Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Singapore

See also: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive 2, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive 3, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive 4

After reading it, it's clear that many of the objections have been addressed, and I was concerned that, as Mandel said, the article deteriorated as a result of the feedback it was getting. (For example, Neutrality - And I don't mean to call him out on this, his was just one of several along these lines - objected that it didn't have a section on the communications of Singapore. However, to my knowledge, no city articles have such a specific section on something so relatively unimportant). As such, I'm restarting the nomination. Raul654 15:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment would support providing redlink is stubbed or removed. - FrancisTyers 15:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Tried to replace it with two links. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment would support once the duplicate wikilinks, redundant wikilinks of simple words have been corrected. --Ragib 15:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I've removed the extra/some duplicate wikilinks, and hence I am changing my vote to Support --Ragib 17:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• "the article deteriorated as a result of the feedback it was getting." You'd think we'd have figured that out after two or three nominations ago. Johnleemk | Talk 15:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I'm convinced that this article really needs a major copyedit. There are grammatical mistakes in the lead, and the third paragraph jumps from one thing to another -- no wonder Mandel got a headache! Why is "Singapore's National Days are celebrated with annual parades and other festivities." in the history section? "This elevated Singapore into a developing nation and subsequently to developed" reads poorly. Why is Lee Jr. securing the confidence of Parliament relevant? IIRC under the Westminster system, Parliament does not pass votes of (no-)confidence regarding potential PMs; it only has such motions for sitting PMs. At best, this needs a clarification, if not a rewrite. The normal procedure for the appointment of a new PM is simply the head of state appointing said PM. The first sentence of the 4th paragraph in politics is unwieldy. The last sentence is also out of place. I see at least one {{fact}}, so obviously this article isn't fully referenced yet. I need sleep now, so I can't comment on the rest of the article. I will try to work on these issues tomorrow; from my experience, the article probably needs a partial rewrite, but such rewrites are quite easy to handle if you know how. Mandel is spot-on that the article is a bit too dry, and some (but not all) of Tony's concerns merit a look. I hope to God this isn't going to be another fiasco; the past four FACs have all failed because as I pointed out in the third one, apparently nobody is ever satisfied with Singapore, and in the process of trying to satisfy all, we have satisfied none. Johnleemk | Talk 18:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Lee Jr. securing the confidence of Parliament" is somewhat relevant because there were questions about Lee's support among the PAP's cadre before and during the leadership transition period, but there were mostly answered when PAP MPs openly expressed their support to him. I'm not sure how this can be reworded better; according to the Constitution, the PM does need to have the confidence of the Parliament. --Vsion 05:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It might be better to just have a sentence stating he became the next PM after the agreement of PAP MPs. "Confidence" has a special meaning when it comes to the Westminster system. I haven't forgotten about the article; I've just been exceptionally busy, by the way. I'll see if I can copyedit it this weekend. Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the {{fact}}problem. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, don't make it sound as if it's Mission: Impossible IV! I'm working on your concerns now. ;) - Mailer Diablo 17:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support looks good. No problems that some copyediting can't fix. Rama's Arrow 16:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support when you fix the templating problem. - FrancisTyers 22:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - the images are a mess and leave giant holes in the article because there are too many. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Addressed together with the second image-related objection below. Please have a look now, and reconsider your vote. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A well-written article, and is comprehensive in information on various aspects of the subject-country including history, culture, transport, etc. Most of the "outstanding objections" in the previous nomination are not serious and are often due to subjective preference on style and content coverage. This is expected for such an article which is heavily edited by many users with different interests and is frequently updated with new information. I don't think the aim is to satisfy every user on every detail in the article as that would be unrealistic and impractical; but rather to accommodate their good comments while keeping the article concise, balanced, and updated. --Vsion 05:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support It was impressive in other FAC's and I hope to see it finally achieve FA. As a whole, Singaporean contributions to wikipedia are outstanding and usually a fantastic read. I would like the images corrected however. michael ^talk 08:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, good article. --Terence Ong 11:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very well referenced article, very readable, and as an aside it has the best placement of a panoramic I've ever seen. Staxringold 11:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose too many images, and some used inappropriately. The availability of free images does not mean that everything available must be used. 4 images depict modes of "transport" although 2 of them appear in the "culture" section – water taxis and trishaws are not mentioned in the article. Why do we need images of them? Surely there must be something more specific to illustrate culture that actually relates to the text, but this section would be better served by having no images, than these images. The military is illustrated by a picture of soldiers with an interested bystander strolling past (and ruining the photo unfortunately) and Image:RSAF Aircraft.JPG which is taken at an odd angle, illustrates a display rather than the military itself, and has a lot of wording that can't be read. Not sure what this image is intended to convey but it does not add to an understanding of Singapore's military. Finally, Image:Tenyearseries.JPG is a photo of 3 books. I don't believe that seeing a photograph of 3 text books offers further understanding of Singapore's education system. The other images are great, but these ones are so out of place and so unnecessary as to lessen the effect of the good ones. Rossrs 13:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really think the photos by themselves have a problem, it is more of the captions that needs to do more explaining. I've replaced them with a new set nevertheless. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree that it was only the captions, but I think the changes you've made are very good. Thank you. Rossrs 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, *much* better than what it used to be previously. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Vsion. Objections have been addressed quickly. I fixed the BATTLE OF SINGAPORE date, it was in 1942, not 1945. Rlevse 18:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comments
  • The last paragraph of the lead needs a copyedit, and could probably be split into two. The first two sentences are (somewhat) related and could be a paragraph, and then the end is on a totally different subject. The last sentence needs work too.
  • The pic under "History" squeezes the text unattractively. Since Raffles isn't mentioned until a couple paragraphs down, could the pic be moved?
  • The History section is really fragmented. The very first sentence begs the question of what those records say, and implies that they are about the Srivijaya empire, which I don't think is true. As another example of a systemic problem in that section, the bit about the Portuguese burning the city down is completely unconnected to anything else there.
    • We cannot please everyone - The is a very watered down version in which has always invited objections due to its (excessive) size - the current one is the consensual size. Please refer to previous FACs for details. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with you. This is not a comprehensiveness problem, it's a brilliant prose problem. As it is, it is simply a poor paragraph. Tuf-Kat 05:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why are the main articles for "Politics and government" Politics of Singapore and Law of Singapore, rather than politics and Government of Singapore.
    • That's because the subarticle government of Singapore doesn't have too much material yet, the political climate is one thing, but the party and parliament which creates the government (which technically gets dissolved every general election) ... the government article mainly concerns various ministries. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The solution then is to expand Government of Singapore. Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Agreed. That section, which is quite well done, has one paragraph each on politics and law, and two on government, so they should all three be "main articles". Tuf-Kat 14:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
        • But that will require lots of reorganising of the politics of Singapore article. Is this required for the FAC, or can just have most of the issues about government included in politics of Singapore now? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
          • It won't require any reorganizing of the politics article, just add the government link to the main article thing. Ideally, government of Singapore should be improved as well, but that's not related to this FAC. I'm not sure about your question -- very little is required for FAC (see WP:WIAFA). I won't support as it is; whether or not this oppose is enough to keep the article from being featured is up to Raul, if my opposition for this reason is the only outstanding objection at the end of the FAC period. Tuf-Kat 17:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Despite these political issues, Singapore has what its government considers to be a highly successful and transparent market economy" -- this needs a citation, and is needlessly complex
  • Some copyediting needed due to passive voice (e.g. "Laws restricting the freedom of speech are justified by claims that they" - "PAP justifies laws restricting freedom of speech by claiming that they"; "Singapore was hit hard in 2001 by the global recession and the slump in the technology sector, which caused the GDP that year to contract by 2.2%" ("hit hard" is unencyclopedic anyway) - "In 2001, a global recession and slump in the technology sector caused Singapore's GDP to contract by 2.2%")
  • Don't think Tourism in Singapore justifies a main article link in "Economy". The paragraph on tourism says it's "one of the largest" industries, but if any specific industry were to be linked that way, the single largest one would seem most appropriate. I don't think any specific industry needs such a link, however.
    • Merged downwards. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Religious tolerance has been..." has no fewer than two examples of passive voice in one sentence, and the sentence following it is passive too.
    • worked this issue Rlevse 18:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Link or define durian
    • fixed this Rlevse 18:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Only one citation in the whole Culture section is insufficient; the Education section is entirely uncited. The paragraph beginning "The government of Singapore has been careful" also needs a citation or two.
  • Why the pic of the Singapore river at the very bottom? It's pretty, but certainly doesn't illustrate the section it's in.
    • Caption has been rewritten to explain why. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It's in the external links section. It doesn't illustrate that. Tuf-Kat 05:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
        • There's no other space, really. Besides, another FAC, Defense of Sihang Warehouse has a picture in the external links section and no one is objecting to that. It doesn't detract it from being featured, and also provides an aesthetical thing IMO to the otherwise textually dense bottom (full of templates). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overall, quite a good article. It just needs some tweaking and I think it will be ready. Tuf-Kat 00:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm now objecting based on these issues. Tuf-Kat 22:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• SupportGood unbiased article with factual information.--cakeman 12:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I am concerned that the Transport section is too prominent, it's almost larger than demographics. A well written article otherwise.--ppm 01:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support I just finished a complete copyedit that I hope fixes some of the objections and comments above (mostly fixed awkward prose, killed scare quotes, and made links explicit). There are a few statements that need to be specifically cited and I will condition my support on that getting fixed. --mav 14:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• I still object. I have copyedited the article (and caught a number of grammatical mistakes while I was at it), but I'm not fully satisfied yet. There are still some {{fact}}s that need to be taken care of, and there are some questions in HTML comments (yes, in the body of the article itself) that at least merit a response here (if the issues they raise are not taken care of; personally I think they are demanding a bit too much detail). Otherwise, splendid job everyone. Johnleemk | Talk 16:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Should be done, unless I have grossly missed out anything in error. - Mailer Diablo 19:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object, the article is quite good, but as I have pointed out in the article there are a few bits that need work. In addition to the notes I have left in text (1) the transport section is too long and borders on cruft, remember the audience of this article is very general and probably doesn't care about expansion to Singapore's main airport - I would cut it to about two paragraphs. (2) The education section could also be shortened as it contains quite a lot of detail not pertinent to Singapore in general, and it could be merged into demographics as was done in the Australia article.--nixie 05:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll work on your notes in just a moment. Merging education into Demographics is a poor idea, as it would make the paragraph too bulky and will raise new objections. For transport, perhaps three paragraphs is fine, but two will be too short, and will raise objections as per previous FACs. We may be able to cut a line or two from the seaport and airport paragraphs, but they can't go altogether because this is what Singapore is internationally prominent for! - Mailer Diablo 08:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the transport section is fine as it is; I went over it with a fine toothcomb and only chopped out a few dozen words. I think getting it down to three paragraphs would be hard. Johnleemk | Talk 09:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The culture section could also do with a specific mention of fine arts, music (if there are notable examples that could be given) and media which isn't mentioned in the article at all.--nixie 05:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I eventually plan to add in things about films produced, famous artists and the like but not sure how to approach it in the parent article. The education section already has been cut down to two paragraphs. Early streaming at 10, PSLE at 12 and various aspects make it unique so I think we shoul dkeep it as a separate section. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• And I thought...that the education section is already a bit too short? =P - Mailer Diablo 08:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• • nixie : I believe that the notes you have inserted have been addressed. Please post any further concerns in this FAC itself. Questions that demand for further explanation may not be answered in full, as the prose may stretch too long (and trivial) and will raise objections (as per Johnleemk). - Mailer Diablo 20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• The article has improved alot, but there is still no description of the media in the article, and there should be.--nixie 00:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I recall an old cooy of the article has exactly that. I'll dig it up later. - Mailer Diablo 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think I culled material from some various subarticles to make that media section a few FACs ago. Sigh. We're on the "trying to please everyone but pleasing noone" carousel again, it seems. Just why do we need a media section anyway? Have we considered that in the first place? Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Becuase the scope of media and media are freedom (Singapore ranks pretty poorly according to Reporters Without Borders) are important things in both cultural and political terms. It only needs to be a paragraph, see the culture section in Australia.--nixie 13:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think the transport and education sections are fine. I also think this FAC is at the point where people will never agree on everything; such as length--whether these have have 2 or 3 paragraphs simply doesn't matter at this point.Rlevse 10:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for understanding the dilemna that we have been facing for this article. - Mailer Diablo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I was close to voting support or neutral a few weeks ago, but a close reading reveals more problems with this article. First there's a problem of style. It still reads awkwardly not because the editors can't write good English, but because they seem adamant at squeezing every little bit of information into the page size. They seemed lost as to whether they should summarize and link to a detailed write-up or write a complete section dissertation by itself. The writing range is too heavily compact, overly detailed at times, including lots of excessive information which would never make it into country articles elsewhere. (Examples: "During prolonged heavy rain, relative humidity often reaches 100%."; "The Orchard Road district, which is dominated by multi-storey shopping centres and hotels, is the centre of tourism in Singapore."; "A popular local film, I Not Stupid, highlights the competitiveness of the system and social stigma that students struggling with studies have to face." - Isn't there a separate article to put these little bits of very insignificant information? "Singapore introduced a Goods and Services Tax (GST) with an initial rate of 3% on April 1, 1994." - Is the GST significant to the economy at large, that it needs a long paragraph? If so, how and why?) Lots of information, the reading just doesn't flow well.
  • Most of that information appears relevant to me. Apparently Southeast Asians tend to take the notability of these things for granted. Orchard Road is a famous Singaporean landmark, and it is a very very very busy tourist district. In Singapore, Orchard Road = tourism. Perhaps this would not be notable for another country, but Singapore is both a country and a city. I Not Stupid was a very popular film not just in Singapore but in Southeast Asia for how it highlighted the immense pressure Asian educational systems place on students. The article apparently doesn't make either of these facts clear, but then we are trying for brevity...Sigh. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Nobody's denying those information a place in Wikipedia, but the right place they should go is to the respective sub-pages, not in this overview on the country. There is an article on tourism in Singapore where you can boast talk about Orchard Road all you like. Also, it is misleading. Orchard Road is not a place strictly for tourists; 90% of the people who shop there are Singaporeans. If you try to add every little niggle on Singapore, this article will be 100KB long, not 50. Chewing gum, ban on oral sex, ban on homosexual sex, capital punishment, strict drug enforcement, relations with Malaysia, Orchard Road, I Not Stupid, GST, Total Defence, casinoes, Ten Years series, EZY Link, Fort Siloso, bartop dancing, bungee-jumping, Carlburg Skytower, Singapore Girl - Singaporeans are greedy aren't they? They want all these things within an article and keep the 50KB limit. Possible? Mandel 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I wasn't aware of a hard and fast limit concerning article size. The important thing, IMO, is to maintain the flow of the article. If it's 500kb long but everyone is so enthralled with the article that they can't take their eyes off it, it's hardly reasonable to argue for trimming the article. We need to keep sight of readability, which is the purpose of the guidelines concerning article size, not article size itself. If a 100kb article on Singapore is easily readable and enjoyable, what would be wrong with that? Most of the things you've mentioned are valid material for inclusion, IMO, excepting anything I don't know about e.g. Fort Siloso, since much of it is stuff a person living in the developed world would have heard of. Regardless of actual statistics on Orchard Road's patrons, the fact is that it is synonymous with shopping and tourism in Singapore. Likewise, Singapore is famous for its chewing gum ban, and to a slightly lesser extent, its laws concerning sexual intercourse. Singapore Girl is an image almost inextricable from Singapore and SIA. If we can't have these things in the article, what can we have? Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree with your thoughts on article size. But I guarantee there will be plenty of complaints once the byte size exceeds 50KB. If you think all these details should be in, then I can safely assume the limit would be ~100KB. Also, not everyone will share your view that things like the Singapore Girl should be in this article. Mandel 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Secondly, it lacks astute observations about the country, which a good encyclopedia article should make. For example, in the economics section, they should indicate how the local economy is viewed, classified and observed by social scientists in the world, and its interaction with the world at large, not include government-cruft like Economic Review Committee (!) and the fact it has a goods-and-service tax (which is not unique at all in the world - even if it is important, I fail to see how the section shows it). In fact, this is true of the whole article - meaningless government-cruft like 'gateway between the East and West' adorn the writing, and too much nonsense about what and how government organizations function - Land Transport Authority etc etc. too much subtle boasting and inflated sense of self-being (is the fact SIA flying the Airbus A380 important?). In defence, I need to know how Singapore's military is similar to the rest of the world, and in what ways they are unique, not silly propaganda like Total Defence.
  • While I agree a more in-depth analysis of both the economy and military is necessary, I don't see things like the LTA as cruft. In an article about a city, it would be mandatory to have something about the local transportation system, and I see only one sentence — of certainly sufficient notability — devoted to the LTA. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Finally, the writers of this article have not use enough good background reading materials. The reference section is abysmal. They have not done sufficient research and read-up on books about Singapore, and they rely too heavily on Singapore government materials. This will take lots of time, effort, and needs probably at least one intelligent editor to do the job. I'm not sure all three are present at the moment. Mandel 05:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The above is a wrong argument. Data on education, economy, demographics are primarily from the government. There is nothing wrong in using sources such as Singapore Department of Statistics, the Economic Development Board, and Ministry of Education; in fact this is the best practice. Why should we use other sources with more chances of errors, since the information ultimately traces back to these agencies? For topics such as human rights and press freedom, the article does use sources like Anmesty-International and Reporters Without Borders, for a broader perspective. --Vsion 02:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • too heavily does not mean I prohibit anyone from using any government data. Mandel 10:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see this as a pressing issue. IMO, if you can find the right content and source it, this problem will naturally resolve itself. Let's not encourage unnecessary footnote-cruft (which just sidesteps the problem of an imbalanced article) and concentrate on the meat. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Pressing or not depends on your priority. I reckon once this article reaches FA consensus the rot will sink it. Seriously, do you think anyone would do research after FA status is reached? Mandel 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • So you're speculating on what might happen to an article after it reaches FA status? I note that your comment as it now stands provides no rationale for this belief, but the original one with its reasoning included appears to be an unnecessary sweeping statement and (quite possibly) an assumption of bad faith towards Singaporean editors. It also assumes the only people interested in maintaining the article would be Singaporeans. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Please assume good faith. - Mailer Diablo 15:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm merely saying if no one does reading or research when it is not a Featured Article, it will be idealistic to assume editors will do so after. Nobody likes to be a prophet of doom, but obviously Cassandras are never welcomed. OK, maybe we shouldn't speculate. But I am voting for the article as it is now, not as in the future. As of now, I don't think it is FA status yet. Personal view. Mandel 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, I think you miss my point. The focus is not on more citations, but on more references, and more research. Mandel 12:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Like I said, these issues will sort themselves out if we can get the content we want. Finding analyses of Singapore's military and economy from non-Singaporean perspectives will naturally broaden the horizons of the citations/references/etc. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Just curious, how are we to do that without further references? Mandel 19:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I thought I made it clear -- in the process of expanding the article, we will have to address this problem anyhow. Johnleemk | Talk 20:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil and refrain from making ethnically disparaging remarks. - FrancisTyers 11:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for removing them :) - FrancisTyers 12:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I better say that I did not make any ethnically disparaging remarks. But so as not to fuzz the issue, I've removed them. Mandel 12:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Mandel's remarks were definitely not ethnically disparaging, although they were a blanket generalisation about Singaporeans. (I have no comment as to whether they actually hold water or not.) Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

True or not, as it stands, it's a totally pointless trajectory. I apologize. This kind of thing must never be said. Let's move on. Mandel 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mandel, did you read the wrong version of the article? I don't think the current version mentions chewing gum nor oral sex. Surprised? itching to put it back? I wonder who is the greedy guy here. --Vsion 01:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not the current version. Please read carefully before you make any comments. Also, please refrain from making personal attacks here.Mandel 10:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The article has been nominated for FA status multiple times, and a consensus has never been reached simply because any edits the editors have made to address a prior objection has been objected to by somebody else who preferred a different "style." In many cases, this "style" had been corrected out to address previous objections to that particular style. Overall, the article is well-written, well-referenced and adheres to wikipedia policy. Understanding that it will be impossible to please everybody, and understanding that despite the above objections, the article remains well-written and factually accurate, I vote to support FA status. yueni 16:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)