Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Abraham Lincoln

  • Comment.Someone went in and obviously messed with it. Which can I say, is COMPLETELY JUVENILE. I think you'd have to be a real loser to delete someone's hard work with this crap. I love Wikipedia and wish people would just respect it.66.171.221.36
  • Support. Lincoln was one of America's greatest Presidents, one of its best orators and had a very interesting life.--Kross 01:02, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hutton Inquiry

[edit] Rudyard Kipling

  • Rudyard Kipling
    • Needs TOC. Bmills 13:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • ToC provided, though I'm sure some would quibble with my choice of chapters and chapter descriptions. Jwrosenzweig 06:09, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Objection withdrawn: good work Jwrosenzweig. Bmills 12:04, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] U.S. Electoral College

U.S. Electoral College - thorough, well-written, covers both sides of debate. Minesweeper 09:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

    • I object, on the grounds of accuracy. The article states, "The number of electors for the District of Columbia is equal to the number of senators and representatives for the least populous state (presently three)." However, DC need not necessarily have the same number of votes as the Bold textleast populous state; it could have fewer votes. Amendment XXIII states that DC may appoint "A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State." This does not bar DC from having fewer electors. And even more importantly, the article does not mention that the House of Representatives, when choosing a President, votes by state. Furthermore, it is necessary that, in my opinion, the original system and the present system could be contrasted. That the House of Representatives originally voted on the top five candidates, but now votes on the top three, could be noted. It could especially delve deeper into the Jefferson-Burr election- noting that they were of the same party, that they were Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates together, how the framers did not anticipate such partisanness, how the House took 36 ballots to find a winner, the influence the Federalists had in lengthening the process- and more importantly, what' exactly the flaw was in the original electoral college. -- Emsworth 21:11, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I'll withdraw this until the article is more thorough and accurate. --Minesweeper 09:24, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Lord Emsworth, could you please edit the article as you see fit so we can get this terrific article onto the Featured Articles list? Kingturtle 17:37, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • This is not what I intended when I stated the objection, but I have amended the article to my liking nonetheless. I therefore declare that I do not retain any objection to the article. -- Emsworth 19:25, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • I support this nomination. I think it is extremely well-written. Very easy to understand. And thorough. Kingturtle 19:28, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I also support this nomination. It is an excellent example of a fair and balanced presentation of a controversial topic. Mcarling 20:17, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Emsworth writes: "Amendment XXIII states that DC may appoint "A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State." This does not bar DC from having fewer electors." With respect, this makes no sense. No state can have fewer than two Senators or fewer than one Representative. Therefore no state can have fewer than three members of the Electoral College. Therefore the District cannot have fewer than its present three members of the Electoral College. Adam 06:30, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Houses of Parliament

  • Irish Houses of Parliament
    • I object. Firstly, the article states "Irish peers had the constant right to elect a number of fellow Irish peers as representative peers to represent Ireland in the House of Lords, ironically introducing a degree of democratic election into the British House of Lords that has never existed since." This is absolutely incorrect, in my humble opinion. If elected representative peers form a democratic element, then such an element already existed, as Scotland elected representative peers. Also, such an element has indeed existed since, because under the House of Lords Act 1999, ninety hereditary peers are elected by their counterparts to sit in the House. Secondly, some of the pictures appear strewn across the page. -- Emsworth
      • SUPPORT. Ignore the comments above. What extreme nitpicking! The sentence in question was out-of-date since '99 depending on how you want to play a game of semantics. BTW, I did modify it so that it leaves no room for ambiguity. Anyway, this entry is clearly the work of a professional historian specialized in Irish politics. Yet, the most brilliant achievement is combining the attention to detail of the historian with a style of prose/layout that is succinct, matter-of-fact, and encyclopedic on one hand, while engaging and accessible to all general readers on the other. The author, User:Jtdirl - a specialist in Irish political history, a professional encyclopedist, and a published author of journalism, history, and fiction - exhibited each of his prodigious qualifications when putting together this article. Users of Jtdirl's caliber will consider the site worthy of their efforts when they see this article posted on the main page featured articles. 172 19:06, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Firstly, I hardly appreciate the fact that my objections have been dismissed as "extreme nitpicking." I merely noted that the article was factually incorrect, and no matter how unimportant the falsehood seems, the article remains incorrect. Furthermore, I do not doubt Jtdirl's expertise, but suggesting that his expertise is somehow conveyed to the article would be committing the logical fallacy of honor by association. So, my first objection has still not been adressed: the article still reads "Irish peers had the constant right to elect a number of fellow Irish peers as representative peers to represent Ireland in the House of Lords, ironically introducing a degree of democratic election into the British House of Lords," incorrectly. Secondly, my objection to the strewn pictures remains. I maintain both objections. -- Emsworth 17:43, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
        • This is not "honor by association." My comments were based entirely on the article, irrespective of the writer. I noted how this entry seems to make no trade off between style and substance. This came to my attention right away, as I have been chided for using technical terminology that - I've been told - renders some articles inaccessible to general readers. Then I noted that the author had the ability to strike such a balance - and I say this not on the basis of his background, but evidence of this that I've seen on Wiki. 172 05:04, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • Objections withdraw due to the changes that have been made. -- Emsworth 13:31, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. -- Kaihsu 20:43, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)

[edit] English poetry

  • English poetry - this article used to be a positive embarrassment, but user:Bmills has put a huge amount of work into it and it is now thoroughly informative, well organised, and a great read. seglea 17:13, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. -- Kaihsu 20:45, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
    • Support. Great article with a very solid structure. I cleaned up a few typos, and learnt a great deal about poetry in the process! fabiform | talk 11:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] C programming language

  • C programming language - good intro, carefully written. Lots of the other Wikipedia sites have this article, showing it is an important one.169.207.85.97 12:02, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Seconded -- Stewart Adcock 07:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[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] Peerage

  • Peerage - Partial self-nomination: several others have contributed, but I have just rewritten some parts of the article. I think that it provides a good, comprehensive consideration of the Peerage. -- Emsworth 22:44, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Second. -- Kaihsu 20:20, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
    • Although I've worked on this article some, I think Emsworth's thorough-going revision is excellent, and this'd be a good choice for featured article. john 09:59, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The body of the article is ready. The introduction needs work. The language of the opening parahraph needs to clearly lay out the concepts and history in easy-to-understand descriptions. If it takes two or three paragraphs to do so, that is ok. I'd help out, but I am naive on the subject at hand. Kingturtle 20:14, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I have revised the introduction; please inform me if it is inadequate. -- Emsworth 21:51, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, I support it now. Kingturtle 22:17, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Parthenon

[edit] Donegal fiddle tradition

  • Donegal fiddle tradition - An excellent article, originally from Nupedia I believe, covering an unusual but interesting topic. Danny 01:10, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. -- Kaihsu 15:43, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

[edit] Jet engine

  • Jet engine - Clear and complete. And now... accurate! A while ago, somebody nominated it, I objected and promised to nominate it when it was corrected. moink 21:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support, fun to read. Gentgeen 00:39, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Frankfurt School

  • Frankfurt School - long over-due for featured articles 172 03:17, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. -- Kaihsu 15:43, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)
    • Support. Holy Toledo. Well done. Kingturtle 20:10, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. jengod 06:40, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Definately support. Seth Mahoney 20:27, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support Wenteng 09:16, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Simon and Garfunkel

  • Simon and Garfunkel
    • Needs TOC. Bmills 14:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. It has a TOC. --zandperl 17:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. I'm the one who added the TOC, afterall :) →Raul654 18:59, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Timestamp to get the process rolling again. DanKeshet 06:16, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Prose is very good. Could use a photo of the duo. Bevo 22:26, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Featured_log_February_2004_6e02.html"