Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Louisville, Kentucky 2 Angkor Wat 3 Tasmanian Devil 4 Elias Ashmole 5 Porgy and Bess 6 Gas metal arc welding 7 Robert Lawson (architect) 8 Congress of the United States 9 Space opera in Scientology doctrine 10 Italian Renaissance 11 Algerian Civil War 12 Helen Gandy 13 Sharon Tate 14 Blackface 15 Căile Ferate Române 16 Tooth enamel 17 Layla 18 Hong Kong 19 Norman Borlaug 20 Carl Friedrich Gauss 21 Krill 22 Virtuti Militari 23 History of Poland (1945-1989) 24 Augustan literature 25 Real Love (song) 26 USS Missouri (BB-63) 27 Caulfield Grammar School 28 Doom 29 Chagas disease 30 Monty Hall problem 31 Flag of India 32 United States House of Representatives 33 IFK Göteborg 34 African American literature 35 History of Central Asia 36 Washington gubernatorial election, 2004 37 Rail transport in India

[edit] Louisville, Kentucky

A comprehensive, well-written article on an important city. A labor of love, created by several residents. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 04:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• As the nominator, I of course support. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 04:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. – Updated. Lots of interesting information. Several sections have been recently combined or reorganized, improving writing. Dr. Cash 20:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak object. At first glance, the trivia section is not usually kept for FAs. Try to incorporate this into other sections, or seriously consider deleting the contents. Harro5 04:51, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. We could do that, but I personally like the trivia section. Could I get a second (and third) opinion as to whether the trivia section is appropriate? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:18, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK. Sorry, but I don't like trivia sections too much and, well—how to put this—I hate this one. There are a couple of very vague items : it's "perhaps" the most Catholic city in the South—that can't be really hard to confirm or disprove, and if proved, it's much too important for "Trivia", it needs to be expanded and put somewhere appropriate—and "Happy Birthday" is "reported to have been written" by people from Louisville—it should be possible to find out if the report is true. And secret ballot and chewing gum were invented in Louisville? The articles linked to in those very claims say they were invented respectively in Australia, and in Ancient Greece. Also, a completely different guy than your Lousvillean filed the first patent for modern chewing gum in 1869. Source the bourbon claim inline, please. The disco balls and the movies are fine. Yeah, try to incorporate those and the bourbon in the article, that's what I'd do. (Please don't mention the Interstate Highway thing, anywhere, ever.) Bishonen | talk 21:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, the crowd has spoken. The trivia section is gone. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 22:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  1. The images Image:Louisville pronunciationguide.jpg and Image:Disco ball.jpg need captions.
     • Good point. Done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  2. The image Image:LouisvilleDowntownSkyline.jpg is under a license of {{permission}}. This is an unacceptable license for Wikipedia. --Carnildo 06:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
     • You're right. I've e-mailed the author to ask for GFDL permission. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
     • Update: Still no reply. Would you support if that image is simply removed until the issue is resolved or a replacement is found? (This question goes for Flcelloguy as well.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 17:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
       • The article really needs a lead image, but either Image:Louisville 1846.jpg or Image:Louisville pronunciationguide.jpg could substitute for the current one. --Carnildo 19:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
         • The photo copyright issue has been resolved. I replaced the main image of the downtown skyline with one from my own personal collection that I took last summer from the Fall of the Ohio. The copyright is now {{GFDL}}. Dr. Cash 22:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. --Carnildo 22:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Several sections do not appear comprehensive or are non-existent. The Economy section is merely a list (I get no sense of what the overall economy in Louisville is). Other sections that are missing are Infrastructure (utilities, hospitals, etc) and Culture (surely for a city of Louisville's size there must be some notable museums and events). Another thing that concerns me is that this article did not go through peer review first (but that is my own prejudice and should not be counted toward my objection). Please see featured articles on Seattle, Washington and San Jose, California as examples. Pentawing 18:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow, this objection requires a lot of work. The "culture" material is in List of Attractions and Events in Louisville, but we could move it to a Culture section here if you like. As for the others. . . I'll work on them. Hope I can get them up to snuff quickly. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)}
  • The Culture section now includes subsections on Demographics, Annual culture events and fairs, Museums and Art Collections, Media, Performing arts, and Sports. There is also in Infrastructure section with expanded subsections on Government, Schools, Transportation, and Utilities. Dr. Cash 22:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The economy section is now more comprehensive, though I would suggest removing the passage concerning Interstate highways (which is already mentioned in Transportation). As for the Cultural section, an overview of culture in Louisville would suffice (one might ask what makes Louisville culturally unique). Other things that could be added are some information about overall street layout and city landscape (especially architecture). Pentawing 00:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I rephrased the section on interstate highways in the economy section. I still think it should say something here about interstates due to their importance in the transportation industry. The transportation section regarding interstates has been modified slightly as well. Dr. Cash 03:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, now the Infrastructure and Culture sections are in place. For future reference, avoid hyperbole and the use of "you" (the last thing I want to see in an encyclopedia article is a travel brochure). The listing of references in Infrastructure is glaring. Could it be changed to a footnote? Also, the only thing left is cityscape. This includes landscape (is the city primarily industrial or park-like?), overall street layout (a crazy layout like Boston or grid-like?), and architecture (modern, old-style, or a balanced mix of the two?). Address these items, check the wording, and I see an article that is worthy of the main page. Pentawing 03:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The listing of references has been removed and replaced with footnotes (Infrastructure:Utilities). I've also added a Cityscape section under the Geography section, with details on the overall layout of the city and details on the architecture. More details on the road system are under the Transportation section. General wording throughout the article has also been checked. Dr. Cash 17:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Looked over the article and did some more copyediting. Right now it seems the article is indeed worthy of FA, though other issues may come up that I haven't thought of yet. Vote changed to Weak support Pentawing 23:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object- remove trivia section (and incorporate into article, if possible). Also, perhaps a brief paragraph on "Sister Cities"? Finally, a partial list of high schools in the city does not seem appropriate for the article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Trivia section has been removed. Most of this information has been migrated either to the History section, or to Economy or Demographics. Also, with regards to Sister Cities, not certain how much more of a paragraph to add there. Other cities such as New York City and Seattle, Washington, also simply list the sister cities there. Dr. Cash 20:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I still object to the list of high schools, as well as the various other lists in the article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you saying we should remove information before you'll support? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 23:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • The list of high schools has been moved to a separate page, listed under See Also. The main education section has been revised to include education information without the listing. Dr. Cash 03:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
        • No, I am saying that having a section consisting entirely of a bullet-pointed list does not make sense. Right now, I would have to agree with Pentawing- however, I will still object until the picture issue is resolved. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Copyright issue resolved. The photo has been replaced. See above. Dr. Cash 22:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
            • OK. Support. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support Makes me actually want to travel to Kentucky... MicahMN | Talk 14:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose – the entire article seems to be in lists. The 1) Geography section is poor, it hardle has enything related to geography other than the location which should be wikified using the {{coor dms}} template. 2) There seems to be a minor problem with the infobox. A table margin is missing. 3) Climate is absent. 4) I would prefer you promote the history section. 5) Remove lists from sports, make it into prose. I'll stop here for now, will critique once again after the above are taken care of. User:Nichalp/sg 18:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • A couple of changes in response to your concerns: 1) geography section expanded with info on the Bluegrass region and the {{coor dms}} template is now used; 2) infobox has been fixed - all of the table margins look correct (at least in my browser, Firefox); 3) Climate information has been added to the Geography & Climate section; 4) Not sure what you mean by this? The history section primarily contained in a separate linked article. A brief synopsis appears on the main page; 5) Sports section has been changed. Lists removed and rearranged a bit. Dr. Cash 22:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Many, if not all, of the previous lists in the article have been changed to prose. Dr. Cash 17:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking care of my concerns. The 4th point was that the history was too low down in the page. Its corrected now. I've also taken the liberty of correcting the infobox and made a few changes in the history section. Here are some more additional points. 1) Too many subheadings. Avoid usage of so many headings. 2) You can also consider promoting some sub headings such as education, media, utilities and government to top level. 3) Please do not bold the text. Its not recommended in the Manual of Style 4) There are just names in the History section. You should also give their occupation/designation (eg. XYZ, a trapper, founded ABC). Only the colonel is correctly done. 5) It would be nice to have the extreme temperatures in the climate section. See [1] 6) Avoid the usage of inline external links at all costs. Instead of having the external links to say [Youth Performing Arts School], a page on wikipedia can certainly be created and linked to it from here. 7) Page size is a bit too high at 42 kb. Please summarise sections such as transportation and other long sections such as sports and economy. I also find the =pronounciation= section unnecessary. A single sentence with the IPA text in the leadin would be more preferable. The image can be merged with the culture section with a small note there. 8) The Great Gatsby has to be italicised. 9) In the utilities section, the inline references are not formatted correctly. Please see Australia and Geography of India on how to format such inline references correctly. PS I may take a few days before I review again. User:Nichalp/sg 09:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm. (1) Other voters have complained about not enough subheadings. For instance, Pentawing argued "Other sections that are missing are 'Infrastructure' (utilities, hospitals, etc) and 'Culture'" I don't think removing subheadings will improve the article. [Update: Actually, I saw some headings that could safely go, and removed them. On review, I think I see what you meant, and I think I fixed it.] (2) Perhaps. . . I'd like to get some other opinions though. I think the organization makes it easier to follow. (3) Good point. Done. (4) Okay. Done. (5) True, thanks. Done. (6) Right, I agree. Done. (7) I strongly disagree. Several other voters have complained about not enough information, and we've done a lot of work adding useful information to the article. I don't think it should be removed. Also, in Louisville, pronunciation is a significant issue, and I really like the pronunciation section. (8) Good point. Done. (9) Okay, thanks. Done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 11:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Regarding the page size issues, I have to disagree as well. 42 Kb is actually quite small in the overall scheme of things. With the widespread use of broadband, 42 Kb is virtually insignificant; even for a modem, it's not bad. A long article is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that it's well organized and readable. The Featured Articles of Seattle, Washington and San Jose, California are both 47 Kb and 55 Kb in size, respectively. Also, regarding the pronunciation section -- I think that is necessary as well. Louisville's many pronunciations, as well as its highly unusual pronunciation utilized by many of the natives, are one of the things that make the city stand out. The pronunciation is also highlighted by the Convention & Visitors' Bureau in town as well, and they've advertised it in a pretty unique and creative way. Granted, yes, the section is unconventional and atypical. But a few unconventional and atypical sections in city articles actually add to the interest and uniqueness of any city, making it stand out a bit more. Otherwise, every city article would look the same and things would get boring. Dr. Cash 14:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

At the time of he FAC process the two city articles were well under 40kb. You will agree that the articles undergo a change after they are featured. I distinctly remember the page size for Seattle as I had critiqued it. A larger page size does not necessarily mean that the article is more comprehensive. If you summarise sections, it becomes easier to read and carries more meaningful data. I'm asking for a summary, its much easier to read instead of a long section that mentions head coaches and schools that have won trophies along with the years. I'm sure that that info can be added to a more detailed article such as [[Sports in Louisville]]. Similarly, the list of pubs are certainly not important to this page. Add it in a sub page. Similarly the demographics can be moved to a dedicated article, I'm sure anybody who reads the article on the town are definately going to skip data such as ...female householder with no husband present... unless he/she is specifically interested in such info. Relevent topics in the demographics include population, density, race, religion, income and sex ratio. The rest can be moved to the dedicated article for those interested in details. It shouldn't take more than a day to write a summary.

The section on the pronounciation is vague: The variability of the local pronunciation of Louisville's name can perhaps be laid at the feet of the city's location on the border between the North and South of the United States. Louisville's diverse population has traditionally represented elements of both Northern and Southern culture. This can be surmised into one line, plus its more to do with culture. Now, it is mentioned that there are many pronounciations to the name. The picture alongside mentions five. Since it is thumbed, the yellow text is not clearly visible. Why don't you mention all five pronounciations in the text? It is definately more helpful instead of vague sentences which rely on the picture for an explaination.

The culture section has a whiff of a travelguide/non-encyclopedic type text: This is an old... , ...core themes that he has taken to heart..., Attendance is approximately..., features some of the finest bourbon... (this may qualify as a POV or Weasel term).

Q: What's a resident of the city called? Can be mentioned in the page?

Q: In the climate, what do you mean by seasonal? Wouldn't continental be a more apt term?

Thanks for taking care of some of my concerns, It definately looks much better now. I know appreciate the hard work put in so far, but I would prefer a summary which would make it much better to read, and stay on track. User:Nichalp/sg 10:54, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Sam Stearman has been kind enough to release the Louisville skyline image under the GFDL. (See here for details.) Yay! (Dr. Cash, your picture is fine, but this one is even better, so I replaced yours in the article.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 16:13, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds great! The one thing I like about that photo is the picture of the bridge to the left. :-) Dr. Cash 16:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support I think perhaps this is a good city for people to learn about, and maybe the article is very well written. 內布拉斯加 01:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• I abstained as I feel it's a conflict of interest for significant contributors to a candidate to vote on it. Also, at the time of its nomination, I didn't think the article was ready. That all said, I'm honestly surprised at how much this article (and related articles) have recently seen so much progress. I am honored that my city's article is one of the rare breed of articles to be proclaimed "featured". I am deeply happy for my city and feel very very proud of the work we all did and continue to do. A big "Cheers!" all the way around! — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:48, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Angkor Wat

I'd like to feature the temple, but featuring the article would be a decent second-best. Self-nom, with help on Peer Review from nixie and WegianWarrior. Mark¹ 04:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written, well-illustrated, well-referenced. Excellent. --DanielNuyu 05:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support. A pleasure to read, in addition to everything allready mentioned.WegianWarrior 05:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This looks remarkably well done -- I'm impressed. Clearly a product of extensive research and careful writing. Great pictures, as well! Jwrosenzweig 08:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Impressive. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very well referenced, and extremely well-detailed, and with (related) images to boot (but not too many as to go over the top). You have put a lot of work into this article; it would be a shame to see this one be bypassed for Feature Article Status (and especially front-page feature). --JB Adder | Talk 10:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, great work. Saswann 17:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• I left a comment on the talk page regarding a minor issue (an unclear sentence), but I'm confident this can be resolved in a matter of minutes. Either way, Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:02, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Support, although seeing the two spellings of this name left with the question: How does one properly pronounce "Angkor Wat"? -- llywrch 02:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The w is definitely pronounced as a w rather than a v; the "vat" spelling is basically the French one, but I included it because for reasons best known to themselves, the Cambodian government's APSARA authority uses it. Mark¹ 03:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support.pamri 06:25, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, I was impressed by this article on peer review, I'm glad to see it's got wide support here since its an excellent article.--nixie 05:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This article definately fits the criteria for a featured article. It is well laid out, it's easy to read, and overall it's well written. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:00, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A terrific article and a most enjoyable read. My praise to its authors.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tasmanian Devil

Comprehensive article on a unique and interesting animal, meets all the FAC criteria. --nixie 06:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Question: What does the license on Image:Devil facial turmor disease.jpg and Image:DFTD dec04.jpg mean? It seems to prohibit modification of the images, re-use of the images in the creation of other works, and commercial use of the images. As such, it would be an insufficiently free license for Wikipedia. --Carnildo 07:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It allows modification, all it really asks for is that subsequent commercial (either in part or whole) use states the original copyright owners interest in the image. Thats a pretty free licence in my opinion. --nixie 07:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Question: Below, I listed a bunch of stylistic concerns with the article. What's the general procedure with Feature Article Candidates? I could have made several of my suggested changes myself, but once someone lists something here, is the general policy "hands off" until the FA candidacy is resolved?BrianSmithson 18:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • No clue what the policy is, but considering this is an open source encyclopedia, there is nothing stopping you from making some of these corrections yourself if thats your asking about. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Brian, I'm also unsure what official policy decrees, or if there is any "official" policy on this. I believe that any and all articles remain accessible for editing, and have frequently seen articles edited while being considered as FA, however I think general etiquette is that major changes are discussed first. Many of the changes you suggested could have been made at your discretion as they are not changing the style, content or meaning of the article. For example I changed "Devil" to "devil". Improvements to grammar, consistancy, spelling, etc should always be welcomed at any stage of the article's life cycle, but more substantial changes such as the use of upper case/lower case in the article title, certainly you were correct in raising here. Rossrs 03:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Support: Yet more great work from nixie! --Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support: This article is very comprehensive. It outlines so much about a unique creature that before reading it, I thought was just a cartoon character (see The Tasmanian Devil. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good article. BrianSmithson 13:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC) Oppose: The name and article title should be "Tasmanian devil". See answers.com and Britannica. My old Grolier does it the same way. "The Devil" is a proper noun, "Tasmania" is a proper noun, "devil" in this case is not.BrianSmithson 12:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Although I've always thought it was "Tasmanian Devil" (capitalised) and have always written it so (and probably always will), it turns out Brian is correct. OED also writes it as "Tasmanian devil".--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• I've struck this objection out as inactionable, despite what you may believe, there is actually a strong conscensus amongst editors working on mammals to use caps for their names, see the recent and long discussion on ToL, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) which suggests caps for common names. The article is internally consistent, so I don't believe that this is actually an issue. --nixie 13:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• That's fine with me. I prefer it capitalised. Neither style is employed universally in the real world, so as long as Wikipedia is consistent, there should be no problem.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Please don't strike out other people's objetions, especially if you are the person who listed the article for FAC in the first place.

I still strongly oppose the naming used in the article, but following your links, I see that there is no single policy in force at Wikipedia for common names. For what it's worth, a review of every dictionary and encyclopedia I could find at the bookstore today shows that they do not capitalize these names. At the moment, I'm willing to shelve that particular objection.

My opposition still stands, however. The meat of the article is good, but there are some stylistic problems. These are:

#Consistency of nomenclature. If we're going to use "Tasmanian Devil", let's do so consistently. As it is now, the article uses "Tasmanian devil" at least once, "Devil" once, and "devil" several times.

• I had already changed the single use of "Devil" to "devil", however I think the use of the word "devil" is perfectly correct, as it is the word commonly used for this animal, particularly in Australia. Have a look at this website from Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife - this is common use. [2]. My suggestion would be to make reference in the lead paragraph. Something like "Tasmanian Devil.........., commonly known as devils...." would explain the use of the word, so that in the remainder of the article it is acceptable to retain the use of the single word "devil". Rossrs 03:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• I have added an explanation that the animal is smiply referred to as a devil, the article should be consistent otherwise. --nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• There were a few more "Tasmanian devils" and "Devils" sans "Tasmanian", so I've fixed them.BrianSmithson 13:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

#Other animal names. Why aren't other animal names capitalized like "Tasmanian Devil"? Examples in the article include: quolls, thylacine, wombat, kangaroos, wallaby, and dingoes. Perhaps there's some wrinkle of the peculiar Wikipedia proposed policy that I'm missing.

• Thylacine is the only one that should also be capitalised, the other groups mentioned do not refer to a single species but a group of species. --nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Somewhat related: I spelled out that Thylacine = Tasmanian Wolf (shudder at the naming . . .  :) when it appears. I'd never heard the former, so hopefully this will help a few other readers, as well.BrianSmithson 13:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

#Numbers. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The TD article uses numerals and written-out numbers; the MoS says to pick one "guideline" and stick to it. I'd suggest that the numbers 1-20 be spelled out, while 21 and up be represented as a numeral. As the article is, we have, for example, "6 kg", "6 years" "6 weeks" and "six native Australian animals". As long as a consistent policy is applied to the article, though, I'll be happy.

• The numbers are all listed in numerical fmt now.--nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

#"Devil Facial Tumor Disease". Is there a Wikipedia policy for disease names? Again, I looked up several mammalian diseases in various dictionaries and encyclopedias, and the concensus in these is that diseases are not capitalized. For example, "foot-and-mouth disease", "bovine spongiform encephalopathy" "rabies". Checking these articles on Wikipedia, I see that "Rabies" uses capitalization, while the others don't. Back to the TD article, "canine transmissible venereal tumor" is not capitalized. I'd prefer we follow the majority of published reference works (as I do for the animal name, but that's another matter).

• There aren't many published works on the disease yet, the ones I have use lowercase, so I've made the moves and adjusted the article.--nixie 09:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

#"The latest revision of the devil's taxonomy resulted in a change of species name to Sarcophilus laniarius in the 1980s . . ." Is there no specific date for when this change was made? "The 1980s" is vague.

• Fixed. --nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

#"An analysis, conducted by researchers of the University of Sydney, of mammalian bite force corrected for body size showed that the Tasmanian Devil has the strongest bite of any living mammal." This sentence is confusing to me. Perhaps: "A University of Sydney analysis of mammalian bite force corrected for body size shows that the Tasmanian Devil has the strongest bite of any living mammal." UoS could possibly be moved elsewhere; it just didn't read well as an appositive where it was. I'm also recommending present tense, as this research is presumably still valid and the TD still presumably has the strongest mammalian bite. See "Style Points for Scientific Writing".

• Fixed--nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

#Similarly, "The average life expectancy of a Tasmanian Devil in the wild has been estimated as 6 years, though it may live longer in captivity." Is the average life expectancy still thought to be six years? Then we should use present tense.

• Fixed.--nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

#"Tasmanian Devils also have one set of teeth that grow slowly throughout their life." "Set" is singular, so "grows" is appropriate. Also, "Tasmanian Devils" is plural, but "life" is singular. Suggested rewrite: "A Tasmanian Devil also has one set of teeth that grows slowly throughout its life."

• Done. --nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

#Use of future tense. In a number of cases, the article uses the future tense when present tense would suffice. In general, present tense is more immediate and thus makes for stronger prose. Following are some examples from the article with my suggested rewrites following: "Unhealthy devil will often have a thin tail" ("Unhealthy devils often have thin tails.") "Although the Devil favours wombat, it will eat all small native mammals . . . " ("Although the Devil favours wombat, it eats all small native mammals . . . ") ". . . the female has only four nipples, and no more than four young will survive." (". . . the female has only four nipples, and [or use "so"] no more than four young [can] survive.") There are a few more cases in the article, but you get the idea.

• Done.--nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• I changed a couple more instances. If you don't like them, I won't object if you change them back. I do prefer present to future when talking about animal behavior, though. BrianSmithson 13:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

#Passive voice: "Twenty physical postures, including their characteristic vicious yawn, and 11 different vocal sounds have been identified when feeding devils communicate, usually establishing dominance by sound and physical posturing, although fighting does occur." Suggested rewrite: "Scientists [or Biologists, or Researchers, etc.] have identified twenty physical postures . . ." "Cultures from the cancerous tissue have been used to study the condition." Suggested rewrite: "Researchers have used cultures from the cancerous tissue to study the condition."

• Done--nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

#Mutant mouse: "There is also a mutant mouse named the Tasmanian Devil that is defective . . . ." This whole section threw me off. Is this mutant mouse some sort of cartoon character, or are we talking about a real creature? If a real creature, was it named for the Looney Tunes character? If so, make this explicit.

• See reply to Spangineer--nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• I reworded a bit. I'm sure you'll give it one more revision after the researchers email you back. BrianSmithson 13:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• One final concern: Currently, the article uses both "State" and "states" when talking about those political entities in Australia. I don't know what common practice is in Australia, so I didn't change these, but shouldn't they be either both capitalized or both in lower case? BrianSmithson 13:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• I've made its use consistent. Practice varies in Australia. Some capitalise it at any mention, especially in academia, and some use lower case in any circumstance, following the trend favoured by newspapers (News Corp ones, at least). Others, still, used mixed capitalisation. For this article I have chosen to capitalise "State(s)".--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I know I'm being picky. But these changes should be easy to make, and if anyone objects to any of them, I am open to arguments. Overall, it's a good article. BrianSmithson 18:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• BrianSmithson, you should have participated in this articles Peer Review. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support - agree that it meets all criteria, to a high degree. Rossrs 15:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment (albeit rather trivial) - do endnote superscripts go before or after puncutuation? Personally I'd prefer after, but either way, they need to be consistent. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • • After. I've fixed it. Bishonen | talk 02:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, what's this about a mutant mouse also called the Tasmanian Devil? Is there an article on it? Is it relevant for this article? It was only found in 2002 (according to the reference), so I'm unsure how it relates to the mammal, since it appears to have been named after the cartoon character. I don't think that one sentence is enough info for this—I'd say expand or delete. Great work though, looks well researched and thanks for the inline citations. I'll vote neutral until my concerns are addressed. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • The article about the mouse mutant is referenced, I mentioned it in this article since it is a common hit on a google, scholar.google or pubmed search and someone might be curious about why this mouse is called Tasmanian devil, the section should be more clear now. The article doesn't actually mention why they chose to call the mouse Tasmanian devil, but I assumed it was named after the cartoon version since the behaviours are smiliar and becuase geneticists name lots of genes and mutants after cartoon characters, I'll email them and find out for sure--nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, much better. And that's interesting that geneticists name things after cartoon characters; as they say, who'da thunk? =). Anyway, support. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:06, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great work, as usual. Dave (talk) 15:10, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support- comprehensive article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article, and suitably brief treatment of that irritating cartoon thing. Flowerparty ^talk 00:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. excellent material, well written and researched. - Taxman ^Talk 22:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Support w/comments: "Devil" vs. "devil" is still used inconsistently through the article. "The Tasmanian Devil" and "Taz" are not, technically, two names for the same cartoon character ("Taz" is, I believe, and updated version of the original). It's a wording nit, but I would not say that appetite is the only thing the character and the animal have in common (for example both have two eyes, etc. etc.). Assuming these things are fixed (primarily the first), I will support.--User:Jgm(i think this is who made the last comment, he didn't sign it, so based on the histry, Jgm made this post --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)).

"The Tasmanian Devil" and "Taz" are two names for the same character. Or at least I've never seen them considered two different characters until your comments here. You're right that "Taz" is a more recent appellation for the character, and you're right that the character has been updated in recent years; all the Warners characters have. I don't think it's worth the fuss to consider earlier and later versions of Bugs Bunny or Porky Pig to be completely different entities. (Short version: That part of the article doesn't need to be changed ;) BrianSmithson 18:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Further note: The use of "devil"/"Devil" is consistent. Currently, "Devil" is capitalized when preceded by "Tasmanian" (except when discussing the mutant mouse). It is not capitalized when used alone, except when it is the first word in a sentence. I'm not sure what you saw as inconsistency. BrianSmithson 18:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elias Ashmole

Self-nomination. A fascinating guy (in my opinion) and quite an operator. This article spent several weeks on peer review, where a lot of useful suggestions were incorporated. PRiis 20:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional objection. Although this article is of good length (short enough) and associated with pictures, I'm a bit unsatisfied to see an article about a dead collector without any of his collections shown by pictures. Deryck C. 09:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added a link to some example items from the Tradescant collection. I'm not aware of any copyright free images that I can add to the article itself, though. PRiis 21:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support. Support. Well, I've put in the frontispiece of Fasciculus Chemicus, which is already in the article Fasciculus Chemicus, and taken another image, a two-dimensional representation of a really old book cover, from a website, according to the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. principle. The website in question claims copyright on it, but as far as I understand it, they can't rightfully do that. At any rate, Wikipedia is full of such images, tagged {{PD-art}} or {{PD-old}}, and I haven't heard of them being challenged or deleted. Anyway, see what you think, maybe the article doesn't need both those. This is a fine and very interesting article, which I want to support, but I still think the lead section needs to be a bit fuller. Bishonen | talk 20:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The new pictures are great--they definitely fall under Bridgeman, so there's no problem there. I've added a second paragraph to the lead, to better highlight his mystical interests and the way they're sort of a rear-guard action. PRiis 22:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Nothing about his uncanny knack for marrying money, huh? Just kidding, I like the expanded lead very much. Support. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support, excellent biography, nice work. --nixie 15:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I found it informative, but then what do I know? -- llywrch 23:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support If more images are wanted, Oxford University has a collection of digitized images of medieval manscripts including some from Asmole's collection (They have shelfmarks of MS Asmole...). Sadly, they haven't digitized the catalog for his collection yet. Dsmdgold 03:39, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Porgy and Bess

This article was a stub in December, but after a lot of work, mostly by User:BaronLarf and a bit by me, the article is now FA material. Please note the effort that has gone into removing the red links as well. The article was on PR twice, and nobody seemed to have any problems. If you do, please provide them below. --Alexs letterbox 05:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the copyrights, everything in the LOC sin't PD, and the fair use images need to have a full rationale for fair use explained on the image page.--nixie 10:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the tag to fair use for the top image, and provided a reason on its page. I added reasons for fair use on the images from the Glyndebourne Production. --Alexs letterbox 08:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems like good work to me--support. but I'd like to know a little more about the plot before plunging into the discussion of productions and leitmotifs. Could you add a basic one-paragraph summary of what the opera is about somewhere above the production info? It would help elucidate some of the discussion of racism and controversy that occurs there. Meelar (talk) 15:09, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have added a short summary in the lead, others may want to move it elsewhere. --Alexs letterbox 08:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I had removed the summary without knowing it had been requested here; I just put one back into the lead now after becoming aware of the FAC. --BaronLarf 01:44, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Conditional oppositionNeutral. Too little images are provided, and the copyrights of the recordings are also questioned. Deryck C. 09:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The ogg files that are associated with the excerpts are small, and amount to less than 0.1% of the work. However, as community consensus is limited to non-existent on Fair Use recordings, I will remove the Listen links from the article (for the time being). There are already four pictures in the article, but I have added two more in other areas. --Alexs letterbox 07:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Getting many images is difficult, since the opera was only written in 1935 and photographs from recent productions are subject to copyright. I don't believe that lack of images should bar an article from being a FA; this article does have 6 of them at this point. --BaronLarf 01:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Improvements are shown, but the amount of images is still quite inadequate. I've withdrew my opposition and turned neutral, but more efforts on pictures are really necessary to gain my support vote. Deryck C. 16:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you stating that the pictures are too little or that there are too few of them? --BaronLarf 18:51, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Assuming the objection is to the number and not to the size, there are currently 10 images in the article. I think that there has been a great effort to get better images for the article, while trying to stay within the confines of fair use. Any other suggestions on how else to go about this would be welcome. Cheers. --BaronLarf 13:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Support I particuarly like the historical material. Also, let's not fetishize images. In fact, I could do without the CD cover. -- Viajero | Talk 13:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support I also liked the historical material. One concern is that I read the article bottom-up. I think that the production's material is not relevant as the plot or the muscial description, or even the racial repercusion. But once I got there, I got stuck and read it twice :-) Good work. --Jdiazch 20:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

According to our wikiproject, a discussion of history usually occurs before a plot synopsis. But I agree with you here, since the history discussion is so long. I've rearranged the order. --BaronLarf 21:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Support; it reads well and is thorough, on a quick pass. I'll look at more closely later. I have a couple minor quibbles though: Can we have tempo indications on the musical examples, and can we change "Maestro" on the last musical example to whatever it really is (I'm guessing "maestoso"); that last example could use some cautionary naturals in the second complete bar as well. Good job everyone who worked on this! Antandrus (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I will not add tempo indications to the musical examples. All my textbooks (Enjoyment of Music, Kamien; Complete Guide to Opera, András Batta; and Groves) do not put these in, maybe this should be discussed at the corresponding WikiProject. I have fixed the last example, see image page for details. --Alexs letterbox 07:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Alexs letterbox changed the example to state "Maestoso," as well as added cautionary naturals. --BaronLarf 17:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: is the drug dealer named "Sportin' Life" or "Sporting Life"? Both are used, but I feel this should be consistent. Meelar (talk) 15:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it all to "Sportin' Life" --BaronLarf 17:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Support My tweaks to the article were few and trivial. A splendid job. --Wetman 19:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gas metal arc welding

Self nom, second in a who-knows-how-long series on welding-related topics. This went through peer review a few weeks ago, and all the suggestions have been implemented, I believe. Anything else? --Spangineer (háblame) 02:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. --Carnildo 04:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support Its really well done. Spangineer has taken a lot of trouble to do this page. User:Nichalp/sg 08:29, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Looking forward to see a techinical article on FA. This one is really good as the explanations are comprehensive. Unsigned comment by Deryck Chan at 09:07, July 20, 2005. --Spangineer (háblame) 23:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Please change inline citations into endnotes so they are visible without going into edit mode. Neutrality^talk 00:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Even though there are 25 of them? Lots of FACs make it without any inline citations (visible or otherwise), so I'm not sure why adding a long section of notes is necessary. If you insist and others don't mind, I can make the change, however. Or perhaps turning only the most important inline citations into endnotes would be acceptable? --Spangineer (háblame) 10:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Support I almost wish I hadn't read the above objection, but it appears valid. Why would one hide the citations/footnotes in the "edit" mode to begin with? If I can figure out how to switch'm, I'll try to do a few.Sfahey 19:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Basically, because there are 25 of them and the current footnote system that allows for automatic numbering and mentioning page numbers requires alot of space. See the reference section of the Bill Clinton article and then imagine it another 50% longer. The current citation format has been used in numerous featured articles, including Welding, BC Rail, Civil Air Patrol, and Geology of the Grand Canyon area. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • There. I did a couple the way I've done'm on other FA's. I'll stop here for now, since there are other formats that work. This article is otherwise a "slam-dunk". Sfahey 19:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Notes in that format will require manual renumbering throughout the article if one is added to the top of the article. I don't consider that acceptable. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I also had a problem with the inote citations in this article as citations are an important part of the text and users shouldn't have to go into edit mode to see them. To remedy the problem, I created a script to convert from the inote convention to the ref/note convention. The script is called a inote.pl and it is in the public domain. Cedars 04:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, seems like inline notes are taboo these days. For consistency's sake, I hope you guys will join me in arguing that all FAs need inline citations, now that you've insisted that they be visible in an article that already had them. I've renamed the notes that Cedars's tool generated so that they are slightly more useful and not numerical, and moved some of the references to a further reading section since they aren't explicitly referenced. Anything else? --Spangineer (háblame) 05:00, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I will definitely support a move to make all FAs use visible citations. I've also updated the script to make use of the second argument of the inote tag. If such an argument is provided the script will now use that argument instead of automatic numbering. Thanks for respecting our viewpoint, even though you may not have agreed with it. Cedars 05:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't mean to be edgy, and it doesn't matter that much to me either way. The article isn't that long, so another fairly long section won't hurt much. It just seems to me like it's splitting hairs to give an article that already has inline references this much attention (over formatting) when most of the other current FACs don't have any inline references, visible or otherwise. But I appreciate the interest in improving this article. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Lawson (architect)

Mostly a self nom. I had never heard of this man until following the featuring of Benjamin Mountfort and Francis Petre, Grutness told me he was in fact more famous than either as a New Zealand architect. Some research proved Grutness "probably" correct. Donovan and Grutness (slightly nearer to the sites than me) have taken some brilliant fotos especially for the page. I think, it is the most in-depth, or at least the best illustrated essay on the subject freely available. Giano | talk 21:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually it seems to cover Lawson more comprehensively and succinctly than any of the books I've found about New Zealand architecture. More good work from Giano (with some additions and tidying from myself, User:Francs2000, User:Hoary and Donovan). I'm voting in favour (then again, I would). Grutness...wha? 00:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I've just re-read my nomination, I didn't mean to leave out the crew who have helped out with copy-editing and making sense, especially Grutness with local knowledge and information. My English grammar, and word order were on a school report once accurately described as "convoluted and confused". So thanks Guys. Giano | talk 20:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. As James said, it's another great addition to the story of New Zealand architecture. I fulfilled a few photo requests, otherwise, I didn't contribute to the article (if that matters when counting my vote). (_Donovan|Geocachernemesis|^Interact) 11:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support, although shouldn't references come after notes?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

You're probably right, I'll move them. Thanks for the vote Giano | talk 11:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support- great article. Perhaps move the article to Robert Lawson and the current Robert Lawson article to Robert Lawson (disambiguation), since the other three don't have articles yet? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks vor the support. The reason I chose (architect) was because quite a few page linked there wrongly - so it's only a matter of time, and also our Robert Lawson's nephew Robert Lawson (cricketer) who was (you've guessed) an amazing cricketer is on his way Giano | talk 20:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support, exemplary and attractive work as always from Giano. Bishonen | talk 20:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congress of the United States

Self-nomination. Emsworth 17:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support It could do more to trace the power and instiutional development of Congress by engaging in the recent American political development literature on the subject (e.g., Fenno, Fiorina, Sinclair et al.-- authors at top of just about any course syllabus on the politics of Congress), but this is not essential, since the article is still awaiting a branch like History of the Congress of the United States. 172 | Talk 18:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but as per 172, this could use some expansion of, e.g., the role of Congress in relation to the presidency, or the day-to-day operations of Congress (role of staff, constituent service, etc.) But overall, well-written and informative--it's what I'd expect to see in a good Brittanica article. Meelar (talk) 20:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This article is in desparate need for more pictures. Only 3 pictures in a 31kb article is definitely inadequate. Deryck C. 09:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added another picture, and I personally think that 4 or even 3 is sufficient. What more should be shown? Meelar (talk) 14:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good solid work. I'm pleased to see a bibliography from solid sources. PedanticallySpeaking 15:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral – great work, but I'd really like to see inline references. It doesn't help me much to have a bunch of references listed when I want to verify a specific claim of the article—I'd have to look through all of them until I found what I was looking for. I realize it would be time-consuming to add them after the fact, but it would greatly improve the quality and verifiability of the article. --Spangineer (háblame) 23:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support-This article has come a long way in the last few weeks. I have added to the history section to mkae it more in-depth, especially about how the idea for COngress in the form that it currently is came to exist, and other people have made great strides in inproving the rest of the article (ie. Adding Prose). I now feel confident that it fully covers the basics of Congress, and the article covering the house and senate are also featured article which cover more in-depth the functions of each house.

--Gpyoung ^talk 00:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support, but as 172 mentioned, could be branched off into "sub-articles". Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Space opera in Scientology doctrine

Another masterpiece of understatement from ChrisO (who wrote about half of Xenu). It's a fairly obscure subject ... but Xenu, which one FAC objection thought would be "too obscure", is now enormously popular in the blogosphere [3] [4] and is quoted in most of the recent press about Tom Cruise's proselytising behaviour (unattributed, but the phrasings are pretty distinctive). I think this has potential for enormous popularity. So it's a good thing it's well-written and has its references, isn't it. It went through peer review just recently, which helped a lot. I now open it to you to tell us what shrubberies (nice ones, mind you) it needs to be a feature. We've just started WikiProject Scientology too, by the way, so expect more of these - David Gerard 22:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent, comprehensive, well-referenced, the mechanical gorilla is a high point. Sadly, there is only one really good illustration—the DC-8—but that problem is inherent in the subject, no doubt. Great stuff! Bishonen | talk 23:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support, would do well with better illustrations, but it is indeed comprehensive and well referenced. Phoenix2 23:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Fangio moss monza.jpg is claimed as fair use, but I don't think it can be used in the article under fair use. --Carnildo 17:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It was probably fair use in the original article it was uploaded for, but yeah, it's been removed now. Images were a particularly difficult one for this article (though the gorilla is a good photo, and the Himalayas shot is spectacular - click on the image and check it out!) - suggestions are most welcomed - David Gerard 12:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great work. The only thing I can say is really? You've really got all those sources and they really say all that? It all more or less falls in the category of the Fishman affidavits stuff I have read, so I believe you, but this stuff is still really hard to believe that people would really buy into it. Specifically the intro could use some citations, especially for this "It forms a major element of the beliefs of Scientology" and the next sentence. That may be really obvious to you, but it seems a central point in the article. Keep up the good work. - Taxman ^Talk 18:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • ChrisO has added a new section describing how Scientology has hammered home the space opera aspect of its doctrine in its publicity materials - David Gerard 12:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Taxman. Anville 02:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support, although the article itself is good, sections are of good size, there are too few pictures coming with the article. Deryck C. 09:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Suggestions are most welcomed! - David Gerard 12:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Commons has a decent selection of images. For example, Image:Formula one.jpg, suitably modified to remove the logos, could be used to replace Image:Fangio moss monza.jpg. --Carnildo 20:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Ideally it'd need a racing pic from the '50s or '60s, I think, contemporaneous with Hubbard's lecture describing it. I'll be seeing what I can turn up. But crikey, we do have some very nice auto racing images on Commons ... - David Gerard 14:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Suport, for all the reasons listed above. WegianWarrior 09:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Suport. pamri 03:50, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• comment Could audio pronunciations be added? lots of issues | leave me a message 23:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Umm, audio pronunciations of what exactly? -- ChrisO 00:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Some of Hubbard's neologisms, presumably (e.g. "Arslycus"). There are sites with some Hubbard audio on them; I'll see if any can be found - David Gerard 21:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• weak object. Some of this is good stuff, but some of the sections (e.g. most of the "goals") are so short that they should be combined, expanded, or removed altogether. Right now, some of them have virtually no useful information. Incidentally, it should be explained what a "goal" is. Dave (talk) 15:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't recommend combining the goals and incidents - the article effectively provides a catalogue of the principal such events that Hubbard describes. However, I agree with your point about explaining what the goals are, and I've done this now. -- ChrisO 20:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Could you add a descriptions of the confusion the goals allegedly cause? For example, if I'm supposed ""To End", "To be Dead", "To be Asleep", "To be Solid", "To be Sexual" and so on," what problems would that cause in me today? Why is it important to "clear" all of these? If this is added, I think I'll be ready to support. Dave (talk) 14:00, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Italian Renaissance

Originally a spin off from the Renaissance COTW, I have recently expanded and rewritten the origins and development sections. I have done little with the culture sections, which are outside my area of expertise, but they have been worked on by people who know the material. Antandrus especially deserves praise for his recent overhaul of the music section. This went through peer review last month and the concerns raised there have been addressed, except for the call for more external links, as after some hunting I couldn't find much worth linking to. - SimonP 15:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Support 172 | Talk 15:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Phils 16:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This thorough and interesting article does not use footnotes. A bibliography alone is not sufficiant -- claims need to be referenced individually. Also, there remain some stylistic issues, such as some choppy phrasing, and a lack of commas where appropriate.

In short, three things need to happen in order for this article to attain featured status: (1) An editor with a keen eye needs to go thoroughly over the article, focusing on style and grammar (I did this for two sections); (2) The article needs footnotes -- for instance, when it is claimed that a city imported wool from Spain, there need to be a reference. Featured articles must be completely varifiable. (3) Finally, other editors with a good working knowledge of the Italian Renaissance need to evaluate the content, rather than simply be content with the fact that the article is thorough, seemingly comprehensive and well-organized.

I have worked on the style a fair bit, but not below the "development" section. This is an excellent article suffering from some stylistic problems, and while they aren't too difficult to fix, they're keeping it from it from attaining featured status. As soon as the style of the latter half of the article is addressed (I did the first half), I'll withdraw my objection. --Zantastik talk 11:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

This article has great potential, and if these issues are addressed, I will enthusiastically support it. --Zantastik talk 15:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I respect your objections, but I seriously take issue at your assumption that my vote was based on apparent comprehensiveness and good structure. I always take time to review the articles before I vote. Phils 17:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object, for now, per Zantastik, numbers 2 and 3. While there are a few stylistic and grammatical issues, they are minor and I think the article is well-written as a whole. The lack of footnotes and sparse references, however, is much more troubling. Featured articles must be thoroughly verifiable; we shouldn't lower this standard simply because the article is long and well-written. - Jersyko talk 16:00, July 17, 2005 (UTC) I withdraw my objection. - Jersyko talk 00:38, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I personally do not feel that footnotes are needed for this article. It is a very general overview, and all of the facts here can be verified in any of the general texts listed in the references and specific theories are already given in text references. I also think it is wrong to assume that previous voters are basing their comments simply on style. 172, for instance, is one of the few professional historians who contribute to Wikipedia. - SimonP 16:06, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've added a few footnotes, there is not much I can do about #3, however. - SimonP 17:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

As SimonP has stated, footnotes are not a requirement for FA in very general survey overviews such as this one. Some of my own FAs have included many footnotes when necessary, such as George F. Kennan. But just last week I was working on History of Poland (1945-1989), which was featured without any footnotes. 172 | Talk 17:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually the criteria make no such distinction. They say in part "and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations". That doesn't require footnotes specifically, but does need some kind of inline cites. That articles make it through without does not mean they shouldn't have them. So maybe this isn't a controversial subject and doesn't need 233 citations, but appropriate is not 0, 2 or 3 either. I suggest prioritizing by the top 10 or so most important or most central facts to this article, and cite those to the best source available. What's obvious and common knowledge to you is not to me. - Taxman ^Talk 18:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Object, surely should mention the Crusades and the impact of contact with Islamic culture. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added a couple sentences on the subject. - SimonP 18:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't usually weigh in on FAC, so I'm not totally sure if what I'm about to say works, but… once others' specific objections are answered, count my vote toward the quorum for support. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment While I maintain my three objections, I'd like to apologize to Phils and 172, for assuming that the fact that they did not comment extensively meant that they did not take their votes seriously. I was wrong, and I'd like to encourage both of them to keep up the good work here --Zantastik talk 18:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:StPetersDome.jpg appears to be a copyvio. It's tagged as {{PD}}, but the image was copied from [5], and the copyright information on that site states "The Web Gallery of Art is copyrighted as a database. Images and documents downloaded from this database can only be used for educational and personal purposes. Distribution of the images in any form is prohibited without the authorization of their legal owner." --Carnildo 21:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Your are quite correct. I have replaced it with Image:Petersdom von Engelsburg gesehen.jpg, and the original should be listed on PUI. - SimonP 23:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I continue to address some stylistic and grammatical issues present in this otherwise excellent article. The grammatical errors (primarily, missing commas) and the stylistic issues are not grave, but they all need to be addressed before the article achieves featured status. The addition of footnotes is very much welcomed; even though what 172 has said is correct, adding a few more wouldn't hurt -- raising standards isn't a bad thing, though I won't raise objections if this is not done. I invite others to look over this article for minor grammatical and stylistic issues -- having several editors going over this article with an eye for these issues is a good way to catch what I've missed myself. Note that many of my edits here have been from an anonymous IP. At any rate, I'll keep plugging away at this. --Zantastik talk 23:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support Object, but I anticipate supporting. 1) I will object over the lack of enough citations for a few reasons. They are important, and the type of subject does not make them less important. Even moreso, there are lots of statements in the article that are not at all obvious to a generally educated person, nor even assuredly correct. I'll just pick out an example that I saw right away. "The Medieval Warm Period was ending and the Little Ice Age saw agricultural output decline significantly leading to repeated famines...". Several points: the sentence seems to imply causality from the LIA to declining ag output. Is that well established? Isn't the LIA considered to be in full swing later than the period referred to anyway? There are more like that, and I can produce a list if you like, but the article's editors can see them as well as I can, I'd think. 2) The focus of the article seems in contrast to the facts of the time. Isn't it fairly well established that the Renaissance really only effected the small proportion of wealthy and educated people? The lead with "a period of great cultural change and achievement from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century." seems to imply the whole of society was radically changed. It may have been, but this is where my lack of knowledge comes in. That first sentence is then in contrast with the last few sentences of the lead, but there doesn't seem to be a bridge reconciling them. Further, the end of the lead mentions that most of society was little effected, but then the entire article focuses on that small portion of society that was. Maybe this is the standard way of thinking about the Renaissance, but it hardly seems comprehensive. I'm open to being proved wrong, but I think the article needs at least a decent section explaining what effects if any were felt by the majority of the population, or evidence for the fact that they were not effected. - Taxman ^Talk 19:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added a bunch of extra references, and cleared up the wording of the LIA section. The Renaissance did only affect a very small minority of the population. For the peasantry and the urban poor life was pretty much unchanged from the Middle Ages. It is thus proper, and standard, to focus on the elite. You are correct that this focus should be explained, and that there should be some mention of the rest of the people. I have thus added a ==wider population== section. - SimonP 15:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Very nice fixes, thank you. That new section seems to be enough to me. The only problem I see left is that the lead is still left contradictroy, where the first paragraph says there was wide change, making it sound like everyone was affected, while the third paragraphs disagrees with that. They need to be made consistent. Oh, and I left a note commenting that the LIA wording still seems to imply a causal relationship, but doesn't clearly establish or refute that. That needs to be fixed. - Taxman ^Talk 17:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • I've made some alterations to the intro. The change was great, but I made clear that great does not here mean wide. As to the second issue the general consensus is that the change in climate was a central cause of the famines and plague of the fourteenth century. The exact quote from De Lamar is that "these calamities were triggered by a remarkable climatic change that lowered the average temperature several degrees." I've made the causal link clearer in the text of the article. - SimonP 15:42, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok, looks great. Since the rest of it does too, I'm quite convinced the article is feature worthy. - Taxman ^Talk 19:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Algerian Civil War

This is a self-nomination; however, I have researched this quite extensively for some time, to the point of having to trim the article somewhat, and have finally managed to scrape together enough pictures. The topic, despite its great importance, get little media attention, and I think this page covers it in greater depth and detail than any online English-language description I have come across. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. No copyright on one portrait, and an unknown copyright on the other. Fix these and I'll have a good look and vote. Thanks. Harro5 July 9, 2005 00:56 (UTC)

• Well spotted - I had missed that. Both are from the Algerian government (the presidency's official site); however, I'm not 100% certain of Algeria's position on copyright of state-produced materials. If I can't find that out, I propose to remove them from the article. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

• Article 9 of Algeria's ORDONNANCE RELATIVE AUX DROITS D'AUTEUR ET AUX DROITS VOISINS states that: "Works of the State made licitly accessible to the public may be freely used for non-profit purposes, subject to respect for the integrity of the work and indication of its source. By "works of the State", in this article, are meant works produced and published by the various organs of the State, local communities, or public establishments of an administrative character." (original in French.) Ie, non-commercial-only - which apparently means we aren't supposed to use them. Darn. They have both been removed from the article. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Great work making such a comprehensive and NPOV article on a subject that got far too little attention in the English language press; however, the lead is too short, and one generally shouldn't have contentless sections like ==Timeline==. The maps are very good, but it also does need more pictures, preferably some of the conflict itself. I doubt we can get any PD or GFDL images, but it might be possible to add some fair use ones under the "unique historical images which we cannot reproduce by other means" criteria. - SimonP July 9, 2005 02:00 (UTC)

• OK, I think I've addressed your first two objections. The lack of pictures of the conflict itself is a perennial if not unresolvable problem here, and any help you can give would be extremely welcome. Does this fair use criterion apply to press images? - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
  • Support. My first two objections have been fully addressed so I am moving to support. As to images I'm far from an expert in American fair use law, but I do know that Wikipedia practice is to claim fair use for certain press images. This has been controversial in the past (see Image talk:TrangBang.jpg for a lengthy debate), but pages like History of post-Soviet Russia and Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 have become FAs and use such images. - SimonP July 9, 2005 03:55 (UTC)

• Support. The text is excellent. It would be great if you could find more pictures though (I know it's difficult); as it stands, it's not an inviting read. — mark ✎ 20:43, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

• http://www.algeria-watch.org/galerie/galerien.htm seems to have a promising set of images. I'll see if I can find out about their copyright status. - Mustafaa 20:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support, well written piece on an ongoing conflict. The pics that are there are sufficient. --nixie 14:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Very close to supporting. I just need to read all of it through properly and see if there's copyediting needed. Everything I've seen so far seems well written and comprehensive. I hope we'll be seeing more FACs on African history and culture after this. /Peter ^Isotalo 22:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. The warbox needs to go. It's obviously best suited for more traditional all-out nation vs nation conflicts, not complex and low-intensity civil wars. /Peter ^Isotalo 17:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The featured article criteria say that it has to adhere to the standards of the relavant wikiproject. As such, a warbox is called for. →Raul654 16:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Very sparse use of references. More research and citation seems necessary. Also, the lead is very hard to follow and basically takes a reading of the whole thing to even figure out the result. Part of the problem is the second sentence runs straight into a a narrative of the events from the start. Please restructure it in more of a news style, or at least tell me all the most important things in the first paragraph before going into details. Sorry to bring this objection so late, but I felt it needed to be said. - Taxman ^Talk 19:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

  Hmm, after writing that I see youve said you've researched it a lot, but I see only two references, plus some notes to what all appear to be news articles or low quality sources. I could be wrong, part of the problem is how they are formatted perhaps. But if you've researched a lot, add all those sources and cite what parts of the article are supported by what sources. - Taxman ^Talk 19:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Three rather extensive English-language books, actually (one of them was under the external links section because it happens to be available online) plus a large number of sources (mostly in French) on individual events or people with insufficient general relevance to place in the references section. As for the news articles, I'm not sure what the problem is. The government hasn't released its internal notes, nor have the guerrillas published any helpful memoirs; the primary sources for this conflict are press releases and human rights organizations' interviews, and that's what all of the books referenced do cite (indeed, most of the press cites were via the books referenced.) Why do you consider these "low-quality sources"? (Apart from two of the links, the bloody useless "War Nerd Column" and the useful but uneven timeline by an activist website.) You also suggest more citation; I'm not sure how this could be achieved. Linking each paragraph to the appropriate chapters of the relevant books seems superfluous; I've been going on the assumption that only quotes and potentially controversial claims need such low-level citation.

• Ok, with another book in the references I'm a bit more comfortable. Just try to make them all consistent with the formatting in Wikipedia:Cite sources. I believe if it is available online, only the title should be linked, not the rest of the citation information. Also the other notes do not contain the full citation information such as date, author, publisher, and they are not all in consistent order, so I can't tell which is which. If those are the best sources available, then I'm ok with it, just fix the formatting. As to citation, the more the better always. How do we know any of the material is accurate, except that you tell us? Wikipedia:Verifiability is important to help in that. I'm not saying every word needs to be cited, but the top 15-20 or so most central and or most controversial facts in the article should ideally be cited directly to the source they came from. - Taxman ^Talk 16:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I cannot entirely agree on the citing issue. To cite a claim to a particular source gives the impression that it is an individual author's conclusions, which is appropriate for original or controversial claims but misleading for matters of common knowledge; also, I don't currently have access to many of the materials I used in writing this, so getting individual page numbers (or chapter references) would be rather difficult for the time being. - Mustafaa 20:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• If the cited point is a fact, citing it to one source the fact was found in, is not misleading, it's standard practice. If it is opinion, citing the source it came from is even more critical of course. If it is a generally accepted fact, then it shouldn't be hard to find a source that refers to it as a generally accepted fact. Remember, what is common knowledge to you may be entirely novel and perhaps not believable to me. So picking out the most important facts/points in the article and citing those is important, to be able to verify the material. You've got a few cited points, so I won't scream too loud about this one, though I believe only several citations in an article is barely passing the minimum for what we should allow as a FA. As to not having your sources handy, that is a pain, but no one said good research was convenient, only important. That said, the more prominent problem is the lack of conistent formatting of the sources with all the citation information available and in the same order. - Taxman ^Talk 14:28, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Good point about the citation style - now fixed, apart from a couple of meta-citations which I'll need to confirm later. Otherwise, though, I note that WP:CITE makes much the same point I had in mind more concisely: "it is often preferable to have a few general references to authoritative overviews of a subject, such as textbooks and review articles, rather than a large number of specific citations for individual facts." - Mustafaa 22:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• That statement has been added in the last week in the middle of essentially a revert war, with no consensus for it on the talk page. Hardly a sound position, and it is at odds with the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Besides, even if I agreed with that quoted statement, I would not consider 20 citations in a long article a large number. - Taxman ^Talk 15:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

As for the opening 4 paragraphs, what do you recommend? - Mustafaa 22:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Well ideally it should summarize the most important aspects of the article. I think it mostly does that, but it is far too chronologically organized. I suggest the whole first paragraph be devoted to telling the reader why it is important, what happened, what the results were (Govt still in power after or were the rebels successful?), and what impact the event had, on Algeria and or the area and the rest of the world if any. I think that can be done in a paragraph or two. Then if you want a chronological summary, cover that next, though probably in more of a summarized form as it is currently hard to follow. The lead section should cover the major players as it does, but since they are currently weaved into the whole three paragraphs, they aren't easy to follow either. Come to think of it there is no section in the rest of the article that summarizes the effect of the war, which I think is also necessary. - Taxman ^Talk 16:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I think I've done the initial pre-summary summary now. - Mustafaa 20:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's much better. - Taxman ^Talk 14:28, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object on technical grounds, No warbox. Sparse ilinks: from lead, not linked: democracy, armed conflict, election (should link specifically to mentioned 1991 election, army (to Algerian army), police (to Algerian police), massacres and quite a few others. No second level sectioning = TOC not very readable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that warbox is pretty inappropriate for an ongoing contemporary conflict.--nixie 15:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Linking fixed, and warbox put in (though some sections don't necessarily fit the specifics of the conflict well, in particular having only two combatant boxes.) I don't see how to implement second-level sectioning without ruining continuity, or how it would help readability, but maybe I'm missing something. - Mustafaa 23:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but the warbox looks astoundingly bad. Especially now that it's overshadowing the far more relevant History of Algeria-template. My support is on the condition that the warbox goes or at least gets remodeled. It's quite superfluous and leaves the introduction layout in shambles. /Peter ^Isotalo 17:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I kind of agree. Maybe put it at the bottom of the page, if others feel it's needed. Opinions? - Mustafaa 22:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support 172 | Talk 21:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Gandy

Self nom. Article on J. Edgar Hoover's longtime secretary and the woman who destroyed his files. Article is actually longer than Hoover's. PedanticallySpeaking 19:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hah! Success. Found a picture at the Library of Congress and added it. PedanticallySpeaking 18:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Folks, here's a picture on the Washington Post site of her with Mark Felt. Probably one of the paper's photographers, so it's not public domain. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/05/31/PH2005053101008.html PedanticallySpeaking 17:41, July 18, 2005 (UTC) And here's her mother. PedanticallySpeaking 17:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A shame there isn't a picture of Gandy herself, however. Great research! Meelar (talk) 20:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've seen some from the National Archives in Hoover biographies, but I couldn't find anything on the web and I don't have a scanner. PedanticallySpeaking 20:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Support, though similar to Mark Felt in the fact that most of the pictures are of other people. Still, well written. Phoenix2 21:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Phils 15:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. interesting, well written, well referenced. I wouldn't worry about the lack of picture of Gandy herself, the article more than stands without it, and one can be added if ever located in the future. Rossrs 01:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Rossrs. PedanticallySpeaking 17:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. Another fine bit of research by PedanticallySpeaking! I'd love to see a photo, too, especially since there are descriptions of her appearance. I'll go to full support if you can get her date of birth. Jokestress 02:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Jokestress, for your kind words. PedanticallySpeaking 17:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• • Date of birth gotten from the Social Security Death Index. (I'll see if I can find out whether she died in DeLand or Orange City; I live in DeLand, but I'm not going to be there this week.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice piece of detective work!! I spent about an hour looking unsuccessfully! Have added to reference section. Rossrs 07:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur! I just used it to add dates to four incomplete bios. Jokestress 07:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Huge bulk of offline references given, which means that the author has really done some homework. A great read. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Stevey. Nice to be appreciated. PedanticallySpeaking 17:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Support with the comment that it might make for easier reading if there were more section headings. David | Talk 13:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is really good and interesting. It is obvious you have done your research so I won't object, but it is really hard sometimes to tell what sources were used for what, or in scanning through, to see where they were used at all. That's because the sources are all referred to in prose which is good, but like I said, makes it hard to check. Can you add invisible notes or something with which source covers which facts. Especially for the most important points. - Taxman ^Talk 19:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Tate

This is a self nomination. Have had this on Peer Review for nearly a month and it seems to have attracted as much comment as its likely to. Peer review archive. I have addressed the issue of the referencing of the article. Rossrs 14:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Reluctantly object, I'm afraid. The consensus that articles for the main page require a picture, and that those pictures must be public domain, GDFL, or anything other than fair use. These criteria operate to exclude most twentieth century biography, which suggests to me that the consensus merits revision, but as things stand now I doubt it could be promoted. Smerdis of Tlön 17:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have removed several of the images, and as there seem to be no free images available, this is as close as I can come to resolving this objection. In this regard, the article is in line with numerous other recently promoted and/or featured articles. Rossrs 11:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair use pictures have been used on the main page for featured articles in the past; likewise, articles have been promoted to featured status knowing they were not fit for the main page, so your argument does not stand. Phils 18:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It's heartening that your objection is reluctant. I disagree that there is a consensus, and if there is, it is not recorded on Wikipedia:What is a featured article or its talk page. There have been several articles promoted over the last few months that have only fair use images, and these have also been featured on the main page. Obviously I don't monitor every single article, but there are several that have gone through a very lengthy process, and in relation to the ones I've looked at, nobody has said a thing about there being a problem with the images. User:Phils mentions that this has been "in the past" - I would just add that it's been in the "recent" past. Rossrs 02:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support absolutely. Excellent work. I've worked with Rossrs in the past and quality work like this increases my admiration for him. PedanticallySpeaking 18:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you PS. That's a really nice comment!! Rossrs 12:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article has no images under a free license. Admittedly, this is a subject where it is hard to find images, and one where fair-use images can be justified, but we really need at least one image with a freer license than "fair use". --Carnildo 19:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have removed several of the images, and as there seem to be no free images available, this is as close as I can come to resolving this objection. In this regard, the article is in line with numerous other recently promoted and/or featured articles. Rossrs 11:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. To quote the FA guidelines "an article does not have to have a picture to be featured." (emphasis in original) It's a good article that stands on its own. Why the pictures should lead to its defeat is a mystery. PedanticallySpeaking 19:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Item #1 on "What is a featured article" is "Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet". One of those things that is unique about Wikipedia is that it is a free content encyclopedia: among other things, people are free to take Wikipedia content and create derivative works from it. The inclusion in articles of images that are not under a free-use license keep that from happening. --Carnildo 21:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Also on Wikipedia:What is a featured article - "images with acceptable copyright". There is nothing on the page to define what is "acceptable", nor is there anything on the talk page. It's obviously a question of interpretation - my interpretation is vastly different to yours. I don't see this as a grey issue. If it's fair it's fair and can be used, if it's not fair, it can't be used on any page, featured potential or not. I don't see how the inclusion of a free use image to a page containing fair use images, somehow elevates it to a more "acceptable" level. Also you say that "the inclusion of images that are not under a free-use licence keep that from happening", so if that was correct, no featured article could contain any fair use images or they could potentially cause the problem that you describe. The images are by Wikidepia's own defintion, "acceptable" - that is, they are "fair use". They are genuinely "fair use" by using the Wikipedia 10 point criteria, and are all either screenshots or book covers. They are all correctly tagged. Wikipedia is not claiming freedom of copyright, and this tag is viewable by anyone who looks. It's not right to say they are acceptable for Wikipedia as long as they are kept hidden in pages other than featured articles. I spent a long time poring over the guidelines before I submitted this and I couldn't find anything that suggested a problem. I expect nominations to be challenged or opposed, and I have no problem with that, but only on grounds that are stated in the policy guidelines. The guidelines as they stand now don't support your viewpoint, however if I've missed something, please let me know where I should be looking. Rossrs

I've found this statement and this email by Jimbo Wales to be rather informative on what image licenses are acceptable. --Carnildo 03:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the quick response. He says that fair use images are a grey area which is not saying that they are unacceptable, although clearly that is his viewpoint. I'm annoyed that I've spent a lot of time working on this article, and in good faith have referred to things like Wikipedia:What is a featured article, thinking that because it was Wikipedia's official policy, it was the best and most reliable source of information, and have abided by what is written there. Have a look at how many articles have recently been promoted (and by recent I mean in the last few months) to Featured Article status, even though they contain nothing but "fair use" images. ie screenshots, album covers, book covers etc. And not a single objection in relation to the images, during their peer review or featured article processes, and many of them have appeared on the main page as Article of the Day complete with the "fair use" image. Wikipedia:Copyrights says in part "In cases where no such [free use] images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available)". - (my italics). Until the policy pages are rewritten I should be able to have faith in them. Rossrs 08:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree; but in practice, FAC seems to have developed a body of unwritten policies. One is that the articles must have a picture under a "free licence." Another is that FAC operates under the principle of liberum veto. I could see monopoly-franchise based objections coming. If there is a consensus to reject either of these unwritten policies, perhaps that too could be made explicit. Smerdis of Tlön 13:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem with unwritten policies is that any application of them can really be left to the whim of people voting, unlike written policies that are very explicit. Liberum veto - well in this instance I can see it being used correctly and with good intentions, but with other nominations I've seen it used to impose someone's POV which is not a good thing, but it seems to work mostly. I am genuinely surprised - having seen so many articles with exactly the same type of fair use images, go through peer review, fac, and then onto the main page without incident. I thought any criticism here would be about the text and that the images were fine. I'll stop bleating on about this before it becomes boring, but I can't replace the images - there are no free use images for virtually any celebrity, this one included, so will just have to see how this pans out. Rossrs 14:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The differences between formal rules and informal customs intrigue me; especially in situations where formal, public rules don't in fact predict actual decisions, and the unwritten rules are the rules you really need to know. Here we have that in a microcosm. Smerdis of Tlön 17:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well written, very comprehensive. I don't think the image issue is a valid criteria for objection, Wikipedia:What is a featured article says "Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status". IMHO, fair use is an "acceptable copyright status" for this article, because like many 20/21th celebrities, there may well be no public domain images of Sharon Tate that are readily available. There certainly aren't any that are available on the internet. On this page, a photogallery for a Sharon Tate fansite, there is a notice that says "Sharon Tate's name, image, likeness, signature and voice is controlled by Debra Tate. Please contact us if you feel there's misuse of Sharon Tate's image. Misuse would be: other sites profiting from Sharon's image or displaying her in such a way that would be offensive to Sharon's family, friends and fans." There's an email address that's provided to apply for permission to use Sharon Tate in "Media, TV, Newspaper, Magazine, Promotional". This article is certainly not misusing Sharon Tate's image, and since Wikipedia is a non-profit organisation, under these terms Sharon Tate's estate appears to be content for images of her to be reproduced. Deus Ex 20:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I know the website has the information about getting permission to use images, however these would still not be "fair use", as to let us use them would in effect mean that the copyright on them would be relinquished, and there's no way they'd let that happen. Basically as a free content encyclopedia we could not make use of "permission only" images.  :-) Rossrs 08:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The lack of fair use pictures is indeed a concern, and too many fair use pictures in one article is never good. I suggest simply cutting back on the number of photographs. Phils 09:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I've trimmed the number of images from 13 to 8. I think it looks better actually - so it's now one image for each section except the fairly long "Movie career" section which has two, plus the image for the lead paragraph. I removed everything that I thought was superfluous or did not add anything in particular to the article. The ones that remain, I think, help tell the story and are relevant. I'm glad you suggested it. Do you think it's ok now? Rossrs 13:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support now that the image count has been reduced. —RaD Man (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support - ignoring the pictures, the text is great. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support very well done --Sophitus 18:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very well written, structured, researched and cited. Have you considered contacting the Tate family to see if they are willing to donate a picture or a few under a free license? Under the circumstances and for the sake of her legacy, they may be willing. - Taxman ^Talk 19:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

thank you. I think the article is quite respectful to her memory and should not displease her family (specifically Debra Tate who is the only surviving immediate family member), but I've read elsewhere that Debra Tate who holds copyright to Sharon Tate's image, is very protective of any kind of "merchandising" particularly with regards to images. Because we can't use a "with permission only" image, the only option would be if the copyright was "donated" to us, and from what I've read I don't think they would be willing. I haven't asked though. I also think donating would be difficult because obviously the number of Sharon Tate photographs is finite.

You may be surprised. Since Wikipedia is non profit and the license guarantees that it remains free, they may be willing. The fact that it is free to be mirrored by commercial interests may be the sticking point you're right, but it is worth a shot. Yes they would have to be willing to donate a scan of the picture under GFDL or CC, but a scan certainly wouldn't matter on the finite number of pictures issue. - Taxman ^Talk 15:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blackface

This article was nominated back in December (see Archive1), and failed. The two basic reasons were (1) a lack of references, and (2) complaints about section headers. Both of these problems have been fixed. It's a well-written article on an important and lesser-known part of American culture. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 17:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• For the record, a clarification: the section headers were changed satisfactorily during the old FAC process. deeceevoice 11:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• mild object Support The lead section is too short for an article of this length. While it is difficult to present material on this subject in an NPOV manner, the prominence of the terms "darky" in a section header and "nigger" in the Related Topics section stands out and overshadows the rest of the prose. As I read the article, I found it hard to ignore these terms. slambo 18:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I wrote most of the article in its current form -- and, in particular the lead paragraph which contains the language about which you express concerns. I am an African American and chose the words purposefully, as they go to the heart of what blackface is. (The original version read, "Blackface is a type of character performance in which performers paint their faces black (with burnt cork or greasepaint makeup) in a manner that presents a crude caricature of African features," which I viewed as completely unsatisfactory and did not address the essential, core racism of the genre, both in its style and substance.) I was not aware that the article would be resubmitted for featured article status and did not review it thoroughly beforehand, but noticing some activity with the article (during which time I, curiously, was inexplicably blocked from editing only it), I did notice that someone (when, I do not know) had included Nigger in the "Related topics" section. Once I was able to edit the article again, I removed the reference because I thought it gratuitous and inappropriate, before I even read your remarks. Generally, I share your concerns about the use of blatantly racist terms; however, one cannot frankly and honestly write about a subject such as blackface and not use them. (Contrast the treatment of the subject in this article and the treatment of it in Minstrel show, where "racism" was not mentioned even once before I interjected it after commenting on the piece oin the article's talk page and waiting and waiting to see what happened with the piece. The excuse given for the glaring omissions in the article was that the writers wished to avoid controversy. I think it is best to address such matters head on. To date, Blackface actually has generated little controversy of the type the contributors to Minstrel show feared -- nothing beyond the usual editing issues. While I often have critical things to say about this web site, I think Wikipedia editors and our readers are to be credited for the manner in which this article has been both created (by many editors) and received. The piece thus far also has not been the target of the usual racist vandalism that is so commonplace/pervasive with articles treating African Americans and blacks, geneerally, on the web site -- though that likely will change should "Blackface" be granted FAS). The Minstrel show, IMO, it remains weak and antiseptic and completely fails to address the pervasive influence of the form on race, race relations and the perception of blacks -- which is a travesty. The article, IMO, is little more than worthless and reads like something out of the 1940s. It's a dismal failure. Sorry, but that's my opinion.) Blackface, on the other hand, I think, is exemplary -- because of a spirit of openminded collaboration and, I think, a desire on the part of all involved to examine the topic honestly and directly. I may be mistaken, but such does not happen often on Wikipedia in potentially sensitive matters of "race" and ethnicity -- at least not in my experience. Once I realized the article had been resubmitted, I made other changes, as well (as have other contributors), to which I hope there will be no objection. I think the article in its present form is certainly featured article caliber. deeceevoice 10:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the lead section should be expanded. I'm not sure what to do about the "darky" and "nigger" complaints though. It isn't really possibly to fully cover the topic without those words. I'm sorry that overshadows the prose for you, but I'm not sure what to do about it. 19:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is tough on a subject like this to be uncontroversial. The terms should be included as they are a part of the culture of the time, they're just a little jarring to me. I'll re-read it later tonight and see what I think again. slambo 11:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Update - I have expanded the intro. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • The introductory section has been extended and then that has been revised extensively to be more general/inclusive. I think it's good to go. deeceevoice 01:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just re-read the article, and upgraded my vote to Support. Well done! The only thing that I can think of that may be left to mention is that many collectors are now specializing in the black icons from the first half of the 20th century. Whether it's to preserve history or out of a fascination for the subject is up for debate, but interesting nonetheless. BTW, as I grew up in Los Angeles, we often ate at the local Sambo's restaurant (themed on the story of Little Black Sambo). I remember the iconography and when they tried to clean it up (and before you ask, that's not the source of my online handle; that came from putting my first initial (S) and last name (Lamb) on my gym clothes in 6th grade (it looked like "SLamb"), and since Rambo was popular then, it was only natural to add the o). slambo 03:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

support The suggestion in the article that Zwarte Piet is very controversial has been corrected, but I find the "references" for Zwarte Piet unscholarly and flimsy: just an article on a website. I could easily go to the library and find better references (in Dutch language) for Zwarte Piet, please give me more time. Also I think that the lead section could be longer. I continue to object because the references and external links formats could be better. Also the lead section should include Zwarte Piet. Also some information on Zwarte Piet must be corrected: he is not really a Christmas figure. He appears on 5 or 6 December. The article falsely suggests or even says that Zwarte Piet is very controversial in the Netherlands. May be Zwarte Piet should be very controversial but it is only a bit controversial. Also, I find the statement that Zwarte Piet sometimes is associated with satan doubtful. Andries 18:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• • The article never made a pronouncment about the degree to which Zwarte Piet was controversial; it merely stated the issues on both sides. Andries raised this objection before, and others seemed to take my view. We assumed the matter was settled. However, Andries made a few addition which seem reasonable and which contribute to the article, and I think everyone is now pleased with the article in this respect. Further, the suggestion that ZP should appear in the lead is (no offense intended) ridiculous. deeceevoice 11:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The article also includes 7 external links about Zwarte Piet that I think, on the whole, back up the suggestion that it is controversial in the Netherlands and sometimes associated with Satan. I'm not sure that should be removed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have already discussed this on the talk page and I continue to disagree. I will look at the association with satan later. Andries 20:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Zwarte Piet's association with Knecht Ruprecht is accurate. As a matter of fact, at one time, Zwarte Piet redirected to KR -- before I removed the redirect and started a stub. deeceevoice 11:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The standing objection of Andries that Zwarte Piet should be included in the lead is a shaky one. There is absolutely no reason to mention ZP in the lead paragraphs of the piece. ZP is relevant to the article only insofar as he is an example of blackface darky iconography. In this manner, he is no more worthy of inclusion in the lead paragraph(s) than the Cape Coons, or Shirley Q. Liquor. deeceevoice 13:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that ZP should not be in the lead paragraph. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • You object, saying that the external links and references sections could be formatted better. I looked over them carefully, but I don't see how they could be improved. Could you be more specific? I take that back; I found ways to improve those sections, and I have done so. I hope this satisfies all you objections about this. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sheesh, you're tough one. Amazon lists exactly 2 books on Zwarte Piet, and one is long out of print with very little information. I added the other as a reference. I have also expanded the lead section again. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course, Dutch libraries have better info on Zwarte Piet, but as I said I need time to find and read them. I object to your addition as references of a book that you have not read and used for the article. The right section for that would be biblography, not references. Andries 19:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, that's been fixed now too. Of course the article can be improved, but have we finally satisfied all your objections? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 02:29, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  1. The image Image:Bert Williams blackface 2.jpg is listed as a promotional photo with known source, but the source is not listed. Further, the {{promophoto}} license is not a completely free license.
  2. The image Image:Al Jolson Jazz Singer.JPG is claimed as "fair use". Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, so fair use images should be avoided if at all possible.

  --Carnildo 18:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Hm, good point. I'll see if I can find some acceptable PD images. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Update - I have added three public domain images. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, make that two. The pics were moved to, IMO, more appropriate places in the article, and the number of sheet music images reduced to one (the caption was a bit off on one and less colorful, so I chose to delete that one). The only other image I had planned to add was something, probably, of my collection of artifacts -- to illustrate the breath of use of darky iconography in everyday objects. But I don't know when I'll get around to it. I had considered a photo gallery of sorts to illustrate the continuum of development of darky iconography from its beginnings to the present day, but, given the article size already, I don't know how feasible/desirable that would be.) As it stands now, I think the new images are valuable additions. As for the other images under discussion, I can't say. I do know the ones I added are free and clear. If the blackface Jolson cannot be cleared, I'm certain we can find another photo of a white in blackface that will do.deeceevoice 10:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Photo update - Photo of Jolsen replaced w/repro of old minstrel poster (expired copyright). This will do for now. deeceevoice 11:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • With the information I added on blacks in blackface (which also speaks to blackface's origins, or certainly its early days), I felt much of it didn't belong in "The shaping of racist archetypes." Moving that information to "Origins" wouldn't work, so I combined the two under one subhead, "History and the shaping of racist archetypes." ("Origins" was too short, anyway -- especially if one disregarded the photo.) I hope that meets with no opposition. deeceevoice 11:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support. It's a good article. But I should say I've been heavily involved in the writing of the piece. I guess, with this vote, I should disclose my inherent bias. :p I'm waiting to hear from another editor about something, but no article on Wikipedia is ever finished. As it stands, I think it's intelligent and thorough and imminently worthy of featured articcle status.deeceevoice 22:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support excellent article. Morwen - Talk 13:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support. One of the best articles I have read on the subject. I missed most of the earlier debates (see above) about the article but reading the current version I don't see why this shouldn't be a featured article.--Alabamaboy 13:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Căile Ferate Române

Article about Romania's state railway carrier. I'm nominating it because I've worked on it, along with some other contributors, in the past week, and I feel that it is very comprehensive and well-formatted with a lot of information. The subject is also interesting, IMHO :) It's gone through peer review over at Wikipedia:Peer review/Căile Ferate Române/archive1. Thanks, Ronline 11:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Support, great article, lots of information, well structured, a good model for rail transport articles around wikipedia. Should go on the front page.--Xanthar 12:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Question: Are the '✓' characters in the first table there on purpose or is it some odd font? I'll need to read fully before supporting or opposing. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:06, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The ✓ character is the Unicode tick character (see Tick (disambiguation). I asked in peer review about it and they said it's fine and it should also be the encouraged way of showing ticks. By the way, are you getting squares instead of ticks? The symbol should be a tick sign. Some browsers come up with a square bullet instead of a tick. Ronline 00:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Minor object, the lead should summarise the content of the atricle and bullet points in the lead are not necessary and should be turned to prose. Also I'm having problems with the images overlapping the tables, some may need to be moved and or removed.--nixie 23:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

What resolution are you viewing at? I've tested on 800x600 and none of the images (in the Locomotives section) overlap... (I'm using Firefox and have also tested in IE) As to summarising the article, should I actually talk about the different classes of passenger service in the lead? They're already summarised in the "lead" of the passenger services section... I've reformed the lead section by cutting out the bullets and adding a sentence about the date of founding. Is there anything else that should go in there? Thanks, Ronline 00:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm viewing at higher resolution, my work computer in 1024x768, not sure resolution the monitor at home is at, but in both cases (both with firefox) some of the images in the sections on diesel locomotives and diesel multiple units overlap with the table. The lead is heaps better now.--nixie 00:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Its because I'm using the Classic skin, in the default skin in works fine.--nixie 01:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

OK! Thanks. Is there anything else that should go in the lead? Ronline 01:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Not that I can think of, Support--nixie 03:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Some minor issues per Nixie but all around a great article. Briangotts 02:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well done. I've fixed some grammar and links within the prose. slambo 10:52, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice 'n tight. :D Phils 11:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• comment The table in #intercity is empty! If it is not filled in, it should be replaced with a list, a map or a schematiics of some sort.Circeus 12:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC) Just noticed that this was answered aearilier. Still, most users won't be able to see them, even if it's the "correct" way to display them.

Empty? The rolling stock columns have a tick symbol (✓) to indicate what rolling stock each route uses. Are you having trouble seeing that (User:MacGyverMagic had the same problem too I think)? If yes, then they probably need to be changed to another symbol. Thanks, Ronline 12:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see the need for ticks at all. Why not simply use "yes" or something alike?Circeus 13:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Implemented. The ticks have been replaced with "Yes" while the rest of the spaces are blank (putting "No" would clutter the table too much and would result in a slightly different meaning) 09:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• My personal preference would be to list the name of the rolling stock within the table, instead of using tick symbols, but I won't let that stand in the way of my support. JYolkowski // talk 21:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The only problem with that would be that some routes have both classic and Desiro rolling stock, and therefore you wouldn't really be able to have just one column titled "Rolling stock" where you would list the rolling stock. To respond to Circeus' concerns, I am changing the ticks to "Yes". i am just wondering what people think... is placing "yes" instead of ✓ [tick symbol] better? Ronline 09:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tooth enamel

I believe that this might be the finest encyclopedia article about tooth enamel in the English language. The Britannica "enamel" article, by comparison, is 187 words long. While I'm not the best person to assess the scientific claims made in the article, it appears to be a very detailed examination of its subject. Articles like this one are what sets Wikipedia apart from other encyclopedias, and more articles like this one need to be written. While the article failed in its first bid for featured status, it appears that the concerns expressed have all been addressed. - Jersyko talk 20:49, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Wow. That's detailed. I'm certainly not an expert on enamel, but it seems to cover the bases. Stilgar135 16:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support provided that Tooth enamel#Other anatomical features of enamel is incorporated in Tooth enamel#Structure and that Tooth enamel#Enamel Disorders and Tooth enamel#Destruction are merged in a single section. As this involves messing with it's reference system, I'm afraid to be bold. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• I think it would be quite possible to merge Tooth enamel#Other anatomical features of enamel and Tooth enamel#Structure, and with the method for this article's references it would be very simple to do so without messing up any of the numbering. On the other hand, I think it would be innappropriate to combine the two sections of Tooth enamel#Enamel Disorders and Tooth enamel#Destruction for the following reasons:

• The main focus in the destruction section (cavities, for example) address how the developmental processes of mineralization and structure (discussed in the previous section) is undone. Those two sections are very closely linked. The enamel disorders may or may not relate to the developmental processes.
• There is very little reason from a medical point of view to put these two topics together. Naturally, they all describe undesired states of enamel. Nonetheless, the states described in the destruction section are from completely different etilogies. Dental cavities, bruxism, attrition, abrasion, erosion, and abfraction begin with a normal tooth that is destroyed over a period of time. This is not the case with those under the Enamel Disorders section. In fact, with the cases of fluorosis, amelogenesis imperfecta (the x-linked type), enamel hypoplasia, and tetracycline staining, there is a systemic effect causing a change with the enamel that is NOT destructive. The enamel may appear a different color or is in a different amount, but the mineralization process has not been undone.
• One last reason is that, if the article is taken as a whole, the content flows as 1) Summary, 2) Cellular and histologic appearance, 3) Development, 4) Destruction, 5) Ways to avoid or repair that destruction, 5) Other topics not previously covered. In my opinion, this logically flows even if Tooth enamel#Other anatomical features of enamel and Tooth enamel#Structure are combined in the Structure section. It would not be preserved if destruction and systemic conditions affecting enamel were combined and discussed before the topic of repairing destroyed enamel. By the way, I just realized that the title "Systemic Conditions Affecting Enamel" would read better than "Enamel Disorders". Perhaps that should be changed as well. -Dozenist talk 02:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Makes sense. I'll drop the latter merge I suggested. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Merged the section "Other anatomical features of enamel" and renamed "Enamel Disorders" to "Systemic Conditions Affecting Enamel". -Dozenist talk 11:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. This kind of article brings the day Britannica will just be providing edited versions of Wikipedia articles closer. Phils 16:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

::Changing to conditional support. The online references are not properly formatted. A hyperlinked title is not sufficient. Phils 21:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• I need a little clarification to which instance you are referring because the reference format I used was modeled from Pope Benedict XVI. It was suggested somewhere in the volumes of wikipedia resources about how to cite materials to use this form. When you click on, say, the reference currently numbered 62 (These deposits also occur in enamel and leave an appearance described as red in color and fluorescent [62].), it sends you to the "Notes" section, saying the information came from the online website, eMedicine, but gives the specific page the information is on. The main website and the complete reference information for other notes is in the "References" section. It may seem a bit cumbersome, but the reason for this was to be able to edit the article and move around large sections of information without messing up the numbering system of the notes. I hope that clarifies things a bit, but please respond if I completely missed what you were talking about. I spent so much time worrying how to cite the references with such a mix of textbooks, journals, and online articles that I definitely want to get it right. -Dozenist talk 02:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

What I am referring to are links, in the Reference sections, to online documents, for example: "Biology of the Human Dentition". A linked title alone is not sufficient; it needs to include author, website, date if possible, etc... See Wikipedia:Cite sources under "Web sites and articles (not from periodicals)". The idea behind this is that a title gives no information as to what the source document is. Consider this situation: someone prints the article out, and forgets what kind of document "Biology of the Human Dentition": it could just as well be from Jimmy O'Jack's Wonderful Teeth page, last updated in 1997, or a special issue published by a prestigious peer-reviewed journal. Phils 05:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, I went through and made sure the references have as much information as possible. The eMedicine quotes have their specific information in the "Notes" section. - Dozenist talk 01:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Supporting again. Phils 16:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A brilliant article, only getting better over time. +sj + 07:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - one of your notes references an Encarta article. Best not to quote from secondary sources, if there's a journal or book reference that would be much better. Of course, Encarta don't cite their sources so one can't find out from their article where the fact derives from :) Worldtraveller 17:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• That is an excellent point. In that case, the encarta reference is used with an other article. The reference from encarta ("In horses, for example, enamel is found inside the tooth as well as on the outer surface, rather than simply encasing the dentin and the pulp as it does in human teeth.") and the reference from the other source ("Instead of an overall covering of enamel like human teeth, enamel is woven throughout the horse's tooth.)" have very similar messages, so I imagine having both articles helps. - Dozenist talk 00:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say one reference would suffice, if they both say the same thing. I'm really not in favour of citing another encyclopaedia as a reference. I'd like to be able to quote you a policy saying it's not favoured, I thought there was one, but can't find it right now. Anyway, I'm reading the article properly now and will comment on the rest of it soon. Worldtraveller 17:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. An article as thorough as this one raises the bar for featured articles and clearly exemplifies Wikipedia's best work. If there are formatting issues for the online soures, I invite someone with a better knowledge of bibliographies than I to address them. But this article clearly deserves featured status. --Zantastik talk 20:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I am the main author of the article, but, with the editing of many others, I believe this article addresses nearly all aspects of enamel thoroughly. Additionally, the article is written in the easiest language possible for such a scientific-focused subject. I was very pleased to see the tiny article expand into one that was comprehensive, especially because there are very few dental-related articles in wikipedia. - Dozenist talk 18:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support Well written, easy to read, with lots of notes, sorces, references and picture. The driving force(s) behind this article really did their homework. TomStar81 05:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Layla

I have worked for some time to bring this up to featured status, and at the encouragement of Harro5, I have submitted it. I believe the subject is covered in its entirety, it is well illustrated, and it walks the line between eloquence and POV pretty well. In any case, it meets the precedent set by "Something". If you happen to think it is lacking in something, please let me know how it can be bettered further. Deltabeignet 5 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

• Support. I feel this is a very good article about a great song, and know I am willing to do whatever needed to help polishh it for FA status. Harro5 July 5, 2005 22:28 (UTC)

• Oppose The page isn't that great. It doesn't even show the lyrics! Plus I doubt a song is worthy enough of being the featured article. LordMooCow 09:15, 3 July 2005 (GMT+10)
  • It is against U.S. copyright law to show song lyrics on Wikipedia. Also, there are currently nine song articles that are featured. Sorry, but your opposition is invalid and inactionable. Thanks anyway. Harro5 July 5, 2005 23:31 (UTC)
    • Also saying a song isn't worthy of being featured article is not fair reason to oppose - there are several songs already as featured articles. Rossrs 7 July 2005 14:16 (UTC)
• Comment. While we can't reproduce the lyrics, I'd like to know a bit more about the lyric structure. Firstly (macro), I'd like to know the verse chorus bridge order (e.g. v-c-v-c-v-b-c). Secondly (micro), I'd like to know the meter and the time signature; I guess it's mostly 4/4, but as it shifts moods does it shift signature too? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 5, 2005 23:57 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to figure out how to segue that kind of thing in gracefully; the time is all 4/4 according to the TAB book I have, and the order is intro-v-c-v-c-v-c-c-b (if you call the solo the bridge). I'm not much of an expert on meter, but just counting the syllables it seems a little erratic. Most likely, ol' Slowhand was too bothered with the heroin and unrequited love to count the iambs. I'll pop in the time and order though. Deltabeignet 6 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)

Comment: Iambic tetrameter, aabb, ccdd, etc. It's normal or acceptable to have a trochee as the first foot of an iambic line. Geogre 6 July 2005 02:31 (UTC)

Correction: Oops. The above is true for the chorus. The verses are abcb -- the normal rock lyric rhyme scheme -- and their meter is more irregular, actually going into a 3 syllable foot --' --'. Inneresting. Geogre 6 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)

• Neutral for the time being. Would like to see the smaller sections combined into one. References should follow the format of Wikipedia:Cite sources. Lead section could do with a bit of expansion. Not too sure whether the MoS indicates quotes should be italicised. Support. Johnleemk | Talk 6 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)
• Oppose. Technical problems: references are ill-formatted, lead section insufficient, structure (too many, too small sections). Phils 6 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)
  • I have cleaned up the references, merged the smaller sections, and expanded the lead to four sentences, the same as featured song article A Day In The Life. The quotes are mostly just italicised to look nice; the MoS says there is "usually no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics", but I prefer the appearance it gives. However, if this is an issue, I'd be glad to fix it. Either way, I hope both of you will consider changing your votes. Deltabeignet 6 July 2005 20:22 (UTC)
    • Now scrap the self-reference to WP article Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs and you have my support. Phils 7 July 2005 11:19 (UTC)
      • Tis gone. Before you give your final support Phils, can we have your thoughts on the italicising of quotes. Thanks. Harro5 July 7, 2005 11:39 (UTC)
        • Italicized quotes are ok by me. First because that formatting is used in many articles, and second because it makes sense. The idea is that it makes the quotes stand out from regular text, which can be useful when the quotes are embedded in "regular paragraphs". Most often, Wikipedia articles undergo cursory reading or just a quick scanning by visitors. Italicized quotes make it less likely for people to mistake reported words for information provided by WP contributors. I am fully aware that the use of italics is not consistent throughout WP, but I don't really have a problem with this; the MoS provides some useful guidelines, but as long as the formatting is consistent across the entire article, small differences between articles are fine. That said, I support this FAC. Phils 7 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)
• Support. The lack of lyrics is regrettable but necessary. The audio sample is - I assume - legit (fair use?) and helps, particualrly seeing as it is a bit of the song with "that" Clapton guitar riff. Songs are tricky subjects to wirte objectively about, and this article is pretty NPOV, at least enough to get my support. Stuff about background, song, releases etc covers just about everything people could want to know about Layla except the words (link provided) and what it sounds like (sample provided) so it touches all the bases. Overall, good work. Look forward to it being an FA! Batmanand 6 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)
• Not necessarily an objection, but I'm surprised that there is no mention of John Fahey's cover of the song. Also, we should probably give an Arabic-script rendering of "Majnoun". -- Jmabel | Talk July 6, 2005 22:29 (UTC)
  • The John Fahey bit is in there now. As far as the Arabic script, I'll leave that to someone who can read Arabic. Deltabeignet 6 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)
  • I found a site that claimed to be able to translate Roman characters to Arabic, and it gave me مَجنٌ when I put in "Majnoun". Still, it's probably wisest to wait for someone who can read Arabic to check it. Deltabeignet 6 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)
    • Those characters do read as "majnun," (not "majnuun," though ... the waaw is missing) however it's a Persian name, not an Arabic one, so I'd check with someone who knows that language better than I do. Daniel Case 7 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
• Support, but suggest that the long italicized quotes are better being set off in a block format.Daniel Case 7 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)
  • Also, wouldn't it be worth adding that Patti Boyd also inspired "Something," when she and George Harrison were still married? How many women can say they inspired not just one but two great rock love songs?Daniel Case 8 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)
• Support, good article, looks like it should be featured material. Phoenix2 7 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)

• Support: Not hagiographic, not excessive, not POV, and, although I try to never vote for songs, this is pretty much the exemplar of a song that is important enough to get an encyclopedia article (as opposed to, say, something currently charting or "Disco Duck"). Geogre 7 July 2005 12:21 (UTC)
  • Comment supplemental: There was something that had occurred to me and then slipped my mind. "Layla," like the other song frequently mentioned, "Stairway to Heaven," was one of the songs that defined AOR FM (Album Oriented Rock) in the US. That format was very important for saving a number of FM broadcasters who were in danger of having no listeners, as they couldn't compete on a chart-basis with AM and needed some way to turn their lack of advertisers into a draw. Hence, they began playing long songs. Stairway, Layla, and various Pink Floyd songs (notably "Welcome to the Machine") were staples and definitions of AOR. Geogre 7 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)

• Support informative and well structured. Rossrs 7 July 2005 14:16 (UTC)
• Object, doesn't seem comprehensive. It's a famous song, I'm sure there's more to say. Everyking 7 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
  • James, we've discussed this before; unless you can be more specific, it's hard to nail down a specific concern. Would you like more specific chart trivia, details of the single's design? Johnleemk | Talk 7 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Boyd2.jpg does not have copyright information. --Carnildo 7 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)
  • I have uploaded the fair-use Image:Harrison and boyd screenshot.PNG and replaced the uncertain copyright picture. Too bad, though; the old one was so nice. Deltabeignet 7 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
    • I don't suppose you've got a free-use image that could be used instead? Wikipedia should try to avoid fair-use images if at all possible. --Carnildo 7 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)
    • That we probably should, but I haven't been able to find anything with confirmed free status. Any idea where to get PD celebrity photos? Deltabeignet 8 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)
      • That would be like seeing pigs fly. Hehe, but I think fair use is fine. If we get too strict, it'll be hard to build ane encyclopedia. After all, screencaps from TV/movies, single/album covers and the like are all fair use. How can you conceivably have a decent article about a movie without a still from it? Johnleemk | Talk 8 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

• Comment Verse is in the key of E. The verse starts on the chord C#m to be sure, but that doesn't mean that's the key. C#m plays the role of the VI chord of the key of E, not the I chord of the key of C#m. The changes are VI - III - VI - (bVII-VII) - I - IV - V - I - VI - II - V - I. The I - VI - II - V - I pattern is common, and that makes the I the E chord. If the key of C#m is what's in the quoted reference, I believe that reference is incorrect. The song then goes up a fourth to a passing A chord and then up another fourth from A to the key of D for the chorus. 67.140.11.125 19:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Skydog

[edit] Hong Kong

Self-nom. I think this is an extremely comprehensive article about one of the most fascinating countries on earth. This article has improved significantly recently, and is now, in my humble opinion, very much worthy of being a featured article. Thank you! Páll 30 June 2005 06:55 (UTC)

• Oppose, problem image copyrights:

Image:Hkgarrison.jpg and Image:Hong Kong relief map with geographic labels.jpg, both claimed as PD, but I can see no evidence that works created by the HK government are PD and online sources aren't listed.

Image:Hongkongbar.jpg dubious fair use claim especially since the image lists no source.

Image:Hkstreets.jpg, Image:AsiaPics 409.jpg, Image:Exhibition.JPG

Image:Cuhk.jpg

• Conditional support, I would like to see the remaining images of unclear copyright removed and/or replaced, especially the art exhibition one since that installation would certainly be the work of a living artist and copyrighted. Turning the ??? into characters would be good too--nixie 7 July 2005 10:47 (UTC)

OK, I believe I addressed the problems with the images. Will work to fix the inslite site and district issue. Páll 30 June 2005 09:30 (UTC)

Although HK does indeed follow British law by default, the policy that Crown Copyright material "may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context" is not actually UK law, but is instead mere government policy. Does the HK govt actually have this policy? Morwen - Talk 30 June 2005 11:11 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the OFFICIAL policy, but no objection would we face if we adopt it. --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:13:24 (UTC)

I just called my local District Council. Indeed Hong Kong does follow Crown Copyright policy as established by the United Kingdom. So Crown Copyright is an acceptable licence for use of images of Hong Kong. Páll 30 June 2005 20:26 (UTC)

The copyright holder of a photo is the camera-man, not the author of the object concerned. Deryck C. 7 July 2005 10:58 (UTC)

I suggest you read this before you go handing out copyright advice Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Derivative works--nixie 7 July 2005 11:17 (UTC)

I suggest nixie to read this extract before quoting that rule to me: This ruling only applies to two-dimension works. For pictures of statues (which is, effectively, a translation of a three dimensional work into a two-dimensional copy) the picture taker has creative input into which angle to take the photographs from. Therefore, a new copyright is created when the picture is taken. If you still think that copyright authorization is needed from the maker of that bubble, I suggest you to go seeing a eye doctor. Deryck C. 7 July 2005 11:35 (UTC)

No it also applies to 3D works that are not in the public domain. By my understanding any image of a 3D work (which this appears to be) less than 70 years old is a derivate work under US copyright law, I'd also be wise for you to leave out the personal attacks.--nixie 7 July 2005 11:47 (UTC)

But the object is in Hong Kong, not US. US laws are not applicable in HK. Deryck C. 7 July 2005 11:53 (UTC)

I suppose architectural works, such as skyscrapers, are copyrighted. Is it necessary for the architect to grant the permission to upload a photograph of a building she/he designed? :-D — Instantnood July 7, 2005 21:02 (UTC)

Nope. But art is different, and since the image isn't even discussed there is no claim of fair use, US copyright rules apply for obvious reasons.--nixie 7 July 2005 22:26 (UTC)

You've got a point, however, as the bubble, the designer of the bubble, and the camera-man are all in Hong Kong instead of US, only HK copyright laws apply, not US copyright laws. Deryck C. 8 July 2005 02:30 (UTC)

Unless you get a legal opinion to that effect, I don't believe that for a moment. We work on the assumption that US law applies because Wikipedia is "published" in the US. Of course US copyright law will sometimes have regard to the law in other jurisdictions, but how and when is a very tangled legal area. Mark¹ 8 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)

：：I’ve no more comments. I don't want the FAC to become an international information war. Deryck C. 8 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. crown copyright= PD? This sounds new to me. But other than the image issues I think this is an excellent article. Oh, and the administrative divisions section needs to be moved to the bottom of the page Borisblue 30 June 2005 09:21 (UTC)

No, of course crown copyright isn't PD. That's been fixed. Please see the individual image pages now. Páll 30 June 2005 09:30 (UTC)

I've moved the administrative divisions section down to a more appropriate position. So kandle Morwen's concern and I'll be more than happy to vote support. Cheers! Borisblue 30 June 2005 15:45 (UTC)

I just addressed it, called asking about the Crown Copyright policy of Hong Kong and it does indeed follow it. Páll 30 June 2005 20:26 (UTC)

OK then, support Borisblue 1 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

• Support. Hong Kong is the biggest entrepot in the world and the most well-developed former colonial city. It's existence is extremely important to the economic health of the world. Therefore people from all around the world should know more about it.--Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:13:24 (UTC)
  Some response to the people objecting this article: The standard of an article could not be disputed ONLY by problems of TWO PICTURES. Please give some REAL ADVICE if you really want to object this article.--Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:13:24 (UTC)

"Hong Kong is the biggest entrepot in the world and the most well-developed former colonial city. It's existence is extremely important to the economic health of the world" First of all, the quality of this article rather than than HK's importance as a port should be the main considerations of this discussion! Wikipedia aims to be a respectable encyclopedia, so copyright issues are important. FAs especially cannot afford to be sloppy. Borisblue 30 June 2005 15:45 (UTC)

• Abstain/Neutral Oppose: 1) The article is still too long and can easily be summarised into a shorter, more readable text. 2) The divisions should be accompanied by a map. 3) Inline references, as nixie mentioned, are absent. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 30, 2005 18:14 (UTC)
  • Wakie wakie, the map is ready~ :-D So your second request is catered. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 1 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)
    • Great! =Nichalp «Talk»= July 1, 2005 19:02 (UTC)
  • Inline references completed! Third request cleared! -- Jerry Crimson Mann 1 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)
    • No its not cleared. That's not the way to render inline references. Each figure on the page has to be referenced by an inline reference which are internal links pointing to the ==Notes= section or reference section. See the =economy= and =demographics= sections of the India or Australia articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 1, 2005 19:02 (UTC)
      • By clicking on the picture you get a detailed copyright and reference section on the image caption page. In addition, by clicking on the words you get an explanation of the picture from another article. There's no absolute need to have references on the same page. Deryck C. 2005-07-06 01:00:54 (UTC)
        • I didn't mention anything about the pictures. User:Nichalp/sg July 6, 2005 17:39 (UTC)

This article is not too long by any means. It is 47k, which places it in the middle of featured article lengths, and it has to describe a lot more than most other country articles since it is also a city. For example, no other current featured country pages have sections on their legal system (which is important as it is a clear separation between HK and China) or their transport sections. I have just added inline siting to all the stats in demographics and the economy section. I also added information on temperatures in the Geography section. Anything else? Páll 4 July 2005 06:19 (UTC) Páll 30 June 2005 20:26 (UTC)

There still a lot of scope for a summary. 46kb is a put off with the amount of information to read. User:Nichalp/sg July 6, 2005 17:39 (UTC)

I also can't find a mention of HK's transport or the exact temperatures. What are the exact temperatures? =Nichalp «Talk»= July 1, 2005 19:05 (UTC)

Now there's a mention of HK's transport. What do you mean byu "the exact temperatures"? I can't see "the exact temperatures" in other articles like the PRC. Could you give me some typical examples so that I could make an improvement if any? :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 1 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)

See Mumbai, San Jose, California. PRC is a country, HK is a city, big difference. July 2, 2005 09:29 (UTC)

This might interest you User:Nichalp/sg July 3, 2005 14:32 (UTC)

I really want the average temperatures mentioned. I've only given you the extremes. And no the inline references are still not properly done. See wikipedia:footnote3, wikipedia:footnote4. If you wan't to add more sections, you would have to summarise the rest. User:Nichalp/sg July 6, 2005 17:39 (UTC)

OK, I've added information about the average temperature. The article has been shortened considerably (from 49k to 42), so I believe all the grounds for your objection have been covered. Thank you. Páll 01:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose, per Nichalp. Image:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2Image:Teamflag1.png 30 June 2005 19:52 (UTC)

• • Please don't oppose by saying "I support your opposition... Deryck C. 2005-07-01 01:10:09 (UTC)
    • The vote is perfectly valid. Not every supporter or objector has to give different reasons- it's not an originality contest. Mark¹ 1 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)
      • But if that's true I can have 1000 accounts open and all say "per Deryck". Deryck C. 2005-07-04 04:13:38 (UTC)
        • Deryck, you obviously don't understand Wikipedia policy, or the idea of sockpuppets. Please read and understand this policy before questioning other people's blank opposition votes, and remember you have been guilty of doing this recently too. Harro5 July 5, 2005 01:49 (UTC)
          • I don't understand what you mean by "you have been guilty of doing this recently too." I've always been using this account, Deryckchan. If you find any sockpuppeter of mine, please point the name of that account out. Deryck C. 2005-07-06 01:06:33 (UTC)
          • I understand what you mean now. I've recently found out the username and password for the account that I've been using 10 months ago with the username Deryck Chan (space bar in the middle). Do you mean that one? Anyway, I'll consider merging accounts. Deryck C. 2005-07-06 01:27:24 (UTC)

OK, I've added information about the average temperature. The article has been shortened considerably (from 49k to 42), so I believe all the grounds for your objection have been covered. Thank you. Páll 01:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The article is readable, and although it may still have some small problems, it's amazing how people have summerized everything into an article this size. Well done! Carlsmith 1 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

• Support. One word: fab. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 1 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)
• Support, I waited a little while to see that all issues with this article were cleared up. Now that they are, it looks great.
  --- Phoenix2 4th of July! 01:13 (UTC)

• Strongly Support. It can be seen that the article is the fruit of the combined effort of a lot of Wikipedians. After a massive rewrite, the article is now very well-structured and very informative. Moreover, from a rural area to an entrepot, from an entrepot to an industralized city, from an industrialized city to a world-class city with a wide variety of cultures, the story of Hong Kong is very different from that of a lot of other countries/regions. It is worthwhile to make this article a featured one. - Alanmak 4 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)
• Oppose. The points above not struck out are still relevant, and are certainly actionable. Space out the pics a bit more, remove external links attached to single words, more context on birthrate stats (why so low? This needs to be said) and most importantly a referencing section like that on the previously mentioned Mumbai article. This article needs to be summarised more to bring its size down a bit more. The pics in the history section are bunching up leaving huge white chunks. Please spread them out. Harro5 July 5, 2005 11:31 (UTC)
  • • Well, I think I was the one to arrange those pictures last (in shortening the History section), and they look fine in my browser. I don't see any white spaces. Please feel free to rearrange them so they look good on your screen. Bishonen | talk 00:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • One note to the fertility rate problem: even we Hong Kongers are not sure why is the birth rate so low. Each woman has her distinct problem that contributs to the low birthrate. (For example, my mother and aunt are both married, and gave birth to only one child each, but have got different reasons.) It's not quite possible to give a proper way to summarize a reason for the low birthrate. Deryck C. 2005-07-06 00:55:29 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reply. If there aren't any definite answers for the birthrate, I think a note should be made that a one-child policy doesn't exist, and isn't to blame. It would help clear up any misconceptions (like the ones I had). Thanks. Harro5 July 6, 2005 04:51 (UTC)
      • Done! One sentence added to clarify this. See Hong Kong#Demographics Deryck C. 7 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)
      • Pictures are now spread across paragraphs, not one on top of another. Deryck C. 7 July 2005 10:01 (UTC)
        • Well done Deryck, good to see you getting involved in important Wikipedia functions. I've set up your references properly (in the "Footnotes" section you use {{note|Hong Kong}} to shoot up to {{ref|Hong Kong}}). I'm going to keep my opposition though, as I agree with Nichalp above that this article is too long. Nearly every section refers to a main article, but still have so much writing that it is still 48kb. Should be condensed, and then I'll support. Harro5 July 7, 2005 10:18 (UTC)
          • I must say sorry. The original author of the Hong Kong article does not let me put the images to the left again. To avoid an edit war I must let the image stack up on the right again. Deryck C. 7 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

Uh, let me try my best to respond to this. The main infobox is positioned in the standard place for country articles. Please see the current featured article South Africa as well as Johannesburg. The Armani shop is because that photograph is in one of the retail centres of Hong Kong. The photographs are all of a uniform size, and they do not bunch up on any monitor I've used to view this article. The rankings are standard, and used throughout Wikipedia. Again, please see South Africa or Australia. A person from Hong Kong is without a doubt called a Hong Konger. You are referring to the child birth rate which is located in the demographics section. It is just a statistic, and has nothing to do with the population density. The external links attached to single words is called inline siting, and is used to reference statistics given. It is also standard. There are so many white judges because there are a lot of white people who still live in Hong Kong, and as someone from Hong Kong who has considered a legal carer and is white, I don't find your tone helpful. Your objection is completely inactionable. Páll 5 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)

• • Some answers to your inquries:
• [I]s a person from HK really called a "Hong Konger"?
• Ans: Definitely yes. Lacal press like South China Morning Post and HK Magazine would use the term to refer Hong Kong people more often than not.
• Is it so low because of a one-child policy?
• Ans: Unlike mainland China, there's no obligatory one-child policy in Hong Kong.
• Is the government worried?
• Ans: Perhaps, but no conspicuous action was taken by the Government to boost the birth rate. On the other hand, the immigrants from the north has been a main soure to popuilation growth.
• Also, in the law section, explain why there are so many white judges if the city is back under Chinese control.
• The Basic Law states that all British and people of other nationalities can still be employed by the SAR Government as long as these people are pemanant citizens of Hong Kong. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 5 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)
  • Jerry, thank you for your answers to my concerns. See above for my remaining concerns. Harro5 July 5, 2005 11:25 (UTC)

OK, well, I have taken care of all of your objections. I see no evidence of the problem with the images on my browser, and I've used several different computers and operating systems to look at the article. I fixed the reference section, and have also trimmed the article down to 42k. Thank you! Páll 01:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. It's a bit image heavy and the copyright status of the images seems unclear. A lot of disputes could be resolved simply by cutting down on the image content of this article. --Malathion 5 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)
  • Problem is fixed. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 8 July 2005 11:06 (UTC)

• Support. I read the article in details for the first time and enjoy it! I thought I knew Hong Kong well, after watching all the HK TV dramas, etc; but there are many other interesting fact that I learn today. I commend the contributors for the great job in updating the rapid changes Hong Kong underwent in the past decade, especially in "Politics and Government" and "Economy". Had some problems reading smoothly at the "Politics ..." section (which may need further editing on style), otherwise good content. -- Vsion 6 July 2005 10:47 (UTC)
• Minor objectSupport. The lead is too short - history begins only in 1997. Few sentences about what happened earlier would be helpful. Otherwise, the article is excellent. Let me know when lead is expanded and I will support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 6 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)
  • The lead section long enough. It occupied nearly the entire screen with 3 moderate-length paragraphs. Deryck C. 7 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)
    • Please don't just brush aside the actionable opposition of a user who knows a lot about writing great articles. This is a fair point - Hong Kong's earlier history is very important, and should be mentioned in the lead. Harro5 July 7, 2005 11:43 (UTC)
      • The history doesn't start in 1997 in the article. I wonder why you said the article was too short. I'd love to have further elaboration of your points. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 8 July 2005 11:06 (UTC)
        • Jerry, Piotrus is saying the lead section is too short and only starts in 1997, not that the article is and does. I agree with him. The lead section is an important feature, and it's supposed to give a good overview of the article as a whole, so that a hurried or casual reader can read only the lead and still get a good picture. The article as a whole has a good balance between past and present, but the lead doesn't even mention the past. Those lead paragraphs, incidentally, aren't moderate length, they're short. Three paragraphs is plenty, I'd advise against having more than that, but they should be longer and include some history. I'll be ready to support when this is addressed—it's a fine article! Bishonen | talk 8 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)
          • I see. Thanks for your detailed explanation. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 9 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)
          • Exactly. Jerry, see also Wikipedia:Lead. Remember that the lead should give the best possible summary, as it will eventually be *the article* of the Wikipedia 1.0, so it is very, very important to consider what to leave out of the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I just expanded the lead to include more history. Thank you! Páll 01:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Tnx. What can I say... another great work by Páll&Friends :) Keep it up - just make sure new FACs have comprehensive lead! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support - a nice description of one of the international centres in Asia CrossTimer 03:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support—my concern about the lead section has been thoroughly addressed, it's now a fine introduction. Great article! Bishonen | talk 01:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A delight to read... a tad long, but that's due to the amount of info to pack in. Enochlau 12:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support: covers all the bases I would want to read about: plus, a photo for each section. Culture is a little less strong than the other sections, but this can be remedied. Jogloran 14:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Generally Support, although I do wonder if the last header of "Military" may be changed to "External defence" or something close?--Huaiwei 18:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] Norman Borlaug

This man saved a billion lives. Thusly, a few of us have been adding considerable content to the article and getting it in shape to be Featured. (Other significant contributors include: Petaholmes, Hajor, and Ground). I'm not sure what else needs to be addressed, and am hoping for some better input here. Maybe next time they hold a Greatest American poll, Borlaug will make the list, and hopefully outrank Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Phil.... --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 04:05 (UTC)

• I'll reserve comment till the "major edit" is done. Looks good though. Borisblue 30 June 2005 08:20 (UTC)

  Weak support How come I've never heard of this guy? Probably the single most informative, engaging article I've ever read. I'm concerned with the number of red links though, doesn't look like an FA. Some of those links will probably never get an article, so just delete them. Is there an anti-environmentalist POV? Hard for me to tell, personally, cause I hate the greens for the same reason Borlaug does :) However i think it does make the greens seem evil in a State of fear kind of way, maybe it would help to elaborate a little on their concerns in a way that doesn't make them sound like condescending morons Borisblue 30 June 2005 09:43 (UTC)

  • I've nixed some of the red links that are unlikely to ever get expanded on. I've added a little about more about concerns, but they are more than covered in the relevant articles (check out the Green Revolution the article is more than half criticism), since little of the criticism is addressed to him personally but at technology generally I'm not sure that it's relevant to expand significantly on criticisms.--nixie 30 June 2005 10:17 (UTC)
    • I'll work on the neutrality as well, although in those respects I've been trying to keep it more about him and his opinions, and less about the biotechnology/green revolution—content that seems like it should be in another article. --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 16:19 (UTC)

• Object Support. A lot of good stuff, but some pretty central unsourced claims. The most important being that a billion lives were saved. The only support for that in the article I found was "most experts believed global famines in which billions would die were imminent." For one, that statement ignores any later analysis of whether that believe was at all correct, and for another both statements need some pretty solid backing sources. 2) The article does seem to promote the POV that Borlaug's way was the right way to do it, and criticisms are given very short shrift in this article. This article needs to cover all important facets of the topic. If you're going to cover the benefits, ignoring the drawbacks is POV. Covering them in another article is not acceptible, especially since Green revolution has no references. - Taxman ^Talk June 30, 2005 13:00 (UTC)
  • I'm looking into the "billion lives" quote. It's often stated, but never sourced, apparently. I tried to keep the POV to simply stating what Borlaug's POV was, using his own words since he is so active in these areas, but understand that there needs to be some balance. Give me some time... --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 13:15 (UTC)
    • I've added a note on the billion lives figure, hopefully we can get further clarification from the Borlaug Heritage Foundation--nixie 1 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)
  • comment on taxmans suggestion: I don't think the debate as to whether a different way of doing things would have been more or less environmentally friendly belongs in this article, it belongs in Green Revolution. Also, Borlaug is not an anti-environmentalist, and he also calls himself pro-organic, see f. i. this interview [6].--Fenice 30 June 2005 17:48 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Borlaug is very much an environmentalist; he just opposes those who label themselves environmentalists without having a clue about the environment. In the sections that talk about this, I tried to stick to providing his opinions on the matter, rather than going off on a tangent about the pros and cons of what he's talking about. --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 17:57 (UTC)
    • Debate maybe not, but if you're going to go into detail about the benefits of his work, ignoring the drawbacks (or giving them minimum coverage) is POV. Only covering his own views of his work is the same thing. Having the balance in another article isn't good enough. Every article needs to be NPOV, not this one combined with another. - Taxman ^Talk June 30, 2005 18:28 (UTC)
      • Alright, I'll see what I can do. --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 18:53 (UTC)
      • The "billion lives saved" now has a better explanation and wording. Also, the Green Revolution section has been rearranged and reworded to look less like a list of positives and more like a summary of what happened. Any other parts that need attention? --brian0918™ 1 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)
        • Well it still doesn't cite anyone as saying the comment except Borlaug, so I'm not sure it's much better supported than it was. The footnote is basically conjecture with "it seems". Also after reading the article again I'm even more convinced of a POV problem. The entire article is basically promoting that Borlaug's way was the right way to do things. The language used to describe his methods and results is invariably positive and often effusive with praise. The criticism of his work and methods is very minimal, and every time I could see it was mentioned, it is quickly refuted or dismissed with a quote or comment from Borlaug. That's not NPOV, in fact the article is far from it. We can discuss great benefits, and still acknowledge that there are negative consequences that come with it and not bury that within praise of the work. Again, appealing to the Green Revoltion article and saying it has criticisms is spurious and even moreso given that that article has no references, and that section is disputed. An unrelated style problem is the one and two sentence paragraphs that break up the flow of the prose. They highlight areas that are either not fully developed, or should just be merged with related material. Even the lead has a few examples, and it should be merged into two or perhaps three paragraphs that are cohesive and complete. - Taxman ^Talk July 5, 2005 13:56 (UTC)
          • I think you're getting the wrong impression. That wasn't a citation, but a note. Borlaug has never claimed to have saved a billion lives. Countless others have claimed it numerous times for him. He'd probably vehemently deny his personal impact if confronted with the claim, as he doesn't seem to like personal pride/fame. Nonetheless, it is the most oft-cited thing about him, so it should be included. By using the note that we do, we are trying to supply the most legitimate reference available (Borlaug's own words) as to the probable source of the claim. If you want actual examples of the claim, you need only click on any of the references or external links at the bottom; they all state it.

            I've reworded the note. I hope it's clear now. --brian0918™ 5 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)

            • Ok, but point is we need more of a direct citation. If countless people have said it, we need to cite the most important/reliable source that did. We don't need the original source, just a good one. Conjecturing that it may have been from X, doesn't quite do it. Borlaug's quote is good, but not enough. - Taxman ^Talk July 6, 2005 00:12 (UTC)
              • I've provided some notable sources in the note text. Let's not go into what constitutes "notability" and instead call the problem resolved. --brian0918™ 6 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)
          • As for the POV, can you be specific about what sections need attention? I don't understand why nobody else here believes the article is POV to the extent you're claiming. The majority of the points of view that you claim need to be in the article seem more appropriate in the Green Revolution article-- an article for which I'm not responsible and of which we are not currently discussing the possible featured status. Are you suggesting that in order for the Borlaug article to become featured, the Green Revolution article must first also be of similar content and quality? I've seen criticisms of the Adolf Hitler article for being less about the person (Hitler) and more about WWII and the Nazi Party. I didn't want this article to turn out that way (being more about the Green Revolution and less about all things Borlaugian)... A more appropriate question to you might be: what do you suggest we remove from this article? I've been trying to keep the article about him, his work, his views, and not turn the article into what Green Revolution should be. In any case, please be specific. Thanks for your input. --brian0918™ 5 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)
            • (Side note I typed this up once and lost it in a database failure. I think I've failed to express myself as well the second go round.) I'm not sure why no one else sees it, perhaps just no one else has commented on it. But being correct does not require any others to agree with me. As for your worry of losing focus, this article is already much more about the Green Revolution than Borlaug. Very little of the article is focused on his life. At least half the article is about the description of and the benefits of his methods. I don't know what to do for you to point them out, it's throughout the article. If you really want me to type up a list of the positive comments about his methods I can I suppose, but it seems pretty self evident to me. That and the fact that the article only mentions drawbacks or criticisms twice in drastically shorter form adds up to a POV article. Besides that being pretty fundamental I'm not sure what else to say about it. Maybe you think I'm saying it needs to have the criticisms expanded to half the article. I'm not, but they also can't be buried and refuted every time. Take for example the Green Revolution section. It has six paragraphs on the benefits and half a paragraph on the drawbacks, and another half of that paragraph refuting the drawbacks. That's POV. Again, what I've said is that you can't claim that because another article covers X material that it is not needed in this article. Criticisms of his work are central to unbiased coverage of his work. Saying they should be pushed off to another article is propagating the POV. - Taxman ^Talk July 6, 2005 00:12 (UTC)
          • You specifically state that any criticisms are shot down with quotes from Borlaug. Are you suggesting that I leave those criticisms hanging, without Borlaug's responses, even if they truly are refutations? That would make the article less about him and more about the Green Revolution. --brian0918™ 5 July 2005 23:15 (UTC) +
            • Well directly from the NPOV policy it says you can't do that and have it be NPOV. If you are going to refute every criticism, you would need to refute every positive. (which is poor form too) You and the page's other editors are not doing that presumably because most of you agree with Borlaug and disagree with the criticisms (I think at least one editor explicitly stated that). That leaning shows clearly in the article. On an unrelated style note, the article has a number of one and two sentence paragraphs that break up the prose and keep it from flowing well. That shows areas that should either be expanded or merged with related material. Specifically the lead has two, and it should be merged into two or perhaps three cohesive paragraphs, or expanded into four full ones. - Taxman ^Talk July 6, 2005 00:12 (UTC)
              • Please note that some of these short paragraphs are the result of pruning to create your "NPOV". --brian0918™ 6 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)
          • I've worked on possible neutralizations to the text. Let me know if this is a change in the right direction and what else should be done (please also answer my reply above). --brian0918™ 5 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)
            • They may have, and I'm really sorry, but I didn't have time to check. You wrote that while I was writing out my comments. See what you can do with mine, and I'll check on yours in the morning. - Taxman ^Talk July 6, 2005 00:12 (UTC)
              • Ok, many of the prose changes have improved the neutrality of the article. But the article still faces a POV by choice of what it covers. You guys keep hiding behind saying this article is about him, so those criticisms should go elsewhere, but that is spurious. Most of the article is about his work and the benefits of his work. This is from the NPOV policy: "The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral." and "The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. Find facts that aren't from one side or the other and cite the source." That is what this article suffers from. There are 233 facts supporting how beneficial his work and methods were, and 2 or 3 on the drawbacks. If you're going to cover so much on the benefits, you can't claim that you shouldn't cover the drawbacks. I know you guys agree with his methods and disagree with the criticisms, but sorry, that shows in the article and it is POV. What I do really like is the increased citation, but it needs to be balanced too. - Taxman ^Talk July 9, 2005 14:26 (UTC)
                • Alright, although I think you're definitely inflating the POV more than it is. I am nowhere stating that his work was beneficial. The point of his work was to increase yields. It would be impossible for the article to be complete if I just decided to leave out how the yields actually changed. Saying the yields increased isn't saying that his work was beneficial, because, as the article states, the increased crops may not reach those who need it most. --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)
                • I only count about 10 sentences that could be considered as citing the benefits of his work. I also count about 9 sentences devoted to criticism. I'll work on it though. I'm just hesitant to add in any old criticism, since there are so many which have been so thoroughly refuted. --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)
                  • Yes, I was exaggerating slightly for effect. There's more positive statements than 10, but not 233 either. Yes that is also an improvement. The only thing left would be to perhaps add a section subheading to the criticism paragraph just like some of the other topics there have, and to note quickly in the lead section the fact that he and his work have faced significant criticism. It is a fact that he has, so adding that would be important balance. I think it would even be fine to say that he is dismissive of the criticisms and why, just like you did lower in the article. There's nothing wrong with the lead repeating a bit, as it is meant to be a summary of the article. And finally I don't think I'm being unreasonable about the criticism. Avoiding mentioning it is POV as I have explained, and of course it's been refuted. Every argument is refuted by the other side all the time. That doesn't make the criticisms wrong or change the fact that they are made. With those two changes, consider my vote a support, as I may not have a chance to check again before this closes, and there is a lot of great work here. - Taxman ^Talk July 9, 2005 16:05 (UTC)
                    • "Every argument is refuted by the other side all the time. That doesn't make the criticisms wrong". Actually, I was using the first definition of refute: To prove to be false or erroneous. Borlaug's replies aren't just rebuttals, they show that most of the claims of critics are nonsense, and as for non-nonsense criticisms, he acknowledges them and has been working to correct them, although those corrections have faced criticism by the same people, people who "want it both ways", so-to-speak, leaving the only option of letting the hungry starve to death (an example being the critics who say GM foods are low on nutritional value, but then refuse to allow GM foods which have been specifically created for high nutritional value to be used) .... I've merged the bio-tech advocacy and criticisms sections together under one heading, "criticism", and added a bit about it to the lead section. Considering your vote a support. --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)
                      • Well that's part of the POV problem, because that certainly is a POV that his critics have been fully refuted by that definition. But the criticism section itself is good and fine as far as that goes I think. The only last problem I have is the lead only mentions the biotech criticisms, which is of course only one facet. The rest such as the negative effects of input intensiveness (run off, over fertilization, pesticides, etc), monoculture, and distribution inequalities, are being ignored the way the lead is currently. And of course there is the POV problem with the way you've used refuted as mentioned. I'm really not trying to be a pain, I just saw a problem and wanted to make sure it got fixed. I have high standards for what should be a FA, and since this article had (has) a lot of great stuff, I found it worth the extra effort to get the last bits fixed. - Taxman ^Talk 17:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
                        • I've made those changes. Would it be POV to add in Borlaug's dismissals of at least some of these criticisms? Otherwise it seems like these are all left open-ended to the reader. --brian0918™ 19:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
                          • Small change to the lead, but I think it works much better. Saying he has dismissed them is fact, and I think reasonably NPOV. Detailing those dismissals in the lead would certainly not be proper. As to detailing them later, I don't see how you could and still stay NPOV. If you really think of writing neutrally, you've got to include benefits and drawbacks. I also think it would be a slight improvement in the lead to say something to the effect of "he has dismissed many of them and the others he acknowledges as nothing being perfect". Which is essentially paraphrasing what I get out of his quote. But even without that I'll change to support, but keep trying to make the article as neutral as possible and don't dismiss legitimate criticisms and drawbacks. Have you had enough of me yet? :) - 22:05, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
                            • I'm just imagining some kid writing a paper for school about him, and adding in that his work has all of these drawbacks, when many of these drawbacks cited by critics are either not real or based on suspect data. Imagine if this article was instead about the Big Bang Theory, and it was 50% "evidence for the Big Bang" and 50% "criticisms of the Big Bang", but 90% of those criticisms were simply the result of bad science (this scenario is more real than imagined...). The article would be neutral, but absolutely incomplete. (This is comparable to having a 3 on 3 debate on evolution vs. Young Earth Creationism; the evolution-side is vastly underrepresented, while the YEC side is... fully represented) --brian0918™ 22:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
                            • As for Borlaug's quote about "Utopia", that was just a side-remark of his. I'm not sure the wording of the paragraph properly represents this. It's not that his reply to them is "nothing is perfect". He takes serious criticisms seriously, and incorporates them into future work. The reason that I call it "his view of critics" rather than "his reply to critics" is because it would seem like he's committing an Ad hominem fallacy, and not even bothering to address the claims, when in actuality he has addressed and refuted these claims countless times, to the point where he just gets pissed at the same invalid claims being cited over and over by those of the environmental movement whose hamster wheels have gone silent. --brian0918™ 22:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
                • I've expanded the criticisms of his work, adding seven more oft-cited criticisms (although I believe most of them have been refuted). Let me know if you consider this a step in the neutral direction and how much more you believe should be added. --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)
          • It seems to me that you are only objecting on the POV of the Green Revolution section, I have taken an axe to it, there are now 4 paragraphs, 1. describes the background of the Green Revolution, 2. describes increased yeild and land conservation, 3. Crtiticism (with a refutation) 4. The nobel prize. I would strongly argue that the bulk of the article is not about the Green Revolution. The biotech advocacy section unsurprisingly reflects his POV since it is about his advocacy and I will not extend this to cover the anti-biotech argument in any more detail.--nixie 6 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)
            • No, it's throughout the article. See above. - Taxman ^Talk July 9, 2005 14:29 (UTC)
          • Take a look at the newly revised version. It has been hacked down quite a bit. --brian0918™ 6 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article may seem interesting to Americans, but please note that wikipedia is NO AMERICAN WORLD. We Asians have NEVER heard about this guy. --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:07:57 (UTC)
  • That's not a reason to oppose! How can you assume that he is not notable just because you never heard of him? Besides, he's a Nobel prize winner! And A LOT of his work was done in India, Pakistan and China, did you even read the article? Borisblue 30 June 2005 15:56 (UTC)
  • In keeping with the support/object policy at the top of this page, I'm fairly certain this objection can be ignored (unless the user would like to provide specific rationale that can be addressed). --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 16:10 (UTC)
    • Mildly oppose. To Borisblue: I read through that article, and that's the problem! The author of this article claims that he has done a lot in India and (other parts of) Asia but as a Chinese I've never heard of him! Deryck C.
      • Alright, check out WP:FA, and tell me how many of the people/topics you've heard of. Maybe then you'll realize what's wrong with your argument. Also, since your opposition is still not a problem that can be specifically addressed, I'm still fairly certain that your objection can be ignored. Please, I'm begging you to find a problem with this article! --brian0918™ 1 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)
• Support. There's been an astounding improvement in this article in the last month or so; yeah, as it stands now, I think it deserves FA status (and pace User:Brian0918 above, I'm not a "significant" contributor to it). Oh, and w/r/t Deryck C.'s comments, no one has ever heard of him: read the article. –Hajor 30 June 2005 16:21 (UTC)
• Minor object - The lead section needs to be somewhat longer. - SimonP June 30, 2005 17:02 (UTC)
  • I added a couple more sentences. What else should be covered? Thanks. --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 17:31 (UTC)
    • I've expanded it too, it's up to two decent paragraphs now.--nixie 1 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)
      • Should be alright now. --brian0918™ 1 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
        • Support, the lead has been much improved. - SimonP July 1, 2005 22:13 (UTC)
• Support. This is an excellent article, a very good read, good research. It meets all the featured article criteria. As I mentioned on peer-review, I would prefer the intro to be even longer, there should be a relative clause explaining the green revolution (because from a professional writing perspective, terms have to be briefly explained the first time they are used), and numbers should be given in the intro instead of "the resulting increase..." (because being specific is always better than weasel terms).--Fenice 30 June 2005 17:45 (UTC) More praise: this article flows very naturally, it does not have the typical-Wikipedia "And_now_to_something_completely_different"-breaches between sections or even paragraphs.--Fenice 30 June 2005 18:00 (UTC)
  • I tried finding the words to add to the lead section to describe the Green Revolution, but realized that the rest of the lead section basically describes it in full. The Green Revolution started with him, and was the result of his research and techniques. There may be a way to add something, but I think it's fine as is. --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 21:50 (UTC)
  • I was actually worried that there are flow problems and was surprised by your reply and Borisblue's reply that the article is "most engaging". --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 18:57 (UTC)
• Support. I've never heard of this guy, and I'm glad to have read this article. Well-written, and I have no objections. --Scimitar 30 June 2005 21:20 (UTC)
• Support. I am very familiar with Borlaug and this is an excellent article about him. Much improved over earlier versions. That said, I do agree that the article can use a little work to be more NPOV.--Alabamaboy 1 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)
• Support, the article is a very good biography. On the POV issues, I don't see why a biography can't establish someomes POV, the article doesn't attempt to discredit critics of modern agriculture, it simply presents Borlaugs POV on the criticisms directed at his work and the work of others. The criticism are throughly discussed in other articles.--nixie 1 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article has rather an excess of images claimed under "copyrighted, fair use" -- all but the graphs and two of the pictures are so claimed. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free encyclopedia. Could we get some images under a freer license here? (Note: I will be out of town until Tuesday, and probably won't be able to access Wikipedia until then) --Carnildo 1 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)
  • Several of the images have been removed. I doubt we're going to find any free images. That's the problem with people who have lived since 1923...... --brian0918™ 1 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)
    • I've adjusted the image tags on fair use images to copyrighted free use etc, since that is the licence they are available under. There are quite a few websites that allow the use of copyrighted Borlaug images with restrictions. --nixie 1 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)
      • Much better. I'm still not convinced that Image:Borlaug.gif is fair use, though. --Carnildo 1 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)
        • Do you support the article now? --brian0918™ 1 July 2005 13:31 (UTC)
• Support. Very detailed indeed. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 1 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
• Support: I'm the richer for having read it. The only problem, and it's actionable but not necessary, is that it is a little hagiographic. There are good, strong qualifiers that can be placed on his life and actions (e.g. that his strategies saved a billion lives, but these led him to a blindness to the dangers of those techniques today), but the article is well done and certainly Featured Article quality. Geogre 3 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)
  • He's not blind to the dangers, I don't think, based on recent interviews I've read. Check out some of the external links and references in the article. Some of the content to support this was originally in the article but was removed at some point (not by myself, I don't think). --brian0918™ 3 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)
• Support as per Geogre --Malathion 5 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)
• Support I first read about Borlaug in my Biology textbooks. But I must say that the article has given me alot more information regarding him. --IncMan July 5, 2005 14:00 (UTC)
• Strong support. Not having heard of someone - particularly a scientist - is a particularly stupid reason for opposing. Ambi 5 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
• Object Neutral. This is a pretty good article, but there are a number of things I don't like, including an over-reliance on direct quotes from the article's subject himself. In many cases, omitting the quotes and summarizing the events would help tightening the article and improve the flow. Several assorted comments: (1) His great-grandma in all likely hood was not called "Solveig Thomasdaughter Rinde". That reads very strangely. Probably "Thomasdottir" or some such. Allright, "Thomasdaughter" would be the English translation, but still... (changed it myself) (2) language level/trivia: "His wrestling coach continually encouraged him to "give 105%."" So what. Better get rid of that. (3) "Periodically, Borlaug found it necessary to drop out of school and find a job..." all right, lots of students have to accept summer jobs. Could be tightened. (did it myself) (4) Who says that Cold Mountain is the Forest Service's most remote station? Can we back up that by some statement from the Forest Service. (Not UoM, please.) Is sourced, sort of, although a ref from the Forest Service itself would have been better (5) Some citations are too colloquial, just not the right tone for an encyclopedia article (examples: Stakman, Sasakawa). Better omit these quotes and briefly summarize the events. de-anecdotalized it myself (6) First paragraph of "Production in Africa" is an outright accusation of environmentalists. At the very least, this must be referenced to excellent and truly reliable, authoritative, and unbiased sources. Especially if ludicrous claims are made such as "confusion of technical terms ... between fertilizer and pesticide". That's denigrating. Good job! (7) The whole "High-yield biotechnology advocacy" can go, Wikipedia is not a platform for his advocacy. Can be summarized in one sentence such as "Throughout his life, Borlaug has been a fervent advocate of the use of biotechnological methods to produce high-yield crops", but since that should be obvious to the reader by the time he or she reaches that paragraph, I think even that can be dropped. Well done! (8) "only 17% of cultivable land produces 90% of the world's food crops" — source, please. (9) I also think, like Taxman, that the article is maybe overly sympathetic with the guy. That may be caused be either relying too much on sympathetic sources only, or Borlaug just might really be such a swell guy... probably points 6 and 7 I mentioned, together with the overall tone of the article and the many direct quotes creates this sensation of rather heavy bias that I perceive. Also, I see no references or external links to critical appraisals of Borlaug's work. Just firmly pro-Borlaug sources. It's much better already. Lupo July 6, 2005 12:03 (UTC)
  • Borlaug is a person. Critical appraisals of his work belong in the Green Revolution article (unless they specifically talk about him, which I haven't been able to find one that does). I'll work on your other problems. None of these are serious problems, though, so I don't understand the need to Object. As for the "confusing of terms" claim, that came straight from Borlaug, who said that the heads of the organizations were being "hopelessly confused" about terms (he specifically mentions the difference between fertilizers and pesticides). I took out the direct quote because you and Taxman seem to be against using his own words in the article about him. I'm not sure I understand that-- it seems like we're purposely censoring for no real reason-- but I'll do it anyway. As for the "Thomasdaughter", it was common practice to give your sons the middle name ___son, and your daughter the middle name ___daughter. Check out the genealogy of his family, and you'll see what I mean. I don't know about the spelling, I remember seeing it spelled "dottor", but I don't think that matters. My source says daughter, so that's all I need for now. --brian0918™ 6 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)
    • It's common practice in Norway to name daughters "__dotter", not "__daugther". Take a look at her genealogy entry yourself! :-) Lupo July 6, 2005 13:03 (UTC)
      • This is an extremely minor detail. I'm simply using my source. If you feel it should be changed, go for it, but this by no means should be considered even part of an overall reason why an article shouldn't be featured. --brian0918™ 6 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)
        • That's your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. Anyway, I changed it myself, based on your genealogical source, which clearly states: "On 4 April 1854, Sheriff Johan - Heiberg Landmark signed an emigration certificate for Ole Olsen Dybevig with [h]is wife Solveig Thomasdotter." Lupo July 7, 2005 07:59 (UTC)
          • Alright, that works. --brian0918™ 7 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
• Additional comment: sorry to bring this up, but the UoM images are "copyrighted, free for web use only". Is this compatible with Wikipedia's goals?? Lupo July 6, 2005 13:14 (UTC)
  • I don't think suggestions 1,2,3 and 5 by Lupo make the article better, on the contrary. Quotes have to be accurate, even if they are colloquial. The 105% info I found very interesting, and also (3)is important to understand what motivates a person. These are actually the kinds of information I would look for in a biography. (These are all just minor changes however, I support anyway).--Fenice 6 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)
    • I do not advocate rephrasing these quotes. I propose omitting them altogether and summarizing the events to get a better article. Lupo July 6, 2005 14:42 (UTC)
      • I think the quotes help bring the article to life and give you a personal look at the individual. Unlike in many biography articles on Wikipedia, this guy is still alive. His methods of communication are often very direct and blunt (in my opinion), but this isn't something you might realize if all his quotes are omitted. I think we're really destroying the article by removing his quotes (including many of the quotes that have already been removed). --brian0918™ 6 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)
  • I've sourced the Cold Mountain detail, and found the original source (The Atlantic Monthly magazine) for the first paragraph in the Production in Africa section. I've reworded it to something I think is more neutral (using exact quotes rather than my own paraphrasing, which may carry bias). Regardless of your opinion of the paragraph, some form of it must remain in the article. Otherwise, it makes Borlaug seem completely oblivious to the situation in Africa, when in fact the exact opposite is true. You may argue all you want about how exactly Borlaug was prevented from expanding into Africa (before Sasakawa came along), but it remains true that he was prevented, and had to wait for Sasakawa to finance his work. I highly doubt that Borlaug, the people at the Atlantic Monthly, and the people at the International Water Management Institute are all outright lying about this for whatever reason. --brian0918™ 6 July 2005 21:10 (UTC)
  • I've also trimmed down the Bio-technology advocacy section, leaving the quote that I think most clearly shows Borlaug's personality. --brian0918™ 6 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)
  • I've also fixed your other points which have not been contested by Fenice. Are there any other specific problems that can be addressed? Thanks. --brian0918™ 7 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)
  • I've been adding more detailed information about his family, personal life, and career--trying to increase the focus on him. --brian0918™ 7 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)

    Brian, quoting is fine. But I felt the article was too anecdotal. Biographical encyclopedia entries are difficult, and quoting is even more so, for one has to select the quotes carefully. Anecdotes may be fine for a biography, but in my opinion, they don't exactly help an encyclopedia article. Anyway, I think you did a fine job. Two more small points: Lupo July 7, 2005 07:59 (UTC)

    • Watch out for only minimally rephrased text from external sources. Some text portions could use more rephrasing, even if it may be difficult. For instance, I find the "Glue for Guadalcanal" explanation rather close to the original text from the Dallas Observer. There may be other such tesxt passages. Lupo July 7, 2005 07:59 (UTC)
    • Can you make the references to the Dallas Observer more precise? You could link to "feature_2.html", "feature_3.html", and so on as appropriate. Lupo July 7, 2005 07:59 (UTC)
      • Alright, I'll work on that. --brian0918™ 7 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)
      • Actually, I can't really do anything about that. Those superscript links go to the References section, not to the site itself. So, you'd need to create links in the Reference section to each page of the article. --brian0918™ 7 July 2005 14:11 (UTC)

• Oppose. Strongly POV puff piece; says "saved a billion lives" in the intro but admits in the footnote that the source of this claim is unknown. Kaibabsquirrel 9 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)
  • It does not say "saved a billion lives". It says he's often credited with saving a billion lives, which is true. The note doesn't say the source of the claim is unknown, but rather speculates on the most likely source of the claim. The phrase "often credited" is used over 500 times in Wikipedia. Can you please point out what parts of the article you object to? --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)
    • (1)You wrote above, "Borlaug is a person. Critical appraisals of his work belong in the Green Revolution article." Are you willing to apply this reasoning to Paul R. Ehrlich too? Otherwise, this article needs some critical appraisals of his work. (2) The specific wording in the article concerning the "one billion" is: "the exact source of this number is unknown. A likely origin is the population increase in South Asia over the period of the Green Revolution." Population increase from a high fertility rate is a reason to credit somebody with "saving a billion lives" or am I missing something here? (3) This article is missing any criticism of Borlaug's position that we only have two ways to feed the Earth's growing population, increasing food yields or cutting down the forests. There is an obvious, third answer and that is population control and getting the fertility rate below 2.1 on a worldwide scale. Has he, in fact, considered this? If so, it should be mentioned. Has he not and received criticism from anyone else for it? Then it should be mentioned too. (4) The section on Africa has a strong anti-environmental movement slant. It needs to state specifically which individuals campaigned against an expansion of Borlaug's efforts into Africa instead of saying "environmental lobbyists." Kaibabsquirrel 02:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
      • 1.) You're quoting me from some previous discussion before I added in a whole Criticisms section. It seems odd of you to take a random quote out of context like that. As for Ehrlich, we're not talking about that article. Leave your complaints about people preventing his predictions from happening at Talk:Paul R. Ehrlich. 2.) The article isn't endorsing the number, but giving a likely origin of the credit. There is a big difference between the two, and the wording makes it obvious which we're discussing. Whether you endorse the number or not doesn't matter, as the article doesn't endorse it either. 3.) Where in the article does it say that his position is such? Can you please cite critics who has specifically brought this up and suggested population control as an alternative. Otherwise, it is simply your original research and can't be added. (I'm not against adding it, but I can't add original research) 4.) The section doesn't have a slant. It states fact. It is a fact that he was initially prevented from expanding into Africa, because environmental groups that were against his usage of chemicals and GMOs prompted his financers and their governments to stop funding him. I do not know the specific groups involved, and have reworded the paragraph to seem less sweeping. It now reads:

        In the early 1980s, environmental groups that were opposed to Borlaug's methods compaigned against his planned expansion of efforts into Africa. They prompted the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and the World Bank to stop funding most of his African agriculture projects. Western European governments were persuaded to stop supplying fertilizer to Africa. According to David Seckler, former Director General of the International Water Management Institute, "the environmental community in the 1980s went crazy pressuring the donor countries and the big foundations not to support ideas like inorganic fertilizers for Africa."

      • If you can suggest a better wording or if you know the specific groups involved, please make the appropriate changes. Again, this minor detail is not just cause for opposing an entire article. --brian0918™ 15:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
        • The rewrite looks better but if I can find anything specifying exactly which groups I'll let you know, because ideally the article should be specific. Regarding #3 I did some checking and found this: [7] "In general, the Green Revolution is unsustainable because it is based on expensive technology, energy intensive agricultural practices, and bountiful water. Ideally, increasing food efficiency means to increase the ability of plants to photosynthesize sunlight without the addition of chemicals or fossil water —to more rapidly convert sunlight energy into food energy. Although a wonderfully impressive sight, the 12-foot Iowa corn would be three-foot tall, require proportionately less energy and other farmer inputs, but with equally large corn ears...Recapitulating Malthus, “Green Revolution” founder and former University of Minnesota Professor, Dr. Norman Borlaug said the benefits it conferred on the malnourished were predicated on arresting growth." I also found this in the Atlantic Monthly article ("Forgotten Benefactor of Humanity"): The 10 Billion Mouths part that begins "His opponents may not know it, but Borlaug has long warned of the dangers of population growth." If some mention of Borlaug's views on population growth were added to the article, along with mention of the predictions of Lester Brown and others for China and Africa (noted in that same section of the Atlantic Monthly article) and Borlaug's response, that would be good. My only other concern is the citation to an interview with Ron Bailey in Reason Magazine, although this is not really grounds for objection to the article itself and is relevant since it is an interview with Borlaug. My main concern is that there is no attempt to use this article and Norman Borlaug's work as a grounds (whether overtly or subtly) to attack the environmental movement, Paul Ehrlich, and others. I note with approval that Ehrlich's work is cited in the article without criticism. Otherwise I have no further objections to the article. Kaibabsquirrel 02:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I've added a paragraph under "The future of global farming" which basically just gives the reader a sense of Borlaug's take on the "Population Monster". I don't think other people's predictions belong in the article, but in their own articles. As for the Reason article, I couldn't find any other source that so easily listed the environmentalists' concerns. As I said to Taxman, Borlaug takes serious concerns seriously. The problem is that many of these concerns are nonsense or based on highly suspect data. I think the current version of the article is skewed toward the environmentalists, since it doesn't even talk about Borlaug's replies to the claims in the Criticisms section, making it seem like all of the claims are true. --brian0918™ 04:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
            • The addition looks good. Objection withdrawn - with the caveat that I do not agree that the current version is "skewed toward the environmentalists," do not agree that "many of those concerns are nonsense or based on highly suspect data," and don't much care for references to "the" environmentalists worded in such a way that environmentalists are spoken of as an "other" instead of as the mainstream consensus. (The media does this all the time...) Kaibabsquirrel 05:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
              • You should check out a show called Bullshit!. They had a fairly critical look at environmentalism. --brian0918™ 13:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support - An extremely good article on an extraordinary man. --Nyr14 01:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support. Despite his achievements I'd never heard of this remarkable man until I was browsing Wikipedia and found this article. Hopefully this can be featured on the main page, and raise awareness of his work. By the way it looked like this when I first saw it, and that was only back in May. It's improvement since then is a tribute to both the dedication of its editors and the strength of the Wikipedia system. the wub "?/!" 09:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] Carl Friedrich Gauss

This has been on peer review for about a week, it got a couple of suggestions which I've since incorporated. A very nice article with ample references. Borisblue 29 June 2005 02:41 (UTC) I'd like to add that this isn't a self-nom; my first major edit to this article was to put it up for peer review. Borisblue 3 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)

oh, and support Borisblue 3 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)

• Comment: Very interesting indeed. The picture of the bust has a dubious copyright tag and a warning of deletion. I would, if possible, like to see some written references in the reference section rather than just links. Presumably some of the further reading works were also used as references, if so perhaps they should be incorporated as such. Subject to the copyright being sorted on the image I will be happy to support this well written article. Giano | talk 29 June 2005 12:04 (UTC)
  • Replaced the bust with a more acceptable picture. Will deal with reference section shortly. Thank you!Borisblue 29 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)
    • Reference section fixed Borisblue 30 June 2005 01:15 (UTC)
• Support: A fantastic article Giano | talk 30 June 2005 11:44 (UTC)
• Not ready to support yet. Support. Fascinating subject, very good article, but too many peacock terms in the lead. I'm by no means saying it's POV to call Gauss brilliant and legendary with immeasurable contributions and immense influence: it's all true. But more rhetorical restraint and balance in the lead would actually make him sound better, IMO. I've just edited it, leaving only a couple of praisewords but giving those more prominence, upgrading the anticlimactic "substantial" and unpacking the easter egg link early age--please review it and see what you think.

Reference section and inline references: Please make one "References" section for sources actually used in the article, and one "Further reading" section for others. "External links" is an optional section--if you want it, use it for online resources that aren't sources. I have the impression that probably everything was used, and if so, "References" is all you need. See here for how to format any online text, no matter which section it goes in: note author, retrieval date, etc. I've formatted one of them as an example: Dunnington, "The Sesquicentennial of the Birth of Gauss". Please note that I also stuck Dunnington in as an inline reference for the statement about how "convoluted" Gauss' brain was, which was why he was a genius... that is exactly the kind of quaint, outmoded statement that does need a specific inline reference! Please consider providing similar parenthetic cites for some other statements in the article, too, or footnotes if you prefer (but don't let anybody tell you footnotes are obligatory, the kind of simple parenthetic cite I did is quite sufficient). Hope this helps. I'll support if the references concerns are addressed. Bishonen | talk 29 June 2005 14:36 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the great editing. I'm sorry to say most of the peacock terms were mine, guess i got a little carried away. You're right, it does make him sound better. And thanks for the other suggestions! believe it or not, this is the first time I've seen the WP:CITE, (yeah, I'm a noob) so it's good that you gave the link. Will tackle the reference section problem shortly. Borisblue 29 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)

Reference section fixed Borisblue 30 June 2005 01:15 (UTC)

Cool, you're some noob! Change to Support. Bishonen | talk 30 June 2005 06:59 (UTC)

• Support. Whig 30 June 2005 04:27 (UTC)
• Support: fascinating read. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 11:48 (UTC)
• Mild support: The man is very essential to the development of algebraic arithmetics, however the article itself is not quite well-written.--Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:29:58 (UTC)
  • In what way exactly?, it seems great to me Giano | talk 30 June 2005 18:55 (UTC)
    • I think it's not very good to have this order of layout: Intro, biography, personal, commemoration. I think his personal thing should either be put after the commemoration or inside the biography. Deryck C. 2005-07-01 01:20:10 (UTC)
      • Is it OK now? Borisblue 3 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)
• OBJECT object The article lacks perspective. I will not remove my objection until the article features a discussion of the influences of Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, and Leonardo da Vinci on Gauss; and Gauss' influence on Bernhard Riemann, specifically Bernhard Riemann's 1852 habilitation dissertation. Cognition 1 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
  • Cognition, I understand that you're a new user, or at least have a new account, and I don't respect your opinion any the less, but it's not necessary to shout it (=to use caps). Please also look to your tone on the Bertrand Russell vote. And incidentally please note that aggressive edit summaries are an especially bad idea, since they can't be changed if/when you come to realize that they're inappropriate. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 2 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)
    • I did not use caps to denote shouting but to make the important above said constructive criticisms more notable to editors interested in improving the article. However, if the use of caps makes some people on Wikipedia uncomfortable, I will refrain from using them. Cognition 2 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
      • Since this is a wiki, wouldn't it just be easier to un-Cap his objection? I suppose a "influences" section would be good, will do research on ppl who influenced and were influenced by Gauss, though I'm having trouble finding the specific example of Riemann's dissertation, this gets 7 hits, and the only mention of Gauss in those articles are because "Gauss was Riemann's protege"-no mention of Gauss's specific influence, unfortunately. Maybe you could help out here yourself, since you seem like an expert on philosophy? keep in mind also that no Larouche sources are allowed, by wikipedia arbitration [8], [9]Borisblue 2 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)
        • Comment. Cognition (talk · contribs) is a supporter and likely a member of the LaRouche movement. Two arbcom cases have ruled that editors may not use Wikipedia to promote the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche; that material stemming from LaRouche counts as original research; and that any such material inserted into a page not directly and closely related to LaRouche, may be deleted on sight by any editor. It's therefore highly unlikely that Cognition's objections are actionable within Wikipedia's policies and the terms of the arbitration committee's decisions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 10:15 (UTC)
• No vote: Not a bad article, still reads a bit fan-boyish, but improving. Can't see any particular reason why it should get FA status though. On the other hand, lots of worse articles are FA, so why not? PS: ignore Cognition, he's just a troublemaker, and almost certainly a reincarnation of a problem user banned some years ago. RK? DK? Some name like that. His style is unmistakable. Tannin 2 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)
  • I think it's HK. Thanks for the pointer. On the other hand, can you please state specifically how this article can improved, or what would make it a genuine FA article in your eyes? Borisblue 2 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)
    • A fair request, though not an easy one to comply with. I'll try. The article in its present state has most of the ingredients, but it (to my mind) doesn't gell. I think maybe it needs a clearer focus on his achievemts. It tells us that he was important (and very clever), and it lists a great number of achievements, but somehow it doesn't show us his importance. I'm sure that someone trained in the field would see it differently — but that's exactly the point: a FA should appeal to the untrained (but reasonably intelligent) reader just as much as it does to the trained specialist. What were the practical results of his discoveries, what flowed from them? Why was the SI unit named after him? Am I making sense? — Yes, I'm hard to please. But that's excactly the point: it should be hard to get a FA nmination through. To be a FA, it's not enough to have an article with nothing too much wrong with it, it's got to stand out above the crowd. Good luck! Best — Tannin 2 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)
      • I agree - this is a legitimate complaint, and the article would be better once it was addressed. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 19:02 (UTC)
        • Will do my best. Most of his major contributions are in "pure" matehmatics, though so it might be a bit difficult, epsecially as I am a mathematician, and I don't have the outsider's perspective. Will try to explain his work in more detail, maybe I'll devote a section to it too. Borisblue 3 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)
          • Expanded the elaboration of the mathemtaics stuff. You're right, Tannin it isn't good to mention things like the prime number theorem without explanation. Mind having another look at it, and see if there are other aspects of Gauss' work that you feel need further explanation?Borisblue 3 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)
• Comment - going back and forth between Braunschweig and Brunswick is rather jarring. Naming convention suggests that we have to list the Duke and the Duchy under the English spelling, but that doesn't mean we have to use it in every article. Guettarda 2 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)
  • Changed it all to Brunswick Borisblue 3 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)

• Comment. Although well-written and very interesting, I do not really understand the sentence about "maintaining historical truth".—Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 23:25 (UTC)
  • Me neither. I had to open the link reference to find out. I've reworded it. Thank you! Borisblue 3 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)
• Support. --DanielNuyu 07:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Krill

This article is about the group of krill, important animals of the plankton. It covers the different species in all areas of the world, their taxonomy, geographical distribution, morphology, behaviour, life cycle, ecology and economy. I started the article in May 2003 and many contributed since, especially user:Lupo did a great job.

• nominate and support Uwe Kils 22:34, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Heck, I had put it on Wikipedia:Peer review/Krill/archive1 just four days ago and had planned to give it more time there. Uwe has now pre-empted this process without my knowing it... Someone else has already closed the peer review; I guess we may just as well continue here. Support, by the way. Lupo 07:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

good things often go fast Uwe Kils 14:53, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Of course. Phils 09:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great article on an important but underappreciated group of animals. There are a few things I'd like to mention/ask. None of these are important enough for me to oppose if they're not done.
  • Could we get a clearer picture for the taxbox? It's not clear what we're looking at.
    • you could mount Northern Krill Uwe Kils 02:19, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't want to use an image of an individual krill such as Image:Meganyct.jpg because (a) this article is not about a particular species, and (b) krill occur in swarms, and thus the NOAA image struck me as particularly appropriate. Lupo 07:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Could someone clarify the Norwegian etymology in the lead?
    • Done. I just followed my dictionary, I do not know Norwegian :-) Lupo 07:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Is 10 body lengths per second "leisurely?"
    • It's "less than 10 body lengths/sec". For animals 1 to 2 cm long, than means at most 10 to 20 cm per second: yes, I'd call that leisurely. Lupo 07:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Rephrased without the "leisurely": it implies a human POV. For the krill themselves, it may be quite fast, actually. :-) Lupo 11:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps clarify the life stages, either in the article itself or by getting rid of the red links for pseudometanaupilus et. al.
    • I do not think that this article is the right place to go into detail on the life stages. I trust my fellow Wikipedians to help make these red links blue... Uwe? Lupo 07:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have added a little bit more on the development of the larval stages. I still think a comprehensive treatment should go into a spin-off article, maybe Larval development of krill, or even Larval development of crustaceans, where krill could get a section—and others, too, like shrimp (c.f. Life cycle of shrimps). Lupo 06:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps mention their predators earlier in the article (like the end of the second lead paragraph). I'd like to see whales a bit more prominent in the article.
    • Some of the main predators, including whales, are mentioned in the very first paragraph of the lead. Also, whales are but one kind of animal that feeds upon them; there are many other, such as Crabeater Seals, that almost exclusively feed upon krill. Lupo 07:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you add something on parasites of Krill to the ecology section? A quick google search found that there are some ectoparasites from the family Dajidae. See for example this monster 2 megabyte PDF. I can add this myself if you'd prefer.
    • I'll look into that. Lupo 07:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately I can't: the link you gave requires a login, which I do not have. And I'm not going to shell out US$30.– for one article! Lupo 07:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • Added a brief mention... (plus the reference). Lupo 08:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, I like the footnote system you used. It would make a perfect replacement for the footnotes in the Myxobolus cerebralis article I worked on.
    • Glad to see I'm not the only one who likes it :-) Lupo 07:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Dave (talk) 17:18, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Support I think this article is of sufficiently high standard to be featured. I also agree with Lupo that maybe their should be a seperate article describing in greater detail the lifecycle of crustaceans. Well done on a good article.Yakuzai 10:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support Overall goodness...commentsI personally don't like the reference system used - what are the coded abbreviations all about? Confusing. Are there any high quality external links that could be added? ike9898 10:40, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • On the symbolic references, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Krill/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Antarctic krill (Response to Taxman's question). On external links: you mean, besides those already in the references section? None that I know of, except maybe Uwe's publications at Wikisource, but those are on E. superba, not on krill in general. (And they're already linked from Antarctic krill.) Lupo 10:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I've found one literature reference and two extlks to species identification guides. I've added them under a new section "Further reading". Lupo 08:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Briangotts 03:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Quite good stuff. But as in the Antarctic Krill article, since the citation system is not a widely known one (I'd never seen it before, so it can't be widely known of course), both articles would be that much the better for an explanation of it. Best way might be to write a stub article on the system. If it is important enough to use, it should have an article. Then the references section could link to the description by saying, these citations are in foo form. Or if you don't want to write an article, at least explain the system at the end of the references section. Oh and now that I'm curious, do you have any more info on the mechanism of bioluminescence Krill have? - Taxman ^Talk 12:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  Hmmm. No, I don't, and neither does Wikipedia: Bioluminescence is silent on the issue of the precise mechanism(s). However, from one of the extlks of that article I found this page, which explains it all. How authoritative that website is, I do not know. I have never seen the term "euphausiid shrimp" for "krill" before... Lupo 15:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Support I'm not a regular to this page, but Uwe drew my attention to it, and it's a great article. There's a good length of information, and a picture to illustrate each point. Good job. The reference list is pretty impressive too! :-) --Fir0002 23:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Virtuti Militari

Partial self-nom. Poland's highest military decoration for valor in the face of the enemy, estabilished in 1792. See Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Awards_and_Decorations for similar, already FA articles on the same subject for comparison. I think VM article looks quite good. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 9 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

• Support. Congratulations to Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus for another excellent article. Balcer 9 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)
  • Thank you, but as I wrote this is a partial self-nom - I deserve less then half the credit for this. Much work was done by User:Halibutt, User:Zscout370 and User:Logologist, to name the other major contributors, whom I'd like to thank for helping to push this article so far. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 9 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)
    • Your welcome. I also support the article, since a lot of work was put into it since the Peer Review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:38, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good work. It could use some copyediting, but nothing major. Two minor points though, I don't understand why in some cases, the reason for attribution of the medal is italicized, and sometimes it isn't. Also, the last pair of tables are not layed out correctly on my browser; the second one is partly on the left of the first one, instead of appearing under it. Phils 9 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)
• Support--Witkacy 21:32, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Image Image:Sikorski Zumbach.jpg is claimed under fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and so fair use images should be avoided if at all possible. --Carnildo 03:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Provided a source for the image, added {{Polishpd}} to the image. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. One question: in the list of medals awarded 1920-1939, there are some suspiciously round numbers. Are these numbers correct, and if so, is there a reason for the exact multiples of 100? --Carnildo 05:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I think with lacking many sources online, the number could be an estimate (which, IMHO, should be noted). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support, though I'm not sure if being one of the authors is not in conflict with me casting my vote here. If someone thinks so, then please disregard my vote. Halibutt 23:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • It does not cancel your vote, but people will know on what leanings/motives you have. At least this was mentioned upfront. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Azalero 09:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Poland (1945-1989)

After being asked by the original nominator to have another look at this, I've decieded to renew the nomination - the old commentary raised some points, but I think more specific commentary is warranted. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 01:47 (UTC)

• Support of course. Thank you Raul. As always, comments welcome, but please, be specific. Saying just 'it's POVed' is not helping much. Note that all specific objections from last nominations have been adressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)
• Support. I support my previous vote on this article. I find it comprehensive, informative and well balanced. It explains well what happened in Poland in the period and why. --Lysy (talk) 4 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)
• Support. Good work! Ek8 4 July 2005 12:08 (UTC)
• Object, same reason. Here's just a taste: "Stalin had promised at Yalta conference that free elections would be held in Poland. But the Polish Communists, led by Gomułka and Bierut, knew that they could never win a free election. They imposed themselves on the country through a reign of terror against the main non-Communist party, Mikołajczyk's Polish Peasant Party, and also against other opposition groups including the veterans of the wartime Home Army and army veterans who had fought in the west." Everyking 4 July 2005 13:35 (UTC)
  • Well, what do you find controversial here ? Have you heard of any alternative version ? Specifically what do you object, the contents or the style ? --Lysy (talk) 4 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)
  • Tnx for quoting the sentence. Unfortunately, I see nothing factually wrong with it. Perhaps the 'reign of terror' phrase is a bit on the 'poetic' side, but since they (NKVD) did use kidnappings, assassinations and staged trials, I am not sure how to rephrase it - and it is important to show that the 'playing ground' was not even, and communist who had little support from the population had to use force and propaganda to seize the power. If you do insist it is a bad phrase, I can change it to 'repressions' or sth more to your liking - and nothing is stopping you from editing the article and correcting this yourself, you know. But please, point out the specific issues and suggest how we may improve them. I am still not sure if you feel this article is biased for or against communists or some other POV. Perhaps I am reading you incorrectly and you feel it is too apologetic for the regime instead? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)
    • I have put this in its' place: Stalin had promised at the Yalta conference that free elections would be held in Poland. However, the Polish Communists, which were led by Gomułka and Bierut, knew that they could not win if they ran in the elections. The Communists imposed themselves on the country through tatics, which resulted in violence against the main non-Communist party, Mikołajczyk's Polish Peasant Party. Other groups targeted were veterans of the wartime Home Army and army veterans who had fought in the west. I hope yall like this one. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 4 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)
      • Tnx, its better. I made some minor change to make it sound better, it now reads: ...through illegal means, among them, the persecution of members of the main non-Communist party... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)
  • EK - as I said when I renewed the nom, could you please be a bit more specific? It's helpful that you quoted one sentence, but beyond that, "this article is terribly POV" is not very helpful. Can you point to specific sections, phrases, 'etc that need looking at? →Raul654 July 4, 2005 20:12 (UTC)
    • I sent EK a note about his objection being answered. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 4 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
      • I'm striking out my vote, not because my mind has changed, but because I don't want to be bothered about this. I don't want to argue about this kind of thing. It will just turn political. Everyking 7 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)
• Support. Balcer 4 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)
• Support, Phoenix2 4th of July! 16:10 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons I stated last time: I got to understand a bit of Polish history in only a few minutes. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 4 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)
• Object. The pictures are much too dense and the article is very difficult to read on a lower screen resolutions. Also, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I don't much like the name. The convention for history articles the standard is to not simply note what years are covered, but to describe the contents of the page. This is more useful for the reader, makes it easier to link to, and is more aesthetically pleasing. The current name also suggests a hierarchy of articles, which generates a whole host of problems. I suggest renaming it History of Communist Poland. (This would mean the rest of the history of Poland series would also have to be renamed) - SimonP July 5, 2005 02:33 (UTC)
  • Could we rename it to History of Poland (People's Republic), since this is the time where the People's Republic of Poland was established? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 5 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
    • What about History of the People's Republic of Poland? There's no need to put things in brackets when we can have a real name. - SimonP July 5, 2005 02:42 (UTC)
      • The above article redirects to People's Republic of Poland. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 5 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)
        • It has no history, so it should be possible to move onto it. - SimonP July 5, 2005 03:01 (UTC)
          • Ok with me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 5 July 2005 03:02 (UTC) On second thought, let's keep the name where it is. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 5 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)
            • I feel we should wait for Piotr's input, as I believe the current system was his creation. - SimonP July 5, 2005 03:18 (UTC)
  • Feel free to move the pictures around so the fit better on your screen. What screen do you have? From what I read once, now less then 10% of users use lower resoultions. As for the name, you may want to check Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland/Periodization and it's talk page, we had extensive discussions regarding the names. I created the current year-based division, as I couldn't chose between several names, none of which are perfect. Consider the current example: 1) article covers period 1945-1989 2) People's Republic of Poland was estabilished by the 52' constitution, so it would be a wrong name for period 1945-1989 3) Communist Poland is better, but from one side, it starts with 1944 (when PKWN was established), from the other, from the elections 1948 that eliminated the opposition. There are similar problems with the short time of Andagawan dynasty (between Piasts and Jagiellons), or with the interregnum period after the death of the last Jagiellon. All things considered, I think the numbers (years) leave little room for confusion, and this is their biggest advantage. A possible comporomise would be name and years (like History of Poland (communist period, 1944-1989) or similar, but this needs a serious discussion at Periodization page first.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 5 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)
    • I'm against renaming. Firstly, we'd loose consistency and the current clarity of History of Poland, then ... Wiki is not paper, use wikipedia:redirect to create other article names that suit your taste. --Lysy (talk) 5 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
  • The main issue was the images, and that has been addressed so I am removing my objection. I still dislike the name, however. - SimonP July 7, 2005 01:08 (UTC)
• Support SylwiaS 5 July 2005 05:53 (UTC)
• Support on the grounds that it is not moved. All the other history of Poland articles are named according to the years the article covers, and it seems to make little sense to break with this. Ambi 5 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)
• Support. The meaning is always clear, the subject is well defined, and it's a fascinating read. I, like Ambi, have no qualms about the name of the article (it's easily found via History of Poland); my only concern is whether it is sufficiently different from People's Republic of Poland, but this is a criticism of the latter article, not this one. I do have minor reservations about the article's writing style and picture layout, none of which are serious, and I find these tend to get ironed out by the article's readership (it's already much improved since peer review). --RobertG ♬ talk 5 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)
  • Tnx for the comments. The reason I split History of.. from People... article is that the History... is a subarticle of People... article. People... is an article about former state, with sections (and eventually, subarticles like that one) on history, economy, culture, geography, etc. For an example how the People... and other articles from the Polish statehood series should look like, see Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a FA. One of my long term projects is to FA every single one of those state and history articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 5 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)
    • I understand Wikipedia is a work in progress…! --RobertG ♬ talk 5 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)
• Support Same reason as everyone else. LordMooCow 09:22, 4 July 2005 (GMT+10)
• Support -- though I still might propose some more changes on talk. 172 7 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
• Object.
  1. The image Image:Nowahuta.jpg has no copyright information.
  2. The image Image:Ac.gomulka.jpg has no copyright information, and may be deleted.
  3. The images Image:Wyszyński.jpg, Image:Pope-poland.jpg, and Image:1981 01 Lech Walesa.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, so fair use images should be avoided if at all possible.
• Carnildo 7 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)
  • Jimbo stated months ago that fair use images are fine, since the liable party is the individual who uploaded the image, not Wikipedia. The above objection is not actionable. 172 7 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)
    • The objection is indeed actionable.
      1. It gives grounds for objecting. In this case, criteria #5 from Wikipedia:What is a featured article: "Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status." Two of the images had no copyright information, and three are not under a free license.
      2. It is possible to fix the problems identified. In this case, find out copyright information for the images without, and remove or find free replacements for images under unfree licenses -- or explain why we can claim fair use, and why those images must be in the article.
    • --Carnildo 8 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and replaced Image:Ac.gomulka.jpg with Image:Wladyslaw Gomulka.jpg. The later image is tagged with {{Polishpd}}. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 7 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)
    • I tagged Image:Wyszyński.jpg with the same Polishpd tag as the first image. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 7 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)
    • And for everyone's information, the email Jimbo sent out can be seen at http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 7 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)
      • Was I mistaken? I was absent from Wikipedia from much of March to June. The email linked above seems to indicate a change in policy? If so, I apologize for my incorrect statement. 172 7 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)
        • Well, I am going to find some replacements now. Though, Image:Nowahuta.jpg is used in the Polish Wikipedia, has no copyright information either. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 8 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)
          • I am taking this issue to Carnildo's talk page. Don't worry yall, I will get this settled. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 8 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)
  • After taking their age into consideration, and finding no copyright notice at source's page, I tagged Image:Pope-poland.jpg, and Image:1981 01 Lech Walesa.jpg with Polish pre-94 PD tag. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 8 July 2005 09:44 (UTC)
• Object this is a very poor example of historical writing, the sections and progression of narrative is stilted and inherently anti-communist. The article is basically an anti-communist screed with a faint timeline. No thematisation has been conducted, there is no discussion of the historiography of the period of communist rule in Poland. One of the key institutions of the period, the Party, is not even correctly named for period or examined (even at the level of a national history of fourty four years) at appropriate depth. The issue of left-wing dissent against the Party is not even broached. Polish historians, and historians of Poland, can both do far better than this. Fifelfoo 8 July 2005 05:00 (UTC)
  • Where, do you believe, is our article showing an anti-communist pov? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 8 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)
  • Please be more specific and expand on your objections, just as Raul asked in the renomination. What kind of thematisation would you like? We based this article on chronology, dividing into leader's period (Bierut, Gomułkla, Gierek, Jaruzelski). Please expand on what kind of historiographical discussion you would like to see. Party has an article at Polish United Workers' Party, it is linked from the History... article and its Polish name (Polska Zjednoczona Partia Robotnicza - PZPR) is given, so how can you say it is incorrectly named? I agree the Party article is way to small (stub), but this article is not subject to our voting here. There are mentions of left-wing dissent against the Party (i.e. ruling leader). If you have knowledge of the subject, and references to base them on, feel free to expand and fix the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 8 July 2005 09:44 (UTC)
    • Fifelfoo makes a good point about creating a section on historiography of the period of Communist rule in Poland and mentioning left-wing dissent to the party. But I second your comments in asking him to be more specific about NPOV problems. The article does seem to fit in better with some more traditional perspectives on Poland, such as Norman Davies', but the important matter is that the material fit into the realm of reasonable scholarly discourse on Poland, and it does. Unless he elabores, IMO the objection shouldn't be actionable. 172 8 July 2005 10:50 (UTC)
  • In the following ennumerated list, all emphasis is mine. Fifelfoo 03:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    1. From the introduction':'
       1. "The History of Poland from 1945 to 1989 was shaped primarily by the influence of Soviet communism." Primarily, there were no indigenous factors? The Polish Party displayed a great deal of autonomy within the Soviet sphere, for example, Gomulka's facing down of the Soviet Tanks, Rokossovsky's identification with the Polish Party over the Soviet Party, and, quite obviously, Polish Marxist dissent. The article goes on to thematise the role of the Catholic Church as the main oppositional faction within Poland: ie, the Catholic Church can be said to have been a "primary" shaping institution in the history of Poland 1945-1989. Additionally, this clearly marks the article as "History from above". I could just as clearly blank the article, and begin, "The history of Poland from 1945 to 1989 was shaped primarily by the development of autonomously organised opposition to the government and society along Marxist, Trade unionist and Catholic church lines." The entire historiographical tendency of the article can be summarised by the lead line.

First sentence of lead has been rewritten to note other factors, feel free to twist and expand it to inlcude more. Currently reads: The History of Poland from 1945 to 1989 was shaped by the influence of Soviet communism and opposition to it from Roman Catholic Church, trade unions and other groups. As for Polish Party autonomy, I have just read Davies, where he mentions that Polish party had a 'great potential for autonomy' and would have likely followed Tito's Yugoslavia, Mao's China and other regimes - but the Red Army's presence in Poland and *all* neighbours was a sufficient deterrent to the deveolpment of such policy among the Party members (at least until late 1980s). As for Polish Marxism, I added the following para: There were also repeated attempts by some Polish academics and philosphers, like Leszek Kołakowski, Tadeusz Kotarbiński, Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz and Stanisław Ossowski to develop a specific form of Polish Marxism. While their attempts to create a bridge between Poland's history and Soviet Marxism ideology were midly succesful, especially in comparisson to similar efforts in most other countries of the Eastern Bloc, they have been to much extent stiffled by the regime's unwillingness to step too far and risk the wrath of Soviets for going to far from the Soviet party line.. Feel free to expand on it in the relevant subarticle - I don't think we need to write more about it in the (already large) history article. As for Catholic Church, from what I read it was one of the important opposition groupps. Whether the most important or not, it is a matter of discussion, and you should feel free to NPOV the article if it does indeed treat the Chuch as the undisputably main opposition force - I, however, think it does not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 1. 1. The decision to thematise the article through party leadership is also shonky, is this a history of Poland in the period or the Party Leadership in the period. The Party is viewed as a coordinated monolith, subserviant entirely to the Leader, with no opportunism or careerism on the party of members. The Party doesn't seem to transform itself as an instrument of rule. There is no mention of the "Children of the Party" phenomena which changed the social formation of the elite in Poland. Purges are viewed as automatic, and Party history as a natural tendency towards collapse in 1989, eg, "However, after the first wave of reform, Gomułka's regime lost its will to reform." This assumes that the Gomulka cabinet wanted to achieve unspecified reforms which (from the bent of the article) we can only assume to be capitalist market liberal democracy.

The sectioning of the article by leadership periods is not perfect, but I see no better alternative. I considered several others like decades but I see no gain in this. Feel free to suggest a better sectioning. Again, as this article is large, I see no room to add the details you request to this article (and I am not an expert on Polish Communist Party). I hope you add your knowledge to articles on Polish United Worker's Party, Polish communists or others. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 1. 1. Article expression is rooted in colloquial English entirely unsuited to a Featured Article candidate, "Gomułka chose to ignore them, and his increasingly autocratic style meant that no-one else had the authority to fix anything." Fix anything? Doesn't the author mean, "Gomulka chose to ignore the economic crisis, and his autocratic methods prevented the major changes required." I am sure that local government officials and party members fixed *some* things in the period, or did apartment complexes not open to residents, and roads not get tarred due to Gomulka's autocracy?

I would love for more native speakers to improve the language. I replaced the sentence you mention with the one you propose (remember, you can do it yourself - Wiki, be bold, etc.). Tnx for the comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 1. From History_of_Poland_(1945-1989)#Consolidation of Communist power:
       1. "Since the Polish communists exerted primary influence on decisions under the provisional government, there is a strong suspicion that Stalin was pursuing an intentional strategy to eliminate the noncommunist resistance forces, thus bringing the country under his control, even before the liberation of Poland." Which historians have a strong suspicion footnotes, at least two, citations. Stalin personally ran the Soviet Union's foreign policy in relation to Poland? Read Djilas on how Stalin actually decided policy matters. The Soviet Union was not Stalin's personal play thing, he had an entire Central Committee, a Russophillic foreign ministry, and a party backing him up every step. There is a great deal of "personification" of government forces through the article as personal forces of the leader.

Not all of it was written by me, so I may not be able to find detailed references. Feel free to NPOV it by exchanging Stalin with Soviets, for example - from what you say it would be more correct, yes? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 1. 1. Immediately after the previous sentence, "He (FifelFoo:ie Stalin) had severed relations with the Polish government-in-exile in London in 1943," So first we begin the article in 1944 with the provisional government, then we jump backwards in chronology to 1943. And this under the heading of the Consolidation of power? The entire article jumps through chronology and theme with no linking sentences and with poor organisation.

I will attempt to fix the chronology. While the article follows the chronology most often, I do feel that sometimes it is better to link a sentence with what came after or before if it is more relevant and helps understand the given para/idea more clearly. Feel free to change it if you fill it is indeed confusing. I will go over the article and see if some of chronology/logic flow in this section can be improved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 1. 1. The discussion of the division of Poland as if the Government in exile was the natural government (NPOV?) and following, the celebratory exclamation, "Poland preserved its status as an independent state" as if Poland is a unitary entity (personified) and quite happy to maintain its natural historical desire to be an independent state. If Poland is capable of coming around to my living room, sharing a cup of tea, and telling me how she so strongly desired that outcome, then we can accept the personification of a state and the teleology of the end of history being Poland as an independent national state.

I am not sure if I follow you on that one. Feel free to correct the grammar (?) to solve this issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 1. 1. "Many of the reforms were overdue and were in themselves welcomed, although most Poles continued to detest the Communist regime." multiple citations required, show me the public opinion polls. Followed immediately by, "They adopted an attitude which might be called resigned co-operation" again, sources and citations. By the way, how large was the party in 1947? That's at least a hundred thousand Poles who adopted an attitude other than resigned co-operation. I think you might find that a great number of Social Democratic, Communist and Trade Unionist Poles celebrated the opportunity to create, what they saw, as the society of the future. Again the article assumes the Polish National Community is a unity body, seeking a teleology of national statehood and capitalism, with no internal divisions.

I think Davies gives the number of 1 million members. He also writes that due to NKVD/UB terror, ongoing civil war and such the resigned co-operation was indeed a popular sentiment. This is all general, though, no polls were carried out, although if you read the article on 3xTAK referendum, you will see some interesting numbers proving that indeed communists supporters were in minority. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 1. 1. Paragraph by paragraph this section jumps: 1943 Governments in Exile, 1945-6 Rivals to the Communists, 1944 Mikołajczyk and the borders of Poland, 1946 vote rigging, 1946/7 elections, 1948 PPS factions and PZPR merger, Undated Cyrankiewicz government then in the same paragraph 1950 population movements and 194?-1950 civil war, Undated composition of PZPR government, Undated Communist Factions, 1948 Yugoslav split. This is a thematic and narrative mess, it jumps across years and themes with no steady thread. This is not "featured" encyclopedic historical writing.

Replied above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 1. 1. Bierut appears with no discussion on Stalinisation, its origins or formation in Poland. "Despite the fact that Polish historians estimate that between 200,000 and 400,000 people died during the postwar period" cites, which historians. "Many Poles believed that the reason for this was that Poland, unlike other Eastern European countries, did not need an additional phase of terror..." this has to go, it has no substantial disciplinary basis, either that, or find a published historian who discusses it and cite them. " In these circumstances most people were willing to accept even Communist rule in exchange for the restoration of normal life." requires citation.
    2. From "De-Stalinization"
       1. "De-Stalinization" should come out of quotes immediately, the article implies (via quotes) that the Gomulka de-stalinisation wasn't de-stalinisation at all. The article doesn't differentiate between Stalinist brutality and the brutality of Party rule. This is at odds with the majority of historians of Eastern Europe under the Soviet-style systems.

Dequoted. Feel free to write sth about this differentiation, it is not in my sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 1. 1. Gomulka's name needs to be correctly listed throughout the article, it is, for instance, incorrect at "Realizing the need for new leadership, the PZPR chose Gomulka". Having only a paltry US-en keyboard, I have relied on English typography in my comments here, but the article must be typographically correct to be considered as a featured article.

I think it has been done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 1. 1. "After some tough bargaining with Khrushchev, who came to Warsaw to oversee the transfer of power, the Soviets only grudgingly accepted Gomulka's rise to power after he was reassured that Gomulka would not alter the basic foundations of Polish communism." This is a fucking trite way to deal with Poznan, the demands for a state organised on the basis of workers councils, workers democracy, and a revolt within the party. Additionally, Gomulka's famous threat to destroy the Soviet divisions encircling Warsaw at the time should be in there. It speaks to the difficult relationship between Poland and the Soviet Union, and is a rare moment when Polish (even if PZPR) resistance to the Soviets was entirely successful. Then at the end of the paragraph, the narrative jumps back to 1955 for no good reason to mention the Warsaw pact.

Feel free to expand it. By all means, I hope you do, I never heard this quote and would love to read up more on this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 1. From "Reform Communism":
       1. Reform communism needs to come out of quotes for the same reason. And Gomulka's own conception of his communism should be cited instead. "Reformism" was of course an insult amongst communists.

Dequoted. Feel free to expand on reform communism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 1. 1. This sentence needs to go "Since the common people had nothing to spend their wages on, productivity declined." as its bullshit economics. same para "Economic relations with Poland's natural market, West Germany," there's that teleology again!

Gone. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 1. From "The Gierek era":
       1. This section is generally written at a much higher level of quality, and would qualify as itself for a featured article in my view. One thing, "they had grown corrupt and cynical during the Gierek years and had no stomach for bloodshed." is brought forward about the party, but there is no decent discussion of how this phenomena came about within the party, something for the PZPR article probably.
    2. From "The fall of Communist rule (1980-1990)":
       1. Also pretty good.
    3. General complaints
       1. More subheadings, there are major sub-topics addressed under each of the main headings. Attention should be drawn to this by the use of sub-headings. Sub-headings are generally useful for tightening up the language and topical focus of paragraphs.
       2. The poster of the beautiful woman on the Tractor should indicate some of the missing thematic issues: "Polish Culture and Socialist Culture, 1945-1989", "The Status of Women in Poland, 1945-1989", and of course, "Working class experience in Poland, 1945-1989." Any history of a major period needs to cover the social history bases, race, culture, gender and class. The article does a reasonable job on minorities in Poland in the period, lets bring the other themes into focus.

Would love to see them, but they should be written as separate articles. They are also more in line of subarticles to People's Republic of Poland then History of Poland (1945-1989) article, IMHO. The lack of them (red links - for now) should not be an objection to this article. Wiki is always a work in progress and if we were to FA only articles who have every imaginable related (See also) article written would mean we would have 0 FA, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 1. 1. The article needs and explicit section "Historiography of Poland under Communism" or equivalent which discusses the varying ways in which historians have written about the period and the disputes which historians have had over the period, along with any details of the difficulty of writing about the period (source access, Soviet held sources, etc.)

I added sources I used (except of Wiki ones) to references. Feel free to expand and section it. It should be noted that virtually all Soviet/PRL sources would be very biased. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 1. 1. The article needs a bibliography (as seperate to a references & citations section), so that readers know which four to ten histories of the period are important histiographically, influential in popular culture, or major works of the historical art.

Do you mean Further reading section, perhaps? I think a bibliography section is only used to denote works by a given author, and as you yourself wrote aboive, PRL could hardly write by itself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • And until the majority of the historical issues of bias in the current article, quality of language and source citation, headings, typography, lack of discussion of social history in the period, the absence of a historiographical and bibliographical section are corrected, the article should not be featured.Fifelfoo 03:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

A part of me wants to agree with you - there is still room for much improvement here. Another, however, notes that there is hardly any article on Wiki (among FAs) that would pass criteria as strict as yours. Wiki is, as I wrote, always a work in progress. If we were to feature only perfect articles, we would never feature anything. Consider existing similar FAs from Wikipedia:Featured_articles#History on History of... given country to see our current standard. I feel that our History of PRL article is above the average and up to our current standards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • I thank Fife for telling us what areas he felt like should be changed. I got most of what Fife wanted in the De-Stalinization section, and fixed the lead sentence a bit to include the bit about the trade unions and the Catholic Church (I used Roman Catholicism). I will try to do all I can, but I will be the first to say that my knowledge on Polish topics is zero. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I also thank Fife for his input. It would be great if he could do some editing to adress the issue (which he is apparently familiar himself) if he has some time. I will try to incorporate the changes and NPOV the article more along your suggestions, although some could be argued to be POVed themselves. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Impressive. Well-done all around. Mackensen (talk) 9 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)
• Support. Well-researched, well-written, and such a large amount of information! Nicely done. - Jersyko talk 01:31, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --BirgitteSB 04:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well done. HKT 06:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Prior to the rewriting, I and others were stumbling on massive POV in the first three sentences. The rewriting has solved some things, but definitely not enough to make this a featured candidate. The first three sentences are no longer chock full of POV, but the first three paragraphs were in my look over this article today.
• "The new regime in Warsaw subdued a guerrilla resistance in the countryside and gained political advantage by gradually whittling away the influence of their noncommunist foes." OK, fine. But where is the mention of (at least part of) the apparatus of this guerilla resistance being created by the Nazis during the Nazi occupation of Poland? Or that after World War II ended, the new head of West German intelligence, "ex"-Nazi Reinhard Gehlen lent material support to the "resistance" and "foes" of the new government? And why is the new government called a "regime"? If one does a Google search for "US regime" or "American regime", the pages that come up tend to be negative, if you search for "US government", the pages are neutral - why use a POV word like regime instead of government? It was used four times in the first three paragraphs.
  • Ruy, I am afraid this comment shows you know not as much about this period as you wish. There were was no Polish guerilla cooperating with the Nazis. From Armia Krajowa, Armia Ludowa, Narodowe Siły Zbrojne to Żegota - they all opposed the Nazis, not cooperated with them. You have your history backwards on this one. And I'd like to note that I have replied to this very objection on the article talk page, but then you copy this false and offending accusation here. You do make a valid point about POVed word regime, I think it has been find&replaced now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• "The rises were a fatal miscalculation, for they turned the urban population against the regime." I feel "were a fatal miscalculation, for they" is POV. Why do those words need to be in the sentence? It is a POV attempt to portray the Polish bureaucrats as cold, calculating automatons.
  • Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• And I should reiterate the objections listed above were not all of my objections to the article, but the ones I found within the first three paragraphs. If we take History of Italy as a basis for a neutral article on a country history, and I think the Cold War histories of Italy and Poland were very similar, although in the former case the country was "shaped by the influence of US capitalism" to paraphrase the article we're discussing here. This article is a litany of everything wrong with the Polish government, the Warsaw Pact, the USSR etc. Not much positive said. How come the History of Italy article is not like this? Not that I haven't tried to[10]. But of course, the information in that link is not in the Italian article - I was reverted, many, many, many times, by a user who was more-or-less chased out by the ArbCom (and quite rightly). thus don't say "well go edit the History of Italy" then, because one obviously can't. These types of accusations are bulletproof in articles like that, yet we are allowed to pour on the litany of how awful the Polish "regime" is. Until this article looks more like the History of Italy (or vice versa), I oppose. Ruy Lopez 06:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ruy, you made the comparison with Italy during the last FAC, and several users noted its very far fetched comparison. Poland was not Italy. And if you object on that ground, well, what can I say... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is a litany of everything wrong with the Polish government, the Warsaw Pact, the USSR etc. Not much positive said. Ruy is touching here on a good point made by Fifelfoo in his objections. Ruy's objection would be addressed if we followed Fifelfoo's advice to focus more on the social history-- more on ethnicity, culture, gender, and class. One can debate whether the article is "positive" or "negative" enough, but regardless of one's stance on that matter, the article without a doubt does not do as well in presenting the social history as it does in tracing Poland's political development. A section along the lines of "changes in Soviet society" in History of Russia would help this article a great deal. 172 06:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed, but this is intended. The culture and such belong in the article Culture of People's Republic of Poland, and should be added first to the People's_Republic_of_Poland#Culture section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support (though weak since I find that article a tad oversimplified). Halibutt 11:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Augustan literature

Self-nom, from the team that brought you Restoration literature, but only moreso. Augustan prose, Augustan poetry, and Augustan drama are also new, but I promise not to nominate each of the sub-articles for FA. Geogre 4 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article. There is an issue with the lead, though. Basically, in the 2nd paragraph of the lead the sentences become too dense and confusing from trying to add in so much info. Leads should provide an overview and be accessible (as the first paragraph of your lead is). I believe that, aside from the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph, the entire second paragraph of the lead should be moved to its own section in the main body of the article (under the section, perhaps, Nomenclature or Naming of the Period). I'd replace this section in the lead with a summary of some of the authors and main literary events of the period. --Alabamaboy 4 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

Absolutely true. That "why it's called Augustan" thing is a mess. I meant to try to give precise chronological anchors for the period, but I ended up on a detour through "critics are lazy, and no one knows what they mean when they use this term because...." I was deviled by that section from the start, and I will take out the trusty machette and give it a once over in a few hours. I plan to compress the "why" and move it down and give a new, shiny, and better 2nd par. for the lead. Geogre 5 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)

Done now. I tried to come up with a 2nd par that was like the 2nd par of Restoration literature: something that would give a sense of what was accomplished during the period. Not many specifics in it, but specifics would have probably been too numerous. See what you think about it now. Geogre 5 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)

The lead now works perfectly. Great work. --Alabamaboy 5 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)

• Support: wonderful article that synthesizes a vast amount of material. Also a hub article for the whole period. PRiis 4 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)
• Support: This is truly excellent article proving once again what a amazing tool Geogre's pen is, especially when coupled with the pruning shears of Bishonen. I suspect this may be one of the most comprehensive essays on the subject freely available on the internet. Certainly one of Wikipedia's landmark articles which , like The Cantos gives the entire project its justified credence. Giano | talk 4 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)

Thank you, Giano, and just to clarify: don't worry, loyal Geogre fans, I didn't prune anything away, just summarized a couple of mighty sections and snipped them off into subarticles. Edward Scissorhands/Bishonen | talk 5 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

• Support. Beautiful work, and I have nothing to add but praise. -- Rbellin|Talk 5 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)
• Support. A fine piece of work; a lot of good, informative prose. Phils 5 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)
• Wholehearted support, with an added plea not to hold back in nominating the sub-articles. (If you don't, I might just do it myself). OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 5, 2005 17:03 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks. Well, I only promised that I wouldn't nominate the subarticles. I am rather proud of the Augustan prose article, and the Augustan poetry isn't bad (about 5 tons more could go in, of course). Augustan drama does explain the ramifications of the Act and gives a fuller picture of why "there was no drama in the Augustan period" than anything I've read (print or online, but I'm emphatically not a drama person), but that one's kind of short. (My goal in all of these was to overpower the anemic Britanica print articles and to put more stuff in one nexus than I had found anywhere except for Donald Greene.) Geogre 6 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)

*Object. It covers the content very well, it seems, but the prose reads like it was written for 1911 Britannica, and some sentences read as if they are a definite opinion of the author about the topic, as opposed to receiving an NPOV treatment - perhaps some of these statements could be attributed. Ambi 9 July 2005 03:09 (UTC) Points taken. Objection withdrawn. Ambi 14:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Ambi, that's my writing style! I'm sorry that it sounds 1911, but that is how I write (academic). As for the POV, I need some examples. There is a thesis that is supported by examples, but that's what it is, not Original Research. If there were no thesis, then an overview would be impossible. One has to shape such a massive topic, to pick out threads and trends. It's simply useless otherwise to attempt to survey 50-80 years of very active literature. I can certainly cite anything definitive that needs citation, but I need to know some specifics. Geogre 9 July 2005 11:52 (UTC)
  • Also, if we like, we can easily compare to the 1911. The 1911 didn't like the Augustan Age, as it was still being informed by Macaulay's History ("The Whig History"). Therefore, it pronounces Swift insane, Pope misguided, and Johnson reactionary, while it praises Addison as a voice of reason. I actually would like to have this compared to the current Britanica, as well, as it was a goal of mine to take their lunch money, as it were. I tried to cite everything substantial, particularly when talking about causes (which are controversial), but examples are just examples. Geogre 01:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. You did it again. Keep them coming! — mark ✎ 21:41, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think that's about it for me. It tied in every 18th c. article I've written since being on Wikipedia, and I can't think of anything else I'm an expert expert on, unless we need articles on sloth. Geogre 20:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. of course. Filiocht | Talk 10:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Real Love (song)

I put this on peer review for a couple of days, but nobody showed up. Since that page is so long, I decided not to burden the servers and just go ahead and shoot for FAC status. I haven't written a sogn article for quite a while, so feel free to point out anything I've missed. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: No one seems to be showing up here either I'm afraid, so I've had a look. I'm unsure exactly who "bootlegs" is. Regarding the phrase "Beforehand, the closest The Beatles had come to reuniting (while they were all still alive)" I think we can dispense with the jokes this is an encyclopedia. "[H]e's solid, really great. He knows how Ringo's snare should sound" why is the "H" in brackets, or did the man drop them, it's unclear, and what exactly is "Ringo's snare" Why does "#" keep coming before numbers, is this something to do with pop music? The same "#" later is used to define sharp notes (I understand that much). The references are all links, were any written ones used? In spite of all this, it's not a bad article. I have just come to the conclusion I don't think I know enough about the subject to support it or oppose, and the page does not do a lot to help me; and no I'm not aged 94. I just have this horrible feeling I am displaying huge ignorance here. Giano | talk 29 June 2005 12:49 (UTC)
  • Bootlegs are (usually) illegal copies of unreleased songs. I'm not sure what the joke is about the sentence you're referring to, but maybe that's because I'm from a different culture. The "H" is in brackets because the original letter used was "h", being part of a sentence in the original quote. I will clarify what is meant by snare soon. "#" is used before numbers because it is commonly used as a shorthand to denote the word "number", as in "number one". No written references were used, although a few of my sources are published authors. Johnleemk | Talk 30 June 2005 08:53 (UTC)
• Support Following explanation and clarification. It is a very comprehensive account of the song and its history. I wouldn't think there is any more that could be said. Giano | talk 30 June 2005 11:56 (UTC)
• Strong opposition. What!? A Beatles song article without the lyrics themselves!? --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:45:23 (UTC)
  • What!? A Wikipedian advocating a violation of copyright law? Johnleemk | Talk 30 June 2005 16:20 (UTC)
    • Even I knew that! Giano | talk 30 June 2005 18:32 (UTC)
      • Sorry, there's a law difference between different places. In Hong Kong using other people's work by quoting and listing the original authors and source without conflicts to the original author's benefits will not violate the law. Deryck C.
        • Hmm, hey maybe we should get Jimbo to move the wikipedia servers to Hong Kong! Borisblue 1 July 2005 09:56 (UTC)
          • Maybe not- Hong Kong' copyright law seems the same as the rest of the world. From Hong Kong's intellectual property department site I quote "Subject to conditions, fair dealing for research and private study; criticism, review and news reporting, for use of works in library and school are permitted. Yet users should still be cautious about possible infringement. Photocopying an unreasonable amount of a book might constitute an infringement, for example." Maybe you should remove the objection Borisblue 1 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately Wikipedia's servers are currently physically located in the US. In addition, Wikimedia is registered as an entity in the US. So until Jimbo can fly those servers over to Hong Kong, we're subject to US law. This is why we don't ever directly put lyrics in articles. Johnleemk | Talk 1 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)
• Support: this is an informative entry; it gives a good deal of background on the origins of the song without going into excessive detail, the inlined pictures supplement the text appropriately, and the critical and popular reception of the song is described accurately and concisely. --Jacj 2 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Gee it'd be nice to see a non-Beatles FA song article (see Layla - yes, blatant cross-promotion!), but this is a very good article on the history and importance of the song. Unfortunately, the last two pics in the album both claim definite copyrights and cry fair use. I'd like a bit more info on what sort of fair use - for Wikipedia, or just in general. Address this and I'll have no qualms about reversing my vote. Harro5 July 8, 2005 02:13 (UTC)
  • Huh? The top and bottom images are the front and back of the single cover. The middle image is a screencap from the music video, which is almost certainly fair use. There's no appropriate fair use template for music video screenshots, though; only movies and television programmes. Johnleemk | Talk 8 July 2005 13:41 (UTC)
    • I'm not expert on copyrights; I thought these might need some more clarification. Wouldn't the back cover come under the same fair-use template as the front? Anyway, if this is good, support. Harro5 July 8, 2005 23:19 (UTC)

[edit] USS Missouri (BB-63)

I'm nominating this article because I believe it's come a long way in terms of quality and completeness of content. This really is one of the better histories of the ship I've seen and with the considerable wiki links provides a unique entry point for somebody wanting to learn about battleships and/or WWII history. ---B- 02:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: For some reason, this page wasn't placed here on 17 June. I just placed it here now. Also note that User:Bschorr, who nominated the article, has worked on it, which makes this a self-nom (I think). TomStar81 02:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support --This page contains historical information, and reports on the history of what may be the most famous battleship of the entire 20th century. Of all the pages I have worked on, this is the one that I believe most desereves Featured Article status.TomStar81 02:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object I agree that the article looks very good, but where are the inline citations? --JohnDBuell | Talk 03:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

O.K., I'll see if I can do something about the inline cites. ---B- 04:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• comment all of that information from just one reference? slambo 13:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

That section does need to be expanded. ---B- 17:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note that -B- is a volenteer crewmember with the USS Missouri, so he was accsess to all of the ships information. My references were are listed under "External Links", along with links added by wwoods. TomStar81 22:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quite a bit of my information, especially weapons and engineering are from personal experience aboard the ship and from shipmates and former crewmembers. However I do have a couple of other outside references that I will try to add in the next day or so. ---B- 01:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Congratuations on an article that has only free-content images! I've just finished objecting to just about every other article on FAC on the grounds that they're using unfree images. --Carnildo 1 July 2005 05:58 (UTC)

• Comment: Objecting just because they use non-free images is counter productive. There are simply subjects where you can't get free images, many photographers like me who spend lots of time and money taking photos, scanning photos, and editing photos don't like our photos being used without some restrictions. If Wikipedia allowed non-commercial to be uploaded still, I start uploading my many slides of aircraft including some unique photos. On top of that are photos that can only be captured by the press organizations because of time and access issues. Also don't say that it can't be abused because GNU and all those licenses, because people do abuse photos everyday. PPGMD 5 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)

• Support: Fine article. Re: lack of citations; Most of the article simply doesn't need them. This is mostly an historical outlay, much of which comes from DANFS which is mentioned as a source. I've added a couple of cites for quotations; these are appropriate. Adding additional cites for this type of article would be difficult and awkward. Also, I've just added Radar/FC/EW/Other to the specifications table; this is often overlooked on ships and is quite important for any WWII and forward ships that had this sort of equipment. --Durin 1 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)
  • Added armour information. TomStar81 7 July 2005 02:31 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose until reference section is expanded. It's a great article, but FAs need references, IMHO, since they are the backbone of wikipedia's credibility. Should they be added, I would be eager to change my vote.--Scimitar 6 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)
  • Would you mind translating IMHO into english for the abreviatedly- challenged? 216.63.175.29 TomStar81 6 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)
  • I added two books that reference Missouri in her WWII and Persian Gulf War years. Its not much, but it is a start. TomStar81 7 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
    • Tentative support. A little more should be added, but I really didn't want to oppose this article anyway. Oh, and IMHO= in my humble opinion (sorry, it sounds less pompous abreviated).--Scimitar 7 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article. I enjoyed reading every part of it. --Alabamaboy 8 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)
• Object. Not comprehensive. I would support if it was entitled 'History of USS Missouri (BB-63)', as this is what it is about. There is no section at all about the ship's construction, features and such (only what one can read from the infobox). Another one on tactics and use of 'fast battleships' would be useful as well - it is covered 'between the lines' of the history section. Also, remove external links from text, move to references and link via footnotes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 8 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)
  • Most of this objection seems to be unfounded. All of America's battleships have been decomissioned and removed from service, only Iowa and Wisconsin are maintained with the fleet, then only in reserve. The notion that the article should be titled 'history of the USS Missouri' entails that all ships from every navy that have been decomissioned should be moved to an article titled ' history of (insert ship's name here)'. As for construction, you build a ship the same way you build a building: one piece at a time. "Fast battleships" are still battleships, so the standard tactics that apply to battleships would apply to Missouri as well. TomStar81 9 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)
    • I agree with Tom on this one. This is a specific ship belonging to a class with several other ships. Aspects of design and such should be covered under the article about the ship class. Describing tactics is just as irrelevant and should be described in battleship or the likes. /Peter ^Isotalo 9 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
  • The article Iowa class battleship, linked from the first sentence in the second paragraph of the article, seems to cover the construction, features and such quite well (if in a slightly unencyclopedic tone). --Carnildo 9 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)
    • Good. Then all you have to do is to summarise most of that info into a section of this article. Or, as I suggested, rename it to 'History...'. Remember - FA is supposed to be comprehensive, and simply linking to relevant articles does not make an article comprehensive. Compare existing FAs: RMS Titanic - has design as well as history. Same with Pioneer Zephyr. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 9 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
    • Its summurized in the first three paragraphs. Additionally, the instructions say to make the article comprehensive, tight and well-written, so the construction of the class is outsourced to the Iowa-class battleship page. On top of that, most people aren't going to be terribly concerned with where the ship was built and how long it took them took do it and all that sort of thing. Add to that the fact that most people who think about Missouri jump strated to her role in hosting the September 2nd surrender of Japan in WWII. Thats why most of the relevent information is in the table to the right. TomStar81 21:04, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Pitorus, this is not an article on battleship tactics or construction, but of a specific battleship and its history. Anyone checking this article out would (and should) not be looking for general information on battleships. Not even Iowa-class ones. Make sure there is proper linkage to these article instead. This article should only need top mention what is unique about this particular ship. /Peter ^Isotalo 16:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caulfield Grammar School

Self-nom. This article has been through FAC before and was not promoted, but has been improved and many opposing votes came before the improvements. It has also recently finished peer review, and is one of the best high school articles on Wikipedia. Compare with Stuyvesant High School, also a recent FAC, and then have a vote. Thanks. Harro5 22:56, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I'm satisfied about the issues I had. Nice article! Bishonen | talk 6 July 2005 08:20 (UTC) Object. This article has many good qualities and sections, but too much promotional POV. I'm sorry I missed commenting on Peer Review, as you don't seem to have gotten any pointers there about that aspect. Please note that I had a similar criticism to make of Stuyvesant High School a little lower down, not because I'm obsessed with the subject (I hope), but because a promotional tone and florid style are unfortunately typical of our school articles. Perhaps they're irresistibly influenced by the fulsomeness of school brochures, I don't know. Both the current school FACs are indeed very much better than the run-of-the-mill school articles and have far less promotional POV; but they're not supposed to have any. Caulfield Grammar School shouldn't be written "from inside" at all, compare Geogre's reasoning about Stuyvesant High School. I mean, "The boarding community is a strong and proud one"? Brrr. The Yarra Junction Campus is now at the forefront of environmental education, as students live in fully sustainable eco-cabins with rainwater tanks and solar power technology"—keep the info, lose the advertising! "the establishment of a campus in Nanjing allowed Caulfield Grammar to strengthen ties with the region and give students the opportunity to enhance understanding of the world—ditto, and what a bad idea to link world—click on it and see for yourself. Please snip off anything like that, especially from the lead! And "Caulfield boasts"—yeah, probably, all schools do, but please not on wiki. A structural point: IMO the "Scholarships" and "School uniform" sections are much too crufty, they should be seriously shortened. Sections ought surely to be in some proportion to their respective importance, and together, "Scholarships" and "School uniform" aren't far off from being as long as the whole of "Academics". Am I wrong, or is the closeup of an "awards pocket", a feature of the uniform, the biggest image on the whole page..? Bishonen | talk 22:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I've copyedited the article as far as the sports section, rm a little POV (that Harro5 hadn't already taken out), and rm a lot more of uninteresting or self-evident (IMO) info. I've commented out rather than deleted, it can easily be selectively restored if you think my measures too drastic. I've done some paragraph merging, but think more of that should be done. Knocking off now, as it's 2:45 AM here, but if I don't hear screams of protest, I'll be back to massacre the rest tomorrow. ;-) Bishonen | talk 00:51, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Bishonen for all the work she's done just reading over the article and making minor changes. I really do feel this is close to being ready for FA as the best high school article on Wikipedia. Anyone who can see more language problems, I beg you to be bold and change them! Thanks. Harro5 July 3, 2005 04:07 (UTC)

There has been quite a bit of work to tweak some language in the article. Please have a read before you vote, as opposition votes saying "it's all advertising" have obviously been cast without any effort to actually LOOK at the writing. Thanks. Harro5 July 5, 2005 00:09 (UTC)

The article is looking the best it ever has right now. I hope everyone has a read and a vote, because this is a very deserving FA. Thanks. Harro5 July 6, 2005 09:52 (UTC)

• Mild OppositionNeutral. Yes, really too promotional. More likely to be an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:19:12 (UTC)
  • Could you please give some examples of promotional language? Criticism needs to be actionable, as Bishonen's was. Thanks. Harro5 June 30, 2005 22:32 (UTC)
    • The introduction used 4 lines to talk about the studying fees of the school. This is apparently an advertisement. In the VCE paragraph, I don't know what can it be considered if it's not an advertisement - showing the school's academic achievement with 12 lines? Deryck C. 2005-07-01 01:07:41 (UTC)
      • Having the fees mentioned is very important. Not many schools have fees this expensive, but it needs to be mentioned that this is normal in Australian private schools. Also, the VCE section only makes a small mention of the school's academic achievement, which is proven by yearly publishing of school Year 12 scores in Melbourne's biggest newspapers. It's all factual and in a context, which is critical to show the notability of the school. Harro5 July 1, 2005 05:41 (UTC)
        • The number of lines showing the academic results has been reduced, but the whole article still look like a brochure. Deryck C. 2005-07-05 02:01:59 (UTC)
          • It's a thin line between "looks like a brochure" and providing information. Please actually spell out what parts you are unhappy with, and why they are not encyclopedic. Thanks. Harro5 July 5, 2005 03:00 (UTC)
          • I don't quite understand what else would be expected of a school article, Deryck. It's an article about an educational institutions - of course a fair bit of space is going to be dedicated to academic issues. Furthermore, it's hardly POV to inform people of the facts surrounding a school's results - Caulfield's results persistently cream the school I went to, which wasn't bad in itself, and just about everywhere else in the state, and for these facts (as opposed to rhetoric about how wonderful they are, which would need to go) to be omitted seems rather POV itself.
• Support. I supported this article toward the end of its previous nomination period and think it is the best high school article on Wikipedia. I made some minor changes to fix it up, including removing the word "community" altogether from the boarding section (this was brought up earlier by Bishonen). Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 3 03:52 (UTC)
• Oppose - If I wanted to get a brochure about whether or not to send my kids to a school, I would call the admissions department, not look on Wikipedia. Páll 3 July 2005 07:24 (UTC)
  • Please Pall, could you be constructive and give some examples of what you are unhappy with? The FAC process is for making good articles great, and you have not helped with this blunt opposition. Harro5 July 3, 2005 07:36 (UTC)
  • This objection is unactionable, and thus invalid. Ambi 5 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)

Its quite actionable. This article reads like bad promotion copy. It is not at encyclopaedic level, and needs a thorough copyedit before I can support its candidacy. Páll 5 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)

Can you give some advice as to where you would like us to start? You haven't yet convinced me that you have read the article at all. Thanks. Harro5 July 5, 2005 01:32 (UTC)

"At the Nanjing Campus Caulfield students study five key themes of Chinese culture during a five-week program: heritage, work, family, education and challenges. Students travel to the cities of Nanjing, Shanghai, Tong Li, and Beijing, visiting such landmarks as the Great Wall of China, the Forbidden City, the Ming Dynasty Tombs, the Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum, the Temple of Heaven, and the Summer Palace. Students also complete homestay visits with students from The Affiliated High School of Nanjing Normal University." Reads to me as advertising copy. Will find more examples after I get some sleep. Páll 6 July 2005 10:54 (UTC)

I've removed some of the sitse, cutting it down to three, but this needs to be said to talk about what kids do in China. If you can think of a reason why this is not useful info, please tell me (I ask that you don't just say "advertising"). Harro5 July 6, 2005 11:14 (UTC)

• Support (I also supported the article the previous time), looks good enough for an FA. JYolkowski // talk 3 July 2005 19:51 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think there's much more that could be said. Ambi
• Support. All my objections have been satifactorily addressed. --Malathion 6 July 2005 10:43 (UTC) Oppose. There is quite a lot of POV in this article, for example stating that the school band is made up of the school's "Best" cellists. I agree with the objections that this article reads like a brochure. --Malathion 5 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
  • Well, that's quite obvious really, so I guess it should be removed - any other examples? Ambi 5 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)
    • I don't see how that is POV - it's the best group, so it has the best players. Anyway, it's been removed. More examples please, or you should remove your opposition. Harro5 July 5, 2005 02:56 (UTC)
      • The point, I think, is that it's obvious that the group will have the best players available, and stating it in this way has the effect of making it seem promotional. I could care less, but I see where he's coming from. Ambi 5 July 2005 03:06 (UTC)
        • Thanks to Malathion, who worked through his issues regarding POV with me, and has helped smoothen out some more language. Every bit helps! Harro5 July 6, 2005 10:47 (UTC)
• Object. There are minor imperfections in this article. For example some dollar signs are prefixed with AUD while others are not and the choice of date format (1881-04-25) is obscure and breaks sentence flow. But my main problem is that I can't find anything that would be of any real interest to the general public in this article. Some of the more interesting quirks of the school like its decision to teach Mandarin Chinese or its shift to co-education are glossed over. Furthermore, the article fails to establish why the school is notable (which might be an inherent problem with the subject choice). I don't want to negate Harro5's work on this article or deny that this may be one of the better school articles. But in my opinion there is no way that this article exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work and there is no way it should be a feature article. - Cedars 7 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and fixed the minor problems you noted. I suppose Harro5 can expand the two sections you mention, but your general point (as you note) is effectively inactionable and thus not solid grounds for an objection. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 7 04:14 (UTC)
    • He mentions a couple of things that he says are glossed over, though - could these be fixed? Ambi 7 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately I don't have a lot of information as to why girls were admitted or why Chinese is taught. I'd be making a fairly good guess by saying these answers respectively - to increase the number of paying students, and to recognise the power of China and its language. I've included the stuff on China, but am not really sure whether to add the stuff on girls coming to Caulfield. I wouldn't want to mislead anyone by guessing. Any thoughts on how to move forward here? Harro5 July 7, 2005 08:37 (UTC)

[edit] Doom

This was a FA for a long time, but got removed two months ago since I felt there were major problems with it (see talk page and the FARC discussion). I have now rewritten large parts of it to address my concerns (diff). The new structure is much better, and irrelevant information has been removed while relevant information that was missing has been added. I think I have gotten rid of all factual errors, and inline citations have been added for several specific facts (though bits of referencing remains to be done, but I think it's good enough already, and I'll be working on that part). Fredrik | talk 1 July 2005 22:55 (UTC)

• 'Support. The article looks very good, and the fact that the user who was unhappy with it before and got the FA status stripped is now nominating it to be featured again is a credit to Fredrik and his drive to improve upon an article which many wouldn't touch because of the FA notice. You were bold in editing, and have done well. Congrats. Harro5 July 1, 2005 23:40 (UTC)
• Support. One of the best looking articles I've seen on Wikipedia. -- A Link to the Past July 2, 2005 08:18 (UTC)
• Support. Comprehensive, brilliant prose and great interlinking of other wikiprojects. Do I need anything else in my foobar player to play the video file? - Mgm|^(talk) July 2, 2005 12:47 (UTC)
• Support. However, needs mention of the non-game spin-offs - novels, the movie that is out in October (also weren't there comics?) Morwen - Talk 2 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)
  • Fixed. There is also more detailed information at Doom spin-offs and homages. - Fredrik | talk 2 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)
• Support, one of the best on Wikipedia. Phoenix2 Canada Day Weekend! 2 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)
• Comment/Question Is there established precedence in featuring an article that contains Spoiler Warnings? The article itself looks good, my concern is that it can not be wholly read without reading a potentential spoiler. Perhaps that section should be rewritten or deleted. Autopilots July 2, 2005 21:11 (UTC)
  • Never thought about that; I don't really see a problem with it, though. We have a lot of FAs about literary/entertainment works that give out the plot to varying degrees; I never saw anyone complain. Phils 2 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)
    • Yes, the precedent has been set - we've had numerous literature articles featured on the main page. The first one I can remember was Foundation Series featured in mid-2004 (for the record, I'm the primary author). Generally, when doing the write up, I try to avoid giving any spoilers (in the literal sense) -- things that would give away important plot details or the ending. →Raul654 July 3, 2005 22:52 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. Phils 2 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)
• Support. One of the best pop culture articles I've seen. MechBrowman July 3, 2005 00:20 (UTC)
• Support. Looks fantastic, has a video clip (increases media project visibility), is of a (relatively) neglected FA category, well-written, well-linked, excellent! Batmanand 3 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)
• Support, extremely professional and well-written. Bishonen | talk 4 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)
• Support. I also commend the process you went through to bring the article to the quality it's at now. --DanielNuyu 4 July 2005 06:38 (UTC)
• Support. A good take of the cult game. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 6 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)
• Support. Cult game. great article. Jacoplane 7 July 2005 09:34 (UTC)

[edit] Chagas disease

The article is comprising, well-written and structured. I believe that it meets the criteria for being featured. It was written mainly and is maintained mostly by a Brazilian user who is a PhD doctor with lab experience in the disease. Support. Redux 2 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)

• Support. Good article. I am not sure about the copyright of the foto of the poor sick child though - is there a permission to use it? (CDC is a US-government agency and the image is therefore public domain.) --Fenice 2 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)<--edited--Fenice 2 July 2005 09:29 (UTC)
• Neutral, good article, but for the non-scientists I'd like to see a short explanation of terms like pathogen and vector, etc. - Mgm|^(talk) July 2, 2005 12:58 (UTC)
  • Support, my stuff has been adressed. - Mgm|^(talk) July 3, 2005 20:01 (UTC)
• Object, it's close but not there yet. I'd like to see inline cites in a reference list rather than html links in the text. The italic section in the lead should be moved to a seperate section on the parasite and it's evolution and the pathogen-vetcor relationship (there is actually very little description of the pathogen, since it and the disease seem to be the topic of the article more description of the pathogen should be included), and the lead should be expanded. The life cycle diagram should have a descriptive caption. What are the articles in the bibliography, were they used to write the article or are they further reading?--nixie 2 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)

• • As Mgm requested, I've inserted explanation to the words "pathogen" and "vector". I did it only for the first appearance of each word in the article, since once explained, the reader will understand the other references. About the bibliography, I will ask Rsabattini, but it is most likely that he has read all of those books at some point in his life, meaning that they are indeed intelectual references (noting that someone with his expertise and experience probably knew most of what is in the article by heart). Regards, Redux 2 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)
  • The articles in the bibliography were used as sources to the facts in the body of the text. We are adding also a number of external links and in-depth sources for further reading. Rsabbatini 3 July 2005.
  • Support. I have completed quite an overhaul and additions to the original article. I hope User:MacGyverMagic and User:Petaholmes are satisfied now and that the selection process can proceed. Thanks for the choice. Rsabbatini. 3 July 2005.
• Support. Good work! Phils 3 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)
• Neutral Lets have more time to give specialists opportunity to correct. I doubt strongly "our" epedemiologic map does any better than these google hits. m.20050704. (Vote by 213.7.155.183.)
• Still oppose, I had changed to support, but going over the article again the english not always clear, the html links still need to be put into a reference list, the lead still needs expansion, and what are the list of sources?--nixie 4 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)
  • I noticed this article and decided that I really want it to be an FAC. I've started working on the English. When I'm done and if inline references are added, I'll support. Hopefully you will as well. Dave (talk) July 5, 2005 12:39 (UTC)
• Support, some minor cleanup and then FAC. JFW | T@lk 4 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)
  • I have started cleaning up English and improving on the overall structure of the article. It will take a few days, though. Please have patience, it will become a FAC in due time, but with a super good-looking text. Answering to User:Petaholmes, the list of sources are public domain texts from the US Government such as CDC and NLM which were used as primary material for text and images Rsabbatini.

Is the article already featured? The tag in its talk page says so, and it has been listed on WP:FA. Isn't there some sort of "closure" required? Anyways, good news! Regards, Redux 01:45, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monty Hall problem

Ran across this a while ago, and it looks like a featured-class article to me. I have made only incidental edits, but understand by nominating I am volunteering to try to address any concerns that are raised. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Update as of July 7, 2005 01:44 (UTC): I believe I've addressed the majority of the feedback. I've solicited further comments from Wile E. Heresiarch and Arbor. There's a suggestion on the talk page to include a new "aid to understanding" section for which I'm not sure there's consensus. Bottom line is although the article has been here for a while, I believe there is still progress being made. By my count, current vote tally is 6 (7 counting my vote) support, 1 conditional support, 1 oppose. -- Rick Block (talk) July 7, 2005 01:44 (UTC)

• Support. It seems comprehensive, although you may want to rewrite the lead to state clearly what is the right solution - I had to read the rest of the article to make sure I understood it. 'The problem' and and 'Problem summary' sections look like they could be merged. A screenshot from the orginal show would be nice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've clarified the solution in the lead and combined the 'problem' and 'problem summary' sections. I'll try to find a screenshot from the show. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• SupportComment Since the average reader will have no use for the Java code, I recommend moving it out of the article in the same way that the simulation written in Perl was moved out (either to WikiSource or to a Wikipedia article on the subject). Also, the formatting with gray boxes is kind of ugly and can be improved. If these issues are addressed, I'll Support. Dave (talk)

I've moved the Java code and eliminated the gray boxes. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Monty Hall problem is quite a cruft magnet; everybody and his dog has their own idea about the clearest explanation, and as a result the article is needlessly cluttered. There is a lot of useful material, but someone needs to do a very heavy-handed editing job. I'm willing to reconsider if that happens. Hmm, maybe I should do it myself. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute the article seems cluttered, however different people seem to grok the solution differently which is the point to the various aids to understanding sections. Can you please propose which of these sections you'd eliminate, perhaps on the talk page? The article has been quite stable in its current form for several months. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

"Quite stable" only in outline; various blocks of stuff have come and gone. I've cut a couple of explanatory paragraphs out of the introduction, as they were redundant with explanations later in the article. Some of the "Aids to understanding" can also be cut -- I don't see any point to trying to state lots of explanations here, any more than, say, quantum physics should try to supply a separate explanation for every man, woman, and child on the planet. Two, or maybe three, is plenty. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A couple of the "aids to undestanding" sections have been cut. Have you looked at it lately? I'm curious if you think it's closer yet. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:25, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's looking better, although more can be done. In general the problem I see is that the Monty Hall problem is subtle, but simple; explanations are not improved by making them longer, but more precise. -- Here are some specific comments. The "Problem" and "Solution" sections can be strengthened: the origin of the assumptions listed in "Problem" needs to be identified -- are these the assumptions commonly made in discussions of the problem, assumptions stated by vos Savant, or is this a Wikipedian's take on the problem? Under "Solution", the explanatory text isn't very helpful; putting emphasis on certain words doesn't make it any clearer. Maybe we can cut the explanatory text under "Solution" since "Aids to understanding" is all explanations. Speaking of "Aids to Understanding", I'm in favor of cutting "Combining doors" (Clearly, the chance of the prize being in the other two doors is twice as high -- um, this really isn't the place for an evidence-free assertion), "Bayes' theorem" (if there can be any doubt, enumeration of cases will confirm this -- well, this is supposed to be an explanation, how come we're making this a homework problem?), and "Effect of opening a door" (this is just incomprehensible to me, sorry). Fwiw, Wile E. Heresiarch 01:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the specific comments. I'll make a stab at addressing all of them (here, as well as in the article):

• origin of assumptions - I believe these were assumed as "common knowledge" (hence, unstated by vos Savant) but have actually led to considerable controversy. They're necessary to arrive at the commonly understood solution.
• Moving the explanation currently in "solution" to one of the aids to understanding seems like a reasonable idea (these words effectively repeat the diagram, which I'm reworking anyway).
• I believe the "combining doors" analysis is one of the key mechanisms by which some folks understand the problem. Rather than pitch it, I'd like to reword it as necessary (it also repeats the diagram view, perhaps what is currently the explanation in the solution section and the diagram and the "combining doors" section can all be combined into one section).
• The "Bayes' theorem" section looks like it can be improved.
• I don't grok the "effect of opening a door" section either, but I assume someone does. I'm a little reluctant to simply delete it. I'll chase down the original author and try to find out what s/he thought s/he was getting at.

-- Rick Block (talk) 03:41, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still hesitant about the assumptions part. Yes, I understand that explicit assumptions are needed. However, because the solution hinges on the assumptions, at present what we have is original research on the topic (we made the assumptions and we show what follows). We need to document the assumptions that other people have made. It seems likely that some of the academic papers cited in the references have explicit assumptions we can borrow. Wile E. Heresiarch 5 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)

I'll try to chase down a reference with the assumptions. I'm confident these are the same assumptions generally used, so it shouldn't be hard to find them (I'd actually be surprised if they aren't in vos Savant's book, The Power of Logical Thinking, which perhaps should be a reference here anyway). -- Rick Block (talk) July 5, 2005 06:01 (UTC)

• Conditional support. This is a good topic, and potentially a good article. But it does indeed need a heavy-handed editing job. It also needs an expanded history section, because the Savant "anecdote" is interesting enough in its own right. Is Curious incident the only appearance other appearance of this question in popular culture? (It does appear in many introductory maths textbooks, of course.) Arbor 12:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I disagree that it needs a major rewrite. Presenting the problem, the correct answer, and a collection of alternative explanations seems like a fine way to cover this topic. I also see no need to limit the number of alternatives. --P3d0 05:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It'd be best if you could settle the copyright status of Image:Monty2.gif. This link is Broken 23:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Per our talk, we're going with {{GFDL-presumed}}, although the following comment suggests new images are needed. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:27, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've created new images, primarily to resolve the "fuzziness" issue raised below, but since I created the new images I know their copyright status (GFDL). -- Rick Block (talk) July 1, 2005 15:41 (UTC)

• Mild Oppose The visuals look very poorly done. If somebody could make them look alot more proffesional I could consider it FA Material. Support The image issue is being taken care of. --EatAlbertaBeef 03:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, yes, this is not an easy-to-explain subject, but this is a difficult to understand, somewhat bloated, yet incomplete article. Interestingly, the Curious Incident book (the article on which links to this page) does a markedly better job of summarizing the problem, the solution, and the controversy (and in the context of a fictional story narrated by a 10-year old child). In addition to cleaning up the technical content, there needs to be more focus on the social impact of the problem, particularly in the Vos Savant case (that is, how the counter-intuitive nature of the solution has lured many academics into making fools of themselves). Jgm 04:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'm withdrawing my comments; Rick has made a reasonable request for more specifics, however I will not have an opportunity to take a close look at the current version and update or expand my concerns for several days. In fairness, I'll leave it to others to work this out. Jgm 4 July 2005 02:13 (UTC)

Can you make these objections more specific? difficult to understand, somewhat bloated, yet incomplete and clean up the technical content are too vague to address. Whether a better description exists elsewhere is not especially relevant without specifically saying why you think it's better (I can't copy this description since it is in a copyrighted book). I've expanded the Anecdotes section, but I suspect you're looking for more. Please restate your objections in a form that will allow me to address them. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:32, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Support.The article is complete, easy to understand and it attracts and holds the readers attention. Optional suggestions for improvements that do not interfere with featured standards are an additional image, to illustrate the 'find the lady' game (three playing cards with a lady - if the image is already on Wikipedia it is not easy to find, I just looked for it.)--Fenice 1 July 2005 11:35 (UTC)
• Support. JYolkowski // talk 3 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of India

Self nomination: This is the current Indian collaboration. I have modelled it on the Flag of South Africa and have cannibalised some sections from that article. I have also made the flags. Copyediting done by sundar and Kaal. Suggestions always welcome. :-) User:Nichalp/sg July 1, 2005 10:42 (UTC)

edit: The INCOTW has been updated User:Nichalp/sg July 3, 2005 06:44 (UTC)

• Looks good. A couple of points:
  1. The heraldic description is wrong. It is barry of three, in chief saffron, in fess argent charged with a wheel azure, in base vert.
  2. There are frequent claims that at least some of the inspiration for the flag came from that of Ireland, and given that India's flag was unveiled in 1921, at the height of Ireland's struggle for independence, this is quite likely. It might be worth mentioning this in the article.

Grutness...wha? 1 July 2005 11:07 (UTC) (also a regular "Flags of the World" contributor :)

Thanks for heraldic description. I wasn't sure if I was correct. I've corrected it. I'll check out if Ireland's flag could have been the inspiration for India's flag. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 1, 2005 11:12 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reports of the Indian flag being inspired by the Irish flag online, though it is plausible that that may be the case. Without a reference though, I don't think I should add it. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 1, 2005 11:55 (UTC)

Try here. Grutness...wha? 1 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)

Thanks, I have included it now. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 1, 2005 13:02 (UTC)

• Comment - Very good, but how much longer does WP:INCOTW have to run? Shouldn't we wait until then, at least? -- ALoan (Talk) 1 July 2005 11:51 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 4 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)

Till Sunday July 3. I'm a bit impatient. I want to edit other articles. :) I doubt that the article will be unstable from this point on. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 1, 2005 11:55 (UTC)

You might want to vote now? User:Nichalp/sg

Best to wait till the COTW ends - the article looks good though. Although, the colours section looks like the sort of messages the French resistance sent the Yanks in WW2...indeciferable code. Could some English be added please? Harro5 July 1, 2005 23:45 (UTC)

I've added some info. Let me know if this is sufficient. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 2, 2005 08:18 (UTC)

That's good. Its obviously a complicated table of info, but that passage will suffice as an explanation. Thanks. Harro5 July 2, 2005 09:08 (UTC)

You might want to vote now? User:Nichalp/sg

• Support. After the elaborate work done by Nichalp and copyediting by Kaal, there seems to be little left to change. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} July 2, 2005 07:14 (UTC)

• Support. I saw the articles on flags of all countries on Wikipedia. This one is simply the best. It has a pretty comprehensive history, flag etiquettes, recent laws related to flags in India, including some awesome pictures self made by the editors. Full points to the them. Their efforts must be recognized by giving it a well deserved FA status. deeptrivia July 3, 2005 23:28 (UTC)
• Support. A good mix of info on the flag's design, history, and the most entertaining part - "Proper display of the flag". It's actually law to do that stuff!?! Surely no other internet source could provide such concise info on so many aspects of a flag, and also provide such quality visual aids. This is now setting the standard that other nations ust try to emulate with articles for their national flags. Congrats INCOTW team! Harro5 July 4, 2005 22:40 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, and yeah, its law! User:Nichalp/sg July 5, 2005 06:40 (UTC)

• Support. utcursch | talk July 5, 2005 08:24 (UTC)
• Support. Muwaffaq 05:57, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] United States House of Representatives

This is a self-nomination. -- Emsworth 30 June 2005 22:54 (UTC)

• Support. As good as the Senate article, recently featured. Minor point: is it just me, or is the pic of the House seal not showing up? If this is corrected, my support stays. Harro5 June 30, 2005 23:23 (UTC)
• Object-1. not enough on recent history, e.g. Gingrich's reforms to committees (reducing term of committee chairman to 6 years) 2.needs reference to greater partisanship compared with Senate. Deus Ex 30 June 2005 23:34 (UTC)
  • I've added both; if more is needed, please tell me. -- Emsworth
    • I've added some more to the history section about reform, I think the article's fine now. Support. Deus Ex 2 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)
• Comment - the seal is still missing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)
• Support. If the Senate article went onto FA, then this one can as they're of the same standard. One note: I can see the seal image. Deryck C. 2005-07-01 01:03:20 (UTC)
  • I must confess to using some of the same text from the other article. -- Emsworth 1 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
• It might be my browser screwing up, but if yall can see the image, I trust yall. I vote support now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)
  • I still can't see the pic either. Emsworth, any idea what's causing this glitch? Is it OK on your browser? Harro5 July 1, 2005 05:48 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it's okay on my browser. I've no idea on why there's a problem. -- Emsworth
    • The image shows up correctly in all my browsers (Mozilla, Camino, Firefox, Safari, Shiiva, all running on Mac OS 10.4). Phils 1 July 2005 10:24 (UTC)
• Support. Phils 1 July 2005 10:24 (UTC)
• Support. Up to Emsworth's usual standard. Probably worth linking List of U.S. House committees (a featured list). -- ALoan (Talk) 1 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)
• Support Emsworth's great article. You should stop putting it through FAC. It will pass anyways. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 1, 2005 18:48 (UTC)
• Support, with comment It looks good, but perhaps the sections are a tad long. I don't see any way of correcting this, however, without a major re-write. Autopilots July 2, 2005 21:21 (UTC)

[edit] IFK Göteborg

Self-nom. I've been working on this article since I started editing Wikipedia a year ago and I have come to a point where I think I can't improve it much more. It has gone through a peer review pretty recently and I believe the few problems pointed out there were fixed. There was no answer on my question about the status of the images used, but if anyone believes that there is a problem with them, I can take a few photos on my own (next time they play at home, meaning 9/10 July) and replace the current ones. It is definitely time for a football club article to become an FA. -- Elisson | Talk 30 June 2005 14:38 (UTC)

• Mild Objection. 2 points: First, I've never heard of this football team although I've been watching sports news for 14 years. Second, the existence of too many redlinks in the article makes it uneasy to read.--Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:16:18 (UTC)

  Is there a criterion for an FA article to be known by everybody? You might want to read Wikipedia:What is a featured article and do your judgement after the criteria listed there, as I see no mention there that the FA itself needs to be notable enough to everybody. Just to let you know a few reasons as to why IFK Göteborg isn't any random club; it is one of the three most classic Swedish football (soccer) clubs (if not the most classic, but I won't write that as it might be considered to be POV). Except bring 17 times Swedish Champions, the club is also a two-times UEFA Cup winner (1982, 1987), UEFA Champions League semi-finalist in 1986, three times quarter-finalists (1985, 1989, 1995), and four time participants in the group stage of the same tournament (1992-1993, 1994-1995, 1996-1997, 1997-1998), and also runners-up of the Scandinavian Championship (Royal League) this season. I understand your point about redlinks, although they are almost exclusively (except for four in the history section) present in the later "listings" sections, with links to players and managers. The links to these articles can easily be removed (or created by me later) if there is more support for it. -- Elisson | Talk 30 June 2005 16:27 (UTC)

  I'm on my way creating articles for the players and managers listed, reducing the number of redlinks (the result can be seen already, with a lot fewer redlinks). I hope that, and the above, is enough to make your mild objection change into a support. :) -- Elisson | Talk 1 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)

• Support, good article. When it was on peer review, I read it several times and it seems sound to me. Image:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 30 June 2005 16:56 (UTC)
• Support. The peer review was fairly extensive, and a lot of work was done on this excellent article. (I got to help!) --Scimitar 30 June 2005 21:11 (UTC)
• Oppose. The copyright status of Image:Ifkgoteborg1958.jpg should be clarified. (Note that I'll be out of town until late Tuesday, and probably won't be able to access Wikipedia until then.) --Carnildo 1 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)
  • Is that one image the only reason for your objection? Image:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 1 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)
    • Right now, yes. I may have further objections when I get a chance for a thorough reading -- or I might not. Since the other votes are in support, I probably won't. --Carnildo 1 July 2005 06:06 (UTC)

  How should it be clarified? I marked it {{fairold}} when I uploaded it, which is a more specific image tag than for example {{fairuse}}. The pic is from 1958, the photographer is unknown. I'd actually want to know how I can clarify the copyright status of it, just saying it should be clarified does not give much help. Would substituting the picture against Image:Ifkgoteborg1905.jpg help? It has the same tag, and an unknown photographer, but it is much older. -- Elisson | Talk 1 July 2005 11:26 (UTC)

  Using new picture now, a picture no-one possibly can complain about. Check it out. -- Elisson | Talk 3 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

  Support. Looks good. --Carnildo 6 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

• Turning Neutral from Objection. After reading this article again one day after my previous objection was made, I could see that the author of this article has shown improvement. Deryck C. 2005-07-01 14:24:51 (UTC)'
• Support. Very good article, sets a standard for all sporting clubs to match on Wikipedia. Harro5 July 7, 2005 00:32 (UTC)

[edit] African American literature

African American literature has become one of the most important genres of American literature in the last decade, as evidenced by authors like Toni Morrison, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature. I should note that while I did not start this article, it is a self nomination because I did greatly expand it. These changes have been reviewed and supported by the article's earlier authors.--Alabamaboy 29 June 2005 16:13 (UTC)

• Support. Definitely. Alabamaboy has done great work. - Darwinek 29 June 2005 16:18 (UTC)
• Mild object. Great work, but it needs a larger lead to meet the FA criteria. - SimonP June 29, 2005 17:00 (UTC)

I just addressed this concern. Does the expanded lead work for you now?--Alabamaboy 29 June 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Support. My concern about the lead has been fully addressed. - SimonP June 29, 2005 17:44 (UTC)

• Support. Yes. Phils 29 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article, good pictures and references. Reads exactly like a commercial ("real") encyclopedia. Borisblue 30 June 2005 01:30 (UTC)
• Support, most definitely. Image:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2Image:Teamflag1.png 30 June 2005 03:02 (UTC)
• Mild objections: I know that I go into too much detail in my surveys, but there is insufficient detail here. Some nebulous phrases lead to misunderstandings ("Many" slave narratives being considered "the most literary works of the 19th century?" Most literary among African-Americans or most literary period? Many are more literary than Melville or George Meredith or Douglass?). In the Civil Rights literature section, many of those figures are, in fact, post-WW2 writers and not Civil Rights Era (depends upon how one defines the Civil Rights era). WW2 is one of the most important events in African American literature, for it took people away from their rural settings, established de facto desegregation, and then plopped those folks back into the segregated and racist US. The GI Bill did a great deal for all literature, African American literature not excepted. Hurston gets a bit more credit than is probably her due. It's true that she's famous, but she was an anthropologist primarily who has the one novel, but I'm not sure she gets headline status over Langston Hughes. As the article gets to the present day, it grows appropriately expansive, but there are some fundamental problems (a coherent definition of the genre that carries a distinction from "American literature"), far too fast a passing over of major figures, lack of any noting of the tensions carrying forth between generations (e.g. Jean Toomer being rejected by the Black community for trying to "pass" and proclaiming himself Hispanic, and Hurston herself falling afoul of similar accusations; the "hard" and "soft" approaches to the wider white society is one of those dichotomies that runs for a long, long time). Some historical influence would help. Sorry this comment is a mish-mash, but I tried to help with some edits, and I hope they show what sorts of things it is that are driving me to actually object. Geogre 30 June 2005 03:32 (UTC)

The american civil rights movement period can, in its broadest sense, actually includes World War II. Although Wiki has it from 1955-1968 for the second part of the movement, this article American Civil Rights Movement (1896-1954) lists the second part of the movement as being from 1945-1970. I have also seen WWII being included in other datings of the movement. In addition, while much of the groundwork for the Civil Rights movement came out of black experiences during WWII, there doesn't appear to be a definitive "WWII period" during African American lit. Still, you are correct in this being important and I have made some references to WWII and the Great Migration in this section of the article. Does it now work for you?

Excellent revision. It removes pretty much all of my stated objections. I have a new one, alas, but I think you'll be able to get around it quickly. See below. Geogre 30 June 2005 11:46 (UTC)

The article does mention some of Hurston's problems, which lead to her works being "forgotten" for decades, and I could add in Toomer's info (although I'm reluctant to b/c Toomer isn't an overly important literary figure). However, I wanted to avoid having any one section dominating the other sections. Since the Harlem Renaissance has its own article, perhaps this expansion should go there. Would this work for you? I have also now moved Langston Hughes' reference to before Zora Neale Hurston in the article--that makes sense to me b/c he is the biggest name of this period. However, I should say that Zora Neale Hurston's influence goes beyond her one famous novel. She wrote 14 books, mostly fiction, and while she was ignored for years she did influence the biggest writers in recent African American lit, such as Alice Walker, Toni Morrison, and most of the women who now dominate black literature, and this influence should not be underestimated.

If I missed anything else, please let me know. --Alabamaboy 30 June 2005 10:36 (UTC)

Ok, the body of the development narrative reads well now, and certainly I won't try to suggest that a thesis of mine needs to be in (the continuing dichotomy of "hard" and "soft" approaches). However, there is a thing that needs citation, I'm afraid. When you get to the second half of the article, which is a discussion of the reception and consideration of AA-literature, you have a number of quite true, but uncited, recitations of the arguments for and against the academic periodization. You mention conservative scholars (although, frankly, I think the Balkanization argument far predates those idiots in ties who have claimed it now, so I'm not sure that it started as conservative; in fact, I thought it was rather originally pretty liberal by saying that the campus Am-lit. class had to change to incorporate AfAm-lit), but there are only passing references. When you get to "proponents answer" a bit down, it reads like original research. I know it isn't. I know that the points you raise are shared by many, but the bulwark of a citation will help a lot. I also think you might want to be careful about mentioning identity politics: that's something DeSouza (sp?) wants you to mention, because he wants you to change your focus from the irreducible truth of AfAm lit to the big "culture wars." If you can cite some of those, I'll go to full support. Geogre 30 June 2005 11:46 (UTC)

Geogre: Thanks. You raise some good points and I'll address them by finding citations for the criticism section. I'll get back to you shortly when this is corrected.--Alabamaboy 30 June 2005 13:23 (UTC)

I've updated the article with references. In addition, I reworked the criticism section. Please look through and let me know what you think.--Alabamaboy 30 June 2005 16:09 (UTC)

Enthusiastic support: Excellent changes and a much stronger article now. I have no hesitation in supporting fully. Thanks for the hard work. Geogre 1 July 2005 11:29 (UTC)

And many thanks for your great suggestions. The comments you and others here have made really helped me push the article to a higher level. Best, --Alabamaboy 1 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)

• Support in the light of recent edits. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 11:18 (UTC)Also Mild Object. In addition to the points raised by Geogre, I was troubled by the sentence "African American history is as long and detailed as the history of the United States, and African-American literature has similarly deep roots.", which was then followed by a reference to a work published three years before the founding of the US. Maybe this should read something like "African American history is as long and detailed as the history of the European colonization of North America, and African-American literature has similarly deep roots", although that's not quite right, either. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 09:12 (UTC)

I have made a change to this. How is this: "African American history predates the history of the United States, and African-American literature has similarly deep roots."

I have further adapted this wording myself. Hope it's OK. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 11:18 (UTC)

Looks good. Many thanks. --Alabamaboy 30 June 2005 13:23 (UTC)

• Support. I'd like to see it include a lot more detail and context (from other literature and American politics) eventually, but this is a thorough and complete survey to build on. Minor quibble: I don't think African American literature is properly described as a "genre," since presumably it includes all the many genres of literature (poetry like that of Hughes, novels like Chesnutt's or Morrison's, essays like Douglass's or DuBois's). -- Rbellin|Talk 30 June 2005 22:45 (UTC)

I agree with you on an idealistic level--genre probably should not be used this way. Unfortunately, it has passed into common usage to use genre to describe all types of literary divisions such as "Native American Literature," "Gay and Lesbian Literature," and so on. For example, a Google search for "Genre 'African american literature'" yields 28,500 results, including this [11] and [12]. Personally I'd prefer to use a word like classification. But general usage is genre and I believe we should use what is commonly accepted. Are you okay with this?--Alabamaboy 30 June 2005 23:45 (UTC)

• Oppose. The image Image:Morrison toni.jpg is claimed as "copyrighted fair use". However, I'm not sure it is fair use, and in any case, fair-use images should be used as infrequently as possible. (Note that I'll be out of town until Tuesday, and probably won't be able to access Wikipedia until then) --Carnildo 1 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)

The image was deleted. It came from the Toni Morrison page and, since I didn't upload it to that page, I can't verify its copyright status. I replaced it with a public domain image of her from the U.S. Library of Congress. Does this remove your opposition to the article?--Alabamaboy 1 July 2005 10:47 (UTC)With more investigation I found that the new image is also copyrighted. However, the image is from the U.S. Library of Congress and according to text at [13], the image may be used in promotion of Morrison's book. Since this article does indeed discuss (promote) this book, I believe this use of the image is valid. I would also state that the use also falls under fair use. Does this remove your opposition to the article?--Alabamaboy 1 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)

BTW, I should add that I agree with your statement about fair-use pics being used as little as possible. After looking at the last dozen or so Featured Articles, I noticed that most of them were filled with fair-use images. My article takes a different track--the only fair-use pics are the one of Toni Morrison (and I believe this use is valid due to the wording on the original image) and the image of the book. Due to the fact that the fair-use images constitute such a minor part of the article, and the fact that use of these images is supported by the Wikipedia:Fair use flow chart, I think the images are okay. Comments?--Alabamaboy 2 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)

The two current fair-use images are ok, since one is a book cover, and the other has specific rationale behind why it is fair use. The original image seemed to be claimed as fair use on the grounds of "everyone else is doing it". --Carnildo 6 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)

• Support. Impressive. A few things that are too minor to temper my enthousiasm: the wikilinkage is excessive to my taste; I have taken the liberty of removing some links that were clearly superfluous, apart from smoothing out some minor glitches. The lead is still very blue, maybe you should consider linking some terms only later on in the article. Great work! — mark ✎ 2 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)

I totally agree. I'll move some of the links in the lead to later in the article. Thanks. --Alabamaboy 2 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)

• Support. Great article, meets all FA crieteria. --FuriousFreddy 3 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
• Support. Nice job. Stbalbach 19:28, 3 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Central Asia

Partial self-nom. This was split out of the Central Asia article after that page was COTW several months ago and the history section grew too long. Recently I have been working to get the article to FA status. The page has been through peer review and all the concerns raised there have been addressed. I consider this page especially valuable, as there do not seem to be any other websites that cover this topic very well. - SimonP June 28, 2005 16:03 (UTC)

• Support I'd like to see a lead image, but then what can you use besides a map? Otherwise, well written. slambo June 29, 2005 16:56 (UTC)
• Support. Whig 30 June 2005 04:35 (UTC)
• Support, I agree on the lead needing an image too.--nixie 30 June 2005 08:43 (UTC)
• Oppose at the moment. The contents are good and the article body is well-written, however the introduction is definitely too long. --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:33:28 (UTC)
  • Could you explain why the lead is too long? According to Wikipedia:lead three paragraphs is mandatory for an article of this size, and I don't see the four relatively short paragraphs being too long. A number of other FAs have leads of equal, or longer, length (e.g. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Windows XP, and Papal Tiara). A lead is meant to serve as a brief summary, and if necessary a standalone article. The current intro is just over 300 words, not a huge length for a summary of such a massive topic. - SimonP June 30, 2005 16:59 (UTC)
    • The 4 paragraphs made up 21 entire lines that filled up the entire screen. At my first sight I thought that's the end of the article. I don't know by what criteria could you consider them as "short paragraphs". Deryck C. 2005-07-01 01:23:35 (UTC)
• Oppose. The image Image:PrzewalskiHorse.jpg is under the Creative Commons {{cc-by-nd-nc}} license, which is an unacceptable license for Wikipedia. (Note that I'll be out of town until Tuesday, and probably won't be able to access Wikipedia until then) --Carnildo 1 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)
  • That is too bad, it was a decent image. Fortunetaly we had a GFDL picture of the same subject and I have thus replaced Image:PrzewalskiHorse.jpg with Image:Przewalskipaarden.jpg. - SimonP July 1, 2005 12:17 (UTC)
• Minor object. Lead size is ok - just merge into 3 paras. I am was very disapointed by the lack of inlinks in the article - terms like Soviet union, China, Mongolia, Europe, agriculture, trade route and many others were not linked at all. I have linked many of them in lead, but rest of the article needs a go through. Also, if I can spot language problems (...other parts of Central Asia are a part of...) then this means this article needs help. Those are minor objects, however, and after they are adressed I would be happy to support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 1 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)
  • You're right the article did need another round of copyediting. I've gone through it again and tweaked the wording and added more links. - SimonP July 2, 2005 15:03 (UTC)
• Support: I believe the opposition on the lead being too long is a really week objection. The paragraphs are mostly 3-4 sentenes which is usually not considered a paragraph by most English teachers. More inlinks would be nice as would a lead image. A map or a picture of a Central Asian ethnic group would work. Falphin 1 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
• Support 172 3 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)

[edit] Washington gubernatorial election, 2004

Self-nom. I think this is a well-written and interesting article about the closest race in American gubernatorial history. The main concerns from its previous failed nomination bid have been addressed, as all legal challenges to Gregoire's election have ended as of 6 June. Thank you! Páll 19:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The intro should probably state that Gregoire is a Democrat. Joe D (t) 20:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just fixed that! Páll 20:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support A fascinating, well-written, well-linked and authoritative article about an election that most of the world probably ignored, btu which was very interesting! Just wish more election articles were like this. Batmanand 17:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Overall a great article, but with so much detail I find it strange that the trial is covered so briefly. No mention of the felon voters identified by Democrats, the argument over proportional reduction, why the judge removed five votes from the total, etc. Tradnor 21:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Just took care of all of that, would you mind looking again? Páll 20:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support. Tradnor 00:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral in light of substantial changes that I haven't reviewed. Tradnor 29 June 2005 09:46 (UTC)

• Support Very thoroughly covered article about the Washington state 2004 election debacle. Bumm13 21:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object, still needs considerable work to qualify as a thorough treatment of the subject. Writing still reflects the process of being cobbled together as events unfolded, and needs to be edited for a more uniform style. In particular, there are numerous instances of mixed tenses, such as speaking in anticipation of events that are now already past. Furthermore, at times the text wanders off into analysis of hypothetical scenarios that did not come to pass, and worse yet this speculative analysis is not easily traceable to an authoritative source. The article also barely addresses the extent of problems in the King County elections office that were a focus of Republican criticism. In general, I would suggest that more information about the strategies of both parties in selecting and presenting evidence at trial is needed. A few other minor problems: there's a totally irrelevant tangent about creating a separate state out of Eastern Washington, and why do we need separate pictures of Gregoire being sworn in and taking the oath of office? --Michael Snow 05:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I've lived in Washington since I was 18 months old and this whole thing confused even me. I think that Wikipedia should learn about it. I didn't understand how Dino Rossi won the first two counts then she won the third and yet she becomes governor despite the fact that he won 2 out of the 3 recounts and he doesnt get another recount? What's with this? Redwolf24 3 July 2005 08:40 (UTC)

OK, I just fixed all the tenses in the article and made then past. I was not able to find your references to analysis and hypotheticla scenarios, could you tell me which ones you objected to? I also added more content abou the issues in King County, such as the military absentee ballott controversy. Also added more information abou the court trial. Thank you! Páll 08:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is, for example, a list of the options the court supposedly had at trial, even though I don't believe that the election contest procedures specify possible remedies in this fashion (and in fact, Judge Bridges determined that not all of these options were available). One of the options mentioned happens to be ordering a new election, yet later the article implies that the authority for this step was with the state Supreme Court rather than the trial court. At which point the text again starts analyzing what would have, but did not, happen next. While the analyses are not terribly novel, they are not facts in the same sense as saying how many ballots were found at what point, or what evidence was presented at trial, so better attribution is needed to show that this isn't simply our own speculation.

A couple more points that I notice now that I look at the article again. It seems very strange to me for the tables showing primary results to include people who were mentioned as potential candidates, but never actually ran. Why is this done? Also, with the expanded detail, you need to be sure the article reflects that a county and a precinct are two different things, and that the text uses these terms with appropriate precision. Right now, I think most readers would assume they were interchangeable. --Michael Snow 16:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I believe I cleaned up what you were objecting to, although I don't see how the term precinct and county were used in similar ways. I mean, the word precinct is only used three times in the entire article, all times very clearly. Páll 19:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not really using the word precinct when it should say county that's at issue, the problem is mostly the other way around. The article also talks about lists of ineligible voters who voted for Gregoire/Rossi when no such lists exist, because a secret ballot makes it impossible to conclusively match up the ineligible people with the person they voted for; that's why a statistical argument was attempted (the five votes actually subtracted were based on affidavits). In general, the article falls significantly short in its accuracy and command of the evidence involved here. --Michael Snow 20:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just completley rewrote that section. What do you think now? Páll 23:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not there yet, and in some respects it's moving in the wrong direction. I just indicated that the article needs to properly distinguish between a county and a precinct; instead, you seem to have essentially eliminated references to precincts, which is not progress. I observe that the rewrite added citations to two blogs. If these are indicative of the extent of sources you have access to, it's not surprising that your ability to fix the article's problems is limited. --Michael Snow 05:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you needn't be rude. I am doing my best to work on this article, and as someone who is not from Washington, I am learning more about the evidence as I edit. I have now spent several hours reading over as much material as possible and have completely rewritten the section, playing close attention to the difference between precincts and counties. Thank you. Páll 06:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't intend to be rude, I was simply trying to explain why it didn't look to me like you would be able to bring this article up to featured standard. I am still doubtful, but the latest rewrite was a significant improvement. However, now the section about the trial leads off by referring to fraud and gives the impression that all of the allegations fall under that heading. The distinction between questioning the accuracy of the ballot counts and alleging fraud in the counting is significant and affects the standard of proof required to overturn the election. In reality, the decision to make charges of actual fraud came very late and was rather surprising to many. --Michael Snow 17:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I removed the reference to fraud. Is there anything else? Páll 23:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't necessarily saying you should just remove one reference to fraud, rather I hoped you might continue to reevaluate how the article presents the fraud issue vis-a-vis the other evidence. Look, maybe my approach has been too subtle here, but this article is not in a position where I would withdraw my objection based on cosmetic fixes. The article is decent, and I appreciate that you've done quite a bit of good work on it, but plenty of things still need to be added or revised before this can qualify as comprehensive. If you would like more suggestions of things to work on, you could add information about the campaign, which is touched on only briefly and needs more coverage to balance the current emphasis on the counting and contest phases. For example, the issues raised in the campaign, what the candidates stood for (much has been made of Gregoire promising to "change the culture in Olympia"), major endorsements and participation by other political figures, the involvement of the national parties (in both the campaign and subsequent contest), and so on. --Michael Snow 00:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just added quite a bit of information about the campaigns and fixed the tagging of the images. Páll 29 June 2005 09:26 (UTC)

Nothing further. --Michael Snow 3 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)

• Comment Won't give an opinion either way here because I'm no expert on the subject. But the article appears to be written from an NPOV position, provides references, presents data in a clear fashion, and has a decent layout. Kim Bruning 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Comment. I did do some work on this article over the new year. I think it could do with a bit more structuring, and also the figures from the first count appear to have been deleted at some point (just the machine recount is present). They should certainly be restored. David | Talk 14:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just re-added the initial count values to the table. Páll 29 June 2005 10:45 (UTC)

• Object The article is filled with images labled a GFDL which are almost certantly not GFDL. Gmaxwell 02:37, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realise that. Fixed all of the images with the appropriate image tags. 128.122.129.4 28 June 2005 21:34 (UTC)

No you haven't. You've added {{PD-USGov-State}}, an unfortunately-named template intended for material that would be public domain based on being created by a State Department employee. It is not a template for material from US state governments; most states do not place their materials in the public domain. Furthermore, publicity materials of candidates aren't necessarily under government copyright anyway, even if the candidate is a government employee. --Michael Snow 28 June 2005 22:37 (UTC)

Please see reply below. Páll 29 June 2005 09:26 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:Christine Gregoire being sworn in as governor.jpg, Image:Christine Gregoire after winning nomination.jpg, Image:Christine Gregoire inaugeration.jpg claim to be "from Christine Gregiore's publicity packet", but are tagged as {{PD-USGov-State}}. The image Image:Dino Rossi at a dinner.jpg is claimed as "from Dino Rossi's publicity packet", but is tagged {{PD-USGov-State}}. The image Image:Washington Democratic Lawyers Hug.jpg is claimed as "from Christine Gregoire's publicity packet", but is tagged as {{PD}}. This could use some clarification. --Carnildo 28 June 2005 22:55 (UTC)
  • Still object. The new copyright tag, {{WAEduGov}}, is about as incorrect as you can get. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 17:28 (UTC)

See below, please.

• Object. Looking good, but there are a few issues still: 1) In the lead, it says that the lawsuit was filed and rejected. This is misleading, as the lawsuit was filed and then decided against the plaintiff. Better wording is needed. 2) Under the "absentee ballots" header, there's a paragraph on manual manipulation of ballots. This needs to better explain what manipulation is needed, and why. A description of the types of ballots involved may help. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 18:32 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 19:49 (UTC)

OK, I fixed those problems. Anything else? :) Páll 30 June 2005 19:00 (UTC)

I have fixed the tags used on the images. Washington State law makes any images or media created by the state for educational purposes available in the public domain, so these images are covered under that provision since they were created and used in educational publicity packets. The description of the images now reflect this. Páll 29 June 2005 09:26 (UTC)

The law you cite (RCW 74.39A.200) specifically covers training materials developed by the Department of Social and Health Services for long-term care providers. I don't think it covers these images. Tradnor 29 June 2005 09:46 (UTC)

Oops, I suppose I should have read more about what the law was pertaining to. I have removed the errant images and replaced them with images whose permission to use I have from the original authors. Páll 30 June 2005 04:30 (UTC)

• Conditional Object The pictures around the county map of Washington look cluttered. Try to clean that up a bit? --EatAlbertaBeef 29 June 2005 03:35 (UTC)

The addition of a new section to the article should address that. Páll 29 June 2005 09:26 (UTC)

• Support. Very in-depth, and I helped to copyedit the article. Denelson83 30 June 2005 07:55 (UTC)

• Strong opposition. I don't think anybody not in USA would be interested in those tabular election results. --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:47:20 (UTC)

You're wrong on that. I was fascinated by the whole subject. David | Talk 30 June 2005 16:33 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not even from the United States and I made the whole article and the table. Páll 30 June 2005 19:00 (UTC)

• Support (incidentally, I'm Canadian, Deryck C.). Interesting and well-researched. --Scimitar 30 June 2005 21:58 (UTC)

[edit] Rail transport in India

This is part 2 of my railway series. This article discusses technical workings and nomenclature of railways in India. Suggestions welcome. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment it looks good, but in general articles should not have long lists in the middle. I feel the article would be improved if the information on the classification system was moved to a separate page. - SimonP 15:19, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll try and work them into prose. I'm taking it that you only mean the passenger and freight sections are in the list form? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:19, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the list part as I don't think it would be suitable to merge as prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 28, 2005 06:41 (UTC)

Support, that is exactly what I meant. The article is much more readable now that the list has been removed. - SimonP June 28, 2005 16:12 (UTC)

• Support. The delicate separation from Indian Railways has been handled very well. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) June 28, 2005 09:33 (UTC)
• support. Article very informative, but way too long (gave me sleepy eyes towards the end), and also it doesnt mention Indian train tragedies, mostly of which were because of drivers trying to avoid animals. Otherwise, very worth reading, good article. Antonio Moon Martin June 28, 2005 10:01 (UTC)

We usually describe a long article in FAC if it exceeds 32 kb. This article is little under 30KB. The accidents are mentioned in Indian Railways, the sister article. The lines between the two are blurred, I agree. Hope you can fully support it now. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 29, 2005 07:11 (UTC)

Cool. Understood now. Thanks for the explanation and God bless you! Antonio Choo Choo! Martin

• Support This is what the Rail transport in REGION article series should strive for. slambo June 29, 2005 16:51 (UTC)
• Object. There are license problems with a number of images:
  1. Image:Indian Railways Map.gif does not have a copyright tag.
  2. Image:Indianrailways-stamp.jpg has a license that is only compatible with use in an article on stamps.
  3. Image:Mauq.png and Image:Macl.png are under the Creative Commons {{cc-nc}} license, which is not acceptable for Wikipedia.
  4. Image:Bholu.png is tagged as a logo, but it doesn't look like one to me. It's probably fair use, but try for a more accurate tag.
• (Note that I'll be out of town until Tuesday, and probably won't be able to access Wikipedia until then) --Carnildo 1 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments: 1) I've replaced the map with a free one I have made. The map was earlier tagged as PD. I think it may still qualify as a PD, but I have to verify it before reuse. 2) I've emailed the Indiapost site asking them for a licence to reprduce the image. I've removed the image till permission can be obtained. 3) The Maq & Macl images now sport a new licence, modelled on the same lines of the Argencia Brasil tag. They have given us permission, and can be verified independantly by emailing the webmaster. 4) I looked around for another tag, but on the mascot page, the only image there is under fair use. Since this the logo tag is also a fair use tag, wouldn't it be better to stick around with the logo tag? =Nichalp «Talk»= July 1, 2005 08:16 (UTC)

Fair use is something that needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The "fair use" variant tags are there to cover certain common cases. Using the "logo" tag on something that isn't a logo is no more correct than using the "GFDL" or "Crown Copyright" tags. Instead, it should have a generic "fair use" tag, with an additional comment as to why our use of the image is fair use. --Carnildo 6 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)

• Support. JYolkowski // talk 19:43, 3 July 2005 (UTC)