Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Buckingham Palace 2 Beslan school hostage crisis 3 Bay Area Rapid Transit 4 Napoleon I of France 5 Game development 6 Nuclear reactor 7 Philippine Mythology 8 Bidder's Organ 9 Usog 10 Paris 11 Harlem Renaissance 12 Harold Clifton 13 Sollog 14 Singapore 15 James Bond 15.1 ORIGINAL SUPPORT/OBJECTIONS: 15.2 NEW SUPPORT/OBJECTIONS 16 World War II 17 Yield curve 18 Internet Explorer 19 Woodrow Wilson 20 Pruno 21 Esperanto 22 The Turk 23 Demoscene 24 Frankie Goes to Hollywood 25 Finnish language 26 Katana 27 Radio Caroline 28 User:Bishonen/Antique toilet paper holder 29 Municipality of Strathfield 30 Cascading Style Sheets 31 Geography of Canada 32 Tsunami 33 Diana, Princess of Wales 34 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake 35 Computer Mouse 36 The Giver 37 John Titor 38 Virginian Railway 39 Zhao Ziyang 40 Formula One 41 Gymnopaedia 42 Washington gubernatorial election, 2004 43 Gangtok 44 Photography of female nudes before 1923 45 History of Bulgaria 46 Bolt Thrower 47 Berlin Wall 48 Page table 49 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 50 Washington Monument 51 Blitzkrieg 52 Michael Schumacher 53 World Chess Championship 54 Genghis Khan 55 Autofellatio 56 Vintage erotica

[edit] Buckingham Palace

This is not a complete self nomination as there was a a page here before I re-wrote it a month or so ago, and there have been some good copy-edits since. I hesitated to nominate it here because I thought it needed more photographs etc, however, one can't just wander in and take a few snaps, all images of the rear facades and interiors are 'crown copyright'. For the British this is an important article, so it has to be right and correct. Giano 22:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I've done superficial copy-editing. Very nice well-balanced article, a pleasure to read and thoughtfully illustrated, with surprises like the vivid portrait of a young woman of 18, as Queen Victoria was when she moved into Buckingham Palace, in place of the expected grim/glum old lady in widow's weeds. It's a relief to see that the excesses of royal capitalization (like "The" Queen) that were introduced at one point have now been reverted to something more reasonable. Bishonen | Talk 23:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object: not NPOV. Littered with POV "magnificent"s, unsupported statements ("Buckingham Palace security is said to be very high") and combinations of the two ("All members of British society are considered to have an equal opportunity to be awarded an honour"). Mark¹ 03:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have taken out the "considered" I can't do any more to the statement as it is now "considered" to be true. The 3x "magnificents" have all gone. Security is said to be high,(various statements to House of Commons by Home Secretary) but as it seems to be almost constantly breached I think "said" is the correct word. Further details of security measures are not published. Giano 07:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yet more: entertaining on a majestic scale; is considered to be the most sumptuous and beautiful in the palace; It seems unlikely they would have left Mrs. Roosevelt in the empty palace to face the nightly blitz alone. Mark¹ 09:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand the points you are making, unfortunately these flowery adjectives are the one's used by many authors when describing the interiors of such places. One should remember that his building was designed to be magnificent, and overpoweringly glorious though I have attempted to tone the adjectives down. However, I think the adjective 'majestic' for describing the entertaining at Buckingham Palace during the Edwardian period, when the British Empire was at it zenith is justified, the palace did, and was expected, to reflect that imperial glory. Mark's point on the "most beautiful room" is now attributed. I have now removed the Eleanor Roosevelt anecdote, which I inserted as I thought it was quite amusing and may have been of interest to readers in the USA. I hope one of them re-inserts it! I think a long potentially boring page like this need one or two lighter paragraphs. Giano 13:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - the article currently refers somewhat obliquely to the bombing of the palace during WWII. I think a little bit more could be said about that - when did it happen? How much damage was done? Were any royals in the palace at the time? And the Queen Mother's quote about looking the East End in the face could be included. Otherwise, an excellent article. Worldtraveller 14:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

War time section now included, QM's quote is now there, and Eleanor Roosevelt is back! Giano 15:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A very interesting and useful addition, I think it has improved this excellent article and support the nomination. Worldtraveller 16:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Objection, this article's text is very well done, but its photo selection could be improved. There should be photos of the interior of the building and its gardens. Many people are familiar with the palace's facade, but few know its inner contents.Dinopup 20:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

I completely agree with you, however please see the nomination and explanation at the top of the page. The external link on the page does show a few rooms etc. Believe me that is the best that is possible - even those attending their own investitures, and garden parties are forbidden to take photos.Giano 21:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Shame about the interior photos, though. I love the picture of the Union Flag! Zerbey 05:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• "Following this event the British Government once again assured the nation that their sovereign's security had been subsequently increased."... Please! Wikipedia articles about Uk royalty and peerage have an almost unbearable royalist slant, this article is no exception. Morwen - Talk 14:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • I've removed the worst of this. Neutral on article now. Morwen - Talk 17:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I note that it could do with a site map, or at least a rough plan of the palace itself, showing the various wings/courtyards/whatever. Morwen - Talk 17:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am very surprised indeed Morwen feels this article has/had a Royal bias, her edit summary: "rm propaganda - gongs are still given mainly to civil servants " may be her view, but the reality that all Britons who commit a good deed are eligible - is an indisputable fact. Regarding Morwen's edit removing POV changing my "Buckingham Palace security is said to be very high" followed by a list of breaches, to Morwen's "Royal security is supposedly high, but is more well known for a series of high-profile intrusions, both at the Palace and elsewhere" does not seem to me to be an example of my POV - merely a change of word order. I have only reverted one of Morwen's edits, the Daily Mirror was not the only newspaper to publish photos of the last major breach of security. Finally in the present state of national security non copyright plans of Buckingham Palace are unsurprisingly not available. Giano 19:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's odd that you are suprised that I am objecting to the POV in the article, when there are other objections to the same thing above. All I am noting is that it hadn't been cleaned up entirely.

The sentence I removed said that "All members of British society have an equal opportunity to be awarded an honour." This is not what you are saying I removed. Certainly, a few awards are handed out to people who would previously have done so, but "equal opporunity" presents something much stronger. If you want to respond to that, move this bit of th conversation to Talk:Buckingham Palace and we argue there. The fact that it was a Daily Mirror reporter should certainly be mentioned. The word "gleefully" was certainly POV, as it had a tone of disapproval of the newspapers actions. And the sentence "Following this event the British Government once again assured the nation that their sovereign's security had been subsequently increased." is laughable, and presents the UK as a nation of placid subjects. The rest of edit that was indeed a tidyup. Exact plans are certainly not available, but there should be no problem rough plans. Aerial photography of the area is available, after all! Morwen - Talk 19:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, did the British Government not in fact say that? - I think you have a problem with the subject matter in general - which is why I hope this never makes the main page Giano 19:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) (that is Giano, but the server is playing up and I have not watch list, and now can't log in!

I did a bit of a search and couldn't find anything along the lines. If you can find anything specific, we can put something more appropriate in. I hope you get my point that it is the tone of this article generally that is a problem. Does this mean you are withdrawing this nomination? Morwen - Talk 20:29, 23 Feb

2005 (UTC)

No I never withdraw anything! - You obviously have a problem with the page, I don't. We shall see how the vote goes and that can decide Giano 21:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beslan school hostage crisis

Not a self-nom. This article went through a turbulent period in the couple of months after 1 September 2004, but has been pretty stable since November 2004, and looks quite good to me. One slight weakness is the descent into short one-sentence paragraphs towards the end, which I will try to address now. Another weakness is references, but I suspect that a large number of the "External links" are references. I doubt that there is much on paper yet (reportage? press coverage?). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• support -- I remember the disputes as it was written as the crisis evolved, and this is certainly a case where many eyes scrutinized the article's factuality. The lack of printed references is not an problem in this case imho, but it would be desirable to have a photograph of the siege (but I suppose they're all copyrighted by press agencies?) there seems to be some lingering dispute about use of the t-word, but that's a WP-wide issue and should not be held against this article. dab (ᛏ) 14:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • support. copyrighted images are not an issue, as long as its related to the subject a valid fair use claim can be made.  ALKIVAR™ 12:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. ALoan himself already addresses the chief weaknesses and I think these should be resolved. In addition, the article is vague at times, and should quote sources more. Examples "Some injured died in hospitals.", "allegedly" (which sound like an episode of HIGNFY), etc.. The article displays "telegram style" at times: "A few of the escapees were said to be cornered in a residential 2 story house within 40 metres from the gym. Whether or not they had hostages is unknown. The house was destroyed using tanks and flame throwers by 23:00 3 September 2004.". A good copyedit seems needed. Jeronimo 21:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with the above. If the external links were used properly as references, then format them as such. - Taxman 20:06, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. An article like this has a particular need of good references, as there were a lot of conflicting reports at the time, yet there is no references section and at least one of the inline links doesn't seem to be working. SlimVirgin 20:33, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not nearly enough information about the political background for the average reader to put it into context. Fawcett5 04:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bay Area Rapid Transit

BART is a continuos process and is the #1 transit system in America. This article properly defines BART and it's future.Romeoslion 00:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Needs to discuss things like the politics that went into the creation of BART, along with criticisms of the project both before and after creation. --Michael Snow 01:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Just a suggestion, but I would like to know more about the funding and financing. Was it a state or local project, did different jurisdictions have to collaborate, etc.? Also, what is the governing structure of BART? Have there been any controversies? Complaints from users? What are the system's plans and prospects for the future? Meelar (talk) 01:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• While I would love to see more railroad-related articles reach featured status, I'm afraid I must object in its current form due to 1) lack of references and 2) ridership figures, and 3) I'd like to see more photos of the stations, trains and infrastructure. slambo 02:39, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• There's a lot of good stuff there, but it seems to have a ways to go: Beyond what is mentioned above, the history section seems sparse compared to how many pages it gets at bart.gov, and doesn't mention the Berkeley delays/lawsuits. Mention of SFBARTD seems not only late (more than halfway into the article), but incomplete--when was it created, what does it stand for (easy to guess, but should be explicitly stated)I found the spell-out in the intro, but the disconnect still seems problematic, and 'created by the state of California' is a bit ambiguous--the legislature, governor, CalTrans, or the voters? Why was the UC, Berkeley connector bus called "Humphrey Go-Bart", and why is it no longer? When did Marin and San Mateo drop out, and what reason was given? Same time/reason or different? Also seems to need an overall copyedit for grammar and flow, as it's kinda awkward and jumpy/choppy in places (eg "...and possibly north to San Ramon, Dublin, Alamo to the existing Walnut Creek station via the I-680 corridor.") Peer review might be a good idea if it hasn't already been there. Oh, and the prose should be able to stand on its own, not relying on the headers (eg ==Infill stations==These are stations that are planned to be built..." Niteowlneils 05:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I happened to run across this webpage[1], which seems to suggest at least a paragraph or two about early controversy needs to be added. The page is probably too POV to be used as the primary source, but assuming the facts can be verified elsewhere, a state commission requiring the system to run at reduced speeds for 5 years, and a public bailout that involved changing the governing structure of the organization seems to really need to be discussed. Niteowlneils 16:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references, appears too short to be comprehensive. JYolkowski 14:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with the above on references. Also I may have missed it, but it needs a mention of about how much it costs for some example trips and the comparison of that to other similiar systems and other methods of transportation. - Taxman 22:36, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleon I of France

A well-written historical article, I find. --DanielNuyu 07:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. References are a basic requirement of a FA. This article doesn't have any. Jeronimo 07:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Several references were listed as external links by the authours of this article. I took a few significant ones, determined their dates of access by checking the history, and posted them as references. This is really a fine article on the whole, one that has passed through years of editing. --DanielNuyu 08:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If those resources were not properly used to add or fact check material in the article, then retitling them as references is unnaceptable and intellectually dishonest. That it is an otherwise great article doesn't mean it meets all the criteria if it ignores the importance of this one. Now if you have read through those resources and they are reliable and confirm what is in this article, then please let us know to what extent you confirmed that. - Taxman 17:55, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Object—barely even a start to what we need on Napoleon. Should be a well-organized collection of summaries linking off to a variety of subarticles. Everyking
  • Either provide a specific hole in the article's coverage or don't object on comprehensiveness-related grounds. Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I am new to Napoleon. Most people are not Napoleon experts. This article was perfect for what I needed. Other sites have endless lists of sub-articles, and they just confuse the new user. Besides, the sub articles can be accessed by clicking on the links. I vote for an award for this article, based on its usefulness to the largest number of people. - Chris
• Object, since I'm sure there must be more to Napoleon's legacy than just those few paragraphs given to it in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Based on the lack of response above, it doesn't appear the references were used properly, so there are in fact few or none. If that is incorrect, please confirm how. - Taxman 22:13, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Game development

I recently rewrote this article and it occurred to me that a lot of people might be interested in the topic. Pretty thorough walkthrough of the stages of computer and video game development. It's been through peer review and has had a few copyedits. Some people suggested that it should be renamed, but that was discarded since we don't have any articles on other types of game development (at least not yet), such as board game or card game development. The articles game design, game designer, game programmer and game programming are nice sister articles to this one. Self-nomination.— Frecklefoot | Talk 22:18, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Very interesting and informative but still need some work: 1) The two sidebars ("Regression testing" and "What's an asset?") make the sections next to them difficult to read. It's a combination of the spacing and colors. They might work better as separate sections. 2) There should be a separate section for "Completion" that details what happens when the game goes gold. 3)I'd like to see more specific examples of how long certain games took to make. Mention a few popular games, their development time and reason for that time duration. Carrp | Talk 22:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1) No lead section. 2) No references. These first two are basic requirementes for an FAC. Please don't nominate articles that do not even meet such basic requirements. Furthermore: 3) There's no history section. How did this field develop over the years? 4) We get no comparison with development of "ordinary" software - I am a software developer, and I see a lot of parallels (and differences). These should be highlighted. I'm especially missing information about the visual and audio parts of the game, which differ most from normal software.

5) The "The development process" is the only section with reasonable content, while it's contents do not appear very specific to game development (see 4)). The other sections are single paragraphs mostly. This indicates that the structure should be revised and/or the article is lacking content. Looking at the article, I think both should be addressed. 5) The "sidebars" are non-standard and look ugly in my browser. This is not a magazine article, but an encyclopedia. If the content of these bars is not relevant enough to be in the main article, remove them or put them in another article and link to it. 6) I don't get a good picture of the development of a typical game. How many people work on it? What kind of education/work experience do they have? What tasks do they perform? How many time does it take? Etc. etc. etc. 7) The article focusses mainly on "big, high profile games", and only briefly mentions "independent" developers (whatever "independent" may mean). What about simple games, for example for the web or even cell phones? What about simpler and smaller Games? Jeronimo 07:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Agreed with Jeronimo on all points. Get rid of/expand/merge non-sections like culture, locales, overview. Apart from the main development process section, none is really thorough/satisfying. An elegant way of addressing two of the concerns cited above by other users would be to move up content from the Overview section into the lead, after slight editing. Phils 10:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear reactor

I found this article, and while I am not involved in it, I think it is a brilliant example of what can be done on Wikipedia. It is very well researched, intersting, and torough. Páll 23:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose: The lead section does not work - it should give a general introduction to the article - however it contains a list of applications of nuclear reactors - this should be an individual section! Also the whole article only contains one image - why are there no diagrams of reactors or more precisely basic diagrams of the stages of a nuclear reactor? If an article about steam power was up for fa status i'd expect to see a basic diagram of a steam turbine in regard to the generation process. Oh, and the one image the page does contain is too large! It dominates the opening section. CGorman 23:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. 1) "Application" needs its own section separate from the lead. 2) Illustration needs to be thumbed. 3) "Process of fission" needs layman expansion and diagrams. 4) difference between pressure vessels and pressurized channels needs clarification. 5) Explain the diffence between pool and loop reactors. 6) A large number of technical terms are unexplained (peak supply, instantaneous power production, baseline supply, etc). 7) Major copyediting remains to be done to eliminate opaque paragraphs such as this: "In an attempt to encourage development of nuclear power, the US Department of Energy DOE has offered interested parties to introduce France model for licensing and to share 50% of a construction expenses. Several applications were made but project is still in its infancy." Denni☯ 01:43, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
• Although I've worked on it and I like it, I still have to oppose, in its current state. It refers to nuclear power plant for an explanation of how a nuclear reactor actually works, but there's not much of an explanation there either. Diagrams would be nice too (although there should be some Manhattan Project photos of an early one). More seriously, a lot of the nuclear technology articles could stand some refactoring. --Andrew 04:21, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philippine Mythology

Note: this was an ill-formed submission by IP 203.87.151.227 [2]. Submitting it correctly. User left no text. Phils 06:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Bad grammar, little wikification, bad use of headers, no references. RickK 07:07, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't meet most of the criteria of a featured article. I consider this a spam nomination. Jeronimo 07:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. User: AN A and Yellow Kewibe 08:42, Feb 18, 2005
  • The above is in reality User:203.87.151.226. There is no such user with the above name. RickK 20:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I had already revised the grammar and the headers. Furthermore, I believe that this article is very interesting
  • And the above vote is by User:203.87.151.227, probably the same user as 203.87.151.226. RickK 20:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I doubt this is comprehensive (surely there's a lot more to be said?). There's also no lead section nor references. Johnleemk | Talk 14:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Jeronimo, can we please remove this? - Taxman 15:05, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: This could probably be an interesting subject, but this page is too short, incomplete, and in no way does it meet the criteria. Is there no way of removing these articles which fail to meet the necessary specifications before they waste space here and our time clicking to look at them? Giano 22:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bidder's Organ

Note: this was an ill-formed submission by IP 203.87.151.227. Submitting it correctly. Phils 06:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Was suggested before; see Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bidder's_organ. Hasn't expanded significantly since. Still too stubby to be FA. Oppose. Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose the large text jumps out at you before you can even read it. Whew! In addition to the format, missing sources, internal and external links, and so forth. Maybe placement of a request in WP:PR could help improve it. Vaoverland 01:12, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As above, can we please remove this nomination? It currently has no chance. - Taxman 15:06, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Complete agreement with Taxman. Besides which the explanation of location is nauseating in so short a page. Giano 22:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Could you tell me why should we remove this nomination? Please reply so that I can improve this article more to a higher status. And also, what was the meaning of the 'large text jumps out at you before you can even read it'?; I already revised it because Mgm said that it was a stub, and now, someone says that it's too long. User:Matthewprc 18:41, Feb 24, 2005
  • Since you seem sincere, I'll offer what I can to help. Very simply, it doesn't meet many of the important featured article criteria. It has no references, no lead section (since it is not long enough to even have a table of contents), and is not likely comprehensive on its subject due to how short it is. It's not bad information, it is just not very close to being a FA. Nothing wrong with that. If you do want it to be a FA, read through the criteria and try to meet all of them. Especially by finding the most authoritative sources on the subject and write up their findings and cite them properly. That way you'll find what else there is to write about the subject, and it will be authoritative. Check through some of the other recently promoted FA's or even just some of the ones on this page with unanimous support to see the difference in level of quality of this one vs those. - Taxman 17:07, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Usog

Ill-formed submission by IP 203.87.151.227 [1]. Submitting it correctly. Phils 06:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. One paragraph, bad grammar, needs a lot of work. RickK 07:05, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't meet most of the criteria of a featured article. I consider this a spam nomination. Jeronimo 07:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not deserving of the title of FA at all. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 21:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very interesting. Serves as an eye-opener to the various cultures of the world. User:An A and Yellow Kewibe 08:41 February 18, 2005
  • The above is in reality User:203.87.151.226. There is no such User with the above name. RickK 20:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Is a reason really necessary in this case? Giano 23:02, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paris

I think this article should benominated because it is rich in detail. It is interesting to many people. This article is also rich in photos. (nominated by Wikipedian231 13:13, 17 Feb 2005 )

• Object for now - please do something about the two ugly preformatted tables and merge the two timelines (the timeline and population history may each be better placed in a separate page). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed the population. David.Monniaux 15:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Still object - on another look, there are lots of single-sentence paragraphs or lists which could be explained or expanded upon (I know there are several subsidiary "Main article"s, but they could be summarised more fully here too). The lead section is also rather inadequate. Does it (should it?) be consistent with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities, and would Template:Infobox City be useful? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. ALoan mentions the main problems already, but also there are no references. These are basic requirement for featured articles, so please do not nominate articles without them. They will not pass. Suggest to refer to peer review. Jeronimo 08:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with the above. Its like we're sharing the same mind. - Taxman 16:48, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harlem Renaissance

An absorbing article on a pivotal period in African-American intellectual and artistic life. I have not significantly edited this article.--Pharos 20:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for nominating the article. I've put a lot of work into it and it's one of which I am most proud working on. —ExplorerCDT 20:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• While it's a fine article, I have a couple objections yet for featured status: 1) The lead image has no caption, so I don't know how it relates to the theme of the article (yes, it mentions Harlem, and it looks like an Art Deco style of the 1920s, but how does it fit in here?); 2) as an avid jazz listener, I've always associated the phrase Harlem Renaissance with jazz, and I'd like to see this discussed further; 3) There is no References section; 4) I'm not sure that the list of artists can really be comprehensive and still concise (for example, Cab Calloway wasn't listed until I added it just now); 5) There really should be more about the movement's influence on "white" artists (for example, Fletcher Henderson was an arranger for the Benny Goodman orchestra (Goodman himself was criticized for hiring black musicians for his bands), and the Savoy Ballroom was fully integrated from very early on). slambo 21:15, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • 1 - It's primitivist, not art deco. 2- Agreed, though jazz was more than a New York phenomenon. 3) Coming soon. 4 - It's rather comprehensive. Just because I missed Cab Calloway doesn't mean it isn't comprehensive. Poor Min, Hi-dee, Hi-dee, Hi-dee, Ho. 5- White artists were largely accused of exploiting and mimicking black movements, even to the point of some black theorists accusing whites of perverse voyeurism. I doubt even I can find an NPOV way to write that up. White audiences should be covered, just never got around to it and the source material sucks regarding white audienceship in Harlem.—ExplorerCDT 04:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • 1) Okay, I'm not all that well versed in art styles, my bad. But it still should have a caption telling how the image relates to the article. 2) Indeed, Chicago, Kansas City and New Orleans (among many others) all feature prominently in the history of jazz, and discussing them is beyond the scope of this article; it's just that the music is the first thing that I think of when I hear the phrase. 4) Okay, we probably have different interpretations of "comprehensive". You've got a representative list of the most prominent artists and for the scope of this article, it's probably enough. I was thinking here that if the list grows much more, it should probably be split out into its own page (like List of artists in the Harlem Renaissance or something). slambo 02:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Slambo mostly. 1) Add references - this is a basic requirement of a featured article. 2) Move the quotations to WikiQuote. 3) Move the list of "notable figure" to a separate (list) article. Jeronimo 08:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 1 - Coming soon. 2 - No. 3 - No. —ExplorerCDT 22:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? slambo 02:37, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • In re: 2&3 Because several other page covering cultural periods have lists and a palette of quotes within the article. I hate the notion that articles should be split up just because someone doesn't like a list inside an article. Here, both the quotes and list of notable figures are appropriate. —ExplorerCDT 04:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok. I almost mentioned the quotes myself, but then thought that the ratio of prose to lists was acceptable, and the lists seemed appropriate to me. slambo 02:13, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Regarding 2 & 3. A section listing quotes is never complete or comprehensive, and the selection of quotes may also be POV. A featured article should be comprehensive and NPOV. A similar reasoning goes for the list. I'm not against lists, but they suggest completeness (which isn't true) and they do not always give sufficient information. For example, in this case we cannot see which of the works had most influence, or if poetry was more important in the Harlem Renaissance than music. So why not move this list elsewhere (where it can be expanded with to include artists) and replace it with a prose section here describing the same topic (alternatively, put that content in the article itself. I consider both serious problems with the article, and will keep objecting. 82.161.112.78 08:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• object I don’t think this article is that well written or comprehensive. The article talks about black soldiers in Europe in WWI, but doesn’t mention any names, (there was a bandleader whose last name was “Europe,” I can’t remember the full name, but he’s the kind of person who should be mentioned). Another omission is A’Lelia Walker, a major black patron of the arts. Nor are any white patrons of the Harlem Renaissance mentioned. It sounds a little corny to say “an explosion of culture.” Some words, like “labor” and “literature” are unnecessarily wikilinked, while other terms, like the Back to Africa Movement, are incorrectly wikilinked. I think perhaps with a few improvements this article could be at FA status.Dinopup 01:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That would be James Reese Europe. slambo 02:18, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I either removed A'Lelia Walker in the days when this article was just a list of people involved with the Harlem Renaissance (some so remote they didn't belong) or had considered to add her and chose to leave her out, whichever it was I don't remember, it was 4 months ago. Patrons may have put up the money, but that's it. Other than that, there's little they accomplished in furtherance of the artistic and cultural goals of the era. We don't list all the patrons who supported Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven or Jackson Pollack. Black soldiers in WWI...I listed the Harlem Hellfighters. Instead of criticising, why not add the name of James Reese Europe instead of bitching why it isn't there from the sidelines. Or did you not realize Europe was dead before the Renaissance even started? I've never seen you, Dinopup, even come close to contributing. The Back to Africa movement link was correct at the time I wrote the article. If things move, it's up to the people that move them to correct links. Other than that, how else is it not "well-written"? Considering my work has been published both in book form and by reputable journals, I take a smack like that seriously. —ExplorerCDT 05:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't suggest that the article was anything other than very good, I just didn't think it was at the Featured Article level. If someone like me, whose knowledge of the Harlem Renaissance is, at best, casual, can think of arguably significant things which are unmentioned, the article isn't comprehensive. I would think that articles on Beethoven, Pollack, and Mozart would likewise be less than comprehensive without discussion of patrons.Dinopup 02:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I guess that you having said "I don’t think this article is that well written or comprehensive" means that you thought it was very good? Nice try, bucko. —ExplorerCDT 04:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references. As a courtesy to editors that spend their time here, please do not nominate articles that do not meet the basic featured article criteria. And don't take comments here so personally. Your article has been nominated and by the rules of this process anyone can comment on whether it meets the criteria for FA's or not. Many very high quality articles come through here, and thus comments for those that don't meet the criteria are generally fairly curt and even blunt. That in no way means you didn't do good work on the article, but it also doesn't mean the comments are wrong. Commentors are not necesarily qualified to do a lot of work on the nominated article, but they often know a lot about whether it meets the FA criteria. You would be better to focus on improving the article and making sure it meets the criteria than attacking the people that comment on the article. I for one consider that an article written without reliable references at hand is much more suspect for having factual errors and missing information. But keep up the good work, and get ahold of the most reliable references on the topic and cite your sources. - Taxman 17:01, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Clifton

The Wikipedia page about Colonel Sir Harold Wilberforce Clifton is concise and complete, covers all important things, and as such is a good example for a dictionary page. Therefore I humbly think that it would be appropriate Featured Article.

Wim van Dorst 21:26, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

• Object: 1) References. 2) The biggest part of the article is a timeline. 3) Why has this character become one of the most loved, humorous comics heroes? 4) How has this character influenced other literature and comics? 5) The only image is a caricature portrait; with all of the publications, I'd think that an image of one of the book covers would be appropriate as well. 6) Has this character appeared anywhere else (for example, on a postage stamp)? slambo 21:46, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

• • Isn't it clear that this is an article about a comic book character? So the picture isn't a caricature: it is Harold Clifton. 1) and 6) There is very limited literature about Clifton. Believe me: I searched. Or do you mean that the given references are not good? 2) Yes, but is that wrong? Would you want an in-depth analysis about a comic book character? 4) He didn't: Clifton is rather stand-alone in comic books.

5). I considered indeed putting up book covers, but I think they are copyrighted, and thus cannot be used for publication. Can they? Wim van Dorst 22:06, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

• • • Yes, it is clear that it is a comic book character; surely, this isn't the only image of him? What resources were used to collect the data that is in the article? List the references that you used to gather the data in a format like is described on cite your sources. I believe we can have an in-depth analysis of a comic book character; compare the article content with that of Spider-Man, Robin (Batman) (himself a supporting character for Batman), Daffy Duck, X-men, Iron Man or even Dick Tracy. I don't think a character can be one of the most loved, humorous comics heroes without influencing other artists or authors. Before you ask, I have been through this process with two of my own articles Passenger car (failed nomination, I'm still gathering data to address the objections that were raised), and John Bull (locomotive) (reached featured status). slambo 22:38, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • I won't ask: you make a clear and useful point. I'll work on it Wim van Dorst 22:50, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

• • • • • The pictures you've added really help. I've updated the code for the pictures so that they display at a smaller size and don't crowd the text into a narrow column. slambo 02:43, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Object: I had never heard of this character, I know little more from reading this page. Giano 22:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • From the point of not knowing anything about it (reasonable start for a FA), you are fully right. I see that now too: the article is completely written from the 'I know a little about it, and need some background'. I'll elaborate the explanation text with in-depth analysis. Obviously, Slambo's comments falls into same place. Thanks both.

Wim van Dorst 22:50, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

• Object. As already pointed out, it has no references, one of the basic featured article criteria. As a courtesy to other editor's time, please do not nominate an article that does not meet the basic criteria. - Taxman 23:51, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comment answering above objections

• • The information has now been rescheduled and elaborated, as to present a clear picture of who the Clifton character is. I present it as answering to the first group of comments 'additional explanation needed.
  • Pictures have been added of two major contributors. I'm still hesitant to include actual book covers, as that kind of information is copyrighted. Is this enough?
  • References: there is no paper book or article about Clifton, so the major references, apart from the comic books themselves, will be reference websites. I'll add some more in the near future.

Wim van Dorst 00:42, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Wim, I accept you are really trying to improve this page, but it has a very very long way to go, perhaps it would be a good idea to have a look at some other already featured articles on similar subjects, then either withdraw it or place it on peer review while you work on it. Giano 16:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would have to second that. Refer to PR. - Taxman 16:09, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sollog

Not a bad article. I think that it could be a worthy featured article! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. A highly controversial article that has been subject to massive vandalism attempts. Putting it on the front page will merely encourage these attempts. Plus Sollog doesn't need the publicity. Like it says on the talk page, "Do not feed the Trolls". DJ Clayworth 23:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  If the trolls hate it it's hardly troll food. silsor 23:47, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

  How is this actionable? This sounds like you are arguing that it should be on VfD! Also, FAs don't necessarily go onto the front page. I should also note that I put that troll notice up, but it only applies to the talk page, which I hardly want to have featured. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  I do not think that that word means what you think it means. silsor 06:05, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  Eh? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  "Actionable" means that somebody could start legal action because of it. silsor 13:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  Silsor, many people have been using this terminology on FAC for quite some time now. In the context of FAC, it means that you cannot action the objection that is dealt with. That is what I meant, and in this context it should be clear. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object also. We don't need to give him any free advertising. --Sillydragon 23:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not actionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think it looks pretty good, especially considering what kind of topic it is. I don't care about advertising or troll food or whatever. Everyking 00:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • On second thought, it does seem kinda incomplete. When did Sollog first realize he was a prophet, or God, or whatever? Does he talk about some great revelation he received, or anything like that? Is there anything to be said about him pre-'95? Everyking 04:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. An FA candidate should have wider import than a usenet newsgroup. Besides, I am loathe to give any more credence to tin foil hattery than absolutely necessary. If I had my way, this =would= be on VfD. Denni☯ 00:51, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
  • Please place this on VfD then. Your objection is not actionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with TBSDY here. Theoretically any article that is deemed legitimate (i.e., survives VfD) should have the potential to be featured. Everyking 02:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Clearly not of high enough quality. And don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. Stability is one of the FA criteria, and you knew this would not meet that. - Taxman 03:16, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Could I have specific objections please? Also, please don't assume bad faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Hard to assume good faith when you nominate an article that has been the subject of such incredibly persistent total vandalism and profanities that it required several people to keep a constant watch on it and protect it for a total of at least a few days. That clearly violates the stability criteria and the uncontroversial also. Further violating the uncontroversial criteria is that the talk page requires such messages as "This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed." and "This article contains information that is considered troll food, i.e. it is used by people with a lot of time on their hands to create discord". In addition the article is full of weasel words where information is not known or has not been researched. Especially egregious in that regard is the legal problems section. The only source for that section appears to be Altman (hard to claim him as an entirely unbiased source). Some more, even primary sources for the arrests and trial would be needed since those claims are of course specifically contradicted by people claiming to be Sollog supporters. - Taxman 20:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you saying I'm a deliberately disruptive editor? Thank you for the reasons why this is not good enough for a featured article, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I did not say you are a disruptive editor. You are clearly not in general. But for the reasons above, which I would have thought were obvious to you too, I feel that this nomination had no merit. There is a difference between not liking one example of your behavior, and thinking you are a disruptive editor. I consistently value your overall contributions, but didn't think this one was helpful. It is since clear that you did not intend harm by nominating this, but again, for the reason given, at the time it did not appear that the nomination was made solely because the article met all the FA criteria. - Taxman 16:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• No vote, but the only objection I've seen so far that is even somewhat actionable is Taxman's. That this is about a troll means nothing; if necessary, the article can easily be flagged as one to never be featured on the main page. Johnleemk | Talk 05:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object that this character doesn't need further publicity, no matter how well-written the article might be. RickK 07:09, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not an actionable objection. Invalid. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • All right, then. Object. There is no picture of the subject, Sollog. RickK 20:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well yes there is, a mugshot under the header "Legal problems". Still an invalid objection. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 22:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Object: No details on his life pre-95, too many single-sentence paragraphs, seems to be randomly called Ennis or Sollog from sentence to sentence with no reason for preferring the name he has rejected and finds insulting, some lack of clarity in the writing (e.g In the sentence In early 1995, Sollog first came to public attention by buying large ads that promoted his e-books, prophecies, and religious views in several Philadelphia newspapers,, were the ads or his 'e-books, prophecies, and religious views' in these papers?) I see no reason why this article could not be featured if it ever becomes comprehensive and well-written enough. Filiocht 12:47, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Finally, some actionable objections! I think I perhaps should have placed this on peer review first. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment When did it become normal so say that because an objection is so funadmental it can't be fixed, we must ignore it? If there are good reasons not to make something an FAC then we should not make it an FAC, whether it's fixable or not. DJ Clayworth 15:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ever since I've been editing Wikipedia. The FAC page states that "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed (featured articles, despite being featured, may be marked so as not to be showcased on the Main Page)." - Ta bu shi da yu 22:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It came into play this summer or so primarily to avoid articles failing over objections that cannot be fixed such as the topic being objectionable or obscure. If there are good reasons for an article not to be featured, then it will fail other criteria. In this case, there are plenty of other issues with this article. See above. - Taxman 00:01, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Wrong. I had this argument with Denni over exploding whale. He was told by other editors and myself that his objection that it wasn't notable enough was not actionable and therefore invalid. The article became featured and hit the front page. I do appreciate knowing about the other objections, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • That's basically what I just said. - Taxman 16:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
          • Oh. Sorry! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A successful transformation of a vanity article into a well-written article, a triumph of NPOV over trolling, and a successful collaborative editing project in the face of constant vandalism. Gamaliel 16:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Neutral. I feel that while the article seems to be decent, that's not the only criterion we should be using to decide if something should be a featured article. For the frontpage, I feel that we also need to consider how candicates reflect on the project. Some kinds of topics, such as perhaps Zoophilia, detract from the project's image, regardless of how well-written the article is. Others act as a magnet for trouble. I understand TBSDY's perspective that the only thing that should count is "Is the article good", but I disagree with it. Understand that I don't feel that the article itself should be deleted, I just feel that the front stage should have a higher standard than other articles, measured seperately and both by article quality point of view and topic quality point of view. --Improv 17:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • We're just talking about featuring, not putting it on the front page. Everyking 17:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Ack, I'm sorry. I got mixed up on which page I was editing. Changing to neutral. --Improv 20:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support (reluctantly) only on the principle that the article is well-written, and we are trying to maintain NPOV on such subjects, even repugnant or silly ones. I have to state that I share the sentiment that he doesn't deserve any free advertising or promotion, though. Vaoverland 01:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Object I agree with all of the objections Taxman brought up. --Clngre 05:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore

This article failed FAC a month ago, but after some copyediting and substantial changes by good editors, I feel that the previous problems have been addressed and I strongly believe the article is ready to become a featured article. - Mailer Diablo 08:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Johnleemk | Talk 13:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support flockofpidgeons 00:22 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support 172 03:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support Natalinasmpf 02:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Small note: I can withdraw my support at any time if something undesirable occurs, right? Natalinasmpf 02:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Yes. Johnleemk | Talk 07:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent work. --Zappaz 03:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Not a vote because I don't want to make people do things they don't want to, but I'd like to see the sections reorganised to follow Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries more. At the moment the ToC is overlong and difficult to swallow: religion could go under demographics, for example, foreign relations under government, and communications and transportation under miscellaneous for a start. Also, since the singapore wiki at http://www.sgwiki.com/ has virtually no content, I find its inclusion in the external links unjustifiable. Mark¹ 05:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the site, it seems to be an offshoot of a wikipedia sponsored project, is it? Because if it is, it shouldn't be removed, just encourage people to contribute to it. It could be not, then we could simply remove it. -- Natalinasmpf 23:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of offshoots of wikimedia projects, but most of them (like this one) have failed to take off and are just embarrassing. I don't believe that this is an actual wikimedia project, so it's not comparable to wikiquote etc. Mark¹ 00:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I've done my best to fix this up, merging sections as I saw fit and reorganising those that were kept. Johnleemk | Talk 15:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, some of the reorganising you did Johnlee is good, but I dislike the term "miscellenous" and some should not be grouped under that, but really either moved or merged to other sections. Especially under education - maybe civil issues or demographics, because education does fit there.. I will try to do this myself if I have the time. -- Natalinasmpf 23:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. JuntungWu 13:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose (at the time being). Sections with separate main articles are too long. — Instantnood 22:14, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  • which ones?--Jiang
    • Basically all sections with separate main articles. — Instantnood 14:42, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
      • I think they ain't long enough already! JuntungWu 08:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Miscellaneous section should be reorganized. Transportation and Communications are long enough to be their own sections. Maybe move discussion of law to politics or provide a fitting heading? --Jiang 22:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The Miscellaneous section has been reverted to its original separate sections. - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the miscellaneous section has been reverted, wouldn't this be satisfactory to remove this particular oppose? -- Natalinasmpf 15:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose. Broadly same grounds as Jiang; I personally prefer if the communications, transport and education sections have their own sections proper.JuntungWu 06:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC). Also, I oppose the line "Public transportation in Singapore is relatively easy, convenient and cheap to use", specifically the word "cheap". JuntungWu 06:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Also, the bit about "Economy" does not mention financial services. JuntungWu 06:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Juntung, you cast a "support" vote already.. :-) — Instantnood 14:43, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
    • I changed my mind, but forgot to cross the support vote. But I've crossed the oppose vote anyway. JuntungWu 03:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Sections separated, see above. In regarding the word "cheap", I'm a bit surprised, it's basically the same justification used on the lead section of the MTR article but I guess I made the mistake of assumption, it should be fixed now. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Fine. Support again. JuntungWu 03:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Bond

NOTE: THIS PAGE FAILED ONCE BUT HAS BEEN RE-NOMINATED BY USER:HIGHFIELDS

[edit] ORIGINAL SUPPORT/OBJECTIONS:

Technically, this would be a self nomination, but I have only contributed minor corrections to the article. Thanks to the relentless work and fruitful collaboration of users User:K1Bond007 and User:23skidoo, James Bond has become what every article about a major fictional character should be: comprehensive, entertaining to read, neutral in its writing, and clearly the work of knowledgeable fans, without being too sensationalist. This article is about a popular, mainstream character, and thus is perfectly suited to become featured. Phils 11:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I maybe biased, as I am a great fan of Bonds movies (in particular the vintage ones)... but the article looks good, and I have learned a few things I did not know. --Zappaz 17:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article - interesting, comprehensive, balanced and fair. My only quibble, is that some books on the James Bond phenomenon as it were, should be added to the references section e.g. [3], [4] CGorman 18:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The article starts off quite nicely, but then becomes a series of lists, which hardly qualifies as "excellent prose". Although some lists or tables are fine in the article, they should be used as an illustration or additinional information, not as the core of a section or article. 2) At the end there are several non-sections like "Trivia" or "Parody" (containing only two sentences). 3) The only references are lists of box office numbers. 4) The article discusses several of the movies returning features (as it should), but omits the theme songs. Not to mention the James Bond tune (a brief sample might even be fair use, I think) 5) The lead section should briefly summarize the article, which this one doesn't. Jeronimo 22:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree about following points. 1) There is no alternative to listing novels and films. The article does this quite elegantly. Expanding on each of them would bring the article to unmanageable sizes. Omitting them would be making the article incomplete.

2) Where would you fit the info in the trivia section if not in said section?

3) My personal opinion on this point goes against the established view on references, but I guess I'll have to concede. Phils 00:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1) It's extremely hard to fit all of that onto the page. We're talking about 20+ films, 30+ novels (not even counting short stories) etc etc etc = the longest, most successful franchise in history. As it is the article is over 32KB and has been as high as something like 55K. I think for our "lists" we've done an excellent job. 2) The parody section was removed because it was huge, that's really all I can say about that. The trivia section is hard to do. This is really a general part of the franchise and the character and most of that information is covered per movie or per novel. I'd rather incorporate these into the character background. 3) Noted. Most reference information for this page comes from the films and the novels though - Regardless I'd like to see this expanded as well with such entries as what CGorman suggested. 4) True; this information however is found on their respective articles and those sections are thin as it is. I agree something should be written though - at least on the James Bond Theme, which coincidentally has it's own page. 5) I disagree. It gives the basic information of the film franchise, the novel series, the character written by Fleming and mentions other things having to do with Bond such as video games, parodies etc. Could it be written a little better? Sure, but I think it does the job adequately. Explain how it should be improved or how it is not fulfilling this adequately? Thank you for your suggestions. K1Bond007 06:08, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Replies to both K1Bond007 & Phil. 1) You don't actually have to fit them in here. In many cases, the full list is not very interesting, and can be moved to a separate article. In other cases, it can be kept as an "illustration". In either case, a good prozaic part should be listed instead. Also, not all lists are necessary here. Just a the "parody" list has been moved out, others can be moved away too. It may be necessary to have all Fleming's books here, and all the official movies, but other parts could (I'll leave that up to you) be put elsewhere without harming the article (of course leaving behind some information in textual form). 2) Removing a section entirely is not a good solution. Write one or two paragraphs about AND refer to the other article. I agree that the trivia may be hard to do, but you'll agree a list is not "well written" (one of the requirements of an FA). I think some of the points can be included in the text, while f.e. the asteroid's listing in the "See also" section would be enough on that issue. The "Bond Bits" section would be much better already when you just remove the bullets; a slight reordering and rewrite would make it fluent. 5) Wikipedia:Lead section writes that a lead should "briefly summarize the article". In this case, we get information on the producers (which isn't elsewhere in the artile), while nothing is said about the character, the storyline, etc. If you balance this better, the lead section would be great. Jeronimo 08:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review. After a great start, it devolves into lists. The bond bits is basically trivia that really should be incorporated into the article - somewhere. "Books" seems extremely disorganised, and I really beleive that should be split off into another article with two or three paragraphs summarising the material. "Unofficial films" is tantalising yet unsatisfying: why did Sean Connery appear in one?! The trivia section really should be killed or incorporated into the main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Connery's 1983 Never Say Never Again is mentioned earlier in the article as not being part of the official MGM/UA/EON Productions series - it was able to be made due to a lawsuit between Fleming and Kevin McClory over the rights to Thunderball that bloomed into MGM vs Sony up until 1999, it's mentioned in the article and the rest of the information is written at Never Say Never Again's and Thunderball's articles. K1Bond007 06:08, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NEW SUPPORT/OBJECTIONS

[edit] World War II

Detailed, well written, well referenced, topic completely covered, lots of pictures.
Not a self-nom.
→Iñgōlemo← ^talk donate 07:22, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

• Object. Although this article is pretty decent, I think it is not sufficient for such a complex and broad topic. I have several specific complaints, which I will not list here, since the article notes that "There is currently an alternative writing of this article at World War II/temp." This alone seems enough to object to this article. Jeronimo 07:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• As there is a major rewrite underway in /temp I think this might not be such a good idea as a FA article. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Particularly not as the /temp-version to my eye seems more Anglo-centric, less correct, and suspiciously unconnected to the (hierarchies of) articles World War II refers to. (Compare for instance Wikipedia:Replies to common objections#Motives of intellectuals.) The proposition of a rewrite must be properly handled before it's relevant to consider FA-status. --Johan Magnus 14:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object — Nothing mentioned as to the real reasons that Japan invaded Burma. The Japanese wanted to defeat the British in India that was vital in providing foods and supplies to the Allies. See India during WWII. Also English conventions are not followed eg. USS Missouri should be italicised to USS Missouri. Maps would be useful on this page. Nichalp 19:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• object no article on WWII could possibly be comprehensive enough to merit being a featured article. Most featured articles are simply overachievers - they take an obscure topic and really do it justice, leaving nothing out. Surely individual generals or battles of WWII could become featured articles, but not the whole war.Dinopup 20:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object to the objection. This is not an actionable objection, and is therefore invalid. --Carnildo 21:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yield curve

recreated from incorrectly archived nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yield curve/archive1

The Yield Curve is a central concept in finance. To understand, for example, the differences between equity and debt investing, to understand why LTCM blew up, etc., one has to have this foundation. People interested in those important questions will want a good solid reference article on what the yield curve is, why it usually looks like it does, and why it sometimes looks different. This article is splendid. --Christofurio 20:47, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) How can this be a solid reference article if it does not have any references backing it? 2) I'd like to see this article copyedited (italicize variable names, format inline formulas ("1y<=t<=60y" - programmer style inequalities don't look good in featured articles, etc.). 3) The lead section does not exactly give an overview of the topic. Currently, about half of the lead is concerned with particular examples of yield curves instead of the general concept. 4) The article seems rather short. My knowledge of economics is insufficient to immediately see what could be missing, but there sure there's more to be said about it if it is "a central concept in finance" 5) An image is worth a thousand words. Why not provide a few graphs to accompany examples? Phils 15:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All I can say is "wow". The article improved greatly since it was first put on FAC. All my objections have been more than addressed. This has my support Phils 19:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. It is a pity nominations get wiped so quickly from the main page so quickly, maybe will try again sometime. Pcb21| Pete 20:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • 1,2 and 5 should be fairly trivial for me to fix in due course. Not sure 3,4 quite get to the heart of why this article isn't as good as it possibly could be, but they do correctly hint that there is room for improvement IMO. Hopefully I will have time to revisit it before this noimation ends. Pcb21| Pete 22:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Phils outlines most of my concerns already. In addition: 1) What is the history of the "Yield curve"? When was it "discovered", first used, what were important developments, etc. 2) I get the idea most of the current sections overlap somewhat. A review of the structure would be good. Something along the lines of Theory-History-Practice would seem appropriate. Jeronimo 07:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point about history. I'll put together something along those lines, and adapt the structure appropriately, in the next couple of days.--Christofurio 13:35, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Christofurio is already makign good progress on this. I hope I will be able to chip in again on Saturday and then we can review again. Pcb21| Pete 18:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There are next to no discussions with the use of the yield curve in pricing bonds, e.g., trading on steepening yield curves, carry trade, spread trade, etc. --JuntungWu 16:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It would be really great if you could help adding this side of things to the article.... pretty please. Pcb21| Pete 21:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I just realised that my objection guarantees a massive expansion as the article then have to start talking about how changes to the Federal Funds Rate changes the US yield curve (first off because there's not even a mention of how the yield curve moves right now), premiums for various types of securities over US treasury bonds, narrowing of spreads depending on liquidity (and why long term yields are belong short term yields in some cases), pricing fixed income T&M products, etc. etc.. personally it'll take me (much more) time than that required for FAC to fix this. JuntungWu 01:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Clearly we can't explain the entire capital market in this article .... it usually takes a big fat expensive book to (partially) do that. Guess we need to decide on scope. Pcb21| Pete 12:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Explorer

A reasonably neutral, objective article about Internet Explorer. Well written and very informative! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object - not quite comprehensive yet. One point that immediately springs to mind is that there's nothing on its worldwide usage - what languages is it available in? are there differences depending which country you are in? There's not much on the history of IE either - there are 6 versions to describe, only the most recent developments are described. How did it come about that IE was launched in 1995? How does it compare to its competitors - is it more flexible/rigid/user-friendly? jguk 11:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I've fixed up the history section with info on each of the versions. The comparison to other competitors, I'm afraid, is fraught with danger as it could be construed as being POV. I don't want to go there, and I don't think its strictly necessary. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Usage figures are a problem. I don't think there is one universally accepted source of usage figures. And there is no easy way to determine usage figures anyway. User agent strings are easily spoofed, download figures mean nothing because you have no way of knowing whether the download is actually installed far less used... AlistairMcMillan 05:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Ta bu shi day du rightly notes that an extra section for comparison to competitors would invite POV and instability. Besides, flexibility and user-friendliness are subjective notions. The article already outlines features specific to IE, features it shares with others and features it misses: this is sufficient. Phils 15:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Extremely negative. Pages of speculation about causes of security problems, arbitrary requirements such as a list of "missing features". My TV doesn't wash my dishes - is that a missing feature? This article expresses the opinion that anything less than 100% adherence to web standards is negative, and drives this point home again and again in the "Web standards" section, which is all criticism. Rhobite 02:34, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Rhobite. Neutrality^talk 02:36, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Out of interest, which bits are speculation? If I could find out then I'll attempt to resolve these issues. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • One issue is the tone of the "web standards" section, which uses words such as "fails", "bug", etc. framing the issue to reflect negatively on IE. The security section has a paragraph of speculation on the practice and consequences of logging in as root - I think that whole para needs work (and personally I'm not convinced that most Linux desktop users don't also run as root, or at least use the same password for their root and user accounts). More importantly, root access doesn't mean much in practice - you don't need root access to spread a trojan, for example. It's a red herring. The next paragraph's Apache/IIS ubiquity comparison is also speculation, doesn't belong in an article about IE. COM section: "explosion" = pov language. "Microsoft has recognized the problem with ActiveX" sentence is an exaggeration based on a single old quote. Huge quotes by Ed Felten and the O'Reilly book need to go. For that matter the CERT quote doesn't belong in the article either. I could add three paragraph-long quotes of praise to the article copied verbatim from some MS publication, but let's not go there. The whole COM/ActiveX section is negative - not one mention of how it is actually used in practice. Removing IE paragraph: I know we went through the whole thing with that guy who advocates removing IE.. but 6 paragraphs is a whole lot of article, considering that almost nobody removes IE in practice. HTH. Rhobite 01:36, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for detailing your objections, Rhobite. As always, these are good to know and perhaps this article does need some more work. I just noticed a disputed tag in the article, so I'm thinking that I need to move this to peer review. I would like to keep this on FAC for the full time period, however, to gather more feedback. I have to do another review of the article and see what I can do. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object I agree strongly with Rhobite's comments above. There are very negative connotations throughout this article and it needs much attention to make it NPOV. -- 82.3.32.75 21:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support Good enough in my opinion Squash 03:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object This article is not stable, with numerous changes every week, and frequent accusations of anti-IE bias (often justified, even from my somewhat anti-IE POV). Much of the prose could do with some pounding for readability. I also agree or partially agree with some of Rhobite's comments above, namely: "missing features", "log in as root" (that's a problem, but a Windows/Windows Apps/Windows Usage problem, not directly an IE problem) "removing IE" (IMO, belongs in the antitrust article, or maybe an article of its own; in any case, six paras here is way too much) "web standards" (IE is the worst of the main browsers, with some really annoying limitations, but it's still pretty good, and a lot better than its contemporaries and immediate predecessors) "COM/ActiveX" (dangerous when misused/abused, but so's a chainsaw). In general, the whole article devotes lots of verbiage to a few controversial points, while other worthy subjects get minimal space. For example: IE6 introduced some major improvements to standards support; COM/ActiveX do provide benefits (which may or may not outweigh the problems, but are still worth a mention). I could add more , but that'll do for now. Blufive 20:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comments.
  • "as of 2004, although nineteen states have agreed to the settlement"
    • How about as of 2005?
  • "Content Advisor for screening out objectionable content by using industry-standard ratings"
    • What industry standard rating systems?
  • Support for vertical text, but in a syntax different from W3C CSS3 candidate recommendation.
    • A link to it perhaps?
  • Missing features:
    • "Full support for the W3C's CSS2 standard."
      • What browser has that? Mozilla at least does not.
  • "Full support for PNG images. IE renders PNG images without alpha channel transparency."
    • As I understand alpha transparency is an optional part of the standard, and therefor you cannot claim that IE does not have 100% support (unless some other part am missing, or I'm wrong) later in the article its stated that they're an optional part of the specification, remove this please.
      • Um... well, it doesn't conform to the full standard. The full standard would also include the optional bits... Ta bu shi da yu 00:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • If you support a standard minus its optional bits you have full support by definition, they're called optional for a reason, I maintain that IE has 100% PNG support. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:02, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
  • "However, Internet Explorer does not conform to several web standards defined by the W3C, and many web developers therefore consider the browser to be hindering further standard-based improvement of web technologies."
    • What does it 100% confirm to?
• —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:17, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
• Object as well. I agree with most of Rhobite's comments. The article has an inherent point of view that is biased against IE. --JuntungWu 16:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object because of the reader-unfriendly style of writing. Some examples:
  • Internet Explorer, abbreviated IE or MSIE, is a web browser made by Microsoft and currently available as part of Microsoft Windows - the introductory sentence (indeed the whole paragraph) does not even mention that Windows is a operating system for PCs.
  • The "history" section is to some extent not more than a list of versions and features written in a "...and then ... and then" style. There is not much context to explain what all these buzzwords mean and why this or that technology is relevant. I would expect a history section to tell me things like: Microsoft introduced technology X in 19XX, which caused users to complain about security issues related to Y but gained IE further market share because product Z by company A did not implement a similar feature before 19YY
  • Simply installing and using another browser does not prevent third party programs and core operating system components from using IE libraries - too technical, no link or explanation of what "library" means in this context or what "core operating system components" are. We should be writing for a general readership, so please don't assume technical knowledge on the readers' part.
  • There was an issue that occurred in Internet Explorer 4 where an error message would appear stating that "Explorer caused an invalid page fault in module MSHTML.DLL at 0137:703e34c" when Windows 95 or Windows NT started with the Active Desktop enabled or when Internet Explorer was started. - does this level of technical detail contribute to a reader's grasp of what IE is? Methinks not.
  • Componentized implementation on Windows allows a high level of integration with other applications... - reads rather like bloated marketing-speak. Couldn't we have that clear and concise, please? (BTW, is "componentized" a word of the English language? If it is, it's one of the ugliest I have seen)
  • Internet Explorer was designed with functionality in mind... - more hot air from the marketing department. Kosebamse 20:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object The article has been thoroughly raped by proponents of Firefox and other competitors. An example I recently corrected -- like all sections, the JavaScript paragraph had been twisted to make out that MS was trying to 'embrace extend and extinguish' the standard, that MS has unfairly extended the standard, that Microsoft had gone against the W3C spec. The unforgiveable flaw in all this anti-MS ranting was that the author had absolutely no clue about the JavaScript methods in question, and had criticised Internet Explorer for supporting addEventListener, when this is in fact a W3C DOM standard! It beggars belief that such unbalanced and incorrect rubbish is allowed to fester on this page. If only the MS developers would start contributing here and set the record straight, as they have been doing on the IEBlog. --Beachy 00:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Given that the standard Beachy is referring to came out in 2000, when Microsoft introduced the JavaScript method in 1998, either Microsoft have access to a time machine (someone needs to notify the authorities) or they weren't following any standard when they introduced this addition to their browser. AlistairMcMillan 01:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. With some more cleanups, this article would be great. But currently that is more enough content about the "good" thing of the browser (which personally I can't find any). --minghong 13:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

If you can't find anything good to say then maybe you should leave editing this article to those who are capable of portraying a balanced view of Internet Explorer? You've certainly contributed more than your fair share of anti-MS negativity to the proceedings. I don't hold anything against you personally and you seem like a very intelligent chap. However, the pro-Firefox agenda you describe in your user page is making your edits here extremely one-sided. --Beachy 17:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woodrow Wilson

Very detailed and well written. --Flockofpidgeons

• Object. 1) Lead section gives no summary. 2) References should be sorted out. Currently only two "what happened on this day" articles and one 1992 newspaper article. More references are mentioned in the article, list them here as well. 3) "Political career" is ridiculously short. 4) The "misc facts" section should be removed. Already most facts are incorporated in the article, so should the rest. Jeronimo 08:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. What Jeronimo wrote, plus consider moving the quotes to Wikiquote and bottom pic needs a caption. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Follow the suggested procedure: get it first in Peer Review. You'll get good pointers how to improve the article before submitting to FA.--Zappaz 03:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pruno

This is a well-written article on a subject that is a bit off the beaten path and was nominated to demonstrate the range of Wikipedia.

People expect a featured article to be pretty comprehensive. This one is quite short compared to the usual featured article. Is there nothing more worth writing about pruno? Everyking 01:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is the origin of the name? Also, a quick googlance shows there might be much more to be written. Mikkalai 01:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to Peer Review. Interesting and nicely written article, but it contains quite a few unsourced statements (see cite sources). Try listing this article at Peer Review first for creative comments and criticisms. — mark ✎ 01:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. With expansion, this otherwise well-written article has some hope. As it stands, it is only a teaser. Denni☯ 02:33, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Object. Far from a featured article, doesn't even meet basic criteria such as references or images. Please do not nominate articles that do not meet the criteria at Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Jeronimo 07:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanto

This is a very well written article, with much detail put into it. --Flockofpidgeons

Object I think this article has some serious NPOV issues. It reads like an Esperanto manifesto, especially the list headed by "More generally, there are five primary reasons for its strength". The article totally glosses over the fact that Esperanto has not lived up to its orignal stated purpose. With 2 million speakers, it might be the most common constructed language in the world, but so what? The article states that Esperanto was "to serve as an international auxiliary language, a second language for everyone in the world", and it has clearly failed reach that goal. The article should discuss this aspect to achieve a neutral point of view. It also uses the Mother of all Weasel Terms: "There is some evidence that suggests...", which doesn't help to establish NPOV. --Plek 08:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "There is some evidence that suggests..." is linked to an article which (though, last time I looked at it, it needed some grammar and style fixup) details the evidence: a number of studies in schools at various levels in various countries. Maybe it should be rephrased "Some studies suggest..." ?

There is an acknowledgement that Esperanto has "failed to live up to orignal stated purpose"; maybe it should be earlier and more prominent.

Overall I think this is pretty near being ready to be a featured article, but not quite. There are a few infelicities of phrasing, the "five reasons for its strength" could stand some work for better NPOV, and there are irrelevant digressions like the comment about Ethnologue's glitch asserting Esperanto is a language of France. --Jim Henry 17:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I think the changes you made address some minor issues, but my main concern about POV problems still stands. I'll try to be more specific. To do so, I'll deconstruct the "Language evolution" section, which I think is the most troublesome.

• First paragraph ("A declaration endorsed..."): good, factual information. No problems I can see, although an in-line link to the text of the declaration might be useful.
• 2nd paragraph ("Esperantists believe..."): the problems start here. Those two words are weasel terms. Is the text trying to say that all those 2 million people have the exact same opinion? That's hard to imagine. At least some of them are bound to have a different or opposing view. The phrase "this declaration stabilizing the language is a major reason why Esperanto is uniquely strong", suggests that the declaration has a strictly positive influence. Is that a fact? It seems to me that all languages evolve over time. We're not speaking mediaeval English anymore, either. The static nature of Esperanto is bound to have drawbacks. So what are they?
• "...they see five reasons for its strength": this phrase turns the section into a description of Esperantists' opinion, which is by definition POV. The article is named "Esperanto", not "Opinions about Esperanto". I would therefore suggest to take the factual information from those five points and turn them into descriptive prose, describing the language and its origins. Whether people think those characteristics are good or bad is a seperate issue and should be the subject of a different section.
• "as the legend goes" has no place in an encyclopaedic article.
• Either remove or make specific all adjectives and adverbs that are unquantifiable or opinionated. Some examples: "done an enormous amount of work", "exploit desirable features", "Constructed languages are often destroyed".

Some other observations (yes, I hate people who move the goal posts too ;-):

• The order of the sections seems haphazard: We're moving from history to classification and distribution (which is okay), but then to a very tangential section about Red Dwarf and computer games... Then back to general remarks about the status, followed by some sections about writing and speaking the language. Try to put those into an order that would make sense to the reader: from broad overview to detailed specifics, for instance. Put less important factoids (like the media stuff) at the end. Oh, and do get rid of the minor planet (but that's just because of my bias against gratuitous minor planet references :)...
• After deleting the one reference work about the minor planet (provided you follow my suggestion about dumping the thing), there's only one reference left, and just three pages at that. That seems to be a bit thin for an article that contains so much (most of it very good and interesting) information. I'd suggest to go over the article and find references for the most important facts mentioned in it. Again, in-line citations help to provide a direct link to the reference work (and will also help you spot unreferenced sections).

My fingers hurt, so I guess this will have to do for now. I hope you'll find my incoherent rambling useful in improving the article. One suggestion: you might want to consider dropping it back to peer review first, to get more people involved in the editing process. Good luck. --Plek 21:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the more detailed comments. I was going to delete the silly bit about the asteroid, but someone objected in the talk page; I'll wait awhile longer and try to get more consensus before deleting that. I'll try to add more references, edit the language evolution section, and reorder the sections, then link it from the peer review page. --Jim Henry 21:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) Lead section too brief, does not summarize the article. 2) No images (save for the flag, which is not explained - why does a constructed language have a flag?). At least an image of Zamenhoff should be possible. 3) Many sections are brief (just a single paragraph) or contain "litter", random sentences which connect badly with the surrounding text. "Classification" and "Namesake" are ridiculous as it stands, while "Geographic distribution" does not tell us anything at all about geographic distribution. "Media" just mentions some stuff about films, but doesn't really go into the topic of Esperanto media? Are there newspapers, magazines, books, web sites? Yes? Tell about them. Review all other sections for contents as well. 4) Other reviewers have already mentioned NPOV issues and weasel terms. Please, attribute opinions and statements. 5) References and external links should be sorted out. The references do not seem to be about esperanto at all, while several external links seem to be to vague to be relevant for the article. The see alsos could also use a clean-up. Jeronimo 07:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree on most of your points, but partly disagree on some:

• Lots of entities other than countries have flags, so I don't think the flag per se needs explanation in this article. But it would be good to add a separate article about the Esperanto flag and link to it from the image and maybe the See also section.
• One of the references relates to the asteroid; I'm planning to delete it. The other is relevant; it's a study on the ease of learning Esperanto and how it helps in learning other languages later.
• Classification seems to be a standard section in articles about languages. I don't see what's ridiculous about it. It states concisely that Esperanto is not genetically related to other languages, but was influence by some languages of the Indo-European family. It could use a bit more information on typology (SVO, AN default order).
• Which external links do you object to as irrelevant?
• What in the see alsos seems irrelevant or mis-sorted? Please be more specific.

I've already fixed some of the problems you and Plek pointed out, and am planning to work on others (media, NPOV problems, opening summary section) today and later in the week. --Jim Henry 16:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jim, some replies (while noting that this article is no longer on FAC, so has already failed nomination). 1) Still the same problem. 2) Still no other images. 3) With "ridicilous" I meant ridiculously short. I can see the classification section is sort of standard. Still, I think more can be said there on the influences from other languages, especially as this is also relevant for the argument how easy (or difficult) the language can be learnt by people not speaking an Indo-European language. Many other section still have several one-sentence sections, and the reading flow is bad. The media section is still the same, and although the title is more appriopriate now, this makes it less appropriate for the article. 4) I'd have to read the article as a whole again to verify any changes here. 5) They seem pretty ok now, I'm not sure anymore what my objection were about exactly. Jeronimo 08:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Turk

This is a most interesting article that touches such luminaries as Napoleon, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Babbage, and Edgar Allan Poe in a plot that hoaxed the world! --Flex 14:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Having actually read one of the referenced books, I can say that this article gives a decent overview, but could go into detail on several issues - it is not comprehensive, one of the main requirements for a featured article. For example, there are many descriptions of how a typical session with the Turk went; this needs to be here. Other objections include the strange ending in parentheses (also suggesting there is more to be said) and the match details, which seems unneccesary. The pictures section should also be removed, and the pictures properly included. Jeronimo 22:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I'm afraid, just from memory, and not having read one of the referenced books, I recall there was a lot more to be said about the Turk. So I concur with Jeronimo. The Turk is certainly an interesting subject, and this is a good start, but it's not there yet. In addition to what Jeronimo said, a picci of the final board, or a board just before the final moves, in the Napoleon game would help too, jguk 00:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Demoscene

An interesting article regarding an amazingly creative and artistic subculture which was born from the hands of software pirates during the 1980s and continues to thrive in the 21st century. I believe this document is worthy of being a featured article on Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 23:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object and refer to peer review. Needs copy-edit for one. Consider sentences like: When a cracked program was started, the cracker or his team would take credit via an increasingly impressive-looking graphical introduction or intro. Over what period of time does the impressiveness of the artwork increase? Or: Since any given computer platform before the PC age meant every computer of a given line had identical capabilities, a comparison between demos on earlier platforms was directly possible. This sentence is barely comprehensible. Generally, the prose is not outstanding.

The author is also obviously fascinated by the subject, as the article has a rather biased tone: Where games/application writers were concerned with stability/functionality of their software, the demo writer was typically interested in how many CPU cycles a routine would consume and how best to squeeze as much effects and activity onto the screen. or most demos were written by groups with interesting names. Moreover, the prose to links ratio is extraordinarily low. See for example the Parties section, a collection of over a dozen links, with little to no context. (What is a party in this context?)

Lastly, the use of two images by the same demoscene artist group also feels like advertising. Images are for representative illustration purposes: if the cultural movement in question is large enough to deserve an article, the images should represent a broader spectrum of demoscene graphics. Phils 00:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object Couldn't understand the first sentence, and stopped after there (sorry). Let me know when you've done a copyedit and I'll re-read, jguk 00:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Peer Review. Nice subject, and will be a good candidate with some work, specifically:

1. Technical aspects... most readers will associate a PC demo with either a) A preview of a video game or b) a product showcase. PC demos are much, much more than that - can we go into the technical aspects of what makes a PC Demo so special?
2. Parties are briefly skipped over, "Assembly" and "The Party in particular have had an enormous impact on the scene and this needs discussed
3. Groups are hardly mentioned (Farbrausch is singled out for fr-08, but that's about it). Some focus on some of the more influential groups is needed... off the top of my head Future Crew, Triton, TMD are particularly influential but there are others
4. Particular demos... can we go into a little more detail on this?
5. POV issues need to be resolved, it's not bad but it could be better. Zerbey 01:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to Peer Review. What they^ said. — mark ✎ 00:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The list-to-text ratio is pretty high. Only 7 paragraphs - it needs much more text, and the list of groups should probably be broken out into its own article, with mentions of notable groups in the main article. Rhobite 02:41, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frankie Goes to Hollywood

A good article about a band who changed European music scene and challenged attitudes to homosexuality. Plasmic Squonka! 17:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This article lacks several basic requirements of an FAC: 1) No images of the band itself; not even an album cover. 2) No references. 3) No lead section. Fix these and I'll take a look at the contesnts. Jeronimo 23:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• object for now. this article needs some serious work... put it through peer review.  ALKIVAR™ 01:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish language

I think it should be a featured article because there is much detail in it, and I just frankly think people need to know more about Finland! There haven't been that many featured articles about languages also. flockofpidgeons 23:52 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comments. There's a "Plenty more to add ..." at the end of the list in the Vocabulary section, and a lengthy 'to do' list in commented-out HTML. Have these things been done (the to do list seems like it probably mostly has)? I think there should be summaries in the Sounds and Grammar sections (if someone has trouble thinking what they should have, I'm not enuf of a language person to know about the actual content, but the size of the corresponding summaries at Spanish language seems to be about right). And this is may be just a nit, but "to date" in English can have two distinctly different meanings (social vs. calendar contexts); it seems unlikely to me that the Finnish word cited (at the bottom of the Borrowing section) happens to also mean both, in which case, the applicable def should be identified. Niteowlneils 03:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm not a linguist either, but it seems strange that the Uralo-Altaic grouping is described as "disputed" in the language infobox, while there is no discussion or mention of it or its disputedness in the two-sentence "Classification" section. I appreciate that it may not deserve a mention on account of the grouping being "almost universally rejected by historical linguists as a mistake" (see Ural-Altaic languages), but in that case how does it deserve to tantalize the reader by inclusion in the infobox...? Bishonen | Talk 06:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • sigh, the Hungarians were here. Just remove the 'disputed', or we'll have to tag pretty much every statement on Wikipedia. Better still, change the header to "From Wikipedia, the free disputed encyclopedia." dab sorry, I didn't read. Ural-Altaic is of course controversial. I wouldn't say "disputed" so much as "uncertain", but the matter is too complex to convey in the table anyway, so I'm still for just removing the qualifier. dab (ᛏ)
• the grammar article is quite nice too, but the grammar section should be a little bit more than just the link: it should be a paragraph briefly summarizing and putting in context the grammatical peculiarities of Finnish (same goes for "Sounds"). dab (ᛏ) 11:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) Has several sections without content. (Sounds, grammar). Also there are a lot of subsections with barely any content. Please restructure these. 2) This article needs images. I can imagine some map images for - for example - the dialects. Other illustrations, especially in the history section, seem possible too. 3) This article needs some samples of spoken Finnish. 4) Lead section is brief and does not summarize the article well. 4) Annotations for the references (use this instead of bibliography) are nice, but sometimes POV and unnecessary. 5) The article doesn't read well at times, often indicated by single-sentence paragraphs. 6) The article has a lot of vagueness: "Some linguists", "sometimes", "mostly", "usually", "some estimates", "mainly believed", etc. Please rewrite these, or attribute the statements to a source or to persons. Jeronimo 11:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I already objected above, but I'm afraid I have more objections to the infobox, sorry I didn't list them all before. 1) In other major language articles I've sampled (Swedish, German, English, Dutch) the infobox heading "Spoken in" is used for the countries the language is spoken in, while "Region" is used for the larger, umbrella, unit (Northern Europe, etc). Here, the "Region" box contains instead smaller units, as in parts of the countries, such as Tornio River Valley (which is incidentally a redirect to Torne Valley), Karelia, Finnmark. Is there a misunderstanding, or is there a dispute as to what this part of the infobox is for? 2) And, in any case, given the apparent principle, how can Finnmark (in Norway) be under "Region" when Norway isn't under "Spoken in"? And how, on any principle, can "Finland" appear in both places? 3) As with the Uralo-Altaic grouping I mentioned before, the infobox and the article text need to be put on speaking terms with each other on the subject of Meänkieli (a language, or perhaps a Finnish dialect, spoken in the Swedish Torne Valley region). The box doesn't mention Meänkieli, which is fine (that level of detail doesn't belong there), but the box has an obvious (to a specialist, ahem) reference to it in the only Swedish region it mentions, Tornio River Valley = Torne Valley. In the article proper, on the other hand, Meänkieli is ascribed to Västerbotten. OK, Torne Valley is in Västerbotten, but how is a non-Swedish reader of the article supposed to know that? It's completely confusing to use different geographical terms. Btw, also, the article needs to refer to Meänkieli in a more clarifying way than is done in the brief mention under "Western dialects", i.e. explain that the difference of opinion concerns whether it's a form of Finnish at all (see article Meänkieli), not what kind of Finnish dialect it is. Bishonen | Talk 15:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katana

This article contains lots of information regarding the Katana sword and its history an origin. Also much more information is provided that gives the user information on myths, techniques and also has some very informative pictures on the finer points of this sword. There are good external links available and the user is given a real insight into Katanas by the time they have read the article.

• Object:
  • To give you an idea about where I am coming from, I am a kobudo practitioner living in Japan.
  • First off, the main strength of the article seems to be in covering sword parts and styles. Kudos.
  • Generally speaking, there is quite a bit of good information, but there is also some not-so-good information. The way some of the information is given also seems a bit poorly written.
  • Error: The article claims that it is illegal to carry swords in Japan. That is incorrect. You have to register and get a license. The license must be kept with the sword at all times.
  • Poor turn of phrase: Kenjutsu has not turned into gendai budo. Any budo style is gendai(modern) if it was founded after the Meiji Isshin. It is kobudo if it was founded before that. As the article mentions, there are kobudo ryuha still around. Anyway, the relationship between modern budo and classical budo is complicated, and it is better to omit that topic than spend just one sentence on it.
  • Error: Emperor Jimmu, though traditionally attributed to the 6th century B.C., is considered to have lived closer to 400-600 AD. This is an error at the Jimmu page as well.
  • Sources: more, and better.
  • Someone below criticized "The Japanese Sword in Fiction" section. I think the point was supposed to be that it seems frivolous when nihonto are real objects, with a real place in history. I don't have too much of a problem with it so long as it stays after the sections with historical and technical information.
  • The fact that the article mentions "traditional japanese steel" without explaining how the steel is different than other steel, or using the actual term for it(tamahagane) speaks for itself.
  • Various other things. If I can scrape up some more free time, I will try to contribute to the article. -JD

• Weak object looks really well done, but:

  1) needs references badly

  2) minimal coverage of fantasy and myths (like the famous "river leaf" story contrasting Muramasa and Masamune swords)

  better, but still needs more on myths/fantasy passed down over the years.  ALKIVAR™ 09:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  3) nothing about katana use by the kamikaze during ww2 or other ww2 officer use for that matter.

  4) nothing about katana use in modern video games either. what was added fills the bill on this.

   ALKIVAR™ 01:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3) Katana were not typically used by the kamikaze, they used an ordnance sabre which is mentioned in the article ("katana were replaced by gunto: cheap sabers for navy officers."). Rama 10:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thats funny I own 3 former kamakazi swords all of them are curved and match the typical length/shape of a katana (and match the curve and shape of the 2 katanas I own)... years of martial arts tell me their katanas. They have such a similar heft and feel when swinging, I always assumed they were katanas. All of what i've previously read said that the kamakazi carried katana (and sometimes wakizashi) in a samurai fashion intentionally to show pride in the ancient warrior culture. This is definately news to me! thanks for clearing that up.  ALKIVAR™ 14:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a matter of term usage. In general English usage, it qualifies as a katana. However, it is not a genuine nihonto unless it was forged by traditional techniques(and by most accounts, traditional materials. I imagine that even if they are genuine kamikaze swords (historically speaking), they are almost certainly showa-to/gun-to. Mass-produced. Also, if I can point out that "katana" refers to how you wear it, technically speaking. -JD

On 4), I wrote a new section about works of fiction and katana with minimal informations intending to expand it into a full article. Because katana appears in so many fictions including video games, I think it deserves an article solely dedicated to it. On katana used for or by kamikaze, because pilots were all officers, they had to take katana with them as a part of their uniform. On those carried by army officers, they essentially served the same function as pistols carried around by officers in American and European armies, to point it to rally their troop. It was, of course, almost completely useless on the battlefield, so some simply reported to have "lost" their gunto(katana) and picked up a rifle instead. Revth 16:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This definately satisfies my request #4. I'd appreciate this information on #3 you mentioned being worked into the article somehow, you give more info here than I was able to learn reading the article regarding ww2 use.  ALKIVAR™ 16:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe some movies (and games) that focus heavily on this sword could be mentioned in the fiction section, for example Kill Bill, something like a mini list? Or would this list be too substantial and require a seperate article? -- 82.3.32.75 00:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Weak object. 1) References are my primary concern (I note some are used in the text - they need to be moved to reference section and possibly linked with ^notes. 2) Short, one sentnece paragraphs would benefit from merging 3) If rare words are used in lead (especially), they should be explained (buke is...?) 4) I'd like to see a section on famous historic katana users, and the section on schools of fighting could be expanded (and possibly merged with techniques?), but this is not an object per se. Good article, I am pretty sure it will make it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  • I think that the section on the use of katana's in anime, filmmaking, etc., (and the reference to role-playing) does more to define what sort of people write Wikipedia articles than anything else, and I think they should simply be dropped.
  • What's a sentence like "Okay, so now we've got a long iron stick. What makes it a katana?" in a Wikipedia article?
  • The article also could use some copy-editing to improve the overall quality of the writing (to avoid some less-than-stellar phrasings like "However, this also marked the beginning of the end for samurai in general, for guns had returned.")

  That said, I think that the article contains a lot of useful and interesting information, and that bringing the article up to featured standards is mainly a matter of cleaning up the writing a little bit and trimming excess information. Jun-Dai 08:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • • Object to the objection. Especially, the first one. That's an awful POV to make an objection upon. What's wrong with that? Revth 14:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • <Jun-Dai 21:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)> My objection with regards to the first item has to do with the fact that we are, in effect, emphasizing material that is of particular interest to a particular group (one that overlaps more than a little with the body of people that are Wikipedians) that is not really relevant to the topic (even though the topic may be quite relevant to the group). Obviously this is POV, but so is the emphasis to which I am objecting (or any emphasis, really). Any reference to the use of katana's in fiction/anime/role-playing, etc. needn't be more than a sentence long, or put on a separate page and added to a "see also" section. </Jun-Dai>
      • Please back the claim "one that overlaps more than a little with the body of people that are Wikipedians" up with sources to make it a credible argument. How many Wikipedians do you think have seen katana in fiction? It's certainly not a few of people who are Wikipedians. In the particular culture group that you belong to, katana in fiction may not mean much but you need to keep that view to yourself. There is only six paragraphs out of the entire article that talks about it with the article (to be started) to discuss anything further. This is hardly an emphasis. Revth 01:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • <Jun-Dai 02:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)> That the two groups overlap more than a little I observe based on (a) the types of articles that get written (I do not have the power to summon up statistics on anime-related articles, articles related to pop-Japanese culture, role-playing, and computer games, but I'd bet that they are out of proportion to other topics of similar breadth, popularity, and general level academic research done, and definitely disproportionate to, say, print encyclopedias or other non-specialized reference works), (b) the amount of effort put into particular articles (Bishojo_game, Hentai, Samurai, Ninja, D20 System, to name just five), and (c) the conspicuous emphases placed in certain articles (such as this one). After all, what encyclopedia, other than this one, would include mention in an article about ninja that the jedi in Star Wars resemble them because they can jump and disappear? Clearly (to me, at least), the Wikipedian community has a disproportionate representation of anime fans, gamers, computer geeks, etc. One effect of this is that we have a tremendous (and disproportionate) amount of content in those areas, which is by no means a bad thing (on the contrary, I welcome it). Another effect of this, however, is that some of the other content, such as this article, is tailored (through emphasis) towards that community. This I see as a bad thing, because it will limit us.
        • In any case, this article is not ready for featured article status. It needs some improvements (two cases are noted above) in the writing in general, as well as in the prioritization of information for a more general audience. In its current state I am not prepared to vote in favor of this article representing the Wikipedia as an example of its finest work. </Jun-Dai>

Object Great article ... but needs references and bibliography to make the cut (no pun intended). Has the article gone through Peer Review? That is what peer review can do for an article... editors can make comments on how to improve the article before submitting it for consideration as a featured article. Some good copyedit (e.g. Katana#Distinguishing_characteristics, some more wiki-linking, and a related articles section with more than just one reference, are also needed. --Zappaz 03:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Caroline

I found this article extremely informative and easy to follow. The story is a fascinating one with many bits of intrigue. Kingturtle 09:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Very interesting subject and a fine read, but 1) References? 2) There are no photos of the ships, the DJs or anything to do with the station 3) Summarize the station's history in a paragraph for the lead section. slambo 15:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

1a) The paragraph about frequency conversion doesn't really fit into the References section as it isn't a reference, more a discussion on how to do the conversion. slambo 15:22, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Agree with the above. Please read the featured article criteria and only nominate articles that meet them. References are a basic one. Checking the criteria first is simply polite to those who spend their time here. - Taxman 22:12, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the established feature article criteria. I don't see references as essential to a feature article. Kingturtle 23:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Well they are established, and that one for a very good reason. But this is not the place to discuss it. The criteria page or Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check or Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards are. Short answer: the information could be made up out of thin air if it is not properly cited to its source. - Taxman 00:05, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Interesting enough but no references. Some images must be possible if only of DJs etc, needs something to add some colour and life. Giano 22:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: for the record, Feature Article Sid McMath does not have any references. How true are we to this "references are a must" rule? Kingturtle 15:11, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bishonen/Antique toilet paper holder

Excellent article. I advise that this is the finest of the Wikipedia articles on our site! I hope for it to go to the front page. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Most flattered, but may I ask what the nominator was doing in my userspace...? Bishonen | Talk 12:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey. Just watching recent changes, that's all :-) Ta bu shi da yu 12:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• But, why is it still under User:Bishonen's space? -- Sundar 10:02, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Object Not yet comprehensive (see to do list on talk page, I personally have a lot more material to add) and perhaps just a tad over-referenced? Filiocht 10:08, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Ahem. Front page on 1 April? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Unicorn or Jackalope would both be better April 1st entries.  ALKIVAR™ 11:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Invisible pink unicorn or just a plain unicorn? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Either would be fine, although i think the Invisible pink unicorn "invisible image" would be better for the main page.  ALKIVAR™ 20:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Given a large push, we should be ready to go live by then, I hope. Filiocht 10:27, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• comment: why on earth is this in userspace?  ALKIVAR™ 10:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Hilarious! Object though...Jeronimo 11:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review. Not yet comprehensive, like Filiocht says. I'm particularly dissappointed that the Dutch connection is missing. (Does anybody still think that the mission of Willibrord of Northumbria and Saint Boniface of Devonshire was only to convert the inhabitants of the Low Countries to the Christian faith?). — mark ✎ 11:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You raise some interesting points: care to make these additions yourself? Filiocht 12:32, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Sheesh, caught with my pants down again! I fully intended to move this out into the article space at a future date (yeah guess which future date) and then self-nominate it. And to be on IRC to spread the word and receive encomia, which I'm not able to do today. Still, now that the cat's out of the bag, how would Unicorn or Jackalope be better on the front page, pray? Are they major scholarly contributions? Are they comprehensive? Are they fully referenced? I believe not. Alkivar, did you see our reference secion? (Over-referenced? What are you talking abouot, Filiocht? Go put in some more inline references, you know you love it.) Bishonen | Talk 12:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ObjectI am frankly amazed that this page has been nominated, and even more amazed at the lavatorialy light hearted, retentive, and juvenile way other editors have chosen to vote here. The information to date has barely scratched the surface of this important and under-researched subject. Why is there no mention of the holder in which Cleopatra secreted her Asp? There is also no mention of those depicted by Hogarth in his scenes of London, so far the page is quite good (mostly thanks to my own efforts) but a lot more information need to be supplied.Giano 20:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Giano, you and I are as one when it comes to the inappropriateness of toilet humour here (I just wrote a plea for the subject to be taken seriously on the article Talk page, to which I refer all jokesters)), but if you can't understand that a vast historical subject needs to be summarized, I pity you. Your efforts? Yeah, especially your efforts to sneakily insert your entire extended family. That image of your mother-in-law's toilet paper holder is still in the 18th century section, I see. Bishonen | Talk 21:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to bring my extended family into this, it is hardly my fault if they were pioneering and patronising the design of luxury items, while the tribes of certain northern nations were still utilising the fiords and flora (and probably fauna) for such functions. Giano 08:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the luxury items. This is still the brass-plated "Palladian revival" piece we're talking about.. ? To the people inquiring why it's in userspace: because I think in the article namespace it would get whisked off to VfD so fast we wouldn't even feel the draft. :-( Bishonen | Talk 12:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention of entering into futile debate with one who clearly could not distinguish Palladian from Prada:>( Giano 12:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The monastic sea-shell example in the article speaks to your fauna reference, does it not? Filiocht 12:44, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Support for April 1, although I think that this nomination will stir the necessary contributions by that time. I admit that the Marxist and Feminist perspectives are my own contributions to the pile. I think Jackalopes and Unicorns are a bit obvious, and the former admits straight off the bat that it is a fiction. Unlike the antique toilet paper holder, it's a made-up hoax, and the Jackalope and Unicorn have neither played as vital a role in history, class, gender, and revolution as the toilet paper holder. Geogre 12:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I assume it's a joke, although it's an extraordinarily weird one. Can't this nomination just be removed? Everyking 14:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why do you only "assume" it is a joke, and what exactly is "weird" about such a functional artefact? Giano 14:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• While this may be considered funny, please do not misuse references in this way. Sorry to be a wet blanket, but it would be just as funny without the false references. Yes, I see all the ones I checked are real books, but I somehow doubt any of them confirm much of the material in this article. - Taxman 14:33, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

A suprisingly large amount of the information in the article is confirmed in the references Giano 14:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please check out the online references, Taxman, especially Gorboduc, I think you may be surprised. Just because the story of Eric XIV of Sweden and Elizabeth I of England is little known doesn't mean I made it up. Practically all of it really happened. Bishonen | Talk 14:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For my part, I played the "like" and "some" game. "Critics SUCH AS Raymond Williams have said that items LIKE the toilet paper holder," and then the reference is spot on. No fabrication where I've been concerned. Geogre 20:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• A little info: to address concerns raised on the article's talk page, I have moved it to User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder and created global hub article User:Bishonen/Toilet paper holder to serve as the parent of sibling articles on the toilet paper holders of other continents. Please see User talk:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder. Bishonen | Talk 20:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Who are we to say what won't be reference material to future historians. Though this does bring up the question, since there are toilet paper holders in millions of homes around the world and well over 200,000 google hits, dont we need Toilet paper holder in our data? -- Dbroadwell 20:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Municipality of Strathfield

I've been working on this for a while (so self-nomination). I submitted it to peer review and Rd232 made some valuable comments (mainly that the corruption scandal was important, it needed a politics section, and needs a culture section) which I responded to. I'd like to put this forward to FAC now. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object but all should be fixable: (1) C in "Homebush council", "Strathfield Council" not standardised in capitalisation throughout the article (please explain if there's a specific reason for that; the reference about Australian English in Local Government Area is also confusing to me), (2) " for the elite and the rich" in intro sounds a bit non-encyclopedic; (3) are there any actual pictures of modern Strathfield? One historicla picture about a geographic area seems very limited. I know it's a tiny area with very limited population. Otherwise well-writtena and will support. JuntungWu 06:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed the C in Homebush Council (thanks for pointing that out), I disagree with the comment about the elite and rich, as that is what it was at one point. Getting pictures is hard for me as I don't own a digital camera. I think we can list this on requests for images, however. As a side note: The Municipality of Strathfield is one of Sydney's largest municipalities :) Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Also the historical picture that you uploaded has a weird reference about "The picture is copyright and owned by State Library of NSW." but you marked it PD. Why? It sounds like it's out of copyright in Australia so it's probably released. I am just confused about this. JuntungWu 06:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) Okay. JuntungWu 06:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I didn't. However, the copyright is the State Libraries, though it is still publicdomain as our copyright in Australia lasts 50 years only. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, (4) there is a link about "For NSW state elections, the Municipality of Strathfield is in the State Electoral District of Strathfield". What about the federal one? In the sense that there's a quip about three electoral districts in the table but only one mention in the text. Does the municipality lie entirely inside a federal seat? JuntungWu 06:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • The state and federal boundaries are totally seperate. They don't relate to each other at all. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • have noted that it is in the federal electorate of Lowe. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • OK, I've added a synopsis of how the 3-tiered system of govt. in Australia works. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Okay I've crossed out (2). I've also created a stub on Alfred Tsang to remove a redlink. But there's still a lot of red links though. JuntungWu 09:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I know :-) That's what why Wikipedia:Wikiproject Sydney was formed! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I'm going to object to this, really because of one misgiving: way too large a proportion of this page is about the recent mayoral scandal, and the information about this scandal is not really integrated into the local politics section. We don't find out how this relates to local politics more generally, what party Alfred Tsang is from, etc. Another thing that worries me, though it plays no part in my objection, is how we decide what information belongs in the Municipality information and what belongs in the suburb of Strathfield.--XmarkX 13:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Hoooold on a second! How is the former mayor of Strathfield Council stepping down because of corruption allegations not a part of the local policitical scene? However, I understand your concerns of dividing the information between the suburb of Strathfield with the Municipality of Strathfield. It's confusing, I know, but the information I have added to this article has to do with Muncipality as a whole, and information that has to do with just the suburb will later be added to the Strathfield article. That's why I got rid of the redirect and added a substub as a place holder for the meantime. Any suggestions of how to seperate this in a clearer fashion would be highly appreciated! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • it's not that it's not local politics - it's just this page doesn't tell me anything about the local politically scene that is the backdrop to the scandal, which is what I would want to know from this article. Instead it just recaps information I have heard umpteen times from every Australian news source--XmarkX 05:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I've attempted to update this with a bit of background information. Does this look good? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The local politics in that local neighbourhood is probably not very notable beyond that scandal . Just a view. JuntungWu 06:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I would agree. There is no policitical system just for that neighbourhood. Incidently, I live in Strathfield :-) I should know. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Hmmm... I think I misunderstood you. Some of it was interesting. I added info that detailed how developers gave money to the Labor party to get them into power. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Minor objection, though maybe it's just my unfamiliarity with Australian political entities. I found it very confusing to figure out how the 'suburbs' fit into the municipality. Maybe a close-up map showing the boundaries of the suburbs would help. --SPUI (talk) 13:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah... that could be... interesting. I can't find public domain images that can do this, and I'm no good at map drawing! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cascading Style Sheets

I was pleasantly surprised to find this much information on CSS here, and thought it looked like a featured article. grendel|khan 18:41, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

• Object. Not ready for featured status. Has no lead section, no images (yes I think these are possibly for this article), and about a quarter of the article consists of external links, many of which are duplicate or irrelevant. The article should also be clear on whether it is an article about CSS or an article for people who want to use it. There are various more smaller problems which I will not dicuss here now; I suggest to move this article Wikipedia:Peer Review before coming back here. Jeronimo 19:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review. In addition to Jeronimo's points: I think the article should include more info on the content of the CSS(2) specifications. Also, keywords are mentioned but not explained ('aural', 'paged'). Content is duplicated (e.g. the part about the nature of CSS2.1 is found in both the 'Difficulty with adoption' and 'Recommendations' sections). The distinction (if any) between 'recommendation' and 'specification' is not clear. The important issue of accessibility is touched upon only in tutorial style. — mark ✎ 00:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• agree with everything said so far. Object its not yet ready for FA status. I would also like to point out theres nothing on the CSS 3.0 standard proposal and what its going to break/fix.  ALKIVAR™ 01:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review - lead section too short. Not enough about incompatiblities (yes, I realise there are external links, but this should be noted in the article text itself) we have an article Internet Explorer box model bug for instance, User:WapCaplet noted in the talk page that "stylesheets were originally envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee in about 1994, and how they progressed over time to become a standard" and that there should be "some mention of the difficulties in getting the standards widely accepted and used in practice, and particularly in getting browsers to implement them". No information about the differences between CSS1, CSS2 and CSS3. More information about sites like CSS ZenGarden might be nice also. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Some discussion of advanced CSS syntax, like a[href ^="http://"]. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 05:59, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

[edit] Geography of Canada

I am nominating this article because I believe it is well written, and is one of the more exemplory articles on Wikipedia. --Spinboy 23:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um, do you realize that this is for featured article status and not for the collaboration of the week? If yes, then I will have to oppose as this article is not yet ready for even an average article yet. (At least get rid of the "Unorganized Content" sub-header. Earl Andrew 23:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object, for the following reasons:

• No references.
• Figures that are subject to change are undated (Human geography).
• Weird, empty "See also" section.
• "Geography - note: During the Cold War Canada had a strategic location between Russia and US via the north polar route." Ummm, as far as I know did the tectonic forces of the Earth not move Canada to a different location since the end of the Cold War.
• Wikilinks in section headers are a no-no.
• (This might just be me being unfamiliar with geographic articles, but) I find it strange to see a list of treaties in an geography article. Treaties are signed by a political entity (i.e. the government), not by the rocks, lakes and sand of a country.
• A section called "Unorganized Content" in a Featured Article? I think not.

--Plek 23:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object This is a good start for an article. Fill it full of information, organize it, and then resubmit it. -Jun-Dai 00:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object - It just ain't ready yet. -Lommer | ^talk 00:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object, with the same objections as the others. Also: no pictures. Go to Wikipedia:Peer review first. Jeronimo 07:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object Lacking both in content (the sections, while linking to theorically more complete articles, need to be develloped, what about the Badlands, what about the Torngat Mountains?) and organisation (Natural ressource includes lots of economic material). I must say there has been much improvement since being CCOTW, though. --Circeus 03:01, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tsunami

A good, long-scale history; a few choice images, including an excellent hand-drawn cartoon schematic of the process; a well-balanced and -linked TOC and descriptive text. It might be improved by a MediaWiki timeline, more thorough discussion of methods for detection, and further anecdotes about specific tsunamis and their effects; but I think it is already feature-quality. +sj + 07:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) References consist of only 1 article? Expand - likely some external links were used as references and are not notes as such. 2) Merge sections: 'Past tsunamis', 'Other historical tsunamis' and 'North American and Caribbean tsunamis' 3) Not an object, just a comment: the article is constantly vandalised. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I share Piotrus's concerns 1) and 2). Ad 1): Many of the external links seem to concern the 2004 tsunami specifically. Ad 2): I would suggest to merged virtually all content into prose; no subsections would be needed. This should only contain the most relevant events, all others should be moved to a list outside of the article. A table with the 10 most devastating tsunamis might be interesting to add to that section. Jeronimo 21:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diana, Princess of Wales

This is _not_ a self nomination (Although I tweaked and did some minor work on it). I came across the article whilst looking for articles on Humantarian workers to put in the Humantarian category after I started Geraldine Cox (I hope you get that). Anyway, This article looks comprehensive, has the depth of her life and so forth. I thought it make be a good FA. I think that this FAC is simply straight foward, no explanation needed. Squash 07:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support, but I'd like to see a bit more of her humanitarian work mentioned in the lead section. Mgm|^(talk) 08:19, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not a bad article overall, I even contributed the bit about the underpass being an accident black spot, but I am not in favour of it being a featured article unless 2 issues are addressed. Firstly, get rid of the astrological stuff at the end. Secondly, it claims that Prince Harry had a stillborn twin, this may be true but it's the first I've heard of this, this needs to be either sourced or removed.

PatGallacher 13:33, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

• • Astrology gone - Done (It was already removed)
  • Yes. That part I never heard of either: "On the same day as Prince Harry was born, the Princess gave birth to a stillborn baby girl, which led to the speculation that Prince Charles wanted a baby girl rather than a boy." is removed Squash 20:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object"On the same day as Prince Harry was born, the Princess gave birth to a stillborn baby girl, which led to the speculation that Prince Charles wanted a baby girl rather than a boy" this is complete rubbish! Solar eclipses aside there is far too much speculation and unproven "facts" Incidentally it was the late Queen Mother who found her at the bottom of the stairs not her mother-in-law! Half this page seems to be "servant's gossip" and idle speculation! Wikipedia and the Princess deserve better. Giano 14:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • All issues addressed. See above Squash 20:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These ridiculous statements are all still there - the page is garbage!Giano 21:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. A section about astrology? I don't think so. Seriously, this needs cleanup, NPOV checking and copy-editingPhils 18:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Astrology section gone - Done Squash 20:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1) Top image has no credits, others have "looks like fair use". Very dubious. 2) Article seems a bit disbalanced. We get more text about her death than her life, and almost nothing about her early life. She is listed as one of the most famous celebrities, but this is hardly discussed. 3) The lead section suddenly cuts off at "She is". 4) There are no references, although some links are given in the text. 5) In the "Legacy", we get some seemingly random bits of information, which are not all very relevant. Also, there is more on NBC showing tapes than about Diana's early life. 6) The article is full of non-qualified quotes and vagueness. "It has been suggested", "led to the speculation", "Perhaps". Tell us who said or wrote this, and where. Jeronimo 21:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Giano, the ridiculous statements aren't so much still there as they keep being again there. The astrology stuff has been lifted verbatim from Omen, where it was inserted 17 Jan (rendering a previously respectable stub ridiculous) by the same anon who then went on to insert it into Diana, Princess of Wales on 19 Jan. Since then it has been removed from "Diana" several times and each time promptly and sneakily reinserted by another IP. By a curious coincidence, perhaps amounting to an omen, these anons both have vandalism warnings on their talk pages. Something tells me (I can feel psychic powers coming on) that "Diana" hasn't seen the last of the astrology stuff! Bishonen | Talk 21:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object, if only because the page is a magnet for vandalism (check out the History tab). I know that's not "actionable", but it is part of the FA criteria that an article be "stable". Incidentally, I don't know whether to ascribe the reckless over-wikification to vandalism or to somebody's unfortunate idea of helping Wikipedia. Check out the crapload of links in the lead section alone: along with a small number of relevant links, these concepts are also linked: wife, mother, throne, marriage, death, car, accident, Paris, photograph, icon, and celebrity. All within in a few short sentences! (Go on, look at the articles they lead to, it's ridiculous.) Bishonen | Talk 09:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--

Most of the problems listed above have now been fixed. Is there a way to re-nominate the article? (self-nom). Hic 17:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Hic, it says how at the top of WP:FAC. I'll take my best shot at doing it for you, but I warn you I may mess up! --Bishonen | Talk 18:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

While this article was still in progress, it had already won acclaim from multiple news agencies (e.g., theUK Guardian, the ed-tech Insider). It managed to be npov despite a flood of potential scammers and conspiracy theorists, and remains more comprehensive than any other freely available overview of the subject. Well written, well illustrated, well linked to other projects [wikinews, commons] and to external news and multimedia. A model news-feature article. +sj+ 08:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jan 6 FAC discussion 

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/Archive 1

• Object. Still too soon: the situation is still changing far too quickly for us to go over this and get in into FA shape. There's no end of rewriting, copyediting, updating and pruning to be done. Mark¹ 06:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "No end" seems to sum up your feelings on the matter ;) FA's aren't perfect. No articles are. They're just brilliant, model articles. This one happens to be a brilliantly-written model of a news-related article-in-progress, covering changes in an ongoing situation, changing news sources, and changing statistics. This article is already FA quality even before you personally have time to give it a final writing/copyediting/pruning rub-down. I can't wait to see it improve. +sj + 06:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I was rather hoping that someone else would give it an overhaul. My own contributions have been minimal, while Curps and Banyantree especially have the background knowledge to do the job much better. Why can't you wait? ("No end" was a rhetorical flourish). At a minimum, the references to online news sources which we know will disappear need to be replaced with more durable ones; given the number of people who have contributed, including probably many subtle vandals and the plain ill-informed, we need to do a thorough fact-check and referencing; the external links need to be checked and severely pruned to eliminate duplication, and they need to be annotated so that users can tell the difference between them. This is still very much a work in progress. Mark¹ 05:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support I think it's been enough time. Tuf-Kat 06:45, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I read the whole thing and I'm very impressed. Has all the qualities and FA should have. I've also never seen such extensive use of inline references ; it looks like the whole article is fully referenced this way. Anybody objecting based on newness of the event need only look at the page history for this article to see that further development has settled down a great deal (most of the edits are vandalism and reverts of that vandalism). A great example of why Wikipedia is so much better than the competition. It is just sad, that it takes something like this to prove this fact. -07:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object until the external links are coalesced into references appropriately. Johnleemk | Talk 08:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Inline references are a perfectly valid way of referencing. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article. "Include references by extensive use of inline references and/or by including a ==References== section." --mav
    • No, they really aren't. For instance, let's say that we point to an online article by the Sydney Morning Herald. Three months later, they archive the story. Say goodbye to the reference! This is why they need to be placed into a references section. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The difference escapes me. Explain? In a references section, the link will still be dead. +sj + 06:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Was this directed at me? Your indent doesn't make it clear... anyway, I'll respond. The link may still be there, but the references section is meant to give you: a) the author b) the title c) the publication and d) the year. An inline link can't provide any of these things. We can always look at the archives if the link dies - I know that for a publication like the SMH that the State Library of NSW keeps copies we can lookup. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Whoops, didn't notice them. I see them so often, they just seem to fade into the background for me. Johnleemk | Talk 09:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Supported before, I'll support again. I've often referred to this article for updates on the casualty figures and such. It's excellent work, and a great example of what Wikipedians can do. Everyking 08:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object - poor references. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
  • You must be joking. Every section has at least several inline references. --mav
    • Uh, and yet: no references section! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • You very conveniently changed that criteria after the fact. --mav
        • I think that has been accepted as a recommended practice for a while now. I certainly agree the inline citations need to be collected somewhere. As noted above though, perhaps inline citations to one specific fact may be better suited to a 'Notes' section, and those sources used and suitable for a general reference for the article are better for the references section. I could be off base though. Object though until the inline citations are collected somewhere is useful form that shows they are used to cite facts. Overall though, appears fantastically well done. With the previous issue fixed, I would be comfortable supporting as a FA now and then if it degrades as new information become available, removing it from being featured then. - Taxman 21:57, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
          • I think that every article, even ones that have inline references, should include a separate reference section at the bottom of the article as well. Also, it won't hurt anything to have both at the bottom. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 05:13, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
            • Agreed. - Taxman 22:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Should have been promoted last time, jguk 15:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support - excellent piece of work Brookie 16:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support - though the stand-alone sentences in "Humanitarian, economic and environmental impact" should be consolidated into paragraphs or moved to the relevant country impact page. Otherwise, a remarkable article. An account of the development of this article would be fascinating. - BanyanTree 02:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object The article is excellent I have nothing against that. But it's the other bits that makes me object. 1) The number of deaths is still not even near complete, We _could_ make it a FA but then we must regret not accurately showing the disaster to its completion - only a near completion 2) Yhe article was a "In the news" article for like a week or something, why do we need to make it a FA? 3) Not even one reference, for an article of this size that is unbelievable 4) What about the rebuilding after the Tsunami? It only talks about humanitarian aid, but nothing about the actual use of the money to rebuild. Probably due to that this FAC is still too early for information of that kind to be put in. 5) [5] Still a article for target of vandals - but this might not be a valid reason. I am only pointing out it out Squash 07:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The vandalism is relevant in that it's stopping us from giving the article a good, cold-eyed overhaul. That would make it much tighter, and much better. Mark¹ 07:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object Its still too soon to give FA status to this article. It is undoubtably an excellent article, but several major events still have to take place - pledges being met, reconstruction, after the media leaves, etc. I think April at the earliest for promotion. Also I think that some more sections chould possibly be made into their own articles - the page currently carries the warning WARNING: This page is 44 kilobytes long. Please consider condensing the page and moving the detail to another article so it is not approaching or in excess of 32KB. CGorman 21:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Inline references are fine for the time being, although as more scholarly treatments get published they should be mentioned in a references section. --Michael Snow 01:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A superb job, and worthy of featuring despite analysis yet to come. Denni☯ 03:00, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
• Object. References need to be collected in a references or notes seection. - Taxman 22:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This was in the news for quite a while not long ago. Putting it back on the front page so soon gives the impression that there's only a small handful of articles worth being there - few enough that we have to repeat very often. I'm not saying the article isn't of the quality of a featured article, it just doesn't make sense to put it back on the main page right now. LizardWizard 22:53, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid objection to featuring the article. Mark¹ 04:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. And besides, being a FA and being on the main page are two different things. - Taxman 19:11, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The objections seem to be
  • "it is too early" - but it is over 6 weeks later, and no longer a "front page" news story;
  • "it is not comprehensive" - but it presents all that is known (it is certainly much more comprehensive than it was on 6 January);
  • "it has inadequate references" - references are scattered throughout; true, they could also be collected in one place, like H II region, but they are good enough for me;
  • "it is too long" - being over 32k is undesirable, but it has not stopped articles being Featured in the past. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object First I want to thank the vast contributions that have and are occuring on this important article, but to be honest it is not a feature, to be self-centered, I first posted this this message on Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, then after no response I posted this question (same question) on the talk page of Talk:Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and still I have found no reason why this has not been added; this added that I am refering to is, what is the status of the Indigenous Tribes? CBS News... I am curios and I am sure others would like to know what is going on... can someone please tell me why this has not been addressed? (Below is an part copy of info...)

AP article:

Government officials and anthropologists believe that ancient knowledge of the movement of wind, sea and birds may have saved the five indigenous tribes on the Indian archipelago of Andaman and Nicobar islands from the tsunami

...

only about 400 to 1,000 members alive today from the Great Andamanese, Onges, Jarawas, Sentinelese and Shompens. Some anthropological DNA studies indicate the generations may have spanned back 70,000 years

...

Thanks, PEACE ~ RoboAction 08:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

see Effect_of_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_on_India#Andaman_and_Nicobar. If it is inadequate, you are welcome to add more info on it. pamri 08:59, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Support This article has become famous and desperately needs to be a featured article BMWman

[edit] Computer Mouse

An extremely thorough article I stumbled upon.--Etaonish 22:39, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very good article. 137.122.50.133 23:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. That is impressive. --L33tminion | (talk) 02:30, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose too many mistakes, has no mention of the CORRECT original "laser" mice, which have been around since the 1980s, and were used through the 1990s by SUN and various other unix workstations. These were the type with the aluminum mousepads with the grid on them. These mice were not functional on anything else. Not to mention the laser mice section is a short 2 sentances. No mention of the "2 footed" mice which were available during the 90's. Merely a brief mention of "trackballs". Nothing on track points and touch pads which are "pointing devices" and incorrectly labelled as mice. Still too much content missing for me to support this, perhaps another time.  ALKIVAR™ 06:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review not enough references for the volume of writing here, and also there doesn't appear to be anything over how Apple consistently refused to make their mice with more than one mouse button for many years (I'm an idiot), also the "hockey-puck mouse" (possibly the most stupid design decision Apple have ever made) isn't covered. Also there is nothing on the "click-and-a-half" mouse feature that was in OS 9. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • More opposition: the "history" section has non-historical material in it! Needs a total restructure. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not the finest writing. Some sentences are so contorted as to be almost incomprehensible. For example, "On the other hand, supporters of — or otherwise people feeling comfortable with — mechanical mice claim that optical mice can be totally unreliable or even useless on some surfaces, which was true for the earlier models of optical mice and even some present-day models, which have trouble working on mousepads that are too glossy and some specific surfaces (especially transparent ones)." Huh? GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 03:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Giver

Self-nomination. I think this book is worth a hefty article, and I've put some time into making the article a good one. It sat on Peer Review for a while, and I believe the pertinent comments have been addressed. At the very least, pushing the article this far may get somebody else working on it, and I'd like to see that.

Anville 02:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object It's a good piece on the book, but there's at least one critical piece missing: Why is this book relevant? (i.e., why does it exist as an encyclopedia article?). Certainly we have a lot of articles on works that aren't necessarily all that relevant, but I'd think that for it to become a featured article, it is necessary that that question be addressed. Currently, the entry reads like a book review, not an encyclopedia entry, and it doesn't really exemplify the wikipedia's best work. Jun-Dai 03:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Jun-Dai. It's almost there, and it does describe some of the effects the book has on future work, but it's influence and cultural and historical significance need to be more clear. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:19, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I also agree that it is a very good piece. and I agree with Jun-Dai, in his comment that it is lacking a bit in the relevance. However, all it really needs is some information on how it is a recommended piece for use in many First World English Language Arts programs at the grades seven through nine levels, and the glowing endorsements that can be obtained from many educational organizations. Hunt them out. Notability and relevance is also partially achieved through the Newberry and other awards this book has won, but comonality of vigorously supported praise by educators should likely tip the balance. It should be noted that schools no longer value just the 3 R's, but place a larger scope emphasis on creating critical, responsible, socially conscientious adults. I hope this helps. Weaponofmassinstruction 01:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Titor

A well written, complete, very neutral article about a very interesting possible time traveler. Swhawking 03:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references. Extensive quotes and claims of his writings with no citations. Untagged images. 119 03:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Funny topic, but quite good. I hope "John Titor" reads the article. Everyking 04:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Regrettably object. Excellent article, but hampered by insufficient references. I added some, but at the very least, we need Robert Brown's criticisms as a source, and they are no longer available. Johnleemk | Talk 08:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I come from later this month in the year 2005, and it eventually gets enough votes anyway. So you might as well let it be. Superking 18:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Superking, they'll develop time travel later this month? w00t. --mathx314 22:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object The article needs significant reworking to be NPOV, grammatically correct, and better written. Jun-Dai 01:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Quite good, but still not NPOV. I hope that someone addresses the inconsistencies and ambiguities in Titor's quotes as well. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:29, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Awful, trivial, nonsensical, kookish, POV filled and unencyclopedic. Does anyone else think this should be deleted? I'm thinking of listing it on VFD.--Deglr6328 06:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support Brookie 16:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but as others say, it still needs work re: inconsistencies and too much direct quotage. --Vodex 21:28, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Fascinating topic, sufficient depth, but could do with some tidying up and more references. Don't just tell us the arguments for and against, tell us who made these arguments. Who are the main parties in this controversy? GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Interesting read, but too many weasel words and not NPOV. --mav 18:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Virginian Railway

This is very detailed, well-illustrated, and extensively referenced. Connects the past to the present well. A potentially very dry topic, the article is organized and written in a way that makes it a captivating story. I have three edits in the history, limited to VERY minor stuff, like removing nearby duplicate links, some dab work, standardized formatting/layout, and removing some puff words like "wonderful". Mostly the work of Vaoverland, who did a lot of work on Battle of Hampton Roads, which was recently a 'Today's Featured Article'. Niteowlneils 16:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Some of the images need to be tagged. Once that's done I will support, as the article is quite good. JYolkowski 00:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Wow - very nice. However, I was about to support but saw some fairly significant structural issues. While reading the first half of the ==Building the Virginian Railway== section I kept on thinking "why am I reading this - it doesn't seem too connected to the subject." Then I realized that the first half is detailed backstory. In fact it was not until the 8th subsection that I got to ===Virginian Railway born===. But that subsection and the ones following (which are very much so on topic) in ==Building the Virginian Railway== were less detailed than the first part (which is backstory; important, but not in such detail in this article). To fix this I suggest creating a daughter article (think of a good name), move all the content now in ==Building the Virginian Railway== to it, and leave a good-sized summary of that at Virginian Railway (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Also the ==End of steam: decline at servicing points== section only has one paragraph. Either this is an underdeveloped point that needs to be expanded, or pretty much all that needs to be said has been said and the paragraph should be merged into another, larger section. ===The VGN in the 21st century=== seems to be underdeveloped. One sentence paragraphs annoy me so I was tempted to combine some sentences, but realized that each was making a rather distinct point. This tells me that each sentence needs to be expanded a bit to become true paragraphs (each current sentence would make for a good topic sentence for those paragraphs). ===Preservation activity & gatherings=== has similar issues but due to large sentence length, these are not as pressing (but still important). Nice lead section, btw. --mav 06:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will be working on the revisions as suggested. They are fairly major, and to round out the article, we will need some new content, which is available. Perrhaps getting the article off of fac nomination to allow time to work on it is OK. It probably should have gone to WP-PR first, anyway. Vaoverland 23:51, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zhao Ziyang

I feel the article is well written and the person seems to deserve a page on the main page, not now (because of the news of his death) but later. -- Sundar 10:35, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• This paragraph needs copyediting: "In Hong Kong, 10,000-15,000 people went to the candlelight vigil of Zhao. The mainlanders such as Chen Juoyi said that it was illegal for any Hong Kong legislators to join any farewell ceremony "because under the one country two system Hong Kong legislator cannot care anything about mainland." The statement caused a political storm in Hong Kong for three days after his speech. Szeto Wah, the chairman of The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China, said that it was not right for the Communists to depress the memorial ceremony. The twenty-four pan-democrat legislators went against the chairperson of the Legco, insisting that security be tightened at Tiananmen Square and at Zhao's house, and that the authorities try to prevent any public displays of grief." --Jiang 22:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what to make of an article which has only newspaper reports from the past month as references. Jeronimo 08:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nicely written and seems comprehensive - as far as I can tell after reading some press articles ovet the past few days. Printed references (books) would be nice, but the current online references are quite sufficient, if they are amended with info like 'retrieved on' and 'print edition name and date'. It would be nice to see this featured ASAP, if it is passed as a FA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I would support if Print or non-obituary/death-related news articles added as references, and that a few of the ones there are culled, or put in single entry (say "news reports on Ziyang's death (BBC) (Reuters) (CNN) (XNA) ).--ZayZayEM 15:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formula One

A well-researched, comprehensive, and well-documented article; partially a self-nom, though I'm not by any means its primary contributor. The issues raised at its last nomination in October 2004 have been corrected as follows:

1. Indiscriminate use of copyrighted F1 logo in series box - this has been removed.
2. Article deals too much with specifics and is biased toward present - history section has been thoroughly balanced; specific information has been moved to many of the other related articles (those listed at Template:Formula One).
3. "People" section is unhelpful - this has been removed in favor of a link to the List of Formula One people.
4. "Future of F1" should be discussed more broadly - now an entire section is devoted to this topic.

— Dan | Talk 03:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It's nearly there, but I still have to object. Good job on the improvements, though. As noted within the article, safety is still a major issue in F1 racing and yet it hasn't been addressed in the main article. Also, I would've expected a short mention of racing legends Ayrton Senna (because of his death) and Niki Lauda. Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Improvement over the previous version, but still several issues.

1. The lead section should be a bit longer and present a better summary.
2. The history section has seemingly random subsections.
3. Maybe (not sure) it is better to split out the history of the evolvement of the car to the "The cars" section.
4. Writing of the history section is not very fluent. One sentence paragraphs should be avoided; make it more of a story and less of a list of facts. There are also several facts that are too specific or irrelevant; For example, the disappearance of Prost and Arrows should be combined with the downsizing of the field from 40 in the early 1990s to the present number. 5) As MGM noted, Senna and Lauda should certainly not be left out of this article.
5. I miss a section on the popularity of the sport, the size of the fanbase, coverage in the media, etc. etc.
6. The "Future of..." section discusses the main issues, but is still too much a collection of individual news facts. Also, historical perspective is needed; the three issues of internationalization, rule changes and financial problems for small teams are not new. Instead of only mentioning the new rules, mention the old rules as well (e.g. changes in the qualifying format, and the reasons to do so). Leave out specifics unless they are very important.
7. Move all see alsos to a separate list below. If you must keep them in the sections, put them at the bottom, save for the "main article" of course. Most of these are also mentioned in the table at the top too.
8. A comparison with other and similar motorsport classes would be good for perspective. Especially the Europe (F1) vs. America (Indy) should be discussed. Jeronimo 12:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gymnopaedia

Article covers in a compact description pretty much of the links that in several epochs of Ancient Greece existed between Martial arts - Dance - Religion - Ceremony - Performance - Nudity - Education - Gender role - Competition.

Referenced through quotes from contemporary writers in Wikiquote: Wikiquote:Gymnopaedia.

Draws discreetly attention to the all-time favourite compositions of Erik Satie, named after the gymnopaedia (see gymnopédie)

--Francis Schonken 11:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object Although made out to be comprehensive, it looks only a bit longer than a stub to me, jguk 13:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Compact is bad. Expand greatly. Everyking 22:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object Far too short. Also lacks references. --mathx314 23:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Concur with other reviewers: article is not comprehensive, lacks references, and writing is poor at times (especially the lead reads like a loose collection of sentences). Jeronimo 08:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No way is this a featured article. It is not comprehensive at all. Far too compact, and has no references. If there is a connection between the surreal "3 Gymnopedies" and these Greek athletes perhaps it should be explained rather than "discreetly" hinted at. Giano 10:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object To short, way to short. The external links and sources section is longer than all of the article. Waerth 15:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review, for reasons itemized in all the votes above. A "refer" vote doesn't seem to be in use much, although it's suggested in the FAC instructions at the top of the page for just this kind of case (it seems to me). Raul, considering the specific objections made, you might possibly want to take the unanimous votes above as also implying "Refer to peer review". Bishonen | Talk 18:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review - same reasons as Bishonen. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Refer to peer review" will only have a chance of working if there's at least one editor who will respond to any comments left. If Francis Schonken, or anyone else who wishes to contribute to the article wants to put it on WP:PR, that would be great. But we shouldn't refer it to peer review unless there is at least one volunteer! jguk 09:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• OK, volunteering --Francis Schonken 08:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• According to policy, we should. Jguk, if you disagree with the FAC instructions, maybe you want to go edit them, or take it to the talk page? Bishonen | Talk 10:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-> See Wikipedia:Peer review/Gymnopaedia/archive1

[edit] Washington gubernatorial election, 2004

I think this is an interesting, well illustrated, and very factual article with good tables and photographs about the closest gubernatorial race in US history. I would like to see it as a FAC! Páll 02:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. An interesting circumstance and a well-crafted article, but IMO of little interest to readers outside the US. I know this is not an actionable concern, but it is a concern for me nonetheless. Denni☯ 03:36, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you came to that assessment, seeing as I'm from outside of the US and it interested me. Páll 03:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

International interest isn't a criterion of Featured articles. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 03:51, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 03:51, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Carrp 03:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

May I ask why you oppose? it is customary to justify an oppose or a support statement. Páll 03:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My opposition is based on the fact that there is still a pending legal challenge. I prefer that Featured Articles not be based on ongoing events. I agree with everything you stated about the article ("...interesting, well illustrated, and very factual article with good tables and photographs..."), and will support for FA once the legal challenge has been decided. Carrp 04:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not complete, and I gather will not be so for several months. Mark¹ 05:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm very confused by the remarks that we cannot have a featured article on a story that is "incomplete" because ongoing. So can we never have a featured article on (for example) a living person, or the history of an existing country? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:23, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • In any election article the crucial pieces of information concern who won and who lost. In the case of the Washington gubernatorial election, 2004, there is still a legal challenge pending. Thus, it is not yet possible to answer the question "Who won?". Without knowing the final result, an election article isn't complete. I would also vote against making an article such as Super Bowl XXXIX a featured article until the result is complete. Carrp 18:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. In addition to the problems raised above, the article needs some work. Non-Americans (like me) will not all be familiar with the primary system, so it may be a good idea to explain it briefly. The sections on the primaries themselves are brief, especially the Libertarian one. If little is to be said, make them less promiment (no need to subsection sections of a few lines) (And who or what is "Mike the Mover"?"). Jeronimo 08:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Mike is a libertarian political gadfly, and that is legally his name. He changed it before he first ran for office, because he was better known by what it said on his truck. I won't go on here, but he probably deserves an article... -- Jmabel | Talk 18:23, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Article is already quite a bit behind on the legal challenges raised to the election. I agree with Jeronimo that the structure of the sections on the primaries is disruptive to the flow of the article. --Michael Snow 21:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Looks fairly comprehensive and well referenced to me, but as I know very little about the subject I will wait with interest to see how Jeronomo and possible other factual objections (if any)are adressed. I don't mind if it is ongoing event or not , and international interest is not any criteria I heard about. Also, most terms used in the article seem to be explained or ilinked. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gangtok

A self nomination, since I am the sole author of the page. After visiting the town of Gangtok recently, I was charmed by this quaint town and decided to write all about it. Lots of images (my own) and meaty content, plus a plethora of links. It’s a comprehensive article and I've tried to touch on all points. I also ran it through Peer Review without any negative comments. Adhered to almost all Wikipedia MoS. Nichalp 19:05, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Exemplary city page. [jon] [talk] 20:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Im not objecting - but im a little concerned about having a FA with only one contributor, I feel that all FA's require several contributors to ensure a higher level of accuracy and absolutely no POV. I know that this is not a real grounds for objecting - this is undoubtably a well written article - but im not lending my support unless there is significant editing by others. CGorman 21:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • My Btreive article got to featured article status and I was the main contributor (with a few people chipping in to fixup grammar, etc). Same with Common Unix Printing System. I don't think it's a problem! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I did keep the article open for almost a fortnight and publicised it in many places including PR, but unfortunately no one edited the page. Nichalp
    • Fair enough you tried to get others to edit - but the fact remains it is your sole work. As a result, as others have pointed out the article - while informative and interesting - is tilted in POV. CGorman 21:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • If you could give me give instances of a POV, I'll try and soothe things up. Would the sections till Culture be an NPOV? Nichalp 20:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. While I do not dislike most of the content or even the subject, I feel that it is poorly written, more in the style of a travel guide instead of a factual encyclopaedia article. Furthermore, the article uses bizarre and arcane language, for example using "appellation" instead of name. IF the language can be cleaned up and the travel-guide like references can be rewritten, I would be happy to support. Páll 03:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

**Exactly what is so bizzare with the language? Appellation is also used in the India article which is a FA. I believe that simple wikipedia was created to address this issue so that the level of English can be of a higher quality on the English wikipedia. My take on this issue is if a word cannot be understood, consult a lexicon (or simple wiki) Nichalp 19:47, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Made major changes. Nichalp

• Oppose - agree it sounds like a travel brochure. And it is wordy - in the first paragraph alone we have 'salubrious', 'cynosure' and 'sybaritic'. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 03:22, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see the above point. Nichalp
    • There is a difference between using uncommon words because you must and using them because you can. Example:

A research team proceeded toward the apex of a natural geological protuberance, the purpose of their expedition being the procurement of a sample of fluid hydride of oxygen in a large vessel, the exact size of which was unspecified. One member of the team precipitently descended, sustaining severe fractional damage to the upper cranial portion of the anatomical structure. Subsequently the second member of the team performed a self rotation translation oriented in the direction taken by the first team member.

Translation: Jack and Jill went up a hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down and broke his crown, and Jill came tumbling after.

So what is the added value of appellation over name? Of cynosure over focal point? --Calton 02:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • • I've tempered most of the sections till culture. Nichalp 20:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Very excellently written and makes great use of illustrations. However, it is overly POV. Makes huge claims, especially in the introduction, that can't and aren't proven in the article. Masterhomer 04:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you be kind enough to guide me to areas which you find to be a POV?
    • Speaking for myself, ... its underlying zeitgeist in the first graf is pretty POV. --Calton 02:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Changed the first two paras. I hope that upto the Culture section it is sanitised. If you have any more POV please list it. Nichalp 20:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Commment/abstain. Fairly good, but not yet up to FA standard, as others noted. What comes to mind - it would fit very well to Wikitravel, where it would be much welcome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Minor Opposition This article is clearly off on a good foot, but it needs more time and more contributors before it is ready to be a featured article. Phrases like "arriving here to discover Sikkim's exotic culture" really don't belong in an entry like this. We are not publishing a travel guide. At the moment it contains too much flowery language and too much pretentiousness ("Though Gangtok is a modern city, with its internet cafés, satellite channels, discothèques and bars, it preserves its underlying zeitgeist, blending the eclectic flavours of its rich cultural history with the contemporary."? Give me a break). The article needs some citations to other sources, particularly with regard to demographic information (e.g.: 18% Buddhist? According to whom?). Comment: A better map of the city (the current one looks like an attempt at solving the travelling salesman puzzle), or a bird's eye view, would be extremely helpful in getting a sense of the geographical layout of the city. Also, more emphasis on historical context and cultural considerations would make the article seem more balanced. Currently it still seems like the article is written to be helpful to a potential tourist, rather than someone doing research on, say, the municipalities of Sikkim.</Jun-Dai 21:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)>

  Pretty soon, I expect I'll be able to remove my opposition to the piece, but being unable to easily verify any of the information contained within the article, I can't give it my support, especially becaase there aren't enough significant content contributors to convince me that the wiki process has really taken place with regards to ensuring the article's veracity. Perhaps this weekend or so, I will be able to take a trip to the main library and do a little research to satisfy myself, since the main author of the article clearly wants it to be worth something, but without that, and in the absence of time (it's a very young article) and more input (particularly some from people who live in Sikkim would be nice), I don't feel comfortable giving it my vote.</Jun-Dai>

There aren't any clear online maps of the city available, so I traced it out from a Government website which had scanned a map. The map however was of a poor quality. I have listed a few websites, maybe that should start you off. As far as the population is concerned, it is in one of the reference books I have listed. Nichalp 18:39, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 17:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)> In that case, citing it should be easy. As for the map, that was just a comment, and not part of my opposition to the article. At any rate, I'm very impressed with the work that you've done, and I think that if enough time simply goes by, the article will get that little bit of maturity it needs to be supportable as a featured article. Even if it were resubmitted now, I think it would meet with much less opposition than it did this time around. </Jun-Dai>

• Oppose. Good start, but it looks like something I'd read in a Sunday newspaper travel section. Less tourism talk, more information talk. --Calton 02:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, looks like everone has a problem with the opening paragraphs. I've removed the offending phrases, please have a look. I have tried and sanitised upto the Culture section. I hope it is now all encyclopedic fact. I would be obliged if you could provide me specific instances of what needs to be corrected till this point. Nichalp 20:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
    

    

    I cannot tell where Gangtok is very clearly on this picture

I've made major changes to the structure, removed the poetry and "Brochure" sections and modelled a few heading content on Newark and Sarajevo. Please have a look. Nichalp 09:15, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment with picture. --ZayZayEM 08:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gangtok; being the state capital is the red dot. Nichalp 18:39, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say I couldn't find it. I said it wasn't very clear. A red dot and slightly more bold text really doesn't stand out in this picture with too many other distractions. This picture looks more like it draws attention to "Sikkim"--ZayZayEM 09:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 18:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)> That's a pretty good point. Being an article on Gangtok, there's no reason Gangtok shouldn't be larger and bolder and more clearly indicated on the map than the other locations. </Jun-Dai>

[edit] Photography of female nudes before 1923

This article is concise, beautiful, and well-written. Its name was recently changed from vintage erotica. Here is the discussion that led to the name change. Cranberry 17:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Quote from mentioned discussion: "True, 1923 is an arbitrary cutoff; the main reason for choosing it was that I could use any pictures from that era without causing a copyvio". This is a ridiculous reason to name an article, to which I object. If you make such a cutoff, it must at least 1) a fixed cutoff (not a moving one) and 2) have a good reason for the cutoff. Also, it is not necessary to have a photo of each year to write an article about, "black and white erotic photos". As for the article itself, it very much seems like an excuse to have nude photos. The text is brief and jumps from fact to fact. It appears to be far from complete, and seems to mention only a few names and situations. We do not get a good overview of the scale and size of female nude photography in said era, public opinion - only a few indications are mentioned. There is no discussion of the ties with related topics (male nude photography, female nude photography after the "magical" 1923 border, photography in general), and it is unclear why the article is so specific. Right now, it would not even be a proper addition to "Female nude photography". Jeronimo 07:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, there is certainly nothing keeping someone from writing Photography of male nudes or expanding this article to bring it up to the present, and renaming it Photography of female nudes. In fact, if both articles are written, they might even be combined into Nude photography. The current title was chosen in order to accurately described the content, but does not limit future expansion in any way. Like many Wikipedians, I simply chose to limit my writing to the area of my expertise, photography of female nudes before 1923, rather than include photography of male nudes, or modern-day nude photography, which I am not as familiar with, and could not as competently write about. Cranberry 17:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• ObjectI completely agree with the above. The whole approach seems ill thought out, as a reason to put these photos in an article. They are good images (except for the 4th, where the poor woman seems to have unfortunate posture) and I'm sure an article on the subject can be featured, but not as it is now.Giano 09:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a problem here Vintage erotica still exists as a seperate article with a cheerful looking lady who does not seen very vintage. Vintage erotica's talk page is the same as Photography of female nudes before 1923 I think someone's either confused or having a joke! I think also one should remember that this is an educational site that children visit too, and images should not be to grafic. Giano 14:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While I concur with Jeronimo's assessment, I would note that the images accompanying this article would be considered quite decent in most countries. By almost any Western standard, they are restrained and in good taste. Considering what children are exposed to on network television, I would not consider these "graphic". Denni☯ 01:06, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Sorry I phrased that badly. The images in both articles are completely tame and harmless, I meant care should be taken that such an article does not attract a more graphic type of image being uploaded.Giano 09:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It should be noted that one of the principal authors of this article (an anon, 205.217.105.2) just committed voter fraud on this very page by attempting to impersonate 172 and RickK. This same anonymous user went on to impersonate other users on several user talk pages. I don't mean to suggest impropriety, but is 205.217.105.2 the same user as User:Cranberry? In any event, I oppose this nomination, in agreement with Jeronimo above. -- Hadal 14:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object The article's title is arbitrary, and the topic isn't sufficiently developed. The fact that someone could write more about the topic and how it relates to other topics does not seem to me to be a good reason for featuring it. I'm not so concerned with the motives for writing the article (as others are), but it is simply much too underdeveloped for such a broad topic. Jun-Dai 01:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Bulgaria

Quite complete, well illustrated.

• Object. This is barely even a beginning to what we need on the history of Bulgaria. This should be a collection of summaries linking off to a variety of subarticles. Everyking 17:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I object to this objection. This article deals with the topic quite well. Subarticle would eventually be desirable, but are not required. Jeronimo 19:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. This objection is not actionable, and therefore invalid unless you can point to specific things this article needs to cover, but fails too. - Taxman 16:39, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not bad, but this lacks several essential items. 1) No references. 2) Lead section is actually part of the story. Should be replaced by a summary of the article in 2-3 paragraphs. 3) History starts in the 7th century AD. What about prehistory? Roman times? 4) Some of the images have no source and or copyright information. Jeronimo 19:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references and no lead (as Jeronimo noted). As I know little about Bulgarian history, what follows in not an object but a comment: this seems very short for a history of a 1000+ years old nation. The 'Bulgaria under Ottoman rule' section is rather small - 400 years compressed into four paragraphs, and the last 200 years take 2/3 of the article - was the earler Bulgarian history of so little importance compared to the lat 2 centuries? I think that atm no 'history of a country' article of Wiki is ready for FAC, so after references are added and lead is improved, treat my vote as 'abstain'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• The article was written from my own general knowledge and from other encyclopaedias. I am not a specialist in Bulgarian history but one doesn't need to be to write at this level of detail.
• Articles should be judged by what they are, not by what they are not. I chose to write a single narrative history of Bulgaria since the arrival of the Bulgars. If someone wants to write more detailed spin-off articles, they are welcome to do so.
• As the article makes clear, the Bulgarians did not arrive in Europe until the 7th century. There is therefore no history of Bulgaria prior to that time.
• The Bulgaria under Ottoman Rule section is fairly short because nothing much happened, as the article makes clear. That was one of the defining characteristics of Ottoman rule.
• People who admit they nothing about the subject will have to take my word for it that the article covers the salient points of Bulgarian history. The article is a good deal more comprehensive than many of the other national history articles at Wikipedia. I re-wrote this one because the previous article was so awful. You are welcome to try to improve it but you had better know what you are talking about.
• I no longer argue about images. Feel free to delete any you object to.

Adam 16:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adam, one of important the requirements of a featured article is that it has references. The article needs to be verifiable for readers and editors. Second, Bulgaria is a country, so there is a history of it before the arrival of the Bulgarians. Just as the USA had a history before the arrival of the Europeans. Finally, my objection will remain as long as there are images without sources in the article. I may indeed remove them as I like, but the idea of the images is that they're there to illustrate the text (which they do nicely). Removing them will certainly not improve the article. If you, as the editor, aren't interested in making the article a featured one, don't expect us to. Jeronimo 08:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On your three points. First, of course the piece of land now called Bulgaria has always existed. But since it wasn't inhabited by Bulgarians until the 7th century, before that time its history belongs in some other article (Roman Empire, Moesia, Thrace etc). "Bulgaria" is by definition the land of the Bulgarians, and that's what this article is about. Secondly, personally I don't care if the article is featured or not. I write articles as I see fit, and others then edit them as they see fit. If you want to remove the images, go ahead. If you don't, don't. Thirdly, as I have said many times, the credibility of any encyclopaedia article depends on the credibility of the encyclopaedia, not on how many footnotes it is festooned with. That's why there are no footnotes in the Britannica. Adam 09:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia is not Brittanica. Why should we strive for no better than what paper encyclopedias do? Wikipedia suffers from a percieved lack of reliability. References will go a long way toward eliminating that. Academic papers cite their sources for a reason, to ease in checking the facts in the article, and for intellectual honesty. If you don't feel like citing sources in the articles you write, then just say that, but don't act like Wikipedia wouldn't be better of if it did consistently cite sources in its articles. I'll avoid rehashing all of Talk:Art_in_Ancient_Greece#Lack of References, but those interested can read there. In any case, if you don't care if it is featured or not then no big deal. It just won't be without good use of references. - Taxman 16:39, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll go so far as to say that a Wikipedia article can never have any inherent credibility, because its accuracy is based on the honesty of the last (often anonymous or pseudonymous) person who edited it. Therefore, citations are more important in Wikipedia than in other encyclopedias. Whenever anyone raises the credibility objection with me, I always answer that they should simply double-check what they read here. The easier we make that, the more useful Wikipedia will be as a resource.

--P3d0 06:30, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Taxman. Also, Adam - if you don't want the article featured, and are not prepared to work for it, why did you nominate this? To waste my time? Jeronimo 07:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article seems to have been nominated by User:Kostja who seems to have abandoned it. Adam does not seem to be bothered if it's featured or not. Subsequently that seems to be the end of the matter. I added the first lot of "references" supplied, they were reverted (probably correctly) as useless, and no-one seems to want to add the second alternative references provided. I do see Adam's point, and I'm sure all his info is 100% reliable, but it also has to be seen to be 100% reliable. Giano 08:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My experience in the past has been then when articles I have written have been given "feastured status" they attract a swarm of vandals and I have to spend all my time reverting their efforts. I then incur the wrath of the Politburo for breaking their silly 3R rule. Adam 03:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• The Bulgars arrived in Bulgaria in the 7th century. In Europe they arived perhaps as early the 3rd century. Kostja 19:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not according to any sources I have seen. It depends on how you define "Europe." They may have been somewhere west of the Urals, but they weren't within the zone of European civilisation as it then existed. Adam 02:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object but would quickly change to Support if: The lead is rewritten to summarise the page more broadly. References need to be provided (if only for further reading), if encyclopedias were used - fine, name them. At 40KB the article is quite long enough, some people (not me)may winge about the length as it is, to write a detailed history of any country in this space is always going to have to exclude something others consider relevant. As it is it seems salient,to the point and up to date. Giano 19:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lack of references, a basic featured article criteria. Oops, forgot to mention, very well written, so the lack of valid references is unfortunate. It is much harder to successfully and correctly add references after the fact than it is to do it while writing. - Taxman 16:39, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

The sum total of the rerefences for this article would have been:

• The author's personal knowledge (based on 30 years of reading European history)
• Encyclopedia Brittanica
• Collier's Encyclopedia
• Funk & Wagnall's Encyclopedia

Anyone is free to add that if they think it will add to the credibility of the article or of Wikipedia. Personally I don't. Also it amounts to signing the article which I believe is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Adam 16:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Its now referenced. Stop being chippy and give your work the deserving shove it's worth Giano 21:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seems its now not referenced again. Adam can you not just give a little here and conform? - a little? Giano 21:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? Those are the references I used. I can't make up references out of thin air. Everyking is right that they add nothing of value to the article, which is why he (not I) deleted them. Adam 02:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, here are some standard histories of Bulgaria, from the National Libriary of Australia catalogue. They can be added as further reading rather than references, since they were not used (by me at any rate) as references for writing this article:

• Balkans : a history of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Rumania, Turkey / by Nevill Forbes ... [et al.]. 1915.
• History of Bulgaria / Hristo Hristov ; [translated from the Bulgarian, Stefan Kostov ; editor, Dimiter Markovski]. Khristov, Khristo Angelov,. c1985.
• History of Bulgaria, 1393-1885 / [by] Mercia Macdermott. MacDermott, Mercia, 1927- [1962].
• Concise history of Bulgaria / R.J. Crampton. Crampton, R. J. 1997.
• Short history of Bulgaria / [by] D. Kossev, H. Hristov [and] D. Angelov ; [Translated by Marguerite Alexieva and Nicolai Koledarov ; illustrated by Ivan Bogdanov [and] Vladislav Paskalev]. Kossev, D. 1963.
• Short history of Bulgaria / Nikolai Todorov ; [L. Dimitrova, translator]. Todorov, Nikolai, 1921- 1975.

Adam 02:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They don't need to have been used while creating the text, but they do need to be useful in confirming the content in the article. If this is the case, then list them as references. --mav 06:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since I haven't read them, I have no idea what they confirm. Adam 08:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pity! It would have been good to have seen it on the front page. Giano 09:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well then add those references/further reading to the article! ATM it still has bad lead and no refrences - I can see virtually NO improvement since it was listed here few days ago :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I think we mostly all agree this is a good article that needs better references. This discussion seems to have devolved from Featured Article issues to just plain Article. Shouldn't we move this talk to Talk:History of Bulgaria? We can resume this here after detailed references are cited and used, which will likely change the article. -- A D Monroe III 23:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article contains POV edits by Vmoro, who is attempting to hide the evidence that points to Peter Asen being a Vlach, Peter Asen being the founder of the Empire of the Vlachs and Bulgars. Decius 00:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bolt Thrower

This article displays a complete overview of the death metal band Bolt Thrower.

Selfnomination.

Spearhead 09:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• It's good, I like it, although I'm not sure it's quite ready for featured status. Looks like there are a few things that could be reworded and refined. I'd love to see an article like this on the main page, though. Everyking 18:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Uh, hi. If you don't provide a bit more detail on what you think is deficient, there is nothing the nominator can do to fix the article. - Taxman 03:39, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm not a thrash metal fan. If I'm gonna read an article on a thrash band, I need some kinda hook to grab my interest. The tabletop angle sounds interesting; it needs to be treated more thoroughly. Is an interest in tabletop gaming common in hardcore bands? If not, that makes them unique; say so. If yes, do Bolt Thrower take it further? We need more specifics about how, if at all, the gaming thing makes their lyrics/music stand out from other bands of the same genre. It's interesting that they're not just fanboys, but they've actually had Games Workshop sponsorship. That should be in the introduction. Does GW do that kind of thing commonly, or was this a unique deal? Other than that, all I'll say is that the prose could use some polishing in places.

I made this a bit more clear. Altho for a music article the musical interest should be the main interest. I do acknowledge tho that some ppl got into them because of the game. Spearhead 16:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) Needs sound sample(s) to hear what the band actually sounds like. 2) Needs a photo of the band itself. 3) No references (although some of the ext. links may qualify as such). 4) Needs a copyedit for style and POV (cite the source). Some samples: "They did not feel quite happy", "And now in 2004", "and also because his hair fell out", "sounds very much Bolt Thrower", "a bit more hardcorish", "the heaviest label ever at that time", "the band's quality can be heard in some songs", etc. 5) The article should give an idea of the following of the band (how large, how international, maybe some sales figures?) Also, citing some professional reviews might be useful. 6) The related bands section should be integrated in the article. If there were bands that influenced Bolt Thrower, mention them in article; same for bands that were influence by Bolt Thrower. 7) It seems a redundant to have a line-up section when all line-ups are mentioned in the history. Also, the band members should be linked when first mentioned. Jeronimo 07:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1) Added a link to one song 2) done 3) added BTFAQ as reference. added some books. 4) fixed most of the mentioned stuff plus some other. 5) record sales are pretty much irrelevant in this genre. 6) original influences mentioned. will improve this. Furthermore some bands are mentioned in see also as a sort of similar band 7) The lineup provides a clear overview of bandmembers and has some more detail, similar to the discography. band member *were* linked. Spearhead 16:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to look at the rest later on, but re 5): if sales are irrelevant for the genre, why does the article start out with "becoming one of the best selling bands on that label"? Anyway, my main point was to get a picture of the size and shape of the following of the band. Record sales *might* be a way to do so, but it's certainly not the only way (see above). I think this is essential for the article. Jeronimo 08:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it was one way to more or less satifisfy one of your objections. I might go on and discuss tours, venue size and ticket sale states etc.

• Object. No references, a basic featured article criterion. Please make sure the article you nominate meets all of the basic criteria before nominating it. That is simple courtesy to the editors you are asking to consider your article. - Taxman 14:07, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

• fixed Spearhead 17:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Adding references after the fact is potentially problematic. Can you confirm to what extent you used the listed references to add or verify material in the article? - Taxman 21:44, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Taxman, I'm a bit confused here. You asked for references, something our (relatively) new user was not really aware of. As you requested for his references, which he duly added (and he wrote most of the article) exactly what do you want him to do? This request sounds bloody unreasonable. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I expect exactly what I just requested, that he properly used them to add or confirm material in the article. The problem that others have correctly pointed out with references added to an article after the request for such has been made is that someone simply added a list of works about the subject and did not actually use them properly. So it is entirely reasonable to ask the editor to confirm that they did use them properly. And for the record, I did not "ask for references", I objected to this article being featured because it had none. - Taxman 16:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

• All right, but here's the thing: you did request them when you objected to having no references because all objections must be actionable. The very fact you object to no references is an implied request he adds them as he must act on most reasonable objections. I'm not arguing that your objection is unreasonable, I feel it's unreasonable to object to the references, then have the original author add them and then object that he added them! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't object that he added them. As stated a number of times already, I asked him to confirm to what extent he added them properly, which has, as of yet, not been done. It is a very important distinction. References added without being used are entirely unnaceptable, as has been pointed out to me by other authors numerous times. - Taxman 13:42, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

• object. I just fixed some bad wordings in the lead and the first section, but the whole article still needs work (examples: It seemed that they hardly knew what death metal would be -- who does the they refer to, The production of this piece was not great, though it was an improvement on previous attempt. -- pluralization, After Games Workshop heard the recording of the songs for Bolt Thrower's second Peel session, which was recorded on 6 November 1988, they offered Bolt Thrower to do the expensive artwork for the album, which the band accepted. -- bad link format, run-on sentence, ambiguous pronoun, poor English in "offered to do the expensive artwork"). There are POV problems as well, in the bald claim that Vinyl Solutions did not know what death metal "would be", in the claims about quality of production, about how ingenius some songs are -- these claims need to be attributed to one of the sources cited in the references section. The "related bands" section needs to go (if they're related, they should be in the body of the article with an explanation of how they're related). The see also section is unnecessary, since both links are already in the article. Needs sound samples (in the wiki, not in an external link). Tuf-Kat 22:16, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

considering Vinyl Solution; the statement is not so bold as it may seem. We're speaking of 1988 here and the first death metal album ever was released only in 1987. Moreover, as stated in the article, VS was a pure hardcore label. Spearhead 17:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another needed tweak: song titles go in quotes, and albums in italics. Tuf-Kat 00:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - we still need a copyedit. I started, but I'll continue. Most of the other things have been fixed up, and this is an interesting article. This is almost ready, I feel. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Berlin Wall

All around good article, and very interesting. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 09:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Dbiv 13:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object, I'm afraid. This 20:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Just one comment; should the see also section not refer to a few German history articles and articles dealing with the fall of European Communism - e.g. GDR border system, History of the German Democratic Republic, East Berlin, West Berlin etc. CGorman 21:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "See also" section is meant to list links not yet used in the article. East and West Berlin are already mentioned in the lead section. Jeronimo 20:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was just trying to give a few examples to illustate my point - perhaps GDR border system then. CGorman 21:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object sorry, but I'm missing to much background, see de:Berliner Mauer for a comparison Several statements are factually incorrect: 238 people died not 192, Günter Schabowski never announced that the Wall was open, the people just understood him this way. that "The construction of the wall came as a complete surprise to the western Allies" is at least questionable - they knew that something important was going to happen in Berlin. "Helmstedt" was never a crossing point in the Berlin Wall because it lies over a hundred miles away from it. -- Zeitgeist 01:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lead section definitely inadequate. I agree that it could use checking against the German Wikipedia article; even if we don't translate it outright, it's a pretty decent guide for what this article could potentially accomplish. --Michael Snow 22:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to translate, actually I was just to lazy to point out exactly what I was missing :-) For an example: All the English article has is: " "The construction of the wall came as a complete surprise to the western Allies" The German article has about ten paragraphs plus additional quotes from main actors about who knew (or guessed) what in advance and why. Also I'm missing some crucial information that for example 400 persons were still able to flee while the Wall was being build. -- Zeitgeist 14:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support I agree that it would benefit from more under the See Also section, such as earlier suggested by CGorman Vaoverland 08:41, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Could use more on the role of the wall in the Cold War. 172 02:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page table

Raul suggested I submit this Danny's contest winner to FAC, so here it is. It has nice diagrams and some good explanation of modern VM. (Self-nomination) Dysprosia 22:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Object - Initally I supported this nomination but what Taxman had to said are valid. I can't support a nomination that lacks many things especially explaning many of technical terms to the average reader (I know nothing about Page table). Squash 05:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1.) Innadequate references. 2.) The lead section doesn't even make an attempt to explain many technical terms to the average reader. Highly technical topics are fine as FA's, but most people feel the first paragraph of the lead section should be understandable to someone with almost no knowledge of the subject. Also the grammar in the lead section is very tortured, it could be made much more understandable if it was simplified. 3.) The rest of the article doesn't do much to make it easy for someone who doesn't already know the subject to understand it either. My favorite is "clearly, the first memory access, to address 0xfff0dabe would be invalid". Well clearly, of course. At least some link to or inline explanation of hex addresses would be needed to make that accessable to more readers. You don't have to spoon feed everything, but the article should at least consider that the reader is not already entirely knowledgeable about the subject and try to offer inline explanations for all overly technical terms. 4.) A lot of dodgy language, that needs to be clarified. I could copy examples here, but I'll just try to fix what I can and ask others to do the same. 5.) Needs a lot of 'See also' links to connect it with other related topics and to be put in the proper categories to aid the reader in finding related material. Hope that helps - Taxman 13:56, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Let me begin by saying it's not necessarily always a desirable effect for an article to contain assumed knowledge (for example, if I look up Spin (physics), and don't understand what it's saying, I wouldn't blame the article, but ensure I have knowledge of some basic physics first). Regardless, I have provided a lengthy overview of how computers use memory.
    • But the article needs to at least introduce and reiterate the basics very quickly. In some spots it does indeed need to contain the assumed knowledge and weave it in well. It doesn't need to cover it in volume though. Basically the article doesn't need all the background material but the reader shouldn't have to already know the subject of the article to understand it, as this article required when I made the above comments. The lead section though does need at least the first paragraph to contain almost no undefined terms and ease the uninitiated reader in. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

To address your first concern, if I make use of only one reference in an article, need I force myself to make use of more?

Ideally yes. It is very hard to believe one reference would validate all of the material in an article. That you know the material personally isn't good enough. Someone reading the article doesn't know you, but they can verify with references, and eventually Wikipedia can have articles that have been verified against their references. That can't even be started unless articles are well referenced to begin with. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

This is not feasible for me to do right now, unless I can cobble up some web references (does that count?) Dysprosia 00:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Reliable, well regarded online sources are acceptable as references. You just need to make sure you read through them and that the article is substantially confirmed by them. Then just format the external links used a references as at Wikipedia:Cite sources. Ideally any potentially contentious points should be cited directly to a source. - Taxman 14:55, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

To address your second concern, to briefly explain what a page table does, one needs to mention what a virtual address is, and that it is part of a virtual memory. If you can explain what a page table is without mentioning virtual addresses, by all means, please edit the article.

Of course it doesn't need to do that, and the lead section actually does explain virtual addresses well. The problem is the grammar is very hard to parse. Thats not good for a FA for someone who doesn't already know the subject. The subject is already complicated so the difficult grammar hurts the article a lot. Even worse is that after explaining virtual memory, the lead section does not even tell what a page table is. I'm not saying it is easy to write a great lead section for an article like this, but it can be done. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'll try and fix the language. Dysprosia 00:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To address your third concern, for someone who knows hex addresses (and most people in CS do), it then is clear that 4293974718 (0xffff0dabe) > 16777216 (0x1000000). Granted, there was no mention of the hexadecimal notation, which has been rectified.

To address your fourth concern, by all means explain what you find "dodgy language".

I'll see if I can put some time together to list it out here or on the talk page. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

To address your fifth concern, there are three see alsos (how many do you think is enough?). It also need not always be put into an existing category, but categories can be created. Dysprosia 00:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I put those see also's there to start to address my own concern. It needs more, both for general and specific context though. Yes it may require the proper categories to be made. Perhaps operating systems would work. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I hope this adequately addresses your concerns. Dysprosia 02:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but unfortunately this article has a way to go before it can be a FA. It's great material, it just needs what I have pointed out. The diagram for the lead section is great btw. That really helps with understanding the topic, but the text needs to do as well. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• • • Can I get an update or some further feedback on this objection, given the current changes I've made? Dysprosia 01:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Concur with Taxman. JuntungWu 11:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

I think this article is quite in depth and covers pretty much everything everything that has to do with TMNT quite thoroughly. --The_stuart 20:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Objection. As much as I fondly remember this show and would like to see this featured, there are serious problems: 1) no references - if external links were used, they should be formatted properly 2) no screenshots - how can an article about what was mostly a cartoon can have no screenshots? :( 3) Section 'Other information' is as horrible as the Trivia section you can see from time to time in BAD articles. This article has lots of info - but it is very badly structured. I think it should start with a section about show/related products history, had a section on the story development (preferably as a subarticle with spoiler warning), main characters and such, and end with a description of all related products (games, comics, stickers...etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• There really should be a picture of all four turtles in cartoon form at the top. I would say that's almost essential for this to be featured quality. Everyking 23:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object for same reasons as Piotrus. I'm almost tempted to object because of stereotypical and bad Japanese informations. Too often, one of the first thing I had to do to a person who loved this show was to tell them that he or she needs to forget about all Japanese informations they learned from watching this! Revth 09:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object for same reasons as Piotrus. In addition, little is said about the movie.--Etaonish 22:56, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, the "Other information" section definitely needs to be fixed (i.e. the various titbits of info organized properly within the main article).--Eloquence* 23:03, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Please look again I've started what I hope will be a major edit of this article, and I think it's much better already. --Ntg
  • It is better, but still falls short of FA requirements. In addition to my previous comments, the abundance of tiny 1 sentence/1-2 lines paragraph doesn't look good. Try to merge them into fewer bigger paragraphs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object. If each cartoon series gets its own section, so should the live action film series. Apart from that, and considering this is a "gateway" article to the general phenomenon, it's allright. I think a bit more could be said about the blatant straight-to-child marketing "hidden" TNMT, and it being a bit of pioneer in that particular industry (AFAIK).--ZayZayEM 07:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Monument

Extensive and comprehensive history of the monument. I have done one minor edit on it (so not really self nomination) . Deus Ex 19:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• mild Object: 1) references? 2) move the history section up and the statistics down. 3) The statistics don't really seem appropriate under the heading "The motivation for the monument". slambo 12:30, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with slambo. I liked the article and am prepared to revisit after those comments are addresses. Vaoverland 01:50, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Slambo. References are a basic FA requirement, so please don't nominate articles without them. - Taxman 14:42, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Previous reviewer have sound remarks; I'll add that the statistics/measurements would probably be better off in a table. Also, there appears to be little recent history. Maybe there not too many interesting events, but the 2004 renovation (mentioned in a photo title) is not mentioned in the text. Also, as I (as a non-American) associate Washington Monument as the site of a great anti-war demonstration in the 1960s. This might be relevent for the article as well. Jeronimo 19:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blitzkrieg

Informative lead. Fairly long article. Quite a few nice pictures. Terms nicely ilinked. References. External links. Nominating. Especially considering rather poor shape of other articles on military tactics/doctrines (or complete lack of thereof). Your thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This looks quite good, but I have a few points: 1) This article needs a good copyedit. In a first quick lookthrough I already spotted three or four spelling and typing errors. There are probably many more. Putting the text through a spell checker should reveal most of these errors. 2) The lead section says: "[blitzkrieg] has became a synonym for any quick and desicive military operation", but the article stops in 1945. Were the blitzkrieg tactics used and/or improved after 1945? If so, tell us about it, if not, adjust the lead. 3) The "Notable persons" seems quite unnecessary and too short to be a section on its own. Most of the persons in here are already mentioned; those who are not should perhaps be. 4) A few of the images have no copyright information or no source mentioned. Jeronimo 07:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it has all been adressed now. Please look again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. There are quite a few red links (including Category:Military doctrines!!!), and the article needs copyediting. Scare quotes around "volunteers" in the Spain section is POV. RickK 07:56, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • This may not be as flagrant as it looks, because Spanish Civil War uses "volunteers" twice and though technically volunteers, they were obviously professionals who were equipped by their government. Nonetheless, a minor point--I changed it. 119 08:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Regarding the specific objections above, please check the article again. 119 22:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, the article isn't in much better shape then when I nominated it. You added an new empty (!) section on 'Soviet Union, 1942-45' - until it is filled or deleted (I'd prefer the first option) I myself have to object. Ummm...now is this the first - objection by the nominator? Also, you had deleted some ilinks and reverted my attempt to add them back to the article. As basically you are removing links to important people (like Erwin Rommel), I am afraid your actions DO NOT improve the article. I agree that the notable people section was not necessary, but simply deleting it togehter with useful links it contained is not the way to fix the problem. Care to explain why my addition of those links to the 'Guderian and German General Staff 'it makes no sense there'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You are overlooking the fact that I have been rewriting this article during most of January and you nominated it in the middle of this, apparently without checking the history seeing it's very unstable still. Compare this diff and tell me I'm not improving the article. If you think the Noteable persons section had valuable information, then you cannot simply paste it into a completely different section and say that it fits--it doesn't, wartime commanders of 1939-45 do not belong in a section preceding development during the 1936-39 Spanish War. Notice that the Heinz Guderian and German General Staff is under a section titled Development of theories and forces--did these commanders develop theories and forces before the Spanish Civil War? Your changes now are not working within the framework of the article or changing the framework to a more sensible format; you're just pasting things where they look half related. 119 21:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • True, you have visibly expanded the article, and I commend you for that. You did not, howevever, post a single thing on the discussion page that you were in the middle of something. I have no problem with you *moving* the generals paragraph (former notable people section) to a better fitting section, but simply removing it is not a good contribution to the article. Regarding your talk question 'where Where did you get that from?' - let me point you to history - Revision as of 03:54, 26 Jan 2005, by 119: Operations, Countermeasures, Notable persons. It appears you added it yourself some days ago... :> By all means, if you have better info now, correct *yourself*. Also, please tell me why do you consider the section 'Precusors', still visible in this old edit usless and deleted it without any info in talk or edit? I find your willingness to simply delete substantial amount of information you deem unnecessary from various article (we met before here, didn't we?) rather disturbing. I thought it was a single incident - now I begin to think I need to review your other 'contributions' as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • This is all discussed on Talk:Blitzkrieg where I point out that Poitrus' diff shows I added the correct information which he then changed to what was misleading, and the Precursors he claims are not acknowledged as such by any authors on blitzkrieg and belong in the broader Maneuver warfare. Furthermore, Piotrus, I demand an apology for accusing me to be vandalising articles (your words, Polish September Campaign) for not subscribing to your changes and the innuendo that I am an unreliable contributors whose edits must be monitored by you. I back my arguments up with facts--you need to do the same . 119 19:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • As for your demand for apology: I admit thar majority of your other contributions which I *did* review today are good contributions to the Wiki. I disagree with some of your changes to Blitz article and I think what you did to PSC would be called vandalism if it was did by an anon user, but I guess it was some one-time mistake on your part. The diffrence is that you added much valuable info to Blitz article in addition to removing some sections, while in PSC article you simply removed several paragraphs without adding anything of value. If anybody's is interested in the details, he can go to the relevant talk pages, we are getting OT here (T being Blitzkrieg as FAC here). Half of your objections concern me bringing back a small portion of your own text which you removed, and which I think should be mentioned in the article. Note: you do realize that in your recent rv of my addition you removed more then I added, for example - the only reference to Guderian's 'Achtung! Panzer!' book? Perhaps this can be called an 'accident' or 'collateral damage' - not to use the 'v' word again :(. Or do you think that mentioning the Guderian book title is wrong? As for 'prelude' and 'successor' sections, I wont mind if they are shortened/rewritten/moved off to another article, but simple removal of them - which seem to be your way of dealing with any section *you* deem questionable in some part - is not the best way to deal with such problems. Thus, comparing the changes to the Blitz article previous versions (before you started working on it), I think that the info from 'prelude' and 'succeors' sections must be brought back (in some form) for this article to be comprehensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Please take a look again. As 119 was apparently to busy/else? to work on the article, I have worked on it myself, hopefully adressing his objections and significantly expanding it (mostly by bringing back and rewriting large sections of material he deleted :>). Please take a look at it again - I think it is worthy of support and much better then it was at the moment of nomination. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Schumacher

I bumped into this page accidentally, and found it to be a well written and thoroughly researched piece of work. I've never nominated anything before, but I thought this article was worth an effort. Just interested to see what other people think of it. Vanky 17:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Object for now: it's extremely unclear on its references. I'm guessing that some of the external links were used as references, but most of them look like the type of sites that probably change regularly, and none of them indicates a date on which at was accessed. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:13, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) Lead section is too short and uninformative - half of consists of trivia on his salary. 2) The basic content is there, but it is all so brief. Books have been written about this guy; more can be said than is currently done. A full section section on each of his Formula I season is the least I would expect, and more can also be written about his pre-F1 career and personal life. I completely miss information about his popularity (he made F1 very popular in Germany), and his brother Ralf, also a F1 racer, is only mentioned in passing. 3) I'm not sure about the lists at the bottom. The contain vital information, but take too much space as it is. Maybe they should be spun off, converted to prose, made into a table, I don't know. I do know I don't like it how it is now. 4) References, please. --- all in all, I think this article should visit WP:PR first. Jeronimo 21:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The prose is flat. Bacchiad 06:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that Peer Review comment is fair- it definitely appears to have the potential to become a very good article (although everything exists in potential..), something about it just appealed to me... Vanky 11:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object (for now). I agree that WP:PR would be beneficial. I liked the article content, but it needs some work. 08:37, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Object Schumacher has done a lot in his life so far, this article is quite informative, but there's a lot more which could be researched and added. Giano 19:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World Chess Championship

Self-nomination. I've worked a tremendous deal on this page and significantly increased the scope. In my own judgement: Good parts: The gallery; the prose; the pictures; the detail Possible issues: No pictures for women, much less detail on their championship

*welcomes comments*

--Etaonish 02:58, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Object for now. Most of the images lack source and licensing information. Some of them are pre-1922 and hence in the public domain, but several are post-1922 and don't have licensing info. On another note (this is not an objection), can we move the history section above the list of champions? I believe this is the usual convention in wiki articles. --ashwatha 03:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Many of the images I uploaded come from my local stash of images, I don't quite recall where I got them. I'll look for them online. As for the list, I don't know what wiki convention is. I prefer it like this, but it makes little difference to me.--Etaonish 03:15, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Agree on photo sources--every one of them should be tagged. Additionally, consider the need for a portrait with every paragraph, and left-right what's more--with two columns of photos surrounding text, that text can be difficult to focus on. Original research/author's conjecture/style not suitable to an encyclopedia:
  • "Perhaps Anderssen would be able to quickly absorb modern theory and rise to the top again."
  • "Especially in today's world, with hundreds of possible challengers to the championship, longevity is a poor determinant of skill."
  • "Yet another complication in determining who was the greatest is the dichotomy between talent and hard work. Capablanca's natural gift for chess was arguably unrivaled, but he lost his title to Alekhine because Alekhine prepared much more diligently for their match. Is this evidence that Capablanca was in fact a better player who lost due to laziness, or evidence that due to his laziness Capablanca was in fact the inferior player?"
  • "and was surprisingly exciting, leading to a final game which Kramnik needed to win and did"
  • "freeing Kasparov from the grip of the Soviet state"
  • "fought numerous titanic battles""
  • "The general chess public did not take this claim to the championship seriously, since both of them were well past their prime, shadows of their former selves.""
  • "won it brilliantly""
  • "Smyslov had the dubious pleasure of being the shortest-reigning world champion; but this 'honour' soon switched hands"
  • "he was shockingly upset by a new challenger"
  • "his fearsome tactical skill"
  • "a deference to Morphy's supreme dominance"

119 03:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain. This is quite thorough and contains most of the things I would expect in an article on this subject. Unlike 119 I do not find the above quotes evidence of original research. Morphy's supreme dominance is an all but indisputable fact. The speculation on Capablanca and Alekhine is standard fare and certainly not original to this author. On the other hand I do agree that the style is slightly too personal and needs tweaking in many of 119's examples. I'd also like any image issues resolved before granting FA status. I guess we should also call for references. I'd suggest Kasparov's book on his predecessors, E.G. Winter's overview book and something recent describing the chaos of the last few years. Overall this is a good article and no worse than some of what is already featured but in the name of tightening the standards I cannot support FA-status for it at this time. -- Haukurth 14:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There is a lot of good stuff in this article, but it still several steps from feature status, IMO. Already mentioned problems that I also noted are: the image copyrights, unencyclopedic/unreference/POV contents, the list of winners before the history text (you may even consider splitting of the list from the article), and the lack of extensive information on the women's and junior/senior tournaments. In addition, I'd like to mention: 1) No references. You probably used several books and websites for this. They need to be listed. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. 2) The entire "The greatest of all time" section may be interesting, but does not belong in an article on World Champions - it probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all. 3) The part on the early history is short and vague. For example, on the 16th century "champions", it is said: "are sometimes considered the world champions of their time" - who considers this? If it is only considered, sometimes, are they worthy taking up such a large part of the list? Did they actually call themselves champions, or were these titles retroactively applied to them? In the pre-1886 part, there is more confusion. In the list you write "undisputed" - where their titles disputed? The term "generally considered" is used often in this context. I'm also interested if there were absolutely no self-pronounced World Champions in the pre-1948 era, where there was no governing body involved. 4) In the post-1948 part, the FIDE is introduced without further information. When was it founded, why did Euwe allow them to step in as organisers? 5) Most part of the "chaos" section is good, giving a good overview of the situation. Towards the end, though, it gets into to much detail. It could also use some view from observers - as I understand it, most chess fans don't like the "new" FIDE-style championships. Jeronimo 21:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I would like to see "The greatest of all time" section retained, although it might well be moved into an article of its own. I found it an interesting and suitably NPOV discussion of the issues that should be considered when comparing chess champions of different eras (as one inevitably does). GeorgeStepanek\^talk 22:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Response. Thanks for your comments. I will tone down many of 119's examples, however, there are some places where it is simply completely widespread opinion. 'numerous titanic battles' between Karpov and Kasparov is part of the history of their rivalry.

As for references, much of what I wrote was strictly from memory. In very few places did I actually consult a reference. Still, most of the information is public, such as the years of each reign, etc.

The part on early history is vague primarily because little is known about the time. It is generally accepted these were the strongest players, but we have almost no evidence of the time. Undisputed refers to 1886 on, when the first Championship match was proclaimed and recorded. Unlike, say, even Morphy (Staunton refused to play him so he could maintain he was strongest), no one could dispute the fact that Capablanca was champion. Technically it shouldn't be labeled undisputed, but the point is sufficiently minor to gloss over that.

Greatest of all time is a commonly occurring question among those new to the game. It is an interesting little sideby and I think it's sufficiently NPOV. The only part truly POV would be the list of the ten, but virtually everyone agrees those ten were superbly dominant. It is like saying Babe Ruth was one of the best baseball players: no one disputes it, though they may dispute the fact that he was the best player.

I don't think splitting the list is a good idea: it's a relatively important feature of the article. I will, however, move it to the end.--Etaonish 18:14, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Small question: what to do with images? I have the gallery up, and I agree that the current thumbnails in the article are distracting. However, we can't have a total text article either. Do we pick and choose which champions to showcase?--Etaonish 18:20, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• I feel quite strongly that the "strongest of all time" section does not belong in this article; I'll expand a little on the talk page. --Camembert 23:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• (Novote) Apart from lack of references and liscencing issues with photos, the article is quite great. The only other thing I'd suggest is a little more of the main article being summarised in the lead (i.e. the political nature of the contest). --ZayZayEM 06:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genghis Khan

I think this is a good article on Genghis Khan, clearing a lot of elusive understanding of Genghis Khan on the web. Also this article ranks 4th on Google if you search "Genghis Khan." I think it covers a lot of information and is quite cohesive in terms of many ways. - User:168.253.16.87 18:54, 12 Feb 2005

• Object.: Good article, but: 1) The four web-based references should be formatted according to the formatting guidelines found here: Wikipedia:Cite sources. 2) The article is pretty long and exhibits a strange structure: it begins with an account of his early life, followed by Values of Genghis Kahn, a moral portrait that should be more extensively sourced because it contains a lot of strong statements about his personal beliefs. Next is a section called Mongols before Genghis Kahn, a section I think could be disposed of. There is already a separate article, and the information in it is only remotely related to Genghis Kahn himself. Uniting the tribes and the two next sections continue Gengis Kahn's biography started 2 sections before, this time concentrating on military achievements. The structure then completely spins out of control with Political achievements, a rather shallow section with some overlap with the self-confessed stub subsection Politics in the Organization section. Perceptions of Genghis Kahn and Legacy should be merged somehow and moved to the end, as the perceptions covers modern-day perceptions more than contemporary ones. 3) I would like to see this article copy-edited. The tone and language is acceptable, but it could easily be made more fitting for an encyclopedia article if someone was willing to spend some time on it. Phils 18:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autofellatio

I is very hard to find neutral information about sexual acts on the internet. Porn websites dominate the search engines. This article exemplifies how wikipedia can be just for sex education purposes in an intelligent way. Gravitodeathdeathrivercamscooper 21:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose IMO not a FA by any stretch of the imagination. -Frazzydee|✍ 21:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I don't mean to bite newbies (assuming this nomination is made in good faith), but I think this nomination is borderline trolling, and if others agree, I propose to remove it speedily. →Raul654 21:27, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably trolling, the user has just created 40 user talk pages with welcome messages for nonexistant users. --fvw* 21:32, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

• I don't believe this is trolling, and if it is speedied I will be very disappointed. While it almost surely won't become a featured article, it deserves at least due process. LizardWizard 21:35, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Your belief aside, it's clearly trolling, and if you were serious, the troll would be saddened that you've missed his rather obvious point... illustrated misinformation and jokes doesn't make a featured article. - Nunh-huh 21:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm interested: what in the article is misinformation? Exploding Boy 21:41, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Almost everything that isn't irrelevant or self-evident. The Egyptian mythology; the ouroboros caption (who claims it?) The worst aspect of the article is that it treats "autofellatio" as though it were practised as often as it is fantasized about (it's not) and somehow manages to miss out reporting the fact that it's so uncomfortable that those who practise it do so not primarily for their own gratification but rather for the gratification of their audience. It's a porn thing, not a favourite sex act. And the irrelevant jokes and fictional autofellators add to the "amateur" feel. - Nunh-huh 21:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I agree this may be trolling. May as well put it to the test, though: we all know I'm willing to support sex-related articles for FA, but I don't think this is one of them. It's too short (which, in itself, isn't reason for disqualification, I know), and it's just not really that interesting. I don't see how it could reasonably be expanded since there's really very little to say on the subject, and so it's really more like a definition. All academic though, since there is an open poll ongoing re: one of the article's images, so it's inappropriate to nominate the article at this time. Exploding Boy 21:38, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. What Nun-huh said. Kosebamse 22:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - Remove this nomination immediately. --mav 00:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. I find it inappropriate to nominate this article while the image is up for discussion. Clearly, it's not ready for FA status yet. Mgm|^(talk) 00:14, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. To quote SNL, "not ready for prime time." — Brim 01:54, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vintage erotica

Best article ever! Concise, well-documented, and beautiful. It should be on the main page. 205.217.105.2 01:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. A fine start, and could be brought up to FA quality with modifications and additions. The header needs to be tighter, and it's the wrong place to discuss Paul Reubens' collection. As well, the only photographer who gets any mention here is Belloque, and he was certainly not alone in producing quality erotic images. I believe there is much more room in this article for those who produced the images, and perhaps for some of the more notable images, studios, and models. Further discussion could include the hurdles early erotic art had to overcome from politicians and the clergy, and any notable cases falling out of these. I would also reduce the discussion of pornography in this article, not for reasons of taste, but because it really doesn't fit here. A note to indicate that there is an overlap is adequate, but any further discussion belongs in its own article. IMO, the choice of accompanying photos displays emminent grace and good taste. Denni☯ 04:04, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  • Eliminated discussion of Paul Reuben; reduced discussion of porn; added other photographers. Grokstar 04:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • You added an image which appears to have been taken in the seventies or eighties. I would remove this, because it is in very jarring contrast to the other images. A suggestion - male nudes images were not uncommon in the early days - perhaps replace this with one of them? And how about a sample (and maybe a quick note) of stereo nude images? Those were quite popular. Denni☯ 05:08, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
• Mild oppose. I find myself in agreement with Denni's comments. Further, I question the cut-off date of 1923. No reason not to mention copyright considerations, I suppose, but I have seen stills from the 1930s to the 1970s often referred to as "vintage" as well. Edeans 04:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • True, 1923 is an arbitrary cutoff; the main reason for choosing it was that I could use any pictures from that era without causing a copyvio. Of course, one could hunt down some pics owned by universities and other governmental institutions that are public domain, or ask permission to reprint. However, anything we reprint goes straight into the GFDL, so presumably they would have to sign away their rights permanently. It seems that the highest quality stuff after 1922 is privately-owned. It is also possible to write about erotica without photos; however, I always thought that with some articles, it kinda defeats the point to have the text without the pictures. For an extreme example, see Dalen Kurtis' original page. Her main claim to fame is being a Playmate, yet there's no picture.. hmm.. maybe it doesn't matter, since they have the external links.. Grokstar 05:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Written by someone who thinks "erotica" means "photographs" ("Nude pictures prior to 1835 mostly consisted of paintings and drawings.") but wouldn't include those "arty" late 19th century photos of Neapolitan boys as erotica. All to get breasts on Wikipedia's front page. Copyvio in the 1950s photo is a minor detail. Mediocre as social history too. --Wetman 05:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, maybe it should be renamed Photography of female nudes prior to 1923. Anyhoo, there are some basic structural problems with this article:
    • "Vintage" is an ambiguous word. Presumably it means no longer being produced, but more recent than "Antique" or "Ancient". However, the distinction isn't clear.
    • "Erotica" embraces a whole field of writings, art, films, etc. that would be a much longer article than this one.
    • Early 20th century section stuffed with filler on other artists in order to provide more room to accomodate anachronistic 1950s nude that has now been deleted; that section is now glaringly blank and urgently needs more nudes. 69.243.41.28 06:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)