Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] First Council of Nicaea

I believe that the great changes that this article has undergone since it was withdrawn from candidacy last year (see here) indicate that it's time may well have come. I also believe that all of the then-current objections have been addressed. Thoughts? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Previous debate archived at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Council of Nicaea/archive
  • Comments
    • The box at the beginning is awfully wide and squeezes the lead unattractively.
      • Wholeheartedly agree withbox ugliness. Was WP:BOLD and edited it myself. Hopeit looks better now.
    • Second paragraph of the lead begins with a too long sentence.
    • Is the term "Character" as used in the section heading normal for this topic? I'm aware of the sense it's being used in, but seems odd to me. Not sure what I'd replace it with though.
    • The one-sentence paragraphs (such as under "Attendees" and "The Nicene Creed (symbol)") should be expanded or consolidated.
    • It's not clear what "A special prominence was also..." has to do with "Attendees".
    • Standardize citations -- a couple footnotes, at least one parenthetical, and an external link
  • Tuf-Kat 06:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Looks good; appropriate use of illustration, generally well-written prose. However, some of the sections could use a little more detail, for example the section on 'Character' in particular could be expanded. Furthermore, all the red links need to be removed, as they are generally considered to be annoying clutter and are off-putting to some readers. A good, concise conclusion needs to be written to summarise and evaluate the topics covered by the article. Also a few more footnotes would be helpful. If some effort is put into addressing these relatively minor issues, I would consider changing my comment to a support. Bigdaddy1204 00:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Looks fine to me, from a language point of view. Tony 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose on a few issues:

  1. Notes should be in numerical order in the text and in the notes list, ie the first not in the article shouldn't be note 4.
  2. Html links in text need to be converted to notes and fully cited for future reference
  3. There are "harvard style" cites fro sources texts like: According to Duchesne (Revue des questions historiques, xxviii. 37); that could also be converted to notes.
  4. Only the first word in a section heading should be capitalised (unless it's a propper noun) see MoS
  5. The format of the list in "other problems" is inconsistent with other lists in the article, the first words should probably be capitalised.
  6. The lead is not a summary of the article and contiains information that only appears in the lead. it is also (probably) too long considering the articles length. I would suggest moving most of the information on the historical significance to the body of the article (where there is currently no mention of this) and adding some detail on Councils that followed and the impact this council had on the church.
  7. There are lots of short paragraphs that could be merged into related paragraphs.

--nixie 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comments - Oh dear - why is there a {{POV-section}}? And are the items in your "Bibliography" section references? If so, please call them such. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Content disputes need to be settled before an article attempts FAC. Durova 07:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK article, but one comment I have is that it is written (correctly) that "No follower of Arius could say these words as a profession of faith." It would be nice to say why - I know why, but then again I did a course on Church History at Bible college. Outsiders most likely won't know — I fear that the average uninformed reader (this is why they read our encyclopedia you know!) won't know why this is the case without a bit of background. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Further to this, another issue is that it needs to be made very clear why the idea that Jesus was of one substance from the Father was so crucial to the debate. It should also be made clearer about the debate over the term "Homoousian" and why this was so crucial. Again this would be dealt with both by a brief overview of the Arian controversy. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: what is a conciliar letter and what is a circular letter? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of South Africa

Self-nom. I think this is a highly interesting and well-written article, with many pertinent and interesting images. Thank you! Páll 09:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Well written article! DO'Иeil 09:39, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Lots of time and care was put into this article. A bit large, but then again, I think it's also unreasonable to cut down a history article on an entire country. Mike H 10:03, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is unreasonable to expect people to plod through such a large article when they have limited time (nearly twice as long as recommended). More summarizing of some sections and creation of daughter articles is in order. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Also the TOC is overwhelming and overall organization is poor (overuse of second level headings and hardly any subheads - certainly better division can be accomplished for this subject). Object until then. --mav 17:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, history articles are generally allowed to be as long as needed. Take a look at History of Russia, which is a recent featured article. That is nearly 20k longer than this! Also, each of the second level headings is about a completely seperate topic. It wouldn't work well to use any subheads. Páll 18:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just because another article slipped through, does not give leave for this article to be too long for most users. Most history articles are broken up in series with the main history of... article serving as a survey article that introduces each article of the series. Major organizational issues are still there. At a quick glance I can see the need for level 2 prehistory, colonization, wars, repression and resistance, reform, and more recent history sections with the current sections being subsections of those. This will also make it easier to see what new level 2 sections could be summarized with the current detail moved to a daughter article (at least so the article gets in the 30 to 45 KB range). --mav 19:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don 't think of it as slipping through, there was a major discussion over it. I implimented your suggestions over the headings, however the history of South Africa spans three million years. I think it is well within reason to have 20k per MILLION years on an article about the history of an entire nation. If it were about something else, yes, I'd say trim it, but this as it is is already very concicse and there are a lot of topics that I did not get into for fear of space. Besides, we are talking about the merits of an individual article, not whether or not people will read it. Páll 22:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"... not whether or not people will read it" Then what are we here for? You can't change the fact that the average attention span of people is 20 minutes and it takes the average person about that amount of time to read 30 to 35 KB of prose. So anything above that makes the article less useful. Temporarily having an article in the 35 to 45 KB range is OK so long as the long term plan is to spin off one or more of the sections into its own article and to leave a more condensed treatment in its place.
I'm not advocating that Wikipedia have less info on this topic - just that each article should be easily readable so that people who need a primer on the whole topic will likely get through the whole article. Readability is a very important aspect. The argument that no more summarizing can be done is specious since the lead section summarizes the topic down to 3 paragraphs and the history section at South Africa summarizes the topic in with several more paragraphs.--mav 20:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Lead sectioon is a bit too long. CGorman 20:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice and very interesting article! I made a few minor corrections. I would however make a suggestion that for design purposes some pictures should be placed on the left hand side of the page. It simply makes for a more varied presentation.Ganymead 04:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very complete, well-written article. I don't have any problem with the length. — mark ✎ 11:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, Very good, nicely written. The length is justified by the sheer size of the topic. Inter\Echo 16:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I will support after a map is added, preferably to the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What kind of map would you like? There is no one map of South Africa as the borders changed up until 1910. Páll 21:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, then a map showing the changing borders - or several maps. At least something showing south of Africa...well, any useful map will do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I added a map. Páll 09:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nichalp 18:52, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Many of the "pertinent and interesting images" do not give sources or have dubious copyright status. Many of them were (until just now) clearly mislabeled as "GFDL". Sigh...does no one bother to check these things? —Steven G. Johnson 20:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, most of them do if you went to look at their source on Wikipedia Commons. They are publicly released images by the UN, or they were images publicly released by the South African government. Páll 21:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
First, having "most" of the images ok is not enough; for a FAC, I would say that all of the images should be clearly sourced and usable by Wikipedia. (e.g. Image:MrsPles.jpg has no source at all given.) Second, just because something was posted to the Commons doesn't mean it is usable, if it was posted wrongly to the commons (or at least, if no source or copyright status were given). Third, for the UN images, at least they are sourced, but I went to the UN Photo Archive, and it has no clear statement that the photos are in the public domain — on the contrary, it says that you have to contact them "for further information on the use of UN Photos". (If you contacted them and they pointed you to clear permission, please post it.) —Steven G. Johnson 03:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
I took care of the Mrs Ples image, that was an oversight on my part. The UN images about apartheid are usable under the National Heritage Resources Act (1999) and the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 38 of 1997. Páll 03:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I entirely agree with the concerns about the images. Of the three I was so surprised to see that I checked:
    1. Image:Soweto Riots.jpg no source with GFDL placed by User:PZFUN
    2. Image:South African Miners.jpg no source with GFDL placed by User:PZFUN
    3. Image:Nelson Mandela Being Sworn In.jpg with GFDL placed by User:PZFUN with source and saying "From the UN image archive, used with permission."
    On this evidence, I would have severe doubts about any copyright statement by User:PZFUN. I would be particularly interested to know what the permission from the UN said given about the GFDL. I read the comment above about the National Heritage Resources Act (1999)[1] and the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 38 of 1997[2]; I would be interested to know which sections apply (on a very quick skim I did not spot them) and, given this is South African domestic legislation, how they apply to either the United Nations or to Wikipedia. --Henrygb 22:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
According to the "Registration of Copyright in Cinematograph Films Act No. 62 of 11 May 1977", "This Act provides for the registration of copyright in cinematograph films on a voluntary basis. The duration of registration is for such period of time as provided for the subsistence of the copyright by virtue of the provisions of the Copyright Act, No. 98 of 1978, i.e. 50 years. A registration constitutes evidence of copyright." However, the images that I used have been used publicly, and are commonly found images. With no credit given. The relevant section of the National Heritage Act of 1999, Section 48, states that "[a] heritage resources authority may prescribe the manner in which an application is made to it for any permit in terms of this Act and other requirements for permit applications, including— (a) any particulars or information to be furnished in the application and any documents, drawings, plans, photographs and fees which should accompany the application [registration]." As of such, the UN has not made such a registration, and since these images are relevant to National Heritage, they may be used for issues pertaining to South African national heritage, until the UN makes a counter-claim that is accepted by a South African judge as a registry. Since these images are of South Africa and stored in South African webspace, South African law governs their use. Páll 21:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
First, these are not "Cinematograph Films" which means movies. Second, if as you say South African copyright lasts for 50 years, on the face of it you cannot use anything later than 1955 without the copyright holder's permission. Third, my reading of the National Heritage Act is that it is about protecting heritage items (e.g. Bushman paintings) and that permission is needed to use them in a way which might affect them; even if it applies to this which I doubt, it seems to prohibit unregistered use rather than allow it. Fourth, the fact that others on the Internet ignore copyright does not mean Wikipedia can. Fifth, you cannot just give a GFDLicence on something unless you are the copyright holder, especially if you do not know the source. --Henrygb 02:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, these are cinematograph films as this law is generaly used for photographs as well. South African copyright alsts for 50 years, if they were registered to be copyrighted, which the UN has not done. The National Heritage Act makes specific reference to photographs as well "3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, those heritage resources of South Africa which are of cultural significance or other special value for the present community and for future generations must be considered part of the national estate and fall within the sphere of operations of heritage resources authorities. 45 vii) books, records, documents, photographic positives and negatives, graphic, film or video material or sound recordings, excluding those that are public records as defined in section 1(xiv) of the National Archives of South Africa Act, 1996 (Act No. 43 of 1996)."
The law goes on to state that an image is "is to be considered part of the national estate if it has cultural significance or other special value because of— (a) its importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa’s history; [...] (c) its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa’s natural or cultural heritage; (d) its importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of South Africa’s [...] cultural places or objects; [...] (g) its strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons; (h) its strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organisation of importance in the history of South Africa (emphasis added); and (i) sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa. 30 35 40".
This clearly to me states that images that are part of the heritage resources of South Africa (of which all of those images clearly are seeing as they are all over the place inside of the apartheid museum, history books on South Africa, as well as the national psyche. It is not just online that I have seen these images, I've seen them in every single book on South African historyt hat I own. I will replace the GFDL licence with a non-commercial tag. Páll 09:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is clear to me that you do not understand either copyright or how it applies in Wikipedia. This is not the first time this has been an issue. You cannot neither simply give a non-commercial licence on copyright which is not yours, nor use a non-comercial image in Wikipedia. But I will stop arguing now, and simply maintain my objection. --Henrygb 17:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with mav on article length. In general, I would suggest amending the featured article criteria to say that articles above a certain length should use summary-style in the main article, with links to detailed articles on each section. This is more helpful to the reader than a very long article that just keeps growing, eventually reaching book-length. Remember, we are writing for a diverse audience of readers. The perfect encyclopedia article makes it possible to "zoom in" on as much detail as required. That also leads to some interesting side effects, such as the references in the main article being more general, and the ones in the specific areas being more targeted at readers who are already well-versed in the subject area in question.--Eloquence* 20:54, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
    sofixit :-) Kim Bruning 10:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While your suggestions regarding amending the criteria are valid, I do not think this is the forum for them, Instead, I recommend you bring them up at the valid talk page, because until they are changed, they should not be used as criteria, instead we should go by what has already been made a featured article. In this case, the most similar article, History of Russia, is considerably longer than this article and passed its FAC. This article is already quite concise considering the period of history we are discussing, and it links to side articles where it is possible. As I've said previously, I do not think that 22k per million years of history is excessive, or in any way in bad taste. Páll 21:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And there were many articles without references that went through before we added that requirement. Including many articles that I objected to based on them not having references. Looking at this article I can see two places where it would be natural to use summary style. The ==Apartheid== section and the ==Colonisation== section. Apartheid already exists as its own article. The detail here could be merged there and this section could be summarized with a Main article link to Apartheid (which itself may need to eventually go through the same treatment). Colonisation in South Africa does not exist. So setting that up will be even easier. --mav 21:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • Support, nicely written article. Kim Bruning 10:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concorde

previous FAC

[edit] History of science

This article has undergone extensive expansion since its recent creation in January and especially since its recent COTW in February. It now encompasses a huge general area quite well, not too in-depth, but captures the trends well. It's full of pictures, good wikiformat, and has references. Looks like a wonderful article to me.--Dmcdevit 03:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. This is a good article, but still not ready for the big time. The peer review comments need to be adressed first - for example, there is no mention of economy and several other scientific disciplines at all, especially from the social sciences area - so the article fails on the grounds of being incomplete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The number of links to other disciplines has doubled. The navbox to them has correspondingly grown in size. Some of the content has been moved to pages in the respective disciplines. Ancheta Wis 14:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nearly twice the recommended page size. Article size is very important given that the average attention span of people is 20 minutes and it takes the average person about that amount of time to read 30 to 35 KB of prose. So a person who needs a good primer on this topic would not likely finish reading this article. Nothing wrong with having a great deal of coverage on a topic, but having so much in one article is not optimal. See Wikipedia:Summary style on how to fix this (involves summarizing some sections and moving the more detailed text to daughter articles). --mav 20:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Do we care whether the average person will actually finish something? Don't we care, rather, whether an interested person will read something? Besides, this is the history of science. Demanding that it be less than 32KB is, with due respect, just ignorant. Hydriotaphia 21:45, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Yes we do care - that is why we are here. A person who wants a primer on the whole topic should not have to be exhausted by reading. Expecting every user to need the same level of detail is, with due respect, ignorant. --mav 22:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's what I thought. I certainly considered the length, but thought that rule was obsolete with History of Russia's successful FAC. Especially with the more stringent rules, it's extemely hard to keep them that short.--Dmcdevit 22:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Many articles without references were featured before that was a requirement. --mav 22:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Right... so you're saying this should be featured, because there is no rule against length? I don't see your point.--Dmcdevit 23:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My point is that there is a transition period before a new requirement is added where people object to articles based on that future requirement but since that requirement is not set yet some of those articles objected to get featured anyway. So some articles that would not pass after that requirement was added did pass before it was added. --mav
OK—but doesn't that beg the question of whether it's actually a valid requirement or not? Let's not just assume it's legitimate. Let's have a reasoned, civil discussion about it. Apropos of that, I do sincerely apologize for calling your earlier comment ignorant; that was hardly civil. Hydriotaphia 04:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirection. The article is currently at 66KB and growing. The work is attracting some excellent editors. Perhaps it is premature to seek to prune it until the content stabilizes. I quote from The Autobiography of Science, 2nd edition, edited by Forest Ray Moulton and Justus J. Schifferes: "... the history of science resembles a flowing river ... Its beginnings lie beyond the farthest horizons of the unknown. As rivulets join successively into larger and larger streams, finally becoming irrestible floods, so the elementary and isolated first elements of various branches of science progressively combine and develop into ... great syntheses of experience and reasoning." I am attempting to prune it, see the link below. But it seems a shame to stifle the flood right now. You are seeing a great article form before you. Perhaps one approach is to nominate a pruned Summary_style version after this big one stabilizes. FAC is not as important as keeping the interest up in this one, right now. Ancheta Wis 12:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The article contains some great prose and most certainly has potential. However, I think this article needs a more detailed peer review. The article's talk page contains some problems I have with the first half of the article. Jan van Male 01:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've worked a lot on this article after the CotW ended, I think it improved a lot. I put it up for peer review to get comments on it and to get more people interested again. It helped, but I have to agree the article is not ready for FA status yet. I've greatly shortened many paragraphs but it's difficult to preserve all the different fields and disciplines at the same time. -- Cugel 08:09, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Attn: Check out new page Talk:History of science/Summary style for new page construction. Considering the major revision to account for length, it may not be an immediate fix. It seems most of the consensus is that that is the major problem, and it has all, if not too much, of the required info, much of which is now being moved to daughter pages. --Dmcdevit 02:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the article does a fairly good job of an overview to an immensely large topic. The fact that it is only 66K is AMAZING in my opinion, considering the range of subjects and time periods it covers. It gives a nice broad overview of both the history of various disciplines, the professionalization of science, theories of scientific change, and manages to do it without being too Western-centric. The 32K limit has never been a hard and fast rule (and matters substantially less now thanks to section editing than it ever did before) and should not be applied in a knee-jerk manner. There are certain topics in which to try and sum them up in 32K would be more of an atrocity than going over it a bit. --Fastfission 20:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vedem

An amazing article, a gem of hope, a document of human struggle, worthy a film in fact. oscar 01:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Waerth 01:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Though I wrote this article, I am voting for it because of Petr and all the boys who made Vedem possible. When I first heard their story, I thought about Wikipedia. Here were a bunch of young people with a dream. They wanted to document what they saw around them and share it with posterity. In many ways, that is just like us, but they did it, quite literally from hell. For me this is a chance to make sure that their message of hope in the face of all adversity continues to survive. Danny 01:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • apart from the quality of the article itself, concise and comprehensive, that is exactly why i nominated it :-) oscar 02:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. Antandrus 02:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A little known part of the history of the Holocaust that Wikipedia can help bring to wider audience. Great work! Googie man 02:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is what wikipedia is all about. --Jimbo Wales 02:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No references (the single link is obviously not the only source used). More elaboration on the magazine's content would be nice. The first image has a questionable copyright status: Danny uploaded it as being a "photo of dead boy died in 44" (although a fair use argument would be rather easy). No lead section - the first paragraph is a summary of the magazine's history from 1942 to 1944, information that is not elaborated further in the article, rather than a summary of the entire history of the magazine. No sections (I'm reading right off of Wikipedia:What is a featured article). ugen64 02:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No lead section/TOC/headings, no references. I just did a brief check on Amazon's search-inside-the-book, and there are quite a few works mentioning Vedem and putting it in context. I expect such additional context and background information from a featured-quality article. The images are lacking accurate and policy-compliant licensing information (NB: with regard to the photograph of the boy, it does not matter when the boy died, but when the person taking the photo did).--Eloquence* 02:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • support. If the article had normal subject matter I would agree with Ugen and Eloquence, but I think this story is worth promoting further. Two quesitons. Does "Shkid" mean "sh*t" in Czech? What happened to the fifteen survivors?Dinopup 04:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Some answers to your questions. Republic of Shkid is actually a Russian term (Республика ШКИД or Школа социально Индивидуального воспимчя именчь Достоевского -- Republic of Social Individual Upbringing [named] after Dostoevsky). The original was a school established by Anton Makarenko (1888-1939) for youths orphaned by the Russian Revolution. Most of the boys in Terezin Shkid came from secular, socialist backgrounds, and would have been very familiar with Makarenko's school, which highlighted collectivism (the barracks were organized by them as a collective), discipline and physical labor (two major features of life in Terezin). From what I have learned, most of the boys remained in Czechoslovakia, though some likely left for Europe, America, or Israel. The four cases I know of remained there. Danny 01:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Danny - could you add these details to the article? I think it would benefit from them. →Raul654 20:38, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • There are two ways to treat an article on a worthy topic differently from other articles. The POV way is to give that article special treatment in the featured article selection. The NPOV way is to give it special attention and to make sure that it is of the highest possible quality. I prefer the NPOV way, which I think ultimately does the subject greater justice than just trying to get it promoted on the Main Page.--Eloquence* 05:15, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Eloquence, your statement above is redundant and therefore unncessary, as you've already pointed out that you oppose this article's nomination for featured article. Furthermore, you really contradict the principles of NPOV which you so strongly espouse by making such a patently negative and POV statement. Therefore the above statement from you strikes me as something more personal and combative, than anything really about defending the integrity of Wikipedia. Then again, that's my POV, do or don't do with it what you please. But really, enough already. Googie man 02:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Googie man, please assume good faith. Eloquence's comment discusses the principle involved, it doesn't at all repeat what was in his vote, and I don't find it redundant, or combative either. I hope you'll want to strike out your response—which is basically five lines taken to say "Oh, shut up!"—after sleeping on it.--Bishonen | Talk 08:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose: this article fails to meet basic FA requirements as outlined by others above. Also, as per Dinopup's questions, it is not comprehensive enough yet. Worthiness of subject matter is not a reason to grant FA status, just as trivial subject matter is no reason to deny it. Filiocht 08:28, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, same objections as others. Way too short, not comprehensive. This thing was published; a lot more could be written about its contents. And did it have any effect on the world? --SPUI (talk) 13:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I sectioned and rewrote it a bit. I too would love to see more information; a little background on the boy and the man looking after those kids, a little more on Home One, the size of the whole barracks; more about other people involved in the magazine, the initial date of publication in Paris. Where are the other surviving pages now? etc. +sj + 15:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. KingTT 21:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for reasons stated by Ugen64, Eloquence and Filiocht. Great subject matter; but it needs to comply with the FA criteria just like any other article. — mark ✎ 10:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - good, so far as it goes, but I am not convinced that this ic comprehensive: much more can and should be written. It may benefit from a time on Wikipedia:Peer review. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This does not even meet a basic and obvious present or not present requirement of having references. Are the above supporters who cite the subject's inspirational quality to them and so on familiar with the criteria for a featured article? 119 19:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The article does state its references, albeit in the text. Not a surprise that sources are limited given the topic. Dbiv 20:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Viajero 00:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Length alone should not disqualify. Trödel|talk 22:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xanadu House

This article should be nominated as a featured article because it is an interesting topic and the article covers all areas of the topic, while discussing certain views of other people and including several photos with good captions. Wackymacs 11:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. Title needs to be in bold. Lead section should say who, what, where, when, how. Very poorly written. No print references. What influence did the house have on other architects and houses? To what extent could groceries "be bought by tele-shopping at the household work station"? Was this a concept or did it actually work? Gdr 13:21, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  • Object. Language needs working on, lots of problems with the tenses used (e.g., it's written mostly in the present, even when dealing with events and statements from the 70s and 80s). And why isn't 'The Book' referenced at the end, or made reference to outside the paragraph on it? And, surely, someone must have written some articles about this project? Finally, the article doesn't distinguish between concept, house(s), and commentary. Tobyox 17:53, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The lack of citations is a big problem and should disqualify the candidate. I'm ok with all internet references as long as some are citation-formatted and some are more than personal websites or bloggy-like, this last only satisfied by a single link. Courtland 18:21, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

[edit] Hair

Recently I found hair interesting (after linking an article to it). The article satisfied that interest and so I think it's suitable for inclusion in this category. I believe its faults, if any, are minor and can be taken care of quickly for this article to make the grade. - RoyBoy 800 07:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose No references, jguk 09:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the article should have a summary section on hair cuts, strength of hair and hair color, instead of just a few external links. Mgm|(talk) 10:31, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose until references: I think it's an excellent article otherwise. The article maintains a scientific and dispassionate tone and avoids getting into a fixation on head hair, so I appreciate the fact that puts all the haircut stuff in the See also section. However, there must be references. One of the authors must have used medical texts; these should be listed. Geogre 13:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In agreement with Geogre, there must be citations for this article; otherwise it should not be featured. Courtland 18:23, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  • Object, although I like the article, as it has been said I'd love to see references added, besides from external links. -- Shauri 00:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diana, Princess of Wales

Nominated by User:Hic, self-nom. The article was previously nominated in February; the old FAC discussion is here. Most of the objections made at that time have now been addressed.

  • mild object because: 1) Cite your sources in a References section 2) The order of the sections is a bit awkward, listing her charity work before her birth and youth. slambo 00:25, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Most of the article is about her death. Whilst this topic should be covered, I feel a biographical article should concentrate on the subject's life. She may have died young, but she did a lot - loads of long books have been written about her. I think it's a long way from featured status as it's nowhere near comprehensive enough. Also, you'll need to redact most of the stuff about her death (with the redacted bits going to a sub-article). Good luck with it! jguk 06:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - I agree with jguk that there is too much detail on her death in this article. A summary of that is needed here and the current detail should go into creating a separate article. Then the whole remaining main Diana article needs to be significantly expanded (at least doubled in size). --mav 22:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Giver

I am resubmitting this as a FAC in the belief that recent work by User:Anville has addressed significantly the previous objections in the previously unsuccessful FAC in February of this year. That is, I feel it does an adequate job explaining how it is culturally and historically relevant now as well as explaining the many honors it has gained from the literary community, which were both objections. That, coupled with it being an interesting article and well written, leads me to conclude that it ought to be proposed to the community as a featured article. For full disclosure, I worked very minorly on this article, but not really enough to seriously claim that this is a self-nom. In any case, I'll be interested to read community comments in the hopes that this will be a FA soon. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support While I've worked on this article too much to be able to give a fully impartial vote, I do think that it adequately addresses the objections raised during its previous FAC cycle. (I hasten to add that I believe those objections were perfectly valid ones, and I'm glad that several users took the time to formulate them well.) Full disclosure: my problem right now is about keeping the article NPOV. While I believe I did this in a technical way, anchoring everything with lots of citations, I personally find that many "sources" advocating the censorship of this book read like what The Onion's staff writers would put into the mouth of a reactionary school board. They really do read like something a satirist would invent! In these cases, it makes me feel like the prosecution is pleading the case of the defense. . . . Anville 14:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it reads too much like a book review, and too little like an encyclopedia article. In the end, however, someone hoping to find out what the book is will be informed by the article--which is the basic function of a wikipedia article. I don't think it at all represents the best of the Wikipedia, but since my objections hold true for the bulk of Wikipedia articles on books, I'm not going to stand in the way of this article's opportunity for featured status. I do wish, however, that colorful (and POV) phrases like "written in simple yet evocative language" or "fans of The Giver are no doubt gratified that Lois Lowry went beyond the place she was tempted to stop; those who have attempted to ban the book from schools are probably less pleased" could be left out. They have no place in the article.

[edit] Richard Wagner

I stumbled across this and found it an enjoyable read. It both covers his life and his work, provides pictures, includes a sound sample, sources and a balanced lead section. I believe it fulfils all of the FA criteria and would be an excellent addition to our current Featured Articles. Any criticisms will likely be minor, so please try to be constructive and provide full reasoning for any objections—I will try to amend them in time. Afterall, we do not have enough FA on the subject of classical music at the moment. --Oldak Quill 10:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Object, I'm afraid. Although I agree that there should be more FAs on classical music, I don't think this article is good enough yet (please feel free to move any of this to the article's Talk page):
    • The 'Operas' section needs to flow more smoothly (currently it feels too much like separate short statements), and is very short, and does somewhat mix all his operas together.
    • 'Other works' really should be 'Writings', the theatrical innovations could feasibly be either incorporated with his views on Gesamtkunstwerk, or the opera section. His writings really need to be discussed more thoroughly.
    • 'Exile' etc.: 'One of Schopenhauer's doctrines was that music held a supreme role amongst the arts, since it was the only one unconcerned with the material world. Wagner quickly embraced this claim, which must have resonated strongly despite its direct contradiction with his own arguments, in "Opera and Drama", that music in opera had to be subservient to the cause of drama.' I really think Dahlhaus' (Wagner's Music Dramas) argument regarding the misunderstanding drama=text should be mentioned here – Dahlhaus argues that the music became the main carrier for drama, and, as such, Wagner's embracing of Schopenhauer is not a contradiction. It could perhaps also be useful to mention that Schopenhauer’s view of music is in practically direct opposition to Kant's. Mention of Hanslick could perhaps also be useful, as his aesthetics, even though they also raise music to the highest level, are often discussed in terms of the Hanslick-Wagner debates. 'Nevertheless, the affair inspired Wagner to put aside his work on the Ring cycle (which would not be resumed for the next twelve years) and begin work on Tristan und Isolde, based on the Arthurian love story of the knight Tristan and the (already-married) lady Isolde.' – It could be useful to modify this cause and effect statement, based on arguments that the cause and effect of Tristan and the Wesendonck love story is the direct opposite of this idea (Magee, I think).
    • 'Final years' As some others have mentioned on the Talk pages, I’d reall like to see an authoritative reference for his 'last words'.
    • 'Anti-Semitism and Nazi appropriation': It’s a touchy subject, but I really think clear distinction should be made between Wagner's views and writings (which are hardly pretty, but...) set in their proper historical and cultural context on the one hand, and the 'Bayreuth Circle' (which Wagner is on record as not being terribly fond of) and Cosima, Siegfried, and the Nazis on the other. Nike Wagner (The Wagners, 2001) notes that 'the "Bayreuth circle," active in Wagner's lifetime as propagandists of his work, developed an ideology of cultish, nationalistic philistinism after the composer's death' (my emphasis). And British (and) left-wing Wagnerism should also be mentioned, cf. Shaw: '...[Wagner's] picture of Niblunghome under the reign of Alberic is a poetic vision of unregulated industrial capitalism as it was made known in Germany in the middle of the nineteenth century by Engel’s Condition of the Laboring Classes in England.' (The Perfect Wagnerite, 2nd ed. 1901).
    • A minor quibble: why are there two sections ('Media' and 'Sound sample') with one link to an .ogg file each? Tobyox 14:46, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I think it is pretty clear the Works section requires a more thorough discussion and copy-editing/rewriting. Phils 15:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time Cube

The Time Cube article is a good example of a reasonably article being written about a very weird subject. Any of it's shortcomings are easily explained by the subject matter. Furthermore, I think it would be an ideal article for April 1st ... far better than many of the proposed april 1st articles because it's an actual article. Being funny without being unprofessional is always an improvement over just being funny.Gmaxwell 21:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh gosh. Well, it needs a lead image and some references for a start. As for the subject matter... -- ALoan (Talk) 21:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Time_Cube to vote for Time Cube to be featured on April 1st. All the objections below have been resolved, so it is clearly a prime candidate.
  • Object. Fails the stability test, with ongoing revert wars and POV conflicts. --Wahoofive 21:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It is stable; the war seems to have been resolved, and anyway it only covered a few minor wording issues, with the majority of the article remaining static.
  • Object. I agree, the page is not stable. It's also not correct. I've been trying to keep my arguments to the talk page and only making changes once things have become incontrovertible, but that's very very slow. The whole page really needs a vast overhaul. 65.95.160.205 22:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support! Time Cube is the ineffable truth of the universe. Wikipedia users deserve to be enlightened with magnificent 4-corner Cubic wisdom, such that they may avert the impending Armageddon in which their children and great-grandchildren will resort to cannibalism and mass destruction of Nature. They must overcome their educated stupidity and recognise 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth, and that Time is Cubic, not Linear. They must seek Time Cube! 211.28.24.120 05:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Not stable. Also, the bolded quotations should be indented using ":"-signs and italic instead of bolded. (as far as I know bolding should be used sparingly only in lead and a few other words in an article). Mgm|(talk) 10:35, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Would make a good April 1st article, but as it's constantly being rewritten by a persisten fan of Gene Ray (see support vote above), there is not much NPOV there. Kosebamse
  • Object. Article does not explain why the topic is encyclopedic. Many people have idiosyncratic and nonsensical theories about the universe; the article needs to explain what (if anything) is notable or interesting about this one. Also, the article appears to depend entirely on web sites for references. It needs printed references too before it can be featured. Gdr 12:33, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  • Object. No citations once more. Interesting theory, and theories can certainly be encyclopedic including those that are contrarian. Courtland 18:26, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  • Support. This article is almost as good a treatment for a crackpot theory as one could hope for—the "tenets" of the theory are enumerated and discussed, and the language is NPOV while acknowledging that Time Cube is considered nonesensical. A pretty good candidate for an April 1 article. --Ryanaxp 19:55, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A wonderful piece of reference work on an obscure system of thought. Deserves full commendation. Franc28 08:03, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • object of course. elegible for April's Fool Featured Article, however. The "theory" is famous for being patent nonsense. The article seems to treat it as a serious pseudo-science. Take "postulating that time is cubic, not linear" — this is 'article voice', so it should be assumed the statement makes sense. It is entirely unclear, however, what "time is cubic" is supposed to mean. The theory may not be criticised, as it is devoid of statement, most of it does not even make sense grammatically. All the article can really do is quote Ray verbatim, and talk about his doings and goings about. dab (ᛏ) 18:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Time is linear - a line - 1 dimension
Time is cubic - a cube - 3 dimensions
I would have thought it self-explanatory.
  • The following offensive objection was made by the same user who made the objection "65.95.160.205 22:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)". It should therefore not be counted.
    • Object. To be frank the page ought to be deleted. It consistently fails the NPOV due a single vigourous supporter with far too much time on his hands. The Gene Ray page covers everything of importance that can be said in any sort of NPOV way.

[edit] Thug Ride

Skraten' up!! This article gives a detailed track-by-track description of an important and often overlooked thugrap album of the late 90's. without White Dawg's innovations, where would the state of Crunk be today? the article is well-written and detailed. - DIRTYSOUTH 23:27, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I guess this is fairly complete considering that the subject is somewhat obscure. Is there anything more you can write? Maybe some more info on its critical reception, influence on later rappers? It looks pretty good, but I don't know if it's quite outstanding quality yet. Everyking 23:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and you need to add a track listing, so people don't have to dig through the paragraphs to find the info if they just want the basics. Everyking 23:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is one krunk-ass article. Enthusiastic support! silsor 23:45, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. The third paragraph of the lead is far from neutral (tell who sees the album as an ahead of the time example of crunk, as an example). Other uncited opinions throughout article (e.g. Many have praised the beat, considered controversial by some and feminists have derided its lyrics as sexist (all feminists?). Most importantly, there's essentially no content beyond a brief description of each song. We need some details on the album's history, recording, marketing, etc. Tuf-Kat 00:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. The analysis of the tracks is good but there is not yet enough here to engage anyone who is not already interested in the subject. I would like to see an explanation of 'thug rapper', a basic track list, solidification of phrases like "remains well-known among some hip hop fans" (which seems to diminish its own subject), and a fuller explanation of why the record was or became important. Perhaps it should be listed at RFC for peer review. --Theo (Talk) 00:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. No references, only a brief section on why the record is important, and no notation of when the album was recorded. THe article is essentially one long (over?) analysis of the album. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article. --b. Touch 02:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. In addition to the above: 1) an article about music should include a sound sample. 2) The ??? in the table shouldn't be there. 3) Most importantly: Much of the article is vague ("reviews were mostly positive"), POV at times (" to impressive effect"), and mostly lists some of the lyrics, seemingly emphasizing the expletives. There's no serious overview of the album, its sales, its fans or its critics. Basically, this article is not even close to being comprehensive. Jeronimo 18:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Blimey, it's as if Goldie Lookin' Chain had been American. Oppose. For it to be acceptable as a Wikipedia article, let alone a featured article, it would need to have a much greater amount of "According to Dawg (source), the track (name of track) (optionally: - which was released as a single on (date), selling (copies) and reaching (number) in the (chart) in (location)) was written (as a commentary on / about the issue of / to attack rival rapper / etc) (source). Critics, meanwhile, described the track as (source) etc" rather than its current form, which reads like a clever white university graduate having a right old laugh at the perceived triviality of working class music. To add to the examples above, phrases such as "an epic beat", "one of the album's highlights", "White Dawg's first big hit" (in the context of saying that a song is particularly good, rather than an objective commercial success) and even describing someone as an "underground rapper" aren't really with-it. In its current form, I would recommend deleting the article and adding, to the page on White Dawg, the text "Dawg's first album, Thug Ride, was released in 1991. Although the album did not chart it received many favourable reviews (source), and the single "Restless" reached number 18 in Billboard's Hot Rap Singles chart".-Ashley Pomeroy 18:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Aw, c'mon, Ashley, do you really need to be so harsh? The article needs improvement but suggesting that it is only fit for deletion seems unconstructive to me. --Theo (Talk) 21:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not really a bad article. You have to take into account that it only sold 30,000 copies. It needs a simple track list, some NPOVing in places, some critical cites if possible, and references to other rappers' opinion of the album if possible. And I thought calling this "working class music" was really funny. Everyking 22:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We'll have "popular beat combo" next! --Theo (Talk) 22:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) [And we may now be far enough off-topic]
That's my, er, socialist background coming through; I tend to see things in terms of class. 'Working class music' sounds a bit fogeyish but it's quite accurate in this context; notwithstanding the popular perception that rappers are mostly posh middle-class brats pretending to be "down" with "the street", viz The Beastie Boys, The Streets, The Rolling Stones etc, White Dawg seems to be the real deal. He's not 'urban' or 'black', except in the most euphemistic terms, and I absolutely refuse to use the word 'skrunk', and there's no other way for me to describe the man. My other critcisms still apply, as the article is nowhere near straight enough to be taken straight, or absurd enough to be taken as absurd humour, i.e. in the mould of Derek and Clive's 'Bo Duddley', where they over-analysise a blues standard through the prism of Oxbridge educations. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose OMG, you is voting for this illitereate piece of white trash writing as FA? O, an' where be de references, and what might youall say about de star o' de SHOW? An what you say about an article that is not as long as my =dick=? Huh? OMG!! (White Dawg and Dozia Slim shout over an epic beat. What ever!) Denni☯ 00:35, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I want a million so I'm grindin' for this fuckin' change. Fired up, skraten' up. Wikipedia, Skraten' up!!! SKRATEN' UP 04:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Friedrich Nietzsche

A pretty decent article on a philosopher widely misunderstood in popular culture. I have not edited this article.--Pharos 19:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • comment pretty decent, I agree. keep in mind "FA" does not mean "perfect". The intro could be a tad longer, and there should be a section on "reception". dab (ᛏ) 20:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I give this a no vote for now. The quotes (like most of the quotes in Wikipedia and Wikiquote) need sources, and it is very incomplete - no mention of eternal recurrence in the article (and Eternal return is fairly scanty), no working definition of nihilism, no strong discussion of Thus Spoke Zarathustra (and again, the Also sprach Zarathustra is scanty), and few sources for citations in the article to name just a few problems. Its also still constantly being edited, with major revisions happening all the time. So no, too little and too unstable. -Seth Mahoney 20:34, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • There have been a lot of changes since that vote, but I still vote no, on pretty much the same grounds. -Seth Mahoney 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Doesn't go sufficiently in depth on his actual ideas, missing a discussion of his controversial attitude toward women, fails to be specific on his vast influence on later philosophers/culture, etc. In general I think it needs to be much longer and more comprehensive. I would love to see this be a featured article at some point, but it has much more potential as it stands. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No reason to vote against this article of interest being 'Featured' so as to attract more brainstorming rather than brainwashed. This seems no matter of decency but sort of grace. Yet decency might need a bench mark; I would suggest Chapter IX of Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy whose first section The Lineage of Nietzsche starts reading: "Nietzsche was the child of Darwin and the brother of Bismarck. It does not matter that he ridiculed the English evolutionists and the German nationalists: he was accustomed to denounce those who had most influenced him; it was his unconscious way of covering up his debts." --KYPark 17:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No reason except that its just not up to par. There's really very little talk about his philosophy. There are other places more beneficial for the article where it can go: Collaboration of the week sure, articles needing attention, sure. Featured article, no. -Seth Mahoney 20:45, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One sentence does not a lead section make. As mentioned above, lacking in depth - famous concepts like his Übermensch ("superman") get no more than a one-line mention. Needs more discussion of Nietzsche's influence on subsequent developments in philosophy and culture (and not just vis-a-vis the Nazis; by the way, the text about that particular aspect is basically apologism and needs to be more neutral, as the issue is far more complex than its current presentation). --Michael Snow 23:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a terrible treatment of Nietzsche except for its biographical stuff. The treatment of his thinking is standard postmodernist junk. The analytic philosophers have taken an interest in him, but you would not know that from the article Not2plato 04:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your bias against postmodern philosophy and apparant bias for analytic philosophy doesn't really count as a good reason to discount the article. -Seth Mahoney 04:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
If you knew Nietzsche well, you'd know that the depth of his thought surpasses that of any 'postmodern' or 'analytic' philosopher by leaps and bounds. Their discourse is frankly boring and fetid. The only other philosopher that I can imagine Nietzsche would be intrigued by would be Yamamoto Tsunetomo. -- Chris 22:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boston molasses disaster

previous FAC

[edit] New Orleans, Louisiana

I think this page compares quite favorably with the U.S. cities that have reached featured status (Marshall, Texas; Seattle, Washington; San Jose, California; and Newark, New Jersey). I've done some editing on the page, but it's mostly been limited to cleaning things up, fixing clunky prose, and proofreading. Kevin M Marshall 16:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Object — 1) infobox needed 2) images seem to float across section headings 3) History too long. Make a new article and provide a summary here. 4) Geography is full of lists so too famous residents 5)Climate and education section too small 6) celebrations would be better under culture. Nichalp 20:36, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added the infobox (although images of the seal and flag are still needed) and taken care of the history section. I'll try to work on the rest of your suggestions at some point this weekend or early next week. Thanks for your comments--the suggestions are all very good ideas.--Kevin M Marshall 15:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1) Try and avoid the overuse of subheadings. Take a look at Johannesburg and Sarajevo on the use of minimal subheadings. It would be preferable if you could summarise the history into three to five paragraphs without the headings. 2)Push the infobox a little lower 3) Image placement is terrible. Its all over the place 4) Move the famous residents to a new page. Its not important here. 5) The neighbourhoods and parishes could do with a template in which the places spread horizontally rather than vertically. 6) NO REFERENCES (Please read the guidelines) 7) Transportation could be shortened. Nichalp 19:03, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. What's there so far seems pretty good, but comparing the size to Seattle (including its 'main article' and 'see also' subpages) and San Jose, I have to wonder if it's comprehensive/detailed enuf. SJ is 50k, and Seattle about the same size as NO, but has MANY subpages--the subpages of History of Seattle alone total about 60k (I haven't read them, so there is a possiblity that they are unnecessarily detailed or wordy, but I doubt they'd be bad enuf to be the cause of the entire disparity). Sarajevo is also about the same size, but has many more subpages. Unfortunately, I don't know enuf about the city to give many specifics, but poking about at NO tourism seems to imply there are many more attractions/museums worth mentioning. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities suggests discussing major parks. The table I made here when Seattle was an FAC may give ideas of other topics that could be added.
I have just completed Mumbai(its above on FAC). Most of the topics listed in the table are included inline. Geology, crime, education, sports are all in a summary. Page size is <30 kb. its better to have subpages rather than to have a long list. A featured article should also be asthetically appealing and by adding lists and numerous sub headings it makes the page gharish. Nichalp 19:37, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what direction to go with the size of the page. Some of the history sections on the main page of featured city articles are quite lengthy, with several subsections; others are very brief. I'm tempted to say that shorter is better and that subpages should be used, but it seems that there's no clear consensus on what length the history section should be. Quite a bit of the general outline for a city article is fleshed out, but I think we could have an even better guide as to what can be expected from the history section on a city's main page.
Do we want to adhere to the 32KB size limit or totally disregard it? If we're going to go with lots of subpages, there really isn't much reason to make 50 or 60 KB articles.
Also, while I can understand the visual disgust at a table of contents with too many headings, I think that in the body of the article subheadings are generally very useful.Kevin M Marshall 00:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I may have inadvertantly overly focused the discussion on the History section. I'm more concerned with things like the NO Online site listing 43 museums, while the article mentions three, only one of which has a Wikipedia article (they include the aquarium as a "museum" for some reason). Maybe not all 43 are worthy of note, but I would have to imagine at least a quarter to a third probably are. Also, I'm not suggesting it all has to be added in toto to the main city page, but right now the main page is about all there is. I personally prefer it consolidated like San Jose (even if it takes it to 50K--the 32K number was arbitrarily based on technical limitations of old browsers), rather than having to jump between dozens of subpages like Seattle, but either way, they both have so much more content it just seems like there has to be stuff missing. One thing it seems to be missing from the Project suggestions is parks; a couple things I'm used to seeing in comprehensive city articles are sister cities and 'city in literature' info. There also seem to be more festivals that could be mentioned, such as the Satchmo SummerFest and Essence Music Festival. Also there's hard to classify attractions like Six Flags New Orleans. The New Orleans Opera Association, is claimed to be the oldest opera in North America, and how about Louisiana Philharmonic, and local ballet and theater companies? And one comment about lists--I know a number of FAC voters oppose them, but they are seen by some as a more effective presentation of some kinds of information; while San Jose was an FAC, I converted lists in a number of sections into prose, but once the article was featured on the main page, most were converted back to lists. Niteowlneils 06:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Otto von Bismarck

Self-nomination. Nomination withdrawn. -- Emsworth 19:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I notice some problems in the first paragraph. I quote:
    A Junker, Bismarck held deep monarchist, aristocratic and Prussian nationalist views. His most significant policy objective was that of securing German unification; he took advantage of skilful diplomacy and a series of wars to achieve this goal
Firstly, calling him a Prussian nationalist doesn't make sense. I know what you are getting at, but this is an awkward term. He was a Prussian patriot, I guess, or some such. A Hohenzollern loyalist. Something along those lines. But he was not a Prussian nationalist, because Prussia was not a nation. As to whether his objective was to unify Germany, well, this is debatable. Without a doubt his objective was to secure Prussian domination of Germany. Whether this demanded unification seems questionable to me. Other points:
  1. I feel like his titles are presented oddly. He was born simply "Otto von Bismarck." He was later made a Count, and then a Prince, and finally Duke of Lauenburg. This doesn't seem clear to me from the text, which explicitly says he was born a count (he was made a count in 1865, after the war with Denmark).
  2. My understanding was that his conversion to pietism was as much the result of his falling for Joanna von Puttkamer as anything else
  3. What the Vereinigte Landtag was should be made clear, since as it is it seems uncertain what the difference is between it and the post-1849 Landtag.
  4. Perhaps something should be mentioned of his defense of the "capitulation" of Olmütz in 1850, and how he was seen as a friend of Austria when he was sent to Frankfurt.
  5. Describing Bismarck in Frankfurt as becoming more moderate seems wrong. He became more anti-Austrian, and more inclined to use kleindeutsch sentiment against Austria.
  6. In terms of Bismarck's appointment as Minister-president, I think his relationship with Roon needs to be discussed. Also some mention of him as the "Prussian Polignac" when he was appointed might be of use.
  7. The Gastein Convention was not supposed to be a permanent solution - Austria certainly had no interest in keeping Holstein. Saying that Austria renigged is also POV, I think - Prussian provocations ought to be mentioned as well.
  8. That almost all German states of note (save Baden, which was neutral) sided with Austria in the war should be mentioned.
  9. I think the "German unification" section should perhaps be called "The Defeat of Austria," or some such, since it only goes up to 1867.
  10. The Prussian elections of 1866 seem to be mischaracterized - the split among the liberals, with one wing now supporting Bismarck, is probably the most important factor here.
  11. The 1866/7 settlement could be bettered described. Bismarck's annexations left Prussia as by far the most powerful state in Northern Germany. Save Saxony, none of the other states is even really worth mentioning. The continued independence of southern Germany should also be mentioned.
  12. The Franco-Prussian War is also mischaracterized a bit, I think. The continuing French resistance after September 1870 deserves mention, especially in the context of Bismarck's negotiations with the south German states.
  13. Bismarck was tight with the National Liberals even before the Kulturkampf - it was a tool for maintaining the connection, not for creating it.
  14. That Austro-Russian, and not German-Russian, disputes were key to the falling out with Russia should be mentioned.
  15. In terms of the scramble for Africa, we should perhaps mention "Bismarck's map of Africa", and how he saw German gains in Africa as a way of getting along better with France through keeping France and Britain opposed to each other.
  16. I don't believe Friedrich III was in a coma. He was in terrible health, but not in a coma, so far as I know. Does anyone have a source for this assertion?
  17. The legacy section should be much improved. Some sense of the historiographical debate over Bismarck should be given.
  18. Lothar Gall's biography should be added to the references section.
That said, this is quite a good article, over all. I'll try to make some of these changes should I get the chance (I've just been reading unification related stuff for my exams, so I'm fairly up on this), but I'm not sure I'll have time. john k 20:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • An additional point - the "reptile fund," whereby Bismarck used money stolen from the exiled King of Hanover after the 1866 war to bribe politicians and newspaper editors, deserves some mention. john k 22:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, at least for now. The prose style is defficient, and the contents fail to address many key points, just as john says. Crisbas 01:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I knew of most points john mentioned above from my meager high school history course, where we spent a grand total of 4 hours on Bismarck: if I know about it, then certainly this article should contain it to deserve FA. That said, good article. I also consider the claim made above that the article's prose is deficient to be a non sequitur. Phils 12:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore

After some major cleanup, copyediting, summarization and reorganisation (especially to conform with Wikiproject Countries), I think it should be ready to be a featured article. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • This article is still listed at Peer review. It shouldn't be in both places at the same time, so please remove it from one of them before proceeding. -- Shauri 19:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object lead-in needs a rewrite. Infobox has strange information, History and Economy too long, Nothing on Media, Sports, Education, Utilities/Infrastructure, Transport. Images are lopsided and needs a cleanup (right align them)spellings are inconsitant. Please use British English instead of the current mix of AE and BENichalp 19:26, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. There were two FACs before this where reverse objections were lodged (i.e., that it was too cluttered. JuntungWu 15:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That's exactly what I'm saying. What I want is a summary of the history and economy section, and move the airports to Transport. See India and Belgium for how a good summary can be written. Nichalp 18:59, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • That is a summary. A nice sized one too. Note that History of Singapore itself is a 36KB article. What is in the ==History== section here is fine. --mav 18:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • No, the fifth and sixth paragraphs can be compressed into three lines. I've compressed India 5,000 year old history into three paragraphs. It should be piece of cake to shorten the history of singapore. If I had the time (alas :( ) I would have done the compression myself. Nichalp 20:15, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Summarised the history in four paragraphs. Also made a transport section Nichalp 19:17, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC).
That is just stupid. Now the history section is in the size range that the Wikipedia:Lead section at History of Singapore should be (3 good sized paragraphs). Compare the length of the FA Yosemite National Park#History and the lead section of the FA History of the Yosemite area. I consider your length objection invalid since it flies in the face of established best practice. --mav 16:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why you claim my objection is stupid. You have provided me no guidelines on the corelation between the lead-section of a main history article and the ==History== section. The Yosmite Park and Singapore are two vastly different topics. (I won't elaborate any further on the Park). Flies in the face of established best practice? Pray, what do you (*rudely*) mean by that? You have to provide me a wikipedia convention that supports your theory that it is an established practice. On my part I am perfectly in line with wikipedia guidelines to object. From Wikipedia:Summary#Size Longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. That way our content is useful to those people who just want a quick overview and to those people who want more detail. The sections on Singapore are discrete and a summary is definately reccomended. What I have done is a summary with a decent section length omitting the detailed points for easier readability. I consider your rebuke of my objection baseless. Nichalp 19:26, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:Lead section. It very clearly says that articles of 32KB+ need to have 3 good sized paragraphs. Having the same size summary at Singapore#History and for the lead section at History of Singapore is, well, stupid duplication. And Wikipedia:Summary style says that the section summary at the survey article should be at least twice the size of the lead section at the daughter article. --mav
    • Infobox is odd. remove largest city, and I would like an explanation as to what is being conveyed in the time zone detail (not used?). Nichalp 20:41, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Media, education, utilities, transport sections are have either been integrated with the economy section, or the detail moved away to the main articles. That's what I've perceived, so I generally support this. -- Natalinasmpf 22:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please sign the nomination. Why should transport be under economy? What about the fabled rail network and buses? Nichalp 20:41, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object This article needs to spend more time at Peer review. Crisbas 01:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I have already removed it from peer review (just doing housekeeping). Mailer Diablo, please feel free to put it back if you wish (removing it in that case from FAC), or drop me a note and I'll do it. Bishonen | Talk 11:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Not nearly is good as People's Republic of China, the standard for country articles. Neutralitytalk 02:40, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • While I agree it is not as good, I disagree that every FAC needs to be as good as the best example of an FA in that subject area in order to become an FA. No problem at all with having both great and outstanding FAs. It is also unreasonable to assume that an article on such a small nation (such as Singapore) would need to be as good/detailed as an article that covers such a huge and multifaceted nation (such as the PRC). --mav 18:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Most objections are inactionable, as they fly in the face of WikiProject Countries guidelines. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It doesn't conflict with the guidelines published in anyway. I'm not saying that the history and economy sections are bad, but I shouldn't be reading seven paragraphs when it can be easily shortened to three/four paragraphs given that there is a detailed article. Similarly as for the infobox: It is understood that Singapore is a city-state. Why have a largest city? I also don't understand what is being conveyed in the timezone part. Nichalp 18:59, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Not too sure what is the reason for it being added back in there, but perhaps it does help in comparisons with other countries?--Huaiwei 19:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • No need to add redundant material just to compare. It looks odd seeing a largest city and capital since they are one and the same (there are no multiple cities in Singapore in which the inclusion of both would be justified). In other words, if its clearly understood, don't add. Nichalp 19:24, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • This article really really reminds me of the fable concerning a man, his son and his donkey. The reason those things in the infobox are there is because in a previous FAC nomination, somebody objected because we didn't use the country template. Last time we had more detail on the transportation, etc. until somebody objected because they conflicted with the Wikiproject guidelines. It's like there's no pleasing anybody on this article. Johnleemk | Talk 06:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I've got to concur with you on this one. It's very difficult to please everybody to pass this through FAC. - Mailer Diablo 13:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • More sections are certainally needed. The article needs an overall picture of Singapore. I don't know about sports, education, transport (since its also a city, these are important). Nichalp 20:15, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
          • Er....so now we have to add the sections back? (only to be told to get rid of them again later?) I am beginning to understand the frustrations espressed by Johnleemk and Mailer Diablo.--Huaiwei 10:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • I too sympathise with them, but we also have to take into account that Singapore is also a city, and by omitting them it also conflicts with the city guidelines. If you can add a two paragraphs on transport, education, sports and media; I shall be happy to take care of any objections that may arise if the addition is later opposed. Nichalp 19:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The previous rounds of peer review has more or less cleaned up the problem areas in the article, and I would personally be generally receptive of its nomination.--Huaiwei 16:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object I'm sorry Mailer Diablo, but I think this still needs more work. The images should be right-aligned, and I'm sure there must be more quality images of Singapore. The ones that are on the page now are fairly washed out. Furthermore, due to the size of Singapore, I think some content that would also be featured on a city article is pertinent, such as transport, recreation, media, etc. Take a look at South Africa for some suggestions for subjects to include. Páll 09:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • All images need to be right aligned?! Why do you think we have a choice to right or left align images? Mixing it up looks much better and your personal stylistic preference is not supported by the image use policy. --mav 18:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Or perhaps rather, the lack of enough images to be added on the right-side of the article. The reason why the first and second images are on the left is because of the infobox. Now it's placed on the right, it is pushed down to the politics section. I'll see if I can snap more photos around SG in future. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: But Singapore is a city-state, and has some unique needs for presentation. The best thing, IMO, would be to present the national side of Singapore, and have the details of the city tucked away in another article. The article already mentions the standard of the transport system. -- Natalinasmpf 14:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - This article has improved a great deal since I last saw it and looks FA-quality to me now. Good work! --mav 18:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing to Object now that the history section is as long as what would be expected for a lead section at History of Singapore. The history section in this article needs to go into more detail (and be as long as or a bit longer than it was before). See above. --mav 16:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Agh. Do we have to please everyone?!! -- Natalinasmpf 20:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • With these objections, I guess a complete knock-down and rebuild is in order. - Mailer Diablo 10:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Jesus Christ. This is about the only time I've ever had to use Christ's name in vain, and hopefully it'll be the last. I've had it up to *here* with this bullshit. You won't be hearing from me again about this article. Johnleemk | Talk 07:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guns N' Roses

previous FAC

[edit] Steel

My only contact with this article was to consult it earlier this week, before the MySQL meltdown. It not only answered all of my questions, it sounded authoritative. May we consider it worthy? -- llywrch 04:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support — a great article and worthy of featured status. I have two small requests: could we have some examples of sky metal in at least two languages, and could someone check the source for the word pulad, it doesn't look like Arabic to me. Gareth Hughes 10:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. no external links, references and only one see also - not very usefully if you want furture information. CGorman 15:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. No references. Can people please, please read either step one above or the criteria before nominating! - Taxman 21:22, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support unreservedly. This is far, far superior to many existing featured articles in depth of content, in clarity, in ease of reading, and in writing at an appropriate level for the reasonably intelligent reader who doesn't know much about the topic yet (which is exactly the sort of person who consults an encyclopedia article). Please, please, don't buggerise it about with ill-considered micro-management-style edits in order to make it fit into some preconcieved template. Apply Rule One: when it ain't broke, don't fix it. It is excellent as-is. Just leave it alone. Tannin 10:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - I'm afraid that it IS broke. Not having references means that it simply does not meet all the criteria expected of a featured article. Fawcett5 14:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object ditto on the lack of references. I was also surprised that it seemed more about the history and evolution of the steel industry and tells little about recent history, currents statistics uses, future development potential, etc. I like the thoroughness of what is there, although without references, its flawed, but we need more content if the subject is to be as broad as simply "steel". Vaoverland 06:16, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Western Star

Self-nomination. A thorough life of Ohio's second oldest newspaper, with a photo, a map, and references. I had it up on WP:PR for eleven days and no comments were made so I hope no news is good news for its featured chances. PedanticallySpeaking 16:59, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Object this article reads more like a timeline than a history, the wikilinks are almost exclusively to dates. The article is also overall too short to be comprehensive. Needs a photo of the heading on the paper's mainpage preferably on an old issue. This time it shouldnt pass. I think this should go back thru Peer Review again.  ALKIVAR™ 00:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Most of the people mentioned are quite obscure. Had I wikilinked them, then someone else would be objecting to the abundance of red-links. I have linked what there are articles on or could be. I did look for an image of the paper on the net, but didn't find one. One problem is the generic name tends to dredge up all sorts of unrelated sites. Yes, the one section is mainly dates as I trace the varying names of the paper. But if I presented it as a list, there'd be objections to a long list. PedanticallySpeaking 17:22, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes but too many redlinks is not a valid objection for FAC. As it stands I still have to object since its not really long or "comprehensive" yet... but it is still a good article! so be proud of what you've done so far.  ALKIVAR™ 18:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Good article, but as Alkivar points out, besides from the rich details you provide on the history of the newspaper, I'd like to see more about its life within the community, i.e. influence in local politic events throughout history, if available. A bit more of graphical richness would be also desirable. Very nice work, nevertheless. - Shauri 11:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I will add that it was a Republican paper originally, but unfortunately I can't add too much else, there not being many printed sources available on Lebanon and Warren County. I'll look at Dallas Bogen's site while I'm at it. PedanticallySpeaking 17:22, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support (qualified). The basics are here, and it would benefit from some tweaking. It would be helpful to have some additional graphics, although I couldn't locate any from the LOC source. Vaoverland 01:11, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Riel

An interesting and comprehensive article on one of Canada's most enigmatic historical figures. Denni☯ 01:09, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

  • Support. Great. Phils 12:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work; among the best Wikipedia articles on historical figures. (Disclaimer: I know little about Riel from other sources besides the Chester Brown comic, so I'm not the best judge of comprehensiveness or slant, but this looks really good to me.) I wish the article on John Brown were this good! -- Rbellin|Talk 16:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: A prior featured article nomination result for this article is here. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, it was not defeated in the previous FAC cycle, rather withdrawn to Peer Review. It has in fact undergone almost a complete rewrite in PR. Fawcett5 18:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Reviewers might choose to take this with a grain of salt&nbsp— I here disclose that I did much of the rewrite after it went back to peer review following the last FAC attempt (with able assistance from JamesTeterenko and CWood among others). Fawcett5 18:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • seems like a great article, but object that the references section is short and it isn't at all obvious which parts of the text to look up in which reference. Also, I notice that some phrases "Riel was the eldest of eleven children in a tight-knit, highly religious and well respected French Canadian-Métis family." are remarkably similar to the dictionary of Canada article[3] "Riel was the eldest of 11 children in a close-knit, devoutly religious, and affectionate family" this seems too close to a copyright violation for a featured article. Mozzerati 20:38, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
My response:
  1. Number of References - the reference section includes 5 of the most important standard works on Riel, including Riel's own writings, Boulton's first person account from 1886, Stanley's 1963 classic, Siggin's respected 1994 update, and Flanagan's 1992 work suggesting the parallels between Riel's following and Millenarianism. For those less academically inclined, there is even a graphic novel. The bases are covered. The external links also have two more quality biographies.
    almost withdrawn - I've copied your descriptions into the article, can you just verify, and as needed correct or expand my text as needed.Mozzerati
    OK, I've made slight copyedits on your changes, and added the ref for the Flanagan bio (hadn't noticed before that the extant ref was just for his pamphlet, not his book). Note also that I didn't mean to imply that Sliggins text was based on Stanley's, just that it was a more modern treatment.Fawcett5 14:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Finding what you want - The account sticks closely to a consensus version of Riel's activities - for 99% of the material you can refer to any of the standard texts. Footnotes or inline citations are therefore an unneccesary distraction for the vast majority of the article. There are two exceptions:
    1. Direct quotations from Boulton's account, which are attributed to him in the text where they occur.
    2. The "Reconsidering Riel" section is where non-consensus theories or interpretations are dealt with. In this section, the relevant historians are mentioned by name.
    thanks for that answer; I would still prefer if individual quotes had page numbers etc. The reason for this is that people who are once considered good historians can later be re-evaluated (see David Irving who was discovered to be a liar) and any material based on their work has to be carefully checked. If you give detailed sources then it easier for checking later. Even so, with the addition of the comments you gave earlier, your article will not nearly be worst within the FAC category, so once you've verified my edit, I withdraw this objection. Mozzerati 06:41, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
  3. Copyright violation - The DCBO biography (actually by Stanley, Riel's best-known biographer) was obviously important source material for both myself and other editors. While the sentence you point out does have similarity, it most assuredly does not rise to the standard of a copyright violation. Nevertheless, I will change this, and any other instances that you can point out - I believe that very few such problems survived the rewrite. Fawcett5 21:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I will try to check this further; in the case where the sentence actually was derived from an original source we would have to claim fair use. That would be okay only for a very limited amount of the article. Mozzerati 06:41, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
    I have checked this as far as I could (which wasn't much). That sentence was added in a small edit along with other material which appears to be original. Since that time the article has been almost entirely changed. I guess it's okay, probably the original contributor was trying to do their best and isn't fully copyright aware. I can say that this is a perfect example of where a full system of inline notes would allow much easier checking since we could see exactly which bit to lookup where. Please everybody be more careful in future. I consider this last objection answered and am striking out my object. Mozzerati 06:38, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Support - Covers all of his life in a well-balanced way and fits it all into the surrounding history. Great work! Radagast 02:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Just so everyone knows my bias, I have contributed a bit to the article. I also voted against it becoming a featured article a month ago. Fawcett5 has done an amazing job rewriting the article, and a few of us tried to help when we can. -- JamesTeterenko 07:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I also was a contributor to the article, so again, a bit of bias. This article has had an amazing transformation thanks to Fawcett5 and others. Riel was a complex figure in Canadian history and I think that this article does him justice. CWood 14:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I too contributed a bit, and my opinion is much like CWood's. The article now treats Riel as a historical figure; I think that was the intention of the article from the beginning, but when I first ran across it it tended towards hagiography. Riel is, despite what many prefer to think, one of the most important figures in Canadian history, and this article gives you a good idea why he is. John FitzGerald 19:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - an engrossing story of an interesting character - excellently written. Worldtraveller 21:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - This couple of sentences from the intro reads just very slightly oddly to me:
In 1884, he returned to what is now the province of Saskatchewan in order to represent Métis grievances to the Canadian government. But this resistance, known as the North-West Rebellion of 1885, escalated into a military confrontation.
"Representing grievances", which to me suggests a non-confrontational process of consultation, has become "resistance" in the next sentence. It's a very, very minor point, but pedantry is my stock-in-trade. --194.73.130.132 08:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, thats not a bad way to describe what actually happened. Took a few months in real life, rather than one sentence though... Fawcett5 11:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Object - The execution of Scott, if I remember my history correctly, hardened the public attitude in Canada against him. Yet I see no mention in that section, only of legal troubles. Can you clarify further? Burgundavia 21:40, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Burgundavia, this is comprehensively dealt with in the main article on this period of Riel's life. See Red River Rebellion. Much of the material there now was previously at Louis Riel, but was moved to conform with summary style and article length considerations. Fawcett5 23:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Night (book)

An informed and balanced personal response to a work of art, outstanding in its prose and in the selection of its illustrations. --Wetman 08:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - I haven't read the article text yet (no vote yet), but the lead section seems awfully short for an article of this length. slambo 21:39, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose A very interesting article, and a good read - but not comprehensive, with most of the article being a long (though enjoyable to read) synopsis. In particular, I think we need to have some guide as to what did critics think of the book? Did German critics, say, approach it differently from American critics? What are sales like? My objection to FA status does not extend to my other constructive comments, which are as follows: By each quotation are page references, but they're only relevant if we know which edition of the book referred to. Some quotations are in italics, others aren't - one consistent style would be better. The list of books by Elie Wiesel does not belong here. Good luck with it!, jguk 22:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Jguk. The quotation marks first of all: short quotes are in quotation marks in the text. Long quotes are indented without quotation marks. When not in italics, it is the voice of the narrator: Wiesel speaking to the reader. When in italics, it is Wiesel speaking to himself or quoting another character. I'm going to move the list of books. I'm also going to be adding more about the sales of the book and critiques of it, which have been quite hard to get hold of, but I'm in the process of doing it.
SV, feel free to ask me on my talk page to have another look at it once you have added the sales and critique info (in case I miss it on this page). As I noted, it was a good read, and I'd happily support if my objections were dealt with, jguk 23:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Jguk, will do. I've clarified which edition of Night I used by including a note in the References section.

[edit] New Deal

An excellent cursory overview. JBurnham 05:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good article. I think it would be nice to have some more information on the other people who came up with some of the programs. Besides FDR, I see the Ickes is mentioned, but Arthur J. Altmeyer and Edwin E. Witte and Henry Morgenthau, Jr. contibuted too. (I just happened to be working on bio's of the original heads of the social security today, which is how I happen to know about these guys). You could also talk about the supreme court. It's probably relevent up to the resignations in 1937. Morris 05:13, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

A fair criticism, but Altmeyer, Witte, and Morgenthau may come up more in some of the individual entries on the specific programs. There is some detail on the "court-packing" scheme, but it can be expanded... I'll do it if you don't beat me to it first. Thanks. JBurnham 05:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The article needs a decent lead section, giving an overview of the topic and summarizing the article. 2) It seems unnecessary to present a list of persons involved, when most of them are already mentioned in the article. "See also" would be a more commonly used title for this section. 3) The article should care not to mix opinion and fact. Sentences like "What many considered incoherence of the New Deal's ideology might more accurately be characterized as ..." should be reviewed. 4) I doesn't get clear to my why the First Hundred Days are singled out (and capitalized). 5) There's an explicit "historical assessment" of Roosevelt's second term, but not for his first. 6) Also, I'd like to see an overview of contemporary critique? What did Roosevelt's (political) opponents think, and why? Jeronimo 07:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iran-Iraq War

A pleasant surprise on Wikipedia. Possibly the best brief overview of the war that I have ever read. (In case this comes up as an objection, please note that while there is no section on references, there are extensive inline citations and links embedded in the text backing up the various claims made in the article.) JBurnham 05:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. 1) The used references need to be collected and presented in a separate section. 2) How are the photo's public domain? At the least we need a source for them. 3) We need one or more maps showing the advancements of both armies and the major battlefields. 4) Several of the sections have incoherent writing, jumping from one topic to another. The section should not just present a list of facts, but make a well-flowing text with, and leave out unimportant details in favor of the main story (Details can go in detail articles). 5) Strangely, more text is spent on US involvement than on the war progress itself. Also, why an entire section about the US and (virtually) nothing about the USSR? Jeronimo 07:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I am thankful for Jeronimos dissent on this Issue, The Article in question is hardly impartial and has more in common with the opinion of a frustrated 17 yr old Iranian In USA, than in the sacred duty of recording history. Also there seems to be some opinion meted out as truth, in that the US is highlighted and the Iranian war with Iraq is of secondary importance. Likewise the use of Persian gulf war vs the use of Gulf war. The_libo

  • Object. 1) The role of the US in this war is of paramount importance because it was America's constant role as instigator and agitator that began the war and pushed it to an US-Iranian naval war at the end.

[edit] Duck and Cover (film)

previous FAC

[edit] My Lai Massacre

The My Lai Massacre is a symbol of US-American war crimes in Vietnam, and the guilt for this is today an important part of US-American identity.

Oppose. Needs reference section, which is a basic requirement for any featured article. Also, an image of where My Lai was would be nice, plus the pronunciation of the name in IPA. Páll 17:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose — this is an important and controversial article: I don't feel that it is near ready for featured status. As it hasn't been through peer review, I suggest it is moved there. Gareth Hughes 19:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, not fully NPOV'd and reviewed yet. Some awful POV lurking in important subtopics in other articles, as I found out today at Hugh Thompson, Jr.. Scanning My Lai Massacre shows mixed tense, poor wording choices; the article is generally written from an anti-war point of view. I'll work on it more later. silsor 21:15, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An incredible amount has been written about this important incident, which this article does not reflect. Simply not detailed enough. Move to Peer review. - BanyanTree 05:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Refer to Peer Review. What they said. — mark ✎ 16:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet

As per the suggestion of User:Phil_Boswell, I hereby nominate this article as a Featured Article Candidate on Wikipedia as this single one quote was a key turning point in a particular Canadian election campaign. --GRider\talk 17:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. No references and no picture, both of which are core FA requirements. Jeronimo 17:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • May I ask what you mean by "not referenced"? It appears to be highly referenced. A photograph has been added if you care to reconsider. --GRider\talk 18:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Please see Wikipedia:Cite sources. Johnleemk | Talk 19:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you John, I am intimately familiar with our Wikipedia:Cite sources document. Where in your opinion is this article falling flat with regards to citing sources? How else can it be improved in order to become worthy of featured status? Is it not ready as it stands? --GRider\talk 19:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Quoth the document: "At the end of an article, under a ==References== heading, list the complete reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one per reference work." Johnleemk | Talk 19:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This was nominated two minutes after I closed its vfd. Please note the nominator there. —Korath (Talk) 18:32, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's odd...to say the least. o_0 Johnleemk | Talk 19:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not odd -- this guy is just about disrupting Wikipedia and has done almost nothing but post spurious VfDs for the last few weeks. (he's on the fast track to ArbCom in my opinion, if there was a fast track) My bet is that this is just more disruption of one form or another. --Fastfission 20:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Was this nomination made simply to prove a point or something? Everyking 08:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. Nowhere near featured article standards. Nominator should withdraw the nomination and stop wasting our time. Dbiv 15:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Barely above the stub status. -- Shauri 17:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, have to agree with Dbiv about the timewasting. It doesn't even have a TOC! Considering how much higher Featured standards are today than the last time it got rejected for FA, and the oddness commented on by Korath, and the nominator's VfD career, I also urge GRider to withdraw this nomination. Bishonen | Talk 22:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for bringing it to our attention that this article has already once been nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. As you may note on the VfD discussion, this article appears to be quite popular amongst the Wikipedia community and has since been improved. Structural changes such as a TOC and ==References== subsection are minor and easily made. Perhaps it will be considered again in the future. --GRider\talk 22:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • As you may note on the previous VfD discussion, David Gerard complained on 26 June 2004 that the article had "no sections, structure insufficient to keep my eyes from sliding off the text". That's still the case, nine months later, in spite of the clear requirement for sections in the FA criteria: A Featured article should ... include headings (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)) and have a substantial, but not overwhelming, table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section). See also Wikipedia:Headings. For myself, I don't find a sectioned reader-friendly structure a small matter to provide, or the addition of references either, but apparently you do. If they're minor changes easily made, how about making them already, if you're not prepared to withdraw the nomination? Bishonen | Talk 23:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong object. This article should be deleted, not promoted to featured status. The title itself is POV, the content is nonencyclopedic, and the little information that this refers to could easily be subsumed either into the election article or into the articles about the people involved. RickK 07:54, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Subject is marginal at best. Where are sections? It may have a place in WP, as almost anything does, but as written, it is not comparable to the quality of most Featured Articles I've read to date. Vaoverland 19:10, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object I agree with everything above. it simply has nothing strong about it, nothing that I can see stands out. it is stub length and the topic is not very important or worthwhile. --Lan56 08:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding me? -- Riffsyphon1024 00:22, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ignore. WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 14:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • In favour. --Spinboy 01:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2001: A Space Odyssey

I think that the page for the science fiction movie 2001: A Space Odyssey is deserving of a spot as a featured article on Wikipedia. This movie, by all account, is considered a masterpiece. Movie critics continue to heap praise on this movie, for reasons including its complex plot, underlying themes, and its realism in portraying space, among other reasons.

37 years after its release into theatres, 2001 still holds up well. It accurately portrays space as a vacuum with absoultely no sound whatsoever. Its special effects were groundbreaking for its time period, and there is no doubt that this film changed the science fiction genre of films forever, setting a much higher bar for science fiction than it had prior to its making.

Sure, many consider it boring... but it is an experience, and at 37 years old, it is still winning over converts.

  • Object. Nice work, but: No references. To present one interpretation in its Synopsis when many exist is not neutral or comprehensive. Finally, the article begins with peacock term. Rather than hazily calling it an "immensely popular and influential" film, I think it is better to strictly qualify that in a way seen under Sequels where its specific rankings and awards are given. 119 00:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. It's strange that there is no references regarding to Arthur C. Clarke. I believe the synopsis should be moved to allow the background of the book/movie to be presented first. There should be mentions of noted differences. There is no mention of popular culture references such as in Simpsons, Futurama, etc. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) No references. At least the book itself should be referenced. 2) This is (apparently) an article about both the book and the film, but it seems to focus more on the film than the book. I'm not sure if combining the articles is a good idea. 3) The story itself is discussed in much less detail than the music and scientific accuracy. The level of detail (about moon dust blowing incorrectly) in these sections could be less, while more on the story would be welcome. 4) The article needs editing for POV, for example: "Moreover, the film's profound themes about the past, present and potential future of humanity still resonate powerfully today." 5) The lead section does not give a good overview of the article. 6) The names of the actors are only mentioned in the sidetable. 7) Any information about book sales, movie grossings? 8) The trivia section is not prose and the elements should be rewritten to be included with the main text when interesting. Other bits are simply not interesting enough ("Arthur C. Clarke is believed( to have made a brief non-speaking cameo appearance in one scene of the latter film" (emphasis added)). Jeronimo 18:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: I added a couple of different theories for HAL's motivations to the article. Obviously a lot of work on this remains and these are great comments on areas of improvement. I personally am facinated by 2001 (although a lot of people I know are not), and agree that the article needs improvement. RudolfRadna 15:23, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jello Biafra

Self nomination. I have extensively researched the subject and have found little else to add to this article. In the process, I've expanded the article to more than twice its previous size. I think it provides a comprehensive overview of one of the most unique activists of our time. -- LGagnon 07:52, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. No references. 119 08:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • References appear in the External links section; we have both his bio from Alternative Tentacles and the one written by All Music Guide. On top of that, there's his speeches from H2K and H2K2, which back up the Political beliefs section. -- LGagnon 08:09, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • And how is a a reader to know this? A references section is needed. --mav 17:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • From the link 119 provided: Note that it is a common alternative in Wikipedia to have a section labelled External links (after the References) and list various links to other sites and to pages within them. It says nothing about that being a bad way to cite sources; it just states that it is an alternative. As far as I can tell, the article is following the guidelines right. -- LGagnon 18:16, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • A section labeled References is a requirement. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article; the section was made a requirement as of February 6, 2005 ([4]). Before then it was a recommendation. The discussion on this topic is at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article#References. Initially, I had objected to the requirement, but I've since been adding references to my articles as I write them (even to the point where some might think I'm over-referencing). It's trivial to add a reference line as you're using it, it's a bit more difficult after the fact. slambo 21:07, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've made a References section and moved some of the external links into there with proper citations. -- LGagnon 21:43, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - no info on his childhood and early adulthood. --mav 17:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added more info to the article. Note that I did already have info there on his early adulthood starting at age 19. -- LGagnon 18:59, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Nice para. Good enough to remove my objection. --mav 01:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red River Rebellion

I believe this to be an excellent example of Canadian history and growth. SD6-Agent 10:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Refer to Peer Review. Please hold articles against the Featured article criteria before nominating them. This article has no References, to start with; furthermore, it lacks images and headings; and I doubt if it complies with the standards of relevant Wikiprojects. I could remark a few other things, but that would be more like peer review. Thus: refer to Peer Review. — mark ✎ 11:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. A lot could be named, as above, but the most glaring problem is that it simply appears too short and not comprehensive. Everyking 12:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Barely more than a stub. Refer to Peer Review. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:31, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object No way is this ready. One of my areas of interest is Canadian history, and this article has always struck me as both worthy of and in need of serious improvement. Not FAC material by a longshot. Fawcett5 22:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disgaea

Self-nomination. I've been working on this article off and on since July of last year, and it's come a long way since then. I believe it compares favorably with current video game featured articles like Super Mario 64 and Doom. A peer review request from last month is available. - RedWordSmith 03:54, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • I find it hard to understand. Could perhaps do with greater clarity to overcome the inherent complexities of the fiction. Neutral. Everyking 07:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, could you give me an example of something you found confusing? Is the prose just a touch on the thick side? - RedWordSmith 21:52, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: the gameplay section needs some work, IMO. More information regarding the character creation system and the Dark Senate, in particular, would be useful, and it could probably stand to be broken up into pertinent subheaders, or at the very least have more frequent paragraph breaks: finding info on the item world, as it is, involves reading halfway through a rather sprawling block of text. And the last paragraph in the section doesn't really seem to relate to gameplay at all: the information is valuable, certainly, but it should be in another section, IMO.

    Also, it feels like there should be at least one screenshot from the game somewhere in there. But aside from these points, it's looking pretty good, and is only one or two edits away from featured status quality, IMO. – Seancdaug 03:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Question: What similiarities does it share with other games and what type of Console RPG Cliches does it suffer from? I don't see an article link for Disgaea (manga). -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It doesn't actually invoke too many cliches at all. Looking over the list gave me a few ideas of things to add (only one set of stores, characters don't sleep to restore HP, etc). As for the manga, I haven't been able to find any good information about it at all -- all of the hits Google has about it are stores selling it. - RedWordSmith 07:32, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)=

For the sake of RedWorthSmith's dream, I'm gonna devote my Wiki time to improving the quality of the Disgaea article! --A Link to the Past 02:09, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Its a very thurough article. I can't think of what else could be said about this movie.--The_stuart 00:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. Quotes belong at Wikiquote. Neutralitytalk 01:49, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Moved, all though I have never moved anything to Wikiquote and may have done it wrong.[5]--The_stuart 02:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I haven't read through the article yet, but I'd like to see more photos. As it is, there is only one image, an advertising poster, in the lead section. Are there images of the production (like photos of the actors interacting with the foam-rubber "character" props) or screencaps from the completed film (these qualify under fair use, right?) that could be added? slambo 14:30, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The criticism section needs references and attribution. Who consider it a modern classic? Who accuses it of "superfluous movement"? 2) "Trivia", "Errors" and "Cartoon characters that make cameo appearances" are list like sections, and not prose. They do not belong in a featured article in their current form, and are a sharp contrast with the other sections, which are well written. Rewrite/move/delete. 3) As slambo already pointed out, it would be nice to get some more pictures. At least a picture of Roger himself would b enice. 4) I like the section on previous films that combine animation and real action (even if it is not really about the movie itself); could it be expanded to also include later movies (possibly influenced)? Jeronimo 20:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. "a renaissance in the animation industry" is not only repeated, it's linked twice. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit is considered a modern film classic" - who considers it that? In fact, all of the criticism is unsubstantiated -- who holds these positions? What are "Held cels"? "Several Easter eggs were hidden into the film" - are you sure they're in the film and not in the DVD alone? "The issue of whether or not the writers intended Angelo to be referring to the stage or cinematic version is questionable and worth noting" - why? Clean up the red links, especially to Gary Wolf. A section on the massive differences between the movie and the book, or else a separate article on the book, is very strongly needed. RickK 07:13, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment made a few changes here and there. Added a accliam section, as I feel it's different then Significance, and added critics quotes as well. Added movie infobox. Added later films Roger Rabbit influenced, although maybe "films combining live action with animation" should be a seperate wikipedia article? --Poorpete 19:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Our Gang

Self Re-nomination. Better known to most as The Little Rascals, originally nominated last December (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Our Gang/archive1); didn't exactly fail, but didn't exactly pass either. The redlinked directors will get articles before the end of tomorrow. --b. Touch 23:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good, but I have some comments:

  1. What does who were often paired together in both and a later teen-age version called The Boy Friends mean?
  2. One of my biggest pet peeves about television shows and movies is that the writers are neglected. Some discussion of who wrote the shows needs to be included.
  3. Make the red links to the directors blue.
  4. Some of the links are duplicated. For example, Robert Blake is linked twice, and there are other cases. RickK 07:02, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
(1) I'll fix that sentence: who were often paired together in both Our Gang and a later teen-aged version of the series called The Boy Friends, which Roach produced from 1930 to 1932.. (2) Will do (was in today's plans as it was). (3) Our Gang writers generally went uncredited, but I will re-scour Leonard Maltin's book to produce a list of writers, two of whom were Frank Tashlin and Walter Lantz. (4) I will fix that. --b. Touch 13:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
All done. Boy, that secion on Our Gang imitators just got a kickstart--there are (well, were) Wikipedia articles written by or about these frauders, claiming that they were Our Gang kids! Have they no shame?! --b. Touch 07:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • A comment: some of the bits about blacks and whites working together should probably be sourced. Who believes the black kids were Stepin Fetchit stereotypes? In particular, the sentence "In their adult years these actors became some of Our Gang's staunchest defenders, maintaining that its integrated cast and innocent storylines were far from racist." (which actors said this? a direct link or citation would be nice) It's not even clear at first who "these actors" are. I'll support if this is taken care of. Tuf-Kat 22:48, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Hamilton

Nice article, no flaws that I could see.-LtNOWIS 22:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: this will bring a knowing smile to many faces... ;-) --Plek 22:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
let's let everyone in on it--The_stuart 00:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. This article presents arguments as fact and uses weasel words. To take one paragraph, "Hamilton did this brilliantly and forcefully, setting a high standard for administrative competence." "Arguably, Hamilton set the path for American economic and military might." I also think that the method of referencing would be of very little use to anyone who would try to fact-check this article later. Two very general histories are cited without any mention of what came from them being inline or in notes. It has a geographic bias in using America as synonymous with the Colonies or with United States.119 23:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Reads like the Alexander Hamilton fan club newsletter. A bit more on the Bank wars and a lot more justification of the claims highlighted by User:119, or a bit of toning down, in their objection would be welcome. Filiocht 09:47, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Didn't Robert McHenry find some flaws in it? We need to be real careful about this one; this ought to be showcase piece, a rebuttal of his argument in action. Everyking 02:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, and they were fixed within days of his article coming out back in November or something. Then the disputed facts were cited to two biographies of Hamilton. The power of the Wiki way. But object because I still think the article has innadequate references, and the contended facts could stand to be cited more directly to the most authoritative sources available. I believe there are some strong unresolved criticisms on the talk page too. - Taxman 13:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
You might want to actually read McHenry's piece. Many of the flaws are still there. The one sentence he cites as an example of poor writing is still there, unchanged, and the same sentence is mentioned again in the first objection on this page. 68.118.61.219 03:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree, having now read McHenry's piece for the first time. He makes the point there that earlier verisons of of the article were better, and I agree. Sadly, the reason for their superiority is the fact that they were based closely on an article from a U.S. govt. source. It could well be said that the subsequent history is a case study in the dangers of the Wiki way, rather than its power. In addition to the sentence cited above and by McHenry, some further weaknesses include: numerous instances of redundant repetitions of the subject's name (where pronominalisation would make for a better reading experience), a number of sentences where missing introductory clause commas cause some confusion, the extraordinarily glowing pro-Hamilton tone of much of the prose, the equally POV dismissal of post-duel Aaron Burr. The fact that the article has been posted here with so much still in dispute on its talk page also beggars belief. Filiocht 08:41, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, on the reference issue, if no other. The two books cited were not the sources for the article. I know because I'm the one who added them. I used about 2 pages of each of those books to settle the date of birth question, and they were later moved to a separate references section, as if they were references for the entire article. I have no idea what sources were used; the only input I had into the artice was the settling and referencing of that issue (brought to wikipedia's attention by the Robert McHenry article mentioned above), and some minor cleanup. Much of this is discussed on the article's talk page. -R. fiend 16:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Concurring Object--ZayZayEM 08:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plymouth(England)

This city article has developed very well and fulfils the criteria of a featured article. Although not my personal article it is one I have contributed to and advanced along with others. It has been on peer review for two weeks and has some good positive feedback. Any further suggestions for modification and expansion will be welcome. Plymouthguy 00:13, 4 March 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Shouldn't this be Plymouth, England? Even Chicago is Chicago, Illinois, and Plymouth has such a large and varied disambiguation page. 119 00:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No. US places use, for reasons i have not looked into, special convention of X, Y even if there is no other place called X in the world. Meanwhile, the rest of the wikipedia uses normal disambiguation only when collisions happen. I remember checking and discovering that 99% of the links to Plymouth were about the English city - this is usually sufficient to allow it to trump the disambiguation page.
  • Weak Object The article is very good already, but 1) Cite your sources and 2) I would like to see a short description of why the people listed were included in this list (I only recognized a couple of the names). One quick comment about the page title, my first thought when I read the name was the automobile manufacturer, followed by Plymouth colony, but that's just me being a crazy 'Merkan. slambo 02:29, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
With the prominent people list moved to another article, that objection is now moot for this article (but it would still be nice on the breakout article). In looking again, my only objection now is that the Education, Sport and Media sections have a lot of one-sentence paragraphs. Can these be expanded? slambo 14:35, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object there is mention of transport in the lead section, but no section for it in the article. as a major port, this deserves a long section. there is also no section for politics or demographics. Morwen - Talk 07:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Section on Transport added.
  • Object 1) References are a basic requirement for a featured article. Please, don't nominate articles without them. 2) Two sections consisting only of lists near the end. It would be better to split them off to separate articles. 3) Several sections appear to be prose, but are only lists, such as "Schools" and "Sport". Several other sections have very little content. Jeronimo 14:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • References added and lists of places and people moved to separate pages.
      • Responses: 1) I'd suggest (not obligatory) to format the references according to the style outlined at: Wikipedia:Cite sources, especially the links. 2) Yes, this OK. I would not keep them as sections though, but only as "See also". If you really want sections, they need some content; you can wite a little prose on a few very famous persons/places in that case. 3) No changes. Jeronimo 18:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Created a See also section. I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what it is I need to do to modify the references to the required standard, could anyone please advise?
      • Exact (suggested) formatting rules are explained at the above link. In particular, adding ISBNs where available, and adding a date of retrieval for web references is common practice. But, as I said, this is suggested, not obligatory. Jeronimo 07:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Would be nice to have government, geography, and maybe demographics (altho' it might be a little pointless if all that can be said is 'over 98% are WASP Anglicans') and/or climate sections. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities is pretty US-centric, but the template at the bottom has some pretty generic suggested headings. For other ideas of topics that could be covered, see this table that lists topics covered in the current city FAs. Niteowlneils 03:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • 98% WASP Anglicans is a very fair description of Plymouth's population. A section on Government would be equally pointless as it would only repeat what is in the politics section of the pink table.
      • Huh? "Leader & cabinet" is meaningless to me (probably because I'm not in the UK). How many people on the cabinet? How often (if ever) elected? At-large, or by district? What other city offices are elected? The pink table doesn't begin to cover the topic. And for geography, what latitude/longitude? Daylight saving time varience? Elevation variance? I'll give a bye on the demographics, but I still think some of the other topics are under-covered. What about crime/courts/jails? Neighborhoods and climate? City in literature? Libraries? Anyone nominating/supporting an FAC has two choices: address comments/objections, or argue against them. In my experience, choosing the latter is not effective. Niteowlneils 19:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. At least some of the people should probably me mentioned in the article. Also position of the Island photograph seems out of place (day-shot under section headed "nightlife"). 2020 section needs work.

[edit] Diamond

A great and well written overview of a fascinating subject including in one place information I could not find collected together elsewhere. Particularly strong on physical properties including the popular gem cuts. History, some commercial issues, trivia such as famous cutters and stones. In my opinion this featured article candidate, for once, truly shows off Wikipedia at its best. Paul Beardsell 21:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose - This article is off to a good start, but it has some formatting issues to deal with first.
    1. In some sections, the text is written is a format that suggests it had been written one sentence at a time (the Cut section in particular).
    2. There are tons of external links, but no real references.
    3. I would like to see a mention of so-called "blood diamonds".
– ClockworkSoul 22:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) It does not cite its sources, a basic featured article requirement. Please check the criteria before nominating. 2) Multiple one and two sentence paragraphs break up the flow of the text too much. Either expand those into fully developed ideas or merge them in with related material. 3) The lead section is too short. Typically it is 2-3 paragraphs twice the size of that one. It should summarize all important facets of the topic. It should also try to avoid overly technical terms at first, and gently work them in and explain them in context. 4) Given the value and size of the world diamond market (Which is? This article doesn't say.), the issue of high quality, large synthetic diamonds should be covered much more thoroughly. They have the potential to undermine a very valuable market. 5) No mention of round brillian cut with even more facets than the standard as is increasingly popular. Many jewelry stores in the US market these as their own signature cuts. 6) The organization is a bit odd. Why are the cut color and clarity listed in the industry section. And no mention of carat almost at all by the way. Carat increase exponentially increases price. That could be noted. Clarity enhancements are covered, but aren't there some color enhancements too? Color is covered in two places, they should be combined, I'd think. I suppose that's enough for now. - Taxman 23:02, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, ditto above comments. --Oldak Quill 23:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The disorganization of this article, and resulting lack of flow, is epic. It reads poorly and contains many grammatical, structural, and spelling errors. It leaves out large topics (ex. production and supply chain information) and treats others poorly (ex. jumps into describing type Ia, Ib, II diamonds without really explaining what distinguishes the types). Could be a great article, and is more likely to be one by summarizing briefly separate articles on the large number of relevant topics. There are also many (probably unintentional) POV statements, which are likely the result of various marketing campaigns' influences on peoples' understanding, but nonetheless need to be rooted out ruthlessly. In short, I must disagree with the nominator and suggest instead that this article shows off the worst of what can happen in the collaborative editing environment of Wikipedia that we all know and love — lots of unsourced facts with no unification into a readable article. Let's see if we can fix it, shall we? Bantman 00:15, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • All right, I've worn myself out organizing the first half of the article (now split into material vs. gemological properties). I've exiled lots of the really detailed info to separate articles, and tried to write text for the main article that provides a comprehensive overview, but avoids minute detail (interested readers can see the specific articles) and is an easy and interesting read. The articles I've split off just contain the original text, which is obviously a problem -- fixing them is another boatload of work on my to-do list. The rest of the diamond article needs another type of work entirely -- rewriting, plus a lot of new information pulled in. That task I have to defer on, at this point. Nonetheless, I think that the first half is looking much better. Bantman 02:28, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Great work. That is much, much better. See if you can't find the time to do the rest. I still don't think this article can make it to featured soon because it does not cite its sources except for the one price listing, but it is substantially better. - Taxman 16:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • All right, twist my arm... :) I totally agree re: imminent featuredness; I think it will take another few weeks (at least) of hard work (hopefully not by me alone!) to whip this into shape. I've been meaning to take this article to FA-ship for some time; I guess I needed this dramatic (and utterly predictable) failure on FAC to kick myself into gear on the project. - Bantman 18:01, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, for the reasons stated above. Jeronimo 14:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support (although as proposer my vote should not be counted twice) on the basis that although the article does not meet all the FAC guidelines it seems to do so at least as well as several other recently featured articles. E.g. Johannesburg. Paul Beardsell 21:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • So your argument is that your article is as good as an article that you strenuously objected to as being of too poor quality to be a FA? Interesting. How about instead focus on handling the objections for this article, and make it a great one. - Taxman 22:06, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
No, the article is not "as good as" but is better than Johannesburg was at the time of its promotion, for which you voted despite its obvious flaws, several of which I had pointed out and which were not being addressed. Essentially my argument is for a higher level of consistency and for better quality control. There seems to be no objectively followed standard against which "featured" status is measured. To see this for yourself just look at the articles which are being promoted and those which are being rejected. And who votes consistently with who. Paul Beardsell 19:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No one said the process is perfect. I was clearly in an overly generous mood on that article you refer to. But consensus is that this article does not meet the criteria, and for two of them, references and lead section, that should have been obvious to you before nomination that they were deficient. - Taxman 16:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
The documented process seems pretty good to me, although that is not the same as saying there is no room for improvement. And I like the featured article criteria. It's a pity the documented process is not followed and that articles are not judged against the criteria. I have no problem with this article being rejected as long as I am not shouted down for pointing out the inconsistencies. Paul Beardsell 22:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But Johannesburg does cite sources. Sadly this otherwise good article, has to be rejected, until that is restored. (Also longer (or even more information) does not mean better)--ZayZayEM 04:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Examine the Johannesburg change log, its talk page and the FAC proposal for that article, all in chronological order. At the time of Johannesburg's promotion to Featured Article (i) it contained factual errors which had been recently noted on the Talk page, (ii) it did not cite its sources, (iii) it did not meet other FAC documented criteria. That that article is better now is creditable but beside the point but Johannesburg still does not meet the documented criteria fully. That this article, Diamond, does not meet all those criteria is true. But, in certain respects at least, it meets them better than several recently promoted articles. If, by rejecting this article (in its current form) for "featured" status, we improve the quality required and/or the articles are judged more consistently (perhaps by breaking the voting cabal) then I will be happy with that. Paul Beardsell 22:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mars

I can not believe that this article has not been nominated for Featured article status. It certainly meets the length requirements, it has subarticles, it has all the photos... I believe that it can be a featured article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Object because 1) references are a requirement for featured status, and 2) the lead section is disproportionately short when compared with the rest of the article's content. slambo 13:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Some of the sections seem a little choppy. True, they have their own sub-articles associated with them, but a little more info would be helpful for sections like Mars fiction, etc. Rad Racer 13:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Please see the first step above on how to nominate an article. That would have led you to Slambo's first point. I also agree withe other points made above. - Taxman 16:52, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • support The external links are all references, they're just not under a "Reference" header. With astronomy, information changes so quickly, I don't blame the authors for not providing books.Dinopup 17:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If they were used as references, they should be formatted as references so we don't run into these kinds of problems with nominations. It really doesn't take that much more time to add the date the page was retrieved or to list any author and copyright date on the page. If the source data really changes that quickly, then I would think listing the retrieval date to be even more important. slambo 18:43, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Agree with the other objecters above. The sections "Mars in various cultures" and "Mars in fiction" are ridiculously short. Jeronimo 14:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC
Yes, but Mars in fiction already has it's own great arcticle, just add some of it to the Mars page. Peb1991 20:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. But could be easily swayed the other direction. The basic material is quite good. Needs a formal reference to the Science article detailing ALH84001. Also introduces geologic concepts before discussion of exploration - introducting the Opportunity lander at an akward place. Cultural significance of Mars could use elaboration (I guess this is the "Mars in fiction" section. The lead para needs to brushed up too... the very first sentence is a mess. Fawcett5 16:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. It is quite close, but not yet up to the level of our other FA, Venus (planet), which I'd recommend as a base. Especially the sectioning needs improvement - what Venus does nicely in in 6 main sections, Mars clutters over 11. References need proper formating and lead should be expanded. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Extremely odd Mars is mentioned in realtion to Roman mythos.--ZayZayEM 03:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of music

This was a recent collaboration of the week. I think it's turned out quite good. It was the first large scale use of the new listen templates. It's large, and (in my obviously biased opinion) well written. It's a partial self nom - I am the one who added most of the songs (all copyleft/PD). →Raul654 05:36, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • A truly massive subject dealt with in a surprisingly concise fashion. Perhaps an appropriate image could be added to the top of the article by the lead section? I'll grant that it would be difficult to choose one. Everyking 06:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: almost all of the content is about the western musical tradition. The cursory mentions of other cultures at the start are worse than nothing- I'd rather see them taken out and the article renamed "History of western music", or some such. And as a very minor point, the Monteverdi picture overlaps with some of the text for me. Mark1 06:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The picture thing is a rendering bug. You can't control it in the article. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't, and it happens in a lot of places. – flamurai (t) 06:16, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object.
    1. I have a problem with heavy metal being listed while other rock sub-genres (punk, alternative rock, progressive rock, etc.) are not. I think those three are equally important and distinctive. I think heavy metal should be rolled up into the rock and roll section, and those other sub-genres should be mentioned there as well. Heavy metal just seems to be one deeper level of detail than the rest of the article.
    2. Renaissance music is disproportionately large and goes into too much detail for this top-level "history of" article. (In fact, the Ren. section here is pretty much the same size as the Renaissance music article.) It needs to be pared down significantly. Medieval could use a little bit of a haircut as well. I believe each major musical style/movement within the categories should get one paragraph. The 20th century section is a good example. It's a long section, but each paragraph briefly summarizes an important aspect of 20th c. music.
    – flamurai (t) 06:15, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) Some of the sub-topics get a lot of detailed info, while others don't. The longer ones should be shortened (more should be in the sub-articles), while the shorter ones should be expanded, or, if nothing more is to be said removed or merged with other sections. Especially the older civilizations need more attentions. What about the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, to mention just a few? The Middle Ages? 2) Many of the shorter sections consist for a large part of references to "Music of (country)" articles. 3) I also agree that there appears to be a bias towards the Western world (it even lists "History of European art music"), which should be lessened. 4) The choice of subtopics is sometimes hard to follow. Why is there a separate section on 20th century classical music (which stops in the 1950s)? Heavy metal was also mentioned already; why are "Disco, funk, hip hop, salsa, and soul" in a single section? 5) The "Popular and classical musics" section has way to many words in 'quotes' and even with some question marks. That doesn't appear to be encyclopaedic to me. 6) Especially the popular section could use a sample; plenty should be available. Jeronimo 07:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. When nominating any article of the 'history of...' something, one should make sure it is extensive - and this one is not, although it is a good start. In addition to above comments which I agree with, I'd also like to see something on the history of musical instruments - at the moment the article is more like 'history of music performers'. And isn't the lead a bit too short? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, sadly. In addition to the previous objections, I'd like to add that it reads as if written by committee; i.e. the various contributions have not been brought together to form a coherent article, with the consequence that it is rather bitty. Filiocht 13:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I would not currently put this out as one of Wikipedia's best music articles, though it is a great start. Hyacinth 02:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I have to vote Object. I don't think it is ready, due to the fact that it is truly a huge subject, it is still not complete. I agree with Filioct, it has too much info here, not enough there, etc. This is not to say that we should reject the article altogether. I just think it needs some more work before it should attain feature article status. On my part, I pledge to put some more work on this article. Let's keep going!. Bratsche 02:58, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: This is a very large subject, it can never be in depth at every level. James M 13:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, the coverage is too uneven as others have noted. Recent pop variations are given far too detailed coverage for an overview like this, in comparison to earlier forms. --iMb~Mw
  • Object, it doesn't mention anything about Japanese classical music. Revth 13:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] kibbutz

Admittedly a self nom, please review, post votes and comments.Dinopup 04:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - well-written, very good article. Morwen - Talk 12:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. This article needs extensive copyediting. The prose simply isn't at the level you'd expect from a featured article. I have no problem with adopting a more informal style in certain articles, but there are just too many sentences that require fixing in there. A few problems I see with the writing, in no particular order:
    • some sentences could use more precision or have dubious wording ("This part of the ideology can be best expressed in the Zionist-kibbutz saying "to make the desert bloom."" - it's easy the to understand the author meant the ideology at hand can be illustrated by the saying, but the sentence is somewhat strange).
    • a lot of inaccurate punctuation and typos, including inconsistent use of kibbutzim vs. kibbutz (ex.: "The place of primary kibbutz focus - the Galilee was a well-watered place.", "The first kibbutzniks hoped to be more than being farmers in Palestine, they even hoped for more than a Jewish homeland there, they wanted to create a new type of society where there would be no exploitation of anyone and where all would be equal.").
    • repetition (including recurrence of uncommon words - "hitherto" - and re-use of metaphors "fissure" used twice in 2-3 sentences to mean a "split in the movement")
    • inconsistent use of times - why are sections like "Life on a kibbutz" written in the past: there are next to no specific dates given in that section
    • lack of structure: "The Pioneers" touches subjects like the status of children in a kibbutz, military involvement of "kibbutzniks" in Isreal, questions of ownership, that should be treated in seperate sections (perhaps subsections of "Life on a kibbutz?")
    • I'm not sure I like the reference quoting style ((Gavron, 45)). I do not consider it a good reason to object though, because we don't really have a standard way of referencing inline quotes, but I doubt everyone will immediately understand where they need to go to find a specific quote when confronted with a reference given in this format.
    • "The Pioneers" section should be refocused on the historical Degania kibbutz, and give more dates and precise quantitative information about the early kibbutz movement. Throughout the whole section, it is unclear wether "kibbutzniks" refers only to the original Degania kibbutz members or to all members of early kibbutzim. More precise dates please. Also, "kibbutzim in Independent Israel" - is it correct to capitalize "independent"? - should become a subsection of "The Pioneers".
    • Although this is probably the least of this (quite good, don't get me wrong) article, I can't help suspecting the author has a certain admiration for the whole movement ("...fought very bravely", capitalized section name "The Pioneers"). I might very well be wrong, though.

Phils 16:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I made all of the edits based on Phils' suggestions. I got rid of repeated uncommon words, I clarified the "make the desert bloom" quotation. Since it wasn't clear when I was talking about Degania and when I was talking about the whole kibbutz movement I made things clearer there as well. (Degania was the first kibbutz, but in many ways it was not a typical kibbutz, hence the frequent references to it). I also explained the terms "kibbutznik" and "kibbutzim." A kibbutznik is just a member of a kibbutz. All the sources I read used "kibbutzniks" as the plural, rather than "kibbutznikim" (which I suppose is the Hebrew plural). In case of objection to my using "fought bravely," I changed that bit to "were widely considered to have fought bravely." I use the term Pioneers because traditional kibbutz historiography calls the earliest kibbutzniks "Pioneers."
There was also an issue with "Life on a Kibbutz" being in the past tense. Since I was discussing life on a kibbutz in the days of communal living (as opposed to the last 20 yrs), I changed that heading to "The Communal Life."
Phils, thank you for your suggestions, I can tell that you read the article very carefully.Dinopup 18:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Agree this needs further copyediting, wikilinks, and possibly further sectioning.--ZayZayEM 02:44, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust

Not a self-nom. It's comprehensive, well-written, and has lots of relevant links at the bottom of the page. Hasn't been flagged down for edit wars, no disputes on its neutrality. Lots of pictures, too.

  • oppose for 2 reasons, 1) no mention of holocaust denial in that article (yes i know we have one on denial, but it deserves a mention). 2) pure flamebait, i will never support this for mainpage listing due to its potential to devolve into total chaos. I would however like to state I find this article very well written.  ALKIVAR™ 05:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd like to point out that point two is not actionable. Furthermore, featured status does not automatically mean the page will be featured on the main page; that discussion is held elsewhere. Jeronimo 07:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I am aware point 2 is not actionable, but I was stating my reasons.  ALKIVAR™ 15:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah. Anyway, this kind of attitude is akin to giving in to vandals. Phils 14:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Say that when you've spent as much time reverting neo-nazi vandals, as people like Ta bu shi da yu and Neutrality have. I've watched, and helped. Neo-nazi vandalism and holocaust denial vandalism causes several admins to be on vandalism patrol 24/7. Theres reasons why people like Silsor have a Neo-nazi target topic watchlist. I dont think we need to give them a big fat target like the front page article. Its like teasing a starving person with a full dinner.  ALKIVAR™ 15:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Featured articles are often vandalised. This is life on Wiki. Objecting to featuring any article based on such argumentation would mean that the vandals have won. Have they? I certainly hope not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd also like to point out that Objection 1 isn't true. Section 9.3 of the article deals with Holocaust denial. Ryan Anderson 22:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • My bad, the time I looked at it that section was not there (probably due to a vandal).  ALKIVAR™ 04:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose because the article does not include that 5.5 million Poles died in its top portion but instead jumps from 6 million Jews to 220,000 Sinti and Roma. The jump is indicative of bias. Telling me that edits need to be discussed first, is violation of Wiki policy. The article does note 5.5 million Poles but one has to add up the numbers and has to read deep. The comment has been added.

The comment has been deleted again. The article notes jewish deaths, then jumps to Roma and Sinti deaths. The natural implication is that the death counts are listed in decreasing order. The absence of Pole deaths suggests a hiding of Pole deaths. A comment compromise has been added.

Yet again the comments were hidden.

  • Commment - I don't think that the article is extensive enough - this is just a comment, not an objections, as I don't feel confident enough in that area. I slightly expanded info on Slavs and added note on Witold Pilecki to resistance, and that coupled with many single sentence paragraphs and quite long see also makes me wonder how many other important facts this article is missing. For such an important subject, the current 40kb doesn't seem enough for me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) Not very well organized--basically poorly sectioned. There are section headings with nothing in them but another section. That one sentence orphan paragraphs lead off some sections seems very odd and doesn't seem to help anything. See other recent featured articles and compare at how well sectioned and organized they are. 2) Many one or two sentence paragraphs is poor form. They show areas that should either be expanded into a full idea or merged with related material. 3) Very little evidence is given for the death toll numbers. Since this is perhaps one of the most contentious and important bits of information in this century, that is unnaceptable. See the Shroud of Turin article for how evidence on a claim can be handled extraordinarily well. Direct citations to sources should be used. What are considered the most reliable sources for the death toll numbers? Supporting the claimed death numbers is only one link to a jpost.com article and the section refers to one book (which is incidentally not listed in the references section). I have a hard time believing scholars consider those the most reliable sources, but if they are thats great. These British and Soviet documents should be cited more directly if they are considered the best sources. So in summary this subject requires much better and more thorough research and citation to be a FA. Only two sources listed in the references section is very innadequate. In its defense the article does seem as NPOV as this topic could be, so great job from that aspect. With some research and the above improvents I would certainly support. - Taxman 18:05, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, mostly for reasons stated by Taxman. There is a lot of information contained in the article, but to become featured it has to be better organized. I also find the number of references rather poor for such an important and sometimes controversial topic. Jeronimo 18:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. There is a much better Holocaust article around, if we can convince the author to put it up. Jayjg (talk) 22:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Ownership of the Holocaust not addressed. Alexsanderson83 11:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Futurama (TV series)

I just found this article incredibly impressive. Featured material? I think so! --L33tminion | (talk) 23:32, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. No references. 119 23:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    The problem with providing references is that the source for nearly all information is the series itself. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, for the following reasons:

(1) No references, as 119 pointed out.(2) Nearly the entire article is made up of lists. The information contained in those lists needs to be re-written into prose. The list of characters is particularly cumbersome. There's no more than seven major characters in the series; list only those here and make a subarticle called Futurama characters and put the rest there.(3) More than a few redlinks. Stub the ones that require articles (I saw Bumper Robinson linked; his article is on my to-do list), and unlink the rest (for example, the year 2443) (4) Appearing on Cartoon Network does not mean it's in syndication (it just means its being re-run), and doesn't it come on the other Turner networks as well? (5) Needs more screencaps for an article about an animated series. b. Touch 00:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • red links are not a reason to deny FAC.  ALKIVAR™ 04:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay then. I've now crossed that one out. Someone once mentioned that to me when I had Our Gang nominated.
  • Actually it is syndicated as its been released in multiple countries.  ALKIVAR™ 04:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What kind of screencaps are necessary? I have the series on my hard drive and I can easily take any needed screenshots.--Etaonish 01:44, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Caps that show some of the futuristic settings. Head shots of Fry, Leela, and Bender would be good additions, as well. Also, get at least one shot of the opening credits to illustrate the trivia fact I added (if I get time, I will try to do a revision of this article)--b. Touch 17:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm going to take a whack at adding some more images shortly. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for now, should go thru peer review, needs copyediting, non show external references lacking, the comments above about lists are also very valid. The language section mentions the alien language but gives no examples (a graph with a Squiggle:English Alphabet comparison would be nice too).  ALKIVAR™ 04:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Working on finding a good example of the alien language in the requested style (I know they exist, I just can't remember what episodes). -- Cyrius|✎ 05:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't think it'd get any nominations, it needs someone to go through it from top to bottom with a fine tooth comb as it's a bit of a patchwork at the moment. I think the nomination is a bit premature although I expect it to qualify eventually. - Diceman 12:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer review, needs references and a bit more copyediting. Then come back here again. - Mailer Diablo 12:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: It needs more work James M 13:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I'm a fan of the series, but this article is not feature-worthy (yet). 1) References are an absolute must for any featured article, and this one hasn't any. 2) A lot of facts and bits of information are crammed into this article, but they don't form a real story. Too many "lists of things" (such as the planet list, which should not be in this article) too little real overview of the topic. 3) There's no part about the actual story of the series. We don't even learn that fry is a 20th century guy that was frozen! We also need more on the developments in the series through the seasons. Don't forget to add a spoiler. -- THere are many other minor things, but let's get to that when the article's been through a workover and possible through Peer Review as well. Jeronimo 18:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all the constructive criticism. I'm going to refer this to peer review and work to deal with these objections. Thanks again! --L33tminion | (talk) 16:51, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magnetic resonance imaging

This is a well-written article that I happened across when hypertexting from other articles. I think it deserves to be listed because it's thorough, well-documented, and informative. Joshuaschroeder 07:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. References are one of the basic requirements of an article. This article doesn't have any. Jeronimo 07:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • True. I've worked on this article some, and will try soon to add references to the books I use. Xiggelee 10:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) P.S. While I'm happy to see this article nominated, I still feel like there's a lot of work to be done on it before it's featured.
  • Please do. Also can you please elucidate what you feel needs to be done and place that on the talk page, here, or both? It would help both the commentors here and the future article. Agree with the others. Object until well referenced. - Taxman 22:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. With references, though, it's a must. GREAT images. --PopUpPirate 00:04, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] South Africa

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

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

[edit] 1755 Lisbon earthquake

A very readable, succinct, and highly syncretic Wikipedia feature. Reads like a thriller. Self-nomination. Sandover 05:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • support. i like sandover's self nomination very much indeed. i tweaked it a bit a removed a funny section about skin colour. if considered useful, i can make a compreensive list of buildings that were destroyed and buildings that survived. muriel@pt 10:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The article looks pretty good, but: 1) The lead section says: "The earthquake had a strong impact on 18th century society.". First of all, I think this should be appended with "in Portugal". Second, I think the "Social implications" section doesn't quite give information. It mentions religious, philosophical and political implications, but doesn't quite get to the actual social implications. For example: " For the religious minds of the 18th century, this manifestation of the anger of God was difficult to explain." -> how did this manifest? Did people become less (or more) religious? Did they convert to other religions? 2) In the "The birth of seismology" section misses a reason why the query was conducted and what was done with it in the 18th century. Also, this section needs some explanation of geological terms (tectonic plate, subduction zone). An illustration with the plates near Lisbon might offer a good help here. Jeronimo 11:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • "The earthquake had a strong impact on 18th century society." - Thats correct because it was not only in Portugal; the social implications section shows this. Now maybe you are right about this section. It does not deal exclusively with social things, also with philosophical implications. Maybe rename it? And if so to what? As for the geological terms (cf. your comment on Battle of Alesia :) ) i'll make them more clear. A drawing will be difficult because there is still hot debate about this theory. Scientists agree is a proto-subduction but the whereabouts of this is still not consensual. muriel@pt 11:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I made a few small changes, which satisfy (I hope) Jeronimo's relatively minor objections. Sandover 14:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • It's an improvement, and I consider 1) fixed. As for 2), I still miss "a reason why the query was conducted and what was done with it in the 18th century". Also, I still think an image would illustrate the situation well. If there is debate, an image would be exceptionally interesting, since it could explain the debate more clearly. Jeronimo 07:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The Lisbon earthquake has traditionally been regarded as something of a philosophical/religious watershed in Enlightenment thought (something separate from the aesthetic concept of "the Sublime"). This may well be a simplified notion, but it needs to be acknowledged and somehow engaged with—I was quite taken aback to find only the sentence "Thinkers of the European Enlightenment drew varied inspiration from the Lisbon earthquake". I should think shockwaves from the earthquake can be traced in the philosophical/cultural/literary history of every European country. For the important "Enlightenment criticism of religion" aspect, the single sentence "For the religious minds of the 18th century, this manifestation of the anger of God was difficult to explain", which Jeronimo mentions, is still holding the whole theodicean fort alone (actually even doing so in a weakened state, from an addition that looks strangely irrelevant to me). That's far from enough—for one thing, the non-religious minds of the 18th century seized on the earthquake as proof that God was either dead or bad. Please get a philosophy student in there, if at all possible. (This is a "wanted" ad! I'd read up and make the addition myself, but I just don't have the time.) Otherwise a very interesting and well-written article which I would like to see featured. Bishonen | Talk 18:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Support. Bishonen | Talk 07:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I hardly understand your objection! :/ I'll see what i can do to help... muriel@pt 19:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, this earthquake was seen by most contemporary philosophers as an evil occurrence, since it had so many terrible consequences. For those who believed in God, it was difficult to find any theory which could satisfactorily explain "what sort of a God could allow this to happen" (I think that was Voltaire's Candide). I think this may have been the start of the idea in the insurance industry for "acts of God" being a synonym for natural disasters (but I'm not sure). 'Evil acts' like the Lisbon earthquake could not have been done by men or caused by sin (it was thought), therefore philosophical and religious theories of the time which had held that people were the cause of all evil were questioned very severely. The concept of 'natural evil' came up, even for atheistic philosophers. WhiteC 01:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Agree with WhiteC above - that's broadly my understanding of the quake's philosophical impact. Voltaire's reaction is the most noted. Wombat 09:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object though I like this article a lot too. Bishonen is right; a truly comprehensive article on the quake would have a lot more on its philosophical and theological ramifications, which were extensive (and also much more on the social and political aftermath). I've added a little bit, but this is not a topic I know very much about. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak object, if Bishonen is satistied you can strike mine, too. I'm amused that Bishonen and Jeronimo have opposite objections! I'm with Bishonen here, and think the article needs to be fleshed out to the point where this will be clear enough that no one will make Jeronimo's objection. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:49, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object because of the issue regarding the Washington Post article. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Misinformation_on_Wikipedia). Let that die down first. --JuntungWu 14:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey! What is this got to do with the article?? It had something unreferenced, this Theresa made a fuss, i informed her (politely i guess) of wikipedia procedures, namely that it doesnt have to be me to correct something and that the article isnt mine but ours. She did nothing and now apparently is holding that back against wikipedia. The thing is not even in the article anymore. You can follow the thing in the talk page (which is very messed thanks to Theresa, btw). muriel@pt 16:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see how The Washington Post issue provides valid grounds for an actionable objection. I don't see how this issue has anything to do with this article being an FA (It might not be politic to feature the article any time soon on the Main Page, but that's another matter, and I think we can let Raul be the judge of that). Paul August ☎ 20:29, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • I am interpreting the "no controversy" and "no edit war" stipulation for an FA in a very broad sense. I find this very unfortunate and I object with great reluctance but I would think it would be better to delay consideration of this. Raul can be the judge on if my interpretation is correct: if he believes there's no problem I'll withdraw my object and change my vote to support because I actually like the article. JuntungWu 12:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I thought more about this and digged through the talk pages. I guess it would be okay. I withdraw my object. JuntungWu 12:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks like the issues have been resolved and this is well referenced. - Taxman 16:14, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the Theresa Carpanelli/Washington Post controversy

I had no idea that misinformation deleted a month ago from the 1755 Lisbon earthquake entry ("roving priests" who exacted vengeance in the streets of Lisbon) appeared in the Washington Post, nor that Wikipedia was being blamed for originating the error. Thank you, Michael Snow, for writing it up, and for providing the links to the two online columns from a vigilant homeschooling parent in Canton, Ohio, Theresa Carpanelli (who apparently appears on her own religious radio show, "Truth Matters"). All of this yet another curious ripple effect of a sublime event which occurred just shy of 250 years ago. Just Fascinating.

According to Michael Snow, the offending Washington Post piece was published on December 31, 2004. (Theresa Carpanelli says December 30th in her article.) I only saw the 1755 Lisbon earthquake entry in the days following the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (I confess I was much more preoccupied with contributions to the tsunami article, which was little more than a stub at the time of the Dec 26 tsunami).

By the time I made my first edit, on January 19, the discussion page already raged with Carpanelli's (anonymous) objections. She altered the entry itself only to make a request for footnotes, but never troubled herself to actually delete the offending Wikipedia material on her own. The offending line was deleted on January 20th (and never restored). Carpanelli continued to rage about the line on the discussion page until January 29th.

If there's one thing that really troubles me about Carpanelli's seemingly well-researched complaint, it's the way she wilfully misrepresents the Wikipedia editing process. "I requested of Wikipedia that a source be cited for this allegation. The person with whom I was corresponding claimed not to have written the line, that it was a 'remnant' from a previous version; but she left it in anyway. She writes: 'i dont have a reference though i dont find the allegation strange, considering the power of the Jesuits at the time and the religious fanatism of the time' [sic]." Carpanelli doesn't mention the fact that this exchange occurred on the discussion page (where informal, uncapitalized language is commonplace) and that she herself was able (and, in fact, invited repeatedly) to delete the reference if she objected to it.

  • "Willfully misrepresents the Wikipedia editing process." How did I "misrepresent the Wikipedia editing process"? And how do you know it was "willfull"? I stated earlier, very clearly, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute. Why have you (willfully?) left that out of your quotes of me? As for your charge that I don't "mention" where the exchange took place - that will be corrected in a part-three article I will be doing. I made an assumption - that my readers would be able to find their way to the discussion page when they found their way to the article, which they could easily do as I did - a search for "1755 Lisbon priests etc" brought the Wikipedia article up as the first google hit. As for my "continuing to rage" until January 29th, I am seeking a source for the original assertion - and that is made clear in my so-called "rages." Polycarp7 09:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An uninformed reader of Carpanelli's column (and I would surmise that the vast majority of Ms. Carpanelli's readers are unfamiliar with Wiki practices, and Carpanelli did nothing to enlighten them) would draw the conclusion that this exchange occurred with a spelling-challenged gatekeeper of some sort, someone in a formal administrative capacity at Wikipedia, someone with a grudge against Catholics, someone who refused to make a change, rather than with another contributor (a well-meaning one at that) who was actually trying to resolve the problem and help get to the bottom of the truth and the origins of the allegation.

  • Once again, I happily will provide a link to the discussion page, now that it has been placed in chronological order as the discussion ensued. They will see for themselves that I was invited to make the change myself, but that I did not wish to alter the claim, just to find a source for it. Space was limited for me, and my beef was with the Washington Post, not with Wikipedia, except for noting how many people have used the unattributed (and seemingly false) allegation. Part of the problem also was that I did not feel the person I was corresponding with was not "trying to resolve the problem and ... get to the bottom of the truth of the origins..." I felt I being asked simply to delete it and forget about it - after it had been published in virtually every major newspaper that picked up the Washington Post and CBS News articles, and picked up all over the Internet and even in a school curriculum. For me, getting to the truth would have included giving me the original source. Why do you conclude the readers would draw the conclusion you outlined? I concluded that they would be smart enough to check out the Wikipedia article for themselves, and to read the discussion page. I do regret not providing a link for that purpose, but it was, at the time, the first hit one came to for those interested in reading it. And many did find it, without my adding a link.Polycarp7 09:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, truth matters. But if Carpanelli really cared about the truth, she would have resolved the matter on her own and edited the line out (as suggested to her). Instead, it's obvious that she preferred to see the error stand as long as possible. (Or should I say possible error -- because she has by no means proved the original allegation of "roaming priests" false. To my mind, Carpanelli's calculated misrepresentation of Wikipedia's editing process only shows me that she is capable of distorting a lot of other facts as well. Given how interesting this debate about "roving priests" has become, I intend to fully examine the allegation going back two and half centuries and incorporate them into the entry. It's obviously quite relevant to the social implications and effects of the 1755 earthquake, which continue to this day. It's interesting to note that the Portuguese Inquisition, which raged for centuries against suspected crypto-Jews or marranos, continued past the earthquake until 1765, and there's no doubt that the 1755 earthquake and tsunami affected the dynamic involved in Church authority. It's also interesting that Voltaire's Candide has a character who, yes, is hanged after being overheard discussing the earthquake outside of an orthodox religious context. "This was not customary", Voltaire writes, obviously in full satirical flourish -- though whether he is simply satirizing priests' actions, or exagerrating those actions for satirical effect, is something I've yet to determine. Perhaps Voltaire to blame for this anti-Catholic slur against priests; Carpanelli suggests as much. We'll see.)

  • Now they are "calculated misrepresentations." Perhaps you think you see that because you are calculating? I am not. I simply state things as I see them, and unfortunately, leave things out that you think I should have put in. I will try to correct that in Part Three. You make an erroneous, derogatory, and wholly unknowable allegation about my intentions, then conclude that I am capable of "distorting" other facts as well. This strikes me as quite convenient for one who might like to believe the allegation is true, and would like to stretch the truth to make it so. Witness your "eagerness" at finally being shown the about.com picture, and what you, with no source cited, allege in your caption that it shows, yet when I attempted to edit the caption to say it was looters being executed, you state there is no "proof" they were looters. Yet the Kozak collection's caption, which your article links to, states: "Lisbon a few days after the earthquake. Camping outside the damaged town, executions of robbers and looters. (Copper engraving, Germany, 1755) Lisbon, Portugal." You seem to prefer about.com's wholly unsourced allegation, over Kozak's caption. I have cited several sources for my claims in the discussion page of the Lisbon article which state that looters, murderers, and arsonists were executed by hanging, by order of the civil, not Church, authorities. Witness also your decrying the fact that I wouldn't edit the allegation out. Because you would have edited the line out, and I didn't, you feel you can doubt my care for the truth? Why do you believe, in MY search for the truth, I would have tried to hide the fact that priests were hanging people, by deleting the allegation, if in fact it happened? Then you might have accused me of hiding the ugly truth? You practically state my real motives in the rest of your statements - I haven't proved the allegation false, and cannot. It is precisely because I do not know for sure that it was erroneous, unless the person who wrote it cannot provide a credible source, that I was not willing to delete it. I can prove only that there is no credible source for it that I have seen. The onus is on the person who wrote it to provide a source that makes it possible that it did happen. In my search for the truth, I was asking for a source, from the original author, but did not know how to do that due to my inexperience with Wikipedia's protocols. I am not a contributer, just a user. Somehow, that translates to you as "calculating" and "willfully distorting" Wikipedia protocol. I have checked a great many books and articles, (more detail in the discussion page), including many, many eyewitness accounts. None of them mention this event, and I believe, had this happened, ONE of the eyewitnesses would have mentioned it, or at least one original source book would have mentioned it. I freely admit that my research has not included every book written on the subject, and one cannot "prove" a negative - that it didn't happen. My assumption was that possibly the originator of the Wikipedia article might have a source. I doubted it, but I sincerely was asking for his/her source, and would be interested to see one. In Part Three, I will discuss the "source" the Washington Post put forth. If you think you can find a source, and I would prefer a credible one, I would be happy to see it. Polycarp7 09:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Carpanelli cannot prove that Wikipedia was the reporter's source. Her addendum to the article, which summarizes a conversation with the Washington Post reporter, reveals that he used other sources as well.

  • I did not claim to have "proved" anything. I outlined my suspicions, and why I drew them in Part Two - perhaps you should have read it. I based my suspicion that it MIGHT have been Wikipedia for these reasons: 1). The article originated in October 2003, while the Post article, to which I was mainly objecting, originated in December, 2004, with many other more recent articles I listed showing up in January. 2). The language was very similar to the Wikipedia article, and I found other articles on the Internet, using the same language, even to the use of the misplaced modifier, most of them listing Wikipedia as their source. 3). Mr. Vargas told me he used Wikipedia, and noticed that the other sites he used, which he named, also used the same language as the Wikipedia article. I had already confirmed that some of the sites he named, which included the allegation, listed Wikipedia as their source. In addition, my Part Two article states clearly that Wikipedia was one of other sources Vargas used, but I believed, that since Wikipedia dated to October 2003, and was listed as the source for many of the other articles, it MIGHT have been the original source. That is precisely what I am still trying to discern, but cannot unless the originator of the article will come forward with his source - if he had one. This is speculation, but it's entirely possible he assumed it - one might do that after seeing the caption under the about.com picture, reproduced now in the Wikipedia article. If priests were "supervising" the hangings, which assumes, (contrary to what credible source materials state), that they had authoritative involvement, and it's not a far stretch to say they "roamed the streets" looking for people to hang.

And by the way, I was not, prior to this, affiliated in any way with Catholic Exchange, so my correspondence with Ms. Gottrop had no motive other than a search for a credible source. I asked CE them to help me get this information corrected, since it has proliferated so widely since the Post article came out, but had no idea of that during my corresponsence with Wikipedia. My beef was with the Post, and my intention for writing the Part Three article is to conclude with my discussion with the Washington Post. But now that I have read such ad hominem and hostile accounts of my alleged "intentions" with regard to Wikipedia, and the unjust charges to which I have been subjected, simply because I am trying to obtain the truth of the allegation, I feel I must spend some time discussing that, as well. Ms. Gottrop has apologized for offending my Faith, and it was probably my ignorance and frustration in how to ask for what I wanted on Wikipedia that led to her irritated reply to me. But as I have stated elsewhere, Wikipedia users - and that is what I was - NOT a contributer - should not have to go through this to get a simple question resolved. Polycarp7 09:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was completely unaware of any of this controversy until I opened my Wikipedia homepage this morning. It's funny to see my username cited in it, and to be given credit as the one who finally deleted the objectionable material. To be honest, I didn't give it too much thought. I deleted it merely because the discussion was getting hot, because Carpanelli's (anonymous and unsigned) objections on the entry itself were beginning to take over the page (nb: I never had any exchange or dialogue with Carpanelli myself). It was obvious -- although Carpanelli doesn't say this in her own article -- that no one seriously defended the allegation about roaming priests, apart from the one offhand comment (which Carpanelli quotes). On deleting the citation, I figured that if someone was going to re-insert that slur into the article, they could only do so only with supporting information. That's normal Wikipedia procedure, and the slur has not reappeared.

  • My "anonymous and unsigned" objections were corrected when I learned, through Ms. Gottrop's help, how to do that. I didn't see the point in stating a negative - that no one defended the allegation. Once again, I didn't do what you think I should have done, but I don't feel the need to state the obvious. Polycarp7 10:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to let this issue die down now before reconsidering the article for FA. But the feature status shouldn't depend on whether at one point there was false information in the article (if, indeed, that information was false). The obstacle to feature status, as pointed out by a number of observers, is that the philosophical implications section needs to be fleshed out in a much more thorough way; since I haven't received other complaints, this section is going to be my future focus. I (and I hope others) will have to do a bit of homework on it. I also want to track down an image of the Marquis of Pombal and perhaps other illustrations.

I hope the entry keeps its quirky, concise character. One of the things I most admire about the 1755 Lisbon earthquake is that it manages a complex and varied topic with brevity: it has benefited from the surgical intervention of (among others) an amateur historian, geologist, a tourist who loves Lisbon (that would be me), and several philosophers, none of whom decided to make it their own magnum opus. I hope the entry stays that way and never becomes bloated. Notwithstanding my rather extended comments here, quantity is not quality. Thanks, everyone, for the good advice. Sandover 18:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Sandover 20:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) [revised] Sandover 02:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) [revised]]

I agree that the story alone is not a legitimate reason to keep this from being a featured article. It would be like rejecting an article just because of some vandalism in its history. The state of the article now is what's important. In this situation, the incident is a reason to be especially careful and thorough, making sure that facts are checked and references provided. But it shouldn't be a barrier to featuring, and it would be great to be able to say, "Yes, there was this mistake, but not only were we able to fix it, we improved the article so much that now it's one of our showcase products".
With respect to the timing of this nomination, it might still be possible to do the needed work relatively quickly, but that's for those involved in writing the article to determine. If all reasonable objections are addressed, whether now or later, the surrounding controversy shouldn't matter. --Michael Snow 18:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've fallen in love with the page, but I look at the necessary improvements requiring some significant reading and research. It's going to take a few months for me to circle around to this project again. Unless someone else wants to jump in and go rah-rah on it right now, let's just table the feature consideration for now. By all means, read the entry in its present form. It will be all the better later on when we remember the evolutionary process, and to voice support when this pops up in time for the 250th anniversary (which is November 1st this year). Sandover 18:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As the person directly involved with Ms. Carpanelli i have to say a couple of things: i was never impolite (despite the hysterical, slightly irritating tone of her notes) and i tried to motivate her to edit the article, i even left welcoming message at her talk page. The whole affair can be followed in Talk:1755 Lisbon earthquake. I am quite amazed with what is said about her article. She acted in absolute bad faith with me and with the project and i'm finding very strange that the acts of a biased scandal-seeking person are depriving the article from feature status. I agree with Bishonen et al. objections about the philosophical section and i'm only sorry that my knowledge is not enough to answer their requirements. These are valid objections and I hope Sandover is successful in his attempt to clarify them. Ms. Carpanelli's article is not a valid objection and i cant believe that this will be held against the article in the future. muriel@pt 21:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Please read my response to Ms. Gottrop's above statements on the Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-14/Misinformation on Wikipedia at this address: (Not sure how to do the link - please spare me the criticisms for my ignorance in your protocols). Polycarp7 16:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
encyclopedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Misinformation_on_Wikipedia

[edit] Back to the philosophy

  • Update: I think that leaves only my objection—not sure about Jeronimo's second one. I've hung back because I'd pick several arguments with WhiteC's version if it were offered in the article—a modern distinction between belief in God versus atheism just doesn't seem to me to enhance our understanding of how these issues were thought of in the 18th century—but Rbellin's additions to the article are excellent, and seem to be in process. I'm in two minds whether to strike my objections or not, because I would very much like to see just a little more from Rbellin first. Still, as Sandover says, the whole article has a pleasing quality of conciseness. OK, I'll strike my objections, provided only that the phrase "religious minds of the 18th century" goes, I do think it's anachronistic. Still hoping for a little more from Rbellin, but I won't insist on it. (Incidentally, not of course an objection, the copper engraving is fantastic, I'd make it a bit bigger if it was me.) Bishonen | Talk 09:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've now run out of sources on, and exhausted my own knowledge of, the quake's philosophical consequences. I guess it would be undecorous to continue my own objection until someone more knowledgeable than me showed up, so I'm striking it. The article is pretty good now, and can continue to improve later. Bishonen, thanks for the kind words; you can decide if this looks good enough for a featured article in its current state. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
maybe I put too much emphasis on that (God/atheism), but the problem was really trying to find the ultimate cause of this evil thing that happened, viz the earthquake killing people, etc. The modern viewpoint that natural disasters just occur without anyone being to blame for them (for whatever reason, including but not limited to divine punishment) developed as a result of lengthy arguments about the causes and blame for this earthquake. It is impossible to discuss this without delving into controversial philosophical and religious issues--this is why it generated so much discussion, because it WAS controversial.
Perhaps that is why I am reluctant to get involved here... I would have to describe C17 religious and philosophical viewpoints and arguments in a correct historical context, remain neutral, explain that they were historical views, and deal with people who took offense. In my opinion, the article would need to do these things in order to be completely successful, which is a tall order. WhiteC 20:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, even though this entry is my baby, I'm going to object for now, because I believe it should be made much better on a number of levels, including the historical and philosophical. Thanks, everyone, for putting those references onto the page; I have a little background myself in philosophy and look forward to following the syllabus. It will be a project of mine over the coming months. The Theresa Carpinelli controversy (described above) has piqued my interest and directed me to other resources I didn't know existed. Because Wikipedia is the second hit when a person googles "Lisbon earthquake", we deserve better before the 250th anniversary (November 1). Stay tuned.

I'm not the best with images and layout, and agree that the one added yesterday deserves to be a) larger and b) outfitted with a frame and caption. Perhaps -- even -- the central part of the image should be expanded as a "cameo." There are more images on the way. Also, if there are any Portuguese readers who can have a look the newly-published November 2004 book by Joao Duarte Fonseca (ISBN 972-8479-32-8, published by Argumentum in Lisbon under a UNESCO grant), I'm told its an excellent resource. Sandover 16:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Object but this should be actionable. This has nothing to do with the Washington Post controversy, where I withdrew my object after studying it carefully. Two issues: (1) the intro's prose is weird: The 1755 Lisbon earthquake took place on November 1, 1755 at 9:20 in the morning. It was one of the most destructive and deadly earthquakes in history, killing well over 100,000 people". (2) What were the actual answers to those questions at the "The birth of seismology" section? If the answers are somewhere they should be alluded to in the article. JuntungWu 06:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Update 2: Sandover, I'm glad to hear it, though I'm ready to support now. I did an emergency "religious minds"-ectomy myself, leaving a rather childish sentence that does not well introduce the next paragraph, please improve it. I actually meant the top image, I've enlarged it a little now. Please see what you think. Note that while the image is PD under the {{PD-art}} principle, the description on the image description page shouldn't be used unchanged for the image, because I think it's a copyvio (lifted from here, probably shouldn't be on the image description page either). Juntung, the prose you quote isn't weird in any obvious way (except it needed a comma, now supplied), could you specify what's wrong with it? Bishonen | Talk 07:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It is most certainly not a copy-vio. The image comes from NISEE/Berkeley, not the site you pointed to, and I had a long telephone conversation with the head librarian there (as well as confirmation e-mail) before posting it to Wikipedia. Sandover 08:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Sandover...? The image is PD according to our policy, you don't actually need any permissions or head librarians for it. Let me expand the {{PD-art}} tag for you:
Public license

The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain in the United States and in those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years. This photograph of the work is also in the public domain in the United States (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.).


(Click on the Bridgeman link, it's very encouraging! :-)) The description on the image description page would seem to be a copyvio, that's all I was trying to say. It's taken verbatim from about.com. I was tempted to use the nice wording in it myself, but checked it out and saw it was a steal, that's why I thought I'd just caution others against improving my caption with it. Sorry it was confusing. Bishonen | Talk 10:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) P.S. Also, I was talking about the top image. Lisbon burning as seen from the tsunami-stricken harbor. I see that you're probably referring to the other one, the one that you uploaded, with a reference to NISEE. I haven't messed with that. The engraving of the harbor is the one I enlarged. Anyway, both of them are PD. Bishonen | Talk 11:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saturnian

This may technically be a self-nomination, since I began this article about the verse form of early Latin poetry some time ago. But its virtues are the work of Sauvagenoble, who has wholly rewritten the article from the viewpoint of recent research, as opposed to the nineteenth century sources I relied on. == Smerdis of Tlön 17:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Object for now - a nice article on a relatively unusual topic for Wikipedia - and congratulations on finding a relevant image! - but it has no lead section. Not so important, but should the "bibilography" section be changed to a "references" section? And are there no relevant "external links" or other Wikipedia articles to add as "see also"s? Finally, it seems a little repetitive to analyse the three fragments you have chosen in series, and the layout produces lots of white space due to the indenting and new lines: would it be possible (merely a suggestion: this may not work very well in practice) to do the quantitative and accentual analyses of the three fragments, for example, using a table, so you can compare and contrast the two analyses of the same fragment at the same time, side by side? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:44, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Yikes, careful. The word bibliography has two conflicting meanings. One is resources used in the writing of an article and more problematically it can also mean just a list of works relating to a given topic. If the second is true it would be entirely innapropriate to retitle it as references. - Taxman 21:42, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, my comment was ambiguous - I meant "is the bibliography section a references section? If so, it should be titled as such" (I assumed this was the case, given the contents of the section; if not, references are required.) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs a lead section, and proper references. - Taxman 21:42, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • The article shouldn't start with a TOC. There should be an intro (without a section heading), and then a TOC. Everyking 21:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - 1. No lead section; what is there has too much emphasis on the technical analysis and very little social, historical, or literary context / 2. The bulk of the article relies on the readers' understanding of a particular notation system -- the text version doesn't match the version within the graphics insert on my browser either. Jgm 21:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason all sections use level 2 headers instead of level 1? Phils 10:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks to everyone for the attention and efforts towards this article.
  1. The bibliography section doubles as a "references" or "works cited", so I’ve renamed it.
  2. I just added a little more of literary-historical material.
  3. I tried to introduce the notational conventions at each first instance, but perhaps this still falls short of facilitating understanding. Admittedly, Unicode ∪[&cup;] is not the symbol I used in the graphics but is the closest. Metrical symbols are not in Unicode.
  4. Regarding formatting in general, I rely on the more experienced for cleaning the article up, as this was my first contribution. The side-by-side accentual-vs.-quantitative comparison is a good idea; my only concern is possibly breaking lines where they shouldn’t and placing a lot of dependence on a reader’s font and screen size and resolution settings.
Sauvagenoble 14:20, Feb. 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wankel engine

I beefed it up quite a bit today, mostly history, mostly racing, but other stuff as well. Gzuckier 22:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A well-written engine on an interesting engineering topic. This article has been stable, is not in dispute, and includes two decent pictures and some references. --SFoskett 18:09, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Object - insufficient lead, insufficient references (external links are not reference). The structure of the article also seems a bit wrong: shouldn't the last section ("Rotary combustion engines versus rotary engines") be incorporated into the first, "How it works" or the second / third ("Advantages" and "Disadvantages")? The two uses one use of the exclamation mark seem a bit unencyclopaedic (!) -- ALoan (Talk) 20:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Much much better, but still object - the last section ("History") still contains eight short paragraphs that don't flow very well. It may be useful to get the page peer reviewed. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, agree with the above. Lead section is too short and this article has no references. External links alone are not references, but websites (external links) can be formatted as references as at Wikipedia:Cite sources if they are properly used as references to cite facts in the article or to fact check what is there, and they are from reliable sources. In any case, even if all three of the external links listed were used properly, that is still pretty minimal. - Taxman 21:35, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not sure what else the lead would need, and what more would be required for reference or how that relates to external links (but I'm kind of new here). I moved that last section into its own article, though. Gzuckier 22:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I reformatted the References appropriately. Thanks for the suggestions! --SFoskett 00:28, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Can you confirm that those resources were properly used to fact check the article or add material to it? If you did not personally use them, it is innapropriate to characterize them as references. - Taxman 14:38, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
        • I personally own the two books listed and personally did consult them and the web site listed when making my own edits. They are excellent resources, by the way. --SFoskett 16:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
          • Works for me. But the lead section still needs expanding. - Taxman 18:43, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
            • I have expanded the lead section. This discussion has been very helpful - I went back and added references to many of the automobile articles I have written. --SFoskett 21:57, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: it is in dispute, but the dispute isn't active. nobody calls this a wankel engine in the real world and it's an incorrect name to begin with. the article is stable because the edit wars over the naming convention happened quite a while ago but the article is incomplete because of them. the real world name of "rotary engine" is used on wikipedia by some obsolete, centuries old, and rare even then airplane engine. the current production engines were designed by wankel, but the concept existed two hundred years earlier with steam.
    • ? The old airplane engine is a 'rotary engine', has been for about 100 years now; as for 'rare even then': "That the rotary engine dominated the early years of aviation is evident". The same site lists productions figures in the thousands for several rotary aircraft engines. Yes, many just call the Wankel engine a rotary engine, but 'nobody calls this a wankel engine'? Google comes up with > 40,000 sites for Wankel engine. Gzuckier 16:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Please include your name with posts. Regarding the Wankel vs. rotary debate, I believe that even Mazda would attribute the basic design to Wankel, even though they use the rotary name consistently. This is noted in the article. --SFoskett 16:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, in the UK it's commonly called a Wankel Rotary Engine, a name which is is cited by John Cleese as a sure-fire way of making British people grin. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christina Aguilera

Self nomination. Let the world know this singer!!! --218.102.93.215 10:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. No lead section or references. Johnleemk | Talk 11:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for several reasons. What's in the article is well written but : as above, no lead section or references, photograph may be copy vio, needs to be replaced with something public domain (an album cover would be acceptable), the bulk of the article is about her image, but the discussion of her music gives very little explanation about what her music actually is, basic copyediting is required (there needs to be consistency in using the correct Style for album titles and the correct "Style" for single titles etc). Also phrases such as "Aguilera decided to take on a more mature image; this move was widely praised by critics everywhere" - if you take this literally it's saying that every critic in the world liked the new image and felt compelled to comment upon it. That type of phrase needs to be rewritten to make it neutral, and if critics commented on it - use quotes/give references etc, and to be balanced also remember to treat the negative comments as equally significant. Suggest putting this on Wikipedia: Peer review (whose job I've gotten carried away with and started doing here) because it has got some good things going for it, but needs some work. Rossrs 12:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The world already knows her. This article is pretty clearly not ready yet, although it isn't bad by any means. Everyking 12:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I see that you have now listed the article on peer review as well. It shouldn't be in both places, so please remove it from one of them. It's up to you, but I think the best thing would be to have it on peer review, not here, and then re-nominate it here when you have addressed all the objections and feel that the article is ready for FAC. Bishonen | Talk 15:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Rossrs, this should be on Peer Review first. In addition to what has been mentioned above: no sound samples. Single sentence sections ("Personal life") and oddly titled ones ("2003 through 2004") also shouldn't be in a featured article. Jeronimo 07:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Preposterously overblown fan gush. --Wetman 09:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guns N' Roses

This is a partial self-nomination. This has been considered as one of the best sources of information about Guns N roses in the internet by several fan sites. The article explains the whole history of the band as well as current information on the group. It has a lot of external links and references. User: Coburnpharr04 March 18, 2005 6:30 ET

  • Object. Numerous awkward phrasings in need of a copyedit. Though "dancing with Mr. Brownstone" appears in quotation marks, I can't tell who is being quoted. More detail is needed on the riots mentioned - casualties, legal ramifications, etc . It reads like a fan site (...the band's place as a heavily influential and permanent member of rock and roll history), and all of the external links appear to be either official or fan sites. A few more critical pieces would be great. Some concrete examples of their influence on other bands and music as a whole are needed to back up the claim of heavy influence. And the body text ends with "It has been heavily rumored thorugh the internet that the new album will be coming out on April, 2005.", which makes me wonder if it is not getting enough attention to fill in gaps. I would suggest Peer review. - BanyanTree 01:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. In need of a good copyedit - for instance the sentence "....Tobias left the band because of his frustrations with the slow way in which the recording of the new album was going." Also there are whole paragraphs that are essentially in bullets rather than in narrative form: "A riot ensued. Subsequent shows went on as planned. The tour was met with mixed results." Finally, it contains POV passages, and speculation. (see Banyan's commments). Fawcett5 15:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object lead section could be a bit longer (article could be too), but moreover a lack of a complete References section and a lack of photos (only 1 photo?) keep me from thinking this is a Featured Article type rather than an average moderately-evolved basic article. --Lan56 08:33, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)