Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] People's Republic of China

- fully templated and contains extensive info. --Jiang 06:19, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

    • Second. -- Kaihsu 18:21, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
    • Support. Wenteng 09:16, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Me three. Bth 21:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. nickname (talk) 2005-07-05 18:28:07 (UTC)

[edit] Bioinformatics

    • A very good summary, neither short on information nor delving into too much detail. Looks nice, too! Gaurav 13:32, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I weakly object. This is a good article, particularly in staying at an appropriate level, and refering to more detailed other articles. However, it's pretty disorganized, at least needing well-thought-out section headings. The selection of topics seems a bit haphazard, though this may just be an effect of the organization. There's also some claims I'm uncomfortable, some of which are non-trivial to fix, e.g. homology is clearly an important concept in bioinformatics, but it overly dominates this article. Zashaw 05:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I have made some changes, to add structure that hopefully addresses some of Zashaw's concerns. Support. --Lexor|Talk 03:27, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I retract my objection. (Sorry for not checking sooner.) The article's on my list of things to have a look at, but I think it's already worthy of being a featured article, and your edits helped it a lot. Zashaw 22:05, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Sagan

I've polished it up a little, it seems fairly comprehensive and well-written to me. Note that I've done some earlier work on this article as well.—Eloquence 18:26, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Although, it might be wise to mention that he was a noted author earlier in the article, probably the intro. -- Stewart Adcock 21:50, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article. Luis Dantas 02:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It appears that consensus has already been established, but I'll add my vote anyway. Good overview, nice flow. There's room for expansion, but the conciseness is beneficial. A model article on many levels. Fredrik 10:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Voynich Manuscript

I and several others have worked on this one: it's been recently overhauled by Jorge Stolfi, and it strikes me that it's shaping up nicely. Smerdis of Tlön 17:01, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Added to Featured articles. Gentgeen 00:52, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Java programming language

I think this article covers the language very well and explains a lot. User:Sasha Slutsker 12:03 AM EST, 21 Mar 2004

  • Uh-huh. This seems pretty good. Ludraman | Talk 22:58, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, although it would probably benefit from more explanation in the control structures section. Stewart Adcock 02:25, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article. However, I oppose the addition of more programming details (just for the record = ). Full explanation on talk page.

[edit] Enclave

Thanks to the reference desk, this article was brought to my attention -- it's an interesting and comprehensive discussion of an idea I didn't even know there was a word for, and I think it's a good example of how we can treat a unique concept very simply and engagingly. Jwrosenzweig 18:40, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Full of interesting trivia. Smerdis of Tlön 20:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very interesting and deep article on a concept that could easily have been overlooked. Ambivalenthysteria 06:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, for the same reasons above. llywrch 17:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A bit of history would be nice, though. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 08:22, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an article that could have easily been nothing more than another wiktionary-ish definition. Stewart Adcock 02:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Gentgeen 14:41, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. jengod 00:13, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the first articles I fell in love with (among my misc. "online resources"), before I realized WP as a whole was so marvelous. +sj+ 21:54, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Added to History section. jengod 21:35, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism

I've added more pictures, so now all the unresolved objections have been resolved I think it can go back to here. Ludraman | Talk 23:32, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One of the best Wikipedia articles I have seen. Very comprehensive, and NPOV (which is something extremely important in religious articles) Ludraman 19:14, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Not opposed, I like the article, but I think it would benefit from at least a couple of images. Bkonrad 21:07, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Images exist now. Kingturtle 18:50, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I second that, and I haven't even looked at the article. Buddhism (particularly for outsiders) is recognized particularly by its many images of Buddha. Sam Spade 01:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    I'm not disagreeing with ye, but it has a picture of the Buddha, what other pictures would you have? Ludraman | Talk 10:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
More? ;) Sam Spade 19:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Done! Ludraman | Talk 23:32, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Good work, :D Sam Spade 17:42, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Indeed a very comprehensive and balanced article, better than many books on the market. Luis Dantas 02:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Reluctant. While it looks comprehensive I still find it a bit rough, and patchy. Most of the grossly pov stuff was been weeded out recently, but it could do with some work. I think we should wait. mahābāla 12:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks really good, if somewhat too extensive and maybe too academic on details. A good NPOV writing. Revth 06:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • YEA. Because of its emphasis on psychology and philosophy, this religious article has proved to be as unbiased as a religious article could be. Usedbook 20:16, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • This article is not yet ready. I support this now.Kingturtle 19:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It is good enough. We may all have little niggles, but its a large article already, with a lot of attention going into it. 20040302 21:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Space elevator

Might need a picture or two, but covers the topic well. - Fredrik 01:43, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Object. Lead section way too short. That section needs to act as a concise encyclopedia article in its own right. --mav 07:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I expanded it a bit myself. Better? Fredrik 09:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Full support - very comprehensive, well-researched and well-written. A masterful example of how a highly technical and nerdy topic can be explained in a way that people without scientific backgrounds can be made to both understand and be interested in the subject. Great work! --mav 21:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


I'll add my support to this one, although if someone could get permission to get a picture for use, it'd be all the better. There've been enough proposals done for the space elevator, at least *one* of the design images should be in the public domain.  :) UPDATE: I just emailed Liftport to ask for permission to use one of their conceptual drawings or renderings. UPDATE: We got permission. I posted some to the article.  :) Rei
Beautiful :) Fredrik 23:54, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please describe external links - add short descriptions to each link so that it's clear where they are leading.—Eloquence 17:23, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Jalnet2 00:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (should include links to a few more launching/skyhook techniques) +sj+ 15:45, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • Support. Jeff8765 22:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting article Stewart Adcock 02:33, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Gandalf61 10:44, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. excellent article. Alex.tan 14:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Time to get started. Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A very interesting and well-written article. Ex1le 01:53, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Featured_log_March_2004_1d0f.html"