Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sydney Roosters

This nomination is a self nomination to start off.

When I first visited this page, it was full of agenda ridden bias information that did not reflect well on the club. Since then, I have led the way by an extesnive research of the club and its history, accurately and fairly reporting on the club, its history and culture. I have neutralised the article by basing it around fact related circumstances to ensure accurate but comprehensive information on the Sydney Roosters.

I have taken it further, adding club statistics, updating information weekly to make sure it remains as accurate as possible. I have created player profile pages to link to this page to make it as comprehensive as I possibly can.

Members of the Sydney Roosters forum have praised this site, not only does it give the Sydney Roosters fans a proud site for a club with proud tradition, this page has set the platform for other NRL clubs to make additions to their pages. This page is the most comprehensive rugby league club website on wikipedia, and for that it should be recognised as a Featured article of wikipedia. Sbryce858 07:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Nice job with the article! However, I would suggest a peer review first before coming to this page. Some comments:
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 15:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

For starters, can you merge some of the many one-sentence paragraphs and word them so that they flow cohesively. How about fixing the inconsistent hyphen/n dash/spaces/no spaces approach to ranges, particularly scores: e.g., try "1995–99" and "36–18". Use your clipboard to paste these in. Please fix the last sentence of the first paragraph, including the omission of the apostrophe. Tony 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks everyone I'll take the constructive criticism on board, fix it up a bit and put it back here when I think it's ready! Sbryce858 06:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What would Jesus do?

A terrific article. Displays clear, unconfusing, and accurate information.Chipka 19:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • About which book? Object - complete lack of references. It also seems rather thin, but I don't know how much it's possible to write encyclopedically about a phrase... —Whouk (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - It is a wonderful article. Very well done! To Whouk, What are you talking about? Lorty 20:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: See WP:WIAFA; specifically it fails criterion 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a, possibly 3c, and 4. Image:WWJD.jpg needs a fair use rationale- see WP:FUC. The lead should be expanded to meet WP:LEAD. The article lacks references, and also doesn't have WP:FOOTNOTEs or other inline citations. Thanks, AndyZ t 20:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose no references. It is as it always was T | @ | C 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral please provide references and inline citations, correct the above deficiencies, and I'll be glad to have another look. If you need an example of how to cite references, you can see Tourette syndrome. Sandy 23:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three Mile Island accident

Well written, well everything. Truly a masterpiece article. The topic is interesting as well 11kowrom 14:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Very well done! Clearly some of Wikipedia's best work. Lorty 14:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. Well done, but perhaps you could explain how many it would have impacted had it melted down, what cities the radiation would have impacted, e.t.c. But, that could be easily fixed
  • Object; not enough inline citations. Where is all this information coming from? Please give page numbers, etc. at the very least every few paragraphs. Writing quality is shaky ("Note that the two shortest nuclear power plant construction projects", "It should be noted that the operators and emergency operating procedures", "It is noteworthy that", "...have been improved. Improved surveillance..."). Organization needs work—the aftermath section isn't very cohesive (talks about lessons learned, then the effect on the industry, then the effect on the country, then more on the effect on the industry, and finally the actual cleanup). The section on The China Syndrome seems out of place; perhaps just a link to it would be sufficient, or passing reference in the aftermath section. Image:Btmi3.jpg has questionable copyright status. Also, maybe a more recent image of the island would be appropriate to include? --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've changed the wikilink so it accurately reflects the title of the article - at first, I was wondering why the article on Three Mile Island was only about the accident. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 16:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Good article, but needs better organization 69.40.243.98 19:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. One picture should be moved to Commons and another doesn't have any copyright information. Poppypetty 21:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak object:
  • Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC. Specifically, Image:Btmi3.jpg need(s) proper fair use rationales.
  • I also agree with Spangineer. Thanks, AndyZ t 23:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - the article is about the Three Mile Island accident, yet the opening sentence describes Three Mile Island (the location) which happened to be home to a nuclear reactor that suffered a meltdown. I'd suggest reworking the opening to directly describe the accident itself. For example: "The Three Mile Island accident was..." Alexthe5th 17:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, issues with the tone and verifiability.--Peta 06:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Gettysburg

An astonishing article, it presents the history of the Battle of Gettysburg in a clear manner. (The maps of how the army was positioned are pretty cool, check it out!) Chipka 20:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support I can't find anything wrong with the article. If someone else does and i realize it, i will cross this out Lorty 20:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The lead section is too short and there aren't enough in-line references. RyanGerbil10 20:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral: As one of the principal authors of this article and its many subarticles, I will admit that it is very light on the requirements for footnotes. In my early days of writing Wikipedia articles, I operated under the assumption that if all assertions could be found in one of the References, that was adequate, because that is, after all, the style of printed encyclopedias. I have been including more and more footnotes in my newer articles, particularly for quotations and for controversial details. Although it would be possible for me to sprinkle a few dozen footnotes into this article, I have prioritized my time more toward the creation of new articles and the expansion of stubs about the American Civil War. Hal Jespersen 20:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Chipka and Lorty, It's a very informative and thorogh article. Scienceman123 00:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Lack of references, virtually no discussion of the repercussions of the battle, and "Battleground and movement of battle" has choppy and imperfect prose. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 02:02 UTC
  • Object mainly per WP:WIAFA 2(c) and 3(a) as of now:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 14:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. No inline citations, and looks rather short for one of the most important battles in the US history.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • If you follow links to the subarticles and to its parent Campaign article, you will find that it's over 200K of material. Hal Jespersen 17:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • So? Let's nominate them if they are more comprehensive, but this article is too short. Expand it with info from subarticles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
        • No, that's not fair. They've properly followed the criteria and done a good job of summary style. You can't fault them for that. - Taxman Talk 01:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I am not faulting them for things they did right, but for the things they didn't. The article should have dozens of inline cits, which it doesn't, and also most of the FA battle articles are longer. I would like to see more details in that article. But to clarify, I am objecting on the reference grounds, the shortness is more subjective and although it may prevent me from supporting, I will not object once inline references are added.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Per LortyHezzy 18:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Mainly 2a, 2b, 2c (inline refs pls) plus some infelicitous writing and the new to me interpretation of the Gettysburg Address. Of these, lack of context is the key problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Per Piotrus and others. One of the most significant battles in American military history has only one footnote (and an explanatory one at that, not referential)? That doesn't seem right. The lead is also a big problem. On the positive side, the maps are awesome.UberCryxic 19:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William H. Seward

This article should be chosen because it is easy to read, has enough citations and references, has decent images, and is well written. 11kowrom 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. The lead section is inadequate, and several of the sections are short, only one or two sentences in length. RyanGerbil10 17:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Lead section needs to be expanded to properly summarize the topic. No Inline citations Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, it is a start, but some more work needs to be done:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 14:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slavic mythology

What a fantastic article, definately one of the best we have on mythology on Wikipedia. A good length, with appropriate images. Only downside is no inline citation, but for a mythology article, is that really appropriate? There do not appear to be any disputes on the talk page. - FrancisTyers 13:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Yes, inline citations are appropriate in ANY Featured Article. Otherwise people would be required to hunt down every last work mentioned in the references to find out where any spesific factoid comes from. WegianWarrior 14:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but Object. Here are some of my suggestions:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Images need proper image copyright tags and source information. Specifically, Image:Svetovid.jpg need(s) proper image copyright tags.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 15:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Inline citations are a must, especially if we have sections like 'Unauthentic sources'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, per above remarks. Also, see various comments on the Slavic mythology discussion page, e.g. regarding the periodization and supposed ubiquity of the mythological phenomena. Anatopism 17:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object--Molobo 19:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby union at the Summer Olympics

I have done a lot of work on this article in the past month or so. It recently went on peer review as well. I feel everything has been covered and that it is ready to be an FA. Thanks. Cvene64 06:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support. The lead section needs to be a tad bit longer, but ev'rything else is fine. RyanGerbil10 07:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I included that it was at 4 of the first 7 games, and that the 7s game is played at the Commonwealth games. Is that alright? Let me know if anythig else can be improved. Thanks for your help. Cvene64 07:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe expand on other countries' performances. --Osbus 15:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I wrote a little more about Romania getting Bronze in 1924, is ther anything else you think I could expand on? Thanks. Cvene64 22:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; the writing is not "compelling, even brilliant". The lead, for example, has many problems.
    • The "four times" thing is stated twice in the opening sentence.
Removed first mention.Cvene64 22:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Many readers will not immediately realise that summer olympics began in the 20th century (not in ancient times), and must piece this together during the remainder of the first paragraph.
I added 'modern' before the Summer Olympics, is this kind of what you mean? Cvene64 22:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "most recent attempts being in regards to" - this is a little clumsy. "the Rugby sevens version of the sport"; if "the sport" is rugby, isn't this repetitious? Should there be a link for "sevens"? Or quote marks? Avoid "events" in this context, since this also refers to individual matches/heats/races.
Now read The most recent attempts have been for the inclusion of the sevens version of the sport, which is played at similar competitions such as the Commonwealth Games. There is a link for sevens, and I don't think quote marks would be appropriate. Events->Competitions. Cvene64 23:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The removal of the sport "after the 1924 games" is mentioned twice in two paragraphs.
I deleted the second mention of it being removed. Cvene64 23:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please edit the whole article closely, with particular attention to repetitions such as these. Tony 15:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I will now go through the rest of the article and look for similar mistakes/things that can be improved. Thanks. Cvene64 23:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I think I havae rid the article of these problems. Multiple refernces to the nation/games/olympics/year have all been removed. I edited the rest of the article with the examples you gave above. Thanks. Cvene64 03:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I have made further edits using your How to guide. Cvene64 03:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Object Does not seem to be comprehensive. E.g. revival attempts should be described in much more details: when, how and by whom conctretely (NOC/IOC representative/etc.) were 1980 and 1988 attempts made? Why and how (voting of the IOC? other means?) did they fail? Cmapm 12:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have slightly expanded this information but I cannot make it anymore comprehensive than it already is right now, I emphasized that requests were made in 1980 and 1988, and added that the 1988 "requeset" was backed by the IRB, as well as adding a few more references. Cvene64 13:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I note a lot of omissions and errors, which will attempt to correct myself. I have some other (better) references than just the internet as well. Jeronimo 16:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I have now made several edits, but I think the article's still not ready. The structure may need to be revised a bit (a separate section per Olympics?), and some statements need to be checked/cited. The 1920/1924 sections are currently very US-heavy (although they won both tournaments, of course), and there is not a lot of information about the matches themselves. Another image would be great as well, but I've not been able to find anything. Let me know if you need any further help. Jeronimo 18:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, thanks a lot for your help! I'm going to post a message on it's talk. Thanks again! Cvene64 10:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pericles

Peer Review

Self-nomination: When I first saw Pericles' article, I thought that this man deserves a bettter article. That is how I started rewriting Pericles about 45 days ago; a rewriting, which would almost become an obsession! The 12th of May I submitted the article to the peer review process. The article you are now called to judge is, mainly, the result of: 1) the initial editors' work, 2) my thorough rewriting, 3)the constructive contributions of other users during the peer-review process. My subjective opinion is that Lauren Alexandra is very awesome =]]heck yess!Pericles deserves to be FAT. You can now judge for yourselves! As far as I am concerned, I almost sure that Pericles' ghost will stop hunting me. Unfortunately, I do not know if this is a good or a bad thing! Yannismarou 18:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This article has 40KB of prose of as 23 May 2006
  • Minor problem: All of the quotation blocks, with blue backgrounds, need to have their text color defined. For people with custom skins (like myself), the text is probably unreadable. So you would add color:black; into the table's style. --BRIAN0918 18:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object due to the POV train wreck that is the conclusion. All in all this is a well-written article with few POV problems, but to conclude with a paragraph like this:
Nowadays, we enjoy the rare achievements of a rare civilization led by a statesman of rare calibre, the great Pericles, "the ideal type of the perfect statesman in ancient Greece"[65]. "Cimon was surely a better general; Themistocles might have been a better politician and Demosthenes a better orator, but Pericles was, at the same time a great general, statesman and orator"[65]. Was he infallible? Of course he wasn’t, but no great man avoided terrible mistakes, even at the pinnacle of greatness.
is completely unacceptable and unencyclopaedic. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I changed the last two paragraphs as following:
According to K. Paparrigopoulos, Pericles was "the ideal type of the perfect statesman in ancient Greece"[65]. Comparing the virtues of the most prominent Athenian statesmen, the Greek historian concludes that "Cimon was surely a better general; Themistocles might have been a better politician and Demosthenes a better orator, but Pericles was, at the same time a great general, statesman and orator"[65].
Few people bequeathed to the next generations such a legacy; the monuments of Acropolis and the literary culmination of Thucydides are due to Pericles. According to K. Paparrigopoulos, "he decorated his city with masterpieces, which were sufficient to render the name of Greece immortal in our world"[65]. Nowadays, humanity can still admire his living heritage, the rare achievements of the Athenian civilization that Pericles led during its most glorious moments.
About the rest POV comments, I'll comment in a few moments, because I want my answer to be thorough. If there are any further oblections about this paragraph's POV, utter them now. Or, even better, go in and make the changes you would like. The article does not belong to anybody. Everybody can and should contribute, since editing a paragraph instead of rejecting is more creative and not so tiring.--Yannismarou 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; aside from the POV issues with the conclusion, there are a number of technical problems:
    • Everything in the "See also" section is already linked in the text, so it should be removed.
    • Greek letters for footnotes? It's a clever touch, but entirely baffling to someone first encountering the article. Is there some reason why the two footnote sections cannot be entirely combined? If there is, at least convert the first one to use something more familiar to the average reader, like English letters.
      • Look at the article again. The Notes section, which uses Greek letters, contains notes, not references. The Citations section lists the references. So, these two sections shouldn't be combined. My only problem with the Greek letters is that they have bullets in front of them. If the bullets are removed, then I would be fine with them—learning a few non-English letters wouldn't hurt. --BRIAN0918 21:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm well aware of the distinction; but there's no reason both discursive footnotes and reference footnotes can't be in the same section, should the article editors so desire. Kirill Lokshin 00:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe convert the quotes to use a standard template, like {{cquote}}? Kirill Lokshin 20:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • To the people above, {{sofixit}}, takes how long to add a few css rules/rewrite one paragraph/delete a see also section? really... Anyway support, provided someone competent does a good copy edit on the prose. --zippedmartin 05:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't oppose. What are you complaining about? --BRIAN0918 17:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • And this isn't a vote. Just suggesting that minor things can be fixed in the amount of time it takes to write them here. Bigger issues like the below can be argued out, but in my mind the issues er.. Mr. 204.40.1.129 has would largely be resolved by a copy edit from a decent writer, it's more a style and tone issue than anything else. In my mind, css rules, 'POV' and footnotes aren't the right help-needed sign to be waving. --zippedmartin 09:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Upon further reflection, I've come to the conclusion that the POV problems of this article extend far beyond the last paragraph. Starting with the lead's weasel-wordy "Probably the best known Athenian statesman that ever was", the article makes value judgements (implicit or explicit) throughout. For instance:
    • "It was high time Pericles took aim at the conservatism’s den, Areios Pagos, the hub of the aristocracy."
    • "Pericles seemed willing to do whatever was necessary in order to cajole the public. Nonetheless, we must not be harsh against him..."
    • Phrases like "his most menacing opponent" to describe Cimon.
    • "A. Vlachos acutely points out that the utilization of the alliance's treasury, initiated and executed by Pericles, is one of the worst defalcations throughout the human history; when we admire, however, the impressing outcomes of this defalcation, aren't we obliged to forgive him?"
    • "...Thucydides not only laments the loss of a great man..."
    • "The best hymn for Pericles is the famous paragraph of the historian Thucydides and his legendary phrase that Athens was "in name a democracy but, in fact, governed by its first citizen"[48]
    • "...had he lived longer, he would probably have attained his goals through his steely persistence. The problem is that those succeeding him lacked his genius, his composure, and a clear vision."
All this, combined with the fact that virtually all of the quotes about Pericles are favourable ones, and the fact that criticism of Pericles is itself criticized, and some dubious grammatical constructions (arising from unnecessary verbosity) are SERIOUS problems that this article must deal with before it can become an FA. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 17:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I comment on every topic as following:
      • "Probably the best known Athenian statesman that ever was" was not my edit. As repeatitive and useless I removed it.
      • "It was high time Pericles took aim at the conservatism’s den, Areios Pagos, the hub of the aristocracy." changed as "It was high time Pericles took aim at Areios Pagos, which was controlled by the Athenian aristocracy."
      • "Pericles seemed willing to do whatever was necessary in order to cajole the public. Nonetheless, we must not be harsh against him..." changed as "Pericles seemed willing to follow a populist policy in order to cajole the public. His stance is explained by fact that his main opponent". I donot think this is POV now.
      • "A. Vlachos acutely points out that the utilization of the alliance's treasury, initiated and executed by Pericles, is one of the worst defalcations throughout the human history; when we admire, however, the impressing outcomes of this defalcation, aren't we obliged to forgive him?" changed as "A. Vlachos points out that the utilization of the alliance's treasury, initiated and executed by Pericles, is one of the worst defalcations throughout the human history; a defelcation that financed, however, some of the most marvellous artistic creations". I think I make clear this is Vlachos' point of view not mine!
      • Is the characterization "great man" POV?! For a man who was born 2501 years ago! After all, this is not my caracterization; it is Thucydides caracterization who laments him! Isn't that clear? I tried to adopt a more literary style. That is what you think as POV! But if I have to sacrifice it, in order this article to be FAT, I'll do it ... Hence, I changed "...Thucydides not only laments the loss of a great man..." as following "Thucydides not only laments the loss a man he admired, but he also heralds ...". I hope it is clear now that this is Thucydides' point of view; NOT MINE!
      • "The best hymn for Pericles is the famous paragraph of the historian Thucydides and his legendary phrase that Athens was "in name a democracy but, in fact, governed by its first citizen"[48] changed as "In one of his rare praises, austere Thucydides, an admirer of Pericles, maintains that Athens was "in name a democracy but, in fact, governed by its first citizen"[48]. Through this laconic comment, the historian illustrates Pericles' charisma to lead, convince and, sometimes, manipulate a fickle people like the Athenians." Do not ask me to change "fickle"! That is how Britannica calls the Athenians! Unless Britannica is also POV!
You are unfair to say that all quotes are favorable for Pericles. I did my best in order to find unfovorable ones! But there aren't any!! Nevertheles, I quoted:
      • Plato's quote that he corrupted Athenians.
      • Plutarch's quote who implies the same thing (note ε).
      • Sarah Ruden's quote that Pericles was a "hawk".
      • Muhlberger's comment who says the same thing.
      • Paparrigopoulos' criticism that he led Athens to the stalemate of populism.

You know what is the real problem. There are not any negative comments against him! There aren't!! You cannot imagine how excited I was, when I found Sarah Ruden's reproach ("hawk") and I quoted it, although I did not even know this scholar! Even the ancient writers donot dare to accuse him. Plato and Aristotle say that "it is thought that Pericles ...". They donot dare to espouse the negative points of view! I am happy to mention any unfavorable comment. But not even contemporary scholars judge Pericles in a negative way. My whole interest while rewriting the article was exactly that: Find voices of criticism and quote them, trying to be objective. But how can anybody do that, when he finds just praises?!--Yannismarou 18:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The most severe examples of POV bias - the ones where the article tries to convince the reader that Pericles' mistakes should be forgiven - are the ones which you have not dealt with. The concluding paragraph, the part where the article asks "aren't we obliged to forgive him"...Aside from being informal and unprofessional, these are unequivocally non-neutral. It's not simply a matter of not quoting anybody with a negative opinion of Pericles; it's a matter of consistantly presenting Pericles' actions in a positive light, rather than neutrally. There's a difference between letting readers know how widely respected Pericles was/is and giving the impression that the authors of the article also hold this opinion. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 18:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I also answered to that, man, and I changed the last paragraph! See the answer under your first comment. By the way, I'm still implimenting your suggestions. And it is not me who asks the reader to forgive Pericles' mistakes. It is Vlachos! It is HIM who speaks about the defelcation and it is HIM who tries to justify it (IS HE? I do not think so-I think this is the harshest comment I ever read about Pericles!) I mention the defelcation and I mention his attempt to justify it, by posing a question (Correct: Vlachos poses the question). IT IS THE READER WHO FINALLY DECIDES IF THIS DEFELCATION WAS RIGHT OR WRONG! And by the way, you'll find no article about Pericles, speaking for "defelcation" and "embezzlement". Vlachos did it! I did it as well! And I deemed it stylish, to speak harshly about the defelcation, while posing (Correct: While Vlachos poses!) a question leading to another direction. But I donot conclude. I donot decide. It is the reader who will decide (And it was ecclesia which decided when Thucydides brought the subject in front of her!) Any way, I rewrited this edit. Do you still have objections? Do you suggest I erase it, although the editor (me!) does not support any side in this debate and just quotes Vlachos' (a Greek scholar and member of the Academy who is not unprofessional!) qhery?--Yannismarou 18:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It isn't the role of an encyclopedia to ask open-ended questions about moral judgements. An encyclopedia presents facts (eg. Pericles was accused of embezzlement), and popular opinions about those facts (contemporary Athenians felt X, while scholars predominantly believe Y). Encyclopedias do NOT ask the reader to consider whether Pericles' actions were forgivable, and they certainly don't make pronouncements on the incredibleness of their subjects. This article should present the facts of Pericles' life, and those facts should include controversies, but this article should not take a position (explicit or implicit) on either side of these controversies. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll rewrite this edit. Nonetheless, let me pose you a question: Britannica is calling the Athenians "fickle" and I also do it. Britannica is of course one of the best encyclopedias, but, according to your point of view, "fickle" is POV, because it is a judgment, an estimation about the Athenians' attitude and not a fact. "Fickle" is a reproach, according to your point of view, and a "moral judgement", including a "pronouncement". Hence, do you think that Britannica is POV?--Yannismarou 19:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
In this case, yes, Britannica is making a value judgement. What one person may consider fickle, another may consider intelligent and cautious. It would be encyclopaedic to note that many people believe the Athenians' behaviour to be fickle, but to call them fickle is POV. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Following your thought, the caracterisation "mavellous" for Acropolis that I use is also POV. We dont have the right to say that Parthenon is "marvellous", because we make "a value judgement". We donot have the right to use any adjective! We must say that "many people believe Acropolis is marvellous". Am I right? If I am, we must exclude any judgements, any adjectives from encyclopedias and include only "facts"! But, in order to expose a fact, you need "a value judgement", because every man sees the same "fact" ina different way! But then, how are we going to expose and analyse facts?!
Anyway, I removed all rhetoric questions and rewrited the "aren't we obliged to forgive him" part, according to your suggestions. Take a look and comment, If you may...--Yannismarou 19:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be difficult and argumentative. This is just the way Wikipedia is run. See WP:NPOV for the official policy. Encyclopaedias aren't in the business of passing judgement. I agree with you that the Acropolis is marvelous, a wonder of the ancient world even, but I can't write in the article on the Acropolis that it is "one of the most impressive man-made structures ever built". Here's another example: The video game Super Mario Bros. is one of the greatest, most influential video games ever created. Anybody familiar with video games knows what kind of influence it had. But the article on it can't say "It's one of the greatest video games ever." Instead, it says that it's "universally considered a classic of the medium" and goes on to cite critics lauding it with praise. Ditto for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Any claim that you make about something's greatness has to be qualified in that (a) it can't be framed as the opinion of the editors of the article, and (b) it has to be backed up by independent sources. That's why you can't finish the article by writing "Nowadays, humanity can still admire his living heritage, the rare achievements of the Athenian civilization that Pericles led during its most glorious moments." There's nothing neutral about this; it's not backed up by an independent, verifiable source (nor could it be); it's merely the expression of your opinion (which is a reasonable one, but which shouldn't be in an encyclopedic article nonetheless). User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
This might be a good time for... Wikipedia:A_nice_cup_of_tea_and_a_sit_down. Alexthe5th 05:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object This needs a very thorough copyedit, both to deal with grammatical and phrasing issues and to tighten up language that becomes unencyclopedic at a number of points. Also, on a content level, I would like to see discussion of the policies Pericles followed during his preeminence, particularly with respect to foreign policy and the empire; the congress decree, the coinage decree, and the megarian decree deserve mention, and I'd like to see a more thorough treatment of the events of the "First Peloponnesian War." Also, it seems to me that the article may be assigning Pericles too large of a role in the political arena during the years of Ephialtes' dominance--although I'll have to check my books to be sure about that. --RobthTalk 04:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard III (1955 film)

Peer Review


(peer review is still open, but let's be honest, aside from the initial info, there's not much more than can be said)

Article that I have raised from a stub myself: The information is extensive, tells all that you need to know about the film, there is honestly not much more that can be added to the article, this pretty much sums it up. .... 07:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Object - lacking in depth. Sections such as "Adapting the play" (5 sentences), "Music" (3 sentences) and "Criticism" (2 sentences) are too brief, and the article as a whole is very slim. The writing style throughout consists of groups of short choppy sentences. The "Academy Awards" table is pointless. One nomination does not require a table and "Olivier's Oscar nominated turn as Richard secured his fifth nomination in the category" - is an example of careless writing style. He was not nominated twice for the same role with one Oscar nomination leading to another, though this is what the sentence literally says. Rossrs 13:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Object The criticism section is 2 sentences (as mentioned above) and contains weasel words and no citations. Lacks in depth as said above too, but the criticism section really jumped out at me. --W.marsh 13:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for the following reasons:
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Academy Awards, Criticism, Music is/are a bit short.
  • There are several paragraphs that are too short, which sometimes disrupts the flow of the article. These should either be expanded or merged.
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • It is often considered to be the definitive film version of Richard III
    • is/are weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations.

AndyZ t 20:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for all the useful constructive critisism. I must say, a failing FAC is much more informative than a peer review. But keep the comments and objections coming, because I do hope one day to get this to FA. As you might see, from the History section, I've made quite a contribution to this page. Oh, and the sentence about the "Fifth Nomination in the category" is actually correct, if you read it properly, when I say category, I am reffering to Best Actor..... 10:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
no, it's not correct. Either avoid using "nominated/nomination" twice, or change "secured". It's no big deal, but it's grammatically incorrect. An "Oscar nominated turn" does not "secure" a "nomination". It makes no sense. Rossrs 12:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you're talking about. You should've just said that I mentioned Oscar Nomination twice. .... 05:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Looking a little better now, I think. In terms of the depth complaint, there is not a whole lot of information on this film available. As to the reception, and critisism, there are not that many reviews on the film. Due to it's date and obscurity, getting this article to be a whole lot longer may be very difficult. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 08:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Self-Nom due to the fact that I have improved and repaired all points raised by both peer-review and objections. If anyone else has complaints, I'd like to hear them. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 09:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as per above notes that the article isn't nearly in-depth enough to be of featured article status. Further Comment: have a look at the Ran (film) article for a great example of a featured article on a classic epic film. -Alexthe5th 16:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, at least many of the original points have been cleared up. As for depth, as I stated before, that is going to be very difficult, but we may well just get there. And as for Ran, though both films are adaptations of Shakespeare, I don't think you could find two more different films. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States Navy

I first came upon this article a few weeks ago and was impressed by its comprehensiveness, accuracy, and prose. After some copyediting today, I feel that the article is up to standards. Referenced and inline cited, along with descriptive and illustrative charts and pictures, this article epitomizes the magnificent work of Wikipedia. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment/grammatical question - I know that "United States Navy" is the way that the organization refers to itself, but isn't this somewhat grammatically incorrect? You wouldn't, for instance, say "Canada Navy" or "India Navy" or "Japan Navy." You would say "Canadian/Indian/Japanese Navy." So why is it "United States Navy" and not "American Navy"? User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 18:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC) (P.S. - I'll give the article a read and see what I think.)
I've responded to this below; the official title is "United States Navy", and per the Manual of Style, that's where the article should be. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Some comments -
  • The "History of the Navy" section focusses extensively on the Revolutionary period of American history, and on WWII onward, but there's very little in between. Did the Navy do nothing for the 19th century? Compare one small paragraph on the 19th century to two extensive paragraphs on the last three decades of the 18th century.
    I'll see what I can do to expand the section. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    The section has been expanded now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Some people don't like red links in FAs. (United States 4th Fleet). I personally don't have a problem with it, but it's likely a concern that will be brought up.
    I don't see a problem with red links, as long as there are not a great number of them. In addition, I've placed the article on requested articles in the hidden queue in the RC header, so it should be created soon. Alternatively, I could create a stub right now but would prefer someone more knowledgeable in the field write it. If not, I'm willing to do some research and write a basic article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Similarly, a lot of people dislike lists. Could the "Fleets" section and the "Major naval bases" section be converted to "compelling, even brilliant prose"? Or spun off to List of Fleets of the United States Navy and List of major United States naval bases? I'm sure that "Historically Significant Vessels" can be converted to prose as well.
    The fleet section isn't really a list, as it comprises more prose rather than straight numerical/ordinate listing. I'll see what I can do, though. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Some claims need to be cited. For instance:
    • Aircraft carriers are considered the most important and most powerful warships in the United States Navy. - By whom? Is this position unanimous? Ditto for Aircraft are a critical component of the United States Navy’s fighting capacity.
    • The entire sections on Amphibious Assault Ships, Amphibious Transport Docks, Battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers, Dock Landing Ships, Historically Significant Vessels, Shipboard Systems, Aircraft Systems, Coastal Warfare, Personnel, Uniforms, Naval Culture, and Notable U.S. Navy People are uncited.
      Will take a look and see what I can do. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
All in all, there's a lot of solid information in this article. Focus on making it less list-heavy and citing your sources; before you do this, I don't think it could be promoted to FA. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The first one has been reffed now; I'll work on rewording this section and adding more refs as soon as the database issues clear up. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment not bad, the following minor issues should be addressed though:
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • I'll take a look and see what I can do. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Some of the sections are now prose. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 22:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hi all, I've been the major contributor to this article since March. About the comments raised by DiscoKing:
    • I thought long and hard about making lists, particularly the Fleets, major naval bases, and historical vessels sections, and eventually came to the conclusion that a list with details accompanying it was the best way to present the information. If, however, someone out there can write prose well enough (i.e. better than I) so that the info is easy to find and understand, then by all means knock yourself out.
    • I'll add a sentence or two on the U.S. Navy after the War of 1812 and before the Civil War, but it did not do a whole lot that was particularly notable.
    • I'm going to delete the whole reference to 4th fleet. That part has bothered me as well. I think the emphasis should be on active fleets and the fact that many incorrectly believe that 1st fleet is the Coast Guard.
    • I'll look over the article and add inline references where they are needed.Arcimpulse 22:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the responses, and thanks for your efforts, Arcimpulse. The article is under "United States Navy" because that is the name of the organization; many such names may be considered not grammatically correct, but the article's fine where it is. I'll also take another look at the history section and see if I can expand it, and will also see what I can do in regards to the cites. I don't see a problem with the red link - occasional red links (and that's only one of two red links in the article) are okay, and I've already placed the link in requested articles (right now in the hidden queue) in the RC header. The article should be written sometime soon. Thanks for the other suggestions as well; I'll do what I can right now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Nicely written and a great overview. A few notes:
  1. 19th century activities need to be written into the lead section (currently it jumps from 1790's to 20th century).
  2. I would be interested in knowing the names of some notable detractors and supporters of Navy formation.
  3. The command structure flowchart is rather oversize.
  4. I wonder if the order of sections should be rearranged -- command structure, then people, then bases, then ships. After all, a navy is only as good as its sailors. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comment! I'll see what I can do to improve the overall structure and adding some more material per your suggestion. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: see also is long. 1) incorporate all links in that section into mainbody 2) remove all links which are in mainbody from see also section 3) delete empty see also section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Very nice article. I do have some concerns with the writting style, however, in that it makes frequent use of very large, very dense paragraphs which can be difficult to read. The history section is the primary example of this, although the problem exists to some extent throughout. In most cases, these large paragraphs are in fact grammatically correct, but even if technically correct as such in structure, usage does make them difficult to read. I would request a little rewritting to enable these very large paragraphs to be split into multiple smaller ones. Fieari 05:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comment! I'll see what I can do to improve the overall writing style, especially in the history section. I'll take a look at it now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The history section has now been slightly reworded and broken into sections, hopefully improving the flow. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; poorly written. It needs several hours' work by a skilled copy-editor to satisfy Criterion 2a. Here are examples from the lead.
    • "The United States Navy (USN) is the branch of the United States armed forces responsible for conducting naval operations around the globe." Why abbreviate the title of the organisation and then fail to use the abbreviation throughout the article? I'd get rid of the USN at the top, and use a consistent term for the organisation, not the hotch-potch of terms that are scattered through the text. With respect to the remainder of this opening sentence, is the USN's major stated role to conduct operations "around the globe"? Many of us wish that it would keep its bib out of everywhere else and just concentrate on defending the US. This assertion is not explicit in the mission statement that follows.
      • I've removed that phrase. However, I disagree with your opinion on the inclusion of USN. It's an accepted style to have alternate names or abbreviations that have come to be accepted of the subject in bold as well, even if they aren't used throughout the article. For example, see Xiangqi - even though the phrase "Chinese Chess" is never used except in the lead, it's still included. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "over 4,000"—most US style manuals insist on "more than" rather than "over".
    • Does "Currently" serve a purpose at the start of the third para?
    • There's lots of redundancy: "in the year 1790"—why "the year"? There's a redundant "also" and "In addition".
    • "... U.S. navy. The U.S. Navy"—avoid close repetition.
      • The first case refers to the creation of a general navy for the United States, not referring to the specific U.S. Navy the article discusses. The second term (capitalized) refers to the U.S. Navy. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "It was a part of the conflict from the very beginning of American involvement to the very end of the war and proved to be a vital element in the success of the Allies." Can you avoid "very" twice here? Replace "proved to be" with just "was".
    • "it participated in Vietnam War operations"—Why not just "it participated in the Vietnam War"?
    • The Navy "roamed the seas"? Ships may do that, but it's awkward to say it of a whole navy; reword. And it did this "in support of allies"? US taxpayers might hope that before this, the roaming was to protect their own country. The wording doesn't suggest this. The final comma brings into question whether it was just the submarines that suppported allies.
    • "Its ability to project force is considered a key asset for U.S. leaders." Yes, throwing its weight around is a political tool for garnering votes, but I don't think you mean to say that here. It's fine if you retain this statement, but it will bring smiles to many readers.
    • "the number of ships and personnel"—Should that be "numbers", or are the ships each operated by a single person?
    • "... the Navy has ... a high degree of spending relative to other nations." Having spending is awkward—reword. False comparison: insert "that of" before "other".

These are basic technical matters that pervade the article. I suspect that some readers will sniff POV, too. Tony 08:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! I've replied to each point individually. Can you point out where you feel the article is POV, or places that require more improvement? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


      • The history section has now been slightly reworded and broken into sections, hopefully improving the flow. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


The captions in this article have been reviewed and meet the criteria for good captions. - Epolk 16:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC) - (Writing Captions WikiProject)

  • Comments -- It needs to be summarised, it has a huge ToC which needs to be cut down, the gallery causes a horizontal scrollbar to appear in standard web resolution (800x600) =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Not completely. The subsections in the history can be eliminated, the NCO table still spills out, (the last column is faulty), the naval bases could do with a map of the locations, =Ships= could do with an additional summary as a lot of information is about the ships themselves and less on the navy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    I fiddled around some more with the tables and I think I fixed the problem (it doesn't go off the screen when I set my own resolution to 800x600). I'll remove the headings in the history, and the map sounds like a great idea. Regarding the Ships section, the whole purpose of the section is to describe the capabilities that a ship gives to the navy and and show how that all fits into U.S. naval strategy as a whole. I'll read over it to try to eliminate some sentences that deviate from this. Arcimpulse 07:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hate to do this on an article that I work on, but until the personnel section is improved, the article won't be ready for primetime. Arcimpulse 18:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Everywhere I look there are problems in the prose. And you say that you've fixed the redundant "also" and "in addition" in the lead, but they're still sitting around lazily. The last sentence in the lead is a bombsite:
    • the U.S. Navy remains the world’s largest navy with a tonnage greater than that of the next 17 largest navies combined.[3] In addition, the Navy has focused on developing advanced technological capabilities, spending a high amount of funds relative to the spending of other nations.

Remove the second and third occurrences of "navy" and insert a comma after first "largest". Why not something more useful thatn "in addition"? Perhaps "Over the past three decades"? "Amount of funds" is awkward, if not ungrammatical. Try "spending more than any other nation"?

Then I stray down into the opening of the first section (History) and I see "heavily discussed"; this is not idiomatic English.

I haven't got time to go through the whole article, but it needs a copy-editor to give it a thorough massage. Someone who's distant from the text is required. Convince me then that it passes the stringent demands of 2a. Tony 16:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Anthropoid

reason for nominating the article: very important and interesting event —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prague Fuser (talk • contribs)

  • Object for the following reasons:
    • "Trivia" and "The operation in popular culture" sections should be made into prose and merged elsewhere.
    • Short, choppy paragraphs and one-paragraph sections proliferate. These should be fixed.
    • The referencing is inadequate. External hyperlinks should be changed over to footnotes using the cite web template, etc., etc. Citations to printed material would also be nice.
    • The copyright status of Image:Assassins hiding place.jpg should be resolved, and if it survives speedy deletion, the file should be renamed. Assassins have hidden in lots of places. . .
    • The prose needs a thorough copy edit and style shakedown. Anville 14:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object not quite ready yet:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "The operation in popular culture".
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gmail

The peer review has been archived, that means this article should gain featured status. <p border="1" style="outset">cheung1303</p> 01:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Its not ready with referencing still in a mess. Closing of Peer Review does not amount to featured status. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, article is not up to scratch in terms of content, layout or verifiability. For example the article lacks a consistent referencing system; parts of the article aren't prose - and should be; makes no mention of ads; headings in features add little to the text with such short sections and a lot to the TOC - the same is true for the criticism section; article cites speculation on a number of points; what purpose does the help section serve? Are people still selling gmail accounts? Two links to wikibooks, and so on.--Peta 06:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, are you serious? Just because it was peer reviewed doesn't mean it's featured material. Phoenix2 16:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for the following reasons:
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Awards and support is/are a bit short.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Google Mail".
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • many others still wish there was a way to view the size of included attachments from the message-list view
    • Many believed that this meant that Google would intentionally archive copies of deleted mail forever
    • is/are weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 20:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong OBJECT - the article needs condensing, focussing and restructuring, not to mention all the WP guidelines mentioned above. I honestly think it would be near impossible to get an article on such a frequently changing service up to Featured quality, ever, since (for example) before the dust settles on Calendar integration there are images in Quick Contacts, next there will be a free toaster or something, plus non-US interfaces catch up from time to time and all these points start life being tagged on the end of a paragraph. Sadly, quality articles tend to for be quite static subject areas (IMHO). Skewer 07:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time

A wonderful article. It has clear, non-confusing info. Decent images, decent references, etc. FA quality for sure. 11kowrom 20:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC) %

Weak Support Great article, but weak on the references. Surely more than one was used! Lorty 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but object for the following reasons:
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • Quotes need footnotes also.
  • There are several paragraphs that are too short, which sometimes disrupts the flow of the article. These should either be expanded or merged.
  • About half of the article is simply the last 4 sections, see if the "see also" and "external links" sections can be shorterned a bit.
And more minor issues:
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 21:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Some room for improvement:
  • the language is a little informal in places: "He said that time was basically what a clock read", "A famous analogy was one...".
  • The See Also list is far too long.
  • I think the opening sentence should endeavour to sxplain what time is, rather than open with how it has been studied.
  • The text and formatting need reviewing: "Hours are expressed using... but is commonly..."; 'main article' formatting at Philosophy of time has gone awry.
  • I think it's rather short, particularly if the 'See Also' section is reduced. The 'Chronology' section in particular could do with significant expansion. --BillC 00:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object
  1. Needs to cite sources with in-line citations
  2. Lead needs to be rewritten -- too abstract, does not summarize the article, starting with the second paragraph would make a better opening.
  3. I would prefer consistent section names: Physics of time, philosophy of time, units of time, etc.
  4. The See Also section needs to be considerably compacted -- it spans half the length of the article.
  5. The External Links section needs to be considerably trimmed -- Wikipedia is not a link farm. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Per nom. Hezzy 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UEFA Cup

A highly entertaining, solid article summarising the best of Europe's secondary cup competition. The amount of writing is balanced with the amount of tables and charts - all of which are relevent and well constructed. At least enough for "good" article, I feel enough for featured. Kingfisherswift 11:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Sorry, but it's not there yet. The article is heavy on lists. The "trivia" section shouldn't be there; take the information there and convert it into brilliant prose elsewhere. Inline citations are now a must for featured articles. Also, in a lot of places, the article is informal in its tone and assumes that the reader knows a good deal about European football clubs. I would suggest a peer review. Good luck! User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 12:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for various reasons... see WP:WIAFA.
    • Lacks the depth needed for an FA (2b). Looks like a good start, but half the article is lists, and it is a bit light on actual prose.
    • Lacks any references whatsoever. (2c)
    • The lead is insufficient (3a). This needs to summarize the article, not merely introduce it.
    • Contains only one image and it is fair use. Perhaps a free image from the competition could be found? That's not really a requirement but it helps. --W.marsh 14:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, lead is insufficient. Phoenix2 15:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The captions in this article have been reviewed and meet the criteria for good captions. -Epolk 16:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Writing Captions WikiProject
  • Oppose For the subject the article is quite small, there needs to be a bigger more detailed history which is cited and referenced.--Childzy 19:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • Lacks Pictures
    • It should not have the trivia section
    • It is too short

Leidiot 00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Completely wrong

This article is completely wrong, the Fairs Cup and the UEFA Cup are completely different, check UEFA's official website to see this (http://www.uefa.com/Competitions/uefacup/History/index.html). As an example, check Barcelona's official trophy count (http://www.uefa.com/footballEurope/Club=50080/competition=1/index.html). As you can see, there are no UEFA Cups, nor Fairs Cup, as this was an unofficial competition. I think the article should be completely changed and only talk about the UEFA Cup. Then another one on the Fairs Cup could be done. Robert King.

  • While I do not agree entirely with the above, I think the Fairs Cup deserves an article on its own. This competition had a different trophy and was run by differet organization. In the conclusion of this article it could then be made clear that the UEFA Cup was a successor competition. This would also allow this article to be expanded in size and atay within Wikipedias recommended limits on article size. I think the current article while reasonably good could still do with improving. Djln--Djln 23:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

Extremely well written, many links and refences, very deserving of becoming featured. Hezzy 00:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object -- the WP:LEAD is not a summary of the article. Jkelly 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It is an accurate deffintion of "Atheism". I really see no other way to summarize an article about Atheism.Hezzy 01:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The lead is what would need to appear on the main page, so it needs to be improved to a considerably higher quality for that. --W.marsh 01:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The lead needs to summarize the article, not just introduce it. Per WP:LEAD. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Object
Per above, per WP:WEASEL. Wrong section order (should open with history). - Emt147 Burninate! 01:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose above comment. Articles about words open with etymology, not history; history was in the correct placement originally. In fact, if the etymology section wasn't so learge, it would be in the lead. -Silence 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. On several grounds:
    • The lead section is inadequate.
    • The sections are not ordered properly.
    • The quotes are formatted awkwardly.
    • There are too many one-sentence paragraphs.
There is still a lot of work to be done, but this article in its current state is a very good start. RyanGerbil10 02:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. For similar reasons to above comments, though I have made some edits. Also, could someone more familiar with the article look at the "Atheism in India" section? Something isn't right there, but I'm not sure what. --Danaman5 23:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. "History" section should not come before "etymology", and very probably shouldn't come before "types and typologies" (which clarifies the definition(s) of atheism) either. It should also be expanded to at least three decent-sized paragraphs in length, and I see no reason not to add an image. A common problem I see is that articles have sections that are too bloated when there's no daughter article, and too short when there is a daughter article (as is the case for the "history" and "criticisms" section). Striking a balance is key: expand the "history" and "criticisms" section so they're informative and meaningful sections in their own right, not just brief introductions to a distinct article. Otherwise the article won't function as a self-contained piece, and will come across as unbalanced.
  • Also: a giant section on ignosticism in this article is clearly unnecessary. Ignosticism is a quasi-noteworthy neologism that clearly only takes up such a large portion of the article because of Wikipedia's Internet-community-bias; there's no reason for a 7-paragraph section on ignosticism when there's no section on apatheism, for example, especially considering that ignosticism arguably isn't even a type of atheism, but of agnosticism—which brings us to the most serious bias in this article: the clear bias in favor of the definition of atheism as "lack of theism", accompanied by a bias against the more common definition of atheism as "denial of theism". This bias is reflected in the very article structure: it plain-facedly covers many different topics in great depth regardless of whether they are clearly related to every common definition of atheism or not, without acknowledging any possibility of dissent. Its terminology choice is also biased.
  • One more recommendation: remove "atheism in philosophical naturalism" from the "types and typologies" section, and create a new section instead. This new section should cover the widespread philophies which are noted for being atheistic, such as nihilism, and the philosophical naturalism stuff can be a subsection thereof. If we cover atheism in various religions, we should do the same for various philosophies (and a section for atheism in politics wouldn't go amiss either, perhaps with a link to the atheist left and atheist right articles; though that could simply be mentioned in the "United States" regional section). Also, please, please deal with the stub sections. The only reason the TOC is currently so bloated is because of the overuse of sectioning where simple paragraph divisions would suffice. Also, the "see also" section is a bit bloated, and some of the entries seem strange (why babel fish?). I recommend stripping the "see also" section of all but the most important entries, and simply let people use Category:Atheism for the others. You may also want to consider focusing on linking to entries that aren't included in {{atheism}}. Lastly, this article is clearly a massive link farm: it has almost 70 external links (closer to 100 if you count the links in the "notes" and etc. sections, when I don't). You should probably cut it down to 15 at most; I've seen plenty of featured article candidates rejected for having even that many external links. -Silence 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. For many of the reasons above, but also for the format of the article in general. My feeling is that many of the pieces could be compressed, joined or presented in different ways. For example, there is a lot of data about the current state of atheism in different nations and regions (most of Distribution of Atheists and Atheism Studies, for example) that should be split off into a daughter subject (Distribution of Atheists) and/or compressed into something like a table so that things can be compared more easily. This is a complicated subject; don't be afraid to summarize and direct to a separate page - keeping all the data here just makes the page difficult to navigate (the TOC scares me, too!).Matt Deres 17:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy

I nominated this article because it is bigger than most featured articles and it has a huge variety of links and info. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) (History of War) 19:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Image:Grimy.jpg needs a Fair use rationale, and a less fannish image description. Jkelly 19:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd recommend a peer review here - no references, lots of trivia, etc. RN 19:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per RN. Lists of trivia should be converted into brilliant prose, statements should be sourced, lists should be spun off into daughter articles or converted into prose, audience reaction should be taken into consideration more so than is done, etc. Peer review would be very good for this article. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 20:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Most of the article is trivia and list. No references at all. Please go for a Peer Review first. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - Article being overhauled, will support with copyedit and references. Please check back as it is being improved a bunch. Judgesurreal777 14:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naruto

Well written, no fancruft (unlike some), and rather accurate. I rest my case. The Gerg 01:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Comments
  1. "hyperactive" in the intro seems subjective to me
  2. It says it "has been compared to those of Akira Toriyama's Dragon Ball Z," - but who is comparing it, wikipedia :p?
  3. Second paragraph in "Growth and popularity" seems totally needless - I'd say just link to the two sites it references
  4. "Although many such groups stop once a series has been licensed" borders on original research without a source - also, it is very general much like the second paragraph in "Growth and popularity"
  5. Numbers cited in "Manga and anime details" probably need to have at least one reference
  6. "many" is used as a quantifier in "Toonami and YTV broadcast" - try using something more concrete, such as "most" or at least "some"
  7. "It also appears that Cartoon Network made some extra edits in addition to those done by Viz Media, since some of the episodes that aired on the Canadian YTV network had fewer alterations" another thing that seems to be original research, perhaps you can source this as well
  8. "Naruto has a large and colorful cast of characters, running a gamut of detailed histories and complex personalities " this seems POV to me...
  9. The writing is kind of awkward towards the end of "Plot overview" - suggest tweaking

Well, erm, thats enough for me for right now I guess. Basically more references for the ending sections as well and the "story arcs" section is awfully listy. RN 02:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, something wikilinked in the article doesn't go in see also - I tried to clean up that but got reverted... RN 05:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Is that really a rule? I have found nothing about it in the MOS. Even the MOS itself does this. Jeltz talk 14:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Way too many lists, too few references. RyanGerbil10 16:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Could use more references. Also focuses too much on the fictional details. I'd like to see an anime as a FA, but the Naruto article just doesn't cut it yet. --Antrophica 05:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Also Object. Needs more citations, has too many lists, and not enough on the historical details as Antrophica mentioned. Don't worry though, almost nothing is featured on the first nomination.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 12:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too many lists and too few references per RyanGerbil10. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • ...
  1. But the show is about a loud, hyperactive, adolescent Ninja named Naruto, who has the same name as the series. I think it's fine.
  2. Fixed it. It now says "is compareable to" rather than "has been compared".
  3. Agreed.
  4. No comment (if we need a source, then let's search. If we absolutely can't find one, then should we just delete it?).
  5. This is pretty much verifiable if someone counts the manga pages and episodes (time-consuming, I know).
  6. Fixed. Only one mention at the beggining of paragraph 2. Replaced first mention with "a number of" and deleted the third entirely.
  7. I reworded it, but I'm not sure if that's sufficient...
  8. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to fix this. To me, it looks fine, as the statement is, in fact, true.
  9. Tweaked.

Be sure to look at the article and decide whether or not the changes I made work. If you oppose the above, speak now, or forever hold you peace (I love ripping off lines, lol).

The Wretched


Learn how to spell please Wretch ;)


> #"hyperactive" in the intro seems subjective to me The description "loud, hyperactive, adolescent Ninja" is taken directly from the anime cartoon networkplease watch naruto vs saskaue and sea who wins if any questions ask me the krator abraham hermosillo send card to 1603 travion court and call 4259284

Uh, if you just claimed to be the "krator", which I think you tried to spell "creator", I hope you realize Masashi Kishimoto-sama won't be very pleased to hear that. Also no idea why you'd like to post your address and phone number here. You lonely? -- Seraphchoir 12:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Embrun, Ontario

Embrun, Ontario is a quality article about the town of Embrun in Ontario, Canada. This article is self-nominated. It is notable and provides content suitable for Wikipedia rather then useless blabber and has backing proof for facts and follows Wikipedia formatting. FruitsAndVegetables133 22:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Very Strong Support. I never heard of Embrun, Ontario before. I read this article and now I know as much about the town as the town's residents. I can't see anything wrong with this article. In my opinion, it is 100% featured article material. --SallySplit1492 22:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • probably a sockpuppet. blocked. --BRIAN0918 03:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose a ton of one-sentence, ultra-mini paragraphs RN 22:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. No references. Also, do I detect sockpuppetry judging by SallySplit1492's contributions and similar name to that of FruitsAndVegetables133's? 64.231.152.254 22:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Insufficient lead, insufficient prose, insufficient referencing, insufficient images, insufficient organization... in general, insufficient. Fieari 22:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. While this article could use changes, can't every article use changes? I think this article is worth being featured. --RichyHillyIsMyTown 22:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • probably a sockpuppet. blocked. --BRIAN0918 03:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Moderate Support. I don't like the way this article doesn't have images, but I still like it and I think it is worth being featured. Don't get the impression that I adore this article, though. --Chinaism 22:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • probably a sockpuppet. blocked. --BRIAN0918 03:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. In my opinion, Featured Articles shouldn't follow a universal standard, but instead should follow a standard for its general subject. While there are many articles better than this, I think this article is as good as it could possibly be, and that is what matters (sorry if I took too much room).--LeGrisChat 22:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • probably a sockpuppet. blocked. --BRIAN0918 03:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The above 3 users have a total of 8 contributions, all today. Sockpuppetry seems to be a reasonable claim; where does one go to report it? - The Catfish 23:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Please expand the lead (see WP:LEAD. Also, no images or references. Clearly not FA material. PDXblazers 00:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is some good stuff here, but it's just not FA material yet. I'd suggest going through a peer review first to get improvement opinions; I'd also strongly suggest not self-nominating. Furthermore, I'm a bit leery of the fact that every single keep vote so far has come from a user with no prior edit history. Puppet city. Bearcat 00:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The lead itself is is very small. No inline citations. A two sentence long external link inside text. Section organization (especially history) is poor. "Location" has just two paragraphs, both one sentence long. Even a lot of other paragraphs are single sentences that need to be fixed. Go for Peer Review per Bearcat. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Ambuj Saxena. Ardenn 01:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westboro Baptist Church

I nominated this page because I believe that it meets the criteria for a featured article. It is truthful, neutral (considering the circumstances,) and extensive. It is a fine example of what Wikipedia can achieve. Scienceman123 00:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object style inconsistancies, but more importantly, article seems to have some ulterior motives (see closing paragraph)
    • Do we really need a link to the website in the lead? This part would appear on the main page, I think, and seems awkward
    • Article is very long (74k)
    • Provides an external link to a google maps of the compound in the body of article. Is this really necessary? We don't tend to do this with other articles mentioning buildings where the street adress is widely known.
    • Meticulous detail, including uncited speculation about whether they bought a new Ford F-150 or merely gave it a paint job... again, is that really necessary?
    • Inconsistant citation style usage. WP:FN would be best but is by no means required. The problem is that some citations are just [url] style that don't appear in the references section. Should really be adapted to the citation style of the rest of the article.
    • Uncited paragraph about the composition of the congregation, claims to debunk the claim that only 80% are related to Phelps by pointing out that there are "about 100" members, and Phelps has 90 relatives. Yet it fails to establish that all of his 90 relatives are members (in fact some aren't). Seems quite problematic.
    • More uncited claims... like "played a large role in getting Phelps Sr.'s children accepted there.", "WBC theology resembles Hyper-Calvinism, but pushes the doctrine even further than Hyper-Calvinists."
    • Uncited claim "some of which appear to be inherently contradictory". Seems to be original research. If not OR it's definently pointed and POV, rather than using the "purpose" section to explain their purpose, it just tries to slyly critisize it.
    • Selected quotes seem pointed towards making Phelps sound crazy and whatnot. I realize he probably is, but still, choosing the worst quotes you can find is not really good.
    • The Hockenbargers are allegedly members of Christian Identity one paragraph, then a few sections later they are declared to be members for sure. Huh?
    • And that's just 1/3 of the article. You get the idea. The whole thing seems to be A) an attack against WBC by chronicling as much bad press as possible and B) meticulous, extreme collection of minute information about them. Instead of explaining WBC to the reader, it is laid out and written more in the spirit of "Okay, here's the dirt on these wackos..." This simply doesn't strike me as a very encyclopedic approach. --W.marsh 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but object:
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 14:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Council of Nicaea

Since the last time this article was nominated, it has been improved and cleaned-up (I've done much of the recent work myself). There is now more information and it complies with the featured article crieria. --Coemgenus 14:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment- a few simple minor issues: first, external links located in the References section should be cited according to WP:CITE (see also WP:CITE/ES) - {{Cite web}} may come in useful here. Additionally, headings generally do not start with the word "The" whenever possible. Thanks, AndyZ t 22:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed the subject headings. I left "The Nicene Creed," since that's how everyone refers to it, but I changed the other ones. I'll work on those cites next. --Coemgenus 14:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The web cites are now fixed, using {{Cite web}}. Handy tool, that thing. --Coemgenus 01:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As AndyZ indicated, some cleanup of citations is needed in the references section. In addition, the citations from Schaff (i.e. the links to ccel.org in the body) should be converted into proper references, in general leaving out the title of the work, unless it is of particular relevance (this is why one has citations after all). Finally, the text could use some superficial clean-up. iggytalk 19:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Eh? Anyone? Coemgenus 23:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment See also section contain items already linked-to in text. Jkelly 04:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right - they were all linked above, except for the one about the Da Vinci Code, with is just irrelevant. I erased 'em all. Coemgenus 13:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I like the level of focus and comprehensiveness, and the summary of the Arianism page, for example, is quiet strong. However, there is a general lack of in-line citation in many sections. Generally reads well, except for some places where there are lengthy lists of names.

From WP:WIAFA:

  1. It exemplifies our very best work.
  2. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. Read Great writing and The perfect article to see how high the standards are set. In this respect:
    • (a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant; I don't think it is compelling yet
    • (b) "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details; OK
    • (c) "factually accurate" includes supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). For articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is strongly encouraged; Needs to be standardized (perhaps we could choose to not include the full title in the citation. The full details should perhaps be in the Reference section?)
    • (d) "neutral" means that an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view); and OK
    • (e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. OK. No edit war as far as I know.
  3. It complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects. These include having:
    • (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections; Could be improved
    • (b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and OK
    • (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section). OK
  4. It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article. OK. All of them are ancient works of art.
  5. It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles. OK
  • Object; this is a good article, but are there citations for the sections called "Arian controversy" and "The Nicene Creed"? Also, I'm not a fan of using quotes to tell the story—better to summarize their content and cite the source, unless for some reason the quote itself is particularly significant (like something actually said at the council, not something a researcher has written). --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 23:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Condoleezza Rice

Now that this article is listed as a good article, let's go one step further - make it featured. This article is very well-written and there are references. Although I cannot prove that there is no objection, I think most people will support it. --Cheung1303 06:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Inadequate lead, which does not properly summarise the article. Many one- and two-sentence paragraphs, and even a single-sentence section. The succession boxes for NSA and Secretary of State are duplicated by the templates below them. HenryFlower 10:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'm always happy to see a reasonable length, for readability. It should be easy to clean up the objections raised by Henry Flower. I'd be happy to take a deeper look at the article after those issues are addressed. Sandy 11:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. External link in the core of the article instead of being in the references section. There is also a serious lack of critics about someone who is quite controversial. Poppypetty 14:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral/Weak Support It's informative and well written, but yes, lacking a 'criticism' section. It doesn't quite feel like NPOV yet, watch out for weasel words - such as Rice attended a memorial service...for Rosa Parks, an inspiration for the American Civil Rights Movement. I'd say you're pretty close though. Nuge talk 18:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose almost total blackout of any criticism about someone who is extremely controversial. Quite good besides that, but that one thing means a lot of work still needs to be done :(. It is as it always was T | @ | C 20:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • As to above comments it is not simply a criticism section that is missing - there needs to inline criticism of individual actions as well. We've got a few featured articles on subjects like this already, so I would recommend looking at those. One example is
it was Rice who wrote an editorial for The New York Times entitled Why We Know Iraq Is Lying.

I.E. I think perhaps you need to show the reception of that editorial? It is as it always was T | @ | C 21:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose not npov. refer to peer review. Zzzzz 23:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Medved

An incredible article. It perfectly states his accomplishments, his history, and it meets all the criteria (I think)

  • Weak Support An well written article, but the lead sentances could be a tad stronger. 11kowrom 17:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs inline citations, not external links in the text. Lead needs to be expanded. Simpsons info should be integrated into text, trivia sections are never really that great. Getting there though. Cvene64 17:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I second Cvene64's objections, in that there needs to be inline citations and that the trivia section needs to be integrated into the main article.--P-Chan 06:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Lead section needs to be more selective and detailed. Sections and sub sections to be slightly more organised - the 'Early life' section features information on what Medved is currently up to. Too many redlinks towards the end - the article for celebrity bastard parents should be created (or don't make it a link). The article generally needs to feel more like a whole article, and less like lots of fragmented information. Nuge talk 17:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kiev

Being one of the oldest and most historical cities in the World, Kiev at least deserves to be a good article, but i believe it deserves more; to be a FA. Troy667 00:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Object
  • No inline citations.
  • Very small number of references.
  • History section needs to be expanded.
  • No section about the Demographics of Kiev.
  • No real emphasis about Kiev being the economic engine of Ukraine so it needs an Economic section.
  • No section about the distinct culture of Kiev so it needs a culture section.

Its a good start but there is major information missing which needs to be filled in and needs inline citations. --Mercenary2k 9:00pm May 19, 2006 Query—Why are trivial chronological items linked, e.g., years and centuries. Please delink unless a date is included. Tony 12:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  1. Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  2. Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC. Specifically, Image:Kiev Mikhail Arhangel modern square.jpg need(s) proper fair use rationales.
  3. There may be an applicable WikiProject guideline to follow: see WP:CITY
  4. Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
  5. Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  6. There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, "Local government" is/are a bit short.
  7. Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  8. Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 15, 2006 this and that happened.
  9. Additionally, after a year, for consistency, a comma should either be used throughout the entire article or not used at all.
  10. Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
  11. Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  12. Thanks, AndyZ t 23:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support, I think shall that criticisement be adressed, the article will stand full chance of being the FA. --Kuban Cossack 17:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support, fully agree with Kuban Cossack.AlexPU 13:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Mercenary2k and AndyZ, and agree with Kuban Cossack - once the objections are addressed, this should be relisted. The addressing of the objections however will require a major effort. One note: I'd like to see modern, English academic references used, especially for history section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian architecture

This article is fascinating, is well laid out, concise, beautifully illustrated, comprehensive, and adheres to all Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. It represents important cultural themes that will broaden the awareness of most readers. I feel that this article is representative of the quality and diversity that Wikipedia stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acooley (talk • contribs)

  • Oppose no references. Sandy 13:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose no references, inadequate lead. Please check the featured article criteria before nominating articles. HenryFlower 13:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. No references+Disproportional weightage to certain topics. Too many more issues. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose No references. IMO, move to PR.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As above. Anwar 20:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to no references and an inadequate lead. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons stated above. Should we move it to PR per Dwaipayan? DVD+ R/W 22:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose no chance for FA I don't think, so perhaps this should simply become a Peer Review like Dwaipayanc said. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. I had looked up this article a few months back and I was as disappointed with it as I am disappointed with architecture in India. A lot needs to be done, and I don't think a peer review will help for the most important one, which is that it says just three sentences about modern Indian architecture. That cannot be rectified by a copyedit. An expert Indian architect needs to fix this. — Ravikiran 09:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As a matter of principle I would oppose any unsigned nomination by an anon. But this article does mark a first of sorts ... an FAC on India or something related to it that is nowhere near ready for prime time (Was the nominator a mischief-making Pakistani?) Daniel Case 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at first glance uncited and too short. Not comprehensive. That's without going into the details.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 03:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The biggest showstopper for me are the references. Without references, I can't pledge my support, no matter how good the article. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 10:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philippine Psychology

Reason: This article is well-written, it is self-sufficient, it features a new field of study which may further enhance the readers' curiosity, and most of all, it meets all the criteria of a Featured Article.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • It lacks images, which though is not a prerequisite for FA status, it should still have if possible. Suggest peer review first. Thanks, AndyZ t 23:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Should be at Philippine psychology, as psychology is not a proper noun. Section headings should also use normal capitalization (first letter and proper nouns only). Tuf-Kat 04:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Orthodox Church

Great article. Has good lead, has good images, factual information, and has references. FA Criteria. Tr5asd 20:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Fixed wikilink to accurately reflect title. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 20:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are no in-line citations, and first sentence needs to be fixed for clarity. --Osbus 21:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 15, 2006 this and that happened.
  • Additionally, after a year, for consistency, a comma should either be used throughout the entire article or not used at all.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Oppose. No in-line citations. Pepsidrinka 00:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Just a remark on AndyZ's long objections. While I appreciate the thoroughness with which you are making suggestions, and the many useful comments, the sheer size of your post is a little off-putting. Perhaps if it was laid out in some other way? Exploding Boy 06:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I don't know. I originally designed a list of user templates at User:AndyZ/PR to save time from typing on WP:PR, but then I found that most could be applicable on WP:FAC. I don't mean to bite anyone, but am trying to list out the actionable objections that should be fixed to reach featured status. In any case, I'll see if I can think of a way to re-lay it out. AndyZ t 15:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) No inline citations; the current references are just two external links - more should be added, preferably from academic publications. 2) The history could be expanded (for example, why is Union of Brest not mentioned?). 3) Not comprehensive: where is the section about structure and organization? I'd like to know how independent is the Church from the Russian government. Also, does it have any missionaries? 4) The 'Russian Orthodox churches' section desperatly needs photos. See also should be incorporated into main body if possible.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clown

This article is a really good one. I learned a lot about clowns. I think it is a very comprehensive article. dq 19:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. No inline citations, but lots and lots of "Suggested reading" and the bottom half of the article is random lists. Jkelly 21:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL. (specifically "Quotes")
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Oppose. No references and move all those lists to List of clowns or something similar. Pepsidrinka 00:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tobyk777 21:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ice Storm of 1998

I think this is an incredibly well written article, that is worthy of being a featured article. Ardenn 18:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose fails criteria 2c, 3a. The WP:LEAD needs to be expanded and references need to improved. See {{Cite web}}. Also the article needs some in-line citations. Sentences such as "Prior to the 1998 storm, the last major ice storm to hit Montreal (1986) deposited around 30 to 60 millimetres (1½ to 2¼) of ice." should be cited. Joelito (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above (lack of a proper lead, among other things the lead would appear on the main page if featured) as well as 3c, lacks a reference section let alone inline citations. I didn't see any real POV issues so inline cites might not be so critical, but references are certainly needed for an FA. Also noticed various inconsistancies:
    • Inconsistant measurements style. Says 'mm' in some places, says millimeters (unlinked) in others, says millimeters (linked) later on.
    • got the nickname of "the triangle of darkness" this is mentioned twice in the body of the text and feels rather redundant. Also it doesn't say who gave it that nickname.
    • It first says 25 people died do the storm, then further down it says 25 to 44 people died. --W.marsh 19:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 23:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While it is definitely a good article, there are still some problems with it that need to be worked out. Some more detail, especially from a meteorological point of view, should be added. CrazyC83 22:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon and Garfunkel

A outstanding article about an outstanding groupLorty 18:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose and removed fraudulent comments. Insufficient lead and lack of references, for a start. —CuiviénenT|C, Friday, 19 May 2006 @ 18:31 UTC
    • The "fraudulent comments" were from the first (successful) FAC back in January/February 2004. It was FARCd in January 2006. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lack of references. Poppypetty 21:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The link to the citation in the lead needs to be replaced with a proper citation. --Osbus 21:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 15, 2006 this and that happened.
  • Additionally, after a year, for consistency, a comma should either be used throughout the entire article or not used at all.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 23:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this article currently is in need of references. Yamaguchi先生 23:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miranda Otto

Self-nomination: After finding this article to be very short and a mess a while ago, I did a massive re-write and put it through a peer review. It is currently recognized as a good article and I feel it is both well written and stable. -- Underneath-it-All 03:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment WP:LEAD is a little on the brief side. Jkelly 04:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a. Let's look at the top.
    • "is an Australian theatre and Australian Film Institute-nominated film actress. She began her career in the Australian film Emma's War in 1986 and gained critical recognition in 1991's The Girl Who Came Late."—Over-repetition: "Australian" occurs four times in the first two and a half lines (I'm unsure how to fix this, though); "film" occurs three times in the same text. As well, "1991's The girl who came late" is clumsy—the year would be better in parentheses after the title of the film. Many readers, especially women, will prefer "actor" to "actress" as non-sexist, and I note that it's a piped link to "actor" anyway.
    • "She performs predominantly in minor roles in a wide variety of low-budget and major studio films"—remove "a wide variety of".
    • "Otto was born in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia."—You've told us umpteen times that she's Australian (the word has already been linked, too), so the triple bunger could be reduced to a double.
    • "She was raised in Newcastle and Brisbane, but briefly resided in Hong Kong ..."—The HK thing does not contradict the previous clause, so make it "and", not "but".
    • "Her parents remain married, but they live with other partners."—Is this really important to the topic? Right at the top, it verges on a breach of privacy and raises questions of relevance.
    • "Growing up she excelled academically and in ballet, even considering it as a career option before realizing that she could not become a soloist due to having a slight scoliosis as many ballet soloists had to be physically perfect." The odd comma would make for easier reading (here, after "up"). But why not something more specific, such as "In her teens,.. "? Consider removing "even". It's a rather long, complex sentence; consider a semicolon after "soloist" and a rewording of the most unsatisfactory final clause (problems with "having", "slight", "many" and "had").

Not "compelling, even brilliant" prose. Needs a good copy-edit throughout, not just a fixing of these examples. Tony 04:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have acted on your suggestions and have worked them into the article. Thank you. -- Underneath-it-All 14:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response. OK, thanks, but lots more to do. In particular, there's a tendency to assert the inner emotions of the subject, without referential support and inviting POV problems. Like these:
    • "The film was hard to do for Otto as it required multiple sex scenes, which made her uncomfortable." "Otto began to doubt her career choice as she was not getting the parts she auditioned for and underwent a loss in self confidence. The feeling lifted partially when she was offered a part she loved in Love Serenade (1996), but, even then, she was not wholly convinced that acting was what she wanted to do with her life."
    • Clumsy and ungrammatical on a number of counts: "At the audition she was able to get into her characters head and how she thought, landing the part."
    • Early life—three one-sentence paragraphs in a row.
    • "When Otto first read the script she did not want to audition for the part, for fear that she would not get it." Last three words are ambiguous. How do you know that she didn't want to audition? Reference?
    • "which caused a sensation, being labelled as "Australian Gothic"—the cause and effect is unclear: was it a sensation becuase of the label?

You clearly know the subject, but do we need personal details such as: "She and O'Brien are determined to raise their daughter on their own and rotate their working life, with one parent always around to babysit." in an encyclopedia article?

I've tidied the writing, somewhat. Underneath-it-All, would you be capable of correcting some of the other issues while I continue to rewrite portions? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I will start to address the issues as soon as possible. Thanks for your help. -- Underneath-it-All 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't strike out my text—I'll do that, thanks; allow me to judge whether you've addressed those problems. Sometimes, contributors put a brief note underneath a reviewer's points, saying that they've been attended to. Tony 09:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing the nomination until all the issues have been addressed. I currently do not have the time to dedicate the attention this articles needs to elevate it to featured article status as of now, but I will work on it in the future and re-nominate it then. Thank you Tony for all your suggestions on how to improve the article. -- Underneath-it-All 15:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photoresistor

This article is a good article. It does not seem too technical, or too sparsely-written. Should be on the Main Page soon. --Sunfazer | Talk 12:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • No references... I'd suggest peer review first. It is as it always was T | @ | C 12:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • FAC seems a bit premature, sorry. No references, article lacks the depth needed for an FA, also seems to lack enough context for non-science people to follow it. This would probably be a good article for the Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week. --W.marsh 12:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Where's the rest of it? Tony 15:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just to be official. No refs and far too short, as everyone has said. Staxringold 19:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Collegiate Athletic Association (Philippines)

I believe this can be an FA. After a peer review, where a subheading was objected upon (and amended), it looks good enough for me. It has been stable, has references, well-written, follows the style manual, the images are tagged. Also, a daughter article is now a featured list. Circa 1900 14:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:Object. The lead section is too short, the usual for a lead section is three well-fleshed out paragraphs covering the topic in a brief summary. Also, some of the subsection headings, especially those regarding certain rivalries, are not written using an encyclopedic tone. There are also a few one sentence paragraphs which should either be expanded upon or merged into other paragraphs.

Weak Support. Circa 1900 and I, but mostly Circa, have worked together to bring this article up to standard, and beseide a bit of more vigorous referencing, I think it is now qualified. RyanGerbil10 02:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I've already added a third paragraph to the lead. I've also copyedited the rivalries section. Circa 1900 23:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Better, but the lead paragraphs need to be longer. The rivalry section looks much better now. However, I'm going out for the night, so we'll have to continue this discussion tomorrow. Keep up the good work, we can get to FA status within nomination time. RyanGerbil10 23:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I've amended the lead in the Rivalries section and made other minor adjustments. Circa 1900 01:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Getting closer, but the history section needs to be expanded and contains some unencyclopedic tone, with phrases such as "...was the brains behind the collegiate league." Try not to use idiomatic expressions, they tend to make the articles harder to understand, especially for those who don't speak English as their native language. RyanGerbil10 17:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. Also, I've expanded the history section. Circa 1900 02:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I would say that one needs to avoid referrieng to schools as acronyms, especially in serial lists, like in parts of the history section. Also, the rivalries section seems a bit light on citations. RyanGerbil10 03:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is a list of everything else in the article I think needs fixing before it reaches FA status:
  • The lead section needs to be longer. The three paragraphs are very short, and taken together, do not give an accurate summary of the information contained in the article. The lead should be rewritten to reflect the overall organiztion and total content of the article better.
    • Expanded the lead.
  • The tone of some of the section, especially the "Structure" and "The league today" sections is overly colloquial and should be rewritten to be more formal and encyclopedic. Also, according to the WP:MOS, the word "the" should not be used in subsection headings, which should be reworded.
    • Done.
  • The table in the "The early years" section is confusing and needs to be explained better, or reformatted.
    • Changed "#" to "No. of schools on the league". It illustrates that membership during tose years was liquid (hence confusing), especially when several schools were members for a very short time.
  • I am confused about the difference between the Junior Division and Senior division mentioned in the article, it should be explained better. If it is an organiztion of colleges, why are high school athletes included? Do high school athletes attend the member colleges or do they attend local high schools? If so, which high schools and where?
    • Clarified on the Sports section.
  • The article in general needs a copyedit to search carefully for spelling, grammar, and punctutation mistakes.
    • Done.
I hope I'm not being too harsh; I'm just trying to be thorough. I like seeing articles become featured and there;s no reason why this one can't be someday. RyanGerbil10 04:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
That's fine with me. PR did not give the article the proper review, and I am happy that someone is taking a close look from the view of an outsider. Thanks. I'd be doing those that needs to be fixed. About some rivalries being light on citations, most of the Ateneo's rivals were not cited properly. I do not have the sources, although they've been cited at the references section. Circa 1900 04:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The only issues I have remaining are minor. All that remains to be done is to consolidate a few short paragraphs into longer ones, and then to have somebody thoroughly copyedit it. I'll do the copyedit myself later. RyanGerbil10 23:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Come to think of it, the article needs a more detailed explanation of how the scoring system works, and maybe an example. I finshed copyediting the first half of the article, I won't be able to finish for another few hours. RyanGerbil10 00:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It's on the NCAA Philippines General Championship article. But since it is important, I'd add a short explantation. And btw, thanks for your patience on the article! Circa 1900 00:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Support as per RyanGerbil10 --Howard the Duck | talk, 06:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Full and Total support Though it must still be updated and revised. Justox dizaola 03:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object due to referencing issues. The article contains numerous statements of opinion and weasel-wording that doesn't appear to be referenced; this is particularly an issue in the "Rivalries" section. Some obvious examples: "Arguably the most storied rivalry in Filipino sports...", "The most memorable battle...", "It was rumored that aside from the students from both schools, Danding Cojuangco's (a La Salle alumnus) personnel were present at the Coliseum and actually led the riot", "the Stags were poised for basketball supremacy", and so forth. Kirill Lokshin 04:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. Removed unsourced statements and added more references. Circa 1900 06:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Nice work; no more objections from me. Kirill Lokshin 06:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Mild Object - There are a few minor issues such as use of contractions (which should be avoided per the Manual of Style) and some spelling errors. I'm also a little unsettled by the fact that much of the information in the article is in table form, but I can deal with that. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 6 May 2006 @ 01:23 UTC
    Done. I've used MS Word spell and grammar checker and it should have fleshed out the undesirables. The table form is just a summary, if it was in prose it will be more confusing. Circa 1900 03:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    Support —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Saturday, 6 May 2006 @ 11:59 UTC
  • Object—2a. Let's look at just the lead. Much redundancy and disorganisation.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, is an athletic association of eight colleges and universities in the Philippines. The NCAA, which was established in 1924, is the oldest existing athletic association in the Philippines. The NCAA in the Philippines is not connected to the NCAA of the United States, for they are independent of each other.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is an athletics association of eight colleges and universities in the Philippines. Established in 1924, the NCAA is the oldest athletic association in the country; it is not connected with the NCAA of the United States.

Both the Policy Board and the Management Committee handle the affairs of the league. These two bodies are composed of representatives of the eight member schools, and determine the acceptance or suspension of member schools, reversal or replay of games, and other such official actions.

The Policy Board and the Management Committee handle the affairs of the league. The Board and the Committee are composed of representatives of the eight member schools, and determine the acceptance and suspension of member schools, game reversals and replays, and other official actions.

During the nearly year-long season, which begins in June and ends in March, schools participate in 11 sports, which are further divided into two divisions: the Juniors division, for male high school student athletes, and the Seniors division for collegiate student athletes. In some events, the Seniors division is further divided based on gender.

During the nearly year-long season from June to March, each school participates in 11 sports; each sport is conducted in two divisions: the Juniors for male high-school students, and the Seniors for college students. There are male and female Seniors divisions for some events.

Also, ... [get rid of 'also']

Are the representatives elected? By whom? We need a brief explanation of how the powers of the two bodies are delineated.

Needs a proper copy-edit throughout.

Tony 07:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already replaced the red text with the olive text. Also, I've edited the structure and hosting section, for the explanation on how the members are selected are there. Circa 1900 13:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but these were only examples; the whole text needs proper editing to be 'compelling, even brilliant', as required of FAs. Can you let us know when that has been done, so it can be reviewed? Tony 06:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
RyanGerbil10 copyedited the article already: [1], [2] and [3]. Circa 1900 06:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, he may have, but all of my comments here refer to the article as it is now. It needs considerable work to bring it to FA standard. Tony 07:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
User:TheCoffee copyedited the article already. Take a look if it good enough already. Circa 1900 13:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It's better than it was, but still not good enough. I've left a few inline queries. Plus things like:
    • "The rivalry was revived"—phonological jingle;
    • "led to both Ateneo and San Beda withdrawing from the NCAA"—ungrammatical (try "led to the withdrawl from the NCAA of both Ateneo and San Beda";
    • "a stone throw away from"—no, it's "a stone's throw";
    • "in one occasion"—no, it's "on"

Now, if I can pick these out at random in a small section, it indicates that there's a high density of micro-problems in the prose throughout (although the top is pretty good now). I don't know how this could have been edited thoroughly by several people, as you say it has. Try another WPian; to be a FA, the prose must be "compelling, even brilliant". Tony 04:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Howard the Duck | talk, 09:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Howard the Duck and User:Rmcsamson did the copyedit and changed/removed the suspect words already. Circa 1900 03:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object All those logos need a Fair use rationale. Jkelly 04:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Re: Okay, I'm helping out here, but I see that this doesn't have a fair use rationale yet it is a part of a featured article. --Howard the Duck | talk, 09:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you give an example? Circa 1900 11:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Example:

== Fair use for [[ARTICLE NAME]] ==
This image, picture-fair-use.jpg, is being linked here; though the picture is subject to copyright I (~~~) feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
# it is a low resolution copy of an athletic team logo;
# it does not limit the copyright owner's rights to profit from merchandising;
# copies could not be used to make illegal merchandising;
# the image on the cover is significant because it is the recognised symbol of the sports team

Jkelly 17:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, done them already. Circa 1900 00:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reinforced object. I'm sorry to be like a dog at a bone, but WP's basic standards are at issue. When I see a sentence such as this in the lead, I really wonder whether any care at all has been taken in fixing up the prose:
"Some rivalries have lead to members withdrawing from the league as some games escalated into full-blown brawls. "
    • "Some" occurs twice in the same clause; remove the first instance, in any case, because it's redundant.
    • Lead is a metal.
    • "members withdrawing from the league" is ungrammatical and awkward; either an apostrophe is required, which is nowadays a rather old-fashioned construction ("members' withdrawing from the league"), or the phrase should be reworded simply as "the withdrawal of members from the league" (much better).
    • "as" is ambiguous (= while and because); use a comma after "league", then "because".
    • There's tension between "have led" and "escalated" (two types of past tense).

Then the next sentence:

"The NCAA took measures to prevent major brawls from happening again, including the admission of several new members into the league." It would be nice to remove "from happening again" as redundant. But more serious is the unexplained logic—why would the admission of new members prevent brawls?

These types of problem are scattered throughout the whole article. Now, if you think that it's good enough, WP is doomed to mediocrity.

If you wish, please ask and I'll specify a number of ways in which you can improve your writing skills, co-opt others to help in the editing, and employ techniques for improving the editing process.

You're asking for a promotion to "among the best that we offer". Not yet, I'm afraid. Tony 12:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Since Circa 1900 seems to be gone, and I want a Philippine article to be featured, I;d want to help him/her, so don't bite me.
I've copied the article into Word and saw several verbs in passive voice. Is that a problem? Also, I think I've resolved the problem in the lead. --Howard the Duck | talk, 02:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Active is often preferable to passive. Why is a whole table given over to comings and goings in the early years, including a column that shows the total number of schools at any one point (the significance of which is not mentioned in the text)? The introductory sentence is not good:

"Since then several schools came and left, as summarized by the table below:" Try: "During the NCAA's first 11 years, several schools entered and left, as set out in the table." (Or just list the entries and departures (+ year) in another sentence.

The sentence immediately after the table is, like much of the article, unclear and uninspiring: "In 1932, National University, which had withdrawn earlier, the University of the Philippines and the University of Santo Tomas established their own ”Big Three League.” The “Big Three” were still a part of the NCAA, but they conducted their own league, separate from the NCAA."

Tony 15:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, since the coordinator seems to have vanished, and there always a next time, It'll be better if we fail it. --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramones

This article is very well written, and the topic is very clear. The Ramones are a band whom many people know and quality of this article, i feel makes it worthy of being a featured article. The previous unsigned comment was left by GBVrallyCI at 01:11 UTC, 14 May, 2006

  • Object. Several issues need to be addressed before this can become an FA:
    • The lead section does not accurately summarize the topic, and could also be expanded.
    • The article lacks references, chart positions, sales figures, and any controversial statements need to be sourced.
    • Once references are added to the article, they need to be properly cited using inline references.
    • The article contains too many lists. Some should be converted to prose or removed entirely from the article.
    • The tone of the article is not consistent, and could be rewritten to be more encyclopedic in places.
    • The article is not very balanced, some of the history sections are much longer than others.
There's a lot of work to be done before this could become an FA, perhaps it should be referred to Peer review. RyanGerbil10 01:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering the subject is The Ramones, the article is a little short, since a lot is discography and graphs. MAybe expand a bit? --Osbus 15:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per RyanGerbil -- this has quite a long ways to go. Jkelly 19:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I don't feel it's well written, and quite obviously it cannot be promoted without references. --kingboyk 14:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been doing quite a lot of work on this article over the past couple months, and certainly look forward to helping it get Featured status. There are definitely problem sections--"Intra band tensions," too much listing of various band members at the beginning, maybe a little more bio material--that I'm ready to work on. Willerror 15:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Ryan. As a side question, should this article be at Ramones or at The Ramones? Staxringold 20:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Judging by the album covers, it should be "Ramones". --kingboyk 10:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
      • no its "The", the band's official name was "The Ramones" not "Ramones" --GBVrallyCI 17:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, let me be brutally frank: the article you nominated for FA status is named "Ramones" and you the nominator are now saying it's "The Ramones". Such basic issues as this should be resolved before an article is nominated for Featured Article status. I don't know if you're an admin or not, but if you aren't and you need it moved over a redirect (i.e. you're adamant it's "The") let me know on my talk page and I'll delete the redirect and move the page for you. --kingboyk 19:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • well after reading stuff over, you guys are right, its "Ramones." --GBVrallyCI 00:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoophilia

Interesting article. Well cited and referenced for a controversial topic and quite neutral. Good FAC candidate. --Mercenary2k 3:54AM May 7, 2006

  • Support. Nice and easy to read. I would add information on places where it is acceptable and the law doesn't condone it. I would also add more inline citations but in all it was interesting to read. Lincher 13:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Law is often very hard to track down, especially as many countries prosecute such things creatively. For example, I gather one place that didn't have a law against zoophilia, and where they couldn't prove cruelty, attempted to prosecute it under "sex with a minor" - medium breed dogs typically living to 9 - 14 years. (Presumably that would make horse stud breeders be 'encouraging delinquency in minors'?) Others define all such activity as "cruelty", "sodomy", "immoral conduct", or "against religious law" and prosecute it that way. So it's risky to say where it's legal. Its much safer just to list where it is illegal, because then we can definitively be sure we aren't misleading readers. FT2 (Talk) 17:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
If no reliable sources can be found, then wikipedia shouldn't make a statement either way. Wikipedia does not provide advice. Andjam 12:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Correct... which is why the article only states when it is clearly illegal, and does not offer a view on places where it isnt clear or may be legal or illegal. FT2 (Talk) 20:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Unsure. Problem is, an article on a subject like this inevitably has to be _above_ average, due to its nature. It's well cited and referenced, and stable, but even so is it really ready for something like FAC. (I'm one of the editors on it). FT2 (Talk) 17:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Zoosexuality" should not be used to describe an act. JayW 23:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
(a) The "FAC" is for zoophilia not zoosexuality, (b) zoosexuality isnt a word to describe an act anyhow, read the article, (c) This seems a complaint about something other than article quality, relevance to FAC? FT2 (Talk) 23:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
"Zoosexuality" is misleadingly used to describe human-animal sexual relations (i.e. an act) throughout this article. JayW 01:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
One would talk about a "homosexual act between two men" (googled), and UK as well as US legislation plus US Airforce law speak of a "homosexual act" in this manner. A "zoosexual act", performed by "zoosexuals" exploring their "zoosexuality" is correct usage of the term. Would you advise clarifying this in the article then? And, comments on the rest of the article? FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Object for the following reasons:

  1. Social community section seems to be largely original research - or at least written in a tone that suggests that it is, this section is also very long considering it is discussing a subculture which may or may not exist
    Clarification: what is not clear is whether it should be termed as a "community". That there is a subculture is confirmed. FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    It is still not clear to me why this needs to be elaborated on at length.--nixie 05:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    I think I anticipated this in my comment on #8 below. The whole of the community, and its subculture, and its main features and history, is basically this one section. Compare the dozens and hundreds of complete articles which together perform the analogous description for homosexuality/LGBT. For this reason, the comparative for length of this section is the total of a large part of the content of:
    FT2 (Talk) 07:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. "Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexuality" needs to be summarised, lists of quotes are not a replacement for good prose, same goes for "Religious perspectives", "Other popular references",
    Editors have discussed prosing "arguments" - sensible idea. Not sure how you mean about religious section, thats mostly prose already. Have you got a better example article to point us to? FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. What are the items listed in "Books, articles and documentaries", are they references for the article or something else, this needs to be made clear
    Title change "Books, articles, and documentaries about zoophilia" any better? FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Leagal status only covers selected countries from the first world, what about elsewhere? This section would be a good one to split off into another article, leaving a summary in this article.
    Split-off has been discussed, sensible idea. Research not yet undertaken by anyone. FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Quotes should not be in italics, see the MoS
  6. The "Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia" section is empty - comprehensiveness problem, shouldn't myth and fantasy follow from here?
    Empty section except for "main article" link. Isnt that the norm in other pages (eg WP:ABOUT#How_Wikipedia_differs_from_a_paper_encyclopedia) too? FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    No, see Wikipedia:Summary style--nixie 05:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, I've been trying to research content, I'm not to familiar with Wikipedia style guides except by example on other pages I've seen. Much appreciated, I'll read it and try to incorporate it in other articles I work on too. FT2 (Talk) 08:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Although some refs are use cite.php there is an assortment of html links in text that I assume are references, that should be converted so one system is used throughout the article.
  8. The ordering of the sections seems slightly odd - you might want to try and make the flow between sections more logical.
    Part of the problem is an unusal conflict in the article. Because it is socially deemed negative, fully reporting whats important gets strongly seen as "promotion" by some readers, and splitting to multiple articles is seen as promotion (eg "you're making a minor sick perversion bigger than it should be") too. We've had that one on the talk page already recently (see talk page). So we're trying to keep most of it in one article and balance it fairly for readers too. So the flow has suffered somewhat as a result. A good idea to review it though -- will probably benefit the article. FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
--nixie 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
As said above, I too am "unsure". Some good suggestions here that'll help. Some I think I can answer so answers added where available. FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • The Legal status and Religious perspectives lists should be split off.
    • Consider putting a paragraph or two summary under all empty section headings, such as "Zoophiles".
    • I see at least two external links that are not formatted consistently with the footnotes
    • Not enough citations. None under "Zoophiles and other groups" for example.
    • The list of Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexuality should be turned into prose
  • Tuf-Kat 02:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
nixie suggested several of the same points too. But one you mention catches my eye. We've tried to avoid adding articles. You reckon we should be splitting off more? "Zoophilia and religion" for example? Should we be doing that more? FT2 (Talk) 08:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, my primary concern is that the religious section in this article is both a list and uncited (both major problems). I think fixing it will necessitate a subarticle. Tuf-Kat 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose because featured articles act as ads, and the sexual exploitation of animals shouldn't be promoted. -Barry- 18:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This objection is inactionable. Raul654 17:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Relevant on opinion websites and blogs. Not here. Wikipedia article handling isn't about personal opinions. if we can take a controversial subject and editors collaboratively can still make a balanced article of it, so much the better "advert". On this basis we wouldn't consider putting articles such as abortion, communism, Al_Qaeda, pornography, intelligent design, on featured articles either, since these are all highly objectionable as subjects to a large number of individuals who would not want them "advertized". Wikipedia is showcased by its full range, and debate on this page is about whether they meet Wikipedia criteria or not. FT2 (Talk) 00:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written, impressively well-referenced. A fine example for sexuality-related articles (which are often poorly written and unreferenced). And it's even illustrated! Exploding Boy 05:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose lack of inline citations is a definite problem. I'm also worried that the article is not encyclopedic in tone - for example lists are used. A good job has been done considering the topic matter, but FAs should be based on article quality, not effort involved. Andjam 12:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fair. can you point me to a style guide which discusses when lists should and shouldn't be used, and what to use in their place, or examples? I would have thought some places, lists would be the logical way to document something. be useful to learn. Thanks FT2 (Talk) 20:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The presence of lists should not be an immediate disqualification. Sometimes lists are the best way to present information. As long as the bulk of the article is not in list form, there should be no objection. Exploding Boy 02:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A list is a degenerate form of prose for people who are incapable of forming sentences and coherently stringing them together. A number of sections in this article are lists which should not be, including the sections on "legal status", "Sciences studying zoophilia", "Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexual relations", "Psychological and research perspectives", and "Other popular references". Furthermore, it has a trivia section (!), which is *very* poor form and should be terminated post-haste. Raul654 02:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well meeyow. Exploding Boy 03:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking at those, Raul, and it seems to me a list is by far the clearest way to present at least some of these. Others could probably be put into prose paragraphs. But prosing for prosing's sake is not in any obvious way, in and of itself, an improvement and to some of these it seems simply, would add text and remove ease of reading, without any commensurate gain. Also it seems some of them the material more naturally falls into list form. For example, what exactly is the gain in taking the legal status by country and allocating a paragraph to each rather than a bullet in a list? Would it change the clarity of communication at all? And the "sciences studying" section, which lists some 4 sciences and their interest, and then discusses other areas, what exactly would be gained in clarity terms in another format? Last, can you explain what is the "poor taste" with a trivia section? It seems to me that's not an unreasonable title or section for a subject. How exactly is that "poor form"? As you see, I am somewhat unsure what exactly is "degenerate" in this. Similar to tables, sometimes prose paragraphs are not the best form for some forms of information. I am unaware that the editors on this article are "incapable of forming sentences and stringing them together" either. Can you point me to the page of the style guide where I can read more on where lists are, and are not, best used? Thanks. FT2 (Talk) 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't take my lists are comment personally - it wasn't directed at the authors of this article in particular. I was simply attempting to explain why lists are so very bad. Long story short - lists are sloppy presentation in that they do not allow for a proper sequential line of thought, or allow items of that list to be given a proper relationship to one-another. (Which is what I meant by degenerate: "Having fallen to an inferior or undesirable state").
As far as the trivia section - trivia sections are evil because they are a common violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If some factoid is so important (non-trivial) as to merit a mention, say it in the article. If it's so minor that the only place it deserves to me mentioned is a trivia section, it's probably not important enough to merit a mention. Raul654 05:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I disagree. The presence of a list should not, in and of itself, be grounds to reject a FA candidate. Sometimes lists are the best way to present information. Exploding Boy 17:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You are right that occassionaly a list is not the best way of conveying information. However, in this case, it's not the presence of *a* list - it's the presence of a dozen or more of them Raul654 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made a number of fixes to this article and I think it is looking good now. I have unresolved three issues with this article though:

  • Historical and cultural perspectives section: This is an empty section pointing to the article on Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia. It should have at least a couple of sentencing summarizing that article
  • Other popular references section - this section (entirely an evil list) is redundant with the "Media discussion" section and should be merged into it (in prose form)
  • "Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexual relations" section should be converted into prose

Beyond that, I think think it's a pretty good article. Raul654 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment As well as being worried about lists, I'd like to reiterate that I'm worried about the lack of inline citations - for example, I'm curious about the claim that bestiality is not explicitly outlawed in the Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay. Andjam 00:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The legal section's now been split out and summarized, and there's now a footnote and cite someone kindly added on this. See Zoosexuality and the law. FT2 (Talk) 11:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose There isn't enough inline citations. In addition, the article is much too long and could be confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.243.98 (talk • contribs)
  • Support - Interesting Read, well referenced. Jordy 21:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I resent the zoophilia (or rather zoosexuality) category for being a subcategory category:Sexual orientation and identity, seems unfounded/inappropriate. GilliamJF 07:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Note for other readers - You raised this on Category_talk:Zoosexuality (March 2006), and it was discussed there. WP:FAC isn't a place to bring personal opinions or conspiracy theories really. The purpose of this page is to discuss quality for FAC. Your comment was that it had been put there by "some American members of the far-right us[ing] the topic of zoophilia in their uphill battle to justify limiting the rights of same-sex couples to marry", and was therefore "a maneuver to justify LGBT rights opposition." Information was given to confirm this wasn't the case. FT2 (Talk) 10:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Surprise! 84.171.91.118 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Article will be edited to address above suggestions. MArked as FAC-failed by Bunchofgrapes May 21 2006 for the time being. FT2 (Talk) 10:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birmingham

This article seems well-written and is a good article so far! --Sunfazer | Talk 13:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - several sections lack any inline citations at all. —Whouk (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object -- lots of issues including unbalanced sections, unnecessary information (article should be a summary and detail moved to daughter articles), geography is sparse, demographics missing etc. The number of sections can be trimmed by merging with other sections and summarising. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
    • More WP:FOOTNOTEs would definitely be helpful. They should be cited in accordance with WP:CITE (see also WP:CITE/ES, {{Cite web}})
    • Please alphabetize the interwiki links (minor issue)
    • The population statistics in the WP:LEAD belong in a Demographics section.
    • Several sections are too short, like Famous residents and Literature. I suggest either merging or expanding them.
    • It is a bit too list-weighty; for example Places of interest and Twinning should be prosified.
    • Image:BlackSabbath.jpg needs a fair use rationale (see WP:FUC). I would suggest replacing it, as replacements should be able to be found.
    • Image:Birm 1977 arms.png will also need a fair use rationale
    • Change The main article is at History of Birmingham; the following is a summary. to {{mainarticle|Birmingham}}
    • Generally, years without full dates aren't linked - see WP:MOSDATE

Thanks, AndyZ t 15:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object This article needs more references, everything covered in the lead needs to be covered in the main article, and lists in sections like "Nearby places" and "Places of interest" need prettier formatting. Staxringold 19:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European Union

This article is very well written. Old division (2004): [4]. To shape up. LUCPOL 11:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree. Lucpol 11:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. It's less than a month since it was removed as a featured article (see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/European Union). I don't see any improvements on the objections since then. --Maitch 12:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is the change since it was de-featured. I suggest also that more references and WP:FOOTNOTEs are added and that the ToC is shortened a bit. AndyZ t 15:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. There are several reasons this article is not ready to be featured:
    • The article does not have enough references.
    • Many sections lack footnotes.
    • There are too many lists which need to be converted back into prose.
    • Many of the diagrams included in the article are confusing and overly complicated.
It's simply too little too soon be be re-featured. RyanGerbil10 18:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—I don't care about the "too soon", but I do care about the "too little". Why hasn't the article been thoroughly scrutinised by fresh eyes? It's full of redundancies and inconsistencies. New Caledonia is still not listed as part of France. Here are some examples:
"The Schengen Agreement abolished passport control, and customs checks were also abolished at many of the EU's internal borders, creating a single space of mobility for EU citizens to live, travel, work and invest"—The wording still suggests that passport controls have been abolished between all EU member states. Which states were signatories to the Schengen Agreeement, in any case? (Worth specifying.)
"and has plans to accept"—quizz question: which word is redundant?
"Greece, Portugal and Spain were all dictatorships"—same question.
"In more recent times"—same question.
"outside of"—same question.
Sometimes EU is spelt out, sometimes not; sometimes numbers ≥ 10 are spelt out, sometimes not.
"represent the world's largest economy by GDP, larger than the USA, the People's Republic of China, and Japan"—why bother specifying the other economies after the first statment?

The striped map of the original member states is lewd, to put it mildly. The alignment of countries on the x axis of the graphs is sometimes askew. Why is the GDP per capita (PPP) $28K in the table and $23K in the graph to the right? Tony 10:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose There are two extrnal links sections, one of which does't make any sense. Also, I'm sure that there are more EU subarticles which are nnot linked to by this one. In a genral article like this one, there needs to be a lot of links. Tobyk777 03:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pikachu

It meets my FA standards. Raichu 00:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • "Pikachu is most famous for being the "face" of the Pokémon franchise, perhaps being the most widely recognised around the world. " - perhaps others can comment on this as well, but this may need to be backed up somehow, but I'm not sure. Also, the article has a stub tag on it.... Just another star in the night T | @ | C 00:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - According to the tag at the bottom, the article is still a stub. Uberlemur 01:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Stub, "A stub is an article that is too short, but not so short as to be useless. In general, it must be long enough to at least define the article's title, which generally means 3 to 10 short sentences." I am removing the stub. Alvin6226 01:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The stub marking seems to have been far out of date. This certainly is not a stub. —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 15 May 2006 @ 01:35 UTC
  • Object. The article is close to FA standards, but has a few minor issues. The article does not have enough footnoting, and could use with a few more references. Also, the prose is lacking in a few respects, its needs to have its grammar and spelling checked and corrected. Overall, an extremely good Pokémon article, but not quite yet of featured quality. RyanGerbil10 04:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The cultural impact, the most important area of Pikachu to a non-fan is in stub form. This article is not finished being tidied, and the relevant project is against this move. Celestianpower has already noted his wish to nominate himself, when he feels ready. Not that I'm saying this isn't allowed, just that we're not officially putting it up. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 06:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - referencing issue, cultural impact very thin. Various other stylistic issues. Will be an FA someday, but not today. --Celestianpower háblame 09:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: - WP:LEAD is pretty poor - lots of Weasel words (eg "probably, the most popular") a fair dose of repeating itself, some needless references to the editor's other favourite Nintendo games. -- Alfakim --  talk  22:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Wow, lotta problems here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The cultural impact section is still a bulleted list.
    • The biology section is written from an in-universe perspective (my fault; I mostly wrote it myself a long time ago).
    • The "in the anime" section is headed up with a decorative image (can we replace it with a screenshot of Pikachu and Ash?)
    • Game names aren't always in italics.
    • This is far from brilliant prose; particularly in the anime section, paragraphs often start off talking about one thing and end talking about another.
  • Object I was happy with Bulbasaur by the end, and Torchic was ok, but this just isn't FA quality. Staxringold 19:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak object. There could be better linking- like in Biology, various electrical concepts aren't linked like they could be. Some of the wordings bother me: "Pikachu is the only Pokémon in Ash's huge party that has been with him in every series, although a Phanpy he rose from an egg joined him after he travelled around Hoenn." Or: "Many of the Pokémon animated shorts with all-Pokémon dialogue have featured Pikachu as the main character, often as the main voice of reason. " Also, some concepts are casually thrown in without explanation or linking (like a "Phanpy"). In general, the order of the sections feel haphazard and mixed together. (Why is anime Pikachu's diet in that section? Why does a description of in-game pikachus separate the anime and manga sections? etc.) --maru (talk) contribs 06:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreal Tournament 2004

I am an avid player of this game (though I suck at it lol) and I feel that the article is now very well written after what I have done to expand it. It is quite a popular and well-made PC game and it would definitely benefit its community to make featured status. --NicAgent 23:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. FAs should not have stub sections and there is no reference section. I suggest moving to peer review first. Pepsidrinka 23:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. This article has a lot of issues which need to be addressed before it can become an FA:
    • The article doesn't have any references, nor is anything cited in-line in the article.
    • The article contain too many lists. Over half of the article is lists. Most, if not all, of these lists should be converted into prose if possible.
    • The tone of the article is not encyclopedic in many places, and in some places could even be considered POV.
    • The quality of the prose is not "Wikipedia's best," there are errors in punctuation and spelling in the article. It needs a complete copyedit first.
    • Not all of the images used in the article have appropriate copyright status.
I agree with Pepsidrinka, this should be referred to Peer review first. RyanGerbil10 23:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object No refs, inline or otherwise. Huge lists of bulletpoints that are anything but prose. Even a quotation right in the lead that is not cited by anything. This article needs heavy, heavy work. Staxringold 19:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Alligator

  • This an extremely well written article containing a high level of scientific and factual accuracy.
  • It covers an interesting topic, which is particularly relevant in these troubled times
  • It contains several outstanding images Ben Payton
  • Object. No references. --Maitch 19:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - no references, inline citations (WP:FOOTNOTEs), short sections (Anatomy can be expanded), years without full dates should not be linked per WP:MOSDATE; suggest peer review. AndyZ t 22:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. You expose yourself by writing "extremely" in the nomination text. It's not badly written, but needs a little cleaning up:
    • Why the "However" and the "In addition" in the lead? Just remove them.
    • Weed out the redundant "alsos".
    • Delink the year-links, as per WP policy.
    • A few one-sentence paragraphs could easily be merged with their larger neighbours.
    • "Although the American alligator is secure, some related animals — such as several species of crocodiles and caimans — are still in trouble." "secure" needs a qualifier, and "endangered" is the usual term for "in trouble", isn't it?
    • "alligators face ambient temperature patterns unlike elsewhere in their range." Bad clause.
    • Provide metric equivalents for the 95% of the human race that doesn't use US measures.
    • One subsection hangs without a final stop.

It needs a 40-minute run-through by a copy-editor—preferably someone who's distant from the text. Don't fix just the points I've raised. Tony 02:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object a worthwhile subject, but it needs to use summary style and a read through of the manual of style would be beneficial to the major editors. There are no in text references, and I see that the article has not been to peer review, which is IMO an important first step.--MONGO 03:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - As above, especially with regards to referencing. Additionally, sections of it are written as a "How to" guide, which wikipedia is not... in this case, "How not to get eaten", which as valuble as such advice can be, should not be written in this fashion. Rewrite it academically, not with a mind towards instructing a reader on what to do, but rather on informing a reader of what facts are. We wouldn't want to get in trouble because someone followed all the advice we wrote here and yet got eaten by an alligator anyway, would we? Fieari 05:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idaho

It fulfills all information needed about Idaho's history, geography, politcs, e.t.c.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.243.98 (talk • contribs)

  • Remove nomination or move to Peer Review honestly doesn't have a WP:SNOWBALL chance. Joelito (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)\
  • Object as per Joelr. Where's the lead? Far too listy. Insufficient history. Stubby paragraphs and sections. Copy-edit required. Tony 01:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Joelito. Staxringold 19:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, per Joelito, also no refs. Rlevse 10:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Erie

An incredible article: lots of info. I cant believe it wasnt nominated before!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.243.98 (talk • contribs)

  • Needs some work. Definently a good article but doesn't seem to meet the current critera for a featured article.
    • Intro needs work, doesn't summarize the article well enough, see WP:LEAD.
    • The history section is woefully short, and doesn't cover anything before 1969! It does link to some related articles though. So I guess that's something.
    • Ecology section looks nice but contains some uncited claims bordering on weasel words, describing opinions of people and controversies. A citation or two for these would really help.
    • Geology section needs some actual prose. Surely there must be some geological information on the lake - perhaps its formation, age, etc. - that would be good here. --W.marsh 20:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Peer review I recommend this article be move to peer review since it fails most of the criteria for FA (WP:SNOW). Joelito (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree with Joelito that this should spend some time in peer review before being seriously considered. I suspect this article could rapidly be brought up to FA status with a little work. --NormanEinstein 20:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object One inline citation does not an article make. Needs more references which are cited inline and the lists of info at the end could use better formatting. Staxringold 19:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dog

Dogs clearly have an important role in society, and the article is pretty good as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.243.98 (talk • contribs)

  • Object - Unfortunately, standards are a little higher than "pretty good" when it comes to featured articles, and subject matter isn't considered at all. There are a number of stubby sections that I'd like to see expanded... bascially, if a section (or subsection) consists of only one paragraph, or worse, one sentence, you should consider either expanding it (preferred) or absorbing it into another section, making sure to use complete paragraphs and propper organization of information. "Intellegence", for instance needs to be a more thorough summary of the dog intelligence article, even though it links there. The "Physical Characteristics" section is a pretty good summary, but might use too many images— on my resolution (admittably high and widescreened) the images actually expand past the article text a bit too much, creating unnessesary and unsightly whitespace. On the other hand, the "Scenting" subsection could probably use a bit more expansion, esspecially since scent is one of the main traits of dogs. Multiple paragraphs would make reading easier, instead of jamming everything in one "run-on" paragraph covering multiple topics. I'm also concerned about some casual tones of voice, and the focus on certain trivial facts in prominant locations. Under diet, advice to pet owners is given, which wikipedia is not about. Present it academically, not as a "How To" book. Significant reorganization of information should be considered. Fieari 20:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: The language is no where near "brilliant", in fact clearly below par. Sentences like "For dogs that do not have traditional jobs" rule out this as a FA. Similarly problematic are "full fledged family members" or "In other cultures, some dogs are used as food" (all this only from the lead)--ppm 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per both above. While it is decently referenced (though more of those references being more inline would be nice), the article needs some pretty heavy clean-up work and expansion in places. Staxringold 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberman

Very well-written with a lot of detail. Includes suffieient, relevant photos and would make a good featured article. Davidpk212 07:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Needs inline citations, and a thorough copyedit. Finding more references wouldn't hurt either.--RobthTalk 13:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - " The Cybermen are due to reappear in the 2006 series in a two-part story, Rise of the Cybermen and The Age of Steel" in the opening paragraph needs to be altered as 'Rise of the Cybermen' is airing tonight, so it would be inaccurate to speak of it in the future. The Cybermen are also due to appear in the final two-parter of said series. Plus is also likely that various parts of the main article will be changed or added within the next week or so as the newest Cyberman story unfolds. Shrinkness 14:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - insufficient inline citations, even for an article which references a lot of broadcast material in the text; lack of fair use justifications for images (and I have my doubts that so many screengrabs would necessarily be OK); and, per Shrinkness, the article will not, by definition, be stable until after the current series of Doctor Who has finished broadcasting. —Whouk (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, article makes use of ten copyrighted images, far more than "a limited number" necessary for "identification" of the character. Also, several photos are inappropriately labeled {{promotional}} or {{promophoto}}. Angr (t • c) 23:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, an excess of non-free illustrations and zero free illustrations. This is not the best we, as a free content encyclopedia, can do. --Gmaxwell 19:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Angr and Gmaxwell, with note that any unfree images need Fair use rationales. Jkelly 19:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World War II

former nom

Re-wrote a lot of this article. Expanded some sections, shrunk some sections. Added sub-headers, added more pictures, removed redundant pictures, etc. Spend a lot of time improving this article. I think this article is a FA. Mercenary2k

  • Object. The Table of Contents is terrifying. The article is subheaded nearly to death, and a huge number of sections are far too short. RyanGerbil10 20:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The subheadings were removed, making the TOC now about the same length as the TOC to the WWI article. Do you withdraw your objection now that its been changed? Drogo Underburrow 14:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
<sigh> Sometimes FAC is difficult. However, this article can't pass until there are no one or two sentence paragraphs. Anywhere. If there are only one or two sentences that can be said about something, it should be merged into another section. In my opinion, this isn't written in summary style at all. RyanGerbil10 16:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
We are working on eliminating all one and two sentence paragraphs. How is the TOC now? Drogo Underburrow 01:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is getting much better. I am moving much closer to supporting the article, I have struck the "strong" from my objection. RyanGerbil10 23:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object100% Support Agree with the table of content. All images on the same side. Lincher 20:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I object to these objections. The TOC is hideable and its the content that counts! Having all images on the same side actually helps - try making a similar page that works well at all screen resolutions without resorting to a similar tactic and you'll see what I mean. Pcb21 Pete 21:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The TOC is a representation of article structure. If the TOC is bad, the article structure is bad. / Peter Isotalo 08:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Getting better, I like the TOC now, as per the sections The Battle of The Atlantic, Eastern Europe, Lend-Lease, The Middle East, Western and Central Europe, Dieppe Raid and Europe in ruins, they are too small to get the info wanted when you read the article. Maybe pooling them with other sub-sections that are similar or adding text so that they get longer. If this is changed, I will give my support. Lincher 18:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC
          • The article is 80k right now, so we shouldn't make it longer.. The purpose of those little sections like the one on Dieppe is to put mention of them into the chronology, a brief summary in one or two sentences, and a link to the main article. So, somebody wanting to learn about Dieppe, but not very sophisticated at searching, goes to the WWII article, finds the Dieppe section, then takes the link to the main article. The format of the article is a chronology, not a history. If you want history, then we have to eliminate mention of Dieppe entirely, there's no room for such small raids, as one editor pointed out, objecting to its inclusion even in the chronology. So, would that satisfy you, if we eliminate the small stuff? Or do you want us to dump the chronology format entirely and write a micro history of WWII? Drogo Underburrow 18:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I give my vote to this new reworked article, it looks much nicer like this, you see what you are interested in faster and it is easier to read. Sorry for all the hassle but it was worth the work since it looks far better to me. Lincher 13:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The TOC is quite intimidating (although that in itself should not be enough to oppose), but the real issue for me is references. Yes, I know the subarticles are better referenced, but, considering it is WWII, probably the most written-about subject in all of history. As such, having a dozen or so references to me is not enough. Also, there is some poor prose, eg in the "East Asia and the Pacific" section. This could, and should, be an FA, if for no other reason than to show off how well we can do really important subjects, but it is not there yet. Batmanand | Talk 21:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Object to the objection. The top 8 or so references are a good choice for a general overview in my view (and run to many thousands of pages so we're hardly short). As you yourself say, the specific references are better in subarticles. Pcb21 Pete 21:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Then can I suggest a bibliography subarticle, such as Bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide, as a place to put a list of all of them? This is such an important topic, that must conform to almost impossibly high standards to NPOV and verifiability, that this (somewhat drastic!) measure is IMO necessary. Batmanand | Talk
I don't like that idea so much (the Rwanda article set was copied from the French Wikipedia and never fully sorted out). If I am reading about a particular aspect of the War and want some references, I don't want to have to go off to another article and then see the references are mixed with a whole load of irrelevant ones about other aspects. Actually verfiabilitity is trivial in this topic - it is such an overview that nothing detailed is being said. If you think there are NPOV or verfiability problems in this article then you should be specific about them. Pcb21 Pete 07:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Batmanand's obejction doesn't seem actionable to me. Just making a blanket request for more references is not reasonable. Just like with any objections it needs to be at least somewhat specified. 10+ sources is a lot for any topic, and this is supposed to be a summary. The amount of sources needs to be kept to a reasonable minimum or there's a very real risk of it expanding to astronomic proportions.
Peter Isotalo 08:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
First, my "not brilliant prose" criticism is certianly actionable. My concern with the references is two-fold. First is that I think they should all be in one place, as with the Rwandan example. If you do not want to do that then that is more a personal bias than anything else I suppose. But if you do not want to, then the references in the sub-articles need more work. I randomly clicked on a few of them, and Operation Typhoon has no references, Second Sino-Japanese War has one, Battle of Kiev (1943) has none (and is tagged for cleanup), and Operation Frühlingserwachen has none. I clicked on 6 articles in total, and 4 were poorly referenced, if at all. Batmanand | Talk 10:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
An FAC is about the article that is nominated, not its sub-articles. But the issue seems more or less moot since the basic problems of section hierarchy, quality of prose and such needs to be addressed before any serious attempts at proper referencing are made.
Peter Isotalo 20:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The article has been subdivided too much, to the point that many sections are only 1 or 2 sentences long. It's not necessary to split every possible subdivision into its own subsection (or sub-subsection, or sub-sub-subsection). - The Catfish 23:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Article structure is too complicated, the prose is fractionalized and very bad in some places (Sentences that begin with "On...", anyone?) and the article is as huge and unwieldy as ever. We have so much information and so many articles on WW II, that it's hardly constructive to keep the main article at anything over 40-50 kB. Please remember to apply the concept of summary style when writing. Try to trust the sub-articles a bit more. / Peter Isotalo 08:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • 'Nother thing. There's just too many pictures. Even if more than half are removed, they're still highly representative for most theatres and aspects of the war. And, as pointed out, the actual picture layout is very unimaginative. / Peter Isotalo 20:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • comment What about the debate about when the war started...such as with the Japanese invasion of China, etc?...Also, I liked the prior format of the article better. Rlevse 11:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Intro is too many grafs; you could probably start to answer many of the objections here by consolidating a lot of the paragraphs. It would at least tame that monster TOC. I know it's not fatal to the nomination but I don't think a Wikipedia article should ever have a TOC so long it is the only thing onscreen for any portion of a downward scroll. Daniel Case 16:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hate to say it but I don't know if this article will ever pass here. I have watched it and I'd suggest that there is a low-level, but still consistent and noticable instability that the page cannot shake. Most obviously, the intro changes regularly. With recent additions, it's still not accurate. "A primary part of the war began between Germany and the Allies. Germany was later joined by Italy, Japan, and others, jointly known as the Axis." Japan did not "join" Germany later. Japan was at war in China from 1937. This is just the sort of micro-debate that has (in my watching) always plagued this page. And the TOC? My God. I actually cited this page a while ago on talk for having a good but not overwhelming TOC. Now it's just "browse past this monster." Something radical would have to happen here (gutting a majority and agreeing on true summary style) before this could pass IMH(and sorry)O. Marskell 22:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. On the one hand, I feel that an article like this absolutely must reach FA status. On the other hand, the standard that an article like this must reach is very very high and it's not there yet. The main obstacles are the ToC, lead and terminal shortage of sources, as described above. Also the article makes some strange structural choices, e.g. outlining Japanese reasons for war before German ones. Perhaps the adherance to chronological order is a little too rigorous. The writing is generally good, although choppy due to the aforementioned over-sectioning problems. Loads of images, which is good, although I've not checked the copyright status of things like maps. Overall, the content (writing and pictures) is good, but its the peripheral stuff (sources, structure) that lets this down. Nevertheless Mercenary2k should be congratulated for his work so far on what is undoubtedly a tough article to write. Soo 23:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object huge TOC, many short paragraphs, too many headers, and seeming lack of references. For an article like this with summaries, you could forego some of the inlines and just use a bunch of general references as well for backup. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 01:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Ok Guys, I read your criticism of this article. I changed many of the sub-headers into Bold. It still looks the same but now, the size of the TOC has been dramatically reduced. Does this satisfy you guys??? Mercenary2k 7:00am, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You've still got that choppy prose thing going on. Too many one paragraph sections. What's the use of all the headers? It would be better to work them into the opening sentence of the paragraph. Also you still haven't fixed the lead or the shortage of references. Soo 12:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
What you are asking for is a complete change of format, getting rid of the chronology, and introducing a narrative of the entire war. No doubt you want the narrative to be short, too, certainly no more than the 45k or so taken up by the chronology section right now. That is a tough demand. For one thing, the format right now makes it easy to add material. POV disputes are kept to a minimum, as the format calls for brief factual summaries of events, and a link to the main article. Analysis is kept out, to the main pages, where specialists can argue to their heart's content. A narrative format would make it hard to add new material, but people would do it anyway, sticking in prose that doesn't fit. It would breed endless POV disputes, since in order to keep things short and fit the entire war in a narrative, material has to be synthesized. Then arguments will rage as its very, very hard to synthesize material without getting POV. Attempts to be NPOV, by including competing interpretations, will then balloon the article and make it totally impossible. Drogo Underburrow 13:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you've convinced me. My other criticisms stand. Soo 20:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The criticism on this page is going to do the article more harm than good, as editors try to adjust the article. A good example: material is added on Operation Mars; but no doubt sensative to the charge that the article has too many small sections, the material is put into a paragraph that deals with Stalingrad. Now, a person is likely to miss the Operation Mars material as a result; Operation Mars was not part of the Stalingrad campaign, it was on another section of the Eastern front. Logically, it should be given a short section of its own, just a sentence or two and a link to the main article. The "monster" TOC made it easy to find things in the article. Now, editors are going to cut it down simply so it won't be as big, making material hard to find. The article used to have a logical design: short sections linked to articles on other Wiki pages. It was a chronology styled format. The article during the prior review in January was much the same; it got about 50/50 support. What has changed? Editors filled in glaring holes in coverage. For example, in January, when half the editors were ready to ok it for featured status, the article didn't say one word about the Western front after the Battle of the Bulge; nothing at all about the actual defeat of Germany in the West; yet the same period on the Eastern Front was covered in depth. Other areas were similarly completely missing, huge, huge sections of the war, for example in the Pacific were completely absent. - Drogo Underburrow 12:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, on behalf of all the critics, that we have sounded a little harsh. FAC can be a temper-fraying, overly critical process, but the aim is always to make the article better. FA status is hard to attain - and for a good reason. These are the articles that will be on the Main Page; that are held up as models for others to follow; that people brag about on their user pages. As such, they need to be the best. Sorry if we have made the task sound impossible, but it is only because we have the integrity of FAs at heart. Batmanand | Talk 14:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


Comment Drogo Underburrow has made some very valid points. If we turn this article from a chronological based article to one where we summarize it, its gonna get entangled in massive POV problems. It will never reach FAC status because the War is interpretted in different ways. Canadian editors would want to include Dieppe, yet Russians would want Operation Mars and other major battles on the Eastern front, Americans could include Battle of Huntgen forest, etc, etc... And if everything gets included and everything is covered in depth. This article could become a book. Doing this article chronologically is the best way. Everything that is important gets covered, nothing gets missed. Any missing information can be easily added. I went through this article, there are some grammer, sentence structure problems which need to be fixed. Other than that, I dont see anything wrong with this article. I think the amount of negative reaction to this article is shocking to me, as I and Drogo have spend a great deal of time improving this article. Mercenary2k 12:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Becoming an FA is tough and there should be no apologies for that. The article is good but it's not there yet. Don't take it personally. Soo 20:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Support --Xtreambar 04:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Support --this is the best it's been. Kudos to the author for hanging in there. Rlevse 10:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok Guys. Here we go Again. Major work done on this article. Massive improvements everywhere. Every major event of the War covered in chronological order. So I don't see any bias problems. This article is a FAC, just need your approval.--Mercenary2k May 13, 2006 2:24 AM

  • Strong support. A fascinating article on an event that need to be remembered. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object; absolutely no attempt has been made to address (or even respond to) the points raised during the peer review. Briefly:
  • Masses of extremely short and choppy pseudo-sections (most are only one paragraph; some are only one sentence) don't really qualify as brilliant prose.
  • Insufficient use of inline citation; most of the article can't easily be traced back to any particular source, including piles of potentially questionable statements and statistics.
These are the same issues that came up during the previous FAC, incidentally; I don't think simply ignoring them will somehow cause the article to magically be promoted. Kirill Lokshin 21:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
What you are objecting to is not bad writing, but writing that is in a chronology format. Passages are short and choppy because that is how timelines are. Is it a requirement for FA status that articles not include lengthy timelines? Apparently in your eyes this is a rule. Drogo Underburrow 19:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The requirements for a featured article are quite clear: the prose must be "compelling, even brilliant". Choppy writing—no matter how seemingly appropriate for creating a timeline—cannot, by definition, satisfy this. (This is, incidentally, why actual timelines are properly the province of the featured list.) Kirill Lokshin 01:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Kirill Lokshin - 71.115.57.95 21:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object. 10 references in a 91 kb article are not enough and I do believe that it should be possible to find sources on WW2. --Maitch 22:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - this is one of those articles which really should be featured, given the ridiculous amount that's been written about it, but this just isn't up to snuff. Also, the lead contains a sentence fragment. Find more sources, and deal with the suggestions from the peer review/last FAC. The Disco King 23:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. There are numerous issues with this article which need to be corrected:
    • The number of short paragraphs in this article is unacceptable. Many are one sentence long, and each section seemingly contains at least one of them.
    • There are no inline citations used in this article, which is an FA requirement.
    • Ten references for an article of this size an scope is not adequate, surely there is more material to be found concerning the topic.
    • I'm not an expert on copyright, but many images seem to have questionable or objectionable copyright or fair use rationale.
More work still needs to be done. RyanGerbil10 23:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Kirill Lokshin - TomStar81 00:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Kirill Lokshin. - Mailer Diablo 08:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. References need fixing. "ref_war" 2 to 4 and 6 to 7 don't appear to be linked to anything in the article. Chances are the points they referenced have been moved into one of the subarticles, but at the moment, the article uses 4 refs, not 10. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Does not correctly follow Wikipedia:Summary Style: The ==Chronology== section should be spun off into its own article at Chronology of World War II and a good-sized summary left in its place. Makes no sense to have anything but inline links and mentions of individual battles and operations from the main WWII article. In other words, this article abuses use of 'Main article' links ; just link inline unless the 'Main article' is a real daughter of this article instead of an article in its own right. For example, an article on an individual battle would not be a daughter article of WWII (and thus not merit a main article link) while the Aftermath of World War II would. Trying to summarize so many stand-alone articles and put it into this one article has resulted in way too many very short sections and disjointed paragraphs. A much more high-level treatment is needed ; detail can be in daughter articles. Also needs a great many more inline cites. Granted, this topic necessarily will be one of the largest we have and thus need to go above the regular max size of 50KB of prose, but I think we can do a much better job of summarizing this topic so it is at a much more comfortable reading length. --mav 14:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with this. The Chronology of World War II should be in prose and not just a collection of headlines like in the Timeline of World War II. --Maitch 16:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Those two links go to the same article. Drogo Underburrow 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I know. I'm saying that if an article gets made for Chronology of World War II it should be different from the style of Timeline of World War II, which means it should be written in prose instead of headlines.--Maitch 23:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Sections aren't prosified enough, doesn't flow enough. Lincher 17:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Maybe breaking the WWII article in sub-articles where World War II would have big lines of what happened and World War II (1939), World War II (1940) ... would be where it goes in deep details in order to have longer sub-sections and not having a big WWII article. Lincher 17:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. As per nomHezzy 18:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - The objections that the article is chronology based, or that the writing is choppy (of course it is, it is a chronology) are objections of taste, and have nothing to do with whether the article is of featured quality or not. It seems as if editors are judging not on the quality of the article, but whether the article matches a format they like. Drogo Underburrow 18:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Object First as per syle/quality objections above. Second, parts of the article are extraordinary US-centric. The introduction has been recently changed to allude to a fringe theory. My attempt to work on this issue met with uncomfortably strong opposition. Myciconia 04:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: for something as important and documented and written about as World War 2, this article is excruciatingly thin on both citations and content. I'd like to see a lot of the images cleaned up too - they are causing a lot of formatting problems due to their abundance. Also, I feel the WP:LEAD is too long and doesnt give a quick summary of what it was all about -but rather appears to condense the timeline into a few paragraphs. Are subtitles like "the beginning of the end" necessary? they strike me as POV in many ways. Obviously we'd want to be avoiding a sort of "allied" account of it. -- Alfakim --  talk  22:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object as per Kirill Lokshin: Chronology-only descriptions of wars are just plain annoying. Campaign-based formats are much more easily preusable, and more useful in descriptions of wars. In addition, a timeline already esixts that can be prominently linked. UnDeadGoat 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Excellent article. Love it. Great information.
  • Comment. You are arguing about either writing a chronology or a campaign-based article. I wonder which style did Encarta and Encyclopedia Britannica use in their respective articles?
  • Object because I think this needs to make better use of Wikipedia:Summary style. There should be more on cultural ramifications, which are vast (cargo cults, to give one example) -- World War 2 had the effect of moving massive numbers of people all over the world, causing their cultures to intermix. There should be a section on cultural depictions of World War 2. I think that, over all, it's too detailed on military history, which is only one important aspect of the topic. Some of the non-military history sections are also too uncomprehensive to satisfy summary style: "the home fronts" (and why the home fronts?) doesn't cover Japan or the Soviet Union at all. It needs inline citations throughout too. Tuf-Kat 03:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chew Stoke

This article is about a small village but, I feel, provides fairly comprehensive information, in an understandable and illustrated format. It's largely a self nomination which went through peer review with only a few comments, which have been addressed. I would appreciate further comments about whether this merits FA status. Rod 13:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment This is quite a nice article, but I think it has a few problems so I will simply comment. The closest FA I could find to this is the article for Waterfall Gully, South Australia. Though it's on a different continent, the villages are a bit similar in size. Certainly take a look at the sections and compare it with this article.
    • The history section just gives a few highlights of the history of the village. This should be expanded. Perhaps some of the building histories might be incorporated here?
      • Some questions I have...when was the area first settled?
      • Since there was a temple, one would presume there were Roman settlements in the area. Where were these?
      • When was St. Andrews constructed and why is it on the outskirts of the village?
      • Did the village ever have a market?
      • Did the Industrial Revolution have any effect on the village?
    • Perhaps "Buildings" should be labeled "Points of Interest"? You might include the Bridges section here as well. I think having headings for each type of building is a bit much especially as some of the sections are quite small. Lumping them together makes more sense.
    • The inclusion of external links in the text is messy. If they are links to locations for footnotes, I would suggest that they be placed in the references list or otherwise placed in External links.
    • I should commend you on the number of wonderful images you have included! They really are marvelous. I think you can vary the size of some of these just for aesthetic interest.
    • What about transportation? Is Chew Stoke located anywhere near major roadways? How might one acces the village? What about trains?
  • Really, this is a fine beginning for this article! Good work! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 13:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments. I've added in some information in answer to your questions (eg pre history, location, age of church etc) & changed the section headings - I will also look for info about others & try to sort external links as soon as I have ore time. Rod 15:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now also had a go at the references and external links Rod 21:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak object. There are a few things wring in this article, but they are minor and can be easily resolved:
    • There are too many very short paragraphs, which is more of a formatting issue than anything else.
    • The ordering of details within the lead section is awkward.
    • There are too many subsection in some areas, leading to a bloated ToC
    • The picture which opens the article shifts the lead section and the ToC awkwardly rightward
Most of these are formatting issues, nothing serious. Overall, a very good article given the topic. RyanGerbil10 22:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I'm mostly worried about the section-stubs (Grade II listed buildings is the worst - that one sentence isn't even grammatically correct). A transportation section would very helpful, and the location should be renamed "Geography". It also needs another copyediting, for example:
    • about eight miles south of Bristol, England close to comma after England needed
    • close to Chew Magna unclear whether village or Bristol is close to Chew Magna
    • Council Area, and has a Parish Council meeting again, unclear whether Chew Stoke or Council area has the meeting (if it is the latter, the and should be replaced by which)
    • It can be found What is it referring to here?
    • south west one word
    • south of Chew Magna which is on comma before which
    • Both 1000 and 2,307 are used; comma use should be standardized in numbers
    • Why is "Irish bridge" in quotes?
    • Per WP:FOOTNOTE, the footnote should go directly after the punctuation mark, without a space.
    • The age of many of the buildings, including the church, school and several houses, reflecting the long history of the village. fragment
    • Part of the current buildings... were built in 1858 either "parts" or "was"
    • An obelisk on Breach Hill Lane, which dates from the early to mid 19th century and is said to be waterwork marker. Another fragment

Thanks, AndyZ t 23:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had another go at copyediting the article taking into account the issues you've raised & changed the formatting. Are there other objections I need to take into account? Rod 10:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Object- the article needs to show how the subject is related to the every day world!--Timorrison 19:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware this was part of the FA criteria, however I'd like to assure you this is the everday world for the 1000 or so people who live in the village and the many visitors. Rod 07:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support! I like this a lot. However, my support is conditional: everything in the article should be referenced. In some sections the referencing is very good, but other sections have no referencing at all: the bell makers section, recent history, and local political arrangements. If this stuff is cited, then consider my vote to be support. One more question (if the info isn't available to you, then don't worry about it): what was in the time capsule, why was it buried there (I mean, any particular reason beyond the obvious), and when is it due to be opened? Everyking 10:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • A little more stuff: is Pagans Hill named after the ancient temple? I assume so, but I couldn't find that in the article (might have missed it). Also, the recent history section is dismally short—isn't there a local paper that might have recorded a few more events that have occurred in the last few decades? Everyking 10:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added citations for the sections you mention & added to the recent history section. Rod 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt

This article has become quite stable over the past couple of weeks and I believe has become quite neutral. It is well written, compelling, and well referenced. I've done minor editing on it, so it's not exactly a self-nom. Many Wikipedians have contributed to this article. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure if it should be promoted (I'm looking over it), but if it is, it should not appear on the main page (it would be too inflamatory and would look improper). BrokenSegue 20:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Instead of featuring it, I think it would be smarter if Wikipedia deleted it. --Daniel Brandt 68.91.252.244 21:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I've heard all about your privacy concerns. As legitimate as your concerns are, what is it in particular that you dislike? —THIS IS MESSEDImage:R with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 01:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The 68.91.252.0/23 IP range is an SBC San Francisco Bay Area pool. I doubt that 68.91.252.244 was Daniel Brandt, but I think I know who it really was. — May. 12, '06 [05:52] <freakofnurxture|talk>
      • Freakofnurture has no idea what he is talking about. Every single one of the 256 addresses in the 68.91.252.* Class C block reverse-resolves from its in-addr.arpa listing to *.dsl.snantx.swbell.net. I hope Wikipedia doesn't let admins like him go around blocking people. -- Daniel Brandt 66.142.89.253 18:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Arguments in favour: very well referenced and seems reasonably complete. Arguments against: the prose seems somehow a little dry, though perhaps that's due to the subject matter. It seems perhaps slightly short. The images could use captions. Quotes should (almost) never be italicized, and blockquotes do not have quotation marks. Doesn't seem to be that stable. Exploding Boy 00:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree this is closely sourced and NPOV, but I would like to see more diversity in featured biographies of living people. So far in 2006, it's been Marilyn Manson, Katie Holmes, W. Mark Felt, Thomas Pynchon, Diane Keaton, Gerald Ford, as well as Pink Floyd and The Jackson 5. All are excellent but seem a little U.S.-centric. All are from politics or the arts. Maybe a scientist or athlete or religious leader, preferably from outside North America? (added in response to comment below) No photo of subject, no birthdate confirmation, and any stability has been due to a lot of protections this year. I don't believe the "privacy activist" issue has been addressed appropriately, and I feel that the interest in featuring this is part of an ongoing dispute with the subject, who has objected to the article as an "invasion of privacy." While notable, I don't even think Brandt is among the most notable or interesting conspiracy theorists. The article does not really discuss his place in that subculture (as a catalyst for computerizing card catalog databases created by individual conspiracy buffs). Jokestress 00:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: while I agree that we need more non-US bios as featured articles, that's not a good reason to oppose the feature-worthy US ones. Exploding Boy 00:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hi Jokestress. I'd like to point out that Pink Floyd are British! ;-) Notability isn't a FA criteria. Do you have any objections that are actionable? -- Malber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ya, I know about Pink Floyd; I was listing all living people featured this year. I bolded my actionable objections above.
  • Comment: When all these celebrities will be FA, then people will begin working on dead celebrities and on older people. It's the way I see it. 132.204.207.108 13:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object lol, not a chance, this article is way too unstable for a FA 172.164.13.197 00:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Well written", "well referenced"…are you talking about the same article that is linked? It cites a blog, a random website, a slashdot post, and a forum post. These are clearly not reliable sources that certainly should not be used to cite criticism (unless we are going to throw WP:BLP out). The sections about wikipedia are filled with either unsourced material or original research (e.g. "(It should be noted that most content is added by editors, not administrators. Wikipedia administrators are not especially responsible for article content, they are users trusted to have power to block others, manage bans, enforce rulings, and the like)"). It also certainly isn't stable as the spat over the image is a content dispute, not vandalism. Kotepho 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose! There is no way this article is stable. It's a very frequent vandal target, and it's much too dangerous to try to present it on the list of featured articles (legality-wise). User:Zoe|(talk) 02:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. There are several major issues which need to be addressed concerning this article.
    • The article is unstable, both currently and in the past:
      • The edit history hints at edit wars between POV forces
      • There appears to be a great deal of vandalism evident in the article's edit history.
      • The edit history of the article itself, and its FAC nomination here seem to attract sock puppets.
    • The article does not seem to be comprehensive, it doesn't even have his real birthday. There is absolutely no information regarding his life outside of his activism, and the activism sections themselves seem short.
    • The quality of writing in the article is not top notch. There are numerous one-sentence paragraphs and a bunch of awkward phrasings thorughout the article.
    • Although not a requirement, there should be a picture.
It will be difficult to achieve stability, as this is clearly a controversial topic, but before we even get to issues of sock puppetry, vandalism, and edit wars, the prose needs to be cleaned up and made more comprehensive. RyanGerbil10 02:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain The person who it's about doesn't want it here. I'd object on this reason, however I am very curious what would happen if it does become featured so I'd support. Both cancel out and so I abstain. DyslexicEditor 05:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Neither of those points are good reasons to object or support. I'm glad you did neither. BrokenSegue 02:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it would be nice if Brandt could be brought around and offer some constructive suggestions for the article. That may be a crazy thing to hope for, given his opposition, but I'd really worry about the stability issue with the current situation. Everyking 10:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Last time he did that he mentioned that we failed to cover his past history of activism. As a result we covered the subject, and the coverage includes mention of him burning his draft card. This has become one of his primary issues with the article... not that it's factually incorrect, but that it is a skeleton that he'd rather be buried. Seems like a no win situation because his relationship with Wikipedia has become so adversarial. --Gmaxwell 20:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from banned user Zordrac removed
    • Yeah, I just took it for granted that the nom was made for that reason. Everyking 04:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object agree with RyanGerbl10, it also seems POV too me. Rlevse 00:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This guy does not want his bio on wikipedia - its existence has been a sore point between us and him. Whilst that is not grounds to delete the article, it would rather make featuring it look like we were deliberately trolling him. Not the image we want. --Doc ask? 18:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not 100% sure I buy this as an argument: promoting the article to featured says 'we think this is a good article' not 'Hah! Suck on this, Brandt'. Surely? --Nick Boalch 18:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Needs a photo. Also, it is not wise to try and bait Brandt into filing legal action. Ashibaka tock 23:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Absolutely not. Why?
    • It exemplifies our very best work. False. I would not consider this article an example of our best work; I wouldn't even consider it to be "decent". It's an okay article but there is nothing there that particularly intrigues me. Featured articles are supposed to be good enough to put up on a mounted display. I would not want this article hanging up somewhere.
    • It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. Not really, false, uncertain, mostly true and absolutely false. The article is dry and boring. It is also by no means comprehensive. It doesn't go into detail his student activism at USC. It only briefly mentions Public Information Research, which a fair amount of higher educational institutes have used in the past. As far as being factually accurate.. unless you can convince Mr. Brandt to tell you about himself, I can't verify the factuality of the article. It is for the most part neutral (thankfully) after having a time of being rather biased. Stable? Good God no. The article itself has been the thing of controversy. No, I wouldn't consider it stable, especially while Mr. Brandt is threatening litigation.
    • It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article. Two things. First, it's a biography. Biographies really need some type of image to them, and I'll be very surprised if anyone was able to put a picture of Daniel up there. He has stated to me that he hasn't posted anything to the Internet, so good luck trying to find him. Besides, even if you *were* able to find a picture of him, he would go ape (as if he isn't already). We don't need that type of headache.
    • It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles. This is up to interpretation, but I don't think this article qualifies. It mentions Public Information Research once.
  • I apologize if I sound snippy or pushy. However, compare this article to a featured biography such as Henry Moore, Norman Borlaug, or George Fox. This article is a little breadcrumb compared to those. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bible

Bible is the book of pan-Christianity. It tells you the history in the past, from the creation of the world, to the predictions of the future. I nominate this article for featured article status because it is structurally complete. Please feel free to leave comments. --Cheung1303 11:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - no inline citations. —Whouk (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - The section "Widely Quoted Facts About the Bible" is pure banal trivia, some of which is of extremely questionable relevance. (The fact that no verse in the English version of the Bible contains every letter of the alphabet is unencyclopedic, as are many other entries in that section.) Get rid of the trivia, add some inline citations, shorten the lead, and widen the scope of the article. All this article does is describe the Bible - how and when it was written/collected, what it's about, different versions. What about interpretations (eg. literal vs metaphorical), influences in literature, etc. I realize there's an extensive "see also" list at the bottom; is there any way to incorporate any of those topics, even very briefly, into the text? This is one article that should be longer than average, if only to mention all of the many topics to which it relates. The Disco King 19:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Per above. Plus some other problems: 1) "For Jews, the term refers only to the Hebrew Bible, also called the Torah". The Torah does not (normally) refer to the entirity of the Hebrew Bible, but to the Pentateuch. 2) "the Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical books" implies that we are dealing with two separate sets of books — also note that these books are of importance in more than just Roman Catholicism. 3) Virtually nothing on the Septuagint per se — this is a glaring omission as the Septuagint basically set the tone of the Christian Bible until about the early 18th century (yes, Jerome favored translations from Hebrew texts — not, however, the Masoretic text, as the article seems to claim — it didn't exist — but he still included the Deutrocanonical material). 4) Nothing at all on pseudopigraphia or the non-Deutrocanonical New Testament apocrypha. Well, I think that's enough for here: in short, it needs work to be FA material — may not hurt to get a peer review first. iggytalk 23:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: impressive article, but not enough citation, no inline refs. Remove the trivia section. -- Alfakim --  talk  22:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

First of all this article fulfills all the qualities in the official article checklist and the What is a Featured Article? article. Of special note is how expansive and researched the article is, consolidating issues that have been brought up both on and offline. The references follow the new reference style extremely well. As you may know, this article was previously nominated for featured status. In that decision there were many issues pointed out, which have been addressed in the changes since the nomination and this post [5]. The article has also been nominated for deletion, after which the community overwhelming concluded that the article is encyclopedic and should be included in Wikipedia. There have been some complaints that this article is simply "too new" to be a featured article candidate, but the time the article was first published is neither Wikipedia Featured Article policy nor a logical reason for objection. The ability for information to added, changed, or removed applies to any article on Wikipedia, including featured ones. I fail to see any other objections, if you can find some, please reference it. Thank you. --Nick Catalano contrib talk 13:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose - a list of quotes does not count as brilliant prose and is really not encyclopaedic. The whole of 'Audience reaction' is regurgitation of magazine articles, apart from the final sentence which is uncited. It seems way overblown to have a 35kb article on a single routine by a comedian, and I feel the sentence The New York Times[26] and the Chicago Tribune[27] both covered the dinner, but neither contained coverage of Colbert’s comic tribute backs me up on that. Also, section headings don't conform to the style guidelines. Worldtraveller 13:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and A DVD of the entire dinner (including Colbert's speech) is available at the C-SPAN Store is completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Worldtraveller 13:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It has improved a lot since I first objected, but now the most fundamental flaws have been dealt with, other flaws come to light:
      • There's lots here that's not really relevant to the article. For example in the intro, Before Colbert's presentation, Bush mocked himself with the help of a celebrity impersonator, Steve Bridges is a non sequitur with the previous sentence and is hardly something that needs saying in a concise overview of the article.
        • I think the information is indeed relevant to the article, as throughout the article the event is often compared to the bush vs. bush one by the media, so a little context helps here. RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
          • It's still a non sequitur where it is. A bit more explanation should be given there, or better, it shouldn't be mentioned in the intro but only in the main text. Worldtraveller 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The bullet points in 'preformance' look bad. Why have bullet points when you can have normal paragraphs?
        • They were originally paragraphs but then were changed to bullet points, so I guess someone likes them... I guess I'll think about another shot at this... RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I just adjusted this a bit more to make it definitely prose - it still looked like a list, just without the bullet points. Worldtraveller 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
            • It looks good! RN 01:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • created by blogger Greg Felice (also known as grokgov) - the bracketed bit is totally irrelevant here.
        • Taken care of :) RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • 'Early press coverage', 'Media blackout' and 'Praise and criticism' all deal with the same thing, and organisation is a problem here. You could substantially trim what's here because much of it takes the form 'On such-and-such a date, so-and-so said this'. You need to have a paragraph with an illustrative brief quote which explains the point of view behind the quote, rather than just giving a slightly random list of who said what, when.
        • One could do this, but it may be just a style change - I'm unsure if one would want to trim anything here :). RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
          • It all feels a bit choppy at the moment, and still looks a bit like the regurgitation of quotes that I originally complained about. Worldtraveller 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • copies of a DVD of the event, priced at $24.95 - the price is irrelevant and looks like advertising. There's also still a link to the C-SPAN store. We shouldn't be promoting or advertising. Worldtraveller 10:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't think it is doing either - it is just discussing it from a numbers and historical perspective - maybe it is too specific, but some readers might find the extra valuable I guess... RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Seriously, it looks like blatant advertising with a price. It also doesn't follow from the sentence before properly, and lacks a reference as well. The store like is probably OK as the text accompanying it looks less promotional now. Worldtraveller 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • (A handful of bloggers suggested that Carlson's reaction was a case of sour grapes, as his famous skewering by Colbert's colleague Jon Stewart in 2004 may have a played a part in him being let go from CNN. See Crossfire.) - apart from being awfully written, the views of a 'handful' of bloggers are not really worthy of inclusion. There's also no reference for this claim. Worldtraveller 10:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is your objection? It seems like you—on the most basic level—are objecting to citing commentary rather than having Wikipedians make it up. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Worldtraveller. Bwithh 14:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Your "official article checklist" is in fact an in-progress document on a user-page, and thus shouldn't be regarded as any kind of standard. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 14:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

*Also, Oppose - The quote section is unencyclopaedic and belongs over at Wikiquotes. I detect a bit of POV bias in the way that Fox News's reaction was presented, for instance. Furthermore, as I mentioned in the last FAC, I feel like this article is mostly about the reactions to Colbert's performance, and not so much about the performance itself (as the title indicates it should be). User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 15:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's already been moved to Wikiquote. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per all the above. Rlevse 15:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per everyone, this needs lots of work. Staxringold 19:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What specifically, so that this will get accepted next time? --kizzle 02:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • As World says
  1. perhaps you could move the quotes to wikiquote, summarize them here with just a couple examples.
  2. Summarize the magazine articles in Audience reaction a bit more rather then just citing and repeating what they say

There are others as well - I will try to work on some stuff too as my time allows :). RN 05:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Both of these suggestions have been addressed. Perhaps you could reconsider your oppose vote? -- noosphere 01:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object This is more of a current events summary than an encyclopedic article. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The article contains no information. It is simply a collection of 50 quotes from media outlets and as such it needs to go to Wikiquote. - Emt147 Burninate! 07:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Seriously. Why is "current events" somehow in the realm which is mutually exclusive with being encyclopedic as long as it is no longer in progress? savidan(talk) (e@) 15:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nobody has mentioned a single actionable objection so far. This article appears to comprehensively cover its subject. Everyking 04:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Actionable Objections - (listed above):
      • Too many quotes, not enough brilliant prose
      • "Audience reaction" is simply a regurgitation of newspaper/magazine reviews
      • Section headings don't confirm with style guidelines
      • POV bias in presentation of the reaction of some news sources
      • Overfocus on reaction to performance/underfocus on performance itself.
Once these actionable objections have been dealt with, then we'll see. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 12:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Note that if we get rid of most of the quotes (done, by the way), and in addition get rid of the reaction to the performance, then how can we focus on the performance itself without violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV? Sources have to be cited for everything that's in the article, and the sources are either the performance itself (quotes) or the reaction to it. Also, could you specify which reactions you judge to be presented with a "POV bias"? -- noosphere 01:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • Remove the examples of remarks, as the choice is inherently POV in this context. There's a handy WikiQuote link. Rather than quote Colbert, describe (and cite) his style, using specific examples from this event to illustrate.
    • If footnote 12 is a source for the "busiest day claim", move it to the end of the sentence. If not, provide a source for that claim.
    • Remove the external link to the "thank you" site and explain why people were thanking him.
    • The media reactions are too out of context. Explain how the media reacted, and use examples to illustrate it.
      • Not everything cited has to be a direct quote. Unless the way the opinion is expressed is itself important, restate it in your own concerns. A lot of the quotes are from editorialists for whom their distinctive style is important -- that's fine, leave that in. Restate the more mundane stuff in your own words. e.g. "According to CNET's News.com site, Colbert's speech became "one of the Internet's hottest acts", the title of Dan Froomkin's article doesn't add anything
      • "(A handful of bloggers... See Crossfire.)" This needs to be cited, parentheses removed and the "See Crossfire" should become a link to the show in the prose.
      • The Jon Stewart quote -- Colbert and Stewart's connection needs to be explained to put that in context.
    • Move external links (to the thank you site and in the see also) to an external links section
    • "Several sources... dinner’s featured entertainer." This is not clear whether "even though" applies to the sources criticizing or the press not covering.
    • I think too much of it still reads like a list of quotes turned into paragraphs, and in general, the prose needs a very thorough copyedit.
  • Tuf-Kat 23:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (added a few belated concerns 07:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Good job fixing the quotes!)
      • I like all your suggestions except the first. I can't see how removing all notable quotations is what we're aiming to achieve with this article. More information, not less. --kizzle 04:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Not all verifiable information is encyclopaedic, and encyclopaedic writing explains things rather than just listing them. Wikiquote exists for quote collections. Worldtraveller 08:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Of course not. But nothing in your response reasonably equates a mere selection of quotes as a "random collection of information". 10-15 quotes is too much, however, 1-3 is warranted, unlike TUF-Kat's assertion. --kizzle 15:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Really well done. Something that only Wikipedia could have a good article on. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I think we've addressed most of the points that failed the last nomination. I do believe that this article has become a good example of what Wikipedia articles should be, well-referenced, containing multiple perspectives, and a clear organizational layout. --kizzle 19:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that the quotes list has been moved to wikiquote, the article is looking much better. Raul654 18:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who did a couple very experemental edits for this and some merging of the external links - I actually expected them to be reverted - heh :). Tufkat made his criticisms after I made my changes, but I'm not sure if he was referring to an out-of-date revision... I'm undecided myself - I think it could still use some general tweaking. RN 20:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I think this is an excellent article, and very timely. -- noosphere 19:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Upon further reconsideration, and after some edits to the article, I'm changing my vote to Support. POV problems aren't as big as I'd thought they were, the quote problem has been somewhat addressed (although I'd still like to see more press descriptions of Colbert's performance, rather than their reactions to it), and the article seems comprehensive. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 20:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • (Just to confirm - the above comment was made by yours truly.) The Disco King 22:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Support - The image in the article needs a source listed. Judgesurreal777 19:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been sourced. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - My only problem with the article is that it only has one photo. Any possibility of adding at least one more? Other than that, I'm very impressed with the article. It has more references than your usual FA, so I cannot see how anyone would complain. ♠ SG →Talk 06:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - I have been tracking all of the comments made about this article in both reviews and the changes made, and all of them have been addressed. The only ones I see left are very minor tweaks, like getting a reference that says that foxnews had a video saying he "bombed", and maybe another picture, but all other critiques have been addressed (I supported already above) Judgesurreal777 22:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As Judge says above, it seems like all objections have been addressed, and several people who were opposed beforehand have changed their vote to support. What now? --kizzle 20:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Now that the article has undergone substantial changes, I would appreciate it if the people objecting - especially those who opposed "per above", could revisit their objections/comments. Raul654 20:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • My second batch of objections, given at the top, haven't been dealt with so I still oppose at the moment. Worldtraveller 20:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • From what I can see, each bullet point from your list has been answered by someone. --kizzle 04:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Most of my objections still stand. I don't usually quibble over prose too much, but this article needs major copyediting. Tuf-Kat 03:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Seeing as many of your objections are minor ones which wouldn't take but more than a minute or two to address each edit, have you tried making your suggested edits yourself? --kizzle 04:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
        • None of my objections are minor. I have an uncited claim about a website's busiest day, lack of context in the quotes, overall poor prose, unclear prose, all things I have no ability to fix. Tuf-Kat 06:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree with your first (remaining) objection that we need a source for the claim about crooksandliars, but as for the others I think it's a ridiculous double standard. You are basically asking us to convert sourced commentary into original research. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm not asking any such thing. Almost all of my objections are based on the poor quality of writing in the article, which can easily be fixed without any research of any kind. Tuf-Kat 14:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
              • I guess we will just agree to disagree. Your proposal to replace the more "mundane" aspects with the words of Wikipedians would most assuredly warrant accusations of original research. While I would say that your approach is more appropriate of such articles as describing World War II or other historical events, where every sentence doesn't have to be cited, the mere fact that this is a piece that is indirectly about Bush means that it will become a lightning rod of edits by people who love and hate Bush. Already, we've had some descriptions that went beyond the simple media quotations that had to be removed because they were highly partisan either way. On such a possibly contentious article, I believe the density of cited claims and quotations over original sentences must be higher than other articles as to reduce the possibility for POV on either side to seep into the article. I do believe your other claims, however, such as
                • "Several sources... dinner’s featured entertainer." This is not clear whether "even though" applies to the sources criticizing or the press not covering"
                • "(A handful of bloggers... See Crossfire.)" This needs to be cited, parentheses removed and the "See Crossfire" should become a link to the show in the prose"
                • "If footnote 12 is a source for the "busiest day claim", move it to the end of the sentence. If not, provide a source for that claim."
              • are indeed minor enough that you can take charge in spearheading these changes. --kizzle 18:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
                • The citations needed are all arguable claims. I don't know how and have no desire to find sources for them (the one has been fixed, but someone's added a cite needed to another claim also). The one badly worded sentence I mentioned is vague and thus I can not fix it because I don't know what is meant. Furthermore, that one is only a particularly egregious example of this article's poor prose - I am not objecting on the basis of one bad sentence, I am objecting because this article is badly written. Tuf-Kat 00:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • the changes are mostly taken care of already - the only two left are the two unreferenced parts now tagged with "citation needed" - I've asked both of the involved editors for sources for those. Maybe tweaking the C-Span thing for being less advertisy, but we are basically just paraphrasing the article anyway. RN 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This article is excellently written. Shows good prose and a comprehensive coverage of a current event. Shows that wikipedia can truly be up to date and that the current events project is not frivolous. The criticisms listed above all seem to be fixed. MyNameIsNotBob 10:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The quality of the article pleasantly surprised me. Kudos to those involved in ensuring that it didn't turn into a polemical rant for or against Bush. (Let's hope we can maintain its quality to avoid a FARC some day!) Johnleemk | Talk 11:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh it's French...Bitch! Support. I enjoyed this article almost as much as I enjoyed SC's performance itself.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - full disclosure, I created the article in the first place. That said, I think it's ready now for featured status. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 22:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Further opposition per above:
    • This article presents facts without enough context to make them meaningful. To wit: 24 words and a footnote about people thanking Colbert en masse without explaining why they were thanking him or what they were thanking him for.
    • This article is bloated with overuse of direct quotes from sources where they are not warranted.
      • C-Span says copies of a DVD of the event ($24.99) have sold only in the "very low thousands." (and why give the cost?)
        • Please see above. RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • why the Washington Post's article about the dinner "did not convey with any specificity what Colbert had to say,"
        • Urm, it says right after the quote, doesn't it :)? I agree that wording needs to be tweaked slightly though :). RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The Google searches for "Colbert", "Stephen Colbert", "Colbert Bush", and "Colbert dinner" don't really need to be listed -- none of those are surprising and are perfectly predictable. That doesn't give any more information than just "surge in Colbert-related searches"
        • I lightly disagree with this - we're trying to show it was an "internet sensation" and this helps it - just saying that cspan hits went up probably isn't enough. RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Many paragraphs are longer than they need to be. e.g. Time columnist Ana Marie Cox called.... Neither of those quotes are particularly useful in and of themselves. That could easily be trimmed without losing anything: "Cox called the allegations of a deliberate blackout a "fake controversy" because Colbert's performance got coverage in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the major wire services. Fellow commentator Kurtz concurred, noting that he had played two clips on his own CNN show, and the video was carried on CSpan and available online." (not meant to be an exact suggestion) This does not lose any information, presents and connects all the relevant opinions, without original research.
      • While you are right that it doesn't lose much information - I don't really see it as improving anything. Rather, it seems like a change from a more immediate direct quoting style to a more passive one. RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Many sections of the article read like random jumbles of facts.
      • Chicago Sun-Times TV Critic Doug Elfman... exclusive rights to retransmit the video. (these two sentences share a paragraph despite a lack of any explicit connection between them, AFAICT)
        • You appear to be correct here - I'll try to tweak it :) RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Aside from the lead, there is virtually no introductory text. The sections are largely laundry lists of direct quotes, and are not in WP:SS. This objection is actionable and is fixable without including original research. For example, take "Allegations of a media blackout".
      • Take one paragraph to summarize who alleged a media blackout, and why they believed it. This would not be original research because is merely restating the cited opinions expressed by others.
      • Take another paragraph to explain the opinions of those who deny the media blackout.
      • Create a section for the allegations and one for the denial. In each, restate briefly at the beginning why people believe what they do. Then give the details of who exactly believes what and why.
  • Tuf-Kat 00:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

I feel that this article is a stellar example of quality collaboration between editors to produce a piece that has numerous quality sources, contains multiple opposing viewpoints, and is well organized. The polite disagreement between Fadedhour and I (among others) has enabled the page to fairly represent both sides of the page as to whether Colbert's performance was covered enough in the media. In combination with the article's speedy progress from creation to featured quality (I believe) and its recent significance in the public discussion (as evidenced by the 2.7 million downloads on YouTube alone, check the article for yourself!), this would make a great featured article. --kizzle 04:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm the creator of the ThankYouStephenColbert.org website. I also created the ThankYouHarryTaylor.org and ThankYouRayMcGovern.org sites. I've attempted to correct the incorrect statement that the site was created by a Salon Magazine writer. If anyone needs to clean up the language I've used, please feel free to do so. If anyone needs to verify my identidty, please visit the site and email me at the admin email I provide in the 'about' section of the site. Thank you! - Greg Felice (grokgov@gmail.com)
  • Weak Object. There are several issues which should be corrected in this article, however most of them are small formatting issues.
    • The "Audio/Video" section should be listed at the end of the article as an "External Links" section.
    • The quoteboxes should be converted back into normal prose.
    • Some of the sections could be renamed to give the article a more encyclopedic tone
    • There are many very short paragraphs, they should be merged into paragraphs which are more substantial.
Given the topic, this article is excellent content-wise, it just needs some formatting care. Also, bravo to whoever cited and footnoted the article; it is masterfully and obsessively done. RyanGerbil10 04:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Ryan's criticisms are spot on. The article is also written in a rather sensationalist tone, which doesn't really help things. Rebecca 05:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object This ia a very good start, but the topic is just too new for this to be stable. Perhaps you should wait a few months. The biggest problem is that there is little description, discussion and analysis of what Colbert actually said. The assumption of the article is that everyone has seen the video. I don't think that should be the assumption. There should be quotes, discussion of his style of delivery, etc... For example, I don't watch cable, and had never seen Colbert before. I get the distinct impression that people familiar with him found this much funnier than I did because of that familiarity. Others like me would come to this article to try an get an understanding of why. I got a much better sense of this from the recent piece on 60 minutes. -- Samuel Wantman 06:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it's hard because any analysis or discussion would be labeled as original research. Instead, we've extensively cited other people's analysis of the performance where apparently now we're accused of creating a "collection of media reports." --kizzle 09:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Is this article even encyclopaedic? It is basically a collection of media reports. If this FARC fails, I am tempted to nominate this for AfD. Batmanand | Talk 09:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll give you 2:1 odds that an AfD would fail by 80% keep. --kizzle 09:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I feel like this article is really missing something. There's a ton of information on the reaction, both of the audience and of the public, but there isn't really too much about what Colbert did or said at the dinner. There's a brief mention in the lead that he "satirized the Bush administration and the White House press corps," but I feel like there has to be a lot more detail on exactly what was said. (The Disco King - not signed in)
(Just wanted to confirm - the above comment was, in fact, from me.) The Disco King 17:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the advice but everytime I've edited an article based upon current events, everytime I try to put in any sentence that describes the performance it gets labeled as original research. How do we describe it without violating NOR? --kizzle 19:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Maybe you could include some quotes (but not too many) from one of the transcripts floating around on the Internet, or reference a description of Colbert's performance in a news article on the event. Good luck! The Disco King 19:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see someone had removed the quote section before for some stupid reason. Thanks :) --kizzle 21:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Made some substantial changes and addressed both Disco King and Ryan's objections. Another look? --kizzle 21:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object "See also" section has a number of links already linked-to in article. First para of "Audience Reaction" has a strange sentence fragment as of this timestamp. Image:Snapshot200604292346073on.jpg needs a fair use rationale. Article needs these finishing touches. This also seems more like a Wikinews story than an encyclopedia article, but I am not going to oppose based solely on that impression. Jkelly 23:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I'm not even sure this warrants being an article. Rlevse 00:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • 50,000 signatures on thankyoustephencolbert.org, 2.7 million downloads in 4 days according to the New York Times, many many many articles in both the blogosphere and the mainstream media about the dinner, and yet you doubt whether "this warrants being an article"? I can't think of any other reason besides your own bias why you would think that. Disputing featured article status is one thing, but disputing the entire article with 60+ citations? Now you're just being a dick. --kizzle 19:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Absolutely zero relevance - and indeed completely unheard of - for anyone outside the US. Hasty Fool 17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I doubt 95% of the world has heard of Chew_Valley_Lake yet we have a featured article on that. It is my impression that featured status goes to an article's quality rather than its public familliarity. --kizzle 18:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Nope, you are for using such language. Rlevse 15:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It has some awkward parts that could be fixed with probably one more pass through the article, also that one image needs a fair use rationale. Besides that it looks very good to me. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 00:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ohio

This is a great page with a large effort towards integrity with many references. (The preceding unsingned comment was added by Leoberacai at 03:56 UTC, 9 May 2006)

  • Object. There are several issues which needs to be addressed with this article:
    • The lead section does not provide an accurate overview of the article as a whole, and also contains some one-sentence paragraphs which should either be merged or expanded.
    • The article lacks inline citations of its references.
    • The article has too few references, seven references is not an adequate number to fully source a topic as diverse and broad as the entire state of Ohio.
    • Especially toward the end, the article is very list-heavy. As many of these lists as possible should be converted into prose.
    • Some of the sections are not comprehensive:
      • The law and givernment section is only one or two sentences long, containing little more than a link to another article.
      • The economy section mentions nothing of the economic decline which took place in the Midwest, especially Ohio, during the post World War II period and continuing on until today.
      • The history section in the main article only covers up until 1835, and then gives a link to another article. The history section should give a brief overview of the complete history of the State, with a link to an article which is a longer and more detailed version of the history section presented in the main article.
    • In general, the article contains many one-sentence paragraphs and examples of shaky writing. It needs to be copyedited.
There is a lot of information here, is just needs some polishing, better referencing, and rewriting. RyanGerbil10 04:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
  • History ends at 1835, certainly not comprehensive
  • Law and government is a section stub
  • This article should follow guidelines at WP:STATE
  • See alsos at the end of sections should be incorporated into text
  • Too list-weighty towards end
  • Needs more inline citations; 7 for a 30kb article isn't sufficient
  • Image:Wiki ohio.jpg and Image:Ohio state seal.png need fair use rationales
  • Subpages should be created, in accordance with WP:SS. For example, Geography of Ohio, etc.
  • The WP:LEAD skips around from topic to topic and doesn't summarize the article.

Thanks, AndyZ t 23:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object:

We don't need a populated U.S. State with nothing Extremely Important as our Featured Article,(My family is from Ohio), it should be used on something more Interesting. --Corporal Punishment 02:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

unless I'm missing something this objection is not exactly actionable. Rossrs 14:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
This objection is unactionable. Certain featured articles aren't interesting, but as long as they fit into requirements laid out at WP:WIAFA, they can become featured articles. Thanks, AndyZ t 19:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - the postage stamp image Image:Wiki ohio.jpg should be removed. It's only fair use if the stamp itself is being discussed, but here it's used for decorative purposes. Fair use images should not be needed in an article like this - a Wikipedian with a camera should be able to capture whatever images are needed. A fair use rationale will not suffice in this case. Rossrs 14:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above. See WP:LEAD, and there's really no excuse for any unfree content in this article. Jkelly 01:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moncton

I think this is a very good article with good pictures and well-written out explanations. Yvesnimmo 01:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object; quite well written, but not yet 'compelling, even brilliant'. Clauses such as "consistent snow cover does not take place" don't fill me with confidence. Can you get rid of the apostrophes in "20s" etc., and hyphenate "mid-"? All hyphenated ranges should have an n dash instead (–). Needs a good copy-edit. Tony 02:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; Economy section needs to be layed out better. Pictures break up text too much. I'm not sure how it looks on IE but in mozilla it doesn't look good. --Crossmr 03:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object should be removed per WP:SNOW Tobyk777 04:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
That isn't policy, its an essay, might want to read the page and the discussion before trying to cite it as justification. While I agree it should be removed, its necessary to go through the process in case someone does have intent to actually flesh out the article. --Crossmr 16:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Tobyk777 said "should be removed per" not "should be removed by" - the latter would apply to quoting a policy only, the former would apply if citing a policy, essay, suggestion, or a comment by another user in the discussion. It's just a short-hand way of saying "this nomination should be removed for all the kinds of reason given at WP:SNOW" which seems perfectly valid to me, it's by no means a "policyfication" of SNOW. However, I would also agree with Crossmr that there is no need to quote SNOW in this case, as the article is not inherently unfeaturable, merely apparently unlikely to reach the required standard before this nomination runs out of time. TheGrappler 22:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Object. Maybe next time. :)-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 04:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Object, some of the photos in the buildings section are stolen from websites and labelled "self-made". Ouuplas 21:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object, Article needs a better lay-out, several problems with pictures (over-sized, too many, copywrite problems), and IP addresses constantly vandalize or add biased facts whiche aren't reverted very quickly. Although the article has many other positive aspects I feel it just doesn't meet "feature-article" standards. Theyab 21:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006_FIFA_World_Cup

This very well put together article about the world's most popular yearly sporting events is less than a month away. I came across this article a couple days ago to learn a little more about the event and was pleasantly surprised by the attention to detail and design. I nominate this article to be featured during the actual event. pattersonc 12:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose The article just describe about the tournament info, matches. So why we nominate it as featured article, it seems rediculous and nonsence at all. A featured article should be more describetion rather than scoresheet. Aleenf1 07:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this event has not yet occured and the article is bound to be edited heavily once it does. Stability is a requirement for featured articles. --NormanEinstein 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose and remove suggestion per WP:SNOW. As NormanEnstein suggested this will be edited heavily and as of now it has very little information aside from long bulleted lists. Joelito (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this article will be by no means stable for the next two months. Jonpin 20:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The article will probably be linked to prominently from the main page during the event. Haukur 21:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Despite pushing for FIFA World Cup to become FA (and being one of the lead editors in that article), I feel that the instability of this article will become an issue as the other four editors have stated above. Also, as of right now, this article is nowhere near WP:PERFECT. Being one of the lead editors, I think this may become a viable candidate in the future, but it is not FA material right now. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 00:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's going to get too crazy in the next few months. You should re-nominate it after the World Cup has been over for a few weeks. By then, I'm sure it will merit a closer look.--Coemgenus 11:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it will mostly change 80% and very quickly in the next two months.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Once the tournament is over and everything has been written in the article, it can be re-nominated. GizzaChat © 08:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Simply ridiculous as it' not happened yet. Skinnyweed 18:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Maybe after it is succesfully hosted. Deiaemeth 18:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jefferson Davis

Nominate-I nominate this article because I feel that it is well-written enough to become a featured article.----216.7.248.254 19:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support and I support the nomination of the article!--216.7.254.254 14:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment', 216.7.254.254 and Timorrison are the same editor. -Will Beback 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - completely unreferenced. Soup Blazer 14:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - needs inline citations and references. (As Soup Blazer - edit conflict.) —Whouk (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

--216.7.254.254 14:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - refer to WP:PR - This is a good start, but, as pointed out above, it needs a "References" section. I am a little surprised that no paper references are given for such a significant historical figure (there must be published biographies, for example). The lead section is a rather short two paragraphs and could be expanded, and there are quite a few paragraphs of only one or two sentences that need to be expanded or consolidated. Is there nothing that can be said about his legacy? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You may get additional helpful feedback from WP:PR. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: has no references. External links are not references. If they were, the section should be titled "References"; but changing the title won't help, because these are not references. For example, the article says "Until late in the war, he resisted efforts to appoint a general-in-chief". Where can I click to see the external source which verifies this? I searched the listed biographies and found nothing about this. For information on what's required in terms of references, please see:
    — Johan the Ghost seance 15:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object this article needs work, 216.7.254.254 please see WP:CITE, thanks 172.165.98.163 03:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Birth of a Nation

Nominate- this page for the famous silent film seems to fit the requirements for nomination.--Timorrison 19:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support- this artile has all the required references.--Timorrison 19:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Cast section is poor, needs more references, could be longer. Cvene64 19:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - WP:LEAD is too long, please follow guidelines at WP:FILM. Web references need WP:CITE information. Image:Naacp-birth-of-a-nation-protest.jpg needs a proper image copyright tag, as it is unlikely that it was published before 1923. Years without full dates shouldn't be linked per WP:MOSDATE. And plus, where did these votes and the nomination come from? Thanks, AndyZ t 01:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The name was improperly listed here, so when I saw the nomination was not listed on the talk page, I created it, and ended up with two nomination pages, hope its fixed now Judgesurreal777 01:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please delink the chronological items that do not include a date—years, decades, etc—as per WP policy. Tony 06:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I think the technical innovations in the movie have to be expanded upon. That's the reason why the movie is important, and it only gets a passing mention here. This website has a pretty good list: http://www.filmsite.org/birt.html . - Cribananda 22:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Image concerns:
    • Image:Naacp-birth-of-a-nation-protest.jpg is incorrectly licensed and unsourced.
  • Jkelly 23:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Birth of a Nation

Nominate- this page for the famous silent film seems to fit the requirements for nomination.--Timorrison 19:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support- this artile has all the required references.--Timorrison 19:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Cast section is poor, needs more references, could be longer. Cvene64 19:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lamy

An article on the influential and popular pen manufacturer, Lamy (self-nomination). Images, plus extensively referenced/sourced information. Comprehensive examination of the most striking examples of industrial design by Lamy. Dysprosia 07:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Firstly, some of the text is no brilliant prose; too many one sentence paras, for example. Secondly, there are only really two references. That is not enough. Thirdly, there is little about the company history; thus it is hardly "comprehensive". Sorry to sound harsh, but this one is not yet ready. Go through peer review first, then come back to FAC. Batmanand | Talk 10:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand your objections, but the problem is is that there are few comprehensive web references available (Conners is excellent, but seems to be alone in its comprehensiveness), and there is little information provided about the company history, even provided by Lamy itself! To correct something you mentioned, I did note that the article was comprehensive on the examples of design -- I did not mention history. Dysprosia 10:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly my point. How can a corporate article be comprehensive if it contains scant little about the history of the company? You may want to read Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. Batmanand | Talk 23:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I have read that article. My point is that how can a corporate article be comprehensive if there is little information available on the history of the company by means of references? That is hardly my fault :) Dysprosia 00:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Used some non-Lamy references to confirm data that Lamy provided (ie. awards) -- this should improve the number of distinct references available. Dysprosia 13:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Shouldn't you inculde the URL access date for each reference? Cvene64 12:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll add these now. Dysprosia 12:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—poor prose. Tony 13:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you make some specific suggestions for improvement? Dysprosia 13:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure. A pervasive lack of clarity; not enough commas (required for clarity of meaning, ease of reading and style); incorrect use of punctuation; other technical faults. Here are a few examples from the first sentences.
'founded the business in 1930, with the preexisting Orthos pen manufacturer. Lamy was also a pioneer in the use of moulded synthetic plastics in its manufacture.'
  • 'with' is unclear: do you mean 'together with'? So he and Orthos collaborated to found Lamy? Or he took over Orthos and turned it into Lamy? Or what?
Resolved. Dysprosia
  • Probably better to remove 'also', and most of the other occurrences of that word.
Resolved. Dysprosia
  • What does 'its' refer to? Go through the whole article to ensure that the referent for each pronoun is clear.
I don't see any problem with "its" usage in the article. Dysprosia 07:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
'Lamy's product range reflects the intended practicality[1] of the products.'
  • What does it mean?
What is said. Lamy pens are thought of as being practical. For one, Lamy does not just make fountain pens, but ballpoints, rollerballs, etc etc, and compared to other pen manufacturers they are not designed so garishly or for artistic purposes, but for practical ones. Dysprosia
'such as "scribble" for a mechanical pencil, a variant of which can take 3.15 mm graphite refills, useful for sketching'
  • Is this one of Lamy's products? 'a' makes it sound generic. Is it the pencil or the refills in particular that are useful for sketching?
I thought that the fact that scribble was one of Lamy's products would have been clear since the start of the sentence says "Lamy products have a descriptive name". The rest of your comment has been resolved. Dysprosia 07:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
'Lamy refers to the products by prefixing "Lamy" to these descriptive names, here we simply use the descriptive name.'
  • The comma should be a semicolon, shouldn't it?
I don't see why, but a grammar nazi can correct me on that. Dysprosia 07:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It's way below a 'compelling, even brilliant' prose that is required for a FAC. Can you find a word-nerd to go through it thoroughly.
I can see the point for "compelling, even brilliant" prose on an article that contains a large amount of discussion, where good prose deals with the facts of a matter in a neutral and unartificial way, but I fail to see why "compelling, even brilliant" prose is necessary for the impassionate and neutral description of products. It's certainly a fine line between sounding like the text is promoting the products and merely stating the interesting design characteristics and other features of the products. Perhaps you or someone else could possibly elaborate on this.
It's a bit slender for a FAC.
I don't believe there are any length requirements for FACs. Regardless, any expansion I or others could make is sorely limited by what resources available -- and I have already noted the dearth of easily accessible resources, again, this is hardly my fault...
Tony 06:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses, your contribution has been most helpful. Dysprosia 07:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Dysprosia: I'm afraid that the 'compelling, even brilliant' requirement is for all FAs, regardless of the nature of the topic. 'Compelling, even brilliant' does not mean elaborate, beautiful, poetic, or flowery. The beauty of English is that it can be plain and elegant at the same time. What we require is clear, plain, easy-to-read text; that would be regarded as compelling. The article lacks these qualities, and should not be promoted. Please find someone to copy-edit the whole text.
I am more than quite aware that it is a requirement. What I said is that I don't see how one can produce "compelling, even brilliant" prose in describing products. You mention that text is to be clear, plain, and easy-to-read -- I don't believe you've quite addressed this in your objections, as the objections you listed do not make reference to the bulk of the article. Dysprosia
To take up some of your responses:
'Lamy refers to the products by prefixing "Lamy" to these descriptive names, here we simply use the descriptive name.'—This consists of two stand-alone sentences, before and after the comma. Therefore, they must be separated by a stop or a semicolon, and not a comma. Read it out aloud and you'll see.
What I am saying is that they are not so clearly "stand-alone", the sentence is expanding on the use of descriptive names. Anyway, it's stupid to quibble about a minor point, so I'll change that. Dysprosia
Why not clarify by writing Lamy's mechanical pencil, instead of 'a' mechanical pencil?
Because Lamy do not produce one mechanical pencil -- they produce several, as evident in the article. Dysprosia
Who is doing the intending? Just remove 'intended' and it will be plain and clear.
Lamy is doing the intending, of course. The point of the sentence is to say that Lamy intend their products to be practical (see the reference) -- they have not independently found practicality in the market. Dysprosia 09:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Tony 09:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Why do my comments have to cover the whole article? I've given examples to show that the whole article needs thorough editing. Tony 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Because citing a few examples doesn't show that the whole article needs editing, it only shows you found those specific problems with the article. I obviously don't see serious problems with the rest of the article, and you do, so how are your objections to be actionable if you do not go through them in detail? Dysprosia 12:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't try this legalistic thing with me. Prove that my examples aren't representative of pretty appalling prose throughout. It's up to you to fix it up, and not up to reviewers to edit the whole article for you. Do some work. Tony 16:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Please try not to get upset -- no one is trying anything legalistic. No one is asking reviewers to edit the whole article for me. What I am asking is for specific objections relating to the whole article, not vague insinuations. The guidelines at the top of the page say "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." The point of this guideline as I see it, is that if someone has a problem with the article, that person should have an actionable reason why they have that objection, so that people can take action and respond to them and to fix them. Otherwise then resolving objections becomes nigh impossible, because it is not known what exactly is the problem. The problem is especially complicated when the matter is about something so subjective as to the quality of the prose, such problems are not always so obvious to readers, so you need to be especially specific in matters such as these. The onus is on you, the objector, to explain what is wrong with the article, precisely so I can "fix it up" and "do some work". I can't read your mind. Dysprosia 04:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
<sigh>—if you reread my comments, you'll see that there are a number of specific points, and instances where I've advised how you can go through the whole text to improve it. You need to get someone else to copy-edit the text, because you're not used to writing to the required standard in this register (e.g., your writing right here is full of errors). Someone with distance from the writing process and subject matter would be ideal.
You provided a number of comments that did not cover the whole of the article, and yet you complained that the rest of the article was not up to par. You are of perfect distance from the writing process and subject matter and yet you failed to provide details that the FAC process asks of you. We are not discussing the quality of comments that I have made here, since I am not submitting these comments for FAC evaluation. Dysprosia
None of my comments was a vague insinuation; I'm pointing you to specific ways in which the text can and needs to be improved.
I had to get you to elaborate what you meant by "poor prose" -- that is a vague insinuation, right there. Editors should not have to ask objectors to be specific in their objections -- the FAC process asks that you do that off the bat. Dysprosia
If you don't know 'what exactly is the problem' after reading the comments, then you shouldn't be preparing a FAC.
So if I don't know what's wrong with the article, I shouldn't be asking? Again, the onus is on you to explain what is the problem. Again, I can't read your mind. Dysprosia
The quality of prose has a subjective element, but writers and editors usually agree on the technical aspects that make a text plain and easy to read; in that respect, it's not subjective at all.
They can agree on the technical aspects when they are actually raised. You have only partially raised the technical aspects, and yet you make comments that the rest of the article has technical problems, fail to list them, and then somehow expect me to do something about it. Of course I can "get someone else to copy-edit the text", but that's not what's at hand here. Sorry to sound harsh, but if you don't want to explain in detail the problems you found with the rest of the article, which you are asked to do by the FAC process guidelines at the top of the page, then perhaps you should not be raising objections.
Tony 06:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you please put your comments in the right place in the thread? I shouldn't have to mop this discussion up after you. Dysprosia 07:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Further comments about poor prose. Dysprosia might consider not sniping about the formatting here and working on the article instead. The typical way that the standard of writing in FACs is critiqued is by making overall comments and providing specific examples. That is what I have done. The critique does not have to be comprehensive—merely an exemplification of problems. If Dysprosia can't accept the wider applicability of these comments, he should find someone else to edit the article thoroughly and skilfully. I note that s/he has taken no issue with the first reviewer's assertion that "some of the text is no brilliant prose"; that's odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)
All experienced editors are obliged to use standard formatting practices on discussion pages, other users should not have to do this for you. All experienced editors are expected to sign their posts as well. That's not sniping, that's asking you to adhere to standard practice. Dysprosia
It's not odd. You may think so because you seem to have failed to understand the point I am raising. The first reviewer actually lived up to the FAC obligations by explaining his objections in detail -- at least that reviewer stated that "too many one sentence paras" was the problem with parts of the body of the article. Because that reviewer actually said so, I was able to fix it. You have only provided specific examples to the first few paragraphs of the article. I ask you, how on earth am I supposed to work on the article if you withhold describing what is wrong with the other half of the article? I could ask someone else to finish the job for you, but your obligation is for you to provide detailed and specific critique worded so other editors can take action. Dysprosia
Here's another problem sentence, the first I laid eyes on in a random selection:
"The steel Studio pens come with steel nibs, though the palladium Studio comes with a gold nib. The Studio design has won the Good Design Award[5], as well as the iF Design award in 2005"
"Though" should be used only if there's a contradiction; here, "and" is appropriate. "As well as" is a marked expression that appears unnecessary here; again, "and" is appropriate (why use one word when five will do?)
Now, this is another example of a grammatical problem ("though") and an instance of poor style ("as well as"). These types of issue pervade the text. Go through it and clean up the flabby expressions, grammatical problems and redundancies. Make every clause unambiguous. The prose is not "compelling, even brilliant".
Thank you for providing one example here. Now that you have done so, I can fix that problem. Dysprosia 03:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why isn't this article part of any category? And why is there no see also section? Joelito (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The category problem is easily resolved. However, do articles (in general) require see also sections? Dysprosia 04:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
No, articles do not in general require "see also" sections. Many editors (and I believe Raul654 is among their number) believe that if a topic isn't important enough to be referenced and linked in the main text, it's not worth giving a bullet point in a "see also" list. Inclusion in a category is more informative. Anville 15:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Dysprosia 03:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lead is too short, as is the article as a whole. No history. No information about them as a business. I'm sorry to be a bit harsh, but it strikes me as just a sweeping overview of their catalogue and not much more. Ambi 07:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try and work on the former, but like I mentioned above, there's little so far I can do about history. Dysprosia 07:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I've cobbled together a business history. Dysprosia 09:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The disputed sentences have been fixed. A general cleanup will come soon, and there are now tons of references in proper citation format.Judgesurreal777 12:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Business History section—It's a pretty boring list of increases in turnover and employment numbers, taken from some potted history or company manual. We'd like a wider angle, perhaps characterising the company's business strategy, or its relationship to its competitors and/or manufacturing as a whole. How did it differ from companies in similar industries in other countries? To be 'among the best' that WP has to offer, more is expected.
The same casually incorrect version of the English language is apparent here, as in the rest of the text. For example:
"In 1989, turnover increased to approximately 62 million DM, and had begun taking on employees as sleeping partners." So the turnover took on employees? Please explain "sleeping partners", if it's a technical term.
"In 1984, Lamy's export share increased to 33 percent." What, the share of national exports, or of the pen market? "Export share" is awkward.
Tony 12:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
No, sleeping partners is linked -- we do not need to explain the term, even if it is red-linked. Furthermore, I believe "export share" must be an economic term as, if I remember correctly, this was the term used in the resources. Dysprosia 12:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You haven't addressed any of my points. You 'believe' that export share 'must' be an economic term. So what; make it 'share of exports', please. Are you going to let us into the secret of what 'sleeping partner' means, then, since there's no info on it? We'd love to know. The impression we're getting is that you're copying the text from somewhere without knowing what it means. Tony 13:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I have addressed your minor technical point on grammar. I have not spoken to your earlier point about the section being "boring" because I happen to agree with you, and thus I had no dispute with what you were saying. I believe that "export share" must be an economic term because I'm not an economist. Are you? Since you now seem to have the belief that I'm "copying the text from somewhere without knowing what it means" (who is "we" here, you seem to be the only one who appears to have this view), would you rather we have no business information at all?
It's not my responsibility to fill redlinks on a FAC. Dysprosia 22:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
So is there a copyright issue here? There's no reference. People will expect that you understand what you're copying. You don't seem to. Tony 01:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The first reference on the page covers everything preceding it up to the section header. No sentences have been copied verbatim.
So in effect you are saying that I must learn about economics to add a short fact to the article? That's hardly practical or appropriate. Nor does a less-than-comprehensive understanding of a fact preclude me from adding it to the article. Do you strictly contribute inside your fields of expertise? I doubt it. Dysprosia 03:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm amused at your insistence on punching in colons to format this stuff to the right; it must be very annoying for people with small monitors, and is not strictly necessary. But I'll leave this clerical duty to you, if that's what you like doing. No, you don't have to be an economist; but you are expected to know what the terms mean if you're writing them in. You haven't yet explained 'sleeping partner'. I'm all ears. And 'export share' is hardly jargon—it would just be better rendered as 'share of exports'. You still haven't told us whether it's the share of national exports, or just of pens, or what. Tony 03:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said, "All experienced editors are obliged to use standard formatting practices on discussion pages, other users should not have to do this for you"; to answer your question, when the rightmost indenting gets too long, often it is reduced back slightly. I shan't comment further on this in order to refrain from casting aspersions on other editors.
To answer your other comments, I have fixed the problem you describe; otherwise you are now making me repeat myself. The comments I made above: "No, sleeping partners is linked -- we do not need to explain the term", and "It's not my responsibility to fill redlinks on a FAC", still stand. Dysprosia 03:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope, if the link is not active, you'll need to explain the meaning in the text. Pretty lazy option, isn't it, just link it and forget about it. Here, we are reader-oriented, not writer-oriented. Tony 06:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with laziness and I'll thank you not to imply that I am being lazy by doing so. You might benefit by acquainting yourself with Wikipedia civility policy. I remind you that this page is intended for the discussion of the nature and merits of the article, not of other editors. Regardless of our differences of opinion I expect other editors, including yourself, to at least behave in a civil fashion in discussions.
That being said, providing links in articles is a matter of avoiding redundancy -- if a target article exists, explaining the link and providing the link is redundant, as the reader can simply click on the link. Even if a target article does not exist, explaining the link target article is redundant -- provide the explanation as a stub in the target article. Again, it is not my responsibility to fill in redlinks on a FAC. Dysprosia 07:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well don't link it then, if you can't stand the 'redundancy'. Somewhere, the explanation needs to be accessible ... like, now. So I suggest you explain it IN the text. I don't believe that you know what it means ... Tony 12:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Either you have misunderstood me, or you are not reading my comments closely: I am saying that only linking is enough for the reasons I provided to you above.
It does not matter at all whether I know what the term means or not, since what I know is not under review at all.
I suggest that you also refrain from making potentially false assumptions about other editors -- I have provided you with this basic courtesy, I would ask you that you do the same. Dysprosia 12:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
So now no one knows what 'sleeping partners' means in this context. How silly. This attitude reinforces the suspicion that the article is largely copied from elsewhere, without attribution. Thus, it fails Criterion 2c as well as 2a. (Please count the indent colons carefully when you punch them in.) Tony 16:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
If you do not desist from making fallacious accusations about my behaviour (of course there is attribution, try reading the References section on the page) and continue to have an incivil attitude (I shouldn't have to clean up after you and "count the indent colons" if you would simply follow standard Wikipedia practice), I'm going to refuse to discuss anything with you further. Based on your attitude, I doubt anyone else would be willing to either. Dysprosia 22:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, Dysprosia—you put the article up for promotion, so you can expect the prose to come under close scrutiny here: this is where the standards for WP are set. Yet instead of reacting positively, you've bickered and quarrelled, and taken criticism defensively and personally. These are technical matters, and they're not meant to be personal. IMV, the article still has serious problems, and two other reviewers clearly think likewise.

Let's take apart another, rather long sentence that, regrettably, forms a whole paragraph:

"Many designs in Lamy's product range have won numerous design awards, and many designs such as the design of the 2000 and the Safari mentioned below, amongst others, have been produced continuously since their inception -- for example the 2000 fountain pen was originally released in 1966 and is still in production today, with a large number of product variants including multisystem pens, mechanical pencils, all with the 2000 design."

    • 'Design' occurs four times, three of them in quick succession; 'many designs' occurs twice.
    • In this context, designs aren't produced; pens are.
    • Avoid 'mentioned below' if you can; it would be OK to remove it, I think.
    • amongst --> among (nowadays, like 'on' rather than 'upon', and 'while' rather than 'whilst').
    • The double hyphen should be a semicolon or a stop.
    • 'multisystem pens, mechanical pencils'—you're listing two items, so 'and' is required, not a comma.
    • Remove 'product' and 'today' as redundant.
    • 'with' twice: make the second one 'of'.
    • Commas after 'the design', 'example', and 'variants' would be typical in this fairly formal register.

Please try to take the criticism positively. Tony 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


PS Your new link to explain 'sleeping partner' is perfect. Why did we have to endure all of that unpleasantness to achieve this? (But you're refusing to respond, so that's probably for the best.) Tony 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


"you can expect the prose to come under close scrutiny here" -- except it is quite clear here that it is myself here that has also been coming under close scrutiny here by yourself, we've had accusations from you that I've been lazy, you've questioned my knowledge of terms, and you've behaved boorishly by making unnecessary comments enjoying the fact that other people have to clean up after your formatting mess. We've had all of this, even after I've asked you to behave in a civil manner, which you've blatantly ignored. That is unquestionably not close scrutiny of the text.
"taken criticism defensively and personally" -- Another absolutely ridiculous and fallacious assertion. I can quote you several comments made by myself that clearly show the opposite. Any differences I have claimed with your statements were meant as a spur for further discussion, and I fail utterly to see how my responses to criticism that you have made could be construed as being "defensive" and taking the criticisms "personally".
"Let's take apart another, rather long sentence, which, regrettably, forms a whole paragraph:" -- It absolutely astounds me that I had to drag any semblance of detailed criticism out of you (which is what I want, contrary to your unsupported beliefs), and now here you are spontaneously providing it. Why could you not have done this earlier? Furthermore, are you going to make further accusations that I am taking your criticism personally if I attempt to calmly respond to your points?
"Why did we have to endure all of that unpleasantness to achieve this?" -- because I held a view contrary to your beliefs, you would refuse to discuss any further on the matter than to restate your belief. The unpleasantness, I would argue, has its origins in your behaviour.
"But you're refusing to respond, so that's probably for the best" -- Thankfully, for some reason, you've seemed to stop the personal attacks -- they're just now blatantly false comments. If you do recommence with the personal attacks, I'm not going to deal with you further. Dysprosia 03:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, so it's OK for you to call me 'boorish', yet you complain that I'm making personal attacks. Hello? I'd like to point out that from the outset, I provided technical criticism; my recent analysis of that sentence/paragraph is additional. Again, please try not to take it personally. Tony 03:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence justifying calling me "lazy"? I apologize for the term, but this is the impression that I receive from your behaviour. Dysprosia 03:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extrasolar planet

(Nominated by Latitude0116 01:08, May 6, 2006 UTC)

  • Object. The majority of the article is unsourced, and the references that are provided are in the form of embedded HTML links (criteria 2c). Article needs to have the embedded HTML links converted into full citations as per WP:CITE and sources need to be provided to the portions of the article that currently have no form of references. --Allen3 talk 01:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support looks like a good find! - Malomeat 03:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sources are missing, more supporting images needed.--Jyril 08:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The nomination became too soon. This article needs several improvements before it can gain even a Good Article status.--Jyril 18:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As per above. Lincher 15:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose the formatting leads a little to be desired. No peer review nor inline citations. Much of the article in unsourced, e.g.: "The first method used to discover extra-solar planets was to observe anomalies in the regularity of pulses from a pulsar. This led to the 'discovery' of the first planet with the orbital period of one year. That was later retracted..." A source for the 'discovery' (by whom?) and its later retraction should be easy to find. Table of Extremes takes up a large proportion of the article. I would really like to see an FA on this topic, but this article needs some work before it gets there. --BillC 15:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Rolling Stones

This is a very well written, and put together article about one of the most influential bands in the history of rock and roll. The pictures are great as well. - Mike(talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator - Mike(talk) 02:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'd suggest that you move the list of members further down. Also, the entire article needs to be sectionalized (try more headings and subheadings); it doesn't look or read like a summary. Also, all images need fair use rationales. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Members moved. I thought they didn't really belong at the top as well. - Mike(talk) 03:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. For several reasons:
    • The lead section is not properly organized into a three paragraph introduction.
      • Okay, okay. I'll drop the three paragraph lead objection. A three paragraph lead is simply customary, that's why I asked for it. RyanGerbil10 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The article lacks references, which is an important requirement, and when those references are added, they will need to be properly cited within the article, including footnotes.
    • The section titles are not written with an encyclopedic tone, and the sections themselves are extremely long. It seems like they could be reorganized so that instead of a chronology of the band, each section focused on one element of the band and how it changed throught the band's history.
The information is here; it just needs references and organization. RyanGerbil10 03:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • True. I didnt even realise that the article lacked source. I should point out, however, that it is not mandatory for 3 paragraphs to be in the intro. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object
  1. Lead should be a summary of the articles content, and is rather brief considering the length of the article and the 40+ years the band have existed
  2. No list of sources, a few html links in text which lack supporting information
  3. Fannish tone.
--nixie 05:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment—I've read only the lead, which I don't think should necessarily be in three paragraphs, RyanGerbil.

This sentence is not nice: 'By the end of the '60s, The Stones had racked up a great number of hit records, each single displaying an alarming rate of musical growth.'

    • Upper-case 'T' for 'The Stones'?
    • 'racked up' is too colloquial for this register.
    • 'a great number of'—would a single word do here?
    • 'alarming'—this appears to be inappropriate here.

Tony 15:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. No references. Most of the images have no source or fair use rationale. Examples: Image:Rstones3.jpg (what magazine is this from, and why is the magazine's name cropped out?)--Fallout boy 04:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The Upper case "t" is correct. In their Album "Jump Back:The Best of The Rolling Stones", the little book in the cover capitalizes the 'T' in 'The' in middle of a sentence several times. - Mike(talk) 01:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milk

Self Nomination

Reasons for Nominating this article:

  • A well written article with a concise lead section
  • Neutral
  • Pictures are fine
  • Factually accurate
  • I added some sections to it

This will also be an opportunity to improve and expand this article. Criticisms sometimes help. Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 22:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object:
  1. The article needs to be prosified. Large parts of the article consists of lists. (See Butter)
  2. The article delves on the patterns of "developed" nations. What about practices in the underdeveloped nations
  3. =History=? When did man begin to drink (non-human) milk?
  4. The article starts off with cow's milk as the second section and other animals' as the eighth. Why not discuss milk producing animals right at the beginning?
  5. Milk adulteration? Common in countries such as India
  6. Inline references not formatted correctly
  7. Copyediting needed> eg. Male calves are a "useless byproduct" ... followed by veal crates Long and winding sentence.
  8. Milk is considered to be vegetarian or not? Touch on the debate
  9. Uses of milk? edibles+cosmetics etc
  10. Is it natural for humans to consume milk long after the infant stage? No other animal drinks milk after the nursing stage.
  11. Some graphs would be a welcome addition

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've expanded the article by adding the "History of Milk" section and "Milk and vegetarianism" Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 21:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
History is very short, and again documents only the "First World" countries. 2. Cows are ... consumed by most Hindus. This is misleading. There are many staunch vegetarian Hindus who consume milk. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object
    • Too many lists
    • Sources are all inline web-links and it takes a lot of work to tell if they are good references or not. Suggest using cite.php footnotes; if not, at least needs a references section detailing all the sources linked to.
    • Stucture is strange. A top-level section "Expansion of Milk on heating"???
    • The lack of a History section, pointed out by Nichalp, says a lot about non-comprehensiveness.
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have added a History section Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 22:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as incomprehensive. Has a lot of lists and referencing is also improper. History should be overall and not just for cow's milk. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Only 3 refs. Refrencing is improper. Many stub sections. History section under cows milk could be a whole article. Not just a paragraph. Too many lists. Advargae prose. Tobyk777 00:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it's a good start - keep working on it. - HarpooneerX 10:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - referencing is not done properly. Otherwise, it's promising. Ronline ✉ 10:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fujiwara no Teika

Self-nomination: I feel I've addressed peer review's concerns, I've cleared up the last area whose factuality I doubted, it's well-written, the last few people on IRC who I solicited to review had little to say; there are a number of nice PD images, and it simply strikes me as FA quality. That is all. --maru (talk) contribs 20:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object, does "sika bakari/tigirisi naka mo/kaFarikeru" really not bother you? Plus the other things I said on PR (bar the image, which you've done), plus the lead section needs that extra paragraph. Someone who actually knows something about old ja poetry is kinda needed, I'm way outa my depth on actually assessing the content of the article. --zippedmartin 04:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, hey, the "sika bakari" thing is not my fault- I was only faithfully reproducing what was said here. As for your PR suggestions, I did what I could. I managed to get a partial translation of one of the images, but it was too bulky to fit in a caption, and not particularly relevant- what was relevant was the calligraphy, not the contents.
Why does the intro need another paragraph? --maru (talk) contribs 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'm not suggesting anything's your 'fault', but little consistancy and polish issues like that do matter - sources need editing, not just regurgitating. Intro largely needs another paragraph because it doesn't provide an adequate introduction/summary for someone unfamiliar with the subject, but see also WP:LEAD. The other issue though, is that the content isn't terribly easy to verify, so bar *real* peer review, featured-ness is largely trusting Brower, and your interpretation, when it comes to correctness and comprehensivity. --zippedmartin 06:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I see. Problem is, I can't polish that particular example. The hiragana or whatever simply aren't in a form I can edit, parse and associate with the proper line, as the tables demand. One needs to actually understand Japanese for that; I've asked over on the Japan Wikiproject for some help in that respect, but who knows how well that will work. I'll try to work on the introduction, but I'm not too sure what I can add without stealing stuff from the regular biography section. As for sources, it's not so bad as you make out. I really rely on Brower only for the court politics and Go-Toba's poetry sequences bit; the rest either comes from the other references (such as Brower and Miner) or external links (much of which is also confirmed by one of Brower's books). --maru (talk) contribs 06:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • Lead should be expanded to two or three pars.
    • Consider putting brief summary under all empty section headers
  • Tuf-Kat 02:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Seems a little disjointed. Images need to be rearranged so they don't bunch up and displace the text. Style a little off in some sections. Lacks sufficient citations (although it does have citations, some assertions/facts are not cited). Exploding Boy 05:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Huge problem witht the look of the refs. Tobyk777 01:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excelent article. Of course there is always room for improvement, but this article as is qualifies to be featured. --Cat out 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sample chess game

This one has received many thanks at its talk page. It is very well written and stays tightly focused on the main topic, covering the subject clearly but extensively. --ZeroOne 13:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose. Lead section too short and no inline citations... are there books on that subject? If so maybe incorporate some of their tactics. I would also define certain terms in Wiktionary like logjam?. Lincher 13:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • There are at least a few hundred thousand books on the subject of chess. ;o I could copy the references that are used in the main article, chess. Logjam is just a figure of speech there. I don't remember it being a custom that individual words from the middle of an article are linked to Wiktionary. --ZeroOne 17:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this article feels like a how-to article. --soUmyaSch 13:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agreed with User:Soumyasch. I'm not even sure why this is on Wikipedia and not Wikibooks. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Sunday, 7 May 2006 @ 14:04 UTC
  • Object. Seems unencyclopedic. Even if it wasn't, it comes close to original research, and has no proper lead section. (The lack of references is a non-issue because obviously this article can't have any -- which in itself makes its topic appear to be of dubious encyclopedic value.) Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, needs references. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What if I copy some of the references from chess? They all apply. Would you support then? --ZeroOne 17:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Entirely violates WP:NOR, some of WP:NOT, and, with comments like "White makes another fine move", WP:NPOV. This should be moved off Wikipedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose this article is not encyclopedic. Should be transwikied to Wikibooks if they want it. Tuf-Kat 19:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article has serious POV issues and needs a complete rewrite, but I feel that the content here, or at least the idea of a sample chess game in general, could be justified here on Wikipedia. However, because we say on Wikipedia that every article could be raised to featured status, and featured status requires references, we would perhaps have to make our sample game one that was actually played, such as one that demonstrated a particularly noteworthy level of play or which used a broad range of possible moves. This particular article though,is not of featured quality as of yet. RyanGerbil10 03:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some paper encyclopedias have full pages which are not mostly text: maps, or diagrams of the legislative process, or little picture galleries with examples of eight different kinds of lace, or whatever. In the more vertical (and more nonlinear) format of a web browser it makes sense to put things like this on their own pages, rather than break up the main text column with them (and they won't necessarily fit to the side of it). So not every Wikipedia page has to be exactly an "article". The page Sample chess game does not belong on Wikibooks because it is not a textbook or part of a textbook. Rather, it is a supplementary document for the encyclopedia articles Chess and Rules of chess. Such supplementary documents should probably never be given featured article status, since they are not encyclopedia articles per se (thus I oppose this nomination), but there is no good reason to delete them, or to transwiki them to other Wiki projects whose stated criteria they are equally unsuitable for, either. (If anyone wants to get gung-ho about every Wikipedia page being an article per se, rather than some pages serving subsidiary functions, they will have to delete or transwiki all "List of" and "Timeline of" pages, to begin with.) DanielCristofani 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me started :-D —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This is original research, why not change the sample game to a classic game played by one of the champions and give commentaries made by reliable sources? Then this would be an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Joelito (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Complete games are generally too long for this kind of introductions. Then there are these games like Deep Blue - Kasparov, 1997, Game 6 which only few understand - try to make a computer analysis of this game, it will probably agree on every move, yet Kasparov resigned. Besides, this particular example game is hardly original research, as Damiano Defense has throughly been examined to be a poor one. Chessmaster 9000, for example, knows an almost the same game (differs on White's eighth move) that leaves the opening book on move 11, at which point it is a forced mate in three for white: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.Bxb7 Bxb7 9.Qf5+ Kh6 10.h4 g5 11.Qf7 Nf6 12.hxg5+ Kxg5 13.d3+ Kg4 14.Qe6# 1-0. --ZeroOne 20:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah! I knew I had seen that poor opening somewhere. Since the article is nothing more than an explosion of the Damiano Defense then I suggest a merge of the article. Joelito (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Nothing more than an explosion of the Damiano Defense? This article is aimed for people who have never played chess. Those players are not interested in the names of openings and only get confused should you start telling them about King's Indian Opening, Scotch Opening, etc. :) They will not click on Damiano Defence when they want to learn chess. For people who are already intermediate players, this text is just holding them from hand and telling them "this-is-a-rook". They do not need every move commented. Advanced players would appreciate a short and compact form when presented as one line of the Damiano Defense. --ZeroOne 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
What you are describing is a how-to of chess and this explicitely one of the things that this encyclopedia is not. I am merely trying to save the article. Joelito (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, this is just a Featured article candidate discussion, which, I gather, has come to the conclusion that this will not be made a featured article. We'll discuss about saving the article should someone nominate it for deletion... --ZeroOne 21:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I would hardly call an example game of chess an instruction manual. It's not a "how to win a game of chess" or even "how to play chess" article. As DanielCristofani pointed out, it's rather a supplement to Chess and Rules of chess (the "how to play chess" article, should you want to call it that). Should you counter that Rules of chess is not an encyclopedic article either, we would have to strip the rules out from most of our sports related articles. See, for example, Laws of the Game (soccer), too. --ZeroOne 20:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Storng object If this can even be considered an article, this article is a poorly written, unencylopedic, unrefrenced indisciminate collection of information. I wouldn't be surprised if this wound up on ADF. At the very least this should be removed from FAC per WP:SNOWTobyk777 04:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not an article; it's not poorly written; it's not a "collection", discriminate or indiscriminate. It's an illustration to show what chess games are like. Not being an article does not make it unencyclopedic; encyclopedias have things other than articles in them. I've mentioned a few already. Just as the printers of paper encyclopedias will sometimes make a map or other illustration big enough to take up a full page, or even two, when it is necessary for including enough information to give people a clear idea of the subject, we should be able to do the same. And yes, go ahead and take it off FAC. I think we have some consensus on that, anyway. DanielCristofani 09:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose, but support the concept. I agree this is an edge case, but I certainly don't understand the level of vehement opposition here. Remember that our goal here is to improve Wikipedia, not to fight off nasty, invasive bad articles.
    1. Would this article survive AfD? I think it should. Chess is a complex game, and not easy to grasp from a simple list of rules. This is -- or at least could be -- an illustration, not a how-to, and as such I think an article like this belongs in Wikipedia.
    2. I don't understand why people have a problem with this as an illustration of how the game works. Would you delete the animated diagram and explanation from Internal combustion engine? It walks you through the sequence of steps in an engine cycle, just as an article like this could walk you through the sequence of stages in a typical chess game.
    3. Given that it belongs in Wikipedia, it must be possible for it to become featured.
      • It could certainly do with a lead which summarises the article.
      • With good discussion of the implications of each position and move, this article could be comprehensive and well-written.
      • If based on a well-known game which has been discussed in at least a couple of reference works, it can be factually accurate, verifiable, and NPOV.
      • References could then be provided (eg. to the page where a move is described by a respected authority as being "fine", and why).
      • Given the above, this would not be original research.
      • "Stable" should be achievable...
      With all of these, I think it would meet the criteria for an FA.
    4. Would people find this a useful aid to understanding chess? I think so. So, with virtually unlimited storage, why not?
    So, the trick is to find a short, clear game which satisfies the above criteria. Address the above, and I would support. — Johan the Ghost seance 10:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this article would survive AfD, on inertia alone if nothing else, but I don't think it should. Being useful isn't sufficient. How would you feel about these hypothetical pages:
  • A recipe for chocolate cake, to illustrate how cake is made.
  • A sample poem, to illustrate issues of meter, rhyme, etc.
Specifically regarding the idea that this article could, in a better form, be an FA, I would argue that the choice of what game to discuss -- what game is the best sample? -- is an inherently POV matter. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I think being useful and meeting the FA criteria, which I think this article could do, is sufficient. As for your examples, I don't think these are totally accurate analogies. A cake recipe is something you would make for its own sake; a poem is something you would read for its own sake. But a sample chess game is not something which you would read, and then play for its own sake, even if you could find a willing partner -- it's only use is as illustration, which is why I don't agree with the "instruction manual" comment. I don't think the choice of a sample game based on the criteria I outlined above (which specifically don't mention "good", "interesting", "skillful", etc.) would be POV, any more than the choice of poem fragments in poetry is POV -- in fact, less so, I would say.
Still, as I said, it's certainly an edge case. No, I wouldn't want to open the flood gates to pages of sample recipes. To me, this example is just on the right side of the line. But perhaps the safest thing is to do what cake and poetry both do (not to mention tea); include a sample game fragment in rules of chess. — Johan the Ghost seance 16:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ayn Rand

I would like to move to re-nominate the Ayn Rand Article for a Wiki Featured Article due to the fact that all of the problems have been cleared up and the new version is both informative and well-written. The Fading Light 5:59, 2 May 2006 Previous nomination.

  • Images do not meet licencing requirments, all fair use images need fair use rationales.--nixie 00:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per nixie. - FrancisTyers 00:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh Good God! Why on earth do some of you people have to be so nit-picky and kill off any enjoyment you might find in working on Wiki? The Fading Light 10:10, 2 May 2006
  • Oppose. The cult section is still not fully explored. Several other arguments, including more in the cited sources alone, have not been added. Also, I made a recommendation for a separate article for this section (as the Rand article is getting quite big, and it would help for consistency's sake to have a central article on the subject) which has not yet been addressed. -- LGagnon 02:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my vote to Strong Oppose. As the "Ayn Rand cult" article, which supplimented this article, was deleted (same old Objectivist bias on Wikipedia), the section on the cult claims is even weaker. There's a lot of work to be done to recover all the information deleted by so-called "unbiased" editors and a lack of safeguards against a tyranny of the majority. -- LGagnon 23:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It looks like a good article, but I have a few nitpicks. The 'Is Objectivism a cult?' section has several quotes, one of them is very large: consider reducing the quote overload (move the to Wikiquote). Some tiny sections are but a stub sections and should be expanded: 'Ayn Rand Institute' and 'Popular interest' are currently stub sections.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The cult section is not good, but it is not a widely discussed aspect of Ayn Rand's life and is not essential to the article. I'm more bothered that almost all the references are to web pages; one of them is just a google search. It would be more credible to cite stable and edited paper sources, such as the ones in the "Further Reading" section. But even though it's not perfect, this article seems to meet the FA criteria. Our remaining concerns can be addressed later.--Yannick 01:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The cult section is, in fact, essential. How can the article be NPOV if we remove the most important criticism of Rand? -- LGagnon 12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting removing that section by any means. I just don't think it is essential for that section to be polished in order to deem the article comprehensive. This is the harshest criticism Rand, but it is not widespread and only has peripheral importance.--Yannick 04:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This looks to be a well-written and extensively footnoted article about a person in whom many people are interested.--Coemgenus 20:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman naming conventions

This is a very informative article. I feel it could be a fun article for featuring. Rrpbgeek 22:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object: There should be references as indicated in the criteria. Also, I think that this page would benefit greatly if the examples were split off into either seperate lists or sent to Wiktionary. Also, might it be better to call this article "Roman naming conventions" because there is more than one convention in this article? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The exact method of name creation evolved along with the nature of the Empire. As birth rates declined and Emperors began to have to adopt heirs, the popularity of it increased and it began to change the style of naming. As the culture changed and became larger, the need for further specificity of family and subfamily groups became more acute. Rrpbgeek 14:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I personally find the subject matter fascinating, and potentially could reveal a lot about Western naming conventions (sorry, I agree with the previous commentator with regard to using the plural for the title) as well as within Roman history. But I note that your explanation as to the name creation changed over time is only hinted at. I would strongly suggest that a "History" section be included to provide background on how names evolved, perhaps with reference to other possibly pertinent articles like Roman Republic, Roman Empire or relevant sub-sections/links. In addition, any information on how this may have evolved since Roman times would be relevant: did the practice carry on into Byzantine or post-Byzantine times?

    You may also get faux objections with regard to the lack of pictures, which is not in itself criteria for rejecting an article for FA status. However, I would recommend delving into WikiMedia Commons looking for relevant illustrative images depicting names at various stages in Roman history, perhaps from headstones, coins or images of Vesuvian graffiti. A similar article for reference: Fivefold Titulary, which admittedly is not as ambitious as yours. Captmondo 15:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Too much lists and no inline citations. Lincher 15:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Confusing and not very informative for those who don't already have some grasp of the topic. Also, no sources listed. UnDeadGoat 23:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vacuum

Self-nomination It's much ado about nothing. I've done a lot of work on it for the last year or so, and I think it's ready.--Yannick 00:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks really good. I have a few comments:
  • Some of the main article links are italicized, some aren't. I think they're usually italicized, so please make this consistent.
  • The see also should be trimmed of everything that is linked to elsewhere in the article.
  • More citations would be a good idea. Any number (i.e. a measurement of something, a statistic) should probably be cited.
  • I don't see why "Measurement" is in bullet-points. Each of those could be a normal paragraph.
  • "Properties" is really stubby. If you don't already know what that stuff means, it's not very helpful. Is a magnetic permeability approaching 4π×10−7 N/A2 in someway interesting? Does it change the properties of magnetism in some way?
As an outsider and a physicist, it is interesting. To take one example, the speed of light varies with permeability. Batmanand | Talk 23:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
That's precisely the point. The article should explain why this is interesting. Tuf-Kat 05:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Generally, only the article in the lead and any redirects are bolded. Is there a reason there's more in this article.
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Legibility--Yannick 02:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
And also because the red link nazis keep raiding popular articles and turning links into boldface.--Yannick 05:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think most don't help legibility at all, and many are discussing a use-mention distinction, which means they should be italicized (e.g. "These ideal physical constants are often called free space constants"). See words as words.
Ah. Thank you. I was not aware of that MoS section.--Yannick 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think the "Examples" are needed. I don't really know anything about vacuums except what I've read here, and I don't really get anything out of them. Maybe one of each category could be added to the table of vacuum categories above it. The remainder don't seem very informative; I guess the rating of a vacuum cleaner is interesting and could be worked into a sentence earlier in the section.
As people get used to the idea that vacuum is always partial and quantifiable, they often ask what is the vacuum quality of some common devices, and how they compare to the vacuum of space. Look at the talk page archive for examples of this. It helps define a "vacuum spectrum" in people's mind.--Yannick 02:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It would be more helpful to move the examples into the top table so you could see which examples go with which part of the spectrum without scrolling up and down and comparing the numbers. Tuf-Kat 05:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Lots of passive voice, most of which could be removed.
  • I cleaned up the "Pumping" section a bit. It's not clear if lungs are a "positive displacement pump" or not. Also need a few words explaining how momentum and entrapment pumps work. Check to make sure I didn't introduce any errors in that section (I just wanted to give an idea on how the prose can be cleaned a bit) -- if I did, that's probably a sign that the original was significantly unclear.
I found at least 10 errors introduced by your edit, and I'm having trouble understanding how it makes anything clearer. Lungs are indeed a positive displacement pump. I will work on a better version, but it will take me a while.--Yannick 02:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I made some improvements, found another dozen technical errors, and eventually just reverted a couple of paragraphs. The begining of this section should be clearer now, but then it trails into increasingly technical stuff meant for increasingly specialised audiences. I think this is an appropriate structure for a technical article, and the detailed layman's explanations should be left to the daughter article.--Yannick 05:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Your changes have made that section much clearer, I think (though consider using the term "vacuum pump" somewhere earlier in the first paragraph). The whole article really needs a cleanup like that, though. Tuf-Kat 05:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Fixed first two comments. Although I kept Suction on the list. It's a judgement call.--Yannick 02:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, IMO, no article should have a "see also". If a subject is relevant, it should be covered elsewhere. There's no consensus for that view, so I won't oppose based on it, but that's my philosophy. This "see also" still seems bloated to me, and putting a red link in see also is kinda pointless. Tuf-Kat 23:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- the details in the Quality section would probably be easier to floow if they were in tables.--nixie 04:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Object, 2a. Here are a few reasons.

'A vacuum is a volume of space that is empty of matter, relative to the atmosphere, so that gaseous pressure is much less than standard atmospheric pressure'

This is contradictory: 'empty' is a binary epithet, i.e., something's either empty or it's not; yet this is immediately treated as a comparitive ('relative to' and 'much less'). You go on to explain it in the lead; get rid of the empty bit at the start.

I'm not sure about this. Are you saying that a glass cannot be half-empty, and a gas tank cannot be almost empty?--Yannick 04:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"half empty" and "almost empty" limit the adjective with a qualifier, which is fine. I think he's saying that the first bit says it is "empty of matter" with no qualifiers, and then implies that it is not "empty of matter" since it has less gaseous pressure than something else (the implication being that it has still has some gaseous pressure). Something like "space filled with less matter than the atmosphere, so that gaseous pressure is lesser than" would be better. Tuf-Kat 05:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There are 'also' problems; most of the alsos should be removed—Why do we see 'also using', then 'using', and 'also used' then 'used'. Either insert 'also' in every single statement (which would be tiresome) or remove the word throughout.

'It has no friction'—awkward and stubby.

I hate 'manned spaceflight'—sexist and redundant. Use a piped link to render just 'spaceflight'.

Tony 06:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Oppose: I'm sorry, but this article really sucks! 128.208.45.223 00:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not an actionable objection. If you don't provide a fixable problem, your opinion will not be taken into account. Tuf-Kat 05:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Are there any better pictures of the Crookes tube or perhaps a more striking picture? The content I'm alright with, but the aesthetics could use some work--Jonthecheet 09:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Some things I would have expected to see in this article:
    • 'Uses' section could be expanded upon, particularly historic uses.
    • Historic means of production: such as the creation of partical vacuum by condensing steam
That's a type of sorption pump, a precursor to the cryopumps that are still in use today. Was the steam condensation technique widely used in anything other than the Newcomen steam engine? My understanding is that Guericke's air pump and Geissler's mercury pump were the two most important historic means of production, both of which were positive displacement pumps. My point is, was steam really a historic means of production, or just a strange means of production?
Isambard Kingdom Brunel's Atmospheric railway created a vacuum by steam condensation, I believe. The steam condenser in a power station creates a partial vacuum by condensing steam; the resulting large pressure difference is what drives the low pressure turbine. You might consider a sentence or so on the electrical insulating properties of high vacuum; if you like, I'll see what I can put together on that. Also: vacuum packing of food and other goods. --BillC 18:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Unless I missed it, there is no direct reference to the famous NASA incident wherein a technician ruptured his spacesuit in a vacuum chamber and passed out. --BillC 16:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Because I lack the scientific background to assess the factual accuracy of the article, I looked at the article to see if it is comprehensible enough for the layman. I think the article is pretty understandable for educated readers. I do have the following comments:
    • You should explain that "vacua" is the plural of "vacuum." You might want to consider using the plural "vacuums," which appears to be far more common on the Internet.
    • You might want to put the word "quality" in bold when you first use it to indicate it is a "vocabulary word" rather than something the reader is expected to know already.
    • Instead of writing that vacuum "is most commonly measured in units of torr," consider writing, "units called torr." This would make it clearer what torr are.
    • I believe articles should not use Wikilinking as an excuse not to define terms in the article. Consider very short descriptions of terms not now defined. For example, instead of just writing "neutrinos," you could write "tiny particles known as neutrinos." Other terms that might merit short descriptions are: plasma, bends, gas embolism, tardigrade, Scientific Revolution, aether, interferometer, thermodynamic equilibrium, vacuum energy, cosmological constant, Casimir effect, Lamb shift, momentum transfer, dynamic pump (not linked), entrapment, ultra high vacuum, sublimation, chamber materials (not linked), rotary vane pumps, cyropump, absolute pressure, Crookes radiometer, Bourdon tube, thermocouple, and Resistance Temperature Device.
    • I don't understand the sentence about Einstein.
    • Instead of the sentence that mentions the Dirac equation, I would simply write, "Dirac's theory helped him discover the positron, the positively charged equivalent of the electron."
The positron was discovered by Carl D. Anderson, and would probably have been discovered just the same without the help of Dirac's theory. The combination of the Dirac equation with the Dirac Sea interpretation led to his correct prediction of the positron, even though the Dirac Sea interpretation was wrong.--Yannick 19:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The paragraph about uncertainty might be made a little easier to understand.
    • The section on quantum-mechanical definition is, as you would expect for the subject matter, not comprehensible to the layman. I would recommend adding a prerequisite box template to suggest articles readers could look at to understand the subject matter.
    • It would be helpful if the diagram of the pump had a label for the "small sealed cavity."
    • One of the paragraphs in the section on outgassing begins, "Ultra-high vacuum are...." Shouldn't that be "vacua" or "vacuums?"
    • I don't know what you mean by "dessicating" or "baking." -- Mwalcoff 02:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States

Self-nomination. The United States article exemplifies one of the best country articles on Wikipedia and deserves to be featured. If you are unsure, you are welcome to check other featured country articles, such as China, India, Australia, South Africa, and Cambodia, and maybe Singapore to get an idea of how the US article compares. If you object, please state explicitly why you object (no bias or personal opinions, like mentioning the article should be expanded or reduced, which not everyone agrees. Personal opinions also include reorganizing the sections or anything related. These should be put into the discussion page instead). Thank you.

  • Support as nom.--Ryz05 00:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - please collect all the see alsos that are at the end of sections, which break up the text, and put them in a topics box, similar to that on Singapore or Australia.--nixie 00:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The "see also" links at the end of each section are necessary for people who want to learn more about a specific topic, otherwise, they can just move on reading the next section. I don't agree with having a topic box at the end of the article, which unnecessarily lengthens the article and is not as clean as just having a few links. It also does not help much when people can just click on the "see also" in the respective sections. Also, the topic box is included in List of United States-related topics, so if people want to learn more, they can search through there. The US topic box tends to be larger than that of Australia's and Singapore's. This is not the place to discuss this, so please use the Discussion page on the US article instead. Thank you.--Ryz05 00:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Petaholmes/nixie—remove the section see alsos by incorporating them into the text, moving them to a box at the bottom, or best yet, deleting them, because they should be accessible through the "main articles" at the top of every section. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 00:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Please take this discussion to the talk page of the US article, as it is a disputed minor issue. They are accessible through the main articles, however, having them at the bottom of the section saves people's time when they are looking for something specific. Again, the topic box for the US is larger than that of Australia's, so it is not fitting to be included.--Ryz05 00:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There is already a see also section, just stick the topics box template (it needs the lines between the topics removed to decrease the length) in there - it shouldn't be a great dilema. Removing the lines of see alsos from the actual text will also shorten the page length.--nixie 00:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
If the template box is included, it would be longer than just including the "see also" under each section, as the US template box is longer than that for Australia. The box is also in the link under see also, as with other lists and categories, which make a more comprehensive list. The "see also" is important to include in that it broadens the topic for each section, as people can click them to find out more.--Ryz05 00:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Since most of them are linked inline anyway, they really don't need to be there. --nixie 00:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; Serious lack of inline citations. Two inline citations in the history section? Neither one to a print source? Zero citations in the science/technology and economy sections? Zero in the human rights section? And plus, all the statistics: "Now, more than 40 percent of Americans exercise or play a sport as part of their regular routine." "And today more than 70 percent of children who get cancer are cured." Nothing there either. Furthermore, there aren't any print sources. Census and forbes.com are fine, but give us some meat; some analysis. Not just websites and newspaper articles, but several of the scores of books that have been written on this country. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 00:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, on a related note, tons of weasel words: "The U.S. has often been criticized", "the United States has been criticized for interventionist policies", "opponents criticize as unnecessary", "proponents say they are necessary", "critics charge that their decisions are made as a way to save money". Finally, what's the significance of the freshman chariot thing? I highly doubt that that is a typical extracurricular activity in the U.S. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 01:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
If lack of citations and "weasle words" are problems, then they can be taken care of easily- there's no need to object over minor issues.--Ryz05 01:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, often the main things that separate good articles (and this is definitely a good article) from the excellent and FA-worthy are such things as these. Also, I doubt that it will be very easy to add the type of citations I'm looking for—in my experience, such things take alot of work and research. Also, I don't want to come across as excessively harsh—these are the standards I expect of all FAs, and I've objected to numerous FAs over exactly these types of problems. The article is good, but still needs serious improvement with respect to citations before getting promoted. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 01:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Your judgements seem to be very strict, but in my opinion, compared with other featured country articles, the one on US should be considered one of the best. We'll just have to see how others vote.--Ryz05 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Your objection is outdated. Please provide more reasons or change your vote.--Ryz05 17:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, there are still several sections that need more citations ("politics", "Foreign relations", and "Education" are three that I notice), though I will say that you're doing a good job of adding these in. Still though, I don't see many substantial sources other than government ones—no books, and not even many newspapers. Also, to me, citing Britannica is a no-no, though mostly out of pride than for having a good reason. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 04:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
What's so bad about Britannica? Saying that your pride affects your vote is not a good reason for an objection. How can Britannica not be credible? Also, what more citations do you need for those sections? There are people that live in the US and knows those basic things, such as about what the school system is like in Education, the history of the US in foreign relations, and the structure of the government in Politics. If you don't believe some of the things mentioned in those sections, rather than having citations, you can click on the links which will direct you to other articles that explain in detail what they are. The US article provides a lot more references than other featured articles, like Australia for example.--Ryz05 18:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
There's an excellent reason to avoid citing Britannica or other encyclopedias unless really necessary. It reduces Wikipedia's authority as a reference source if many articles cite other encylcopedias. It would be unacceptable for a Britannica article author to reference MSN Encarta or another encyclopedia, as it damages the content value and brand image of Britannica. Same rule applies to Wikipedia, if one is to take it seriously. Also, Wikipedia is not just, or even mainly, for people living in the US. Bwithh 01:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for the aforementioned citation reason.Changing to Neutral. This article is in too high a state of flux (the nominator started doing large numbers of edits just a few days ago) as well. I will change my vote if it stabilizes and the citations are put in. You can never say "is criticized" without quoting/referencing someone doing criticizing. It is not a minor issue, featured articles are supposed to be the best in every way, including citation and style. We have to cite every figure, no exceptions, even if the article looks better than other country articles. --Golbez 03:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I have included plenty of citations, as you can see it for yourself. The reason that I did those edits was to bring the article to featured status, so it's not "destabilized." Please change your vote.--Ryz05 03:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
My objection about unsourced criticisms remains. --Golbez 04:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There are 48 references to this article. Please explain what more need to be cited. Thank you.--Ryz05 04:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The two that I see: "The U.S. has often been criticized for seemingly contradictory stances, on the one hand supporting the human rights laid out in its Constitution and Declaration of Independence, while not always living up to these ideals in practice." "At times, the United States has been criticized for interventionist policies in places like Latin America, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, as well as for its support of repressive governments and warlords, particularly during the Cold War, when many of these decisions were based upon a calculation of the greater good as a counterweight to the influence of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was seen by many in the U.S. as the world's greatest threat; to be opposed with methods that might not otherwise be considered ethical." Individual statements aren't really useful here, simply citing another source that says that there was criticism would work. --Golbez 04:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that the lack of paper sources - there is only one - is a bit odd. There have been great volumes written about the United States that aren't online, surely we can find some useful information in them and cite them? I don't think my objection hinges on this, but it would greatly help. --Golbez 04:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions, and I will provide some referencing to the Human rights section ASAP, but unfortunately, I do not have any paper sources on the US, nor do I really have access to any of them. However, much of the information can be found online, especially on government websites, and the references site many. Also, please note that a featured article does not have to have paper sources in order to become featured.--Ryz05 04:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
update: finished the referencing.--Ryz05 05:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I withdraw my object, but I still change to neutral because I think this article, being very large, needs a much longer peer review than what we have available to us in the few days this FAC is under debate. --Golbez 06:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per others. And please, bring this article down to size. 80kb is too much information. Use WP:SS Pepsidrinka 05:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I think much of the kb has to do with the images, which are important to the article. Please be more specific in your objection.--Ryz05 05:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The text itself is 75kb (images aren't included in that; only the amount of text it takes to make them display), though that includes the inline references. So we're probably talking 60-65kb of prose; about double the suggested maximum. You're right though; trying to figure out what to trim out is a tough problem. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 05:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
United States is a complex subject, and with its 200 years of history and global influence, there's a lot to talk about. The size might be larger than desirable, but please note that the content should not be jeopardized simply because of size, and that many other featured articles are over the size limit as well.--Ryz05 05:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
All countries are arguably complex subjects. For example, India has a much greater history than the United States does, and that page manages to be less than half this size. Take a look at some of the other featured articles, specifically Pakistan, Bangladesh, and I think Singapore is on FAC now is likely to be promoted, and all are significantly less than this article. There is no need for 60 kb of prose on an article. Pepsidrinka 16:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot to talk about America, given its long history and world influence. The history of its founding and its global influence can be arguably saidto be more influential than Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Singapore, and I seriously think India can be expanded with more referencing.--Ryz05 17:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. If, as claimed, the United States has "one of the world's highest literacy rate", then this article surely wasn't written by Americans. (In other words: serious copyediting is needed.) Fredrik Johansson 09:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
So the US does have one of the world's highest literacy rate- at 99%! That's something worth mentioning. Don't see why that needs to be taken out or to cause "serious" copyediting.--Ryz05 17:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not what he is implying (he was not implying that it be taken out). He is saying that if the U.S. really had such a high literacy rate, then an American couldn't have possibly written this article because its poorly written (punctuation, grammar, s/v a etc). Long story short: it reads like it was done by someone illiterate. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
All right, I changed that sentence. Although I'm not perfect at grammar, I believe the overall edits have made the article significantly better than before.--Ryz05 22:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment→No need to insult. Do you think it's clever? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 16:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean clever?--Ryz05 17:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Do I really need to explain this? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I was just confused as to what you meant.--Ryz05 18:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
True, that didn't belong. But the objection stands. Fredrik Johansson 06:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
What? No reasons? I sense some anti-Americanism here, rather than a logical objection.--Ryz05 18:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Take it easy; remember WP:AGF. He mentioned that it needs a good copyedit. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 19:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Object This is a great article, but the topic is far too massive to be covered in an article this size. I know that this article is already over the size limit, and that people want to trim it. I think that this is a special case; and that we should do the oppiste. Even though there are subpages and the article is in summary style. It doesn't link to enough subpages. I'm sure there must be hunderds of them. Also, more information should be added to the history and politics sections. Despite having seprate articles for them, they need it. This article would not be a good starting point to get to very specific information about the United states. That is my objection. Tobyk777 01:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for saying this is a great article, which I ardently agree. However, it surprised me that you want more to be included in this article, as it is already very long. Please be clear on what details you want to include, so that important details could be immediately added. But please keep in mind that the US article is only a summary of the main articles, which are linked under the sections in which they specifically deal with, so that only very important details are mentioned, otherwise it'll risk bloating the article; making it hard to read or follow. If you want more links to this article, I do not think that will be needed, because in the "See also" section, there's List of United States-related topics, which links to virtually everything dealing with the United States. I hope this answers your objection so that you may change your vote.--Ryz05 02:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - It seems clear to me that this will likely not succeed. This FAC is turning into an ad hoc peer review - I suggest this be closed early and the article submitted for a formal Peer Review. --Golbez 04:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Eh, the nomination isn't really hurting anything, and Ryz is doing a great job of attempting to meet concerns. Who knows, he might just pull it off given some more time. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 04:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I grant this isn't likely to succeed, but it is possible, so I might as well mention what I see needs to be fixed. If it's not possible to get it done in time, let me know before nominating it again and I can tell you if it is ready to pass or not. I have a very high hit rate with that. 1) I substantially agree with Spangineer's comments above. Still needs a substantial copyedit, but the low quality of the sources overall is the most concerning. Britannica is not a high enough quality source. Good work on improvements so far, and I commend the efforts, but a topic such as this that has been written about in thousands if not hundreds of thousands of books needs to cite some of the best ones for each sub topic. What are the best regarded sources on American History, Politics, etc? Use them. Anything less than a trip to an academic or research library would probably not be sufficient. Specifically the image caption mentions lacross is the fastest growing sport. I could show you sources showing that auto racing is, but I think it would depend on the metric. That point needs better research. - Taxman Talk 17:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
A number of objections so far that I've seen don't seem to have good reasons, as I have commented on many of them without further reply from the voters, so if this nomination does fail, the article will have a hard time improving if it does not have good reasons for changes and improvements. You said that the article needs heavy copyediting, which I already did by going through all the sections and resummarizing and reworking many of them, so I don't see where they still need copyediting. I notice that there are editors going around fixing some things here and there, but the original ones before those fixes are not grammatically incorrect. So you say that the low quality sources is a problem, well, many of the sources that I've chosen are from government sites and sites with a very high reputation, like Forbes or Sports Illustrated. Some of the sites might seem a little dubious, but if you click them, you'll see that their articles are actually from credible sources, so the articles on them are not actually their own work, but government or some governmental research institutes. If you are still not satisfied, please point out where you see the sources that are not credible, so those can be changed in due time. Books are good sources, but they are not mandated to have for an article to become featured. Check out some of the other featured articles on Wikipedia, like India, PRC, Australia, South Africa, and Cambodia to get an idea of how the US article compares, which in my opinion, should be among the best.--Ryz05 18:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you think Britannica is not a good source, but I've changed that reference to a Chinese governmental source. Hope that satisfies.--Ryz05 19:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentObject. I have a problem with last line in the lead:
"Its dominant global influence in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs around the world currently remain unmatched."
I can agree to political, military and cultural, but I have a problem with the rest. The European Union is economically stronger than the US. There are many different fields in science and technology, surely USA can't be the leader of them all. A country like Japan is strong in many of them. With that said I believe that such a statement require a reference.
The article still needs to be shortened and some of the level 3 subsections is a good place to start.
To the nominator I would say that it had been a good idea to submit the article to a peer review first. --Maitch 20:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The article is already listed as a good article, so why should it be submitted again? Also, it is all right to say that the US is dominant in those areas, because the European Union is not exactly a country; it's not as unified as the US. It can also arguably be said that US is more influential than Japan. It can even arguably be said that China is more influential than Japan, as it does have a higher GDP. In any case, the US is the world's sole superpower, as you can see from those inline citations.--Ryz05 20:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
A peer review has nothing to do with GA.
The problem with the statement is that it doesn't explain that it is as a single country. It just says it is unmatched, which is untrue. What citations are you referring to? There are none. When you use weasel words like arguably it is critical that you have a source. --Maitch 20:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to criticize your response, but the whole US article is about the country United States of America, so what do you mean it doesn't say that it's a country? The citations for the US article being a sole superpower or hyperpower are next to those words, how much clearer can I make them?--Ryz05 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Clearly you don't want to listen to constructive criticism, so I will stop replying now. --Maitch 21:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you meant by that, because I don't think it makes much sense.--Ryz05 21:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you are objecting over a single statement, but that has been discussed in the discussion page of the US article (under Introduction), and the current decision is to keep.--Ryz05 22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object inline citations are essential, and they cannot easily be slipped in as is suggested by a user above. Ideally, the original sources of the information used when writing the article would have been cited as the info was put in. Also, the culture section should be expanded. Cuisine, sports, and religion do not cover all of American culture. At least a hint of some broader culture or a description of a melting pot is needed. The history section should be broken into subsections (I'll do it unless someone beats me to it). The article should probably go through a peer review to address some of these problems. To editors of the article, don't feel disparged. You've done a lot of great work. The United States is a broad and important topic so getting to FA status is particularly hard for this article.--Bkwillwm 20:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Ideally, yes, original sources should have been included as the article was written, but that fact that they were later added does not prevent an article from becoming featured. The US article currently has 63 references, that's more than other featured articles like India, Australia, or South Africa. Sure, cuisine, sports, language, religion do not cover all of American culture, but the Culture section is merely a summary of its main article Culture of the United States, so if you add in too much information, you risk bloating the article, as I said earlier. The same thing goes if you break the history section into many sub-sections, which risk the chance of people going in and adding excess details. The article is already pretty long, so there's no need in adding more detail unless it's a crucial fact that's worth mentioning. I hope my reasons will change your vote.--Ryz05 20:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, ideally inline citations should be the original references- in most cases however, they are not. According to WP:V, verification is important. WP:CITE notes: You can add sources even for material you didn't write (sorry, I'm not trying to yell here; I'm just copy+pasting from WP:CITE). And I disagree that history should be broken down; the TOC should not be overwhelming (see WP:WIAFA), and there have already been objections above against the ToC already being too long - editors above have suggested the opposite be done and that the number of sections be cut down upon. Thanks, AndyZ t 21:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, nm on the subsections for the history section. I still think that they would be worth having even if they made the TOC longer, but if others having reasons for leaving subsections out, fine. My main point is the citations. There need to be a lot more.--Bkwillwm 00:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
How many citations do you want? And where? The article currently has 76 references, which is more than many other featured articles.--Ryz05 08:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support if the article is fully copyedited. AndyZ t 21:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I can copyedit it again, if there is a need to. However, I'm sure someone else would want to copy-edit it as I already did some heavy copy-editing before.--Ryz05 21:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
update I recently did a check of the US article for copyedits, and only found few. You can do another search if you want.--Ryz05 02:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: These objections without good reasons is a bother. If the article nomination fails, then at least there must be one good reason why it failed. It is best for that good reason to be brought up quickly, so that it can be fixed in due time.--Ryz05 22:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You're kind of misunderstanding how this works. Please also reallize that this not making FA this exact time is not an insult to you and neither are any objections. People have mentioned legitimate objections and there is not substantial support. You can't argue away the objections, many examples of people trying to do that have been disasters. You don't feel they are legitimate, but you don't have much experience with FAC, and it's likely that your desire for this to be successful is clouding your view. Try to relax a bit, do the best you can, and keep trying to improve the article. But your comments are making you appear less than polite and friendly and that is not helping anything. - Taxman Talk 23:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I realize that I'm the only one responding to objections for the US article, which is kind of surprising as I think there are many Americans on Wikipedia, but then, they might not be interested in bringing the US article to featured as much as I do or are not aware of this nomination. Anyways, the brute work in improving the US article is done. If this nomination fails, it'll get renominated in short time I hope. Regarding the comment on my lack of experience on FAC, the main reason why I nominated the US article is because I compared it to other featured country articles such as India, Australia, PRC, Cambodia, and South Africa. To me, the US article should be among the best, so I don't understand why people are objecting.--Ryz05 23:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Whether they are American or not has nothing to do with meeting the criteria. I'm American, but that's besides the point. Everyone sems to be objecting to the same thing, which tends to indicate it is legitimate. Keep working and maybe it will make it this time, but if not the guideline is to give it at least two weeks to iron out any issues and to assess how it meets the stability criterion. Only then renominate. - Taxman Talk 23:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyways, I think I made my point. You guys can jump-in and help where ever you see improvements can be made. However, I'm still pondering why you guys are rejecting this article, when to me, it deserves to be featured as much as other featured country articles (like India, Australia, PRC, Cambodia, and South Africa). Hope someone can explain that.--Ryz05 23:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for the lack of citations to respectable paper sources as noted above. For an example of what constitutes proper citation to decent sources, see articles I have worked on extensively like Roger J. Traynor and Lawyer. --Coolcaesar 23:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you really need paper sources for an article to become featured? I guess a textbook on US history or something might help, but you can't say the US article has no paper sources, as many of the citations are from sources such as US census bureau, which print out their statistics on paper. Some sources that I citated from are also found on PDF, which should count as paper.--Ryz05 23:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Paper isn't the key, the level of review and editorial reputation are, but that's not likely be possible for a subject of this scope without consulting some books. The Census bureau is good but limited in scope. Why are you fighting so hard against good recommendations people are making? Just go get some good books and be done with it. - Taxman Talk 23:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess some books can be useful in the US article, but is it necessary to object just because of that?--Ryz05 23:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
update: Due to the objections regarding lack of citations from books, I included some books in the referencing for the history section. I don't know how many references you guys want from books, but I hope that this will change some of your votes.--Ryz05 00:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, on a number of issues, but in summary the balance of content is weighted in the wrong places:
  1. Low quality references unlike the Australia article which uses published or government sources, this article cites Yahoo, Fact Monster and BankruptcyHome.com. I have no issue with the number, in fact this article is probably over cited, but the quality of the sources is very important. Many of these sub-par references chould be replaced with official government statistics, the US governemnt is very good at compiling statistics on everything.
    Government sources are cited as well, and low quality is subjective. Those websites are credible, such as Yahoo, which has a high reputation as a search engin.
  2. Language and religion should be in the demographics section on the article.
    I disagree, those definitely go more with the Culture section.
    Australia, a featured article, has them in demographics. They matter more for demographics than culture. --Golbez 02:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry I didn't see your response earlier, but can you explain why they are more relevant in the demographics section? I see topics like language or religion has more to do with culture than with demographics.--Ryz05 05:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    I would say that "Culture" is for what sets a nation apart from the others - its own culture. However, the proportion of Christians to Jews to Muslims in a society is a statistic, which seems to belong under demographics. So too with language - every country has one, and a great number use English. Maybe a tally should be taken of how other countries do this. --Golbez 06:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    All currently featured coutries have this information in demographics, all sources list these types of stats in a section called demographics - like the World Fact Book.--nixie 06:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    See the PRC (featured article), which has the same format as the US article for those sections. It is just you guys' opinions that they should be taken to Demographics, so not everyone will agree. This has never been a serious issue with the US article, so please take your opinions to the talk page instead.--Ryz05 07:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. There is some unnecessary historical information in several sections (Foreign relations, human rights, economy, science and technology) which if removed would make the article more focussed on the contemporary US.
    United States has a long history, and by talking about the past, one could better understand the present. Also, some of those details, like in the human rights section (which someone added), are necessary to maintain NPOV.
  4. We have a rather long discussion of food in the culture section, but no discussion of Americans contributions to the fine arts, theatre (Broadway?) etc. No mention about the media, it's scope and influence, or freedom of the press.
    How much do you want to add to the US article? If you want to learn more about those things, it's better to look under media of the United States, and arts and entertainment in the United States, etc.
    Maybe we could shorten the food and add more? Or add other paragraphs? Be less defensive and more responsive. It is a bit odd that there's no mention of Broadway in the article. --Golbez 02:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    Why is it so important to mention Broadway? If you really want to mention Broadway theatre, then go ahead (without lengthening the article too much), but I don't see why you can't just click Arts and entertainment in the United States to find out more, or add it to the See also at the bottom.--Ryz05 04:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    If Broadway is so important, I find it a bit odd that the other Cultural articles like Cinema or Dance never mention Broadway. In any case, I added a See also section under Arts and entertainment in the United States article and included Broadway.--Ryz05 04:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Native Americans get a rather short (2 sentences) mention for their long habitation of the territory.
    The article is about the US, not Native Americans. See the article Native Americans in the United States for more detail.
    Yes, but in the Australia article (which is featured), Aborigines are mentioned several times. --Golbez 02:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    Native Americans are mentioned several times in the US article, especially in the history section. But since they only make up about 1% of the US total population today, they are not mentioned very often in other sections.--Ryz05 02:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    First of all, please indent properly so you don't break the ordering. Second, the only use of the word reservation is in Demographics. I'd think Geography, or Law, would also be worthwhile areas. --Golbez 02:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    I did a check on the Australia article for the mentioning of aborigines, and I found its about the same as that for the US article. The mentioning of Native Americans is probably more apparent in the US article, especially under the Culture section.--Ryz05 02:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    Not true, the US article doesn't mention way of life pre-european arrivale and does not discuss racial relations today. The lack of information on race relations is not just with Native Americans either.--nixie 06:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    You are losing focus on what the article is about. It's about the establishment of the United States. Sure, things can be mentioned about what life is like in pre-colonial times, but that's not what the article focuses. If you want to include it so as to lengthen the history section even more, then not everyone will be happy about that. Please take this discussion to the talk page instead, as what you are mentioning has never been an issue.--Ryz05 07:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. The health section is probably to focussed on domestic issues, that may not mean much to an international audience.
    How international can you make the "health" section?
    Exactly, thats why most countries don't have one.--nixie 06:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    If you want the health section to be taken out, then you should discuss it in the discussion page for the US article, because I don't think everyone would agree with you on that. The PRC (a featured article) has one. It never hurts to include a health section, as the topic is pretty important. Also, please keep in mind that it's not just about being internationally oriented, people in the US also read the article, and they might get something out of the health section. Plus, the health section mentions how the federal government encourages its citizens to excercise like other countries. Finally, the health section mentions how the health care system in the US compares with other countries. If you still object, please explain to me how it is not international, and address some of the other things that I brought up as well.--Ryz05 07:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. See alsos following sections are largely unnecessary and caould be incorporated into the text.
    Some of the see alsos are important, especially under Culture, where not everything on US culture can be discussed in the US article.--Ryz05 01:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    They are all linked in the {{main}} article in that section, the see alsos just make a mess.--nixie 06:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    Not everyone will agree with you on that. If you really feel strongly about taking it out, you can take it to the talk page on the US article. Personally, I think they are important to include so people can have a easy time finding what they are looking for. Also, not everything on US culture can be talked about under that one section.--Ryz05 08:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
--nixie 01:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Quick comment: As much as I'd love to see it featured, it's still messy in some parts. Then again, especially, it's one of Wikipedia's most popular articles by both readers and vandals alike. Can we wait one or two more years for renomination? --Slgrandson 16:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: You guys are welcome to review the article again and change your votes accordingly. Many of the valid issues (not personal opinions) mentioned about the article has been addressed. If it's still an objection, please explain explicitly why you object (no personal opinions or bias), so that the article may be further improved. Thank you.--Ryz05 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Support: The article is substantially improved thanks to this rigorous peer review, and the remaining objections are not nearly strong enough to keep it from being an FA. The article is increasingly well written, very comprehensive, accurate, well sourced, neutral, and generally very stable.

In addition, I would give a friendly suggestion to those who have objected to this articles candidacy, would they be more rigorous about lining out their objections, or reviewing the article as it currently is and see if their objections still stand? :) Judgesurreal777 18:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. In fact, I'm so happy that I used your user page code for mine (albeit minor link changes). Hope you don't mind.--Ryz05 20:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
This article needs an intensive peer review, so no, I will not review it myself. --Golbez 18:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any more reasons coming for the objections. If no reasons can support the objections, how do you guys expect the article to improve? I kindly suggest those who objected go over the article again and either change their vote, or come up with new reasons (no bias or personal opinions) for the objections.--Ryz05t 01:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "The United States is one of the most educated countries in the world, with a litercy rate of 99% (male and female)- defined as anyone age 15 and over who can read and write". But can they spell? Bwithh 01:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object This is a good article and great effort but also a very long article albeit on a huge topic which means that it has kinks to work out and some omissions. Here are a few things I noticed in quick first run-through:
    • No mention of Entrepreneurship or "the American Dream" in neither the Economy or the Culture sections nor anywhere else.
      • That pisses me off, because I added that a long time ago when I did my own overhaul of this article. I'm very annoyed that it's been removed in the interim. --Golbez 04:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The Culture section is overly focused on cooking 50% of the summary talks about food (and yet fast food is not mentioned). Glaring ommissions from this section - the "American film industry" is mentioned (inadequately) but the term "Hollywood" is not mentioned anywhere. Also, television is not mentioned in the culture section, but is definitely more important culturally (and economically) than cinema.
    • Science and technology section has no mention of Silicon Valley or the Internet (there is only a very brief mention in the History section - it is not clear that the internet revolution began in the US). Computers are only mentioned in a pre-1969 context.
    • "The country has also sought to fight terrorism and control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but its main goal remains to protect American interest and the safety of its citizens at home and abroad". How is the "main goal" different from the first goals mentioned? (And it should be "interests", not 'interest")
    • Article needs to be checked throughout to ensure sense of time is proper and consistent e.g. sentences such as "The United States' focus on military expenditures has ranged broadly, due to regularly changing ideologies inherent in its political system. The American military, in terms of physical resources, is actually smaller now than it was twenty years ago, despite being larger than it was five years ago, for example." should not have relative sense of time without a specific year. Relative sense of time or current tense should not be used with specific years. (Also, this sentence seems to ignore the end of the Cold War (that wasn't an effect of the inherent ideological processes internal to the US))
Bwithh 02:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The United States has a lot to talk about, but I'm just curious to know how much longer you want to make it? If the article is too long, then others will reject simply because of the size. If you want to talk about the American Dream, then I expect you would then want the economy section to be expanded with more history. If you want to talk about television, then I expect you would also want to talk about Simpsons or the invention of the television, and on and on and on. I thought you said there's some omission to do? And yet, you add all those things that you want to mention. There's obviously some contradiction for your reasons in the objection.--Ryz05 t 02:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
update: I edited the mentioning about the size of US military resources, thanks for bringing that up.--Ryz05 t 02:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with the article length. I made no objection to the size of the article, I was just pointing out that this article is long so there is bound to be bugs i.e. I was trying to be polite. The article really should mention Hollywood (and if you mention Hollywood, you should mention television, not just cinema)). I don't give a damn about the Simpsons (too many references to the Simpsons in Wikipedia as there is). The American Dream is central to the ideology and the world perception of what the US is about. So is Hollywood and entrepreneurship. I am not asking for lots of detail or explication. also I am not asking for omission, I am pointing out that there are SERIOUS omissions that need to be filled in. I am asking that you MENTION these terms at least. These are BIG central themes about what the US means to the world in a broad brush sense - there is no "obvious contradiction" here. I hope you understand that people are genuinely trying to help here, and that we're not pedantic simpletons. Bwithh 04:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Support. It is quite the impressive article considering the subject manner. Rangeley 17:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Support. This is really a great article. We can't include everything in the article, but I think this is nicely done. PDXblazers 00:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/archive1
Self-nomination. The United States article exemplifies one of the best country articles on Wikipedia and deserves to be featured. The article is increasingly well written, very comprehensive, accurate, well sourced, neutral, and generally very stable. It is quite the impressive article considering the subject manner, and we can't include everything in the article, but I think this is nicely done.

  • If you are unsure, you are welcome to check other featured country articles, such as China, India, Australia, South Africa, and Cambodia, to get an idea of how the US article compares.
  • If you object because of personal opinions on how the article should look, including suggestions regarding section organizations or that the article should be either expanded in size (for comprehensiveness) or reduced (for an appropriate size), please take it to the discussion page, as these opinions are subject to debate. If you don't, your vote and reasons might be moved by someone else.
  • If you object because you have a previous bias against this article or if you consider yourself anti-American, please do not let your bias cloud your judgements or otherwise, do not vote.
  • If you object because of copyedit issues, please state explicitly where you see an issue, so that the article may be further improved upon. Thank you.

Support, per nom. --Ryz05 t 19:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment The previous nomination was taken off this page yesterday (it's customary, by the way, to include a link to the previous nomination when one renominates an article). Has it really improved that much since then? Have you adressed all the concerns that was raised? I'm not saying you havent, but I do wonder... Have you considered a peer review of this article (I found no mention of a peer review on the talkpage, there is usually a template there if the article has been peer reviewed)? Oh, and the size of the article is a relevant objection on for a FAC - ref attribute 5. WegianWarrior 19:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I don't like that the nominator tries to influence people, by calling them anti-American if they object to the article. --Maitch 20:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy close. This is stuffing the ballot box. --Golbez 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per my previous objection. I haven't even read the article through, but an article at 86 KB is too large. If it doesn't meet the FAC criteria, there is no need for me to read it to judge it on its other merits. As WegianWarrior mentioned, size is a valid objection. Not adhering to the FAC criteria is a valid objection. This needs to be cut down significantly. I recommend this nomination be speedy closed and moved to peer review where suggestions can be made and properly taken care of. Pepsidrinka 21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to object simply because you think the size is too big on the US article? I don't see information needs to be removed for such an important and big subject. In any case, I've brought your comment to the US talk page, where you are welcome to discuss.--Ryz05 t 21:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to peer review Joelito (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Misuse of process.It was taken off this page yesterday? I'm delisting it right now. Please wait at least a couple of weeks before re-nominating, and ask Raul first. Also, I too advise very strongly against such an uncivil nomination. It won't do you a blind bit of good to rile people by telling them they might be biased and ought perhaps not to vote. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Orion Nebula

This recent SCOTW has shaped up pretty nicely. It has undergone considerable expansion and improvement in the past few months, and I think it's ready for a FA review. Please let me know what you think and I'll try to address any concerns. Thank you. — RJH 14:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. The article has become vastly better since I requested its expansion. It is balanced, has illustrative pictures and its sources are okay.--Jyril 16:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the weasel words have to be removed or cited (see WP:AWT). Some examples:
    • The Orion Nebula is considered to be one of the most scrutinized and photographed objects in the night sky
      • I added a citation to a source that has comparable wording. Hopefully that's sufficient. In reality virtually every site on the Orion Nebula says something along these lines. — RJH 22:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The Orion Nebula is considered to be a primary example of a stellar .
      • Reworded slightly.
  • Additionally, I usually don't see terms in bold, and I'm not too sure if this is commonly done. Thanks, AndyZ t 21:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Bold removed. Thanks.
  • Object at the moment. I'm really sorry I wasn't able to get involved when this was a collaboration effort, or in its peer review - ionised nebulae are my area of expertise. The article is looking far better than it did a few short weeks ago, but I don't think it's quite comprehensive yet. Among the things I think are missing are:
  1. little discussion of abundances and temperatures in the nebula. It's a long standing puzzle that two different ways of measuring the abundances give quite different results. This is mention in H II region, and the Orion Nebula is the best-studied case.
  2. No mention of X-ray observations - Chandra showed that a lot of stars in the nebula are strong X-ray emitters.
  3. A mention is made of how Trumpler's distance estimate was close to the modern value, but there's no discussion of the ways in which the modern value has been derived.
  4. I think more discussion of proplyds would be useful, a bit more about their properties (mass, size) and a citation about how they vary with distance from the Trapezium.
  5. For an intergalactic context it could be worth mentioning that although Orion is the most intense star-forming region known in our galaxy, if the Tarantula Nebula was where Orion is it would fill the constellation of Orion and be about as bright as the full moon.
  6. You could mention the speculation that the inclusion of such a bright and obviously non-cometary object in Messiers list was the result of rivalry with Lacaille [6]
  7. Also definitely worth mentioning is the strange fact that it apparently wasn't noticed by any pre-telescopic observers, which led to some suggestions it had only become bright enough to be visible at about the time telescopes were invented.
I am also a little bit concerned about the quality of some of the references. For example, I don't think an Astronomy Picture of the Day is a good reference to cite for the size of the nebula, and I'm confused as to the meaning of footnote 3, which gives a different value to the value APOD used anyway. You also might want to use a reference more recent than Balick (1974) for some of the info you've got from him.
I removed the APoD reference since the diameter of the nebulae is already covered in the table data (based on distance and angular diameter). Were there other specific references that were of concern? Most of them appear pretty legit. publications, AFAIK. — RJH
I mentioned to RJH that I had put together some content offline a long while ago - I'll add what I can from that to the article shortly. Worldtraveller 10:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore

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

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

  • Comment would support providing redlink is stubbed or removed. - FrancisTyers 15:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Tried to replace it with two links. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment would support once the duplicate wikilinks, redundant wikilinks of simple words have been corrected. --Ragib 15:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I've removed the extra/some duplicate wikilinks, and hence I am changing my vote to Support --Ragib 17:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "the article deteriorated as a result of the feedback it was getting." You'd think we'd have figured that out after two or three nominations ago. Johnleemk | Talk 15:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Object. I'm convinced that this article really needs a major copyedit. There are grammatical mistakes in the lead, and the third paragraph jumps from one thing to another -- no wonder Mandel got a headache! Why is "Singapore's National Days are celebrated with annual parades and other festivities." in the history section? "This elevated Singapore into a developing nation and subsequently to developed" reads poorly. Why is Lee Jr. securing the confidence of Parliament relevant? IIRC under the Westminster system, Parliament does not pass votes of (no-)confidence regarding potential PMs; it only has such motions for sitting PMs. At best, this needs a clarification, if not a rewrite. The normal procedure for the appointment of a new PM is simply the head of state appointing said PM. The first sentence of the 4th paragraph in politics is unwieldy. The last sentence is also out of place. I see at least one {{fact}}, so obviously this article isn't fully referenced yet. I need sleep now, so I can't comment on the rest of the article. I will try to work on these issues tomorrow; from my experience, the article probably needs a partial rewrite, but such rewrites are quite easy to handle if you know how. Mandel is spot-on that the article is a bit too dry, and some (but not all) of Tony's concerns merit a look. I hope to God this isn't going to be another fiasco; the past four FACs have all failed because as I pointed out in the third one, apparently nobody is ever satisfied with Singapore, and in the process of trying to satisfy all, we have satisfied none. Johnleemk | Talk 18:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
"Lee Jr. securing the confidence of Parliament" is somewhat relevant because there were questions about Lee's support among the PAP's cadre before and during the leadership transition period, but there were mostly answered when PAP MPs openly expressed their support to him. I'm not sure how this can be reworded better; according to the Constitution, the PM does need to have the confidence of the Parliament. --Vsion 05:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It might be better to just have a sentence stating he became the next PM after the agreement of PAP MPs. "Confidence" has a special meaning when it comes to the Westminster system. I haven't forgotten about the article; I've just been exceptionally busy, by the way. I'll see if I can copyedit it this weekend. Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the {{fact}}problem. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support looks good. No problems that some copyediting can't fix. Rama's Arrow 16:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support when you fix the templating problem. - FrancisTyers 22:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the images are a mess and leave giant holes in the article because there are too many. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Addressed together with the second image-related objection below. Please have a look now, and reconsider your vote. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A well-written article, and is comprehensive in information on various aspects of the subject-country including history, culture, transport, etc. Most of the "outstanding objections" in the previous nomination are not serious and are often due to subjective preference on style and content coverage. This is expected for such an article which is heavily edited by many users with different interests and is frequently updated with new information. I don't think the aim is to satisfy every user on every detail in the article as that would be unrealistic and impractical; but rather to accommodate their good comments while keeping the article concise, balanced, and updated. --Vsion 05:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It was impressive in other FAC's and I hope to see it finally achieve FA. As a whole, Singaporean contributions to wikipedia are outstanding and usually a fantastic read. I would like the images corrected however. michael talk 08:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, good article. --Terence Ong 11:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very well referenced article, very readable, and as an aside it has the best placement of a panoramic I've ever seen. Staxringold 11:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many images, and some used inappropriately. The availability of free images does not mean that everything available must be used. 4 images depict modes of "transport" although 2 of them appear in the "culture" section – water taxis and trishaws are not mentioned in the article. Why do we need images of them? Surely there must be something more specific to illustrate culture that actually relates to the text, but this section would be better served by having no images, than these images. The military is illustrated by a picture of soldiers with an interested bystander strolling past (and ruining the photo unfortunately) and Image:RSAF Aircraft.JPG which is taken at an odd angle, illustrates a display rather than the military itself, and has a lot of wording that can't be read. Not sure what this image is intended to convey but it does not add to an understanding of Singapore's military. Finally, Image:Tenyearseries.JPG is a photo of 3 books. I don't believe that seeing a photograph of 3 text books offers further understanding of Singapore's education system. The other images are great, but these ones are so out of place and so unnecessary as to lessen the effect of the good ones. Rossrs 13:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't really think the photos by themselves have a problem, it is more of the captions that needs to do more explaining. I've replaced them with a new set nevertheless. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree that it was only the captions, but I think the changes you've made are very good. Thank you. Rossrs 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, *much* better than what it used to be previously. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with Vsion. Objections have been addressed quickly. I fixed the BATTLE OF SINGAPORE date, it was in 1942, not 1945. Rlevse 18:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • The last paragraph of the lead needs a copyedit, and could probably be split into two. The first two sentences are (somewhat) related and could be a paragraph, and then the end is on a totally different subject. The last sentence needs work too.
    • The pic under "History" squeezes the text unattractively. Since Raffles isn't mentioned until a couple paragraphs down, could the pic be moved?
    • The History section is really fragmented. The very first sentence begs the question of what those records say, and implies that they are about the Srivijaya empire, which I don't think is true. As another example of a systemic problem in that section, the bit about the Portuguese burning the city down is completely unconnected to anything else there.
      • We cannot please everyone - The is a very watered down version in which has always invited objections due to its (excessive) size - the current one is the consensual size. Please refer to previous FACs for details. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree with you. This is not a comprehensiveness problem, it's a brilliant prose problem. As it is, it is simply a poor paragraph. Tuf-Kat 05:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Why are the main articles for "Politics and government" Politics of Singapore and Law of Singapore, rather than politics and Government of Singapore.
      • That's because the subarticle government of Singapore doesn't have too much material yet, the political climate is one thing, but the party and parliament which creates the government (which technically gets dissolved every general election) ... the government article mainly concerns various ministries. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 14:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
        • The solution then is to expand Government of Singapore. Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Agreed. That section, which is quite well done, has one paragraph each on politics and law, and two on government, so they should all three be "main articles". Tuf-Kat 14:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
          • But that will require lots of reorganising of the politics of Singapore article. Is this required for the FAC, or can just have most of the issues about government included in politics of Singapore now? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 16:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
            • It won't require any reorganizing of the politics article, just add the government link to the main article thing. Ideally, government of Singapore should be improved as well, but that's not related to this FAC. I'm not sure about your question -- very little is required for FAC (see WP:WIAFA). I won't support as it is; whether or not this oppose is enough to keep the article from being featured is up to Raul, if my opposition for this reason is the only outstanding objection at the end of the FAC period. Tuf-Kat 17:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "Despite these political issues, Singapore has what its government considers to be a highly successful and transparent market economy" -- this needs a citation, and is needlessly complex
    • Some copyediting needed due to passive voice (e.g. "Laws restricting the freedom of speech are justified by claims that they" - "PAP justifies laws restricting freedom of speech by claiming that they"; "Singapore was hit hard in 2001 by the global recession and the slump in the technology sector, which caused the GDP that year to contract by 2.2%" ("hit hard" is unencyclopedic anyway) - "In 2001, a global recession and slump in the technology sector caused Singapore's GDP to contract by 2.2%")
    • Don't think Tourism in Singapore justifies a main article link in "Economy". The paragraph on tourism says it's "one of the largest" industries, but if any specific industry were to be linked that way, the single largest one would seem most appropriate. I don't think any specific industry needs such a link, however.
    • "Religious tolerance has been..." has no fewer than two examples of passive voice in one sentence, and the sentence following it is passive too.
      • worked this issue Rlevse 18:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Link or define durian
      • fixed this Rlevse 18:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Only one citation in the whole Culture section is insufficient; the Education section is entirely uncited. The paragraph beginning "The government of Singapore has been careful" also needs a citation or two.
    • Why the pic of the Singapore river at the very bottom? It's pretty, but certainly doesn't illustrate the section it's in.
      • Caption has been rewritten to explain why. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
        • It's in the external links section. It doesn't illustrate that. Tuf-Kat 05:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
          • There's no other space, really. Besides, another FAC, Defense of Sihang Warehouse has a picture in the external links section and no one is objecting to that. It doesn't detract it from being featured, and also provides an aesthetical thing IMO to the otherwise textually dense bottom (full of templates). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overall, quite a good article. It just needs some tweaking and I think it will be ready. Tuf-Kat 00:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm now objecting based on these issues. Tuf-Kat 22:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportGood unbiased article with factual information.--cakeman 12:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am concerned that the Transport section is too prominent, it's almost larger than demographics. A well written article otherwise.--ppm 01:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support I just finished a complete copyedit that I hope fixes some of the objections and comments above (mostly fixed awkward prose, killed scare quotes, and made links explicit). There are a few statements that need to be specifically cited and I will condition my support on that getting fixed. --mav 14:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I still object. I have copyedited the article (and caught a number of grammatical mistakes while I was at it), but I'm not fully satisfied yet. There are still some {{fact}}s that need to be taken care of, and there are some questions in HTML comments (yes, in the body of the article itself) that at least merit a response here (if the issues they raise are not taken care of; personally I think they are demanding a bit too much detail). Otherwise, splendid job everyone. Johnleemk | Talk 16:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Should be done, unless I have grossly missed out anything in error. - Mailer Diablo 19:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, the article is quite good, but as I have pointed out in the article there are a few bits that need work. In addition to the notes I have left in text (1) the transport section is too long and borders on cruft, remember the audience of this article is very general and probably doesn't care about expansion to Singapore's main airport - I would cut it to about two paragraphs. (2) The education section could also be shortened as it contains quite a lot of detail not pertinent to Singapore in general, and it could be merged into demographics as was done in the Australia article.--nixie 05:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll work on your notes in just a moment. Merging education into Demographics is a poor idea, as it would make the paragraph too bulky and will raise new objections. For transport, perhaps three paragraphs is fine, but two will be too short, and will raise objections as per previous FACs. We may be able to cut a line or two from the seaport and airport paragraphs, but they can't go altogether because this is what Singapore is internationally prominent for! - Mailer Diablo 08:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the transport section is fine as it is; I went over it with a fine toothcomb and only chopped out a few dozen words. I think getting it down to three paragraphs would be hard. Johnleemk | Talk 09:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The culture section could also do with a specific mention of fine arts, music (if there are notable examples that could be given) and media which isn't mentioned in the article at all.--nixie 05:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I eventually plan to add in things about films produced, famous artists and the like but not sure how to approach it in the parent article. The education section already has been cut down to two paragraphs. Early streaming at 10, PSLE at 12 and various aspects make it unique so I think we shoul dkeep it as a separate section. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And I thought...that the education section is already a bit too short? =P - Mailer Diablo 08:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • nixie : I believe that the notes you have inserted have been addressed. Please post any further concerns in this FAC itself. Questions that demand for further explanation may not be answered in full, as the prose may stretch too long (and trivial) and will raise objections (as per Johnleemk). - Mailer Diablo 20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The article has improved alot, but there is still no description of the media in the article, and there should be.--nixie 00:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I recall an old cooy of the article has exactly that. I'll dig it up later. - Mailer Diablo 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I think I culled material from some various subarticles to make that media section a few FACs ago. Sigh. We're on the "trying to please everyone but pleasing noone" carousel again, it seems. Just why do we need a media section anyway? Have we considered that in the first place? Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Becuase the scope of media and media are freedom (Singapore ranks pretty poorly according to Reporters Without Borders) are important things in both cultural and political terms. It only needs to be a paragraph, see the culture section in Australia.--nixie 13:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


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

  • Thank you for understanding the dilemna that we have been facing for this article. - Mailer Diablo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I was close to voting support or neutral a few weeks ago, but a close reading reveals more problems with this article. First there's a problem of style. It still reads awkwardly not because the editors can't write good English, but because they seem adamant at squeezing every little bit of information into the page size. They seemed lost as to whether they should summarize and link to a detailed write-up or write a complete section dissertation by itself. The writing range is too heavily compact, overly detailed at times, including lots of excessive information which would never make it into country articles elsewhere. (Examples: "During prolonged heavy rain, relative humidity often reaches 100%."; "The Orchard Road district, which is dominated by multi-storey shopping centres and hotels, is the centre of tourism in Singapore."; "A popular local film, I Not Stupid, highlights the competitiveness of the system and social stigma that students struggling with studies have to face." - Isn't there a separate article to put these little bits of very insignificant information? "Singapore introduced a Goods and Services Tax (GST) with an initial rate of 3% on April 1, 1994." - Is the GST significant to the economy at large, that it needs a long paragraph? If so, how and why?) Lots of information, the reading just doesn't flow well.
    • Most of that information appears relevant to me. Apparently Southeast Asians tend to take the notability of these things for granted. Orchard Road is a famous Singaporean landmark, and it is a very very very busy tourist district. In Singapore, Orchard Road = tourism. Perhaps this would not be notable for another country, but Singapore is both a country and a city. I Not Stupid was a very popular film not just in Singapore but in Southeast Asia for how it highlighted the immense pressure Asian educational systems place on students. The article apparently doesn't make either of these facts clear, but then we are trying for brevity...Sigh. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Nobody's denying those information a place in Wikipedia, but the right place they should go is to the respective sub-pages, not in this overview on the country. There is an article on tourism in Singapore where you can boast talk about Orchard Road all you like. Also, it is misleading. Orchard Road is not a place strictly for tourists; 90% of the people who shop there are Singaporeans. If you try to add every little niggle on Singapore, this article will be 100KB long, not 50. Chewing gum, ban on oral sex, ban on homosexual sex, capital punishment, strict drug enforcement, relations with Malaysia, Orchard Road, I Not Stupid, GST, Total Defence, casinoes, Ten Years series, EZY Link, Fort Siloso, bartop dancing, bungee-jumping, Carlburg Skytower, Singapore Girl - Singaporeans are greedy aren't they? They want all these things within an article and keep the 50KB limit. Possible? Mandel 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I wasn't aware of a hard and fast limit concerning article size. The important thing, IMO, is to maintain the flow of the article. If it's 500kb long but everyone is so enthralled with the article that they can't take their eyes off it, it's hardly reasonable to argue for trimming the article. We need to keep sight of readability, which is the purpose of the guidelines concerning article size, not article size itself. If a 100kb article on Singapore is easily readable and enjoyable, what would be wrong with that? Most of the things you've mentioned are valid material for inclusion, IMO, excepting anything I don't know about e.g. Fort Siloso, since much of it is stuff a person living in the developed world would have heard of. Regardless of actual statistics on Orchard Road's patrons, the fact is that it is synonymous with shopping and tourism in Singapore. Likewise, Singapore is famous for its chewing gum ban, and to a slightly lesser extent, its laws concerning sexual intercourse. Singapore Girl is an image almost inextricable from Singapore and SIA. If we can't have these things in the article, what can we have? Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree with your thoughts on article size. But I guarantee there will be plenty of complaints once the byte size exceeds 50KB. If you think all these details should be in, then I can safely assume the limit would be ~100KB. Also, not everyone will share your view that things like the Singapore Girl should be in this article. Mandel 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Secondly, it lacks astute observations about the country, which a good encyclopedia article should make. For example, in the economics section, they should indicate how the local economy is viewed, classified and observed by social scientists in the world, and its interaction with the world at large, not include government-cruft like Economic Review Committee (!) and the fact it has a goods-and-service tax (which is not unique at all in the world - even if it is important, I fail to see how the section shows it). In fact, this is true of the whole article - meaningless government-cruft like 'gateway between the East and West' adorn the writing, and too much nonsense about what and how government organizations function - Land Transport Authority etc etc. too much subtle boasting and inflated sense of self-being (is the fact SIA flying the Airbus A380 important?). In defence, I need to know how Singapore's military is similar to the rest of the world, and in what ways they are unique, not silly propaganda like Total Defence.
    • While I agree a more in-depth analysis of both the economy and military is necessary, I don't see things like the LTA as cruft. In an article about a city, it would be mandatory to have something about the local transportation system, and I see only one sentence — of certainly sufficient notability — devoted to the LTA. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Finally, the writers of this article have not use enough good background reading materials. The reference section is abysmal. They have not done sufficient research and read-up on books about Singapore, and they rely too heavily on Singapore government materials. This will take lots of time, effort, and needs probably at least one intelligent editor to do the job. I'm not sure all three are present at the moment. Mandel 05:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The above is a wrong argument. Data on education, economy, demographics are primarily from the government. There is nothing wrong in using sources such as Singapore Department of Statistics, the Economic Development Board, and Ministry of Education; in fact this is the best practice. Why should we use other sources with more chances of errors, since the information ultimately traces back to these agencies? For topics such as human rights and press freedom, the article does use sources like Anmesty-International and Reporters Without Borders, for a broader perspective. --Vsion 02:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
      • too heavily does not mean I prohibit anyone from using any government data. Mandel 10:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see this as a pressing issue. IMO, if you can find the right content and source it, this problem will naturally resolve itself. Let's not encourage unnecessary footnote-cruft (which just sidesteps the problem of an imbalanced article) and concentrate on the meat. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Pressing or not depends on your priority. I reckon once this article reaches FA consensus the rot will sink it. Seriously, do you think anyone would do research after FA status is reached? Mandel 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • So you're speculating on what might happen to an article after it reaches FA status? I note that your comment as it now stands provides no rationale for this belief, but the original one with its reasoning included appears to be an unnecessary sweeping statement and (quite possibly) an assumption of bad faith towards Singaporean editors. It also assumes the only people interested in maintaining the article would be Singaporeans. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Please assume good faith. - Mailer Diablo 15:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm merely saying if no one does reading or research when it is not a Featured Article, it will be idealistic to assume editors will do so after. Nobody likes to be a prophet of doom, but obviously Cassandras are never welcomed. OK, maybe we shouldn't speculate. But I am voting for the article as it is now, not as in the future. As of now, I don't think it is FA status yet. Personal view. Mandel 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, I think you miss my point. The focus is not on more citations, but on more references, and more research. Mandel 12:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Like I said, these issues will sort themselves out if we can get the content we want. Finding analyses of Singapore's military and economy from non-Singaporean perspectives will naturally broaden the horizons of the citations/references/etc. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Just curious, how are we to do that without further references? Mandel 19:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I thought I made it clear -- in the process of expanding the article, we will have to address this problem anyhow. Johnleemk | Talk 20:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Please remain civil and refrain from making ethnically disparaging remarks. - FrancisTyers 11:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou for removing them :) - FrancisTyers 12:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I better say that I did not make any ethnically disparaging remarks. But so as not to fuzz the issue, I've removed them. Mandel 12:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, Mandel's remarks were definitely not ethnically disparaging, although they were a blanket generalisation about Singaporeans. (I have no comment as to whether they actually hold water or not.) Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
True or not, as it stands, it's a totally pointless trajectory. I apologize. This kind of thing must never be said. Let's move on. Mandel 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Mandel, did you read the wrong version of the article? I don't think the current version mentions chewing gum nor oral sex. Surprised? itching to put it back? I wonder who is the greedy guy here. --Vsion 01:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Not the current version. Please read carefully before you make any comments. Also, please refrain from making personal attacks here.Mandel 10:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The article has been nominated for FA status multiple times, and a consensus has never been reached simply because any edits the editors have made to address a prior objection has been objected to by somebody else who preferred a different "style." In many cases, this "style" had been corrected out to address previous objections to that particular style. Overall, the article is well-written, well-referenced and adheres to wikipedia policy. Understanding that it will be impossible to please everybody, and understanding that despite the above objections, the article remains well-written and factually accurate, I vote to support FA status. yueni 16:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Battle of Kharkov

I nominated the article because it went through a period of peer review, including between peers not necessarilly on Wikipedia, and I thought it would be fair to give it a chance. Even if it doesn't make it in the end, the experience and the comments should prove invaluable. In any case, the article is well written, informative, and in my inexperienced opinion, should stand a good chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalan (talk • contribs)

  • Comment You'll need some in-line citations. --Osbus 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto on the inline citations, particularly in the "Conclusions" section. The section titles in the body should also be cleaned up to conform to the MOS; you may even want to consider merging them into blocks that aren't tied to specific dates. Kirill Lokshin 02:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now. During a cursory review, I noticed the following: apart from the lack of in-line citations noted above, the structure of the article needs to follow WP:MOS guidelines. The most glaring example of the article not conforming to guidelines is the use of single quotes (') instead of double quotes (") or italics. Formatting of dates needs to follow WP:MOSDATE guidelines. Content needs to be wikified where appropriate. I will review the article in detail once formatting objections have been addressed. AreJay 04:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article, with inline citations or without them. Such formalities are bullshit. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Hahahaha! "Bullshit" perhaps, but bullshit without which there's no featured article nowadays. Per above on things that need to be fixed, though I would add that it's very well written and informative.UberCryxic 16:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. I will get to adding notes a.s.a.p. JonCatalan 00:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    1. And I added footnotes to several things that I thought would need them. JonCatalan 01:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The referencing isn't good. I should be able to easily see where all the information came from, specifically. Parts of this article have no in-line cites at all, and others are scarce on it. Outstanding writing and outstanding referencing should be treated as two sides of the same coin. Everyking 09:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • After looking at this more closely, I object. Look at this bit, near the beginning: "Stalin attempted to read the mind of the German military, and was convinced that the Germans were on their deathbed, and ready to collapse. So he decided to exploit this conceived weakness within the German military on the Eastern Front by launching a renewed offensive during the spring." So basically, the battle, and therefore the defeat, is the result of Stalin's supposed irrationality. This is sounds to me like part of the politically-based myth constructed in later years which tends to blame everything that went wrong on Stalin. Here we have him attempting to read minds, making stupid guesses and overriding the advice of his generals. This looks like it could use some thorough work, relying on more rigorous neutrality and greater diversity of sources. Everyking 08:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    1. I'll add some more inline citations, but umm, I don't know what you mean by "myth". The fact of the matter is that Stalin did tend to override the advice of his generals, and you can see that in STAVKA general directives [signed both by STAVKA and by Stalin]. But again, I'll add some more inline citations to back it up. JonCatalan 16:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
        • There are only 4 references and 8 in-line cites; two of the references are never used in any in-line cites. So basically the article is apparently constructed on two refs, Beevor's book on Stalingrad (reputedly very POV) and the Kharkov 1942 book. This points to the need for greater diversity of sources. I just don't believe you can properly construct an article like this on just two sources like that, especially when historians on the subject almost always come to their table with their own heavy biases and need to be balanced against each other critically. Everyking 08:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    1. Well then maybe you should add more sources? I'll look for what I used those two other sources for and add the reference. IIRC, they were general overview books used for a quick general overview of the situation and to compare that to the more specific books. But I'll add more citations later. Glantz' book is full of more sources and actual Soviet/German/American sources [mostly the former] than I could ever hope to own. Furthermore, there are not very many published Spanish/English sources on the battle that give the level of detail he does. If you have some please share them. JonCatalan 16:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Eh, it should be using the new ref /ref and references/ tags. JonCatalan 17:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As a Kharkov native I read this article with great delight. It is very well written. A technical comment: the Russian language name of the city is Kharkov while in Ukrainian (the current official language of Ukraine) it is Kharkiv (although the city itself remains primarily Russophone). Thus the name Kharkov is gradually disappering from the modern maps and is being replaced with Kharkiv. I am not sure if this is of any relevance to the article.

[edit] University of Chicago

After an exhaustive redesign of this article, I am extremely pleased with the results. The University of Chicago is a highly underrated American institution, and what is here in this article cannot possibly do it justice. However, it is still one of the stronger college/university articles on Wikipedia, and therefore I would like to formally nominate it as a featured article. Crimson3981 23:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: This FAC was incorrectly made. It was named after a redirect, and therefore did not link properly from the talk page. I have corrected the error, and reproduce the editors' comments below. --Danaman5 07:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. No references. RyanGerbil10 23:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. No clearly defined reference section (I see a lot of what appears to be footnotes, but they must use the standard footnoting format seen in other Wikipedia articles). There are also several lists within the article, notably in the academic divisions section, as well as several external links scattered throughout the article (which by convention must be in the external links section only). Furthermore, this article is placed under active peer review on the same day it is nominated for FA. Which one are you trying to do? PentawingTalk 23:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Peer Review This article is just not ready to be considered for FAC. Move this to WP:PR and incorporate suggestions and recommendations from other users to improve the article. AreJay 01:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Actually, the article was already and still is on peer review; the nominator appears to have nominated the article to both PR and FAC. AndyZ t 12:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, no references. I also noticed that most of the images had no source or fair use rationale (and a lot of the would likely not be a fair use.)--Fallout boy 09:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. A few hours ago, this article was rife with academic boosterism and peacock terms. Much of the butt plumage seems to have sprouted recently. A sentence which, a month ago, read "Historically, the university has been particularly noted for its unique undergraduate 'core curriculum,' and other educational innovations introduced by Robert Maynard Hutchins during the 1930s" became "The University is noted for its rigorous undergraduate core curriculum, designed to foster critical skills in a broad range of academic disciplines, including history, literature, science, mathematics, writing, and critical thinking." Oh, and no mention of Hutchins. The accomplishment of producing the first winner of the Heisman Trophy, which, we are informed, is football's "most prestigious" award, was inserted into the lead paragraph, as if this were equally as important as Fermi's reactor or the Chicago School of economics. The word "university" had been capitalized throughout the article, as though the University of Chicago were a deity. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object--Xtreambar 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. No reference. Under active peer review which will make the article violate WIAFA attribute 2 (e).--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article just isn't stable enough yet.Spikebrennan 17:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States presidential election, 2008

I nominate this site because it shows what may be in 2008--Timorrison 19:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support-How can one show the glories of American Democracy than with a future election? I am for it all the way!--216.7.254.254 19:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't want to be rude, but the future I would suggest that you nominate articles based on encyclopedic nature, rather than pride for the topic. Morgan695 19:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Pride is all well and good, but there's not a prayer this could meet the FA criteria, particularly on the stability front. There is little that can be in the article besides speculation and it will change radically. Please remove the nomination. - Taxman Talk 19:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
And I think the page history of changing the nomination comments and from object to support by the same IP would remove any doubts of good faith. - Taxman Talk 19:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agreed with the above, and we do need an oppose in here. Also, the article is nowhere near featured article standard and is about a future event (and therefore is not stable, a featured article requirement). —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 @ 21:02 UTC
  • Oppose. article unstable by definition. asnatu 21:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- Plus, you need more of those in-line reference things. --Osbus 21:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose because a future event can't possibly meet the stability criteria. I recommend withdrawing this nomination. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • An article on an election that does not contain the winner is "omitting a significant fact" and cannot be a featured article (see also: the FA nom for the Beslan school massacre). Raul654 01:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Although I disagree with this nomination, this strikes me as poor justification. We would have to say it omitted a significant fact insofar as facts presently exist, wouldn't we? If something already happened, then you could cite that as a reason, but in my view it's illogical to say it's omitting a fact when that "fact" doesn't yet exist. Everyking 06:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. All of the polling and speculation is just that, speculation. --Elkman - (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Anything that is verifiable and neutral is not speculation. The time frame of the subject, past or future, is irrelevant; anything that can be cited is by definition in the past. Reporting speculation by others is perfectly encyclopedic; coming up with our own is not. Everyking 06:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: What does "average of all major polls" actually mean? Where are the many names that are listed coming from? Christopher Parham (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Highly speculative.--Yannick 02:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, suggest withdrawal. - Mailer Diablo 04:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object will become highly unstable. American Patriot 1776 13:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per nom actually. Nominator clearly explains the unstable nature of the article. -- Cat chi? 00:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost Dance

Shameless self-promotion??? Yes. I have done most of the work on this article as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and would love an opportunity to have it looked at critically. Featured article-hood is my goal and I am extremely interested in what other users think this article is lacking, I shall say no more. Tuna027 05:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: in the image captioned "Miniconjou Chief Big Foot lies dead in the snow," the Chief doesn't look very dead. He appears to be sitting up... Exploding Boy 05:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: hadn't given it much thought, looks dead and frozen to me. If you or anyone else insists then it should be changed. Tuna027 06:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
My actionable objections (I've decided I don't like "oppose" ;)
  • No in-line citations. You don't have to over-do it for things that you feel any generic read will give you, but some places demand it. For instance: "this has been documented by letters between tribes and by notes that Jack asked his pilgrims to take upon their arrival at Mason Valley"--which researchers have gone over this? One other rule of thumb: any sentence with a number, including years, should have a citation.
  • Due emphasis. There is a long section at the end about rejection by the Najavo which strikes me as almost wholly tangential. Yet the Dance's spread beyond the Paiute is only given a couple of sentences under the Wounded Knee section.
  • The "History foundations" (should be "Historical...") should be reworked. Precursors first and then a description of why the Paiute were particularly ripe for it; and you should start the Paiute section with a sentence of that exact sort: "There were a number of factors that made the Paiute susceptible to..."
  • Birth of the Ghost Dance should be Smith's or Wovoka's visions. Having a "Birth of..." and "Historical foundations..." section doesn't seem right.
  • "History most vividly notes this Sioux sect of the Ghost Dance which displays extensive distortion toward millenarianism, thus driving it away from the religion’s core principals." This last sentence of the first paragraph is syntactically quite awful and it's also the only time in the lead you call it a religion. Was it a religion? If that's the scholarly consensus you should say so in the first sentence.
  • There's some other mangled syntax and diction ("foraging subsistence methodology") and this needs a third-person copy edit.
All in all, good work so far but still a lot of work that needs doing. Marskell 17:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look this over Marskell. I'm gonna put some more time into it soon. Tuna027 22:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Kerry

non-selfnomination Received a large amount of attention during the election and now that it is over the article has calmed down considerably. Most of the edits are still vandalism, but they do not require the article to be almost always semi-protected, such as the George W. Bush article. Overall, this is one of the best article wikipedia has. --Banana04131 03:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination thank you for your suggestions. --Banana04131 02:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Stubby paragraphs and inadequate lead; quick, fix them before anyone notices. Have you read the instructions? Tony 03:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. This article has a number of issues which need to be addressed:
    • The lead section is far too short; it is only one sentence. The WP:MOS recommends a three paragraph lead section, the lead is clearly not a complete overview of the entire article.
    • There are too many subsections, leading to an immense and bloated ToC which takes up the enitre screen when the article first appears.
    • The huge number of subsections has bred a large number of one-sentence and other similarly short paragraphs, these should all be lengthened or merged together to provide better flow throughout the article.
    • There is no explicit references section.
    • There are not enough inline citations for an article of this length.
    • Not all of the prose in the article is top-notch, and some of it is crufty and has excessive detail, such as listing which wing of which hospital Kerry was born in, among other things,
    • Not all of the pictures have acceptable copyright status.
    • The page is still relatively unstable, with a high volume of vandalism.
      • Comment "Stability" refers more to content changes and edit wars than vandalism. Vandalism isn't really something that can be addressed, as the biggest factor with vandalism is subject matter, which is not a FA criteria. It's not an addressable concern. Fieari 21:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry 'bout that. Sometimes I get a bit carried away. RyanGerbil10 01:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This article should go through Peer review first, as it needs major sturctural changes, some careful attention paid to the prose, and thorough referencing. RyanGerbil10 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—lead is very insufficient. I'd expect a good three paragraph lead for this article—two at least. Everyking 10:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object This article simply isn't good enough 3:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object For most of the reasons above. Additionally, I'm concerned about the use of fairly stubby sections. I'd reccomend that you either expand sections so that they involve at least two complete paragraphs each (minimum 1 complete paragraph), or merge some of the headings together and make better use of prose for organization of information. If the article becomes too large because of this expansion, consider splitting the article instead of simply cutting out anything. I'm also concerned about the order of information presented. Why is "Personal life" last? Whatever is first or last in an article is emphasized, and I'm not sure that's a propper subject to emphasize, even if it is an encyclopedic subject. Fieari 21:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I merged sections to shorten the TOC, and it is still huge. Things here need both rewriting and reorganizing. --Danaman5 22:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thug Ride

Damn. This shit is dope!

Support. Damn, damn, bitches. This shit be bumpin. Rock this album every day and night. Put it on the front page of wikipedia so all the niggaz know the deal. BOOK OF THUGZ 03:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Major support. Can't nobody do it like White Dawg can do it. It's about time for this album to get more recognition, and I gotta say, the article is SLAMMIN! THUGontheline 03:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh geez, this smells like sockpuppetry! All of these contribtuions in the same time period?--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately, the FAC is not a vote (is not AFD) and sockpuppetry here is a wasted effort. Raul654 18:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Object. This article fails WP:WIAFA on nine separate grounds:

  • The article does not represent our best work. It's short, poorly organized, and doesn't even have a complete infobox.
  • The prose is not "compelling, even brilliant." What little prose there is consists of one-sentence song summaries with boldface obscenities. (I know Wiki isn’t censored, but that doesn't mean our obscenities are boldfaced!)
  • The article is not comprehensive. This cannot possibly be everything there is to say about this album. There must have been some inspiration for the album, but that is lacking. There must be some information on sales figures, but theses are also absent.
  • The article is not factually accurate. How can an article be accurate when it doesn’t even have all of the facts in the first place? There are question marks in the article's main infobox.
  • This article is not neutral, and it is not written from a neutral POV.
  • The article itself is not the subject of edit wars, but its nomination here on FAC is quickly approaching edit war status, just look at the edit history of the main FAC page. Also, the fact that this nomination has already attracted two likely sock puppet votes does not help its case.
  • The lead section needs to be expanded. It does have three paragraphs, but two of them are one-sentence paragraphs which need to be expanded.
  • The article does not have proper subheadings, but it's probably because the sections the subheadings would subhead don't exist.
  • The article is too short. If this is all that can be said about the album, it would barely survive AfD, let alone FAC.

There is clearly a lot of work that needs to be done here. RyanGerbil10 04:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong object. I'm not even sure the submitter knows the criteria for a featured article, since there is so much to fix here it's hard to know where to start:
  • No references. None. Nada. Zip. Ref 2c.
  • No inline citations either (no surprise). Again, ref 2c
  • The article does not exemplify compelling prose, ref 2a
  • The article is not written in a neutral point of view, ref 2d
  • The article is not comrehensive, ref 2b. How was the album received by critics? By the public?
  • The article is extremly short compared to most other FAs, ref 5
WegianWarrior 04:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong object with note. This FAC is stuffed with sockpuppet votes. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Object. You don't make an article featured because you like the subject, but because the article is good. This one isn't. DJ Clayworth 04:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment is this a good faith nomination? Andjam 07:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Object and move to close nomination. - FrancisTyers 11:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I see a lot of fools talkin GARBAGE, talkin nonsense they know nothin about. The prose in this article is straight-up compelling. It's long enough, ha. It lets everybody know about this classic LP. Perhaps the haterz voting to delete are motivated by jealousy, wishing they could possess the bling and ladiez that come so easily to my man WHITEDAWG? Crunk Era 14:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, per above (and, uh....no.) --Mhking 16:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The song descriptions are actually really accurate. I think the article is really educational. BrowardPlaya 14:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article has already failed once. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thug Ride/archive1. --Maitch 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and what's the matter with you people? Why is this still here? I'm unlisting it now. FACers (the real ones, not the socks), have some initiative, c'mon. Bishonen | talk 18:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC).