate itself. This is the most interesting bit of the article to me. I agree several other sections such as the electoral results could also be split out. When the main article is significantly shorter, you may find more people willing to come in and copyedit it.-gadfium 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice suggestion, I'll make something like that, the history part can have much more info, I'll start working on it, but I will still be needing the help of a native speaker. Thanks anyway. Afonso Silva 21:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Withdrawing my oppose, consider it a strongly worded suggestion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - there's some minor formatting issues; also, the entire "principles and internal organization" section is just copied text and not prose. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Have you really read the section? Afonso Silva 18:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes; I hate to be blunt, but I really don't appreciate you implying that I haven't read the entire article - if you think I've misinterpreted or misread something, please feel free to say so. Thanks! Regarding my opinion of this section - the "fundamental principles" sections a just a list of principles and goals; it very much appears to be paraphrased from somewhere else. The italics, the wording ("The PCP...") all give me this impression. In addition, the "internal organization" part of this section also gives me that impression; it's pretty much written in "The CC..." format. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
My sincere apologies for misinterpreting your comment. Just to clarify, my main objection is the fact that the section is a bulleted list that appears copied or paraphrased, instead of being prose. I'll take a closer look at it again and provide more feedback, and I'll also do some copyediting, if any is needed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. This article just never seems to get any better. I've copyedited it several times, have gone through and erased POV parts at least twice, and yet when I return to look at the article 3 or 6 months later it's still no good. It's ungrammatical, often incomprehensible, incompetently written and often biased. I'm sorry to be harsh, but my patience has been very badly strained. I would suggest that, with all due respect, Afonso Silva take a break from editing this article. Again, I'm sorry if this sounds disrespectful, butthe article is nowhere near featured article status. Hydriotaphia 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
This comment was unnecessarily undiplomatic. I regret it. Hydriotaphia 02:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that you've had your disrespectful comment, could you start being objective, for example, pointing the NPOV sections? I never reverted an edit by you and I never changed your wording after a copyedit, so, if the article has a bad grammar you are guilty too. I just think you are biased against the article and that's the reason you are unable to have a coherent objection to made, I just hear you saying something about grammar and bias and bla bla bla. About the incomprehensible parts, I really understand that having a legal communist Party in a country is an incomprehensible concept to the common McCarthyist american guy, but I can make an effort explaining you that. By the way, your patiente is easily strained, as the article was a FA candidate for only 3 times in 8 months, I can only suggest medical treatment. Kind regards. Afonso Silva 23:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sincerely sorry that you're offended. I want to point out, however, that I never attacked you personally. I do think that you may want to take a break from editing the article; I think I'm being reasonable when I say that you seem a bit touchy about it. I continue to believe that it shouldn't be featured, due to the deficiencies I outlined above. Hydriotaphia 02:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry for offending you on the FAC nomination page. You were right: I am impatient. My comments were too harsh. I've started to make edits to the PCP page again. I have nothing against Communists nor against the PCP; I just want to make the article fair and comprehensible. Best wishes, and again, my sincere apologies. Hydriotaphia 02:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry about that, I was a bit harsh too, discussions are just like that. Thanks for your work on the article, I've clarified the sections where hidden comments were present, if that wasn't enough, just put the comments there again. Sometimes it is a bit difficult to spot non NPOV sentences and sometimes the contributions of another editor are the only way to eliminate biased content. The word "structure" means a group of members that work together because they live in the same town or work in the same factory. I've changed it to "organization", I don't know if that's correct, but that's what we call it here "estrutura" or "organização". I've also clarified that MUD was made illegal, I thought that was obvious as the PCP was already illegal since the late 1920s, but it is fixed. If you think another section is still biased just edit it, I agree with the changes you've made. If another section is still bad written and you can fix, that would be great. Thanks again! Afonso Silva 13:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing my oppose vote. Hydriotaphia 23:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The referencing mechanism seems broken: the numbering in the article does not match the numbering in the Notes section. - Jmabel | Talk 04:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Papal conclave, 2005

The main objection to this FAC last time was the "unstable-ness" it had prior to the conclusion of the election. Now that it is over, this is still a high quality article and deserves FA Status. SVera1NY 21:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • More historical context. Why was there a conclave in the first place? The article never mentions it is because of JPII's death. Moreover, what is the significance of the election in this history of the Catholic church? Most observers – from what I understand, I'm no expert – seem to think of the election as a validation of a more conservative turn in the church that began with JPII. What do the commentators say? Why did this happen? What are the ramifications for the church?
Fixed -- more reasons why the election began etc... SVera1NY 03:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • More fluid prose (i.e. the organization sometimes seems haphazard, the "groupings of countries by number of electors" list seems to come out of nowhere, course of balloting has no text under the header, some paragraphs are very short, the "vote counts" section is three sentences...)
  • The "first day" subsection is a bulleted list. This is bad style.
Fixed SVera1NY 03:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No references.
–Joke 22:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object- Per Joke. Make certain that when references are used, to use inline citations. Note that External Links and "See Also" sections do not constitute references, although it mhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Papal_conclave%2C_2005&action=edit&section=1ay be the case that items currently in those sections could be used as references. Just make sure to cite them in the body of the text. I'm also concerned that the lead might be slightly too long for the size of the article. See: WP:LEAD Fieari 23:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all above reasons. Additionally, the "The Cardinal Electors" sections looks absolutely awful. Circeus 12:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree that "The Cadinal Electors" section is laid out poorly. On my screen, which is a larger-sized monitor, some of the text is squeezed into an area about 1 1/2 inches wide in the center of the screen between the two tables. If you wish to use both tables, it might be better to put both tables on the same side atop one another. That way, the text flows nicely on one side instead of being compacted randomly in the center. --Ataricodfish 19:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Margin is necessary too. Circeus 20:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - needs refs. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: The images Image:Sede vacante.jpg, Image:Papalconclaveurn.jpg, and Image:Ombrellino-keys.jpg have no copyright information. --Carnildo 00:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as no references. --Terence Ong 09:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Star

I haven't written the article. But looks and reads decent enough to be a featured article. Infact I am suprised it isn't. --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Lead too small and no references --Jaranda wat's sup 22:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; lead & refs (per Jaranda). "Appearance and distribution of stars"; "Energy production" and "Star mythology" are not comprehensive. And "Star classification" doesn't even mention the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. Moreover, how about some more nice pics? (plenty of free ones on the NASA site) And why aren't exoplanets mentioned? Mikker ... 23:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Many lone sentences and above objections. Gflores Talk 00:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - need more references, inline notes would be nice, and expansion of important topics. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object- for such a large topic, this article is far from thorough and complete. Definitely needs references/inline citations, and the lead needs to be expanded. AndyZ 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. This article deserves much more work. Lacks most references.--Jyril 10:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Native Americans in the United States

A common perception in popular media (perhaps valid) is that while Wikipedia is strong on technology and current affairs, it suffers in humanity. We need to showcase our work in humanities and I feel this comprehensive, well-written, more NPOV than I would have felt possible for such a topic, researched and extensively referenced article is a good candidate. Loom91 18:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment. The caption to the first picture says it's an Assiniboin BOY. This certainly looks like a middle aged man to me. Also. All the links in the text are external jumps to the Internet. Can these be made to inline citations, such as the ref/note system? Rlevse 20:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • His name is "Assiniboin Boy". He's also not an Assiniboin, but an Atsina. --Khoikhoi 00:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, sorry I wasn't paying more attention. But it still needs inline citations. There are ways to do this, but I personally prefer the ref/note system. Also, two of the photos carry PD tags, which are obsolete. Other than that, I think it's a pretty good article.Rlevse 13:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Fixed 3/4 of the PD images. AndyZ 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Fixed inline citation (<ref></ref>) system). AndyZ 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
            • No more PD problems. AndyZ 23:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


  • All images now fixed.AndyZ 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Provisional Object If as Rlevse says, the references get specifically turned into inline citations to inform the reader exactly where the information comes from. It's a bit long (but then again, it's a weighty topic) but it might benefit for a slight trimming here and there... But i'll be happy to support if the ref|note systewm is used. Thethinredline 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment There are 18 of these external jumps. If someone really cared about the article, it'd take 10-15 minutes to fix. That's that's holding this up. Rlevse 16:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Fixed inline citation (<ref></ref>) system). It actually took probably less than 5 minutes-it was fast. AndyZ 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment. As AndyZ has so kindly fixed the citation and image copyright tag problem, do the objections still stand? Loom91 09:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. This is an inline citation system (but not the one I'd have used). The problem with the way this was done is that when you click on the footnote in the text and go the footnote section, all you see is a number--telling you nothing about the ref. See the FA Cheers for how they implemented this same system. If I get time today, I may work on it. Also, I saw a "19th of May" entry, which is not the wiki standard and is not the way the rest of the aricle uses dates, so I changed it to "May 19" for consistency. Two other things: * a)the first footnote doesn't appear until section 2.3 -- are there any refs available for the first 1/4th of the article? * b) This: For further information, see A Cry from the Earth: Music of North American Indians by John Bierhorst (ISBN 094127053X) should be in the Bibiography or Footnote section. Rlevse 13:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree here: while it in essence is not just a number but a link, it shows nothing about the reference itself. Retrieval dates (if possible) should be included, probably by looking through the history to find when they were incorporated. For the other information relating to inline citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources.
        • Just another note, it isn't a problem with the citation system- everything is edited to directly from the text, so that you will find <ref> tags throughout the edit page for the article. You can adjust the content from there. This means that while editing a section, you can also directly edit the references in that section. (I also prefer this system because it is very easy to add references directly w/o having to edit multiple times, and it is easy for conversion from imbedded external links). AndyZ 01:25, 8 February 2006

(UTC)

          • I fixed the footnote problem- there are now at least some 5 footnotes alone in section 1.1.AndyZ 23:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Support I wouldn't be too picky about citation style. It is well-referenced, and a good article Borisblue 06:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment we're not being picky about the refs, the way they are only reveals numbers to a reader. I know of no other FA that has this. Whether it's done with ref/note or ref/ref isn't important, it's the usability to the reader that's important. 11:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC) PS: The reason I don't like the ref/ref system is that the refs show in the text when you go to edit it, disrupting the reading, but I'll work with it here.Rlevse 12:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Support I've fixed the referencing and done some copyedit; I support now, but would like to see more refs in the beginning. Rlevse 13:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)



  • Object - prose needs to be cleaned-up, especially in "The Bering Strait Land Bridge theory" section. Also, makes several self-references (see last section of lead), which isn't good. Finally, first in-line cite doesn't come until nearly midway through the article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Does the article need inline citations before that? Loom91 08:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • An article should ideally have footnotes spread uniformly throughout the page whenever necessary; the lack of footnotes before then should be addressed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        • A couple of inline citations have been added to the early history section. I also added several {{citation needed}}s where other inline citations could/should be added. AndyZ 14:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
          • There are now over 30 inline citations, and the prose has been worked on. AndyZ 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment Can you reformat the bierhorst footnote as just "Bierhorst, p(p) ##"? Circeus 19:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Oppose. Not well-written. --Khoikhoi 06:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Please, such vaugue objections are very difficult to address. Please raise specific pbjections that can be fixed instead of making categorical statements. Loom91 08:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. I've changed my object to this comment. Well, for example, in the "current status" section, there's two POV paragraphs about Native Americans in Virginia. This article shouldn't get into specifics like this - it should be an overview. --Khoikhoi 00:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Browsing through the article, I think there are several other POV sections besides just those 2 paragraphs- I gain the feeling that in the European sections there is a POV tone to the paragraphs. AndyZ 14:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Fixed the Virginia paragraphs.AndyZ 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object (Again) sorry for the late review. The article has a lot of information, that may be sufficient for summarizing such a broad topic, but the organization is poor and the focus uneven. There are numerous examples (and problems with the writing as well), but I'll present only one specific example which should indicate that a fairly extensive revision is required:
In the "Cultural aspects" section, the scope of coverage is almost wildly inconsistent from subsection to subsection. In "Society", three groups are mentioned, Iroquois, Navajo and Pueblo. Are these three groups representative of "Native Americans"? And the various descriptions of arts and crafts, tribal stories, and relationships with the spirit world is kind of random and hardly seems to describe "society", then or now. The next section, "Religion", entirely ignores the past and only says something about the "most widespread religion at the present time". "Gender roles" hardly says anything--"social and clan relationships were matrilinear and matriarchal" with no elaboration--and ends after all of two sentences with: "The cradle board was used by mothers to carry their baby whilst working or traveling"? "Music and art" is jumps about from contemporary popular music (Shania Twain?!), to pow-wows, to Johnny Cash as fake Indian? Finally, "Economy" begins with a statement of the obvious--"Survival in the environments in which they lived defined the work of the native groups."--followed by a mash-up of references to dugouts, agriculture, tobacco, firearms and alcoholic beverages. This all seems very hastily written, doesn't summarize anything for me, and is in parts quite bizarre: Shania Twain? Johnny Cash? Other sections are problematic in similar ways, particularly with sentences that are oddly worded or say nothing: "Native Americans were stunned to learn..." or "While exhibiting widely divergent social, cultural, and artistic expressions, all Native American groups worked with materials available to them and employed social arrangements that augmented their means of subsistence and survival." I don't mean to be harsh, my comments are more or less exactly what ran through my head as I read the article. Thanks. --Tsavage 05:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • As for the society thing, I changed the subsection to "Society and art". I removed the first sentence for the economy section as redundant. AndyZ 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, an even later review... this is a very broad topic and the article should touch on the many topics briefly but fully. Some sections get significant treatment (e.g. Bering Strait) while others are too brief (e.g. Religion). Other areas like political structure, cultural groupings, language, and history get little or no treatment. The article needs many improvements.--Bkwillwm 04:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know about the others, but I think history gets a pretty significant treatment. I agree though- many of the sections definetly need to be expanded. AndyZ 14:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object no inline citations in several of the sections, "Other archaeologists have disputed the dating methodology employed, and have also suggested that these "artifacts" are naturally-formed, rather than of human manufacture. Other recent claims for pre-Clovis artifacts have similarly been made in some South American sites. The notion of pre-Clovis habitation continues to be a subject of scholarly debate, and the issue has not yet been satisfactorily resolved." - evidence of weasel words. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I added an inline citation for that. AndyZ 14:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      • There are already some 30 inline citations, and more are being added. The weasel word problem has been taken care of with a reference, though it should be clarified further. Other weasel words are being removed. AndyZ 01:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; lack of inline citations in important sections (i.e. history) --Spangineer (háblame) 04:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I added a couple into the early history. AndyZ 14:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      • There are still lots of weasel words—for example, "many Native Americans reject theories of modern anthropology", "is believed to have reached the New World", "They are believed to have reached Alaska", and "molecular genetics studies have suggested". Furthermore, several of the subsections have no references—at the very least, cite a general text that covers the material talked about in that section at the end of the section, so that I don't have to peruse all 7 of your references if I'm trying to verify something. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        • The first one I can't fix (I had nothing to do with writing the article), the second and third examples I found a reference for. The fourth I added "mitochondrial DNA", which I learned in biology but it would be best if somebody could verify this. As for the referencing problem with sections, the only sections are "Economy", "Society", "Indian princesses", "Early relations", "Settling down" (which is quite a lot). AndyZ 01:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I removed the first example you provided since I can't verify it and seems to show that Native Americans don't deny it but rather criticize it. AndyZ 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer

Addressed previous objection over lack of an image that shows what the aircraft actually looks like. It's also very topical - Steve Fossett completed his latest world record in it on Saturday. All images and data in the article are vouched for by a team-member, and have been ratified with the engineering and project teams.

  • Oppose No references or inline citations (Most common reason to reject too). Probably too short for such a thing,but I,mnot knowledgeable enoughto really judge on that. Circeus 17:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1)No references or inline citations (FA criteria 2c). 2)The current events tag at the top of the article and the description of events that have occured in the last three or four days shows the article is not yet stable (FA criteria 2e). 3)The article currently contains a large number of single sentence paragraphs. These need to be condensed or expanded into larger paragraphs. --Allen3 talk 17:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with the above. That's not to say that, with some work, this article can't become a FAC. However, it desperately needs references to back everything up. As well, as the article appears to currently be in the media, it might be best to wait a month or so to see how the events play out. That way, a more complete article can be written, as additional references will be available. --Ataricodfish 19:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Has the "current event" tag on top, meaning it does not meet Stability requirements. Also, no references. Fieari 03:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Can someone give some examples of what inline references and citations could be added? This is a new and unique aircraft, and there isn't any other reference material on it out there. Also, not clear on why previous submissions didn't cite lack of references as a reason for rejection. Any thoughts on that? Also, will remove current event tag, as all the information about the aircraft's record attempts is now out, and there's no reason to add to the article right now. poleydee 09:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Use a "References" section to list all the sources that were used to write the article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for a short list of types of sources that are acceptable (eg. newspapers, magazines, some websites are a few examples). Use inline citations like m:Cite/Cite.php (see an example of this in action at Hugo Chavez to make it easy to fact-check. --maclean25 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey Poleydee, essentially, there are no references in the article, so as someone like myself who knows nothing of airplanes, I have no way of knowing whether the information presented in the article is accurate or made-up. If I wanted to learn more information, I don't have a single reference to click on to obtain more information (i.e., books, websites, etc.). There are statements such as "As a consequence of this, there was some concern that, if the aircraft was to use standard jet fuel, the fuel might freeze.". This statement is referencing someone's thoughts without a source, and whose concern are we referencing? The designers? Critics? Scientists? You? A general rule of thumb, you need a reference for numbers/statistics ("GlobalFlyer's fuel sensors indicated that the plane had possibly lost about 1,200 kg (2,600 lb) of fuel early in the flight."), people's thoughts/feelings/quotes, and anything which the layman wouldn't understand. There is a good deal of information in the article about the trip, the demonsions of the plane, the logic behind the design, etc. Source where you go this information and you'll be good. Otherwise, nothing stops someone from claiming the plane really lost 1,000 kg, or 12,000 kg, etc.
  • As for previous submissions, I have never seen an article pass in recent history without references (See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Missingno for a recent article which was objected due to lack of references and taken off FAC as of today. If you scroll down, you'll see that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star is facing the same criticism), so I'll need to see an example to know what you are referring to. The article above, Wikipedia:What is a featured article mentions in 2C that featured articles must, "include the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations; these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations". Some older FAC's slipped through under the "brillant prose" rational, but those articles are being/have been deleted (i.e. Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us) or corrected.
  • I hoped this explanation is helpful. Again, it's an informative article, but without references to back you up, there's nothing to verify how accurate it is, nor any way for me to learn more information outside of Wikipedia.--Ataricodfish 17:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Response These are all helpful, and thanks for that, but I'm no further forward. The information is gained first hand from my personal dealings with the team who put the aircaft together. In other words, this article IS the source reference. If you like, we can reference the official website, but seeing as this was put together in the same way, it's just as authorative. In fact the wikipedia article is more authorative as it's been through the wiki process, meaning that it's been checked and double checked by more people than the official website has. I'm getting a little disillusioned, because as someone who was a part of the team, I thought I'd be able to bring my experience to the wikipedia first hand to create an original entry, rather than creating an entry that is simply a cull of other pieces of information from the web. So help me out, how do we make this work? --poleydee 10:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! We value people who have firsthand experience of the topic, such as yourself. However, the featured article criteria states that FAs should be verifiable and well-referenced. Unfortunately, personal experience doesn't qualify as an authoratative source. Perhaps you could find some sources that deal with this topic? Check out some of the other featured articles to see the amount and different types of sources. I hope this helps. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Education in the United States

Since its last nomination, many changes have been made to the article, most by me. I addressed two lists of concerns and there are many inline citations. The article is long, but I feel that it's simple to skip over sections without losing anything. I hope it meets everyone's standards.--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object: The image Image:Harvard05commencement.jpg is tagged as "fair use". There's nothing particularly special about it, so it can't be used under Wikipedia's fair use policy. --Carnildo 00:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The image has been replaced with a free one.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • See image argument above. I'm sure we can find a free pic for that section.
    • History sections looks short to me.
      • Actually, several too short sections (including 2 single-paragrapph ones)
    • Education infobox should be in top right corner, not current template. I have fixed this (By adding clear:right; to {{Life in the United States}}, it'll automatically move directly under a preceding right-floated template)
    • TOC is awfully long: it takes the whole screen in a 1024x800 resolution
  • Circeus 00:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the image, and you moved the infobox, which I'm okay with. However, I'm not sure how to make the TOC smaller, I don't really see how to eliminating structure in the article will make the article itself better.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Early objections taken care of. More objections below. As per above. There could also use some additional inline references... there are very few, entire swaths of the article have no notes stating where the information comes from. Fieari 01:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you have specific points you wish to see cited? I was under the impression that cites aren't necessary for things which are common knowledge.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, what may be common knowledge in one part of the world, might not be in another. I'm American myself, but the tone of the article is written for someone from another country like England (as it should be), for whom this ISN'T common knowledge, and thus must be sourced.
    • The "Grades" section has no sources at all, needs at least one source.
    • In "Primary and Secondary Education", Opposition to homeschooling comes from varied sources... definitely needs a source, and preferably some direct quotes.
    • The "Middle School" section should have at least one source.
    • The "High School" section is rife with needs for sources. Seperate campus for freshmen, not specializing yet, passing grade (also uses weasel words), minimum course sequences (should be easy to source), additional options like honors/gifted/AP, extracricular activities (competition between groups, major games for HS, greater interest, other clubs)...
      • Furthermore, you'll note that the High School section is much more detailed than the Elementary and Middle School sections. This creates an unbalanced feel to the article... those other sections should preferably be as detailed. Once this is done, however, the article may become too long... if that's the case, all three sections should be split to their own articles and better summarized in the main article per summary style.
    • No Child Left Behind Act should be sourced... wikilinking does not count; the article should be self sufficient, and that includes sourcing.
    • Criticism for midterms/finals should be sourced, as should attempts to ban them.
      • Also, potential POV here; article seems biased against midterms/finals. If attempts to ban them have been unsuccessful, that means there's definitely a mainstream prevelant opposing view here, which should be covered in more depth than the criticism.
    • SAT/ACT information needs to be sourced.
    • "Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004" must be sourced, esspecially since the wikilink is red. Even if the wikilink were blue, that's not enough.
    • Colleges requiring SAT scores should be sourced.
    • The types of degrees should be sourced.
    • "Primary and Secondary Education" should have at least one source.
    • Etc etc etc etc etc etc... I'm getting a little tired of looking for places that need sources. Basically, every section needs at least one source. Specific facts, laws, complaints, statements of opinion, these all need sources. Fieari 16:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Lots of improvements. Good work on the sourcing! I still have a couple little issues, however.
        • Some of the comments on homeschooling still seem a little POV to me, in particular, "For example, a creationist parent could remove a child from public school because the school's biology curriculum teaches evolution by natural selection." is a loaded statement, in that this is implied to be a bad thing. Is this a direct quote from anyone, because if so, it sould be attributed. Additionally, as someone who was homeschooled through highschool myself, I happen to know that advocates of homeschooling have fairly detailed counters to every one of those common objections. Now, I understand that this isn't an article on homeschooling, but the tone of the section seems biased against it... I'd reccomend trimming it down, and finding somewhere to merge the removed information to and linking there for a more detailed discussion. There's the potential for a full article there.
        • I'm finding in general that the article is getting a little too long. I think some splitting may need to be done, according to Summary Style. In addition to a History of Education in the United States article, you could have a Primary and Secondary Education in the United States article (for a major pruning of this one, which would cut down the size nicely and still keep all the information in wikipedia, which is important), possibly even a Public vs. private schools article... "Education in the United States" is a -hugely- broad topic, with scads and scads to write about, and it all should be written about, but not all in the same article. Summary Style is key, so that a person can find the information they're looking for.
        • Compare what is described in the Lead to what is actually in the article. A third of the lead is dedicated to talking about literacy, whereas literacy is barely touched on at all in the article itself. The article consists of
        • This will also help with comprehensiveness, which this article currently lacks. As much as is written here, I highly suspect that more could be written. It doesn't look that way now, simply because all this information that should be in seperate articles (in my opinion) is all mashed together in one place... but once you start splitting, I think it'll become evident that more topics could be discussed here... such as the literacy issue that takes up so much of the lead. The lead also talks of accreditation... that should be discussed (in summary style, linking to the main article). The article could also discuss U.S. territory schooling, such as Puerto Rico, mentioned in the lead but never touched on in the article. A discussion on how the Department of Education works could be included... in Summary Style, with a link to the main article.
      • The article has come a long way so far, but I think it still has a ways to go. Fieari 16:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • ObjectNeutral. The history section has nothing about the rise of public education, which started in the early 19th century became significant in the late 19th century, with high schools gradually replacing academies. A better distinction needs to be made between public and private education, and there needs to be data or at least a qualitative description of the scale of public vs. private education, and information about historical gender differences in education level. It also needs discussion of the changing curriculum and the secularization of schools. For sources, try Shaping of the American High School and Origins of the American High School.--ragesoss 03:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think what you're asking for is a little outside the range of a Wikipedia article. I'm not writing History of Education in the United States, after all. As for your other points, 1/4 of the article makes up a public v. private section, and the actual percentage of students attending each type is perfectly clear in the article.--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
But that's exactly the point. You can't fully discuss education in the United States without understanding its history. Because of this you have to either cover it satisfactorily in the main article, or write that History of Education in the United States article and do a split-off summary in the main. Either way it needs to be written to fill out a subject this broad. Staxringold 13:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I added 4 paragraphs to the history section; what do you think about it now? I'm working on cites for it, but please consider the content.--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
You've done well with the history section at a very basic level; I'm not willing to support to article yet, but I'm withdrawing my objection. I would like to see more integration of the social and cultural factors involved in the rise of public schooling (and the gradual decline of academies), and still it needs something about the religious dimensions of public education, which have been very important throughout (for example, the lively debates in the last decades of the 19th century over state support for sectarian schools vs. nonsectarian religious schools vs. nonreligious schools). Some mention of the 20th centuries issues like creation/evolution, sex education, home economics (and other Progressive Era education reforms), etc., would also help.--ragesoss 07:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as per above, but especially due to that history section. Staxringold 12:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Also more tables is needed, one at least :) Brandmeister 13:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I converted the bulleted list at the beginning to a table, I hope that helps allay your fears :)--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support. I think the history could be in the beginning and the further reading expanded (to about 5 or more works). Brandmeister 17:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
While I can't agree with you about the history section (I doubt anyone is going to come to the article wanting to read the history first), I definitely see your point about the further reading section; I'll incorporate the suggestions from ragesoss.--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • While technically an "actionable" objection, since something could be done to fix it, "Uses the very latest in mediawiki formatting" isn't actually anything remotely close to an FA criteria. It has references, these references are linked inline, are in their own section... that's about what was required. Not that this particular article is ready to be FA right now (see above objections), just that this point of contention here is silly. Fieari 15:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Withdrawing my oppose, consider it a strongly worded suggestion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed it over; I hope it meets your expectations.--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A comment: since you are already touching the coverage of the US education in the works of art, I think you should somehow mention the Up the Down Staircase (novel) in it (actually, your nomination prompted me to look it up on the WP and to discover it in a pretty sad state, which, in turn, lead to some edits on the book author's WP page, so I came back to look at your article only now :-) ...) --BACbKA 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Ummmmm...thanks I guess--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above. In addition, starting off with a bulleted list should be fixed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I created a table instead--better?--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

2003 UB313

A comprehensive article on a complex subject. It is not easy to write such thorough article on an astronomical object but editors of this article have done reasonably well, in my opinion. --BorgQueen 20:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on this page since a few hours after 2003UB313 was discovered, and was thinking of nominating it here myself soon - however, I don't think it's quite ready yet. It has been subject to a lot of edits in the last few days following an announcement about HST observations, and I think it needs a thorough working over to ensure that the style is uniform, particularly with regard to citations (something I was planning to do myself some day very soon). The lead is also too long at the moment and there are also some display issues with images covering text on my screen. Worldtraveller 21:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Support, but may be one or several inline citations are needed. Brandmeister 10:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The pros:
  • extremely informative (complete that is). Really useful article.
  • I loved the comparative picture with UB313 with objects from Ceres to the moon, which is fairly informative on the object's size. A picture is more valuable than a thousand words.

But:

  • I would like a picture with the orbit of UB 313; it should have the year and distance in AU in the perihelion and the aphelion of the orbit, for information purposes; the current position would also be nice. The current picture is not that informative, it just presents the current position of the object in relation to the orbit of the other planets, it is rather cool, but not great. One like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pluto_system.jpg (I'm talking about the style of the pic, not about the moon).
  • Subsections would be nice, not in the external links, but isolating the article's information more properly.
  • For what I've read it (currently) does not have the serious issues of the Pluto article, with excessive discussion on the object status and little focus on the object itself.

The bad of this article (The UB 313 one) is its style. It is currently an excellent warehouse full information. It has very good and useful references, so it does not need more inline citations or any other things like that. But I think that the information should be kept in one piece. So, I'm neutral for now. --Pedro 13:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - no inline citations, too many external links embedded in article hampering readability. Lead is too long per WP:LEAD. Other than that, it is okay- I especially like the animation. AndyZ 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - lead is way too long, distracting image at left, and cites (external links) need to be done better. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Lastovo

Self-nomination.Great article for such a small island. Luka Jačov 16:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Not very well referenced, missing footnotes (see Wikipedia:Footnotes), lead is too short, Trivia section is too short (needs merging into another section, maybe lead?). — Wackymacs 16:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Really great article, but not enough inline citation. Stuff like Legend has it that Catalan pirates attacked Korčula and sent a messenger to Lastovo to tell the islanders to surrender or they would be next. needs a citation. Agree with peer-review that it could do with an image on the right side of the lead. Would be willing to change my vote if these changes were implemented. - FrancisTyers 19:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Not a flawless article, but extremelly complete for an island like Lastovo. --GTubio 22:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Agree with Wackymacs; lead is too short, and article also needs a thorough copyedit. AndyZ 22:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Better than last time, but still falls short on references and citations. I don't know that it could be lengthened, and this isn't the center of my objection, but it seems like it could be longer. Economy is not covered. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • support with conditions. generally well organized and focussed. needs more active verbs. too much use of "is" and "was". also could use more references....minor point: isnt it spelled "dolomite"

Anlace 03:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support --M. Pokrajac 23:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object good article but fails WP:V because there is only one ref and one inline citation. Also, as has been mentioned, the lead needs work (per WP:LEAD). Mikkerpikker ... 12:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, needs a map of the area. PD version of something like this, otherwise very nice article. --Duk 12:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Recently added map, Image:Lastovokarta.jpg, needs source information--Duk 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Lead, Footnotes, References, as per above. Fieari 14:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object though it is fixable, with inline citations and more references, a longer lead and the removal of the trivia section. Tuf-Kat 16:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - good, but not great. See Bjørnøya (not featured, but also good) for some ideas: Climate? Flora and fauna? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Good but not great. --Ghirla | talk 13:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above - lead, footnotes, refs, trivia section. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object POV problems in the history section. --Elephantus 20:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Definite POV problems in the history section. See main Lastovo discussion / talk page -- Uvouvo 23:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Canada

I think this is one amazingly written article, and deserves to be recognized by the community. Ardenn 19:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose -- History section largely depends on external links instead of prose. Lead section is too long, contains a bulleted list and is not an efficient summary of the article. A numnber of single-sentence paragraphs. A referencing style needs to be chosen and implemented. Plenty to do (but probably can be accomplished during candidacy). Jkelly 19:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose – agree completely with Jkelly –Joke 00:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Little Rock, Arkansas

I am nominating this article, due to it conciseness, wealth of information and NPOV. --Scaife 14:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose -- No sources cited; lots of one-sentence paragraphs; history section should be in prose; no coverage of the city's music or arts. Article also has three photos that were improperly tagged as free and which need fair-use rationales to be used. Andrew Levine 00:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. This article does not fit the Featured Article criteria, listed here: Wikipedia:What is a featured article
    • Brilliant Prose. There is hardly any fleshed out writing in this article. It is largely a collection of incomprehensive lists.
    • Image Tagging. Not all of the images are tagged. Others are listed as fair use. However, they don't fall under fair use criteria, which can be found here: WP:FU. These are images of existing structures that anyone can easily take a new photo of and release it under GFDL, CC, PD, or the like. I think they should all be nominated for deletion at Images for Deletion, as there is no need to upload copyrighted images of topics like this — we will likely never have fair use rationale.
    • Comprehensiveness. The economy and education sections are stubs. Most of the content of the article is statistics and figures from a census, likely written in with a bot.
    • Inline Citations. Back up your facts and figures. Featured articles require some kind of inline citation, whether by using inline links, Harvard style-referencing, footnotes, {{inote}}, or possibly other options. Personally, I am a fan of using the new ref-tag style. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What say we remove it form consideration. I didn't know that it had that may problems with the media, the other objections are easily taken care of however. --Scaife 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That first image, the skyline, is in a rather awkward position. Also, why do you want the TOC to be merged with the text. Its all quite messy. Forever young 04:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; many sections, such as the history section, still need major work. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush

The George W. Bush article is comprehensive, well-developed, and has made great strides in recent months. Please join me in this consideration for FA status. Hall Monitor 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose Too unstable. Lot's of vandalism and there's more info in the making. Putting this on the Main Page is especially asking for vandals.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Semi-protection has helped the article a lot, so that shouldn't be as much of a concern as before. However, It might be a bad idea to put it on the Main Page... but does that affect the quality of the article? Should that affect this FAC, as there are several FAs that won't be featured on the Main Page already? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, Tony Blair and Hugo Chávez have attained featured status, and I suppose the same could be argued for both of those subjects as well. Hall Monitor 23:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
"Stability" refers to good-faith edits and edit wars over content, not vandalism. Vandalism isn't an "addressable concern" so isn't a valid reason to object. Fieari 00:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Then I don't see any reason not to. I'll help out with the references (we can always use the new Cite.php format), and when that's fixed I'll support. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose for now, fix the references into footnotes, than I may support --Jaranda wat's sup 23:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Support Could use some fixing, other wise is ok --Jaranda wat's sup 19:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is comprehensive and has improved greatly in the recent past. --Myles Long/cDc 23:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article is currently getting a dozen edits a day, a fair few of which are reverts, and is currently semi-protected. Stability issues prevent my support. Batmanand 23:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Main concern: That quite a few external links are in the actual text. I'd like to see a section of footnotes replacing the inline links. Further, the section, "Health, medicine, and Social Security" is unsourced. It needs to have a written source, as in a magazine or book etc. A few sections are too short, eg: Trade, Terrorism, Missile defense & Education; although from his policies, you wouldn't be able to get much real information anyway. All the captions of the pictures need periods (full stops) after the last sentences to make them full & complete. This should be easy to do. Other than that, the article's pretty good. I'm not too worried bout vandalism, cause if we were really worried about it, we would stop the featured article section! The hardest thing on my list should be the footnoting. See other big articles to get an idea of how to do them. I'll revise my vote after these are done. Spawn Man 00:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, spectacularly fails the all-important stability criteria. Even if this page was never targeted by vandals and POV-pushers -- which it is, probably with more consistency than any single article -- the subject will for several years yet occupy a highly visible position of power, during which time his well-publicized deeds will surely invite massive rewrites and reorganizations on a weekly or even daily basis. Andrew Levine 02:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. This article will not be anything close to stable for a long time. Daniel Case 02:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Andrew, this is a very active page with major changes to be made in the next two years. Gflores Talk 04:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I can't support FA status for an article that starts off with a self-referencing and completely irrelevant note about vandalism on wikipedia. The sprotection is there to stay, but I don't see why that dominating and distracting tag should. Also there's an issue with the tagged lack of references in the "Health, medicine, and Social Security" section. Shanes 09:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is a section that needs the citing of it's sources. Certainly not a trait of Wikipedia's best. A featured articles should not include improvement tags. --★Ukdragon37★talk 13:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Interesting article; however, the references will have to be added. KILO-LIMA 16:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. This is all-in-all, a choppy and poorly written article. I object on the following grounds:
    • Stability. Per Andrew. The FA criteria states that, "'stable' means that an article does not change significantly from day to day. The problem is that this subject does change from day to day. Worries about future vandalism or future POV-pushing is not a valid FA objection. However, the content itself hasn't stabilized enough for us to write a Featured Article. If it is promoted, it will surely deserve a WP:FARC as soon as Bush makes his next notable move or decision.
    • Inline Citations. As noted before, these are missing from many sections within the article. This is particularly notable as you move further down the article. There are also lines that, without citation, may violate NPOV. For example, "It is speculated that it is the organization which launched a coordinated string of attacks in Madrid, Spain." Wikipedia and its authors do not speculate and do original research — cite something to back this up.
    • Brilliant Prose. This article is very choppy and not well-written at all. It may have at one time, but so much editing has made it so that the language no longer flows smoothly. Look at the subsections under domestic and foreign policy. Many of these are unreferenced, single sentence paragraphs.
    • Images. Most of these meet fair use rationale. However, there's an image in the middle that is currently up for deletion. Things like that should be caught before an article is put up for its FA candidacy. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment' I removed two problem images from the article --Jaranda wat's sup 00:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - Tony Blair got featured - it was stable as in "consistently true", same as GW Bush --PopUpPirate 20:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Asking for trouble. This page get enough vandalism already. Ask again when he's out of office. DJ Clayworth 19:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I can imagine the horror that will occur when it hits the main page, but I don't think that's a valid criterion for oppose, as we can't meet it. I move to strike this one out. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Article has improved since I last read it. I disagree that "is a target of vandalism" should prevent an article from qualifying for WP:FAC's stability requirement. That said, the article appears to rely entirely upon external links for referencing, raising questions about comprehensiveness given the array of literature about the subject, and is missing references entirely in a number of places. Also contains a number of spurious categories (American Aviators? Worst Actor Razzie?!?). Since subject of the article is also a Cat, that cat should be itself categorized as a subcat of the non-spurious categories. Jkelly 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article, meets all main criteria, don't let the vandals win - lock the page! --PopUpPirate 20:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - for startes, external links used as references should be properly formatted and cited, instead of just an external link in the middle of the article. Also, needs quite a lot of improvement in prose and some of it reads a little biased. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG oppose. Not only could it be more stable, even considering it as a current event, but since FA's are not protected, it will just be severe POV/penis images/other nonsense 1/2 the time.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 20:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Rebelguys2. - Mikker ... 23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Always unstable. Always vandalised. Always protected or semi-protected. Wait until at least he's out of office. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this article is controversial. Not only that, we have to deal with vandalism. Maybe after 2009, when he leaves office. :D --Terence Ong 01:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Meets ALL the main criteria. --Siva1979Talk to me09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unstable. --Khoikhoi 06:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Bush is the 42nd President, not the 43rd. (The article calls him the 43rd President of the United States)

Technically you are correct, GW Bush is only the 42nd person to be president, but his is the 43rd presidency. This is because Grover Cleveland was elected to non-consecutive terms and is thus counted as both the 22nd and 24th president. See List of US Presidents. Also please sign your comments with four tildes (~). The Catfish 21:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - I strongly object to all the objections of this article based on vandalism. That's not an actionable concern. However, this article is about a current leader, and since new developments arise frequently which are notable, the article is currently unstable, and will remain as such until after he is replaced by his successor in 2008. This is an actionable objection, because it can be addressed... by waiting 2 years. There are also some citation issues, possible length issues (summary style please, but I'm willing to hear other opinions as to the validity of the current length) and things like writting style that could be addressed, but at the moment, for FA purposes, these issues are moot due to the primary stability requirement. Come back in two years, we'll try again. Fieari 23:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per above reasons. - Mailer Diablo 13:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Too unstable Frenzberrie 01:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now. This article needs to use Wikipedia:Summary style. A lot of the information on the presidency should be covered in a separate article on the Bush Administration, and not explained in detail in this article. Also, the article is really choppy, with a lot of 2-3 line paragraphs. They should be merged together to promote a natural flow of text. Bush is the only U.S. President to be the father of twins. Trivial facts - what's the point of that? Important people in Bush's life and career looks out of place in the article. Remove that section and add its contents to sections in the article that could use that information. I don't have a problem with the fact that this is an unstable article. If we continue to object solely on the basis of an article's stability, we're never going to have a controversial topic/figure appear on the Main page ever. AreJay 20:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: Articles dealing with current events are not suitable subjects for FAC's, especially those (like this one) that receive vandalism every day. Wait another 10-15 years for this to pass as an FA, and (I highly recommend) focus on an earlier president for now. --Slgrandson 00:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Missingno.

I think this article is well developed and should be recognized as a featured article. it contains everything down from the origins of the infamous glitch, to the very sequnces of code that cause it.
--User:malomeat 13:55, 08 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Object. No inline references, infact, no references at all. Deskana (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Object: No references. I wonder about this nomination, since six of the seven edits by this user concern Missingno being a good or featured article. --Pagrashtak 01:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Object to add, I think Missingno.#Details should be turned from a list into prose. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 07:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Object - No references, Missingno.#Details needs prosification, in need of major restructure, to a certain extent, a general wikify. --Celestianpower háblame 10:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The article lacks clearly identified references and proper attribution of material to them. Just including the sources among the external links is not enough. Please see WP:CITE. The issue of the lack of references also was raised at the peer review and never addressed, and also has been cited as the reason for removal from the "list of good articles". See the article talk page for the history of the above. --BACbKA 10:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object obviously. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Adolfo Farsari

Self-nom. This article brings together almost everything that is known about this photographer - one of the three most important foreign photographers in 19th century Japan. Further illuminates a lesser-known aspect of the history of photography: early photography in Asia. Pinkville 18:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral Strong Object - no lead, no sections, missing many commas, might I suggest Peer Review first? AndyZ 21:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your objections. The first paragraph is, indeed, a lead. I don't recall sections being obligatory, but they can easily be added if so. And "missing many commas"? The use of commas is to a large extent a question of taste and style, but I honestly can't see a need for more commas. Can you give one or two examples? Maybe you don't like the writing style? Pinkville 22:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Examples for commas: 11 February 1841 should be February 11, 1841. to the United States in 1863 and should be to the United States in 1863,. Also I'm not to sure if this article is really thorough and comprehensive by its appearance- but then again appearances can be deceiving. Also, why is the comment about Dobson in the notes behind the several other apperances of Dabson previously in the notes? AndyZ 23:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
If you check out the Manual of Style you'll see that the date format that I use is accepted by Wikipedia - it is also the normal method of dating in much of the English-speaking world outside the US (in Canada, where I live, either format is accepted). This is a case of you say "tomāto", I say "tomăto". As for the second example, placing a comma after "1863" interrupts both the flow and the meaning of the sentence: he immigrated to the US and served; not: he immigrated to the US, and served. Though I disagree, I don't think it's a very big point. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I can't see how minor stylistic differences in formatting and punctuation are grounds for objection. As for your point about thoroughness and comprehensiveness, I'm not sure I know what you mean, but having read most of the key literature regarding 19th century photography in Japan I can set your mind at ease that this article represents nearly everything that is known (for certain) about Adolfo Farsari. He's an important figure in the history of photography in Japan (and Asia, generally) and ought to be better known - I'm hoping that a featured article on him might spur more research into the subject. Finally, the Dobson note (you're referring to the "quoted in Dobson" note?) is the only case where I was quoting a passage that Dobson himself quoted from another source (Farsari's letter to his sister), my other Dobson notes relate to Dobson's own writing. This is the normal method of making that distinction. Pinkville 15:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the Dobson thing- I though you were referring to Dobson as the King, since it ways "Dobson refers to King...". As for the commas, I'm used to going by what is in Comma (punctuation), but according to WP:MoS there can be either 2 or 0 commas, so it is okay. For thoroughness, if that is all that can be found by sources, then it should be good- perhaps more can be added about his early life and his death? AndyZ 23:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - No sections. It goes in with "Well written", in that sections make it easier to read. The "lead" he's talking about should go above the first section, and no matter how many sections there are, there should be at least one. The lead needs to be isolated, esspecially because in the proposed print version of wikipedia, it will consist of more or less nothing BUT leads. Fieari 00:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've expanded the lead, added sections and made some minor corrections. I hope the changes are to your liking. Ciao. Pinkville 14:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hrm. Reading the article over, I'm not quite certain what really makes this man notable. Could you assert his importance a little more clearly? A discussion of his work itself could also be useful, as would a list of his notable works, just so long as the list doesn't dominate the article. Fieari 00:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do to make Farsari's importance more evident. And I'll try to make a list of notable works. Pinkville 15:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - needs to be expanded. The sections are "Early life", "Career", and "later years"; perhaps these could be broken up? Also, a section on the importance of his work would be nice. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain It looks good to me, but I know nothing about the subject. Suggest you find the ISBNs for the refernces if appropriate. Also list his books if he has wirten more than one, with ISBN. If ou cna get a PD photo of him so much the better. Rich Farmbrough. 00:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
No known photos of Farsari, unfortunately. His publications predate ISBNs... Publications about him, of course, have ISBNs. I'll see what I can do. Pinkville 00:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain The article reads well (though not as well as I'd like -- sorry, that's the English teacher in me!), but I would like to see fewer redlinks before we consider it as a feature article. Thank you for asking. DavidA (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2006
Thanks for checking! Pinkville 01:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak object, again due to the number of red links; any inexperienced/occasional users reading this as a featured article would possibly be deterred from using Wikipedia regularly due to the number of red links - they might imagine that this many missing articles in links from a featured article would suggest that current coverage is less extensive than it actually is. Having said that, I previously knew nothing about the subject, and did find the article of interest. CLW 16:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain Sorry for another neutral vote on such an interesting little article, one which I'm surprised did not make it to Wiki prior to your recent addition, but I don't feel it's ready yet. I agree with Flcelloguy that a review of some of his known works and why they're important should be included. I noted when I did a quick Yahoo search several references to him at museums, so you're right that he has some recognition. I'd be curious to know what art historians (perhaps?) feel of his work. I am also concerned about the majority of the notes come from a handful of pages in Dubson's book. I don't think there's a Wiki rule against using one or two sources, but considering some museums have information about him, there must be other works available. -- That having been said, I found the article very interesting. I don't think it's ready for FA, but it really should eventually become one. --Ataricodfish 06:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant abstain. This is a fine and enlightening article on a little-known aspect of the history of photography, but I can't help but think that it doesn't quite reach the high standard set by Felice Beato. Though Farsari said, "taking pictures is just a mechanical thing", surely he did have some artistic approach, which needs expanded coverage I think on a par with the comprehensive handling here of the business side of his studio. I understand there is limited coverage of his life in the literature, but we should at least be able to say more about his art and how it has been appreciated. Also, it should be relatively easy to fix some of those pesky red links with little stubs; I'll see if I can blue-sky a couple myself. And I do think a couple of more sources would help.--Pharos 03:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks all, for your comments, etc. regarding this article. I'm working on fleshing it out, with a couple of notes dealing with Farsari's artistic worth, adding a few different sources (if possible, he is even more critically neglected than I knew - easy to find images, but not text), providing a list of "selected works", and "bluing" red links. Should just be a day or two. Pinkville 03:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

President of the United States

This was once a featured article, its removal page can be found here. All the concerns expressed there have since been addressed, and it's high time it be reinstated. R'son-W 00:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment- references seem very disproportionate: 50 kb article with only 3 references, all of which are websites? Also is very list-weighty. AndyZ 00:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Inadequately referenced, poorly written, too many lists, timeline doesn't work in Safari etc... –Joke 03:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The whole "presidential facts" section smells of pointless trivia and should be merged in the respective articles for each president. List of Presidents of the United States is a featured list with all the portraits already, so their inclusion here is redundant. Timeline doesn't seem to work for me on Firefox 1.5 either. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 03:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Timeline doesn't work in Firefox either. Fieari 05:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object timeline doesn't seem to work full stop (I use IE); inadequate refs; massive image gallery a distraction - create a subpage for it; inadequate refs; badly written; hard to read - structure needs a lot of work; "Presidential facts" a list; etc. Mikkerpikker ... 17:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • For me also, timeline doesn't work (again IE)... I was wondering at first if it was just my computer, but apparently the timeline doesn't work for most computers. AndyZ 21:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - latter part of article needs work, more refs. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Caravaggio

A compelling article about an interesting and influential artist. >>sparkit|TALK<< 14:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Yes, but ... rather a paucity of footnotes for so many listed references. The French article is nice (was it the model? Update: seems from the talk page that it was) but it cannot just be copied as we need to see references here. Also, the references the article cites — two TV shows and a magazine piece — are not the best when there are many books available that are listed.
And something has to be done about this monster sentence in the intro: Caravaggio's gift to his large circle of cultured patrons (and almost all his paintings were for individual patrons, even when those patrons intended to donate them to churches), his novelty, was a radical naturalism which combined close physical observation with a dramatic, even theatrical, approach to chiaroscuro, the use of light and shadow. Pull out that parenthetical and find somewhere where it flows better in the writing.
Lastly, there does not seem to have been a peer review. Daniel Case 20:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


See peer review here Wikipedia:Peer_review/Caravaggio >>sparkit|TALK<< 04:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Seems like they had a problem with the paucity of references too that still hasn't been addressed. Also, it's a good idea to at least put the template linking to the PR on the talk page ... that's the first place I look if one isn't linked here. Daniel Case 15:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Inclined to agree on the lack of footnotes/references. Some points are going to be difficult to get good references for - the finding of that death certificate, for example - but I'll do what I can. PiCo 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - you may be in the process of revising the article right now (and once you're done, I'll take a look at it again), but the footnotes section is mainly empty, the chronology of major works is blank (save for the main article link), and the refs section is badly formatted. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The following comments were made after FAC closed
the chronology of major works is blank (save for the main article link), DOH. It's supposed to be Palx 07:46, July 10, 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The article now has 30 references, and the sources are reputable. Invites comparison with Diego Velázquez, an FA, with which it compares very favourably indeed. [talk to the] HAM 19:24, July 18, 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. There's seems to be a lack of coherence in the intro. See "In 1606 he killed another young man in a brawl". Another? Fwend 16:14, August 13, 2006 (UTC)

Persian Empire

Persia was one of the most influential civilizations in the ancient world. This article is a comprehensive, well written and in depth article plus it covers Persia from ancient times to World War II. Amir85 13:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Insufficient lead. References are not properly formatted and no footnotes. Otherwise, a solid article. Phils 15:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - weak/short lead, no inline citations. Also lacking with the section "List of Kings and Emperors of Persia"- perhaps this should be made a See also section? AndyZ 00:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I revised the lead. About inline citations and footnotes, I don't think it would apply here as the article is more like a general and disambiguation article which briefly unravels the different dynasties and gives internal links which reader can follow in detail. Plus it introduces to reader a number of liable and helpful books for further readings. Amir85 13:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - no inline citations, and the article should be renamed to History of Persian Empire as it sais almost nothing about economy, military, geography, politics and other areas that are required for a comprehensive overview of a former state.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I don't think that such a comprehensive subject may be adequately covered in one article. What is more important, the copyright status of many images is difficult to ascertain. Some are not even tagged. --Ghirla | talk 18:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The current objections are valid and I have a bit I'd like to clarify. I think that this article has potential to cover a lot of the history of the Persian Empire, but needs to real peer review and work before coming back to a Featured Article candidacy.
    • Length and Writing: With a topic as wide-ranging as this, you're going to run into the exact same problem World War II did in its failed Featured Article candidacy. Some people feel that the article doesn't cover any one topic sufficiently. Others will say that the article is simply too long and difficult to read. It's really all in how you use "summary style" to achieve "brilliant prose." However, I don't believe that this article has "brilliant prose" in either case. Featured articles should not have choppy, one-sentence paragraphs. Yes, you're covering a lot of topics here — use it to concoct a couple of flowing paragraphs that present a good overview of the subject, then.
    • Comprehensiveness: I agree with Piotrus that this article is only about the history. Though the Empire is now defunct, you should still treat it as you would other countries/empires/etc. Finally, some sections are just completely bare, such as "Persia after World War One." The end of the empire has to be something notable, but there are three sentences covering the last decade and a half, from 1919-1935.
    • Inline Citations: This is a common objection that's been mentioned many times in this candidacy already. "Introducing to reader a number of liable and helpful books" is a good thing; there's no doubt about that. You also certainly don't need to cite every single fact you introduce into the article. However, Featured Articles require you to back up your figures and facts. It's not up to the reader to look them up to confirm them — it's up to a writer to confirm exactly where the information came from. If this is a general disambiguation article, it should read more like a list than the brilliant prose of a Featured Article.
    • Formatting: There are a number of issues. Spacing is not always consistent between different subsections. Only the subject (title) of the article should be bolded, and you should try to avoid bolding random topics throughout the article. Standardize to one style of spelling, though it doesn't matter which one — you're mixing American and British style. Why is there a section for List of kings of Persia? It's not done in summary style — just place it in a "See also" section, or something of the like. I see it's also already in the template for Iranian history.
    • Images: Though I won't object on this point, I'm not sure that all of the images fall under fair use. Take the example of the image at Image:Tajikestan.JPG. There's nothing special about that image that contributes signifcantly to this article, as its not discussing the Bibi Khanum mosque itself (though, admittedly, it mentions Samarkand). Therefore, there's no fair use rationale for this article. In addition, a free one "could be created." To use an explicitly copyrighted image of an existing structure that can still likely be photographed in an article that uses it as a general, and somewhat unnecessary, example, means that it should not be used here under the guidelines of fair use.
    • Content Question: The infobox template to the right of the introduction lists the Pahlavi dynasty and the Islamic Republic under "Empires of Iran," along with many of the ancient kingdoms. Fortunately, you clarify the scope of the article in the lead. However, you write that, "Successive states in Iran before 1935 are collectively called the Persian Empire by Western historians." This is an example of something you should cite, as it's a contentious issue. Why do only Western historians say so? Do other historians say otherwise? You should also clarify the infobox if you're going to use it in the article. Is there a difference between "Empires of Iran" and "Persian Empire?" — Rebelguys2 talk 19:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - no inline cites, few refs, and empty section ("List of Kings and Emperors of Persia"). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - I also noted that there are no inline citations. Also some sections covering important centuries are really too brief; to this, we can add that economy and culture aren't treated enough. Aldux 23:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Chicago, Illinois

An interesting article, in depth, and educational, Chicago is one of the most influential cities in the world. The article has gone through much editing since it's last attempt at becoming a featured article. I believe it deserves another shot. Un sogno modesto 07:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - Insufficient references in my estimation, no inline citations. The references section even has a note written asking someone to use wikipedia standards in references. I'd also like to comment here, because I see the meme show up frequently, that subject matter has nothing to do with an article being featured. Just because the subject matter is important doesn't make an article good enough to be featured, and on the flip side, if the subject matter is obscure or silly, that doesn't make the article less qualified. Just saying. Fieari 18:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - agree with Fieari- no inline citations, only 2 book references (there's got to be way more that can be used to verify the information). A couple of the lists would do better in prose. AndyZ 00:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above. Also, some sections, such as "Utilities and infrastructure", could do with expansion/cleaning up. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A great page representing the city very well as well as providing in-depth information on all categories. Mrmaroon25
  • Object. I contribute to/watch this page, I have to say I don't think its ready. The first issue on the article's talk page is my plea for someone to clean up the image formatting; there currently are vast deserts of white space which need to be dealt with, as well as a lack of references and inline citations. RyanGerbil10 02:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

This article complies with all of the featured article qualifications, and I think it is a very fine looking article, with graphics, references, footnotes, and inter-wiki linkage. -- Mac Davis ☢ ญƛ. 09:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not sure a "Controversies" section should exist. It is both extremely short and most of its would-be content is in other sections. --Oldak Quill 12:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Given that Ahmadinejad is still President of Iran, this article is unlikely to become relatively stable any time soon, one of the requirements of an FA. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 13:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The intro leaves out any mention of his political activities between 1975 and being elected mayor of Tehran. This is a particularly significant period in his life and career. Kaisershatner 15:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Stability is one of the criteria of a FA, and whatever the merits of the current revision of the page, there is no way an article on a very controversial leader who will be in the news for years to come can retain its quality. (I have a similar problem with the Featured status of Nicolas Sarkozy). Andrew Levine 23:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't really know if we should judge how stable an article is by future edits as this version should be good, but looking at the history of the article there have been several reversions and re-reversions (especially with specific quotes that certain people dab as "whitewash"). AndyZ 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- per Adrew Levine. CG 14:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been editing the article for a while & can assure you it is FAR from stable. (not only due to vandalism). Mikkerpikker ... 12:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above, especially the "controversies" section. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

All your base are belong to us

This is a former Featured Article (first nominated January 2004) that had gone downhill and was defeatured. It has since undergone massive cleanup and should once again be considered for FA status. ⇒ BRossow T/C 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - hasn't got any references. Worldtraveller 00:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • References are in-line. They can be moved to a separate section if this is the only thing holding the article back. ⇒ BRossow T/C 00:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • References have been reformatted as footnotes in a separate "References" section rather than in-line citations. Perhaps you'll reconsider? ⇒ BRossow T/C 15:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I see there are no references to any newspaper articles or other printed sources. These would help establish the notability of the phenomenon in a way web references can't. Also, the next major problem is that the translations seem to be original research, unless they are taken from a reliable reference. Worldtraveller 22:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
With nothing but the utmost due respect, and without trying to seem argumentative, I think the requirement for newspaper or other print references is an unattainable standard for what is nearly exclusively an Internet phenomenon. Having said that, FoxTrot is an internationally syndicated comic strip that runs in hundreds of print newspapers every day. I'd also point out that another reference is a legit broadcast TV station's news site. I admit I don't see how text translation is considered original research; if this is the standard, then no Wikipedia articles translated by volunteer editors into other languages for other Wikipedias should be allowed. And having said that, the translations posted parallel very closely that provided by Google's translation service, which I presume would meet the standard for a reliable reference. And again, I really hope not to seem argumentative. I just am not sure what more can be expected but am willing to make every effort to meet everyone's standards to the best of my ability. ⇒ BRossow T/C 23:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses, and don't worry, they don't come across as argumentative. Hope these further thoughts explain things. One might not regard a suggestion for print references as actionable, but my feeling is that if something has only ever made an impact on the internet it's really not a very significant thing, and some sort of link to a report in a mainstream news source would bolster the article's claim to be describing something notable.
As for the translation, if you or another editor did it yourself then it can only be original research. It would not be original research if it's being quoted from a source you can cite, but a machine translation would not, I don't think, count as a reliable source. Article translations are quite different from translating text from elsewhere for use in an article, and are no more original research than the article they translate from was. Worldtraveller 00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
    • Images claiming fair use need rationale.
    • The inline links used should be converted to citations that include a retrieval date.
    • The sentence The final phrase "for great justice" appears also to have been adopted by various groups as their slogan... is written with weasel words and needs a reference. There are a few other places that could use references too.
    • A large section of this article is transcripts and translations. If nothing else, I think they should appear lower in the article. Perhaps the English transcript could stay where it is and the rest moved lower? It really breaks up the article currently, and the "AYB is society" section should appear higher than it currently does.
    • Meme and Snowclone should probably be mentioned in the article and removed from the see also section; the two concepts are discussed, but not named until the see also section. --Pagrashtak 02:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the useful feedback. Changes have been made to address these issues. Perhaps you'll reconsider? ⇒ BRossow T/C 15:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It's much better. Now that it's been cleaned up we can addres more structural issues. These first three comments are all basically one item:
    • The article is a little top heavy - the lead section should be a summary of the article. Some of the lead section needs to be moved to another section, probably the "AYB in society" section.
    • The "Related phrases and usage" section is too weak to stand on its own, it should be absorbed by the "AYB in society" section.
    • When incorporating this material in the "AYB in society" section, rewrite what is currently the opening paragraph of the section into non-italicized prose.
    • If the translations exist on a web site somewhere, it would be better to link to that site instead of including them in the article, I think. --Pagrashtak 02:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object -- This article is just plain dumb; trite and trivial. It's not about anything notable -- not about the game in which the phrase appears, but about the phrase itself. Sorry, but I'm surprised it's an article, let alone a FAC. John Reid 07:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The article is about a worldwide phenomenon in culture and language spawned nearly overnight over the internet. It is a very interesting study in sociology and the power of the internet. While I don't think it really deserves FA status either, your objection seemes rather uniformed, as it is far from trite or trivial. It is quite unique, actually. WestonWyse 17:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed with the above, and, more importantly, the subject matter covered is not relevant. Any article on Wikipedia, under current rules, can become an FA, regardless of the perceived irrelevance of the subject by some users; if it is important enough to be on Wikipedia (and all your base is), then it is important to become an FA. If you want to regulate what types of articles can become featured, bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Featured articles as it relates to policy and not to any specific article. If you want an example of any ridiculous subject that is a featured article, I point you to exploding whale. (I have to say this so often that I'm thinking about making a personal template for it. Light.) —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 20:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
        • The editors above me have said most of what I was going to say, but I want to add this: FAC objections must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. I request that you either provide something actionable or withdraw your objection. --Pagrashtak 02:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry; I still think it's dumb, trite, and trivial. Shouldn't even be a page. You want to "address my rationale"? Delete it. John Reid 18:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per all the above.Rlevse 16:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per all the above, plus:
    • Needs spoiler (since it does indicate what happens at the end of the game).
    • Weak sections, most prominent of which are "Related phrases and usage"
    • Lead is way too long
  • I would also like to note that as a single phrase, many of the items on this page are irrelevant (at least seemingly). AndyZ 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - The lead isn't too long, the article is too short. For a meme/phenominon that sparked so much attention, including a largish number of mainstream newspaper articles and magazine references, this doesn't contain NEARLY enough information. The article doesn't go nearly enough into how this sparked the photoshopping fad, or the various hotspots on the internet where the meme intensified. Most of the article currently consists of translations, which, while important, just aren't enough. Fieari 00:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above. Also, the "Related phrases and usage" section is extremely short, and most of the article consists of translations, which shouldn't be the case. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Narcissistic personality disorder

This article is a prime example of how a massive amount of edits 2 months ago can cause the fruition of a beautiful article with well cited sources as well as a well placed an appropriate public domain image. I feel this fulfills all the requirements to be a featured article. Thanks. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 22:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - While this isn't really an article filled with many, if any, disputed claims, having some inline citations would help for being able to verify the information, to prove that you aren't making things up and/or sneaky vandalism hasn't taken place. Fieari 04:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - I feel this article doesn't really give much insight into the condition beyond the fundamentals a lot of which are also covered by the DSM. Some more statistics or detailed commentary could really help the article. At the same time, I appreciate this article's concise nature and the fact that an encyclopedia article needn't discuss every possible aspect of a topic. That said, some specific comments on the article are:
  • DSM does not link to the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders".
  • DSM typically lists researched conditions. So maybe instead of "first appeared as a mental health diagnosis" you should try "was first listed in the third text revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual".
  • What is the source of Millman's comments on acquired situational narcissism? That said, generally the article might benefit from inline citations.
  • The prognosis section is overly brief - some statistics would be helpful.
  • The treatment section is very brief - is there really nothing more to be said?
  • "Compared to psychopaths, fewer narcissists are criminals" - some statistics would also be helpful.
Hope this helps.
Cedars 13:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Some of the writing needed tidying, and I got the impression of parts of it that it had been copied from somewhere. It doesn't go into any depth about the condition, and there are no inline citations, so it's impossble to tell what the sources are for the various points. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the article is on it's way to becoming suitable as a featured article, but it isn't there yet, it could be SO much better. I agree with all the objections above, all those things need work. In addition, I feel that the question reproducing of DSM criteria as part of the article (where is SHOULD be) needs resolving with the APA before it should be a featured article. --Zeraeph 13:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - no in-line footnotes (instead using external link in the middle of text), needs expansion and rewriting, especially first two sections. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The search term "megalomania" should not redirect to this article on "narcissistic personality disorder."

In redirecting megalomania to this page, There's a fundamental assumption that megalomania is a disease. However, that's far from undebated, and in fact steps right into the question of "what is a disorder, and what's just a personality trait?"

Megalomania, as the term has been used throughout history, has connoted a personality characteristic, arguably even a good one. There is a fine line to walk when classifying personality traits as "psychological disorders," and while narcissistic personality disorder may be an official one, I believe "megalomania" should redirect to it's own article, thus preserving the point of view that it is not necessarily a disease. The article should explain it as a characteristic rather than a disease, and could go into detail about great figures who are sometimes said to be "megalomaniacal," such as Alexander the Great.

Special relativity

This was nominated back in 2004 and the main objection was lack of references, which has since been fixed. Comprehensive and excellently illustrated, and although it is highly technical there is a daughter article Special relativity for beginners. Note that despite my username, I am not actually a physicist and did not contribute to this article. Redquark 04:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Wikipedia guidelines state that the longer the article, the longer the introduction should be. There should be two or three solid paragraphs in introduction, not just one. Fieari 05:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support iff Fieari's suggestion is followed up. Thethinredline 10:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Needs a copy-edit. In particular, please merge some of the stubby little paragraphs, and reword the unencycopedic expressions such as 'As we shall see'. It's not a transcription of an oral presentation, or a fireside chat. Otherwise, it has a lot going for it. The animation is ... amazing! Tony 12:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a fine article, I don't think it is FA material yet. Here are some brief comments, which are by no means exhaustive:
  • Reading through it, there is little sense of where the article is going. One (shortish) section seems to haphazardly follow another. Some sections, like "Relativity and unifying Electromagnetism" are embarassingly small. The structure of the article really needs to be better thought out.
  • The history article is poor. I don't think having a separate article is any excuse for not having a (short, but good) history section in the main article.
  • I'm not sure that special relativity applies only to inertial frames of reference. Like Newtonian mechanics, it seems perfectly possible to do calculations from non-inertial frames of reference, should one desire. It sure doesn't include gravity, though.
  • The section about tests ("status") of special relativity should probably be moved up and emphasized.
  • The animation is very cool.
So, I think it is a good article but needs a fair amount of work to meet today's FA criteria. –Joke 16:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I disagree that one paragraph for the introduction is enough to make an article lose FA status, are we really supposed to add a useless paragraph because someone arbitrarily decided this rule for Special Relativity without reading this article??? I think the structure is adequate, and the diagrams are good/excellent. I also disagree with the technical objection that Joke makes, it's not possible to do calculation in non-inertial frames, it's formally only possible to do calculations in inertial frames, and then work out what that looks like from a non-inertial frame. It's got good references. I think it's a featured article, but not suitable for the front page (too technical). I vote for.WolfKeeper 04:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If there's enough information on the subject to have an article that's so long, there's enough information that can reasonably be placed into the introduction. Fieari 18:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for the following reasons:
    • "...frames in flat spacetime, where the effects of gravity can be ignored." is too complicated. Flat space time is a concept of general relativity not of special relativity.
    • "the state of inertial motion." is unclear. Why not velocity instead of this very pedantic formulation.
    • "Second postulate (invariance of c)" is a consequence of the first one. Light is an electromagnetic wave.

That's all for today. I'll have other comments later on. Vb 09:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Needs a copy edit and a thorough work-over by a person who cares to get English prose really, really right. The pictures, however, are great. I should note that "flat spacetime" is what distinguishes Special Relativity from General: the Minkowski metric is "flat" in a sense which does not depend upon the specific cause of curvature in General Relativity. Statements like "the difference between SR and GR is that SR does not cover accelerations" are incorrect. SR was invented to describe situations involving accelerations, like the radiation from an accelerated charge. The real distinction is that SR spacetime is flat, while GR spacetime can be curved. See Misner, Taylor and Wheeler's Gravitation (a big thick book if you ever wanted one). Furthermore, a great many textbooks treat the second postulate as an independent case from the first one. By some reasoning, I suppose one could consider it a consequence or a "special case", but it is such an important special case that most books pull it out and treat it separately. (I'm almost sure Halliday and Resnick do, for example.) Anville 08:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above, needs some improvement in prose. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object While I have as of yet no edits in en:Wikipedia article space, this is an article I've been following for some time. I question the comprehensiveness of the article, especially as it barely addresses a central point that readers deserve to have answered, namely What is the value of special relativity within the context of today's theoretical physics? Furthermore, the article is not stable and is continually undergoing insertion and deletion of material with limited claims to the verifiability of such material. This leads to some subtle and sometimes rather serious biases being introduced into the article (and its ancillary articles as well). As I see it, there are three interrelated issues that should be dealt with:
    • Overall structure of the article lacks proper cohesion and direction
    • Poor separation of the physical, historical, and philosophical aspects of the subject
    • No clear attempt to base statements on the references provided (this article is crying out for in-line references)
Particluar issues and/or suggestions for improvement:
  • Intro section
    • Does not correlate well with the rest of article
    • Important concepts (e.g. symmetry, Maxwell's equations) left out
    • Undefined and potentially confusing concepts (observer, material object) included
  • "Lack of an absolute reference frame" section
    • Historical baggage about aether should be placed in a separate section or article
    • Could be expanded to address the concept of symmetry
  • "Consequences" section
    • Claim of Einstein unsourced, potentially irrelevant to later or current 'consequences'
  • "Relativistic mass" and "Force" sections
    • Notational issues not directly relevant to this article
    • Confusing and unencyclopedic, unreferenced
    • These sections should be removed
  • "The geometry of space-time" and "Physics in spacetime" sections
    • Potentially valuable information presented without clear context
    • Appears too technical
    • Will benefit greatly from an overall coherent structure
  • "Relativity and unifying electromagnetism" section
    • Could be merged with much needed section about symmetry
  • "Status" section
    • Lacks strong conclusion
    • Will benefit greatly from an overall coherent structure
  • "References" section
    • References to textbooks appear solid
    • Choice of jounal articles is questionable
    • A technical subject such as special relativity with an extensive number of possible references deserves an article that includes explicit in-line citations to its references, including page numbers. --Tim Shuba 03:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Cantinflas

Famour Mexican actor in the mid-1900s. Largely edited by User:Rockero and myself. It's well-referenced and comprehensive. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Lackluster Peer Review. User:Gflores 18:37, February 4, 2006

  • Comment: The quoted passages (Monsiváis etc.) must be sourced. Andrew Levine 17:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Rockero is the editor who wrote those passages. I didn't notice he didn't cite it... I've now sent him a message. Gflores Talk 05:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Done (by Rockero). Gflores Talk 04:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - If sources are provided for the quotations (as above) —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Nice to see that they've been sourced. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, with a heavy heart, until the following concerns are satisfied:
    • Can you confirm the existence of the "Santa María de Redonda" neighborhood. It is not listed in the Guía Roji ([3]). I'd also like to see from what source for this claim.
    • The circumstances leading to his "jump" from being a circus performer to film actor should be detailed.
    • Needs sources for the inheritance dispute.
    • The section on personal life feels a bit on the short side. This is a subjective complain, of course.
    • It is not clear who Miguel del Río is and why is he quoted in the cantiflismo section (given that it seems he doesn't have his own article). A short explanation in the footnote itself should be sufficient.
    • How is a pelado different from a peladito? I think I know the difference, but doubt the readers would.
    • Cantinflear was added to the Spanish dictionary in the 1990s (couldn't find the exact date) not in 1938.
    • Who wrote "Cantinflas and the Chaos of Mexican Modernity"? The sentence that mentions the book seems to be missing the name of the author.
    • In the bibliography section the number you provide for Su Excelencia looks like a library reference number rather than an ISBN.
    • In general, the tone of the article is too sympathetic to the point of being non-encyclopedic (e.g. "The 1940s and 1950s were Cantinflas' heyday." and a couple others I removed/edited on my copyedit).
    • (Sorry for not signing. First time it happens) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 03:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. We now have some constructive criticism to work with. It's actually Santa Maria la Redonda, and its a neighborhood, probably not an actual colonia. That's from Monsivais, but most sources say he grew up in the "notorious" Tepito neighborhood, so that should probably be mentioned too. I have no idea about the inheritance dispute. Del Rio wrote for Vea magazine and talked it seemed like his quote elaborated more on the concept of Cantinflismo (the Cantinflada that was a serious political joke), but I'm not sure what you mean by "given that it seems he doesn't have his own article"...you mean why doesn't del Rio have his own article?? A little puzzled there. I'll try to see if I can find when Cantinflear was added to the dictionary. There's some info on the Spanish article that can be incorporated on other words derived therefrom, too. Jeffrey M. Pilcher wrote the bio (Cantinflas and the chaos...), its listed in the references, but that section needs to be expanded anyways. I just started the book, so the nomination may have been a little premature. The ref number for Su Excelencia is a library of congress call number, I used it because there is no ISBN and I figured it was better than nothing. A lot of that fluffy stuff was in there already when GFlores and I started in on it. (Unless he's willing to take credit for it--I just hate to remove peoples' contributions, so if you wouldn't mind brutalizing it a bit, I'd appreciate it.) My own criticisms: The last paragraph on his awards and honors doesn't flow well, his influence on the Chicano theatre is unsourced, and there are two PD screenshots. I guess we have our work cut out for us. Thanks for the thorough review,--Rockero 06:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Neighborhood is synonymous to colonia. I know there's a cathedral of that name somewhere in the city but don't remember if it's in that neighborhood... in any case it doesn't matter since Monsivais is a reliable source. Tepito, by the way, is definitely notable for other reasons I won't elaborate in here.
About del Rio, I meant that you have to have to give context on who this guy is (i.e. justify why what he says about the subject is important enough to be quoted here). For all we know it could be the opinion of somebody's cousin who works in a grocery store.
On the missing ISBN you could make a note that that the number there is a LoC number, to avoid confusion since it is not self-evident.
I'll try to go in and hack some of the "pretty" the language in the article more thoroughly. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor objection - good article, but needs a few improvements. First, some of the prose seems a little heavy-handed. For example, the first few parapgraphs of "Personal life" seems dull and doesn't have a varied sentence sturcture (while reading, I noticed a lot of it was "Subject verb...". Spice it up!) Also, I'd like to see some more in-line citations. For example: According to one obituary, "Cantinflas" is a meaningless name invented to prevent his parents from knowing he was in the entertainment business, which they considered a shameful occupation. Which obituary? Can you provide a source for that? Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Interesting article, but a couple of problems:
  • No mention of his training For all of his many and varied skills, I'm curious about how he acquired them. "In the tents he danced, performed acrobatics, and performed in the roles of several different professions," plus dancer, stage actor, film actor, even his "exploration" of boxing and medecine. Did he have any formal training, did he have any mentors, was he entirely self-taught?
  • "Personal life" section is poorly written It's choppy and practically point-form. --Tsavage 04:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley Lake

This is a partial self nomination - although I didn't start the article I've done a fair amount of work on the page (as I live about 500m from the lake). Various changes have been made in the light of comments raised in the peer review. Thanks are also due to those who sorted out scientific names & provided maps etc. The lake is a site of Special scientific interest and also a centre for leisure activities and hopefully the article reflects the history, ecology and uses etc. Rod 19:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I won't vote just yet, but here's a few more suggestions:
    • Rotate the plaque photo one or two degrees counter clockwise (I will do this myself if somebody doesn't get there first).
    • Some of the external links that are incorporated within the text serve as references (or at least confirm the facts listed), and would look better as <ref>s at the end of the sentence.
    • I know you've already listed your sources, but it might be better to specifically cite them where they're used.
    • I don't know if listing bus routes is particularly encyclopedic, but I'm not concerned enough to let that affect how I vote.
  • I promise to read though it properly eventually, but I've been at work for eleven hours, so not today! Joe D (t) 01:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the comments and advice It would be great if you would rotate the plaque - I don't have the knowledge or software I've tried to do something with the referencing etc, but found the guidance confusing, there doesn't seem to be a standard format & several articles use different approaches - not sure if what I'm doing is <ref>s as you suggest I wondered about the bus routes but thought it fitted with the environmental theme - encouraging people to cycle or come by public transport. Rod 13:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Weak/short lead- it should be expanded. AndyZ 20:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added a few bits (including SSSI status) to the lead paragraph - do you think this is enough? I've done more edits on the references and external links & hope this meets style guides (which I still find a bit confusing on this). Rod 16:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking really good now. Don't forget to keep ensuring any new statements you add (e.g. the recent insect stuff) are referenced SP-KP 19:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've done a ref for the insects as suggested, but haven't got anthing else to add. It's got as far as I can get it Rod 09:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - lead could be expanded, the section "Access and transportation" could be as well. Good article, though! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead paragraph and section on Access and transportation further. Do you think these are enough? Rod 19:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Noel Gallagher

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

Ok, it's not as POV as before. It's comprehensive, well set out, it might even be well written. What does anyone think?--Crestville 21:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Object Support Although it would be easy to bring this up to standard. It would be helpful to turn the bulk of the article into subsections, as it quite large and disorganized. Perhaps sorting it into spans of five years, or sections like "Definetely Maybe" "What's the Story" etc. adding both information about the music and about the man. Also facts like "What's the Story... went to #1" and the like need to be cited. As well as most of the information in the "Controversy" section. However the content is highly sound, and only needs a bit of polishing to be a FA. My criticisms have been adressed, good job, it's a more complete article now. Thethinredline 09:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Cheers for the sugestions & I'll learn how to cite (of if anyone already knows & fancies saving me a job...)--Crestville 14:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
done the best I can for the time being--Crestville 16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, though I agree that it is fixable. I've evaluated it according to the Featured music Project guidelines (see Wikipedia:Featured Music Project/Noel Gallagher). Tuf-Kat 19:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comprehensiveness: A section, or at least a paragraph or two somewhere, about musical and songwriting style, influences and legacy, some critical perceptions of his work (preferably both positive and negative)
    • Pictures: Needs fair use rationales, and preferably a free pic
    • Audio: Needs sound samples
    • References: More inline cites would be nice, especially sales figures and chart rankings and stuff like "album did not live up to long-term expectations, and the public's goodwill towards Be Here Now was short-lived"; also, a print source that is not a biography would be a good addition
    • Discography: should have a discography, preferably with a link to an Oasis discography with all the details
    • Format/Style: Trivia and quotes sections need to go, turn "Controversy"into paragraphs, integrate and remove see also links
  • Tentative Object. Seems close, and we need more featured articles about musicians, but seems to have some small problems, such as incomprehensiveness. Maybe some sections could be added about musical style and content, as per the other objectors. Is very close, if these objections are addressed, I will gladly support. RyanGerbil10 23:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd dp all that, but could you please be clearer about what needs altering? It's a bit vague. Cheers!--Crestville 01:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to me --PopUpPirate 18:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Overall good, but some changes needed. I agree that the "Trivia" and "Controversy" section should either be mixed with the rest of the article, deleted outright, or -- in the case of "Controversy" -- be expended into paragraphs. Also, some quotes need references. From the lead, "If you'd written "Live Forever", you'd be walking to a different tune the next day too" is unsourced. I also did a quick review and found some spelling and punctuation errors, which I corrected, but the article should have another read through for the boring stuff (grammar, spelling, punctuation). And Comment; Two points that I feel should be expanded upon; "The rest of the band agreed, at which point Oasis undertook a year of intensive rehearsing." -- Why did the band so quickly hand over songwriting to Gallagher, considering he was the newest member of the group? "Noel felt the Americans did not understand the band" -- Why? Poor album sales? Poor critical reviews? Best of luck! --Ataricodfish 18:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Cheers, i'll look into it--Crestville 15:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Fair use images must have rationales, and most of them appear redundant, frankly -- I'd say we need two at the most (do we really need to see Noel in a "typical pose"?). Let's keep fair use pictures to a minimum. The article constantly refers to him as Noel, which sounds very unprofessional. As others have said, the controversy and trivia sections should be merged into the rest of the article (although I wouldn't mind it if the controversy section could be rewritten from list to prose). The article alternates between inline links (i.e. [4]) and normal footnotes, which is confusing for the reader and insufficient for a featured article (references should document the date the source was accessed, so if it changes in the future, people can use the Internet Archive to see what the page looked like when it was cited). Several paragraphs are unsourced, according to the lack of footnotes/inline links. Let's replace things like "foo - bar" with "foo — bar" (use &mdash; to produce —). Last but not least, m:Cite documents a new native style of footnoting which makes section editing and previewing a lot easier compared to the {{ref}} system. Johnleemk | Talk 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
"The article constantly refers to him as Noel, which sounds very unprofessional." not as unprofessional as if you kept reffering to him & his brother (who is mentioned constantly through the article) as "Gallagher" so eveyone gets confused. also, why bother with all that mdash shit. A line's a line. Stop being petty, you chimp.--Crestville 18:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
An interesting personal attack on a reviewer who's trying to help improve the article. One more like that and I'll block you. And please stop moving this article to the top of the list. If you pull enough dumb stunts you can be banned from WP:FAC. Bishonen | talk 18:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC).
OK, that's enough. I've blocked the nominator for 24 hours for personal attacks on a reviewer. Bishonen | talk 19:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - controversy section should be in prose, refs improperly formatted (year of publishing, city, ISBN?) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Starship Troopers

Starship Troopers is a controversial science fiction novel by Robert Heinlein about powered armor warfare from an infantryman's perspective. The book has always been a personal favorite of mine, so this is a self-nom. I unsuccessfully nominated this article for FA status at the beginning of February. Since then, the article has been extensively rewritten and received a thorough Peer Review. Several other editors and I have spent a lot of time copyediting and cleaning up this article. To be perfectly honest, there isn't much more we can do on our own. I hope you will see fit to give this article FA status, and if not please give us some constructive feedback so we can keep improving it. Thanks again.

  • Nominate and support. - Palm_Dogg 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are two objections which I anticipate, so here are my pre-emptive responses. First, copyediting: this article failed last time because it had not been properly edited. However, we have made a good-faith effort to make this article presentable and would appreciate a little slack. If there are any glaring errors, let us know and we'll fix them immediately. Second, the book covers: though several users have expressed some concern about the number used, no one has lodged any formal objections and we are confident that they capture the spirit of the novel. Palm_Dogg 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. As I brought up on the talk page, this article has WP:NOR problems. The entire "Comparisons to Heinlein's other works" section is basically literary analysis by a Wikipedian editor, as is the sentence Since Heinlein compares the Arachnids on more than one occasion to Communists, it's more than likely that they serve as a foil for the individualistic Terrans. We're arguing that certain critics are wrong, and "drawing conclusions" (in the words of a Talk page contributor) that are not only not verifiable, but, in fact, a creation of our own new analysis. We don't get to make judgement calls about whether reviewers and critics are right or wrong in their interpretations, and we don't get to originate our own. Jkelly 02:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Striking objection, but not supporting until examining image question in more detail. Jkelly 16:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
As I explained on the talk page, I disagree.--Bcrowell 04:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
As do I, this NOR policy needs to be handled a little bit more flexibly than many editors seems to want to contemplate. Is not the process of finding and including "reviewers and critics" comments original research of it's own type. I understand the policy aim, but we need to avoid being too "slavish" about it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 10:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a very different thing to cite the opinions of named, reputed critics and to include such analysis in the article without attribution. Andrew Levine 17:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that was quite what I was saying. All references to reviewers and critics shoudl be properly referenced. Quite agree. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 17:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
My point was that it's not "original research" to gather such opinions. Andrew Levine 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the talk page, it sounds like there is no source for the specific passage mentioned there. Unless a published source has promulgated this idea, it is original research that has to be removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the passage in question. Palm_Dogg 08:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I still miss anything about the various comic books based on the novel. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I threw in a line about the comics under Adaptations. Palm_Dogg 03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
There is also a current comic book series based on the book, by a company called Markosia.[5] --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I have never actually read this selection, even though it has always been one of those i knew i should; but having said that, I found the article rather long winded and much too analytical to really be NPOV. Overall the article is very informative, but much too in-depth; if you want to have this sort of analysis, you could probably add an external link to another site that has done such a thing, but this isn't really the place; this article needs to be stripped down to the facts. (eg. Johnny then went to the river with his mother; and this represents his freudian blah blah blah. SHOULD be simply: Johnny went to the river with his mother.)
    • Could you be a little more specific? You're not giving me much to work with :). Were there any particular areas that you think could/should be trimmed down? Palm_Dogg 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I think it's good; however, shouldn't there be some sort of symbolism section? But it doesn't really matter becuase it explores far more themes thanthe symbolism. Hillhead15 13:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: Too many fair-use images. Most of those book covers are being used for decorative purposes only, which isn't permitted under Wikipedia's fair-use policy. --Carnildo 04:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Removed two of the images and added detailed captions to the rest. Palm_Dogg 15:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You've added captions describing the covers, not commenting on the covers. There's a difference between the two, and that is what determines if the images are being used to illustrate the article, or are merely being used to decorate it. --Carnildo 02:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Until some sort of consensus can be reached, I have removed all but three covers. This nomination is about the article, not the images. Palm_Dogg 07:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think this article is pretty comprehensive about the subject. BlueShirts 05:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Outstanding article - Check-Six 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Cautiously Support Although I love Heinlein and really think more people should be exposed to his work, I have a few reservations as to the suitability of this article for featured article status, given its at times technical/specific nature. Also, very very minor detail, the aliens are sometimes referred to as the Bugs and at other times as the Arachnids, with no statement that I saw saying these terms are synonymous. In the end, I support given how well reaserched and written the article is. Nicolasdz 09:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Tossed in a line at the beginning of "Plot" about the terms being synonymous. Palm_Dogg 16:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

I'm starting this nom over. There was quite a bit of discussion in the old nom, and since the article has probably changed quite a bit since them, I'm not sure how much is still relavant. Old nom is here Raul654 22:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  • Support (again) - it seems to me that all of the old objections seem to boil down to "this is too short" without saying what could be added. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I have no particular love for anime, and Pokémon is certainly not representative for quality anime, but the article looks fine. Phils 22:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per revisions. -- Wikipedical 23:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per revisions. Morgan695 01:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per revisions. -- TomStar81 01:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per my previous comment and even more with revisions. - Cuivienen 01:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It is most definitely deserving of FA status. Wikipikarefulgenschu 02:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Just as I did before. RyanGerbil10 04:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I wasn't aware of the first vote on this one, but it's definitely a strong FA candidate currently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support again, this article is excellent even if it is pokemon. Dee man45 22:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, again, per revisions. — FireFox • T • 20:57, 28 January 2006
  • Support as per the others. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 21:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written, especially for such a subject. Ian13|talk 21:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Support
    • "Several Bulbasaur have appeared throughout the anime, although only two as major characters" -- explain what "the anime" refers to; as a matter of fact, I simply don't understand that entire paragraph
    • Section titles "in the anime" and "in the video games" are odd, consider removing "the" from both
    • I for one do not understand the significance of the Ken Livingstone thing.
  • Tuf-Kat 05:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    These critisisms have been rectified in the article. --Celestianpower háblame 17:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • One last point: please clarify whether "Bulbasaur" is an individual or a species, or both. Tuf-Kat 18:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      Clarified in the lead. It's a species. --Celestianpower háblame 00:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Looks good. Tuf-Kat 06:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, per what I said at the old FAC. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Meets the FA criteria in my opinion. Gflores Talk 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --PopUpPirate 22:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support again. It's still a fine article. Robert 01:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support nice article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hella support. This one should have become a FA quite a few weeks ago...Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 15:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, but a good comment I'm reading all of what others are saying about that if bulbasaur would be accepted then all the others would have to also. Also it seems that it's getting hard to extend the article. I have an idea: Just look at the Pokemon article. It's so quality already. In German, it was made a featured, and the english version could do the same with a little work. If anything in this field can get a featured status, it's got to be the main franchise article. It's already got a lot of information on it and just needs tuning. Just a while ago I nominated it for Good Articles but somebody took it off because it didn't cite its sources. So much more can be said about pokemon as a whole there, as well as the reactions to the franchise and all the criticisms. If Bulbasaur is proven to be too niche of an article, I would strongly suggest looking at the pokemon article. Again, so much can be said there. Toastypk 00:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I will acknoledge that Bulbasaur is not a special Pokémon, but at the same time, it is the first one in the Pokédex, and the first one to be produced by this Wikiproject, which led to it being selected for nomination. Tsavage's analogy comparing Pokémon to leaves on a tree is inaccurate. A much better analogy might be to compare Pokémon to types of animals, or perhaps to professional fighters. Each and every Pokémon is unique enough to justify its own article. - CorbinSimpson 21:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Corbin: Unfortunately, my analogy is better than your alternatives (I am assuming you mean real animals and real pro fighters, not ones inhabiting an imaginary world). In the case of the TREE, the leaves first exist as a function of the tree, in service of the tree, as PART OF THE TREE. You can describe the leaves in general, but you can't single out just one of those leaves and say it is somehow "more of a leaf than the other leaves", unless that leaf does something...special. Remember, this is an encyclopedic standard we're talking about, a compendium (summary!) of EXISTING KNOWLEDGE, not just an indiscriminate, sprawling collection of info. Of course, you can take one leaf and describe it apart from all others, like, this green is different from that green, or whatever, but for an encyclopedia, a description of the LEAVES and their general variations is sufficient, there is no need to describe every leaf to describe all leaves. In the case of ANIMALS, that is simply a general term for very many different organisms with widely varying characteristics: without getting all metaphysical, "animals" have an existence independent of our classification, IOW, they are not first a "bunch of animals", they are what they are, they exist, and then we decide to describe them. A Pokemon character does not "exist" independently of Pokemon, it has nothing to distinguish it from other characters except what the game writers decide (and if one character has ADDITIONAL relevance to the...real world, that's what this article must explain). A PRO FIGHTER is first a person who becomes a fighter, and therefore has a unique personal history that becomes part of the fighter -- that is unique nature of each fighter... An INDIVIDUAL leaf is nothing but just another leaf until it does something to change the situation. In the same way, Bulbasaur is a Pokemon character type and no more, until it otherwise distinguishes itself (and this article does not do that). This is an encyclopedia, not an alternative guide to Pokemon. --Tsavage 23:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The first leaf of spring and the first leaf of fall both signal the change of seasons, and with that a change in mentality and in emotion. Each of these leaves would be important if a person understood the context in which they were used. May I remind you that each article is required to meet a minimum standard for FAC canidacy here; to hold any article to standards which one person (and one person alone) acknowlages leaves the rest of us out in the rain, and if we continue to adhere to your ridiculously high standards people will eventually lose interest in this whole process. So this article deals with one pokemon leaf. So what? From where I stand this article deserve no punishment from you based on your precious illusions; furthermore, if you practiced what you preached here the other pokemon articles would already have been redirected to prevent such a situation from arising in the future. TomStar81 03:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
        • TomStar81: I'm really not trying to be a punisher, only to do a good job as a FAC reviewer. I'm sorry you feel punished. I've thought of another way to perhaps make my point to you. If this is truly a high quality, FA-grade article, it should answer at least most simple questions from an "average" encyclopedia user, someone we can perhaps agree has heard of Pokemon, but doesn't know anything else about it. I'll try to present some easy questions that the article might raise:
          • When was Bulbasaur created?
            • Date unknown, but he was on the first game, so maybe early 1990's
          • Who created Bulbasaur?
          • Bulbasaur is one of how many Pokemon characters?
            • 386
          • If "lead critter" means popular, why is Bulbasaur more popular than other Pokemons?"'
            • He is one of three Pokemon that can be selected at the begining of the game, and also his heavy presence in the anime and other series
          • Is Bulbasaur a special character compared to other Pokemons?
            • See above
          • Why does Bulbasaur evolve into an Ivysaur and a Venusaur?
            • When it reaches level 16 and 32, respectively
          • Do Bulbasaur evolve in the video game but not in the TV show? The article says "Bulbasaur has decided it will be best if it does not evolve. Although this decision is not accepted by other Bulbasaur (and evolved forms thereof), it has been a decision that the other Bulbasaur have come to accept.
            • I am not familiar with the show, but in the game, the trainers can stop the evolution process from taking place.
          • How do Bulbasaurs communicate, can they speak to each other, to other characters, to people?
            • Bulbasaur usually speak by saying their name, partial or in full, regardless of who they speak to. It's something straight out of Lassie (Bark bark. what you say?, bark woof woof. so Cats stole all of our bases?)
          • How can you tell Bulbasaurs apart, do they have names?
            • You can give the Pokemon names in the game, but not sure about the series. However, if the Pokemon is owned by someone else, then it cannot be caught by another trainer.
          • Are Bulbasaurs wild creatures, where do they normally live?
            • All Pokemon are considered "wild," but they live in grassy areas, like medows, but usually are only found in the game as trophies or gifts.
          • Are there baby Bulbasaurs?
            • Probably
          • Are Bulbasaurs "biologicals" based on real biology, or on a Pokemon biological system?
            • Probably the latter.
          • The article says "Because of the heart-shaped marks on this Bulbasaur's forehead, it is commonly believed to be female." If May is female, and most Bulbasaurs are males, why can't the hearts mean that the Bulbasaur is in love with May? Especially since the article later mentions a female Bulbasaur "who has a crush on" someone.
            • I am lost here.
              • Because the Bulbasaur that has a crush on him is in a totally different genre that isn't officially made by Pokemon, the manga. Pokemon to not get crushes on humans. Plus, why do you say most Bulbasaurs are male? There is a gender districution of 50/50. --Celestianpower háblame 19:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
                • What I did was, I clicked the link for one of the references Statistical analysis of Bulbasaur at Psypokes.com and the page that came up said Bulbasaur Gender Ratio: Male 87.5% Female: 12.5%. So then, what's that about? --Tsavage 23:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
                  • My bad, sorry. I still don't think that that Bulbasaur has a cruch on the character. --Celestianpower háblame 23:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
          • In the trading card game, is the Bulbasaur a valuable card to have?
      • I don't think any of these questions are unreasonable or anything but really basic questions that an article reader might wonder about. Shouldn't a fairly comprehensive article answer some if not most of them? --Tsavage 05:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm really not trying to be a punisher, only to do a good job as a FAC reviewer. On this I can not argue; these high standards of yours do make you an ideal person to review, provided that you not forget policy(s) here. You are right in your assessment that a reasonably comprehensive article should answer some, if not all, of the above questions. I will admit that my support arises from having seen the show and having watched the card game played. This makes my opinion bais to some greater or lesser degree. I have made a judgement call to support this article just as you have made a judgement call not to support this article, based on the minimum criteria demanded of an article and on what each of us look for in FAC canidates. The fact that my judgement falls in support and yours in oppose does not mean that I do not respect you opinion. TomStar81 05:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, this sounds a little more like a rational discussion. :) If you don't find the article to be reasonably comprehensive by my test, then it follows that your vote of support is not for meeting the FA criteria, but, as you make clear, support based on using previous FAs as a minimum standard, which I don't believe is at all the process. In good conscience, you should recast your vote. In any case, I will strike my entire FAC objection if the above questions (and any other similar helpful bits that may occur to the editors) are reasonably addressed in good faith in the article. I'm not setting a list of demands that all my questions be answered, only using the questions as an actionable guideline to filling out the article to a minimum standard of comprehensiveness for this somewhat unusal encyclopedia topic. The references may still be guide books, but with this sort of additional basic info, at least readers will leave the article better informed about Bulbasaur... I don't know if you are part of the Pokemon posse, but I imagine the group can easily do this rather quickly. --Tsavage 17:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
              • SupportConditional Support proveded that the above points raised by Tsavage are met. TomStar81 18:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC) TomStar81 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't forget, Tsavage, that Wikipedia is NOT paper. We are able, because we are digital, to include vastly more information in our encyclopedia than paper could ever hold. We can be a collection of information pertinent to Pokémon with no worries as to whether or not we are wasting space. My favorite example is Klingon. If we allow this article, which is addressed to a faint, small minority, to stay simply because it is useful knowledge, then why not keep, and yes, occasionally feature, articles about a pop-culture phenomenon? Oh, and a tree's leaves are all the same. Pokémon are not. A pro wrestler, when taken out of the ring and the costume, is just another guy out on the street, not at all deserving of an article. His worth to the encyclopedia is completely dependent on his participation in the world of pro wrestling. Same thing with Pokémon... - CorbinSimpson 17:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
        • This is becoming vaguely surreal, like the through the looking glass version of Supreme Content Court, the Roe vs Wade of imaginary creatures' right to separate article existence solely because they...exist. So be it. :)
        • 1. One point in the WP:NOT policy is: "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." Other "points on the page" include a section titled: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and that section. for one. explicitly excludes "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides". Please point out how the "In the video game" section is anything more than just that, a mildly instructive video game guide entry.
        • 2. Why bring the Klingons into this? What is the relevance? I'm not suggesting that Bulbasaur be deleted, only that it does not meet FA criteria. It is not comprehensive. Remove the video game section, and the anime section (which is only a bunch of instances where Bulbasaur appeared in the Pokemon series). What's left is very little: the introduction (half of which by length is several foreign language translations of "Bulbasaur"), some mention of cross-promotions with fast food chains, brief notes about manga and trading cards, and a worm named after it. Is that FA quality content? (It may not even be "article" quality, but this is not WP:AFD.)
        • 3. I respectfully decline to extend further the original LEAVES analogy and subsequent discussion; I think the points on both sides concerning its validity have been sufficiently made. (I do have a new CAKE analogy, but that also seems unnecessary at this stage...)
      • You're perhaps mistaking my objection for something more than it is, because it is framed in WP policy and guidelines (what else should it refer to ?). The argument you seem to be making is that, "Why NOT have Bulbasaur, it demonstrates the cool, anti-elitist, broad-based, inclusionary, digital abundance of Wikipedia?" I do like the sound of that, but I don't apply it to Bulbasaur as a Featured Article. Why not develop Pokemon to "FA quality", or if it is already, submit it...? That would be nice... --Tsavage 19:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support best Pokemon article we have --Jaranda wat's sup 23:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Once again. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 03:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It seems to be of FA quality. --Oldak Quill 09:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article, fits the criteria - much better than it used to be. — Wackymacs 17:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, good article. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article! --Banana04131 01:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Objections

  • Object is CNN really the authority on Pokémon characters? Was there some kind of study involved in that article or is it the journalist's opinion? Anyways, I object mostly on the basis of comprehensiveness. The article does not cover the character in the real world much. For example, who/how/when/why was the character created? --maclean25 07:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    No, but if someone who knows nothing about Pokémon does konow Bulbasaur, that's relevant, no?
    • Who? The same person who invented them all, Satoshi Tajiri (as it says in the Pokémon article) - put that in if you like.
    • How? Well, drawn? What it was based upon is dotted about in the lead and appearance sections.
    • When? In the first Generation. I can find the year when it (and the other 150) was created and add that if you'd like.
    • Why? That's not really a relevant question, in my opinion. It specifically wasn'yt created for a reason. The franchise was created for a reason but Bulbasaur wasn't. --Celestianpower háblame 17:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Because Pokémon is a required reading, I don't think this article is comprehensive (articles need to be written for the non-expert to understand). As an article on a fictional character (or species) I expect to find its origin or 'raison d’être' (ie. in the real world) in the article. Also, I agree with the anon below that this article is currently more like a "character bio" (and plot summary) than a description/discussion of the subject (there is some good analysis in the article already and I was looking for more of that and less plot summary - especially for the manga and trading card game, why so much on video games and anime and so little on manga and cards?). I also agree with Tsavage's (below) assessment of the CNN.com reference.--maclean25 19:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Upon re-reviewing the article, I must maintain my objection. I could list small actionable concerns, like "in the same match duel a freshly rested Meganium to a draw" (should be wrested) or request better phrasing like in "it is commonly believed to be female" (makes it sound like there are people who disagree...so this is an opinion...which editor's opinion is this? do the rest agree?). However, I believe the flaw with this article goes much deeper than this. I will try to list these as best as I can below:
    • First, the article does not stand well on its own. As a non-expert, do I have to read Pokémon to understand this article? If the article cannot be self-contained then it should be merged with something that can make it whole. This dependence on familiarity with Pokémon is a result from not providing the appropriate context for which the subject belongs. An example: "to appear in the Advanced Generation series." Another example: "Bulbasaur remains on Ash's active roster..." - what is the role of Bulbasaur in the anime? I gather they are trained to fight something as a team...? Another example is the use of the word "Bulbasaur" throughout the article, referring to a specific individual, sometimes to a non-specific individual, sometimes as a plural referring to a group and sometimes referring to the species in general. For somebody not familiar with Pokémon this is difficult to keep track of. This can be resolved by indicating in the beginning that all member's of the species have the same name and that there are no differences between them. And what if anything is different between the manga, anime, video games, movies? Do they all exist in the same world or are they all unrelated stories?
    • Second, the article has little in the way of the subject existing as a fictional character. Its discussion is dominated by a plot summary of the anime and a discussion of the character's availability in the video games. This lack of real-world analysis comes from an over-reliance on promotional resources. The other resources seem to be just padding: the CNN ones used to acknowledge Bulbasaur's existence as a "lead critters", a few for the anime plot summaries and other fictional statistics and one to the anyone-can-edit, non-relaible source: Bulbagarden.net. The only published sources are promotional books (which are used appropriately) but nothing in the way of third-party analysis (except CNN/Time used in the intro). Not exactly a glowing example Wikipedia:Verifiability.
    • Third, the article is not balanced well. Specifically, why are the video game and anime sections so long and the manga and trading cards so short? Why is a plot summary so important in the anime but not the manga? Why no story background in the video game, or attack/defense analysis in the anime?
Finally, I would like to end by saying that I don't care for Pokémon, I have only reviewed this article based on its own qualities. I fear that if this is accepted as a FA then it will be used as a template for the other characters. I believe the article could benefit of a re-thinking of its organization and structure. There have been some very useful edits lately that have put useful info in odd places. With so much support here on Wikipedia, I would think that this article would be better presented. This article largely just preaches to the choir, so if their goal is to promote Pokémon then please work on making it more accessible. --maclean25 19:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Object A well-written article does not mean it should be featured. To me this article is more like a short character bio that is pretty irrelevant. A better article would be "effect of Pokemon on mass media or child development" or something like that. Plus, all the sources come from either game sites or fan sites (which are secondary or even tertiary sources), and Nintendo gamebooks. If this bulbasaur becomes FA, then I guess similary Pickachu and all others should be FA too, which is absurd when you think about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.65.66.80 (talk • contribs).
    • Could you please explain how this article could be improved then? Raul654 23:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Oy. Bring such objections up on the FA talk page, not here, as they relate to FA policy rather than any specific article. —Cuivienen (Return) 04:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Strongly Object I agree with BlueShirts and Tsavage, I believe they are offering very rational objections here. In contrast, I don't find most supports very helpful at all. Fine, so what if I object three times, I am just trying to help wikipedia. I will show you my input why this article by itself does not merit FA status. Where is your source that Bulbasaur is a portmanteau to make it sound like a dinosaur. Maybe Bulb is from light bulb, symbolziing the "shining transformation" of the Pokemons. It may be obvious, but do you have interviews from creators or anything like that? How do you know that it's a lizard, without any source this is comparable to saying that a gazelle is a jumping reptile. For all I care, Bulbasaur can be a mammals too (and does scientific classification really matter here?) You can say it's like a lizard, but that won't be appropriate here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not commentary. The Pokemon anime and game section I can't really find faults, except that they are descriptions of the game and the anime with Bulbasaur appearances. But again, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not a game guide, a TV guide, or a personal fan page. Really, think about it. An article with only four sections, a half-ass introduction, half-ass description, a game guide, and a TV guide of synopsis. Does this really mean a FA. Think about it. If this is FA, then does that mean any Pokemon with 1. some description and media mention 2. game and TV synopsis, should be a FA, there are 150 of them, because it's possible to do that for all Pokemon. Just throw away your anime or Pokemon biases for a second, and compare this article to other FAs (go read them before you say anything), do you really think that this is FA caliber? I am not saying this subject sucks here, but making this a FA would be a disgrace to wikipedia don't you think, because this is definitely not one of the best articles wikipedia has to offer. 171.65.67.47 19:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Reached any consensus yet? I guess it's gonna be taken off FAC soon. Whoa Ho Ho MAN!
    • Voting three times is against the rules and it certainly does not help Wikipedia. In fact, it causes disruption and makes Raul's job all the more difficult. Please stop it. --Celestianpower háblame 19:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but I thought votes don't matter here. I mean, this FAC has more supports than objects. Plus, what should I do if I want to add more to my objections? Thanx 171.65.67.47 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I have stricken your extra objections. I'm not certain that anons can vote at all on FAC, but as I'm not sure I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Just comment again along your objection. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Strongly Object The subject matter is definitely not FA caliber. Nothing insightful is provided. It's all about stats and appearances and a couple media mentioning of Bulbasaur. Lots of wasteful sentences to make the article longer. For example: Since you can't say anything about its gender, you put that "like many other Pokemon, its gender is unknown...blah blah blah. Plus, where is your source that it is commonly believed to be male? I mean, what the use? Agree? Why not making "Pokemon" a FAC? Or "Nintendo" a FAC? I don't see how Bulbasaur is relevant at all. I suspect that Bulbasaur will hardly be a FA, but likely to be a perennial FAC. - 171.65.66.217 02:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Again, this is a comment on FA policy and not this FAC in particular. Any article on Wikipedia can become a featured article regardless of its "importance" - "subject matter" is not an FA criterion. While you make some valid points - about the gender line - most of your objection cannot be addressed and does not even pertain to this article specifically. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I've removed the "commonly believed to be male" line. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I'd also have Raul note that this user has only two edits, both to this page. It is also almost certainly the same user as 171.65.66.80 who objected above. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Also, this should is supposed to stand out on it's own merits, and there is not rule saying that it's parent article has to become an FA in order to make sub-articles become FA's. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 03:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Object As we enter the second month of deliberations, a more all-out effort to clarify my (and several other similar) objections seems necessary. IMO, while this looks and reads like an "encyclopedia article", with the neat infobox, Notes and References and all, the subject itself does not seem to merit a separate article. How is Bulbasaur so uniquely different from other Pokemon characters? It would seem more properly a redirect to Pokemon or Pokemon types. In fact, if you imagine picking any topic -- like...Bulbasaur -- and saying, let's write an article about it at all costs, with whatever little we can find, this might be the result. It simply doesn't sufficiently distinguish this Pokemon character from the 150 or more (?) other characters. It's like taking an article about a famous tree, say, the Major Oak (the "Robin Hood" tree in England), and then deciding to write separate articles for each leaf on that tree. Sure, the leaves are arguably "famous oak leaves" because they make up the tree itself, and no two leaves are identical, but unless each leaf had uniquely distinguished itself from all other Major Oak leaves, this subarticling approach would be absurd. The only difference here is that the parts of the "Pokemon franchise" known as characters are uniquely named and described, but that is only a property of what they are within the game system itself. As presented, this article is really no more than a video game guide entry. The article suffers from an absence of demonstrated notability, and much of it actually goes against the WP:NOT policy, which precludes "advice ... suggestions,... walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides". It gets worse. In apparently trying to shore up the "encylopedia" format by including (padding with?) various info, a fair bit of puzzling and inconsistent stuff has been (probably inadvertently) included, for example, in one place stating that the German translation of Bulbasaur refers to some sort of rodent, while elsewhere describing it as a lizard. Some examples which I find illustrative of this overall evaluation:
  • the lead is padded with unnecessary translations Why include French and German translations? It is interesting to note the translation from the original Japanese character name, but then to go on to others serves what purpose? It is like including all of the foreign language titles of a movie. Unless some context is presented justifying it, it seems like indiscriminate inclusion of detail. And are there only Japanese, English, French and German Pokemon versions? German and French translations removed. -TS
  • "a portmanteau of "bulb" (from the large bulb on its back) and 'sauros' (Greek for "lizard")" is unsupported and seems like a stretch, since "dinosaur" is also mentioned. This seems more like an awkward attempt to construct an etymological reference that isn't warranted. At the least, it needs a citation... Bulb+dinosaur would be suffient...
  • the "lead critters" quote and statement is vague and the citation source taken somewhat out of context The intended impression, I gather, is the "major news media have identified Bulbasaur as outstanding from most other Pokemon characters". This is not exactly the case. The CNN.com quote in better context is: "Each card pictures one of some 150 Pokémon characters ... some of the lead critters are ... Pikachu ... Jigglypuff ... Bulbasaur". The Time Asia article reference to character popularity is even more passing: "the three more popular Pokémon ... Charmander ... Bulbasaur ... Squirtle". So, from these sources, Bulbasaur seems one of several more popular characters from amongst all characters, but otherwise not outstanding for any independent reason. Line up a hundred people, and more passers by will likely "like" some more than others -- without elaborating on the reasons for this, there is no particular claim here other than the obvious one, that people have preferences.
  • the "Appearance" and "In the video game" sections (one-third of the article) violate WP:NOT These are practically textbook video game guide entries, providing only self-referencing info originating from within the game play system. For another topic, this would simply be a product description or product specification.
"The Dark Prince uses the Daggertail, a powerful mid-range, chain-like weapon, and the Dagger of Time. Unlike the Prince, he cannot collect any other weapon." - Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones game guide, included with the game CD.
"Bulbasaur's reasonably high Special Attack and Special Defense statistics mean that it has strong grass and poison attacks (such as Vine Whip and Razor Leaf) and is strong when attacked with these sorts of attacks." - this article
  • the "In the Pokémon anime" section is essentially a list of Bulbasaur appearances in the Pokemon TV series This is a dubious enough approach, as in Sam Malone (Cheers), but there, at least, Sam is a leading and distinct character, not one of dozens of game characters explicitly created to balance each other out in game play (IOW, an critical aspect of Bulbasaur is that it is NOT outstanding within Pokemon, else it couldn't be beat...correct me if I'm wrong). In any case, this one-third of the article offers no real insight into Bulbasaur, just a selective, neutral description of events in a cartoon series.
  • the inclusion of the "BULBASAUR" software worm sentence is arbitrary and as it stands unnecessary detail With a US6$ billion annual worldwide franchise, Pokemon is obviously popular, so there are no doubt MANY THINGS named after characters and many places where their names may appear. Unless some particular connection between Bulbasaur and the worm is established (e.g. was it specifically targetting Bulbasaur fans, not just Pokemon fans?), it doesn't belong in "In other media", maybe perhaps in trivia. And a trivia section ALONE wouldn't justify a Bulbasaur article, unless each item could be related specfically to Bulbasaur, not just "one of the Pokemon characters". IOW, keyword search results for Bulbasaur don't justify separation from Pokemon as a whole. Worm removed. -TS
  • the two primary references are both official Pokemon consumer guides They are not even official third-party developer manuals or anything else that might have "background" info on Bulbasaur, they are fully part of the consumer franchise... That's tantamount to writing an article based only on advertisements and product literature.

Well, that was kind of mind-boggling, and it seems kind of ridiculous to go on, but I could (please ask if you must). Basically, Bulbasaur is "well-known" because it is a proprietary game element name of a popular game, but apart from that, it is not shown here to possess any thing that distinguishes it from any other part of that game. To "fix" this article would mean justifying it by demonstrating that Bulbasaur is more than simply one of a class of similar components in the Pokemon game, already covered in Pokemon types. If such material exists, then this article is obviously serious lacking in comprehensiveness. --Tsavage 17:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The edits noted above are good. Bulbasaur the Article I think benefits from them. Please note that if all of my objections are treated similarly, there will remain only a stub, one that needs enriching with information of real encyclopedic interest. I would hope that a "sincere attempt at addressing some of the overall unreasonable-by-virtue-of-number Tsavage objections" doesn't lead to an "FA for effort", where this article as it stands is still at least 80% straight video game guide/fan guide material, and referenced exclusively from such sources. --Tsavage 18:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Object Most information is derived from instruction manual and game guides, with some "padding" going on. is this encyclopedic? BlueShirts 02:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    What in there do you think is not relevant and is just padding? And it would seem many people disagree with your conclusion that it isn't encyclopediac. --Celestianpower háblame 12:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Weak Object The point is, is that if this is given FA staus, what will that mean for other well written Pokèmon articles? The Snorlax page for instance is nearly as good as the Bulbasaur one, and if the Snorlax page gets some good references and some ironing out than it will be eligible on the basis that Bulbasaur is a FA. The point is, is that there is also the Good Article classification, which I feel is a very good fit for this well written article, when I read through this article, i cannot help but think, this isn't FA status. Thethinredline 13:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This will mean nothing to the other articles related to Pokemon. While I am still unfamiliar with the Good Article process itself, I wonder what suggestions you like to bring to the table so either myself or celestianpower can fix it. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 13:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, this oppose vote isn't valid at the moment as the criticism isn't workable. --Celestianpower háblame 18:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Alright, i'll withdraw my criticism, however I am not the user who anonymously offered ojection below... That is someone else.Thethinredline 08:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. It reads like a fan magazine information wise. It's neutral enough, but only contains the type of information a fan would want: how it plays, what games/shows it is in, etc. Only two quotes make any effort to establish the importance or relevance of the topic, and neither are compelling. What could help would be some industry sales figures, and some other attempt at determining the popularity/importance of the topic. The references are very weak and either reflect lack of research or lack of the existence of verifiable information. Either one keeps it from being the best Wikipedia has to offer. I'll check back periodically here if needed. - Taxman Talk 20:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Is this any good? It talks about Pokemon toys (using Bulbasaur as an exaple) came above Furbys in terms of Christmas sales in 1999. I will continue hunting. --Celestianpower háblame 22:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • object rambling style with not enough cohesive motivation....references are inadequate...if no one of stature has pusblished anything meaningful on this topic then the article suffers from inadequate academic basis....need some research on japanese linguistics regarding japanese name instead of all the inane question marks dont you think????????? :) Anlace 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe the question marks are a problem on your end. I see Japanese characters. Tuf-Kat 04:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • This means you have not installed Japanese fonts onto your system, this is your fault Anlance, not Wikipedia's or the article's itself. Alternatively, your browser you're using may also affect this aspect of the article. — Wackymacs 20:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Do you want to address any other comments from Anlace other than the font? BlueShirts 01:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • ".if no one of stature has pusblished anything meaningful on this topic then the article suffers from inadequate academic basis" - this is not an actionable objection. Raul654 01:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • It's a bit off the mark, but not totally. Lack of verifiable material is sufficient grounds for deleting articles, so it should be sufficient grounds to keep it from being featured. - Taxman Talk 23:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
        • The information is certainly verifiable, it seems to be more of a question of whether people want to trust the sources as some of them have vested corporate interests in the topic. To me, that argument sounds ridiculous, but perhaps not to others. After all, who knows Bulbasaur better than its inventors, Nintendo? —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 03:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
          • This is getting a little off what the original objector said. It is not an issue of verifiability as all the references, except Bulbagarden.net and the probably the McDonald's card list, are used correctly. Though I see they are currently in the wrong order. The point being made is that the research for this article was not exhaustive, but limited to internet searches and two promotional books. There are many non-promotional books on Pokemon...none provide analysis of one of its lead characters? The objector said, in my estimation, that from the look of this article it would appear, "no one of stature has pusblished anything meaningful on this topic". --maclean25 05:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since it seems so difficult to establish consensus, especially around the issue of comprehensiveness, I've assembled what I think is a fair and balanced excerpt of comments that I think roughly agree on the same problem, from eight object votes, none of them mine. The common thread should be obvious here, from EIGHT presumably separate FAC reviewers, that the subject isn't fully covered, that it is not sufficient for video game character comprehensiveness to build an article entirely from game guide/TV guide info:
  • It reads like a fan magazine information wise. It's neutral enough, but only contains the type of information a fan would want: how it plays, what games/shows it is in, etc. Only two quotes make any effort to establish the importance or relevance of the topic, and neither are compelling.
  • Most information is derived from instruction manual and game guides, with some "padding" going on. is this encyclopedic?
    Where else do you expect to find information? They created it: nobody else could tell you about its character. What about goomba? That's FA but who else tells you about it other than the people who created the games? Plus, there's only 2 references. --Celestianpower háblame 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The concern is not that it uses the manual/guide sources, but rather that the article uses them so heavily. I'd certainly expect a writer to go to the source to find out certain details. Other sources are only used for very specific phrases, with the exception of the anime plot summary. The result is a limited discussion of the subject. -maclean25
  • The references are very weak and either reflect lack of research or lack of the existence of verifiable informaton. Either one keeps it from being the best Wikipedia has to offer.
    See above. --Celestianpower háblame 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • rambling style with not enough cohesive motivation....references are inadequate...if no one of stature has pusblished anything meaningful on this topic then the article suffers from inadequate academic basis
    Two things, 1). A lot of people disagree with you on its style. 2). Raul has disagregarded the second criticism. --Celestianpower háblame 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There may not have been any non-fiction/academic books on Bulbasaur by itself but there has been a few on Pokemon. I don't know this for sure but they probably mention Bulbasaur and might provide some analysis of the character. -maclean25
  • Although its not a bad overview of bulbasaur within the video game, there is little assertion of his importance outside of the video game.
    Did you not notice the anime section? In other media? I'm about to add some bits about the toys too, if you'll bear with me. --Celestianpower háblame 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The anime section is dominated by a plot summary - this is not an "assertion of his importance". I expect a plot summary of the Bulbasaur storyline in the anime. However, the anime section, as opposed to the video game section, does not analyse Bulbasaur's role in the series. Also, I starting to get confused with the anime..."Advanced Generation series, the third series of the show." what is the difference between show and series? Do it mean something like the third season of the show? (or do I have to read the Pokemon article first? I refuse!! I should be able to understand the article without prerequiste reading - except the technical info like Pokedex and attack levels.) Did Bulbasaur have big role in the movies?
In the media section I see that it was recently discovered that Bulbasaur was the lead character in a children's book. There is probably more. And that the subject appearred in more card series than just the Japanese McDonald's trading cards. (why did so many people think the article was comprehensive before?) Next thing you know, there will be an entire section on the subject's role in the fantasy card games, or someone will add in something about Beanie babies made of the subject. Also, I hope people are able to see the difference here between using CNN/Time to tell the reader that the subject is popular and using merchandise and cross-media tie-ins as examples of its popularity. (hint: one provides details and concrete examples, the other says 'you trust this source, right? well they think this'). -maclean25
As to the Pokemon trading cards, yes, it does - this is detailed in the section. I added in the other book and Furby reference. --Celestianpower háblame 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Short, and I'm not convinced that this is all that could be found. For instance, information on evolution gets only a mention in the infobox - I suspect this could be as much as a whole section on its own.
  • Evolution is now mentioned in a paragraph of its own. This criticism is no longer relevant to the article. --Celestianpower háblame 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There is just an inherent limitation on the article's quality when all of the information comes from Nintendo publications. ...There's just nothing special here.
    I like you'll find that the articles quality is good. You may disagree with the quantity but that's bnot an FA criteria.
  • Nothing insightful is provided. It's all about stats and appearances and a couple media mentioning of Bulbasaur. Lots of wasteful sentences to make the article longer.
    Where are the wasteful sentences. I can't find any. --Celestianpower háblame 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That's gotta be some sort of sub-consensus? --Tsavage 02:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Umm, no, that doesn't. Counting running totals is bad for the process. That's Rauls's job. Anyway, some of these opposes are nonsensical. I've qestioned some of them above. Plus, if you want the number of supports, theres 25. Plus, all of your points have been solved: I don't see you crossing out your objections. --Celestianpower háblame 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. (I have a deadline, but I'll comment, and check on the status of my withdrawing objection "deal", after 2pm ET, if this is still here...) Till then, consider: Would you support a...well-formed FAC detailing the specs and functional details of my fine Sony 6-in-1 Universal Remote Control? It will have an infobox (for consumer electronic/home entertainment products), it will have an impressive set of references, including trade journal articles that mention it, and it has the notability of being a world-famous Sony product... A convenient WP guide to a fine universal remote... Perhaps that's the "comprehenisveness" question? --Tsavage 14:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If the Wikipedia community had agreed to allow an article then yes, of course. --Celestianpower háblame 18:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Do the raw number of support v. oppose votes count? or is it a 'two-supporters thinks it meets FA quality and nobody has brought up anything that would make Raul654 suspect otherwise' thing? or something else? --maclean25 19:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps this comparison will help clarify the issue of comprehensiveness and being "too short", and notability, for that matter. IMO, much of the problem with this FAC review is that without a solid knowledge of Pokemon and Bulbasaur, it is very difficult to come up with convenient, "actionable" criticisms when the problems are comprehensiveness and compelling content and writing. Compare this article with another FA, for Link (Legend of Zelda) (and read, or at least glance at that article). I'm not sure how much this has been edited since FA promotion -- in any case, this is an excerpt from the current first paragraph:
Introduced as a generic sword-fighting hero, the character was typical of fantasy-adventure games. However, later Legend of Zelda titles revealed significantly more details about him. The game's success—over 6.5 million copies sold worldwide[1]—and that of its numerous sequels made Link one of Nintendo's best-known characters. Link is named for the "link" the player shares with the hero of each game[2], and in every game, the player can name the character according to his or her wishes.
The premise is clear, the context and the role (notability) of this particular character are established, interest is created, "anyone" who reads on is well-prepared to find out more. This is compelling writing summarizing a solid article. While the main text covers the same general territory as Bulbasaur, unlike here, it is well organized (check the ToC) and detailed, and thoroughly develops the introductory themes. After reading the entire intro, I expected to find out what makes up a smash hit video game character, and that is delivered. I can read the entire intro and stop, or read all of the rest of the lengthy article, or jump to sections based on the ToC. No such thing is possible here. It is unfortunate that clear actionable one-liner objections can't be as easily presented for comprehensiveness, good editorial planning and structure, good research, and compelling (interesting and well-structured) writing. However, these are given equal weight in the FA criteria, regardless of whether they are harder to pin down than copyvios, lack of references, or some of the other more mechanical FA requirements. (I will get back to my "vote", I'll probably withdraw, not strike, my objection, as it has once again become too unwieldy to comfortably maintain.) Hopefully this latest comment helps to focus our marathon discussion on basic QUALITY. --Tsavage 23:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That's a fair comment in terms of comparison with Link - although I disagree that one can go to any section and immediately undertand (I go to this section and have no idea what the heck it's on about). Bulbasaur, while shorter, is basically the same as Link as most of the article focusses on information gained exclusively from game guides and official sources. In the Bulbasaur article (thanks partly to your criticisms), there are now many more references to statistics and this helps both the article on a verifiable basis and on that of support for the claims made. Its popularity is now more clearly demonstrated. --Celestianpower háblame 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Article reads like it hit the ground dead. -- Peripatetic 23:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    Not an FA critera, ergo, invalid vote. --Celestianpower háblame 12:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Other comments

  • Neutral. I feel it's too short, but it's borderline, and I don't want to discourage contributors, so I won't oppose. Everyking 06:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment/QuestionHas there already been a ruling by a higher power as to whether or not the pictures used on the page are indeed in infringement of copyright?Thethinredline 08:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The bueracratic fuck in me says that they are, Pokemon says that they are, but Wikipedians think it is fair use. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 14:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • How are the pictures infringements upon copyright? You are aware that images that fall under the fair use category are not copyright violations, aren't you?Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 15:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • My view is that we should respect the copyright holders of the image: Pokemon USA, Inc, the company that holds the copyright of anything and everything Pokemon. According to their terms of use page on their website, their content cannot be used for commercial purposes, and Jimbo has banned those images since May of 2005. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 19:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No, Jimbo banned images that the company has authorised us to. This is a clear case of Fair use. Plus, this is not a commercial purpose. --Celestianpower háblame 19:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Quote from the lead of Bulbasaur: According to Time magazine, Bulbasaur is considered one of the "lead critters" in the series and CNN refers Bulbasaur and his later evolutions as "the Carmen Miranda of Pokémon figures". Why do we need Time and CNN to tell us this? :) Those are, at best, tertiary sources about Bulbasaur and neither of the two articles says anything substantial about him. I mean, I'm sure that CNN has at some point mentioned Odin in their coverage but it would be strange to open the Odin article with a quote from CNN about how he is one of the "lead gods" in Norse mythology. What critical/analytic/academic sources on Bulbasaur are available? Quote those. - Haukur 21:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: can someone post an external link to the referenced book: "Pokémon Special Pikachu Edition Official Perfect Guide"? The ISBN 130206151 is drawing blanks and google shows nothing. Also, the http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/May's_Bulbasaur is listed in both the "References" and the "External links". It should only be in one or the other, but not both. If it is a reference, may I ask what info was used from there? --maclean25 10:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I can't tell you about the first one but I can tell you about the Bulbapedia link. I got some of the information about May's Bulbasaur in the anime from there - in fact, I think there's an i-note somewhere. --Celestianpower háblame 12:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Under that ISBN number, I found listed at Amazon.com Pokemon Special Pikachu Edition Includes Red-Yellow-Blue (Versus Books Strategy Guide). It is one of several in a "Perfect Guide" series. It is apparently out of print and available through Amazon from secondary sellers. The publisher, Versus Books (DBA of Empire Publishing Inc, CA), may no longer exist, as their office contents were sold at public auction. No description of the book is given, but an Amazon "Book Description" for another Pokemon Perfect Guide by the same author (Casey Loe), says:
      • ... the most detailed walk through and the most massive Pokedex ever. This book not only will help you find all the Pokemon, but will also give you get the most fun out of the experience of playing Pokemon Crystal. Only Versus Books can provide the Perfect Guide for Pokemon games.
    • So, it is one of several commercial "value-added" game guides for Pokemon players, with walkthroughs, game play strategy and the like. --Tsavage 18:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • To answer the "the "lead critters" quote and statement is vague and the citation source taken somewhat out of context," I redone the CNN statement, since in the CNN article, it compares Bulbasaur, and his later evolutions, to Carmen Miranda, which is something I think that is unique. The Time Asia reference still says that Bulbasaur is one of the lead critters/creatures in this game. As for the DE and FR translations, I nuked those, and I also nuked the virus references, since I do not see any concrete evidence that the viruses were named intentionally after this creature. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 20:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Bulbasaur FAC is gonna be down pretty soon. It's not going to be FA for sure. Definitely not one of the best articles wikipedia has to offer. 171.65.66.179 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Rape

A thorough article with many sources listed. --kralahome 00:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object- no inline citations provided. AndyZ 01:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object- major POV and attribution problems. --Pascal666 04:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: Quotations should be moved to WikiQuote. --Carnildo 05:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - I feel this article has a while to go before it is ready to be featured. My main objection is on the article's structure - this article tries to spend a brief moment discussing a wide range of topics that could loosely come under the banner of rape. While a comprehensive article is desirable, many of the sections of the article need only a brief mention in the article (if that). My suggestion would be to look at dramatic restructuring of the article focusing on a handful of distinct headings that you feel best summarise the article. Don't worry if you leave out some aspects on the topic of rape or shift them to a sub-article.
Specifically, some sections that could be replaced with a brief paragraph or sentence referencing a sub-article include:
  • The Reporting section
  • The Sociobiological analysis of rape section
Some sections that could be amalgamated (or at least placed sequentially next to one another) include:
  • The role of control and loss of privacy in rape and Rapists sections
  • The Law, Reporting, Rape and human rights and Rape and punishment sections
Some sections that could be removed and their material excluded or incorporated elsewhere in the article include:
  • The Non-sexual usage of term section
  • The Quotes section which could be placed as side-boxes throughout the article (see the very cool Template:Cquote)
Finally the Some aspects of rape section is like a miscellanea on rape section. How to incorporate the contents of this section into the article has to be rethought.
Cedars 05:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Can't possibly be comprehensive, as there are "Expansion Request" tags scattered throughout it. I also agree with Cedars, above. Expand and fork. Fieari 17:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Does not represent a trans-biological view. Ksenon 08:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If you mean transgender I tried to add that catagory and it was deleted twice. I will report it to some agencies. If it's important to you you might add it.--12.211.21.87 20:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)survivor
  • Just wanted to add that I found this article full of POV rape myths last year. It has made tremendous progress since then and I am very proud of it. A good sample of a rape entry for an encyclopedia is groliers online http://www.ncwiseowl.org/ --Survivor 06:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Article is currently unstable. Furthermore, like Ksenon says, it does not account for animal behaviour. Mallards have been observed to engage in rape, and so has seals. So has many other species. No analysis is provided on this, and it is totally anthrocentric, with lots of systemic bias. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • object article is far from complete. Needs to show how females commit sexual assault and rape which is often very different in form from how males do it (eg Physical versus psychological tactics) Also needs a sound section on the known causes of rape because rape myths are a big feminist political football and because we show the effects of rape here.
  • It was just changed recently to include gender classifications so of course it wont be complete soon. What do causes of rape have to do with rape myths? Rape myths are lists of incorrect ideas usually based on victim blaming and the just world theory. They protect survivors from slander.--12.211.21.87 05:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)survivor
  • object I think this article has degenerated badly over the last few months, and no longer gives a balanced, detailed discussion of the subject, but rather a list of quotes emphasising victimhood. The history section is confused, since the historical development of the term and of the concept of what constitutes "rape" is not explored in detail. Contrary to the assertions of User:Natalinasmpf non-human rape is discussed, but its discussion is truncated. Paul B 01:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel most of the problem with this page is that it is often POV against victims. After all- the survivor of rape is just that. You are discussing rape- rape is a crime which has a perpetrator and a victim. I can't imagine why on earth anyone would be biased against victims of violent crime. I also think the history needs work. It completely ignores the introduction of rape crisis centers in the 1970's. That was a huge event and very pertinent to the subject. I know some people here don't like feminists but they are part of the history. --12.211.21.87 21:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: It is one thing to protect survivors from slander and quite another to protect people who use rape for political purposes to pander to self-serving POV's at the expense of other survivors or at the expense of a whole gender. I want to see ALL POV's here. Victimhood is a valid POV but so are the POV's of view of those who are beyond victimhood and those who commit sex offense crimes. Victims of female perps receive almost no acknowledgement, resources and justice in a rape crisis industry dominated by feminists who spout simplistic and thoughtless slogans about the patriarchy, male domination, and rape as a weapon that all men use to dominate all women. What nonsense, as women rape women, often their own children and women rape men too... again often their own children or other dependents. In Unspeakable Acts: Men who Molest Children Author Douglass Prior notes how his courageous attempts to listen to male molesters about why they committed their crimes was often squelched and/or rejected by the establishment researchers. He also noted that many of these men were themselves molested by both men and women in childhood. The shameless, simplistic, and status quo male power and control 'female-victim as innocent saint' against all males as monsters rhetoric is beginning to stink to high heaven. We need to have NPOV balance here and be skeptical of all POV's, especially those most connected to 'movements' and their associated political ploys and that includes male movements too.Anacapa 03:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Scotch College, Perth

I have a self nominated this article, because I believe this is of a high standard. It is already featured on the schools portal. SELF NOM --HamedogTalk|@ 13:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It was. Look at the talk page --HamedogTalk|@ 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, but since it was such a while back, you should have put a link here. I couldn't find it otherwise. Daniel Case 21:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The references are screwed up; the {{ref}} tags go in the text and the {{note}} tags go in the References section. AndyZ 20:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I did what you suggested and now they won't work.--HamedogTalk|@ 23:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, works now --HamedogTalk|@ 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Is chess really a sport? Some of the other lists should be converted to prose. AndyZ 01:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article has gotten a lot better since Hamedog took over its writing, but is still heavily list-dominated. We want prose in a Wikipedia-wide featured article, and given how hard its been to get school articles through FAC, only the best survive. Also, where is there anything speaking even critically, let alone negatively, about the school? No wrongs, ever? Nothing in the Perth press about high fees, or too exclusive? Just thought that needed to be noted. Harro5 21:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't actaully find anything like that on google. The only thing that springs to mind the the porn tape at PLC, a girls school scotch sometimes has socials with. --HamedogTalk|@ 09:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Has many lists which should be converted into prose. Also, requires footnotes. It seems well on its way, but requires some more revision and probably another Peer Review sometime in the future. RyanGerbil10 23:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I have put some of the lists into seperate pages but I think if i was to remove the music and sports list it would take away from the article. --HamedogTalk|@ 09:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Footnotes for...--HamedogTalk|@ 00:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Object—Criterion 2a: the writing is uniformly mediocre. Tony 03:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment- I have converted some of the lists but not sure if I should change the rest as it means a sentance will probably be a list and this doesn't always look good. --HamedogTalk|@ 06:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Knots Landing

This is a self-nomination. I have added to this article anything one could ever reasonably want to know about Knots Landing. This was a popular show 20 years ago and many Wikipedians could rediscover it through this informative article were it made a featured article.

Juppiter 05:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Where is the wikification? I'm going through page after page of black text in the first section. It may be plot summary, but that doesn't mean we refuse to wikify altogether. --DanielNuyu 05:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This remark is a little bit hard. This article is really well written and complete. "Black Text" ??? Is it needed to repeat the links several times. All the intersting links (actors, CBS, California, ...) are already listed somewhere in the page. Lvr 10:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this objection is somewhat harsh. I can't see any words that should be wikilinked in the plot summaries, that are not already linked. Perhaps if you think there are some that should be, you could go and link them. Or at least give some examples. Rossrs 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. You've certainly done a lot of work, which is great, but I think the article compares unfavorably with the featured The_West_Wing_(television) or Arrested Development. The entire section "who lived where" to me seems like trivia - is it important in some way to the history of the show or the plot or something? Also, the writing is somewhat unencyclopedic (in my opinion), but this may reflect the difficulty in writing about a soap opera in dispassionate language. There ought to be many more references I think. I see you didn't get many comments at peer review, which is too bad, but there's a good article in there somewhere. I edited the intro somewhat; hope that helps. Kaisershatner 15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Certainly has the depth of information to be featured, but needs a greater focus on prose and less of a focus on lists. Also, needs a comprehensive reference and footnote system throughout the article. Perhaps a Peer Review and copy-edit would be beneficial. RyanGerbil10 23:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

James Frey

An extensive, documented article covering James Frey and the "Million Little Pieces" episode. Justforasecond 04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. The embedded HTML links need to be converted into full citations as per WP:CITE. In addition, as the article is currently tagged with a current event tag and describes multiple events that have occured during the last week the article does not currently appear to be stable (criteria 2e). --Allen3 talk 04:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Justforasecond 20:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object sorry to say this but it is nowhere near ready- consider Peer Review first. No references, inline citations, weak lead. Years alone should not be linked- see Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. The first sentence itself demonstrates incorrect comma use. The Biography is weak, and the external links hamper the readibility of the article. A thorough copyedit should also occur. AndyZ 20:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is not comprehensive. It needs better sectioning, and the sections which currently exist need to be made longer, and needs to have references and footnotes. Lists need to be converted into prose, and I'm concerned that such a current topic, over which fallout is still occurring, may make it too unstable to be featured at the moment. As would be expected with very current, heavily edited articles, a copyedit and a grammar check would both probably be good ideas. RyanGerbil10 23:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: Not stable. The fellow is in the news, and he is staying in the news. It's hard to write a biography (rather than a news background) when a person's life has gotten only to the "published first book" stage and when that life is, itself, a subject of ongoing inquiry. There is no way to see this fellow in context, as there is no context yet, and there is no way to be stable in our article, as he continues to get retracted, blamed, praised, defended, etc. Geogre 19:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

University of Arkansas

Pretty concise and complete article with many subarticles that could be integrated if need be. --The_stuart 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Lacks references (just two notes from school's own website?), sports section very unappealing—needs to be consolidated and have more information added—and, in general, even if the subarticles were integrated, I do not think this would qualify as a comprehensive article. I wouldn't even refer it to peer review, as it needs the basic requirement of more substantial content at this point. --DanielNuyu 05:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree with the lack of references (how could I tell that much of the material has not been exaggerated or outright fabricated?) and comprehensiveness. For instance, did nothing of note happen during the 20th to the 21st century, and is there no research done at the university? Also, nothing flows well from one point of the article to another (e.g. there is a passage about a park and then suddenly there is a fact about IP addresses). Please refer to the University of Michigan and Michigan State University articles for examples of featured university articles. PentawingTalk 07:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Further comment - Refer to peer review - I went in to attempt a cleanup on the article, but compared to the only two university articles that are featured this article does not measure up. There is no balance between sections (too much emphasis on traditions and sports, not enough on academics, history, or the campus setting). The "interesting facts" and "boring facts" sections are, in my view, completely unprofessional for an encyclopedia article (especially for one that is attempting to achieve featured status). Hence, in its current state I personally can't see this article being featured on the first try. PentawingTalk 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Not even close. Needs references, expanded sections, more comprehensive detail, (at the moment, the emphasis is almost entirely on sports.) Although not an FA requirement, more pictures would be nice, especially of a place as public as a college campus. RyanGerbil10 23:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a; not well written. The opening is a good example:
"The University of Arkansas, also known as the U. of A., or simply The Hill, is a public coeducational land-grant university system, and the main campus is located in Fayetteville in the state of Arkansas, USA. Founded as Arkansas Industrial University in 1871 (Arkansas is renowned for its robust programs in agriculture and business),..."
    • 'and' is clumsy.
    • the parenthetical clause has an unclear relationship with the previous sentence.
"Other branch campuses are University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff, and others in ..."
    • Clumsy repetition of 'other'; ungrammatical. Then the next sentence starts with 'Additionally', and the one after with 'Other'. Not a good look.

It's a bit listy, and there are some rather stubby subsections. Not comprehensive; have a look at the FAs on other US universities.

Tony 04:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Objection withdrawn, see belowObject.Strongly object, contained copyvio Since writing the comments below, I've discovered that at the time the article was nominated, and as of 16:23, 5 February 2006, the three paragraphs comprising the entire content of the "History and Founding" section were copied almost verbatim from the University of Arkansas's website, http://www.uark.edu/rd_vcad/urel/publications/profile/2003/525.htm . I removed it this content (in case anyone is wondering why that section is currently empty. This means that at the time it was nominated, this article did not comply with either of the two provisions that are supposed to apply to every edit: "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The article also has problems with promotional spin ("academic programs are in excess of 200, which is more than is offered by some much larger universities"). It has serious problems with sourcing and verifiability. The editors need to understand that content does not merely need to be true, it needs to be verifiable in the sense of the verifiability policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not expressing an opinion now. All of the specific problems I complained of have been addressed. Six or seven specific unsourced items I tagged with Citation needed tags have been sourced. The new History and Founding section is thin and reads as if it were a paraphrase of material from the UArk website, but it is a paraphrase and not a verbatim copy. I think it would be churlish to raise fresh issues, and so am no longer expressing an opinion for or against. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Just about every concern that has been addressed has been fixed. Seems to be a sound article now. (Cardsplayer4life 03:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC))
    • See my comments above. Unfortunately, I don't share your sentiments. PentawingTalk 02:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Intresting facts" and other similarly named trivia lists tend to be bad form for featured articles. I suggest this information be incorporated into the article or turned into a section of it's own. Just using the word "intresting" is POV.--The_stuart 21:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I am new here, but it seems to be an interesting article that I would like to see on the home page. (24.98.38.207 22:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

Pakistan Army

This article is a very through examination of the Pakistan Army. It examines the major wars, minorities in the army, the recruitment process, insignia of the commanders and the weapons and tactics of the Army as well. It is written in a neutral fashion despite the heated issues which comes with this subject matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mercenary2k (talk • contribs).

  • Object -- Far too many subheadings, unbalanced sections, presence of excess lists, dubious image copyrights, no specific references among the many things wrong with this article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's absurdly list-heavy. Raul654 17:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The article has certainly improved a lot, but I have the following comments:

  • The history section has been removed completely to another article. That's fine, but a summary of the history should be added in this article. Without this, the article won't be complete, as required by criteria 2(b).
  • Citations need to be provided for the source of the information presented (criteria 2(c)).
  • Copyright issues of some images are not clear. For example, Image:Shahida-malik-interview2.jpg is taken from a news paper, this is not a public domain image. Same goes for other images like those of the weapons (taken from pakdefence.com , not public domain images.(Criteria 4)
  • Object - lack of inline citations. AndyZ 00:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So, I'd like to see these issues resolved before this can be added as a featured article. Thanks. --Ragib 07:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Mastermind 15:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC) ---- I would only like to say two words "Pakistan Zindabad!". not only I'm from Pakistan, I wanted to know it's respect among others and now I'm proud of my country.

Ed Wood, Jr.

The article has been cleaned up quite a lot since it was last submitted as a fac. I think that the filmmaker is a very important topic, and this entry examines quite nicely. (Ibaranoff24 04:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

  • Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 04:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Object needs references, and He is undoubtedly the best-known maker of z-grade movies in the entire history of Hollywood, famed for his ultra-low budget horror, science fiction and cowboy motion pictures is Pure POV in the lead, fix that. --Jaranda wat's sup 04:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Serious lack of references. Coffeeboy 17:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Lacking references and inline citations, weak sections nad prose. AndyZ 20:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As already mentioned, this article desperately needs references and inline citations. Some examples of statements which need references:
    • "It is reported that Wood's mother, Lillian, always wanted a girl and sometimes dressed young Ed up in skirts and dresses." If its reported, the source of the report should be there.
    • "He claimed that he had participated in the Battle of Guadalcanal while secretly wearing a brassiere and panties beneath his uniform." Again, if he's saying this, it should be sourced.
    • "If you want to know me, see 'Glen or Glenda'. That's me, that's my story, no question. But 'Plan 9' is my pride and joy. We used Cadillac hubcaps for flying saucers in that." That's directly attributed to Wood, so that'll definitely need a source.
    • Although his wearing a brassiere to battle might be interesting and true, as its not "common knowledge" it should be sourced. The best way to write the article is to assume that the reader knows nothing of Ed Wood. Also, some of the later sections ("Last Days", "Tim Burton's Ed Wood", and "Cult Status") appear as stubs and probably should be expanded or moved into the main article.
    • I hope this helps! Good luck!--Ataricodfish 16:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object -- Agree that the subject is notable, even important. It's a close call; there's a lot of good stuff in here. But there's too much filler and not enough meat; some passages are repeated. Need refs, as above. Need some more images, too; this is a movie guy. John Reid 07:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above. Would make a great article in the future once more references are added though. Essexmutant 11:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Franco-Prussian War

  • Object, no references or inline citations. I don't even know why it was nominated... it has a cleanup tag on the article. AndyZ 22:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Yowza, for such a long article, it backs up no claims... doesn't even qualify for "Good Article". Fieari 03:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object It's a shame really, it would make a great featured article, if only someone would write it. –Joke 04:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I'm shocked. No refs, no inline cites, nothing, need I say more? Coffeeboy 18:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian

Comprehensive and well written article. Does a good job of grabbing and maintaining the readers interest. Modest Genius 16:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - a major diappointment, given the write-up above. Too many lists; no references; choppy prose throughout; even a section stub. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The ref tags were there- they just needed to be flushed out. I don't know why that wasn't done before. Mark1 17:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Somebody inexplicably deleted them. Joe D (t) 17:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks - they seem to have been deleted accidentally here. Still object, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Agree with User:ALoan, there are several lists that should be converted to prose, weak prose, and a section stub. There are several references and external links strewn throughout the prose of the article that need to be cleaned up. A couple of other issues:
  • All the aforementioned are owned by The Scott Trust, a charitable foundation which aims to ensure the newspaper's editorial independence in perpetuity, maintaining its financial health to ensure it does not become vulnerable to take over by for-profit media groups, and the serious compromise of editorial independence that this often brings. This sounds rather POV.
  • The Guardian's ownership by the Scott Trust is likely a factor in it being... run-on
  • The Guardian and its parent groups - why is Guardian italicized here, when it isn't in the beginning of the paragraph?, plus the external links should be properly switched w/ footnotes.
  • The Guardian is part of the Guardian Media Group of - run-on again
  • In 1995, both versus In 1992 it relaunched its features - sometimes, after In ~year~, there is a comma, other times there isn't. This has to be changed all into a comformity.
  • There are several other errors gramatically, so I would suggest running over the article with a thorough copyedit. AndyZ 22:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—copy-edit needed. As a subscriber for several decades, I'd like to see an improved version of this article featured, not one that contains bloopers such as:
'is likely a factor in it being', and
'no-longer'.

A more thoughtful approach to punctuation would help, too. Tony 12:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That would not be in accordance with the traditions of The Guardian! -- Arwel (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

History of the Internet

Self-nomination, peer-review taken, good article nominated. This is a well rounded overview of the Internet's history, from early concepts to modern use. Following the resolution of a content dispute, the article was substantialy rewriten to address readability and content issues. The article has been expanded and globalized, and remained functionaly stable since the rewrite. Images on the page are suitably licenced. Uses inline citation and is fully referenced. --Barberio 07:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Lead intro too short for the article length. The longer the article, the longer the intro should be. Fieari 15:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This has been Fixed. --Barberio 00:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Two more objections. The first is that the first couple of headings are a little bit stumpy looking, each consisting of only one paragraph. Either merge those sections together, or add more information, or something to that effect. It just doesn't look right.
The second is that it doesn't seem comprehensive. While the copyright enforcement issue isn't nessisarily an important enough part of the history of the internet to get a detailed look in this article, other aspects of p2p are important, such as how they influenced network traffic. There was a time when ONLY download speed was important, so ISPs, even high-speed ones, would cap upload speeds, thinking no one would notice. p2p comes along, and suddenly upload is as important to customers as download. That sort of thing. It seems that the whole history cuts off after the dot-com bubble burst as well... the internet is a new enough thing that ignoring 2000-present is a hefty portion, and the title of the article doesn't specifically limit to scope. I think more needs to be covered.
I have an additional comment that isn't grounds for objection, but might be nice to look into anyway. The article is a little sparse on images. Now, it's not required that FAs have lots of images, but I think a couple more could be used, just to make things look nicer. Fieari 00:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • It is still to be demonstrated if p2p file sharing will be a fundamental and highly significant use on a par with the WWW and E-mail. POV issues would be raised to start adding this now, when the implications and eventual outcome remain unsetled. --Barberio 04:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article talks about some applications (WWW, e-mail, Usenet) but neglects to mention some other very popular ones. I can immediately think of: Instant Messaging, file sharing/P2P (particularly Napster [historical], eDonkey, BitTorrent), VoIP, and IRC. The application side is probably the hardest to get right, and I like the structure of the "Use and culture" section as a skeleton, but we've still got quite a long way to go to Featured Article status, I would say. The words "censorship" and "copyright" do not appear in the article once; issues like pornography, child pornography, encryption, copyright enforcement etc. have had historical repercussions; these should be summarized. While I'm all in favor of concise overview articles, I think for an extremely complex topic like this one, it could be a little longer.--Eloquence* 05:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • While the word 'Censorship' is not mentioned, Censorship itself is mentioned Under Digital Divide in relation to China. Widespread use of 'Chat' like applications pre-dates the Internet, and was mentioned as such under the 'public access' section.
    • While issues like pornography, child pornography, encryption, copyright enforcement etc. are notable, they are not issues of the Internet, but much wider scope issues that have some connection with the Internet. We do not have the unlimited space to address all issues that have some connection to the Internet. For instance, 'The dot-com crash' is directly linked with the Internet, while Copyright enforcement is an issue that has some assoiations with the Internet. --Barberio 06:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the TOC looks rather large, and should probably be made into a better hierarchal structure. AndyZ 22:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Diabetes mellitus

This is a great article about a very important disease. Captain Jackson 01:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC]]

  • Support Tobyk777 05:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, for a number of reasons:
    • Most of the relevant content is there, but there is a lot of repetition which would be solved by splitting off marginally relevant material to subarticles, keeping the focus on a general overview on chronic hyperglycaemic states (the unifying characteristic of all myriad forms of diabetes), its classification and therapy.
    • I would prefer to stick to the outline for medical articles as given on Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine: first signs & symptoms, then diagnostic approach, then classification & pathophysiology, then treatment, then epidemiology, history, references and external links. This has worked well on many other articles.
    • This is a chronic disease with numerous complications, and multidisciplinary care (GPs, specialist nurses, podiatrists, endocrinologists, ophthalmologists, vascular and orthopaedic surgeons, cardiologists) is taking off slowly. Much of this is lacking. JFW | T@lk 12:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the article needs more pics. Brandmeister 13:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that pictures are not a requirement for a featured article, and other than a patient with diabetes, I can't think of how we could add more pictures. Captain Jackson 14:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like more pics tbh, most of the wiki links in the article have suitable pics. --PopUpPirate 22:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. This article is as JDWolff points out, somewhat disorganized. It is also more or less in the nature of an intro with pointers. Recently, most of the material on Type 1 and on Type 2 was removed to separate articles. What's left is insufficient for the Average Reader to appreciate (even at an overview level) as the required contexxt is largely missing. See Talk for extensive discussions on this point. As noted, much of hte information is accurate, a good bit of it (but not enough) is here. If it were reorganized as indicated, I could support it. ww 08:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Pikachu

A good article.

  • Object A good article cites it's sources. Not a single reference in there at all. Right off the bat the article cites a reason for Pikachu's name, which is uncited, although justified with a "probably". Get a peer review on this, solve remaining issues and then renominate. Thethinredline 09:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as per Thethinredline. TomStar81 21:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as per Thethinredline; although I am a member of Wikiproject Pokemon, I must object; this isn't as good an article that we can produce. Dee man45 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - pre Thethinredline. Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 00:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like a joke nom. The anon that placed the nomination has no other edits. Can this be removed from the FAC page? —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Guidelines say to assume good faith. There have been worse articles brought here. --maclean25
      • Yes, but this was nominated by a first-time editor with an obvious throwaway username shortly after an anon commented on the Bulbasaur nomination that, "I guess similary Pickachu and all others should be FA too." —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 13:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on References, what am I missing here? People object to this article because it lacks proper references, but support Bulbasaur? They have the same core references. The only real difference is that this article put the three website references used in Bulbasaur in its "External links". The additional references used by Bulbasaur are simply an article of CNN/Time that mentions the subjects name, an esoteric video game guide (even the reference does not explain what Super Smash Bros. is), and a second-hand account claiming that McDonald's gave away promotional cards with the subject on it. By this Bulbasaur standard, all you would have to do is move the contents of "External links" into "References" (and remove the second sentence of the article and the first sentence of the second paragraph of "Name Origin") to have proper references. --maclean25 06:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Pikachu is a more culturally well-known figure and so more information can be included about it than about any other Pokemon, information still lacking in this article. It has, for example, had a balloon in the Thanksgiving Day Parade in NYC for a number of years now. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 13:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    Which is why i initially voiced my objection to the Bulbasaur nomination, as if Bulbasaur is granted FA status, what there to prevent 250+ Pokèmon articles, all well written i assume (i specifically cited the Snorlax page which is almost equal in quality to the Bulbasaur page) from all being eligible for FA status?
    • What they mean by references is that if a specific fact was mentioned, such as the meaning for the creature's name, then we must have a source for it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 07:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Reply to above comment what there to prevent 250+ Pokèmon articles...from all being eligible for FA status?: Nothing. Any article at all that is eligible to be on wikipedia in the first place is potentially eligible to be a FA. Potentially, meaning if enough information can be found, it's well written enough, references are used, is stable, is factual, etc etc etc. Why does this bother you? If every article on each of the 250+ pokemon were featured, that would mean that 250+ more articles on wikipedia were of exceptionally high quality. That's a good thing. On the other hand, I don't think that there's enough to write about each of the 250+ pokemon individually for them all to be featured, but that doesn't change the fact that if there was enough to write about them, they could be featured. Pikachu definitely COULD be featured, there's plenty to write about it, but currently, this article isn't good enough. Fieari 15:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Additional Comment - Additionally, I think it might be a good idea for the nominator of this article to read WP:POINT. In particular, this bit:
If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline...
  • do set up a discussion page and try to establish consensus
  • don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong, or nominate the existing rule for deletion
If you think that FA shouldn't include certain topics simply because you don't find those topics serious, the best way to go about this is try to get the policy changed through the normal official channels, not to nominate a bunch of articles you also think are not serious to prove your point. Fieari 15:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
If the other Pokemon want to become FA's, they go through this similar process. And, as for "this is boring, this should not be an FA" is something that I really think should be outright discouraged, since there are many topics that I wrote that people go "this sucks" or "wtf is this," and there are some topics that leave me scratching my head. But, we all work on different things, and no matter what we work on, we should be able to write great articles, and have some of our work be featured on the WP front page, not because the topic is interesting, but mainly because the community feels that the article is our best work. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 04:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree. War of the League of Cambrai doesn't interest me in the slightest - this doesn't affect me wanting it to be featured. 250+ Pokemon FAs are good as that means 250+ more articles on Wikipedia are brilliant and exemplary. Surely our goal is for every article to become FA? --Celestianpower háblame 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Pikachu is nominated to poke fun at the Bulbasaur nomination. BlueShirts 03:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply to above comment - that may be true. However, there is the "assume good faith" rule, and there is plenty of information here to make it a candidate, if an unlikely one. In fact, the only thing stopping it from gaining my vote is the addition of more pictures.Dee man45 02:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - innadequate references; badly structured; the prose, in my opinion, isn't compelling. It will be an FA one day but that day is certainly not today. --Celestianpower háblame 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anubis

I have suggested this article as it is about an important, culturally relevant aspect of an ancient religion with numerous ties to popular culture. Additionally it is very well-written.

  • Object needs refences, and small lead to start with, send to Peer Review --Jaranda wat's sup 22:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Many of the pop culture examples of Anubis have articles. For example this one: Anubis (Stargate) before this can become featured, we need a disambiguation page. Many of the other ones could be confused with Anubis. Also, anubis is worshiped in some neo-pagan cults. There is nothing in the article abou that. Tobyk777 05:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ask and you shall receive. Anubis (disambiguation) is live. I'll give a mail program thingy at the bottom its own page. - Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Subsequently, this apparent infidelity of Osiris was explained in myth, in which it was said that a sexually frustrated Nepthys had disguised herself as Isis in order to appeal to her husband, Set, but he did not notice her as he was gay and infertile, whereas Isis' husband Osiris did, mistaking her for his wife, which resulted in Anubis' birth. I think saying Set was gay needs to be removed or heavily backed up by reliable sources. IIRC gay wasn't a concept they had in those days anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 11:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object looks great, nice variety of pics, needs more text tho --PopUpPirate 22:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object there sould be more subsections, as having one huge section is a bad way of writing. Plus if only one sourse is used (even if the information is common knowledge) is poor Thethinredline 10:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. One third of this article consists of the section "Anubis in modern culture", which is nothing but one long list. FA requires "brilliant prose", and lists like this don't qualify. Fieari 15:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Second Fiaeri, the "modern culture" section as it is absolutely has to go. These "Add yours!" lists represent the worst in encyclopedic writing.--Eloquence* 05:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Bayreuth Festival

Article is being resubmitted after addressing various objections (see Peer Review and archive). Current article is complete with references to sources and other data and covers the history of the festival from its conception to the current day.

Can we have a link to the archive please? Giano | talk 15:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Linked it, but the PR is extremely short. AndyZ 20:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's its peer review, I'm looking for all the FA comments. There is something odd here [7] if you check the history comments seem to have disappeared. I'm sure when it was on FA I last time. I made more comments than are listed here. Why has the FAC failed been removed from the talk page here [8]? - which should link to all previous discussion - but doesn't seem to - am I comfusing it with another recent Wagneresque page? Giano | talk 13:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Article contains rather many short 1-sentence paragraphs. There are no inline citations, 2(c) of FA criteria, and the years should be delinked except for those with months/dates: see Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. AndyZ 20:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Three of those one sentence paragaphs actually belonged to a single paragraph and for some reason didn't appear that way. I have fixed that. That leaves three more. The first is in the introduction and relates to an expanded discussion of the topic in the text. The other two were fixed by combining them with other related paragraphs, including moving one to another section. Hopefully, this addresses the objection. Dtaw2001 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • As per the inline references, these are not needed when the topic is "uncontrovercial" and cites few sources. According to Wikipedia Style Guidelines:"The system of presenting references in a Wikipedia article may change over time; it is more important to have clarity and consistency in an article than to adhere to any particular system. Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a "References" section at the end of the article..."see Wikipedia:Citing sources However, there were two paragraphs that relate to specific sources and I have added inline reference links for those paragraphs. Dtaw2001 21:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • My idea is that whatever should be verified is verified. That ensures than an article is factually accurate. AndyZ 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I added the origins of the festival section based on objections I raised in the first FA. It is not, however, sourced or referenced and should be verified before this becomes FA. Eusebeus 16:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Eusebeus, since you added the section, only you can reference the sources (assuming they are different than those already cited). I think the history provided in this section is also covered in Spotts' book. Dtaw2001 21:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think we actually have to bother with actually citing sources/references since the content is not a matter of dispute. What I meant to say (rather garbled way of expressing myself above) is that someone with a greater familiarity with the topic should confirm the accuracy of my account. Eusebeus 10:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I've read several books covering the topic and nothing you have written appears to conflict with my understanding. The only slight difference might be that Ludwig II was an enthusiastic supporter of Wagner, and any misgivings probably originated from his advisors rather than the king himself. Dtaw2001 15:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm sorry but this is a malformed nomination, created by deleting the text of the first nom--just look at the History and you'll see all those November edits. That's why there is no link to an archive: there is no archive. I'm afraid you'll have to start over. Please revert this page to this version to restore the November discussion, then follow the instructions on the FAC page for "Adding nominations". Note especially point 4, how to move the archive of the November discussion. Once you've created the new, January, version — Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bayreuth Festival 2 — I suggest you paste in the comments that people have already started to make this time round. All right? If the process is unfamiliar and you'd rather someone else did it, I'm sure someone will pitch in — just ask here. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
    • Not sure how to restore the old discussion archive. Dtaw2001 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Jello Biafra

Self-nomination. This article has been worked on extensively in order to push it to feature quality. All previous complaints about it have been resolved, and I believe it is ready now. -- LGagnon 05:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong support It's definitely the best thing I've ever seen written about Biafra since that Goldmine article back in '89. Additional comment - Before folks complain about the "lists" (the discography), I should note that for a subject like Mr. Biafra, it's quite important. -- CJ Marsicano 06:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a good start, but--
  • "Jello Biafra came up with his name as an ironic combination of a non-nutritionally valued corporate food product and mass starvation." This needs to be footnoted.
  • Image:Jellobiafradkdays.jpg needs a fair use rationale. Also, you need to say more about the video the screencap came from (was it from a live Dead Kennedys show, or an interview, or something else? And when?)
  • "Biafra believes the trial was politically motivated; it was often reported that the PMRC took Biafra to court as a cost effective way of sending a message out to other musicians who have "offensive" content in their music." Both of these statements need to be cited.
  • "How this alleged harm was discovered and the authorities' decision to press charges were disallowed by the judge." What?
  • "Biafra opposed Levi's due to his belief that they use unfair business practices and sweatshop labor." Needs citation.
  • "Biafra's first popular song was the first single by the Dead Kennedys, "California Über Alles". The song, which spoofed California governor Jerry Brown, would be the first of many political songs by the group and Biafra. Not long afterward, the Dead Kennedys made a second and possibly bigger hit with "Holiday in Cambodia"..." The boldfaced phrases need to be justified somehow. Obviously, a listing on the pop charts would not be a relevant metric for judging popularity in this case. So how should we identify "California Über Alles" and "Holiday in Cambodia" as being popular and relevant?
  • "Interestingly, he also supports the use of air marshals on commercial flights, highlighting the fact that Biafra's beliefs challenge both liberal and conservative politics." How does this emphasize a split with both liberalism and conservatism? No left-wingers nor right-wingers who I know are opposed to having air marshals on flights. For that matter, why is this noted with the word "interestingly", implying that there is widespread opposition to the practice?
  • The last paragraph (before the discography) is really poor prose.
  • Andrew Levine 07:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Footnoting it would make the second paragraph a bit small. Also, the sentence before it is used to explain that one; moving it would make the paragraph ackward.
  • I've just handled your screenshot complaint. Let me know if it needs more work.
  • The citation for the trial is there too now. It fits both parts of the sentence.
I'll address the rest in a little while. -- LGagnon 19:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the odd statement about the judge (apperantly someone added that when I wasn't looking).
  • There's now a reference for the Levi's comment. -- LGagnon 20:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned below, independent music's success isn't judged the same as the RIAA stuff. There isn't really a Billboard Top 100 Indie Chart (I could be wrong, but I know that there wasn't one back then).
  • The air marshal comment is gone now. I didn't add that myself, and I was planning on removing it if someone felt it didn't belong (as I didn't like the fact that the quote was uncited).
  • I'm not sure what you mean about the last paragraph. Please elaborate. -- LGagnon 20:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Asserting the popularity of "Holiday in Cambodia" and "California über Alles" is still a problem. You are correct to say that "Underground music's popularity isn't really measured the same way as the RIAA stuff" but you do not propose any alternate means of measuring it.
  • The problem with the last paragraph is it looks like something a 14-year-old wrote for his English class. It's a marked contrast to the more decriptive paragrpahs preceding it. Andrew Levine 21:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the last paragraph; let me know if it needs more work. As for the music issue, I just added a reference for "Holiday in Cambodia", which calls it "possibly the most successful single of the American hardcore scene". -- LGagnon 22:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For "California Über Alles", we could mention the cover by Disposable Heroes Of Hiphoprisy, one of the few covers of a hardcore punk song by a hip-hop group. Also covered by John Linnell of They Might Be Giants, another case of being covered by someone from far afield musically. On both of these, we might be able to come up with something from radio stations that publish their playlists to show that both songs still get airplay 25 years after the fact. Here are two web searches that turned up examples for Seattle stations recently playing "California Über Alles"—KNDD (commercial), KEXP, an NPR affiliate— and "Holiday In Cambodia"—KNDD, KEXP. I imagine some searching on the likely stations would turn up a lot along similar lines. - Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Holiday in Cambodia is taken care of for now; as for CUA, I've added the covers to the article. I'm not sure how we'd go about citing radio station playlists, though. -- LGagnon 22:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, notes and references should be merged into one notes and references section and fixed so that the numbers in text have a corresponding numbered note. For multiple notes from the name source, use {{ref_label}} and {{note_label}}.--nixie 07:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Personally, I've always thought that method was rather messy. Normal publications don't mix footnotes with citations. -- LGagnon 18:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm with LGagnon on this. - Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object right now, but I think it's fixable during the FAC period.
Featured Music Project criteria
Lead - 3 (lead could use another paragraph, or even just a couple sentences, I suggest including something that indicates one or more of the ways he meets WP:MUSIC, even if it's just "recorded several albums" or "toured widely")
Comprehensiveness - 3 (while musical style may be more appropriate in detail at Dead Kennedys, this article only describes his lyrics and says "punk rock", AFAICT -- just a paragraph or two under "Music" would help)
Sales - 2, 3 (mentions only UK charting of "Too Drunk to Fuck", which may be his only charting hit (I don't know), but some measure of recording sales or concert sales or something ought to be added -- recording sales could be worked into the discography)
Pictures - 1, 2 (need fair use rationales, more free pics would be nice, but probably impossible or difficult to find)
Audio - 1, 2, 3, 4 (none at all)
References - 4 (print and scholarly references would be very good)
Discography - 3 (apparently only includes solo work? Consider making a Jello Biafra discography subpage -- Dead Kennedys studio albums seem more relevant here than a guest appearance on an Offspring album)
Format/Style - looks very good (consider changing "music" to "Lyrical and musical style"?)
Tuf-Kat 15:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
On notability: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable. The intro mentions the Dead Kennedys.
Oh, forgot about that one. Still, for someone known primarily as a musician, I'd expect something more on his musical career in the lead. It's supposed to be a summary of the article, which is mostly about music.
For comprehensiveness, I'm not sure exactly what you'd like added. Could you elaborate on that?
There's a lot of description of Biafra's lyrics, but the only clue as to what the actual instrumentation (of the Dead Kennedys) sounds like is "punk rock".
I'm not sure of where to get the info for sales; hardcore didn't exactly make the Billboard 100 that often (Black Flag's Damaged is considered one of the most successful hardcore albums, and it peaked at #100). Underground music's popularity isn't really measured the same way as the RIAA stuff.
I still think some sort of documentation of popularity is important. The only mention of a charting single doesn't put that fact in historical context by mentioning that it was unusual, or how unusual it was. The article needs something by which to gauge relative popularity -- if not sales and charts, how about touring locations/audiences? Did the Dead Kennedys play at local nightclubs, regional theaters and festivals, or arenas and Superbowls?
I'd be fine with ditching the 2nd photo, but the 1st one stays, as it was taken by a Wikipedia member. It's worth noting that pictures are not required for a featured article.
I didn't say anything about ditching any photos, just that the two fair use ones need rationales on the image pages.
There are audio links at the bottom of the article to free, legal copies of full spoken word speeches. Check the External links section. As for music, would links to mp3s at Alternative Tentacles's website work?
It helps, but there ought to be some uploaded to Wikipedia.
There's a Rolling Stone reference. As for scholarly, there's none at the moment, but I could break out my old History of Rock & Roll college text book and add something from there.
I've also got at least one book that covers the Dead Kennedys in general, and probably Biafra in particular.
I personally don't think we need a sub-article for his discography (it's big, but not that big). There are links to the other albums he did with his bands.
Looks nice, though I think the Dead Kennedy studio albums ought to be included here as well.
As for the Music section, it does contain more than just his style. -- LGagnon 18:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Tuf-Kat
The lead was expanded a bit more; by your criteria, it should work now.
Biafra himself rarely plays an instrument. The article does mention his composition method, which seems to be the most important detail of his own instrumental style (his colaborators tend to add their own style into his compositions).
The DKs were quite apposed to arenas (with the exception of the Bay Area Music Awards incident, which I've left to the DK article). As for nightclubs, the only one I can think of a the moment is the Whiskey A Go Go. I'm pretty sure they played the CBGB too. For festivals, Rock Against Reagan was probably their biggest appearance (info on that here). I'm not exactly sure where or how to add this info in though; I'm open to suggestions.
I would willingly add a few audio samples from my collection (I can give a fair number of them), though I'll need some info on how to do so within Wikipedia's fair use rules. -- LGagnon 05:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
How about adding something to the "Early years and the Dead Kennedys" section, similar to: The Dead Kennedys toured widely in California in the early 1970s, eventually moving on to major club across the country, including Whiskey A Go Go and CBGB's in New York, as well as performing at the Rock Against Reagan festival (possibly split into two sentences). Tuf-Kat 05:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DKs at least once played the Showbox in Seattle, definitely the premier punk venue here at that time, now somewhat glitzed up and probably wouldn't book a band with their potential for trouble. But to a large extent, they were pioneers of the DIY booking route, with amateur and semi-pro organizers placing ads on phone poles and taking 2-column-inch ads in the local weekly papers, and with the band generally playing to impressively large crowds in rented halls. - Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to add that in somewhere. -- LGagnon 06:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. -- LGagnon 06:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It might be worth mentioning whether or not Biafra has ever performed outside of the US. Was his Top of the Pops appearance a total aberration in that regard? Tuf-Kat 06:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The DKs never made it onto TofP; they didn't rank high enough on the singles chart to appear. -- LGagnon 16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, oops, misread that. It would still be valuable to note international success, if there was any. Tuf-Kat 16:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support now, on the assumption that some sound samples are uploaded. See Image:Neutral Milk Hotel - 2 Head.ogg for an example of a fair use clip with rationale. Tuf-Kat 06:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll work on those tomorrow, assuming I'm not too busy; otherwise they'll be in within the next few days.
By the way, thanks for the Garofalo source; I was looking through the same book (though my edition is newer) for something to add. However, you didn't add any page numbers for that or the other source (which should come with any book reference). Could you please add those in? -- LGagnon 06:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. Tuf-Kat 07:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've added samples for the DKs and Lard. I'll try to get something in for the Jelvins and a spoken word clip soon. -- LGagnon 16:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. I have one last suggestion on the clips -- more informative captions would be very helpful (e.g. "Song" from Album is an example of Biafra's socially conscious lyricism, or "Song" from Album shows a more emotional side to Biafra's work). Tuf-Kat 16:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I think all of them count as socially conscious lyricism; maybe we could be more specific on them (for instance, "Yuppie Cadillac" represents Biafra's belief in banning SUVs). -- LGagnon 17:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, would it be ok for me to add a link to the full mp3 of "Yuppie Cadillac" at Alternative Tentacles' website? -- LGagnon 05:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any reason not to. Just make it clear that it's an external link. Tuf-Kat 05:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Prose issues (ex. "disbandment") and referencing (ex. "Biafra's spoken word work has been less influential to other artists than his music. However, Biafra's spoken word is often mentioned by Sean Kennedy as being a major influence on his work." and others mentioned above). I'd recommend asking someone who hasn't seen the article to go through it and give it a copyedit. Jkelly 17:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Disbandment is a legit word.[9] As for the Sean Kennedy part, he mentions that in several episodes of his show. It kind of counts as common knowledge (at least for fans of SK). -- LGagnon 17:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I have added a reference for Sean Kennedy now (and from his own show). Also, all previous requests for references have been taken care of. -- LGagnon 00:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
In response to your request for expanding on prose concerns below, I suggest that using only words that exist doesn't by itself make for "brilliant prose", a WP:FA requirement. That said, I strongly disagree with User:Anlace that the style is "inarticulate". I suggest that it simply could use some polishing. Leaving aside whether the word "disbandment" is inherently awkward, I'll give another example:

A spoken word tour of Canada was cancelled because of this, and recordings for a spoken word album that Biafra had planned to record during it were not made.

The above is certainly not "inarticulate". But it isn't "brilliant"ly easy to parse. I'd suggest a rewrite:

The attack derailed Biafra's plans for both a Canadian spoken-word tour and accompanying album.

Going through the article changing almost every instance of passive voice would improve the prose. I hope that this provides a better idea of what needs polishing. Jkelly 21:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I've changed that one sentence. However, I don't know how to be sure what you count as passive and what you don't. You could list some sentences that need work (there probably isn't too many), or you could change them yourself. Either way, it helps more than claiming opposition to something you won't explain completely. -- LGagnon 01:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Passive voice. Jkelly 04:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've changed things around. -- LGagnon 01:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

3 comments:

  1. I'd like to see us sort out whether it was skinheads, "crusties" or whoever who beat him up in the incident outside Gilman Street. I suspect that if someone tracks down MRR from that month or two there will be a story on this, and there might be other solid sources to be found. I wouldn't stop it from becoming a featured article over that, but I had retreated to a vaguer wording precisely because there was disagreement on this and no source forthcoming.
  2. Surely by now there is at least one good book on either the Dead Kennedys as such or the Bay Area hardcore scene, but we don't cite anything of the sort. http://www.richardmccaffrey.com/ says McCaffrey co-authored a 1979 book titled X-capees about the Bay Area Punk scene. Anyone seen it? Anything to it? Some great early DKs photos— [10], [11], [12]—so the book probably covers them (but it would be so early that it would be more for first impressions than any thing else.
  3. Which reminds me: has anyone tried digging up contemporary gig reviews? One possibly citable quote, though maybe for Dead Kennedys or an article on the scene in general rather than this article: "The city's [San Francisco's] younger bands adopt extravagantly repellent names (Dead Kennedys, Woundz, Toiling Midgets) and write extravagantly provocative lyrics." Robert Palmer, "The Pop Life; Rebellion Rules Rock In Young San Francisco" . New York Times, Aug 25, 1982. p. C19 I rather like that "extravagantly repellent names". -- Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Jello's AMG entry says that it was skinheads; the RS article I cited just calls them slamdancers. I mentioned in the article that Creton was slamdancing. If we have to change it to add any specific group for them, "skinheads" will win out for now as we have one source that claims that.
  • American Hardcore was cited by Tuf-Kat, which seems like a pretty good book to me (I read a little bit of it at Newbury Comics once, but didn't bother to buy it). There's probably more in that book that we could use, though we don't really need more from it at the moment. More photos of Biafra would be nice too, though it might be hard to get some that we can use under fair use.
  • I know the Jelvins played at The Middle East Downstairs in Boston on October 21; the Boston Phoenix has an article on that [13] (this article preceded it as an announcement of the event). -- LGagnon 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a rather long chapter on Biafra in that book (actually on the DKs, but talking about him specifically a lot). If there's any specific suggestions of something to add, I can look it up, but I glanced through the book when originally commenting on it, and didn't see anything of obvious importance. Tuf-Kat 06:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose rambles quite too much and the flow of events is unnecessarily out of order(eg late 70s events are before early 70s).....many awkward phrases(eg "bands disbandment")...too much colloquialism (eg "came up with") ...sounds like author is trying to write like his subject would write, not very articulate.....still my hat is off to this author for writing a good article about a topic no one will remember in 30 years.Anlace 03:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Where exactly are the events out of order? Also, neither you nor the previous objector have explained why "disbandment" is akward. And if there are any lines other than "cam up with" (which I just changed) that need to be changed, please state them instead of claiming they exist in an ambiguous way. Problems can not be fixed if you do not state what they are.
And while I appreciate the congratulation, there isn't really a need to insult Biafra in the process. -- LGagnon 04:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Maritime history of Florida

I'm making the nomination for Wikiproject Florida, this article came out of nowhere a month ago, created by User:High Plains Drifter and seeing that the article was very good, Wikiproject Florida decided to Peer Review it, and met their concerns here. It's a excellent written article, and the only problem is with footnotes. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 22:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Article looks good, but I'm not sure if inline notes are needed for current FACs. BlueShirts 02:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes they are; they are a part of requirement 2 (c) of the FA criteria. AndyZ 16:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I think this is the sort of subject that needs the inline refs and notes. Also, the image at the top is lovely but does it necessarily say "Maritime history of Florida" to put a satellite image there? The ideal thing would be some sort of historical map of the state, perferably one made for navigational purposes. If you could get it. Daniel Case 06:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. No historiography section in an article claiming to be a history. 2 b comprehensiveness. Fifelfoo 09:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object there are no inline refs at all and the refs at the end are not tied to the text at all.Rlevse 20:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I also would prefer if there were inline references. --Tetraminoe 18:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Enoch Powell

Article is comprehensive, interesting and well-written. GoatSe 14:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Lead is too small and no references to start with, send to peer review first --Jaranda wat's sup 17:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I have concerns about the article's accuracy, but have never made time to follow them up, and, as said, it lacks refs and needs more pics (isn't there one of Enoch on a spacehopper somewhere ?). Angus McLellan 00:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Manifold

An very written and accessible article on a complex subject that still manages to cover the details. Leland McInnes 05:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Object on the informal and unencyclopedic tone, such as by using the second person "The motivation for working with manifolds is that you begin with a relatively simple space which is well understood". Also, I'd hardly call this accessible -- I had slightly more than high school math, and I can't make heads or tails out of the lead, much less the rest of the article. It may or may not be possible to make this article accessible, but it certainly isn't now... Just to clarify on the lead - what does "constructed" mean in this sense? I interpret the first few sentences to mean that a manifold is a shape created by changing another shape, but I assume I must be missing something. Tuf-Kat 07:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
comment constructed - built up - joined together. It is a complex topic I didn't encounter until postgrad level, and I must say that the editors have produced the most accessable description of the topic I have ever seen. --Salix alba (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose; uses first and second persons, diagrams inadequately explained. Also, a lot of complex mathematical terminology is not even linked to, never mind explained. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 09:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Object. Agree with the other two objections above, also the article requires Inline citations and preferably needs a 2-3 paragraph lead. AndyZ 13:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Object on the same grounds as above. Nothing that can't be overcome by some heavy copy-editing, though. The information seems to be excellent, very probably by far the best description available anywhere on the web, however, rather unencyclopedic in style. Inline citations would help, but are not strictly necessary in my opinion. Mstroeck 14:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Change it to third person should be more encyclopedic. BlueShirts 02:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment I accept the argument that there is much use of second person voice which is inappropriate, and that as such the article is not of featured article quality. I will endeavour to remedy this. As to the accessibility of the article - perhaps I am biased being already acquainted with the subject, but this article had one of the best and most accessible accounts of Manifold that I have ever read. Most people will not encounter the concept until they reach graduate school, so even being able to give a general idea to those with high school level mathematics is, I think, a significant achievement. Leland McInnes 22:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment uses first and second persons has now been fixed. --Salix alba (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. There's still a couple more examples, such as saying "We" a couple times. Many of the sections still sound conversational instead of academic, since despite the avoidance of specifically using the word "you", it can be implied in a number of cases. An encyclopedia should use the passive, not the active voice. As to being too technical, I think it covers the information well enough while still being comprehensible to someone with a few of the prerequisite peices of knowledge, such as basic geometry. On the other hand, a few higher concepts are mentioned by name, and could be wiki-linked to their article here which would explain those needed concepts better to those who don't understand. Fieari 15:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article seemed very accessible to me and I haven't yet passed tenth grade. However the lay reader with a fear of mathematics may be bewildered by the lead. There's a limit to how non-technical the lead can be to such a technical concept. The same problem occured with Prisoner's Dilemma. I attempted to solve it to some exetent and may be instructive in this case. Overall, the first sections need a more intuitive and graphical approach. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loom91 (talk • contribs).
  • Oppose Sorry, I can't agree with that. I think I have a pretty good idea of what manifolds are (topological, differential, Riemannian, pseudo-Riemannian, symplectic, complex etc...). Now, people can't be expected to understand an article on, say, Calabi-Yau manifolds, but a manifold is basically a surface of fixed dimension. This is not a hard idea, and there are plenty of wonderful two dimensional examples, so I think if people are having trouble understanding it, then it's our fault. One problem I've seen is these technical articles can get obfuscated because
  1. technical people like jargon
  2. people are willing to sacrifice readability for strict accuracy, instead of striving to preserve both
  3. prose arrived at through torturous deliberations, when it ultimately satisfies everyone, is usually unreadable
I think the solution is to try harder. I will certainly try to lend a hand. –Joke 20:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Archived_nominations_February_2006_4a68.html"