Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Caesar cipher

Partial self nomination. There isn't a great deal that can be said about Caesar ciphers, but I think this article covers most of it. — Matt Crypto 01:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Well referenced and linked. Has sufficient pictures and is comprehensive and coherent as far as I can tell. Support. Mgm|(talk) 11:23, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Concise and precise. Phils 19:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. More history would be nice (Sherlock Holmes solved them at a glance, probably), but what's there is good. Tempshill 01:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I managed to find and add another example of their historical use from David Kahn's The Codebreakers (lovers communicating using the personals section in newspapers in the 1800s), but I don't think there's much else recorded about the real-world use of these ciphers. (As you say, Holmes was undoubtedly familiar with them. He once pointed out that he was "fairly familiar with all forms of secret writing" and was "the author of a trifling monograph upon the subject in which I analyse one hundred and sixty separate ciphers." If only Wikipedia was as comprehensive!) — Matt Crypto 09:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice work, Matt. Securiger 11:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nicely done. Anville 20:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - seems a trifle short, but I can't think of anything more that needs to be said, so I should praise its concision instead. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Old Man and the Sea

This is a self-nomination. It was curious to me that a more modern novel didn't exist in the featured list, and I thought this would be a good one. I think the article is of appropriate length for the book and addresses relevant topics. Clearly the most difficult part to write was the Reaction and critical analyses section; my goal in doing so was by no means to provide an exhaustive rendering of criticism, but rather to give two paradigmatically opposing interpretations that make clear the range of views. Readers can then refer below to what I consider to be some of the most authoritative sources on the novel. Your comments are appreciated. --DanielNuyu 07:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. A good synopsis of the story and its accolades and criticisms. slambo 19:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with the idea that we need better articles for newer novels. Rlacroix 06:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, more like this, please! dab (ᛏ) 18:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain at the moment. Wonderful content, but the writing is stilted or unclear in some places and could use some copyediting. "it was met with intense critical reaction at publication—ambivalent, despite common conceptions." Conceptions of what? How does this contrast with ambivalence? How was the ambivalence intense? And it says in the next section that it was initially unquestionably popular – this doesn't quite match. "Paradigmatic in this diametric reading is"... overworded. It suffers from term paper speak and muddle at other points: "the novel's Christian imagery, largely instantiated through the novel's passage that contains a blatant reference to the crucifixion following Santiago's sighting of the sharks that reads:" for instance. I also think it's a bit overlinked – I stripped "cornerstone of literature;" "price the fish will bring him at the market" and "Santiago continues his journey" are some other debatable links. And what's the consensus about piping references to years to "X in literature?" I know in music articles it's generally cautioned against... I want to restate that the content in this article is exceptional. It's just that there's no reason an article on The Old Man and the Sea should not be as much a joy to read as the novel. I hope to support this nomination with a bit more work. Samaritan 20:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I don't the critical reputation of this novel is anywhere near as high as this article suggests. It's a popular book, but the critical consensus has come to be that it's just another self-parody, a retread of his short story 'The Undefeated'. Its intial popularity was due in large part to sympathy for Hemingway, and also to the fact that it was serialized in the middlebrow Life Magazine. It certainly should not be described as a 'cornerstone' of modern fiction: a cornerstone would be something that had enormous influence and inspired other writers, something like his early short stories.
      • Above unsigned comments left by 68.118.61.219
      • 68.118.61.219: While I see where you're coming from, the consideration of the importance of the novel is an issue, as I think the article suggests, that is debated by scholars, with prominent critics falling on both sides of the fence. To say that someone might think that the novel is just another self-parody is certainly credible; I am unsure, however, whether it would be sound to suggest that such a view is general critical consensus. For example, Jobes suggests in her introduction that, "although Carlos Baker calls it 'major' in the title of his critical anthology, Ernest Hemingway: Critiques of Four Major Novels, other critics, including some like Leslie Fiedler and Norman Mailer who have profound respect for Hemingway's early work, find The Old Man and the Sea a disappointing minor work." In my reconsideration, I have decided that labeling the novel "a cornerstone of twentieth century fiction" may in fact be biased toward one side of this argument. I will recast that line so it reads more accurately as a statement of how important the novel was for Hemingway's own progression as an author (after all, the novel was cited as a reason for his Nobel Prize), consistent with Jobes's statement that, "whether one sees it as fakery or as a parable of universal significance, the importance of Hemingway's last novel in his development is undeniable." --DanielNuyu 01:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Samaritan: thank you for your notes; your concerns are very well taken. If there are instances where the articles sounds slightly like a term paper, it's likely because some of the lines were adapted (with obviously not perfect success) from some of my own assignments. In any case, I have recast some of the parts that you pointed to in hopes to make them read more as they should. As for the usage of "X in literature," I am unsure; initially I had simply linked to the years, but User:Neutrality made those changes in a copyedit. --DanielNuyu 00:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spring Heeled Jack

Self-nomination, with the invaluable help of people outside and inside WP, especially JeremyA and Allen3. This article has been on peer review for 12 days with hardly any comments, so I tried to do my best to make it as close to FA criteria as I could on my own; and after a painstaking month of work, I'm satisfied with the result. The subject is the figure of Spring Heeled Jack, an English paranormal phenomena and urban legend of the Victorian era, with vast influence in many cultural aspects. Since all the online sources currently available cover either of these sides but not both, and usually in a shallow fashion, my goal was to provide Wikipedia with the most objective and comprehensive article I could write, and I hereby submit it for your consideration. Thanks for your time. -- Shauri 03:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I read it all and thought it was so interesting that I was disappointed that it wasn't longer. Support, but expand it further if you can! Everyking 07:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well-referenced. Bunch of nice pictures and as far as I can determine it's pretty complete. Support (Could you mention the jumping in the lead?) Mgm|(talk) 14:52, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Done, I added a small line to the lead mentioning his jumping abilities. Hope you like it, and thx :) -- Shauri 21:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; extremely well documented/referenced. Illustrated extremely well and seems to be comprehensive to me, good job.  ALKIVAR™ 19:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Over the last few weeks I have watched Shauri grow this article from a stub with possible copyvio worrries into the article it is now. I think that she has done an excellent job and produced a first-class article. JeremyA 00:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] kibbutz

Renomination. The last nomination got very few votes, but the object votes had issues with the article's organization, especially the lack of info on the background of the kibbutz movement. The article has now (laboriously) been reorganized and further expanded.Dinopup 19:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support AndyL 20:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd like to congratulate User:Dinopup for his excellent work since the last FAC nomination of this article, which I opposed. He has truly done an outstanding job. That being said, it would be nice if someone with a good mastery of English could go over the article and copy edit it so it is 100% ready for featured status. As it is, the prose is perfectly comprehensible, but there are still some unusual repetitions and wordings here and there. I could do this myself, but I am certain the result wouldn't be as good as if one of our native English-speaking editor does it. Phils 20:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I did a quick pass on the punctuation and spelling. However, there's still some repetition, such as the decline of the children's societies. --Wahoofive 23:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done User:Dinopup. - RoyBoy 800 02:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent. Gdr 14:59, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Support. Hydriotaphia 20:22, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Totally inadequate lead section and nearly twice the recommended page size. Article size is very important given that the average attention span of people is 20 minutes and it takes the average person about that amount of time to read 30 to 35 KB of prose. So a person who needs a good primer on this topic would not likely finish reading this article. Nothing wrong with having a great deal of coverage on a topic, but having so much in one article is not optimal. See Wikipedia:Summary style on how to fix this (involves summarizing some sections and moving the more detailed text to daughter articles). There also appear to be a complete lack of subsectioning. --mav 20:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree the article could use splitting. As I see it, a great deal of the information in sections 1, 2, 4 and 5 could be put in an article about the history of Kibbutzim Phils 23:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. In dire need of a thorough spellcheck pass--I only got halfway thru and found almost a half-dozen obvious misspellings and doublets (eg "holidy", "called called"). At .17 I presently am in no condition to do it myself, but it's not that hard to throw the text into a word processor and let its spelling checker do half the work. Niteowlneils 23:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)Spellchecker pass done. Niteowlneils 06:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am a embarrassed by the language mistakes. I wish I could say "I'm not a native English speaker" (as Phils assumed) but alas English is my first language. Sometimes though one doesn't notice one's own mistakes, so perhaps that was my problem. Hydriotaphia (thank you) has made many corrections, I just made a couple corrections that Niteowl pointed out. As for the length, I know that there are other FAs that are quite long. John Vanbrugh and the Cantos are two recent FAs that are as massive and thes kibbutz article. For what it's worth, most browsers can handle a 58 k article without a problem. Dinopup 00:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In the 'Kibbutzim during the British Mandate' section, Russian Revolution seems to need to be dabbed, but I'm not sure which one is being referred to. Niteowlneils 07:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Niteowl, I indicated that the Revolution of 1917 was the one being referred to.Dinopup 20:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article looks promising, but 58 k just isn't decent. I think the introduction could be longer. Perhaps elaborating a bit on the socialistic experiment. Peter Isotalo 00:43, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Peter and Maveric, per your comments I added an historical overview paragraph to the introduction. dinopup
  • Support - As a kibbutz member, I like the article, it is important to bring it to much people as possible, shorter even better. Keep up the good work, you can always expend it#################
  • Support. This article should be long. There must be more than two good external links, though. Samaritan 21:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Length seems appropriate to me. Lead section and references could still be improved; a more specific introductory overview of what a kibbutz is -- what makes kibbutzim like and unlike other forms of communal living -- would be especially nice. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I added two new external links, I added a sentence to strengthen the introduction ("indeed, kibbutzim played an essential role in the creation of Israel.") and I made clarifications per Niteowl's suggestions. Thank you everyone who has offered advice! I'm sorry my prose hasn't always been so neat. I will make more changes if advised. (though I'm relucant to make the article shorter, I don't know what I'd cut)Dinopup 04:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kreutz Sungrazers

Self nomination. I'm quite pleased with this article on an interesting group of comets which has supplied some of the brightest ever seen. I think it is comprehensive, and I hope it is comprehensible, so I'm putting it forward for consideration here. Worldtraveller 12:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Thanks for another great read, Worldtraveller. Denni☯ 01:42, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  • Support. Fine article and I can vouch for its being comprehensible to the amateur. Filiocht 09:07, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, possible techspeak is linked or explained. Contains stunning pictures and looks comprehensive. Mgm|(talk) 10:39, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Informative and approachable, readable and coherent. Geogre 13:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; very nice. --DanielNuyu 05:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; very informative, well illustrated. I like this.  ALKIVAR™ 19:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; most interesting and with excellent pictures. -- Shauri 06:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] El Lissitzky

Self-nomination. No offense to anyone present, but one area where Wikipedia is really hurting is in art. I've been noticing this for a while and, after seeing the rather homely article on Lissitzky that Wikipedia was cruely exposing to the world, I took it upon myself to make it as good as possible. I'm still not sure its FA-grade but, after sumbitting it to peer review (ignore the comments about you guys being scary; they made me say it) and expanding it greatly, I thought I'd, with the encouragement of other higher-ups, give it a shot.--Clngre 22:33, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Tentatively support. Really nice article. I haven't vetted it against the formal FA criteria, I just think it is a very good article, and if people deem it to fall short, we should fix the few problems there may be. I raised a few small issues on its talk page that I'd like to see addressed. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The points on the talk page need to be dealt with, of course, but shouldn't be a serious impediment. --Michael Snow 00:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object. Nice article. However, I have problem with the two-line "Works" section. This is not a proper section and it needs to be expanded or merged. 212.61.72.85 07:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • You're right, I agree. Check it out now though, I added a table. I'm not sure if it appropriate or if it works, so let me know if it's alright. --Clngre 15:20, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Refreshing. Phils 10:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Please, remove the article from Peer review. -- Shauri 15:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree we need more art articles. --Mattwj2002 04:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice work on the children's books section - I'll try to find quotes re: his influence. Warofdreams 14:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is as good an entry on an artist as any I've seen on Wikipedia. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colditz Castle

Partial Self-nom: A Maximum security Nazi POW camp (Oflag IVc) for Allied officers during WW2, it has a history going back to 1046! I've put a ton of effort into this over the past week and think its probably at FA status now. Yes the article does have a ton of redlinks, however most of them are biographical articles on people from 11th to 16th Century, or WW2 veterans that havent been created yet. I say partial self nom because the following was left on its talk page by 68.77.162.199 on 17 Mar 2005: "I think this is a fascinating article, featured article material." Let me know where to go folks.  ALKIVAR™ 11:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - Great article Waerth 01:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Aw, this awesome article needs more Support - KingTT 21:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • support - I keep coming back to this article and noticing how much it's been improving. This time I was really surprised; it's really becoming something. I can't really comment on its accuracy or comprehensiveness, thats for someone else to check out, but just as a reader I think it's very well written and fully answers all of my questions. It's also one of those "fun" articles that makes Wikipedia more attractive and interesting. --Clngre 22:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A fascinating and comprehensive article, although the redlinks prompt me to wonder whether articles on some of these people will ever be written: perhaps they ought to be removed? However, redlinks are not a reason to object to featuring. Dbiv 12:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, a really interesting and enjoyable read. Disclosure: I've done superficial copy-editing. Bishonen | Talk 15:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Some images of dubious copyright status called "fair use", some with apparently no more justification than the "it's fair use if we really want to use it" theory. Two listed on PUI. —Steven G. Johnson 20:34, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    You dont really seem to understand how "Fair Use" works. These images are 1) used for illustrative purpose to a subject of which they relate to. 2) this is a non profit educational use. 3) credit is established and given for source. As far as wikipedia is concerned this is a legitimate fair use. From fair use:
    In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
    1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
    3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
    you can clearly see this fits those guidelines.  ALKIVAR™ 21:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In your way of thinking, is there any image on the web that would not be fair use in Wikipedia? If your answer is "no", then you need to think again — fair use is a very narrow exception to copyright law. Points 3 and 4, in particular, mean that in general you can only use small snippets of a larger work (and even then maybe not if the snippet by itself has commmercial value to the author) not just any random image you swiped from someone's web site (e.g. Image:The Rennaisance Portal.jpg). —Steven G. Johnson 03:56, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm following Wikipedia's established Fair Use guidelines, which it clearly fits. However since your objection still stands to ruin the hopes of this quite good article, I have since commented them out. Is this enough to remove your objection?  ALKIVAR™ 13:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; I had a great time reading this article, great work! -- Shauri 07:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Convair B-36

Self-nom. But still, Wow. It is a truly amazing article. →Iñgōlemo← talk 05:59, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

  • Support however, I do feel that the references/external links bit should be split into two sections (References and then External Links, not a combined section), but other than that I have no complaints. --Lan56 08:27, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the above comment. The 'Related Content' section might also be renamed 'See also', as that name is more common on the wiki. Phils 12:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • "Related content" is a standard section from the WikiProject Aircraft/page content guidelines. Many aircraft articles have it. Geoff/Gsl 22:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Like Geoff said. It's a standard that something like 600 of our roughly 1,500 aircraft articles conform to. --Rlandmann 10:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support looks damn good, think you can do this to B-26 Marauder ;)  ALKIVAR™ 11:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Great article. kaal 21:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I was delighted to see such a comprehensive article on an often-overlooked but very important aircraft. I've been pleased to be able to contribute. (btw, the Mistel reference was mine - forgot to log in.) Brendano 22 March 2005
  • Support I just follow the other people here in their praise. Wim van Dorst 21:26, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  • Support - doesn't get much better than this. I've just edited the Specifications section to conform to WikiProject Aircraft guidelines. --Rlandmann 10:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support and pleased to as it's one of my favourite aircraft designs. Dbiv 12:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - reminds me of the stuff at Greg Goebel's site, [1] which is a Good Thing. Ooh, ooh, write one about the flying wing, you know, the one that was in 'War of the Worlds'. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Operational history contains numerous original or unattributed judgements. The entire article continues to a lesser degree, as phrases such as "was considered" are used without specification of who considered this so. The article says the aircraft was "arguably obsolete", but no mention is made of who considered it obsolete (the editor?). The following sentence labels the aircraft as revolutionary and apologises for problems: "Also, the groundbreaking design had a number of problems, as is normal in revolutionary aircraft." "It is highly unlikely any will ever fly again"--according to who? Blatant original research and POV: "Its little-used nickname Peacemaker was apt, because its mere existence, whatever its flaws, probably played a significant role in preventing World War III." Again, original research and assertion of opinion as fact: "It was never tested in combat, however, and it is impossible to say how well it would have fared." Weasel statement reflecting POV: "it is possible that its rarely acknowledged reconnaissance missions were just as valuable." POV/unattributed: "could produce pictures of incredible clarity". 119 04:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    1. Operational history contains numerous original or unattributed judgements. The entire article continues to a lesser degree, as phrases such as "was considered" are used without specification of who considered this so.
      Has been rectified
    2. The article says the aircraft was "arguably obsolete", but no mention is made of who considered it obsolete (the editor?).
      Now reads simply 'obsolete'. The description 'piston-engined aircraft in the age of jet fighters' should provide enough explanation.
    3. The following sentence labels the aircraft as revolutionary and apologises for problems: "Also, the groundbreaking design had a number of problems, as is normal in revolutionary aircraft."
      Now reads 'Like many aircraft before it that had pushed the envelope of size, the XB-36 had a number of difficulties. (Compare the B-29 Superfortress, which was plagued by engine problems, and the Boeing XB-15, which didn't have engines available powerful enough for a useful top speed.)'
    4. "It is highly unlikely any will ever fly again"--according to who?
      The factoid about 900 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air says it all.
      But again, according to who? If no aircraft fly with such a maintenance record, then that can be noted as fact alongside the 900 rather than stating it as an opinion. 119 04:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Now stated as a fact.
    5. Blatant original research and POV: "Its little-used nickname Peacemaker was apt, because its mere existence, whatever its flaws, probably played a significant role in preventing World War III."
      Now reads 'Without the B-36, the Strategic Air Command would have lacked a feasible nuclear deterrent, potentially placing the United States at the mercy of the Soviet Union.' This statement is simple fact: after the B-36, the next longest range bomber had only enough range to make it halfway to Moscow, nowhere near enough to serve as an effective deterrent.
    6. Again, original research and assertion of opinion as fact: "It was never tested in combat, however, and it is impossible to say how well it would have fared."
      How is this POV? It is impossible to say how any plane would have fared in combat, if it was never used in combat.
      That is only your opinion. It may also be argued that based on an aircraft's characteristics, its effectiveness could be inferred. 119 04:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      This statement has since been rearranged by another user. The paragraph now reads ...the B-36's role as the United States' sole practical nuclear deterrent earned it the nickname Peacemaker in the opening years of the Cold War. Though it was never tested in combat, the Strategic Air Command defended its performance on the grounds that the few fighters that could reach the normal operating altitude of the B-36 were so lacking in maneuverability that the giant bomber could easily evade them.
      ('small' is too small for my old eyes to read - changed to italic) There is a long thread at the Cold War Vets forum on delphi (linked in External References) titled "The B-36 goes to war". It is filled with the comments and recollections of crewmembers who carried out the war-readiness missions. They were confident that they could have carried out their warfighting assignment. They are less confident that they would have survived the mission. Brendano 14:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    7. Weasel statement reflecting POV: "it is possible that its rarely acknowledged reconnaissance missions were just as valuable."
      Now reads 'While it received all its publicity in connection to its role as a strategic nuclear bomber, it also engaged in rarely acknowledged reconnaissance missions', with side comment 'Before the development of the Lockheed U-2, the RB-36 was the only plane with the range to fly into Asia from bases in the United States.'
    8. POV/unattributed: "could produce pictures of incredible clarity".
      The golfball stat provides an excellent explanation.
      But an explanation of your opinion. "Incredible" is a fairly sensational word. 119 04:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Incredible clarity>>High resolution
    Ist das alles? →Iñgōlemo← talk 19:27, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  • Support Oops - I've gone and edited over a whole bunch of Ingoolemo's rectifications, but I don't think I've introduced any new problems and a few things are better even (I was just merging in after an edit conflict). O well, I'm now familiar enough with this article to wholeheartedly support its nomination to FAS. -Lommer | talk 22:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support though I find the back-to-front dates confusing. Geoff/Gsl 01:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    There is ample precedence for them. →Iñgōlemo← talk 02:32, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
    Only in technical documentation, as far as I'm aware. Can you name a single general reference work on aircraft that uses them? I can't. Actually, apart from Ingoolemo's contributions to Wikipedia, I've never actually seen this date format used in connected prose (outside of technical documentation). --Rlandmann 05:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. 119 06:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mumbai

This is one of the largest projects I've undertaken. I've added a lot of information (including satellite pages so that there are no red links) to the city which is India's largest. I've also made all the maps, added a wikiquote and had it translated into numerous other languages (I'm working on adding about 15 more). Helped by User:Kaal, User:Sundar and User:Brhaspati in the copyediting of the text. It was on Peer Review last week and received just a single suggestion which was promptly addressed. I hope that this article sets the standards for all city articles. Nichalp 18:47, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Good article, but there are too many images and they are poorly sized (they are much too small) and all over the place. A lot of the map articles should be moved to the Geography of Mumbai article. Páll 19:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I've right aligned all images, and set all photographs to a standard 250px. The maps cannot be enlarged further due to their aspect ratio which would magnify their size. Please see if the juggling makes the page better. Nichalp 20:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
While the right-aligning is helpful, I still find that most of the images on this article give absolutely no indication as to the character of Mumbai. There are far too many maps, most of which are barely germaine to the subject they discus. I attemtped a slight change myself, but there is now a huge gap in the Civic Administration section due to the fairly pointless map of all the districts of Mumbai. Take a look at Johannesburg for what I consider to be a well-constructed city article. Páll 20:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
i have removed the ward map from the article for now. But T don't understand what u mean by images not giving the character of the city or maps being barely germane to the subject. All the maps in the article are relevant to the topic being discussed and i dont see the need to take them out. And having been to mumbai the rest of the images are what you will see in the city. They exactly show the way the city is. kaal 20:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I too don't understand why you have problems with the maps. The ward map is given along side the text: The city is divided into 23 wards. This map is important; it is akin to the administrative regions map of Johannesburg. The district map shows the distinction between the city and metropolis. The rail network is shown alongside the transport section. I think its position alongside is germaine; it gives a reader an idea on what the topics are about. Sarajevo, on the contrary has loads of images, but all of them have a smaller size and tastefully done so that they don't mar the page. If you have problems with the captioning of the pictures, please let us know; that can be easily resolved, but getting new images to accede to your objection would be difficult at this juncture. Nichalp 18:39, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
I dislike the maps because this article discusses one of the largest cities in the world, and you have four map images. They do not contribute to the article, only one is enough. There is a large gap at the bottom of the Transport section. The maps are not bad, but they need to be taken off the main page and moved to the sub articles and images that give more of a character of the city itself need to be put in their place. The history section needs to be much longer, and there needs to be more discussion over the name change from Bombay to Mumbai. Obviously, there must have been different parties with their own opinions on both sides, I want to know more. It is a major name change. The map of the location of Mumbai needs to be changed and the location needs to be made much more clear. The user shouldn't have to scan the map to try to read where Mumbai is. There are spelling mistakes galore. The lead section is clumsy, particularly the "and is located on an island..." section. You talk about the new companies located there, but the (tiny tiny) economy section only has an image of auto rickshaws? Is that the most important feature to showcase Mumbai's economy? Also, are there any more recent references? Surely your information about recent changes must have come from somewhere, as the latest printed reference is from 1995. This is why I am objecting. Páll 19:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've referenced the statistics on the economy from Manorama Yearbook 2003 (I've already mentioned it). (The 2005 version should be out soon). In the demographics part; I've referenced the figures from the Times of India newspaper (various issues): Since I do not have the exact date, (I can give you the approx week) I haven't listed it.
  • The history section is a summary of the main points. I would not like to expand it as it would be too long given that there is a main article. Similarly with the economy section. Two paragraphs are perfectly fine since there is a main article. Its within wikipedia policy, and expanding the length would lead to objections from others. The main history article will be having detailed information soon (I've got stuck around 1700: I lost my data over a crash; but will be readding it in a day or two.)
  • The location is marked with a red dot and highlighted with a yellow background. Surely its easy to pick it out? (I can't expand the image as the table would expand.)
  • About the maps: While your points are sound, there's no policy on the "appropriateness" of its inclusion or non-inclusion on this page. If there is a consensus by more reviewers on whether the maps are an impediment or not germane, I'll be happy to concede and remove them. I'll remove the auto-rickshaw image as it conflicts with the economy section.
  • The space after the tranport section is due to the syntax "<br clear="all" />. Its common to use this syntax in many pages if the image overlaps with the next heading. If not used, the result would be horrendous in some resolutions.
    • I've removed the tag.
  • I've removed the autorickshaw image, added images in their relavent section and removed the road map. Also captioned the mosque image to fit into demographics.

Nichalp 19:41, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the rail map, cleaned up some of the lead-in gramamar and some in the article. The odd sentences do not appear incorrect in my word processor and so its a little difficult to catch it. Nichalp 19:40, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
The infobox now sticks out to the side because it does not fit, and the civic administration section has a huge gap at the bottom. This article desperately needs more content. Páll 19:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1)I've removed the space after civic administration. 2) I strongly disagree that the article lacks content. Wikipedia recommends that most pages be under 30kb. This page is ~29.8kb. I religiously stick to this limit in all my articles, providing a summary of the salient points and moving detail to other articles so that the result is not a long and winding article. Since I've made main articles for expansion purposes, it is well within the wikipedia conventions. 3) What do you mean by "infobox now sticks out to the side" ? IMO Its probably a browser quirk. I've tested the page (my resolution is 800x600) on Opera 7.54 and Mozilla and cannot see any problems. Nichalp 20:36, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Páll, This is what I have done: 1) Cleaned up some odd grammar. 2) Removed the rail map 3) Added the reason why Mumbai was renamed (Detailed report will come later) 4) Cleaned up the images by adding them is relevant sections 5) Removed the gaps after each section. What I cannot do is: 1) fix the infobox as I cannot replicate the quirk on my browser. 2) add more detail to the page. From [2] The 32KB (warning comes at 30kb) recommendation is considered by some to have stylistic value; if your article is longer than that, sections probably should be summarised. I would prefer that the page be a summary and detail moved to the main articles. Nichalp 19:02, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I guess that I have taken care of all your objections then? Nichalp 18:40, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Páll is right about the images. Find more representative images and most of all fix the layout. I will support this article once the images are fixed. Otherwise, nice. Support Phils 21:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article with the right amount of images. But can you please move the main infobox to the lead section. It looks better that way and one shouldn't have to scroll for that information. pamri 03:45, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support (As stated in the nomination, I did minor copyedits.) -- Sundar 04:38, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Can't think of what else can be added or taken away. Gaurav 05:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support There are numerous instances where the phrasing of a sentence seems odd to me, but I'm prepared to accept that this might reflect Indian English practice. I would recommend moving the transport map to its subarticle, it doesn't add much where it is. Fawcett5 22:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that there are some sentences that seem odd. I've cleaned up some of the quirks. It would be nice if you could point out further mistakes as they are hard to spot in my word processor. Nichalp 19:38, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Just move the infobox up to the very top and it'll be excellent, but it is great by the way it is already. Squash 05:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If seen a couple of discussions on the placement of the infobox. Most place it after a paragraph or two so that the lead-in doesn't look squeezed to the left. Nichalp 19:38, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • That is new to me, such a policy I never heard of before. Squash 23:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't put it as policy. Articles such as India do have the infobox a little lower. But its really personal preferences as far as I've seen. I don't know if there are any guidelines as to where the box should be. Nichalp 10:03, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • Hi, If you are interested, I could work on the infobox to make it similar to Infobox:India_City (example page Mysore).--IMpbt 18:23, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Thanks, but I feel that the Mumbai infobox is adequately informative. I have some reservations on the Mysore infobox (I'll mention it on that talk page.) Nichalp 19:16, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
              • Okay if it's a personal preference then don't worry about it, just checking :) Squash 05:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is certainly one of the broadest and best organized city articles I've seen, but not having any info on 'notable natives' is inconsistent with the relevant WikiProject's guidelines. Also, while they aren't mentioned there, I'm used to seeing info on twin towns and city in literature content in the most complete city articles. These would all work as 'see alsos' so I don't think size should be a problem. Niteowlneils 03:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1) I had initially thought of adding the sister cities but didn't have the information as to where to find the info after a google search. However after deep searching I have managed to locate all five sister cities and have added them under culture. 2) The "Notable natives" are the guidelines for US cities. I'm not sure as to who qualifies as "notable" and who not, since there are a *lot* of famous residents. Perhaps a dedicated list on another page would be the best thing. Nichalp 18:40, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
I realize that the cities WikiProject as currently written is rather US-centric. However, city articles as diverse as Cairo, Adelaide, and Zürich all have lists of notable people from their city. Picking names off of 'what links here' seems like the most effective way to start such a list. I must admit, looking at a bunch of other city articles has enhanced my appreciation of this one, and the other city FAs--most WP large city articles are either a real mess (eg Cairo or Los Angeles, California) or woefully under-developed (eg Nairobi). Niteowlneils 00:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's an interesting way to start making a page on it prominent citizens. I'll do that later on as 1) I feel that it is an ancillary topic as it doesn't add too much info on the city 2) I'm working on another FA article to submit soon. I don't have any problems on the prominent citizens, but it will be on a new page. I also agree with you that a lot of cities have poor information, mostly in lists et al. Some like Calcutta are informative but boring and long. It would be great if each wikipedian adopts his home city and works on it to be a FA. Nichalp 20:35, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
I've made a page for the notable residents and listed it in the ==see also== section under others. Its stubby, I know, but I hope others can also contribute to it. Nichalp 20:43, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. - Taxman 14:33, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wladyslaw Sikorski

Partial self-nom. A biography of one of the most famous Polish generals and politicians. War, politics, conspiracies...I hope it is interesting :) I tried to keep it as NPOV and objective as possible, especially given the conspiracy theories part, which is rather tricky - I hope I succeeded, if not, well, tell me what to improve. Comments, as always, expected and welcome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Good article. Could you make sure we always have English first, with Polish translations, where useful, left in second place? Also, there seems to be a bit too much on the controversy over his death. Perhaps most of the info could be placed in a separate article, with only a passing reference here? Good luck with it! jguk 22:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I am unaware of any policy that English necessarily comes first and in many cases (e.g., the title of a book that has never had English-language publication) this would be actively wrong. Jguk, is this just your personal preference, or is there some policy of which I am unaware? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:24, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's more a case that this is the English Wikipedia, and it's normally better writing to present the reader with something they're familiar with first. There's always Wikipedia:Use English, though that's a naming convention rather than a guideline for the text of an article. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to assume everyone knows what the word "Sejm" means, for example, jguk 06:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • My policy which I have used in my past articles is to use Polish term first if it is used in English and the relevant article is under Polish name, then English/other in parenthesis/italic. In case of Sejm, as it is used in English and the article title is Sejm, not Polish Parliament/Diet, thus any use in article text should be first Sejm (Polish Parliament), then just Sejm. I'd appreciate any comments on this policy if you think it is more confusing then helpful, though. And of course I might have made an error or forgoten to explain some other terms (in case of books without an English translation, I did translate the title, but again, in the above maner). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Weak Object The conspiracy section really needs to be converted to in a coherent narrative form, especially since it forms a major percentage of the text. Surprising also that there is no mention of Sikorski's relationship with one of his most important generals, Stanislaw Sosabowski. Fawcett5 23:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    • Are you referring to the list? While I am usually in favour of minimizing lists in articles, I think that in this case this is an acceptable approach, as this is has a rather logical structure (the most mentioned facts are bullet, bullet, bullet). I feel that if this was merged into paragraphs(s), it would lose some clarity. As for Sosabowski, this is because no source material I read made any significant mention of him (neither does the current wiki article on him). By all means, if you now anything about their relations, do let me know or add this to the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Changed now. Is it better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I withdraw my earlier comments - I have cleaned up the conspiracy section a bit more, and I think it flows better now - but see some html comments I embedded. There is still an issue throughout the article with making the English usage idiomatic, but these are mostly minor problems relating to the use of the definite article, and with sentence structure. I have already started going through and copyediting these. And it turns out there is not too much available on the relationship between Sikorski and Sosabowski. Sikorski did create on 23 September 1941 Sosabowski's Polish 1st Independent Parachute Brigade (confirmed by written order 4 October, 1941). This was notable as Poland's first unit of this type Fawcett5 20:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not bad, but I see some POV, such as in this sentence: "Sikorski's role, as that of all supporters of the London government, would be twisted and minimized in the official communist version of history, and those loyal to the government in exile were subject to imprisonment and even executions." Minimized is probably fine, but "twisted" seems problematic to me. Everyking 12:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The fact is that Sikorski's role was not only minimized, he was called a traitor and a fool in communist propaganda, and various other lies had been made about him (especially in the Stalin era) - starting from the accusation that he collaborated with Nazis (mentioned in the text). IMHO this falls in the area of 'twisting the truth', doesn't it? How would you suggest we rephrase the sentence? I am open for suggestions. I'd appreciate more POVed examples to fix if you say there is more. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I'd suggest spelling out the viewpoint of the Polish communists about him. It doesn't do any good to just say they "twisted" the facts, since twisted has a distinct negative connotation; it's better to explain what they said exactly, presenting the information without overtly judging whether it's true or not. Everyking 12:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, twisted is supposed to have a distinct negative connotation. As already mentioned in the article, communists accused him (without any proof) of cooperating with Nazis. Sounds fairly deserving a negative connotation to me. How would you suggest we rephrase it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • As it appears it is a repeated complaint, I changed it to: his role...would be minimized and distorted by propaganda in the official communist version of history. I hope this is more NPOVed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - Lead section is way too small for an article this size. --mav 17:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I have expanded the lead, it has 3 paragraphs now and takes most of the screen. Are you satisfied? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • First para is now a bit bloated, but overall that was good enough to remove the reason for my objection. I'll take a closer look later to see if I can support. --mav 01:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I'm ignorant of the subject matter, but this appears to be a solid treatment. I caught several spelling/grammar mistakes, though, so it's probably worth going over it carefully to polish it up. 1) The "Controversy over his death" section is in bullet point form: this does need to be reworked into paragraphs.2) Are we sure about "Poland, for whose freedom the world had gone to war" .. is that an accurate summary of the various nations' motives for involvement in World War II? 3) "Lech Walesa became the first President of Poland...in effect retrospectively recognising the legitimacy of the government in exile." ... is it appropriate for a Wikipedia article to judge the legitimacy of this or that historical government? 4) How is he viewed today, in Poland for example...as a hero? Are museums named after him etc? 5) I agree with Everyking's above comment regarding "twisted" — that sentence jumped out at me too. — Matt Crypto 09:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • 1) fixed, although I don't think it is a good idea - still, if it is what majority finds easier to read... 2) changed to Poland, for whose freedom much of the world had gone to war, which looks like a less poetic, more factual representation of the facts (after all, UK and France did went to war to honor their defence guarantees to Poland) 3) I am not sure if I undestand your complain here, but the current goverment of Poland (well, all governments after we became independent again in 1990) does recognize the gov. in exile as its legal predecessor, so I don't see it as any kind of POVed judgement, it is a fact 4) yes, he is a hero - your point being? 5) fixed, see above. Anything else? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your fixes. Regarding 4) If he is regarded as a hero in Poland (or elsewhere), then it would be appropriate to mention this in the article, perhaps even the lead section, to clue in people (like me) with little knowledge of Polish history; it's quite useful to report on modern perceptions of historical figures. re: 3) Again, I emphasise my lack of knowledge in this area, but is it really the case that there is no significant view that sees the decades-long communist government of Poland as legitimate? One other thing: 6) "recently declassified" — can we give a date/month/year of declassification, as "recently" is quite unspecific, and will (eventually) become dated. 7) Come to think of it, we could probably do with some more referencing in the "Controversy" section, particularly when citing quotations from people. — Matt Crypto 17:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • 3) Long story, could make an article in itself. The communist gov was legitimate, so was the London in exile, current Poland recognised obligations from both of them - however the difference is that London one was a democratic, elected government, while the communist one more of an occupation-like. Communist did not view London one as a legit. After 1990, new independdent Poland does recognize it as such. 4) Well, he was an important hero, but this article is not about him, and he is mention just as a sidenote to Sikorski's gov-in-exile legacy, really. And he has his own article. 6) I am afraid I cannot find the exact date, there have been documents declassified from late 1990s, my source for this (the Time article) although sais 'recently declassified under the 30-years rule' but I can only speculate what was the orginal date from which the rule applied :< 7) by using hyperlinked notes and such? It would be a nice touch, but is it really an objection?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the explanations; I'll remove my objection...regarding 4) I meant we should discuss how Sikorski is viewed as a hero; I presume you thought I meant someone else ("this article is not about him"). Re 7) I think that when people are quoted, it's a good idea to try to give a source for the quote. This doesn't necessarily have to be fancy hyperlinked notes -- it could be something like an inline "(Cooper, 1982, p178)" tag, and a corresponding entry in the References section. — Matt Crypto 13:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • 4) I thought you meant Lech Walesa. I will try to research and adress how Sikorski's perception has changed over the past few years, this is an interesting point. 7) Basically, I agree, although this is very rare on Wiki - something we should adress on a more general scale. I'll see what I can do about it in this article as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is informative, reads well, and is NPOV. It takes complex historical situations that are unfamiliar to much of the world and gives them clarity. It really is one of the better articles on the Wikipedia. logologist 04:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parliament Act

Self-nomination. The German version of this article is a featured article (or the equivalent), I believe, on the German Wikipedia, so I decided to try to bring this up to quality (along with many others). Morwen - Talk 12:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Where are the other main articles relating to this article? Where are the WikiSources regarding to this article? -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Erm, I'm not sure I understand the question. Which "other main articles"? If you mean separate articles on Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949, this article deals with both - it would not make much sense to deal with them separately. Which WikiSources? Even if you mean copies of the Acts (which are subject to Crown copyright), can the absence of WikiSource material be an objection? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • These are not objections, just a comment. I would think that there would be a copy of the text at WikiSource, so that is why I questioned if there was. Also, typically, under sections which have their own article, I normally see something like:
        Main article: Parliament Act 1911
      • -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • But Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949 are just redirects to this article! It would be very odd to therefore have the behaviour you propose. Re WikiSource, the Acts are Crown Copyright and therefore I believe uploading to WikiSource not allowed. Morwen - Talk 07:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • It is a shame that these two articles are just redirects - it'd be nice to have a main article on each which expands on what a mixed article can provide. Keep in mind that in 1911 parliamentarians had no idea that another act would be made 38 years later. --Oldak Quill 13:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Please go ahead if you think there is enough material to write separate articles on both of them, but I think this article deals quite adequately with them in detail and in combination. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but I've also written large chunks of it, so an outside view would be appreciated. The German version, for comparison, is at de:Parliament Act, and has some flow diagrams: if someone can copy and translate them, that would be great. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; I don't particularly like the flow diagrams on the German Wikipedia, TBH. James F. (talk) 12:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I looked at translating it, but ended up agreeing with you. I think the prose explanation is sufficient. Morwen - Talk 20:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair enough - my only reason for mentioning it is that the Parliament Acts are rather hard to illustrate. I suppose a scan of the front page of one of the Acts would be good, although the image of the Palace of Westminster and the people involved do the job for now. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • SupportVery comprehensive and well explained. Giano 13:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm sceptical as to its completeness - particularly as all references are online. Is Erskine-May silent on it? What about what constitutional experts say on the Acts? (Also, though I don't object on this point, isn't the article name wrong - since it's about 2 Acts - the 1911 and 1949 ones?) The article appears to dwell too much on question marks (now resolved) about the 1949 Act. It would also be interesting to have more about the "money bills" provisions, particularly it is only in recent years that the House of Lords has taken upon itself to constitute a Special Subcommittee on each year's Finance Bill, jguk 22:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks: good objections, although I should have thought publications from Parliament and published court judgments (included in the online references) should be authoritative enough. I'm sure that Erskine May will have something to say. I'll see what I can turn up from the books (there are some journal references in the judgments too). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, would be good to expand on the subject of payments to MPs as this is a controversial topic which I hadn't realised the 1911 act introduced. Warofdreams 12:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. In articles like this, where the connections of the illustrations to the article are rather tenuous, the image captions need to do a better job of explaining the connection (see Wikipedia:Captions). For example, the portrait of Lloyd George could be captioned "The Parliament Act 1911 was passed to enable Asquith's Liberal government of 1908–1916 to push through Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George's land tax." (But I think the length of that caption shows that the connection is a little bit too tenuous. A picture of Asquith would be better.) Gdr 12:51, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

[edit] History of Cape Colony from 1870 to 1899

Self-nom. I have spent a lot of time writing and editing the History of the Cape Colony articles. Normally I know that articles in a series tend to not be eligible for FAC, but this article covers a set period of time (from the discovery of diamonds to right before the Second Anglo-Boer War) that I believe it is eligible. In fact, an earlier article from the series, History of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870 is currently a featured article. Thank you! Páll 17:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I read the whole thing. I don't know the history beyond what you wrote so can't say if it if is comprehensive, but it certainly is very well written. So until somebody comes along saying that it is not comprehensive, I'm going to assume it is and thus add my support. --mav 02:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I know nothing about this, but it is a very well written article, and makes it interesting to read. In my opinion it is approaching the perfect article, so I have no problems adding my full support. Good luck with this. Eric Burnett 07:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Great! Support. Everyking 08:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Amazingly detailed and comprehensive. A definite support! DO'Neil 09:10, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Superb addition to the 1806-1870 period article. I hope this leads later to a similar development of the 1899-1910 one, and maybe of the Boer War article as well. -- Shauri 10:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Just waiting for the rest of the series to be FACed :) Good job! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Cape Colony from 1870 to 1899/History comments
Comments after FAC complete

Well written, but I do find it biased in favour of British colonialist powers - notably Rhodes. Sir Thomas Pakenham's authoritative account of the Second Boer War (in the book by that title), offers a much more balanced and insightful account of the reasons for the war and the politics involved. His assessment of both Milner and Rhodes is scathing. j.louwAug 2005

The map of South Africa is incorretly labelled. The Cape Colony is coloured red, but in fact on the map includes Natal. While Natal was British, it was not part of the Cape Colony at the time of the Anglo Boer was. The map gives the mistaken impression that it was. Denis Nathan 23:05 November 6th 2005.

[edit] Comet Hyakutake

Hyakutake was the first comet I ever saw. Alleged to have been more impressive than Comet Hale-Bopp when it was at its brightest, it broke a 20 year drought of Great Comets, and turned up some very surprising results for cometary scientists. I've been working on this article over the last few weeks and I think it's near enough comprehensive now, so I'm nominating it for featured status. Worldtraveller 13:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you! It was partly your claim about it being better than Hale-Bopp which made me think I'd better try to get this one up to featured status as well :) Worldtraveller 17:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While Worldtraveller's edits have greatly benefitted this article, I think there is still a more more that can be done. A pronunciation guide for the word Hyakutake is needed, and the whole article in general can be lengthened. I also just went through and re-aligned the images, as they were oddly placed and sized. Furthermore, I think the lead section needs attention. Páll 17:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments, but could you be more specific? Apart from how to pronounce the name, what else is needed? I think I tend to have quite a concise writing style but I believe I've covered all the major facets of the comet's appearance. Also, what is wrong with the lead section? Worldtraveller 17:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
When you format the images so that they are not tiny, such as the image that is sized at 150px, the image in the lead section fits oddly into the text and there are a few ways to work around that. I think the images for a comet need to be larger and more clear, and also it is preferred that the images stay to the right so that you do not have images beginning a paragraph of forcing a paragraph to be right-justified. Páll 18:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Páll, I'd really like to address your objections but I'm still not sure of what they are; in particular 'the whole article in general can be lengthened' - how? What extra information should be in there?; and 'the lead section needs attention' - in what way? Worldtraveller 23:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The pronounciation of Hyakutake is, I think should be written as /hjakutake/. First mora, Hya is not pronounced as in Hyatt but more like "Shark". Revth 03:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for that info - sad to say I've been butchering the pronunciation badly all these years :(. Is '/hjakutake/' the way it would be written in IPA? Worldtraveller 23:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I checked again (using Wikipedia's articles), and it's either /ħʝakutake/ or /ħʃakutake/. Revth 01:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for that - I added that to the article, assuming you mean either pronunciation is acceptable. Worldtraveller 12:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Phils 21:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - very nice improvement. KingTT 00:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Suppport - Sure. A nice story, meets all the FA requirements. Fawcett5 22:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good. JYolkowski 23:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, lookin' good!  ALKIVAR™ 00:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It still needs that pronounciation guide tho!  ALKIVAR™ 18:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. - BanyanTree 14:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Close

A man dogged by controversy, and a life full of ups and downs. It's been on peer review, and I think it's ready for promotion. Self-nomination, jguk 19:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Minor Object. Good article, but the quotes should go to WikiQuote. A better close-up picture would also be nice. Jeronimo 07:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I've moved the quotations to WikiQuote (which is quite a shame as it probably means they'll never get read, but there goes). I've already searched the web and plundered the piccis that we can claim as fair use (checking on IRC as I went), so I'm not sure I'm going to get a better fair use image - still, it's clear enough what he looks like from what we do have, jguk 20:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Support. Jeronimo 21:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nichalp 18:45, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: couple small things. 1) As an american who's not very familiar with cricket this article does not establish why he's important in the intro. 2) you say he was "dogged by controversy" I dont know anything about that based on the intro. 3) Some of the cricket terminology needs to be fleshed out into more basic terms for those less familiar. 4) quite a few redlinks (yes I know this is not an actionable objection) it would be appreciated if you could try to throw something up for more of those my personal standard is no more than 4 per section. Some of those should just be dab'd to the right article. Support, you worked out my objections well. At least now people unfamiliar with Brian Close will get a good idea of why he is important based on the intro.  ALKIVAR™ 00:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comments. (1) I've rewritten the intro (2) The revised intro now gives examples of some of the controversies (3) I've explained or altered or linked in the cricket terminology - if there's anything else you think should be explained, please let me know what it is (4) I've created a few stubs and gotten rid of the links to articles that are unlikely to be written any time soon, jguk 11:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good article, with all the right boxes and sufficient references. Sports articles rarely make the front page it seems and it would help convince interested Wikipedians to see such a comprehensive article on the main page. Cricket being obscure is rubbish, its the same for baseball in the UK, in that its a sport more popular in some areas than others. Hedley 20:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - a good article on an interesting character (I should add that I have contributed to it). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Country Wife

Self-nom, 17th-century-cruft. A literary classic that's been offending right-thinking people since 1675. Bishonen | Talk 23:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • A example of literary cruft at its finest; support. My only complaint is the repetition of the early quote dismissing The Country Girl in favor of The Country Wife; I would hope a replacement could be found for the second instance of it. Everyking 00:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, I'm keeping an eye out, but very, very little has been said about The Country Girl at all. Maybe I should just lose the quote in one of the places. Glad you like the cruft! :-) Bishonen | Talk 00:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not sure I'd consider this "cruft"; it's just one more example of a work of art that suffered ignomnity due to changing tastes & shifting ethics. But the facts in the case are quite admirably set forth. -- llywrch 01:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: I have not contributed to this article, at least not a word of any contributions I ever made remains, as Bishonen has done a 100% rewrite. I think the anecdotes thing really is a bit of a tin can tied to the cat's tail, and I'd as soon see it gone (not that it isn't a good anecdote, but the article doesn't really admit of any anecdotes). Honestly, this article sets the bar very high for us other litgeeks. Geogre 03:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Geogre, you must have a cache issue, it is gone. Bishonen | Talk 03:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see that. Comments amended. Geogre 15:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, great stuff. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Of course. — mark ✎ 08:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work. Though "The few modern critics who have read Garrick's version typically dismiss it as "sentimental and boring, where The Country Wife is astringent and provocative"." is used twice. RickK 07:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article, just the kind of stuff I'd really like to see on the Main Page. I especially like the inclusion of sections on the original actors and modern criticism. Tobyox 07:59, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, and more like it, please. Filiocht 08:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I read this when it was discussed on the IRC channel. Definately worthy.  ALKIVAR™ 11:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Enjoyed reading the article. very comprehensive. kaal 21:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Fantastic article. I shall re-read the original with new eyes and understanding! Giano 21:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Lucid, erudite stuff. --Theo (Talk) 00:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support jguk 21:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Ganymead 01:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) Too bad we don't have more people like you working on theatre entries!

[edit] Carl G. Fisher

This is a self-nomination. I was working on another subject, and hit a red internal link. I was surprised to learn Wikipedia didn't already have an article on this remarkable man. The fellow was a child with a severe a sight-impairment disability who got into bicycle and auto racing, who helped and promote sealed beam headlights, opened what is believed to be the first automobile dealership, caused the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to became paved for safety reasons, was the driving force behind the Lincoln Highway (the first U.S. transcontinental paved roadway), and the north-south Dixie Highway which led to Florida where he became a real estate developer and helped turn a barren and isolated beach area into the resort city of Miami Beach, Florida. Although he lost his fortune in the U.S. Stock Market Crash in the late 1920s, and died in modest conditions while fighting alcoholism, considering himself a failure, he is widely regarded as one of the most influential in Florida history. As I believe seems true with better Wikipedia articles, this article benefited from collaboration, especially some good tweaking by User:Niteowlneils. The images are from the U.S. Library of Congress. Book and Internet references provided. Vaoverland 19:05, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Minor comment on first glance - has it been established that alcoholism is an inherited trait? Alcoholism doesn't seem to say anything about it. --SPUI (talk) 22:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I removed the descriptions as "an inherited trait", as I could not find where that statement originated in the sources. It should suffice that the father had it, and later it was a problem for the son as well. Reader can draw any inference appropriate (learned behavior, heredity, coincidence, etc.) Does this edit satisfactorily address your legitimate concern? Vaoverland 23:09, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'd like to see more photos; are there any photos of the places before or just after Mr. Fisher was involved? I've gone through with a quick copy edit to fix some grammar and links. slambo 19:25, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
I will go to Library of Congress website and search for more photos. Vaoverland 23:20, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
I added a nice b&w racing photo of him from Library of Congress collection. There are also many Lincoln Highway photos but none which tie directly to Fisher, who was of course, its founding force. There is a nice color photo used in the WP Indianapolis Motor Speedway article. Suggestions for other photos or improvements, anyone? Vaoverland 21:05, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
If I could strengthen my support on this one, I would now. Well done! slambo 00:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I've made some minor changes, but overall it looks complete. -- BRIAN0918  23:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Fisher was a major figure in the U.S. of his time. He might be more admired in the Libertarian quarters of today as he advocated the idea that the auto industry should fund roadways. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well I suppose this is worthless me even posting this, but I think it has pretty much all it needs before turning into a hard, boring book. It has valid childhood and career descriptions, and you can find pretty much everything you want to know about Fisher plus nice little bits on the side. Speedway 15:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article on an obscure figure, the sort of person Wikipedia is perfect for. I have a book on the Lincoln Highway and have read it but Fisher's name did not register with me. A few quibbles:
He was named an influential Floridian. By whom?
I had already provided the source under references, but have added to text. [3]
Memorial Day 1911 is mentioned with the Speedway. Could you add the specific date as well?
May 30, 1911, added to text
The length of the Lincoln Highway is noted but about how long was the Dixie Highway? (I was just on the latter this morning as it happens.)
In research, I have not found yet found a written description of exact length, or even exact routing. This is really hard, because apparently, the Dixie Highway designation included several parallel route links and spurs. There is 1923 map at a this link which would clarify that problem. [4].
In the section on his headlight business, there's a sentence talking about the many factories springing up. Does that refer to auto factories or his headlight factories?
I intended to refer to the auto factories. I have reworded for better clarity.
All these are small points which in no way keep me from saying: Good job, Vaoverland. PedanticallySpeaking 17:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support with the one minor quibble that it would be good to have a separate "external links" and "see also" section so that people can put links for more information without claiming that they were used to write the article. --Andrew 19:13, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
I personally like the "see also" section at the end of article for easy travel to related subjects after reading an article. However, if they have already been linked in the article, which also seems appropriate, then I I am under an impression that this is not the WP way to do it. I'd love to change this article do do that. Comments? Vaoverland 02:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I would, however, suggest that the listing of the two books near the end of the body of the article is made redundant by their (quite correct) inclusion in the Sources section. --Theo (Talk) 01:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have separated the true external links only from the ones which were sources of factual content for the article. I prefer to credit quotes of any length from sources directly as used in the article as well, which seems a bit redundant. Also, in some cases, who said it (IE his ex-wife) makes a difference to comprehending the article itself. If anyone else can help with doing this better, its all good with me, as getting this to become the quality of a FA is all about collaboration. Thanks for the comments and support, all. Mark in Richmond Vaoverland 02:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Update: After suggestion from another WP user, I have clarified the routing of the Dixie Highway to eliminate possible misinformation not material to this article, and improved the lead slightly. Vaoverland 04:23, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Update: Image source from another user produced a nice grand opening photo of the Collins Bridge. Vaoverland 04:52, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Update: another image added from the Florida Photographic Collection (great additional resource for PD photos for WP as suggested by SPUI). There are more, but I think we probably have a good balance now. Vaoverland 01:19, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava a.k.a Lord Dufferin

Not a self nom. I found this article during its peer review, and have made a number of suggestions and relatively minor copyedits — Worldtraveller is most definitely the hero here. By any standard, this article has undergone an extremely productive peer review — it has morphed from a non-comprehensive piece that even suffered from a few potentially copyvio passages to a comprehensive, well written and extensively researched biography of a fascinating man who lived during a compelling historical period. The size is good, it is appropriately referenced, and is accompanied by several relevant images. Although the article was previously nominated some time ago and did not then garner much support, the current article bears almost no resemblance to the previous nomination. In my opinion, this piece is an example of how peer review should work, and the result should now be recognised as an example of Wikipedia's finest. Fawcett5 22:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Of course. Phils 12:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 15:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support awesome work. Crisbas 01:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Remarkable article! Ganymead 21:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oroonoko

From the hand that brought you A Tale of a Tub! Let Geogre guide you through the most famous British prose work of the 17th century, Aphra Behn's supposed "anti-slavery" novel of 1689, and show you its real politics in a harsh world of espionage and revolution! (By no means a self-nom, though I think I added a paragraph at one stage.) --Bishonen | Talk 08:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Fascinating subject, scholarly treatment, brilliant prose, excellent article. — mark ✎ 10:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good article, interesting, scholarly, and a good use of illustrations. I added the date of birth (month and year) and date of death, which I got from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I've included the citation in the references section. However, if Geogre believes the EB to be unreliable on this point, feel free to delete. SlimVirgin 16:18, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
I've also added a couple of points to the talk page. SlimVirgin 17:26, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The reason I didn't put in the birth date is that, quite simply, it's unknown. There have been three identifications of Aphra Behn's maiden name. The first made her a noblewoman, and so, with that guess in hand and information from 1698's fictional biographies, the 1911 put in a birth date. The second identification was made by Maureen Duffy in the 1970's. It has her as the daughter of a barber in Kent. We don't know the date of birth of this girl, but we know the year (i.e. from census and taxation records, but girls weren't always listed in parish records for christenings). The third is another "Eaffrey" who is well born but not noble. The most recent biographer accepts Duffy's premise, and I tend to agree that it's good information, but the truth is that we just don't know. Therefore, it's no more unlikely than likely that the date the old 1911 gave is right. There's no reason to say it can't be then, since no one really knows for sure. I could only object to the addition if I thought I knew when she was born. Geogre 20:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support — Well written and fascinating, with good references and images. Gareth Hughes 16:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely FA material. Great references and superb use of images. KingTT 20:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's really close. There are some clumsy wordings, though. I fixed one, but consider, "The question of whether or not the narrator of Oroonoko represents Aphra Behn or, if so, tells the truth cannot be answered by contemporary research." I really suggest a good, independent copy edit before we approve this. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:53, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Note: user:Niteowlneils has independently done a proofing. There were some spellings he caught that I was unaware of, and he changed the order of the modifiers in the sentence you quoted. For whatever it's worth, most of the phrasings that are giving others trouble were conscious on my part and had reasoning behind them. It's fine, though: a failure to communicate is a failure of authorship in an encyclopedia. Geogre 04:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. BTW, is there any consistent rule on calling her "Mrs. Behn"? I know that was common in her time, but I notice we use it a bit arbitrarily in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:31, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
There isn't really. I switched back and forth to give some variety, but there are some interesting things. First, Aphra always signed herself "Aphra Behn," and she was signing that way from the first time we have a signature, so, even though she apparently despised her husband and was only married for 3 years, she has been, professionally, always "Mrs. Behn." She signed her name so consistently "Behn" that we have a scholarly dispute over what her maiden name is. There is, however, something a bit peculiar in the usage "Mrs. Behn" in the 18th century. People who liked her said "Aphra" or "Astrea," and people who wanted to put her down for smuttiness distanced themselves from the "filth" of her poetry by using the "Mrs." and no human first name. In my case, though, it was just to avoid boredom. Geogre 00:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Reserve judgement for now. The introduction spends too much time talking about Behn and not enough about the work. And what was the opinion of slave-holders themselves? RickK 08:01, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
I understand the concern over the lead, but, unfortunately, it is Behn herself that has made the novel so studied today, as information on her makes people interested in the novel. Also, the novel is actually very short. Her Love Letters Between a Nobleman and His Sister is a much better novel, and her poetry is even better, but Oroonoko is easy to teach in a sophomore survey class, being only 70 pages long, and it raises all sorts of issues that make it a good teaching text. I'm not sure I understand the other question: opinion of the slave-holders to the novel? In the 19th c., slave holders tended to ignore the slavery angle and focus on the love story, and abolitionists focused on the slavery angle. Personally, I think you have to really stretch things to make the novel an anti-slavery work, but people have wanted to save this novel from "Mrs. Behn" for a long time. Geogre 13:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - well-written and structured article, as always. Filiocht 08:32, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Suport Ganymead 01:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Test cricket (1884 to 1889)

This is the second in a new series on the history of Test cricket. History of Test cricket (to 1883) recently was promoted to featured article status. I think that this instalment, which completes the story up to the end of the 1880s and South Africa's introduction to Test cricket, is now ready for featured article status too. Self-nomination, jguk 22:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Impressive! To take the subject in such comprehensive detail as a series is quite an endeavor. Support. Everyking 06:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nice comprehensive article. Being a cricket fan myself... Squash 22:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nichalp 20:47, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support pamri 04:35, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Is going to wonderful if this can be featured before/during/after a test series--IMpbt 19:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Mountfort

A self nomination: I wrote this fairly short article because while there is plenty of good articles about European architecture, there is less about that of the southern hemisphere. It has some excellent contemporary photographs, which explain better than text what the man was about. Giano 09:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment at this stage. I think this is a very good article but I have a few comments mostly about layout. Firstly the picture of Mountfort at the top of the article should be on the right hand side. The newspaper quote about Lyttelton church should not be double-spaced and there's no need to have the same line lengths as in the original paper (I assume). Should the link to August Pugin be to Augustus Pugin, the name by which he is mostly known? Also it would be nice to know exactly to which Christian doctrine Mountfort was an adherent - there is all the difference in the world in architecture between being a devout Methodist and a devout Catholic. Also, something I'm doing as a preparatory for a major expansion of Giles Gilbert Scott, would it be possible to list all his significant works (even when not mentioned in the text) at the bottom, with colour photos? Dbiv 11:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I have addressed all these points. It did say he was an Anglican, however this is now more defined. Link is now to Augustus Pugin (perhaps the Pugin page needs to be moved?) I have listed his major works (this list will grow over time) the colour photos are a problem, as all available are in copyright, and its a bit far to go and take some (for me anyway) I have added links to the list which will provide photographs - hopefully this will suffice. Giano 12:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Support. Dbiv 16:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I can live with the B/W photos. Filiocht 13:59, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - too short: the article seems to be a simple chronological biography. There is comparably very little on his style, legacy and masterworks. No longer object, thought don't explicitly support - I am ambiguous. I recognise it has everything necessary to a Featured Article, though it still lacks a certain nack. Perhaps I will still change my mind by the end of the vote. --Oldak Quill 18:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for withdrawing the objection. I'm unsure how to redress your last comment, and not sure that I can. This article is now the most comprehensive study of Benjamin Mountfort on the internet (that I can find, and believe me I have looked). Books published on him are few and limited, New Zealand architecture is a fascinating subject (to those interested at least) but it is very under-researched. This is my best shot at Ben Mountfort, I can add no more. Giano 22:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have expanded now on the buildings. Regarding style I think the article does make it clear that he worked in the linked Gothic revival style, and that his individualism came from working in wood, and in that particular location and the philosophy behind his interpretation of the style, which is explained in depth. It would be POV on my part to say that was he working in Europe his works may not be as notable.Giano 09:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support—flows well (IMO); and it exposes a niche in NZ history, usually you don't see many early NZ histories on architecture. DiamondVertex 06:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments - I think this is a very interesting article, but I just have three small comments. First, the sentence contrary to common belief in England...there was little call for architects - was this really a common belief? It gives me images of shiploads of hopeful architects heading south expecting to find a paradise where their buildings were in constant demand, only to have their hopes cruelly dashed on arrival. Second, the section about his personal life seems oddly placed in the middle of the article. I would suggest that maybe the information from it could be incorporated into the general flow of the text. And finally, in the penultimate paragraph the word 'genius' seems perhaps POV, as the rest of the article gives me the impression that he was certainly talented but perhaps not in the genius ranks? Worldtraveller 17:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I see the wisdom of these points and have addressed them. Giano 18:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Definitely support now - as I say, a very interesting article, kept me reading to the end even though I've never been to New Zealand and know hardly anything about architecture! Worldtraveller 18:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support a brilliant article which I learned a lot from. I visited Christchurch over the summer and was wondering who designed the museum and college buildings. Lisiate 00:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Comment - Completely inadequate lead section and seems too short overall (if this is FA length for a biography on somebody that a lot can be written about, then I'll pretty up John Muir and Billy the Kid and then nominate those articles). --mav 01:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the lead. I don't know of any further information which could be useful on the subject, this architect was not in the same league as Vitruvius, Palladio, Alberti or even Robert Adam, but do the limitations of his work prevent him becoming "featured" ? Is there a prescribed minimum length? Giano 09:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • To quote from Wikipedia:What is a featured article Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length, and if not enough can be said about the article's subject to reach that length, it should in most cases be merged into another article. However, excellent short articles are also accepted.. There is also a requirement to be comprehensive as in not omitting any significant facts. IMHO, this article meets this requirement and is clearly not a candidate for merging, so the too short objection lacks validity, but what do I know?. Filiocht 09:30, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • By comparison, this article is at least as long as those of Julia Stiles and Alexander Hamilton which are both nominated as well without any length objections. We have here a summary of his life, works and influences. What more could be added? Oh, and Billy the Kid would be great as a featured article... Lisiate 19:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well if you'all think this is comprehensive for this person, then I retract my objection but still leave my length comment. --mav 02:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent article, now very comprehensive, in a sparsely populated area of Wikipedia. Bishonen | Talk 07:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment an interesting article, but I have some doubts about it. It could do with a brief explanation of "tractarian" (not an everyday word, I suggest), and "Ruskinesque". I'm also concerned about the flow of the article. Some sentences seem to be trying to make too many points (one or two is normally enough). Take the sentence "George Gilbert Scott, the architect of Christchurch Cathedral, and an empathiser of Mountfort's teacher and mentor Carpenter, wished Mountfort to be the clerk of works and supervising architect of the new cathedral project, a proposal which was however vetoed by the Cathedral Commission." That tells me that (1) Scott was the architect of Christchurch Cathedral; (2) Scott was an empathiser of Carpenter; (3) Carpenter was Mountfort's teacher; (4) Carpenter was Mountfort's mentor; (5) Scott wanted Mountfort to be the clerk of works and supervising architect of the new cathedral project; (6) The new cathedral project proposal was vetoed by the Cathedral Commission. There are other sentences that also seem overworked. I think the article would be a better read if these sentences could be broken up; this may take up a bit more room, but the article's only 19.5kb long at the moment anyway, so that wouldn't be a problem, 21:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC). (Signing for Jguk, Bish.)
    • Good points, and I've tried to address them somewhat in a copy-edit. Conservatively so, as I rather like the commodious sentences, but I agree they can be overdone. Please see what you think now. Bishonen | Talk 09:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] She Loves You

Been languishing for a while, but looks quite good, I think. Peer review request got only one comment. This is a self-nomination. Johnleemk | Talk 08:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: No opinion on the article itself yet, but the four beatles-discography.com links under "References" are dead. You might want to fix those first. --Plek 10:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • SUpport. Jeronimo 18:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, excellently in-depth article. I'm particularly impressed by the breadth of information on such a relatively limited subject. || THOR 19:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm still reading through it (I like what I've read so far), but one quote stuck out to me: "it's too like the Andrew Sisters." Should this perhaps be Andrews Sisters instead? I'm not familiar with a band named Andrew Sisters. If it's correctly spelled in the article, perhaps a note about who the speaker was referring to would be in order. slambo 20:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • After a bit of Googling, I think that "Andrew Sisters" was indeed referring to them. I've changed the wikilink appropriately. Johnleemk | Talk 08:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for verifying my suspicion. I've read through the article, and the prose is pretty good and quite thorough, but I'm not convinced on the images. Repeating the infobox image seems less than top form, for example. Are there any other images that would be appropriate here? slambo 14:45, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately I can't think of any that would be deemed fair use (I could try hunting for a picture of them singing the song on The Ed Sullivan Show, though). I will not be available until Sunday, however, so it will have to wait. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay, I need to know how to capture a still from a particular frame of an MPEG file on Linux (preferably using mplayer) if we're going to get a decent photo. Johnleemk | Talk 11:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Weak support - nice work but the length of the quote by George Martin in the ==At work in the studio== is a bit over the top. Please shorten it and I'll change to Support. --mav 02:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I split it into two paragraphs and remove some irrelevant verbiage. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Nice work. :) --mav 02:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - there's no reference to cover versions. Presumably a number of other artists must have covered it sometime. Any chance of a short section on this? jguk 14:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Very very very few artistes have made a cover version of the song, so all I could get was a couple of sentences. I mean, you know that notable cover versions are lacking when allmusic.com's review of the song doesn't even list one or two covers as it usually does for others. Johnleemk | Talk 11:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Just wondered if you'd seen http://www.shelovesyou.info/ - it doesn't seem to be referenced on linked to - could be an interesting link? Also, this google seach suggests that there have been some covers worth mentioning, jguk 23:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • No, I haven't seen shelovesyou.info before, but there's not much there that isn't already in the article. The theory on "Sie Lieb Dicht" is interesting, however. As for the Google search, you ommitted the quotes around "cover version". When they are added, you only get 600+ results. Johnleemk | Talk 11:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for these reasons: empty spot in infobox; album blurb in the infobox is contradicted by the article; the part about the stereo recording being lost seems a bit short (how was it lost? Was it stolen? Burnt in a fire? Misplaced?) Okay, they're resolved. [[[User:Michelle T|Miss Madeline]] | Talk to Madeline 16:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The empty spot in the infobox has been fixed; the other issues are very hard to address, though. Firstly, there is a lot of contention among fans about what constitutes an original album. Most album chronologies do not count the American albums because these were piecemeal albums constructed by record companies and not designed by the Beatles themselves. I've tried to address this in the infobox, but I think it's very wordy and ugly now. As for how the track was lost, nobody is really sure. I've done a lot of research on this (to the extent of checking out nearly every book related to the Beatles in the Malaysian British Council), and nobody ever says how the track was lost; it's a complete mystery. Johnleemk | Talk 07:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Franklin B. Gowen

This article is the result of looking up the significance of Mr. Gowen based on a one-line reference in the John White article (listed in this article's references); the story of how Gowen worked to break up the Molly Maguires captured my attention, and led to the expansion of this article. slambo 22:59, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - the introduction definitely needs work. →Raul654 23:05, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • The introduction is much, much better now. →Raul654 18:35, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Raul. The first sentence should state the most important thing(s) about him, not where he was born. Everyking 00:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've reworked the lead accordingly. slambo 02:29, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object. This article seems decent, although a bit short, especially given the large number of references used. My only problem is that the lead section needs to briefly explain who or what the Molly Maguires were. Jeronimo 18:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Defined the Maguires in the lead section and noted that the Maguires were Catholics, while the Gowens were Protestants. As I understand it, the Catholic vs. Protestant conflicts are still a factor in modern Ireland. Yeah, there are a lot of references; many of them had only a small number of data points to add, but since they were facts that needed to be verified, the references are all listed. I don't have copies of the two books listed in the Further Reading section, otherwise they would likely be in the References too. slambo 22:54, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Good fix, support. Jeronimo 07:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support well referenced compared to some other (much longer) nominations.--ZayZayEM 05:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice. Left some nits on the Talk page. Niteowlneils 04:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-done and NPOV on a subject which can be difficult (ie organized labor vs management). Vaoverland 13:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems very short (about 11kb - and many of these are references) (which is indicative of either not very much being able to be written about the guy, or of a not quite comprehensive article). I'd be interested to know whether this really all that is interesting that could be said, jguk 22:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Several of the references included a great deal of information about the Molly Maguires (the 1894 article, especially) but only a few details about Gowen's involvement or about the rest of his life. I've got one of the two books in the Further reading section requested through interlibrary loan, and will likely add more once I have a chance to read it. I tried to keep the article limited to Gowen and his connections to the Maguires rather than going into detail about the unions or McParland's investigations. slambo 23:51, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, short but IMHO probably comprehensive enough. JYolkowski 23:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yosemite National Park

Self-nom. A bit on the longish side due to the fact that I'm in the process of building-up the geography section to a point where I can spin it off into its own article and leave an abridged summary at Yosemite National Park. But other than that, I think this article is a go. But if it is not, then please tell me what else is needed. History of the Yosemite area is already an FA. --mav 00:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support I like the current state of the article very much. Someone (or I) should work on the number of red links in the article --- it's a little high for a featured article, methinks. -- hike395 01:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't think it's terribly long. It makes an interesting read as it stands, and I don't think cutting it down is that necessary. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A question: Under "Management issues", what is being done about invasive species, or if nothing is being done, why not? --Carnildo 07:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Are there restrictions on who may enter or how many people may enter? Is there a fee to enter? Are there ecological restrictions besides food lockers? Further, one can infer from Activities that the park is open all year and that people may wander where they like provided it is not overnight, but this is unclear. That section is also a bullet-list. Minor POV or attribution, e.g. "has its own charm", "await excited hikers", "visitors are advised to check". 119 08:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Most of that is the type of info that would be more appropriate in the Wikitravel version of this article. But I'll see if I can somehow incorporate that info in the activities section. --mav 16:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Most of the above has been fixed. --mav 17:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Support. 119 21:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. -Willmcw 00:25, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I like this a lot; definitely not too long. Filiocht 08:52, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Another great US National Park related article by Mav. Jeronimo 18:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Fantastic article, well presented --PopUpPirate 16:10, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - The Park Features list is nice, although the images on the side pile up horribly on my computer and it is not clear which image goes with which feature. That is a poor representation of a featured article in my mind. Páll 17:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That table is going to be expanded and moved to geography of the Yosemite area once I create that article. --mav
      • Until then, I've commented the table out (never much liked that table anyway). --mav 02:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Hey, I liked that table! Let's show little thumbnails of the park features. I made a gallery of popular features using the <gallery feature: that should look better on Páll's display. -- hike395 06:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, that does look nice. The parts of the table I did not like were the image placement and the missing precip and temp data for some features. I plan to expand the info presented and the number of features once I get around to creating geography of the Yosemite area. --mav 12:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • If you're going to do the gallery like that, it needs to be taken off the article and moved into Commons, if it is possible with licencsing. I will support when they are removed completely, or the Geography of Yosemite article incorporates the table somehow. Páll 17:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Galleries are not restricted to the Commons. I've seen them in other en articles. What exactly is your objection? You originally objected because the pictures were confusing and smashed together: I fixed those problems. -- hike395 18:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • What a petty thing to object to. I consider that objection invalid. --mav 18:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • For what it's worth, I just converted the gallery to a table, to squeeze out more white space, and removed the section header. Thought those might satisfy Páll. If more people like the gallery than the squeezed table, we can revert. -- hike395 18:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I just fixed the article up. I changed the image sizes, as this is a very long article and there's no reason to have such small images. Plus, I think it looks much more professional to have the images right-aligned. I moved the gallery to Commons, as i think that's the best place for it. If people want to see images, they can go there. After this, I now support.

[edit] Mount Pinatubo

I've spent the last couple of weeks working on this article, about the mountain and its enormous 1991 eruption. I think it is comprehensive now, and looks pretty good, and I think I've covered all the points raised when I put it up for peer review. So, I am now nominating it for featured status. Worldtraveller 15:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, but it would be nice to get unit conversions put in before this reaches featured status (although the consistency of always using metric units helps). I've updated the References formatting according to the guidelines at Cite your sources, the reference titles are the links, the author names come first and they are all alphabetized by author. slambo 15:29, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support! I've put in a lot of unit conversions now. Worldtraveller 19:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Another excellent article by Worldtraveller. — mark ✎ 15:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Emsworth will have to look to his laurels if these excellent articles keep coming along. It is fortunate for us that his interests are apparently somewhat different to those of Worldtraveller.
Some minor unit nit-picks (not worth objecting over) could you:
    • wikilink numerical values to appropriate [[1 E...]] articles,
    • use &nbsp; between values and units, and
    • wikilink the first use of each unit (e.g. ° C in lead, km³, etc)
like this: 10 km³. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • No - that is bad advice. 10 km³ is confusing as hell since 10 looks like a link to year 10 when in fact it is to 1 E9 m³. The MoS says to link like so 10 km³. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Examples --mav 02:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh, apologies if that is bad advice. I've certainly seen lots of links like that, and it gets you straight to both important pages, the order of magnitude page and the units page. I suppose the order of magnitude page will link to the units anyway. Shrug. Who creates the MoS anyway... -- ALoan (Talk) 09:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks very much for the comments, ALoan! I'll get on with correcting the style issues. Worldtraveller 03:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Have now linked to various 1_E... articles, made sure of nbsps between values and units, and linked to units. Worldtraveller 19:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose—the eruption should be covered in detail in a separate article; the treatment here should be more summarized with greater geographical and general historical information. Everyking 21:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I see why this should be the case. Why should the eruption be covered in a separate article to the volcano? Worldtraveller 03:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • My objection should be ignored if it is the opinion of those informed on the subject that there is not enough information available to justify two distinct articles. I could not say, but it would seem to me that there ought to be enough. Everyking 07:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • A few representative quotes about pre-1991 Pinatubo may give an idea: An inconspicuous volcano (paper on eruptive history of the volcano); only 200 meters above nearby mountains that largely obscured Mount Pinatubo from view (USGS page); forested, deeply dissected and unimposing (NASA page). I am sure that but for the eruption, no-one outside the local area would have heard of it, and much of the information available about the mountain pre-1991 is only known because of the studies carried out after it became active, so to me it makes most sense to keep it all as one article. Worldtraveller 19:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - Good, but almost all the article is about the most recent eruption. Where is the long human history associated with this volcano? Aren't there local legends and lore about it? What about the geography of it? See Mount St. Helens and 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens for an FA examples for this type of article. --mav 02:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Like it says in the article, before the eruption it wasn't well known, it was just another pretty unremarkable big hill in a hilly region covered in dense rainforest. Unlike St Helens it wasn't a well known beauty spot or tourist area. If it hadn't erupted in 1991 I doubt it would be worthy of an encyclopaedia article, so inevitably any article about it will be mostly about the eruption. Worldtraveller 03:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Having looked into this, I think you are right. I'd still like to see a geography section added before I support. --mav 19:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I have adjusted things a bit to emphasise that the volcano was not well known before 1991. Can I just ask what you'd want to see in a geography section? General expansion of the sort of stuff that's in the 'history and geology of the Pinatubo region' section, or something else?
          • Stream systems, primary plant cover type, climate, nearby features, nearby villages/cities, general orientation info about where the volcano is, etc. --mav 17:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Have included more information along these lines. Worldtraveller 17:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I was about to agree with Everyking and Mav, but I definitely see Worldtraveler's point here. If it wasn't worthy of a separate article otherwise then it may not need one now. It would be like asking for a separate article on an actor's career, from the main article just about them. If there is nothing else noteworthy about the person, there is no need for that. - Taxman 14:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Now that I've looked more closely at it. Though I would like to see more references and inline citations. - Taxman 14:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, another triumph for Worldtraveller. Bishonen | Talk 21:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. O
  • Support Excellent article! Squash 22:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - BanyanTree 23:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle, Washington

Good example of a city article. I've worked on two or three sections, but other people did most of the writing. Previous nomination got some feedback that's been incorporated, but not much of either support or opposition. --Michael Snow 17:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've since remembered I wrote almost all of the Utilities section, since shunted off to a sub-page. Niteowlneils 18:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The skyline photograph does not have a source, nor is the copyright verified. -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Summary added. Niteowlneils 04:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object — History section is vey badly written. Instead of a brief history of Seattle, all I can see are events and something on the economy. The headings with their abrupt subheadings are awful and can certainally do with a makeover. Take a look at other cities in the FA list to get an idea on how the headings should be displayed. Also wikipedia convention is not followed. It should read: { Main article: whatever } rather than { see main...} . It should also read { See also: whatever }. I would also like to see more on sports; what do people watch, where locals play. The current section is filled with team names. Nichalp 20:37, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
I believe I've standardized the formatting. Not sure what to do with the Sports section--the article's already 40k, so it doesn't really seem expandable. In addition to listing teams, the section already covers the Pilots, the Kingdome, and the popularity of college sports, which seem like the big three sport-related things to say about Seattle. If 'what do people watch' refers to game attendance, I don't think there's anything unique to say about Seattle other than the collegiate angle already covered. If 'where locals play' means where are the stadiums/arenas, they're all within the Seattle city limits, which mentioning would seem redundant--if it means something else, please clarify. Niteowlneils 04:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I do not support geographic articles if they are over 32kb. It makes them too long to read. Try and précis the text to convey maximum information with well chosen words. Extra text from "Seattle Institutions" should be added into a separate article. The headings are still awkward. Here's what I suggest:
  • History
  • Geography and climate (extra geo. details go on a separate page)
  • Economy
  • Government and politics
  • Demographics
  • People and culture
  • Utilities and transportation
  • Education
  • Sports
References, external links, See also

Nichalp 19:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

That scale of overhaul didn't seem doable in the three days remaining, but I did find enuf to move off to other pages that it's now down to 34K, despite the fact that, as indicated by this table, Seattle covers almost twice as many topics as Sarajevo, and up to three times as many as the four other city FAs.

Niteowlneils 01:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I won't crib too much if its 34kb, but I would still prefer to see a better rewrite on the history, economy and an improvement in the headings which is really messy at the moment. 3 days is a lot of time, all it takes is a max of 3-4 hrs of dediated rewrites by a single person to take care of all the objections. Nichalp 19:01, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
It took me over a half-hour just to add 4 sentences to respond to the objection regarding the lack of crime/court/jail info--if someone could overhaul the sections in '3-4 hours', they're ten times the editor I am. Niteowlneils 18:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think you have about a week left. No probs if it is rejected, you will get the time to iron out the objections before submitting it again. A featured article should be a quality one, thats why the article demands a dedicated rewrite. Why don't u share the load with others? And not all objections (requests such as jails to be added etc.) can be fulfiled. Nichalp 20:29, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Objection. Writing is awkward. The “history” and “politics” sections should be rewritten entirely, with details and in chronological order. “Arts and Museums” section should not simply refer to Museums and galleries of Seattle, but should give a brief but suffient summary. All in all, this article isn’t bad; however, it isn’t nearly as good as Sarajevo, which is the de facto standard for featured articles on cities. Neutralitytalk 17:11, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Summary added, politics re-written, and history improved (a bit, anyway). Niteowlneils 04:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Needs more history. :) Neutralitytalk 17:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Shaky support. I like the article a great deal, and I feel it is hampered by the 32k limit (portions of the article, as Neutrality points out, cry out for a little more "detail", but I don't know that there's room for it). Neutrality, I'd point out that the Arts and Museums section isn't merely a redirect, to my eyes -- it looks to me like there's a somewhat substantial section on the performing arts. That section may need restructuring to clarify that fact, though. And while it's not as good as Sarajevo, I don't know if all article on cities need to be as good as Sarajevo to be featured. The chronological reordering, I agree with. Make my shaky support a strong one if the history and politics sections can be made more chronological (they feel fragmented, as is). Jwrosenzweig 23:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I may have added something to this article, but can't remember. If I have, this is a kind of self-support.)
  • Comment/update. I wrote an arts/museums summary, but it's almost 1K, so it may need to be trimmed, although the article is still only 40k, which is smaller than many. I also swapped two of the history sections--does that help enuf? Oh, and I left a specific source/status request on the Talk page of the contrib of the skyline pic, but he doesn't seem to visit very regularly--I'd say remove it if that gets down to the sole objection. I have some ideas on how to improve the Politics section, but it will require more research than I have time for tonite. Niteowlneils 05:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've found the source of the skyline image, and emailed the site owner (who is very likely the uploader) to confirm the copyright status. However it is probably GFDL. — Zeimusu | Talk 05:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • comment The image is GFDL, confirmed in email — Zeimusu | Talk 03:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've now broken off the old politics/government article and left a summary that has a more meta-level discussion of the government. Niteowlneils 03:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. (I've worked on this article a fair bit, but not so much recently. Most of my total work has been on related articles.) --Lukobe 05:09, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. No information about crime, police, city jails, court system, etc. Neutralitytalk 23:14, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Added a sentence explaining why the city's court/jail is largely a non-event. Niteowlneils 18:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Added a couple sentances giving over-view of main crime trends. Niteowlneils 18:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Added sentence giving relative crime rate rank. Niteowlneils 18:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Clarified that Seattle has no 'city jail', but sub-contracts from other jails. Niteowlneils 18:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • OBject. "Utilities" and "street layout" sections are too short to stand as sections. Either expand them or merge them with another section--Jiang 07:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I give up. I truncated a bunch of stuff to try and address the objection that, at 40K, it was 'too big' (which I disagree with, but whatever), and now it's 'too truncated' and 'incomplete'. If anything I would argue that most of the remaining objections are unactionable as they are mutually incompatible--adding anything more will make it once again 'too big'. It covers twice as many topics as the alleged city FA standard Sarajevo--of course it's going to be big (also three times as many topics as city FA Newark, New Jersey). The History main article is so detailed it has sub-pages--anyone really interested in Seattle's history can read their hearts out. 'No info about police' is misleading, as one of the 'see also's is Seattle Police Department. Niteowlneils 17:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And I have no idea how to present a 'main article' on a subject that doesn't have some level of section header to set the context--if anyone can point me to examples of how to do so, please feel free... . Niteowlneils 18:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT -- too short. I see no mention of Yesler Way the original "skid road", named because the logs were slid down to the water there. I believe the female band "Heart" and the first insulin dependent major league ball player, Ron Santo were from Seattle. The Seattle Underground is one of the tourist attractions. The ground floor of buildings dating from the Seattle fire can be toured there if it is still open, my info may be out of date. I've spiced up the climate some. I see that skid road is mentioned in the history section, although it is such an interesting fact it probably should make the main article. I first posted as a comment, now I support. --Silverback 10:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Heart and Skid Row now mentioned. Niteowlneils 17:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Haven't contributed to the article but think it's worthy of being an FA, and that Niteowlneils and others have been doing a good job of adding anything missing, reformatting, etc. -- Matiasp 02:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I especially like the format in each section which gives the see also opportunity to into go to articles with a lot more detail if you want to go there without forcing a reader through lots of stuff you don't want to know more about. This is much better writing than many Wikipedia article on cities. Graphics are also nicer than average. Just enough red links to give new readers an opportunity to also become writers, an attribute in WP articles which is one of my personal favorites, even if it isn't FA criteria. (Maybe it should be?). Vaoverland 17:52, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. If someone else watching this needs more writing help for cleanup ping my userpage.
(from User:SchmuckyTheCat--Niteowlneils 04:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC))
  • Well, I have reorganized it considerably, including removing all the barely distinguishable 4th-level sub-heads. Unless the size objection is withdrawn, I consider any requests for further expansion to be unactionable, especially since the article has crept back up to 36k. Niteowlneils 04:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done for a city artical. Provides more details than many other articals out there. Pictures are high quality and information seems accurate. NRS11 21:27, 19 August 2005.
  • Support, don't trim too much off as it will become lacking in info. 32kb is really small for any worthy article wanting to be complete. --Bob 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julia Stiles

Self-nomination. After a time on WP:PR (archived here) with no unfavorable remarks save the absence of photographs (since remedied by User:Niteowlneils and User:Rossrs--thank you, gentlemen!), I'm nominating it here. It's thorough about her and her career, has a detailed bibliography and links to other pages, has been wiki linked to other articles, has a quick reference table to her film roles, and has been appropriately categorized. I looked through the current list of featured articles for another actor to compare this to and didn't see one. Maybe this can be the first. PedanticallySpeaking 18:14, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support great article. the lead section (the very top and beginning) could be a bit longer, but it is pretty good anyway and everything else is great. nice work! --Lan56 04:20, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The lead picture is the work of professional photographer Jeff Vespa. IANAL, of course, but I doubt this qualifies as fair use, as is suggested by the image tag. You might want to ask for permission to publish the picture under the GFDL through http://www.jeffvespa.com/contact.php. --Plek 20:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's ready. I don't think it's long enough. Don't count that as an actual objection; it's just an opinion. Everyking 02:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think the length of the article is appropriate for a 24 year old actress who is still at the beginning of her career. I applaude the effort and the attitude that has gone into the editing of this article. There are thousands of articles on contemporary celebrities here, many are little more than fansites, many are strongly tainted with POV, some are just badly written, and almost none of them have references. I would love to see this become a featured article (as you said "the first" - you're right, there aren't any in this category) as an example of what can be done with a bit of thought and a bit of care. I think the lead paragraph needs to be expanded as a summary of what follows - that should be easy to fix. What is missing from the article is Julia Stiles' own thoughts. What are her ambitions as an actor? Who are her influences? While other people are quoted - and this is excellent -there needs to be some input from the subject herself so that a sense of her personality is conveyed. I think the photo problem that Plek highlighted needs to be addressed and I'll have a look at that. I'm sorry I didn't mention these things while you had this on Peer Review - I didn't think of them at the time. Rossrs 10:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've juggled the photos about, removed the one that may not be fair use and added a DVD cover. This is just as a "test". If you don't like it, or if you are seeking permission to use the original photo, please let me know and I will revert it. cheers Rossrs 10:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I thank Rossrs for his work with the photographs and for his praise. In response to his comments, I put in a quote from Stiles from her Guardian piece and one of the critical quotes up in the lead. I'm not sure about expanding the lead, though, as I don't want to make it too long. Usually my leads are rather spartan, "Jane Doe (January 1, 1950-March 8, 2000) was an American widget inspector". Here I tried to make a concise summary, mentioning a couple of her films, just to let people get a basic idea of who she was because that's all a lot of people want, a capsule biography, and who aren't going to read through the whole thing. That said, I'll ponder on how to improve that lead.
Finally, Rossrs's remark about the length vis a vis her age calls to mind the words of Mr. Erich Segal: "What can you say about a twenty-five-year-old girl who died? That she was beautiful and brilliant?" PedanticallySpeaking 16:04, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Support now. I like the changes that have been made. There is now a stronger sense of what type of person she is, rather than just a run down on her acting roles. Rossrs 08:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not keen on this quantity of references to magazine articles, etc, that will date very quickly. Are you planning on maintaining it yourself, Ped? Deb 17:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Deb, for looking through the article.
As for the references the trouble is there aren't books on her, like so many people profiled herein. I tried to only cite more substantive pieces I encountered, trying to stick to ones where there were good quotes or facts, noting in the biblio what's in each article. I would note that these seemingly ephermal materials are exactly the types of materials that Current Biography, a standard reference work, cites in its articles.
As for books, one is cited, a cut-and-paste quickie bio for kids, plus the profile in the reference work Newsmakers.
When I had other articles up for featured status I was criticized for not having references. I don't think one can cite too much.
Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 17:47, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't really looking for book titles either! Deb 18:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Its really good and I anticipate supporting, but one thing I've noticed is that all (but one) of the comments about her by reviewers are positive. Isn't there something negative about her? - Taxman 16:41, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
There are a couple quotes in the film section from critics saying she's not a natural comedic actress, quotes specifically added to try to counterbalance the positive nature of the others. From what I have seen (having looked at scores of articles in ProQuest, Ebsco, and elsewhere), her press has been almost uniformly positive. PedanticallySpeaking 17:06, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
I had seen that. If there is nothing more, there is nothing more. As long as you have looked. - Taxman 02:53, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Brookie 18:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support kaal 04:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The writing I could conceive as POV appears to be contributed to an actual source. Good job.--ZayZayEM 08:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Both PedanticallySpeaking and I have added bits to the lead since the 'too short' comment was made. Also, note that the lead is longer than actor FA Ian McKellan (tho' shorter than the only other actor FA Humphrey Bogart, but that's arguably too long, but supported by the length of the rest of the article). Niteowlneils 22:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I saw the article before the massive edits as well as after, and I think it's quite ready to be featured. Mike H 00:05, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - looking good now Brookie 10:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1896 Summer Olympics

Self-nomination. Jeronimo 19:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment It looks great but I think it might be worth mentioning where all those athletes stayed at. Revth 02:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • They stayed in hotels or with friends, like normal visitors or tourists. An Olympic Village didn't exist. I'll put it in the article somewhere. Jeronimo 07:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Added. Jeronimo 14:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you and support. Revth 12:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Comments. Three references seems pretty thin. The 'Medal count' section refers to "all sources have the countries as listed below", which seems hard to justify with three. Besides, the IOC site gives a slightly different listing for the lat ones. Also why in the world is there a separate UK and AUS listing and then a combined one? If there were no gold medals awarded at all, why are gold, silver, and bronze listed in the table? Shouldn't that be silver, bronze and third place as the previous section seems to require? The IOC page in the external links has this exact conflict too. Clicking on the medal give the detail that a silver medal and an olive branch was given to the winner, and a copper medal to the second place. - Taxman 22:21, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
1) The sources listed are the most authorative I know of. The Official Report mentioned is the main source for most contemporary sources. Mallon & Widlund contains an overview of the most important other contemporary and later works, and contains verbatim copies of some of the most cited contemporary works. The work also discusses differences between sources in detail. All the other works I know of only contain short bits about the 1896 Games, usually based on the official report. I'll list some of these works in the further reading section. 2) I'll look into the medal table problem in more detail. Two things: the gold/silver/bronze thing is done for consistency with other articles, as mentioned in the text. I suppose I could change the listing to a more correct 1st/2nd/3rd heading. The Australia/UK combined listing (just like the Germany/UK one) is because one of the medals (well, a third place actually) was won by a combined team (a mixed double consisting of one Australian and one Brit). Some sources count one medal for both nations in such cases; others add a half medal to both. I found this method (used by Mallon&Widlund) to be the best. I'll add further explanation to the article about this . Jeronimo 08:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok sounds good. If those are the best sources, so be it. And the changes to the table look good too. I guess you could also add that bit about why there are two combined listings. I bet I won't be the only one to wonder that. - Taxman 16:15, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
I've added footnotes about the shared medals, and listed two extra "further reading" works. Jeronimo 20:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Weak Object Substance good, but stylistically I believe this falls short. I made many changes, including the substantive one of naming Phidippides, and fixed several wiki-links. My "object" vote largely rests on the preponderance of dead-end links in the second half of the article. Minor point: Wouldn't the pictures look better on alternating sides? Sfahey 00:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the editing. I do, however, believe that the presence of red links is not a reason to object to this article; the absence of other articles is not a reason to object to this one, in my opinion. But I could fill (some of) the links with stubs, if that's what you really want. Do you have any other specific points you'd like me to address? Jeronimo 08:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. The criteria asks that an article be judged on its own merits, not on the existence or not of other articles. The only thing that needs to be avoided is linking to something that should not be an article for reasons such as lack of notability, being encyclopedic, etc. One could argue that perhaps some of the people linked are not that notable, but maybe they are, so it doesn't look like a real problem for this article. - Taxman 16:15, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
I've eliminated a few of the wiki-links, mostly on Greek athletes. Very little is known about them, and it seems very unlikely an encyclopaedic article can be written about them. If there is, I'm sure somebody will put the link back. I'll be adding stubs on Schuhmann and Boland shortly. Jeronimo 20:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re the pictures: I like them as they are but, I'm not opposed to placing them on alternating sides. Go ahead and be bold ;-) Jeronimo 07:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Great job! Nice use of summary style as well. :) --mav 02:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--ZayZayEM 08:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] South Africa

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

  • Usually I'd be against a new nomination so soon after it ended, but I felt Paul did not have adequate time to answer concerns. Support just as before. Mike H 01:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - This time I support since the issues that I pointed out (in the last FAC) have been addressed. Squash 06:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)'
  • Supported this at the previous nomination; supporting it now. Jeronimo 07:40, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support — all issues that I pointed out in the last FAC have been adressed. but I've changed my vote to object until the serious copyright issues pointed out by Henrygb are adressed. — mark ✎ 10:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, again. Dewet 11:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, Alot of work has been put into this article. A great improvement --Jcw69 13:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Object. See my embedded HTML comments in the article. Neutralitytalk 14:44, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I've responded to your comments sufficiently. Páll 15:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Say, could you add a bit about the minimum voting age in the "government" section? Also, a military section and a few sentences about cusine/art/cinema in the "Culture" section would be nice. Neutralitytalk 04:06, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Just for clarification, do you support now? Páll 20:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We've still got some more issues to work out. For example, the sentence "The SANDF is extensively involved in peacekeeping operations in other parts of the continent" bothers me; I'd like to see some examples. See User:Neutrality/workshop for a transcript of some IRC comments. Neutralitytalk 05:02, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Note: examples on South African National Defence Force page. The size constraints (see other votes) limit enumerating. -- Dbroadwell 02:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: for reasons mostly pertaining to the lead section:
  • Look at the sentences in the first paragraph: "The Republic of South Africa is... / The South African economy is... / South Africa is... / South Africa has... / South Africa has... / South Africa ... posessed... / South Africa is...". Starting each sentence with the same words makes the intro sound bitty, reading like a fact sheet—it does not have the markings of brilliant prose. Try to rephrase, reword and refactor so that it becomes an engaging piece of text that guides the reader into the article. Cut down on the number of times "South Africa" is used.
  • The lead section contains multiple POV statements, which should either be removed or neutralised:
  • "South Africa is also arguably the most stable democracy in Africa": How does one measure the stability of a democracy? The use of the word "arguably" makes it a POV statement by definition.
  • "South Africa has become an important force for diplomacy": Important to whom?
  • "South Africa has the [...] most efficient military in Africa": How is the efficiency of a military measured?
  • "South Africa is now a racially unified country": The formal abolishment of apartheid law does not make a unified country overnight. The main article itself states that an economic divide remains. Does everbody agree that the country is truly racially unified?
  • "South Africa has become a vibrant [...] society": What's the measure of vibrancy? Would someone living in poverty in the country agree with that assessment?
  • "sustained economic growth must occur in order to lift millions out of poverty": OK, this might be a case of semantics, but the "must" makes it sound as if the author is giving an advice to the SA government. "is needed" might be a better choice of words.
  • The first paragraph ends with "South Africa is now a racially unified country...". The next paragraph begins with "South Africa was first unified...". The two unified's have a different meaning in the two sentences (if I'm not mistaken), which could lead to confusion. Try to reword one of them.
  • The lead paragraph mentions SA has the largest military in Africa and once had nuclear weapons, but the rest of the article offers no information at all about this topic. As the lead section is seen as a summary of the rest of the article, this sets up an expectation that is not delivered upon.
Thanks. --Plek 18:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your great comments, but the lead section has been completely rewritten and trimmed down, and no longer contains your objectional statements. Would you mind looking again? Páll 20:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome. The lead section is much better now. Changing my vote to support. --Plek 00:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Object — While I'm glad that most of my previous objections are resolved, I find the leadin section too long. Also, the page size stands at 40kb and I would like to see it shortened to near about 30kb, so that the article makes better reading -- focussing on main points rather than extraneous details. Nichalp 20:24, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
The lead section has been rewritten, however the article is not too long. Look at History of Russia, another Featured Article, for examples of length. There are articles two times this length that have been nominated. Páll 20:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A long article is certainally very putting off. A summary of main topics should be how such articles should be written. I'm sure the article can be further shortened by précis just like India was shortened. The India page coveys maximum information and at the same time has a healthy page size. Lead-in is now OK, but I wont support until the size is cut down. Nichalp 20:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
The article has been shortened from 42k down to 34k. There's really not much more that can be cut. I hope this is acceptable. Páll 02:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's much better, I'll offer full support if you remove the indentations before {Main articles}. Nichalp
  • Support. A lot of good fixes. While, like any article, it could be improved more, what is there is very good and looks well researched. Object. Though I'm close to supporting. The lead section is too long, but not something I'd object over. As to the length of the article, some articles 2x this length have been promoted. Now to my objection, the culture section is very long (too long) and really only touches on the race and language points. What about all the other elements of culture such as dance, music, food, etc.? Oh yeah, and I agree with Plek's comments. - Taxman 21:37, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I added much more contnet to the culture section. 20:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, yes that is much better. Now I've noticed a few more things. The orphan paragraph at the end of the lead section could stand to be merged in somewhere or expanded a little, perhaps with other problems facing South Africa. The other issue is the 'Names' section does not really talk much at all about the names for South Africa, even though it lists names of SA as the main article for the section. Instead it mostly just talks about the different languages of the country. In an article this long, is the name for the country really one of the most important topics? Maybe rename the section Languages of SA and then discuss the naming issue as it relates to that. - Taxman 19:19, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
I just took care of what you mentioned. Thanks for paying attention to that. I removed the HIV/AIDS orphan information since it is proscriptive rather than descriptive, and is discussed later on in the article. I also renamed the Names section "Languages." There really isn't more information on the naming issue that hasn't already been discussed in taht section. Páll 23:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Henrygb 10:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) There seems to be a copyright issue which has not been resolved in the talk page. Quoting from Wikipedia:Copyright_problems 31 January 2005: Geography from [5] Flora and fauna from [6].
Wow, I am embarassed that this happened. I just completely rewrote those sections as pere this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Africa&diff=0&oldid=10773831 Páll 20:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You have said the same thing using some different words. I will leave it to others to judge whether it is enough on copyright issues. --Henrygb 00:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support IMO, already of featured article quality. A couple of (helpful?) points: (1) with South Africa due to host the football World Cup in 2010, having hosted the most recent cricket World Cup, and being a big rugby union nation too, it would be nice to have something about its sporting credentials. (2) Also I agree it could do with a bit of shortening (by moving some articles to subpages), jguk 18:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, After the work me and Pàll did last time. Inter\Echo 12:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Please qualify the statement in the intro that "South Africa is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in Africa." What about Nigeria or the Congo? Neutralitytalk 17:57, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Uh, that's why it says one of the most ethnically diverse countries, not the most ethnically diverse. And it is, indeed, one of the most ethnically diverse countries in Africa.Pall (sorry, can't log in ... on a slow public computer)
Quantify it. :) Neutralitytalk 04:40, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Not to be mean, but are you arguing just for argument's sake? You're not being really helpful as to how this can be done. Mike H 07:33, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm not. A sentence that says "South Africa is ethnically diverse" tells me nothing at all. Neutralitytalk 21:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, come on, I think the two facts below cover that issue as well as it can be. Unless you can come up with a reasonable way to resolve what you are asking for, I would submit that your objection is not actionable. - Taxman 15:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
http://www.statssa.gov.za/ click on population census 2001 and build a bit of data the proves/disproves ethnic diversity. I'm not voting here, but it's a very good reference. -- Dbroadwell 00:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
From Dictionary.com: Quantify: To determine or express the quantity of. There is no way to express the quantity of diversity. None. The only way to do so occurs in that sentence, when it is stated that South Africa has the largest population of Indian people outside of India, as well as the largest white and coloured population in Africa. I cannot say South Africa is 37.8% diverse. Your insistance on such is assinine. I rewrote the military section, but there is nothing wrong with saying that South Africa is one of the most diverse countries in Africa. If one said the United States were one of the largest countries in the world, you wouldn't then have to list the total area of Canada, China, and Russia and explain the difference of percentages between them all. Culture and diversity are notoriously hard to measure. About 8-10 native languages are spoken in Belgium, but Belgium is not a diverse country at all, while New York city has many, many different races but most everyone speaks English. Which one is more diverse? That's why only stating that South Africa is ONE of the most diverse (which it is) countries in Africa is the only appropriate form. Because its impossible to determine the most diverse because such a term is subjective and relative. Páll 09:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is an example immediately after the statement you object to of South Africa's peacekeeping successes. Are your reasons for objecting factually based? Páll 02:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Rama 09:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Rossrs 14:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support AND now that the article is at 34K some should be recontacted about their votes. -- Dbroadwell 02:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • WOW! Excellente. Support--ZayZayEM 02:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I honestly say I didn't think we would be able to FA any country or big history of... articles so soon - and I am happy to be proven wrong. Two small notes: lead could be bigger and I think there are some templates/icons for the 'pronunciation' in the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • You have done an excellent article may I add a few tit bits having been involved. 1: the Good Hope Plan for SA was pulished in 1980 a scant 20 years after a negotiated 50 years servitude to British Empire at the end of the 2nd Boer war. This was part of prolonged negotiations for a truly democratic South Africa Started as far back as 1972 between the dominant political parties and the Nationalist party. The reason we in South Africa had no bloody conflicts was because of the overall goodwill that exsisted at grassroots level. No Media or political hype could destroy that. Having said that, your date 1990 for the dismantleing of apartheid laws is a bit belated In 1980 we already started to abolish some laws that were discriminatory espescially the Mining Act of 1956. I know this as I was part of that excercise. Otherwise you have a great article. 196.2.124.251 11:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Andrew Swan

[edit] Piccadilly Circus

Self-nomination (kind of). Reasonably stable topic, should meet FA criteria. --JuntungWu 06:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support I enjoyed reading this. It's a good length, well-written, good references section, nicely illustrated. One small point: when you quote Dickens' son, it would be good to know where you're taking it from. You have the Dickens's Dictionary of London in the references section, so I assume it's from there; my own preference is to say e.g. In his Dickens's Dictionary of London, Dickens wrote that . . . But that's just a suggestion, not an objection. Also, I believe you wrote Dickens Dictionary," but apparently it's Dickens's. [7] SlimVirgin 07:46, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
No you didn't: you had it right. SlimVirgin 07:48, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The "correct" writing of singular possessives ending in -s has been, and still is, the cause of numerous religious wars between punctuational sticklers everywhere. Tread carefully and don't feed the zealots! ;-) --Plek 14:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, I'm afraid. This article looks very good, comprehensive, and is nicely illustrated. However, I think it needs a map to show where Piccadilly Circus is in London. Jeronimo 18:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you want a map relative to London boroughs, or geographic, or a street map? JuntungWu 06:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I think a street map would be best, but "any" map would be useful. Jeronimo 07:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I am thinking of using the map at Image:London-CC-map-large.png as reading Talk:London_Congestion_Charge it appears that GLA granted us permission to modify it as well. I intend to crop and cut out the parts relevant. JuntungWu 16:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Support. Jeronimo 07:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support — This article is about the right length and is written in a good, readable style. I agree that a map would be an important addition, as many readers will find it difficult to place Piccadilly Circus by the geographical referrences in the text (however obvious they seem to be). Take a look at Wikipedians/Cartographers for assistance. Gareth Hughes 11:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not sure about this sentence: "It is topped by Alfred Gilbert's winged nude statue, officially known The Angel of Christian Charity the mythical Greek God of Love. It is popularly known as Eros." Should this be : "It is topped by Alfred Gilbert's winged nude statue, officially known The Angel of Christian Charity. It is popularly known as Eros after the mythical Greek God of Love" or "It is topped by Alfred Gilbert's winged nude statue, officially known The Angel of Christian Charity the mythical Greek God of Love. It is popularly known as Eros." Otherwise support. Grinner 12:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll change it to the former. JuntungWu 05:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Brookie 18:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, well done! I love the photographs especially. :) - Mailer Diablo 03:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support:comprehensive Giano 16:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--ZayZayEM 06:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stanislaw Koniecpolski

Self-nom. Biography of one of the best military commanders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. There are, as far as I can tell, no English books about him - majority of the article is based on my translation of Polish sources (referenced). What I'd like to add someday is the map showing the places where he fought, but at present it is beyond my capabilities to do so. Even without a map I believe this article if FAC ready. I'd appreciate your comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Mildly object — I like this article. However, it is not very readable. The opening paragraph, in fact the first sentence all by itself, is very dense. The reader is confronted with a whole host of Polish terms from the outset. The nomination above actually uses a better description of the man. Also, there are far too many red links in the text. While red links are an encouragement to expand WP, too many of suggests that the article exists in isolation. Some of the red links look like they might be spelling mistakes, and some could be pipe-linked to appropriate articles with a slightly different name. Gareth Hughes 13:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The three terms that I think you could be refering to are: szlachcic, starost and hetman. All are linked and in the 11-lines of the lead I think they don't confuse the reader too much, although I would be happy to hear how would you suggest we can improve the ease of understanding of this section without removing those important terms. I agree that there is unfortunately quite a few red links in the main text, but I think all of them deserve their own articles. It is true that history of Eastern Europe is not the best covered subject at Wiki, but I don't think this is a reason to disqualify this article. I'd appreciate if sb could fix the few links that may still need a redirect - I tried to link them all to the best of my knowledge. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The opening sentence reads:

        Stanisław Koniecpolski, (1590/15941 - 11 March 1646) was a szlachcic (Polish noble), magnate, starost and Field and Grand Crown Hetman of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

        I feel that the reader is faced with too much meaty information in this sentence, and would suggest:

        Stanisław Koniecpolski, (1590/15941 – 11 March 1646) was a Polish aristocrat (szlachcic and starost) and famed military commander (hetman) of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

        You could even leave out the bits in brackets, as they are defined in the body of the article. I feel that the opening paragraph has to be accessible to the general English reader. It is good to have the correct Polish terminology, but they really don't help when they're bunched together at the beginning of the article. The opening paragraph should give the basic information that is necessary for someone who knows nothing about Koniecpolski or the Rzeczpospolita to know what the article is about, otherwise it reads:

        Unpronouncable (who lived maybe then) was an unpronouncable, not the thing you stick to a fridge, no that's a landowner, some word I don't understand, with a really grand title that must require a very shiny uniform of a political entity in Eastern Europe I've never heard about.

        It might sound cruel, but, if I'm honest, that's how it reads to me. Gareth Hughes 11:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I would have to agree Gareth Hughes' proposed rewording is much better, your new proposed one is almost as good. The rest of the lead could also stand to be simplified and made easier for someone that doesn't already know the subject to understand. Overall, the article looks pretty good, aside from some orphan paragraphs (1-2 sentences) and having only two references being pretty minimal. Do you have some other sources available that you could cite? - Taxman 18:50, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nothing specificly about him in English - I could find nothing on Amazon, nor anything by Google except the stuff in external links. I added one English about that period - Norman Davies has few paragraphs about him in his history of Poland. I could add some more Polish sources of course. Merged the short paragraphs. I'd welcome advice how to further simplify the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • If that is all there is, then use the Polish sources; more sources is still better. You can still even cite specifc facts as needed to them. Just make sure you have used the Polish source properly and its all good. Obviously it is preferrable to have at least a few sources in English, but if there are none or very few, then so be it. If those websites are reasonable reliable, use them as references and format them properly in the references section too. - Taxman 16:11, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Though I have minor bits left that I see could be fixed, they are not worth holding this one up for. Object for now, though I anticipate supporting. 1) There are way too many redlinks. Are all of those people and things really notable enough for their own article? I would submit that some of them are not. If they are, then fine, you've got your work cut out for you. :) Besides the people of possible notability or not, there are links to things like "terrain advantage" and "Cossack register" that I'm not sure are distinct enough concepts for an article, but I could be wrong so I didn't fix them. 2) A lot of overly technical jargon or Polish terms are not explained at all. Examples are "starostwo" and "zlotys". Numbers in some unused currency are useless as a unit, so those two specifically should try to give some sort of rough comparison of their purchasing power or relative wealth, but there are plenty more. Just short bits of context can solve a lot of these technical terms. - Taxman 16:11, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Tnx for your comments. I removed about half red links, mostly for some some small towns/villages that may not exist anymore. I believe that mentioned people are encyclopedia-worthy, as well as the terms you mention. I'd appreciate more on what you find is 'Polish jargon'. I added an explantion to starostwo (it was red linked anyway), and zloty, which has its own article and it is still a name of Polish contemporary currency. As for more sources, I added 2 more Polish ones, but I feel I am getting close to scraping the barel bottom here - or at least of my own bookshelf :). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok if the rest of the red links are to notable things/people then so be it, thats fine. Adding those sources is great. 1) Well, I said there were Polish words and also some jargon, and there are, so I'll try to point out a bunch. What the Cossack register is still needs to be explained, also "wojsko kwarciane", "pasha", "Cossack's raids (chadzki)" (they are forbidden, but what makes them something unique worth noting they are forbidden?), "hussars" (in the image caption), "talars", "the Kantymir's forces" (who/what is that?), "Ali pasha" (who/what?), "tabors", and "voivode". 2) By the way, is "Kryków" what we would know Americanized as Krakow? 3) More context on where some of these places are, like "Cecora" could say (on Moldova, near the black sea). There are many, many like that. You don't need to tell where every town listed is, as long as the paragraph makes it clear where in general the action it is discussing takes place. That is lacking in most discussions in this article where towns and battles are discussed. For many, I can't even tell what country the action is taking place in, whether home in Poland or off somewhere. 4) It still really needs some sort of a general comparison of the buying power of the zloty in this time period. Otherwise the few times it quotes numbers in zlotys is not helpful. - Taxman 16:11, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • Tnx. Although I am not sure if we should explain *every* term that has its own article, and as a sidenote - not all of what you mention are Polish words, there are Turkish and Russians in here as well. Fixes: 1) created an article about Cossack register, first use in text has (list of priviliged Cossacks in the Commonwealth military) 2) wojsko kwarciane has its own article, first use now has (regular Commonwealth army) 3) pasha first use now has (high official in the Ottoman Empire) 4) chadzki now redirects to history of Cossacks where they're explained in two long paragraphs, added a sentence briefly explaining them here 5) caption is no place to explain the terms, and hussars are a rather known miliatry term - IMHO, still added ...(Commonwealth elite heavy cavalry) to the first use in body. 6) talar and zloty have their own articles and at present I have no data for their purchasing power in the 17th century. I think the context makes it clear they were coins. 7) Kantymir is an Ottoman commander, I have no further sources on him ATM, same with Ali pasha, 8) tabor is already explained in the text as a type of fortified formation and has its own article 9) voivode first use now notes it is similar to palatine), 10) There are many towns and places, I adimit in some cases I have no idea where they are - more or less. More notable ones are visible on the map and have their own links. For the rest, as I wrote, sometimes even professional historians today have no little idea where they are. However I tried to make certain all paragraphs state if the given campaign took place south on Ukraine, east in Russia, north near the Baltic Sea, ect. - I belive this is enough for now, this is not The tour of Koniecpolski footsteps via GPS :). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • The fixes all seem pretty good to me, though I did not have time to pour over every one. As to 10, I know you are exaggerating, since if you read what I wrote above, I was just asking for a general idea of where these places are in the context of each paragraph, not GPS coordinates. Please make sure you do that as much as you can. Cecora, the example I noted above, doesn't even tell us approximately where it is. But in any case, a great article, and as I noted above, not worth objecting over nitpicks. - Taxman 18:15, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support though improvements are still actively ongoing. The red-links expose Wikipedia's weakness in this area. Links that are really only relevant to this man's biography (i.e. his mother?) should be eliminated. Nationalist agendas seem pleasantly minimalized in this article. --Wetman 09:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support and propose the following wording of the opening para:

Stanisław Koniecpolski, (1590/15941 – 1646) was a notable member of the Polish gentry, a magnate, and holder of many offices in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, including the titles of a palatine and castellan. He was also a famed military commander in Poland.

Halibutt 00:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support — I think the article is in much better shape now (it could have done with a better peer review). It is a good, readable article and deserves featured status. I await your next article, Piotr. Gareth Hughes 13:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem with Peer Review is that it gets much less attention then FAC. There were times that more then half articles passed months in pr without a single comment; it has improved now but it is IMHO still less useful then FAC. This article during its peer review process got got only one comment... Tnx for all the comments here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Some of the pictures appear to be overlapping the text a bit. Other than its a great article. Like use of slightly imaginative (but not stupid) headings, mixed alignment of images. Support --ZayZayEM 02:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George Brown, Baron George-Brown

A self-nom and something of a pair with Reginald Maudling which was featured late last year. He was a distinctive British politician from the 1960s now best remembered for being drunk, but who made a strong contribution in a relatively short time in office. This is longer and more personal than most political biographies, and I think I was lucky in finding a colour photograph which is usable. Dbiv 22:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Support: Interesting and well researched. I suppose the story of an inebriated George Brown, as Foreign Secretary, asking a 'lady' in a purple evening dress to dance at the Austrian Embassy, eliciting the response "I would rather not, (a) because this is the Austrian National Anthem and (b), I am the Archbishop of Vienna, cannot be sourced and put in? - No, I thought not! Giano 15:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That's an issue I have debated many times. Firstly, Peter Paterson's biography makes it clear that the story is certainly not true. Secondly, it was actually first told about the Defence Minister in the same government, Lord Chalfont (who is still alive), in Private Eye in the mid-1960s and I guess transferred in the telling to George Brown who was more famous for getting drunk. However because it is so often told about Brown and because many people believe it, it might be worth a para to mention and explain its provenance. What do people think? Dbiv 17:02, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • That anecdote is quoted in Matthew Parris's book 'Read My Lips' (although transposed to Peru and noted as 'attributed'). I was going to suggest including it myself, but if it's definitely not true it would seem misplaced. However, maybe there's a place for my other favourite Brown quote, to Len Williams, on the latter's appointment as governor of Mauritius. He asked Williams if the position would involve wearing a plumed hat, and on finding that it would, said 'Well I hope your f***ing feathers fall out'.
      • Besides that issue, it is an excellent article that reads very well and gives a good picture of this fascinatingly flawed politician. I support the nomination - but wonder if there are any more pictures suitable for inclusion? It would be nice to have a couple more to break up the text. Worldtraveller 17:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Just as a comment, I think it needs a line at the end, something like "Baron George-Brown died on June 03, 1985, of (cause of death)". I assume 'natural causes', but which organs failed first? Also, List of Life Peerages gives his date of death as June 02. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the suggestion, have put it in the article. If given two dates of death I tend to prefer the earlier as the latter is normally when the death was reported. Dbiv 21:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Excellent. I love to read about how people die. I therefore support this page, and note in passing that it seems to be the best page on the entire internet about Baron George-Brown, with perhaps the exception of the one in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, [8] which I have not read (it's free to use in the local library, but I can't be bothered to shave and dress today, and I'm not going out looking like this). -Ashley Pomeroy 16:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --ZayZayEM 02:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Military history of the Soviet Union

Partial self nomination. Both comprehensive and concise. A former Collaboration of the Week that has benefitted enormously from the knowledgable contributions of many Wikipedians. Was posted on Peer Review without response. Looking forward to your comments. Ryan Anderson 04:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. I still think that structuring may use some more work, but it is quite good as it is. The article has been greatly improved and is close to FA, but needs more work. Primarily I am concerned about sectioning logic. The article seems loosely structured around chronology - from section 1 being Tsarist and revolutionary background to one of the last sections being Collapse of the Soviet Union and the military, but this history brief is interrupted by sections on Development of the structure, ideology, and doctrine of the Soviet military or Military-industrial complex and the economy which I feel should be described after the History section, which needs to be created and encompass all chronological history. Second, I think some events (wars) need their own sections (or at the very least, a large paragraph), especially the Polish-Soviet War, the Winter War and the Soviet Invasion of Afganistan, each of which IIRC led to the reshaping of the Red Army after its defeat. As a minor point, the history section to be complete should at least briefly mention all wars from the timeline (like '39 Invasion of Poland and Bessarabia, for example). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:43, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • See the talk page. Why this structure was chosen is discussed there... Chronological articles run the risk of leaving the reader with little understanding of the military as an institution and its relationship to other structures. (For a chronicle, see the timeline.) If the article details, e.g., the Polish-Soviet War, the Winter War, or the invasion of Afghanistan in depth but fails to convey a basic understanding of these broader structural relationships, it has wasted the reader's time; it has left him with a meaningless flux of data (trivia) that he can't interpret in an educated manner. (On that note, I've dealt with quite a few students who are military history buffs-- they often known a lot more about all the battles and campaigns than I do, which isn't saying too much--, but when asked, e.g., what did nomenklatura authority have to do with the Soviet military, they're often drawing blanks.) I'm sure that a survey on the structure, ideology, and doctrine seems quite elementary to you, but keep in mind that, unlike yourself, most readers will probably lack an understanding of even these most basic of attributes, and the structure of the article ought to be designed with them in mind. 172 07:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I read the Talk:Military_history_of_the_Soviet_Union#Problems_with_the_current_outline and this discussion is far from complete. I completly agree with you that the article should convey a basic understanding of these broader structural relationships - and it does it now. This is a very good article, but dividing it into chronological history first and moving sections about development/structure after this would make this easier to read - I feel that atm it is bit chaotic, to use your student comparison I'd say that the student that wrote it had good grasp of important facts but has problem with logical structuring his essay. As for detailing other wars, I think we have space for this in the article (after restructuring). Few more paragraphs wouldn't hurt. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • This is Ryan Anderson. I'm having trouble logging in at school. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. I have added coverage of the Polish-Soviet War, the Winter War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as well as the invasions of Poland and Bessarabia. As for the format: I do believe this is chronological, actually... just that the focus is on the ideas rather than the events. The concept is that this is not just a timeline of Soviet military conflicts (which is provided at the bottom of the page), but rather an in-depth analysis of the ideology underlining and determining these conflicts. The subjects you argue should be listed at the bottom are actually the focal point of the article: the "Tsarist....background" section that procedes it allows us to understand how Soviet military policy evolved from its roots in Imperial Russia and the sections that follow illustrate how this policy was applied after its establishment. These sections are the rason d'tre of the article, as they are the only material which is not redunant with other relevant entires, and thus I do believe they should remain where they are. 216.170.63.177 15:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support 172 08:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. If there is anything important lacking in this article it is well beyond me to say. I guess I would prefer deaper research and greater citing of individual facts, but I always will. - Taxman 18:59, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. IMO the article lacks an important item: purpose of the Red Army (hint: wider than the trivial one: 'to defend'). In other words, in addition to military doctrine, the political doctrine has to be covered. In particular, see Talk:Military history of the Soviet Union#Red Army and intial expansion of the Soviet Union. Mikkalai 21:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Great suggestion! I've added a section to Development of the structure, ideology, and doctrine of the Soviet military which covers the material you suggested. I hope you'll find that further discussion of the evolution of political doctrine is sprinkled into the various entries under Practical deployment... Ryan Anderson 21:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Neatly arranged and well written. Tygar 02:33, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent.--ZayZayEM 02:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've put NPOV on the article, and since then I think I've substantially improved it. May need some more work.--Silverback 02:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cardinal Richelieu

A self-nomination. -- Emsworth 01:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. It took me a while to read through (mostly due to my unfamiliarity with the subject), but it seems quite thorough and well-written. slambo 02:58, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article about a pivotal figure in European history. Edeans 06:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Comment. Looks good, but I will do some research before I cast my vote on this one. Minor objection for now - references can use proper formatting (ISBN missing). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I was not aware that the references were subject to any rules at present. Could you kindly direct me to the convention which dictates the proper format? -- Emsworth 13:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a persistent misconception that ISBNs are obligatory—lack of ISBN is often made an objection on this page—but they're not: "The ISBN (which is wikified automatically) is optional". They also have drawbacks which make some people prefer not to use them: "However, ISBNs only identify a particular edition of a book, and the reader will not see the full range of versions of the book for sale". Or the full range of versions available in libraries, either. I'm against them, I don't put them into references that I add (though they often accrue afterwards). Bishonen | Talk 15:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Further comment on ISBNs, some books don't have them. In my own research into railroad history, I'm often referencing self-published books that do not have ISBNs assigned to them. For example, on the Pioneer Zephyr article, the Wayner reference Car Names, Numbers and Consists does not have an ISBN yet it is a real reference that I can hold and photograph for proof. A lack of ISBNs should never be a factor in reference completeness, but where they are available, they should be included. slambo 16:19, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Comment. Looks great, but the lead is a little confusing. It mixes partly chronological summary with general information about him in ways that doesn't let us know which is which at times. The --ZayZayEM 03:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)lead mentions he's ordained a bishop, but then sudddenly he is a cardinal? Also the last orphan paragraph should be merged in smoothly somewhere. Welcome back to producing FA's by the way. - Taxman 14:57, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • First of all, thank you for welcoming my return. I hope that I have addressed your comment adequately; I have made the first paragaraph a chronological summary, the second a general overview of his policies, and the third a comment on his non-political activities. -- Emsworth 15:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, exactly what I was looking for. The lead is great now. - Taxman 18:37, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article, comprehensive as far as I can judge. Jeronimo 18:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A fine article. Filiocht 10:25, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: (No support, no objection) Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the Cardinal also a key figure in the Three Musketeers? -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No, but a fictional character bearing his name was, as covered in the Legacy section of the article. Filiocht 14:17, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well written. Leading part is a little too dense, but good. --Poli 05:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--ZayZayEM 03:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Comprehensive & well written, nice images, and appropriately referenced. A winner. Fawcett5 20:44, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silverpit crater

I've been working on this article about the UK's only known impact crater over the last 6 weeks or so. It might be a little short compared to many featured articles (it would probably fit in The Cantos about 30 times over...), but I think it's comprehensive, and an interesting subject, so I thought I would nominate it for featured status and see what everyone thinks. It's previously been through peer review, see its entry there. Worldtraveller 15:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Looking good. Need to clean up some spelling and unit issues: tons vs tonnes both used and miles vs km both used. -Vsmith 16:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and fixed the problems I saw plus a bit of copyedit. Hope I didn't mess anything up :-). Vsmith 17:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for copyediting! I've just slightly altered one number which you converted from tons to kg - I'd originally converted to tonnes from the kg quoted in the reference, but had been slapdash about the difference between tons and tonnes. It's definitely the correct value in kg now! Worldtraveller 18:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A good read concisely outlining the discovery, evidence, theories and conclusions so far. slambo 18:34, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support a fine article all round. Lisiate 22:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: an interesting presentation. --Wetman 08:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Great work, ready for FA --PopUpPirate 15:20, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Material is very nicely presented. Tygar 04:17, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Fascinating. Sandover 06:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I hope, one day, a dig can be made that will yield a definitive conclusion. Revth 13:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, interesting and pedagogical and encyclopedic. Bishonen | Talk 20:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colley Cibber

A concise, scholarly, and comprehensive biography and explanation of a figure of both fame and infamy who stands at the bottom of the page of many of the great poems of the 18th century (in the footnotes). I wrote quite a bit, but the article is 90% Bishonen's work, and it is meticulously documented. Geogre 02:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) Past nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Colley Cibber/Past

  • Support. Fascinating. — mark ✎ 02:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I have never heard of Cibber before, but I found this quite interesting. Good job. Edeans 05:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Another top-class article on 18th century English cultural history. Filiocht 09:10, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Yet another amazing article, very detailed and well illustrated and interesting - standards on Wikipedia are rocketing upwards. Giano 09:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is what Wikipedia is all about. Great work. I know nothing about the subject so I can't vouch for it that way, but it looks great. Keep them coming. - Taxman 13:48, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support very well detailed, could use slightly better images, but hey its 18th century its not exactly easy. Give it a go Raul! ALKIVAR™ 16:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Enthusiastically support. Hydriotaphia 06:41, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Want to support but
    1. "hapless Shakespeare, and crucify'd Molière" needs attribution (Pope, I presume).
    2. "herostratic fame" is clever but obscure, and deserves an explanatory phrase. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Right. Thank you. These are both from the Lead section. 1. "Hapless Shakespeare and crucify'd Molière" is quoted again under "Cibber as manager", and there attributed (to Pope, yes). I thought it could be more of a foretaste in the introduction, to keep the Lead as lightfooted as possible, but maybe not. I'll fix it. 2. Explaining herostratic fame at this point isn't an option IMHO, but of course I don't need to use the word at all, I'll rephrase. (If you don't think it's enough that it's linked to the stub Herostratos, that explains the concept?) Pity, in a way... it's not there for being clever, but for saying much in little compass. For those who've heard of Cibber (= the Alexander Pope buffs), Cibber is an icon of herostratic fame, and in the article we try to lay out, for those who hadn't heard of him, how he came to be that. But never mind, I don't want anything obscure in the Lead, any more than you do. Thanks for pointing it out.--Bishonen | Talk 10:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I'd say that the link is enough. Filiocht 11:49, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • In any case, support, it's a great article, although I still find "herostratic fame" to be obscurantist. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:27, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Social history and the history of ideas are the most difficult to write, and this entry sets a standard where Wikipedia is weak. (Herostratic fame is blue-linked for the curious.) --Wetman 09:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A wonderful article and a joy to read. One thing I'm wondering about, though, is his later life and death. The story of his professional career ends with his appointment as Laureate in 1730. The date of William Whitehead's appointment seems to suggest that Cibber retained his position until his death in 1757. Is that correct? Also, apart from being the object of progressive scorn, little is said about the last 10–15 years of his life. Maybe a small coda is in order to give proper closure to both the life of Cibber and to the article (provided information on this matter is available, of course). --Plek 15:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much, Plek (more! more! please say the bit about "a joy to read" again, I couldn't quite hear you!). It makes sense, what you say, and I'll try to find the time to read up a bit more in Barker's biography and flesh out the last 20 years of Cibber's life a little, though my impression is that his life just got progressively less interesting. He seems to have thought so, too—in his autobiography, published in 1740, his focus is overwhelmingly on the 1690—1715 period. The actors' profiles and the theatrical warfare and chicanery of the 1690s, when Colley was a struggling young actor, get far more space than later events at Drury Lane over the whole 25 years that he was head of it, 1710—1735. Another problem is that his autobiography is far and away the best source for his life, and is the basis of later accounts such as that of Barker, and consequently the 17 years he lived on after its publication are in a kind of shade, or information dearth. Samuel Johnson refers to the aging Cibber as a kind of fixture of the London social scene, a hale old man but an unrepentant trifler and posturer, a gambling addict (this had been a life-long problem of Cibber's) and increasingly a parody of himself, that the young stared at with surprise and censure. Ach, though, again, I need to find chapter and verse and exactly what Johnson said. Bishonen | Talk 17:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) P. S. A Poet Laureate appointment is indeed supposed to be for life, sort of like kingship, regardless of whether the duties are fulfilled or not. Bish.
  • Support Interesting, well written, and well referenced. It shines through that the authors care about this article. SlimVirgin 16:52, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Cantos

Mainly self-nomination. This was started by User:Charles Matthews and a number of editors have made improvements via Peer review, but I added most of the content. I know that it is very long (80K), but it is probably the best single-article overview of this important piece of modernist literature on the Internet, and believe me, it could be a lot longer. Filiocht 11:15, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support: and it could well be the best single article on Wikipedia, too, it's magnificent. I can't believe anybody who has read it will have the nerve to suggest hacking it up, either. Bishonen | Talk 11:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Lucid, erudite and fascinating. --Theo (Talk) 11:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain - that's a massive article and I couldn't do it justice by voting for it until I got a good solid day to read it :-) Ta bu shi da yu 13:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: This is an amazing study and will surely become, in its own right, one of the most studied and important reference works on The Cantos. That is should be freely available to everyone via the internet, courtesy of Wikipedia, is an amazing windfall to the Wikipedia project. It is beyond comprehension that anyone will feel its too long, and I don't think it will be an objection Filiocht has to worry about. Giano 13:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 80KB? That's huge. Maybe 50KB? Yes, I have the audacity to suggest a bit of splitting. Remember that not everyone wants to read anywhere near that much, or have to wade through it. It's better to have one article up front that's reasonably concise, and save the real detailed stuff for subarticles. By creating subarticles, you also free up space for even more detail. Don't count that as an objection, but I'm not supporting, either. Everyking 13:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object (mildly): I think the body of the article (the discussion of the Cantos' sections) is great: comprehensive and interesting. My issues lie with the sections at the beginning ("Intro", "Controversy" and "Structure") and at the end ("Legacy"). I think some minor copyedit is in order here:
    • The article doesn't seem to make up its mind whether to treat "The Cantos" as a singular or a plural. Thus:
  • Intro section: "The Cantos by Ezra Pound is a long, incomplete poem..." (singular), "...the early Cantos, as finally published, date from 1922 onwards." (plural).
First instance is as it should be, second instance is also correct, as it applise to some Cantos, not The Cantos. Filiocht 15:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Ok thanks, that works. Well then make that clear in the lead section. Right now it does not explain why the thing is a poem (singular) and also a collection of things. I made the same point when this was listed on peer review. You know what is correct because you are familiar with the subject. The article does not appear to. - Taxman 21:20, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Controversy section: "The Cantos has always been..." (singular).
Correct as is. Filiocht 15:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Structure section: "As they lack any plot or definite ending, the Cantos can appear..." (plural, also "the" instead of "The"); the rest of this section treats it as a plural as well.
These I will fix. Filiocht 15:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Legacy section: "...The Cantos have been influential..." (plural), as in the rest of the section.
This I will also fix. Filiocht 15:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • The "Structure" section contains some dense or clunky prose, which is sometimes hard to decypher. Some examples are:
  • "...the Cantos can appear to be chaotically structureless": seems like a redundancy to me.
Beg to differ on this one. I feel they reinforce each other. Filiocht 15:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • "One contributory factor may be that Pound had in his sights the novel as handled by James Joyce.": I've read this sentence many times, and still I have no idea what the connection is between Pound and Joyce. What is meant with "in his sights"? What novel?
The novel as a form, as The Cantos represents the poem as a form. Filiocht 15:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Would "the modernist novel as handled by James Joyce"" be clearer? --
Please review my edit to this sentence along the lines of Pound wanted to do for poetry what Joyce had done for the novel. FiliochtTheo (Talk) 15:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "The issue of incoherence of the work is reflected the equivocal note sounded in the final two more-or-less completed cantos which admit that he has been unable to make his materials cohere while insisting that the world does cohere.": this sentence is a train wreck.
Sorry, a word has gone missing and I will fix. Filiocht 15:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • The list in this section has items that are marked: A A, C B, B C. What do these letters mean?
They occur in a direct quote. Filiocht 15:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • "In the light of cantos written later than this letter, it would be possible to add to this list other recurring motifs such as periploi ('voyages around'), vegetation rituals such as the Eleusinian Mysteries, banking and credit, and the drive towards clarity in art, such as the 'clear song' of the troubadours and others and the 'clear line' of Renaissance painting.": where are the full stops when you need them?
One doesn't, it's a list. Filiocht 15:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • "... the effort is to merge these two aspects of light.": The preceding sentences are so confusing that I have no idea what "these two" should be: the Sun and the Moon? Political and social activity? Divinity and artistic impulse? Love and good governance? Any other combination?
All of the above. I'll try to clarify. Filiocht 15:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Etcetera. There are some more heavy-handed sentences in this section. Try to make them more accessible by either splitting them up, or by using less flowery language.
  • Finally, I think that it's a bit strange to have a section called "Controversy" as the first section of the article proper. One would expect that an article would first set out to describe its subject (what is it, when was it made, by whom, how, etcetera.), and only then expand into the reception of the work and the controversy that ensued. As it stands, the intro section is trying to fulfill a double role of introducing the article to the reader and providing the details I mentioned. I think a better structure would be:
Beg to differ on this one. Especially important to place the various anti-semitism references in the body of the article in context. Filiocht 15:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Intro (summarizing the article as a whole, including the information that is contained in the "Legacy" section)
  • "Origins" (or something like that: contains most of the text that is now in the intro section, maybe expanded a bit)
  • Controversy (as is)
Good luck, and thanks for the excellent work so far! --Plek 14:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I have tried to address a number of these suggestions now. Filiocht 15:11, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have struck out the issues that have been fixed so far. I'd like to clarify the others: First of all, and as Taxman indicated as well, it is not made clear that "The Cantos" (singular) is the name of the poem and "the Cantos" (plural) are the cantos (lyrical poems) that it's made up of (try explaining that sentence to the first person you meet). That the article uses all three incarnations of "cantos" without explaining which is which, is highly confusing. As it stands, I'm sure that an unsuspecting editor will come along and change "date from 1922 onwards" to "dates", for instance.
Would it help to use 'Cantos' to refer to the whole work and 'canto' or 'cantos' to refer to the individual cantos or groups thereof? I have tried this in sentence 2; somebody careful should pick through the whole article if the approach is helpful. --Theo (Talk) 23:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, something like that would help, I think. Ideally, The Cantos (in italics, both words capitalised, per WP:MOS) would refer to the work, and the cantos or canto (no capitals) to its individual parts. A dictionary definition of "canto[s]" in the introduction might be helpful as well (again, think about the proverbial average reader). --Plek 23:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • " One contributory factor may be that Pound wanted to do for poetry what James Joyce had done for the novel.": This is much clearer gramatically. Conceptually, however, it immediately raises the question: "Which is?" I'll leave it up to you to consider whether the general reader of this article would be knowledgeable enough to answer that question without further elaboration.
It seems to me that only the first three sections (Introduction, Controversy and Structure) need to engage our 'intelligent ten-year-old' reader. After that the material is too complex to be addressed succinctly in simple language. --Theo (Talk) 23:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My point exactly. As the "Joyce" reference is made in the "Structure" section, some explanation about what it was that Joyce did for the novel might be in order. --Plek 23:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The other sentences from the "Structure" section are unchanged and still a problem. Some copyedit and punctuation fixes are needed. I would do it myself if I'd have an idea what the intended meaning was; honestly, I don't.
  • That the "AA,BC,CB"-list is a direct quote is not apparent from the article. As it stands, it just looks like a list with auto-numbering gone kaput. Can't you just drop the letters?
The letter sequences have meaning. Perhaps a sentence saying 'The letter sequences ABC and ACB indicate variations on the sequencing of these elements'. --Theo (Talk) 23:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I have retracted my objection about the section structure, as I don't think it's critical. Please note that I didn't intend the "Controversy" section to go to the end of the article, but rather that an extra section is needed to start the article proper. Thanks. --Plek 22:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I have worked my way through the article to standardise along the following lines; the full work is The Cantos (note caps and italics), an individual numbered canto is Canto X (Cap, no italics) and a general reference is canto/cantos (no caps). Both canto and James joyce link to their own articles and I am reluctant to add such secondary materials to the body of the article. Hope this helps. Filiocht 08:45, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice work. I have done some copyediting of the first three sections as well; I hope I didn't make a mess of it. Changing vote to support. --Plek 16:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This sure represents the best of Wikipedia. Length shouldn't be a problem: whoever is scared away by so much text won't be interested in the Cantos itself or will be satisfied with the lead section. — mark ✎ 15:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support This is a spectacular article, well above usual featured article quality. We don't appreciate often enough the people who actually take the trouble here to write a big article on a subject that takes some research (as opposed to the hundred others who readily volunteer to criticize the single point they think they know about the topic). Thanks for the effort! alteripse 17:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support This article is simply brilliant. Like I said when I supported Hrafnkels saga (today's featured article), this raises the bar for all featured articles; if it doesn't pass, we might as well remove 95% of the current featured articles. We should have one like that about all major literature works. To hell with size limits! Congratulations to the editors. Phils 21:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I do not consider its length a hindrance and understand that shortening sections and expanding to their own articles would be unnecessary work for the time being. Excellent. --Oldak Quill 01:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Good Lord, folks, the Cantos themselves are as complex, as misunderstood, as massive, as monumental, and as labyrinthine as Finnegans Wake, so a long article is only to be expected. 70 kb on a toy is too much. 70 kb on Remembrance of Times Past is necessary. When I saw Filiocht attempting the Herculean task of writing on the Cantos, I thought he or she was nuts. The resulting article, though, is superior to anything our commercial competitors can offer and is certainly FA quality. Geogre 02:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Though again, I know nothing about the subject so I can't vouch for that. Great work, give us more like it. - Taxman 13:56, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow. Mark1 09:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support My admiration to the editors - congratulations. Rossrs 12:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Good lord! I'm so proud! jengod 07:46, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mostly a very good article on an enormous and fascinating topic. But the "Controversy" and "Structure" sections are completely unsourced, and they positively leap to interpretive conclusions which are very shakily justified, if at all, within the article, and which are opposed by significant amounts of scholarship. Wikipedia shouldn't make claims in its own voice about issues as complex as the connection or lack of it between Pound's anti-Semitism and usura, the overall symmetry/dissymmetry and structure/lack of structure of the poem -- such broad interpretive claims need to come from definite scholarly sources. (As one example, the article currently asserts: "No clear line can be drawn in it between the economic thesis on usura and Pound's anti-Semitism..." On this issue, see Parker, "Ezra Pound and the 'Economy' of Anti-Semitism," Boundary 2 11, no. 1-2 (fall-winter 1982-1983): 103-128, a study which argues the exact opposite.) Support.-- Rbellin|Talk 00:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would argue that you have misread the sentence on usury, etc. What it actually says is that there is no clear line to be drawn between Pound's politics and his lyric voice. It is clearly not talking about the relationship between his economics and his anti-Semitism. Please read again and see if you still feel the same about it. Parker's essay is interesting, but what I was trying to avoid was any POV regarding Pound's politics. The article simply reports them in as much as they impact on the poem. The structure section is 'referenced' by quoting from Pound's own prose. Again, I would feel that any in-depth discussion of the various critical approaches and opinions here would go beyond the remit of an encyclopaedia article. I felt it was enough to note the fact that many readers will find the poem chaotic, but... Filiocht 08:48, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Now this could get interesting. /me brings some drinks and snacks, pulls up the comfy chair, and settles down to watch the show. --Plek 01:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I like the body of the article enormously, and agree with most of the grand claims about it above... this is honestly better than the Terrell Companion to the Cantos, which is the current standard work, as a readable overview of the whole of the thing (though of course the book, being a book, provides a lot more precise detail and referencing, and admitting that is no slight to this article). My concern is a narrow one seen against the bulk of this article's achievements. -- Rbellin|Talk 06:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Think the original phrase here about 'no clear line' is mine. I'm no expert; this was a way to get past Pound-the-man to the work. I'm sure that the literature on Pound contains many voices, We are not going to settle anything here. If there is a serious case that this transgresses NPOV, it will need fixing up. I have no problem with boilerplate 'most commentators think ... for a dissenting view ... '. As long as we don't have all the Pound controversies, which for better or worse belong on the page for him. Charles Matthews 14:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion "there is no clear line to be drawn between Pound's politics and his lyric voice" (if that is what the sentence is saying; its grammar remains unclear to me) is an interpretive claim tendentious enough to require a source, as some critics (like my citation above) clearly disagree. So, for that matter, is the separateness of the poem from Pound's life. In my opinion, for the Wikipedia article to make claims like this, or like "central to the poem's structure is the opposition between darkness and light," or like "Pound has been unable to make his materials cohere while insisting that the world does cohere," et cetera, amounts to original literary criticism of a rather hasty and unargued variety. The following improvements could be made:
  1. Simple removal of such broad interpretive claims. (The rest of the article meets FA requirements anyway)
  2. Weasel-word patches to these statements: "Some readers claim..." "Other critics believe..." (Not good enough for a featured article)
  3. Citations to individual well-respected critics: "Hugh Kenner writes..." (Good enough for FA status)
  4. A critical history: "Commentators of the 1960s often claimed... but a later work argued..." (Ideal)
I will try to make some of these changes myself, but cannot promise enough time for real research right now. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You could of course read 'no clear line' as a brief if inadequate summary of what the analysis below of the actual content of 107-odd cantos says, in an extended form. That is more in line with Wikipedia 'news style' policy: an 80K article ought to have some précis near the top. Damning it all as 'broad interpretive claims' is too sweeping, I'd say. More like a road sign saying 'dangerous bends ahead'. I won't argue with 'hasty', but I think you mean more 'too compressed'. 'No original research' has been given a rather bloated meaning, over time. "Darkness and light" - that should probably go, I agree. The coherence thing - that probably paraphrases Cookson or some other source, which could be cited. Charles Matthews 16:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not that it matters much now -- the article has already reached featured status despite my unresolved objection -- but I am striking my objection. Recent edits by Filiocht have dramatically improved the sections dealing with the poem's critical history, and added many critical sources. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway

User:Ta bu shi da yu suggested I nominate this as a FAC after its time on WP:PR. It is a concise complete account of a small Southwestern Ohio railroad with a photo, references, and external links. PedanticallySpeaking 15:49, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • I think it's an excellent article, personally. Support! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. And who will have won, when the railroad has gone? -Ashley Pomeroy 20:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It's short but sufficiently comprehensive IMHO. JYolkowski 23:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Too many red wikis means that the article exists in a bit of a vacuum Fawcett5 04:40, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The absence of other articles is no reason to object to the nominated article. Jeronimo 09:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. This seems pretty good, but the article really needs a map to show the route of the railroad. Jeronimo 09:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. In terms of content this is first class, but I think the article has too many red links, a route map would be nice.
As said above "The absence of other articles is no reason to object to the nominated article." Or we could just remove all the red links and add them when they have an article. Peb1991 22:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I agree about the route map. While there are a lot of red links, I think it is meaninful to look at what the red linked subjects are. Most are older railroads which WikiProject:Trains participants haven't gotten to yet. The number of older railroad articles is currently growing daily. Perhaps getting one like this featured will stimulate more writing, in this case, from someone with either Ohio or Pennsylvania Railroad knowledge and interests. The content is good and balanced. Route maps are nice, but from my experience, often not available through PD sources for these smaller and older railroads. Vaoverland 23:21, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I've also removed some red links and replaced them with stubs. JuntungWu 12:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I may sound a little overly critical here, but I'm still not quite convinced. I've gone through it with a quick copyedit to resolve a couple run-on sentences and fix some grammar, but I think there could still be some improvement in the prose. I'd like to see more pictures, but I can understand that they may be hard to find. The only real objection that I have at this point is that the article lacks a route map. slambo 02:35, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • The article claims in the lead and reorganization sections that the line ran from Cincinnati to Dayton but the route section lists Cincinnati to some unknown place called Lebanon Junction. Where is this place? Did the line not reach Dayton proper? Is this past Dayton? Rmhermen 20:54, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I made a stab at a map and added it. Rmhermen 22:26, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Lebanon Junction was just east of Dayton in Montgomery County. From there its trains proceeded on the other road, the Toledo, Delphos, and Belmont for the remaining couple of miles. Later the line was reconstructed and it went directly into Dayton. I've added a sentence to this effect. PedanticallySpeaking 16:31, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870

This is pretty much a self-nom. I think this article is very comprehensive about a fairly interesting yet little known historical topic. I know this article is a part of a series, and thus usually not preferred for a Featured Article, but I think this is able to stand on its on two legs. Thanks! Páll 02:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Very interesting. Just because this isn't the kind of article we normally nominate doesn't mean it isn't worthy. Support. Mike H 04:31, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. If the dates had been completely arbitrary, the fact that this article is one in a series might have been problematic. But as it is now, I believe it deserves to be a FA. Good job. Phils 11:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I knew you would push this article to FA. Good job :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments. The intro-graph seems a bit odd. Starting with "After war broke out again" makes that article dependant on what occured before, or at least makes it akward. Also the sentence structure there is a little choppy and hard to follow. You might also want to make a quick note whhat continent we are talking about. I had to look at the main article to find out that this colony was in South Africa (although that's what i would have guessed). Besides that the article is nice. BrokenSegue 22:11, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I fixed the intro paragraph and it now has a proper beginning. Thanks! Páll 16:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The reason the article begins without a main sentence is because this article is a part of a series, so it takes up where the last article left off. Could you please provide some examples of how the text is choppy and hard to follow? I'm not sure a note of what continent is necessary, seeing as there are several maps that clearly show South Africa. Páll 22:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Just because an article is in a series doesn't mean that it shouldn't be readable independent of the other articles. As to the maps, if you look at them they all show a small penisula but give little context,a cut out map would be nice [it's a minor concern really]. As to the choppy writing, the one thing I noticed was the two sentences starting with the word after in the first graph. I didn't object because it is clear that the article is well thought out and will be featured with a little pruning. BrokenSegue 01:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing up the intro, I Support now. BrokenSegue 03:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Good article, but I have one main objection: the lead section. It should give a summary of the topic, and also introduce the topic. Right now, you actually need to go to another article first to get the introduction; there is no summary of the article. For example, we do not learn where the Cape Colony is/was, or why the article only deals from 1806 to 1870 (why these "magical" years?). As a minor objection, I would get rid of the "history" caption (as this is a "history of" article already) and then make all current subsections top level sections. Jeronimo 10:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I fixed the intro paragraph and it now has a proper beginning. Thanks! Páll 16:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Jeronimo 07:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object due to the absence of a proper lead section. Enthusiastically support when/if that's fixed. Everyking 12:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I fixed the intro paragraph and it now has a proper beginning. Thanks! Páll 16:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support now. Everyking 22:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object
    1. infoxbox is mighty ugly
    • Tightened and brightened this. Better? jengod 07:58, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
    1. not all years are wikilinked
    2. "the British Secretary for the Colonies, Lord Glenelg, declared that "the great evil of the Cape Colony consists in its magnitude" and demanded that the boundary be moved back to the Fish River, and eventually had d'Urban dismissed from office in 1837." - where did he write that? to a newspaper of the day? Did he write it to someone in particular? Also doesnt' flow.
Cleaned up and clarified. Páll 08:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    1. "The colonists did what they could to save life, but thousands perished miserably. In their extreme famine many of the Amaxosa turned to cannibalism, and one instance of parents eating their own child is authenticated." - who was it authenticated by, can we have more details?
Also clarified that it is according to the book War of the Axe. Páll 08:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just waiting for you to fix that! Páll 08:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Apart from these things, excellent work! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • Object. Although it's already been accepted, have requested that this article be removed as a feature article until the objections have been taken care of - see link on the article's talk page. Greenman 2 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

[edit] Aramaic language

This previously failed the FAC process (archived discussion from December), but has vastly improved since. It is very well researched, comprehensive and includes excellent sound samples in ogg format. It is also a successful example of the recently more dynamic peer review process. See the article's peer review entry here. Gareth Hughes has really done some impressive work on this. Not a self nomination, but I was minorly involved in its peer review process. - Taxman 17:22, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd recommend shortening it by spinning off some subarticles, but still support. Everyking 17:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support — I've put a fair ammount of work into this article, and felt it was still incomplete when it was last put up for FAC. It had a very good and positive peer review, and I now feel it's ready to be listed here. One constant comment is about the length of the article: I did spin off Biblical Aramaic and the Aramaic of Jesus (these two things dominated the old article) as well as separate pages for each of the modern Aramaic languages. I hope the history sections put the language in good context, but I feel that a history of Aramaic article might rob this article of its context. Gareth Hughes 18:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: A very good article overall, one of the few things I thought could be improved would be to add a map of the current geographic distribution to the "Geographic distribution" section. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:24, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
  • Support. Even last time I thought this was excellent. A map would be cool, though. - Mustafaa 05:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. One more that makes me so proud of Wikipedia; this is a magnificent article. Thanks Gareth! Agree with Mustafaa and <insert unspeakable username here> that a map really would be cool, though I understand that's difficult. — mark ✎ 16:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice work. Perhaps a lead can be expanded, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Penda of Mercia

How's it look? OK, no image, but the policy says that's not an absolute requirement in a difficult case. Maybe a map? Well, that's not within my means, it seems. Anyway, I'd like to be able to expand this further, but my options are kinda limited. I've pretty much exhausted all the sources available to me. Maybe I can expand it a little more with a bit more referenced historical speculation, but even there I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel. Suggestions for improvement are welcome. Everyking 23:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. it really does need a map, even just a CIA one with a blob on it showing where Mercia was. A picture of one of the battlefields would be nice, too. Mark1 00:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Nobody knows exactly where the battles were fought. Even general locations are uncertain, much less battlefields. If you can find a map I can use, be my guest. Believe me when I say it ain't easy. Everyking 00:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I should also point out that the frontiers are less than certain and expecting me to draw a map like that is expecting way too much. I'm not willing to be accountable for drawing some map that gets something wrong. Therefore it would need to be something attributable to a source, so some historian can take the blame for errors. Everyking 00:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • [9]. I don't expect you to draw a map. I don't expect the article to be featured. But both would be good. Mark1 00:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • How do I know that wouldn't be a copyvio? You can add it if you want, but I don't want to do it myself. Everyking 01:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • I wasn't suggesting that you add that particular picture (although it looks old enough to be out of copyright- some sleuthing could make psure): my point is just that a map of Mercia is entirely doable. Mark1 02:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • I don't doubt that I can do it; my point was that the frontiers are obscure to the point where any map for this particular period would be quite speculative, and while I don't object to using a map credited to a historian, I'm not willing to go out on a limb about it myself. Everyking 05:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) Needs a picture. If no pictures of Penda himself are available, I'm sure there are plenty of other relevant images to be found. A map would be a good idea, too. 2) The references need to be mentioned separately from the notes (either in addition to, or drawing the full references from the notes). That would make it much clearer. 3) Add context, lots of context. Where on earth is Mercia (central England)? Why is it relevant Penda is a descendant of Woden (he is the most improtant Germanic god)? Etc. etc. etc. 4) It's great that this article is so well references and footnoted, but I feel the article is a bit too much "uncertain". Nearly every fact or so is specifically placed in the words of a certain reference, which gives me a feeling that "most of this may not be true". I know that is not the case, but that is just how the article feels to me. If parts are widely agreed upon, this shouldn't be necessary. Perhaps you can put a few more "Book X says" into the footnotes? Jeronimo 07:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it's really all pretty obscure. I don't know how to make the notes separate from the references. How would that work? And this is a bio article on one ruler. I'm not sure I should give so much context. I mean, where would that lead us? I think it's better to be minimal about it. When you say you are sure there are plenty of images available, I assure you that you are wrong. Everyking 07:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Separate references and notes: simple. Make a heading "References", put all the book/article details in there. In the notes, just refer to these as "Johnson 1999" or so. Context: Yes, this needs to be there. Most of the contenxt can be given by adding one or a few words, a sentence in some cases. This makes the article much more readable. There's no use in looking up one term in an encyclopedia and then looking up several more because you have no idea what they mean. So I think you can be pretty minimal about it, just not sub-minimal. I noticed a rewrite in the lead section, simply yet effective - exactly what I meant. Jeronimo 18:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think I see what you are saying. I don't know, though. The way it is now seems to work pretty effectively. That system might just duplicate reference info for no real benefit. Everyking 19:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I would have to agree that separating them is good. Each cited work can go in the references section, and the notes section should list just what is normally in an endnotes section or similar: the last name and page number(s). It would make it all clearer and more standard, at no real cost. - Taxman 02:51, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, after I get some sleep I'll take a shot at this, presuming I don't have some mood swing in the meantime. Everyking 03:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I currently consider point 1) and 2) of my original objection resolved. My points on 3) and 4) still stand. One of the specific examples mentioned under 3) is still in the article as it was, and nothing has changed regarding 4) (nor has my opinion about it). Jeronimo 18:39, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I will flatly not address point 4. That would make the article potentially inaccurate and I will not do it. I care more about accuracy than addressing your objection. I don't think you understand how obscure this period is, and how very little historians are certain of about it. Everyking 20:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I see your point. I still feel the article would become more readable if you would not mention a source in full text every two sentences. It seems a common practice in scientific texts to either add the cited sources in brackets (e.g. [Johnson88]) or in a footnote, as I suggested in my first objection. I feel this would improve the article's readability a lot, while it would not harm it's accuracy or verifiability. What do you think? Jeronimo 08:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I will go through the article later and see if I can find any unnecessary cites to remove. I don't know if I'll find any. Personally, I think having so much cited simply enhances the article's credibility. Anybody who reads it will know that all the information is derived either from primary sources or published, credible historians. Ask anybody and they will tell you that Wikipedia's biggest problem is the question of whether you can trust what you are reading. Thorough referencing is the way to counter this criticism. Also, keep in mind that a great majority of the article is simply speculation: for example, historians are pretty sure that Eowa died at Maserfield. But whose side was he on? What was his political position relative to Penda at the time? There is no consensus on this stuff. It's just guesswork. I'm also not quite sure what you mean when you're proposing alternative citing. How exactly does that differ from what I'm using? One time I used brackets to cite things in a FAC article before and got shot down for it, so I'm not going to do that. Everyking 08:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think that Everyking has a very valid point here. The places in the article in which he is most likely to cite source documents are those places where the sources disagree. In order to discuss the various theories and guesses of historians it is vital to know on which sources these theories depend. When dealing with assertions made by various authors you are not dealing with facts, but assertions. To write "King X was at such and such battle on such and such date (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, enty for year Y)", is to give the impression that we in fact know that where King X was on such and such date, when in what we actually know is that one source claims that he was. Other sources may claim other things. The bracketed scientific style of citation works great when citing secondary research and (in sciences) primary research that was published in the modern period. It works less well for medieval and ancient sources. For example, the Historia Brittonum, which Everyking uses, does not have a known author, (it is traditionally ascribed to "Nennius", but that has been shown to be spurious), or a known publication date. That leaves only the title of the work to put in the bracket, at which point you might as well get rid of the ugly brackets and write "The Historia Brittonum says...". Dsmdgold 11:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Guys, don't get me wrong: I have nothing against citing sources. By all means, cite. But this article reads like a big "source X says Y" story, and there are several points where that is no need to do so in the text. Take for example the first section: "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives his descent as follows: (...) 3.", with the note referring to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. No competing sources are given, nothing. Why not just write: his descent was as follows (...)3? Makes it easier to read for me. BTW, objection 3) has still not been addressed either. Jeronimo 21:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. A picture would convince me to support. And I think that for such a long article (with subarticles) lead should be longer then one paragraph. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. This is a good article. It could sure use a picture of Penda, and perhaps more other images (more maps, perhaps some relicts or arechological digs, etc.). But the content is good enough that I support now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can live with it not having any pictures, but I would go against featuring it on the Main Page given the lack of pictures. The introduction is still very short; I think the current consensus seems to be for two paragraphs or sometimes three. JuntungWu 14:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • You think? Well, I'll see if I can expand it somehow, then. But it does pretty much cover the basic facts. And it doesn't matter to me if it never goes on the main page, although if it did someone could just stick a map of Britain in there and that'd probably suffice for that purpose. Everyking 14:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Personally I like longer intros, because if I am looking for some quick facts on a topic I would only read the first few paragraphs. JuntungWu 14:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • By the way do you want to take a look at this map here? I don't know if it's accurate, I am no historian. JuntungWu 14:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • BTW it's a support vote. I didn't make that clear. JuntungWu 02:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but yes it does need some sort of at least representative image to be picked for when it is on the main page. Some artifact representative of the times would be fine I would think. Also since there is no hard and fast consensus on how references should be formatted, I think this way is just fine, and it is very nice that specific points are backed up with sources. Great job. - Taxman 14:59, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that would work, but I'm not aware of a photograph of one. I guess we could use the image on Sutton Hoo, which is contemporary to the period but East Anglian and not Mercian. There's also a coin that apparently says either Penda or Peada (could be either), but I haven't ever seen a picture of it. Everyking 15:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: I think this article is very comprehensive. Some of the criticisms here are a little unfair - the lead is concise and covers all salient points - what's the point of rambling on unnecessarily? - Lack of relevant images is a pity, I just spent an hour confidently flicking through out of copyright history books for one, but have given up. The Penda coin would be good, but the copyright problem would still probably have to be overcome. One can't manufacture images just to satisfy a criteria, so this page will just have to be featured without them. Giano 15:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Comprehensive and well-written. A missing image is not a good reason to not feature this interesting article. I slightly dislike the way the references are done (like Jeronimo, I prefer separating references and notes), but as Taxman points out, there is no clear consensus concerning this issue. I should add that I actually very much like the way the notes are done; I didn't know this fn/fnb template. — mark ✎ 00:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: What to do about the objections based on the lack of an image? I'd love to have an image, but I just don't know if it's realistic, and I don't want the nomination to fail just because of that. Everyking 02:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • To clarify, I don't object on the basis that every FAC must have an image: that isn't a FA requirement. I do object on the basis that a map would significantly improve the article and is entirely feasible. Mark1 02:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, fine then. I don't have a map to use, but hopefully someone else does. Problematically the map would probably be pretty anachronistic, Mercia in Offa's time or afterwards, anyway. Everyking 03:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The "Note 1:" style for the endnotes looks messy. If you get rid of the italics and the "note," then I'll support this excellent article (excellent work, EK). By the way, an image is NOT a FA requirement. Neutralitytalk 03:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • I actually didn't format it that way, but it does have some advantages: you can link back to the text from the notes, and it consumes less article space. Everyking 03:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The Note 1: text is automatically generated by the {{fn}}/{{fnb}} templates. It is poorly documented at Wikipedia:Footnotes where Neutrality has started a discussion about changing it on the talk page. I think that would be the proper place to discuss this "global" issue. (Note 1: I introduced the templates to this page and have no opinion about their format, although I like their functionality.) Rmhermen 15:33, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've been periodically working on reworking the references/notes system. If anyone doesn't like it so far, tell me so I don't end up putting too much time into it. Everyking 18:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think its great and should become more frequent, would not have been so good for [10] but an excellent idea on a site where all authors have to be taken on trust, but not so obligatory where editors could not add that little piece of gathered information absorbed by a genuine interest in a subject that comes from God know's where.Giano 19:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object The inclusion of a map that has well defined borders forces me, sadly to, object. This is so anachronistic as to be inacurate. Support This is a well done article and Everyking has handled some very sparse source material very well. Some comments. I would like to see some mention that it is a widely held theory that the penny coin is named after Penda. Many commenters have expressed a desire for an image of some sort of or a for a map. For me, the presence of a map with clearly drawn borders would be grounds for objection. Such a map would be anachronistic on a few grounds. First there is no way to accurately determine the "borders" for any of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The evidence just does not exist. Second any map we found would most likely represent the "borders" of Mercia in the wrong era. However, the strongest reason is that to draw a map with borders would imply that such a thing as clearly delineated borders existed. This would be pushing a much later concept into a society that did not have it. The best solution would be for someone to find a PD outline map of the island and insert the names of the various kingdoms at the center of power for each kingdom and leave out the borders entirely. As for finding a PD picture of an artifact from the era, if you want something from Mercia in the middle of the 7th century, you are up for a very difficult search. There is no two dimensional art from that time and place surviving. Any image of three dimensional art would almost certainly have copyright issues, that is assuming you could find any. (There is a project to put images of every piece of Anglo-Saxon sculpture on the web - here - that might have something, but it would have to clear copyright). There are a few surviving Anglo-Saxon buildings from this period. I don't know that there are any from Mercia, but St Peter-on-the-Wall, in Essex is from about the right period. (The article has pictures released under the GFDL.) Dsmdgold 02:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Damned if I do and damned if I don't, ain't I? Everyking 23:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • It seems that way, sorry. Dsmdgold 23:07, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • If I'm going to get an objection either way, I'll just leave it in. I see no major problem with it. I wrote in the caption that it only illustrates the general locations. Everyking 23:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • The new map is much better. Dsmdgold 23:25, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Would a vague sort of map like this be helpful? Rmhermen 17:10, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's just a black screen for me. Probably a browser issue or something? Everyking 20:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • SOme kind of conversion problem. Image:Penda foes.GIF it is as a GIF. Rmhermen 02:00, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • Not to be too picky, but could we replace "Northumberland" with "Northumbria"? And maybe add Deira to the south of Bernicia, and (to be especially picky) inch "Gwynedd" just a bit to the west? Everyking 02:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • It would be especially nice if the area in question could be blown up a bit and Ireland and most of Scotland cropped out. And those modern borders on there are a bit of a nuisance. Everyking 02:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • And, um, Mercia slightly to the northwest, and East Anglia slightly southeast..? Ha, sorry. Everyking 02:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I have uploaded an antique map - I cand find more if needs be. --Oldak Quill 00:42, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've still got a long way to go on the reformating of the notes & references, but even now it's already gotten very long and has increased the article size past 32KB. What to do? Everyking 01:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think size matters, so long as an article is not ridiculously huge content is more important. John Vanbrugh is to be on the front page very soon and that was way past 32KB last time I looked. No idea what a navigation bar is, but everything is OK on my screen. It's a great page - keep going. Giano 13:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There are a few sentences I could maybe move to the articles on the battles...maybe create a separate article for the 628 Wessex battle, even though it hasn't been given any "name" by historians? I guess we could just ignore the 32KB limit, but I hate doing that. Everyking 14:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If it's just a personal hate of long articles then it's up to you, but if you are just unsure have you seen this [11]. One of the problems about long articles is that the images take a while to download, but this is hardly a problem here - is it? Don't be too quick to hack it up Giano 15:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The navigation bar is really getting lost below the large Notes and References sections. Could it be moved ahead of them? Rmhermen 02:00, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Navigation bar...I don't know what that is.. Everyking 02:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I was referening to the box with the next king/previous king, etc. Rmhermen 13:48, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Nice to have the references separated from the notes. I didn't care much about the layout of the footnotes, but I must say I agree with Neutrality that it looks better this way. Furthermore, I wouldn't worry about the length — I have the feeling that the 32kb limit is a bit out of date. — mark ✎ 22:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks...it is pretty long with the separate notes and references, but I'll see if I can condense it at all once I'm done changing the format. There isn't a whole lot left to say about Penda in any case—a handful of minor issues I'd eventually like to address in a paragraph or two—so maybe length won't be an issue. Everyking 23:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - the issue of the map can be sorted out later. I suggest placing it in the request for images section. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've added the map kindly uploaded by User:OldakQuill. Hopefully this is adequate to satisfy the early objections that were based on the absence of an image. I would prefer a map that did not try to define the borders and that also illustrated the locations of the known minor kingdoms and peoples (some of which play a part in Penda's life story), but I believe this will suffice for now. Everyking 01:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the conversion of the notes/references format is finally complete. The text now links to the notes, while the notes link further to the reference section. Everyking 00:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - BanyanTree 18:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis rescheduling in the United States

Self-nom. Thoroughly-researched article that gives a balanced view of both sides of the debate. It also boils down a complicated saga to the high points. Rad Racer 09:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks good! Support. Everyking 11:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nice balance on POV, which seems rare when reading on this subject. Vaoverland 23:12, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - most definitely! Fantastic article, and is actually NPOV. The sidebars look great! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great example of NPOV. – flamurai (t) 03:36, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - This is an article that is long overdue. The author of this work has taken the time to address a very important issue in our country. Of course, our elected officials have tried to sweep it under the carpet. But thanks to people like this writer, there may be some hope for an open, honest and thoughtful discussion about it in the future.Tparker393 02:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pioneer Zephyr

This article is a collaboration between myself and User:Vaoverland about the first successful diesel streamliner on American railroads. We've included information on the train's design, construction, revenue use and legacy. slambo 17:27, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support in general, good work. One little thing though; As much as I liked seeing a model section, I don't think there should be incomplete lists in a featured article. IMHO the section should either be more-or-less completed or removed. JYolkowski 21:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. There have been some brass imports (into the US) of this trainset, but I can't seem to find my copy of The Brown Book right now (which is really the only reason I left the expand_list template on it). I've seen lots of websites where a modeler has scratchbuilt or kitbashed a model of this train, but I didn't think that would really be appropriate here. However, when the Fine N-Scale Products model came on the scene at the NMRA National Convention in 1996, it caused quite a stir in N scale modeling circles. slambo 03:19, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear language, jargon has been explained clearly or links to insightful article. Never knew there was so much to say about this train. Mgm|(talk) 09:37, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, great article, intresting information, have to love those old Budd trainsets. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very informative and comprehensive. This has got to be a record for going from nil to featured (just beating my Great Lakes Storm of 1913 :)). BRIAN0918 06:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the original "Silver Streak". Of many railroad articles on WP, this is one of the more exciting and interesting stories. I've seen the exhibit in Chicago, and what I learned through this article did a nice job of filling in some blanks for me. I'll bet that some WP readers will be more likely to want to see the exhibit and the 2 movies after reading this article. Zoom!! Note: I contributed a small portion to this article after I ran across it through Ralph Budd on DYK, but I didn't start it. Vaoverland 08:51, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kylie Minogue

Previous nominations (failed): April 2004, June 2004, July 2004

Joint self-nomination by users Rossrs (talk • contribs) and Plek (talk • contribs). Because this is by now the fourth nomination, I'll be describing the changes made in a bit more detail than is usually the case with FAC entries. I hope people don't mind.

We have been working to fix all previous objections. These were:

  • Use of images under copyright: replaced all images with either screenshots or book and album covers, all correctly tagged as such and sourced.
  • Unwieldy discography tables: moved to separate discography articles.
  • "It reads like a musical hagiography. Wikipedia is not a fanzine" (great quote by David Gerard): culled extreme praise and added documented criticism.

Further changes include:

  • A shift in focus: less album review stuff and more information about her background, motivation and influences. In general, the article is now more about Kylie herself, and less about what other people think of her.
  • Expanded "Image and celebrity status" section.
  • New images, replacing the redundant album covers. The new images now add context to the article, for instance by providing comparisons between the music videos and the works that inspired them.
  • Added music samples of selected singles.
  • Rewrite of the intro section to provide a better overview of the article.
  • Culling of nonessential trivia.
  • In-line citations of quotes and facts.
  • Recompiled "References" section, per Manual of Style.
  • General fact checking, copyedit, grammar and punctuation fixes.

We believe the new version provides a more extensive and balanced overview of Kylie's life and work, while still maintaining a neutral point of view. --Plek 22:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - Earl Andrew 23:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - seems very comprehensive withgout being boring. Surprisingly few red links out of many int links. Vaoverland 01:32, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Ta bu shi da yu 03:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Joshuaschroeder 05:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Squash 10:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - seems as decently balanced POV and coverage wise as it can be. A lot of great work has gone into this since the last nominations. - Taxman 14:32, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bank of China (Hong Kong)

Bank of China (Hong Kong) (BOCHK) has been on WP:PR for some time, with comments addressed. I've modeled this after Ryanair so all the fundamentals should be there. (Note: Self-nomination; note that my passbook and credit cards appear on the page.) Also see the disclosure on my user page. --JuntungWu 14:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - I've already reviewed this, and (as usual) it's of high quality! I only wish that I could do as good a job on L.J. Hooker... Ta bu shi da yu 01:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Johnleemk | Talk 05:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Great work. Object, sorry since it is very good information and meets all the criteria except the writing is very confusing in parts. Examples include the intro, where it is quite confusing among Bank of China (Hong Kong), Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited, Bank of China, BOC (Hong Kong) Holdings Limited, which is which. Adding to the confusion is the name of the headquarters Bank of China Tower which makes me think it is the tower of the Bank of China, not the HK subsidiary. I hope that is all made clear later in the article, but the point is the intro should ease a reader in that doesn't already know the topic. You can help that by eliminating extra detail in the intro that is not critical to understanding the topic. Also a number of topics in the article need some more context for the reader that does not already know the topic to be able understand it. An example is Renminbi, that should be explained in the text where it is at. Doesn't need more than one good sentence or so, but something. - Taxman 02:43, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Finally some objections and chance for improvements. Great.. Anyway, (1) it IS very confusing because of the convoluted structure of Bank of China companies. I'll put in an organisation chart or something. (2) The name of the headquarters is "Bank of China Tower" because it was built by the Bank of China and named as such, even though it's now used by BOCHK. To add to the confusion BOC calls all of their buildings "Bank of China Tower" be it in Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Shanghai or Beijing or any other city anywhere on planet Earth. (3) I'll add something about Renminbi. JuntungWu 03:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, I've added some context on renminbi, added details on the Bank of China Tower's ownership, rewrote the intro to hint that the building's name is a historical oddity; gave context on renminbi, and slimmed the intro slightly. JuntungWu 01:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Excellent fixes indeed and this is well on its way to being featured. So with that in mind I will point out a few more things. The intro fixes where great, and I don't think it needs an organization cahrt now that it is much clearer. 1) Telling what Renminbi is in the intro is very helpful. But if someone missed that, the section where Renminbi is actually covered needs that same or similar bit of context too. The 'Renminbi clearing bank' section still launches straight in without telling us what it is. 2) A number of sections have too many one sentence paragraphs. That breaks up the flow of the text too much. Either merge them together well or expand the ones that don't make sense to merge together. Especially the 'Bank of China Group' and 'Corporate structure and BOC (Hong Kong) Holdings' sections. The rest are more or less fine. 3) Finally the infobox lists three products that BOCHK offers. That seems awfully odd since I'm sure they offer much much more. And the things that are there are assumed to be offered by any bank, no? I guess I don't see a reason for that to be in the infobox, or else it should be expanded to be comprehensive. I suppose those are three broad categories that could be considered to include almost everything, but it still seems odd. Maybe it should be called Major products or something. 4) Is the slogan really incorrect with every day being one word? Or was that just a translation error? When used as one word, it has a slightly different meaning (an adjective) than what is required there (a noun). - Taxman 16:30, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
          • In reverse order: (4) the slogan is a typo; fixed. (See top right hand side of this web page). (3) Now just says "commercial banking" which is basically what it does. I'll look at (2) and (1) more closely.JuntungWu 18:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • More fixes: I've added a paragraph to (1) to elaborate on the clearing bank business, and (2) some paragraphs have been merged. A bit on (3): BOCHK offers less products than say Citigroup or HSBC as a big part of financial services (e.g., insurance, securities) are offered by its parent, Bank of China. So it seems like a good idea now to just say "commercial banks". JuntungWu 18:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • Great work, thanks. It's much better. - Taxman 16:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support,--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. --Felix Wan 02:09, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  • Support. — Instantnood 23:21 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of South Africa

This is pretty much a self-nom. I believe this article to be among the most comprehensive and well-versed articles we have on a nation's flag. This flag is particularly interesting as it is relatively new and there has been much political importance to the verge of a civil war attached to previous incarnations of South Africa's flag. It is also the most visible post-apartheid symbol of South Africa. Páll 10:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd like to see the section on respect for the flag reading less like a rule book. Even a little "Official regulations state that ..." would do. The rest of the article is very good, and certainly quite comprehensive, so given that mine is such a minor issue, I'm very nearly ready to throw in a support vote. - Vague | Rant 10:32, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • I now support. - Vague | Rant 11:15, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • The article does not seem to mention the symbolism of using the pan-african colours (black, green, yellow) and the frequent european flag colours (red, white, blue) in the same design. Morwen - Talk 11:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added a brief paragraph about this now. Morwen - Talk 11:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • For clarification, does this mean that you now support the article or not? Thank you! Páll 12:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes - support. Morwen - Talk 14:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Needs more history, but still, support. Everyking 19:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Nearly there. 1) The lead section makes no clear mention at all of historic flags and is only about the current one. The rest of the lead is quite vague as well: "a choice had to be made very last minute by a small committee" (last minute for what?) "has turned out to be an excellent national symbol" (seems POV). 2) There are two history sections. This is confusing. Merge them and subsection them. 3) Quotes should go to WikiQuote. Other than that, this looks fine. Jeronimo 21:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe I have addressed all your concerns! Páll 01:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Support. I would like to see the order of the section in the history part reverted, though. Jeronimo 10:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Very well-crafted. Support. Mike H 01:55, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Temptations

Some issues have recently been worked out on the talk page, and it seems like a great article. This isn't a self-nom, though I've made some non-substantive edits here and there (IIRC, I also wrote the original stub, but I'm sure nothing is left from that). Tuf-Kat 02:33, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Solid article. – flamurai (t) 03:08, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow, very nicely done. - Taxman 21:47, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I have one very minor nitpick, mentioned on the talk page, but it doesn't change my vote either way. Jgm 00:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Have you changed your mind about the nitpick? Or forget to edit the talk page? Or am I missing it? Tuf-Kat
      • Thought I had, but I was having some save problems yesterday. Will rewrite. Jgm 02:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - an excellent piece of work (and a great companion piece to The Supremes) Rossrs 13:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent. SlimVirgin 20:22, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, although the last part of the article is getting rather "listy". Jeronimo 09:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Everyking 12:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Joshuaschroeder 05:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comet Hale-Bopp

Probably the most widely-observed comet in history, and I hope its article does it some justice. I've worked substantially on it over the last several months. I think it is comprehensive and interesting, and so I'm nominating this for featured status. Worldtraveller 14:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Interesting read. Zerbey 21:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Most hearty support. Denni☯ 03:00, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
  • Support, I learned a lot from this article. But isn't Halley's Comet the most observed comet? I would think that at least a mention of this comet would be useful. Mgm|(talk) 09:37, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for the comment! I've added a mention of Halley in the final paragraph - In terms of total numbers Hale Bopp may have been seen by more people than have ever seen Halley throughout history, due to population growth (although I haven't made quite so bold a statement in the article!), and definitely way way more in numbers and in terms of proportion of the global population than saw Halley in 1986. Worldtraveller 12:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not dare to object an article such as this for so futile reasons, but the lead section could be improved; right now it uses a lot of journalistic-style terms at the limit of POV and feels like it does not want to give exact figures and is a bit uncertain about the subject. Consider "discovered at an enormous distance from the sun", "one of the most spectacular", "probably the most widely-observed"... Otherwise, 1st class article. Phils 12:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that comment, I agree with your sentiments and have adjusted the intro and some other bits accordingly. I left 'probably the most widely-observed' because there's really no way of saying so for sure but it has been speculated by several authoritative sources so seems worth mentioning, I think. Worldtraveller 13:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Comet Hyakutake was better, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well done. I made a few fixes for readability so please check to make sure it did in fact leave the facts stated correctly. I also formatted one of the references properly as at Wikipedia:Cite sources, but the Hale, A., & Bopp one needs to be done correctly too. It lacks a title it seems. - Taxman 22:07, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments and changes to the article - I just re-reworded one bit slightly for hopefully greater clarity. I am not sure the Hale & Bopp ref has a title, but IAUCs are only available online to subscribers so can't check at the moment. Will check from a university machine shortly. Worldtraveller 22:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Good job. Phils 15:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments: Regarding its forma designation, there is no link to any designation system of any kind, please make one so that the reader read more about this naming scheme (whatever it is). The passage of Hale-Bopp was notable also for inciting a degree of comet panic not seen for decades. Comet panic? Is this some astology-jargon?;) How about just panic, perhaps it's well known term (I have no idea). —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:20, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
    • OK, I rearranged the text a tiny bit to avoid the impression of using astrology jargon! And I've linked to an article about astronomical naming conventions. Worldtraveller 17:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Those were the only things I found immitately wrong with the article, change to support. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:45, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
  • Support one of the better article nominated, very nice presentation, balance of content and and photos. Good work! Vaoverland 01:25, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Joshuaschroeder 05:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Trilobite (Talk) 07:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Lommer | talk 00:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Featured_log_March_2005_3d33.html"