Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/June 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of discussions about contested featured article candidates that were nominated in June 2004. Warning: not in perfect chronological order.

Contents 1 June 2004 1.1 Holocaust denial 1.2 Gay bathouse 1.2.1 A Conclusion? 1.2.2 New objection 1.2.3 Stop posting here please 1.3 Typeface 1.4 Sherlock Holmes 1.5 Spiridon Louis 1.6 Arnold Schwarzenegger 1.7 Saturn V 1.8 Another World (television series) 1.9 Fanny Blankers-Koen 1.10 Wiki 1.11 Robert Oppenheimer 1.12 47 Ronin 1.13 Alan Turing 1.14 Fusion power 1.15 Portugal 1.16 Dune 1.17 Formula One 1.18 Lancelot 1.19 Deluge (prehistoric) 1.20 Leo Frank 1.21 Papal Tiara 1.22 Chicken sexer 1.23 Personal rapid transit 1.24 El Cid 1.25 Cardinal number 1.26 Nicholas II of Russia 1.27 George W. Bush 1.28 Mission Earth (novel) 1.29 Supply and demand 1.30 Kuru epidemic 1.31 The Eye of Argon 1.32 Money 1.33 Arts and Crafts movement 1.34 List of cities in California 1.35 Dracula 1.36 Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet 1.37 X Window System 1.38 Kylie Minogue 1.39 Fuck 1.39.1 Actionable Objections 1.39.2 Objections based on the nature of the word 1.39.3 Dictionary or not 1.39.4 Other 1.40 ß 1.41 Wind turbine 1.42 Head of state 1.43 Glasgow

[edit] June 2004

[edit] Holocaust denial

An excellent, well-written article, on an important subject, and above all, historically and factually sound. The research is well done. Highly support. Mandel 20:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Of exceptional written quality, soundly researched, and as NPOV as one can get in such an article. (Ernst Zundel gets off far more lightly than he should, and there is no mention at all of James Keegstra.) Denni 23:11, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I find it very interesting and the quality is definitely high. --Exigentsky 04:22, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Chancemill 09:15, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Not formally objecting yet as I haven't read the whole article, but I'm not very happy with it. This article needs to be a shining example of NPOV, but it isn't. "a common debating tactic, namely the suggestion that because no traces of cyanide were found in 1999, then no cyanide was used at all in Auschwitz, over fifty years earlier.", for example, insinuates that this argument is a bad one, without giving any evidence. Markalexander100 09:27, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't see any problem with NPOV. It just refutes one possibly fallacious contention by the Holocaust deniers by proposing that it is stupid to expect the same levels of cyanide traces to survive after 55 years. What evidence is necessary? Maybe I am not getting your point here Chancemill 10:02, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think you aren't. I have no idea how long traces of cyanide could be expected to remain. One day? One month? A hundred years? A million years? If you know, tell us how you know. Denial without evidence is not refutation. Markalexander100 00:42, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The article did mention under open-air weathering conditions (- or did it?, I seem to have read it somewhere). Maybe the author is assuming we know more about cyanide than he or she ought to. The poison used is hydrogen cyanide, a gas, which evaporates and disperses quickly in open spaces. See Fred A. Leuchter for details. On hindsight someone may need to work on the article for balance's sake; most of info seems to come from the Nizkor website. Someone ought to head to the library and investigate this; this article is worth the research. - Mandel 22:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The current sections of the article are good, but I find the article as a whole to be somewhat incoherent. Also, it is lacking quite a lot of information vital to the topic (see list below). I really hope somebody (I don't have the right information) tries to make these improvements, because I thikn this topic deserves a good article. Jeronimo 10:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I miss a historical overview of holocaust denial. When did the first deniers appear? Is or was there a "movement" of some sort? Was there any serious denial prior to the rise of the internet? The sections on the specific "episodes" (Zundel, Irving, etc.) could become subsections in a history section.
  • "Beliefs of Holocaust deniers" is brief and unclear. Do they all believe this? If not, are there any major "streams" in who believes what? Some references to sources used for this are also desirable.
  • The question "Why do people deny the Holocaust?" is hardly addressed satisfactory. Only one quote is given, but no further evaluation. What are the scientific views (if any) on this? Are there pyschological reasons behind this? Related, who are the deniers? Are they "angry white men"? Which countries are they from? Or are their numbers too few for such observations?
  • Relations with anti-semitism (and racism) are mentioned, but that's it. Are there strong ties between these?
  • The fact that "holocaust denial" is illegal in several countries deserves more detailed information.
  • Frankly, the section "Evidence of the Holocaust" is much too big. It is way more detailed than the "Beliefs of Holocaust deniers" section; this should be a bit more balanced. I think the lead paragraph of this section, with a good reference to Nizkor should suffice for this article. Perhaps the current text could move to a separate article Evidence of the Holocaust (or so).
• Object. The article is too partial, needs NPOV. cbraga 02:36, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Maybe Wikipedia should have "Featured controversial articles" or something like that so more attention can be given to those topics worth talking about. Revth 07:05, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object for the reasons that user Jeronimo already mentioned. Do holocaust deniers deceive themselves or do they deceive others? This is a difficult question to answer but at least a serious attempt should be made. Andries 08:43, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gay bathouse

This is a self-nomination; I researched and wrote the bulk of the article as it now stands. If I may give my own work a glowing appraisal, I think it's a damn fine article. It's well written, interesting, informative and complete. It flows nicely from start to finish, is just long enough, fits in nicely with other extant articles, and has references. There are, admittedly, no images, but I think that an image is not strictly necessary for this article, besides which there are probably very few available images of the interior of gay bathhouses -- likely to be what most people would want to see -- that are not part of individual bathhouses' promotional materials: taking photos in bathhouses is pretty much universally frowned upon. Anyway, the problem, if it is one, of the lack of images is easily solved by lifting, under fair use rules, an image or two from some of the bathhouse websites. Exploding Boy 11:36, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Support. I think it's a decent article;a couple of problems, though. Large sections aren't Wikified (e.g. Gay_bathhouse#Etiquette). Also, in once place there seemed to be too much trivial detail...e.g. Gay_bathhouse#Layout_and_typical_amenities Quote: some men choose to wear slippers or similar footwear and some bathhouses require it...floors are usually carpeted; this also prevents customers from slipping.. — Matt 12:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Added more wikification. Details help to create a picture of typical bathhouses. Exploding Boy 13:16, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Those details just seemed a little dull to me (compare "living rooms in the United Kingdom are usually carpeted..."). "Creating a picture" of a typical bathhouse is a good idea, of course, but I would recommend an actual photograph, if possible, rather than an overly careful description; "a picture's worth a thousand words", and all that. — Matt 13:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Objection has been addressed, and the relevant parts rewritten. Exploding Boy 08:30, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
• I know I'm going to regret this, but the article needs a picture. →Raul654 21:54, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Seriously people, every article doesn't need a picture. Right. I'll see what I can do. Exploding Boy 22:00, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • As the one who picks articles for the main page, I like seeing that all our featured articles have pictures :) →Raul654 01:49, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Well written, interesting. Moncrief 01:14, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The article is well written, but a poor topic if I may say so. Whatever, I find this article bizzare, but it seems enough people like it. cbraga 02:39, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've added two images and made some small changes to the text to address Matt's objections. As for being a poor topic, if it's encyclopaedic enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, then why can't it be a featured candidate? Exploding Boy 11:48, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Those pictures are completely generic -- it could be anywhere -- and the one of the locker room is particuarly poor. Better no pictures than bad ones. -- Viajero 13:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but exactly what would you prefer? Some action shots? The photos accuretely represent the inside of a gay bathhouse in a manner that's appropriate for an encyclopaedia. If you have a better idea for images, or have better images, please replace them. Exploding Boy 08:30, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • LOL. While I'm inclined to agree that the locker photo is a bit generic (that could be my high school), the other one is suffecient for me. →Raul654 17:43, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very well written (and made me smile a lot). Great NPOV too; not sure why it'd be a "poor topic". OwenBlacker 12:22, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think that bizarre objections can safely be ignored. Markalexander100 01:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Bizarre objections? What about a bizarre article? "Customers who have rooms may leave their room doors open to signal that they are available for sex." (YUCK!) cbraga 01:53, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • I second Cbraga; what are we going to have for a featured article next? A 'loving' article on sex with animals or what not? Anyway though I think my (our) objections will make very little difference. Mandel 14:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Did you just compare gay sex with sex with animals? Of course these two objections are entirely irrelevant and should be ignored.--Eloquence*
      • Dear Eloquence, the problem is not gay sex but the casual, indiscriminate sex portrayed + the pretty explicit language, which is offensive to some people. Clearly I'm not the only one offended. I'm saying where is the line to be drawn? It gets broader and broader each time. Who says "sex with animals" won't get nominated next? Mandel 17:09, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
        • If there was an article on sex with animals, and it was encyclopaedic (probably unlikely), interesting, exceptionally well written, NPOV, and otherwise above average, I'd support it. Wikipedia wants to record human knowledge; gay bathhouses are part of the human experience. Exploding Boy 17:16, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, your point is taken. I'll leave it to the rest, only because I have been unfairly badsmear by a Wikipedian above. I have stated my case – feel free to overrule me. It seems as if being conservative and stating it out loud nowadays is a crime. Mandel 17:48, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • • • Well, I support this type of article, I'm just hesitant about putting it on the main page because of what some conservative people or uptight academics are going to think about Wikipedia when they see it. AndyCapp 17:28, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • There actually is an article zoophilia, although it is nowhere near featured status. Who's to say that it shouldn't be a featured article one day?Eloquence* 17:21, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
          • Yeah, and who's to say that it wouldn't be morally shocking to fuck in the bus? There is still a boundary between what you can do in the gay bathtub privately and what is tolerable in public. Mikkalai 19:46, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • And just when I was about to say I bet Raul wouldn't ask for a picture on that one, I open the article and there's one already there! And it's not a bad little article either. Exploding Boy 17:25, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
            • Yea, I'd feature that on the main page and then hide for about 24 hours while the flack flies. →Raul654 17:46, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. This is a very well-written article. It reminds me of last summer (when I read And the Band Played On, of course). Acegikmo1 05:21, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object, not NPOV, poorly written. Such a clearly objectionable subject needs ALOT more balance. I would have placed a dispute header, but I didn't want to spend the time discussing such a distressing topic. Also, this is not the sort of thing we want to have people greeted with when they are first coming to the wiki, is it? I'd say not, I'd have left if this was on the main page when I first pulled up the wikipedia. This is simply NOT featured article quality. Sam [Spade] 16:34, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh come on. Why did it take you so long -- hours after you first posted here -- to add those bits about it being "poorly written" and "not featured article quality" if those are really your objections? Exploding Boy 19:17, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

• • In what way is it non-NPOV? Why is it objectionable? And "distressing"? Don't you think that's going a bit overboard? It appears to me that you (and a couple of others) are objecting to this being a featured article not because you feel it's non-neutral, poorly written or incomplete, but because you don't like the topic, which is really not fair. I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:What is a featured article for a little clarification on what makes an article suitable for selection as a featured article. Exploding Boy 16:47, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • And why do you think it is *not* distressing. DIfferent people react differently to sexuallly-explicit material. For example, I hate nude pictures, because I hate to be aroused without my intentions. I feel like being raped. I am distressed. So don't explode here please against other's opinions. Mikkalai 16:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's distressing precisely because it's not sexually explicit. And I know more than a few people who'd be "distressed" by your comparing seeing nude photos (and by extension, reading this article, since you posted the comment here) to being raped. Exploding Boy 17:01, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
        • My point exactly. Different people are distressed by different things. Hey, we are voting here after all. Why are you so biting? In any case it seems that gays have strong majority in wikipedia (at least among those who discuss the corresponding topics) and you will win the case even without your persistent bullying of others opinions. Mikkalai 18:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Our society still has taboos. While some of them may seem superficial or encroach on the freedom of speech, I would respect the (dis)tastes of the majority of population. There is plenty of well-written neutral but provocative articles of wikipedia. Do we really want to turn this tool into the moral shocker? Mikkalai 16:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object, despite the fact I found it a well-written article. I have never considered myself interested in LGBT topics, yet I found this article to be relatively well-written, informative, and a valuable addition to Wikipedia. However, I must object to featuring this on the main page because there are those that will be offended by it. AndyCapp 16:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • (Speaking as the one who picks those articles) - This has come up before, when the James Bulger murder case was featured on the main page. The short of it is, wikipedia is not bowlderized or censored, and being a controversial topic is not enough to exclude an otherwise well-written article from being featured on the main page. →Raul654 17:05, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Are people not also offended by slavery, by war, by genocide? Should the articles on these matters also be precluded from featuring? Or are we making an exception only for homophobic sentiments (see Mandel's comment)?--Eloquence*
    • Dear Eloquence, why do you want to make it into a homophobic issue? I've given adequate underlining above – continue misrepresenting and badpainting me and others this way and I'll demand an apology. I'm simply being brave by stating this article offends by some standards. I don't judge people by their sexual orientation. Anyway go ahead and feature it; but please don't treat people with a more conservative frame of mind as ignoramus. Mandel 17:48, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, feature it on the main page if you want. I am not offended by it, nor am I a homophobe. I'm just warning you that if my 75 year old White Christian conservative grandmother comes to Wikipedia and sees an article on Gay Bathhouses on the main page, she's going to be turned off to Wikipedia. AndyCapp 17:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • The ignorant will always be turned off to knowledge. That's why they are ignorant in the first place. The solution is not to eliminate knowledge, but to make sure that people are exposed to it while they are still open minded.--Eloquence*
        • There is nothing ignorant (nor homphobic) about being offended my the subject of a gay bathouse. If there was a bathhouse where straight people left doors open and had sex w random people (we call it a whore house), that would also be distressing. It would need to be handled in a vastly more NPOV manner as well, as should this article. And putting it on the main page would be equally questionable. What is ignorant is to think that other editors (and even grandmothers or children who came across us as a reference?!?!?) should gladly embrace the discussion of depraved lifestyles such as these. Good lord... Sam [Spade] 17:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • Prostitution was a featured article on the Main Page. You still have not raised a single concrete NPOV objection about this article.--Eloquence*
            • Prostitution was a different subject, not synonymous. And the NPOV objection is obvious to anyone who views this subject in an even manner: It fails to sufficiently address the abundant objections to these sorts of activities, objections held within the gay community and without, BTW. Who condones rampant anonymous sex??? Very few people. This is a controvercial subject. That doesn't rule it out of featured status, but means it deserves a very different treatment. The article is POV, not some single sentence or phrase within it, but generally, overall. Sam [Spade] 18:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • How would you know not having read it? The article would be non-NPOV if it promoted or encouraged people to use bathhouses, or said they were great, or said there was nothing wrong with using them. It does not. It discusses bathhouses dispassionately and includes information about the negatives. Exploding Boy 18:25, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
        • Do you still think I havn't read the article? Sam [Spade] 19:15, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • • I'd just to add that (ironically) no one really complained about the prostitution article on the main page. →Raul654 17:54, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
              • Actually, when I saw that article on the main page I was pretty surprised. AndyCapp 17:59, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, I think I actually voted against that article at one point if I recall correctly. There were parts I didn't think were all that well written.Exploding Boy 18:04, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
        • • Actually, a whore house is a completely different kettle of fish, as you'd know if you'd read the article. You've still not explained your claim that the article's not neutral, either (though how you'd know, not having read it, I don't know). It's not up to Wikipedia (or you) to judge whose lifestyle is depraved. And the argument about kids reading the site has been dealt with before. Carry on. Exploding Boy 17:33, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
            • I read the article as far as I was able, and plenty far enough to see it fails at NPOV. The casual dismissal of complaints is not becomming for someone who assumes their article so fine in quality as to be an example for all others. Sam [Spade] 18:09, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
              • You haven't really made a complaint. It's been asked what part of it is NPOV. You simply say "all of it." That is plainly not true. You need to make specific criticisms. Snowspinner 19:18, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
          • Ahem. I'd just like to apologize for the "kettle of fish" thing. A bit of an unfortunate choice of words. And, wow. I never thought this would arouse (woops, I did it again) so much controversy. Exploding Boy 17:56, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Well written and NPOV. Guanaco
• Support. The article describes in a detached manner what goes on, and clearly addresses the risks and dangers. Depravity is a wholly subjective judgment, and should be left to the reader to discern, much like "evil." Those inclined to think that the gay lifestyle is depraved will find this article a description of depravity. Those not so inclined will not. This article is a model of NPOV. Snowspinner 17:33, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • The subject of extreme promiscuity is synonymous with the subject of homosexuality? I thought some homosexuals desired monogamy so strongly that they desired changes in marraige laws? Model of NPOV??? Please...Sam [Spade] 18:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • • Sam, please stop before you start becoming seriously offensive. It's well known you have a problem with homosexuality and gay-related topics, and you're clearly unable to approach them neutrally. If you have not read the article in its entirety then you shouldn't be commenting here. I've not dismissed your complaints casually, as you claim, I've simply been unable to respond to them because they're not specific (that is, all you've managed to say is essentially "it's not NPOV"). Exploding Boy 18:14, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
        • Please take a moment to think about who has consistantly been suggested to have edited POV into articles regarding homosexuality. It is extremely disingenuous for you to be questioning my neutrality here. Sam [Spade] 19:19, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, I believe it was you who said I was not neutral about gay-related topics. While many others have disagreed, many more have said that you are biased. In the meantime you've added an NPOV dispute to this article page but have still not explained it. Exploding Boy 19:22, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Whatever lifestyle is in question, this is not an article about promiscuous sex itself - it's about a particular institution. Just like Punctuated equilibrium does not discuss creationism, this doesn't need to either. It should be detached and descriptive, which it is. Snowspinner 18:59, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Hey fellas, let's not get too uptight about things and start calling each other's names. It seriously is childish. Anyway I think Sam is entitled to his own viewpoint - he's explained it well enough, IMV. He doesn't seem dogmatic in any case. If you don't agree, just outvote him. There's no need for coercive-sounding words. Be more gracious in taking criticism. Mandel 20:00, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Support but I find it too much USA centered. This is very decent when compared to the rest of the internet so why the big deal? Andries 20:28, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly support. The objections to this are not to any problem with the article itself, but rather, to an objection to the topic. Wikipedia is not about censorship, and we already have the James Bulger and Prostitution precedents. Ambivalenthysteria 03:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I would never have thought that this subject could be written so well in NPOV, but the proof's in the pudding. --TreyHarris 08:39, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bottom line: As long as there's an ongoing NPOV dispute about this article, it should not be featured. When and if this dispute is resolved, the objections that the topic itself is "offensive" can safely be ignored as they are not relevant in the context of our featured article guidelines (in the context of an article itself, offensiveness does matter to some extent, of course, which is why there are no photos of sex acts in the article - but an article which is generally agreed to be safe for inclusion in Wikipedia is also a valid FAC).

Otherwise we might as well stop featuring any articles about religion because they may be offensive to atheists. In analogy to this article, if an article about religion has unresolved NPOV issues, then of course it should not be featured. If it does, however, not have these issues, and there are no objections to the actual content, then "offensiveness" alone is irrelevant.

I believe the gay bathhouse article should talk a bit more about the moral issues because in its present state it is a bit difficult to understand why there needs to be a "Legal issues" section in the first place (i.e. why gay bathhouses are controversial). Much of this, however, can be resolved by adding a prominent link to homosexuality and morality.--Eloquence*

You state: "an article which is generally agreed to be safe for inclusion in Wikipedia is also a valid FAC". Well, by watching the discussion I can hardly see the connection there. Moreover, you can't say that an article staying buried within a hundred thousand other articles and putting it in a prominent place are the same thing. I myself don't really care one way or the other, just wanted to point out this non-sequitur in your reasoning. One more thing, I don't think anyone is really offended by the article per se, only that it depicts a practice not accepted by any society (promiscuous sex with total strangers) and that for that reason it's best left where it is. cbraga 17:18, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think that featuring an article is a mechanism for identifying encyclopedia articles of a high standard; standards of writing, illustration, and NPOV, that is, independent of the morality or "luridness" of the subject matter. Why should the ethical judgement of society be relevant? Would an article about, say, genocide also be unsuitable, because it's a practice considered unacceptable by society? — Matt 18:02, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wrong analogy. Genocide is about history and crimes of war. Promiscuous sex with total strangers falls is about objectionable (objectionable meaning self-destructive through risk of death by AIDS) things people do. Other examples would be drug use and needle swapping. It's my belief that articles about these topics, well-written as they might be, would be best not brought to attention. cbraga 20:12, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We're an encyclopedia, not a morals clearing house. If it's a well-written, accurate article on a subject that people would find interesting, then it's a fair candidate for teh frontpage. Snowspinner 20:22, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

a subject that people would find interesting -- I think that's the weakpoint in your argument. How many people (that do not already know the subject well) would find the article insteresting instead of bizzare? Anyway, about the moral issues, you have a point but the fact of the matter is that many people have already objected to the article on moral grounds and this can't be ignored. I don't care much if the article is featured, what's bothering me is that some people are trying to push it past those moral objections and ignoring them because, of course, they can't argue about that. Is it morally right to shit on the sidewalk? Probably, but the police will still come after you. Same thing about featuring this article: if enough people find something objectionable then it probably shouldn't be done no matter how much you or anyone else think it's O.K. cbraga 20:36, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

The fundamental issue, IMO, is not so much whether this article is well-written, but whether we want to use it to represent ourselves to the world at large. The article is generally well-written and informative, and covers its subject well. For those who are interested, it's a good read. However, it is somewhat special-interest. The article goes into fairly minute details of a culture many people are completely unfamiliar with, and that many will find objectionable. I think that too many people simply would not want to read this article. I think it could be listed as a featured article, but I think it would be a bad idea to put it on the main page.

Also, the article needs more discussion of why such establishments are controversial. After all, some segments of the gay community have tried hard to distance themselves from stereotypes involving rampant anonymous sex. Homophobia and public health issues are not the source of all objections to such establishments. Isomorphic 19:16, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that Isomorphic makes a good point when he writes that articles that deal with a very special interest subject, no matter how well written they are, should not be featured. I remember a featured article candidate about a certain model of a car which I think is too specialized to be featured. But this article is okay, I think. Andries 20:53, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely 100% disagree. You're saying that we should not only exclude articles of objectionable morality (something I disagree with but can respect), but that anything of too specialized an interest should be excluded too. I completely, totally, 100% diagree. The idea of the featured article on the main page is to bring attention to particular articles we think are good, regardless of how specialized the interest might be. Respectfully, your position is ludicrous and I think most of the people here would disagree. →Raul654 21:03, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

well, may be I am wrong, but I thought one of the reasons of the featured articles was to interest and to attract people. This won't work if the subject is uninteresting, unimportant and very specialized. I support gay bathhouse by the way.Andries 21:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think it could be listed as a featured article, but I think it would be a bad idea to put it on the main page. -- I would find that to be a good compromise. cbraga 20:12, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I support this proposition to feature it without putting it on the main page. AndyCapp 20:46, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Some of this discussion is about whether this article should go on the front page, and what kind of impression it might give of Wikipedia. However, neither Wikipedia:What is a featured article, Wikipedia:Featured articles nor this page mention this as consideration for a featured article. Perhaps we could either (A) clearly state that a featured article is one that is suitable for the front page or (B) have a separate (hopefully lightweight) process for deciding which featured pages should go on the front page. I'd lean towards B ... I think it would be a shame if a quality article can't be recognised as such because some consider it (morally etc.) inappropriate for the front page. — Matt 21:07, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support (still). I'm not so enamored by that compromise, tbh. Many of the objections seem to be Puritan obejctions to the subject matter, rather than to do with the article itself. There's very little discussion about the molarity of Prostitution in that article. I find cbraga's comments particularly offensive (they evidently didn't notice the mention that saunas and bathhouses tend to encourage safer sex, for example. I really don't think there are any NPOV issues with the article; it's well-written, balanced and fair and I don't think we should avoid featuring articles just because some people might find them offensive. I find it hard to believe that most of these objections would be made if the article wasn't about something that "dirty fags" do. OwenBlacker 20:34, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended anyone. The fact is that the very article portrays patrons of gay bathouses as 'dirty fags', as demonstrated by this sentence: Customers who have rooms may leave their room doors open to signal that they are available for sex. Please explain to me how this leads to safer sex. I'd really like to know, and perhaps the explanation should be included in the article as well. Again, I'm sorry if I offended you, but I can't say I enjoyed reading the article either. cbraga 20:41, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, I don't necessarily expect people to enjoy reading articles about subjects that can evoke strong motion, such as sexuality. FYI, saunas tend to make condoms and lubricants easily available (usually with wall-mounted distributors, in London). People can pick them up easily and gratis. If someone goes into a room and makes it apparent that they want sex, it's quite usual for them to have brought condoms and lube into the room with them first. There's nothing about saunas and bathhouses that intrinsically prevents safer sex from occurring there; it's no more difficult to be safe than not to be, in such premises. OwenBlacker 20:53, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

One more point, irrelevant to the quality of the article. Since wikipedia doesn't provide parental control tools, I would think that after featuring a couple of "XXX-rated" articles on the front page, the whole wikipedia will be in danger of being routinely blocked by XXX-control tools. By the way, how about nominating the Penis article? Pretty well-written IMO. (By the other way, vagina sucks. Male (or male gay) chauvinism?) Mikkalai 00:19, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Penis is brilliant. Furthermore it has a photo which would definitely make an impact. Your point is taken. Mandel 11:19, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Living as I do in basically the opposite time zone, I'd like to address the objections that have appeared since I've been away.

A featured article (please read wikipedia: what makes a featured article candidate) is one that is well written, neutral, complete, and has references. It is not one that is on a topic that will not offend any users. It is not one that people will not find morally objectionable. If you check the list of past featured articles you'll discover that the only sexology topic that has been featured has been the article on prostitution. There's a good reason for this, namely that many of the sexology articles suffer from a general lack of good writing.

Wikipedia aims to gather human knowledge. There was no article on gay bathhouses, a global institution that has been very important to gay people for many, many years, so I wrote one. When I came accross it a few days ago I thought it was a good candidate for a featured article because it's a little-known (outside the gay community) topic, the article's interesting, complete and well-written. It was never my expectation or desire to stir up a bunch of controversy, though it's probably a good thing if it leads to some sort of general understanding about what articles are eligible for featuring on the front page.

In terms of the objection that the article does not discuss the moral issue, frankly I found it unnecessary. The article does not say that bathhouses are a good place and that everyone should visit one. There are few anti-bathhouse activists within the gay community itself (and there is a section on them). Bathhouses in many cities, in fact, in most of the places where they exist legally, are good community citizens that are welcomed or at very least tolerated by the local business community. Legal challenges have, as mentioned in the article, generally found in favour of bathhouse owners. In other, basic words, businesses that provide a safe place for customers to have sex with each other but do not encourage prostitution are legal. I'd also point out that there are non-gay bathhouses (though they are rare), swinger clubs (much more common) and sex clubs (very common). Places like this are not just a "gay thing," but gay bathhouses such as the article discusses -- as opposed to swinger clubs and sex clubs -- are largely peculiar to gay culture. It should be easy to understand that legal and moral objections stem from homophobia and/or moral issues with sex and sexuality. That has been more than amply demonstrated even in this small forum.

cbraga says that the article "depicts a practice not accepted by any society (promiscuous sex with total strangers) and that for that reason it's best left where it is." This is quite untrue. Prostitution basically amounts to "promiscuous sex with total strangers," yet the prostitution article was featured on our front page, and prostitution has been a feature of nearly all societies and is accepted in many cultures. Furthermore, as the article clearly states (but not that it should make a difference), not all bathhouse sex is promiscuous or with total strangers. As for the user's definition of "objectionable" ("self-destructive through risk of death by AIDS") I'm afraid that one person alone cannot redefine words in the English language. What "objectionable" in fact means is "offensive." By the way, we have articles on drug use too (another example you mention). Should they be banned from featuring on principle too? Why should such topics not, as you say, "be brought to attention"?

As for arguments that the article goes into "minute detail," in fact, it doesn't. Much detail was purposely left out in order to make it encyclopaedic and not lecherous. No one's forcing anyone to read the article, even if it does become a feature. Wikipedia is not about censorship or morals. It's not about deciding what is and is not appropriate for people to read.

Listing the article as a featured article, but not putting it on the main page would not be a "good compromise." An article that is not featured on the front page is not a featured article.

Exploding Boy 03:04, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

I agree 100% w that conclusion, and state once more that this is simply not featured article material, by any measurement. Sam [Spade] 03:10, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I too agree with EB's conclusions. Wikipedia is not bowlderized, and Prostition and James Bulger murder case have already been featured, so it wouldn't be without precedent. →Raul654 03:11, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Sam, if you continue to refuse to come to the appropriate talk page and enumerate your issues with this article clearly, I'm going to list you for comment. Exploding Boy 03:18, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely with everything Exploding Boy has written thusfar; and I do believe the article to be featured-worthy – by any measurement. I don't understand Sam Spade's apparent issues with just about every gay-related topic. OwenBlacker 03:24, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral; mildly leaning towards support. Some phrasings are vague, and the article in general seems dated - the gay bathhouse phenomenon has (to the best of my limited knowledge) fallen out of vogue, though this isn't really reflected by much of the article. -Sean Curtin 08:47, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, it's pretty much still going strong. Exploding Boy 14:10, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Yup, definitely still popular here in Britain, at least. OwenBlacker 14:19, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A Conclusion?

Article is NPOV disputed, and listed on wikipedia: requests for comment and wikipedia: peer review. Now is not the time to feature this article. Sam [Spade] 01:40, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that was your intention all along wasn't it? Meanwhile, you continue to be the only user who disputes the neutrality of the article. When are you going to remove your ridiculous objection and get on with editing articles you know something about? Exploding Boy 06:44, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

review my edit history. Sam [Spade] 06:48, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What for?

I'm still inclined to agree with Exploding Boy on this one. I've yet to see any objections that don't seem to stem from puritan objections to the subject matter, rather than objections to the article itself or its NPOV-ness. OwenBlacker 14:19, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

he attempted an ad hominem/Red herring (fallacy) suggesting I was overly pre-occupied w this page specifically, or perhaps an anti-homosexual agenda generally. I suggested that anyone interested in the basis of such a claim might like to review my edit history. If you fail to understand the specifics on why the article is unnaceptable for featured status, I suggest you try talk:Gay bathhouse. Sam [Spade] 15:01, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why bother since still you are the only one disputing the article's neutrality. It's also been listed for a week on RFC and Peer Review with no comments. Your edit history only shows that you've run into similar problems with other articles. Exploding Boy 15:17, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

(OwenBlacker moved comments by Pollinator to "New objection" below)

try scrolling up and reviewing other objections. I am aware of your attempts to marginalize all objections and push this article thru w the assistance of raul. If you do it will be a sad precedent indeed. Sam [Spade] 16:02, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't particularly appreciate that remark. It doesn't help your case one iota, and in the future you might want to consider the long-term reprecussions before insulting the people who are trying to help you. →Raul654 16:25, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

I will clarify in case of confusion: I do not suspect conspiracy nor bad faith on the part of Raul or EB. Sam [Spade] 17:32, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The other objections were not on the basis of neutrality. Honestly I don't even care so much about the article being featured, though I believe it deserves to be. I mostly object to your attempt to characterize it as non-neutral in order to block it from becoming featured. Check the article's talk page: you are the only user who objects to its neutrality, and your objections are groundless. Exploding Boy 16:07, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Sam [Spade] 16:12, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, and a stitch in time saves nine. Good grief. You make absolutely no sense. Exploding Boy 16:23, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Why is this already archived? Aren't FAC debates supposed to last a month? This was nominated less than two weeks ago. -Sean Curtin 03:10, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, Wikipedia:Feature article candidates and Wikipedia:Wikipedia maintenance seem to disagree on the length of time required. -Sean Curtin 03:21, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And who archived it? It clearly says that debates continue for a month. I'd like it moved back. Exploding Boy 04:09, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Likewise; this should be moved back (imho). My watchlist suggests it was moved by Sam Spade, which doesn't pticly surprise me. A request for arbitration has been made and I feel this discussion touches on that quite heavily. — OwenBlacker 11:57, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New objection

(Discussion moved to Talk:Gay bathhouse) OwenBlacker 10:09, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Stop posting here please

This is an archived debate. Discussion should be on the article talk page dont you think?

[edit] Typeface

I was recently discussing the new main page and I came across the Typeface article. Before reading this article I never knew the dfifference between a sans serif, monospace, proportional or serif font. Nor did I know the most prominent uses for each font category and the specific charachteristics of each It's interesting to learn about something that I take for granted and see every day, yet know nothing about. The article is full of illustrations, seems complete and has good and concise prose.

I think it would make an excellent featured article. --Exigentsky 02:45, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

• Support, it has great pictures too. --Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 08:47, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
• While it is a very good start I have a few objections: We could use a bit more on history of typefaces. The section on decorative fonts is entirely missing, and we could need a section about inter and intra-glyph spacing. ✏ Sverdrup 09:42, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sherlock Holmes

A very informative and interesting article, with a engaging picture. --Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 04:24, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

• Some of the writing wasn't strictly encyclopedic. I'll go through it later. The content was certainly feature-worthy. Meelar 16:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I've gone over it. As I said, the content was really good, but someone else want to take a look at the writing style? Meelar 20:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Brilliant. Support. Johnleemk 10:43, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Small rewrites, then support. --Fu 00:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I'm not so keen on the large lists in the article, of which there are several; could some of these be factored out into separate articles, e.g. List of actors who have played Sherlock Holmes? — Matt 21:02, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. It's a good article, but the layout makes it a little hard to read. Would support with improved layout. Exploding Boy 06:45, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Lists... lists... and more lists.... I want to learn. Not to see collections. -Pedro 21:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Spiridon Louis

Self-nomination. It's a bit short, but he was basically a "one-hit wonder". Jeronimo 20:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Object. It's too short, it lacks a TOC, and I'd like some source information on that picture. →Raul654 20:35, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • A TOC can be arranged (even if most of the text will be in the same section), the picture was taken in 1896 and is therefore in the public domain (although I don't know the original source, will try to trace it). However, the article length will difficult to increase. I didn't find any biography of him (let alone one in a language that I can read), and what I did find has been scraped from many books and web sources. Frankly, I think it is the most complete biography about him on the web, but of course that doesn't imply it is suited for featured status. Anyway, I can't solve this particular objection. Jeronimo 06:44, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • the picture was taken in 1896 In colour? Presumably not, and I think the adding of colour would constitute expressive content. Markalexander100 09:48, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • No, it is not an original colour picture, but there are more pictures from that era with colour added, and I assume this is one of such pictures. Will investigate. Jeronimo 10:26, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arnold Schwarzenegger

Excellent writing, good neutral coverage of a potentially controversial topic, long enough to be detailed without being boring. I've not worked on this. Meelar 22:22, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Support. More on how he got involved in the movie business and his acting carreer may make it better. Revth 07:01, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I came here to nominate this one, but Meelar beat me to it. This must be one of the most complete encyclopedia articles on the current Governor of California. Gentgeen 00:13, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Objection. The article is unbalanced and has too much Political career and too little Acting career. ✏ Sverdrup 08:48, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Support - but as a biography of a governor, not as a person. --Etaonish 21:04, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• object. Agree with Sverdrup. -Pedro 00:46, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object, on the same grounds as Sverdrup. Once that is resolved, I will likely be fine with it. -Joseph 13:47, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

[edit] Saturn V

Comparatively short for a featured article, but comprehensive, informative and extremely well illustrated. -- ALargeElk | Talk 09:54, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Love the article, excellent images and quality text. I improved the hyperlinks a bit. --Zaha
• Object. Nice article, but it needs some work: Jeronimo 21:16, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The "fact table" contains many units/terms that should be linked to appropriate articles on the term in question.
  • The articles on the different stages are separated from the main article, even though these contain little information (interesting pictures though). I think these should be integrated with this article. It is unlikely these will be looked up separately (even if some stages have also been used by other Saturns).
  • I'd like some more technological background - either in the article, or linked to - on how rockes of this type generally work, and this one particular. Also: what features are unique for the Saturn V, separating it from other versions of the Saturn and similar rockets. Perhaps even: why didn't the Russians also build a rocket that could land them on the moon?

[edit] Another World (television series)

An amazingly detailed article by new contributor User:TheCustomOfLife, about a long-running American soap opera. If anything, it might need a little work to make it more consise. It will probably need polish, but there is certainly the material here for a good featured article. Isomorphic 00:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Support...well-written and well-structured. — Matt 02:01, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) Object. Very detailed, perhaps to a fault. I think some work to make it more concise would help, as some of the information is unnecessary and would likely bore the majority of readers, e.g. The Closing Credits section: The closing credits usually started with the writers, beginning with Head Writer and going down from there, dictated by tenure. The director of the episode was usually credited next, followed by the executive producer, producers and associate producers. Then the cast would be credited in order according to tenure. In the 1970s, it was decided by then-executive producer Paul Rauch that Victoria Wyndham, Douglass Watson, and Constance Ford, in that order, be credited before the rest of the cast.. — Matt 00:00, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was unaware that being too detailed was a bad thing. I wrote it partly for the uninitiated, as well as for the people at The World of Soap Themes, who really do appreciate that sort of detail. But, in any case, what do we suggest I do about it? I can't cut it out completely. I need to know specifics, because "making it more concise" isn't much to go on. I was warned that my article would be picked apart, and I really shouldn't get this defensive about it, but I thought the whole purpose of the article was to educate the reader about the show: all parts of it. TheCustomOfLife 00:15, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is, surely, a point at which detail becomes detrimental to an article? You could add tons of facts like "the number of times the word the is used in dialog", but that wouldn't improve the article. I can't give you a decent rationale about where the line should be drawn though, and I'm open to being persuaded — I don't want to object just out of personal disinterest (for example, I enjoyed the detail in Papal Tiara). (The Announcer is another section I think could be trimmed down).

A minor niggle is "please scroll down" — better "see below" or something, not everyone may be reading the content on a computer. — Matt 00:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how my detail is equivalent to "the number of times 'the' has been used in a script." I can understand how a section like "The Announcer" is long-winded, but if sections are cut, people from the site in which I frequent will complain that I have left out details. In fact, for a section like that, as odd as this may sound, I really have given the minimum in terms of description. Besides, if people do decide to "see below" for technical history, a debatable "long-windedness" would probably be overlooked, assuming the people reading are interested in the technical history. It does make sense, if they have kept going past storyline history? TheCustomOfLife 00:44, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that your detail was like "the number of times the has been used in a script", but rather give an extreme example to show that there is a point where facts become too trivial and a detriment to an article. How to decide where that point is, I'm not sure, but my gut feeling is that parts of Another World is on the "too trivial" side for a Wikipedia Featured Article, even if it's fine for World of Soap Themes. I agree with your point about people who have read on past the storyline history, though. — Matt 00:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree about the article being too trivial. The show wasn't top-rated for a decade for nothing. The entire article is not "World of Soap Themes" material, either. Please stop discounting it.

Maybe it would help more if we had someone who watched the show go through and judge, regarding the "wordy" issue. TheCustomOfLife 00:55, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

By Another World I meant the article, not the series itself; sorry, that may not have been clear. I don't think the topic is too trivial, and I'm not discounting it. I appreciate you've put the work that you have into this article, but my honest opinion is simply that the information contained in certain sections of the article is too trivial for a Wikipedia Featured Article. I'm open to persuasion otherwise, particularly since I can't give a concrete rationale beyond "gut feeling". — Matt 01:05, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So your objection still stands, even though you can't give more of a rationale beyond "gut feeling"? TheCustomOfLife 18:48, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That is correct. — Matt 23:04, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are gut feelings alone allowed to stop articles from reaching featured status? That reason seems reaching. TheCustomOfLife 00:00, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You'll see in the talk page that I proposed some rules for voting that would require that all objections be answerable. However, since that's not policy (I'm told it's unnecessary), I think unaswerable gut-feeling objections are allowed, unfortunately. --TreyHarris 00:37, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• (abstain, for now)Support. Nice style, a refreshing lack of breathy fandom, sensible use of pictures. I do have some suggestions for improvement (well, change): some notes deflecting the correlation between events in the show and in the real world - by which I mean when (if) did they introduce a character with HIV, a single mother, a gay character, a black or hispanic character. Did the show reflect the political geitgeist too - was everyone unhappy and unemployed during recessions, and riding around in speedboats in boomtimes (or is it one of those escapist ones where everyone's always riding around in speedboats)? I found the "Before They Were Stars" to be an excellent and most enlightening thing, but the regular cast-lists didn't seem very interesting. There's a couple of places where the copy is a little chattier than wikipedia's norm (e.g. "yes, every girl falls in love with Cass!"), but that's easy fixed. Other than that, it's great. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, AW introduced the first AIDS patient on a soap opera (Dawn Rollo, in 1987). Most notably, Sharlene Frame, the former prostitute, was a single mother (she gave birth to and raised Josie; there is a mention of that in there, but it is only fleeting).

Cast lists and "every girl falls in love with Cass!" deleted. I'm trying to find a place where I can add Dawn Rollo. TheCustomOfLife 01:27, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dawn Rollo mention added. Its lead-in is the Adam/M.J./Chad triangle, and Chad was Dawn's brother. TheCustomOfLife 01:37, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Black actors on Another World were also added. There were more black actors on AW than on any other soap at the time. I'll add a mention on how the soap, in some places, looked glamorous due to the Dallas/Dynasty touch of the time. Most of the characters were middle-class, save for businessmen like Michael Hudson, but he was a stable boy in the beginning so it was like a rags-to-riches story. Mac Cory had been rich since forever, and Felicia was always over-the-top. I will put a tiny mention in there. Mostly, AW was quite real in portrayals of characters, socioeconomically. TheCustomOfLife 02:04, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Felicia mention added, socio-economic status of AW briefly analyzed. TheCustomOfLife 02:17, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - all excellent additions. Were there consequences (e.g. did the addition of the HIV character receive praise from some group or other, or criticism from some group or other) or external causes to these (e.g. was there some kind of lobby group or advertiser campaign for the inclusion or exclusion of one subject or other?) I ask particularly because british soap Brookside was constantly courting controversy with its subject matter ("the wifebeater's body under the patio", "the lesbian kiss", "the incest family" etc.). I think my fundamental thesis is that all really good wikipedia articles are kinda "knitted" into the fabric of the wikipedia well, that you read one (perhaps initially trivial-seeming) soap-opera article and before you know it you've been dragged off and are reading about antiretroviral drugs or hollywood colour-bans or Ronald Reagan. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I know African-American groups like the NAACP supported the black cast members on AW, because, unlike Y&R's black cast in later years, the black characters on AW interacted with the white characters instead of just staying in their own "corner." Even Zack and Julie Ann were never alone; while their use was shaky, they still interacted with the core members of the cast. Zack was a lawyer buddy of Cass's, and Julie Ann worked at Brava for Mac Cory and was a confidante to Mac's daughter Amanda, who was around the same age she was.

The AIDS story played out very early into the AIDS epidemic, and since Dawn hadn't been on the canvas much before she was given the story, not many organizations noticed. Many more organizations noticed AW alum Ellen Wheeler's story of a woman with AIDS on All My Children in 1988 and 1989. Mostly, I think AW's AIDS story was a trial basis sort of thing. AMC's hit home more. TheCustomOfLife 02:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've heard of Brookie, and AW is definitely nothing like that show. I don't know where you live, but since you mentioned Brookie, I'm going to assume that you know the other British soaps. If anything, AW wasn't that controversial. Save for the issues I mentioned, AW was more mellow. Up until about 1995, when Jill Farren Phelps took over the show, AW was more like a slightly more glamorous Corrie. While on Corrie, Mike Baldwin was the only "rich" character, there were more businessmen on AW. While the other American soaps had more escapist plots, AW stayed true to the moral fabric of America. Sharlene lived at the Frame Farm most of the time she was there. Rachel grew up poor, and Ada was a working-class woman all her life. TheCustomOfLife 02:59, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Upon suggestion by Matt Crypto, only the opening credits remains for technical history. The other two technical categories were given their own pages and linked at the end. Television listings moved to after the opening credits. Before They Were Stars and AW Emmy wins are in a new category altogether, Notable AW Alumni. TheCustomOfLife 01:47, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The discussion about how controversial the show was (or wasn't) made me think of a suggestion. You know a lot about soaps in general, not just about AW. So, you might want to spend more time comparing and contrasting AW with most soaps. For someone like me, it's more interesting to learn how AW fits in to the overall soap opera genre than it is to read plot summary or technical details. Is AW more high-brow or more low-brow than most soaps? Was it generally considered an innovator, or did it mostly follow where others led? That sort of thing. Isomorphic 02:08, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Would that need a completely different section? I think so. It won't be that long but it will do the job. TheCustomOfLife 02:09, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The outline of the new section:

• 2 What made AW unique
• 2.1 AW's early success story
• 2.2 A blockbuster success...isn't AW expands to ninety minutes
• 2.3 AW becomes an African-American showcase
• 2.4 AW tackles AIDS
• 2.5 AW and the socio-economic status of the day
• 2.6 A "little person" actor
• 2.7 A compelling story of sexual abuse Sharlene's story

Before I listed the things that made AW unique, I made a mention that AW was more high-brow due to the character-driven storytelling that most soaps did not do.

I wish I could give mentions of organizations noticing the Dawn Rollo and Sharlene story, but I'm afraid I can't. I don't think these organizations took notice of soap operas' stories until the very late 1980s and the early 1990s. These stories were on the brink and were subsequently not noticed. TheCustomOfLife 15:42, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Object. Abstain. This is just not a very professional article. Many of the headers (i.e. =="A compelling story of sexual abuse==, and ==The end and life after it==) sound like they came from a fan page, not an encyclopedia article. You don't even need to look at the edit history to see that this article is not yet the product of a community, but rather of one fan contributor. I would suggest listing this page on Wikipedia:Peer Review and getting this article reworked and toned down before adding to FA. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:05, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Headers changed to more nondescript names. I had no idea that my writing this article was a bad thing. In fact, the user SwissJohn29 added the current picture at the top, as well as a couple of paragraphs on the books written.

Since obviously one person writing an article is frowned upon, should I have left it the way it was, even though it was atrocious before? I really think not, mate. TheCustomOfLife 19:12, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No one is saying that the article is bad. All I'm saying is that any article that is only written by one person is not going to have the well-rounded NPOV perspective that we strive for at Wikipedia. You're obviously a big fan of this show, and that comes across a little too much in the article. As I suggested before, I would submit this for peer review before having it be featured. Keep in mind that just because I don't think your article is not "featured" quality yet, that does mean that I think the article is bad, or that the topic is un-discussable. I think that if you give this article some time and wait for some other Wikipedians to get around to adding their community input, then this article could eventually be featured quality. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:20, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

You called the article unprofessional. To me, unprofessional and bad go hand-in-hand. With a show like a soap opera, it is really hard to tell a neutral point of view, because there is so much drama and emotion surrounding it. I have tried hard not to take sides on any of the issues, and edited the areas where I did.

No one was going to come around and edit this article anyway. It stayed stagnant for months until I did something about it: the very thing you said should happen to it. TheCustomOfLife 19:36, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I or any of the other editors came of as being somehow antagonistic in some way, but we're really not trying to be at all. If you look at the other article nominations here, people openly criticize the article candidates, and the authors take it in stride. I think that you've done a great job of adding new material to a stub article, and I'm glad that you did it. However, the criteria of being one of wikipedia's "Best" articles is a pretty high bar, and I just don't think this article is there yet. No hard feelings, ok? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:04, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

DropDeadGorgias's main objection seemed to be with the way the headers were worded. They have been changed. Would you like to reword your objection? TheCustomOfLife 23:47, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you're so wary of submitting your article for Peer Review. It's not a negative thing- it's just that there are people on Peer Review who will be able to do a better job of suggesting changes than I will, as I am just not that familiar with the subject matter.

My basic concern with the article is that it's not very accessible to people unfamiliar with the subject matter. I would suggest changing the structure of the first two sections. It seems to me that you go through two completely separate chronolgies of the show, one in terms of the main characters, one in terms of the topics that were covered. I think it could also benefit from a section on how the show has influenced soap operas on the whole or other TV shows. Is it referenced/spoofed in any other major media? Look at how other featured media articles manage to tie in other mainstream topics (i.e. DOOM, Batman).

However, I simply don't have the energy to keep responding to you with the constant fear of possibly offending you; I am changing my vote to an abstention, so I can get on with my life. I still would suggest that you try Peer Review, and that you not think of this as "your article" so much as the community's article. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 00:35, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

This is essentially Peer Review with voting. In any case, I don't understand why so many people (not just you, but others) feel that the show had to impact society. I really can't think of any ways AW impacted society as a whole, but more of a basis between the show and its fans, one-by-one. TheCustomOfLife 00:40, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Object: Way too many sections = overwhelming TOC. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article. I suggest moving all the subsections under ==A storyline synopsis== to its own article titled Another World storyline and leaving a 5 to 6 good sized paragraph summary in its place (not everybody wants all the detail that is there right now). Also, reduce the number of subsection headings under ==What made AW unique==. There is little need to name paragraphs. --mav
  • It is very hard to summarize thirty-five years. I'll compromise; I'll leave the storyline synopses but move "what made AW unique" to its own article. Would that be better? TheCustomOfLife 15:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • OK - it's better. Objection withdrawn. In the long term a storyline summary will still need to be made. --mav
      • As long as that is...that is the summary. TheCustomOfLife 19:31, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Neutral, but it does seem rather arbitrary to have a section on the opening credits in the article, but to mention the closing credits in a separate one. -- Emsworth 19:42, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Fair point. All technical categories moved to their own articles. TheCustomOfLife 19:54, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• As someone who watched not a single episode of this series, I can make a few unbiased comments about this article.

It's clearly written by a fan, by the way the characters and episodes are discussed. I find several instances of POV language which ought to be modified.

It reads far more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia article. This does not mean I expect dry-as-dust, but it's a little too breezy and casual. I have no objection to sneaking in the occasional witticism or telling remark, but "sparingly" is the key concept.

The soap is clearly an important 20th century entertainment phenomenon, and there is no reason this article could not represent the genre well. And BTW, TheCustomOfLife, I've poured hours of my own into articles here only to see them run through the same mill. I have learned not only to acept but to respect the process. It's important to realize that once you contribute an article to Wiki, it's no longer yours, but it is rare that an article which has been lovingly and carefully put together suffers from the process of collaborative editing. Believe me when I tell you we're far less harsh than many magazine/newspaper editors I've seen! Denni☯ 03:38, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

I would like to change the POV language, if you would point out instances. That is, if User:SwissJohn29 would like to do it first. TheCustomOfLife 14:09, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's been four days and no POV instances have been cited. I have a feeling that the POV talk was just a way to segue into the "Don't feel bad" spiel. TheCustomOfLife 18:01, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

POV instances cited on my talk page have been changed. Re-read them and see if there are any more objections. TheCustomOfLife 18:33, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The POV instances in question were deemed changed on my talk page. I move this back up here unless Dwindrim has any other objections. The photo issue has been addressed and permission has been asked. TheCustomOfLife 16:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

TheCustomOfLife 16:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Object (the article's changed somewhat; I supported previously). For the "Unique qualities section", the entire text has been excised to a separate article. I think this information is probably more important here than the "plot summary" section, and should certainly be a component of the main article; this is because "What made AW unique" will be of greater interest to the average reader who has never watched the show; a 4 decade plot synopsis will be primarily of interest to viewers of the show. — Matt 19:36, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • If I edit it for your liking, someone will object. If I edit it to their liking, you object. I'm getting the feeling that I am just not going to win. TheCustomOfLife 19:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, it's inevitable that people will disagree over how an article should be put together. To get an article to a stage where there is a consensus about its quality can take quite a bit of time, but it will be a better article for it. — Matt 20:37, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I have added some of what made AW unique to the front page but not all of it. Review and see if it's enough. TheCustomOfLife 22:07, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I agree with Matt. The main article is definitely the place for discussion of what makes the show unique, and how it fits into the overall context of the genre. The storyline, on the other hand, could go in its own article. That would conform to fairly standard Wikipedia practice; we often separate timelines into their own articles. I realize that summarizing 30 years worth of plot is hard. I suggest that rather than summarize the whole thing, the main article might just hit the highlights: the best-remembered plot lines and the best-remembered events, without any attempt capture the whole plot. Isomorphic 04:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know how to do that. I mean, I want to, but I simply don't know how. I really do wish there were more AW viewers who contributed. TheCustomOfLife 04:17, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Never say never! I created a story timeline with the complete synopsis moved to another article. TheCustomOfLife 04:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I have to object at present. I think the problems and frustration you're finding, Custom, are because this article is still in flux -- it's pushing its way to being a good article, but because it see-saws back and forth (in the wiki way) it makes everyone nervous about featuring it. The article I see today at this point isn't really an article -- it's mostly a series of lists and links to sub-articles. It's a very nice clearinghouse for information on AW, but as a feature, it lacks enough content to engage the mind and provide clarity on why (other than longevity) AW was notable. I think that the advice someone presumably gave to break off the "unique qualities" section was a mistake -- the text in that section gave the earlier versions of the article a depth and vitality that made it featurable. Without that text, as I note, it's more list-oriented. It's not bad by any stretch of the imagination -- it's just not sufficiently deep or instructional for me to envision wanting it on the main page for a day as a "featured article". I think tying back in the "unique qualities" would be a good idea....perhaps they need rewriting? Would that make them a better fit for the main article? Finally, I think it would be best to remove this nomination, because I think it is going to continue to give stress and frustration to Custom. Most articles need to settle for a few weeks, more often months, before being featured. The only article I've been involved with personally that made it past here took about 6 months to get here, and honestly it still wasn't fully ready. We're still tweaking it and expanding it. So I think a little break will allow the article to settle, and put it in shape to make it through here with no problem. Read the featured articles to get ideas -- some of them may seem weaker than the AW article at present, but certainly most of them should have some good ideas for you. Good luck. Jwrosenzweig 18:02, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. This isn't worth it. TheCustomOfLife 18:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fanny Blankers-Koen

Self-nomination. I'm sure some of you will object because the article has no pictures; unfortunately, I have been unable to find any for which I was certain about the copyright. Therefore: pictures are very welcome! (I've also placed a request at Wikipedia:Requested_pictures). Jeronimo 20:16, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• This is a neutral vote, but it would be a good idea to correct the contractions (couldn't should be could not, for example) and to replace the abbreviations (mostly m for metres) with full words. In a couple of instances times are not properly explained (11,2 what? Seconds? Minutes?). Exploding Boy 06:38, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • The Manual of Style says nothing about eliminating contractions. Couldn't is just about the best example there is of a contraction that sounds schoolmarmish and stilted when you write it out. As for "m" for meters, it's not an abbreviation — the official event name is '4 x 100m relay'. Moreover, 'm' is a universal abbreviation; it will be understood everywhere. (But couldn't is also universally understood as could not, so perhaps you're just in favor of verbosity on principle...) --TreyHarris 09:12, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • SI units such as m, kg, etc, are not abbreviations. They are symbols. That is why (a) they are never followed by a period except at the end of a sentence, and (b) there is no space between a number and a symbol. 15L is correct, 15 L is not. Denni☯ 04:28, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Contractions are not a feature of academic writing. They are reserved for speech and casual writing. Good writing never sounds schoolmarmish (good word, there) or stilted. The manual may not specifically mention contractions (though it should), but it does say that abbreviations are not necessary. Exploding Boy 02:34, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I rarely enjoy sports articles, but this one I found very interesting. Can we get a picture though?--TreyHarris 09:12, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object — parts of the article alternate between present and past tense, for example: However, in 1949, she travels abroad to promote women's athletics, flying to Australia and the United States. A darker episode in Blankers-Koen's life occurred in 1950.. Other nit: it might be a good idea to either close up "100 m" -> "100m", or "100 m" -> "100 m" to stop "100" and "m" from breaking at the end of the line for certain window widths. Interesting article, though, and a photo or two would probably help. — Matt 22:45, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I think I've eliminated all past/present tense problems, and I also changed all contractions. I also introduced the measurements meters/yards with a link the first time of their appearance, and also added seconds at the first occurrence in the text. I have not altered the "100 m" issue yet. I think this should really be solved by the wiki-markup, as 100m is ugly in print, and 100 m looks extremely ugly in edit. Perhaps there should be a tag (like in LaTeX) "don't break up this word"? Jeronimo 12:46, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Ah, I've just seen that the relevant Manual of Style section recommends using just "100 m". — Matt 13:40, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. No picture. -Pedro 22:56, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I expected this, but how will we get any legel images? Many of the other articles on this page also have dubious images (check Papal Tiara or Alan Turing), and I could easily rip a "widely used image" with "no clear copyrights" from the web. Ideas, anyone? Jeronimo 08:57, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • support. Pedro 10:20, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Uses non-free image (Image:Cover FBK bio.jpg). anthony (see warning) 13:10, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How about this image:

http://www.kb.nl/kb/hpd/diensten/boekennieuws/img/koningin.jpg

RickK 00:51, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks, I've added it. It's not perfect, but still better than nothing. I assume Pedro's objection is resolved because of this. Jeronimo 12:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Possibly, but I now object — sorry to be a git, but I think the image is poor (small, with large text all over it), and a photo included in a Featured Article should be better. I understand that it's a pain in the neck to get hold of a decent photo, though. — Matt 12:49, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have brough up the issue of fair-use images on the village pump before, and discussed it several times with Jamesday. Simply put - featured article should include a picture unless it is so abstract as to preclude one (for example, there is no concievable way solohpism could include a picture). That being said, that does not mean it has to be GFDL/PD - it can be fair use. Anthony's objection is hereby ignored. →Raul654 19:22, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

You can't just ignore my objection. We're making a free encyclopedia. We shouldn't have featured articles with non-free images. Raul's assertion that my objection is ignored is hereby ignored. anthony (see warning)

[edit] Wiki

This is a fascinating article, very well written, and good use of images where you wouldn't expect any. Meelar 19:17, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• It's well written, but I'm not so sure it would work on the front page... A new user might be confused and might think that Wikipedia is specifically about Wiki's, and not a general Encyclopedia. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:23, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe some articles could have "featured" status, but be flagged on the FA page as not being suited for the Main Page? Fredrik (talk) 19:32, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I would support in that case. I am just concerned that there is already too much stuff about "what a wiki is, etc" on the front page. This would just be overkill. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:58, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Support, with the stipulation that it not go on the Main Page. It's an excellent article, but putting it as the FA on the Main Page just seems self-important and navel-gaze-y. - jredmond 19:57, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with that. The Featured category is to recognize good articles, not to get on the main page necessarily. By all means, flag it off the main page. Meelar 20:11, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral on the article. The decision on whether to list an article on the front page should be left to whoever's undertaking that task at the time, not to those who discussed whether the article should be featured. Markalexander100 03:23, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • As the "one who is undertaking the task", I'm inclined to agree with your assertion. →Raul654 03:49, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I don't mean to nitpick, but, in any event: 1. The article inconsistently uses both "wiki" and "wikis" as plural. 2. The ellipsis at the end of the "Searching" section indicates that the section is incomplete. 3. The section "Wiki communities" uses the second person. 4. The ellipsis in "Jargon" indicates that the section is incomplete. 5. The section "Controlling users" includes grammatical errors. The first offending sentence is "Some wiki engines allow banning individual users from editing, which can be accomplished by banning their particular IP address or their username, if they are using one." Individual users are to be banned; therefore, the sentence should refer to "IP addresses," "usernames," and "using them." Alternatively, "individual users" may be replaced with "an individual user," "their" with "his or her", and "they are" with "he or she is." A similar error may be observed in the sentence "For small wikis, a common defense against a persistent 'vandal' is to simply let them deface as many pages as they want to, and to then quickly revert the pages after the vandal has left." 6. The article refers to "Quote from the book Foundation by Isaac Asimov" instead of "Quotation ..." 7. Certain sentences contain unclear phrases, such as "Because of that" and "this is." Preferable would be clearer phrases that are used elsewhere in the article, including "this mechanism" and "this process." 8. The statement "Most wiki history is purposely lost (or ignored), as the wiki nature is to forget the past, and what is known is often only known as lore through an oral tradition" appears to be vague and offers very little explanation regarding the basis of the conclusions stated therein. -- Emsworth 00:39, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
• oppose. verified some of the problems specified by emsworth user. Badanedwa 02:47, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Oppenheimer

A really fascinating read, well written and illustrated, with great detail. I looked it up because I was searching for the quote he said after the bomb went off, and found myself reading the entire thing. Meelar 06:23, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Object: The beginning has to many details about his early life, listing every illness, and the second half gets quite short. The famous security hearing should be described in more detail, explaining Oppenheimer's political views then and before that, during WW2, the debate with Edward Teller involved, the discussion about the hearing, its place in the history of McCarthyism, the controversy about it being just, the consequences for Oppenheimer, th later rehabilitation by JFK, the celebrated docu-drama by Heiner Kipphardt about the matter. Also the pblic role of Oppenheimer, being called "the Father of the Bomb" by the press etc... All this is highly interesting and had great influence (a) on the public perception of physics as a science and (b) on today's physicists view of their own role and responsibility towards the public. Wishing my knowledge was precise enough so I could contribute all this. Simon A. 21:48, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 47 Ronin

Stop writing good articles and I'll stop nominating them willy-nilly! :) jengod 23:09, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Johnleemk 04:59, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Ancheta Wis 09:33, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but I think it probably needs at least one picture. Unfortunately, I can't think of any off the top of my head. -Litefantastic 22:10, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I think it really needs an image. A plain drawing of a samuri would do, but surely a story as famous as this is represented in dozens or hundreds of paintings? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:42, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Added an external link with bunch of great pictures. I hope you will like them enough that I can convince you to support. Revth 09:17, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Pictured of graves of 47 ronin has been added. jengod 20:43, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • Super. Support. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:08, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
• Shouldn't this be at Forty-seven Ronin, not 47 Ronin? -- Emsworth 02:27, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree, the name is terrible with a number. -Pedro 08:37, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
    • I think it depends on whether you write out one to nine or one to ninety-nine. If you prefer the latter, there's no reason an encyclopedia article can't begin with a numeral. IJS. :) jengod 22:09, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • Anyway, the page has been moved thanks to James F. Johnleemk 12:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I will support this article. But the writing style has to be changed a bit. The narrator sounds as if he has seen the action first-hand. Tone it down for NPOV. Mandel 21:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The article is great, and the new graphic is very appropriate. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:22, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Simon A. 16:41, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Since Finlay is back on board, moved back to the top half of the page. Long, Tall Texan 07:13, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Object (though I'd like to be convinced otherwise). I really enjoyed this article, and I think it is a gripping story. I've two concerns. One is that the story section is titled "The original events"; can we be confident these were the original events? What evidence gives us that confidence? Secondly, if the article is about the 47-ronin story (historically true or not) should we include (one of the versions of) the story directly as a lengthy narrative? I think we should rather summarise the main events of the story, and not include lots of details like They searched the house, but all they found were crying women and children. They began to despair, but Ōishi checked Kira's bed, and it was still warm, so he knew he could not be far. — Matt 22:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with tiny details? Johnleemk | Talk 06:18, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • My point was that we should summarise, not retell, the story. — Matt 01:06, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Turing

A historically enormously significant person. If this article is inadequate in its current state to be a featured article (which is quite likely, I know), then I would be more than happy to do some research and build it up. - Mark 04:11, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) (EDIT: Oh, I forgot to add this was a bit of a self nomination - I have edited this article a few times)

• Support. Excellent article, though I find the absence of mention of Ultra a bit puzzling. It needs a minor copyedit, though, preferably by someone for whom BE is native language. --TreyHarris 05:55, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Well written, not too short and not too long. Simon A. 12:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Just a well-written, fascinating read. I was familiar with Turing for his eponymous machine, but the details of his cryptography work and personal life are also interesting. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:20, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Absolutely support. Interesting, well-organized, and complete enough for the lay reader. Could use a minor copyedit touchup, but not critical. Denni 06:26, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)
• Support, however, I would like to see his codebreaking work expanded. I would do it, but I'd rather vote for now. --Etaonish 00:50, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Andris 00:41, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I read yesterday that Alan Turing proposed to a Joan Clark, but broke off the engagement; something should be mentioned about this. Moreover, the section on his codebreaking work is far too short — he's arguably the world's most famous cryptanalyst — and also not clear enough (IMO): Turing is occasionally miscredited with breaking the Enigma and designing and building Colossus entirely by himself. Because of this I think the article should be very precise and particular in what feats it ascribes to Turing. (Also, was he the head of hut 8 at Bletchley Park?)— Matt 21:24, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Unclear image copyright status. anthony (see warning) 13:09, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fusion power

Fascinating article. Needs only minor copyedits and a little organizing to make this into an excellent article. --Etaonish 19:46, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Needs pictures, and preferrably several of them. Fredrik (talk) 19:57, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object: Some important things are missing, i.e. mentioning of the stellarator, the Z-pinch machine, bubble fusion, history of the idea, research funding (international, getting difficult), recent funding cuts, history of approach to break-even, foci of research (magnetic confinement in Europe, inertial confinement in the US) etc. Maybe I manage to add a bit. Simon A. 21:36, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Please add a better explanation of what, exactly, this concept is, and how it provides power. A diagram, I'm thinking, would go well here. Meelar 21:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Portugal

Self-nomination. W/the country's true history and culture. It is a bit extensive. Full of dates, a bit like a paper encyclopedia. Feel free to edit it. -Pedro 22:47, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Object for now - It needs a longer lead section and the history needs to be summarized and the detail moved to History of Portugal (which is oddly shorter than the history section at Portugal). A 4 to 5 paragraph summary of the history should be in the history section. --mav 00:43, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. the lead section is just the right size and should not expanded. Culture of Portugal has less content than the culture section of this page. Keep the section to 2-4 paragraphs long and move the rest to the dughter articles, which should be much more longer. --Jiang 09:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I know that the pages Culture of Portugal and History of Portugal are shorter, but my point for the nomination was Portugal :|. -Pedro 10:44, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Those sections are still too long. Siphoning off the text is a suggestion so that it doesn't go to waste. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries if you haven't already. --Jiang 04:40, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I'll try to summarize later, but you should remember that the country has a long history (almost 900 yrs of independence) and now it is pretty condenced and many relevant facts are not even showned. I'ld Appreciate Grammar correction, cause i'm not an English-speaker. -Pedro 11:12, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dune

(14 Jun)

Nice pictures; very descriptive of the different types. -Litefantastic 01:01, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Object...1) there's an inline editorial comment: (is this a made up word?). 2) The subsection "Dome" is only one sentence long. 3) The article is crying out for some illustrative diagrams or photos for the various different types of dune. 4) There's no discussion on the physics of a how a dune is formed. — Matt 19:35, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

oppose. "(is this a made up word?)" must be resolved; and, not a bad article, but sections are uneven in content. Badanedwa 02:30, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

It's not a made up word and the comment has been deleted (I responded to it on the talk page months ago) --Steinsky 11:32, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• neutral then. Badanedwa 04:23, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Formula One

(14 Jun)

Pretty complete, could be a FA IMO. cbraga 02:03, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1. The constructor-driver table in "Lists" is unclear; cell borders might be helpful. 2. The list of races in the championship should not, in my opinion, be presented as a table. I would prefer if the information in the "People of Formula One" table is not presented as a table either. 3. The article appears incomplete; note the last row of the "People of Formula One" table and the last bullet in the section "The Future of F1." 4. The article uses informal language, such as "tame these twitchy beasts" 5. The article inconsistently uses British and American spellings: "rumour," "formalised" and "organizer." -- Emsworth 02:57, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Re: #2, the list of races comes from the series (e.g. Spanish_Grand_Prix); I think it's fine. #5: I think that's the Oxford z, not the American one. Markalexander100 03:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The lists of races, teams and people are Template:X tables. I agree that the races and teams should be text and that the tables should only appear on the individual Grand PRix or constructor pages, but for "people" I don't mind it. If it's contrary to wikipedia protocol or something then it should be moved, of course.Rdsmith4 01:15, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Although I agree that this is quite a complete article, there are some areas that need working on. The "Future of F1" section needs renewing and expanding to reflect the current positions of the FIA and the teams with regards future rule changes. I'm not sure if the other articles in the series should be treated as if they are candidates but if so, then they also need some work doing. Firstly, the F1 Cars article needs to be more cohesive and secondly, any good info of the "2003 rule changes" and "2004" sections in the History of F1 article needs to be incorporated into the relavent place. 999 10:16, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with you on most of these counts, though I feel this article is quite close to FA quality. Supposing I work the Future of F1 bit into the history subpage (dunno why no one has done this yet) and edit the other articles in the series - must the page be renominated? Rdsmith4 01:15, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lancelot

(Arthurian legend) (13 Jun)

Just stumbled across this and thought it was a very good and thorough article. OwenBlacker 23:57, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Right now it's a big block of text, which is not easy to read at all, and not really in wiki style. It also tends to wax academic far too often, (lines like But to whom is the story to be assigned? are not encyclopedic). Article barely mentions portrayals of Lancelot in pop culture at all. Maybe if it were divided into sections it would be better. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 01:55, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Second. Although the text is extensive, there is a movie coming out soon that could stir up an interest in this article and others related to it.
• oppose. needs links and sections. Badanedwa 02:36, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deluge (prehistoric)

(13 Jun)

A nice, detailed description of the supposed prehistoric Flood. RickK 21:46, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

• support, but an image would be nice as well Zw 23:05, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object: 1) What's a "deluge" and a "Universal Deluge"? A definition intro sentence would help answer the first question that I had when I clicked on the article. 2) I'd query the use of "BP"/"ybp" — is this in widespread use in the field? Otherwise it's confusing to general readers used to AD/CE, BC/BCE 3) When reading, I got lost pretty quickly; I never really got a grip as to what this topic is all about. Perhaps adding connecting, contextualising sentences at the start of each section should give the reader hints as to what he's about to be reading about, before launching into details. — Matt 23:18, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Really needs an intro. DJ Clayworth 17:25, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Leo Frank

(13 Jun)

This is a fine biographical article that covers a very problematic period in US history from a little-known angle. Danny 13:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I do not object, but perhaps more wiki-links could be added. -- Emsworth 13:50, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • I am opposed to the practice of linking solely because it is (technically) possible, such, for example, as is frequently done -- to my mind excessively so -- with non-signficant dates and basic English nouns. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. -- Viajero 14:55, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't remember where it says it, but you are supposed to link all dates, so that the software can automatically convert them to the user's specified date preferance. →Raul654 17:30, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • The nine-paragraph section "The Trial of Leo Frank" is completely unwikified, it is very likely that it could be genuinely improved by appropriate links. As regards dates, Wikipedia:Tip_of_the_day_archive#Dynamic_date_conversion recommends Wikifying all dates. — Matt 15:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Links may enhance an article but they won't improve it. -- Viajero 18:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I found this to be an interesting and well-written article. The lead section needs to be larger (currently it's a single sentence). I also think that the single-sentence paragraphs in Leo Frank#Aftermath should be merged into a few, longer paragraphs. (As a side note: if this article is to go on the main page, should we "obscure" the hanging corpse picture behind a link, rather than having it inline? Some may find it a little unpleasant.) — Matt 14:05, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • leading and trailing paragraphs fixed. -- Viajero 14:55, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • The lead is still a little short, IMO. A large portion of the article discusses the trial, appeals and the sentence; this should be summarised too. — Matt 15:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Acegikmo1 23:45, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Papal Tiara

(09 Jun)

Woa, who knew one can write 1000 words on a hat! --Menchi 10:55, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Support--I moved a section on multiple tiaras to the top, as otherwise it was confusing. Fascinating read. Meelar 16:48, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Support-- I remember coming across this article last year (before we had featured articles), and stopping to read the whole thing. Great work. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:14, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. jengod 01:59, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. — Matt 14:12, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Tenatively Support, as the article is well done, but am correcting factual errors in several places. (666 is the Number of the Beast, not of the Antichrist. | Still trying to disambiguate which Pope Silvester is mentioned where... (There were 2.)) Nothing major, but, if it's to be featured, I want it to be the BEST of what wikipedia does. -- Long, Tall Texan 23:57, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, interesting. Smerdis of Tlön 00:20, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly support. 172 00:21, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Wonderfully arcane. Denni 06:42, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)
• object. "Antipope Gregory XVII (1978-present) ..." this seens an ad to an unknown/funny personality. Seens a bit anti-catholic. -Pedro 22:53, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Cut. Markalexander100 03:20, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. -Pedro 22:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. I would support, but for the shaky copyright status of the images. I'll leave it for those who know more than me about US copyright law to decide whether that's a problem. Markalexander100 02:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Several of the images are justified by the phrase, "no copyright notice anywhere" or something along those lines. Worldwide, a claim of copyright is not necessary for a work to be copyrighted, copyright is automatic. True, this is a recent development, and this images are old. But still, it's possible that they are copyrighted, whether there's a notice or not, and we need better attribution of the source of these images to determine if in fact they are clear for use. --TreyHarris 08:49, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object per copyright issues. anthony (see warning) 13:03, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chicken sexer

(13 Jun)

Fun (yet for real...folks called chicken sexers do indeed exist out there) article...not a huge article, but sizeable enough, IMO, to be a featured article. Good organization and writing; seems to be well-researched. Catdude 06:15, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No - far, far, far, far too short. →Raul654 06:20, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Object. I also think it's too short, and I doubt that it has the potential to be longer. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 06:34, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Erm... your statement denies the philosophy that any article, given enough effort, can be made a featured article, doesn't it? I think there is a place for short featured articles. This isn't it, though, so I'm not going to defend chicken sexer, but I'll say here how it could become a featured article to my mind--while remaining relatively short (say, doubling in size):

1. It needs some information about the history of chicken sexing. Surely it didn't spring in whole cloth from the mind of an anonymous Japanese poultry farmer sometime in the past five years and now everyone's doing it.
2. Why is chicken sexing useful? Why not just wait until the secondary sexual characteristics begin to show up to segregate hens from roosters?
3. What is the Japanese connection? Why is chicken sexing taught more widely there?
4. It sounds vaguely agri-businessy to me. Is it? Are chicken sexers more likely to be found in large corporate chicken plants than in the larger family farms?

Personally, I'd fully support this article as a featured article if these questions were answered. Length alone does not determine quality. --TreyHarris 19:07, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis, TreyHarris. You have some excellent points as to how this article could be augmented. I'll use some of those ideas as templates to perhaps point out to others how their articles might be made into a featured article! —Catdude 01:57, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I did a bit more digging on Google, and came up with the names of the Japanese people whose publication of a paper on the subject in the 1930s revealed this mystery to an eager world, and added that to the article. I may try to find it and see if there is more on the earlier history of the art in it. Smerdis of Tlön 15:38, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Lite object. Very small and too generalized. never heard of that, more development and it would be cool for featuring. -Pedro 00:09, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Personal rapid transit

(13 Jun)

• Fascinating article about how mass transportation can be made as convenient as personal transportation, and how some astonishing headway has already been made in this direction with futuristic transportation systems now in use. Superior writing and organization, as well as good references and excellent external links. Catdude 06:28, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I support the nomination. The article is thorough in terms of information and of excellent quality in regard to diction. -- Emsworth 00:51, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
• I'd like to see at least one more photo. Exploding Boy 01:41, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Minor objection. The large sections "Safety and Utility" and "Engineering Economics" are mostly unwikified: only 2 links. — Matt 02:12, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] El Cid

(16 Jun)

A self-nomination, but it's a good article. Neutrality 17:44, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for the edit. Support. Not an objection per se, but there isn't a picture anywhere in the article. Since El Cid died almost an entire millenium ago, can't there be a picture found from the movie version? TheCustomOfLife 17:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Done. I put two graphics in. Thanks.Neutrality 19:18, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Contains non-free image. anthony (see warning)
  • Which image? The album cover is explicitly under fair use, and the Cid painting could arguably be as well. Neutrality 18:42, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • The album cover under fair use is not a free image. anthony (see warning)
      • What do you mean by "free image"? It's OK under copyright law, so what are your problems? Neutrality
        • Free content images are licensed freely in the same (freedom) sense as free software is licensed freely. That is to say, recipients are given permission to use the content for any purpose, copy it, modify it, and to redistribute modified versions. My problem is the image is we are building a free encyclopedia, and this image is not free. Whether or not the image is legal for us to use under copyright law doesn't matter. anthony (see warning)
          • This question (fair use images) has been discussed before (see Wikipedia talk:Copyright), and a no-fair-use policy has been roundly rejected. Anthony is just trying to cause trouble. →Raul654 17:51, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
            • No, the question discussed before was whether or not fair use images violate the GFDL. The conclusion was while they are legal, their use should be avoided whenever possible, and "most, possibly even almost all, of the fair use images that we have in Wikipedia should be removed" (that's a quote from Jimbo). anthony (see warning)
            • I see. These are not serious objections, then. Thanks, Raul. Neutrality 19:18, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
              • No, it's quite serious. See for example the mailing list thread entitled [What would Richard Stallman say?. "The Wikimedia Foundation should be a beacon of what is possible with copyright freedom, and we should not allow anyone to ever point at our work and say 'Yeah, they talk the big talk about free licensing, but what would their site be without all those proprietary licensed images and fair use exceptions?'" Not even being able to create a featured article without such fair use exceptions goes directly to that point. anthony
                • I'm moving this back up to nominations without objections. If people feel that the images are not acceptable, they can replace, credit, or modify them as they see fit. Neutrality 05:51, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
                  • I moved it back. There is no requirement that the objection must be resolved by the person making the objection. anthony (see warning)
                    • And I'm moving this back again, because there IS a requirement that all objections must be "actionable." The guidelines further state that "if nothing can be done to "fix" the objected-to matter, then the objection is invalid." Neutrality 04:01, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
                      • This objection is actionable. If the non-free images are replaced with free ones (and/or the copyright status of them is documented as free) then my objection will be removed. anthony (see warning)
                        • Antony, please see the Wikimedia article "Avoid Copyright Paranoia." In the meantime, I will move this back up, since you are the only one who has objections.Neutrality 14:58, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
                          • My objection has nothing to do with copyright paranoia. You keep throwing that up as a strawman, but if you read my statements I have never claimed that the image violates copyright law. This section is for "nominations with unresolved objections". It is not for "nominations with more than one unresolved objection". Also, there are multiple other unresolved objections besides mine. anthony (see warning)
• Object. Refeers extensively to Spain (a 15th century country) and Historical figure from 11th century (relating them excessively and with POV), and relating them as the country existed at the time and if it was unified, etc etc. And Garcia was King of galicia and Portugal, not only Galicia, both where already somewhat separate identities. Tought the article is interresting all wright. -Pedro 19:43, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I reference to Spain in a general sense; e.g., "El Cid was known throughout Spain as..." I do not, however, use the word "Spain" as a substitute where more specific terms should be use (I use "Castile," "Leon," etc. to refer to that specific political entities. With regards to the POV comment: where in the article is hat you feel is POV? Could you please cite an example so I can fix whatever problems you see? Neutrality 21:07, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • In Portuguese we refered to the collective (and independent) kingdoms of Iberia as "Espanhas" (Spains), NOT "Spain" that is a modern (15th century) alteration of a collective name. In that time there was the Kingdom of Leon and Castille and several others. Not a kingdom of Spain so he could not be Spanish, as its mentioned in the article. The most important entity of that time as the kingdom of Leon. We can read in the article: El Cid (1045?–July 1099), also called El Cid Campeador, is the name commonly used for the important Castilian-Spanish knight and hero, Rodrigo (or Ruy) Díaz de Vivar, who was born in Vivar, Burgos, Castile, Spain and died at the age of 44 in Valencia. Suggesting what can be read. -Pedro 22:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • more objection. The image that is in the middle of the article is excelent and the first image is terrible and gives the idea that it's a movie. Main idea of the article: "A movie about a Spanish hero" Both incorrect. Cid is Spanish as Viriathus is Portuguese. - Pedro 19:57, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I make it clear in the caption that the graphic is a poster for a modern film portraying a romantized character of El Cid. Neutrality 21:05, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, but dont you think that the other picture is better to put above? it is more heroic and prittier. The movie one can go to the middle of the article, cause that's a mere curiosity. -Pedro 22:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • Done. Neutrality 05:43, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm assuming you meant "romanticized." I've edited the article to say it as such. TheCustomOfLife 23:07, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • Yes, sorry about the misspelling. Thanks, TCOL! Neutrality 05:43, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Featured articles should have a well-developed lead section. This article is long enough to have more than 5 sentences. ✏ Sverdrup 15:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1. The lead section is, as noted above, insufficient. 2. If El Cid's date of birth is unknown, the article should not purport that he died at the age of forty-four. 3. The article uses the first person ("we"). I would suggest that it be replaced with "one," or, if the third person is undesirable, with the passive voice. 4. In several cases, the article uses the vague "this." Better would be to qualify the word, for example as the article does when it uses the phrases, "this story" or "this time." 5. The sentence "Sancho believed that as the king's oldest son, it was his right to inherit all of his lands" may be considered unclear. The first "his" refers to one individual, while the second one refers to another. Perhaps one might write, "Sancho believed that he, being the King's eldest son, was entitled to inherit all of his father's lands," or words to that effect. 6. Em dashes (—) should be used instead of ones currently employed ( - ). 7. The article inconsistently refers to "El Cid" and "the Cid." I would prefer if the article uses one or the other in all instances. 8. The article sometimes uses the present tense instead of the past: for instance, "Terrified after his crushing defeat, Alfonso recalls the best Christian general from exile." 9. In the sentence "It has been shown that he was at court on July 1087 (Kurtz)," one cannot be certain whether the "he" refers to El Cid or to Alfonso. 10. Consider the sentence, "In 1096, Valencia's nine mosques were 'Christianized,' Jérôme, a French bishop, was appointed." To which position was Monsieur Jérôme appointed? Furthermore, the sentence requires a semicolon rather than a comma after "Christianized." 11. The article uses "smart quotes" instead of normal ones, thereby breaching policy. 12. Several sections contain just a few sentences. I think each section or subsection should contain at least one substantial paragraph (if not two), or an independent list (such as the list of References). -- Emsworth 18:14, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Neutrality, it is you that is "striking" what I comment? I continue to disagree on some content of the article. It is not historically correct. We cannot talk about a country named Spain in the 11th century. -Pedro 03:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object in the same grounds as Pedro. Referring to Castile and Léon as Spain is not correct. Featured articles should be immaculate. Muriel G 10:15, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I think Pedro's got a point there. Surely this is easily repaired - David Gerard 18:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cardinal number

(18 Jun)

Self nomination. Perhaps one of the few higher mathematics articles which are in a state of being comprehensible by non-mathematicans. (Splatty 08:46, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC))

• Object. Needs a history section. Who contributed to the development of this concept? Who disputed it? Fredrik (talk) 09:16, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Could do with a bit more of the lower mathematics, e.g. the simple idea of 1, 2, 3 ... - David Gerard 09:26, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I agree it would be fun to feature more articles of this type. The history/origin section is a major lack we have to deal with first, however. ✏ Sverdrup 18:36, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This article is not in a very good state. It needs a lot of work, mostly reorganization and a more consistent treatment of the axiom of choice. --Zundark 11:07, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Suggestion: Switch order of last two sentences in first paragraph under Motivation. It presently reads as if infinite cardinals are identified with the natural numbers.

[edit] Nicholas II of Russia

(16 Jun)

Nicely sectioned, smooth. Very comprehensive, purposeful and meaningful Avala 15:39, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1. The family background section needs expansion. 2. The vague term "this" is often used: "prevented this" or "previous to this." Some phrases from the article seem more appropriate: "this advice" or "this time." 3. More needs to be said about Rasputin's influence on the monarchy, and about the various hardships facing Russia. 4. The section on Nicholas' removal from power is much, much too brief. 5. More information is needed on Nicholas II's execution. Why did the government feel that it was necessary to end his life? Were there any in the government who felt that execution was not necessary? Why was the execution concealed? When was the execution made public? What was the reaction of the Russian people? 6. The section on sainthood is insufficient. It needs to indicate if he was indeed viewed as a martyr prior to the sainthood. Furthermore, the first sentence lacks agreement ("were canonized as a saint"). 7. Nicholas II's style was, I believe, "Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias," rather than "Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia." I am not, however, confident as to this point. So, generally, I feel that many sections are not comprehensive enough. -- Emsworth 17:19, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Support I like this article because it was well written and informative. Comrade Nick @)---^--

[edit] George W. Bush

(16 Jun)

Well written. Very informative Avala 15:31, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1. I think that the Civil Rights section needs expansion. The part about his views on marriage needs to be expanded. Furthermore, his ideas on abortion need to be indicated. 2. A section on Bush's religious views could be added. Firstly, one may indicate how he claims religion plays an important role in his public policy-making. Secondly, one may indicate his support of faith-based programs. 3. While the article does in many places mention that Bush has been criticized for his views, indications of criticism need to be made in respect of the aforementioned Civil Rights and Religion sections. 4. One should indicate why Bush is so unpopular with many members of the Democratic Party. 5. The pictures are all on the right side. Perhaps some can be shifted to other parts of the page, so as to offer a less plain view. 6. The article inconsistently uses "US" and "U.S." 7. Bush's relationship with Congress should be explored. His support in each House, and his use (or non-use) of the veto power needs to be indicated. This section would include his battle with Democratic Senators over judicial nominees, and his use of the recess appointment power. -- Emsworth 17:04, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Phrasing in the entire foreign policy section is consistently awkward, and does not exactly exemplify NPOV. Also, why is there a "Legislation" section? Presidents cannot introduce legislation in or vote upon any bills before either house of the Congress; IIRC the only thing Bush has done on those bills is not veto them. And I have reservations about featuring candidates for office on the Main Page, but I'll save those for Raul if/when this receives FA status. - jredmond 19:14, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, re: the "Legislation" section, he has a good amount of influence here--when I mention "the Bush tax cuts", everyone knows what I mean (everyone being fellow Americans). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:35, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Most Americans understand that - while you and I may have paid attention in civics classes, I can't say that everybody else did. (cf. the endless explanations of the Electoral College in the US media four years ago) Also, not everybody who reads here is an American. And "influence" is a slippery term... he farmed most of that work off to party whips in either house. - jredmond 19:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Very likely to get vandalized or deterioriate due to edit wars during the election campaign in the US. Looks bad for Wikipedia; besides, it's unnecessary to stimulate mishaps by flashing for the article on the frontpage. --Ruhrjung 19:22, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • This is not the front page election page. See header- David Gerard 18:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I haven't read the article, but regardless of its content I think it would be a bad idea to put this on the front page. Doing so would probably attract ugly edit wars as partisan newcomers from one view or another tried to add or delete material. The article might or might not be featured quality now, but give it half a day on the front page and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be. Isomorphic 01:12, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This is not the front page election page. See header - David Gerard 18:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Ongoing edit wars. anthony (see warning)

[edit] Mission Earth (novel)

(Contested — 19 Jun)

Self nomination, I think it satisfies all of the criteria except a picture (not really possible). Will interest anyone who wonders about those huge piles of Hubbard books in the remaindered and second-hand stores. A controversial topic, but not a controversial article - David Gerard 15:53, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Note: There is a project called "Mission Earth", a computer simulation project, which will probably get an article some time (I'll try to do it today). As such, I've moved this to Mission Earth (novel) and fixed links - David Gerard 21:30, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:50, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• It is usually ok to include a book cover as fair use. ✏ Sverdrup 18:45, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll find one and add it - David Gerard 18:51, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Cover scan added - David Gerard 10:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The article says, "The authorship of the novel is contentious."; if so, then the first line is POV: "Mission Earth is a ten-volume science fiction novel by L. Ron Hubbard".2) I'm not sure about this line from the plot synopsis; can we tweak it?: "Fleet Combat Engineer Jettero Heller, a character who is so perfect, incorruptible, and flawless that he makes James Bond look like a rank amateur." 3) Generally in the plot synopsis section, it's hard to tell whether certain sentiments are those expressed in the book or whether they have been injected by the writer of the synopsis: "Rock music is used in the novel to spread sexual deviancy, especially homosexuality, among the population of Earth.", "...two man-hating lesbians (who end up marrying Gris after he rapes them and thereby "cures" them of their lesbianism)" 4) Can we have the year of first publication after each volume in the "Volumes" section? — Matt 13:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • 1. It is generally accepted that Hubbard wrote it, but the authorship has been questioned on the grounds stated. However, Young came forward and described the circumstances of the novel's production and his account is generally accepted by all except the CoS. Better wording suggestions are welcomed. 2, 3. User:Modemac wrote most of the plot summary - I'll try to invoke him here. I wondered about 2, but I'm pretty sure 3 is the way the book presents the opinions therein; I think it would be silly to put "The book says" all the way through the synopsis. 4. Added - David Gerard 14:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks, the dates help. Maybe we need to tone down the questioning of the authorship instead, if it's generally accepted to by Hubbard's own work? e.g., rewording "many have doubted" and "contentious", and noting that it is generally accepted. On the other hand, maybe putting a parenthetical remark in the first paragraph would do it? — Matt 16:39, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Regarding the plot synopsis: The James Bond comment is indeed mine, and can be removed if you wish. The perfection and incorruptibility of the lead character is hammered `into the reader's head shortly after the beginning of the first book, so I don't think my comment is inappropriate. The bit about rock music, sexual deviancy, and man-hating lesbians is (unfortunately) spelled out in the books themselves, and they are not simply my conjecture. The lesbian stuff takes place between book 4 and 5, for instance.--Modemac 19:44, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Cut the James Bond bit - David Gerard 22:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry to hear that; personally, I thought it was sharp, good writing. Ah, 1911....[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Authorship section reworded and shuffled quite a bit; I think it's clear now - David Gerard 18:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• A fine article, but not yet brilliant. Object for now. The sections could be refactored - The psychology of Hubbard and Young;
  • This does not seem to be a specific actionable objection. Please ask for something in particular.
    • I meant here: the content about H&Y's psychology, about what Y said in his notes, etc -- content already in the article -- might be relegated to its own section rather than interspersed with the rest of the content.
• what Young said about Hubbard and in his notes;
  • RVY's stuff about what it was like to work with Hubbard belongs in L. Ron Hubbard, I would have thought. I'll go through again and see what can be added.
• and the new terminology coined in the novels and about them (the aside about "dekalogy") should find their own place in the article.
  • I'm not clear on what you mean by "should find their own place in the article." (see above. +sj+)
• The article feels incomplete. Is the synopsis one of the entire decalogue? Does it end without real conclusion? The article introduces a few characters, but there must have been many more over the course of the million words. Who were they?
  • It's a paralysingly slow-moving book. LRH had given up brevity; when you have thousands of followers who regard you as their messiah and give you all their money, it's hard to accept the need for editors. (That too belongs in the LRH article.)
    • Other excellent book articles tend to include a detailed discussion of major characters and locations, comparisons with other works by the same author (like your line about the kinder critics), etc. It might be helpful to have someone who enjoyed the books add content, since they tend to remember it in some detail. I don't mind an article that pans a book or series, but that makes it harder to qualify as an FA, since there is much less to say! +sj+
      • I felt panning it would violate NPOV; the NYT review summarises the critical reaction sufficiently IMO. As for finding fans of the book, I haven't managed to. This book appears to have no fan sites that aren't run by the CoS. If you know of one, please tell me! - David Gerard 01:38, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Listing the 10 books without any note as to their differences seems hasty, considering the brevity of the article.
  • They're ten slices of a single sausage. There's probably more to add to 'Authorship' on the slicing.
• What about non-critical public reaction to the novels?
  • This is mentioned - the non-Scientologists who read it largely hated it. The main reaction appears to be "why the hell are all these books in the remaindered bookstores?" but that's hard to put encyclopedically and it's answered.
• Thoughts of further distribution or movie rights? +sj+ 05:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • No word of such. Nor do I don't feel it's right to write something claiming absence of something because I happen not to be able to find such; if you know of positive evidence of such, please point me at it - David Gerard 09:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Specific requests: Something more about what LRH was doing while composing the book? How his parallel work with the CoS at the end of his life influenced him; how this style of writing and these plot themes compare with other writing of his; comments from people working with him during those years other than Young (if possible! paraphrased from a CoS site?)...
  • There are a few other reports. He was "in seclusion", which means on the run from the law. He'd also fallen into a phenomenon called "guru trap", where a cult messiah is essentially a prisoner of his devoted followers. I'll see what I can turn up. - David Gerard 01:38, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Seems a bit thin, and relies too much on the Synopsis section. I would like a separate section to discuss (like above suggestions) characters, main themes and such; this is generally much more interesting than a resumé. ✏ Sverdrup 01:17, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • You really hate me, don't you. You want me to open the thing again. The things I may do for Wikipedia ... - David Gerard 01:38, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Supply and demand

(Contested? — 17 Jun)

Self nomination. This article is probably one of the most linked economics article, and I believe it to be high quality. Jrincayc 02:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• object, the section on elasticity is fairly central to supply and demand theory, and so far I have added only a section heading. Other than that I think it is a pretty good article. I will try to add at least a start at the elasticity section, which may be a bit of a challenge since the Elasticity (economics) article is not all that well developed. - Taxman 17:35, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • I edited (err, mostly rewrote) the section on elasticity in the article. Take a look at it. Jrincayc 21:13, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, I mostly like those changes, needs just a bit more, see Talk:Supply and demand#Elasticity I think it just needs a diagram showing movement towards the equilibrium point which is pretty central to market economics and supply and demand theory. I fully support. - Taxman 16:31, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) Some of the writing on the graphs is really hard to read; the font needs to be a bit larger, or something. 2) The graphs could also benefit from being in colour (seven black and white graphs need livening up a bit, and colour would add to the clarity, rather than using different line styles). 3) The graphs could also do with some copyright information; are they PD, GFDL, Fair Use, etc? 4) I don't understand half the arrows on the third graph. 5) The fourth graph has a stray pixel floating in the middle of it (*cough* nitpicking)...etc. Executive summary: I'm not so keen on the illustrations ;-) — Matt 21:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • 3) GFDL. Feel free to upload new versions. I may get around to uploading new versions later. Jrincayc 02:09, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I've started working on new versions, I have one for the first image in the set here. Fredrik | talk 02:12, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • That's spot on, cheers. — Matt 02:13, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• There are several supply and demand topics in most intro micro textbooks that are not included. They are: the detrminants of demand; the determinants of supply, construction of a demand curve from a demand schedule, construction of a supply curve from a long run average/marginal cost curve, and the distinction between the movment of a demand curve and movement along a demand curve. Intermediate micro textbooks include compensated demand curves. My question is, "Should we include these topics?" They are all very important topics, but their inclusion might make the article too long. Any comments? mydogategodshat 04:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Feel free to add any of that, but to me, this article should be aimed at the introductory level and any more advanced topics should be mentioned and summarized, but point to the more advanced article. Construction of the curves (more than is already in the discrete example) and compensated demand curves should clearly only have separate articles. Movement along vs. shifts in the curves is nearly already covered, just some clairifcation on the distinction would be good. This article does not need to be an entire article on microeconomics - Taxman 14:11, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I like this article and the subject matter, but (like many articles) it needs a lot of work; more concise writing, better layout, and more extensive cross-referencing. Specifically:
• Wikification: no red links on the first screen or in the intro, please. A few more links to other related economics, sociology, and philsophy articles would be useful, and could help make the article more concise.
  • What did you have in mind? The article has hundreds of links to other economics articles. It is also in the category economics and has the admittedly awkward styleboxes at the bottom, all of which are designed to link the reader to other realated topics. What sociology of philosphy articles would help if they were linked to? I can't think of any.
    • 28 links, actually, + 6 new links in the 'see also' secion. (-: That's good, but for such a central concept -- not only in economics, but as a societal meme -- a hundred might be better. For instance, a history of the theory should link to the great philosophers and economists who hashed out the first versions of S&D.
• Better use of bold and italics can help elucidate new concepts break up long paragraphs.
  • Done, where possible. (Lovely. Getting easier to read. Now it's easier to comment on content! +sj+)
• Layout & Format: This is hard to read!
  • The whole article? If so, then it may be because you are not familiar enough with the subject. If in specific sections, where?
    • The mark of a great piece of science writing is hardly a prerequisite of familiarity with the subject. In this case, however, it is more the casual stringing together of S&D ideas without narrative arc, rather than the complexity of the subject matter, that makes it difficult to read.
• More subsections and more concise paragraphs will help.
  • Again, where? There is only one subsection after the intro that contains more than one concept and that is the elasticity section. I'm not sure breaking that up would better it.
    • Perhaps I should say, "better use of subsections". There don't need to be more than 4 or 5 major sections to the article; some of the sections could be dropped down a level, to clarify what is central and what is explication. Also, slightly more content within major sections, providing more context and greater parallelism with other sections, would help.
• The double-navtable at the end of the article feels heavy and out of place (after the external links would be better, or right-aligned so text can flow by it), and the second table takes up way too much space. Try to combine the two into a single set of navlinks, with a coherent style.
  • Those are the standard economics navtables, I suppose they could be removed and leave only the category link. But economics categories are not yet well developed.
    • Well, double-navtables should be avoided. It's a matter of layout, not content; almost all of the links from one of those navtables are in the "see also" section; that on could be done away with. And the other table could be turned into a borderless div at the end, more in line with the look of the rest of the page, or a right-floating set of links at the top of the article. +sj+
• Images should be smaller, but with large crisp text (current text size is fine; make crisper). Text should wrap around the images. Add image alt text. Use images to improve layout, not to disrupt it; label images and refer to "Image 2" rather than inserting an image as its own paragraph. A bit of color wouldn't hurt, either; say 1 or 2 small non-graph images somewhat related to supply and demand added near the start and end of the article.
  • Good ideas, others seem to be working on that.
• Cross references: only one external link for such a central concept? 8-10 seems more appropriate.
  • I'll look for more.
• Content: Use shorter and clearer examples.
  • What did you have in mind? The discrete example is central to the buildup of supply and demand curves and how they actually work. Shortening or removing it would weaken the article.
    • The discrete example, if you will excuse my saying so, could be improved. Firstly, it should explain clearly what it means to be "at a market" -- why doesn't someone buy a sack at $12 as soon as it is offered? why isn't the set of buyers & sellers maximizing the number of transactions made? Secondly, it uses a discrete model but doesn't explain that the S&D equilibrium changes (discretely) after each purchase in such a model. If one sack is sold at a time, then the equilibrium price of the 2d sack will be different...
• Unify use of "dollars" and "$"; "$24 dollars" is redundant.
  • Done. - Taxman 00:03, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
• +sj+ 05:22, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick responses! FAC is one of the few boundary-condition ways of maintaining standards across the project; as a result some of the standard concerns here may seem petty in comparison with the great effort that goes into the content of a fine article, but they are important.
• Please add history of the idea, competing theories of default allocation, and further explanation of perfect competition (definition/link to "commodity" & indistinguishable goods, perfect information, supply/demand stable over the period of time required for equilibration). +sj+
• Definition of "supply" needs work -- by the definition you list (long-run cost) supply should jump steeply from 0 to infinity around the long-run cost of production. Why, if a company can produce 1 million chips for $1 each, would they not produce as many as the market will buy? +sj+
  • Long run cost only jumps steeply from 0 to infinity if all the input goods also do that. All the input goods only jump steeply from 0 to infinity if all the input input goods do. ... Since at some point, the earth is finite (ditto for the universe) ultimatly some of the input goods are going to have upward sloping supply curves, so long run supply curves tend to be upward sloping, not completely elastic. Jrincayc 13:21, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Could someone summarize any remaining objections, if there are any. I have lost track. mydogategodshat 20:28, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kuru epidemic

(Contested — 16 Jun)

This is a self nomination. But the article I used as a source was pretty good as an encyclopedia article to start with. User:Viz 21:01, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• The capitalisation and punctuation are a bit erratic, and the intro needs organisation and tightening. I'll have a go later. - David Gerard 19:43, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Considerable copyediting and reshuffling. The content itself is good (and the references impeccable!), but it needed considerable clarification. How is it now? Could do with a picture - David Gerard 20:59, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Corrected the capitalization of kuru. Uncopyrighted images are harder to find though. User:Viz 15:00 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object: 1) A sentence introducing the "South Fore", who are mentioned at the beginning and end of the article, would be helpful, particularly as we don't have an article on them. 2) We should use only one capitalisation style: "kuru" or "Kuru" — currently there's a mix. 3) Minor (IANAL) concern: Talk:Kuru epidemic gives us permission to include the article; do we have explicit permission to include it as GFDL? 4) Why's it called "laughing sickness"? 5) The article says things like "all but disappeared in New Guinea" — was kuru exclusively restricted there, or did it occur elsewhere? — Matt 23:27, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I have dealt with the issues you mention here. As for the GFDL, It was explained in the previous email. However from the author's email we can see that she was very happy to have her article used. User:Viz 15:00 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Note: I've just done a shuffle and tighten on the intro paras for clarity, trying to keep in mind the above-noted ambiguities in the previous text - David Gerard 00:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. No image. Jeronimo 10:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This objection may not be actionable - David Gerard 18:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Sure it is. I've found several (copyrighted, so far) sites which show slides of healthy brain tissue and tissue infected with prion diseases, showing the characteristic spongiform structure and concomitant voids. We just need to find an NIH one, or failing that get permission from one medical school website or another. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:23, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC) (by way of copyrighted example, see [1] - the last slide is a hoot, btw)
      • Are they shots of kuru, though, or of other prion diseases? The latter, although discussed here, have a separate article - David Gerard 00:45, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • (not that I could actually tell by looking) Some, including the one above, specifically show shots of different prion diseases, including a specific one of kuru. The one above (unique in my search to date) also shows an electron micrograph of the infectious prion itself, and a photo of some glum looking South Fore folks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:52, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • I shall have to drop them a line, then :-) - David Gerard 17:00, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Eye of Argon

(Contested — 20 Jun)

Self nomination. A science fiction curio which surprisingly little is generally known about - if I say so myself, this article is the best reference available on the subject. (Best bit of working on this article was discovering there is in fact such a thing as a [[scarlet emerald.) - David Gerard 18:51, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Objecting for the moment. It seems just a bit too short. Hopefully sections like "Chapter 3: Grignr sits despondent in his cell." can be fleshed out. After I've seen a bit of editing, I'll probably take the objection off but not now. TheCustomOfLife 18:54, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Chapter 3 is three paragraphs; there really isn't much to say about it. Remember that this is a novella, not a novel. The text of the novella is linked at the end of the article - if you have questions about the synopsis, you have the source text to refer to. The synopsis isn't that important - it's the quality of the writing that makes the story article-worthy. I could add more particularly clunky quotes.

For length of the article: what is the criterion for minimum length you have in mind? Give me an objection I can act on - David Gerard 21:22, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake. Objection is retracted. TheCustomOfLife 21:25, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As a principle i dont think articles on television series or series of novels or series of films should be featured articles. Muriel G 10:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Er, how is this any of those? (Not that I agree necessarily) - David Gerard 17:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

For the record, this objection is not actionable and therefore is not valid. →Raul654 17:43, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

(not an objection) Is there any possibility of an image? The cover of the OSFAN issue? A photo of some dog-eared mimeograph? Or better (worse) some (ideally hideous) fan-art? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:38, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Presumably Don Simpson is traceable, or someone from the LASFS may be able to help ... I might ask around - David Gerard 17:56, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Object. No image. Jeronimo 09:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've put out the call for an image, preferably a scan of the original magazine - David Gerard 11:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Money

(Contested — 19 Jun)

I believe this article is complete enough to be a featured article. --172.171.166.184 02:45, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Support - David Gerard 14:44, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Great article, but the ==Money and economics== section needs at least a summary of the discussion about the difficulties of measuring the amount of money. Some of that could be taken from Money supply. I put a link to that in the article. That section is also a bit choppy and needs some cohesion. - Taxman 17:32, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Some high level observations: 1) The lead section's too short. 2) There's a "Related Concepts" section early in the article in "See also" style. This could be merged with the actual "See also" section. 3) "Modern forms of money" is too short to merit its own section. 4) "Private currencies" uses external links when listing private currencies. We shouldn't use external links where we'll want Wikipedia articles. 5) I'm a bit confused as to the relationship between the "How did it come into existence?" section and the "History of money" section; should we merge the latter into the former? — Matt 19:23, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Well the Euro's in the pic are of short value. You should have a €500 picture, or at least send me one or two ;). That's the "excelency in money" at least in here. Just kidding. I believe that "How did it come into existence?" section and the "History of money" section should keep separeted, they are to different subjects. one for the "motives" other for its history. Hugs, ppl. -Pedro 23:54, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This article confuses 3 different definitions of money and uses them interchangably throughout, sometimes within a single paragraph. They are: money (economics) - M1 or some other version of the money supply including money as abstract accounting entries created by the deposit multiplier; money (legal tender) - that which can legally be used in transactions; and money (numismatic) - physical money such as bank notes and coins. In spite of past attempts by myself and others to sort out this confusion, the problem dosnt seem to get fixed. mydogategodshat 21:44, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arts and Crafts movement

(Contested — 22 Jun)

Though I've contributed to this, the entry is a good example of a wide-ranging community project with an outstanding result, a hub of useful links, one of the Internet's best brief characterizations of Arts & Crafts. It lacks some good illustrations, however. Wetman 21:01, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Definitely needs pictures first. But pics should be public domain by now anyway - David Gerard 21:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose. I feel like it's much too short. Arts and Crafts was huge. This could be the intro to an article/series 30x this size. jengod 21:00, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

As fast as it was expanded, though, it would be broken up into Slovenian Arts and Crafts movement etc. One-sentence biographies should be attached to links, however. Wetman 19:24, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of cities in California

(Contested — Jun 26)

Somewhat of a self-nomination. I don't see how this article can get any better. anthony (see warning)

• It needs a picture or at least an abstract symbol to use on the main page. Object until then. ✏ Sverdrup 13:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Fails the "what is a featured article" criteria on the grounds of no text at all, let alone well-written and compelling text. Find something to say about the subject - David Gerard 13:54, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Yep, there is no complete sentence. ✏ Sverdrup 14:05, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Fixed. anthony (see warning)
  • This objection is not actionable. anthony (see warning)
    • Even so, I don't believe that a list is really appropriate for featuring. Actionable or not, I'm not sure this sort of article can ever really qualify as "the best of Wikipedia". Oppose. — OwenBlacker 14:15, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • Actionability requirements apply only to articles, not to non-articles such as this. Otherwise, one could just nominate a talk page for featured status. A mere list is just as disqualified as a talk page, or a template page, or a category. -- Emsworth 14:21, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
        • What makes you think this isn't an article? Talk pages, template pages, and categories are in different namespaces. This list is in the article namespace. It certainly is an article. anthony (see warning)
          • Disambiguations, redirects are also there, but not articles. See Wikipedia:What is an article. That page is unclear on the status of lists, though. But, as I see it, a plain alphasorted list is just a manual version of a category or such, and thus a navigational and not a content-part of Wikipedia. ✏ Sverdrup 16:01, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • Yes, disambiguations and redirects are not articles even though they are in the main namespace. But lists are. anthony (see warning)
      • We have many lists that are a better example of our best work (regarding lists). I like States of Brazil. ✏ Sverdrup 16:01, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Many lists have text at the top. Making it compelling is up to the nominee. "This is a list of cities in California, arranged in alphabetical order." is not. - David Gerard 14:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• This list is obsoleted by the more appropriately located Category:Cities in California. The two should be merged, and this list deleted. If someone writes a feature-quality article called Cities in California that offers a comprehensive and compelling overview of the subject matter, I'd probably be willing to support that. Fredrik | talk 14:43, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • • VEHEMENTLY disagree. Lists should NEVER be deleted solely because the Category system has been implemented. Categories don't show red links which can lead to the creation of new articles, and they require a newbie to have to hunt through the Search process to find out IF an article exists, then figure out HOW to add the article to the Category. Lists are right there -- you can just edit them. RickK 23:14, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • I disagree. If anything, the category should be deleted. The list contains links to cities for which an article is not yet created, and it is much easier to edit. If these problems with the categories feature are ever solved, then it might be appropriate to delete this article. By the way, your suggestion is more appropriate on VfD than here. anthony (see warning)
    • You can put the list of missing articles on the category page. Lack of ease of editing is an issue, but shouldn't be that much of a problem for this kind of static data. Fredrik | talk 14:55, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • The missing articles could be put on the category page, but then they'd be out of order, and would be duplicated when the article is created. And the ease of editing is a huge issue. It's the reason the category page is so vacant right now. Categories suck. This may change in the future, but for now lists are much better. anthony (see warning)
    • Oh yes, it's got way too many red links. That's another objection - David Gerard 15:38, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • How many links do you consider to be too many? anthony (see warning)
• This nomiation fails to meet even a single criteria set forth in Wikipedia:What is a featured article. I question Anthony's motives for nominating it. →Raul654 16:30, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually it meets every single one of them. It is comprehensive, factually accurate, well-written, uncontroversial, some of the best work on Wikipedia, contains a brief but sufficient lead section, includes images where appropriate (vacuously true), has subheads, has a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents, and complies with the standards set by any relevant wikiprojects. I question your motives for lying about it. anthony (see warning)
    • Mr DiPierro, is the list comprehensive and complete? -- Emsworth 16:51, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • It's certainly comprehensive. I'm not sure if it's complete or not. anthony (see warning)
      • Let's be even more basic than that. "well-written" is one of the requirements (if not the most important one). Now, let's try to define this:
        • writ·ing (rº“t¹ng) n. 1. The act of one who writes. 2. Written form. 3. Handwriting; penmanship. 4. Something written, especially: a. Meaningful letters or characters that constitute readable matter. b. A written work, especially a literary composition. 5. The occupation or style of a writer.
      • A list has no literary merit. This list contains exactly 1 sentence, the "lead section" that anthony was referring to. This is not nearly enough to be a featured article. In short, there's nothing here to feature! This is not a subtle distinction either - only someone who was trying to cause trouble would nominate an article like this, knowing full well that it serves only to cause controversy. →Raul654 17:57, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
        • I think it's quite obvious that you're only criticising this because you have a problem with me. Please be reasonable. I won't hold a grudge against you if you don't hold one against me. anthony (see warning)
          • To be completely and 100% honest - I don't have anything against you personally (and if you were offended by my remarks then I humbly apologize), I just don't like people wasting my time with frivilious matters. This is (very) blatantly frivilious, but you seem unwillingly to acknowledge that. →Raul654 18:21, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC) (And just in case it wasn't obvious, I would have opposed this nomination no matter who nominated it, and with just as much incredulity)
            • You are the one who chooses to waste your own time by repeating the same non-actionable objections over and over again. No, I don't think this nomination is "frivilious" at all, and I stand by that. You think it is. Fine, say that and move on if you don't want to waste your time. I think this list is one of the best and most complete that we have, that's why I chose to nominate it as a featured article. Do you think I should remove it? I'll let someone else remove it, if they want, because I don't know that it's appropriate for me to remove it myself. anthony (see warning)
• I think another section - "featured series" - should be added to WP:FA and then we should list lists/categories/article series/wikiprojects whose descendent articles are all of a good standard there. If the standard of our Californian cities articles rises, then this could be listed in that section, but not yet. Pcb21| Pete 16:28, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This was address on the talk page - your idea is impossile because it would be impossible to define criteria of what a feature-quality category/article would be. →Raul654 16:34, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

• • • No, I don't think anyone said it would be impossible. Someone asked how it would be done, which is not the same as saying it is impossible. In fact, the problem is quite the opposite - there are *lots* of ways we might define the quality threshold. The difficulty is which one to pick. How do we overcome that difficulty? Same answer as usual, community consensus. Pcb21| Pete 16:39, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I agree with the others; this just isn't an article. Oppose. Mike H 18:22, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • This objection is not actionable. anthony
    • Of course it's actionable. Write something. ANYTHING! Mike H 18:50, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

(see warning)

• Oppose because its a list and not brilliant prose. Its nice, because its apparently complete (congrats to the editors) but its just a list. I know one or two lists here that actually have value for several reasons and would be more appropriate to be nominated. Muriel G 18:49, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. Anthony, I have not come across you before, but from glancing through the discussion above, I get the impression, that this nomination as well as some of the replies are a way to carry out a policy discussion on the FAC page, and to just argue for the sake of arguing. So, Anthony, and the others, tell me honestly, please: What's the purpose? Are you serious? If so, now, there is a way to improve: Change the list to a guide through CA, written in prose. Walks through the state explain the typical types of cities, and sctter all the cities in the text as examples. So, CA has lots of differences: There's the North and the South with people always feeling superior to the rest (LA vs SF), there's old cities and new ones; founded by the Spanish who came by ship, founded by settlers who made it over the Great Plains; rural ones (Fresno), urban ones (LA); coast vs. landlocked, humid vs dry, etc. (I'm German, but I experienced CAas a state of opposites while I was there). Simon A. 11:13, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that such a guide, while potentially a good idea, would be a separate article from this list. The purpose of this list is to provide a quick list of cities, not to bore people with drawn out prose. anthony (see warning)

• Opposing this ridiculous nomination, which was presented simply as a challenge (and apparently a successful ludibrium). Moving on... Wetman 19:16, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This objection is not actionable. anthony (see warning)
    • You keep focussing on that objections must be actionable, but seem wholly to ignore that this just isn't featured article-worthy, as Raul wrote. You answered:

Actually it meets every single one of them. It is comprehensive, factually accurate, well-written, uncontroversial, some of the best work on Wikipedia, contains a brief but sufficient lead section, includes images where appropriate (vacuously true), has subheads, has a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents, and complies with the standards set by any relevant wikiprojects. I question your motives for lying about it.'

I think accusing Raul of lying is distinctly unhelpful but, to counter your assertions, I'll assume that it's technically comprehensive and factually accurate (as I have no idea what constitutes a city in the US and whether or not any are missing), but it tells us nothing about any of the cities, it's merely a list that gives no insight into California or its cities. The concept of lists being "articles" seems a little controversial, though whether or not the content is is a moot point.

I believe quite strongly that this is not some of the best work on Wikipedia; this list tells me nothing except that California contains some cities (which I already knew) and their names and, thus, number (which I'd have to count myself). If it were to be considered "good work", I would suggest it would at least need some prose about the establishment of these cities, if any are notably newer or older than the others, why most of them have Hispanic names (yeah, I know why, but not all readers will), frankly about anything. The lead section is certainly brief but, if you want this to be considered an article, it's woefully insufficient. There is no image, not even a map of some of where some of the larger cities are. Subheadings and a TOC are handled, sure, but that's the least one might expect. On the other hand, however, it's too dry, there's no real information in and it's massively long (I'd suggest at least breaking up each letter into more than one column, using tables).

I still oppose, my objections are both actionable (see above) and based on policy (see Wikipedia:What is an article) and haven't been countered in the slightest by the way that you seem to be refusing to engage any of the objectors and taking the objections personally. As with Raul, I don't intend any personal offence and apologise if any is inferred. But this simply is not worthy of being Featured, imho. — OwenBlacker 21:59, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

it tells us nothing about any of the cities, it's merely a list that gives no insight into California or its cities It's a list, though, it's not supposed to give us insight ingo California or its cities. And giving us insight into California or its cities is certainly not a requirement for featured articles. If it were to be considered "good work", I would suggest it would at least need some prose about the establishment of these cities, if any are notably newer or older than the others, why most of them have Hispanic names (yeah, I know why, but not all readers will), frankly about anything. It seems to me that this would be the job of an article about the cities themselves, not the job of the list of them. A list should be just that, a list. There is no image, not even a map of some of where some of the larger cities are. The only possibly appropriate image I can think of would be an image of a list. A map of the larger cities would go on the city page or the California page. The lead section is certainly brief but, if you want this to be considered an article, it's woefully insufficient. It seems to me that anything further would be excessive. Perhaps, as I said, a discussion of what constitutes a city. But there's really not very much else you can say about a list. On the other hand, however, it's too dry, there's no real information in and it's massively long (I'd suggest at least breaking up each letter into more than one column, using tables). See, now that's an actionable request. I still oppose, my objections are both actionable (see above) and based on policy (see Wikipedia:What is an article) and haven't been countered in the slightest by the way that you seem to be refusing to engage any of the objectors and taking the objections personally. I've only taken the objections of Raul personally, because he has a personal problem with me. Very few of your objections are actionable, and Wikipedia:What is an article clearly says that lists are articles: "A Wikipedia article is defined as a page that has encyclopedic or almanac-like information on it ("almanac-like" being; lists, timelines, tables or charts)."

I suggest you start a separate Wikipedia:Featured lists project if you really think this is worth wasting time with. Fredrik | talk 12:14, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• OBJECT. If this is a good article, them I'm Santa Claus! It has nothing similar to a good article, it is not even an article! Just play stupidity and lack of intelligence to make an article. -Pedro 00:45, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This objection is not actionable. anthony (see warning)
• Objection: Listing appears to be a breaching experiment - David Gerard 01:03, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This objection is not actionable. anthony (see warning)
    • Sure it is: cut it with the querulousness - David Gerard 12:31, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Just saying it is doesn't make it so. What could be changed to make this a featured article? anthony (see warning)
• Agree with David; object. James F. (talk) 01:07, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This objection is not actionable. anthony (see warning)
• Object, but I think that Anthony, whoever he is, has pointed to a frailty in the notion of actionable objections. The idea of actionability can only work if there is clearly defined agreement on the basic criteria for inclusion so that actions can be seen to be moving a candidate towards achieving said criteria. One such criterion may well need to be that lists are not potential candidates and it is by imagining this criterion that I object. This is perhaps not as clearly expressed as I would like, but I know what I mean. Do we all know what we mean when we vote here? Bmills 12:14, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Lists could get on the page, but they'd need some actual writing. But this belongs on the talk page - David Gerard 12:31, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object - Wikipedia:What is a featured article:

1. There is not a single sentence in this article, so it is not well-written
2. No external citations
3. An alphabetically ordered list does not exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, nor is it at all unique (not even copyrightable!).
4. No lead section.
5. No images

In short, a list is an almanac article, not an encyclopedia article so much of the above should not be added to the article either. Write a good encyclopedia article about cities in California and then nominate that. --mav 00:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This nomination is a joke. Anthony, please use your time more usefully. Kingturtle 01:17, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This comment is useless. Kingturtle, please use *your* time more usefully. anthony (see warning)

• Important objection: The nominator has demonstrated no intention of doing anything about the many, many objections. And this objection is actionable - David Gerard 14:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dracula

(Contested — 22 Jun)

Just edited the article quite a bit, so I guess it's a self-nom, but it's a really good article. It could possibly do with a tiny bit of work, which would doubtless get ironed out in a discussion here, but I think it's a great article. — OwenBlacker 23:04, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Abstain. An image is implicitly required for a FAC, and I'm sure you could get a good picture for this article. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:15, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose for the moment: it really does need a picture. Can we track down a scan of the first edition cover? - David Gerard 23:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support shortly: Found a picture and loaded it, placing it in the Plot section of the article. CyclopsScott 03:30, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Heh, exactly as asked for :-) Not an objection, but a suggestion: a pic of a depiction of Dracula. Are any film stills PD yet? - David Gerard 07:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've just uploaded Image:DraculaLugosi1931Poster.jpg, but I've not put it on the page, as I don't know if a 1931 film poster would be PD yet in the US (see Talk: page. Equally, someone who has image-editing software installed (I'm at a client's office, so can't do anything here, unfort) might want to resize it and get it down from its current 222kb. OwenBlacker 12:13, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

The image is probably public domain if its copyright was not formally renewed. If its copyright has been formally renewed, it is probably not public domain. anthony (see warning)

Not a vote: the article's not bad, but I'm not sure it's gripping, either. The writing's ok, but I'm not sure it's spectacular. Could use another photo, though. Exploding Boy 13:52, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Object. Compare with Superman and see my most recent comments on Talk:Dracula. Lovely article, but confused; needs further detail, clarification, splitting off of the literary criticism (which could use its own smaller article) from the article about the icon (and its many modern facets). +sj+ 04:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I second sj's objection (see Talk:Dracula#Separate book from icon); the article does have a schizophrenic feel about whether it's discussing the specifics of Dracula (novel), or the Dracula (character) in wider culture. — Matt 00:46, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Object. Image:DraculaLugosi1931Poster.jpg has no source/licensing information. anthony (see warning)

I don't know, I think that the article needs both the information about the novel and the subsequent detail about the character. The article is (to me) about the character, but a discussion of the novel is appropriate as background to that. The Superman article is fantastic; I might take a more detailed look and refactor the page somewhat, but I still think this article is pretty damn good. (I've only edited it, not created it, so this isn't me being precious about it, promise.)

I agree the article should be about the Dracula character, and that some discussion of the novel is appropriate. I disagree that there should be quite so much detail about the novel, though. I think only a paragraph or two should stay, and the full plot summary and analysis might be better split out into a separate Dracula (novel) article. — Matt 23:37, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, you already commented on the issue of the image; I did mention that I don't know about US Copyright restrictions. Could someone who's more likely to be able to find this stuff out take a look, please? I find it relatively hard to eblieve that a 1931 poster is still gonna be copyrighted, but my knowledge of the law extends mainly to British jurisprudence. — OwenBlacker 22:12, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

The cutoff date under US law is 1923 - need one published before then - David Gerard 15:24, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet

(Contested — Jun 25)

Support: A very interesting article with a very interesting title. It's written very well and It fits the election atmosphere in both Canada and the US.

• It's very funny, and also interesting, but it's too short, and I just don't think of it as featurable. It was one isolated incident that honestly has been blown out of proportion just to get the article to its present size. Also, please sign nominations? Thanks. Jwrosenzweig 21:36, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• No picture, no sections, structure insufficient to keep my eyes from sliding off the text - David Gerard 00:14, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object as well. It is an intersting article, but not something to be featured.Revth 04:37, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • That's not really an actionable objection ... good structure, better writing and a picture would make it eminently worthy of consideration, IMO. Being quirky shouldn't stop an article from being good - David Gerard 13:56, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Being German with no knowledge on Canadian politics, I didn't get any insights: Ok, I now know, that there are petty discussions about verbal offenses and subversive press releases in Canadian regional politics, but don't these things happen everywhere? To make it a good article, make it either funny, so that the reaedr will have a good laugh (yes, that can be done without violating encyclopedicity and NPOV IMHO), or embed it into background information, so that it gives the foreign reader interesting insights and a feel for the peculiarities of style and character of politcal disputes in Canada. Simon A. 11:22, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, though I enjoy Amusing Fluff and think an Amusing Fluff category, with an example on the Main Page, might take some pressure off our talented zanies, such as me. Wetman 19:21, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • That's not really an actionable objection. I see no reason the topic couldn't make it in as an article if written well enough - David Gerard 16:57, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Short Schmort. Sections Schmections. Picture Schmicture &c. The least unamusing article on Wikipedia. chocolateboy 16:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] X Window System

(Contested — 23 Jun)

Self-nomination. It's technical, but we've tried to keep it as clear as possible. The technical detail is put at the end after the explicatory text, so as to supply the detail to those who care without exploding the heads of those who don't - David Gerard 23:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) Oh yes, and it already rated a press citation - David Gerard 00:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The explanation, especially towards the bottom of the article, could use a lot more detail. For example, what's meant by the color packages? Also, I'd like to see more about its reception. What have critics of X said? How does it compare to MS Windows? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent points. I'll work on those and get back to you - David Gerard 15:33, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Section on criticisms added - David Gerard 14:36, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. No mention of Schiefler and Gettys. Nothing on X-extensions. Need to better describe the seperation of powers between components, and (just a one-liner) give the scope of the Xprotocol and Xlib. Need to at least touch on visuals, and server-side image storage. Needs a one-liner compare'n'contrast vs sunray/VNC/windows-visual-networkything. Needs a one-liner on window managers and ICCCM. Needs to cover some of X's real (past and present) and perceived problems: complexity and (supposed) expense of implementation, ageing image-model, neglected and/or costly (pre kde/gnome) widgetsets. History really should talk about the looong pause in innovation s (i.e. much the 1990s) where X's advantages were frittered away. Equally history should emphasise the latterday renaissance of X, and a one-liner for X on embedded systems (who am I to argue with Gettys). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:47, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent points too. I can see I've got some work ahead on this one ... - David Gerard 11:40, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • History added. Still looking for docs on the long pause in innovation (Jim Gettys apparently gave a talk on the subject I'm still trying to track down) - David Gerard 14:36, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • NOTE: This user has gone on wikiholiday [2] and can't strike fulfilled objections. Does anyone else have this precise objection list who can strike as things are filled? - David Gerard 21:17, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I'm working on it at User:David Gerard/scratch at present. Others should feel free to dive in - David Gerard 12:31, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kylie Minogue

(Contested — 24 Jun)

Very complete and thorough with lots of information and pictures to boot. CyclopsScott 03:31, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Object. One of the images has no copyright information supplied. Jeronimo 07:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Gotta second that one, I'm afraid. (The image that purports to be from a video but looks like a promo shot) - David Gerard 07:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The "Single Discography" presents the information quite poorly; it'd be OK in a list if it was purely the single name and year, but including the position on various countries' charts probably warrants a table. — Matt 23:45, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Go Kylie! Dmn 22:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Support. As good as the Madonna article, which is featured. chocolateboy 00:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck

(Contested — 22 Jun)

Excellent article. Etymology, history, usage, grammar--a legitimate encyclopedia article on a word. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• (Not a vote) for the record, our Fuck article was used as evidence in a court case. →Raul654 22:38, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Actionable Objections

• Needs a picture. (sorry.) Support. Whilst it's unlikely to get voted onto the front page, it's of suitable quality for Featured status - David Gerard 22:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Weak objection: more pictures needed. I'm thinking stuff like real-world posters and headlines etc. Fredrik | talk 23:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I added a picture of the finger; seemed relevant. Fredrik | talk 01:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• object. Bad pic - it is just a headline. Needs pics of real word, a help: "graffitis in the streets" or... ;) . The usage of the word, in the article's end, seems just a warehouse of sentences, reaching the redicule and ofensive. How can a subject like this be a featured article? This encyclopedia can be read by children. I've added info about Portuguese. -Pedro 00:03, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The etymology and history parts are interresting, the rest... -Pedro 00:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The section "History of usage and censorship" needs some subsectioning (and possibly some paragraph refactoring): currently there's 21 paragraphs, many of them only one or two sentences long — this makes it a little hard to digest. 2) Conversely, do we need the subsection headings in the "Linguistics" section? I think it might be better without them. 3) We need a better picture; the current one doesn't really explain or add information (it's just a large font version of "F*ck!"). The graffiti / posters etc suggestions seem a good idea for a replacement. 4) I think the "Etymology" section should come earlier in the article, certainly before the "history of usage and censorship" section, and perhaps as the first section. — Matt 00:51, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I just read the above comments, and thought I was about to come to the defense of an important article being unjustly attacked by prudes. Then I read the article ... It's actually rather mediocre. The "Linguistics" section is not about linguistics, but grammar, and in any case could be happily condensed to a single paragraph. The "Secondary Meanings" section's efforts to analyse the nuances of popular interjections seems pointless speculation. The "History and Censorship" section is quite a mess; it is heavily US-centric, it is basically a series of trivial anecdotes rather than history, and these anecdotes are presented in apparently random order. Despite the section title, there is practically no discussion of censorship. Worse, I was looking forward to a scholarly exposition of the early history of the word and how it became taboo (most "four letter words" originally were not taboo); instead we leap through seven centuries with just four examples and no discussion. Oh, as for pictures: surely you're kidding? How on earth can a picture of a word add to an article about a word already written in the text? I see this as an example of an article for which the usual requirement for a picture should be waived. The only picture i can think of that might actually add to the article, would be a picture of Paul Robert Cohen being arrested. If you can get something like that, add it. Otherwise don't worry about pictures. Securiger 06:49, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• more objection. It really seems a dictonary on "Secondary meanings" and the new image continues bad. I wouldnt agree on its deletion, because of some content. If it hadnt that content it should really be deleted. The article didnt became better, became riduculous with some new content. -Pedro 11:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, not because of reasons of "vulgarity," or "inappropriateness for the front page" (I think all Wikipedia articles are appropriate for the front page) but because it's not very well written, is lacking in ways others have already mentioned, and the photos don't work. It's a shame though as it's a very interesting topic. Would support if improved. Exploding Boy 13:47, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose for the time being. I found the article interesting and informative. I don't think it's as badly written as some people have suggested, but the photographs are certainly not up to appearing on the main page. theresa knott 14:19, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Cautiously oppose for now. Under the Secondary meanings heading, there is reference to a third usage where only two possible usages have been laid out. This sort of thing needs to be sorted out before an article can be "featured", surely. (Alternatively someone can show me where the third usage is that I might have missed :-) --Phil | Talk 07:55, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose: this is one of the most poorly written FACs I've seen. just an overwordy list. The Linguistics section is a joke. It's barely prose at all. Bmills 07:18, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Haven't finished reading much of this discussion but I actually support this to be featured when more rewrite is done. From a native speaker of Japanese that doesn't have a difinite translation to "fuck", this topic is actually a very intersting one. I will try to add a sentence or two to explain further. Revth 05:21, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Weakly object. While I believe that this word has encyclopedic value, and can be featured (without being put on the main page), the article isn't that well written. I would support once a rewrite is done. I plan on coming back and doing edits to this page once I get home (i feel a little nervous about sitting here editing that page at work). - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 12:46, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Objections based on the nature of the word

• It matters not if the article is read by children or not, for Wikipedia is not bowdlerized or censored. As long as such articles are allowed to exist (rather than being deleted), they should not be disqualified on the basis that the topic is offending to some. -- Emsworth 00:16, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Objections that the article is too racy are not actionable (see the page instructions), and are therefore invalid. →Raul654 00:19, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
• I'm opposed to this being on the main page. Class me under the "prudes" mentioned above; I don't think such naked vulgarity belongs on Wikipedia's billboard to the world. Though, I suppose it's better than featuring Internet child pornography. VV 11:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think I'm a prude, but I will say that Fuck is not that appropriate for a featured article because of the wide variety of people (of all ages) that will be checking them out. BCorr|Брайен 16:53, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Not really an actionable objection. If it rates an article (which it does), then if it is of high quality it rates being listed with the articles of high quality - David Gerard 22:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. If we do this hundreds of giggling schoolchildren will come and try to edit the page;teachers will probably stop using Wikipedia in school; apart from a little schock value what's the upside?
  • People are using knowladge and freedom of Speech to support the write of nonsence, and the articles about the beheaded with links, etc is an example of that. An encyclopedia's aim is to gain knowladge about something. agree (largely) with Matt. Pedro 21:29, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose (Weakly though), I really don't like the idea of Fuck being on the main page, because many young children might see it. Comrade Nick
  • This is not the front page election page. See header - David Gerard 18:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionary or not

• I object as Wikipedia is not a dictionary and all non-dictionary parts of this article can be moved elsewhere, however I suspect this objection will be declared invalid. anthony (see warning)
  • I think the subject is sufficiently interesting to warrant an encyclopedia article about the word, whereas most words and phrases aren't sufficiently interesting: the word Fuck is 1) a taboo word 2) sometimes subject to censorship 3) surrounded by a variety of myths about its etymology 4) interesting and quite unique linguistically. Any writer on the topic of the word "door", on the other hand, would struggle to find material: it would likely never advance beyond a stub. Note also that people have written entire books about the word; this has happened for very few other words and phrases. — Matt 01:15, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think a word being interesting is enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. Yes, it's a taboo word, in fact, I think that's the main reason why many people want to include it. I don't think being taboo in itself makes an encyclopedia entry. Yes, it is frequently subject to censorship, but we have plenty of articles dealing with censorship, including censorship. Etymology (and usage, which this article also focusses on) is a topic for dictionaries, not encyclopedias. But all of this is really an argument for deletion of the article, and I'm sure there wouldn't be a consensus support for that, so I'm really arguing something unwinnable there. I have other objections, but they're rather vague and probably are also not acceptable. I think the article is rather gratuitous. The linguistics section is just plain silly. And then, I just can't find anything else. Just a big dictionary definition with some silliness added to it. I don't like it. But, well, none of this is "actionable", I suppose. anthony (see warning)
      • If you believe that this topic does not warrant an article, then put it on VFD. You may challenge it under our "No dictionary definitions" policy. Until then, however, this article is as valid in terms of the topic as any other. -- Emsworth 02:06, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
        • As I've said (please read what I've said), I'm sure there wouldn't be a consensus support for deletion. So putting it on VFD would be pointless. anthony (see warning)
    • Object, the article needs more work. By the way, see door. :) Lupin 10:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • The door article is not about the word door, but about doors themselves. The fuck article is unusual in that it's about the word fuck rather than about the concept itself (which we cover elsewhere). — Matt 10:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Other

• With nearly 290,000 articles in Wikipedia, Fuck is recommended as a challenge to our broad-mindedness. Oh, okay. yawn Featured articles are judged too often on subject, however, not on actual quality. Wetman 16:39, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK. Could people please prepare a list of what should be done to whip this into shape? I've picked what I can from the above, but a clear summary would be nice.

1. Expand usage history to cover the period from Shakespeare to the 20th century.

What else is there? Incidentally, this has caused me to make a FAC policy proposal--see the talk page. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:57, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ß

(Contested — Jun 28)

This is another very interesting and informative one. 01:39, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral. I've left some questions on the talk page. Markalexander100 03:06, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• The writing isn't clear enough IMO. Needs rewriting with particular attention to clarity. (I'd have a go myself, but I'm busy working on objections to X Window System ;-) - David Gerard 12:57, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• The part of the lead section telling the difference between β and ß is kind of silly; it doesn't need to explain it in that much detail, at least not in the opening paragraphs. [[User:Sverdrup|✏ Sverdrup]] 21:39, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) ""ß" should not be confused with ... beta ("β"), which it closely resembles,...Indeed the resemblance is not close enough to enable substitution of the one with the other in typeset material without the result looking extremely unprofessional." — can we express this another way? It seems a little too coercive / didactic in tone to me. 2) Can we move the whole "comparison with Beta" thing into its own section? 3) "this is considered typographically wrong." — can we use a more informative word than "wrong"? "Incorrect in typography"? — Matt 23:27, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Other than the "typographically wrong" bit, which I think is a fair criticism, I support. I've just moved the "comparison with Beta" chunk into a new section "ß and β", between usage and miscellaneous, where I think it fits relatively well (though I sha'n't be offended if people disagree and move it back or elsewhere). — OwenBlacker 15:45, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wind turbine

(Contested -- Jun 28)

I used this as a reference for some school work I did a few months back, and it answered all questions I had about the subject. The article has even grown a bit since then. Fredrik | talk 00:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Object, four of the five images have no source stated. Jeronimo 06:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Images need source and licensing information. anthony (see warning)
• I have contacted the users who uploaded the images and asked for clarification on the source and copyright status. If they don't respond, or it turns out the images are copyvios, it shouldn't be too hard to find adequate public domain alternatives (for one or two of them, at least). I'll wait a few days before I replace anything. In the meantime, will someone consider also reading the article? :) Fredrik | talk 16:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Objection - I find the prose to be very chopped up and hard to follow. An example: " With small wind generators the tower height is usually at least twenty meters. In the case of large generators, the tower height is about twice as great as the propeller radius." There are lots of sentences, that could, IMHO, be added to make compound and complex ones. Also, the article needs to be more clearly labelled, with anatomy in one section, and the stuff that is not anatomy moved into another section, maybe labelled history. Burgundavia 08:24, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • As an aside, I will in a few days, once life returns to normal, work on these objections. Burgundavia 08:24, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Head of state

(Contested -- Jun 30)

I haven't edited this one but just stumbled upon it a few days ago. What a fantastic article! As someone from a country that doesn't separate out the head of state function, it made for fascinating reading. The superb images, erudite quotes and well-analyzed breakdown of functions add a very professional flavor to the article, in my opinion. --TreyHarris 06:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Minor quibble - Under CEO, it mentions Sweden is somehow different is terms of executive power, but doesn't mention how. Burgundavia 07:58, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Image problems:
  • King Albert image has no source information
  • Putin image has source information, but it is not clear if there is permission to use the image.
  • Swiss council image has no source information
  • Bush signing image has vague source information, but it is not clear if there is any permission to use the image.
  • Jeronimo 08:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A pity. I don't know how to rectify the objection (it's actionable, just not by me), and if I swapped out the photos with others, I'd no longer support the article as a FA--the great photos were one of the things that drew me to nominate it. So I suppose I had better withdraw the nomination. Too bad there's not a "not a FA, but you should read this anyway" page. ;-) --TreyHarris 15:32, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think we can overcome this. All five photos were uploaded by User:J.J.. I've asked him if he can help with adding more detail about image origin. I think this has got to be a case of crossing the "t"s and dotting the "i"s. Images of heads of state are not likely to cause copyright problems; we can claim fair use as required. Pcb21| Pete 16:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Support Avala 19:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support, assuming the image problems are solved. James F. (talk) 20:50, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Good article 1) The article has a "bulleted" style, presenting the information primarily as lists. Lists are great for presenting certain types of information,(for example the "Official residences" section) but I think they make a poor style for structuring an encyclopedia article. 2) Slightly over italicisation of things for emphasis when it's not necessary (I can probably fix these myself). 3) Need some history of the "head of state"; (of course, people have had rulers for as long as we can remember, but this article is about a more specific concept). — Matt 15:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Glasgow

(Contested -- Jun 30)

Self nom. I worked on this article but it has developed a lot recently. The contributors have captured the contrasting aspects of a city that was famous in one period as the second city of the Empire and then for its slums. The article is not perfect, but neither is the city. Tiles 08:25, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Nice work. 2 minor objections: No history section and some minor akward wording in some places. Burgundavia 08:43, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The coat of arms picture is taken from a website for which the copyright policy does not seem to allow this use (see [3]). The same is true for the University of Glasgow picture (see [4]). Jeronimo 08:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. There's really a lot to add, particularly a lot of history. The geography stuff needs major work too - we need a map or two of the area (districts, rivers, motorways), and a photo both of Glasgow's nicer parts (Kelvinside, Bearsden) and its less nice (Drumchapel, Pollock). I can replace the uni photo, and take the photos above (I may need to weld a grille on my car windows for the latter) but not for a few weeks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:10, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Can a coat of arms be considered copyright? The latest version of the site does not have this image.

• I would have though we could 'assert the moral right' to display the arms in this context. Many books of heraldry do this, and diplay many arms in one book. Berek 11:18, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)