Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

  • Wow. I think this is terrific. Kingturtle 07:10, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • It's about to get a lot better, so I think better to wait a couple of weeks and check again... --Woggly 11:29, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Objection removed in large part, but would like to give Woggly a chance to do what she will before putting it up for this. Wally 02:08, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Very nice --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:33, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)
  • Wonderful article. I support. - Moby 11:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Fabulous. It's everything a great encyclopedia entry should be. - Lucky 6.9 21:28, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anatoly Karpov

Self-nomination. --Etaonish 20:13, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(This was promoted directly from the objections section without much commentray - restored to candidate status pending more commentary →Raul654 21:51, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC))
  • Object for now. Although it's quite good, I think this article needs some work before it can be featured. There are some POV-ish parts ("which is saddening", "Nigel's success was richly deserved"), and several parts of the text are not wikified even though it seems appropriate. Some chess jargon or chess specific terms might be briefly explained or at least linked. Finally, there's hardly anything to find about Karpov's personal life. I'll go and do some minor edits now, which may "disqualify" me as a voter. Jeronimo 20:55, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Okay. Will attempt to update on personal life, but there really isn't much to find on that. Should have reread a bit closely on someone else's work. --Etaonish 21:25, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Have added much info and wikified. --Etaonish 16:27, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm withdrawing my objection, and vote neutrally. The article's allright as it is, although I still think some more background would do it good. Tell more about Karpov's second era of being a World Champion, and more about the Kasparov/FIDE-split. Why did Karpov not defend his title in 1999? What is prophylaxis exactly (the article refers to Petrosian, but nothing is said about it there)? Jeronimo 09:59, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, very well written.--TheEvilLibrarian 11:41, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Auto rickshaw

Self-nomination. Auto rickshaw is a mode of transport in Indian subcontinent. Hope you consider it. -Kesava 05:49, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, good article though slightly obscure -Aaron Hill 12:54, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Fascinating and concise. Support. - Lucky 6.9 21:12, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. An example article, which in my opinion, covers almost everything that can be said about the topic in question. I would rate this on par with Crushing by elephant which was featured recently. Chancemill 12:18, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written and, yes, encyclopedic. :) jengod 18:31, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Kaihsu 20:09, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)
  • Neutral - This is perhaps the dullest article I have read all week. I'm not sure it should be featured Dmn 19:31, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • A neutral vote is not an objection and so I (mis?)use the line "If there are no objections after at least one week, candidates can be added to FA" and add this article to FA. - Kesava 13:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Trench warfare

I've done no work on this except adding three bits of punctuation, but it's an extremely well-organized, informative article on a fascinating topic. Meelar 04:48, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Amazingly comprehensive and detailed. The article itself could use a few more pictures. How about some World War I trench photos? Ex1le 18:32, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Meticulous! jengod 19:34, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. BTW, I wonder if I'm unique in having relatives (okay, one is the uncle of my step-mother) who experienced trench warfare on both sides? -- llywrch 23:40, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good use of pictures and links. -Litefantastic 18:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Plus, this should go on the main page ASAP. -Conover 00:49, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not long enough. Nah only kidding, support. LUDRAMAN | T 14:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • wow. Exploding Boy 15:44, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Adam Bishop 17:20, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Moby 14:33, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • A fabulous article worthy of any encyclopedia and a fabulous example of the potential of Wikipedia. Wholeheartedly support! Lucky 6.9 16:03, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Added to History section. jengod 19:33, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Buckinghamshire

Article on the county in England mainly developed to its current state by myself. I believe it's a good model for other county articles to copy. I finally decided to list it here because I've managed to find some artwork to display alongside Morwen's marvellous maps. Graham :) 00:04, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Wow, that is tremendously comprehensive. Is it too comprehensive? Kingturtle 05:03, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Well there's nothing there that you won't find on any of the other county articles, except due to my local knowledge there is every single place in the county. I think it would be a travesty to not include those, but I suppose what you could do is to move the full list to a separate article and just have the key places in the main Buckinghamshire article. -- Graham :) 16:00, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it's great, there's a lovely sense of politics and geography shaping the county. I will second it if we can break the long list of places off onto its own page. I think a list of (say 20?) principle towns/cities should remain on this article (you'll need to pick them, I have no idea!), and there can be a link to the entire list of cities/towns/villages in Bucks. How does that sound? fabiform | talk 18:58, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • How is it now? -- Graham :) 21:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Excellent work. Still, it seems too much. Maybe Famous people from Bucks should be List of people from Buckinghamshire, and Towns in Buckinghamshire should be List of towns in Buckinghamshire? Maybe? What do you think? Kingturtle 22:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • No I disagree, and I quite like fabiform's edits making the lists into two columns. -- Graham :) 23:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm happy with it now. The famous people seem fine on the main article to me. I've just tweaked the two lists of places so there's less white space. Anyway, I second this article now.  :) fabiform | talk 22:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Lovely lavishing of locale-loving effort on what is at first blush an unremarkably-shaped county. Fine form for future neighborhood mavens to mimic. +sj+ 02:05, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • Added to Geography section. Gentgeen 05:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Single malt Scotch

  • Added to new food and drink category by Pcb21. 00:00, 6 April 2004

[edit] Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius

Created FAC from original nomination here.

About a famous short story by Jorge Luis Borges that makes an enormous number of references to non-fictional individuals, many not well known in the English-speaking world. I believe that this article is the first good English-language guide for the perplexed. I didn't write all of it, but at this point it is mostly my work. -- Jmabel 05:08, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Lovely article (hence I'm moving this out of self-noms to uncontested). Jmabel, would you mind having a look at my copyedit? In the spirit of being bold, I corrected what looked to me like obvious errors but given the subject matter I can't be entirely sure (especially inside quotes from the story). --Bth 10:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I am not supporting or opposing this one yet. I think it has potential, but it needs a lot of copyedits. Kingturtle 04:50, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Following some suggestions by Kingturtle, I've kept strengthening this. I'd appreciate a few more people weighing in, either to endorse as a Feature or to let me know how they'd like to see it improved. -- Jmabel 07:34, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • This article has gone through some substantial edits. The article is more clear (as clear as such a topic can be). I endorse it now. But it would be helpful for others to give it the once-over. Kingturtle 19:33, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • A lovely article indeed. When I compare it to still-unfeatured articles like Congo Free State, however, it falls short. Could use better wikification, structure. +sj+ 12:05, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly Object Support. I'd like to see a better organizing template (broken into historical background / context of author's other works / plot summary / analysis by others), rather than a combination of (historical bakground + analysis). However, there are precious few serious articles on fiction in WP right now, and this is a notable exception. Looking at other featured articles, I feel they should all set an example for other articles in the same genre -- having an elegant non-trivial format which helps highlight key pieces of information (useful for future authors of new articles of that type), treating some aspect of the subject, or a few of them, with special affection, &c. This article has excellent content, but is not a template model for others yet... there is parenthetical information repeated in this article which might better be left to linked-to articles, and information from other writers' analyses of the work which could be extracted and paraphrased. Despite the lengthy discussion of the book's publication process, there is a link to only one published version of the story. There could be further and better-categorized links to external analyses of such an unusual work. +sj+ 12:26, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
  • With +sj's change of view, I have moved this to Nominations without objections.
  • Support. Presents quite a bit of valuable context. Smerdis of Tlön 03:26, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Added to Literature category by Pcb21 09:13, 6 April 2004

[edit] Soap bubble

  • Added by Raul654 00:00, 7 April 2004

[edit] Tiananmen Square protests of 1989

Created FAC from original nomination here.

  • A lengthy, NPOV and well-written article on a controversial issue. Ambivalenthysteria 07:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Need to be wikified. Colipon 16:50, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Otherwise good. Fredrik 17:33, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Can you give me an example of where this needs to happen? I didn't write the article, but if you can point me in the right direction, I'll fix it up anyway. Ambivalenthysteria 06:54, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't see how it needs to be wikified. there are enough links. --Jiang 09:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • A few sections would also be nice. --mav 06:25, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Good, but I agree sections would help. Markalexander100 08:02, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks good now. Markalexander100 08:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The article should be fine now. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 10:33, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Would there be any objections to moving this back to nominations without objections then? Ambivalenthysteria 12:31, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Support; simple, lovely example of a good feature. No objections to moving it, as the objections have been addressed. I'll move it in a minute, when I move a few others. +sj+ 01:39, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • support. --Jiang 19:39, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Some anti-CPC biases slip in, student protestors are romanticized periodically, etc. But still, one would expect the biases to be far more overt on WP, given the subject matter. 172 23:18, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  • Added to History by Raul654 on 04:37, 7 April 2004

[edit] James Bulger murder case

[edit] Leopold and Loeb

[edit] ROC presidential election, 2004

  • Added to History by Raul654 00:00, 7 April 2004

[edit] Labor market

Well written example of an economics article. Jrincayc 18:35, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • I would second that, but I dont know if I am allowed to seeing as I contributed to the article. Just one minor thing, both the English and the American spellings of labour/labor are used. I dont know if this is a problem.mydogategodshat 23:17, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Not opposing or supporting yet. Someone needs to edit out the royal we bits. I think it happens about 7 times. Kingturtle 04:55, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I have eliminated all the "we's" I found, and fixed the spelling inconsistancy. mydogategodshat 05:23, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't like to criticize someone's work, but I find the graphs hard to read. The lines are all too thick and too soft, and the text on several is impossible to read. That said, the content is very informative. Isomorphic 07:43, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I've redrawn the graphs, they're not as colorful, but the lines are thinner and the text darker. fabiform | talk 03:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks a lot. Much easier to read the graphs now (at least for me.) Isomorphic 04:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear, compelling and reasonably comprehensive. (further discussion of nonclassical views of labor markets is needed, but it's hard to find those anywhere) +sj+ 22:39, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Added to Featured Articles in Economics Section Jrincayc 14:04, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of the American Civil War

This article was featured but was de-listed due to its page size and due to a questionable previous nomination/approval phase. The size issue has been fixed, but since the change was a very significant one and since a series instead of a single article on a single page is being nominated, and since the original nomination/approval is in question, it needs to go through this process again.

  • This is an excellent, if a bit long (it is divided up into 4 pages), article on a very important and often misunderstood part of U.S. history. It covers the topic very well, is well-illustrated and wikified, and has been copyedited. This article has also been cited by outside sources as a great example of Wikipedia content (172 will have to provide the link). I wholeheartedly support re-adding this article as an example of great Wikipedia content. --mav 21:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Coherent and compelling article/series; makes the reader wish it were longer. Due to recent moves, still needs a final pass of copy-editing; I found one instance of an uncompleted sentence which I hope I completed correctly... (diff) +sj+ 21:47, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
    • Support. --Alex S 22:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. -- Jeff8765 03:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. -- Shakeer 07:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (Copy editing completed).Markalexander100 07:36, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Added to History. +sj+ 13:11, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)
Old entry
  • Origins of the American Civil War - very complete. nice layout 65.58.234.58 01:18, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the nomination. It's funny that I usually get a favorable response from the work on the 19th century West from a comparative historical bent (e.g., this entry and the German history series) - that is considering the political struggles in the U.S. route to modern capitalist democracy. But when I pay attention to the same complexities in societies that faced greater challenges - societies having to dismount a well-established agrarian society of the feudal, oligarchic, or bureaucratic forms - I get the oddest reactions. Just today, I hear a glib "show me a peasant who isn't impoverished" when briefly mentioning political unrest in Central America. Maybe I should just stick with the pre-WWI era. 172 19:06, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ford Mustang

I'm extremely pleased to have contributed to this listing's growth. Someone even took the time to add metric subscripts to it! Again, thanks for your consideration. 0:28, 8 April 2004 (UTC) Lucky 6.9

  • Object - for now: Paragraphs way too long. Sections also needed - but not too many. It also sounds a bit too glowing and ra-ra to me = POV issues (see NPOV). There is also spurious bolding. Things like Cobra Jet should not be bolded (only self-redirects should be bolded - then only bolded the first time they are mentioned). --mav 00:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the tip, Mav. I've been a fan of the car for years and I admit to being somewhat enthusiastic. I trust you'll find the update to be more NPOV. If we can get this article "detailed out" and worthy of featuring before the Mustang's fortieth anniversary on April 19, so much the better! -- Lucky 6.9 04:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Looks much better. I withdraw my objection. --mav
  • Support. Meticulous and informative. Chris Roy 04:32, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The changes improved the article greatly, but I'd like to see one more picture: something between the '69 and the '05 - maybe a picture of a model from the 1980s (even though I wasn't terribly fond of that design, it'd kind of bridge the gap in terms of pictures). RADICALBENDER★ 15:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Another great tip...thanks, Bender. There are now BBS photos of a '78, an '85 and a '99. Anyone have a good photo of the 1971-1973 version? Lucky 6.9 00:36, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Cool. I think it looks good. I support this as well. RADICALBENDER★ 02:43, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I did some copyediting and broke up some paras. I think it should be featured. RickK 01:37, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • There are still obvious POV issues with this article where subjective opinions are asserted without objective justification (these may be true assertions, but there's nothing to substantiate them in the article, and the choice of words is promotional). A few examples:
    "It was the most successful product launch in automotive history, setting off near-pandemonium at Ford dealers across the continent."
    "Looking like a car that cost hundreds of dollars more ..."
    "An enormous list of options ..."
    "it could be ordered from "mild to wild", ..."
    "The Boss Is Back" as a section header
  • Also, is there no other POV than a promotional one (is there no history of factory recalls, for example)? - Bevo 15:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Per my e-mail response to Bevo, all of the points mentioned are based in fact and can easily be further substantiated. Stories abound of the "near-pandemonium" mentioned in the first paragraph, and the option list was among the most comprehensive of all time. I'd be glad to expand on any of the objections raised, but I respectfully submit that listing factory recalls would be answering a question that no one is asking. I think there's an Internet site that lists recall history on virtually any car ever made, so a link is certainly an option. Regarding the POV objection, very little negative press was written about the early car, but increased through the years leading up to the 1979 model. That's not to say early criticism isn't out there. I've seen it and I'd welcome the opportunity to see more. For example, I can say with certainty that most history books I've read have less than glowing reviews of the Boss 429. Out of the box it was slower and more expensive than the 428 Super Cobra Jet. Thanks again, Bevo, and please know your criticism is most appreciated. Lucky 6.9 22:44, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I like it. Support. →Raul654 23:09, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Good article. I support - Moby 11:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Added to the Technology section. Chris Roy 21:01, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wigwag

This is a self-nominated article that I wrote about the old-fashioned railroad crossing signals that once dotted the Los Angeles area. Most are gone now. Thanks for your consideration! 0:18, 8 April 2004 (UTC) Lucky 6.9

  • Comment: IMO sectioning needed. LUDRAMAN | T 14:06, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Sectioning done. --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:01, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • Nice one! LUDRAMAN | T 17:05, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: It is a well-written, succinct article with plenty of pictures that give visual context to a relatively (at least for me) obscure subject. I enjoyed it, and am in favor. --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:02, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Would some better pictures help? I have blanket permission from the webmaster of "Dan's Wigwag Site" to use any photos along with proper credit. The first two were prints I took myself with a disposable 35mm that were later scanned to the wigwag site. There's a wealth of far better photos available than the ones currently posted, including several looks at the mechanism's inner workings. - Lucky 6.9 08:25, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article, good pictures, and a rather novel subject. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:49, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Better pictures added; correction of some facts and figures. Anyone? - Lucky 6.9 04:53, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks nice. Interesting and in-depth article on a fairly obscure topic. Isomorphic 00:33, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Unusual yet interesting topic, nice pictures, complete history, appropriate headings and well written. It's the obscure topics people need to know about. Good luck! - MGM 22:20, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks, all. There was still some concern by admins regarding the use of the photos. I've replaced all but one with photos taken by Dan Furtado of "Dan's Wigwag Site," plus one of my own. The photo of the "peach basket" is uncopyrighted. Is this fair use? If not, I can add another photo or delete that one altogether if there are no further objections. - Lucky 6.9 22:24, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • All photos now fair use. Peach basket photo has been replaced with one of the inner workings of Mr. Furtado's own signal. - Lucky 6.9 21:51, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Added.--Eloquence* 01:27, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Assassin

Self-nomination. I've done quite a bit of work on this from its previous version and am quite proud of it. Support or oppose, I'm nevertheless happy for any comments anyone might have on the article as it stands. Wally 23:18, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. As with Kitsch, I love the page and it is very informative. But I hope more pictures are added that deal with other sections of the world, since people have been getting whacked all over the place. But otherwise, nice. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:47, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The article has been nominated previously, but several objections were raised. I think Wally has done a good job in addressing each point. Securiger 00:56, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Well written, with good pictures [one of which I added myself] :) →Raul654 02:49, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. These guys are way cooler than ninjas. Smerdis of Tlön 02:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, though I'll agree with LordSuryaofShropshire that it could probably stand another picture or two representing assassins/assassinations in the rest of the world. - jredmond 16:55, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Added to the Politics and Government section.

[edit] Floppy disk

A really well-written piece on floppy disks, starting right at the beginning. So what if they're being run out of town by the CDs and ZIP disks like magnetic tapes and punch cards were before them? -Litefantastic 01:42, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Great article. jengod 00:53, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)*Support. Well-written and informative. - MGM 07:43, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article! Well-written, good lead, well organised, nice balance between detail and ease of reading, nice pictures, and all the facts I can check are accurate. Securiger 04:34, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC) *Support. I second the 'feel' of the submitter's entry -- like punch cards, this is an historically important technology artifact. What's more, the floppy, unlike punch cards there, I guess, has actually been a presence in very many people's everyday lives. --Wernher 02:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nicely written. Etaoin 19:42, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Andrew 22:20, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice job. Dpbsmith 22:39, 4 May 2004 (UTC
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Featured_log_April_2004_6237.html"