Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2005 to November 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 November 2005 1.1 Tecmo Cup Football Game 1.2 Alexander Dennis Enviro 500 1.3 Collyer brothers 1.4 2005 Southeast Asian Games 1.5 Sino-American relations 1.6 Palpatine 1.7 New Orleans Mint 1.8 Bohuslav Marashek 1.9 Tyrannosaurus rex 1.10 Hollaback Girl 1.11 Céline Dion 1.12 1997 Pacific hurricane season 1.13 Delrina 1.14 Volkswagen Beetle 1.14.1 I'd like to help 1.15 Douglas Corrigan 1.16 Target Corporation 1.17 English language 1.18 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster 1.19 Insulin 1.20 Smotherbox 1.21 Space Shuttle Enterprise 1.22 Mike Watt 1.23 Søren Kierkegaard 1.24 Seinfeld 1.25 Moustache 1.26 Empress Dowager Cixi 1.27 Karl Silberbauer 1.28 Sea shanty 1.29 Apple Macintosh 1.30 John F. Kennedy 1.31 M1 Garand 1.32 MMORPG 1.33 J. R. R. Tolkien 1.34 Evan Mecham 1.35 God 1.36 Emperor Taizong of Tang China 1.37 Tram 1.38 Bayreuth Festival 1.39 Valence electron 1.40 Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva 1.41 Scrooge McDuck 1.42 1957 World Series 1.43 GG Allin 1.44 Race of Jesus 1.45 Xanadu House 1.46 Guns, Germs, and Steel 1.47 Planar graph 1.48 Islam 1.49 Bob McEwen 1.50 Shoe polish 1.51 Billings, Montana 1.52 Water resources 1.53 Around the Horn 1.54 Turku 1.55 Lostprophets 1.56 Beatles For Sale 1.57 Paper Mario 1.58 Mormonism and Judaism 1.59 Fox River Grove level crossing accident 1.60 Time to completion 1.61 H5N1 1.62 West Indian cricket team 1.63 Guitar 1.64 Drill bit 1.65 Epistemology 1.66 Ed Gein 1.67 Glacier 1.68 Atlantis 1.69 1997 Pacific hurricane season 1.70 Coffee 1.71 Sokol space suit 2 October 2005 2.1 Intelligent design 2.2 Eleanor Rigby (song) 2.3 Corinth 2.4 Giuseppe Verdi (listen up, folks; seriously) 2.5 Sydney Boys High School 2.6 Cooperative 2.7 Virtual band 2.8 About-Picard law 2.9 Dungeons & Dragons 2.10 Babe Ruth 2.11 Government of France 2.12 Brain (previous nomination) 2.13 Battle of Vaslui 2.14 Half-Life 2 2.15 University of Maryland, College Park 2.16 New England Patriots 2.17 Ordnance Survey 2.18 History of Test cricket (1890 to 1900) 2.19 Big Brother (TV series) 2.20 Manichaeism 2.21 Those We Don't Speak Of 2.22 Dinosaur 2.23 Coeliac disease 2.24 Nevada-tan 2.25 Sleep 2.26 The Daily Show 2.27 Removal from the Order of Canada 2.28 Sinclair Research Ltd 2.29 Miami, Florida 2.30 West Indian cricket team 2.31 Microsoft Jet Database Engine 2.32 Battle of Stalingrad 2.33 Surrender of Japan 2.34 George Galloway 2.35 lostprophets 2.36 Ordnance Survey 2.37 Gimli Glider 2.38 American popular music 3 September 2005 3.1 Opus Dei 3.2 Houston, Texas 3.3 Popular culture studies 3.4 Terri Schiavo 3.5 Crazy in Love 3.6 Beyoncé Knowles 3.7 Destiny's Child 3.8 Megatokyo 3.9 Cyberpunk 3.10 U.S. Highway 66 3.11 Benzene 3.12 Magneto (comics) 3.13 Nicolas Sarkozy 3.14 Belarus 3.15 Stroke order 3.16 Oh My Goddess! 3.17 Southeastern Anatolia Project 3.18 John III of Portugal 3.19 Warez 3.20 A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates 3.21 Martin Guerre 3.22 Bruce Johnson 3.23 Hydrogen 3.24 Bulk vending 3.25 Hulk Hogan 3.26 Fred Phelps 3.27 Charles Darwin 3.28 Ashlee Simpson 3.29 Taoism 3.30 Salvatore Riina 3.31 Rosicrucian 3.32 Howard Dean 3.33 Hopkins School 3.34 El Ángel 3.35 Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) 3.36 Division of Korea 3.37 Don't Speak 3.38 Solarquest 3.39 TV-FM DX 3.40 Final Fantasy VI 3.41 The Godfather 3.42 Napoleon I of France 3.43 Apple typography 3.44 Burning Man 3.45 Elton John 3.46 Brisbane 3.47 Modified Newtonian dynamics 3.48 Cathedral of the Assumption (Louisville) 3.49 Vishnu sahasranama 3.50 In-N-Out 3.51 Tupac Shakur 3.52 Terri Schiavo 3.53 CF-101 Voodoo 4 August 2005 4.1 Cerebellum 4.2 Avatar: The Last Airbender 4.3 History of South Carolina 4.4 Belgium 4.5 Notre Dame de Paris 4.6 Removal from the Order of Canada 4.7 Trinity test 4.8 Demographic transition 4.9 Pan American World Airways 4.10 Turku 4.11 History of the Jews in Poland 4.12 Palladium 4.13 Westboro Baptist Church 4.14 Flag of Belarus 4.15 USS Liberty incident 4.16 DualDisc 4.17 Winston Churchill 4.18 Monarchy in Canada 4.19 Michael Thevis 4.20 Brave New World 4.21 Education in the United States 4.22 Suburbs of Johannesburg 4.23 Sesame Street 4.24 Martin Guerre 4.25 Walt Disney World College Program 4.26 Panama Canal 4.27 Denis Law 4.28 Iran 4.29 John III of Portugal 4.30 Queen's Guard 4.31 Battle of Trafalgar 4.32 DualDisc 4.33 Belarusian Republican Youth Union 4.34 Removal from the Order of Canada 4.35 Appointment to the Order of Canada 4.36 Stonewall riots 4.37 Cat 4.38 New Orleans Mint 4.39 Paul Hackett 4.40 Crew Exploration Vehicle 4.41 Backgammon 4.42 David Irving 4.43 Tucker Max 4.44 Luftwaffe 4.45 Marcel Junod 4.46 Sociocultural evolution 4.47 Sociocultural evolution 4.48 Enzyme 4.49 Javier Solana 4.50 Cimarron 4.51 Model minority 4.52 Neptune (planet) 4.53 Gay Nigger Association of America 4.54 Many-worlds interpretation 4.55 Chicago, Illinois 4.56 Asteroid 4.57 Isle of Wight 4.58 Winter of Discontent 4.59 Pope John Paul II 4.60 Military history of Canada 4.61 Astrophysics Data System 4.62 Microsoft Jet Database Engine 4.63 Cochineal 4.64 Bart McQueary

[edit] November 2005

[edit] Tecmo Cup Football Game

Self-nomination. An one-man effort on a rare Sega Genesis game.
This article has already been on;

Peer Review (with a grand total of no comments),
CVG Peer Review (with a whopping 1 comment).

Taking the silence to be a sign of satisfaction, i'm nominating it here. Please bear in mind that this game is extremely rare, and only 4 sites even mention it. This accounts for the short number of references and external links. LordViD 19:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object. Several problems with the style and wikification. This article doesn't entirely comply with WP:MOS. Several basic dictionary words such as success are linked for no reason. Trivia section is too short, as a two item list. Fair use images do not have fair use rationales. Very good effort though, and I'll support when the things I've mentioned are fixed. — Wackymacs 19:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the irrelevant links and added the fair use rationale to the images. What do you suggest should be done with the trivia section? Should it be merged with other sections or removed completely? Also, you mentioned that this article doesn't comply with the MOS. Any specific points?LordViD 19:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Though this might sound like nitpicking - the References section should not use small size type for just three references, and should be placed before the External links section. The External links section should also read External links, not External Links (this is mentioned in the manual of style, I believe). I suggest you merge the Trivia section into another section. — Wackymacs 20:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

There, all done. Will you support now? Pretty please? :) Thanks for the comments. LordViD 20:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Good stuff. Though I hate to say this, there is one thing still keeping me from Supporting this article. There are possibly too many sub-sections, because each section should ideally be two/three paragraphs long according to guidelines, and short sections look bad. I suggest that you remove the sub-sections. — Wackymacs 20:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Too many sub-sections? I can only see one, which is the Guts system section. I've merged the content and removed it. All other sections are over two/three paragraphs long. Perhaps you are also referring to the Characters section? But doesn't the table compensate for that? LordViD 20:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Looks pretty good, though someone else might have objections that I haven't noticed. I might also note, I changed the HTML table into a Wikitable because it uses simpler syntax and looks better. — Wackymacs 21:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• thank you for taking the time to review the article :-) LordViD 21:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - Theres just not enough there for me to support. 2 of the references are to GameFaq walkthrough/reviews, there really is absolutely no point in referencing a gameFaq review. Anyone can write them, they're not professional in the slightest. I mentioned in some music FACs that we should have mainstream reviews for them over internet ones, and it applies here. You say its a rare game, and I'm sure it would be near impossible for you to find some published critical feedback for the thing, but still it stands. Also, on googling the thing and looking around, it seems that there was a NES version of this game released called "Tecmo Cup Soccer Game", which isn't even mentioned. - Hahnchen 23:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the gamefaqs review reference, and added info on the NES version. LordViD 12:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object -- The article doesn't do enough to put this game in a larger context of Sega Genesis games and soccer games. Of course, because of the relative rarity of the game, some of this information may not exist. I think that, at minimum, I'd like to see --

• Historical context. Are sports games common? Were they common in 1992? Was this a popular sport at the time, particularly in these countries? You could have a section that goes into more detail about the success of Captain Tsubasa games, the article doesn't explain what "Captian Tsubasa" was. Are these kind of "clone" games common?
• Impact of the game on the genre. In this case, you might mostly be talking about the *lack* of impact. You might be able to cite poor sales figures, a lack of published references, lack of marketing on the part of the publisher. Even if the game was published with no impact whatsoever on anyone, there should probably be a section mentioning this, with references.

On a side note, the sidebar mentions that this was published only in Europe? If so, you might want to mention that in the text, perhaps in the first paragraph. -- Creidieki 00:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

All valid points, but what you're asking is impossible. The internet has proved useless for me when writing about this game, however, i'll try as much as I can to incorporate all your points. In the meantime, I can clearly see that this article is going nowhere but to the trash heap. LordViD 10:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Not to the trash heap! not every article can become featured because, in this case, the subject is very rare and difficult to write a lot about. Its a good article, but I doubt it will get the featured article status. — Wackymacs 10:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - I'm sure the internet has been next to useless in searching for references to this game. But since when were featured articles just a collection of all the things found on the internet. It might be impossible for you, but for me, a featured article on a computer game should have a critical reaction section with reviews from popular gaming magazines and possibly sales figures. I mean heck, I'm finding it a hard time looking for magazine reviews of games that came out in 1998, let alone 1992, but still. - Hahnchen 14:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment I'm sorry if my comments seemed harsh; I hope that you won't be discouraged by them. I believe that this article could become a featured article, and I trying to give suggestions for how to flesh it out. My first request was for a History section, to tell the reader about the status of Sports games in 1992, and other related issues. That section wouldn't need to have information specific to this game -- it just needs to *set the stage* for the game. The reader probably isn't a sports video game fan living in 1992, so you can get a lot of milage with "obvious" statements like "Sports video games have been one of the most popular genres since the beginning of video games, and in 1992 were the second-most-popular genre after Action" (or something like that, I just made that up). Wikipedia might have most of this information already.

And my second suggestion was, if there was no effort to promote the game on the publisher's part, try to mention that...Your local librarian (public, school, or university) can help you find any magazines of that time period with reviews of the game, and can probably get copies sent to you, quite possibly for free; one or two of those would go a long way towards supporting a section that says, "This game was poorly received and had little impact on the industry.".

So I *do* believe that you can have a Featured Article on a topic like this. At the moment, the article is too short and doesn't cover all of its bases, and it'll probably take several hours of research to get it there. But I disagree with Wackymacs; I tend to think that every article can become featured. -- Creidieki 06:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comments weren't harsh in anyway. All you say is completely true. But I think you severely underestimate the rarity of this game. I've looked everywhere; books, magazines, the internet. No luck. This wasn't a game that made any news, top ten lists, or even got reviewed. It's as if it didn't exist. As you and the others have pointed out, a game article could never be featured without proper sections about its impact, critical acclaim etc., and so I'm withdrawing the nomination. LordViD 08:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Dennis Enviro 500

Self nomination. This article has been peer-reviewed and the introduction section is expanded. 61.10.4.84 05:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object - After reading this article, I know much more about low-floor buses and trains (but only because I got curious and looked it up). I'd love to read a great article about a bus I've neither seen nor heard of before, but on this one, much work needs to be done to get there:

• The writing is sloppy - In places, sounds a bit like rough translation: integrated with all advantages of Transbus and its subsidiaries or and good reputation was made by the passengers.
• Much of it is lists - Most of the article is listings, in one format or another, of various technical details, with little to no context.
• No overall context and history - It's a doubledecker bus. Why was it built? What niche does it fill in the World of Buses? What is its design history? Is it in a class of its own for some reason, or which are its competitors? How much does it cost? What is it particularly good at? These are some of the questions that should be answered. As it is, this bus doesn't come to life for me whatsoever...

There is more, but I think the above already requires significant work beyond tweaking. --Tsavage 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Collyer brothers

I just discovered this article today: A fascinating and little-known story of two urban hermits living in New York City in the 1930s and '40s, obsessively hoarding tons of junk in their brownstone. Very well-written and well-organized biography, with free-use photos and a lot of Times articles listed in the references section.

• Nominate and support. Andrew Levine 21:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn; see below. Thanks to User:Tsavage for alertness. Andrew Levine 07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unfortunately I see no evidence those images actually are free. It appears they are all mislabelled. Great topic, though.--Pharos 21:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• I recognize many of these images from Corbis. Modern photos are of no use; there is nothing but a little park on the site today. The story is interesting but works much less well without contemporary pictures. Also, the term "Collyerism" has been used to refer to a pathological refusal to throw things away. Uucp 05:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object Very interesting article, but the lead is too short and some of the images do not state where they are actually from originally. I am eager to support when the issues mentioned are fixed. — Wackymacs 22:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and, the ' House contents' and 'Contents of House' sections should be merged into one section. — Wackymacs 22:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• It is looking much better now, but I think the death sections should be merged together and named 'Deaths'. I will then support. — Wackymacs 08:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Fascinating article, but as above, the lead is too short. And just a small note, I'd say that a disambig is needed at the top, the Collyer brothers can also refer to the guys who created Championship Manager. Google Oliver Collyer Brothers and you'll see some links. - Hahnchen 02:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This may be generational: anyone over the age of 50 will have no doubt who "Collyer Brothers" refers to. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I have made the following improvements to the article:
  1. The lead section has been expanded slightly. I don't think the lead needs to be very long, and it's not, but it has been lengthened to provide better summary of the brothers' situation.
  2. A disambig has been added per Hahnchen's suggestion.
  3. The four images used in the article have been re-tagged as fair use. One is from Corbis and I'm in the process of finding out where the other three (stated to come from the NYPL) really originated.
  4. The "House contents" and "Contents of House" sections have been combined. Redundant descriptions have been dropped (although a few additional items described in the Times articles, like the eight live cats that the police found, have been added.)
  5. A sentence from one of the Times pieces has been added for closure. Andrew Levine 05:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Could I suppose be a bit longer, but this makes for a fascinating read and is well-written. Ambi 01:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Entertaining article, the length supported by the morbidly fascinating story. I have one major objection, and a couple of minor concerns. I also made a few minor edits and copyedits rather than include those here.

The article and its references seem rather close to the this article "The Collyer Brothers" in Useless Information. - I realize there can only be so many ways to write the story chronologically, but these articles are very close in content throughout, some of the sentences are very close in wording, and there is at least one identical list of items removed from the house. As for the References, are these direct sources used in the Wikipedia article, or is the list simply copied from the Useless Info article's reference list? I'm not sure what the policy is on rewriting other articles, where's the line? Or was that article written from this one?

The account of the tonnage of junk removed is unclear. A first figure of 103 tons is cited, next, an additional 19 tons is mentioned, then 103 tons is mentioned again. It's unclear what the final total is, and this makes the chronological sequence fuzzy as well, from "House contents" through "Manhunt" (the account was strictly chronological up to that point).

Reason for "Manhunt" section unclear" - The term "manhunt" doesn't seem justified by simply the bus rumor, and the police going back into the house. It seems to make more sense to include the following "Langley Collyer found dead" section by deleting that second heading (i.e. "manhunt" is a dry reference to the renewed house search, culminating in the body). (Perhaps irrelevant here, and in poor faith, but "manhunt" would better apply in the Useless article, where a repeated "where's Langley?" device was used, and in addition to the bus sighting, a dead body found in the river and briefly thought to be him, was mentioned.)

Is "disposophobia" a recognized medical condition? - A quick Web search, and the name itself, make me think not, but it's not made obvious either way. This should be clarified. The way it's written now could be interpreted to mean that this...behavior resulted in its very own clinical condition.

--Tsavage 03:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I followed the link from your first objection and found it very serious indeed: It looks like one of our article's authors simply took the Useless Information summary, stripped out the idiotic attempts at humor, and rewrote what was left slightly to avoid blatant copyvio. With that considered, I am withdrawing my nomination of this article. Andrew Levine 07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that the immediate source was the Useless Information article (someone should look throught the article's history and see if this is likely), it should certainly be credited as a reference. Also, for any references that were not directly checked, but are merely "as cited in Useless Information", that should be explicit. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Southeast Asian Games

The Southeast Asian Games (also known as the SEA Games), is a biannual multi-sport event involving participants from the current 11 countries of Southeast Asia. The event also features new comer East Timor. Its the right time to feature this one. Homboy 17:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object Mainly consists of lists, no references, the fair use images need fair use rationales and at least one of the images has no source/license. It needs more context, refer to WP:Peer review for specific suggestions on what can be added.— Wackymacs 18:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object per Wackymacs, and also wish to point out that the games haven't even happened yet, and so this article is certianly not stable is it is not yet complete. Harro5 09:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object More suitable for current events box, rather than feature article. - nathan (currently doing the Arnis in the 2005 SEA games article)
  • I remember someone requesting this to be a featured article or "In the News" on the help desk a few days ago. Someone said it wasn't notable enough to be there, but I disagreed. If it is sufficiently updated, it could be a news item. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (boggles) 11 participating countries doesn't count as notable? Dayem, that reasoning sounds just whack. --Tagasilab 07:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object aboslutely. It is far from being an FA article in terms of any criterion.--Huaiwei 14:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Great Opening of the SouthEast Asian Games, except for the introduction of a FAKE President

• Please remember this is a not the talk page, so do not write things here. Terenceong1992 16:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. save the commentary for her own article here--Tagasilab 19:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object The SEA Games haven't ended yet, and want to make it a featured article, maybe later or something. Also, the quality is not very right yet for FAC standards. Terenceong1992 16:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The SEA Games have to be over first, then the article has to go through peer review and only do you end up on FAC. Follow the process. ;) --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 11:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sino-American relations

This article describes Sino-American relations, and has references. I think this will meet the FA status. 202.40.210.244 05:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• object due to stub sections. --Jiang 05:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• object can't agree more with Jiang -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article was generally written from an American point of view, and to a certain extent, focuses too much on the contemporary relations with the PRC. There's far less coverage on the relations between the United States and Qing, and its successor the ROC. — Instantnood 12:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Makes no reference to the role of Zbigniew Brzezinski. —thames 23:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palpatine

I'm nominating this. It is a comprehensive article, which is well-written, referenced, sourced, picture-ied, discussed etc. I've implemented most of Peer Review's suggestions, and I really see no reason why Palpatine couldn't be a Featured Article; it would be pretty neat- AFAIK, our first Star Wars FA. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The additional material was really unnecessary. It was a good, though bloated, article beforehand. Today's changes have largely succeeded in making it fatter with poor grammar and a variety of short, choppy sentences in the opening segment. - Anon

I feel I should note that the preceding comment is from an anonymous user's whose removal of references and other edits to Palpatine I've reverted several times now now. --Maru (talk) Contribs 06:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Palpatine -maclean25 11:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - Is it not possible to fork this article out? It's so long, 100 kilobytes, and looks very text heavy. - Hahnchen 16:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object Impressive, but much too long. It needs a good copy-edit to get it down to a decent size. — Wackymacs 18:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object per above. Article is three times as long as it should be. Jkelly 21:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you two point out specific areas of bloat? --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. For ideas on how to trim the article without sacrificing any important information, see articles that make heavy use of sub-articles like Charles Darwin. It's slightly unusual to do so with a fictional character, of course, but hey, I'm all for it. Sub-articles let Wikipedia please both the people who only want the basics on a figure and the ones who want all the nasty little details. Best idea since sliced bread and templates, I says. -Silence 21:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• A division between film and expanded universe material would be a great start. - AWF

I'm not sure that's possible. I suppose one could divide by sections, and anything that is not a movie-section would be EU. But EU would inevitably contaminate (or vice-versa) the movies- how on earth could one possibly explain the opening of Episode III and General Grievous without drawing on EU knowledge of Grievous and the events of the Clone Wars micro-series? etc etc. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• That's why I suggest that we do just as you say: have one article for each of the six Star Wars movies he had a major appearance in, if there's enough information to justify making a new article. Then have a separate article for "EU" stuff in general, or something similar, again depending on how much noteworthy information there is (obviously not everything currently on the "Palpatine" page is noteworthy, like the move-by-move battle description; this is a science fiction movie, not a world-famous chess match or a Civil War battle), and mention the EU stuff on the movie pages only where it's directly relevant. Anyone have any problems with that idea, at least as a starting point for cleaning up this page? (The only people I expect to have any strong objections are the "fancruft" police who will demand that this page be scourged of information. :) But even that will be much easier to do once it's subdivided into different articles which can be individually checked for relevance.) -Silence 22:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me: I was saying that splitting by movie was not a good idea because Palpatine as a subject cannot be easily split that way. It is not a natural way to divide and categorize (albeit the current chronological, then subject, system is not perfect, it is a lot better than splitting by movie) by canonicity, because most people do not care about "Palpatine as solely an EU character" or "Palpatine as solely a movie character". Indeed, the meat of my previous statement was that the fundamental flaw of dividing suchly may be simply that it is impossible to divide the information that way- that the movies have come to inextricably be supported and explicated and borrowing from and nestled within the EU, that there is little relevance to the EU/movie distinction anymore, that effectively the prequel trilogy is simply EU in another medium. Grievous was just an example. But anyway, the battle descriptions you denigrate are largely gone: there has been a lot of editting on the article to try to address the concerns adduced here. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, the current system is unacceptable. Little effort seems to have been put into Wikifying most of the Palpatine page, or properly moving sections into new satellite articles (in fact, the new attempts to move the article into new subarticles seems amazingly rushed, with absolutely no effort put into setting context for any of the articles, and the abrupt moves shattering numerous footnotes). The more I read this article, the more I feel that it needs at least three or four "cleanup" tags, not Featured Article status. "Palpatine becomes Chancellor" violates WP naming standards of using gerunds (it would be "Palpatine becoming Chancellor"), and is much clumsier than Palpatine's Chancellorship or similar. The liberation of Naboo needs the "the" removed from the title, and doesn't seem significant enough for its own article right now anyway. The article topic "Palpatine as a ruler" also doesn't make any sense; why is "Palpatine as a writer" a subsection of this? This article has lots of great information, but its presentation is a true mess; it will probably take months of work to get it to acceptable quality. -Silence 23:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. That would be my fault. I'll fix it tomorrow.--User:Jedi6 November 27, 2005

Maru: you do understand that StarWars.com has two different articles on Palpatine, correct? Under his entry, they have "film" and "expanded universe," each a distinct piece written for its own purpose (hell, they even have two more for "Darth Sidious"). As far as Palpatine's abduction is concerned, the opening crawl of the movie explicitly states what happened. You don't need EU material to explain it anymore than you would for the article on Revenge of the Sith. These are very poor justifications on your part. - AWF

What is right for SW.com is not necessarily right for Wikipedia. And a bare mention in the crawl does not explain and justify Grievous' entire stoyline or influence. It is your justifications which are sounding weak here. --Maru (talk) Contribs 16:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

StarWars.com was used as an example. It's actually quite simple to divide information provided by film from information in EU material and I'd certainly be curious as to why that "isn't right" for Wikipedia. As far as the Chancellor's kidnapping is concerned, I'd also be curious as to how so many who saw the film had no trouble grasping this concept. There are millions worldwide who have never read a Star Wars novel or viewed the Clone Wars micro series for themselves. - AWF

• Yes, and you may even want to try having one Palpatine page for each Star Wars movie he played a major role in, considering how much information there clearly is to pass around. More room to grow, anyway. If you do decide to try our suggestion, then once you've decided what satellite pages to make, I'd consider moving most of the information there, and summarizing it on Palpatine with an average of 2-3 paragraphs for each section and a link to the main article using Template:Main. Also, of course, you should make sure to keep the satellite pages in good condition along with the main page; too many articles develop a large quality difference between the top page and the sub-pages, it's best to avoid that if you want to get Palpatine Featured in the future. I think the satellite pages idea is a good one. Even if it ends up being decided that the pages are too trivial and should be deleted (which I'd oppose), the process of making them and creating summaries for them will let you end up with a good, much shorter page anyway. So it's probably the best course of action regardless of what the decision ends up being. -Silence 02:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

How would the footnotes work? --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The same way they work in Hugo Chavez, an article that is very long, very heavily footnoted, and uses a large number of satellite articles. How else? -Silence 06:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. Too many fair-use pictures. I'd suggest getting rid of Image:Movie4 bg.jpg, Image:The Seduction of Dooku.jpg, Image:PalpyLightning.jpg, Image:Lord sidiyas.JPG, Image:Vaderrots.png, Image:Palpatine Ep6 DVD 6.jpg, Image:Swhde16 bg.JPG, Image:Empire.jpg, [[: and moving either Image:Palpatine1.jpg or Image:Emperor Palpatine DVD Empire Strikes Back.jpeg up to the infobox.
  2. The fair-use screenshots need to indicate which movie they're from on the image description page.
  3. The fair-use images that remain need to have fair-use rationales.
  4. Get rid of the blow-by-blow descriptions of combat. This is an encyclopedia, not a novel. For example, the third and fourth paragraphs of "Palpatine becomes Emperor" could adequately be summarized as "When Yoda confronted Palpatine, the two fought to a standstill, and Yoda fled".
  5. I'm sure there are other things that need to be fixed.

  --Carnildo 07:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is very hard for me to do, being a Star Wars fan and having editied this article myself before. But, my reasons are:

1. It's been said before, and I'll say it again: length. Length, length, length. Unfortunatly, when you split up an article it isn't much use as featured.
2. I agree with the above user that the article goes into too much detail with the fight scenes, but that's not it. The article gives a detailed synopsis of all of Star Wars. The article should be focusing on Palpatine and him alone. Touch, but do not elaborate, on the other incidents. To use the above example of the Yoda vs. Emperor fight, how about this: Yoda confronts Palpatine, and they fight thier way into the Senate chamber. At this point, both combatant lose thier sabers, so the fight continues with other Force powers. Eventualy, Yoda escapes, and Palpatine orders clone troopers to try to find him, to no avail. Palpatine senses Anakin is in danger. Palpatine goes to Mustafar, where Anakin has suffered severe injury at the hands of Kenobi and the lava. Palpatine rescues his apprentice and gives him his distinctive breathing suit.
3. I do not think this article uses too many pictures, but if you need to eliminate some, sacrifice the less canonical ones from sources other than the movies.

I still think you can do it...there is still good in the article...--HereToHelp (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• There are no "less canonical pictures." They are all in the same continuity. The Wookieepedian 06:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. Take a look at the information on Star Wars canon, right here on Wiki. The ultimate form is considered "G-canon," meaning the content of film. Expanded Universe material is considered secondary and void altogether if it contradicts any material provided by Lucas himself. - AWF

1. • Oppose - The entire article is under a spoiler warning except for the first sentence. This is carrying the concept of spoiler warning to a ridiculous extreme. It should be quite possible to create a non-spoling lead paragraph, at the very least. Furthermore, the basic facts of Palpatine's biography are common knowledge to practically anyone who cares to read this article. Balcer 05:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem has been fixed so I withdraw my oppose vote. Balcer 19:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I disagree. Numerous articles have only the first line or two non-spoilered, and then have an immediate spoiler tag that continues for the whole article. It's impossible to write about the details of a fictional character without giving away spoilers, and even the most basic elements of Palpatine's character can be considered "spoilers", since his very identity is one of the big mysteries of Star Wars. I agree that it's a bit silly (if the entire article is a giant "spoiler", then how can we use a spoiler-warning when really bad spoilers appear in the article, to warn off people who know the basics but not some important details?), but it's also quite standard. -Silence 05:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you consider certain factoids non-spoilers, then I could remove the spoiler warning: a fair summary/introduction. If Palpatine's dual identity as the Sith Lord Darth Sidious is not a spoiler, if taking over the galaxy is not a spoiler, if who kills him and when and where, is not a spoiler, I would be glad to move the spoiler tag further down. --Maru (talk) Contribs 06:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I would simply like to have something like what we have in the Luke Skywalker article, for example. A few sentences at least to indicate the importance of Palpatine as a character. I stand corrected though. The spoiler warning can be carried to even greater extremes: consider Anakin Skywalker.

The reason I am sticking to this point is simple: if this ever becomes a featured article, the lead of the article will be put as an abstract on the Main Page. And surely we cannot put a spoiler warning on the Main Page (at least I have never seen that done). Balcer 07:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Nah, that's nothing to worry about. If we included this on the main page, then we wouldn't worry about spoiler warnings, because our concern would be giving people a taste of the article's info so they'll want to learn more, not protecting people from the very info that we intend to tease them with. I see no problem with having a spoiler warning for almost the entire article itself on the page, and no warning at all on it's main page if it ever appears on the main page, especially considering that while a spoiler warning on an article stays forever, a main page appearance is only a single day's event, and thus shouldn't overly influence the content of every FA article in existence.
• Oh, and I've fixed the Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader articles, in response to your point about the "soft redirect" silliness. :) Let it never be said that Silence isn't an impulsive (and compulsive, and perhaps even repulsive) editor! -Silence 09:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object mostly on length concerns which other people raised above. The EU material should also be better separated from the film material (the cultural awareness gulf between the movies and the EU is really, really big). I do not have high hopes for this article right now, even though I'd like to see a Star Wars article of high standards to which we can then compare the others. Please note that I condensed the Yoda-Palpatine fight scene description as Carnildo suggested (in fact, using Carnildo's words verbatim), and the old description is now back. See this diff. I don't have the time or the patience to wade through the entire edit history, but I would like to offer my personal opinion: just because "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia", we are not freed from the obligation of making it a legible one. Oh, and just to provide a bit of information, remember what David Brin says: The whole Luke-Vader-Emperor scene in Return of the Jedi is IRRELEVANT! It makes absolutely no difference to the success of the rebellion. The only characters who matter a bit in the actual plot climax are the wookie and Lando!" [1] Anville 12:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Anville, from an EU viewpoint Brin is wrong; that objection has been rendered moot by the retconning/addition of Battle Meditation- in essence, the TIE fighters were empowered by the Emperor, and had he not been distracted/killed, would certainly have smoked Calrissian (as you will notice they were doing quite adequately till they crashed themselves). That also goes for the fleet- the Rebel fleet would defintely have been pulped by Executor and associated vessels had the sudden withdrawal of Battle meditation not led to Excecutor crashing into the Death Star II and the fleet panicking. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any basis or source for this? What information ever claims that the Emperor was using "Battle Meditation?" (Especially considering that he was occupied before the battle began to even take place). Frankly, it sounds made up on your behalf. - AWF

Heir to the Empire. Thrawn Trilogy. --Maru (talk) Contribs 13:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• That's why that scene had to happen in the last movie, not the first one. It requires that you care about the specific characters involved to have any tension, since the fate of the universe doesn't in any way rest on what happens in that sequence of events. :) -Silence 12:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Orleans Mint

Self-nomination. I think most of the issues that can be resolved for this page have been resolved. There's no way to get around the "long list at the bottom" unless you just cut that out of the article, which makes no sense, because it's relevant encyclopedic information. Anybody have ideas about how to reference information found in the Min Museum itself? That's honestly the references that need to be added. [posted by Absecon 59 00:14, 25 November 2005]

[See Old nomination]

• Comment. Why didn't you submit this to Peer Review after that was suggested in the previous nomination? This nomination seems to be an attempt to get feedback on how best to handle various problems with the article (like the fact that half of the article is a ridiculously enormous list; note that there's a separate FA for Wikipedia:Featured lists), not an attempt to nominate an article as one of Wikipedia's best. -Silence 04:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: In addition to what Silence says above, Image:NOmintpostcard.jpg appears to be missing. Andrew Levine 04:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is in a poor textual arrangement. The images scatter haphazardly. The long lists at the bottom can be tabulised. It's better off to fix the article, getting things shipshape, before the nomination.

• Object, same reasons as before:
  1. The images Image:1907 NOMintpostcard.jpg has no source information.
  2. The image Image:NO Mint Booklet 2.jpg is claimed as GFDL. However, it appears to be a "slavishly accurate" reproduction of a two-dimensional work, and thus is not eligable for copyright. Further, the subject of the image may be copyrighted, in which case the only possible license terms would be "fair use" (which would be hard to claim, as this image is not essential to the article).
  3. The image Image:NOmintpostcard.jpg is missing.

  --Carnildo 19:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bohuslav Marashek

Bohuslav Marashek. This article should be featured. That's all that needs to be said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.189.40.197 (talk • contribs). [2]

• Object. No references, no images, very short. Please see the featured article criteria -Silence 04:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Images are not actually a requirement for a featured article. — Wackymacs 18:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object per above. You might want to enter it for WP:Peer review for specific suggestions on what can be done. — Wackymacs 18:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrannosaurus rex

Self-nom. (a little bit) This article is very detailed and informative while not being too wordy for non-scientists. Covers scientific debates as well as the T-rex's image in popular culture. Presents all sides of all debates. Article is well-refrenced. The article has had two peer reviews, one recently. Banana04131 18:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support — Wackymacs 19:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Looks comprensive, but I think there should be added something about geographical distribution. Currently you have to read between the lines to find out that fossils are restricted to North America Fornadan (t) 20:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

added a sentance to beginning of Discoveries section (forgot to sign) Banana04131 22:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Last peer review -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment even older peer review just in case. . . Banana04131
• Object All the internet refs need to be footnotes. Also the text refs for the books need to be IDed somehow, perhaps in parenthesis. The T. rex in Jurassic Park section has absolutely no reason to be there, it needs to go. This article has nothing to do with Jurassic Park, thats like using the Great White Shark article to disscuss the shark in Jaws or the RMS Titanic to disscuss the 1997's Titanic. Also Other giant theropods section uses Jurassic Park 3 as an example, again using a film as an example is inappropriate.

Biology has mostly minor style issues. Sometimes it feels like an essay, but since most everything about a dinosaur is speculation its not that big of a deal. I'm mainly concerned with things this sentence in Predator, Scavenger or Both? section: "But why be so well armed if T. rex were a scavenger?", asking a question for it to be answered later in the article is not encyclopedic. I'm not thrilled with the subsection using questions as titles either for the same reason. Its a good article and its close, but not there yet. MechBrowman 03:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• I have renamed the sections so they are not questions, which I disliked as well. I have also removed the Jurassic Park paragraph since it is not needed. I might take a look at copy-editing the Biology section myself a bit later on. — Wackymacs 09:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Sue'sBrain.jpg is tagged as being under the Creative Commons Attribution license, but does not have information on the creator. This is a violation of the license. --Carnildo 07:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Object. While the science is comprehensive, T-rex's image in popular culture is scant. This probably deserves an article of its own (and not just Jurrasic park) with a summary in this article. -- Samuel Wantman 00:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article neglect the "Popular culture" section. And why is there a "Other tyrannosaurids" and "Other giant theropods" sections? shouldn't they respectively belong to Tyrannosauridae and Theropoda? CG 20:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, prose is not clear enough in places. In particular, the second paragraph of Discoveries ("In 2000, there was a controversy regarding its name...") is very opaque to those of us unfamiliar with these matters. Which June were these discoveries made in South Dakota - 1892, 1900, 2000? Exactly how could the 2000 discoveries possibly have caused a fossil named in 1905 to be renamed, if the rules hadn't prevented it anyway? This paragraph needs clarifying badly, and perhaps even rewriting with a clearer, better-organised argument. — Haeleth Talk 21:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, my criticisms from the peer review still stand, also there should be one consistent referencing system applied to the article with the html links in text given full citations for tracability.--nixie 04:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very compreshensive.--Smerk

[edit] Hollaback Girl

Second Gwen Stefani single edited for article nomination. Peer edit occurred here (although it was not very... useful) and has been tidied to the point of over-exhaustion for several users. References are identical to Cool (song), although many song articles fall under the same category when it comes to speaking about charts. Images have been given the appropriate tags, and this leads up to the nomination. If objects are attained, explain why and the issue will be corrected immediately. --Hollow Wilerding 02:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. That's an amazing job! I like mostly the banana in the cover picture... just kidding! Either way, it is quite complete, with graphs and everything, great job! -201.145.88.169 03:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC) This user's first edit. Jkelly 22:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Everyking 05:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sentence The song has an identical drum beat to Tony Basil's number-one single "Mickey", and is also widely known for its repeated usage of the word, "shit". has a few problems: I'd like a source for the first bit, but the second bit is more egregious and needs to be sourced with some kind of evidence that this song's use of shit is "widely-known" (among whom?). Also there's a superfluous comma after "the word" and there's no clear reason why these two bits are part of the same sentence. Other than that, the article looks good, but I haven't had time to look closely, so I won't vote right now. Tuf-Kat 05:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Your comments have been addressed, corrected, and sourced. --Hollow Wilerding 21:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit other people's comments. I will strike my comment when I feel it has been addressed. It appears all you have done is remove the comma, so my concern still stands. Tuf-Kat 05:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? Then you'd better look at the article, because your ignorance amuses me. --Hollow Wilerding 20:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I regret the error because you also removed the word "widely". Tuf-Kat 04:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I also provided a source for Tony Basil's song sounding identical to Hollaback. --Hollow Wilerding 01:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no source given in the paragraph that makes the claim, so this is insufficient IMO. I'm assuming you're referring to this? That article does not make the claim that the songs have an identical drumbeat (or if it does, I can't find it). It refers to Mickey as a "spiritual antecedent" of Hollaback Girl, but doesn't mention any actual identical aspects. Tuf-Kat

I do not possess magic, and therefore cannot just stumble across a website with an accurate source. Do you want real proof? Then listen to both songs. I am not over-referencing the article. --Hollow Wilerding 13:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. On the right track, but needs significant copyediting for flow and wording. The article has all the right glitz and features for a featured article (not everything can match the glory that is Layla), but the actual writing needs a bit of work; word choice problems and redundancies make reading through the article itself a chore more than a pleasure. Also make it clearer that and why "hollaback" refers directly to cheering, and think about dividing a few paragraphs, like the opening one. Also, in general, I encourage people looking to make FAs not to adhere overmuch to a strict formula, but to allow some different layouts or topics where it benefits the article; the article is almost a carbon copy of Cool (song) (though not quite as comprehensive); I have no problem with very similar articles becoming Featured as long as they're good enough (subject matter doesn't matter!), but we don't want to discourage innovation by suggesting that all articles need to do is fulfill a very limited but rigid checklist. (Even if they do. :P) But anyway: good article! -Silence 06:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's a very comprehensive article and is informative to the brink; I definitely learned something from this article — that there are many charts around the world! Yup, it is certainly deserving of featured article status. --DrippingInk 20:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The images Image:Camera2.jpg, Image:HGR.jpg, Image:Holla6.JPG are tagged as "fair use", but seem to be used for decorative purposes only. This is not allowed under Wikipedia:Fair use, and the images should be removed.
  2. The image Image:Hollaback Girl music video shot.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but does not have a fair-use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed.
  3. The sound clip Image:Stefani-2004-hollaback-girl.ogg claims to be 30 seconds long. I can't check right now because the Wikipedia image server is acting up, but the file size seems to be about a megabyte larger than normal for a 30-second clip. Could someone check this?

  --Carnildo 22:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

CD covers are allowed to be displayed on Wikipedia. Please do not assume. The others are most certainly "fair use" as they came from a gallery. I also apologize for not adding the correct rationale for the other image; I have now. Also, the sound clip is 30 seconds, so do not assume next time. --Hollow Wilerding 00:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

All images have been corrected properly. --Hollow Wilerding 00:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very good. 64.231.177.76 00:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC) This user's first edit. Jkelly 01:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my first edit. Is there a problem with that? I have edited on Wikipedia before. 64.231.177.76 02:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. --Hollow Wilerding 22:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• I have returned to Wikipedia to make this one final edit. Although I recently departed from the site due to a certain number of users, I find it necessary to at least place a vote on the last article I made an effort to boost up to featured article quality. And here it is, Hollaback Girl. I gladly give this nomination a strong support. Thanks for all of your help Hollow Wilerding. Goodbye and good riddance Wikipedia. --Winnermario 02:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• OBJECTION YOUR HONOR! Mizz Stefani, when you repeatedly claim "I AIN'T NO HOLLABACK GRRRRL!" what you are REALLY saying is that YOU ARE IN FACT A HOLLABACK GRRRRRL! I accuse YOU, Mizz Stefani, of blatant use of a double negative in clear violation of the laws of grammar and logic! I also accuse you of impersonating a cheerleader without a license. But these are only MIZZdemeanor charges, I also accuse you of creating campy, kitchy, poptart crap and felony waste of real talent! Leave songs of Hollaback's ilk to the pop tarts...the Brittanys, Jessicas and X-Tinas of the world because they can't do anything better. But you can. In 5 years few will remember Hollaback and fewer still why they ever liked it. Unlike Toni Basil's Mickey, of which this is a poor "gangsta" rehash. Hoes and Pimps of the jury, Gwen Stefani has made enough money off Hollaback Girl, she dont no be needing (another) featured article for it too. Cool is both a better song and better article. But even it is good...not great. Still, it deserved a pass. Hollaback does'nt. The Prostitution rests, your honor.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Your objection is not actionable and is therefore invalid. Please give a specific, fixable reason for objecting. Tuf-Kat 05:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it is a Fancruft article about a sucky song....that is not actionable. But my objection is still valid. A featured article should represent the BEST of Wikipedia. This clearly fails on that score.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I quote the very page we're voting on: "If you oppose a nomination, write "Object" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." Until you cite a specific, fixable problem with the article, I don't see how your vote can be accepted. Almost all of your complaints relate entirely to subject matter (which doesn't matter! if we can have a Featured Article on All your base are belong to us, we can have one on "Hollaback Girl", regardless of the song's quality), and the few that actually relate to the specific article in question are far too vague to be in any way helpful, alluding to its not "representing the BEST of Wikipedia" and being "fancruft" and its not being as good of an article as Cool (song), all without mentioning a single actual aspect of the article that's substandard!

The point of the Featured Article system is not just to show off and compliment ourselves over how awesome our articles are, but, more importantly, to improve all of our articles; that's why we don't lock articles when they appear on the main page. FA is only one of many sneaky tricks Wikipedia uses to motivate people into improving articles; thus our chief focus should always be on how best to improve this article, whether we think it's FA-worthy at this stage in its development or not. Terrible subjects still deserve good articles. -Silence 11:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The song has an identical drum beat to Tony Basil's number-one single "Mickey", and is also known for its repeated usage of the word "shit". There...is that specific enough. So it rips off Mickey and she says shit a lot. And this should be on the main page WHY? How does this help Wikipedia's reputation as a SERIOUS REFERENCE SOURCE, when this sort of thing makes it to the front cuz all da kidz think it be cool, while better written articles on much more obscure and complex topics are rejected. Not that I don't think there should be no place for Fancruft, I'm very much an inclusionist, just not everyother day on the frontpage. Also, I hardly consider THIS to be a valid reference. ESPECIALLY for something so important as the inspiration for the song. Article improvement is what PEER REVIEW should be for. By the time an article reaches here, there should be only minor qualms left to address. "All your base" was a more obscure, in-joke among the online gaming community which went mainstream when Something Awful got ahold of it. A much more obscure and interesting phenomenon, at least to my mind, than how many copies of Hollaback Girl were bought in Boswana. "This shit is bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S!" --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Your vote is invalid and will not be counted towards. --Hollow Wilerding 20:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Your invalidation of my objection is invalid. It is not your place to decide since, 1) You are not a bureaucrat. 2) As one of the article's main contributors, your bias would disqualify you if you were. It's like unto the defendant in a trial, declaring a witness against him out of order. But if you want specific objections, fine...I object as per Leithp's comments below, and also those of Tsavage and FuriousFreddy. A shallow treatment of a shallow song. So what if it sold a shitload of bananas....that is commerce NOT art.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't take your vote seriously and you don't "...object as per Leithp's comments below..." because those aren't your reasons — your reasons are because you despise the song. But your vote is still appreciated nonetheless (I think?). --Hollow Wilerding 22:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

That's niz, because I don't take your article seriously for a featured candidate. However, if you move to address some of the objections below, I might, just might, change my vote to weak oppose or even neutral if you do an especially good job.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's a point I raised on Talk:Cool (song), but it applies here as well. I'd like to see a mention of the musicians who played on the song, or at the very least some indication of what instruments were played. Was it all done with synths? How is it performed live? What's Pharrell Williams' credit here, is he credited with the music and Stefani with the lyrics? I guess what I'm saying here is that I'd like more detail about the actual craft that went into creating the song, until then I don't really see how it can be called comprehensive. Leithp (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

On a different note, why is the Icelandic chart position listed but not the French or Japanese? Was it released in these countries? Leithp (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand the point that you are raising, however there can only be so much investigation on this article. I have searched for musicians on various websites, but have found nothing, unfortunately. The only place I can think of where the musicians would be credited is on the actual album itself, but I am not going to go out and purchase it just to credit some people.

In addition, the Icelandic position is mentioned because the song reached number one in Iceland. I am unaware of the French and Japanese chart positions, and even if I did know them, you might oppose because I don't have the New Zealand or Spanish chart positions. This would lead way on to way, and the article would virtually have every chart position in the world listed. That would be quite... complex. --Hollow Wilerding 20:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out your reasoning for objection. What you have stated is what you want to see in the article, but what does it actually have to do with the article as a whole right now? --Hollow Wilerding 21:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm objecting because it doesn't meet the criteria in my opinion. Specifically it it fails to "cover the topic in its entirety" or "not neglect any major facts or details". I can see it would be time-consuming to gather this information, but writing a good FA is necessarily hard work. Leithp (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

And for the record I think that it is definitely one of the better Wiki-pages, but it just falls short of being a FA because of the lack of this information. Cool (song) has the same problem, in my opinion. Leithp (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but unfortunately I cannot meet with your expectations. They are beyond my reach. Thanks for voting anyway. --Hollow Wilerding 21:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

WRT the comments below asking objectors to review the article again, I have now done so. I'm afraid that I still don't think it addresses my points above so my objection still stands. Leithp (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Grammatical and spelling errors in the first two sentences, for a start. Also:

• Writing style is poor, often stilted. verbose and repetitive, e.g. Stefani gained inspiration for writing "Hollaback Girl" when Courtney Love disparagingly called her the music industry's "cheerleader". When Stefani was asked about how she attained inspiration for writing "Hollaback Girl", she responded without the mentioning of Love's name, "The song came about after somebody once called me a cheerleader in a negative light.

The error has been corrected. --Hollow Wilerding 21:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Much smoother-reading overall, but still a little rough. Eg: awkward sentence in first para, "The song's musical style,..."; "Stefani had worked with The Neptunes in the early stages of work on her album", etc. --Tsavage 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Unclear sentence: "Due to the lack of seriousness in the article, however, its meaning is ignored." What is "lack of seriousness"? Is it the reviewer's analysis that is being ignored? If so, who's doing the ignoring?
• Number formatting is uneven in chart positions, e.g. number eighty-two, etc. Dunno if there's a Wikipedia standard, but as in other articles, numerical notation is more readable, #82, Top 10, etc. --Tsavage 23:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Overly long for the information presented, due in good part to the previous point: repetitive writing.

Repetitive writing has been removed. --Hollow Wilerding 21:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Incomplete (for what is presumably intended as in-depth coverage), i.e. What about the production: musicians and studio techniques? What about marketing: how was the song promoted? And so forth. Many of what have come to be common considerations in pop music are not addressed. (this objection now specified in actionable terms below)

I am incapable of meeting these expectations. I apologize. --Hollow Wilerding 21:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, then, for this round of consensus building, my "incomplete" objection requires these three things at minimum in order for it to be struck:

• Musical description: At least a basic technical musical description of the song structure and the (original) recording.
• Club play history: At least a paragraph on how the single did in the clubs; unlike for older singles (like, um, "Layla"), Dancefloor DJ action, including remixes/remixers, is a critical aspect of most pop hits today, one that is still not that well reported in mainstream media, but is a significant aspect of the song's history. In this case, since it actually scored on the Club charts, all the more so.
• The first commercial availability date for the song should be included (which I imagine would be the US album release date in 2004, since the single came out after the LP?). --Tsavage 00:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The dance club paragraph has been added. The first sentence in the lead section explains that the album came out in 2004, and a subsequent sentence in the lead says when the single was released. --Hollow Wilerding 02:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Lots more, if required... --Tsavage 17:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

In regard to the above objection by User:Leithp (concerning chart positions), it is basically impossible to include every aspect of the song in one simple article. Take a look at Cool (song). It attained featured article status without production, marketing, studio coverage, etc. Some Beatles song articles don't have all of that information included in them either; and as I mentioned beforehand, it's not possible to find every small detail about the song on the internet. Also, please refer to There is no such thing as a perfect article. --Hollow Wilerding 20:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, and most sincerely, no insult intended, but I just took a look at "Cool", and, um, jeeze. That's a Featured Article? It is essentially an extended, two-sides-in-one, digital version of an old school baseball card. And this "Hollaback Girl" article is a clone (as in, fill in the blanks) of that one. By these criteria, there could be a line-up of zillions of songs under consideration for Featured Article. I read the occasional featured article (from the main page), but I only happened to stumble on the selection process today. I guess "featured" simply means of merit unto itself as an article, and not a judgement of the quality of the subject (e.g. the value of the song)... OK, fine (even when it comes to...songs), still, given the staggering number of singles that could become candidates for standalone article status, and hence to featured consideration, "comprehensive" ought to be pretty central to the selection process. Which would mean all sorts of intense detail. Happy studio accidents, the genesis of the song in the songwriter's head, the gear, the references, the anecdotes, ALL OF THAT. A SONG article, to be FEATURED, should read like you never, ever want to know another bit of background on that song, or maybe ANY song, ever again. In a good way. Exhaustive AND compelling. :) At least, NOT just a superficial compilation of stats, lists, media trivia, and promo pics,... IMHO. And really, no insult to anyone intended. --Tsavage 23:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed. See Layla for an example of a featured song article Wikipedia can actually be proud of. Of course, it's clear why more recent song articles focus almost entirely on the hype surrounding the song, on the chart values and music video and publicity rather than on the song itself: because they're new and shiny, without the weight of history to give any real analysis or retrospective insight into them. And they probably won't ever have much of that weight of history to give more insight into the background and inner workings of the songs, because they're passing fads, the type of article that would never be a fifth as long if Wikipedia came into existence two years from now and as much time was given for people to work on these articles. It's a dangerous bias, because it strikes currently trends and songs like a whirlwind, then leaves them untended to ever after. Of course, subject matter shouldn't matter in deciding; if it's noteworthy enough to have an article, it's noteworthy enough to have a featured article. But quality must be evaluated very strictly, especially since most of this information is the kind of stuff that a single Google search can discern; Wikipedia's job is to inform people about things they don't already know, not just to parrot common knowledge and regurgitate popular culture sludge into the hungry mouths of the masses. -Silence 23:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Never have I seen such intolerable behaviour — and you don't just hear this coming from the mouth (fingers, whatever) of a teacher. If you honestly believe that the work I have accomplished is not worthy of featured article status, then so be it. Production, marketing, production is all part of what you want to see and is certainly not what I look for in a featured song. I've already mentioned the fact that I am incapable of locating production, blah blah blah. Google is not as convienent as some assume, and that's final. I am no longer editing this article. --Hollow Wilerding 00:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hollow Wilerding, ignore those users. What they've said is utter POV and is... just plain asinine. "Hollaback Girl" is certainly featured article-worthy and I am going to help you achieve this. Although the article may fail the first time, believe me, right after is failure it is coming straight back here. The article is comprehensive, informative and detailed. It's also rather classy. And you've got to remember, not everything can match the glory that is Cool (song)! ;) --DrippingInk 00:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, User:DrippingInk! Not everything can match what is Cool! Not even Layla! I'm not going to give up. --Hollow Wilerding 00:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hollow Wilerding As it stands now, I think it's a good article, "better" than maybe the majority of the 800K+ other articles in Wikipedia. My objection, however, is not likely to be crossed out (and I believe it can stand, per the rules, on the specific points brought up, particularly, on the issue of comprehensiveness, which is really a matter of opinion). For the first time, I took a look at the Music contingent of Featured Articles. Yeah, so much Beatles is (personally) annoying. On the other hand, MERIT IS NOT A CRITERION, right? My reasoning/feeling is this, though. Featured Articles, as they stand now, recognize work that is above the average, which implies that non-featured articles are of an inferior quality. Ideally, at least tens or hundreds of thousands of the 800K articles should be of FA status (not just a few hundred), else, we're formally acknowledging that most of the encyclopedia isn't too hot. So FAs function as a rewards system for improved article quality. But they also highlight certain articles, and that affects perceptions and the overall presentation of Wikipedia. Quite conceivably, we could have 10 or 20 recent music hits dominating the FA Music section, and that would be "wrong", it would create an imbalance, as far as a content-representaive highlights page, that would then probably require adjusting the FA criteria to fix. Like maybe creating an FA fast track process, so more FAs are approved quicker... Or introducing a topical value standard. (And I'm NOT attacking this artist or this song!) Perhaps some of the objections here are part of the beginning of that process. Whatever, point is, at this point, I don't agree that "Hollaback Girl" should be an FA, and I have FA-acceptable reasons for that, even if other reasons also exist. From Wikipedia's own words-to-wiki-by, "this is not a democracy" and "this is not a system of law", it's about consensus. Thanks for the note on my User page, and as for the article, uh, good job! --Tsavage 17:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Quite conceivably, we could have 10 or 20 recent music hits dominating the FA Music section, and that would be "wrong", it would create an imbalance, as far as a content-representaive highlights page, that would then probably require adjusting the FA criteria to fix." - I literally could not disagree with you more.

• OK. --Tsavage 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• If there are too many Featured Articles in a certain field, does that mean that the FA process is broken? Of course not! It means that our editors are making certain types of articles higher-quality than other types of articles, a reflection of the biases of the talented and dedicated editors on Wikipedia! If we changed our FA standards to try to balance out the number of FAs from each particular subject of time period or whatever, the only result would be that "FA" would no longer be a remotely accurate representative of the best work of Wikipedia, since it would be easier for a lower-quality article to become FAd in a less-frequented subject on Wikipedia (like ancient Greek history) than for a higher-quality article to become FAd in a heavily-frequented subject on Wikipedia (popular culture stuff, etc.). This wouldn't be actually fixing the editorial bias, it would just be blinding ourselves to it, plugging up our ears and yelling "LALALALA!" and hoping the problem disappears if we pretend it's not there, changing the rules around the specific articles they apply to so that while the articles look relatively balanced, in reality there's a quality gap between one type of article and another!

• Huh? That only makes sense if FA is actually considering the best articles currently on Wikipedia, as opposed to only the best articles nominated for FA... --Tsavage 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• The only possible way the "Featured Article" qualifications could be flawed and require fixing is if they didn't go to articles as accurately, fairly, and consistently as possible. The subject matter or topic of Featured Articles should never make any difference toward FA policy or towards any specific article becoming Featured! Quality alone should be what matters, and meeting all the necessary criteria. If this is what the FA system is doing currently, or close enough to it, then the FA system is a very useful way of gauging which articles actually are better than others, and seeing the biases in Wikipedia towards making certain article's extremely high-quality while others are left merely good (or not even that, in many cases!). If this is not what the FA system is doing currently, then it needs to be fixed.

• Uh, see above. --Tsavage 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• The only possible bias towards "quality needed to become an FA" that I could ever see as acceptable would be a bias based on the importance of the subject—i.e., for Jesus or George W. Bush or Hugo Chávez to become an FA, it would have to meet much higher standards than an FA on the government of Maryland or the octopus card or Cool (song). However, this should solely reflect how important it is for high-profile articles to be especially high-quality, and should never reflect any sort of preference for one based on how popular that subject is among editors or how high-quality that subject tends to be in general. As soon as we do that, the FA system becomes entirely meaningless, an illusion that Wikipedia is unbiased when it really is quite biased indeed—and this most be solved through focusing the efforts of the editors more and more on improving neglected article topics, not by changing the system itself to ignore Wikipedia's very real and prevalent biases.

• Eh? So a "less 'important'" or "less high-profile" topic (by whatever commmonly understood standard, like, "Jesus" is important) could be of lower quality to qualify for FA? Didn't you just say that changing the rules around the specific articles is a bad thing? --Tsavage 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• "I don't agree that "Hollaback Girl" should be an FA" — Another point where we disagree 100%. I think that Hollaback Girl should be an FA. I think that every article that is capable of it should be an FA. As soon as it's good enough to qualify as one. I'd support this article in a heartbeat if I thought that it was good enough to meet all the FA criteria. If you're saying that you wouldn't, then you need to seriously reconsider your qualifications for FA status, and remember that no article subject matter is unworthy of having an exceedingly well-written article made about it, no matter how inane that subject matter is. -Silence 19:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I was speaking to Hollow! No, of course, you're right. FA has its rules, and I should think within them. FA is a great bootstrapping mechanism for getting quality up in all 800K articles, one at a time! I have amended my specific objections and am more likely than ever before to change my mind! Though I don't think I'll end up the hold-out, one way or another... ;) --Tsavage 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, amid all of this talk about featured article fields, I have expanded the article somewhat to meet some of your objections, specifically the "composition and meaning". Although I did not add anything about the musical instrumental, I evolved the creation and process of the lyrics'f materialisation. Hope you choose to support, and also, the English has been cleaned, another complaint that was recently brought up about its dysfunctional flow. --Hollow Wilerding 19:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object until all above objections have been satisfied. Cannot expect that every Gwen article will automatically be featured now because Cool was. Harro5 20:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I have corrected the majority of the objections but cannot touch upon User:Leithp's, or some of User:Tsavage's as they are beyond my efforts. Is there anything else that could be done in place? --Hollow Wilerding 21:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. After reading the entire article, there are many instances of akward writing. I pointed out one as an example on Hollow Wilerding's talk page, but there are many others as well. The article needs to be basically revised. Also, most of the article is devoted to chart analysis and a scene-by-scene description of the music video, which, as I have expressed in reference to similar articles on pop songs, is padding when it takes up most of the page on its own. It makes the article(s) read more like a Universal Music marketing report rather than an encyclopedia article. More information on the song's influences (for example ,what hip-hop songs it derives elements from, how it compares not only with other Stefani songs, but with other Neptunes-produced songs, since the Neptunes have a distinctive production style), and more background information. --FuriousFreddy 22:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This article's nomination is over. Due to some of the comments made above, my faith and devotion is lost. --Hollow Wilerding 00:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not over 'til it's over. Why not keep trying? --FuriousFreddy 00:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Above comments made by User:Silence and User:Tsavage have made me lose faith. But then, I am one of the only Gwen Stefani fans on Wikipedia, and this is evident because of the two nominations both Cool (song) and Hollaback Girl went through and are going through. I mean, honestly, what is the only reason so many Beatles songs are featured articles? That's right; because there are multiple numbers of fans contributing to those articles. Yet they call out the work done by only two or three people. Rather inhumane, no? --Hollow Wilerding 00:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I have made all the edits possible to correct objections at this nomination. Truly I have. --Hollow Wilerding 01:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

How odd. I had no trouble removing the excess non-free images. --Carnildo 05:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The images have been replaced. Three of them anyway. --Hollow Wilerding 20:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I figured they would be. That's why I didn't withdraw that part of my objection. --Carnildo 00:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, because the tags have been provided. The CD single cover of the dance remix is under fair use for obvious reasons. If it shouldn't be there, neither should the actual cover of the single. The two music videos readded are tagged appropriately, with similar fair use claims. I don't really see why Wikipedia is so strict about the image policies. Personally it pushes the limit. --Hollow Wilerding 01:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I have made several English edits and corrected the unusual grammar and juncture in certain places. Does anyone care to withdraw their objection? Also, both images have been tagged under fair-use rationale, with very specific observations noted. Feedback is welcome. Thanks! --Hollow Wilerding 14:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet even more revisions have been made to the article. I have expanded the "Composition and meaning" portion of the article, which I do hope pleases some of the opposers. It may not be about the music itself, but it is about the writing, which does play a major role in the completion (and exploration) of a song. --Hollow Wilerding 19:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I have made another edit to the image rationale, but no one seems to be addressing their vote. As the nomination advisor, I do not want this vote to result negatively because no one returned to view the changes that have been made. --Hollow Wilerding 21:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• I still don't see anything to convince me that more than one screenshot from the music video is needed. Pick one that's most representative.
• I don't see any reason to include every CD cover that the single's been released under. Unless there's a compelling reason to show more than one (for example, the alternate titles of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone), just show the one for the original release.

--Carnildo 07:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to get rather vexed with User:Carnildo. He is not opposing against the article, its writing and NPOV, etc., etc. He's opposing because of the images. I'd really rather there be a relevant reason to object. Cool (song) has three music video images, but since Hollaback Girl has no real story behind its materialisation, two images is suited here. Fine, I will remove one CD single image. Then can you please address your vote? It would be much appreciated on all levels. --Hollow Wilerding 13:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone going to return to address the changes (and perhaps their vote) to the article? --Hollow Wilerding

• Comment: User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine): your opposition based on the subject matter rather than the quality of the article itself is without merit, is not actionable, and as per the procedure of this page is irrelevant and will be ignored. I personally agree with you about the song's merits: it's awful. However, featured articles are not about whether we like the subject, nor whether we think the subject is important enough to be featured, or whether we think it would be 'embarassing' to have an article on such a subject featured. Nor is it a valid objection to say that a certain subject has been featured 'too much' and thus another article under the same topic shouldn't be. User:Hollow Wilerding: User:Carnildo is seeking to have a potential featured article's images pass a stringent level of fair use defence, yet even so, less of a one than they would have to pass should the copyright owners sue us. Wikipedia's policies on fair use images is clear: they should only be used when absolutely necessary. It is appropriate, indeed necessary, to argue against the inclusion of any fair use image on a potential Featured article. Only if justified, should they be included. It is not a good defense to say "But before, you guys weren't as strict". It's not about you, it's about the FAC criteria getting tougher, as they should. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for pointing this out. My apologies to User:Carnildo. --Hollow Wilerding 00:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Long enough article by featured article standard, a little long by music single article standards. Overall though, definetly featured article material. B1oody8romance7 04:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Your support is greatly appreciated as none of the above opposers will address their vote now that their complaints have been corrected. Thank you muchly. --Hollow Wilerding 21:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Céline Dion

Self-Nomination. This article has come a very long way. I mean, a VERY long way. I discovered it in the summer, and was appalled at its state, so I decided to improve it (even though school got in the way). Ive worked laboriously, seeking the help of User:Mel Etitis and User:Extraordinary Machine, both of whom have provided valuable feedback. It was also submitted for peer review, (though only two users replied--User:Jkelly and the aforementioned User:EM). Here is the article before the others and I got to it: Celine Dion in August, and here is the finished product: Céline Dion. I think it displays one of Wiki's best work as it's comprehensively written and meets all the FA criteria. If you disagree, please provide constructive criticism and I will be sure to address them and resubmitt. Thanks Θrǎne (t) (c) (e-mail) 19:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. C'est magnifique! However, there are some consistency issues: francophone and anglophone are written in the article with both capitalised and uncapitalised initial letters.--cj | talk 00:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work. Balcer 01:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Enchanting article. Although I would advise you to place the "External links" section at the very bottom. Amazing work! --Hollow Wilerding 01:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks very much. I would put external links at the bottom, but according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), "notes' should be at the bottom. Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) ^{Make Céline Dion a FA!} 01:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, really? I did not know this. Then that's fine. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Good job! --Hollow Wilerding 02:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment Learn something new every day. I didn't know that either. Jkelly 03:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I too was surprised to learn this. I've posted a comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (headings) asking about it. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The article is better than most of her songs, really. :) Halibutt 02:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Objections: 1. Most of the images lack detailed fair use rationales. 2. I respect Stephen Thomas Erlewine, but there is far too much dependence on his and other All Music editors' reviews. 3. Focuses far too much on dry awards and sales information with only vague notions of the interesting aspects: What does her music sound like? How has it progressed between albums? What themes do her lyrics cover? What is the recording process for her albums like? What musicians does she work with on the recordings? Article also appears to not mention what label(s) she's been signed to and how they've worked out. 4. Lead section is choppy and needs to be tightened -- listing every specific award she's won and the year she won it isn't particuarly effective in hooking the reader to read the rest of the article. 5. Many albums aren't linked to, I assume because it would create glaring red links throughout the article. If that's the case then why not create stubs for them? 6. For discography section, suggest not listing compilations and the like, focusing only on her main albums, and save the rest for the discography page. —jiy (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feed back. I will address those concerns posthaste. I also encourage anyone to help. 1) For the images, would you specify which ones in particular? 2)I know that the article focuses on AMG reviews, but that site is one of the most authoritative for reviews. And even if you search the net and find reviews, at the end of each would read ...All Music Guide. Ive tried incorporating Rolling Stones (they have only reviewed one of her albums), and Amazon.com Editorial reviews (which sometimes borrow from AMG.) 3)Now that you mention it, the article could talk more about her themes etc. However, most of her collaborations are listed in the article (or the ones worth noting), but thanks for pointing that out. 4) The article does mention her label (Columbia)-- as early as the lead section. 5)The lead section isnt the greatest, but its not choppy. I think its a matter of personal style, (that especially why there's no such thing as a perfect article) Again, thanks. Hopefully, my changes will persuade you to change your vote. Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) ^{Make Céline Dion a FA!} 03:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• No vote, but for a performer who so many people find bland and artificial, especially in her English-language material, you would think from this article that she was a critics' darling, which on the whole she is not. -- 08:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• support but not strongly yet.. good article to read / excellent referencing, easily better than many existing FAs but probably the previous vote is right that more negative responses to her work should be included. Mozzerati 21:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very encyclopedic. Has someone fact checked all the information? Wikipedia needs articles of this quality on all major people so we're not caught flat-footed when they're above the fold news.--FloNight 22:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the votes. Just to let you guys know, Im wroking on addressing the concerns of User:Jiy. Any help would be appreciated. I will also include more negative comments to balance it out. Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) ^{Make Céline Dion a FA!} 22:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support --User:UrineForGas 15:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support--compelling article. Most of the issues that User:Jiy had problems with seems to have been addressed. I think that it's a great article. Khalif 20:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, I think jiy's points are well-taken and most of the issues have not been adequately addressed to this point. Relying on Allmusic blurbs for critical perspective is like quoting from Amazon staff reviews; this is not the stuff of a serious encyclopedia. This is part of why the article fails to synthesize its material so as to allow the reader to evaluate her career, instead filling out primarily with awards, chart positions (CHR Audience Chart? BDS era? What are we talking about here?), and gossipy personal factoids. The fact that the authors seem ignorant of the difference between Rolling Stone and (The) Rolling Stones is symptomatic of the problem. For somebody with an extended career that has received a tremendous amount of media coverage, there's a large pool available of significant, generally professional, critical material with both positive and negative assessments (hint: not all of it is available online). This article barely dips a finger into it. --Michael Snow 21:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object After reading the article I can't but agree with the anon's and Michael's objections above. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 02:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There's far too much overreliance on AllMusicGuide and Amazon staff reviews to give any really deep sense of critical reception, especially for a singer with a strong reputation for producing bland schlock. 90% of it reads like it was written by her publicist, and the other 10% like it was written by the staff of People magazine. Andrew Levine 18:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, as per Michael. Give us more meat in the references and notes sections. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, I understand all of the comments, but the people magazine thing was a stretch. Ive really worked hard on the article, and none of the constructive comments seem to point out anything good about the article i.e. what should stay/what works etc, then go on to what's bad, poor ect. Now, Im not angry or anything (in fact, Im far from that), but I beleieve that you could be a little more sensitive. Now, on to more important matters: I know that the all music guide references are a stretch, and Ill remove them, and find other ones. (Again, I ask for help). Maybe the article was prematurely nominated, I dont know. Anyway, there were some who thought that it was excellent, or atleast, very good.

Also, why does everyone think that Dion makes mediocre music (User:Andrew Levine and others)? The lady has won five Grammys. Can mediocre music win Best Pop album, Best pop vocals,(twice), and the most coveted Album of the year and Record of the year awards?. I really don't think that theres much pov in the article. Before the 2000s, Dion did make good music (as can be shown by her awards→Grammys etc), she does have a good voice (shown in the fact that she was voted as the 9th greatest voice in popular music, and the 4th most outstanding pop vocalist on earth). And please dont be against the inclusion of album sales in the article, its shows the fan's reaction (popularity), just as how the reviews show the critical reaction. I agree that since the millennium, she had lost her spark (for lack of a better word), and she has gotten unfavourable reviews. Ive included all this in the article: Rolling Stone reviewer calling her music "schlock pop". Ive used quotes that proves that her album/singles are "uninspiring", "lifeless", disastrous , "forgettable" "predictable", "inconsistent" and a host of other words. The fact remains, however, that she is not as loathed by the critics as you want the article to potrey.

Ill see what I can do. And i would encourage people to give other ideas of how it can be improved (instead of joining the band wagon by saying as per Michael ...) Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) ^{Make Céline Dion a FA!} 22:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you regard the criticisms of the article as insensitive to your efforts. But we have to be firm and rationale here. Let's face it, the article needs more research. There's nothing wrong with that -- featured articles should not be rushed.

Maybe a different approach is needed for addressing the article's critical eye. Critical perspective is not a simple matter of seeking a representative for each extreme and quoting them. Perhaps a broader perspective could be achieved by reading multiple reviews and extracting the common criticisms and accolades between them, then formulating it into prose. It is not a matter of just "good" and "bad", either, but also how her work fits into the overall framework of music. Industry awards and sales figures are not indicative of artistic worth, and the reader cannot infer worth from these aspects alone.

Before things get too far out of perspective, though, we must keep in mind the critical side is not the only aspect to focus on. There are no interviews (in other words primary sources) in the reference section. Surely a more detailed and accurate picture of this woman and her career, in terms of biography and history, can be extrapolated from the various interviews that have accumulated over the years. By using VH1 and fansite biographies for this purpose -- secondary sources -- we are basically summarizing summaries. Perspective, detail, and accuracy is lost in this way.—jiy (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I voted as I did because Michael said what I thought. FAC is a process that relies on consensus, and if I did not voice my agreement with Michael, it would be as if only Michael felt that way, which would increase the likelihood of the article being promoted without our concerns being addressed. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thats totally understandable. Sorry for the outburst . like I said, Im not angry :). Now, come to think of it, the article could use some improvement, I been rereading it (especially the last part) and Im not too happy with it. Im gonna make sure that it does reach FA status. Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) 04:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support, because the article is very well thought out! 64.231.163.172 23:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Good article, lots of information. Terenceong1992 17:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. A very good article, but could use a good deal of expansion before it satisfies the "comprehensive" requirement. Could also use a good copyedit, lots of strange word choices like "Though her albums were relatively successful, it seemed as if Dion had already reached her plateau since the late 1990s, and her albums failed to really ignite critics and fans." Is this saying that Dion is living on a plateau because of the existence of the late 1990s, presumably to hide from prosecution for setting her critics and fans on fire? Less casual and vaguely POVed terms in general will help give the article that extra inch it needs for FA. -Silence 21:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object Reads quite well, long but there's a lot to cover. My two specific objections echo some of the objections above:

• Almost no coverage of Dion's MUSIC. After a brief mention of her genre influences, the rest is mainly the critical and sales performance of her recordings, and other details of her personal and business life. There is nothing about her actual singing: her voice and her approach to making music. As it is now, I suppose this format represents one type of "accepted" music biography, but I don't think that's enough of a reason to promote it as a Wikipedia standard, not if it could clearly be improved as far as comprehensiveness. For example, on Wikipedia, I looked up the first dozen or so names of popular musicians and singers that came to mind, and found among them two articles which do attempt to treat the music; neither are very well done, but I think they illustrate the missing dimension that should be a part of all MUSIC articles...coverage directly related to the music itself: Billie Holliday, The Edge.
• Over-reliance on AMG and use of Amazon.com. - If critics are to be quoted, there should be a reasonably representative variety of sources, not almost exclusively one writer from one source. Using Amazon.com as a source of critical reviews doesn't seem right, as these reviews appear on the pages devoted to selling the product that they are covering...

• Comment: I heavily disagree with this specific part of your objection. There is no rule on Wikipedia that states "articles must have reviews from various music/film/food etc. critics". As long as there is a review featured from a specific source, the story is settled, and it adds to the article. Having "over-reliance" on certain reviewers is a POV-reason to object. However, I partially agree with your other objections, though this article already meets FA status in my eyes. —Hollow Wilerding 23:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

--Tsavage 21:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Ive addressed many of the concerns that arose from the article. Ive removed the superfluous A.M.G reviews, and I found some other reviews, Ive spoken about her music, and the transition of her albums, the instruments used etc (and removed most of the dry awards and sales). Ive linked the albums, provided firuse rationales for each image, oh, and the Intro is changed a bit. Ive used the Kylie Minogue article (a featured article) as a model for this one. Does anything need further attention? Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) 03:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1997 Pacific hurricane season

previous FAC

[edit] Delrina

• Self-nomination. A fairly exhaustive article on the company that was best known for being the creator of the original WinFax product, but influential in many other fields. It is well researched and backed by appropriate references, and contains information not collected together in a cohesive format anywhere else that I have been able to find. Have found interesting and representative screen and product shots to illustrate the article. Has already gone through a peer review and have plugged most of the more-pertinent dead links, as well as other suggestions. It is what I hope is an interesting slice of software corporate history, for which there are not too many examples on Wikipedia (at least when it comes to "dead" companies). - Captmondo 00:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very well done. The only quibble I have is the large amount of red links around the second half of the article; having those cleaned up would be nice. Otherwise, excellent work! The Catfish 03:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose. Good-looking article I'd be happy to support if it had some citations to printed works, e.g. articles in the business press. PedanticallySpeaking 16:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • A point I hadn't considered, and I can see the point. Ideally a range of sources is a good thing, not just those found on the Web. Guess I'll have to head down to the reference library sometime soon and brush up on my microfiche-reader skills... ;-) Captmondo 22:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • But in this modern age, printed works are searchable on the web! Try Google Print... I've only glanced at the results, and they're not all relevant, but you may be able to tease some citations out of there. — Haeleth Talk 23:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the suggestion Haeleth! Have managed to find about four *relevant* print links, which I will be adding to the article in due course. I was really surprised, since I doubted very much that there was much out there that wasn't strictly product focused that would be in print. Captmondo 10:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Done. Print references now provided. Captmondo 03:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A fully-written article on a relatively significant company. Amazing that the company was essentially based in my backyard, and I used their products, yet I've never really heard of them. This article just helps to prove my ignorance! -- user:zanimum

• Object I think it's a great article for content. It seems to provide a thorough profile of a notable software company. But I have two points:

Writing needs cleaning up - Overall, it's OK for readability, but there is quite a bit of loose construction: a couple of typos, word redundancy, etc. The whole thing needs a once over, and particularly the lead paragraph should be tighter.. Examples of sloppy construction:

• Over time, parts of the company would be sold, such as the sale of Delrina's Group Electronic Forms Division to JetForm in September 1996.
• Other than WinFax, perhaps the other best known product Delrina released was its series of screensavers products. The original purpose of any screensaver product was to ensure that there would be no phosphor burn-in of images left on a CRT based screen of the time, but Delrina added sounds and some interactivity with its series of screensaver products, arguably qualifying it as an early form of multimedia.

Were there any common-industry-knowledge issues/controversies or other negatives associated with Delrina over its history? - I ask because, the flying toasters and Opus aside, this is a notably clean, trouble-free corporate story. Was a decision made to write this strictly on a "business facts" level, omitting other "newsworthy" stuff that may be of interest? For example, big companies like Symantec often bought out smaller competitors or would-be competitors to kill off the competition. Was there controversy around the sale...? Or, was there a notable problem with, say, a version of WinFax that people might remember? I'm not looking for, or expecting "dirt", just wanting to be assured that this isn't a selectively clean version.

--Tsavage 00:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The first point is well-taken -- I am my own worse copyeditor. ;-) The second point is harder though, and while I don't doubt that there was controversy, I couldn't find it. I don't doubt that there were bad reviews and a few problems with the software *are* noted, and the relatively well-known court case over the screensaver is noted. At some point this becomes more an exercise in journalism than in encyclopedian-ism, and in some cases absence of dirt may simply mean that there were none to be found (or at least, that was publicly documented -- this should not be a place for conjecture).

Will spend some more time with this article before resubmitting as a FAC and see what I can find by way of further info, and will try to clean up the text as well. Cheers, and thanks for the constructive criticism. Captmondo 21:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I just skimmed the article again (I read it the first time), and it does seem to be THOROUGH. It's the kind of piece I'd like to find if ever I needed to look up Delrina... Once the copyediting is done, should it be resubmitted to FAC, for what it's worth, I should have no problem with supporting it. Later on... --Tsavage 22:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Volkswagen Beetle

Beetle is a pop culture. Feel free to leave comments. 202.40.210.178 02:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object - No references. Pentawing 02:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - FAC is being taken over by anons nominating unreferenced articles! Help! KingTT 15:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object - No references, several short sections and short paragraphs. Needs a lot of work, refer to WP:Peer review for more comments. — Wackymacs 19:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'd like to help

I would be willing to offer major help with this article. If anyone with a good knowledge of VW and Beetles is willing to work with me, I'd like to contribute all my knowledge and combine to make this article submitable for featured article status. Nick carson 11:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas Corrigan

After peer review and a few subsequent enhancements this seems a complete account of an interesting individual. —Theo (Talk) 17:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Nice article indeed. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object until a fair use rationale is added to Image:Wrong Way Corrigan.jpg. Support. The article is very good: concise and comprehensive. — Haeleth Talk 00:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  I have explained why I believe the newspaper page to be fair use. —Theo (Talk) 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  Thank you. Objection struck. — Haeleth Talk 22:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comments. How/when/why did his name get changed from Clyde to Douglas? Also, I would try to combine or expand sections to avoid one-paragraph sections, although in an article this short, they might be OK. I'm also worried that the shortness of the article may indicate a lack of comprehensiveness, but I don't know enough about the subject to say either way. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  It is my understanding that Clyde Corrigan Jr was called Douglas from childhood and had his name changed legally as an adult. I have expanded the article with additional details in most areas. —Theo

• Theo and all - I am related to Corrigan, being a second cousin twice removed. The name change is indeed fact, although it began much earlier in his life, when his father (Clyde, after whom he was named) deserted the family. His mother informally "changed" his name to Douglas out of disdain. He was probably ten or younger at the time. I have sources for this which I will add to the article, and I will attempt to verify when the actual legal name change took place, if possible. I do not have his autobiography; maybe it states this somewhere? Toniskids 15:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

(Talk) 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support based on a great article which is well-written. I will assume that the image issue will be resolved — InvictaHOG 21:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object Neutral: It's an interesting read, but there must be a lot more to this man than this, to be an FA biography which this is supposed to be it should cover a lot more aspects of his life interesting or not. Regarding the flight, there could be a lot more press details etc. If he had not prepared for such a flight, what condition was he in when he landed, what condition was the aeroplane in. If it took him 23 hours to notice he was going in the wrong direction, how long should the flight have lasted had he been going in the right direction. What's the name of his biography, surely that would answer a few questions and give some material to fill this page out a little more. Giano | talk 18:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Does the expansion just made address your concerns adequately? —Theo (Talk) 20:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• No, I'm afraid it doesn't its still very short and only two images for a man who lived to be 88. Reading between the lines there is a lot more to be told.

1. "The company disapproved of his attitude to risk"
2. "His favourite stunt"
3. "Corrigan moved from job to job"
4. " Corrigan made repeated modifications and reapplications for full certification, but none ::succeeded."
5. "his aircraft was refused renewal of its licence"
6. "Known to be exasperated with official resistance"
7. "he ran for the U.S. Senate as a member of the Prohibition party but was defeated"

It seems the man was a maverick so lets have the full autobiography or rename the page to be solely about his amazing flight. Giano | talk 21:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Taking your points in order:

On the matter of images, I am not sure what his longevity contributes to this. Do you seek images of the man at various stages of his life? Sadly such material is not yet in the public domain and it is hard to argue fair use of multiple images. Similarly, I can find no public domain images of his aircraft.

As for the article's length, I do not know what level you seek. From your numbered comments I think that you want the implicit made explicit. This may be no more than a matter of style but I have respected your opinions elsewhere so I would appreciate your clarification. Specifically:

1. "The company disapproved of his attitude to risk" because he stunted in their aircraft. This was already stated in that paragraph but I have recast it to make this clearer.
2. "His favourite stunt" was there to add colour by showing that he had a repertoire. Listing more of his stunts seems redundant to me. (No, I would like to know what they were, were they dangerous? Irresponsible? Dull? Clever? Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))
3. "Corrigan moved from job to job" has now been clarified to indicate the type of job. Although we can infer that he moved on because he was fired, there are no sources to support this. The sources show that he had several jobs but give no details. (This suggests a transigent, or beligerent personality, there must be written comments on this somewhere Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))
4. " Corrigan made repeated modifications and reapplications for full certification, but none succeeded." This arises from a combination of causes that are implicit in that paragraph: Corrigan was prepared to take greater risks than the authorities could accept and at that time the flying regulations were being tightened constantly. Corrigan's attitude to authority kept him a step beind the flying authorities. Is this not clear from the article? (We are back to his charater again Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))
5. "his aircraft was refused renewal of its licence". See previous comment.
6. "Known to be exasperated with official resistance". What more is it appropriate to say about this? (How did he show this exasperation? Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))
7. "he ran for the U.S. Senate as a member of the Prohibition party but was defeated" seems to me like a full statement. Like many celebrities, Corrigan ran for public office. Original research of political records might reveal why he chose a minor party. (Prohibition Pary? The link tells me little other than a dilike of alchohol, why that party, was he a rabbid teatotaler, or a hypocrite or very religious - it's certainly not the party most of the Irish Catholics of my acquaintance would choose to join - So why? I dont know and this biography should be telling me Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

I do not understand what you mean about the "full autobiography"/ Necessarilly, his autobiography ends at the point that it was written. It is very heavily focused on the flight. (Sorry, that was a slip of the mind I meant biography. Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

—Theo (Talk) 12:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Theo, I have addressed your points in italics for clarity above. For this article to be an FA biography it needs so much more detail and information. What is there is good but limited, it suggests that there is a lot more to tell. He ran for the Prohibition Party. I know nothing of that party - the links suggests abstinence from alcohol was he a rabid teetotaller? like so much not in the page I don't know, and this biography is not telling me. Did no one write an obituary appraising his life at all, it would be odd if no one hadn't, but if there really are no more facts and details available to you, then perhaps this is not a subject for FA - just an interesting, better than many ordinary, page. Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Giano, I have now addressed your objections as far as my sources will allow. I have increased the emphasis on his waywardness and irresponsibility. I can find nothing that portrays him as belligerent: quiet rebellion seems to have been his style, but this is all implicit. Rather than describe his stunt repertoire I have emphasised the inherent risk of such activity. I have attempted to further clarify the reasons for his failure to achieve certification of "Sunshine". His exasperation was expressed in his autobiography so I have made that source explicit within the text. I can find no clue as to why he ran on a Prohibition ticket. The party espoused Right Wing Christian values and advocated state support of Bible reading as well as the more central platform of alcohol prohibition. None of my sources (including his autobiography) allude to his attitude to alcohol or religion. I think that on this point I must acknowledge that your curiosity (and mine) is unlikely to be assuaged and that the article cannot currently mak featured article status until some other source surfaces or his daughters comment publicly. Thank you for all your comments. I am sorry that we end up with an objection that cannot be resolved. I have flagged the article for expansion in this area. —Theo (Talk) 23:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I'm afraid you probably won't find a daughter, as to my knowledge Corrigan had none, only three sons. However, I am a cousin (see above). ;-) His running for office under the Prohibition Party is news to me. However, I do believe I've heard/read that he did indeed have a lifelong distaste for alcohol, and that one of the reasons for this was because his father, who abandoned the family when Corrigan was a young boy, had a drinking problem. However, I have no sources to support this at present, so will not add it to the page. I can say that his paternal grandmother came from a strong Indiana Mennonite (earlier Pennsylvania Dutch) background, and like the Amish, the Mennonites tend to eschew alcohol. Thus, it can be postulated - but not conclusively substantiated - that his religious background and family history may have contributed to his political and personal views and beliefs. Toniskids 15:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object - It a tight, readable article that I'd support, except, I more or less agree with the comment above: it seems a little sparse, both with details of the flight, and about his life apart from his big flight. Case in point, I made some minor additions, like: the name of his autobiography, the name of the plane(!), the fact that the plane travelled with him by ship back to the US. There were some other interesting bits, from other sites, and some discrepancies, that I didn't include because they were one-source, but still, interesting, e.g. he made $75,000 around the trip (for the movie, etc) compared to $50/week as a pilot-mechanic; his plane cost $900 at auction, not the $325 as reported. These may be wrong, but they're out there...

• More important, Corrigan's characterization is underplayed: I read an in-depth article on the flight that painted a more vivid picture of Corrigan as risk taker, which if correct is largely missing here. He liked doing stunts, to the objection of fellow pilots, and had to be officially forbidden by the company he worked for (Ryan, the Spirit of St. Louis builders) to do them. His plane wasn't licensed fly on the trip prior to the crossing (so if that was originially going to be the crossing trip, he'd have been in a plane deemed unsafe to fly), and eventually it was grounded by aviation officials; he only finally managed to get an experimental license (i.e. his plane was just hanging together; another source has his extra fuel tanks as a bunch of gas cans welded to the front of the plane). Then, he developed a gas tank leak on the way to New York, which he didn't fix. That turned into a big leak, he was flying over the Atlantic with an inch of gas in the cockpit, had to punch a hole in the floor with a screwdriver to drain it, and finally revved up to burn fuel faster rather than lose it, reversing his strategy of flying slower to conserve. Also, the same article has him barnstorming, hustling plane rides for cash with his friend on the East Coast (the article talks about running a small town shuttle service). If accurate, this adventurer-wildman aspect should be reflected in the article...
• Later life doesn't seem to be, as the article portrays it, exactly a "simple life": Corrigan tested bombers for the Government during W.W. II and also flew in the U.S. Army Ferry Command. In 1946 he ran for the U.S. Senate on the Prohibition ticket, after which he worked as a commercial pilot--this time for a small California airline. In 1950, he bought a 20-acre orange grove in Santa Ana, Calif., settling down there with his 3 sons and his wife Elizabeth, who died in 1966. - http://www.trivia-library.com/a/where-are-they-now-flying-irishman-douglas-corrigan.htm (Also, the article says it's an 18-acre farm...).

So, some work necessary. --Tsavage 01:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for your extensive and helpful comments. I wish that I had these when I had the article on peer review. I have expanded the article and attempted to address the points that you raise. Fasolino's "in-depth article" was one of my sources; I omitted much of his detail because previous FAs of mine only got there after extensive condensation; I can see that I overdid this and trust that I have now gained a more appropriate balance. I chose the $325 price for the aircraft because that is what he gave in his own book and The People's Almanac has proven unreliable elsewhere. Inconsistently, I have now used their $75,000 earnings figure because it fits with comparable fees for other late thirties movies and news stories (as does $50/week for a mechanic). His wartime experiences were new to me and I am glad to include them. His political failure is born out by other sources. I prefer the 18-acre size because the source for that is a Santa Ana local. I guess that The People's Almanac authors rounded up to a neater number. I hope that you can support the expanded version. —Theo (Talk) 20:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

By me, it's almost there. I struck many of the specifics. I still have a small problem with the writing style. I went through and copyedited a bunch of sentences, which hopefully made things read a little smoother (this is a difficult way to edit, compared to rewriting). What I left in the objections are relatively minor:

• I do wonder still about his apparently short-lived political career. As soon as one mentions political activity, new questions about "what the person was really like?" tend to come up. This is the effect of the very brief Prohibition party mention. If no additional material is available, short of doing personal interviews, it would probably be enough to get basic info on the Party, and also maybe include, "although his personal motivation isn't entirely clear from the records..." That sort of thing. At least knowing what the Party was about gives a clue...
• The Clyde name-change bit (not explicitly mentioned above) also sticks. I see there is a hidden note; perhaps that should be worked into the text. As is, it's a point brought up and left hanging.
• The description of the big flight, and the work-up to it, could probably use a standard rewrite: more paragraphs? rebuilding sentences? It has the feel of a lot of facts strung together so as to be readable, as opposed to a smooth recounting of the events. The information is there to paint the apparently appropriate picture of Corrigan as maverick, but it doesn't quite come across easily, as is. A relatively minor reorganization should do it.

My overall objection is pretty much consistent with Giano's above. However, I don't agree with many of the latest specific points brought up there. I don't think much more need be told in this context. I believe the central editorial point is: Corrigan is an interesting figure, mainly for doing one thing. Perhaps painting him as a "maverick" only by referring briefly to unlicensed flights, forbidden stunts, barnstorming, cobbled-together plane, is too one-dimensional, IF we wanted to know every minute detail of his life; for an encyclopedia article, the level of detail should simply match the subject. "He took some risks, was one of the first to fly across the Atlantic alone in a possibly death-trap plane, and became quite famous (and paid) for his trouble", seems to sum it up, which this article does, giving much additional info with which to assess is life and character before and after, cradle to grave. The more detail that's included here or there, the more the entire article has to be rebalanced, and I don't think that's warranted to the degree suggested by some of Giano's specifics. So, IMO, it's now mainly a couple of points of info and of style. (I checked a few other FA bios, and the type of content varies, as far as balance between personal detail, and accomplishments. Past FAs are not the standard, I know, still, the ones I read were all quite good. Karl Dönitz is perhaps a relevant example, where the article seems to work well, while concentrating almost exclusively on events, with little personal background commentary (although that article might work better with much more personal detail, given his life and, um, crimes...) --Tsavage 16:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was about to go Neutral (which probably wouldn't matter as Giano's objection seems pretty extensive, but I just read this (which is cited in the References), and much of the article here is a pretty close copy of that piece. That perhaps accounts for the stilted flow, as words and phrases have been changed so as not to make it identical, and extra bits of detail inserted, but IMO it's essentially an alteration, not a rewrite. --Tsavage 01:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• For what little it is worth, I can only assert that I did not start from that article or any other single source. I started from the original stubby article, read most of the cited sources (many of which are cross-cited), built the outline and then wrote a first draft. I then did some googling, which turned up most of the other sources. The stilted flow arises from my inadequacies as a writer. Sadly, I recognise that such an accusation of such subtle plagiarism is impossible to refute except by extensive work by a third party, so I will stop further work on this. Given your opinion, Tsavage, I think that it would be appropriate for you to flag this as a copyvio (although I do not share your opinion). —Theo (Talk) 09:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• I appreciate your reply. On my part, I don't think an apology is exactly the thing here, but I do want to let you know that I didn't have any intention of in any way attacking you/your editorial integrity personally (an article is a collective endeavour and all that). I also didn't carefully comb through the history, which perhaps I should have (I wasn't thinking in terms of a "charge" at the time, despite how it sounded). I stumbled on FAC only a week ago, and I'm sure that charging in there with that newcomer ENTHUSIASM is something that gets tempered if one sticks around. Perhaps I could've put it more mildly. I've since posted a very similar comment (FAC Collyer Brothers), and I'm not at all sure that's the case there, either. It's very tricky with this online research business, for example, there are a number of high-in-the-search-rankings reference sites that use Wikipedia as their content, as I'm sure you've noticed, and while in those cases, it's obvious, it kinda highlights how the recycling of info is bound to be a much bigger obstacle in this online research environment, than "before". I'm not going to copyvio Corrigan (I haven't even read up on the criteria for copyvio... ;)). Perhaps in the FAC I should have written something more like: "Seems pretty close to this cited article?" with the link. I'll reread what I wrote just yesterday at Collyer. You should resubmit, maybe take another pass at it first, this process probably only made it better?!... --Tsavage 20:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Moments later and, re the aforementioned Collyer Brothers FAC (I went to review my objection), this response just posted:

I followed the link from your first objection and found it very serious indeed: It looks like one of our article's authors simply took the Useless Information summary, stripped out the idiotic attempts at humor, and rewrote what was left slightly to avoid blatant copyvio. With that considered, I am withdrawing my nomination of this article. Andrew Levine 07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Tsavage, I appreciate your explanation. The articles do have similar structures. I imagine that the Centennial of Flight essay particularly resonated with me when I was sourcing the research. I know that I did not start from a single source. All of this is moot, however, because I cannot resolve Giano's outstanding objection about Corrigan's affinity for the Prohibition Party. I do not think that it can be appropriate for me to resubmit the article to FAC with Giano's objection unresolved and I cannot face rewriting the article yet again knowing that it is fundamentally flawed by an omission that I cannot rectify. I agree that the article is much better than it was when first submitted. But it can never be good enough without original research so I regret wasting all our time on it. Ho hum. —Theo (Talk) 23:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, on that point, for what it's worth, I felt the same way about wanting to know more about his lifestyle (as I did note), until I thought about it. There's no hard-and-fast standard for "comprehensiveness". First, in this case, the Prohibition Party might seem weird, if one assumes a maverick in one area is likely a non-conformist, let-people-do-what-they-want type in others. But that's an easy presumption; people usually aren't so consistent in their behaviors. Corrigan may well have been a straightlaced guy, except for his flying thing. Second, everything isn't knowable, else there could be hardly any "good" bios. In this case, his flight, and career in aviation, are the main parts of his story, and they seem knowable and well-covered. Perhaps simply treating this character issue directly would resolve it: "Little is known of his personal life. His autobiography doesn't say whatever, and other published accounts shed no light. He will be remembered for his flight." That sorta thing. IF that's held up by research, I don't think it's a cop-out or whatever, it's a legitimate treatment. OR, this being the World Wide Web, there's every chance you could get in touch with some of his contemporaries or their relatives, by Web then email. That'd be cool...! It'd only take a few words from one first-hand source: Was he a boozer or a Bible thumper, or both? --Tsavage 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC) - comment edited --Tsavage 15:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hey now, don't solicit original research. But I agree that the particular standing objection shouldn't neccessarily DQ the article's FAC. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, strike that last part! (Unless, of course, for personal reasons, you just gotta know...) --Tsavage 03:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well I would be fascinated to know his personality seems to be contradictory - go on Theo (I dare you) phone his mates up and ask, we are all dying to know! Seriously though, I'll write down here as it's getting very busy up there. People have rather jumped on my use of the word maverick, perhaps that was not the best word to use, but I did qualify it by "it seems to me" so it was my opinion rather than general fact. I appreciate you have made valiant efforts to improve the page, and improved it certainly is. If there really is no more information then no more can be done. I'll change from oppose to neutral. Not because I don't like the style or prose, and I've no opinion on the copyvio issue (I've never understood the complxities of the subject). However, I do feel though an FA biography should be comprehensive, if insufficient information is available on a subject then that must preclude their biography (IMO) from becoming an FA. I know this is not the response you are going to like or want Theo, but a biography must be just that, not just a limited collection of available facts. Giano | talk 12:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Target Corporation

Self Nomination. This article has gone through significant improvements over the past year, including adding references and balancing the article's POV by adding a criticism sections that is backed up by references. I feel this article would be a good choice for featured article status as it would show Wikipedia's diversity of articles (it seems most featured articles are about things or events). Wikipedianinthehouse 21:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Issues I spotted are:
  1. The history section is composed largely of one or two sentence paragraphs. These short paragraphs should be combined to form larger paragraphs.
  2. The article mentions the existence of several divisions other than the retail division (Target Financial Services, Target Commercial Interiors, Target Brands, ...) but only gives a one line description of what each does. The descriptions of each need to be expanded. Some information on the distribution network and back office operations that support the retail stores would also be useful.
  3. There are multiple examples of peacock and weasel terms in the article. Some examples in the Philanthropy section are: Target Corporation is ranked as one of the most philanthropic companies in the country (who did the ranking and when was it done?) and Many religious organizations objected to this decision (Please name two or three of the many religious organizations). The claim in the lead that Target is the second-most successful discount retailer in the United States should also clarify what is meant by "successful". Does success translate into total revenue, total profit, or something else?
  4. The Diversity, Major sponsorships, and Target International sections all need to be expanded from one to three short sentences to at least two good sized paragraphs in length.
  5. The lead is currently on the small size, and after the above issues are addressed will certainly need to be expanded.
  6. As per WP:CITE, the Books section should be renamed either References or Further reading depending on whether the cited book was actually used as a source for verifying the facts presented by the article. Complete citations for the sources references via the footnotes sections should also be provided.

Overall I found there was a lot of good material in the article, but it has a ways to go before reaching FA status. --Allen3 ^talk 23:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Having taken a closer look at the references used for this article, I noticed that one of the references, [3], is from a blog on a website maintained by a group with a well-known political agenda. This does not appear to meet the standards at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources, so another source should be found for information referenced by this source. --Allen3 ^talk 12:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There is some information on distribution centers in their corporate fact card. I've already cited from it in the article. Target's use of information technology systems can be included, since this article seems to include none of it. 68.226.61.4 08:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added a couple paragraphs on distribution centers, in addition to some of the information technology that supports the retail stores. 68.226.61.4 22:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded the part on subsidaries some, however there is still plenty of information that could be added that I left out from the sources that I used. Also, I don't know why it has to be in the History section. 68.226.61.4 22:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded the History section by adding content and combining paragraphs, and I've moved the book in question to the Notes and references section since it was used in the article. 68.226.61.4 07:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Before this article can even be considered for featured article status its one-sentence sections must be fixed. Cedars 09:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English language

English language is the world's most widely taught second language. One-third of the world's population can speak some English. There is no reason that there are objections. 202.40.210.164 09:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object: a couple of things to begin with. 1) No clear references section. 2) Lack of flow to the structure. Some sections (e.g. the Constructed variants and Sounds sections) are just thrown at the reader with no introduction. Too many list-like sections. Some very short paragraphs. Overall, not a very good example of the English language. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object: a complete, well-written article, but there is no References section, and there are very little graphics/no photos. Ronline 09:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

**Just as a matter of interest, what photos would you expect to see? Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC) question answered below. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object I agree with the previous points raised: poor flow, lack of clear references, too much list-like prose. The "history" section, at the very least, could be illustrated with photos of significant manuscripts (from Anglo-Saxon on up). It's always worth combing Featured Pictures to see if anything is germane. Anville 09:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: Gallery of illuminated manuscript images may also be a good place to start a hunt for appropriate images. If none of the images in this gallery, or the galleries listed in the See also section, are appropriate then the image description pages should provide useful links to libraries and museums that have images of historical manuscripts available. Another possibility is authors who have had a major influence on the development of English such as Geoffrey Chaucer and William Shakespeare. --Allen3 ^talk 23:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I HIGHLY encourage a part discussing the impact Chaucer and Shakespeare had on the language, as that is sadly little known. I have studied both extensivly in university classes and have come to the conclusion that English would look nothing like it does today at all without these two men. According to many sources, Chaucer is responsible for the vast majority of England's interest in the language. That is to say, many people who spoke either local celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Norman French, or other languages learned English specifically so they could read Chaucer. My understanding is that before him, it was mostly just a language used for trade and not used much in private. As for Shakespeare, I've heard the play Hamlet alone contributed 500 new words to the English language. In fact, were it not for him, we would be retireing to sleeping chambers at night rather than bedrooms, as the word bedroom did not exist before he used it. Out of all of the authors who have ever written in English before or since, Shakespeare's works contain more total vocabulary than any other. Contrafool 08:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The main reason you nominated it was its epic importance, so we shouldn't let it be featured until it is at the very paramount of our standards. -- user:zanimum

• Object The article does a fair job, but most of the objections listed above do seem quite valid and proper considering the nature of the article itself. To my POV, Filiocht says it best here: "Overall, not a very good example of the English language." One part that really irritates me about the article (aside from the quality of the content dealing with earlier incarnations of English) is the "External Links" section. It is begging for a Wiki-scythe to come sweeping away the weeds. P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Space Shuttle Columbia disaster

A major bit of history and a tragic event. Deserves to be on the frontpage for a day - User:Tom_walker

• Object. While the subject is certainly worthy of someday being on the frontpage, the article does not currently meet featured article criteria such as citing its references. --Allen3 ^talk 12:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It could be great, but there are several problems that are sticking out currently:

1. Image:TIME_feb_2003.jpg has no fair use rationale.
2. Lead is very short for the size of the article.
3. References are missing. What was used as sources to write this article? Newspaper articles, books, etc?
4. Layout could do with some working, all of the images are of different sizes and it looks messy.
5. 'Response from the President' section is a bit short.
6. A few sentences in the Memorial section are sort of choppy, it doesn't provide a nice flow.

I couldn't spot anything else from my look at the article. You might want to refer it to WP:Peer review for more comments/suggestions. — Wackymacs 19:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Insulin

This article is very well written and informative. It is a jewel of Wikipedia that should be considered for featured article status. --153.104.27.107 01:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lacks references. KingTT 02:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No references. Andrew Levine 05:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Sufficient references, I think. There's a reference to a book on the history of the discovery, some links to various historical sites, and so on. This is not a topic about which controvery demands copious references. It's pretty well settled what the substance is, how it's produced, and what it does; little dispute there. This stuff is important enought that it has earned 3 Nobel Prizes for scientists studying it. ww 07:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No references. --Oldak Quill 10:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lacks references. --Hollow Wilerding 13:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Let me be slightly more detailed than those above. Put references in a "References" section, as per FA requirements. Make sure there are sufficient references. The reason references are required, even in non-disputable articles, is due to the fact that ANYONE can edit this encyclopedia. If we don't prove that what we say is true, how can anyone be sure that they aren't reading, for example, sneaky vandalism? We need to be verifiable in every aspect. Fieari 15:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unreferenced, even the easy-to-find ones (such as the Banting-Best paper cited in diabetes mellitus). It makes no use of the subarticles intensive insulinotherapy, conventional insulinotherapy, could use a microscopic image of the islets, etc. JFW | T@lk 16:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose. Good-looking article, it just needs a bibliography. PedanticallySpeaking 16:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Article incorrectly suggests insulin therapy is limited to humans. Article also needs at least short systematic discussion of the various types of insulin formulations (e.g., NPH, Lente, ultralente). Monicasdude 04:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smotherbox

• Self-nomination. I'm very proud of the article. I could not find a way to improve it, so I had a peer review for the article, which revealed only things that can not be easily helped ( Requests for information which may or may not be known to anyone and photographs many of which are not published because the subject is quite intimate ) So I think the article is as good as it will get for sometime, yet I hope it will still get improved in the long run. --Easyas12c 20:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Difficulty of obtaining information doesn't exclude a featured article from requiring that information. Yeah, that means that it might take some herculean tasks to make this featured, but not every "good" article is featured quality. Featured is the best. This isn't there yet, I don't think. Fieari 23:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The things "missing" don't leave the article broken. They are just features, nice to have along with definition and explanation of the subject. Wikipedia:What is a featured article states "It should exemplify our very best work, representing Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet." As one of the main authors of the article I strongly doubt there exists another such compilation of objective information for the subject anywhere else on the Internet. --Easyas12c 00:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Far too short, no references, poor naming of external links, lacks quality information, isn't the best example of a web source on the subject. Basically, read Wikipedia:What is a featured article and carefully address each point, but you're nowhere near there yet unfortunately. Harro5 00:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Featured article definition states that a featured article should be comprehensive, this does not mean that it would have to be long. It just has to be complete instead of one-sided. It also states that a featured article "should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic". It seems that the reference to smothered.com (which is included as an external link in the article) is the most academic reference you can get for a subject such as this. I renamed the links, if they are still not good, feel free to show how to exactly do it, by editing the article. What do you mean exactly by "lacks quality information". As in my comment for the last thread abowe, I'd still claim that this is the best public source for the subject on Internet, if you disagree please point out an url to a better source. I'd be happy to make the article better. --Easyas12c 00:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, for two major reasons:

1. Utterly inadequate referencing: there are no references labeled as such; the external links, which one might presume to contain the sourcing, are all to commercial sites engaged in selling the product—hardly the most reliable source for information. The paucity of online sources is no reason to neglect this issue—it may be necessary to examine more obscure offline references. In addition, use of inline citations is necessary here, as a number of claims in the article are quite questionable in their provenance.
2. Lack of information: there is no discussion of the history of the item. More significantly, an article about a commercial product must have certain basic information—market size, major manufacturers, price ranges, resources involved in production, manufacturing techniques, and so forth—before it can be considered even moderately comprehensive. The difficulty of obtaining this information is not an excuse unless a convincing argument is made that the information does not exist at all.

Finally, a more general remark: that the article is the best online source on the subject does not necessarily attest to its quality, since this may merely mean that there is little information on the topic available online. Kirill Lokshin 04:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article is too short, and lacks references. --Hollow Wilerding 13:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object on grounds of inadequate references cited above. PedanticallySpeaking 16:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, sorrowly incomplete. -- user:zanimum

[edit] Space Shuttle Enterprise

I have nominated this article as I believe it is about a vehicle that many people don't realise exists and its story is of great interest. - Tom Walker

• Hum. Some iffy stylistic choices throughout ("the Enterprise", "it") and some corrections I've been meaning to make for a while; I'll fix those tonight and then have a look at the rest of the article. Shimgray | talk | 21:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• This article does need quite a bit of work. I've given it a new framework, and will dig out Jenkins tonight and set to fleshing that framework out. There's probably potential, but... Shimgray | talk | 21:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Looking at it some more, I don't see a FAC in this for the near future. It's a worthwhile article, but currently the content's just not there. I'll see if I can give it a good kick, though. Shimgray | talk | 22:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - stub section, zero references. KingTT 18:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to Peer Review - This isn't FA quality yet. PR might have helped. Fieari 23:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose. Would support if a reference section were added. PedanticallySpeaking 16:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Watt

• Self-nomination. I'm pretty proud of the work I've done (and will continue to do) on this article, and quite frankly I'm curious to see what other opinions of the piece will be. Hence my seeking out more objective opinions. ;) Cjmarsicano 07:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object 1. too many subheadings. Please reduce them 2. No references. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Too many subheadings. Too many short paragraphs, some sections read like a list, especially the Illness and Recovery section. Try and make the prose flow more. And Illness and Recovery is a totally misleading section title. - Hahnchen 16:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Too many subheadings, too many short sentences/paragraphs. Too many links to non-existant articles, and a very messy Discography section. There's a lot of work to be done, refer to WP:Peer review. — Wackymacs 22:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• I cleaned up the Discography section and several other aspects of the article, but I still Object for the moment. — Wackymacs 19:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Reluctant oppose. Good article, but it needs a good proofreading and cleaning up. It's close, but not quite there. And, as I've said on other FAC's, the references are inadequate. PedanticallySpeaking 16:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Same with PedanticallySpeaking... great article, only let down by a lack of references. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Søren Kierkegaard

• The Father of Existentialism himself has a very nice Wikipedia piece indeed. I belive that this is a wonderful article in every way and very worthy of being a featured article. Cited sources, plenty of imagry, and highly informative. 72.15.175.129 00:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd love to see Kierkegaard featured, and I'll be back when I've actually read the article, but, to be going on with, I'm afraid the incomplete references alone preclude its being featured right now. The last three items in the References section are quite unhelpful, with two of them being mystifying Wikipedia articles (which should be under "See also", except... no, not there either) and the third a collection of "Links to online resources" (you might as well list Google.com under References). Disregarding these items, then, remaining as references are "Alienation in Hegel and Marx" from the Dictionary of the History of Ideas, "Adorno’s Reception of Kierkegaard: 1929-1933", and a 5-page article "Kierkegaard, the Apophatic Theologian". These are all short non-print pieces, off-centre to the general topic of Kierkegaard, and the article can't possibly have been constructed on the basis of them. No way. I looked over the External links section also, to see if it would help to upgrade some of them into references, but, no, it wouldn't. (I assume the " Religion After 911" is a spam vandal addition? General cleanup of this section is needed, there are dead links, also.) Bishonen|talk 05:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I repaired some of the links and reordered the links to have the more important web links listed first. I also made the Biography section part of the references, since I myself used Alex Dru's Journals and Hannay's biography to add some points to the article. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 06:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The biographies are fine, that helps, but References (=sources, works actually used for the article) must be kept separate from External links (=recommended online further reading), which can't be a sub-section under References. A link like for instance Online Library Catalog at St. Olaf College; select Kierkegaard Library from the menu to search for books and articles isn't a reference, not even close. The Reference section is for information about where specifically the facts in the article come from, to enable the reader to check that information in those sources (print or online). A library catalogue can only be an item under External links, or (better yet) Further reading, and then only if it's exceptionally useful and the reader can't find it easily via Google; by no stretch can it be an item under References. Also, I see that the mysterious Wikipedia articles that I complained about above remain under References, Kierkegaard, Wikipedia Reviews of Works and Kierkegaard, Primary Sources. As I said, they don't belong there. Wikipedia isn't a reference for itself. What are they anyway? Kierkegaard, Wikipedia Reviews of Works--note the very strange name--is a big redlink collection which I'm tempted to put on WP:AFD, but perhaps it's some kind of work in progress? It obviously needs moving, anyway, but to what? And is it really claimed that it has been used as a reference for Søren Kierkegaard? How...? Bishonen|talk 11:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've now separated the links that are referenced in the article from the other "Further Reading" ones. As for those mysterious articles, I don't know what the original author intended for those, but I just made them subpages of Kierkegaard, until it can be integrated into the main article somehow. Reviews of Works looks like a Complete Works List while Primary Sources looks like a Bibliography. It's too bad that more of Kierkegaard's individual works aren't on Wikipedia. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 13:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support I too would love to see Kierkegaard featured. A fascinating philosopher and I think this article provides a concise view of Kierkegaard's main philosophy. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 06:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I would love to see the discussion of his philosophy adequate to be FA quality, but for a long time now this article has been one of our sorest wounds. The discussions of his various works are spotty (some there, some not) and incomplete. I'm not supporting or opposing at this point, but I've been waiting for a long time, now, for an actual Kierkegaardian to come along and fill in the stuff, from Either/Or to Concluding Unscientific Postscript, charges of anti-rationalism becoming mysticism, charges of misogyny, the troubled relationship his philosophy has had with the various churches, the way his philosophy has prevailed despite official opposition, his place among other reactions to Hegel and Kant, etc. It's a big, big, big topic. Geogre 13:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes it is a big topic, but after seeing the tons of conflicts in Friedrich Nietzsche, I'm not so sure about adding everything into it; maybe just the basics for the encyclopedia. But I was planning to write a section on Kierkegaard's criticism on Hegel and on the Corsair Affair before I'd submit it for FA status. The anon beat me to it. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 13:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The edit history of User:72.15.175.129 shows that he/she has made a total of 9 edits, and this FAC was put up by that user on his/her fourth edit. This is not in itself a reason to object; the article must be judged on its own merits. But I would feel more comfortable about this FAC if someone did an IP lookup on one or more of the article's regular contributors and did a comparison. Thanks. Saravask 07:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC) No need. My mistake. Good luck to the nominator. Regards, Saravask 03:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't forget to AGF, Saravask. And we only do IP checks on suspicion of major wrongdoing. It's only of marginal interest whether or not 72.15.175.129 is a major contributor, but perhaps he/she would like to enlighten us? Bishonen|talk 11:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. While the biographical portions of the article seem quite well written, the bulk of ==Important elements of Kierkegaard's philosophy== has a way to go before it even reads in an encyclopedic fashion (although I see it has improved some already since the FAC nomination). Specifically, it has a lot of first-person singular and plural references, and large paragraphs that lose track of the fact that this is all "according to Kierkegaard". Of course, just adding "Accoding to Kierkegaard" at the start of each sentence would leave a mess, too. I'll also note that there is at least one section where I can see a whole page of text onscreen without any links at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Good points by Bunchofgrapes, Yorick, George. However: he article is accurate and describes the central tenets of Kierkegaard's philosophy/theology accurately. Everything on the page now is what a bystander would want to know (and more) about Kierkegaard. Issues of his relationship with churches and the stances of political institutions are secondary -- I agree that they can/should be added. Additional analysis with regards to Kant, Hegel, mysticism, and specific works like Either/Or and Concluding Unscientific Postscript, would risk dangerous and unagreed-upon academic grounds, and should NOT be added (or, if added, should speak carefully). The Nietzsche page, as stated, is a clear example of this danger; and a more in-depth analysis of Kierkegaard would prove controversial. I also don't find the first-person writing all that bad. It reflects Kierkegaard's own style and delivers the point well. So I think the accuracy of the article is fine. Just needs to be a bit more comprehensiveness with regards to Kierkegaard's impact on the world in which he lived: Denmark, the Church, etc. --i.h.

[edit] Seinfeld

• Great Show, Great Article. Detailed Article, and has sources cited and deserves to be a featured article for meeting criteria. FireSpike 23:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comments: I'll withhold a vote for now, but have a few issues which need to be addressed. All screenshots and other fair use images need fair use rationales, and please get rid of the funny lines used as dividers in the characters section. More problems will probably surface with others too. Tell me, has the article undergone a peer review? Harro5 00:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Too many non-free images. I'd suggest getting rid of all the non-free images except Image:Seinfeld.png and [[:Image:Seinfeld characters.jpg]. Also, Image:Seinfeld characters.jpg needs information on its source. --Carnildo 01:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Plenty of work to be done:
  • The structure of the article needs work. "Overview" is just too general. The lead, if anything, is the overview. A more logical and informative section hierarchy is needed.
  • "Memorable incidents" is pure trivia and doesn't even belong in a sub-article as far as I'm concerned.
  • "Product placement" is not unique to the show and I don't see why it should require separate treatment, let alone a whole section.
  • "Music" and "Awards" are merely over-specific lists sprinkled with prose.
  • "Criticism" seems to be merely fan opinions with plenty of weasely "some"s in it. Summarize this quite brutally and insert into a history of the show (or something like it). And the opinions of a general audience and critics, not fandom, is what should be focused on.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moustache

It would be very timely to have this up in November in honor of Movember, (itself one of the funniest, if not best written, articles I've found) DiceDiceBaby 17:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Object. It's a rambling and confused lead followed by two lists, one of them arbitrary. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• It's 90% list! Where's the beef prose? Raul654 21:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object This is disappointing. It is missing references, and is mostly full of lists, not enough context! — Wackymacs 10:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, lacks references, seriously list heavy. I do however support the inclusion of notable people with moustaches. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Even though it would either be an arbitrary selection, or run to thousands of people, if you include historical figures? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object as per above. I would gladly support a moustache FA, but it would have to include topics such as cultural differences regarding moustaches and trends in historical popularity. As it stands, it ought to be completely trashed and rewritten. The Catfish 00:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. "Edgar Allan Poe had a simple moustache." This article has the worst captions I've ever seen. Not to mention all that is aforementioned. Harro5 03:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, they aren't very exciting though they are all in relation to the moustaches the people are wearing. If you can think up better ones, please do! --Fastfission 13:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object mostly lists, no mention of Salvadore Dali, who I think had possibly one of the most spectacular mostaches ever :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Just as an aside, it actually it does mention Dali. --Fastfission 13:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It's (sadly) much better than it used to be, but it's not really an "article" much less a "featured article". --Fastfission 13:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Empress Dowager Cixi

Real head of state of China for 48 years.

• I think she did very bad, she did lead Emperor Guangxu to reform. 20:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Astorknlam
• This is a great article, though unfortunately I must object. I suggest this article should go through peer review before coming here. These items should be addressed:
  • The article is rife with a number of short and sometimes one-sentence paragraphs. These should either be either combined with other paragraphs or expanded.
  • There are a number of NPOV statements such as "...her conservative attitudes did not serve her well..." These should either be cited to specific sources or eliminated.
  • I noticed one picture only had a caption in Chinese. While the captions in Chinese and English are fine, there needs to be an English counterpart to every Chinese caption.
  • Numerous times the article refers to "recent biographies" or "recent biographers," though the references section only lists one biography. The references section should be expanded to include all works cited, plus inline citations should be used to indicate exact sources.
  • I think the Names section really should come before the Early Life sections so as to not break up her biography.
  • This article has been over-linked. Sometimes the same name is linked in the same paragraph. The important names and dates should generally only be linked once or a few times in the article.
  • The section "Crisis with Guangxu" is too short and really should either be expanded or merged with another section.

Is this the same Dowager Empress as the one who appears in the movie The Last Emperor? If so, you may want to include a brief mention of it. As I said, this is a marvelous article! If these problems are addressed and the article given a general copyedit, it would make a lovely addition to FA. ''*Exeunt*'' Ganymead [[User_talk:Ganymead|^{<font color="green">Dialogue?</font>}]] 17:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The structure is a bit strange and difficult to follow, and some of the prose could really do with a solid reworking, particularly in the earlier parts of the article. It's certainly not bad, but really does need quite a reorganisation before being featured. Ambi 23:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object Two sentences do not make a section. Expand or merge. --Jiang 05:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong object. I saw this article a few weeks ago (while going through a list of biography articles that are considered "most important" to Wikipedia, of which this is one), and have been planning to do heavy revision on it as soon as possible because I was immediately very surprised by how many bizarre layout choices there were, errors in the text, etc. I'd consider putting several cleanup tags on it, not making it a Featured Article. -16:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Silberbauer

Partial self-nom, since I created the article, but the majority of the work has been done by User:Yallery Brown. Article is detailed yet succinct, exploring the actions and subsequent fate of a minor figure who nonetheless had a significant role in historical events. DS 16:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's a good article, but too short to hold up as our best work. Only a few lines in the article are about Silberbauer, too: most of it is really about Anne Frank, her family, and Simon Wiesenthal. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Massively too short for featured status. Ambi 23:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sea shanty

Detailed, informative article about an interesting historical topic. (Unsigned nomination by User:194.73.99.107)

• Oppose. Have a look at the featured articles on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:What is a featured article for an idea of what we are looking for here. This article needs to be longer, more detailed and better written. Harro5 21:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per Harro5. Ambi 23:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Articles do not begin with quotations. Daniel Case 14:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apple Macintosh

This is great article that has been through the Article Improvement Drive. Over the past few weeks there has been tons of copyediting and revision of the entire article, and we all feel that it is well deserving of Featured Article Standard. TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Article is, unsurprisingly considering the subject, overlong. The history section in particular needs to be spun off into a separate article and condensed for the purposes of this one. The narrative of its development is extremely clunky and disjointed, seeming to introduce Jef Raskin three separate times, then later bringing up Hartmut Esslinger and the Snow White design language as a "key move" without any indication of why this was important. And, despite the section's overall length, the article manages to devote all of one sentence to Jobs vs. Raskin and the whole "Father of the Mac" issue.

Other problematic writing is scattered throughout. "In 1990 the Mac had gained widespread acceptance, but it was generally seen as too expensive" - huh? "In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 Macintosh sales have been increasing continuously" - okay, did we need each of those years listed individually? Is the article trying to tell us that sales increased "continuously" not just year-over-year, but month-by-month as well, or is it just the hagiographic tendencies of Apple enthusiasts getting the better of them? (See also the skating over of internal company politics.) --Michael Snow 23:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I went through the article and copyedited almost 10k out, along with a major cleanup of the history section. I think 32k is basically unreachable for an article of this caliber, and many of our FAs are indeed longer. What do you think? -- grm_wnr Esc 00:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly an improvement, and I'm not insisting on 32k, but the 51k it was at was excessive. Another section that I would suggest needs condensing is the advertising section. For that matter, upon reviewing the source of the illustration for that section, I am considerably skeptical about the accuracy of the information in the first two paragraphs. It's difficult to be sure how many Newsweek ads ran, since it appears to talk about the same ad twice but with different details, and the page lengths stated do not match what appears in the source.

The writing in this section is as atrocious as some of what got cleaned up in the history section, which doesn't help the situation. I have the impression that this was filled in by somebody writing whatever came off the top of their head, without bothering to be careful about checking what they thought they knew. Obviously, that doesn't cut it for a featured article. --Michael Snow 23:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:IMac G5.jpg has no source information.
  2. The images Image:Emac.jpg, Image:XServe G5 Ext.gif are claimed as "fair use". It's quite possible for someone to make a free replacement for them, so there's no reason to use a fair-use image here.
  3. The images Image:Apple Macintosh Desktop.png, Image:MacOSX10.4.png, Image:MacIntroBrochurePage1.jpg, Image:Apple Special Event Photobooth.jpg are tagged as "fair use", but have no fair-use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed.

  --Carnildo 00:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Image:Apple Macintosh Desktop.png, Image:MacOSX10.4.png, Image:MacIntroBrochurePage1.jpg - fair use rationale added.
  • Image:IMac G5.jpg, Image:Emac.jpg, Image:XServe G5 Ext.gif - removed from article, searching for free replacements. Free images in the table commented out until free images for all products can be found.
  • Image:Apple Special Event Photobooth.jpg - removed as not really necessary to illustrate the paragraph in question.
  • -- grm_wnr Esc 00:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Support. --Carnildo 01:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As per above. 64.231.177.76 00:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• object one line sections shouldnt exist (Apple_Macintosh#Models) use wikipedia:summary style or remove the section and move the link to a list. --Jiang 05:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Line moved to "See also" section. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support However the article could be a bit shorter and the last few sentences of the market share section need citations. Cedars 00:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object I have done a lot of work on this article but I must object for now, because there are still a few problems in the English, it does not have an excellent flow. It is also very long, exceeding the 32KB suggested limit. — Wackymacs 08:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

See above. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Support Nice work, looks lots better now. I must agree, it is hard to reach 32KB limit, there is just so much information to mention on this topic. — Wackymacs 01:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good to me, though the objections above need fixing. Ambi 23:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Mild object.
  1. Make the captions more informative.
  2. Try to cut down on the size without destroying any data. Provide a bunch "main article:" and "see also:" links.
  3. Pictures of other macs? make sure you have the links
  4. All other complaints.

Get that done and go for it. HereToHelp|talk 23:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. A very well-done article. But a lot of terms many people won't know (graphical user interface, Steve Jobs, Lisa, etc.) are not defined. They are wikilinked, but it's my opinion that users should not have to follow a bunch of wikilinks to understand an article. -- Mwalcoff 01:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Well done, but no. Not until this huge rendering difference issue with firefox is resolved. B1oody8romance7 05:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Huh? Looks fine to me in Firefox on a Mac, and should look OK in Firefox on Linux/Windows as well. — Wackymacs 18:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What skin are you using? There's a big difference in how Classic and Monobook display certain types of image layout. --Carnildo 00:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John F. Kennedy

This is a good quality article that I think should be a FA. It went through a peer review back in July (there wasn't much of a response, unfortunately) and I believe the issues raised have been addressed. As to my participation in this article, I have made some minor edits, nothing substantial as far as I can remember, mostly copyedits. Akamad 12:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. I'm concerned with the level of unattributed opinion in the article. A quick scan read throws up "some people", "some sources", "some claimed", "some critics", "critics, some of whom", "many other critics", "leading many to deem", "many who listened", "many military officials" and "many civil rights leaders". Who are these people? Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  • There are entirely too many one- and two-sentence paragraphs, which really chops up the prose and doesn't allow for a good flow to the article.
  • I'd like to see some better organization to the article; for example, under "Early political career" there are details about Kennedy's marriage and stillborn child. These have nothing to do with his political career, so I'd recommend creating a specific section dedicated to his personal life. (You could probably put it under "Image, social life and family" but I think that deserves a full section and not just a subsection.)
  • At points, the article reads like a "list in prose". It's not a list per se, but it seems to be little more than an annotated timeline at times. (In 1950, this happened. In 1952, this happened. Then in 1953, this happened. ...and so forth)

Good luck! PacknCanes | say something! 17:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  • Very unevenly written. Some paragraphs are excellent, but between them are one sentence paragraphs that often seem out of place. For example, "Years later, it would be revealed that Kennedy had been diagnosed as a young man with Addison's Disease, a rare endocrine disorder. This and other medical disorders were kept from the press and the public throughout Kennedy's life." is the second paragraph of early life. Not only does it not fit, it is hardly important in the overall role his childhood played in his becoming president and the greater influence that had on US and world politics.Dtaw2001 19:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The images Image:JFKPT109.jpg, Image:JFKSENATE.jpg, Image:Jfknixon.jpg, Image:Jfkspeech.jpg, Image:JFKNASA.jpg, Image:KennedyCabinet.jpg, Image:2005 proof Kennedy half dollar.png have no source information.
  2. The image Image:Jfkatbcin56.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  3. The image Image:JFKMLK.jpg has no source information. "Fair use" cannot be claimed without knowing the source of the image. Also, there's no reason to use a non-free image here.
  4. The image Image:Kennedy bros.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but it appears to be for decorative purposes only. This isn't allowed under Wikipedia:Fair use.
  5. The image Image:JFKCasketLeavesCapitolHill.JPG is claimed as "fair use", but I'm sure there's a public-domain replacement somewhere.
  6. The image Image:Democratslogo.png, used in the template {{USDemPresNominees}}, is tagged as "fair use". Non-free images are not permitted in templates.
  7. The image Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but has no source information. It also has what appears to be a copyright statement dating from 1992 in the lower-left corner. If at all possible, this image needs to be replaced with a free image; if not, source information and a fair-use rationale need to be supplied.

  --Carnildo 23:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object, although it's nicely structured with a lot of good material. I'm not an expert in US history or culture, as you will be able to tell from my comments. (a) Almost all of the links in the See also section should be included in the main text of the article (in fact after looking more closely, I notice some of them already are). (b) While I don't necessarily disagree with the assessment, could the statement that the Cuban Missile Crisis "brought the world closer to nuclear war than at any point before or since" be argued rather than asserted? This assertion is even stronger than the assertion in the Cuban Missile Crisis article, which is itself not backed up by direct evidence. (c) "Patsy" is US slang, and not in common usage elsewhere afaik (I had to look it up, anyway :-) - can this be reworded? (d) What exactly does the phrase "he was the last Democrat from the North" mean? (e) The intro states the assassination is often considered a defining moment in American history both because of its traumatic impact on the entire nation, and because of Kennedy's elevation as an icon for a new generation of Americans and American aspirations. However this is not discussed in the article, even in the section "Assassination and aftermath", and there is no mention anywhere of the impact of Kennedy's assassination (if any) on the rest of the world. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] M1 Garand

The M1 Garand was the first self-loading rifle to become a standard issue weapon in the army of a major world power (the US), and was the only semi automatic rifle in service for the majority of World War II. Has been extensively edited and supplemented, and in my humble opinion the article is very well written. A very significant rifle in the history of firearms, and one that may quite well have influenced the outcome of World War II. EDIT (11/15): I have given the article what should be complete references. Unsigned comment by Banana! (talk • contribs)

• Object, no references. Kirill Lokshin 14:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: gave the article a once-over and added website references.--Banana! 18:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: It's a nice article and I learned a lot. However, I think that the references should probably be incorporated into the text. Also, some copyediting would probably help - two discussions of the ping, etc. Great work! InvictaHOG 20:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Drop a note to User:WegianWarrior. He was essential in bringing Kammerlader up to featured status and he knows his fire arms. He might be able to provide some helpful insights. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MMORPG

I do think this article do deserve to be featured, it is well in length and depth. It's well written and very comprehensive, after all it has been cited as a resource by BBC, even though it might still lacks some pictures. --Yamamoto Ichiro 00:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Too long, should be split up. Needs a more comprehensive lead section (merge "overview" section?). Doesn't follow Wikipedia's stylistic conventions (e.g., uses second person pronouns). Prose isn't brilliant; lots of list-like sections of single-sentence paragraphs. Fredrik | talk 00:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lead needs expantion, external links should be moved out of main body to references and linked via Wikipedia:Footnotes, more pictures and references would be useful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The image Image:WoWScrnShot 090404 231112.jpg seems to be used for decorative purposes only. This does not qualify under Wikipedia:Fair use, so the image should be removed.
  2. The image Image:Runescape222.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but does not have a fair-use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed.

  --Carnildo 22:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] J. R. R. Tolkien

Partial self-nomination; this article has been quite stable for some months now, and there are six FAs on other language WPs that partially derive from it. I've looked it through again, and while there are some minor things that I would phrase differently, as a matter of personal taste, I do think it is fair enough, and would welcome more scrutiny. As possible objections, I see the liberal use of "fair use" images (actionable easily enough, either we keep them, or we scrap them), and the bibliography (cf. the Talk archive; I would prefer to keep it in the article, but others may vote to export it; compare the (featured) de:J._R._R._Tolkien, where they take an even more radical approach, including the list of poems we have exported to Poems by J. R. R. Tolkien). The ToC may also be a matter for discussion; I have given this quite some thought, and at the moment I see no better organisation than the "Bio/Writings/Languages" sections, but maybe there are better suggestions. dab (ᛏ) 13:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object, as follows:

1. Everything in the "See also" section is linked from the text; is its presence necessary?
2. The "Professional life" section looks like it could be expanded a little; but I'm not certain how much material of interest is actually available.
3. I've never seen a citation style that places the date before the author; is this actually in use elsewhere, or is there some other reason for it I'm unaware of?

Other than that, it looks to be a very good article. Kirill Lokshin 15:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

1. yes, I've just trimmed it, leaving only the single few most important links. You can remove them too, if you like, it's a matter of your philosophy of the "See also" section.
2. I've just created it. It could be merged back with "Personal life", but then I'm at a loss for a good title ("Middle age"?)
3. this is also on purpose; it is how I usually do bibliographies on biographical articles (obviously not "literature" sections for references or further reading). The idea is to present the works in their chronological order of the author's biography. We can certainly also change that format if people don't like it.

dab (ᛏ) 18:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

uh, I only just realized that the "Further Reading" section is in the same format. I agree that this is not very good, and I'll change it. I've converted it to {{Book reference}} style (which doesn't look very good for collections with only editors but no single author; maybe we have another template for those?) dab (ᛏ) 18:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Support after those changes. I generally favor minimal "See also" sections, but, as you mentioned, it's more a matter of personal style than anything significant. As far as {{Book reference}} goes, it's rather inflexible; but I prefer Chicago style, so I format references by hand in any case. Kirill Lokshin 20:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's a very good article but is missing a few bits of final polish.
  • Too many fair-use images by far. Wikipedia:Fair use states "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." In most biographical articles, that means one picture of the subject, in the lead, though I think I could support two here. (It would be nice if there were a picure from around the '40s, though.)
  • Not enough references in the text. If I were to try to fact-check the article, it would be quite difficult to determine what facts come from which source. Only quotes from Letters are treated as I would expect.
  • Speaking of quotes from Letters, it took me quite a bit of hunting to figure out what book that referred to. When I did find it (under "Posthumous publications", I wasn't given a publisher or ISBN number, which might make it hard for me to find the book, or the right version if there are multiple (which I'm guessing there aren't, but there could be in the future, possibly). I think you need a separate "References" section, which might have some duplication with the bibliography, to help readers find the books referred to in the text.
  • The "Professional career" section needs to be expanded or possibly merged with the "Personal life" section. One way or another, the one-paragraph section needs to go.
  • I think the article overlinks years and dates; if you really like that style, I won't fight it, but it's more-and-more the case that we're not linking years and dates, and it does make reading a little easier.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• regarding the fair use images, there are three in total: the two 1972 images, and the book covers. The remaining three are PD, dating to pre-1916 (in the US and most other countries, probably not in the UK. I do think that for our purposes US law applies (the KJV is copyrighted in the UK, and yet we have it on wikisource)). There will be no PD post-1916 images of Tolkien, so I do think the fair use rationale applies. There is also Image:Jrrtolkien2-sm.jpg which I removed because I was unable to date it.

I'm no copyright expert. But those pre-1916 images are currently tagged as "copyright unknown" and "fair use". If there's an argument to be made that they are PD in the US (I thought the author had to be dead for 70 years for that, or something), then they should be retagged. Even assuming we're convinced the pre-1916 pics are PD, that still leaves too many fair-use images. We don't need two 1972 pictures, and I don't believe a good fair-use argument can be made for the book covers in this article at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

In the US, everything published pre-1923 is public domain. --Carnildo 06:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Regarding the "career" section, we can merge it back (see above), but what section title do you propose?
• Regarding the references, I'll see what I can do (but help is appreciated of course).
• dab (ᛏ) 09:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• I do not want to object, but the lack of anything on how he made his bread and his importance to philology is startling. There are books both on the influences of Anglo-Saxon literature on his work and, of course, Tolkein's own Anglo-Saxon and mythographic writings. Tolkein earned his bread as a don of Anglo-Saxon literature and language. I'm not competent to go into it, as I only minored in medieval literature, but there are others who can give a summary of his linguistic career. He was important there, as most Greatest Generation Oxford dons were, and having a biography that doesn't mention it is not comprehensive. The coverage of Tolkein as fiction writer is fine, but there is the rest of his work to consider. Geogre 11:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (this should maybe go to the article talklpage) -- well, Tolkien fans tend to exaggerate JRRT's importance as a medievalist/philologist. We give a full list of his academic writings. Sure, he was a professor of medieval literature at a prestigious University. But considering that, his contributions are not outstanding, and I doubt we would even have a stub about him if it wasn't for his legendarium (there would maybe be a citation on the Beowulf article, but that's about it). In his letters, his professional work is most prominently mentioned in his complaints that the yearly exams are tedious and boring. His academic output is, as is mentioned in the article, remarkably meagre. We know why this is the case, it is because he preferred to spend time working on his legendarium. So there you have it, you are welcome to add professional details, of course, but the fact of the matter is that the account is about balanced as it is. dab (ᛏ) 13:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You're being slightly unfair; Tolkien's Ancrene Wisse is one of the major entries in the EETS series of AW/AR texts, and Norman Davis' revision of the Tolkien/Gordon Gawain is the standard edition at Oxford. Sure, we probably wouldn't have an article for him just for those, but they may deserve a mention in the prose as well as the list... Gawain in particular. — Haeleth Talk 00:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I might be mixing some facts here, but didn't he write an actual annotated version of Beowulf that was only recently discovered/published (I think this is a different work from "The monsters and the critics")? In any case, I do think the actual influence of Tolkien's work on the study of Beowulf deserves to be extended beyond the passing mention in the "1920s to 1950s" section. I do believe there is enough evidence that he is considered a prominent Beowulf scholar. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• I hate to say this, but while the content is great, the style is letting it down in places. For example, the paragraph beginning "In 1911, while they were at King Edward's School, Birmingham" opens with a gargantuan sentence, that spans several lines, with numerous clauses, separated by commas, which could beneficially be split up, into three or four shorter sentences. The next paragraph then switches back and forth between past and present tense as it moves between quoting Tolkien's letters and describing a holiday he took - the effect is confusing and difficult to follow. Similar shortcomings are found throughout. So basically I have to say that I think this article needs a bit of copy-editing before I can happily support the nomination. That's my only concern, though, and if it really doesn't strike anyone else as an issue, I won't hold up the process with a formal objection. — Haeleth Talk 00:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This really needs inline citations. Use inote or noteref or whatever system you want, but please give us an indication of where the info is coming from (book and page, etc.) --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• SUPPORT, I personally don't care for inline citations in a non-research paper. The toast is TO THE PROFESSOR! Take the Oxford Tolkien Quiz HERE--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object as per Spangineer. We DO need a mechanism for readers to readily vet/verify the article's statements and claims. Saravask 06:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • as a reply to those wanting inline citations, the entire "Biography" section is a summary of one single reference, Carpenter's Biography, now listed under "References" rather than stashed away under "Further reading". Imho it would be silly to give page numbers every other sentence. I will try to reference all statements that are not in Carpenter's biography. dab (ᛏ) 14:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not asking for a page reference after every sentence, but perhaps a page range after every paragraph or two. Normally books are fairly well organized, so I would expect that the info on Tolkien's childhood would be all together and thus it would be fairly easy to give a range of say 10 pages within which all the info in the first two paragraphs of the section is contained. Thanks for working with us on this; I know it's a pain to have to retroactively add these things, but especially in light of all the criticisms of Wikipedia accuracy and such, it's really important. --Spangineer 22:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, conditional on the lead being shined up. Congratulations to dab on a masterful article, and I'd like to support, but the lead section is supposed to summarize the article as a whole and bring out its most salient points, and I don't think it lives up to this. Even though skimpy for the length of the article, it contains less-than-essential details (a reference to C. S. Lewis, who is by no means extensively treated below), and one long, difficult-to-parse sentence: How are the posthumous books about a legendarium, rather than being a legendarium? Is the earth called Arda, or is it called Arda and Middle-earth, and why does this bit of terminology, out of all others, deserve to be in the Lead anyway? The last sentence of the lead is sadly misplaced, ruining the roundedness that the previous sentence had nicely imparted—committee editing? An improvement drive please, and a plumping-up, too. Bishonen|talk 21:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support'. Great article to put it simply.--Wiglaf 00:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

'Neutral/comment. Very good, but not great. Fix it up, tweak it, get it perfect. One thing I did notice was that the pictures seemed to stop abruptly about half way down. Could you remedy this? Overall, though, not bad...not bad at all. HereToHelp|talk 00:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support'. Brilliant article. The see also seems repetitive. I feel it can be replaced by {{Lotr}} & {{Middle-earth}}. --Pamri • Talk 13:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evan Mecham

Self-nom. Biography of one of the more unusual political figures of the 1980's. Has been through peer review, and I believe that all issues raised have been addressed. --Allen3 ^talk 15:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Awkward writing in a number of spots, including poorly-written passages like "calls for Mecham's resignation were made from a variety of state political leaders" and "served only to strengthen allegations of Mecham's racism allegations." Also still a rather one-sided presentation, with heavy emphasis on his public perception (racist buffoon) and almost nothing on his substantive political agenda. Case in point, the "Economic impact" section, which in one sentence lists some accomplishments and then spends two paragraphs on the fallout from the Martin Luther King Day controversy. Apparently he resolved a sizable budget deficit, which is rather interesting from somebody who campaigned to reduce taxes, but that's all the information we get. How did he do this (and for that matter, how much of it did he do as opposed to state legislators)? Did he end up raising taxes after all, or cutting services, or did the revenue picture change, or what? This is the sort of thing that would provide a more complete picture of his career; the caricatured version we already know about, even if the caricature was well-earned. --Michael Snow 22:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have copy edited the text and added more information on Mecham's positive accomplishments. Hopefully what I have been able to find will satisfy your concerns. There are more details about the governor's time in office, but the items I have left out tend to just add to the common caricature without exploring any new territory. --Allen3 ^talk 00:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. And I thought Bob Taft was a bad governor. I'd recommend that you define some of the people and groups you mention -- the ultraconservative John Birch Society, Republican U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater. A lot of readers will be unfamiliar with American politics, and you can't expect them to click on every bluelink. -- Mwalcoff 04:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I believe that all such links have now been better defined. --Allen3 ^talk 01:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. PedanticallySpeaking 18:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I wondered what had happened to him. Only thing, fix some of your sentences like,"The 1992 election also saw the passing of an initiative that created a paid Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday in the state of Arizona.".Daniel Case 03:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Much of the content is good, but it reads like a history of Mecham's controversies, as opposed to a more complete biography. The governorship section could do with a serious rewrite for structure, and I wonder if the early life, political career, and after office sections could all be exapnded slightly. The "efforts to remove him" section, however, is great. Ambi 00:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] God

There is only one God in the world. I think this article can be featured. What do you think? 219.77.51.65 13:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• object -- purely on the basis of the spectacularly POV wording of the proposal. Get your Jesus on elsewhere buddy.

• object -- it is reasonably fair up to "Theology" (although it is unclear what this "Theology" section is doing on an article proclaimed to be exclusively about the monotheistic concept), but the "Conceptions" section needs a lot of work. So far it seems a more or less random brainstorming of editors, dwelling on Kabbalah, Hinduism and Rosicrucians in particular for some reason (it is also unclear why "Quranic" should appear under the "Jewish, Christian" heading). I suppose the "Conceptions" and "Theology" sections should be merged, with much material exported to specialized articles, and brought in some sort of intuitive sequence. A size of maybe 40k should be a reasonable aim. In its present state, I would be reluctant to give it even a {{GA}}. dab (ᛏ) 14:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • To add to that, I'd consider grouping Judaic, Christian and Islamic conceptions of God under the title "Abrahamic conceptions". --Oldak Quill 23:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - This article is currently a Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive candidate. KingTT 16:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — Uh, I wouldn't exactly say that "There is only one God in the world" cuts it in terms of well-reasoned nomination rationale. And what is the issue with the numerous stray bolded words and image captions? Is someone trying to make some sort of a point? Saravask 17:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC).
• Comment — It needs a picture of God. Since He's everywhere, this should not be difficult to get. Daniel Case 03:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems he's a bit protective of his rights: there are no free images out there. Filiocht | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 08:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object needs a lot of structural work as outlined by dab and others. Filiocht | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 08:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object It needs to be broken up into specialized articles. It just tries to do too much while not doing enough, I'm afraid! InvictaHOG 20:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, this article just doesn't work for me. Try again. 64.231.177.76 00:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object and refer to peer review, Lead paragraph is very short, weak, and POV since it randomly namedrops Christianity and no other faiths.—jiy (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object for all the reasons given above, also because it does not address the burrito question. I'm also wary of the disambiguation notice: can henotheism be called a "derived faith" if, chronologically speaking, civilizations were henotheist before they were monotheist? Anville 10:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. If it's on WP:AID it already indicates it's not perfect. Also needs its formatting fixed. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object Lead in far too short, lead in mentions Christianity especially, even though it is a monotheistic page, lead in is poorly formatted (why is supreme being capitalised and bolded, for example? I thought only God was meant to be important enough to refer to the being?). And that is just the lead in. Need I go on... Batmanand 16:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Supreme Being is a synonym for God and is conventionally capitalized. —jiy (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support Well written article, and it might give Wikipedia some good karma. (Previous unsigned comment by DiceDiceBaby on 19:03 18 November 2005)

Comment The religions upon which this article focuses don't trade heavily in karma, methinks. And by listing the phonetic values given to the Tetragrammaton, we seem to be bucking for a lightning bolt, no? Anville 21:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Objection:
  

This article suffers from what I like to refer to as the "In God we Trust" problem as well as two other POV problems.

It has a section devoted to idea that other religions have other names for God. This seems to imply that everyone is worshiping the same deity; the "same" god just another name-the same tea cup in the sky. I.E. Jehovah and Allah and Ngai and God are the same deity. This brings me to the “In God we Trust” problem. When "In God we Trust" is said, the word "God" is assumed to mean everyone else’s god too. Except it remains to be shown that supporters of "In God we Trust" would equally support "In Allah we trust" or "In Ngai we trust". This is because [in my opinion] supporters believe that even though God is Ngai and God is Allah, Allah is not God and Ngai is not God. And, we are left with the idea that the list of other names in this article are not really acceptable either; everyone else using all these other names are all worshiping god, but worshipers that call their deity god are not worshiping Ngai, or Allah or Zeus or Shiva etc., etc. ad nausea.

Go ahead and change the word god to random selected alternate names proposed in this very article and see if that doesn't cause some anger. That will prove case and point very quickly.

This article does go on to explain that in relation to the idea of the name of God that there are varied sides of the argument; but the fact that this article speaks of other names of god in other religions as equivalent to the name "God" as used in a Western Christian concept clearly puts this article on a specific side of the debate and therefore gives it a very specific POV. God, is the Christian name for the deity in those monotheistic [Christian] religions; that coupled with the "In God we Trust" problem that exists here clearly gives this article a Christian POV. The section with varied other deities of monotheistic religions should probably go under an article about monotheism or in an article all by itself describing various names of gods in monotheistic religions around the world. Perhaps the Christian POV cannot entirely be avoided, so it would be better to more specifically state its dominance of use with Christianity, instead of tip toeing around it. And, then branch out from there to explain "very" specifically the use of the "actual" term (not equivalent term or terms) in other religions, places, peoples, regions, creeds, beliefs etc.

Finally, the de facto use of subjective male pronouns gives this article another specific POV. Related back the numerous alternate names: we see examples of this POV in the listing under the Hindu entry. This entry ignores the polytheistic perspectives of Hinduism; or the monotheistic polytheism that they practice casting it in the Christian POV mentioned above, and neglects to mention Shaktism, a denomination of Hinduism that worships Shakti, or Devi Mata -- the Hindu name for the Great Divine Mother. This is a female monotheistic example; which highlights the Male POV used.

These are just a few of the ways in which this article still has some POVs that need to be worked out. The concept of God should be in Wiki, but it is a highly charged idea that tends to come with a lot of personal POVs. We need to work extra hard to get to neutral ground. Until that point is reached this should not be an example of a "Featured Article". cprockhill Friday November 3, 2006 2:00 AM

[edit] Emperor Taizong of Tang China

Tang Taizong is the best empror in China history. I choose this article for nomination. Feel free to leave comments. 202.40.210.174 04:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Has zero references, has only one image, and half of the article is dominated by a big list. Avoid unnecessary capitalization in section headers, like "Early Achievements". Article needs expansion, paragraphs need to be broken up a little more, and a copyedit wouldn't hurt. Also, note that subject matter is irrelevant in determining Featured Article status; almost any subject matter can, hypothetically, be "featured". Most of the most important articles on Wikipedia aren't featured, and many amazingly trivial ones are. It's a matter of article quality alone. -Silence 08:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object as per Silence. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• 'Object, agree with above. It is far too short, has too few references, &c.. --Oldak Quill 23:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, not nearly enough. Everyking 05:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tram

Self-nomination. 202.40.210.174 04:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Looks very promising. Lacks references - see WP:CITE.
• Object for now. With refs would be a strong candidate. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references. --Oldak Quill 23:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object as per above, plus the see also section is too long. Remove duplicates used in the text, try to incorporate others into the main body. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bayreuth Festival

recreated incorrectly archived nom from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bayreuth Festival

Article is complete with references (bibliography) and links to supporting data and information. The primary source for my contributions to the article was the book by Prof. Spotts of Harvard University. The aticle features an event that has played an important role in western culture. Dtaw2001 16:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This article has not yet been peer reviewed. I have thus created a request, Peer_review/Bayreuth_Festival. This nomination should perhaps be considered static until the peer review is completed. Dottore So 17:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Question: Do articles now have to be peer reviewed before coming here - If so since when? Giano | talk 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• What was the purpose of the books included in the bibliography section (now renamed to references)? Where they used to write the article (in that case they should be called references) or are they just "recommended reading material"? A bibliography is most commonly a list of books written by an article subject as in "the bibliography of Shakespear includes Romeo and Juliet". To avoid any ambiguity on what the word means, it's best to name it differently if the books were not written by the festival, which is clearly the case. Also, how can a festival have a discography? Doesn't that belong to some orchestra who played there? - Mgm|^(talk) 18:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, they are references. As for the discography, the festival has its own orchestra, and these are the more significant recordings from the festival. Dtaw2001 21:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

---

• I think more is needed on the early history of the festival. The following should be addressed:

(1) Why did Wagner feel he needed a special festival to showcase his own works?

(2) How was the Festival conceived, planned, and the money raised?

(3) What were the particulars behind the selection of Bayreuth?

(4) Possibly a note about the designer of the Festspielhaus (Gottfried Semper) & how he arrived at his designs.

(5) Some point should be made about how unusual a Festival devoted a to a sole composer was for the time. (Still is, really.)

• Additionally, the period between 1890 and 1920 should be fleshed out a little bit. Perhaps some mention of

the role of figures such as Strauss;

the influence of the Festival's performances of Wagner operas elsewhere (e.g. New York);

the transition after Wagner's death. Dottore So 10:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to make the additions you suggest, although the note about the designer of the Festspielhaus (Gottfried Semper) properly belongs to the Festspielhaus article. Perhaps the influence on operas elsewhere may be too much also. The rewrite of the introduction looks good. Dtaw2001 12:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know the answers to most of these, otherwise I would have gone ahead and added it in. If no one can provide expertise, sobeit. But on thinking aboutit, I believe the origins of the Festival really should be covered. As for Gottfried Semper, I am in the middle of translating the German entry on him into English, so that should cover it. As you say it more properly belongs on the Festspielhaus page anyway. Dottore So 16:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Object: What is written is interesting and good. However, the page seems to me to be incomplete, there is far too little about various performances and who sang them. In fact there is very little about opera at all. Is the festival a show case for new interpretation etc? What keeps the festival fresh each year to attract the crowds. Does it continue to make a profit, if so how much. Why can't the director be forcibly removed. To little at the moment, but it has great potential. Giano | talk 18:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Valence electron

I feel that this article should act as Wikipedia's Featured Article due to its comprehensive format and various information. In my opinion, this article is the epitome of excellence, and should be recognized. I do acknowledge that it is a rather small article, but it has more to offer than large, unorganized articles.

EinsteinMC2 01:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Lacks a lead section and references as required by the Features Article criteria. --Allen3 ^talk 02:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Shuffling of the article text has created a lead, but has also reduced the article to the point were the table of contents is not automatically displayed. This has shifted my objection from lack of a lead to a lack of a substantial table of contents (requirement 3c). --Allen3 ^talk 02:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object strongly. See Allen3's comment. Could have been lifted from the Web for all we know. --AnOddName 06:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. The article had not been proofread carefully, and a mistake was visible. I would love to support this in the future, once it is expanded further. Don't give up though! Brisvegas 07:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object not comprehensive as required by criteria. Large organized articles are possible too. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong object Many basic faulty judgements like "To determine the quantity of valence electrons an element has, you must look at the family (vertical column) in which the element is categorized." Uurghh! And how did Mendeleev to choose where to place the atoms in the table? The number of valence electron is the number of electrons which can be ripped off the atom without using too much energy. Look at ionization. This article should be merged with electron shell, electron configuration, atomic orbital, molecular orbital and other wellknown stubs on WP. This topic needs many expert editing and a big collaboration between physicists and chemists. Vb 13:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Refer to peer review. No references, not comprehensive, not enough context, requires previous knowledge of the subject. Almost everything in the lead is questionable: electrons cannot be "located" in an energy level; post-Heisenberg, an encyclopedia should not be giving the impression that atomic electrons are little billiard balls; it is strange to talk about an "outermost" energy level; some words have unusual meanings when used in a chemical context, such as "reactive", "unreactive", "shell" - all are unlikely to make much sense to a non-chemist without explanation; "shell" and "energy level" are not simply interchangeable. Nowhere is the word "valence" defined or linked. The experimental history of the subject is surely fascinating, and would make an ideal start for setting the context, but is not mentioned. Possibly this article should be merged with the little Valence bond theory stub. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

Self-nomination. --218.102.227.98 13:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Without in-depth reading: the lead is too short, too many single-sentence paragraphs, no explicit references section. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object.
  1. No references.
  2. Lead section is too short.
  3. Too many short, one-line paragraphs.
  4. The description page for Image:PresidentLuladaSilva.jpg reads "Copyright status unknown", and also needs fair use rationale.

Extraordinary Machine 13:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scrooge McDuck

Incredibly comprehensive article, detailing history of the character in real life and fiction terms. Arniep 20:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's quite comprehensive. While I see that it has references at the bottom, the article's nomination would be aided by using inline references throughout. —thames 21:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. A Carl Barks picture is "fair use"? No no. I don't think so. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

is this artist's work any more exempt from fair use than any other 2D artwork? Arniep 22:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, what I mean to say is that like many other images used in our articles, it has a dubious, uninformative fair use tag, with no reason given why the use of it should be considered fair, see image description page. Most of these images would probably never make any trouble for Wikipedia (though they're still not approved for Featured Articles, plus they're being deleted by decree from Jimbo Wales as we speak), but I believe one connected with Disney is quite likely to. Disney has a reputation for defending copyright very proactively, not to say aggressively. I'm no expert, though—the copyright of Barks' work may not belong to Disney anymore. I should think it would be actively defended in any case. To put it another way: what makes you think we can use this image? Bishonen | talk 23:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I would cite the standard fair use principles, (i) the image is accompanied by critical commentary, (ii) is of resolution too low for print reproduction, and (iii) Wikipedia's use of the image in this context in an article on the subject of the artwork is unlikely to damage Disney's profits or reputation. Arniep 23:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What critical commentary? The image isn't dated, no provenance or context is given for it, thus none of the article's commentary on Scrooge's changing appearance and personality relates to it. Moreover, the article is appropriately encyclopedic, which means it does not exactly discuss Bark's work "critically". I remain concerned. Bishonen | talk 00:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely you are interpreting critical commentary slightly too literally? I don't think the commentary necessarily has to cricitise the artistic style, it just has to be commentary directly related to the work i.e. a cartoon character. Admittedly no source is given, which is a problem but it is pretty certain it would have been published by Disney, in fact in the bottom right corner it says copyright Walt Disney. Arniep 15:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added the source, it is from the cover of Walt Disney's Uncle Scrooge McDuck: His life & times by Carl Barks, published 1981 by Celestial Arts, ISBN: 0890872902. Arniep 15:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Wow! Who would have thought there would be so much to write about an imaginary duck? :) Brisvegas 07:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support since I'm a huge fan of Scrooge, Donald and co. The page isn't "100%"...igordebraga ≠ 21:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lacks references. See WP:CITE. The "External links" used as references need to be called out into their own section, and the text, through footnotes, Harvard-style referencing, or other means, should direct you to which reference supplies facts and quotes found in the article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, per Bunchofgrapes. Also, the lead is a bit short. --Spangineer 04:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object as per Bunchofgrapes and Spangineer. The article needs both references and inline citations to aid verifiability. Saravask 06:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1957 World Series

A well-written top class article, thuroughly researched with good and interesting information. A couple of pictures and a couple of interesting facts. Very featurable article. CollieBreath 04:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This article isn't ready to be an FA at this point; no references, one section is marked as a stub, etc... Take a look at some of the recently featured articles to see what kind of comprehensiveness we look for here, CollieBreath. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong object per Bunchofgrapes. Short introduction with inappropriately placed "Umpires" "MVP" and "Television" sections (more appropriate as an infobox), zero references and one external link, and some poor prose (Statements such as "His only slightly worse performance than in Game 5 was incredible" are POV). Rampart 04:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object per above objections. In addition to the need for references, there are many red links. The introduction needs to be expanded to at least 3 paragraphs. The signed photograph really isn't too clear. With photographs of this nature you could easily claim fair use. In addition, inline citations would be quite useful! Good start to the article, though! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 14:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GG Allin

Well written article with good facts and plenty of information. A true testament as to how Wikipedia articles should be written. It's also come a long way. Gold Stur 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose a good article but the lead isn't long enough(See:Wikipedia:Lead) and there are no references. Falphin 01:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object.
  • Image:Gg47.jpg lacks fair-use rationale.
  • Image:GGALLIN.jpg lacks any copyright information and is currently at-risk of deletion.
  • The lead is too short.
  • The writing features far too many "(see below)", or "(see this link)" parentheticals. In many cases the links could be worked easily into the prose.
  • Statements like "Tensions within The Jabbers began to swell as GG became increasingly uncontrollable, vicious, and uncompromising" need some according-to-who attribution.
  • In general the writing feels narrative rather than encyclopedic.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object per above objections. In addition, this article is desperate for incline citations and a good copyedit. Certainly a very nice start to the article! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 15:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object as per Bunchofgrapes and Ganymead. Saravask 22:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object a truely impressive improvment from where it was when I first saw it but its not quite to featured status. Dalf | Talk 07:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Race of Jesus

Intereseting topic, and has been added and improved to become, in my opinion, featured article material. IF it makes it, give the medal to User:V. Molotov (creator of article). Thanks. Oh, anf if two editors debate all of the sudden, block both of them. I am editting under an IP now, because I pretty much got tired of Wikipedia. 65.35.197.181 23:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional support, the article is a good read. Fair use rationales and sources are necessary for the fair use images in the article. Please convert html links in the text to footnotes (I can only see one that isn't done). And the date fields need to be filled in of the web reference template or they say Date, Month, Year.--nixie 02:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The image Image:RFJesus.jpg has no source information or fair-use rationale.
  2. The image Image:Blackjesus05.jpg has no source information.
  3. The image Image:Sturmer Nordic Jesus.JPG has no fair-use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed.

  --Carnildo 06:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  I want to first state that you are probably the most unfriendly person I have encountered here. Also, all image sources have been fixed. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object; same issues as Carnildo. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

After some research I was able to correct some of the problems. 65.35.197.181 16:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Objection stands; The only change seems to have been changing BlackJesus.JPG from fair-use to public-domain, still with no indication of what the source of the image is, which is needed to support the contention that it is in fact public domain. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. 65.35.197.181 05:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There are hardly any references. NatusRoma 06:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support 131.247.142.109 18:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, per Carnildo, andBunchofgrapes. Jkelly 22:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Needs many more references, atricle suffers heavily from use of weasel words. Definitely a good start, and an impressive achievement for its chief creator, V. Molotov—though, as a side-note, I'd be slightly more comfortable with it if he didn't feel a need to create a sockpuppet account, User:65.35.197.181, to secretly self-nominate the article. I know he's been pushing for this to become featured article since the day he made it, but a little patience can go a long way. Not that my vote is in any way based on the user's activities; he's a fantastic contributor, this article is a testament to that. It just needs to meet more of the FA requirements. -Silence 00:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

As it happens, I am the main contributor, having written about half of the current text. I don't think it is ready to be a featured article, but could get there. Could you explain on the talk page what "weasel words" you find problematic. Paul B 13:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't use a sock puppet account, I am used this because I LEFT WIKIPEDIA. I hate when people make accusations against me. It is not like I turned around and voted under both my IP and user name. 65.35.197.181 15:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object for the same reasons stated above. Additionally, some important context seems to be missing. The debate over Jesus' race was part of an attempt to domesticise Christ within different ethnic traditions (note the connection of the question with missionary activity and early theories of racial difference). This is a good beginning, but not yet ready to stand as a FA. Dottore So 18:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Please explain on the talk page what "important context" is missing. It would be a great help. Paul B 13:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I promise to all of you, that I will try my best to get this up to featured article standards, even if that is what I do for the rest of my time here on Wikipedia. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 15:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I PLAN TO DO MAJOR UPDATES ON THIS ARTICLE IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!!!! εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 20:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind the above. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 06:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Article has NOW BEEN CLEANED of bad images, OTHER ARTICLES HAVE TWO REFERENCES BUT THEY WERE ALLOWED ON THE FRONT PAGE - THE ONE ON THE FRONT PAGE NOW HAS ONLY SEVEN WHAT YOUY ARE SAYING MAKES NO SENSE!!!!! I THINK THAT THE WHOLE IDEA OF RACE INTERTWINED WITH JESUS IS TOO MUCH FOR YOU ALLεγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And guess what Richard O'Connor this has no citation on it. I have gotten very upset by reading this. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that I was not trying to insult these articles, but only to state that these points are off target. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xanadu House

3rd self-nomination. Since it was last in FAC, it has been copy-edited and greatly improved based on previous suggestions. It has been through FAC twice before, and has been through peer review once. Archives: Peer review, FAC 1, FAC 2. Your comments are always appreciated. Thanks — Wackymacs 11:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Four of the nine main sections are one paragraph long; two more are a very short two paragraphs. Sections should be at least three paragraphs long in general. There are a number of short one-sentence paragraphs as well. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've fixed these issues, hopefully, is it any better now? — Wackymacs 07:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Objection struck, the structure looks a lot better now. (Some might still have a problem with the "Xanadu book" section; I don't.) I don't have the time to do a full review right now to decide on support or not. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now, great subject but there are a few things missing or that need clarification. Why does the History section begin with Before creating Xanadu House, Bob Masters designed and created inflatable balloons to be used in the construction of the house.- shouldn't we first be introduced to Masters and how he came up with the idea? How did Mason get involved? There is no explaination - he just appears and helps Bob out.

This section confuses me The Kissimmee house did not endure the elements well, suffering greatly from mold and mildew throughout the interior. The basement flooded with brownish water approximately a foot deep; in the basement were the utilities which controlled the electric and microcomputers.; were these problems common thoughout the time it existed, or only after 2001? If they were ongoing problms this section should go in the disadvantages part of the article (I was going to move it there- but its not clear when these were a problem)

There are also some other queries in the text.--nixie 02:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• It does say how Mason got involved in the 5th paragraph of the History section Disney opened the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow to compete with the Xanadu attraction. As a result Bob Masters found architect Roy Mason in 1980 at a futures conference in Toronto, to design the second Xanadu, I have changed the start of the History section text slightly based on what you have said. Thanks — Wackymacs 07:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think that the number of fair use images should be reduced too- all those interior shots seem excessive. Otherwise I Support the article.--nixie 12:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. I think there should be a little bit more on the end of the History section about why and how these were shut down. I don't understand what "storage use" means, or if it needs to be mentioned. Also, the day-by-day updates (on October 6 this happened, and October 10th this happened) should be removed and summarized. All in all, great article though! —Cleared as filed. 03:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• It already says why they were shut down, because the technology was obsolete and they were losing popularity. I have slightly changed the wording in the end of the History section based on what you have said. Thanks. — Wackymacs 07:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• I also think now that the Bob Masters link should either be removed, unless we think he's notable enough in his own right aside from his participation in the Xanadu House project. No need to have a red-link that's very unlikely to ever become an article. —Cleared as filed. 12:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment- in the history section, more context of modern and contemporary architecture would be helpful. As for influences on this project, I've highlighted your link to Kisho Kurokawa-- but discussion of more, and better known architects than Jacques Beufs Jacques Rougerie like Buckminster Fuller, Peter Cook & Archigram, even Frank Lloyd Wright the Bauhaus school and Le Corbusier-- all obvious and direct influences, might make a featured article. Also, your closing statement of the introduction, "The Xanadu Houses were some of the last experimental houses ever built,...", is prediction. See Frank Gehry, Greg Lynn and many others for the continuity of experimental houses and architecture after the 80's. -Davidrowe 05:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guns, Germs, and Steel

Guns, Germs, and Steel should definitely be a featured article. The book itself is amazing and the article on it is almost there. Too many people are racist because of some perceived difference in people, when what they really should be looking at is the geographical imbalances. Especially in these racially-charged times it helps to focus on something that downplays the lies of bigotry and replaces them with science. --Cyde 08:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support - It would be great if more people were exposed to Diamond's ideas. --Cyde 09:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is still was under peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Guns, Germs, and Steel. --maclean25 09:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This has been resolved as per Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy. --Allen3 ^talk 11:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Why don't closed PRs get a blue screen like closed VfDs or something of the sort? My oppose vote still stands based on comments at the peer review. --maclean25 19:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose there are some very good points brought up by the peer review that should be addressed.--nixie 10:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you list which are still valid and significant? Some have been fixed.--JWB 11:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Those of maclean25, the article doesn't actually describe the book releases, sales and so on.--nixie 12:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose per nixie. Along the same line, I still don't think the article covers Diamond's hypothesis about Eurasia being more successful because it is long in the east-west direction completely enough. To my recollection, that was an absolutely crucial point of the book: that societies could successfully transplant their "toolsets" (crops, agricultural and housing technology, food preservation techniques) only to places with similar climates, effectively isolating the peoples in the north-south oriented Americas and Africa. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, this is Wikipedia, you know ... if it's so important maybe you could, say, add it in there and then Support it. --Cyde 04:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll restrain my intense burning urge to be sarcastic here, and merely point out that describing what an article is missing is often a less time-consuming process than actually producing good writing in an article to that effect. In addition, my "oppose per nixie" indicates that I agree with the other problems raised in the peer review, especially the lack of discussion of the book's sales etc. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This line is very odd: "- this is a more extensive discussion of the effects of geography on comparative Chinese and European development than is allowed in the final section of Professor Diamond's book, and predates it by sixteen years." Jkelly 04:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As a person who nominated this to PR I don't think that it is ready for FA status yet, although I think that with some work to address the raised issues this can be back here in short order. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Planar graph

This article has extremely useful diagrams (as would be expected in an article about graph theory), and contains very useful, relevant, and succinct information about planar graphs. --Leapfrog314 04:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong object This article is very far from the FA status. It is a typical math article for mathematicians. The lead does not give any reason for the layman to read this. Theorems are provided without explaining why they are interesting or important. No possible application is provided. Many important concepts are defined in other articles and the reader needs all the time to click on the links. The articles linked are themselves complicated and the reader needs basically to read all maths articles before beginning to understand what is told about in this. Examples: complete graph, K_3,3, etc... Vb 09:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons listed above. PedanticallySpeaking 17:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object Inaccessible to non-mathematicians. It's unreasonable to assume the reader will be able to understand terms such as "4-partite". Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islam

Great article, I learned a lot from it. There's certainly enough information, even if it's a topic some people won't like, not to mention a magnet for vandals. --Jibbajabba 22:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• (withdrawing support vote - changed to no opinion) - featured articles desperately needs more non-western articles.Bwithh 23:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You gave that reason for something else, plus it's not really much of a reason in the first place... Can you please say something about the quality so it sounds credible? No offense. --Jibbajabba 23:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The image Image:Masjidnabawi.jpg has no source or copyright information.

     Image has been replaced with a Common Creative Licensed image.

  2. What do the two different shades of green in Image:Islam by country.png mean?

     Sunnite vs. Shiite distribution, have a look at the Image page dab (ᛏ)

     Does it say that in the German description? The English description doesn't. --Carnildo 20:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  3. There's a "citation needed" note in "Symbols of Islam". This needs to be taken care of.

  --Carnildo 00:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. People in general could benefit from some NPOV information about Islam! --Striver 00:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• The article lacks inline citations, and the introduction is unacceptable. →Raul654 01:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Lead is far too short; several one-paragraph (and one sentence) subsections. As an aside, the FAC process should be, I think, totally agnostic toward such arguments as "we need more non-western FAs" and "people could benefit from some NPOV information about Islam". Those are great reasons to go work on an article and bring it up to FA quality but meaningless reasons to vote support for an article. That said, I don't think this article is all that far from the goal, and with supporters like those here, I look forward to seeing it as an FA soon. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Those are great reasons to go work on an article and bring it up to FA quality but meaningless reasons to vote support for an article. - AMEN, brother. →Raul654 03:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object Sadly, article is not stable. At least 18 vandalisms and one linkspam in the past 3 days. I believe the lead should be 3 paragraphs, not one sentence. Contents are too long and ungainly, it could use better referencing, and there's a number of red links. Proto t c 12:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Vandalism does not an unstable article make. →Raul654 17:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No, but incessant POV edit wars (q.v. this morning) do.Timothy Usher 20:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• comment, the introduction needs some work. I give it a {{GA}} at the very least, though. dab (ᛏ) 13:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment I feel as one of the regular editors on the article that it could use some more work, but it is definitely a good article at least. Maybe in a month it can be renominated for FAC. Also the article faces vandalism problems just like every other religion article, but that shouldn't affect it's FAC. Editors should list some of their concerns here, so that the article can be improved. I added the demographics picture description after Carnildo's concern and I also think that the introduction can be expanded. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment. i don't think the article is professional and encyclopedic enough yet. --Juan Muslim 02:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• object for purely selfish reasons. If we make it a featured article the already ridiculous levels of vandalism will increase, as will the partisan sniping, of which we already have quite enough. I think. Other people who work on the article regularly may feel differently, of course. Want to take this opportunity to point out that there is certainly much to be proud of in this article, and that credit for this is due in large measure to User:Zora. She's just done a superb job. BrandonYusufToropov 15:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That objection probably falls afoul of WP:FAC's "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." If it's any consolation, I don't think being featured usually has much effect on vandalism levels, except for the day it's on the front page. Its effect on partisan sniping is harder to guess at. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This objection is invalid. →Raul654 17:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I hear what you're saying, and I understand that this objection of mine is off base. BrandonYusufToropov 19:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Strong Support As a Muslim, I say it is a good article providing a good link to resources and the basics and the details of the religion. 195.229.242.54 14:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob McEwen

Self nom. Profile of a former six-term Ohio congressman in the news this year. PedanticallySpeaking 17:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks good at first sight - but is a (fair use?) picture out of the question? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Conditional Support, provided that at least one proper and fair use eligible image is put into the introduction (this should be relatively easy to obtain from his official congressional website), the references are somehow organized either alphabetically or numerically, and the introduction is reformatted into the recommended three paragraphs. Otherwise, the article is well-referenced and comprehensive (as it appears from a newcomer's perspective). Personally, I may not agree with his conservative politics, but that is entirely irrelevant for purposes of evaluating the article itself. Kudos. Saravask 19:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC) It does not seem anyone is addressing the below concerns, so I will retract my vote. I agree with the need to convert the raw HTML links to footnotes. Saravask 06:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object. Remove external links from mainbody, move to refernces, link with mainbody via Wikipedia:Footnotes. Image(s) would also be very useful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Great article, but why no images? Any U.S. government figure should have some PD photos available of them. - SimonP 22:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

McEwen does not have an "official Congressional website" as he has not been a Member of Congress since 1993. I don't understand the objection to external links. Why is that an issue. PedanticallySpeaking

[edit] Shoe polish

I've worked hard on this article, at first as an exercise to improve my editing, but then to see just how good I could make an article on such a prosaic subject. Thanks to a very helpful peer review, I think it's finally become a very good article, and I humbly submit it to become a featured article. Proto t c 13:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Mild object It lacks appropriate reference. A bit more pix are preferred. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC) It looks much nicer now...but the article seems to be pretty short in structure. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Support -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thoughts, Jerry. Please give more detail. What do you mean by 'lacks appropriate reference'? What 'pix' would you like to see a bit more of? Proto t c 15:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • See other FAs, and you'll find that most of them do contain a detailed list of reference. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, thank you. Inline citation is now done as per many other FAs (but not all, interestingly). I am also waiting for a pic to be uploaded by another Wikipedia user. Proto t c 16:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • That's because they use {{inote}}s =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Further pics have been added (one kindly provided by Nichalp) Proto t c 09:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please expand on what you mean by 'short in structure'. The Featured Article guidelines do state that length of the article is of secondary importance to quality. Proto t c 15:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. References are fine, IMO (though by convention they should be above external links, not below). However, the lead section is too short (should be one to three paragraphs, not two sentences). I also think the "using shoe polish" and "alternate uses" sections are too short and should be combined. Johnleemk | Talk 16:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, thanks! Amended as per Johnleemk's comments also. Proto t c 16:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Looking good, but I think the lead appears a bit incomplete. It should be a summary of the article in full, and it has been proposed that a print Wikipedia include as articles only the lead section. Therefore, a lead ought to encompass all the important aspects of the article's topic without going overboard. It might be relevant to mention its number one producer (Kiwi). Johnleemk | Talk 16:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I've rewritten the introduction, summarising the rest of the article. It's now three cogent paragraphs. At least, I hope they're cogent. Thanks (yet again) for the advice. Proto t c 16:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work on a relatively insignificant topic. Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. But it needs references to printed sources instead of being entirely web-based. PedanticallySpeaking 17:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement, for featured articles or otherwise, that printed sources be cited for an article. It's always nice, but not essential. —Morven 02:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've found the ISBN for the print version of one of the references. Hope that helps this concern. Proto t c 12:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose – 1) Too many subheadings. Please reduce them to top level headings. 2) Merge the trivia section with the rest of the article 3) =Manufacture= section needs to be written into prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Nichalp! 1) Done. 2) Done. 3) Done. Proto t c 11:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've copyedited now so that I can support =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• see one comment below. Oppose, based mostly on awkward structure and lack of comprehensive details. There is some good research here but it needs to go deeper. Did nothing happen to the shoe polish industry between 1950 and 2005 (maybe retitle section to 'Origin')? More detailed analysis can help the awkwardly titled section "Appearance / other products" (perhaps merge this with the Chemistry section as they both describe qualitative/quantitative details of the product):Why are they packaged in those small flat round tins (so it can fit in my pocket)? Smell? Feel? Probably shouldn't taste it. Are all the shoe polishes (Kiwi, Shinola, etc.) the same? No market niches? Deeper research can make those two-sentence paragraphs more clear and descriptive. Why the one paragraph sub-section at "Using shoe polish"? The "...now seen as racist." remark is a value-judgement stab at a past practise - reference, elaborate or omit it. Reference the "Shoe polish sandwiches" thing, I hear a lot of stories about people getting high/wasted off a lot of things, so I'm a little doubtful. The article says burning shoe polish produces COx and NOx. However, burning anything produces this. How does this make shoe polish special? Does the article mean there are no harsh or toxic polluntants? Are there no carcinogens in it? Can not the trivia be merged into the body? If it can't is it really that necessary? --maclean25 20:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi Maclean, thanks for your thoughts. I think I've dealt with all the issues you raised, please take a second look. I've expanded on the appearance of the can, and branding. Remark omitted. The only one I haven't dealt with is the shoe polish sandwiches. I know it happened, but am having difficulty finding a verification online or in books. It is omitted for now, but if I can find a reference I'll put it back in. The burning thing means there are no harsh or toxic pollutants, so shoe polish can be disposed of safely through incineration. I have tried to make this clearer. Trivia merged as per your and others comments. Proto t c 11:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not a perfect article but it is one of the better ones out there. I support it for FA status but would still like to see further work done to make it more comprehensive. There are numerous good suggestions in this FAC debate for further points/topics that could be addressed. --maclean25 05:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The image Image:Kiwi shoe polish.jpg is tagged as "fair use". For such a common object, there's no reason to use fair-use images of it.
  2. The image Image:Jeanbartpolish.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but is not discussed in the article. It does not qualify for "fair use".
  3. The image Image:KiwiExpress.jpg has the same problem as Image:Kiwi shoe polish.jpg did.

  --Carnildo 21:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Image:KiwiExpress.jpg has been removed for a few days now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I do not have a digital camera. The Kiwi shoe polish image was taken from a website which stated all images were not subject to copyright (see the image for attribution informaiton. I am not expert with fair use tags, but I think this would be sufficient. Please advise if I have misunderstood. The Jean Bart image is fair use. Images of historical characters were often used in association with shoe polish advertisements in the early 20th century. This is now discussed in the article, better qualifying the picture as fair use. Again, please advise if this is incorrect. Proto t c 11:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see anything on http://www.design-technology.org/ that states that the images are not copyrighted, and they seem to be using "free" to mean "zero cost" rather than "not copyrighted". Also, Wikipedia has additional rules for the use of fair-use images beyond that of copyright law; see Wikipedia:Fair use for details, but in general, any time it's possible for a Wikipedian to create an image that's under a free license, a non-free image shouldn't be used. --Carnildo 20:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • A GFDL image has been taken and added to the photo, replacing the questionable image. Proto t c 10:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object: (But I have to confess I'm eager to have my objections dealt with and turn this into a support— I really like this article. I just gave it a copyedit for things like &mdash;s and &nbsp;s.)
  • Images, per Carnildo.
  • Overly-short sections. Sections should be at least two big paragraphs or three or four short ones long. Struck
  • Agree with others that the article would be much-improved by finding a home in the main writing for the items currently under "Trivia." Struck.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• • See above, done, done. Proto t c 11:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

    • A GFDL image has been taken and added to the photo, replacing the questionable image.Proto t c 10:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you should remove the fair-use Image:KiwiExpress.jpg; at this point the article gets little additional benefit from this additional non-free image. If that's done, or it is replaced with a free image, you'll have my support.—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC) I removed it myself. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Provided that the image use and copyright problems are fixed, please consider my vote a
• Support. Excellent work. The succinct three paragraph introduction (when it is so common to have overblown or single sentence introductions), the crisp, easy to read, and encyclopedic tone, and the extensive referencing all factor into my conditional support. Again, please correct the image use problems somehow. If these image problems are not fixed (as per Carnildo), my input should be considered as just a comment instead. Good luck. Saravask 18:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  I think (with the advice of Bunchofgrapes) that we've got it down to just one image of dubious copyright, which is the tin of Kiwi shoe polish. I am trying to loan a camera so I can take a photo. Thank you for your other comments also. Proto t c 09:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  • A GFDL image has been taken and added to the photo, replacing the questionable image. Proto t c 10:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object Non-relevent wikilinking, especially of dates. As a random example, animals and children are not relevent wikilinks for an article about shoe polish. Article is too vague about what types of shoes shoe polish is used for. —jiy (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for your thoughts, jiy. Shoe polish is used on leather shoes. I have clarified that in the introduction. I have also removed the extraneous wikilinks. Proto t c 09:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support—jiy (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Object It's coming along, but in order to represent Wikipedia's very best work it still needs some more copyediting. The information in the article is scattered and overlapping in places. As one example (but not the only one), the Ingredients section talks about applicators and sponges when that should be in the Uses section, while the Uses section talks about toxicity when that would be more approriate in the Ingredients/Chemistry section. I'm of the opinion that entire article needs to be restructured and information be consolidated under appropriate headings. I've been working on this article a bit myself but it still needs more work. As a side note, the "burial place" reference is 404.—jiy (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, the article is well done for a pretty dull subject and the changes made during this FAC have made a big difference. I have made some additional images if you need them Image:Kiwi polish black.jpg and Image:Kiwi with brush.jpg. One question, the article doesn't mention the liquid wax shoe polishes in the squeezy bottle made by Kiwi and other companies is there a reason for leaving them out?--nixie 11:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Those images are loads better than mine, so I will use them! Thanks. I will also put in a mention of the squeezy bottles (think they're the ones with the sponge applicator at the top). Proto t c 11:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Dull subject? Nonsense, shoe polish is almost by definition shiny! I really like this article; all my objections above have been handled. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support this great over-view of shoe polish. A few too many commas at points but otherwise no complaints. Marskell 18:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• I like this article very much and support it. One niggling criticism, however. It might be appropriate to include a short section—or at least a link at the end of the article—on shoe polishing, i.e., the actual act of using shoe polish to polish shoes. It is of course arguable that such a section would not be about the material of shoe polish, but I think it's a very closely related subject. As I've said, though, I think it would be very good to at least include a link to somewhere else on the internet or perhaps a link to a related article on shoe polishing, if it exists. Hydriotaphia
• Comment. User jiy (who offered an Object vote above) is in violation of Wikipedia's FAC objector guidelines by not reevaluating his object vote in a timely fashion. I believe Proto has addressed his/her concerns, yet he/she has not removed the objection nor has he explained why his vote is still an object. I left him a message in an attempt to remind him of the guidelines. Regards, Saravask 23:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC).
• Support. Great read. Wim van Dorst 23:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC).
• Support. Object. If it says in the "usage" section that "shoe polish is not a cleaning product," why is the article in Category:Cleaning products Neutrality^talk 23:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Easily fixed - removed from category. Was this the only reason for your objection? Proto t c 11:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, thanks for responding. Support. Neutrality^talk 20:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, although it would be nice if the market section were expanded. Ambi 23:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support I loved it! InvictaHOG 03:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Billings, Montana

Good Article, deserves to be featured. Support- Per Nomination. FireSpike 01:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object There are no references (a requirement for FA). Also, there is no information on economy, climate, or cityscape (is the city modern in appearance or older, rural or urbanized?). The list of neighborhoods should be turned into prose. Pentawing 01:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object; it's barely more than a stub. FireSpike, I suggest you browse through some of the Recently Featured Articles to get a feel for the level of comprehensiveness looked for here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I suggest removing the seconds of latitude and longitude or telling which building or landmark the numbers refer to. Fg2 02:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Water resources

This article was nominated beacause it talks about a very important world issue and people need to be more aware of what is going on with the earths water supply. Tarret 01:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Way too many headings. See Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Also, references need citations, not simply a list of external links labelled "References". That said, I think the topic is of great importance, and would love to read a FA-standard article on the subject. Jkelly 01:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. Needs a very through copyediting -- "alot" isn't a word.
  2. Many of the images need better captions, or need to be removed -- I think everyone knows what a lake looks like, for example.
  3. The image Image:Iwimi.jpg is tagged as "copyrighted free-use", but there's no evidence that that's correct.

  --Carnildo 21:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Around the Horn

I love the show and like the article too. The page is well written, detailed, and thorough. I'd love to see this as a featured article.

• Support- Per Nomination. FireSpike 18:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object: It's almost entirely lists. Featured Articles should feature prose. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object per Bunchofgrapes. If it weren't for the lists, this article would be a very good stub. Jkelly 01:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, this is just a stub with some lists tacked on. Andrew Levine 21:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turku

Partial self-nom. This article about the oldest city in Finland has been through peer review and had a previous FAC nomination. The only objection that remained was that the article should be copyedited slightly, and that has been done now by numerous editors. - ulayiti (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Turku coat of arms.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 06:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed. -EnSamulili 13:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object – Lead is short, needs to be expanded. Sports should be merged with culture since both are rather thin. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lostprophets

All articles drawn from have now been fully referenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.25.247.75 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 November 2005.

Old nomination subpages shouldn't be written over; you have to transfer them to an archive page using the "Move" function available to logged in users. The previous nomination page is here. Also, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Extraordinary Machine 17:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's good that the magazine article references are now there, but the images still don't have any source or copyright information, and there seem to be quite a few one or two-line paragraphs that could be merged into larger ones. Additionally, sentences such as "such credibility sapping magazines as J-17 and Cosmo Girl" and "lostprophets sold-out the cavernous Cardiff International Arena, a once unimaginable feat that served as concrete proof of just how big the band had become" should be reworded, as they are a little POV. Extraordinary Machine 17:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The two things that can be done to improve this article (and I mentioned some of them in Peer Review and all of them in the last FAC nomination) are:

1. Add a source for who credits them with popularizing studded belts, low-slung jeans, etc. If they really are "largely credited with popularising [these] items" it shouldn't be difficult to find at least one source. You can phrase it in such a way as "Rolling Stone credits..."
2. Add the Infobox_band template.

Cedars 09:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object per Extraordinary Machine. Also, please get rid of wikilinks in the section headings (especially ones that don't link anywhere). See WP:CITE for improving the referencing. I don't agree that you should add Template:Infobox band. It is unstable and, in my opinion, not helpful. It is absolutely not a requirement of Wikipedia:WikiProject Music to have it. Jkelly 01:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• The template is used by a number of featured articles on bands including The Beatles, Iron Maiden and Nirvana. It offers a good summary of information and is helpful to those who visit the page to find a piece of information such as whether the band is still active, who its members are or what the band's genre or label is. It also encourages the editors to place a picture of the band near the top of the article and this article needs that. Cedars 10:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beatles For Sale

Passed peer review with not many comments. Self-nom. Johnleemk | Talk 09:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• I had some minor issues with the described relationship between the UK and US albums, but I went ahead and addressed them myself. Assuming you are OK with the changes, I support this nom. Jgm 13:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article is inadequately researched. The bulk of the text is a set of quotations drawn from a single webpage, http://www.geocities.com/~beatleboy1/dba04sale.html , (which is listed iin the article references) filled out by unsourced commentary with, at best, NPOV issues. Monicasdude 23:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Revised: Although my initial objections have been met to some degree, I find the patched version less suitable as an FA candidate than the original. The extensive inclusion of AMG commentary greatly unbalances the article; it now is dominated by the recent opinions of a single, not terribly distinguished writer (with virtually no contemporaneous commentary). And the covers section calls for a discussion of the songs themselves to be comprehensive. Monicasdude 20:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is why I've been rather reluctant to nominate the article for FAC, actually — there's not much that can be said about the album besides the various Beatles' reminiscing and perhaps some description of the songs. I agree the commentary reads as a bit POV at times, and will try to sort that out, but the fact is that Beatles for Sale is probably the Beatles' most unremarkable album. The only commentary I can see is the description of the songs, which I think is always going to sound a bit POV, since any work of art is going to have many interpretations, and most 3rd-party commentary is probably hidden away in archives, considering how old this album is. I'll see what I can find at AMG and Q, though. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Changed to Support. Jkelly 23:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Object, unfortunately. Per Monicasdude, with two added concerns. One is that there is so much literature on The Beatles that a truly comprehensive article is going to need an awful lot of research, which pretty much precludes using any material from geocities websites at all. In the case of artists without much secondary literature, fansites can be a great resource. With The Beatles, it is problematic. Secondly, the article over-uses fair use images. The cover of the preceding and next albums aren't being added under WP:FU policy. Images for The Beatles are particularly tricky, I am sure, but this isn't the way to go. Jkelly 02:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If I understand what you are saying, no album article using the current album box template (which includes album cover art) can make feautred status. If so this issue is bigger than this nomination and needs to be addressed where the template is discussed. Jgm 04:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The current album box template, as given at WP:ALBUM, which is the associated Wikiproject for album articles, and to whose standards FACs about albums must meet is Template:Album infobox. Template:Album infobox 2, used in this article, is a variant upon it. I'm unwilling to start FARC'ing album articles that use it, but I am also unwilling to support new FAs that don't adhere to Project guidelines. Jkelly 04:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, the album infobox was an oversight on my part — I think it's most inappropriate to call those images "fair use". I've since removed it. Simply classifying the Geocities webpage as unreliable is inaccurate, I think, since it's an online repository of Beatles quotes collated from sources directly cited by the website. Books in Malaysia are expensive, but I may be able to look at local libraries and get some books from there. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have some Beatles books on hand; I'll take a look and see if I can help. Jgm 16:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I hate to be a pain, but, well, the (very short) lead currently states "by their relentless recording and performing schedule, the Beatles chose to return to the inclusion of a number of cover versions in Beatles for Sale." I have no idea how to evaluate this statement, because, while the article now lists several references, there's no link between the statements and each reference. Is this something a member said, or speculation by a critic, or what? I want to support this article, but I feel that clear referencing is especially important for articles on the arts. Is there any chance that I will see footnotes? The "Personnel" section is also not formatted to WP:ALBUM suggestions, but I will happily fix that myself, if I hear that there are no objections. Jkelly 02:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I've now somewhat explicitly attributed where those quotes came from. Go ahead and fix up the Personnel section. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object: The images Image:HelpUK.jpg and Image:HardDayUK.jpg are tagged as fair use, but they are used only for decorative purposes. This does not meet the requirements for fair use. They should be removed. --Carnildo 06:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Removed. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Jgm has been a kind soul and added print sources to corroborate the article. I've soothed my conscience by NPOVing the article with commentary from AMG and Q that, at any rate, at least sounds a lot better than the pedestrian stuff we used to have. Johnleemk | Talk 10:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object to it appearing on the main page, at least. It seems the majority of music related FAs that have made the main page are Beatles related. While I'm a fan, and realize the great significance of the band, there are plenty of other music subjects out there, and the Beatles are getting to much attention in this respect. -R. fiend 17:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, that's unactionable, and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I've never explicitly requested any of the articles I've worked on substantially to be featured on the front page (at least, as far as I can remember), and I will oppose such a motion if and only if it comes up as a suggestion precisely for the same reason as you. This is not the place to discuss it, however. Johnleemk | Talk 17:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Out of curiosity, what is the right place to discuss it? -R. fiend 04:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As per Monicasdude, nearly half of the article is quotations and there is wayy too much dependence on All Music Guide. Article suffers from overlinking of dates. Overall, article is bare in terms of relevent wikilinks. —jiy (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paper Mario

I think this is a pretty good possibility for a featured article.

I looked over the page, and I didn't see that much wrong with it at all. All of the party members and characters are listed there, without too much detail, the battle mechanics are described wonderfully, and I personally don't see any glaring errors. I edited a few names to fix their spelling, but other than that I think this is totally ready to become a featured article! This was a wonderful game to play, and I think it would be very welcome in the library of featured articles. Any way I can help make this even better if it's not ready, please do say. Toastypk 01:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Object.

There is content for the plotline, but it shouldn't be in the lead, but in its own section.

It has no references.

It has no discussion on its critical acclaim, its sales figures or the Mario RPG series as a whole.

Characters section is too excessive. All NPCs should be merged into the plot section.

No mention of Princess Peach's playability. The playable characters should be unlistified, and made into a section about the partners and talk about how they work in and outside of battles.

No discussion about audio, and barely anything discussing the graphical style.

No discussion about the varying enemies, such as how a flying enemy is immune to most hammer techniques, or that spiked enemies will injure Mario or anyone who jumps on them when they attack. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Kind of short - refer to Peer Review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mormonism and Judaism

• Support (Self-nom) VChapman (Oct 29, 2005)

• Started as a stub, and being worked on heavily since Jan 05, this article has grown. There has been great effort into making the article NPOV, and sometimes painful. Often disagreements, all settled without arbitration. The result, in my opinion is the purpose of wikipedia.
• Response to Concerns The Break out of Mormonism and Judaism topics is a result of individuals of both faiths working on the issue. This allowed individuals contributing to the Jewish or Mormon sections to not inadvertantly change the POV of the other faith and thus inadvertantly affecting the NPOV. Maintaining a NPOV is EXTREMELY difficult in this article. This article is the work of many individuals. Vchapman (04 Nov 05 UTC)
• Correction Bolding of Nouns, which were bolded in original stub I found have been un-bolded. Thanks pointing it out. VChapman (5 Nov 05)
• More Pictures Added but have been unable to locate a Wiki picture of a statue or painting of Moses, except for one Pegan statue with HORNS. I am asking for help in locating a more approperiate picture of a painting.
• Concern here Some Individuals oppose saying paragraphs need to be merged and expanded, others object saying the ToC is to large and the articel needs to be shorter. It can't go both ways?!?!? VChapman (08 Nov 05 UTC)

• Object, no references. Kirill Lokshin 17:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object This is a very good article on a fascinating subject but I think the presentation is too messy. This article really needs to go through peer review before coming back here. Besides Kirill's concerns on the lack of references, I would add the following:

• The TOC is really overwhelming. Part of the problem is that most sections are divided into Judaism/Mormanism sections. In addition to giving a more unwieldy appearance to the article it also divides the article into many short (sometimes one sentence) paragraphs.
• Short paragraphs a found throughout. These should either be merged or expanded.
• This article cries out for inline citations!
• A few more images would make this article much nicer, how about pics of Joseph Smith, Abraham (a nice painting of him would do), Moses, the Main Temple in Salt Lake City, a picture of a synogogue, perhaps? The images aren't required for FA but they do add to the aesthetic appeal of the article. If you need any help locating images, I'm willing to help, just leave a note on my talk page.
• The introduction should summerize the article and should be around three paragraphs for an article of this size.

As I've said, this is a fine article on a great subject! It just needs some work before it goes on to FA. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 21:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose for now I agree with all that Ganymead said, and also wonder why all the nouns have been bolded in the lead instead of bolding what should be the article's title or something very similar? Harro5 04:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Please see WP:CITE and WP:MOS. WP:NPOV alone does not a featured article make. Jkelly 17:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support I think this would be a good idea for a featured article, comparing and discussing two Strict, Controversial, and highly populated religions. --Z.Spy 06:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Adam1213 Talk+ 09:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. ToC is a monster and should be reduced (consider also moving parts of the article into a separate subarticles). There are external links in main article's body. No references. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. My large problem with this article is its significance and meaning is unclear, resulting in a number of issues to this reader informed about Judaism, but not necessarily the details of Mormonism. It seems to be drawing parallels between Mormonism and Judaism, mostly to support the one-way special relationship that Mormonism seems to have with Judaism, or at least that is the impression I get. The result is a strange article, in my view, that emphasizes parts of Judaism that are not particularly relevant -- starting with the first section "Tribal Affiliations." The idea of tribal affiliation is certainly not a major point in modern Jewish practice, but the article certainly gives that impression. Similarly, quoting the Jewish view of God directly from the Ten Commandments doesn't really recognize the 3,000 years of religious thought on the subject, such as the development of Jewish principles of faith. Again, nothing is horribly factually wrong, but the article's reason for being is not clear, and the emphasis, from the Jewish perspective, are strange. This needs to be clarified before I would support. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Response Modern Rabbinical Judaism has less in common with Mormonism than Ancient or Hebrew Judaism. The sections on the Jewish Perspective were actually contributed by other members, I only presume to have an extensive knowledge of the Jewish belief system. I myself am LDS and do not make changes under any heading labeled Judaism. (Except for the Section on Jewish Mormons) VChapman 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your response. The article then, should perhaps be "Mormon views of Judaism" or "Mormonism's relationship to Judaism." The compare-and-contrast is clearly from a Mormon perspective, since it doesn't really cover Judaism coherently, instead focusing on areas of interest to Mormonism, presumably. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, no references (needs inline citations as well, please). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, just stylistically it needs a better referencing system. It also needs better / more references. It borders on original research when you juxtapose two ideas in comparison with citations from different contexts in order to make a point. As a result the amount / quality of citations is very important. It just seems really fragmented and scattered to me. gren グレン 09:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fox River Grove level crossing accident

Self-nom, and my first attempt to raise the bar for Wikipedia articles and entries. I have tried to highlight the importance of the event while still respecting the community, the memory of the victims, while maintaining a level of journalistic accuracy that I would expect to read in either a newspaper or a magazine. Possible objections: top image has no source, middle image has attributions to another company, bottom image is OK. I was assuming that if they were in the NTSB report, they were considered works of the government. --Rob 19:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• While I'd love to see more rail transport related articles reach featured status, I must object right now because 1) Cite your sources in a References section; 2) "... Metra train number 624 ... slammed into the back of a school bus ..." sounds too sensationalistic and makes it sound like Metra was at fault when further down it's stated "[t]he primary cause of the accident was the failure of the bus driver, Patricia Catencamp, to properly judge the distance ..."; 3) There is no mention of any recommendations by NTSB, FRA or any other agency on how to prevent a similar accident from occurring in the future except for one sentence in the lead; what legislation was proposed and what actions were taken? slambo 20:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. Noted — they're all in External links at the moment.
  2. This is just a matter of word choice in my opinion... "hit" sounds like an understatement, while "impacted" sounds odd. What about "crashed into"?
  3. There is a little bit of a mention in Consequences, but it can afford to be expanded. --Rob 21:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  On point 2, how about "collided with"? I usually use this for the timeline pages in Category:Timeline of rail transport. For point 3, my ideal solution would be a section like in Graniteville train disaster#Recommendations or Bourbonnais train accident#NTSB recommendations. As a minimum, something like the last two paragraphs of Clapham Junction rail crash should be included. slambo 22:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, fixed wording on the article. Points 1 and 3, I'll try to deal with later today. :-) --Rob 11:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Regarding NTSB recommendations, they're a good idea, but I want to do more than paste them word-for-word into the article (unless it's in a sidebar). Sometimes they're confusing even then, because the recommendations require the context of the entire report. It's definitely possible, however. --Rob 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Added NTSB recommendations. It's a bit rough around the edges—further edits will help clean this up. It will be difficult, but not impossible, to find resulting legislation. Also, going back helped uncover another cause of the accident, which I must add later, if not tonight (inability of the driver to hear audible warnings). --Rob 20:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you see anything further on the legislation that's mentioned in the lead? slambo 18:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• One other thing before I forget. The CNW was known for running "left-hand main" similar to British practice, rather than "right-hand main", which is more common on US railroads. UP continues this practice on former CNW lines such as the one involved in this accident. That means that the Metra train in the accident was travelling eastbound, and probably was well loaded with commuters bound for Chicago. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article too, but I'm not sure where at the moment. slambo 23:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object: It's not bad at all, but it needs some more work:
  • There are a lot of short (1-2 sentence) paragraphs. Could they be expanded? If not, merge them into an adjacent paragraph.
  • The timeline should probably be converted into prose, rather than being presented as a list. Ditto for the list of victims, although since that would be such a short section on its own I'd probably move the victims to the lead.
  • Make sure that all figures are connected to their unit by a non-breaking space (  click Edit to see an example of the code you need to use), so that the figure is on the same line as the unit.

Good luck! If I can help out, just let me know. PacknCanes | say something! 22:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • I would personally rather keep the timeline the way it is, for clarity. Lists are bad when they're really just a method of outlining that should be turned into prose. However, I believe the timeline would lose clarity if presented as paragraphs of prose. As to the list of victims, it would equally be a list if presented separated by commas or semicolons in a paragraph, rather than a bulleted list as present. I'm not sure I see the value of that, myself. It concerns me that 'remove all lists' is becoming a de-facto FAC requirement. —Morven 23:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I really believe that a featured article should have excellent prose from start to finish. Featured Lists combine good prose with a thorough list, and I think that's why you're seeing "remove all lists" become a standard objection in FACs. If Featured Lists didn't exist, then I don't think you'd see the number of remove-list objections. I'm willing to reconsider, but at least in my opinion a featured article should do everything possible to avoid listing information. PacknCanes | say something! 23:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think an article should present information in whatever way is most effective. Sometimes that is in list form. Featured Lists would not take an article like this: it is for articles that ARE lists, not that CONTAIN lists. I don't think the creation of Featured Lists was intended to bar list markup from ever being used in other articles seeking featured status.

That said, in many cases, lists are not the best way to present information. My main disagreement was in presenting the timeline as paragraphs, which I do not think could be easily done without reducing readability or removing information. It could be that the timeline contains a level of detail which is not needed in an article (as opposed to an accident report) - what do you think? As to the list of victims, I have no serious objection to them being listed in a paragraph rather than with bullets, but I simply feel the article neither gains nor loses thereby. —Morven 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'll come around to where I can take it or leave it. I'd still rather see it as prose, but I see your point and it's well taken. If that's the only thing remaining on my objection, I'll withdraw it. PacknCanes | say something! 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Reconsidered my objection to listing the victims as a list, and tried your suggestion of placing them in the lead. Do you think that looks better? Reason for my reconsideration was unhappiness with that too-short section. I also reworded as 'killed', not 'victims' - since the wounded also count as 'victims'. —Morven 23:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Looks good. I combined the list of those killed with the notation about the renaming of the crossing, since they seemed to go well together. Thanks -- PacknCanes | say something! 23:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I like it - that flows a lot better. —Morven 23:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll just note my agreement that the timeline as it is now looks fine. The presence of complete lists in articles is usually less of a problem than incomplete lists, and the timeline format helps with a time sequence that would be painful to visualize as prose. No vote. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Placed non-breaking spaces between numbers and units, except for seconds - do we do those too if 'seconds' is a word, not abbreviation? —Morven 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, you'd might as well. You don't really lose anything by making it a nbsp, except a little time to convert the spaces. PacknCanes | say something! 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Done that. —Morven 23:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you want those in between the 7:xx and the AM parts too? --Rob 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sure, might as well. Only thing you'll lose is a little time. PacknCanes | say something! 23:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object, although it has much potential. The diagrams add a lot to the article. However, the lead mentions that this was a "watershed moment," but the "Consequences" section is very sparse. The article should go into more detail about the coverage of the accident in the media, the reaction of politicians and other influential figures, and the specifics of what sort of legislation and regulations were handed down as a result of the tragedy. Was there any reaction on the national level? This sort of detail would flesh out the claim made in the lead, and also provide the reader with a lot more context about the accident's importance. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This is an interesting and mostly well-written article. Here are some things I think need attention:

1) I would rewrite the first sentence as, "The Fox River Grove level-crossing accident refers to a collision between a school bus and a commuter train that killed seven students in Fox River Grove, Illinois."

2) You do not define the following terms: crossing processor, thumbwheel, EMT and sound attenuation materials.

3) I question the appropriateness of the first graphic, since it is hard to decipher. You might want to redraw it to make it simpler.

4) From what I gather, the intersection is a T, with the train tracks running parallel to US 14. Presumably, the bus was traveling northeast, on Algonquin, but I don't think you say that in the text.

5) This sentence is very confusing:

"The primary cause of the accident was the failure of the bus driver, Patricia Catencamp, to properly judge the distance between the railroad tracks and the vehicle stopped at a traffic signal across the tracks."

Does "the vehicle" mean the bus? And does "across the tracks" mean north of the tracks?

6) AASHTO should be spelled out in the first reference, or you should create an article on it.

7) There are no references in the text, only a collection of links at the bottom. Mwalcoff 00:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object:This is a very good brief account and report of a tragedy, and that is the problem - it is just a factual report. It is not a featured article. It is too short, there must have been many after effects of such an occurrence, was the driver prosecuted, how experienced was she, what happened to her, and the many other survivors. I don't like the lack of a proper reference section, but I suppose links to official reports will do in a case like this. Giano | talk 09:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't deny that it's definitely a brief account and report, but at what point does information get included that belongs in another article? Some things I considered including in the article were background information, such as 1.) why Illinois has a history of being one of the leading states in grade-level crossings, and 2.) the accident history of the intersection. More information is better than none, but some of it may not be appropriate. The references section will be refined as I have free time. --Rob 18:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object - I agree with Giano. Bwithh 22:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• A lot better than it was recently, but object for now. (1) it needs a References section and (2) I'd like to see a bit more about the bus driver (e.g. in the timeline you mention a substitute bus driver, but is that the same person as Patricia Catencamp? Had she ever driven the route before? Was she disciplined for her error in judgement? etc.). JYolkowski // talk 02:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time to completion

These are all very good comments and will be addressed. I will keep referring to this page in the next week as I try to address each concern. --Rob 09:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] H5N1

A successful WP:AID article, I think this is of great significance just now. -Litefantastic 18:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone should convert all of the external links that are in the body of the article into numbered references. At the very least, people have to stop inserting new external links that disrupt the existing numbered references. --JWSchmidt 18:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Is this really stable? KingTT 19:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the following need to be addressed:

1. The lead needs to mention why H5N1 is a concern.
2. html links should be converted to footnotes and full details of source included (this seems to be in progress)
3. By my understanding 2004/05 isn't the first time HN51 has been recorded, can some information on the first occurence and subsequent identificaion of the virus be added.
4. The Asia and beyond section reads like the current events page, please try and incorporte this information into cohesive paragraphs.
5. Merge pig cases and big cat cases into a sectional called HN51 in other animals.
6. The worst case scenario section should probably be L2 heading and notably this is the only unsourced section, it would be useful for the reader to know which agencies are concerned about a pandemic. Information on planning for a pandemic and government responses would also be valuable addtions.
7. Remove see alsos that are already mentioed in the text.

--nixie 23:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment the cleanup taskforce have been looking at this and have yet to decide it is "clean" - I don't know what that means but we should remember that. Andreww 09:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, just looking at the lead section:

1. Third paragraph. "Usually these flu viruses " which flu viruses - N5H1 or bird flu in general? The Spanish flu was H1N1 so I guess bird flu in general but it's not clear.
2. Is this about one particular H5N1 virus or about H5N1 viruses in general? I think H5N1 existed before 1997 but it only became so dangerous then.

Andreww 09:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support: extensive, thorough, very well researched, structured and illustrated, this is the quintessential featured article. Furthermore, it is currently of high relevance and interest and will attract kudos and lots of traffic to Wikipedia once again. I suggest we focus on this one for rapid approval. --R.Sabbatini 10:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong object Will not meet stability criterion until the current scare goes away. Has many short subsections and paragraphs. Inline external links should probably be converted to footnotes. The "Asia and beyond" section is far from being brilliant prose. Poor layout by the end of the article. "Worst case scenario section" should be far longer and include current research. There is absolutely no info on the 1997 outbreak beyond a passing mention on the lead... and the list goes on. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 02:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support I have this page on my watchlist and I haven't seen any stability problems at all, there doesn't seem to be any sort of popularity of the article among vandals, and there don't seem to be any edit wars due to content disputes. But I don't think it matters, shouldn't this of been closed months ago? Homestarmy 15:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:

1. Infobox should be at the top of the article, instead of pushed down by an image.
2. Image #1841 (the colorized transmission electron micrograph of H5N1) is displayed twice, this is redundant.
3. The Wikinews template seems to be placed in an odd section in the middle of the article. --Hetar 03:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: As Hetar pointed out, H5N1 is a regular hotbed of dispute over where to place images. In no way ready for Featured Article status. Move on, nothing to see here. WAS 4.250 04:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have delisted this nomination. It seems to be a mix of several old noms--look at the dates of the comments! Please follow the instructions for re-nominations at the top of WP:FAC. Move any old noms to archives (separate archives!). Start the new nom from scratch with a new header (not one dated October 2005), which contains links to these archives, and without any old comments, and post it at the top (not the foot) of WP:FAC. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, but a nomination that conflates at least three different discussions just won't work. And how about the comments from April 6 (day before yesterday..?) Don't just put this back, please. Bishonen | talk 18:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC).
• Comment. Since this is a WP:GACo, I suggest holding this off till monday when it'll be rotated out. I'll re-nominate it at that point myself if no one else has. (I think that most if not all of the above objections have been adressed either before, or during the improvement drive.) --Barberio 19:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Indian cricket team

A renomination after a substantial rewrite. I believe all comments on the previous nomination have been dealt with, jguk 21:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Very good article, but I particularly like the tabel of results in the 80s. Any reason why this hasn't been implemented for all years? Perhaps this should be done in another page, but I think it would be very useful. Harro5 06:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A table of all results for all time would be too long, I think. I take your point that it would be useful to have a summary of every result on another page though, jguk 07:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A fine piece of work which is hard to fault. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Object: After prompting from the comments below and re-reading the article, it does really need to expand beyond a history of West Indian cricket. Sorry, but it's not quite there yet. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:75 Years of West Indian cricket.PNG is claimed as "fair use", but does not have a fair use rationale.
  2. The image Image:Champions Trophy 2004.png is claimed as "fair use", but its use in the article appears to be strictly decorative. Therefore, it does not qualify for fair use.

  --Carnildo 21:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• • The "75 Years" image is used, with a clear description, to say that the West Indies Cricket Board authorised the book to celebrate 75 Years of West Indian Test cricket. The "Champions Trophy" logo is described in the text as being there because the West Indies won the competition. What's wrong with this? jguk 08:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • What's wrong with the "75 years" image is that the image description page has no fair use rationale: see Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. What's wrong with the "Champions Trophy" logo is that it provides no information to the article and is not discussed in the article: it exists only for decorative purposes. --Carnildo 18:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Just a query here about fair use for Carnildo: you say that "75 years" has no fair use rationale. Doesn't the 'book cover' copyright tag count as rationale? What more is needed? I'm just making sure I understand where you're coming from. This area seems much too complicated for me. Raven4x4x 10:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
        • The "book cover" tag counts as a fair use rationale in an article about the book. Any other use needs its own rationale. --Carnildo 20:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
          • One bit of the article is about the book - namely the bit about the WICB authorising it to celebrate 75 years of West Indian Test cricket. Isn't this enough? Anyway, I'm removing these two images for now, jguk 20:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support This looks solid. Good job, jg. -- Peripatetic 00:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object – The article only speaks on the history of the WICT. I feel this should be moved to so a separate article and a summary of the same be added here. The page size is also on the higher side. I think the following things need to be added: 1. Frank Worell's contribution: IIRC He was responsible for changing the fortunes of the WI team, using cricket as an outlet to unite the people against colonialism and poverty. 2. Nothing mentioned about the innovations introduced by WI -- Chinaman etc., 3. WI home grounds & culture --> calypso, noisy stadiums, flamboyant batsmen, fast bowlers etc. (I know, I should have reviewed earlier, but didn't have the time.) User:Nichalp/sg 07:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it would be somewhat POV to single out Worrell. Also, although I'd like to write a Social history of cricket sometime, I'm not sure this is the place (ie this article isn't meant to be a social history of West Indian cricket, which would be a separate article entirely - and quite an interesting one if it ever gets written:) ) jguk 16:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nichalp raises some good points which would improve this article further - perhaps this article should be moved to History of the West Indies cricket team and featured there, and his points added to a new more rounded article on the West Indian cricket team? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Has an ugly self-reference up the top of the page. Lead section should be more of a summary of the article and less of a narrative history. It also contains no content apart from history; almost the point where it could be named History of the West Indian cricket team with virtually no changes. The history, however, is excellent. Ambi 07:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What are you looking for apart from the history? jguk 16:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Uniforms? Grounds? Key records? Current squad? Supporters? Culture? There's quite a lot that could be added. See Arsenal F.C., which is today's main page article and a fantastic example of a club article. As an additional objection, the references aren't in the proper format. Ambi 02:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guitar

Partly self-nom (I have expanded the Inlays section, but the rest of the article isn't mine.) (However, this could be 'improved' by removing some of the too many external links.)

• Object Very far from FA status. Should make a peer review. For the following reasons
  • The article is missing 'national guitar'
  • The lists Significant Guitarists, Guitar makers and Guitar technique should be transferred to daughter articles and a summary with overview should replace them.
  • Guitar etc. is not an encyclopedic style
  • Acoustic and electric guitars should be change into something like Types of guitars
  • Expand Guitar amplifier
  • Expand Guitar festivals
  • Reduce the number of external links
  • I think the article could be improved by linking the different style of acoustic and electric guitars with significant guitarists who used them.

Vb 13:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Super400.jpg has no source information. --Carnildo 22:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object the article is too much of a list, lead should be longer and consist of only 2-3 paragraphs. User:Nichalp/sg 07:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object I cannot see including an article as featured when it doesn't meet the three pillars, namely Verifiability. Alan.ca 10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drill bit

How to write a great article about something seemingly banal

• Object. There are several sections marked as "under construction", I don't think it's ready for this yet. Also, you didn't put the FAC tag on the talk page. Leithp 11:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object – "under construction"? just one reference? There are too many headings, if you intend this to be a list of drill bit types, then WP:FLC would be an appropriate place to nominate. User:Nichalp/sg 13:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It's a work in progress... right now we're mostly working on other WikiProject Metalworking tasks. Might be best to wait until it's looking closer to done. Bushytails 19:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Unfinished. Little more than an explained but incomplete list than a featured article. Giano | talk 10:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object: This seems more like a category waiting to happen. I'm not sure that putting all this in one article serves Wikipedia well, and even when finished I doubt it could really make it as a unified whole, much less an FA. Daniel Case 05:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• OBJECT You can't seriously be considering putting this article on the main page? Terribly written. Most, if not all, sections are small & pathetic. Plus, weigh this option: Historical article of use to mankind, or drill bit. Historical article of use to mankind, drill bit. Historical article, drill bit. Seems a no brainer to me! Spawn Man 02:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Definately expand (or just get rid of), the 'under construction' sections. It wouldnt look too bad without them Astrokey44 11:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Epistemology

Self-nomination. This article has finally become stable enough for nomination. It is also a rare example of a philosophy article with a relevant picture... Banno 22:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, for a number of reasons:

1. In-text citations need to be liberally inserted into the text.
2. The one-paragraph sections should somehow be merged into a more coherent whole.

Not sure how this could be done without a reduction in clarity. Banno

Some of the shorter sections could be slightly expanded, then. The middle portion of the article reads somewhat like a list at present, particularly the sections from "Idealism" to "Skepticism". Kirill Lokshin 21:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

1. The "See also" section needs to be shortened dramatically. The article shouldn't try to function as a List of epistemic philosphers.
2. More images would help; portraits of the philosophers mentioned can be used if nothing better is available.

While I agree that images would add to the appeal of the article, I don't want to see the situation develop were every main philosophy article has a picture of Socrates. Perhaps this is a field in which pictures are not that important? Banno

True, that. On the other hand, a picture of Edmund Gettier would be quite appropriate. I'll leave it up to your discretion, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 21:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

1. The lead section should be lengthened to several well-formed paragraphs.

Other than that, seems like a fairly good article. Kirill Lokshin 01:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the huge "See also" at the bottom of the page needs cleanup. You can remove links to anything linked in the main body text. If the section is still huge after that, it may indicate that the article needs to be expanded. JYolkowski // talk 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I've considerably reduced it. Banno 19:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, I'd like to see the references clearly identified and separated from "interest" external links. The signle sentence paragraphs need to be tidied up. I think that a bit more name dropping wouldn't hurt, for example in the lead the thinkers that have been particularly active in this field could be mentioned- since readers are probably more familiar with the names then they are with the subject matter.--nixie 23:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Gein

Self-nomination. facinating account of the murderer who is probably better known for the movie characters he inspired. Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs, Norman Bates from Psycho, Leatherface and on and on. --Fxer 16:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Egein2.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 20:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have added a source to that image, the same image is used on at least 10 different websites. I'm not sure what tag should go on it. — Wackymacs 13:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object I'm french and as you can see on this french article about Ed Gein (http://www.tueursenserie.org/Portraits/Gein_Ed/EdGein.htm) there's much much to say about this murderer. If someone speak very well both french and english, maybe it is possible to translate it in order to expand the wikipedia article? Kuxu 00:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object no references, some sections too short. User:Nichalp/sg 09:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object missing references, lead paragraph is too short, "Ed Gein's car" section is too short (maybe merge it with another section of the article?) — Wackymacs 13:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glacier

Non-self-nom. Nice, well-rounded article with lots of free pictures (especially the diagrams by User:Luis María Benítez). —Keenan Pepper 00:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I went through and cleaned up all the typos and grammar problems that I could find. In my opinion, there is still much work to be done in the writing department. I noticed a lot of style problems (switching back and forth between present, past, plural, singular, etc.) The article looks fine content-wise, just not writing-wise. If you went through, section-by-section, and tried to convey the same content with better, more fluid writing, it would work. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-27 01:10
  • I've edited the first few sections for style issues and removed a lot of redundancy. Tomorrow I'll finish polishing it up. —Keenan Pepper 05:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe it's my green text on black background, but the diagrams look oddly placed in the article, like they were tossed in at the end. You might try giving them all the same width throughout the article and/or switch some from right-side to left-side. I'm not sure. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-27 05:33
• Object:
  1. Needs a through proofreading.
  2. Too many one-sentence and two-sentence paragraphs.
  3. The red-linked technical terms need articles, or they need to be defined in the text.

  --Carnildo 06:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantis

Self-nom, Saw it as Article Improvement Drive article of the week. Saw it improve as the week progressed. It really deserves featured article status as it was improveds substantally. It deserves featured article status because it can show what we can really do!!! Tarret 01:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support This article certainly went from one with entrenched myth and non NPOV to one that has far more factual content. Congrats to those that put the effort in to make it a very good article.Steers82 04:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object Any references? An article can't be featured if there are no lists of references used for this article. Pentawing 04:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I like how the article has improved with the help of the Article Improvement Drive. But this needs resources, and should probally undergo a peer review as well. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 06:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object – Expand the lead and smaller sections. User:Nichalp/sg 09:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Can you go through it and chop up some of the overly long, complicated sentence? (E.g., 'Emanuel Velikovsky discovered many records of lands that had become submerged in middle east areas around the mediterranean and also new islands that had risen out of the sea in historic times, the myths of Atlantis may in part be true or they may be the figment of a wild imagination but of the fact that these changes in land and sea did happen is certain from the records of witnesses to the facts.') Grammar here and elsewhere needs fixing. Reference numbers tied to a few of your more important, specific assertions, would increase the credibility. Allow the interested reader to locate the sources by page number—at least in a few instances. Tony 02:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object Thgere is no link to Stargate Atlantis Tobyk777 17:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You're joking, right? BrianSmithson 20:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I think Tobyk777 is confusing this article with the one at Atlantis (Stargate). — Wackymacs 19:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object Needs references, and the see also section could be expanded. It has improved a lot since before the Article Improvement Drive, but its still not quite there yet. — Wackymacs 16:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object I'm not sure if its important, but Jacques Cousteau did some research into Atlantis concluding that the Santorini volcano destroyed it. I think there's a good deal more out there on the subject and this article is only the tip of the iceberg. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 18:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Sources, sources, sources. — mark ✎ 21:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1997 Pacific hurricane season

Self nom. It has PD images, detailed information on every cyclone, and over 70 inline cites. Way better than any other Pacific season article. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Pretty good, but can you deal with these issues.
  • Severly ration the use of 'ibid' reference citations. Some sentences have three reference numbers, all to the same source. One at the end of the sentence should be enough. You might go further by allowing us to assume that most or all of the info in a whole paragraph comes from the one source, with a single citation at the end of the para. That's your call; it depends on each case. Consistently one space or none before each reference number.
  • Rather than opening with a bland statement of the dates of the season, can you engage the readers more effectively by characterising the season—was it a particularly bad one? Was it unusual in other ways? (I'd like to know right at the start why you chose this particular season, and I'd like to be able to place the Pacific hurricanes in the larger context. Some big statements would capture our attention at the start: major climatic phenomenon for a number of countries in Central and North America??? Maybe introduce the scale before you cite a Category 5 storm. Many readers won't be familiar with these categories. I wonder whether there are some graphical representations of the number of storms and their severity for each season, for example. That might be good after the lead, before we focus on this particular season.
  • The subtitles for each storm: they're kind of big and black, and break up the flow. Can you experiment with less dramatic formatting for them? (Try one level lower in the hierarchy of headings?) Tony 06:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I toned down the use of inline cites. There are now a lot fewer.
    • The bland opening is the same one used for every other article on every other hurricane (Atlantic or East Pacific) season. If you insist, I could change it, but it would be different from every other season article. I also removed the first reference to the scale. The map in the infobox colour-codes storm tracks in the East Pacific based on whether they are remnants, depressions, storms, or hurricanes.
    • The subtitles for each storm are the same size as in other season articles. For the sake of consistency and standardization, I am not going to change their size. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object – this is a list. Nominate it in WP:FLC instead. User:Nichalp/sg 10:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It is sort of hard to write an article about a tropical cyclone season without having a list of storms and names. If other people insist this is a list, I will remove this nomination and nominate it there, even though I think it is better as a featured article. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It is a list, and there's hardly any prose to justify its inclusion here. User:Nichalp/sg 15:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Unsure why you keep justifying things by comparing this article to others on hurricanes. This is an improvement process, and might set new standards for the others too.Tony 02:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I rearranged the lead to make it more attention grabbing.
  • I changed the headings to use four equals signs.Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 19:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coffee

Not a self-nom; I haven't been involved in the editing or writing of this article in any way. I simply encountered it today while looking for some information on coffee. I found it to be detailed, informative, well-illustrated, and professional. It is, to me, exemplary of the encyclopedic quality to which all of Wikipedia should aspire. So, therefore, I'm nominating it. Nandesuka 14:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I have looked at this article before (in fact, I recently copyedited its lead) and thought it needed a lot of work to get to FA. Based on a brief new look:
  • The section structure is disorganized, with a number of small sections and a poor overall organizational scheme.
  • The footnotes are in disarray, with a number of broken or misnumbered links. Inline references need to be converted to footnotes as well.
  • The lead is too short for an article of this size.
  • It needs a lot of copyediting; it would be nice if that were done before submitting articles as FACs.
  • Too many raw lists in the brewing and presentation sections.
  • Someone needs to fact-check this baby. I spent about an hour, before, trying to find a primary source for "In monetary terms, coffee is the second most-traded commodity in the world, trailing only petroleum." All I ever turned up was the repetition of this fact in one news article after another; nobody pointed to the data supporting this, or any hard numbers.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • Comment re: second most-traded commodity -- I find data to suggest it is not true. See for example UNCTAD Handbook of Statistics (caution: large PDF), specifically section 4.2A, beginning on page 156 (print page number)/182 (PDF page number). The interpretation depends a bit on what one considers a commodity, but it's hard to make coffee number two under any definition. --Tabor 21:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object – 1) At 53kb, the article needs to be written in Wikipedia:summary style. 2) ToC is bulky and should have less sections. 3) History is incomplete. Nothing on the International Coffee Agreement of 1962, and so on 4) Lead size should be doubled. 5) ==The cafe== is unrelated 5) the commons & quote links should be under =external links= 6) In 1997 the "c" price of coffee in New York broke US$3.00/lb but by late 2001 it had fallen to US$0.43/lb. Why NY prices? 7) Too much of a list. Please convert to prose. 8) TransFair USA is it an for them? 9) ' In the United States, major national coffee suppliers tailor their product to tastes in particular regions of the country; for instance, a can of ground coffee purchased in the Northeast or Northwest will contain a darker roast than an identically appearing can purchased in the central United States not needed. ; impossible to find whole beans in American stores, ' another instance of US specific practices. Please remove. 10) Inline links are all mixed up. 11) External links should not have subsections 13) NOTE: Health benefits of decaffeinated coffee have not been found. What's this? 13) Maps of the coffee producing & consumption nations should be useful. Chart of the coffee producers also useful. Paused reviewing; Will continue after the above obj are fixed. User:Nichalp/sg 19:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The image Image:Coffee cup.JPG has no source information.
  2. The images Image:Cofffeebeans aging a.jpg, Image:Coffeebeans aging b.jpg, Image:Coffeeroasting woodfired.jpg have no source or copyright information.
  3. The image Image:A small cup of coffee.JPG is under the Creative Commons Sharealike-Attribution license, but does not indicate the creator.
  4. The image Image:Frappe.jpg has no source or copyright information.

  --Carnildo 20:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object for many of the reasons cited above. I've made a number of contributions to the article, but it plainly needs a lot of work. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Has potential, but needs work. Tony 07:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Question is there any information on eating the actual roasted coffee beans? Someone has said that you can purchase chocolate coffee beans for consumption.
  • The place for this question is probably the talk page for the article. This is for discussion FA status, not article content as such. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sokol space suit

self-nom

Reasonably comprehensive, I think. Well referenced and illustrated with copyright free NASA pictures. Catsmeat

• Support. Yes, why not. It's snappy, engaging, has several pictures and the article sated my curiosity without making me feel angry or depressed, unlike many other Wikipedia articles. The only quibble I have is with the final sentence, regarding the legality of eBay Sokol suits - "Furthermore, the Russian Mafia is alleged to be involved in the trade". This really needs to be linked to a newspaper article or something similar. It's a plausible enough statement, but I hate passive things such as "it is alleged that" and "some people argue that" etc. Why oh why oh why oh why does Wikipedia show me a bloody preview when I quite clearly clicked on the "Save page" button and not the "Show preview" button? It angers me. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You've been having that problem too? Sometimes it makes me do that three or four times before it'll save! Aaargh! Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Life is pain. I've crossed out my objection above, because I hadn't noticed the link to Wired's article in the (spartan) links section. I want to add that I'm not the chap who nominated this article; the nominator didn't sign his name. And as I hit "Save page" it again makes me preview my writing. I don't want to preview my writing. If I don't get it right first time, every time, it's not worth saving. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm really sorry, your eyesight is fine; I fixed it when I saw your comment. Also, I forgot to sigh the self-nomination as I'm still a bit of a newbie. Catsmeat 15:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Prose is not exactly satisfactory; for example, "As of the end of 2002, a total of 309 flight suits had been made and 135 training and testing suits" or "Each cosmonaut is provided with a made-to-measure suit for flight. Though from the numbers made, it appears the suits provided for ground training are re-used." The three short sections should either be merged or expanded. Otherwise, a fine article. Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked it. Though I guess it might be an idea to submit if for peer review. Catsmeat 10:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, it has potential, but you're right, it needs a thorough peer-review first. Tony 16:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] October 2005

[edit] Intelligent design

[Sonam Yeshe] Not sure where it would fit in, but there *are* other angles which should be explored, IMHO, in this 'origin myth debate'. After all, Arthur C. Clarke's "2001" might be considered a story about "intelligent design". But all such explanations suffer from the problem of infinite regress: who (or what) created the [Cc]reator(s)?

[comment] Infinite regress would be "The Creator" then. [/comment]

Or intelligence (or any factors that produce this phenomena) is simply just a basic property with reality, an "absolute" (something without cause). There must exist one or more absolutes in order for reality as we know it to "work". That can be deduced logically. [/comment]. In fact, infinite regress

"Micro"evolution is clearly an irrefutable fact: regardless of one's belief system, bacteria & viruses adapt to everything we throw at them (and they are ahead of us at the moment!) Yet the "holes" in evolutionary theory, eg, "How can a leg become a wing, when the intermediate forms are clearly maladaptive?" deserve exploration. Such "gaps" in evolutionary theory are not a convincing argument for the existence of some form of Cosmic Designer, however. I believe there is a Hindu saying, "God is not proved", which would seem to apply here... (Yogananda, "Autobiography of a Yogi")

[comment] Microevolution: Is adaptation actually evolution? Where is the borderline between adaptation and evolution? [/comment]

All in all, I found it to be a very good article. Kudos!

I was just surfing Wikipedia when I found this article. This article is in my opinion worthy of being featured. I haven't worked on it myself. --Maitch 22:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• ITs pretty good a little bit excessive with the criticism but overall very good. My only worry is that it is a controversial topic, and therfore will have stability issues. It seems to be going ok right now so I will go ahead and Support.Falphin 01:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• No, please do work on it yourself, rather than shoving it straight onto this page, unedited. I was pleasantly surprised that it's not full of self-justifying religious hype; so it would be nice to see this article promoted, but it's not there yet. I've only looked properly at the lead; all of the text needs work. Here are a few things you can do to warm to the editing task:
  • Standardise the spacing of the numerical reference citations. (Best no space before, I think, but if you do retain a single space, insert &nbsp; to avoid line overhang.
  • 'Despite ID sometimes being referred to'—ungrammatical.
  • Comma before 'which'.
  • Remove 'As has been argued before' as redundant; sift through every phrase looking for redundancies.
  • Some sentences are rather long and need to be divided.
  • Use a simpler word than 'putative', or remove it.

Why not alert the contributors to such articles as 'Evolution', 'Darwin', 'Evolutionary psychology', 'Richard Dawkins', to this nomination; I'm sure some of them would be pleased to assist. Tony 05:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I'll fix those grammatical problems and dividing the sentences won't be to hard. How exactly would I standardize the reference citations? Falphin 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• It wasn't exactly shoved, the article has already been through Peer Review. Really most of the problems in the article are gramatical. I don't believe alerting them here is the best because along with the good editors will come more POV pushers. Perhaps alerting them on individual basis. But thats just my opinion. Falphin 01:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I thought it was getting closer, and working toward consensus and clear representation of both sides of the issue. But nearly every discussion on the Talk page gets side tracked into name-calling debate, and the long-term contributors jump right into the fray. Modest attempts to tone down the rhetoric and "hot-button" language have been thwarted. It seems too many contributors are concerned with winning the debate, rather than dispassionately summarizing it.--Gandalf2000 19:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It's getting closer, but I don't thinks it's yet up to par as one of Wikipedia's best. I say give it a while to develop some more clarity, and it would be a good candidate.Gandalf2000 15:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • What specifically can be done? This article seems close to FA and I might work on it a bit if there are some specific things suggested. Thanks Falphin 00:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Gandalf. Please do go ahead improving it; I'm keen to see it become a FA, whether sooner or later. Tony 02:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Article presently violates "Fairness and sympathetic tone" guidelines of Wikipedia NPOV policy, as I've previously pointed out and explained on it's discussion page. Also, it should be noted in the article that the particular claim "that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally" is false.--Johnstone 11:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you have a suggestion on how both views can be acommadated? Falphin 00:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • A few things that would help toward making the article follow the "Fairness and sympathetic tone" guidelines of the Wikipedia NPOV policy, which state, "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section." (I realize that this is not the only guideline for NPOV. None of the following suggestions implies otherwise.):

- Criticisms should be consolidated into a single section.

- The amount of criticism of ID greatly exceeds (by about 3 to 1) the positive presentation of ID. This is simply excessive. Reduce the ratio.

- The "Additional criticisms" section of the intelligent design article presents criticisms of things that are related to ID ("[Accusations of lack of] Scientific peer review", "Who designed the designer?", and "Argument from ignorance"). Since these issues are not directly related to actual ID concepts, but originate from critics, it would be only fair to present ID responses to them. For example, Dembski's book The Design Revolution has chapters (41, 27 and 30, respectively) dedicated to answering each of the above criticisms. Summaries from each could be added (in a single "Replies to additional criticisms section, of course).Johnstone 00:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • • There's a reason criticism exceeds positive representation - an overwhelming majority of experts in the fields ID affects dispute it vehemently. You'd find an equal disparate ratio in an article on, say, whether Stalin was a nice guy or not. — ceejayoz ^talk 22:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• I don't agree with previous comment; the article appears to be based on sound, scientific principles; I have no problem with the idea that computer simulations demonstrate the mechanisms of evolution—that's pretty basic. Tony 12:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Falphin, just insert &nbsp; between the previous character and the reference number, in all cases, with no intervening spaces; or better still, just jam the number up to the stop. Tony 01:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• As I suggested, Falphin, you'll need to enlist a few other people here. While some of the criticisms here are careful to avoid the appearance of religious ideology, I have no wish to have to defend the scientific view in such a basic way. Only to say to Johnstone that of course there are more criticisms than defence of ID—it's a pretty silly ideology. Keep the article purely in scientific terms. Tony 01:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly Object This article is not even about the philosophical concept of intelligent design. It is a discussion about Theists. Intelligent design has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The article is completely off-topic and looks more like a rant about not just Theists, which would at least make some sense, but about Christian Creationists.--Ben 01:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a section on Religion and ID but I'm not really sure on the philosophy infact I've read books by Idists and even they don't talk about philosophy. Read Michael Behes Black Box for example. The article clearly shows that ID is not science but an attempt at it. If you can guide me on how to add a philosophy section I will. And note to the others, I probably won't get done with Intelligent Design before this FAC is up, but I'll probably renominate it later. Falphin 20:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, the problem here is that "intelligent design" means different things to different people. Taken on its face in the context of philosophy or religion, it means simply that "an intelligent being designed the universe." However, it is often used differently. As a result, the talk pages are often filled with people (including me; I am trying to at least get a disambiguation link to Theism), who say things like "ID has nothing to do with creationism" or "ID is about complexity, not God" etc. etc. etc..... etc. This is because the article is more like a personal essay on the this Dembski guy's book, rather than an encyclopedic topic. It almost cannot be an encyclopedic topic. It would be very helpful to readers to have an article which can sort out the mish-mash of religion, science, pseudoscience, philosophy, and all that, but instead the article treats them as if this mash is a subject unto itself. The result is a lot of argument and a lot of dissatisfaction. There's not much reason for controversy when everything is in its proper place. Either you believe in God or you don't. Either you think evolutionary theory is sound or you don't. Either you think the existence of God can be proven with Dembski's "complexity theory", or you don't. Instead, people are arguing all over the place, and to me that doesn't even warrant a nomination for featured status, let alone receiving featured status. --Ben 03:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Shows Wikipedia At Its Worst Much too long. Readers will want to know what Intelligent Design is. The Introduction and Summary are quite adequate to explain that. The rest of the article is confusing and often incomprehensible. If it was translated into plain words some of it might be worth retaining but a lot would be clearly seen as meaningless. The article is not suitable for Featured Aticle status. It makes Wikipedia look like a home for self-indulgent contributors. --82.38.97.206 20:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)mikeL

• Object It's very difficult to talk about "Intelligent Design" without mentioning creationism. This article is way too long and should be merged into Creationism. 67.103.32.20 00:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Creationism represents a field of very specific ideas, while this article presents a theory in more general terms of scientific merit. However, I believe the tone in which it is written sacrifices professional objectivity. Doctor Love 07:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly Object Who nominated this diatribe? It's awful. Here's an example from the second paragraph: "...ID does not constitute serious research in biology." What is this phrase supposed to mean? And who wants to try to straighten it out, with the incessant and mean-spirited revert wars going on? This is one of the worst articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. ô¿ô 07:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Violates NPOV and frequently (albeit probably unintentionally) distorts ID Johnstone made some good points here, but there's something else that troubles me. The article often does not accurately represent the ID position it criticizes. For instance, the ID claim for the fine-tuning of the universe is that certain physical constants being changed would prevent any form of physical life, not just life as we know it (see Mere Creation or this article). Even if the view is wrong, it should at least be accurately represented. Whatever its faults, ID is also not an “argument from ignorance.” It isn't the mere fact that evolution doesn't have a means, it’s also the alleged barriers (e.g. irreducible complexity, chemical problems of abiogenesis) that exist in the natural world that allegedly require artificial intervention to overcome. Even if such views are wrong, they should be accurately represented. The claim, “By ID's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex” is a bit fishy, and the author provides no references (the same is true with "fundamental assumption of ID that every complex object requires a designer"). Behe himself (the guy who introduced irreducible complexity in Darwin's Black Box) concedes in Darwin's Black Box that maybe the designer is composed of something which could have come about naturally. Again, even if such views are wrong, they should at least be presented accurately. Until such matters are cleared up, I do not think this article should be a featured article. --Wade A. Tisthammer (10/26/2005)
  • That's the spirit! Throw a bunch of walls up and run for cover. The problem is, those walls are made of toothpicks, and you built them in quicksand... and you're not a particularly good builder to begin with. I call it intellectual filibustering. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-27 01:32
    • Why do you claim my “walls” are made of toothpicks built on quicksand? That the article puts forth a badly distorted version intelligent design theory is a very legitimate criticism. --Wade A. Tisthammer (10/27/2005)
• Article is too long, much ado about nothing, not unlike like the subject itself.

November 1, 2005 This article makes Wikipedia look bad; it's that simple. It is not doing justice to this site. I was dissapointed in reading this article on ID. It is not the standard objective type of writing in Wikipedia and I think it should be changed to read neutral. It's obviously written by someone with very strong feelings against ID and that comes across too clearly. ID is accepted by the scientific community because ID is made of scientists. That's why it's so controversial -the scientists are fighting the scientists. That the 'other', older, larger scientific community does not accept ID is true. In any case, please be neutral. It doesn't need to advocate ID anymore than it needs to say it's bologna. Inform your reader; don't push your views down our throats. (unsigned by 207.200.116.131 (talk • contribs))

What is this based on? No scientist in the world would advocate a theory that cannot ever be disproven. That's rule one of science.--Xiaphias 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Object, needs focus Intelligent design is presented as it is without the hype, duplicity, and sophistry (most likely a result of peer review). It is well-referenced and thorough. But it's still sloppy. It blurs the assertion and the movement too much. The crux of the "science" of ID is the assertion that intelligent design, the conscious arrangement of parts by an intelligent entity, is empirically observable. Other concepts have been proposed to elaborate/demonstrate this idea (most notably by Dembski). But the page is so mucked up switching between that mythology's meager (if even existent) evidence and its adherents (which when discussing ideas, is ad hominem) without demarcation it could very easily be accused of being a strawman and it is consistently accused of violating NPOV. It's somewhat of an unstable article, and thankfully its regular contributors are stubborn, but this is a double-edged sword. When I pointed out that its adherents have zeal is not reflective of the "theory" itself, my edits were reverted. My point is that cleanup probably won't be easy. - JustSomeKid

Support and with two notes:
1. Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article has received positive endorsements as being accurate and complete from several neutral sources:

• [4] Librarian in the Middle - Resources and News for Middle School Librarians: "IF there were an equivalent article to Wikepedia’s in an online or paper encyclopedia, we could expect expertise in choice of links, neutrality of language, balance in POV. But, especially in the case of ID, that article hasn’t been writen or is given only a cursory treatment (and sometimes in unsigned articles)."
• [5] Librarian and Information Science News: "The Wikipedia ID article [wikipedia.org] is fairly neutral."
• [6] Talk of the Nation. 2 November 2005 National Public Radio: "the Wikipedia entry for Intelligent Design... it is a good entry, perhaps even an excellent entry..."

2. At least 3 or 4 of those objecting here have had POV issues at the article. Their objections given here reflect the nature of their earlier issues there. The former point validates the article's content, whether it becomes a featured article or not. The latter point does not. FeloniousMonk 04:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Mild object. IMHO the amount and detail of criticism of ID burdens the article and indeed makes it (slightly) bloated, and subject to (in small part mind you) POV skirmishes. Needs to be trimmed down, made more succinct and in so doing creates a win-draw for everyone involved. (a win-win would simply be too optimistic at this point, maybe after the trial we can make further progress... what the heck is going on with that thing anyway) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I agree that exhausting battles with PoV-pushers have made this article longer than it needs to be, as with just about any article in this general area (and FM is clearly right that objecting here is a continuation of many of those pushers' battle), but I don't think that it's seriously bloated (look at Human for an example of real bloat, for the same reasons). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Article lacks knowledge of all the facts. Evolution is not science it's a theory or an idea developed by someone's thoughts to arrive to their conclusion, but it's not conclusive nor supported by solid scientific data. The said fact is we're teaching our kids to have faith in a theory that has yet to be proven. This unbiased opinion has skewed millions of children's thoughts in the United States. Let's get faith based ideas out of our schools!! Or at least be honest with the kids and teach them ALL the theories. What are you afraid of? Evolutionists that use the excuse of "Religion" to not have to teach all theories reminds me of Castro in Cuba. "Communism works!" Carl Marx wrote it in a book so it must be true... Think about it; 99.9% of Americans will never take the time to evaluate or study the facts of this debate. They're sheep. Even the people who read the article, and commented positively below, have been brain washed. What conclusive studies have they done? Where they there? How many carbon dating theory machines do we see in an average American's living room? They are kept by the few, and the true theory of how they work is known by less. Don't let a few people fill your mind with their theoretical ideas without asking questions. Don't kid your self evolution is a theory! Let your mind be open to all ideas. Let our children see the facts and hear the huge lies and mistakes that fill our history books. We do live in the United States? We don't live in a society that forces beliefs down ones throat? Let Freedom Ring! Let all the theories be studied!! NER --24.123.44.195 16:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved from top of page; new comments at the bottom. I'm glad this was posted, as it is fairly representative of some of the editors and their objections and methods we've had to deal with in writing the ID article. FeloniousMonk 17:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a good example of why articles should not be written and policed by the bitter opponents of the subject of the article. User:Stuckerj hit the nail on the head with his parody of FeloniousMonk's attitude here. Yes, the article has to be defended from creationists who are ignorant of science and who don't get or care for NPOV. But this fact should not keep us from writing for the enemy, which hasn't even been accomplished in the intro. The article has made progress since bad old days of when creationists were freely editing the page, but we can do better, and a featured article should be better. It should provide an account of ID from the perspective of its proponents. Making this a featured article would give right-wingers authentic ammunition in their claims that Wikipedia exhibits left-wing bias. Wikipedia has set some very high ideals for itself, and this article does not yet meet them. — goethean ॐ 23:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Should this article be given Featured status, I predict that a lot of (onesided) disccusion will forever go into removing that status. -- Ec5618 12:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This article is so often vandalised, that little energy is left to actually edit the article. I'm not sure it is at Featured quality. -- Ec5618 12:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Most of the oppose votes above mean nothing to me. They complain of POV, but are unable or unwilling to present a fairly rewritten section we could insert into the article. -- Ec5618 12:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This page highlights the fundamental problem with Wikipedia. At the bottom of this obvious war lies one tense argument: Does God exist? Some people insist that he must, and some cannot stand any implication that he might. Both sides push the evidence and arguments in their preferred direction with all their might, striving not for consensus but for victory, and because of the depth of the implications, this war will never end until God is proved or disproved. Therefore editing this page is a waste of time. It will never settle into a uniform consensus.

I must add that it is certainly currently biased against ID. All the one-sided references would be better left out and summed up by mentioning the conflict as a whole without taking sides, and letting the reader pursue it further if interested. This article has come a long, long way from simply and objectively explaining what ID is and the associated history. Just one detailed example of bias: it is stated flatly - in spite of many intelligent scientist adherents - that ID is based upon circular logic [by virtue of the fact that if the complexity proves a designer, that designer must be more complex, and herefore must itself have a designer, ad infinitum, which is not possible (reductio absurdem)]. This is a patently incorrect statement for two reasons: 1. As presented by the statement, the ID argument results in an INFINITE REGRESSION, not circular reasoning. The latter is an argument which logically depends upon one of its own conclusions. ID's conclusion that a designer must exist is not used as a premise in its argument. As presented above it only leads to a logical infinite recursion of the conclusion (a spiral, if you like). 2. It does not necessarily follow from the ID argument that the designer is only somewhat more complex than nature. Equally possible is that the designer is infinitely complex, and thus could not have been designed. Before any hasten to point out that an infinitely complex, undesigned designer is an absurd concept, it should be obvious that any theory whatsoever terminates finally at an infinite, uncreated existence. Take the Big Bang for example: where did the original point of condensed matter come from? Hopefully nobody is foolish enough to propose a cyclical Big Bang as a solution to this face-to-face clash with infinite existence.

These should be obvious points to anybody scientifically educated, mature and intelligent enough to take it upon themselves to edit a Wikipedia page. One could argue that perhaps the flaw of Wilkipedia's tolerance of all edits is that it allows faulty statements. However, there are many, many other examples of bias against ID in the current article. Rather than go through them painstakingly I will just name a few (and please note, I won't be back to waste my time further with this eternal argument): Constant references which carry negative overtones are made, such as ID being controversial (historically evolution has this role), being [neo-]creationism not accepted by the scientific community (should state the majority of), 'junk science' (argumentative and unfounded), not experimentally verifiable (Nobel Prize winner physicist and agnostic Leon Lederman does not believe this to be a requirement for a scientific theory, see 'The God Particle', page 389; furthermore macro-evolution is in the same camp), religious in nature and Christian specifically (false - it is purely scientific - of course a religion like Christianity would have major attraction, involvement and overlap with it, but this should not be presented as an attribute of ID itself; evolution and secularism have a similar relationship); and other simply incorrect statements concerning proofs and disproofs. I mention the above for the record, however, I do not expect any agreement from those whose POV is in line with the article, because ultimately this is about whether one can face the fact the God exists or does not exist, and proponents will hold to their camp with a tenacity as great as they hold to life itself. ant 14:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that this was User:Antandcharmi's ("Ant") very first edit to Wikipedia[7]. This is represents another tactic those working on the article have faced.

Much of Antandcharmi's criticism of the article arises from not understanding WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience, the policy governing how pseudoscience is covered at Wikipedia. The article's content is compliant with the policy. FeloniousMonk 16:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Object. I have no reason to think that any article in which claims of pseudoscience are inherent can ever achieve Featured Article status. It is too difficult to distinguish NPOV (essential) from SPOV (which is actually a POV). Any such article, such as this one or Creation science, will involve too much hostility and uncivil editing, and so is not likely to get to Featured Article status. Also, any article that is the subject of a user conduct RfC or an RfAr (even if a badly filed one) probably is too far from consensus to be worth trying to get consensus by FA process. Robert McClenon 17:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Though I still support the article for FA, sadly, I must admit Robert McClenon makes some very valid points and is likely right. FeloniousMonk 23:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article, in my view, has too many problems to be a featured article, although the work that has gone into it is admirably comprehensive and well-sourced. However, the problems are essentially threefold:

First, it is much too long. In an effort to accommodate the many arguments that whirl within the debate the article has ballooned to an unreasonable length; this makes it hard to get through and a cumbersome presentation of the central ideas.

Second, it is important to note that ID is, at the moment, essentially an American issue, insofar as school boards, religious and scientific communities, not to mention political leaders, outside of the US are not implicated in the debate. Unfortunately, I cannot think of how to rectify this particularly, but the fact remains that for a project of international scope, this article is addressing concerns that have surfaced in a public debate almost solely in the US. That should be of central importance, since it highlights the lively debate about the role of religion, and religious derived thinking, in US public and scholastic life. As it stands, this article reads like a painstaking attempt to provide an NPOV description of ID as it exists within its US context. I think that the Amero-centrism of the article further makes its FA status problematic. I speak only for myself here, but as I see it, ID's importance is less the raiments of the theory/hypothesis, as much as the way it is illustrative of current US politico-religious life. I invite other non-US editors, of course, to disagree and smack down this reservation. But ID is not taken seriously anywhere else in the world. That should be central.

Finally, as noted above, the ongoing polemicising and casuistry suggest the article is currently too unstable to make FA.

All that said, I wish to salute the amazing efforts of all the editors who have contributed to this effort. Politics, not competence, intervenes to make this currently not FA level. Dottore So 17:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The ID debate is not a solely U.S. (not American) issue. Because it is not about ID versus Natural Selection. It is about a bunch of people whose faith is challenged by discoveries of fact.

In places where facts intersect with their opinon, it isnecessary for the facts to give way, so these people have designed an attack using a mixture of religion and debate. Please understand that it is not theology. It is no more fostered by theology than the young men who blow themselves and others to pieces. They are unhappy and they can't reconcile themselves to their surroundings. They may mistake it for religion as a man mistakes lust for a nobler emotion. Howard Ahmanson, the man who funded the Center for Science and Culture, appears to favor the establishment of Biblical Law. This is similar to movements in other countries whether established or recent. Yes, ID is an "American" cancer, but examine the similar "turn the clock back" cancers. If we can't unite over this, we are a hopeless bunch.

The fact that the article is as stable as it is says much for the Wikipedia model. This is not just a run-of-the-mill bitching session. This article reaches across national boundaries because we keep our workers ignorant in every country. Wikipedia can do something about it. b_calder 00:00:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Support.There are so many people in the scientific community who are against Intelligent Design that I think comments on this topic would be overwhelmingly representative of the Community hired to teach and do research in public institutions. Not every ID supporter is going to rebuttal every point made (Personal comment: Unfortunately). Therefore, why would this article not be placed on Wikipedia's home page. I think this topic is vital to put forward since it is a hot-button issue to Americans. Americans who have knowledge on the topic also want to jump on the bandwagon and display what they know, so I support this article's advancement. --MEGOP, 2:58 (UTC) 13 June 06

OBJECT - Highly anti-ID with severe distortions Heavily edited against ID by those who do not understand how origin theories are modeled or how to disprove them. DLH 03:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• COMMENT: The above is yet one more example of bad faith attempts by pro-ID edtiors to scuttle the FA candidacy of any ID article that presents both sides of the topic fairly and in a balanced manner. DLH, a largely single topic, single viewpoint contributor [8], has a history of using Wikipedia to promote an aggressively partisan pro-ID viewpoint, and has consisently violated WP:NPOV in so doing. Objections in the same manner as his scuttled the last FA attempt, and his comments above serve to illustrate how those not dedicated to NPOV but to a particular POV will always try to derail any FA status for this article. I'm afraid until a method is adopted to properly weigh and deal with bad faith or just clueless objections, hot button topics like ID will always be vulnerable to such acts of partisan activism. FeloniousMonk 21:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

REBUTTAL: FeloniousMonk accuses of "bad faith" with no evidence. He is one of the primary causes of the anti-ID bias in this article. I have been working for many months to correct these biases by summarizing both sides. Overview ID & Conventional Science. Peer Review However, FeloniousMonk and those working with him systematically revert, refusing to allow any changes.DLH 17:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to FeloniousMonk's caricaturization of "single topic single viewpoint" contributor, I have participated in at least 63 pages. He accuses me of being "aggressively partisan" and having "consistently violated WP:NPOV". I have worked at providing objective cited material, correcting FelonousMonks overtly anti-ID editorials. This diatribe is another example where FeloniousMonk appears to be following WP:ABF.DLH 18:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC) There have been at least a dozen explicit wholesale reversions with no effort at editing or seriously pointing out what the objections are. I have worked with constructive criticism to revise the and improve the statements and citations.DLH

Support as featured (although given how much vandalism and junk I've had to deal with on previous occasions that I had an FA on my watchlist I'm almost inclined to oppose. This article is going to make many other articles seem like a cakewalk. ) JoshuaZ 23:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems a great shame that this article has been rejected due, frankly, to partisan ID supporters. It's an excellent article, and no less NPOV than an article on flat-earth science. Shame on the nay-sayers, and shame on wikipedia for allowing it to happen. Tomandlu 22:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eleanor Rigby (song)

I know, another Beatles article. At this rate, we'll have their whole repetoire. But I think it's FAC quality. Self-nom. Failed its first FAC. It's also been in peer review. It's come a long way in its FACness, and the issues the first time around have been resolved. Thanks! --The PNM 01:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Although I like the song, it's OBJECT for me sorry, Too short, not enough pics for FA, not very informative, not the best overall. Aren't I a meany? Spawn Man 08:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  • There are a couple of one-sentence paragraphs. Those need to either be expanded or merged into an adjacent paragraph.
    • Taken care of! Thanks to help from Johnleemk. --The PNM 20:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • External links should go in the references section at the bottom, not within the article itself. Footnote them using {{ref|name of reference}} in the article, and {{note|name of reference}} in the references.
    • Done with one thing, at least. Thanks! --The PNM 02:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The parenthetical asides throughout the article interrupt the flow of the prose. See if you can work those into the actual prose without setting them off in parentheses.
    • They're gone. --The PNM 20:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't worry much about finding additional pictures; there's not much else that you could add. If you stumbled across a licensed or uncopyrighted picture of the Beatles performing the song, then include that, but otherwise I think the pictures are fine as they are.

Good luck! Let me know if you need any help. PacknCanes | say something! 13:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking care of my concerns. I don't think it's fair to pile on more stuff to do after you've already met most of my objections, but this article badly needs a copyedit and the prose needs to flow better. I'll withdraw my objection on the grounds that the objection specifically has been addressed, but I'll have to abstain until it comes up to a better level of writing. Also, as Johnleemk notes below, be on the lookout for POV writing. PacknCanes | say something! 19:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• While I would love to support a Beatles song article that I didn't work on much, right now, I have to object. The length and pictures are fine, but there are far too many instances of unencyclopedic writing; to just cite one from the lead itself: "The songwriting credit is Lennon-McCartney, though it was originally written by just Paul McCartney and all the Beatles contributed bits of lyrics." The second paragraph of Significance, in particular, is full of such writing. I also dislike the incredibly short sections near the end, and would merge them if I could find an arrangement that would work. Johnleemk | Talk 14:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I rewrote the offending lines; is there anything else that is awkward? --The PNM 04:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I still had to make some minor changes, but after delving into the Signifance section more, I'm quite convinced I can't support until it is rewritten. I find the section rather overt in its POV (when it shouldn't even have one in the first place). If we could cite the opinion as that of a Beatles biographer or some of a music reviewer (or someone like that), then it would be great. Johnleemk | Talk 16:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Johnleemk, the opinion actually IS from Ian MacDonald, the Beatles' biographer and author of "Revolution in the Head" (just had a new edition this year). Specifically, his entry on Eleanor Rigby -- practically the whole entry is about its signficance. Is it okay now? I put a reference, but should I make some inline reference? (like: According to Beatles' biographer Ian MacDonald...).--The PNM 19:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
        • A textual reference would probably be best, but it seems a bit odd to me if we devote two paragraphs to the opinion of one Beatles biographer alone — that itself can appear biased. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'd like to see a lot more referencing. There are two inline links, and four "references", but I have no idea what fact is referenced by what. I'd also agree with Johnleemk that the writing is a little uneven. Some of it is quite good, while in other places it is awkward. I don't agree that any more images are necessary. Jkelly 23:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've gone through the article and my sources and done all in-line references. I added one more that I had forgotten (when I added the significance section) and removed one, since the section that that referenced is now deleted. Is that good now? Thanks. --The PNM 20:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I notice that something from the first peer review hasn't been addressed: Why is it at Eleanor Rigby (song) when Eleanor Rigby is a redirect there? — Laura Scudder | Talk 00:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've done a request for move to Eleanor Rigby. --The PNM 03:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC). It's on Talk:Eleanor Rigby (song).

Comment: It just seems like you are going in to too much detail on such a narrow area. I can't deinatively say yay or nay, but the premise is awfully small here. HereToHelp 19:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The long quoted passages should probably be re-written into prose. The sources should be in APA or MLA format, with a short description/excerpt of what is available at each site in case those sites ever go down.

Also:

• "a score by George Martin". A score for a song? Was Martin the song's arranger as well as the producer; did he write any of the instrumental?
• "the Shangri-Las...a Motown rendition". That should probably be "Motown-style", since the Shangri-Las weren't Motown artists.
• In general, the article is a bit on the short side to be about such an important song. There has to be a bit more that can be said about its impact on pop culture.
• A few POV problems, like "striking lyrics" (in the lead).

It has potential; it just needs some work to ge it there. --FuriousFreddy 20:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corinth

Self-nom.What do you think?--Astavrou 22:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object I don't want to come off sounding as mean, but do you have a list of sources used? Also, some of the prose could use a little bit of work (it's used incorrectly in place of its, and I'm also not sure about "the original isthmus" in the lead section). There's also a bit of repetitiveness regarding the namings of the ports that were available on the isthmus: compare "The city of Corinth historically had access to two ports. Lechaion lay to the west on the Gulf of Corinth and the port of Kenchreai lay to the east on the Saronic Gulf," at the end of the final lead paragraph to "The city had two main ports, one in the Corinthian Gulf and one in the Saronic Gulf, serving the trade routes of the western and eastern Mediterranean, respectively. In the Corinthian Gulf lied Lechaion, which connected the city to it's [sic] western colonies (Greek: apoikoiai) and Magna Graecia, while in the Saronic Gulf the port of Kenchreai served the ships coming from Athens, Ionia, Cyprus and the rest of the Levant. Both ports had docks for the large war fleet of the city-state," in the History section. --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1)Lacks references. 2)The history section is somewhat thin. It should be broken into subsections (city founding, Hellenic period, Hellenistic/Roman period, ...) and expanded. 3)More information is needed on modern-day Corinth such as population and demographics, current political structure, local cultural/tourism/sports activities, and institutes of higher education. Basically a good start that still has a ways to go before it is to FA standards. --Allen3 ^talk 23:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object 1. no references. 2. Sections can be expanded. 3) Map missing. 4. Images have an unknown source. User:Nichalp/sg 11:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The images Image:Corinth Temple of Apollon.jpg, Image:Corinthian statue.jpg, Image:Corinthian silver stater.jpg, Image:Corinthian silver stater reverse.jpg, Image:Corinth aerial.jpg have no copyright information.
  2. The image Image:Amphoreus Corinthian.jpg has no source or copyright information.

  --Carnildo 19:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Giuseppe Verdi (listen up, folks; seriously)

Self-nom, I guess. I'm nominating this article in order to convince myself that I've made a bona fide attempt to get it on the main page. I'm pretty certain it's not going there. So, you see, I'm doing this for selfish reasons: I propose to have a clear conscience after I'm done with the whole Verdi issue here. Let me assure you, though, that if getting myself embarrassed is what it takes to promote the Verdi entry, so be it. I don't mind. I don't mind at all.

I have seen the objections on the peer review page and I understand them fully, although I did find some of them pretty (expletive deleted) stupid. Now let me tell you what I think.

I think that the NPOV concept is a very good thing. In fact, it’s wonderful. Without it, we would all go to hell. However, with so many people contributing to the best and most informative source of information in the world today (I’m not kidding), it is inevitable that now and then things tend to get out of hand. Some of the contributors are, no doubt, sound thinkers and well-meaning people in general; the majority, however, will always be inclined to follow the rules to the letter. That’s one of the most annoying problems in any field these days: lots of people follow the rules to the letter and insist that others do so as well. Which is why there are neither artists, scientists, nor politicians today: just a lot of bureaucrats INVOLVED IN art, science, and politics.

Once in a while folks need to be reminded that it is the SPIRIT, and not the LETTER, of the law, that really matters. Without the spirit, the letter is worthless.

Now. The NPOV thing SHOULD be treated as some kind of, I don’t know, DOGMA - by most. However, once in a while, and only once in a while, someone who feels especially strong about CERTAIN THINGS should be, not merely allowed, but actually encouraged to express a point of view (within the boundaries of good taste, of course). Some folks had better remember that NOTHING in this world can EVER be presented without a point of view ANYWAY. Technically, any complete sentence IS a point of view. For instance:

The battle of Hastings occurred in 1066.

Yes, but only according to SOME people. There is plenty of disagreement about our dating methods, chronicles, documents, reputable sources, and so on. Is it commonly accepted that William the Conqueror kicked Harold’s ass sometime in the course of that year? Yes. Are there folks out there who disagree or (more commonly) HAVE NO OPINION? Yes. Conclusion: the fact that the battle of Hastings took place in the year 1066 is not a fact at all, but rather the majority’s POINT OF VIEW.

There are no facts without a point of view.

Let us now move on to the matter in question.

Unless one is determined to outdo the Pharisees in pedantry and hypocrisy, one would naturally agree that Philip Glass is not as good as Verdi or Wagner or Puccini. It is also pretty obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of opera and can appreciate it that not all of Verdi’s operas are equally brilliant. When pressed, a great deal of folks would probably admit that some of his pieces are actually pretty weak and generally boring.

Moreover. Avoiding making a distinction between “Rigoletto” and “Falstaff” IS tantamount to expressing a point of view.

Because it IS a point of view.

It is the Establishment’s point of view.

It cannot be commonly accepted since opera is not a common genre.

It is the Establishment’s fault that opera is in crisis today. It may therefore be a good thing, a quixotic thing, even, to contradict the Establishment’s opinion and re-establish the truth. Opera needs new blood; it needs new audiences; it needs young folks to buy tickets. If a young man or woman’s FIRST live opera is “Falstaff”, and not “Rigoletto”, he or she might NEVER AGAIN go to the opera. Ever.

Clear so far?

As I have mentioned before, I’m all for the NPOV thing. Seriously. However, I insist that in SOME instances, exceptions should, and MUST, be made. Yes: it is indeed my opinion, my point of view, my conviction that where opera is concerned, the Five Greats (Verdi, Wagner, Puccini, Bizet, Tchaikovsky) have to be given all the exposure they can get and THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO BE HYPED. The reason I rewrote nearly the entire article about Verdi is the previous article was an insult. I can say no less. I haven’t made up my mind about the Wagner entry, but it SEEMS okay. The Puccini article is not an insult: merely a damn shame. The one about Bizet is short and stupid. The one about Tchaikovsky seems to have been written by a fatuous obese spinster with a Russian accent.

I give you my word of honor, ladies and gentlemen, that when I’m the one providing the hype, it (the hype) can be neither tawdry nor tediously heart-warming. As a Second Renaissance man, I know the value of good taste. Believe you me. If you still doubt me, read the (expletive deleted) article (READ it, don’t skim through it).

That said, I very humbly ask those of you who feel the least bit pedantic to stay the (expletive deleted) away from the article. Seriously. You want to be all neutral about a composer – do Beethoven or Brahms or Mahler. Leave Verdi alone.

What, after all, is the main purpose of an encyclopedia? Isn’t it to provide information? Well, I have news for you. The implication that “Aida” and “Falstaff” are equal in value as works of art is NOT information: it is bureaucratic (COMMONLY ACCEPTED term for bovine excrement deleted). Ricardo the Texan 05:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC) (aka Ricardo the Impressionist)

• Oppose - POV. KingTT 05:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per KingTT. Sentences like "In it, Verdi's artistic generosity is at its highest. Unspeakably beautiful melodies are tossed right and left, passages of celestial beauty scattered like pearls and never repeated, numerous arias, duets, trios and a quartet follow one another in an unceasing celebration of musical genius; passions vibrate; comedy and tragedy merge seamlessly." are just unacceptable in an encyclopedia. The article is strewn with POV comments, and because of your rant above, I see no reason to believe this will be improved. Furthermore, the article has problems unrelated to POV. Entire sections, like the one describing "Verdi's role in the Risorgimento" are unsourced, despite making questionable statements. There is also an untagged image. Whether or not you appreciate it, NPOV is a foundation issue for Wikimedia, and is not negotiable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox designed to fulfill your agenda, and will most definitely not allow a POV article to become featured. Therefore, if you can not adhere to NPOV, which I strongly recommend, "I very humbly ask you to stay [...] away from" Wikipedia. Superm401 | Talk 06:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. If you feel the need to write a POV article on Verdi, please do it elsewhere. See also Wikipedia:What is a featured article, and note especially point 2d - a featured article, by definition, is required to be NPOV. You yourself admitted that this is a POV article; how can it ever be featured if it does not meet the basic criteria of a featured article? PacknCanes | say something! 06:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object For one, you've faulted by making a desperate plea for the NPOV status of the topic, right here on FAC. 1) Remove text in parenthesis and make it flow with the text. 2) arguably, the greatest opera yet written Arguably? according to whom? 3) It may have been Giuseppina herself Is this your point of view? See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. 4) Lead is too short, double the size 5) why should you compare his birth to Richard Wagner? 6) Parents' names? 7)His greatest works (e.g. Rigoletto, La Traviata, Aida) --> His greatest works, the Rigoletto, La Traviata, Aida... 8) Based on a play by Victor Hugo --> 'Based on a play by author Victor Hugo. Fix these and similar errors first before I review again. User:Nichalp/sg 07:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I listened up, and I seriously object. If I'm reading a Wikipedia article I want to know the facts and just the facts. If I'm sufficiently interested I'll explore deeper and then make up my mind, safe in the knowledge that nobody but me has the right to make up my mind. Don't presume to tell me what the "greatest" opera is, or tell me that music is "unspeakably beautiful". The article reeks of POV and of all the thousands of articles on Wikipedia I don't see why the rules for FA consideration should be changed for this particular one, simply because you feel passionate about it. Anybody could make a similar plea for their pet subject. We've managed to create some outstanding articles about some highly significant subjects and we've managed to keep it neutral, so if you're serious about the article you need to accept this is policy, and either improve the article or move on. The paragraph quoted by User:Superm401 (above) is nauseating. You know what's required or else you wouldn't have fatuously begged your case at such length, so I won't bother directing you to the relevant policy pages. If you leave the article as it is, other editors will eventually prune the POV from it. If you care about the article, perhaps you should be the one to do the pruning and your nomination might have some chance of success. I absolutely agree with every word of every previous objection. Rossrs 10:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support if only for the gutsy stance you took even though you knew it would not be a popular opinion. It took a lot of courage to do what you did, and not many people would do that. Although personally I would remove POV, I think your stance could fall under Wikipedia:Ignore all rules OmegaWikipedia 17:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Your interpretation of the ignore all rules guideline is appalingly wrong. Ignore-all-rule is about cutting through red tape, and is absolutely not applicable to this situation, which is about overlooking significantly quality issues when choosing featured articles. Your support is utterly vacuous →Raul654 23:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Omega, the idea is to support or oppose the article on its own merits, not on the gutsy stance of its author. If you truly believe that the article, as written, meets Wikipedia's standards for Featured Article, and that it is an example of Wikipedia's very best work, you should expand upon your support vote. Rossrs 11:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm a musician; I love Verdi. But this will not do. Aside from the obvious POV issues—which are not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia—the article is full of sparse and choppy paragraphs and lacks sufficient references. There's a lot of woodshedding to do before this one is ready for the Main Page. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep up the good work! The Quixotic Quest continues, and there’s yet some hope for a Second Renaissance! My 2 Percent Theory works like this. Take a whole bunch of people, selected and/or grouped based on ANY OLD criterium. They can be graduates of a certain not-too-prestigious school; or lesbians of a certain age; or hockey players; or writers; or politicians; or farmers; or lawyers; or just a whole bunch of folks from a certain neighborhood who decided to get some air last Tuesday and got wet because it suddenly started raining. It doesn’t matter. ANY old group. Chances are, 2 percent of them are worth one’s time, the remaining 98 being merely reluctant followers, the proverbial dead weight. And that is fine: because the so-called dead weight WILL contribute, at least in part, to the birth of the NEXT 2 percent.

• Well, this here project (Wikipedia, I mean) is actually doing BETTER than 2 percent. I sort of expected it. Miracles are never complete if you sort of expect them, I guess. Thus what we have here is an incomplete miracle. I see six votes, and already one of the six happens to be a member of the elite – and that’s 16 percent rather than 2. Thank you, Omega.

• As for the rest. I realize Verdi doesn’t deserve this; it’s disrespectful to use his name and legacy in such experiments. However, what’s done is done, so I might as well put together a bit of a summary (should more votes follow, I’ll revisit it; and should the results strike me as amusing, I’ll consider publishing them in my next book, I guess).

• So! This attempt to promote Verdi’s legacy has been shot down, chivalrously, by –

• Someone named KingTT whose Wikipedia contributions and expertise are summedup in this section of his user page: “What I’ve done. Uh . . . nothing much.”

• Someone called Superm401 whose contributions to this well of knowledge consists entirely of two article stubs, one on the Grace Building in New York, the other on John Lovewell, Jr. and who, paraphrasing me, asks me to stay the (expletive deleted) away from Wikipedia. That, I assume, is because he’s in charge around here.

• A night radio announcer down in Raleigh, North Carolina, called PackNCanes, whose interests, by his own admission, are limited to hockey, transportation, and geography, and who is fond of bureaucratic phraseology (“do it elsewhere”).

• A 22-year-old “electronic engineer” (whatever that means) from Bombay, India, named Nicolas, who claimed that if (!!) he’s reading Wikipedia (!!!), he wants (!!!!) “to know the facts and just the facts.” Here’s a fact for him: folks should not be so conceited, self-righteous, self-important, and/or fatuous when they’re only twenty-two unless they figure they would not mind becoming intolerable bores by the time they’re thirty.
  • Speaking of facts, it was not Nicholas who said he wants to know the facts. That was me. Get your facts right, stop being such a jackass, and get down off your soapbox because your utter rudeness does not sway me one bit. Rossrs 21:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You didn't spell my name correctly, you didn't ask me to clarify what an EE does, you completely misread my post, and chose to attack me because I am 22. Great! You've made yourself more of a troll now, and have completely blown your chances for getting this article featured. User:Nichalp/sg 08:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah! Vindictive, aren't we? Yes, sir, you're the boss around here. This isn't about the article, is it? The entire Wikipedia project's sole purpose is to make sure that folks respect you personally and view you as a figure of authority. What was I thinking. Ricardo the Texan 18:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Vindictive? I don't hold a grudge against you. I've only spoken the truth which needs to be bluntly told. Infact, I was kind enough to list some sentences and how to modify them. You unfortunately think I am/we are on some kind of vendatta campaign. Well, if you do take care of our objections, we'll lift our objections. User:Nichalp/sg 18:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
        • We? As in the magesterial "we"? Wow, that's lovely. Apart from that, you should really do something about your English. As it is, questions of credibility and, indeed, adequacy, spring irresistibly to mind when you voice your “objections”. Ricardo the Texan 19:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
          • My English hmmm...? That can be easily rectified, but something really drastic needs to be done about that belligerent attitude of yours. Please go through Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia: no personal attacks, it may do you some good. And once you've finished with that, please go through the second paragraph on this page which says: If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised. User:Nichalp/sg 19:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
            • ...make a good-faith effort to address objections - Absolutely, should those objections be valid and made in good faith.Ricardo the Texan 21:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• And the one musician gal from Florida who claims she loves Verdi (loving him from Florida suggests a long-distance relationship; the nearest semi-decent opera house is in Philly; quite romantic, though hardly credible) and cites choppy and sparse paragraphs in my article.
  • Perhaps a long-distance relationship, but I've had worse... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Stay tuned, folks. The Verdi adventure continues. Ricardo the Texan 20:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy. Serious business.

• Object on the following grounds: One: only TWO sources are referenced, and there are NO inline citations to ANY references. Arguments of style and neutrality aside, I can't see how an article could be an FAC with just two references, and certainly not possible without inline citations. I only bring this up because I've seen it brought up in many more featured article candidacy debates, and the debaters here seem to want to rant about neutrality, rather than citations. My own work in such matters is mixed, admittedly, but I HAVE been working to better cite my own sources. Two: no mention of the string quartet or the "Four Sacred Pieces." (though I will grant that this is a minor quibble, but I would like to see mentioned that Verdi DID write music aside from just the operatic works, and the Requiem, which leads me to) Three: no mention of the controversy surrounding Verdi's requiem (though I'm hard-pressed myself to find a source at the moment) - the story goes that the Requiem was quickly met with controversy for sounding "too operatic" in ways that some felt were inappropriate for a religious work (although the counter argument is that "too operatic" can hardly be a surprise). Also, the article states that the Requiem was composed in 1869 in honor of Rossini - both the dtv-Atlas zur Musik (in my 1992 edition published in Munich in association with Bärenreiter-Verlag) and the 1992 paperback printing of Theodore Karp's Dictionary of Music by Northwestern University Press state that Verdi's Requiem was completed in 1874, in honor of Alessandro Manzoni, who died the year before. --JohnDBuell | Talk 20:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Good points. However, the urgency I attempted to convey in the intro above is ignored. What do I need to say to get folks to understand? THE SHIP IS SINKING? We're taking on water, there are reefs anywhere we look, and you're concerned with painting the mate's bedpost? Get real. Opera is DYING. Puccini once said (and that's a VERY long time ago) that opera is finished because audiences are WILLING TO TOLERATE music without melodies and the public has lost its taste for melody. This is strikingly true when you consider THE VAST MAJORITY of today's performances in which conductors SLOW DOWN the tempi in order to satisfy their egoes - and this is taken as a matter of course by one and all. The performance of Tosca at City Opera, on a regular week night, took place in front of a house that wasn't even HALF-filled. They presented a new set which "updated" the action to Mussolini's times. Scarpia paraded in Nazi attire. This is supposed to be "modern." The orchestra was out of whack a lot of times. And you're concerned about REFERENCES? Sheesh. Ricardo the Texan 21:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • All of "classical music" (and I hate using the term) is dying, slowly, but dying all the same. Classical music sections in many music stores are dwindling (even Borders, which was one of my last great choices, remodeled and cut the section down to a small fraction of its previous size). This article would, if approved, be only the the THIRD classical composer to have an article reach FA. So in my opinion, you're preaching to the choir (thank (insert deity name here) for the CSO and Lyric Opera, both of which are doing well, not great, but well). In contrast to attempting to continue the POV/NPOV debate, I brought up items which HAVE impaired other articles for reaching FA status, and you still choose to be combative? --JohnDBuell | Talk 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Minor correction: it would be the sixth featured classical composer. Still, considering how many composers there are... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
        • You're right, and well spotted. Trying to make out all the names when about every other article is boldfaced, and the others are not can sure play tricks on the eyes. :) I only caught the two bold-faced ones (the two that have been featured articles of the day), and completely missed the three that are not. --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
          • The point (which seems to be getting lost on Ricardo) is that this article will not be promoted, no matter how bad the 'opera is dying' syndrome is, unless this article meets our standards for what a featured article should be. →Raul654 23:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There are lots of things wrong with it. Just on style, the information is vague (wonderful gift for melody? Every composer has that ...) Counterpoint is not how you exemplify it. Tony 02:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well no, everybody who has ever been called or called themselves a composer does NOT have a wonderful gift for melody, but it IS hard to quantify. This gets right back into the POV/NPOV debate (unless multiple sources are cited all saying Verdi DID have "a wonderful gift for melody," then it falls to the sources, not the editors here). And I'm not taking a high road or a low road, I'm just trying to stay OUT of the POV/NPOV debate here altogether. (blah, it'd help if I sign my comments) --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Clarification (since a whole bunch of folks trying to shoot down the article in question seem to need it badly). In art, no matter what genre you happen to be dealing with, there is a nucleus, a principle matter, a little something that more or less CONSTITUTES THE ART PART in the finished product. The difference between the art part and the other parts is the art part cannot be taught. It can be awakened, developed, nurtured, ignored, honed, etc, but either you have it or you don't. In painting (to pick a genre at random) this nucleus happens to be the line and its offshoot, the stroke. In music, the one thing that cannot be taught (as oppose to the various technical matters including, but not limited to, orchestration, harmonization, counterpoint, voice, theory, etc) is melody. Despite the popular opinion (expressed by Tony here), there have been VERY FEW composes who could boast a genuine melodic gift. Less than twenty, in fact. In the entire history of music as we know it. There have been a sufficient number of plausible fakes, of course, of hacks who could compile and build melodies, etc - but not in opera. Poor Tony, like myself, was born in an era when a whole lot of people in key positions are confused about this whole issue. Folks don't know what a melody IS anymore. Opera may be dying (and is, in my opinion, well worth saving); but popular music (to pick a genre at random) has long been dead. Make no mistake. Popular music is dead. I don't know whether I should laugh, weep, or just shrug, when I hear the term "contemporary", or, worse, "modern" applied to today's popular music. The b-flat-square and its branches are so unbelieveably primitive that even Monteverdi, a 17th Century semi-innovator in his own right, would have been ashamed of them; and the actual style (monotonous drumming, one mode, usually fortissimo, used throughout each piece, no modulation) from which all of today's popular music stems, was devised long before I was born, and I'm nearly forty. I was sort of counting on the new generation to rebel against this boring state of things, but they have turned out to be far more conformist and philistine than my coevals ever dreamed of being.Ricardo the Texan 04:52, 24 October 2005

(UTC)

• Some perspective, just in case. One of the October featured articles was about a character based on another video game character. It met all the proper criteria. Apparently, relevancy, or relevance (choose your poison) isn't one of those. How very symbolic. Thunder and lightning. Ricardo the Texan 04:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As I already said once above, importance/notoriety are not considerations when determing if something should be a featured article. A potential featured article must meet all of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:What is a featured article - notice that fame is not one of the criteria. So, to reiterate a phrase I coined - pretty much an article that could survive a listing on the Votes for Deletion page could theoretically become featured articles. All it takes is someone to put enough energy into that article to get it up to the propery standards. →Raul654 05:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, Ricardo, you're right. It is kind of pathetic that you couldn't address even a single objection preventing a world-renowned composer's article from being featured, while A Link to the Past was able to get the article of a fictional character no one even liked chosen. I guess we can see who's the real fan and who's just pretending. Superm401 | Talk 05:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Most things in this world that have any genuine spiritual value have appeared and continue to exist despite the unceasing objections from people whose outlooks are similar to yours, sir. Including, I hasten to add, Wikipedia.Ricardo the Texan 08:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • As I've said, Verdi is renowned composer, and he deserves that reputation. I certainly don't object to his music, or believe it has no spiritual value. I was merely pondering your incompetence in attempting to get the article featured. It certainly is not due to any fault of Verdi, who is by far notable enough. Superm401 | Talk 19:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The article is amazing. Honestly. If I could, I would perhaps move a thing or two around, but I adore the way this article has been crafted. It definitely deserves my vote. --Winnermario 20:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object Rigoletto is, arguably, the greatest opera yet written. Really? According to whom? Although his orchestration is often masterful, While I agree, I do not read Wikipedia for editor's opinions. A good start would be toning down the POV. - orioneight (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's not because the contributor is abusive towards the reviewers and has reacted negatively to criticism that the article must fail: it's because the article is poorly written and structured, and falls far short of 'comprehensive'. Next time, please write only a minimal amount at the top of your nomination. Tony 02:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Great music, I agree Verdi is cool, although Mozart gives him a run for his money. This article is so POV it made me smile, someone has written this for a laugh; but for an encyclopedia it is really dreadful, it's awful, it needs to be edited of all POV, then extended considerably, the political implications of his works could be an FA on their own. The descriptions of his operas are to brief, and lacking in information on plot, theory, ways of interpretation etc. If the nominator is serious (and I doubt this) in his wish to see this featured, he need to do a great deal more research. Giano | talk 11:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. POV problems abound. For example, "Although masterfully orchestrated, it lacks the melodic lustre so characteristic of Verdi's earlier, great, operas." – says who? Please attribute these statements to actual people rather than leaving the reader guessing. Extraordinary Machine 14:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Boys High School

This page has undergone quite a bit of renovation and comprehensively describes one of sydney's premiere boys public schools.

• Object. Too damn short. If it weren't for the extensive list of former students, I'd list it for deletion. --Carnildo 05:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object per Carnildo. Please refer to the path to a featured article, and take this through peer review. I note that this is the second time this has been in FAC, and the earlier recommendation for peer review was apparently not followed. I'd highly recommend you follow that advice before you list this on FAC again. Also, please make sure to sign your name using ~~~~ henceforth. PacknCanes | say something! 06:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object per above responses. The article is long on lists and short on prose. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 06:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Too short - not enough on history or current sports. Doesnt mention controversies in Rugby over the past two years or performance in HSC. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 06:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Please remove from this list before it causes yet more embarrassment. Tony 17:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Look at Caulfield Grammar School, a featured article, or other articles at Portal:Schools for some inspiration on how to improve. Drop me a line on my talk page for any help wanted. Harro5 10:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Details, details, details! -64.231.70.46 20:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As above. Enochlau 20:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

comments merged from Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sydney_Boys_High_School/ (with /)

[edit] Cooperative

Very comprehensive article, describing multiple aspects of cooperative movement. dml 21:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment It smells a lot like anglo-saxon POV. A big effort should be done to present on a same level the cooperative systems in the world. A single example: Agricultural cooperative. Compare the size of both sections: in the US and in other parts of the world. Vb 10:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Definitely too focused on the West; other uses of co-operatives (for example, many Malaysian schools have their own co-operatives) seem to have been ignored. The lead section is far too long; two or three paragraphs should be the maximum. The references are also not formatted properly. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Might be salvagable; I agree with the culturocentric concerns of the previous reviewer.

I wonder about this:

'Membership is open, meaning that anyone who satisfies certain non-discriminatory conditions may join. Unlike a union, in some jurisdictions a cooperative may assign different numbers of votes to different members.'

You're presenting a general (worldwide?) definition of the cooperative, but aren't these conditions rather exclusive? What does 'open' mean? I was a member of a cooperative that restricted membership in a number of ways. Don't some cooperatives discriminate—some jurisdictions have relatively lax anit-discrimination laws. Do you mean 'trade union'? Are you referring to unions in certain countries? Tony 16:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual band

Self-nom This has gone through two peer reviews (you can read them here and here), and I think I have it up to a level that is suitable for featured article. --JB Adder | Talk 12:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: "The popularity of the group opened the door for many other cartoon bands, especially Josie and the Pussycats, The Banana Splits and Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem." Does Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem work in this sentence? For one thing, they're puppets, a "cartoon band". If Virtual Bands can include puppets at all, the intro should say so. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that the popularity of the Archies had much if anything to so with opening the door to The Muppet Show and the creation of this virtual band. --Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—Prose needs editing. Here are examples of what I mean, drawn from the top.
  • '(like in The Archies and Gorillaz)'—ungrammatical.
  • Overuse of parentheses, which makes it harder to read—try commas, m dashes, and rewording to vary your usage in this respect.
  • 'This' occurs twice in a relatively short sentence.
  • 'A virtual band (or virtual group), in music, is any group whose members are not flesh-and-blood musicians, but animated characters.' Try: 'A virtual band (or virtual group), is a group of animated characters that represent musical performers.'
  • Get rid of 'etc'.
  • 'Stage appearances are complex, because they not only require pre-animated sequences, ready to play, but also need the actual musicians behind the screen, performing in perfect sync.' What about: 'The mechanics of stage appearances are complex, requiring the preparation of ready-to-play animated sequences and the presence of human musicians behind a screen, performing in perfect sync.'
  • One-sentence paragraph is not a good look.

It has potential, but you'll have to find some language-nerds to help out. Tony 05:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the indication; why they weren't brought up in Peer Review, I'll never know. --JB Adder | Talk 08:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• You know what: most reviewers barely have time to cope with this list, and don't often attend to the PR list thoroughly. There's a good case for recommending that contributors who put up articles for PR directly ask (nicely) five or six contributors to related articles to have a look. It's no good just posting it there and hoping the right 'peers' will come along. Tony 16:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• An article that concerns such a visual phenomenon needs a lot more than just one image. Still mistakes in the prose (e.g., 1980's). The first few sentences are not well written (please remove 'etc' for a start). It's rather stubby for a FA. Tony 04:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About-Picard law

(Largely self-nom) What do you think? It's a dry legal topic, on a somewhat controversial issue, but I think all points of view are reflected. There's a single picture, but I don't quite see what kind of pictures could illustrate the article better (this is about a legal text, after all). David.Monniaux 08:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The Bibliography section should be named "References" according to common practice and guidelines. And what's with the "Opinions"-section? If the internet links are relevant, then thy should go under "External links". The books cited under this section should either go under a "Further reading"-section or be removed if they've not actually been used to reference the article. The external links section is also very large. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  I reorganized the section. The external links section is very large because people used to scream bloody murder and censorship if any link criticizing the French government was removed! What do you think about the issue? David.Monniaux 20:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  I'd say that we're not a link repository. Any notable criticism should be described in the article. If it's not notable, it shouldn't be snuck in by adding criticism-links. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  Agreed, with the article size 10-15 links is really over doing it but that would be the goal. The article is good but could Main points be changed to prose? Falphin 02:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. David, you do good stuff (such interesting topics), but I can't cope with the torrent. Although your English is better than that of many native speakers, you need a trusted native collaborator to review your texts before nominating them. There's also a certain looseness in some of your prose, which weakens the clarity and precision of the meaning. Your topics seem to demand great clarity and precision. Here are some examples from the lead.
  • 'parliament' should be 'parliamentary'.
  • 'makes it possible to act against organisations (legal entities) when these organisations have been involved in certain crimes'
    • Consider using this: 'makes it possible for the state to act against organisations that have been involved in certain crimes', relocating mention of 'legal entities' to later in the article.
  • 'The law was, in its own words, aimed at cultic movements (mouvements sectaires) that, "undermine human rights and fundamental freedoms". The law does not define new crimes, except in association with existing crimes. It never mentions religion.'
    • You use terminology that is not explained until the reader gets to the next section. The four words and parentheses make it a complicated sentence; can you find a simple, translated expression here that won't beg further questions? Then you can go into the details later.
    • 'Was'—you mean the law has been extinguished? And when was it enacted? Tell us at the start.
    • 'Never' should be 'does not'.
  • 'Proponents of the law allege, on the contrary, that it reinforces religious freedom, since it aims at protecting people who are in a weak position, including children, from being forced into religious and other activities by criminal organizations.'
    • Consider instead: 'On the contrary, proponents of the law allege that it reinforces religious freedom, because it aims to protect people who are in a weak position, including school children, from being forced by criminal organizations into religious and other activities.' But what are these 'other activities'? Homework? ' ...and activities that the legislators regarded as being a threat to ...'?

[edit] Dungeons & Dragons

Self nom. This article was formerly nominated as a FAC and, rightfully, failed. Since then I and several people have worked hard to whip the article into shape. The article has also been peer reviewed recently. The primary objections to the previous FAC were: (1) A lack of references. (2) Poor copyediting. (3) Size of the article. (4) Lack of organization. (5) Failure to cover certain subjects (such as related products) in sufficient detail. These problems have been fixed and the article polished up above-and-beyond. I think it's ready to become a featured article. Justin Bacon 05:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support it passes now... last time it just wasnt ready for the prime time.  ALKIVAR™ 06:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object I have tried to re-edit the page but my English is quite poor so that I fear the page (or at least my contribtutions) should be re-edited. I have tried to change the following points:
  1. The article provides the impression to the reader that D&D is a simple tabletop game requiring some items which can be purchased and not a role-playing game. One does not need to have the v3.5 to be able to play in the D&D universe with D&D rules! One can also invent one's own rules and settings! This is said in the article but should be said in the game overview or in the lead.
  2. One should remove all standard D&D abbreviation (DM, RPG,... except D&D, AD&D when clear)
  3. Criticisms should be expanded with comparision with other RPGs
  4. The tone is sometimes condescendant with earlier versions. See caption of the cover of the D&D 4th edition printing.
  5. Many lists and very short (1 or 2 sentence) paragraphs should be merged into prose
  6. What are Game Board (Cloth?) and computer programs (in the Play overview section)?

I think I am not finished yet and that someone should continue this in order improve the article. Vb 09:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's a substantial article that might come up to scratch with four or five hours of intensive work. Here are a few problems that I notice without yet having read it properly.
  • Lots of stop-start paragraphing. One solution might be to insert more bullets, which will require rewording and proper punctuation. Another may be to merge paragraphs. At the moment, the flow is adversely affected.
  • I see that you assume women don't/can't/shouldn't play the game. Please change the sexist language. A common way of avoiding the generic male pronoun is to pluralise ('When players choose to have their character attempt an action' rather than 'When a player chooses to have his character attempt an action').
  • The prose needs a BIG clean up—in many places there's a looseness or awkwardness. For example:
    • 'a random die roll' might be clearer as 'a random roll of the die';
    • 'The results of those actions are determined using the game's rules, which govern almost everything from combat to social interaction. However, the Dungeon Master is responsible for interpreting the rules and most simple actions can be resolved from simple logic without referring to the rules.' The logic of 'However' escapes me; then there's a statement that seems to flow better straight from the first sentence. And try 'responsible for interpreting the rules, and most simple actions can be resolved using simple logic without reference to the rules.' It will confuse readers, this shunting from A1 to B and then back to A2.
    • 'Races include elves, dwarves, humans, and halflings among others.' But 'include' does mean 'among others'—you don't need both.
    • 'They help the master to create some story and backgrounds.'—'some story' is not idiomatic English.

Now, it's all like this, so you need to enlist a language-nerd who hasn't seen the text yet. It will be worth it to make it read smoothly—then you'll be proud of it, and frankly, nothing less will do for a FA. (Mind you, I haven't looked at the content; others may have suggestions there.) Tony 09:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • I've made a pass through the article and changed the language to be gender-neutral. It looks to me like other editors have addressed some of your other constructive critiques as well. Nandesuka 12:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This FA nomination seems to have gone off track rather rapidly. We have one person with poor English skills complaining about the presence of imaginary material that never appeared in the article (a caption mentioning a "4th edition" of the game which doesn't exist) and the lack of material which aleady appeared in the article (an explanation of game boards that can be used with the game). He introduces clumsy language into the article... which is then cited by the next person as a reason to object before the problem can be corrected. Oh, plus a push to make the Wikipedia article on D&D the best place to push an agenda on revising the English language.
  • Reply I had mistaken edition with printing. I am sorry. I think my clumsy language is better than nothing. I still believe some important elements were and (to some extend still are) missing in the article. However I am happy the editors of the article have not reversed my edits but make copyedit instead. The article mentioned game boards and computer programs without explaining at all what they are. I am sorry also for my misunderstanding of notoriety my mother tongue is French and in French notoriété can be positive as well as negative. I have looked in a dictionary. Thanks. Vb 20:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Non-native speakers can often make valuable contributions to the eng.WP; there's a case for arranging a pairing system with native-speakers so that we can express information and views from outside anglophonia in good English. Over to the Board on that. Will the reviewer who complained of a 'push' please explain what s/he meant? Tony 08:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I was guessing they were referring to your comments on sexist language, making a rather uncivil and unclear defense of the position that English allows "he" to be used as the generic third-person pronoun. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object. There's quite a bit of abbreviation used that demands that the reader makes the connection between the introduction of the terms and their acronyms. Also, the prose needs a little polishing. What is the difference between a "random die roll" and a "die roll"? The sentence "Much of the potential for parody in Dungeons & Dragons may exist because, with its heroic millieu and imagination-based gameplay, it exaggerates the visibility of the gap between the actuality of the players' self-image and the personas they adopt when interacting with others" is laboured. Having said that, the article is quite good at explaining what the game is, so long as the reader is willing to follow the wikilinks to important terms like "roleplaying game". Jkelly 17:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. (Full disclosure: I've done quite a bit of editing on this article in the past couple of months). I concur with Justin Bacon. I think it's ready. I'll make a pass through again to address some of the specific grammar concerns raised by some editors. Nandesuka 12:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Babe Ruth

Nominating for a featured article. Article length to some people will be a drawback, and having wrote the great majority of the article, I take responsibility for the length. Nevertheless, I believe the article is quite comprehensive. Whether or not this is a featured article, I would recommend and encourage a separate article on Babe Ruth that is much shorter for the reader who do not want this much information. It would also be much easier writing a separate article than cutting this one down. --LibraryLion 23:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's pretty well written, although the prose needs a little tweaking throughout. One particularly annoying aspect is the wholesale linking of common nouns. Here's an example:

'Young George was known for mischievous behavior. He skipped school, ran the streets, and committed petty crime. By age seven, he was drinking, chewing tobacco ...'

WP is not a dictionary, and there's a bunch of reasons that common words—and for that matter, low-value years and decades—should not clutter the appearance of the text. If your readers don't know what these words mean, they should take lessons in basic English. If they do know what these words mean, I fail to see how hitting the links will help them to understand/enjoy reading your article. See Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context. Overall, well done. Tony 05:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I do claim to getting carried away linking everything, although I admit I was not aware of Wikipedia's preference to link only subjects that relate directly to the text. In a couple of days, I'll try to have this fixed. --LibraryLion 21:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have taken out numerous links, although honestly I'm not sure why this really is an issue as it seems rather trivial when judging the quality of the article. --LibraryLion 08:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images need work:
  • Image:Ruthbatting.jpg, if it was indeed taken in 1923 and was published in the same year (that's very important; it's the publication date that determines public domain, not the date the picture was taken), is public domain as indicated. However, without a source, the year of publication can't be verified.
  • Image:RuthStMary's.jpg has a good justification for fair use, but are you claiming that it's fair use or public domain? Rather hard to tell; make sure to tag the picture with the appropriate tag.
  • Image:Ruthsoxdk.jpg has no source or copyright-status information.
  • Image:Ruth1918.jpg and Image:Ruth1920.jpg have no source information, which makes a public-domain claim rather dubious without knowing for certain the publication date of the photos.
  • Image:FrazeeRedsox.JPG, Image:BRuth1921-2.jpg, Image:RuthMcgraw1922.jpg, Image:Yankeestad2.jpg, Image:3BRuth1925.jpg, Image:Ruth1926-3.jpg, Image:1927NYYankees5.jpg, Image:Ruth1927.jpg, Image:RuthGehrig.jpg, Image:Ruthcharity.jpg, Image:Ruth1929.jpg, Image:RuthClaire1930.jpg, Image:Ruth1930-2.jpg, Image:Ruth1932.jpg, Image:Ruth1935.jpg, Image:Ruth1938.jpg, Image:Ruth1948.jpg, and Image:Ruthfuneral.jpg are all (properly) claimed as fair use, but they need to be tagged as such. I'd recommend using the tag {{fairusein|Babe Ruth}} to tag them.
  • Also, make sure you stay away from anything that isn't NPOV. Be on the lookout for copy like the caption of "the greatest slugging duo" under the picture of Ruth and Gehrig; either qualify it with something like "statistically", or don't use it. But the copy is excellent, and even given the length -- which, admittedly, is VERY long, but just as good -- I'd be happy to support as long as the image concerns are cleared up. Good luck! PacknCanes | say something! 14:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Not tagging the photos was an oversight on my part. I have tagged every picture and gave sources on the Ruth 1918 photo and the 1920 photo. I did not download the pictures Image:Ruthbatting.jpg nor Image:Ruthsoxdk.jpg. Since I do not know their sources, I will replace these two photos with ones where I know their specific references. --LibraryLion 21:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

All photographs have been tagged. --LibraryLion 22:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see it. The article is still a bit long, but it's certainly comprehensive, so I can't really argue with the length. Weak support on the condition that Tony's concerns about over-linking are addressed. (Rule of thumb: if it's already been linked, don't link it again, especially for things like years and positions..."pitcher", for example, only needs one or maybe two links.) Good job! PacknCanes | say something! 06:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object at 80+ kb the page size is massive. Please summarise the text so that it is cut by more than half. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Please also reduce the image width and cut the numerous headings. User:Nichalp/sg 07:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Summary style would be completely incompatible with this article. To do this, I would have to make seperate articles on sections by themselves that do not warrant seperate articles. If I did this, none of these seperated sections would even be a full page. I know Wikipedia touts summary style, and it has its uses, but I admit I generally do not like it. It often diverts the reader from the main article, and it fragments your article and interferes with the pace. Summary style is also often distracting and cumbersome to read, even when reading some featured articles. Sorry, but summary style is not is a good option for this article. --LibraryLion 08:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Support- I took out info about the other teams rosters in those world series that Ruth which is irrelavent played trimming the article from 88kb to 85kb but still long. Why not create a few subpages --JAranda | watz sup 19:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Government of France

Self-nom I think it's rather complete. Some people thought I should discuss the budget in more detail, but this is, I think, another topic, worth of a separate article. David.Monniaux 01:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment — I'm working through the article now, and it is well-written. However, may I ask if all those section headings starting with the definite article ae really necessary. I would advocate removing all the thes from the beginning of section headings here. --Gareth Hughes 15:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok. Fixed. David.Monniaux 16:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — It is clear to me what cabinet and gouvernement mean in different sections of this article, but the interchange between the two words isn't all that helpful. Would it be possible to define gouvernement and then use that term exclusively? --Gareth Hughes 15:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — The capitalisation of certain titles, like president and prime minister is erratic. I tried correcting a few before I realised that I was probably doing it wrong. See titles. --Gareth Hughes 15:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Regretfully object: the article is very good, but the complete lack of English-language references is unacceptable, as there's no way for the average reader to examine the cited sources. Kirill Lokshin 23:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I added a bunch of English references (many reference texts had official English translations). Do you think it's enough? David.Monniaux 07:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that looks just fine; I have no further objections. Support from me. Kirill Lokshin 12:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Was about to support, but I have to ask: Are those italicised "see below" notices in parentheses really necessary? I'm not sure about the policy/convention on them, but I found them a bit offputting at times. Johnleemk | Talk 17:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed most of them but one — the one linking to the difference between statute law and regulations, which is I think quite a central topic of French constitutional law after 1958. David.Monniaux 20:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object at the moment. This is a very important article that I'd like to see featured. But it needs heavy editing—you could call it rewriting. Here are some comments on the lead.
  • Opening sentence
  • I've wikified by starting with the title in bold.
  • You may wish to revert to the 'laique = roughly secular' thing in the middle of the list, but it was cluttering what should be a strong, clear opening.
    • What does 'social' mean in this context? (Remove or reword.)
      • This is a quote from the preamble of the Constitution, so any rewording is surely out of question. The precise meaning of such words probably warrants detailed constitutional analysis by constitutional scholars. David.Monniaux 06:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • 'Provides for', not 'enacts' (parliaments, not constitutions enact).
    • Is my change to 'human rights' correct?
  • Appointment of PM—this sentence was a mess. How about: 'The President's choice for Prime Minister must be approved by the French National Assembly, the lower house of Parliament; in practice, the Prime Minister is drawn from the majority party in that house.'
  • Then: 'The government includes various bodies checking against possible abuses of power and independent agencies.'
    • Let's be careful to distinguish 'government' (that of a particular President/PM) from the constitutional framework in which governments function. Is there appropriate terminology to do this throughout?
    • Do you mean '... that check abuses of power by the government and its independent agencies.'? What are these 'independent agencies? You've said twice that the judiciary is 'independent', so the reader will wonder whether the statement refers to it.
    • I wonder whether a bullet-pointed list of the basic structure—or even a diagram—is required at the top, so that we're not confused when you first refer to the components.
  • And: 'However, the various legal subdivisions—the régions, départements and communes—have various attributions, and the national government is prohibited from intruding into their normal legal operations.'
    • I've inserted the m dashes, which make sentences with lots of commas a little clearer and easier to read.
    • Are these entities equivalent to 'local goverment'?
    • Why name these categories here if you don't distinguish between them? (Better to use a generic term here, and explain in detail later.) What are 'attributions' in this context? (Powers and responsibilities?)
    • 'Various' appears twice in this sentence.

Do I have time to go through the whole article like this? Tony 03:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Re 'social'—presumably you've translated it, so you have a degree of license to get across the intended meaning in English. As it stands, social is vague and ambiguous, and should be removed if the courts need to interpret the word. Here, some readers will take it as 'socialist'; others might think it means 'democratic'. So it can't stand as is. (That's unwise drafting, in my view.) Tony 13:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The word social is used in the official English translation. It would be unfair to try and change this. Social means here that the state is responsible for some welfare system but interpreting further would be original research. I have changed the head (and cited the source) such that it comes clearer. Vb 15:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot vote because I have not read everything. The article is much too long and should boil down to something more reasonable like 30-35 KB. Vb 15:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object poor flow - needs longer and less paragraphs. Could use another run through peer review probably. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brain (previous nomination)

When I came to this article it had already been largely developed by WikiProject Science. I have simply been chunking out some important parts (so it is a partial self-nomination). This article has been through Peer Review and meets all of the featured article criteria. --Oldak Quill 15:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. --Oldak Quill 15:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: the references need to be tidied up. I would like to see some merging of the "Notes" and "references" sections so that a single "References" section referenced inline from the page arises. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations and Wikipedia:Footnotes. Alex.tan 16:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Would it not be easier to keep the references section as it is (apart from templatising them) and just move all the notes links inline [http://...etc.? All of the references are relevent to the whole article.--Oldak Quill 16:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC) Edit: I have now cleaned these up. --159.92.101.18 08:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Rabbit brain pl.png has no source or copyright information, and no, "From Polish Wikipedia" doesn't cut it. --Carnildo 20:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • image removed. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I have verified that all images in the article are free - I have added some more at relevent points. --Oldak Quill 08:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• ObjectSupport The article is great. I have however some objections.
  • It should be clear already in the head that the article is not only about the anatomy the brain of animals but about the brain in more general sense (food, artificial intelligence)
  • The titles are funny but not explicit enough. I suggest to change "A smart device" and "Inside brains" with something more telling like "the functions of the brain" and "Anatomy of the brain". The same for the title "Brains in medicine" and "Brains in nature": they sound a bit strange to me. Why not "Brains of animals" and "Brains of human beings"?
  • Myths. I like very much the two first myths and their explanations. Why aren't there any explanations following the next ones. A short comment about why those a myths would improve the article.
  • Food. The article is missing many French food based on the brain like the calf head (tête de veau).

Vb 15:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I believe I have sorted out all of your objections: I have expanded to lead section to consider the study for artificial intelligence and use as food; I have renamed "inside the brain" to "The biology of the brain", do you have any suggestions as to what "A smart device" could be changed to?; I have moved the "Myths" section to the human brain article as it was not general enough; and I have expanded food to include tête de veau and a couple of other foods. --Oldak Quill 12:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • OK It's now better but the titles "A smart device", "Brains in medicine" and "Brains in nature" are really too odd to me. You should really change this. What belong to human brain and brain is not made clear. Maybe should you make a subsection called "human brain" with main article "human brain". Vb 15:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I can see your point over "A smart device" but am not sure why there is anything wrong with "...in medicine" and "...in nature"? --Oldak Quill 18:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC) EDIT: I have now changed all of the titles you suggest should be changed and then some for greater uniformity and sense. I have also added a "human brain" section which is linked to the main article. --Oldak Quill 00:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support OmegaWikipedia 12:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong object—Very poorly written. I've edited the opening, but I'm finding that there's a looseness in more than the use of language; it's deeper than that, involving scientific looseness.

For example:

Why is psychology 'less direct' than neuroscience in its study of the brain? This needs to be worded carefully to be credible.

'There have also been attempts and research into simulating it (artificial intelligence) to achieve a new, more efficent, generation of computing'—please remove most of the occurrences of 'also', which are redundant. 'Attempts into simulating'? Doesn't make sense. 'Attempts and research'? 'it (artificial intelligence)' is clumsy. Would this research produce an old generation of computing?

'Humans have also put the brain to use as an ingredient in various world cuisines and tribal rituals.' Suddenly we're talking about cannibalism, at the end of a leading paragraph that covers the related scientific fields ....

'neural control is executed by collections of ganglia'—'control is executed' is awkward.

'usually used'—come on, you shouldn't be writing jingles like that.

'information about the human brain in specific'—do you mean 'specifically'?

'Functions of the brain are responsible for cognition'—Do you mean 'The brain is responsible ...'?

Every sentence needs surgery. Withdraw and find collaborators to tighten the whole thing up. We need a FA on the brain. (PS If you want more examples, I'll just go through and pick out some more shockers. But you get the thrust of what I'm saying, don't you?) Tony 14:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your comments concerning the article - you certainly seem qualified to make them :). I will be going through the article tonight and tomorrow to thoroughly clean up the English. I'll leave you a message when I'm done. --Oldak Quill 09:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Update: I and several others have now significantly copyedited the article, I will be making some finishing touches after my train journey home.
    • The article has now been extensively copyedited, I hope you consider it in a better state. --Oldak Quill 14:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object - As said above, needs improvements in writing style. --WS 15:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Tentative Support, I would like to see the writing style improved but there is no such thing as a perfect article. Falphin 01:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object I'm not going to say why i object because 1, I have the right to, & 2, Everyone would try & berate me into supporting, which I don't need. Mainly cause it's too short. Spawn Man 08:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This is an inactionable objection, so is ignored. --87.80.42.198 09:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • See what I mean?.... If you read closely you would see that I put the words MAINLY BECAUSE IT'S TOO SHORT, did you see it now? My objection is because it is too short mr. I'm Going To Ignore It. You can't ignore it. It is actionable & is correct. SO THERE..... *Some people get my blood boiling...........* Spawn Man 23:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • In what way is this article too short?! In no way is it too short. Perhaps you are referring to particular sections? If so, please say which ones. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
      • "Too short" is an inactionable objection because it does not indicate how the article could be fixed. The article could be made longer by thesaurusizing it. It could be made longer by adding lorem ipsum in strategic locations. It could be made longer by using a larger font, or wider margins, or by double-spacing the lines. What do you want? --Carnildo 23:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Indeed. Also keep in mind that the article is already 34 kB, over the recommended size. I will expand the "Function" section as suggested below today. --Oldak Quill 13:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's looking better now; I've gone through down to the end of 'animal brains'—please see my inline comments. Plus: 'compare with' for contrasts, 'compare to' for similarities. Tony 02:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The section on fuction is still too short for me. Scientists are still unlocking mysteries of the brain & all we have is a small little section on function? Watch some BBC, Human Body, episodes then come back to it.... Spawn Man 03:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Still needs lots of work. Can you retitle the section 'Importance of the brain'? This implies that the following section 'Biology of the brain' is not important. Can you do something about the caption for the mouse brain (which I reworded—now it's visually awkward). Tony 04:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. I'll be making amendments today. --Oldak Quill 13:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object: seems OK, only the following needs a source: "Humans enjoy unique neural capacities, but much of the human neuroarchitecture is shared with ancient species" - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Weak object This does need to be rewriten, but when that's done, you're good. So when these complaints stop, so does mine.

• Weak Object- I think it needs an evolutionary history (a paragraph or so- when did brains first evolve). Also, "Other matters" is a poor name for a section (a broader discussion of philosophical and computer science would be nice and that section seems to aproximate that, but isn't named so and isn't sufficiently fleshed out). This is a really broad subject and such large topics are hard to feature. The "brain as food" section seems random, but i guess it isn't bad. Broken S 22:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Vaslui

self-nom

We need more battles on Wiki. I think this article, for being a battle article, is cool. It involves many different parties and nations. The article seems to be rather complete, but I'm sure people can still improve it in certain areas. --Anittas 15:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references and no pictures. Johnleemk | Talk 16:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you highlight specific passages where wokr needs to be done?. Unsigned: user:Thethinredline

• Like John said, we need more references, but to say that we have no references would be wrong. I will add those that I know of and I'll ask another dude to do the same. As for pictures; unfortunatelly, there aren't any pictures of the battle, that I know of, but I do know that pictures aren't required. I guess we could add the picture of some of the leaders. Would that be relevant? --Anittas 18:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, the current references are not formatted properly; please see WP:CITE. And yes, pictures of the leaders would be fine. Johnleemk | Talk 13:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • How are they supposed to be? --Anittas 21:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style. Johnleemk | Talk 13:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object due to lack of references. Direct citations are necessary at least for the size of the Ottoman army and its casualties (I see three different numbers given with no explanation of where they come from) and for the assertion that the "invasion was the worst ever defeat for the Ottomans at that time"; and some more English-language references would be helpful in general. Kirill Lokshin 21:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree with what others have said regarding references, though this shouldn't be too difficult to overcome as the article seems to cover the subject matter in sufficient depth (one web article I saw refers to this as the "Battle of the Buglers"). As far as images go, if there's not a nice painting of the Battle (as have been prepared for many other conflicts) something depicting the armies would be helpful; however, a map would be the most beneficial in terms of conveying information. Unfortunately, the City article for Vaslui is only a stub.--Lordkinbote 07:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm working on adding more references. Give me 4 days. As for pictures, I don't know where to find them. I have a drawing of the battle, from a book, from the communist times; the picture is not copyrighted (communist times). Is it allowed to add it? If not, we could just add photos of the leaders. Thanks for your contribution. --Anittas 14:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • If it has no copyright, it is in the public domain, so sure, go ahead! Johnleemk | Talk 15:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I agree with Kirill. He and I read, write and edit A LOT of battle articles. This one is simply not yet up to the standards. There are some factual and wording problems, which I helped a bit to address in my edits (such as referring to the sipahis as light cavalry. They were actually heavy by Ottoman standards, but they often get confused in the west with the Timariots, who were the light horse, feudal levies). A map would most certainly be helpful. The author obviously has a great knowledge of the battle itself, but English is not their primary language. I would gladly help them with this. Towards these ends, I suggest it go to Peer Review for some more work, then be resubmitted.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You're more than welcome to help out, Ghost. You don't need my permission. As for the rest, I still ask for about 4 days, so that I can add references, etc. --Anittas 20:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Here's an example of what I consider a very well done battle article, worthy of FA support: Battle of Nicopolis--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I think that the red links should be addressed. Also, any political implications of the battle? InvictaHOG 00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to write a stub on Grigore, soon, if no one else is doing it. No problem there. I'm not sure what you mean when saying "political implications". I thought everything was described in the background section. Btw., is that you who made the map for the battle of nicopolis? If so, can you do the same for this article? Thanks. Be back later. --Anittas 00:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support OmegaWikipedia 12:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Addentum: Okay, I've added new references and two pictures of the leaders. The article seems a bit messy, now. There are many red links, now. That's because the historians that I've used in my references, are not well-known. Should I un-link their names? Other than that, I don't think I can do much more. I've looked at other battle articles and they don't have that many references; probably because no-one forced them cite everything they said. I also added new information. If anyone can help, please do. I don't think the article has a chance to be nomindated. I checked on the Battle of Kadesh. If that article was not featured, then my article has no chance. I think this sucks. Most featured articles are dull. They're about train companies and stuff; and just recently someone nominated an article for chicken soup. Bad timing, dude! --Anittas 19:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Half-Life 2

Self-nomination and also re-nom. Originally submitted by me back in June of this year, the article has come a long way, and many changes have been made to fix it up. A very interesting and notable computer game. Thunderbrand 02:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support, although I have made considerable contributions to this article, I do feel the article is comprehensive and a good all-around article. For whatever it is worth. K1Bond007 06:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object the lead has to be double the current size. User:Nichalp/sg 12:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

How is it now? I think its summarized a bit better. Thunderbrand 14:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well done. User:Nichalp/sg 17:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object: Overuse of screenshots. The images Image:Breen1HL2.jpg, Image:Antlions1HL2.jpg, Image:City17HL2.jpg, and Image:ManhacksHL2.jpg are not discussed in the article, and should probably be removed. --Carnildo 19:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually the first three are discussed, the last one isn't though (at least specifically, it is in a section talking about the character - allies & enemies in the game. I think that's fair enough) Definitely not overuse and the screenshots add greatly to the article. K1Bond007 19:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with K1Bond007. The screenshots help greatly and aren't overused. Thunderbrand 20:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Of the four, Image:Breen1HL2.jpg doesn't appear show anything significant about the game. Image:Antlions1HL2.jpg, Image:City17HL2.jpg, and Image:ManhacksHL2.jpg are all used to illustrate combat, so all but one of them should be removed. --Carnildo 05:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Breen1HL2.jpg shows a signifcant part of the storyline. Thunderbrand 16:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree, yet again. It is an important moment in the game and is illustrated in the plot summary. There's absolutely no reason to remove it. K1Bond007 21:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—No mention of platforms: Mac and Windows, when/if? No mention of releases in countries other than what I presume is the US, as though that's the only country in the world. Prose not 'compeling, even brilliant'. Things like:

'1998's'

'leaked TO the internet'? This is not the right preposition. Upper-case I for Internet, still.

'advancements'—hello?

'during the course of conducting an experiment'—which four words are redundant here?

dot after 'Dr' is now very old-fashioned.

'Two distinctive elements from the original Half-Life are preserved:

Freeman is a silent protagonist

The entire game is viewed through Freeman's eyes (i.e. there are no cut scenes)'—comma after 'e,g.', and format this as the single sentence that you apparently intended it to be.

The whole text needs a thorough edit. Tony 14:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I addressed most of your concerns. However, you need to clarify a couple so I know what is wrong:

What is wrong with using "1998's"?

"advancements" - same as above. "hello?" doesn't give me much to go by. Thunderbrand 15:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

1998s doesn't need an apostrophe and advancements is a confused word that means the same as the more simple - advances (grammatically it doesn't seem correct, but I can't work out why). In general the text has improved since my last read though, but it feels odd being dropped straight into the plot, neutral.--nixie 23:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Support The article does a good job of summing up both the game, its development, and the issues surrounding it. InvictaHOG 23:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Object First there are several minor issues, the Plot gets way too detailed in some places (ex: there is no reason to mention a detail like "breifly transporting Gordon to the office of Doctor Breen twice"). Also in Narration the use of "it" when describing speculation is inappropriate, and should be rewritten. (Ex. "In Half-Life it could be said" What is "it"?, who is saying "it"?) The article is also missing a Reception and awards section. Except for a brief mention in the intro, the article does not describe how the game was recieved and if the game won any awards. (Didn't Half-Life 2 win a Game Developer's Choice Award?) MechBrowman 03:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't get that detailed, and when it does, it is necessary. When Gordon gets transported to Dr. Breen's office in the beginning, it basically sets off the whole game. The Combine, and even Breen, don't even know of his existence in the city up until that point, hence it is a major part of the story, which is why the screenshot is included. Thunderbrand 17:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Except that isn't necessary at all to the summary. Of course that is important to make the story make sense, but only when your playing it. When you are summarizing the game keep it simple. Remove some of the detail and just say something similar to "Alerted to Gordan's presence, Breen sends the combine after him." MechBrowman 18:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Object There's no information about the leak at all. Nothing about the hacker who stole the entire source code then released it on the net. There's nothing about the extended release dates, the stories cooked up by Valve or any of the actual interesting prose regarding its development at all. Nothing about its fan support either. James Pinnell 09:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If you read the lead paragraph, it mentions the source code leak, which directs you to the Half-Life 2 controversies and criticisms page. The Half-Life 2 page was getting to large and most of the stuff was moved to that page, as well as others. Thunderbrand 17:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] University of Maryland, College Park

Self-nomination; more or less, since I have done a lot with this article. However, I feel it is at the point of being a model article for most universities. -James Howard (talk/web) 18:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Lack of pictures, and a lack of external references for certain key facts stated. Overall it is an acceptable article.83.77.128.225
  • In a somewhat ironic twist of fate, I have a quiz bowl tournament there on October 22. I'll bring my camera and grab some pics. →Raul654 18:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Looks good to me. I don't believe it needs more pictures. Nice work. :) --Syrthiss 18:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I am also working on getting a university article featured. However, after looking at this article, I would not use it as an example for a featured university article, for the following reasons:

1. There are too many lists, especially for the academics section. I would recommend that you move the list to a sub-article and summarize the material into prose. In fact, it is preferable that the article use prose instead of lists.
2. Little or no information on student life (what is it like attending/living at the University of Maryland? What special activities/groups make the university stand out?)
3. No information concerning the campus (is the campus compact? Spread-out? Modern or classical in appearance?).
4. Reference section must be separate, and the number of references is lacking (surely there must be printed publications on the flagship campus of the University of Maryland).
5. Try to avoid having external links within the main article.
6. History section must be summarized in this article, with the current form moved into a sub-article.

Another concern I have is that the article didn't go through peer review first (especially with this many problems). Unless you have the time to address these problems, I personally can't see this article being featured on the first try. Pentawing 01:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object - For the following reasons (among others):

1. The campus is not adaquately described and there are no pictures illustrating it.
2. The long list of academic subjects interrupts the article.
3. There is no description of the social and cultural life of the campus.
4. The discussion of past research the university has done is lacking.
5. There is no discussion of the mission, values and goals of the University as an organisation.

The truth is this article does not compare well to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology article. Yet that article failed to recieve featured status in January. From the alumni this appears to be a great university and I really think this article does not do the university justice. Every useful contribution to Wikipedia is valuable, but for an article to be featured it must be comprehensive and exemplify Wikipedia's best work. Cedars 09:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Object (although I did a lot of the writing on it) The sports ... and to a lesser expent the ancient history section, which I think I started ... have a lot of arbitrary (football unsuccessful between 1953 and today?) and excessive detail. The "Diamondback" section is pretty bizarre as well. And shouldn't that humongous list be tucked away somewhere, if included at all? I usually try to improve articles rather than just take shots at'm, but I already did my part on this one.Sfahey 02:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object no chance in hell this time around... WAAAAAAAY too much list. Not even 1 photo of the campus in question! This needs a total overhaul/rewrite.  ALKIVAR™ 03:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I see external links in the "living learning programs" section. Could you convert those to footnotes, please? Mamawrites ^{& listens} 10:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New England Patriots

Nomination (not self-nom). I am disappointed that that there is no NFL franchise as a featured article, and after studying all the franchise pages, i chose what i believe to be the best one, after deliberating between the Philadelphia Eagles and this article, i decided this was the best one. Expertly written with attention to detail. I will be happy to attempt to adress any criticisms of the article, however, please, do not object with the argument of "Pats SUCK!" or the like. Thethinredline 17:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Lacks a References sections to cite the sources used for this article as required by criteria 2 of the featured article criteria. --Allen3 ^talk 17:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A clear mistake on my part, and will attempt to rectify. Is there any specific area where a refernece is especially lacking?Thethinredline

The Franchise history section needs some references. Outside of the newly added references for individual players such as Jim Nance and Jim Plunket, there are no citations for anything but the 1970 season and 1971 draft. --Allen3 ^talk 01:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. I am concerned that some portions of the article might not be "stable" as per featured article criteria #2. An example of this concern is what is expressed on Talk:New England Patriots#Game by game; a number of users have been entering summaries for each game for the 2005 season, which is still currently ongoing. Until the season ends in February, I feel that this section of the article will change significantly from day to day. My other current concern is that the lead section still needs work. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. Pats SUCK! ;-)
  2. The image Image:McGinestLawSeymour.jpg is tagged as a "promotional photo". However, this tag is only for press kit and other official promotional images, while this image appears to be from a news report. It needs a different fair use tag and a rationale, or it needs to be removed.
  3. The navbox at the bottom contains the restricted-license image Image:NationalFootballLeague.png. Navboxes and other templates should never use non-free images.

  --Carnildo 04:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object lead should summarise the article. The article at 54 kb is long and winding. It should be written in summary form and details moved to subarticles. Inline links should be collected using the footnote style. User:Nichalp/sg 15:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I fear that this article will be long and winding for some time. As with Philadelphia Eagles, New York Giants, St. Louis Rams, and some of the other National Football League team articles, it is completely out of control. It seems that users are trying to stuff every single detail they can in them with out even looking into the sub-cats of Category:National Football League. I feel like I have to wait until the season ends in February to clean it all up. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not a sportsfan and I'm not particularl interested in sports article, but I'm very sympathetic to your plight, Zzyzx, and I understand the problems you're having. I don't know what the best course of action is, but I encourage you to be absolutely merciless (yet polite) in removing trivia and other unencyclopedic material. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I have done quite a bit of work in this article. (I also did some work on the Rams and Patriots articles) Just so you see from where I'm working, I am trying to focus on summaries and high points in seasons. I am not trying to put stuff in, for the sake of putting it in; but at the same time, I think it is good to be as detailed as possible. Indeed, it seems to be working, as this has been nominated for an award.

I also will agree that details about individual games in 2005 probably don't belong; however details about the seasons, and conflicts, and certain milestone games over the years make the article more useful.--Seadog1611 04:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I've been working on the New Orleans Saints article and I think it's necessary to spin the history section off into a subpage: History of the New Orleans Saints. Also, it was mentioned, I think, at the NFL Wikiproject talk page, but someone discussed cutting out the stuff in the lead section that is already in the infobox--which obviously needs to be done--and maybe expanding the infobox to make sure all the pertinent information is there. My first suggestion would be to move all that history onto a History of the New England Patriots article; then summarize it briefly for the main article (see IFK Goteborg for an example).Kevin M Marshall 22:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ordnance Survey

Partial self-nom, archive from previous submission, comments actioned. --PopUpPirate 23:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC) No mention of William Mudge. how can this be ? Object with sadness.  :-( I think this is, overall, a good article, and about a great subject. I actually think it's pretty close. But there are a few points I think need fixing:

• Sorry to say this, but I think you're going to have an issue with the map images. Doing an article on the OS without them is going to be a pain, of course, but the licence looks to me like a "non-commercial" licence as per Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. A pic of a trig point would be good though...

Just found the discussion you've already had on this. If Fair Use applies, and I guess it does, then I think you're OK. — Johantheghost 19:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

One solution for this -- & would add to the value of the article immensely -- would be to include parts of older OS survey maps. I believe these maps are all Crown copyright (well, the two I own are), so that those more than 50 years old would be PD. A portion of one of the surveyors' sketches (which are available at some UK public libraries on microfiche/microfilm), & a portion of a pre-1950s map would help illustrate the historical value of these documents, a feature that the British historian W.G. Hoskins often emphasizes in his writings. -- llywrch 17:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Following a fire at its headquarters at the Tower of London in 1841 ... he saw how photography could be used ..." — needs more fleshing out, it looks like he started using photography in 1841 — isn't that a bit early? Or is it? Also some info on how he actually used photography would be good.

• "Mapping Britain" section jumps up to 1969, then we jump back to WW1. Same in the next section, where we have WWII, then 1920. Maybe re-org a little?

• "Some of the remaining buildings ... are now used as part of the court complex." What court? (Clarify.)

• The multi-layered "See also" is cool, but on reflection, I think this is not the best way to do this — I think using categories would be better, at least for some of this. If I want a list of mapping agencies, for example, it's not logical to look under OS (or to ask all editors who write about mapping agencies to add their one to the OS article). Ditto with the world's many grid systems.

• The References aren't linked from the text — should these be called "Further reading"? OTOH, I think you need references which are linked from the text.

• No, anything that is consulted to write the article should be listed as a reference as has been done here.--nixie 03:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• In the reference ' "Official Homepage". Official Homepage ', I think the title needs fixing.  :-)

• Probably "Mapping Britain" and "20th Century" should be sub-sections of a section called "History"...? Likewise, it looks like "UK Map Range" and "OS MasterMap" should be sub-sections of a section called "Products", or something like.

• My overall impression is that the article is just a little "light". I don't think an article has to cover every aspect of a subject to be FA-worthy, but maybe this one could use just a little more meat? Kind of hard to put my finger on it, but eg. covering the mapping techniques used throughout the history, and today, in a little more depth would be good. I guess I would see "Cartography" being more than just a summary of the "National Grid" page, but also covering actual mapping.

Sorry I couldn't actually fix some of the above points, rather than just whinging about them. Cheers... Johantheghost 19:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, I still notice a number of things that I brought up during the previous nomiation that haven't been addressed.--nixie 03:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Poorly written. Let's take apart a few statements at the top.

'Ramsden theodolite'—This appears unexplained in a prominent part of the text, but very few readers will have a clue what it is, and will have to hit the link. The linked article needs work (by the end of the first paragraph of that article, you finally understand that it's an instrument for dividing angular scales with great precision, and that it was a significant step in map-making).

Reverse the order of the opening info—'national mapping agency ...' is more obvious than 'executive agency'. Can you use a consistent term for the country? Since you can't use 'the UK' historically, why not keep to just 'Britain' and 'British'.

Link the 's in 'Great Britain' to avoid blue/black conflict.

'In addition to producing a wide range of maps of Great Britain, the organisation is also working in over sixty countries worldwide.' Like 'also', 'in addition' should be reserved for where it's really needed. Almost every sentence is 'in addition' to what you've just said. 'is working' is just too vivid for something that has been occurring for quite a while. 'The organisation produces maps of Great Britain, and performs a valuable role in .... in more than (not 'over') 60 countries.' Maybe this needs to be split into two sentences.

'one-third'—why not 'a third'; keep it as plain and simple as possible.

And further down, at random:

'In 1920 O. G. S. Crawford was appointed Archaeology Officer and played a prominent role in developing the use of aerial photography to deepen understanding of archaeology.' The reader is hit with this fascinating idea without preparation or further explanation. No link; nothing about whether this was a first. Who got the brainwave of making this appointment—the Minister? How does it work? Perhaps a couple of sentences might do it; the paragraph is rather short, in any case. // 'OGS Crawford' might look better on the page, and consider delinking the useless simple-year '1920' so that it doesn't jostle with the man's name. Why link simple years at all? No one will hit those links. // Just a few more commas would improve the readability.

Tony 02:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Test cricket (1890 to 1900)

Self nom (though others have also contributed), jguk 15:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I did a rather massive edit and combined a lot of those ultra-short paragraphs. I think that part of it is close to FA standard now, however there are still some minor grammer & pov issues that need work, and there are still some short paragraphs there. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:Lord Hawke.jpg and Image:Joe Darling.jpg have no source or copyright information. In case you missed it, that's grounds for speedy deletion of the image these days. --Carnildo 06:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• I've fixed the image copyrights. Stephen Turner 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—Prose needs work. Lots of broken links. More pictures, PLEASE.

'Stoddart's tour of Australia in 1897/8 ended in an emphatic victory for Australia by 4 tests to 1.' What, they played five tests right at the end of the tour?

'The first Test was delayed, at the instigation of the SCG to allow time for Ranjitsinhji to recover from tonsillitis and because Andrew Stoddart's mother had died.' Just one example of poor punctuation in the article.

'The tour matches before the tests were well attended, with 69,195 attending the game against New South Wales, of whom 32,253 attended on the Saturday, but attendances tailed off later.' Clumsy: 'with' + '-ing' is poor style; 'but' as a contrastive is not entirely transparent, and the last clause is a bit stubby. 'Tailed off'—is this the correct expression?

Where possible, spell out numbers less than 10.

Jones'—two syllables, so I'd make it s's.

'day 2'—'Day 2' or 'Day Two', even? Tony 14:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, prose isn't up to par; too much like sensationalist journalism. --Spangineer (háblame) 00:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother (TV series)

I stumbled upon this article back in May of 2005. It was the first article I read on Wikipedia, and happens to be one of the most informative and well written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FireSpike (talk • contribs) 21:39, October 9, 2005 (UTC).

• Object. Lacks a References section to cite the sources used by this article as required by criteria 2 of the featured article criteria. --Allen3 ^talk 23:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I don't think it's informative or well written, and the lead paragraph is particularly weak. "While any pretences to be a cultural experiment are dubious" is an example of POV, but there are others. "On the other hand, other versions have involved plotting in the vein of the most cruel soap opera. Some versions have been filled with sex-crazed housemates ...." is not encycopedic. The article itself is very short, and only appears long because of the lists. Big Brother around the world - I'm not sure it's needed. I don't think it is. Some pecularities needs to be absorbed into the main text. As stated above - there are no references and that is absolutely mandatory. Rossrs 09:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth. I think naming the countries around the world that have broadcasted their own version of Big Brother is certainly encyclopedic and relevant to this article. How it should be included is up to debate. - 131.211.51.34 12:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object - lacks an encyclopedic tone. See popular culture studies or try looking at material from this google scholar search. TreveX^talk 15:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manichaeism

This article's come a long way. A bunch of editors have fleshed it out, given it structure, and added useful photos. Right now it is very informative and deserves recognition. Ashibaka (tock) 23:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support PHG 00:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object sorrowfully. It is not complete by too long a shot. The "and Christianity" fails too greatly for support. Manicheism is a widespread and difficult heresy in Christianity, and Augustine preached against it, but so did virtually every other Father. The term "manicheism" is not simply a "synonym for heresy," as the article states, but a specific type of heresy. It is the dualist heresy. Thus, the Bogomils and Cathars were manicheans, even if they were never in any way connected to the religion of Manicheism. I.e. they had the manicheist heresy of dualism. Their particular heresy has been revived in recent years, incidentally. I'm not sure that the Albigensians were ever orthodox in any sense, much less superficially. More people will encounter "Manicheism" as a type of heresy than as a religion, I suspect, but, even if the numbers are even, it's irresponsible for the present article to have such a stunted (and incorrect) section. The rest of the article seems ok to me, except that there are copyedit issues, such as '"scriptures.", resulting,' where the period inside the closing quote (American style) is left, while a comma outside (British style) is put in to make it part of the next sentence. That's ticky-tacky and easily fixed, but the Christianity section needs a big injection. I'll be happy to help as I am able from my sources, if the authors are interested. Geogre 02:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've done some addition from an NPOV source (one unaware that anyone would try to revive it and therefore not interested in saying anything good or bad about it), but I have other objections, which are now on the talk page of the article. I have to remain objecting, so long as much of the article is reliant upon a very, very highly POV source and maintains that this is a "major world religion." I'm not sure at what point a heresy becomes a sect or a sect a denomination or a denomination a religion, but the lead suggests that this independent thing met, some time later, Christianity, and such does not appear to be the case at all. Geogre 00:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Tiffany Window of St Augustine - Lightner Museum.JPG has no copyright information. --Carnildo 07:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It was taken by the uploader and is thus GFDL. Fixed. Ashibaka (tock) 15:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• No vote. I have no clear idea whether this article should be FA or not. But I like to clarify some points:
  1. I don't think Manicheism is a widespread and difficult heresy in Christianity. In my view Manicheism is a religion similar to Christianity, but independent.
  2. The statement the term "manicheism" is simply a "synonym for heresy" is an ancient simplification. Actually, not every dualist heresy / religion is Manicheism, for instance Christian Gnosticism / Gnosticism.
  3. Bogomils and Cathars weren't manicheans, but their teaching originated from Manicheism.
  4. Albigensians were Cathars, that's why dualistic. But Waldensians were nearly orthodox, they were first of all schismatic. -- Vít Zvánovec 16:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Well, if it originated in a Gnostic section of eastern Persia, and if it originated also in a Christian area of Persia, then it would seem to me to be of Christian origin. Again, whether it develops into a religion, as opposed to a heresy, is another matter altogether. At any rate, the article has too many undocumented and highly controversial claims -- that it was universalist, that it was not, in fact, syncretic, but rather something akin to deistic. The rest, of course, I agree with, except that I'm not sure the poor Waldensians are part of this. Geogre 18:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Further objection: Given that some of the statements in the article are commonplaces and some are...esoteric...inline references or note-style citations should be used, so the sources of particular statements can be determined and examined for accuracy. WP:NOR may be at play. Geogre 02:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

    I don't see purely Christian origin (contrary to Christian heresies like Arianism). In my view Manicheism was syncretic. But distinction between religion and heresy is vague. Some consider Islam as Christian heresy, some consider Christianity as Judaistic heresy.

    Concerning Waldensians there is no connection to Manicheism, I just liked to distinguish between Albigensians and Waldensians. -- Vít Zvánovec 08:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object I didn't know anything about Manecheism before reading this article. So I thank the authors and therefore think this article should get featured maybe not this time but maybe in the future. However I knew the word manichean which means binary or polar. See [9] for a discussion. I think this article must states this meaning already in the head. This would really help. -- Vb 12:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object — I cannot see any evidence that this artcle has been through peer review. It would have benefitted from that. There is so much more that can be said on this subject: the theology section is woefully inadequate and not enough background on the religious environment of Persia is given. The article is a good introduction, but is decidedly lightweight. --Gareth Hughes 13:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Those We Don't Speak Of

I worked a lot on this article, and with the major help of a few peer reviewers, I think the article turned out to be of outstanding quality. -- SoothingR 09:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Far too short and insignificant to be a featured article - this is not a comment on the subject of the article (doesn't matter here) but the general fact that the article is lacking everywhere. The use of colour in the text at one point is terribly tacky, the Manual of Style is not followed where the film name is mentioned, the reference quoted (ie. the film itself) is not enough including where you draw parallels to Harry Potter (borders very closely on original research), and the spoiler warning is in a weird place. Essentially, this is not Wikipedia's finest work and is far from it. Harro5 09:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose 1) the sections are too small, it should be increased. 2) Would like to see more references 3) Lead should be expanded 4) bulleted text converted to prose. User:Nichalp/sg 09:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: Too short, as others have said, and it simply has no material. This is not a question of bytes, but of content. All it says is that this is a feature of a film and then proceed to give the plot! To add substance would mean taking the article far away from its purported subject and into a discussion of psychological film, the mismarketing of this film (as a horror movie), the expectation of movie "secrets," etc. None of that would be germane. In other words, I don't believe this object can be overcome. Geogre 02:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosaur

I'm astonished such an incredible article hasn't been a featured article already. This is such a popular topic & would be great on the main page. Spawn Man 01:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Major Support. As per above. Spawn Man 01:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, a good article, but it still needs some work. A couple sections like =Behaviour= and =In popular culture= need to be rewritten. The history section ends around 1900, and needs to be expanded. The references also need to be redone. There are a mix of parenthetical and external link style references, in general both should be replaced with footnotes. The external links section is also overly long. With so many links, do we really need to include sites only available in German? Or ones on obscure theories, such as the "gravity killed the dinosaurs" ones? Also why is so much of the article quotes from other sources? The entirety of the =Lungs=, =Heart=, and =Care of young= sections are quotes from other sources. The second section also contains a not terribly enlightening quote from something called DinoBuzz. Also Image:Falcarius utahensis.jpg and Image:Dino tissue.jpg are claimed as fair use, but give no justification. - SimonP 03:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think German language links should stay if they were used as reference to write parts of the article, unless an English language reference can be found to replace it. Has anyone got an idea why the German links were added? - Mgm|^(talk) 14:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:Falcarius utahensis.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but there doesn't appear to be anything special about it. It should be removed.
  2. The image Image:Dino tissue.jpg is claimed as fair use, but doesn't indicate either the source (presumably an article in Science) or a fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what is needed.

  --Carnildo 06:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object: 1) The ToC is granulated. Please reduce the heading and sub headings. 2) The page size is increasing, please start summarising sections. 3) Collect all those inline links as footnotes. There are still more issues with the article, but I hope you address these first. User:Nichalp/sg 06:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Just as a note everybody: I was requested to put dinosaur up for FA by a friend. I didn't actually know I would have to actually fix the article. So don't complain to me, my friend wanted to know if dinosaurs would get anywhere... Spawn Man 02:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

    Please read the text on the top of this page: It says: If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised.
    

If you wanted a general review and suggestions from the community please add it to Wikipedia:Peer review instead of WP:FAC. Please decide on what you want to do now. User:Nichalp/sg 05:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Those instructions should be tweaked to also apply to objectors. Pcb21| Pete 17:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. That would only serve as an unmerited deterrent for objections. Unactionable objections are not a problem since they're ignored by Raul and not making it "in time" isn't a problem either, since the comments are archived and can easily be addressed at a later date. It's certainly helpful if objectors help out and the practice should be encouraged, but under no circumstances should it be expected. The comments of those who aren't deeply involved in the nominated article should be encouraged, and not seen as some sort of burden. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. Articles shouldn't be promoted just because people who'd otherwise object can't fix things themselves. If I notice a large gap in an article's coverage I must be able to object even though I don't have the knowledge to fill the gap myself. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • It is a great shame that only "self-nominations" are possible. Pcb21| Pete 09:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I could fix the objections I raise, but I'm fairly sure people would rather I didn't -- if an image is unsourced or has no copyright info, I'd just speedy-delete it, whereas the person nominating the article for FAC might know the information in question. --Carnildo 19:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coeliac disease

I've not had anything to do with this article - just had reason to read it and thought it was very informative. A doctor or two has read it and approved the content (see talk page). Pcb21| Pete 17:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) Are the references under the =external links=? 2) Picture? User:Nichalp/sg 18:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It is chaotic and lacks crucial information (e.g. rate of occurrence). It is thin on references. I added the discovery of anti-tTG2 and its cross-reactivity with gluten, but there are many more crucial papers that could be cited, such as the review in The Lancet 2 years ago. A picture will be hard - unless someone can arrange a microscopy photo of villous atrophy. JFW | T@lk 19:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Perhaps a picture of related nutrients would be appropriate?

1. Lead needs to be tightened.
2. Please seperate the external links and the references.
3. It needs a copyedit for overly academic terms. Some are bound to be neccesary, but I think some of them cane be pruned or replaced.

Templates and categorization appears to be fully in order. I think it's an FA in the making. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone else that has doubts about this disease? It just seems to me that mankind evolved with wheat. Any links to medical journals or discussions?

Doubts about the disease? there are chapters and entire books about it! S Holland, M.D. Kd4ttc 21:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article is not correct on a number of details regarding celiac disease. It is an admirable effort by what appears to be motivated and well read non-physicians about the disease, and is very good in the big picture. A lot of details, however, are incorrect. Also, the thinking on pathophysiology needs to reworked. The sections on treatment are missing a number of comments about dieticians and resources. Well, I said a while ago I was going to work on this. That will happen over the next few months. Kd4ttc 21:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nevada-tan

Nice informative article, unusual subject matter, referenced, covers everything known about the case from english-language media sources, peer reviewed, worth featuring? Niz 21:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:Nevada-Tan.jpg is tagged as "public domain". However, the upload summary describes it as a combination of a public domain photo and a "fair use" image, which does not result in a public domain derivative work. Also, there is no indication as to why the photo is public domain.
  2. The images Image:SMitarai.jpg and Image:Nevada-tan Cosplayer.jpg are tagged as "fair use", but neither indicates the source. It's not possible to claim fair use without knowing the source.

  --Carnildo 23:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object ToC is ugly. Do not use single subheadings under a heading. Also avoid sub-sub headings. User:Nichalp/sg 07:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object I love Nevada-tan but the image of her is copyright (and probably illegal in Japan); we can't feature pages with that status. Additionally, the External Links section is far too large. Ashibaka (tock) 01:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sleep

Fantastic article! Satisfies all FAC criteria (neutral, well researched, factual, referenced). I really believe that it covers the topic sleep very well. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No. It doesn't. Request opinion of sleep experts.Jclerman 13:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears I was premature here. This should be sent to peer review. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review.

1. A lot of unexplained jargon.
2. Lead is too short.
3. Has numerous (too) short sections.
4. Should have a summary of the article on dreaming in a section with a link to the main article.
5. A lot of the terms in the "see also" section need to be discussed in the article itself; not comprehensive. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• The Medicine Collobaration of the Week might be interested in taking this one on.--nixie 01:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment This article isn't there yet, by any means. But please take another look. Substantial changes have been made since this (premature) nomination was entered. Except perhaps for the back-and-forth on the caffeine issue, which may have been resolved already, I don't see that it needs peer review at this point. Sfahey 09:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The caffeine issue has not a verifiable peer-reviewed reference. Jclerman 12:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

See the Discussion page. Jclerman 03:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I see how contentious that seemingly minor point had become. I rewrote the claim in perhaps a more palatable way, and put it in a footnote, which I believe is appropriate in the English wikipedia. Parenthetically, there IS some rationale for serving coffee at bedtime(the use of caffeine in infants) and while it for sure wouldn't work for me I see no reason to question that it is done. My efforts to translate the relevant paper myself were unsuccessful. Sfahey 04:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As above, request reviewers to give this article another look. I believe the objections have largely been addressed. Sfahey 04:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• The objections I had 3 days ago have not been addressed. I still think this would benefit peer review. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, the lead has been rewritten, over half of the old "see also" list is now eliminated and incorporated into the article, and the only "short" section is the one on "measuring sleep." This could be merged with the "Physiology" section, but since I was the only critic who chose to work on, rather than simply disparage, this nomination I didn't get as far as doing that, or writing a new section on "Dreams". Sfahey 01:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• More comments:
• If the Caffeine Note refers to: <<(CoffeeInElderlyDe In verbatim, this source states under "Sonstiges": "Coffee: Helps in many elderly people because of the decrease in respiratory rate". German text: "Evtl. Kaffee: hilft bei vielen älteren Menschen wegen des nächtlichen RR-Abfalls")>>, the German quotation is NEITHER from what is understood to be a "paper" NOR it has been peer-reviewed: it is just a list of points without references, thus not a "verifiable source." See numerous entries in the Discussion page.Jclerman 12:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The need for a close scrutiny of the verifiability and reliability of sources on which the article is based has been emphasized by the comments on an edit by "user 80.129.140.252" who stated: "(→Notes - german 'RR' is Riva-Rocci (method of measuring blood pressure, used as synonym with blood pressure), not respiratory resistance!)". See full discussion of this point in the article's discussion page which contains numerous exchanges about the caffeine issue and its repercussion on other web articles. Jclerman 20:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, to reach a consensus text a detailed verification of its statements, based on reliable sources, and the opinion of sleep experts will be needed. Jclerman 20:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought that is what I have been doing for the last few months. I have been working on a grant for the last couple of weeks... So I have been busy, but I have put a lot of effort into this article. When I found it, this article was a shambles. I have added properly referenced materials, and useful information. Unfortunately, whenever I remove less relevant information, it turns into an edit war (just look at the discussion page). While some of the "fat" on this page does need to be trimmed, that is almost an impossibility in this format. It is difficult to keep a page like this clean when people start posting their own unsubstantiated pet theories, and hold on to them until the bitter end.However, I will continue adding and subtracting based on what is happening in the field (which I am a part of) because of the time I have already invested. Sleep is an issue that few people know much about, and, as a sleep researcher, I feel it's part of my job as a responsible scientist to direct the public to information that reflects the popular consensus in the field.

MrSandman 03:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment re above issues: I still do not understand why this point seems so controversial. This is a tempest in a teapot. User "Keimzelle" has presented:

1. A (sloppily) translated quotation supported coffee at bedtime.

2. A personal report from a German nursing home confirming this.

Additionally, there is a physiological rationale (caffeine's demonstrable ability to stimulate respiration) for this unusual practice. As for a documented source, how about the German wikipedia article on Sleep. In its "Pharmacology" section the authors describe the paradoxical benefit of caffeine in the elderly:

Es klingt paradox – in der Pflege wird Kaffee manchmal gebraucht, um das Ein- und Durchschlafen zu fördern. Besonders bei älteren Menschen hilft das Koffein, den Abfall der Atemfrequenz zu bekämpfen.

This German translation is affected by the loss in translation pointed out above under "more comments"; plainly stated: the original German cited means "blood pressure" incorrectly translated as "Atemfrequenz = respiratory rate".Jclerman 15:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not to suggest that this article is up to "F.A." quality. But it is a lot closer than the current flock of naysayers insist. Sfahey 02:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Daily Show

I must say that, for a featured article, the content completely ignores 33% of the show. There is virtually no content regarding the fresh new years of TDS when Craig Kilborn was the host. I realize Jon Stewart is more well-known but my opinion is the best writing years of the show were 1996-1999. If you want to make this a featured article, it should exemplify the thoroughness of the content, which this doesn't. If you want to ignore that content as unimportant, the article should be renamed The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and NOT The Daily Show. --Davidp 18:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never edited this article. I stumbled across it and I think it's featured article calibre. moink 03:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's got potential, but it's a bit list heavy -- nothing that a good copyedit couldn't take care of. . →Raul654 03:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object I saw this article before over the template debate and it's quite good, but its got three main issues still (both are more than doable within the FAC timeframe)

1. There are quite a few short paragraphs, esp. towards the beginning (and why is the awards section first? Consider putting it towards the end...)
2. Too list-heavy where there should be prose or something similar
3. You're gonna need a fair-use explanation for Image:Dailyshow-invite.jpg most likely. I'd double-check the others too.

Also, consider sorting the see also section like Autism#See also, for example. In addition, the lead seems like a bunch of facts mashed together, but its not too bad at all. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object the lead is too long- and is not a summary of the rest of the article- much of it could be split off into a history of the daily show section. The position of awards as the first thing in the body of the article seems misplaced. I see the list of daily show guests made it though vfd- since this is the case why is there such a massive list of guests in the article- should be condensed to a couple of paragraphs with a {{main}} link to the list. There are html links in the text that don't appear in the list of references, and they should so that there is a record of the source if/when it is moved or removed from the source site.--nixie 03:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't this should go to peer review first? - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khaosworks (talk • contribs).
  • No, peer review is an optional part of the FAC process. →Raul654 05:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Far too many "fair use" images. I'd suggest reducing it to the logo plus the one or two most representative images. --Carnildo 07:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object too jumbled, too many lists, too many images (many of which are questionable fair use). -Greg Asche (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object per too many fair use images comment above. Just doesn't look tidy either. Nick Catalano (Talk) 05:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, if for no other reason than this is a good example of a recurring problem with wikipedia: anything from the past 3 years (the years wikipedia has been profusely edited) gets coverage in great detail, while anything from circa 2002 or earlier gets little mention. For several years the show had a substanitally different format and was hosted by Craig Kilbourn (who I never liked), but he gets the briefest of mention while Colbert and company get extreme coverage. Its current form should get more attention, but this is almost like an article on SNL with several paragraphs on Horatio Sanz and a one line mention of Chevy Chase. -R. fiend 06:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, Sorry but I have to agree with my fellow conscientious objectors. This article is off to a promising start, but it needs work to get it up to FA status. Send it in for peer review and tune up, then renominate it later. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, when I am signed in I have been active in editing this page...and to be honest it is nowhere NEAR ready to be featured. Maybe as a featured TV article maybe, but the whole issue of the guest list has to be solved before any further moves should be undertaken. --136.159.142.84 15:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (User:J L C Leung)

[edit] Removal from the Order of Canada

Self-renom. I had two attempts before, but since the last one, I had it spell and grammar checked and the images have not changed a bit. Zach (Sound Off) 02:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Since the book depicted in Image:AlanEaglesonbookcover.jpg is not discussed in the article, use of the image is not "fair use". --Carnildo 07:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Removed. Zach (Sound Off) 13:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure it really makes sense to me to have an article about removal from the order as a standalone. Should this not be merged into Order of Canada? It seems to me on reading it that the prose is far from concise and could be condensed substantially in any case. There are also numerous spelling errors at the moment. Worldtraveller 11:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There was an AFD that asked for this article to be merged into the main Order of Canada (also an FA), but after I beefed it up, many who voted merge said to vote keep instead. I still believe this can stand out on its own. I also fixed the spelling errors and I also made the article into British English. Zach (Sound Off) 13:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would change anything, but shouldn't this be in Canadian English? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I will get the Firefox spell check add in for the Canadian EN and run that through all Order of Canada related articles. Zach (Sound Off) 16:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The only word that seems to have issues is "criticised," but I am not sure how it is spelt in Canada EN. Other than that, the article is fine on the "spelling" front, unless something is added to it. Zach (Sound Off) 16:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Canadian spelling typically uses -ize over -ise. — mendel ☎ 20:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—prose not good enough. Here's just one example:

'though the removal process is started by individual Canadians or by various groups inside of Canada'.

It's a false contrast to use 'though' (better 'although') here. 'Initiated' rather than 'started'. Remove redundant 'of'. 'Inside Canada', in any case, is another false contrast, because the institution is also that. Needs thorough editing to be considered for nomination. I agree with the comments above about the need to merge this with the related article. Tony 01:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I fixed the above statement, but I had the article copyedited before I sent it here. I am still against the idea of a merge, since the AFD I pointed out earlier called for a merge, but was defeated. I personally believe this article can stand out on its own. Tony, if you think my grammar is not that great (which you said this at other FAC's I started/worked on), then I welcome you to come in and fix it yourself. Zach (Sound Off) 02:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose The process of removal may be interesting, but it has only been successfully applied against two OoC recipients (Alan Eagleson and David Ahenakew) and is therefore not significant enough (i.e., there are other worthy candidate articles) for nomination. As well, more of Eagleson's situation should be described (being the first inductee removed), and the syntax and content of the article can be improved upon (e.g., Christie or Christy)? E Pluribus Anthony 07:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sinclair Research Ltd

self-nomination, I worked a lot on this article, it's very detailed and includes lots of pictures, and has a good lead paragraph (might need expanding though). It went through peer review and got some good comments. Includes references, further reading, external links and see also section. — Wackymacs 08:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a good article, but it just not sufficiently comprehensive and detailed, therefore object. Also the only reference is from 1985 - I should like to know where the post-1985 stuff comes from. Basically everything Sinclair did after 1983 was a failure (and in some cases was very dodgy), there are underlying reasons for this that need mentioning. (Sinclair got lucky with a good design team for the Spectrum and then thought he was the one responsible for its success). The failure of QL is attributed here due to "it's strong competition", and not the nearly total loss of confidence in Sinclair after his actions "launching" it before they even had a prototype.

There's an online exposé of the downfall of Sinclair that I'll try to find. Morwen - Talk

*Most of the post 1985 information is from the 'Planet Sinclair' website (linked in the external links section), a very informative website all about Sinclair himself, and all the products the company ever made. I'll see how I can improve it, if you can help it'd be very useful in getting this closer to FA status. — Wackymacs 15:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  1. The images Image:Tv1a.jpg, Image:Sinclairblackwatch.jpg, Image:SinclairStereo25.jpg, Image:SinclairC5.jpg are claimed as "fair use", but it should be possible to create or find free-use replacements, so there's no reason to use "fair use" images here.
  2. The image Image:SinclairC5.jpg is tagged as being under the Creative Commons Attribution license, but does not indicate the creator. This needs to be fixed, or the image needs to be deleted.

  --Carnildo 19:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Image sources have been added to all the images you mentioned, and the SinclairC5.jpg image was tagged wrong, it has been replaced with the promotional tag. — Wackymacs 20:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, good work but some improvements could still be made. The lead should be longer and more than one section. There should be more descriptive section headings for the history section than simply date ranges. The long and thin financial data column needs to be better placed. I would suggest having it as a side bar to the history section. See for instance how I did this with a long thin table at voter turnout. The article also seems lacking in some areas. It needs to be more on the company today, how many employees, what it is working on etc. The article is too focused on the company's products with very little on corporate structure, leading figures, or facilities. Specific figures, such as most of the financial figures, should be sourced with footnotes. The table especially needs a source. - SimonP 01:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion of putting the finance table as a sidebar to the history section, this has now been done. — Wackymacs 15:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—Lots of prose problems. Just a FEW examples at the top:
  • 'founded Sinclair Radionics, a company developing hi-fi products'—so the company was already developing these products WHEN it was founded?
  • Is a calculator a hi-fi product?
  • 'In 1965 the "Micro-FM" debuted as "the world"s first pocket-size FM tuner-receiver", but was poorly acclaimed due to technical difficulties, though in the far-east illegal clones of the product were being produced'—many problems:
    • why 'but'? Are you contradicting the first clause in some way?
    • better to insert 'it' after 'but'
    • punctuation needs a thorough audit for clarity and ease of reading
    • 'though' (better 'although') comes after 'but', and I can't see why it's yet another contradiction of what precedes it—you need to spell out why 'poorly acclaimed' (better 'reviewed'?) somehow makes the illegal cloning surprising. Or break up the sentence to avoid these false contrasts.

How did this ever find its way straight into the FAC list? Withdraw, rewrite, possibly resubmit. Tony 05:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object - A company information box should be added to the article. Cedars 09:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• A company information box has been added, and I'm working on the prose problems and other grammar issues. I'm also trying to add more info about the company itself, and will look into moving the financial data table to the side of the article rather than in it's own section. Some more references are going to be added too.— Wackymacs 19:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Good work. Though the company type field is very important and still not filled in yet. The revenue field should also be filled in but because the success of this company was largely in past years you may want to use historical data. "N/A" could also be used if you so desired. Cedars 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• I put N/A in the company type entry, because it is almost impossible to find out if they are LTD, PLC or sole trader. For the revenue entry I added the data for 1984, Sinclair's best financial year, with a revenue of £77.69 million. I think the company infobox is now done. — Wackymacs 17:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miami, Florida

This page I been protecting from vandals for a while now and its mostly written by others but this is also well-written, informative, and very intresting as well. Its Intro is Very Good as well. --JAranda | yeah 01:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, see Ann Arbor, Michigan for a good article of this type, history is long and there are too many lists.--nixie 02:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references, which is a requirement for articles to be featured. Also, Image:Miami sunset.jpg has no copyright tags (which can be an issue with others) and Image:Metro cc.jpg is marked as copyrighted without fair use (articles must have GFDL-licensed images unless there is no choice. I believe someone can take a picture of the Miami Metro instead). Pentawing 03:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Pentawing, the article must have GFDL-compatible licences, not necessarily GFDL-licensed ones. User:Nichalp/sg 05:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Point taken. Thanks for the clarification. Pentawing 07:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The images Image:Miamiflag.jpg and Image:Miamiseal.JPG are tagged as public domain, but there's no evidence that this is the case.
  2. The image Image:Miami sunset.jpg has no source or copyright information. In case you missed the announcement, that's grounds for speedy deletion these days.
  3. The image Image:Metro cc.jpg is tagged as {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}}, but no conditions are specified in the tag, indicating that the tag is probably incorrect. This needs to be cleared up.

  --Carnildo 05:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object – as nixie says, model the article as per Ann Arbor which is well written and balanced. User:Nichalp/sg 05:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] West Indian cricket team

Although I have contributed to this article, most of it has been developed by others. I'm happy to make any positive changes that are needed for this to become a featured article, jguk 15:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Jguk back to FAC after a long hiatus! Ok, Object 1) The west Indies flag should be a .png type. 2) Lead should be doubled and summarise the article. 3) Other theorists point out; It is theorised would like to know the source. 4) ToC granulated. Please shorten it and remove those ugly subheadings. 5) This needs a grammar check. Found missing full stops, play against side 6) Wikify Busta Cup and mention what it is. 7) The first sentence of =Early tours= should mention the year when WI first played. 8) Scarborough festival? 9) I think this needs a copyedit before I review further. User:Nichalp/sg 17:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object too, I'm afraid. Much as I like to see lots of cricket featured articles, this one just isn't up to scratch yet. I found sentences like "The bowlers to follow had big shoes to fill, and ultimately, have not responded to nowhere near the level that Ambrose and Walsh have set". Also no mention of England's last tour (Harmison 7/12, Lara 400*). And somehow the statistics at the bottom are ugly and disconnected from the rest of the page. I didn't do a thorough review, but I can't support it at the moment. Stephen Turner 19:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I appreciate the difficulty of finding pictures, but in this case, a few more would vastly improve the dry look of the page. Candidates: Headley, Worrell, the 3W's, Ramadhin&Valentine, the Tied Test shot, Lloyd, Viv Richards, the 70s pace quartet, Greenidge&Haynes, Lara. --Peripatetic 23:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:West Indies Cricket Board Flag.PNG and Image:WI shirt.jpg are claimed as "fair use", but no source information is provided, making it impossible to evaluate fair use. Further, it seems to me that it should be quite possible to make free-licensed replacements for those images. --Carnildo 06:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • May I ask how? The logo will be a trade mark and the design of the shirt is what has copyright (the photo of it won't). These rights will belong to the West Indies Cricket Board. We have to rely on free use to use them, don't we? jguk 18:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft Jet Database Engine

A Ta bu shi da yu-driven article. He did a heck of a lot of work during and after the first FAC, and I went ahead and added another paragraph to the intro and delistified a list. It seems readable even to a layman. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Supported it the first time, and think it is even better now. WegianWarrior 07:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Still not accessible to a non-computer bod like myself. The explanation of a database engine as being "...the underlying component that a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) uses to create, retrieve, update and delete (CRUD) data from a database, and is accessed by the user interface part of the RDBMS." might as well be in Greek to me. I don't think the article needs to expand greatly to explain this to everyone - just a bit - but it is essential that it can be understood by a layman if it is to be an example of WP's best work, jguk 15:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... not sure the best way of rephrasing that. There are wikilinks to the terms, but was wondering if you want a short explanation of each of those terms? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I asked on his talk page a while ago too... he's still actively editing so hopefully we'll get a response :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The lead is now updated - hopefully it satisfies the objection. - 203.134.166.99 23:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Apologies for not getting back earlier (I was unfortunately distracted onto less enjoyable things). I still can't understand the sentence "A database engine is the underlying component that a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) uses to create, retrieve, update and delete (CRUD) data from a database, and is accessed by the user interface part of the RDBMS (an RDBMS generally consists of a component that manages the data itself and a component that allows a user to manipulate the data that resides in the database)." Can it really not be explained to a layman? Without using jargon, what does a database engine do, and why is it important? I appreciate explaining a technical subject to a layman is difficult, and if you are patient with me and see me on IRC, feel free to page me and I'll help, jguk 19:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm disappointed. Many of the questions I had asked in the first FAC are still unanswered, in particular my questions #1 (locking/data integrity/transaction processing are standard, nothing unusual, and should be treated in their own articles), #2 (the optimistic/pessimistic locking paragraph needs to be rewritten by an expert and outsourced to its own article, see 1), #3 (2PL?), #4 (read locks? Only write locks makes no sense at all!), #6 (what is a "user"?), #7 (on SQL queries), and #8 (when was is phased out?). Lupo 07:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ya, I didn't resubmit it however. The truth on this matter is... I'm not rightly sure how to action the stuff (I'm not saying they shouldn't be actioned, I'm just saying I don't rightly know the best way of doing it). I'm still not sure about 2PL - the article, regrettably, is pretty unclear! I think we should move this to peer review. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Seems perfectly readable to me. If they want a definition, they can click the interwiki links (one of the great advantages to an online encyclopedia). This is well-written and researched, but it could definitely use a defining picture (I like the idea of putting the manual up.) -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Battle of Stalingrad

No self-nom. Very good article about a very important historical event. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 10:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment please reduce the image sizes to around 240-270 px. Images larger than these take a longer time to load on narrowband connections. (ref to that 650px image) User:Nichalp/sg 10:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment It's a while since I read Beevors's Stalingrad but I recall him reporting that the German forces included a large number of Russian auxiliaries (Soviet POWs who had changed "sides"). This doesn't seem to be brought out in the article.

--Sf 11:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment "helpworkers" (hilfs-somethingorother in german) were not a significant factory in Army Group South, Vlasovites were even less significant. Should be treated under Vlasov / helpworkers. Fifelfoo 04:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Reply Russian/Soviet "Hiwis" or Hilfswilligers may have comprised up to 60,000 of the 6th Army's strength (Not Army Group South) at the time that operation Uranus closed the "Kessel". --Sf 08:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Casualty figures must be agreed upon and substantiated by reliable sources. See the articles talk-page.--itpastorn 13:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Further to this issue of casualty figures there is clearly an ongoing dispute happening on the page regarding this matter which (IMHO) is unlikely to be resolved very soon. --Sf 12:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This can use more ilinks and pics. Also, I'd like to read more about post-IIWW impact - for example, on the city's inhabitans (were there any memorials, festivities, special statuses?). The 'Dramatization' section should be expand into a normal text section describing the related texts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As I recall (imperfectly), the initial defence of the city was conducted by young women volunteer aa gunners who stayed at their posts and actually stopped the advancing panzer columns until they ran out of ammunition and were overrun. This isn't in the article either. It may seem a minor point but it sets the tone for what followed. --Sf 14:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds a tad idealized to me. Are you sure it's not just Soviet propaganda? / Peter ^Isotalo 19:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Trivia like this doesn't belong on the battle page. Probably Soviet depictions of heroic women fighters in the Great Patriotic War would be a better place for this stuff, placing them alongside the nightwitches, partisans, logistic, communication, command and medical Soviet women soldiers would be more appropriate. Fifelfoo 04:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Talk about a super-crufty (and POV:ed) title. I'd say it's pretty darned sexist to imply that female participation in the Soviet-German war should be considered "trivia". / Peter ^Isotalo 13:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support: If the article contains a Historiography section covering the major historical attitudes towards the battle before the end of the vote, great. Otherwise, nope. A major historical article like this must address the historiographical issues before becoming a featured article. Fifelfoo 04:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object: I've now firmed up to an object on this. In my view "The battle in the city" section needs to be either expanded or reworked. Much of the fighting, particularly initially, involved not just trained troops but workers from factory militias - including defending their own factories and trying to keep them in production at the same time. There is also the issue of the use of civilians by both sides - eg women and children in mine clearing units. Also some possibly unique features of the battle don't come out. E.g. Tanks being produced in Stalingrad during the battle and being driven straight to the front line by volunteer crews (without even being painted and not even having gunsights). --Sf 09:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Forgot to mention that I can't find reference to Nikita Khrushchev's role as a senior political commissar in the battle. --Sf 10:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Re mine clearing - now realised where I got this. Much of the mine clearing and disposal of unexploded munitions after the battle was done by women and teenagers. This aspect and the aftermath of the battle in the city warrants exploration. --Sf 13:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• this looks like a good article which deserves to become featured, unfortunately reluctantly but strongly object. a) It's impossible to tell which reference backs up which fact. This article is one in which facts may easily be disputed; Neo-Nazis may vandalise etc. Please provide inline references. b) From my understanding, Stalingrad is one of the first places where Hitler's interference with the German army had serious negative consequences. This context should be covered, and particularly the later disasters which it foreshadowed (see German WWII strongholds to start with). Mozzerati 20:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support It could use a few more references and perhaps some "tidying up", but I don't think I could have done a better job at tackling such a long, complex and decisive battle. Neo-Nazis be damned! It deserves FA status. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Surrender of Japan

user:Wwoods wrote most of this, with Taku and myself making some minor tweaks. I think it's a wonderfully well-written article. →Raul654 23:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  • The image Image:Hiro2.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  • Some other minor points: The intro says the day is called "Shusen-kinenbi" in Japan. What does that mean in English? Also, IIRC, the last military action of the US against Japan was a thousand-aircraft bombing raid after the decision to surrender was made, but before the Emperor made his broadcast. I see no mention of this in the article.

  --Carnildo 00:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  • • Erm, I could be wrong, but thousand-bomber raids were confined to the European theatre of operations. The pacific saw smaller raids of B-29s flying much longer distances. You might be thinking of the Tokyo firebombing (consisting of 330 bombers on March 9-10, 1945) →Raul654 00:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I found the reference I was looking for. It was a raid targeting eight cities, carried out by 800 bombers and 200 fighters. I've added it to the article. --Carnildo 05:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object, from a preliminary scan (1) no cats (2) ex link not not descriptive (or realted? It's a blog) (3) no ex or wikisource links to the source documents which are heavily quoted from (4) There should be a summary section at the end to better lead into Occupied Japan putting the surrender in context with what followed, main link should probably also be made more obvious for the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (5) Are all quotes in MoS sytle- the indentation seems to switch around, as do the quotation marks.--nixie 02:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object – seems more like an anthology of quotes rather than brilliant prose. User:Nichalp/sg 04:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object – too many quotations, and not enough prose between them. Potsdam Declaration, for example. Decide which quotes are unnecessary and reword them as general statements. KingTT 05:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George Galloway

• Support yeah it should be, why not

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.150.220 (talk • contribs) 18:43, October 3, 2005 (UTC).

• Object. There is too much doubt about the status of the images. The first relies on a dubious fair use claim (the article is not about the TV programme); then the second is a "not for commercial use" photo uploaded after 19 May 2005; and then another fair use one. Stephen Turner 19:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It should be easy enough to get overt permission to use an image of Galloway. He just did a speaking tour of the U.S., and there were plenty of publicity materials. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The newsnight screenshot has been replaced by a picture taken from election publicity.--JK the unwise 13:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's quite close, but it needs more on his time as a Labour MP - I remember him winning debating contests in the House of Commons, and he must have done something else during those years. It should also mention his position against taking an average worker's wage as this has been a major bone of contention for some socialist groups, although that's quite a minor thing. Warofdreams talk 13:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I've added the average workers wage information and a little more on his time as a Labour MP, but that section still looks a bit short. Rethinking the structure as per Worldtraveller's comment might also be wise. Warofdreams talk 09:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Amazing how stable it is for such as controvercial bloke. I'm sure some more free photo's can be found. It would be nice if we could find some more copyright appropreate photo's but including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article[10].--JK the unwise 18:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support u cant fault the content though, it seems pretty thorough. -- LJ
• Object for the moment - there's lots of great content but the sructure seems awkward to me. Would be better arranged more chronologically, and the sub-sub-subsectioning is a bit much. John Malkovich and the Muslim/Progressive alliance sections are too short and should be merged into the rest of the text. I think it also needs less emphasis on recent years and more about what he was doing in the 80s and early 90s. There are also some POV issues, for example In the speech, Galloway clearly is addressing Saddam in support of his fight against U.N. sanctions. Worldtraveller 12:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very complete and well written article, but perhaps too detailed and too long - it is currenty 55kb which is about twice the recommended length. The level of detail particularly in sections 4 and 5 is distracting for casual readers. I think that much of this material should be moved to dedicated daughter articles, such as Corruption allegations against George Galloway. On the issue of images, we could try politely emailing Mr Galloway's office on press@respectcoalition.org and ask for copyright free images. I have tried this approach in the past and I usually get a favourable response. Seabhcán 18:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] lostprophets

self-nom

More and more depth has been added to the article over time and any PoV issues have been sorted out through the peer reviewed process. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.25.242.68 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 20 September 2005.

• Object. The images Image:Lostprophets-start.jpg and Image:Lostprophets-fsop.jpg have no source information. --Carnildo 00:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. The three things that can be done to improve this article (and I mentioned some of them in Peer Review) are:

1. Add a source for who credits them with popularizing studded belts, low-slung jeans, etc. If they really are "largely credited with popularising [these] items" it shouldn't be difficult to find at least one source.
2. Highlight the literal themes of the album(s). I have deleted the "apathy of their detractors" comment but apathy is a valid theme of the album and probably should be readded somewhere.
3. Add the Infobox_band template.

Cedars 09:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object -- 1) image size too large (under 300px plz), 2) skewed heading (images push them to the right or force a wrap), 3) =members= and =Discography= need not have subheadings. User:Nichalp/sg 09:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The references section needs to be improved. Currently much of the material is apparently referenced with the citation: Interviews and features from Kerrang!, NME, Metal Hammer, Rock Sound and other music publications. This needs to be improved to the point were a person not familiar with the subject is able to find the magazine articles used as sources without resorting to an exhaustive search of back issues. Please see Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style for examples on the level of detail typically used for citations. --Allen3 ^talk 17:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ordnance Survey

Partial self-nom, archive from previous submission, comments actioned. --PopUpPirate 23:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC) No mention of William Mudge. how can this be ? Object with sadness.  :-( I think this is, overall, a good article, and about a great subject. I actually think it's pretty close. But there are a few points I think need fixing:

• Sorry to say this, but I think you're going to have an issue with the map images. Doing an article on the OS without them is going to be a pain, of course, but the licence looks to me like a "non-commercial" licence as per Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. A pic of a trig point would be good though...

Just found the discussion you've already had on this. If Fair Use applies, and I guess it does, then I think you're OK. — Johantheghost 19:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

One solution for this -- & would add to the value of the article immensely -- would be to include parts of older OS survey maps. I believe these maps are all Crown copyright (well, the two I own are), so that those more than 50 years old would be PD. A portion of one of the surveyors' sketches (which are available at some UK public libraries on microfiche/microfilm), & a portion of a pre-1950s map would help illustrate the historical value of these documents, a feature that the British historian W.G. Hoskins often emphasizes in his writings. -- llywrch 17:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Following a fire at its headquarters at the Tower of London in 1841 ... he saw how photography could be used ..." — needs more fleshing out, it looks like he started using photography in 1841 — isn't that a bit early? Or is it? Also some info on how he actually used photography would be good.

• "Mapping Britain" section jumps up to 1969, then we jump back to WW1. Same in the next section, where we have WWII, then 1920. Maybe re-org a little?

• "Some of the remaining buildings ... are now used as part of the court complex." What court? (Clarify.)

• The multi-layered "See also" is cool, but on reflection, I think this is not the best way to do this — I think using categories would be better, at least for some of this. If I want a list of mapping agencies, for example, it's not logical to look under OS (or to ask all editors who write about mapping agencies to add their one to the OS article). Ditto with the world's many grid systems.

• The References aren't linked from the text — should these be called "Further reading"? OTOH, I think you need references which are linked from the text.

• No, anything that is consulted to write the article should be listed as a reference as has been done here.--nixie 03:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• In the reference ' "Official Homepage". Official Homepage ', I think the title needs fixing.  :-)

• Probably "Mapping Britain" and "20th Century" should be sub-sections of a section called "History"...? Likewise, it looks like "UK Map Range" and "OS MasterMap" should be sub-sections of a section called "Products", or something like.

• My overall impression is that the article is just a little "light". I don't think an article has to cover every aspect of a subject to be FA-worthy, but maybe this one could use just a little more meat? Kind of hard to put my finger on it, but eg. covering the mapping techniques used throughout the history, and today, in a little more depth would be good. I guess I would see "Cartography" being more than just a summary of the "National Grid" page, but also covering actual mapping.

Sorry I couldn't actually fix some of the above points, rather than just whinging about them. Cheers... Johantheghost 19:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, I still notice a number of things that I brought up during the previous nomiation that haven't been addressed.--nixie 03:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Poorly written. Let's take apart a few statements at the top.

'Ramsden theodolite'—This appears unexplained in a prominent part of the text, but very few readers will have a clue what it is, and will have to hit the link. The linked article needs work (by the end of the first paragraph of that article, you finally understand that it's an instrument for dividing angular scales with great precision, and that it was a significant step in map-making).

Reverse the order of the opening info—'national mapping agency ...' is more obvious than 'executive agency'. Can you use a consistent term for the country? Since you can't use 'the UK' historically, why not keep to just 'Britain' and 'British'.

Link the 's in 'Great Britain' to avoid blue/black conflict.

'In addition to producing a wide range of maps of Great Britain, the organisation is also working in over sixty countries worldwide.' Like 'also', 'in addition' should be reserved for where it's really needed. Almost every sentence is 'in addition' to what you've just said. 'is working' is just too vivid for something that has been occurring for quite a while. 'The organisation produces maps of Great Britain, and performs a valuable role in .... in more than (not 'over') 60 countries.' Maybe this needs to be split into two sentences.

'one-third'—why not 'a third'; keep it as plain and simple as possible.

And further down, at random:

'In 1920 O. G. S. Crawford was appointed Archaeology Officer and played a prominent role in developing the use of aerial photography to deepen understanding of archaeology.' The reader is hit with this fascinating idea without preparation or further explanation. No link; nothing about whether this was a first. Who got the brainwave of making this appointment—the Minister? How does it work? Perhaps a couple of sentences might do it; the paragraph is rather short, in any case. // 'OGS Crawford' might look better on the page, and consider delinking the useless simple-year '1920' so that it doesn't jostle with the man's name. Why link simple years at all? No one will hit those links. // Just a few more commas would improve the readability.

Tony 02:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gimli Glider

Not self-nom; I had nothing to do with this article, but IMHO it is extremely well written, has relevant and interesting photos, and above all, it's quite a great tale. --Fo0bar 07:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object – no references, lead too short. Last section also too short. User:Nichalp/sg 07:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object: needs to be more comprehensive for a FA. For example, more information is required on the aftermath; investigations into aviation incidents are usually involved and complex. What was learnt from the investigation? Did heads roll? Not all measurements include the metric equivalent, and the vexed process of metric conversion in Canada (from 1984?) might be relevant, and requires mention.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 16:03, September 26, 2005.

• Object. The image Image:Gimlix.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 20:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I copyedited the article some time ago (including breaking the middle section into sub-sections). Nevertheless, much of it read more like a story/essay than an encyclopedia article. Someone needs to look into the wording and change it appropriately. Pentawing 20:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Engrossing article. More images would be nice, though. It would be good to get permission for a photo similar to the removed image[11]. I have sent a request to another photographer to see if we can include [12] instead. Pburka 15:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Slight support The article can be enhanced (improving its structure and readability), but this aviation event is interesting and definitely worth noting. E Pluribus Anthony 07:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American popular music

I split this off music of the United States because that article was way too big. I worked quite a bit on it after that, also including bits and pieces from various other articles (e.g. disco). Please note that pop music and popular music are different, and that this is not intended to be a historical article (music history of the United States exists), merely an overview of the major fields of American popular music. As such, the content is chronological based on when the top-level heading became a major part of popular music -- for example, country music is placed just after blues, but then the whole spectrum of country is explained before going on to the next field, jazz. The article is long, at 93 kb (72 without refs, images and such), but I don't think anything can be cut without losing important information. Tuf-Kat 21:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:RayCharles.jpeg is tagged as "public domain", but I can't verify that, as the source website appears to be down. However, as I recall, much of the media on the "Centennial of Flight" page was not in the public domain, despite the page being a ".gov" domain. --Carnildo 22:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That image was uploaded by a respected Wikipedian more than a year ago and has an entirely reasonable claim for being a public domain US government work. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that an image can't be used because the website that supplied its copyright info eventually goes down -- that's why we have an image description page. You can't verify Image:Willie Nelson 1996-05.png either, but luckily the person who uploaded it made a reasonable claim of its copyright status. Tuf-Kat 23:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It is entirely possible for a respected Wikipedian to upload an image and, believing that because it was from a US government web site, in good faith tag it as "public domain", and still be wrong. There are some US government websites, such as NARA and many .mil sites, that contain mostly or exclusively public domain material. There are other web sites, such as the Library of Congress and assorted Library of Congress projects, which contain material that is mostly not public domain. It is often neccessary to visit the web site to tell the difference.
      
      I can verify Image:Willie Nelson 1996-05.png to my satisfaction by contacting User:Hattrem on Commons and asking him if he took that photograph and licensed it under the terms on the image description page: if he says "yes", I can take him at his word.
      
      I cannot do the same for Image:RayCharles.jpeg. I could certainly contact the uploader, but what would I ask him? "Did you upload it from 'centennialofflight.gov'?" I know that already, and that wouldn't tell me anything about the image's copyright status. --Carnildo 00:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I don't think it's proper to assume an individual doesn't know how/didn't check on an image's copyright status. Hephaestos' talk page indicates he had discussed a different pic and said he was aware that not all .gov pics are pd and that he had checked on the image in question. WRT to Hattrem, what's the difference between trusting Hattrem at his word and trusting Hephaestos at his word? Either way, you have no way of knowing aside from trusting an individual you don't know. Tuf-Kat 01:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I have visited the Internet Archive. Most of the images on that site won't display, but it does say Generally, the information contained on the Web site is in the public domain, and permission for its use is not required as long as the Commission is acknowledged as the source of the information. However, there are certain materials on our Web site, such as photographs, images, narratives, movies, web casts, etc., that have source information provided for them. If there is source information provided for these materials, permission for their use should be obtained from their providers. Since Hephaestos said on his talk page that he specifically looks for "an author or a disclaimer on it" and the page in question says that source information is provided for non-pd material, I think it's reasonable to assume he did not see any source information and that it is therefore pd. Tuf-Kat 01:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
          • That's good enough for me. I tried the Internet Archive, but I couldn't get it to load. --Carnildo 06:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
            • I've copied this convo to the image page for future users. Tuf-Kat

Object - As is, the article is a collection of summaries of the genres of American Popular music instead of really being about American popular music (there is a very important difference: read on). Also, the article is huge and thus takes a very long time to read (even w/o refs, notes, and external links, it is well over twice the size when an article may start to be considered too long: See Article size and Summary style). By itself size is not a reason to object since some topics do require more space. However the burden of proof is with a nominator when an article is this size. Here is a run-down of my reasoning:

• Instead of taking the topic holistically, it breaks it up into summaries of the different genres of American popular music.
• An article is not supposed to be just a collection of sections of related sub-topics; it needs to be a cohesive whole. Or in Yoda speak, a collection of related sections does not an article make.
• The current structure is not optimal since each section links to a daughter article that is started by a lead section that is similar in size to the summary section in this article.
• This reminds me of the nomination of History of science, which was, and still pretty much is, a collection of 'history of ...' summaries of the sub-disciplines. A proper article on that topic would take the reader through the development of science, from the start in pre-historic times, through the development of the scientific method, explain how science was first used by religion and then later how the schism between the two developed, etc.

In short, this article needs to take the reader through the development of popular music in the United States instead of merely summarizing each sub-genre. --mav 01:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I either disagree or don't understand your objection. This article does take the reader through the development of popular music in the United States. It starts at the beginning in the late 19th century and ends with hip hop (actually with the international and social impact, but that's rather separate from the rest of the article and wouldn't make sense until after the rest has been introduced). It is divided into sections by genre, with each genre explaining how it developed, how it's related to other genres and how it changed over time, especially regarding popularity. It is about American popular music, which is made up of various genres -- it's not like "history of science" because a) this is not a history of anything (would you rather see a stricter history focus?), and b) "science" is itself something that can be documented over time (i.e. one can talk about how the process of scientific discovery changed, irrespective of the general development of chemistry or physics) -- "popular music" is "any of a number of musical styles that..." (i.e. one can not talk about popular music except in the context of a specific style). I have three books specifically on "popular music", and all three are divided into chapters based on styles. You said "As is, the article is a collection of summaries of the genres of American Popular music instead of really being about American popular music (there is a very important difference: read on)", but I don't see any explanation of what you think this difference is. I think this is about as cohesive as it can be -- it explains how the different genres are connected with each other, and how they evolved in tandem with each other, providing links to more specific articles on each individual genre. Popular music is a kind or type of music, distinct from folk or classical music; thus, an article on "American popular music" should be primarily about what kinds or types of American music are examples of popular music; more detailed info on how each style developed is better for their respective genre pages or for the music history of the United States. WRT to length, I agree that it is long, as noted above, but don't see what can be removed -- since you feel the whole article (or most of it) should be rewritten, this point is presumably secondary. Tuf-Kat

Tuf-Kat, I have to say that I think there's some substance to Maveric's comments. You might be able to integrate the currently 'lumpy' feel to the structure by adding some statements at strategic points that remind the reader of the historical flow, and point to interrelationships between the genres.

In addition, I'd like to see the sound excerpts more closely embedded in their associated text by referring the reader to specific musical features in the excerpt; this would strengthen the case for fair use, too. In a few cases, you've done this, but perhaps this aspect could become a more robust feature. (I may be of assistance in this respect, although it's not my musical area.)

Can you think of ways of delineating the scope more tightly? Must jazz be included in popular music? Some would disagree that it's that. Can you create a chronological boundary, splitting the article into two: say, pre- and post-World-War-II? That might allow you to fill out information that is a little thin, still; for example, Tin Pan Alley should mention the wave of European immigration (much of it Jewish) that fed into it. At the moment it's too little and too much at the same time.

The prose still needs a good massage, and my time-budget for big jobs is a bit limited over the next few weeks. The opening section is problematic in a number of ways. I think that there are too many external references, whereas Wikipedia should itself be an authority, and shouldn't need to tip its hat to them so early on in an article. Is the quotation necessary, or can we make a general assertion from scratch? I'm not sure that I want to hear about other histories and authors in the second paragraph.

As you know, I'm thoroughly on-side with respect to many aspects of the article; but it needs a big rethink. Tony 06:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Undecided I'm not sure I object to this, but at the moment I'm not sure I really want to support it either. Why isn't there a category for pop music? I mean I know the general definition of pop can sometimes refer to anything popular, but I think there needs to be an article for the pop music genre. Teen pop can be put under pop, along with A/C pop and Pop-Rock which should also be put in there. Can Soul and R&B be brought next to each other? It would help the article to flow better since Soul and R&B are related. I know the two genres jumped back and forth over the years, but maybe soul should be placed first since the R&B article talks about contemporary R&B. Can we also add something about the current music scene with the popularity of the hip-hop colloborations? Also mainstream rock and alternative rock have kind of meshed together in today's music. Can we mention that alternative and mainstream are pretty much equal in a way today? Maybe indie rock could be more emphasized in the alternative rock section. OmegaWikipedia 08:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have begun working on a reorganized article at American popular music/temp. Opinions are welcome. The section I've written out is about 20k, which is disheartening because it only goes up to the 1920s and I can't think of what to cut, so it's still going to be very long. Tuf-Kat
  • Okay, American popular music/temp is more or less done. It needs a lead, and refs, links et al moved over, and I'm going to fiddle with images and sound samples. It's at 56k at the moment. Tuf-Kat 04:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • And it's done. Does this satisfy anyone? It's now at 72k total, and about 55k without all the bells and whistles. Tuf-Kat 17:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've written a new suggested opening on the discussion page, which is much shorter at just one paragraph long. I really think the last three paras of the existing opening are a problem, and need to go. See what you think. Tony 05:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• The section on the 90s/00s seems a bit awkward. I see what you're trying to do, but is it possible for you to to combine your prose on the early 90s with your musical definitions of the early 90s? Like...

Perhaps the most important change in the 1990s in American popular music was the rise of alternative rock and grunge. This was previously an explicitly anti-mainstream grouping of genres that rose to great fame beginning in the early 1990s. At roughly the same time, a kind of hard-edged hip hop called gangsta rap also became very popular among mainstream audiences. Grunge music is an independent-rooted music genre that was inspired by hardcore punk, thrash metal, and alternative rock. Grunge has a "dark, brooding guitar-based sludge" sound ^[13], drawing on elements of earlier bands like Sonic Youth and their use of "unconventional tunings to bend otherwise standard pop songs completely out of shape" ^[14]. With the addition of a "melodic, Beatlesque element" to the sound of bands like Nirvana, grunge became wildly popular across the United States ^[15]. Grunge became commercially successful in the early 1990s, peaking between 1991 and 1994. Bands from cities in the U.S. Pacific Northwest especially Seattle, Washington, were responsible for creating grunge and later made it popular with mainstream audiences. The supposed Generation X, who had just reached adulthood as grunge's popularity peaked, were closely associated with grunge, the sound which helped "define the desperation of (that) generation" ^[16].

Gangsta rap is a kind of hip hop, most importantly characterized by a lyrical focus on macho sexuality, physicality and a dangerous, criminal image. Though the origins of gangsta rap can be traced back to the mid-1980s raps of Philadelphia's Schoolly D and the West Coast's Ice-T, the style is usually said to have begun in the Los Angeles and Oakland area, where Too $hort, NWA and others found their fame. This West Coast rap scene spawned the early 1990s G-funk sound, which paired gangsta rap lyrics with a thick and hazy tone, often relying on samples from 1970s P-funk; the best-known proponents of this sound were the breakthrough rappers Dr. Dre and Snoop Doggy Dogg.

By the end of the decade and into the early 2000s, however, pop music consisted mostly of a combination of pop-hip hop and R&B-tinged pop, including a number of boy bands and female divas. The predominant sound in 90s country music was pop with only very limited elements of country. This includes many of the best-selling artists of the 1990s, like Clint Black, Shania Twain, Faith Hill and the first of these crossover stars, Garth Brooks ^[17].

It makes the section flow better imo here. Of course that was just a rough idea, and so the transitions werent smooth, but something along the lines of keeping things in order from when they happened. And also could you talk about more current sounds in today's music? (Like pop rock and the hip-hop collaboration). Thanks OmegaWikipedia 13:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've put a slightly revised version of those three paragraphs in. I don't really think more info on current music is warranted -- it's not possible to put stuff in its historical context right away. And I'm not sure what you mean by "hip hop collaborations". Collaborations are not unique to modern hip hop, and aren't unique to hip hop at all, and aren't a particularly notable part of hip hop AFAICT. Tuf-Kat 18:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional support, I enjoyed the rewritten version. Two little things, the number of the notes is messed up- there are 80ish inline notes and only 30ish in the notes section, in long articles I have used footnote 3, so that I can specify the number of the note and multiple inline notes can link to the one reference- it keeps the list a managable length for a long and detailed article, however you decide to do it the numbers in the text should have corresponding notes. Why does the same pic of Willie Nelson appear twice?--nixie 23:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Because Willie Nelson RAWKS! Footnote3 looks nice, but complicated. I guess I'll look at an article that uses it and see if I can figure it out. Tuf-Kat 02:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• To be a FA, I think it still needs copy editing by a fresh pair of eyes. Tuf-Kat has really improved the article since it came onto this list, but I'm still uneasy about the depth, authority and cohesion of the text. I wish I had more expertise in this musical area, because I'd love to help on a deep, stylistic level. It involves some very subtle and complex issues that are beyond me. Tony 13:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: there is a real shortage of discussion of the music industry as an industry: the rise and fall of sheet music, the importance of intellectual property rights, the growth of A&R departments, the consolidation of the major record labels, the shifts of power and influence between an industry based in NYC and later in LA and between various regional musics, the rise of popular music criticism, you name it. It's as if all of this music occurred in a vacuum. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object with great regret. There are some POV and bias issues that need to be worked out in respect to ACTUAL pop music, as bland etc. one may think it be. Maybe you could have something about them being manufactured if you want. However, it should probably split off 1990 into its own section and expand it, and have a careful sifting through for bias and POV, and just in general EXPAND the pop music parts. I also echo all the above comments. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] September 2005

[edit] Opus Dei

This is partially --very partially-- self nom because there are many others who helped in writing this article. From what I've read in the Talk Page, the article swung from an edit war last year to a stalemate, then a short NPOV issue last April due to some overenthusiastic newbies, and since May, a time of harmony and peace when NPOV rules were quoted, ratios established, and details worked on. It has grown since then. It has been under Peer Review since September 9: Peer Review of Opus Dei article And changes have been made based on the feedback. Please see Talk Page as well, for it contains many explanations on why the article appears as it is. Thomas S. Major 05:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:EscrivaJ.jpg has no source information. Without knowing the source, it's impossible to judge a claim of "fair use".
  2. The image Image:Popebenedictxvi firsttimeonthrone.jpg has no copyright information. {{Vatican}} does not indicate the copyright status of an image.
  3. The image Image:Pope-john-paul-ii-01.jpg is tagged as a copyvio. This needs to be cleared up, or the image needs to be removed.
  4. The image Image:1francisco-franco.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but since Francisco Franco is not the subject of the article, any fair-use claim is doubtful.

  --Carnildo 07:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Carnildo. My friend, R Davidson, removed all the images with copyright problems (those not uploaded by Walter). I suppose you can already remove your objection? Thomas S. Major 11:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object: In line references should be footnoted. I am too suspicious of the copyright status of many images in the article. In many places the text does not flow, and is hard to follow, eg: "The teachings of Opus Dei, and of other Catholic organizations and saints, on the universal call to holiness and apostolate were made a most central doctrine of the Second Vatican Council" I know what it means (I think) how many non Catholics would? Its all very convoluted and "Catholic" much of the page needs to be rewritten in more readable prose. The enormous reference section! has the author used all of these books? Giano | talk 07:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Giano. I just checked what my friend, R Davidson, did. He corrected that long sentence by taking out the reference to other Catholic orgs and saints. He also made the universal call more understandable. I thank him of course, but I disagree that the phrase universal call to holiness is not understandable. It has a link. I suppose that is the system that is being followed by this encyclopedia. Anyway, thanks, Davidson, for the move to improve the text.

Some other editors placed the books that are in the bibliography. I suppose they read those books before they placed them there. I've read most of them myself.

I also checked out the other feature articles. So far I've seen several which do not have any footnotes. I suppose it is not a must for a featured article to have footnotes. This article has 52 ref links. The one of People's Republic of China, a featured article, has 4. The one of John Major does not have any, and it has quite a number of quotes. :) Thomas S. Major 11:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• It is not necessary to have footnotes, but the external links contained within the text, should not be there. They should be footnoted and then referenced at the bottom of the page. There is more than just the one corrected sentence what about "This family, of which St. Josemaría was the head and the "first vocation," had to find a legal structure that fits its foundational idea or charism, according to Catholic theology" To a non catholic this is probably meaningless. If a sentence has to be analysed, then it needs to be changed. These sentences occur time and time again in this page. I don't doubt the authors have read the huge reference section, but were they actually used to source this article? Giano | talk 22:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that there might be books there that do not belong to the study, e.g. the Hanssen book. I will remove it and look for others that have to be removed. I will also look for texts which are not immediately intelligible.

A far as I know Turabian and other Manuals of Style and of thesis writing do not require that only books used to source the article are placed in the bibliography, if by source you mean actually quoted or referred to in the text.

As regards your statement: "It is not necessary to have footnotes, but the external links contained within the text, should not be there. They should be footnoted and then referenced at the bottom of the page." The statement echoes with some authority, and I respect that. But could I just know if it is a rule in Wikipedia? Where can that be found? Thanks for your help. Thomas S. Major 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• The footnote question has been answered far more eloquently than I could lower down the page by Bishonen. Regarding the reference section. Which books were or were not used to source this article? Why were books included in the references which were not used in the first instance? Giano | talk 11:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I checked out Wikipedia:Cite sources and it answers some of the questions. Please see below my reply to Bishonen. Thanks. :)Thomas S. Major 00:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support: I placed most of the images in the article except the ones mentioned by Carnildo. I did not contribute much in the text. I replaced:
  1. The image Image:EscrivaJ.jpg with another image which has been granted GFDL license from the copyright holder.

IMO the article should be "Catholic". Because it is under the categories of Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholic prelatures, Roman Catholic history, Catholic doctrine and Catholic theology and doctrines. The article will be strange if it is not Catholic. Walter Ching 08:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not the Catholic Encyclopedia. When we write about the Roman Catholic Church, we do it from a neutral point of view and in a manner that is accessible to all readers.--Eloquence* 02:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Eloquence. Giano | talk 09:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments and I assume good faith. I would like to ask both of you --and the others -- to read the NPOV tutorial rules, so we can understand each other.

"Wikipedia should report all major points of views; however, it should do so in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses.

One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view. What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:

• the reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works
• whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones
• whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms
• whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims
• whether the expert's point of view belongs in a different article (e.g. evolution vs. creationism)

In other words, an idea's popularity alone does not determine its importance." (Italics mine)

Kindly read the Talk Page of Opus where the editors have discussed (based on Wikipedia method of consensus) who the reputable, credible experts are in this field who use the common methods of the field. If both of you can mention other credible experts on the field, then all of us will listen, and then we can work out a consensus based on the above rules. If we agree that their credible expertise is above the following experts who support each other: John Paul II, Benedict XVI, John Allen, V. Messori, James V. Schall, Bryan R. Wilson, Dr. Kliever, St. Josemaria himself, and the Catholic leaders whose testimonies are found in a separate article, then I suppose we will just have to decide to give them more space than these people, and change the whole tone of this article. R Davidson 14:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

May I add to the list of Davidson--Prof. Philip Jenkins, a Protestant Scholar. Thomas S. Major 05:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support: I totally support this article, as I said in the Peer Review. This is perhaps the single best, short, comprehensive and neutral article on the subject that one can find. And so I understand why there are so many references, a copious bibliography worthy of a serious encyclopedia and serious theological science, as I said before. That is why I also understand if the references are in another page, anyway as Thomas Major explained there are 52 reference links throughout the article! I beg to disagree with Giano that the text does not flow, the text is convoluted. I am sorry, but as I said in the Peer Review, this article has a rational framework. It is logical and I like it. Arturo Cruz 14:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object on technical grounds. External links should be moved from main body to appopriate section and linked with footnotes with main body. I am also not happy with ALL 'bibliography and external links' being apparently moved to a subarticle - definetly the sources for the article should be present in it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Piotrus. Yes! I plan to propose that a part of the bibliography at least a basic core appear in the main article. Thanks again! :) Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I know that this article has taken great pains to avoid the cliched "what is and what is not true about Opus Dei in 'The Da Vinci Code'" route. However, has it gone far? The book is mentioned once in the whole article; even though Opus Dei's portrayal in the book is surely the gravest crisis to have afflicted the group for a long time. Should there be more Da Vinci Code stuff in there? eg A section about the reaction to the book, the group's reaction, the public's, the Vatican's etc? Just a thought. Batmanand 22:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

There was a section on it before. But some editors took it away. I copy their exchange below: Thomas S. Major 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest the removal of the section regarding The DaVinci Code as mostly irrelevant to the purpose of portraying Opus Dei and as more accurate belonging with a discussion of the book itself. Its being a work of fiction means that any and all claims and allegations included within are made to further the plot of the novel, not as a form of attack or commentary on any organization.

A mention of the reference and responses thereto are appropriate, but any further indepth discussion ought to take place on the page for the novel itself, where claims of its veracity can be placed into proper context.

--Agamemnon2 13:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. That section does not belong here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. There are three red-links in the introduction to the article. Red-links aren't forbidden in FAs, but I'd prefer to at least not have any in the introductory paragraphs. Pburka 01:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

They were not there when I nominated it. Somebody who tried to help, added them. I'll fix that. Thomas S. Major 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support: I think the article is comprehensive and neutral enough for someone who does not have any idea about Opus Dei.Bonrussell 02:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This is the user's first edit on Wikipedia.--Eloquence* 02:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly object. There are very serious issues of NPOV and structure. There are many unhelpful headings like "Opus Dei and the Catholic Church's first purpose" and "Response: Sociology of religion and Christ-centered theology". Sub-articles are not consistently pointed out; e.g., Opus Dei and the Cult Issue: Allegations and Responses (an entirely unacceptable title for a sub-article, by the way) is clearly pointed out under its section header, other sub-articles are mentioned briefly in the flow of the text. The structure makes it very difficult to find specific facts, e.g. Opus Dei's business activities.

The NPOV problems go deeper than that, and will be very difficult to fix. They are fundamentally related to the way the prose is written, both about Opus Dei and its critics. The article very frequently transitions from attributing an opinion to stating it as fact. Just a few quotes: "For example, to push his conclusions, he makes absurd assumptions: priests go to seminary only to improve their lot." — "The world is a gift of God, a place where one can --and should!-- become a saint" — "members use aggressive recruitment methods" — "Thus, mainline scientists reject as 'unscholarly'"

There are two problems with this. It comes across as POV, even if it is intended to be a continuation of a prior attributed opinion, and it blurs the line between what is attributed and what the person or source actually said. In the extreme cases, we find entire paragraphs like this:

Jesus Christ single-mindedly focused his entire life on saving all souls to please his Father. While he loved his mother, he left her in favor of his divine mission. For this, he showered affection on people, but also issued many threats out of love for them: against easy-going and fruitless Christians, against infidelity, etc. While he searched for friends and clearly spoke the truth, he allowed them to freely do whatever they wanted--including rejecting him. He also told his disciples, "As the Father has sent me so do I send you." To glorify God and sanctify men, Christ enjoyed pleasures and pleasantries with them, and he also voluntarily practiced mortification of the flesh: fasting, sleeping on the ground, and allowing himself to be tortured and crucified. He taught that his disciple should “renounce himself, take up his cross daily and follow me.”

This is just one example of the article quietly adopting a POV, rather than presenting it, and utterly unacceptable in terms of NPOV.

Beyond that, there are various smaller NPOV issues both in the main article and the sub-articles. I'm not sure to what extent the sub-articles should be commented on, but the cult article in particular is a mess. Compare, for example, the first and second image caption in this revision. The main article basically traces all modern criticism to early theological criticism, and does not present this stance with a counterpoint. The notion that secular criticism results from the prelature's actual activities cannot be so easily dismissed.

To conclude, the article needs to be restructured, and the writing needs to be substantially edited to make it NPOV. As it concerns an organization that very much operates in real world business and politics, the theological writing needs to be toned down, and the structure must allow easy access to key information about OD's acitvities. The line between fact and opinion should never be blurry; opinions need to be clearly and precisely attributed, and facts need to be backed up with citations.--Eloquence* 02:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss this well with you and I assume good faith in all of your comments. (Please also see my comments above re the issue on the "Catholic" tendency of the article}. I would just like to say that I do not agree with Eloquence's comments:

I believe that this article follows the NPOV policies:

"Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates. Of course, one might well doubt that this can be done at all without somehow subtly implying or insinuating that one position is correct. But experienced academics, polemical writers, and rhetoricians are well-attuned to bias, both their own and others', so that they can usually spot a description of a debate that tends to favor one side. If they so choose, with some creativity, they can usually remove that bias.

Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. To give such undue weight to the lesser held view may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

These policies say that editors should "represent" disputes. As far as I can understand it, it does not say that the text should quote something verbatim to turn them into facts. If this is the case, won't it turn the whole Wikipedia into a mere interconnection of quotes?

In my opinion, his examples show that he has not read much of the reference links or reference materials and is merely submitting his opinion --very personal to my mind--on those examples. It his own personal POV that "There are two problems with this. It comes across as POV, even if it is intended to be a continuation of a prior attributed opinion, and it blurs the line between what is attributed and what the person or source actually said." For example the line "members use aggressive methods" is almost taken verbatim from ODAN website; "The world is a gift of God, a place where one can --and should!-- become a saint" is found in the writings of the bishops; the paragraph on Jesus Christ like the whole section on teachings is a summary of doctrine contained in the writings of Escriva. Perhaps yes the tone of that paragraph on Jesus Christ can be improved, but I don't think that presenting a short reply to the accusations leveled against OD is POV. If so then the paragraph of ODAN's accusations are POV.

I'd also like to understand more about the unhelpfulness of the section titles. In general, I'd like to listen more to understand the strong objection. R Davidson 14:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me just say that I appreciate the detailed objection of Eloquence, and I am grateful he is bringing out his personal opinion. As regards what he says: the article "transitions from attributing an opinion to stating it as fact." Somehow this was mentioned by Zantastic and I saw that the problem is this: Some sentences, for one reason or another, do not have the phrase like "critics say" or "supporters say". Thus the main issue is writing method, rather than NPOV (with this I agree with Kevin Marshall). If these phrases are linked to all the sentences of a particular proponent or writer, then the article will sound monotonous, or sound like a sing song. In general I think Wikipedia readers can distinguish that a second or third sentence of an author still belongs to the author. For example: the second sentence of Introvigne "Thus, mainline scientists reject as 'unscholarly'" is almost a paraphrase of a statement from CESNUR of which Introvigne is the Director.

I do think that the article is merely "representing disputes," summarizing positions as Wikipedia wants articles to do. But yes, things can be improved. The statement "For example, to push his conclusions, he makes absurd assumptions" can also be drawn by reading the article of Schall, but maybe it could be better phrased. I will re-read the article and study how to improve it.

As regards the business activities of Opus Dei, these are contained in the "conspiracy theories of Walsh" under the sub-section on Secularity, humility, privacy vs. secrecy to pursue power. Some of the editors in fact wanted to remove any mention of Walsh because he is considered by many as a "dubious source". He is a writer for tabloid-level newspapers. And according to Wikipedia, and I quote:

Title: Dubious Sources "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research. Hence, anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others. In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources."

Somebody placed Walsh again into the text just recently, perhaps to improve NPOV. However, that move is a substantial change which should have been discussed first in the Talk Page. Perhaps you can join in when this issue is brought up there. Thomas S. Major 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I just placed the phrase "supporters say" in three parts of the Opus Dei cult-responses. E.g.

Opus Dei's Christ-centeredness, supporters say, urges Christians to live like Christ in everything, even if their behaviour "clashes" with a "paganized environment". [3] Supporters say that the cult-like behavior described by the anti-cult groups was the behavior of Jesus Christ: He single-mindedly focused his entire life on saving all souls to please his Father...

I hope this npoving is enough for that part, as it was for Zantastik and Rama. Thomas S. Major 03:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It was not enough for me, actually. This article, along with some other related articles, fails to meet NPOV standards, and I think Eloquence's statement makes the nature of its problems perfectly clear. For instance, simply adding "supporters say," into the following sentence does not make it npov.

Opus Dei's Christ-centeredness, supporters say, urges Christians to live like Christ in everything, even if their behaviour "clashes" with a "paganized environment".

After all, is Opus Dei "Christ-centered" at all? What is the nature of "Christ-centeredness?" Would different people have different definitions of this term? I'm sorry, but this article has a ways to go before deserving featured status. --Zantastik talk 14:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that by "is enough for that part, as it was for Zantastik and Rama", Thomas S. Major is refering to the end of [[18]] ("I would assume that you think that I have already addressed your NPOV concerns if I don't hear from you before 0900 UTC. Then I will remove the NPOV tag"); it is correct that I did not react to this at the moment, but I have always been a rather distant observer of the situations here, and I was busy with other articles (and even real life things, can you believe that :p). So my silence there should not be interpreted as a full and inconditional approval of the state of the article at the moment. Actually, I still think that there is room for improvements, and I think that recent edits were going in the right direction. Rama 14:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Rama and Zantastik, for responding. The Christ-centeredness is discussed in a subsection above that. Let's see what we can do about your comment...:) Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I also placed this for the cult critics: "Critics say the following: Opus Dei members use aggressive recruitment methods: love bombing and issuing threats of condemnation. New recruits lack "informed consent.""

Thank you, Eloquence, for bringing up your points. They are helping keep the creative juices running to improve NPOV in this article. Like Davidson, I am interested to understand more your objection. E.g. "The main article basically traces all modern criticism to early theological criticism, and does not present this stance with a counterpoint. The notion that secular criticism results from the prelature's actual activities cannot be so easily dismissed." I am not that intelligent really. I need a bit more of an explanation. Thanks. :) Thomas S. Major 04:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Object. I have similar complaints to those listed by Eloquence above. The sub-pages are a huge mess--I don't think a single one of them is nicely formatted. And they're thrown about the main article rather randomly. As Eloquence also pointed out, attributions aren't always clear. However, overall I don't think the POV problems are too bad. I think if the format and subpages were more clear, the page wouldn't have POV problems. But when a subpage is devoted just to positive comments, it looks like non-NPOV, even if there's stuff in the main article or on another subpage balancing a positive comment.Kevin M Marshall 14:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to make the format and subpages more clear. I just have a small question: is this article going to be judged as well based on its sub-pages? If yes, I will make sure that we do a better job in the subpages. If not, whew, what a relief that will be! Thanks for your comments. :) Thomas S. Major 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I won't speak for anyone else, but unless the subpages are improved considerably I won't support the article. I'll see what I can do to help out with the article.Kevin M Marshall 02:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. It's good to separate myth from truth, especially for a controversial group like Opus Dei. Some people should be undeceived of their deception. Baboyako 07:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• What exactly is going on here The Italian Inquistion has arrived. It seems we now have yet another editor User: Baboyako making their first ever edit here [19]. User: Bonrussell also made his first edit here; and this editor too is hardly an "old hand either" Edits of Arturo Cruz. I am beginning to grow suspicious here, very suspicious indeed. I hope one or two of our friends here do not need to go to confession 11:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC). [Comment by Giano]

I told my friends a few days ago that I proposed this article for feature article status and they started to act. I've just told them to back off. Sorry about that. :( Thomas S. Major 00:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support: I took part in writing this article. I believe it "reports all major points of the views in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses." (NPOV policy) If one looks at the extensive bibliography, the proportions and the structure of the article reflect existing scholarship: a great deal of literature on theology, some juridical studies, historical and sociological literature, and some cult and anti-Opus Dei issues. The article also reflects the contents of the monographs.

Anybody who wants to propose changes to the structure of the article should read these books written by credible experts. If calculus, econometrics, molecular biology are not for amateurs, a fortiori dogmatic, moral and ascetical theology, Church history, general history, sociology of religion, and canon law are not. Marax 09:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I have three problems with this article. (1.) POV. This is the big one. I agree with Eloquence that this is a skewed and partisan account, told much too much from the inside, rather than encyclopedically. The defender above who quotes ""Wikipedia should report all major points of views" from the NPOV tutorial, in defence of the article's present state (I'm sorry, but with the interleaved comments I find if impossible to tell who quotes it) shows a misunderstanding. The key word in that quote is report. To report is not to repeat, still less to endorse. To report is to report neutrally, with attribution. It's not merely Wikipedia as a whole that needs to be balanced and neutral, as some of the arguments above seem to suggest, it's each article. And while in a well-written text it can be possible to tell whether an attributed expert is also responsible for the views in the next few sentences, it requires rhetorical skills to make it so. Please listen to the people here who are telling you in good faith that some attributions aren't in fact clear: the judge of clarity is the reader, not the author. A minor point: please refer consistently to the founder as Escrivá, rather than as St. Josemaría, unless his canonisation is the point at issue. (2.) Prose. I'm afraid there are also some problems of less than brilliant prose, especially with the attributions, which read as if they were fitted awkwardly (reluctantly?) into what was originally a smooth text. Please try to formulate the whole thing with the attributions as an integral part, rather than putting them in as alien speed bumps. Too may short paragraphs, also. (3.) Footnotes/inline references. The reader too often has no way of knowing which work in the bibliography is being used to reference a particular point. I dislike footnotes and try to avoid the need for them in my own articles, but when the sourcing situation is this complex, they are necessary. Please don't ask whether any Wikipedia policy explicitly requires this or that form of reference; instead ask your common sense: "How can I make the sourcing unambiguously clear to the reader?" Because the purpose of the reference policies is to ensure such clarity. The answer in this article is that you need either footnotes or a prohibitive amount of parenthetic inline references; in other words, you need footnotes. Some articles with a simpler source situation don't need them, that's why there's no hard and fast rule. Summary. I realise that my objections may be a bit abstract, especially no. 2), so I've just now edited the section "A personal prelature of the Catholic Church" to give an example of changes both for 1), NPOV, and 2), better flow, please take a look. I'm sorry I couldn't at the same time illustrate 3), what footnotes are required: that's unfortunately impossible, since the problem with the present sourcing is precisely that it doesn't give me enough information. The italics for quotes I left alone (although they're non-standard), as I've no plans for going over the rest of the article — too much work, which I realise is pretty likely to get reverted anyway. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tutorial, Bishonen! I will take your example into account when I try to rewrite the article to make it more encyclopedic and have more flow. I made a slight change to your version, but it has been useful. Thomas S. Major 02:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

OK. I see the point. In reality there were many in-text references with dates and pages.But they were removed as a way of cutting the bulk of the text. I will try to bring them back.

I will also work on inserting footnotes. However, I found this in the Wikipedia:Cite sources:

"On the other hand, in-text references can be very useful if there is a long list of references and it is not clear which one the reader should consult for more information on a specific topic. In-text citations can also be valuable if there is doubt or disagreement on some point—you can parenthetically indicate exactly what source made a particular claim. (Articles that involve strong opposing viewpoints may need to have numerous in-text citations for this reason.)

Footnotes are sometimes useful for relevant text that would distract from the main point if embedded in the main text, yet are helpful in explaining a point in greater detail. Such footnotes can be especially helpful for later fact-checkers, to ensure that the article text is well-supported. Thus, using footnotes to provide useful clarifying information outside the main point is fine where this is needed.

Footnotes can also be used to simply cite sources, and there are some styles which do so. However, citations using numbered footnotes are controversial in Wikipedia. The current MediaWiki software does not support footnotes very well. In particular, automatic numbering of footnotes conflicts with a common editing practice of bare URLs in single square brackets and the same footnote cannot be used multiple times with automatic numbering, rather a new number and note has to be used. In contrast, the software is currently quite sufficient to support the parenthetical author citation format suggested above."

• Object per Bishonen and Eloquence. This article was clearly written from a pro-Opus Dei POV. The criticisms of OD aren't mentioned in the intro except as an afterthought given a sentence in the final paragraph. Also from the intro: Opus Dei offers the faithful the "necessary training" to attain "sanctity or inner union with God". St Josemaria is often referred to as "St. Josemaria", when he should be known as "Escriva" — when first introduced, St Josemaria should be "St Josemaria Escriva", then "Escriva" from then on until we get to the Canonisation bit (by the way, have a gold spelling star). The "message" of OD is aggressively put forth, when it should at most gain a mere mention. OD is even referred to as "the Work"; such a phrase is often used by those doing "the Work" (whatever that may be) in various religions, sects, and cults, but never by those who are not. The "criticisms" section does not enlighten one to criticisms, I fear, but to "misunderstandings". The article attempts to argue — putting the words into the mouth of a weasel — that OD is a "sign of contradiction". I recommend someone with no relationship towards OD, the Catholic Church, or any anti-cult group take a look at the article and pare it down as much as they can.

I'm also concerned about the attempts at balance. When criticisms are included at all, they and Opus Dei are not discussed objectively. Rather, we have what news organisations laughingly describe as "balance": "Person X says the critics are wrong, but critics say they're not", or vice versa.

The neutrality policy states:

"NPOV policy means that we say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z." Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, one particular POV is treated as a monolithic "Catholic people's" POV — this is a serious issue, bringing as it does memories of "can we trust them to follow their countries issues over what the Bishop of Rome says?" and all that. For example: "on the other hand, Catholics say that this accusation is a slur on their bishops." I have never said such a thing, and am not certain that I would — am I not Catholic? This section has other problems: it concludes that critics are wrong, and its English is awkward (take a look at the progression of "however"-equivalents).

You are right. I will correct the weasel statements! Thanks. Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hope this helps, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

As regards the Catholic/Opus Dei POV, please read R Davidson's exchange with Eloquence regarding the Catholic tone of the article. That is the key to understand the neutrality of this article. That has to be resolved first before we can talk about NPOV here. Thanks for your comments. Thomas S. Major 00:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object – Notwithstanding POV issues (I won't check for that for now), the page has serious style problems. 1) Too many subheadings; The ToC is granulated and bloated. 2) Inline links to be converted to footnote style like we have for other featured articles 3) Placement of left-aligned images which shift headings to the right. That is to say: please don't start a paragraph with a left-aligned image, also do not float left-images so that the headings of the following paragraph are moved. 4) References not formatted properly. Please see recent featured articles such as Economy of India on how to format correctly. 5) Page size indicates that a summary is needed. Use the summary style. 6) No external links? 7) The page has a lot of quotes, this needs to be reduced and made into an objective summary. 8) Needs a copyedit. User:Nichalp/sg 17:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the article lingers a little too long on some of the more "sensational" criticisms. On the other hand I noticed two media pieces in the last fortnight that cited this piece as an important source (both Australian), and one of them called it called it even-handed, so what do I know? Re the comment that a long piece on Opus Dei should contain at most a brief mention of its aims, I can't help thinking that would be rather as if the article on General Motors were to contain no more than a brief mention that it sells cars. Asoane 20:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I didn't even get past the lead before I came across sentences like this one: "Built on the idea that Christians attain great joy from an awareness of being children of God, Opus Dei teaches them about their personal freedom and responsibility in pursuing the first purpose of the Catholic Church: sanctity or inner union with God." This is Opus Dei-propaganda, plain and simple. It might not be illicit, but it's inherently POV. Most of the article reads like some sort of brochure or pamphlet. It's simply not even close to being NPOV and at times barely encyclopedic. It's bristling with more or less subtle religious peacock terms, and obviously irrelevant publicity images like this don't exactly help. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object Several of the image captions are overly long. Image:Arnoldhallopusdeiconferencecenter.jpg looks like someone tried to airbrush the grass with Microsoft Paint (regardless, the image doesn't add much to the article). Image:JohnPaulIIordainingfirstbishopprelateofopusdeialvarodelportillo.jpg and Image:StjosemariaMagpakabanal sa gawainBe a saint thru work.jpg need to be cropped (and renamed). Many of the image pages could do with some better formatting/organization. I'm not sure how the current sub-headings under "Formation and training" relate to that topic. The article is POV in tone in several places ("Opus Dei was founded by St. Josemaria Escriva, who as a young lad saw footprints in the snow..."), and reads like a pamphlet in others (the 3rd paragraph Wow Peter, we had the same exact thoughts/vocabulary with regards to that third paragraph). As someone unfamiliar with the subject, I cannot understand 75% of this article. —jiy (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, jiy. I will study what I can do about your comments. Thanks again. :) Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

As regards the Catholic/Opus Dei POV, kindly read R Davidson's exchange with Eloquence regarding the Catholic tone of the article. That is the key to understand the neutrality of this article. That has to be resolved first before we can talk about NPOV here. The editors resolved in the Talk Page that the images should be proportionate to the credible experts view. Thanks for your comments. Thomas S. Major 00:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. I agree with your comments above: (a) policy we should give more credence to credible sources, and (b) the Pope is a credible source. However, your conclusion is incorrect. The Pope's views may be given more credence, sure, but that doesn't mean you're supposed to write from the Pope's point of view. Please re-read the NPOV page, and when you're finished there move on to WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK. Neither the weasel or peacock pages are official policy, but they're important guidelines to help people attain a NPOV, and should be followed by any article that wants FA status. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark. Sorry I was too much in a hurry I was not able to answer you properly. Yes I totally agree with you as regards weasel and peacock terms. Will also work on that :) Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a million for all your comments: I see we still have a lot of work to do

Thanks a million for all those who spent some time to give detailed ways of improving this article to achieve feature article status. I am truly grateful, and I appreciate your efforts.

It is clear from the comments that this article has to do a lot of work in terms of attributions, footnotes, formatting, copyediting, style, flow, etc. etc. etc.

I just need your help to resolving once and for all the basic issue raised by my friend R Davidson as regards neutrality. It's an issue which will continue to hound this article if it is not resolved.

The basic issue is how this article is implementing the following NPOV policies:

"We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. To give such undue weight to the lesser held view may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

From Jimbo:

"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts"

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

From the NPOV tutorial:

"Wikipedia should report all major points of views; however, it should do so in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses.

One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view. What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:

• the reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works
• whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones
• whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms
• whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims
• whether the expert's point of view belongs in a different article (e.g. evolution vs. creationism)

In other words, an idea's popularity alone does not determine its importance."

Right now the editors are one in saying that the majority position is held by the following credible experts: reputable investigative journalists who studied Opus Dei: (John Allen, V. Messori, Thierry, West), theologians and philosophers: (James V. Schall, Fuenmayor, Rodriguez, Ocariz, et al), Sociology of religion scholars: (atheist Bryan R. Wilson, protestant Dr. Kliever and Jenkins), Catholic officials (John Paul II, Benedict XVI, JPI, bishops, etc.) ,St. Josemaria himself (JE=OD according to Samuel Howard and other scholars), and other Catholic leaders, and non-Catholic leaders (I intend to collect these as well in a separate sub-page).

According to the editors, the view of these experts and their credibility and expertise has an overwhelming and lopsided advantage over the other positions in terms of their view on Opus Dei, and thus most of their views are quoted or reported, giving what some people said is a "Catholic" tone to the article, or a “Pope’s point of view,” even if some of the sources are atheists or Protestants.

Should the editors change their opinion on who has the expertise? Are there other experts on these subject who should be given the majority position? That's basically the question of my friend, Davidson. And we still do not have a clear answer.

I need your help to resolve this basic issue. Of course, we can also assume that "silence means consent." But I'd prefer a clearer "outside" opinion on this.

Needless to say, I see the great need to address the other important issues brought up here to improve the article. Thanks again for your help. Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object: notes are woeful. - 203.134.166.99 03:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Houston, Texas

I have had nothing to do with the writing of this article at all. I was simply thumbing through Wikipedia and discovered this nicely written article, which looks to me to be very close to FA status. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. References are totally inadequate. And unless the original writers are still around and have references handy, it will be a big job to source an article this size. Mark¹ 02:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Where should I get sources? I am one of the original writers. However, I may not have access after Rita. WhisperToMe 03:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • What sources did you use when writing? Mark¹ 03:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, this article may or may not dramatically change following Rita. Phoenix2 02:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'd advise waiting a week or two to see if the city is substantially affected by the storm. If it is, then this article will undergo a lot of revisions so it would make sense to only vote on it after that. Everyking 04:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object – 1) History section should be continous, 2) No references 3) Page size too large. Summarise 4) ToC granulated. User:Nichalp/sg 05:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The images Image:Houston.jpg, Image:Uptown Houston Skyline.jpg have no source or copyright information, and may vanish at any time.
  2. The image Image:Downtown Houston 2.jpg has no source information, and may vanish at any time.
  3. The image Image:Tropical Storm Allison.jpg has no source or copyright information, and is listed on WP:PUI.
  4. The images Image:Houston Panoramic.jpg, Image:Tranquility Park Houston.jpg, Image:HOU095.JPG, Image:HOU032.JPG, Image:Hobby Center.jpg, Image:Space Center Houston.jpg, Image:Bayou Place Houston.JPG, Image:Astroworld.jpg, Image:UH100.jpg, Image:Rice University.jpg, Image:HOU002.jpg, Image:HOU069.JPG, Image:Minute Maid Park.JPG have no source information, and are listed on WP:PUI.
  5. The images Image:Houston Industries Plaza.jpg, Image:WilliamsTower.jpg, Image:Houston City Hall.jpg are claimed as "fair use", but have no source information, making a "fair use" claim impossible to evaluate.
  6. The image Image:Texas state seal.png in the "State of Texas" navbox is tagged as {{coatofarms}}. This does not specify a copyright status.
  7. The image Image:CitySeal.PNG is tagged as fair use. Is there a more precise tag that can be used, that specifies why "fair use" is justified? If not, a fair-use rationale needs to be provided.

  --Carnildo 06:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object, at the moment. The article is currently unstable due to Hurricane Rita (and let's hope it doesn't strike Houston directly as a Category 4 or 5 storm). The lack of references could easily be rectified with a visit to the local library (or Google Print). The fact that an article of this size (52 kB -- should be reduced to less than 40 kB) has not gone through peer review is, to me, a red flag unless someone is willing to spend a lot of time cleaning up the article and addressing other people's concerns while it is on FAC. Though I have spent time cleaning up the article's layout, I am not knowledgeable enough of Houston to vouch for the information in the article. Pentawing 21:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture studies

Although I added a picture, cleaned the formatting and added some external links, this is not a self nomination. Very good article with extensive references. For some reason it was in some cleanup category from September 2004! Diamonds in the rough, eh? TreveX^talk 00:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I find the fair use claims on Image:Superman14.jpg and Image:HorrorFiction.jpg to be quite dubious, as neither is directly discussed in the article. --Carnildo 05:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree completely:

Umberto Eco's studies on Superman and James Bond (1988:211-256, 315-362) as myths of a static good-and-evil world view, should be mentioned as very early and lucid examples of a combination of semiotic and political analysis.

"Bad taste" products such as pornography and horror fiction, says for instance Andrew Ross (1989:231), draw their popular appeal precisely from their expressions of disrespect for the imposed lessons of educated taste. They are expressions of social resentment on the part of groups which have been subordinated and excluded by todays "civilized society".

Although these are not discussed at great length in the article, they are still important elements in and of themselves. As well as relating to particular discussions on "bad taste products" and constructed world-views, the pictures serve to illustrate that even components of "low culture" such as comic books and horror fiction are worthy of scholarly attention and discussion under the rubric of popular culture studies. This is a relatively recent development (Mukerji & Schudson 1991). I will adjust the fair use rationales to further emphasise this point. TreveX^talk 13:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "Superman" and "horror fiction" are referred to briefly in the article. However, "Superman comic number 14" and "A Dark Night's Dreaming: Contemporary American Horror Fiction" are not directly discussed in the article. This second part is what's needed to meet the fair use requirement of "use for criticism, comment, or scholarship". --Carnildo 20:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I find it strange that the article doesn't mention the words 'game', 'fantasy' or 'science fiction', 'sport', 'fan', 'fandom' or 'anime', which makes me doubt the article is comprehensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is not about popular culture, it is about the theory of popular culture. The absence of these words does not suggest any holes in this article's coverage. An article on literary theory might discuss the major movements in such theory: phenomenology, hermeneutics, reception theory, structuralism, semiotics, post-structuralism etc. Likewise, this article is an overview of the discourse of popular culture studies.

To dismiss this article as uncomprehensive because it misses out these 'keywords' is rather like dismissing a literary theory article because it fails to mention Charles Dickens, or, for that matter, fantasy fiction. The point is that these articles discuss theory which can be applied to a broad range of output within those artistic/cultural fields. They may not mention each genre exhaustively but this does not mean that the theories discussed cannot be validly applied in different contexts than those mentioned in the articles.

The words 'anime' and 'fandom' are never mentioned once in the 512-page tome Rethinking Popular Culture: Contemporary Perspectives in Cultural Studies, which would appear to be a pretty standard work on the subject.

'Science fiction' is mentioned twice (pgs 6, 238), once in the context of new theoretical approaches to the study of culture no longer excluding topics such as romance novels, science fiction, TV soap operas etc, and once in relation to the production and distribution of cultural items, specifically that coverage in book review columns is more important to the success of literary novels than to detective or science fiction. This article deals with the former using other examples and the latter (appearing in an essay entitled Processing fads and fashions) is probably out of the scope of an encyclopedia article. Sport is covered in an essay entitled Sport and social class. It is not, however, mentioned anywhere else in the book, including the instroduction, which would suggest that a discussion of sport is not an essential prerequisite for a discussion of popular culture studies.

Anyway, Google Print has stopped working for some reason but I think you get my point. TreveX^talk 09:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, I feel better about this article seeing that you seem to know a few things about the subject. I am withdrawing my objection, but I am not supporting. Yes, the article is probably fairly comprehensive and similar or better to Britannica/Encarta standard - but I think we can do better then that. Wiki is not paper and we should be able to give a comprehensive review even of the 'fringe' aspects of the popular culture. Google Scholar search on "popular culture studies"+1)"anime"=8 2) game=67 3) fandom=18 4) fantasy=71 5) science-fiction=36 6) sport=36 7) fan= 61. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terri Schiavo

• The page is protected due to constant reverts. Please someone close this nomination down. Marskell 09:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• The page is nominated based in its own merit, not that of troublemaker-editors. Please close the troublemakers down. We will not let them win on my watch.--GordonWatts 21:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Standard heading such as self-nom": Self-nomination per permission from Mark:

UPDATE: I reduced the size from 84Kb to 80 KB 79KB 46 KB in one small set of edits. We're making progress, and it would be sin to stop here.--GordonWatts 13:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

He made the promise that it would be OK to renominate after a few weeks: discussed here and referenced, but here, Worldtraveller says in edit comments to "see FAC instructions - move old nomination to an archive, make fresh nomination; please don't re-insert old nomination discussion."

I took WT up on his offer, and, since I don't edit much in Terri Schiavo any more, I am more objective, and the edit war has disappeared, removing the last of the problems.

Renominate.

Remember, this vote is about the article, not controversial "I'm right a lot" Gordon:

Either vote for Terri or against her, but in the end, let's not have any hard feelings, OK?

--GordonWatts 12:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Bad faith nomination. Few, if any, of the objections from the last nomination have been amended, least of all the ones concerning article size. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments: My renom is not in bad faith; I'm not trying to "get revenge" on anybody, and my nomination, whether successful or not, will not harm anybody, so it is not in bad faith. If you carefully look at the links I provided, you will see that many, many objections were addressed. Maybe not all of them were addressed to your satisfaction, but we all tried our best.--GordonWatts 14:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It's still hopelessly crufty and preoccupied with insignificant details relevant only to the truly obsessed. And what's up with section titles like "Notable court cases in the Terri Schiavo saga"? Definetly not serious material. And what's up with section titles like "Notable court cases in the Terri Schiavo saga"? Definetly not serious material. The article isn't stable either. Considering how hotly disputed the topic is, I'd like to see some relative peace and quiet for at least a few months and I can really recommend to those who are the most active with the article to try editing articles on completely different subjects for a change. Obsessing this much about one very narrow subject is hardly going to lessen the amount of disputes. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I went to special trouble today here to both fix the ref section AGAIN! and also avoid all "vanity" links -even to the point of not citing sources, and explain here why I am so stressed out (for reasons unrelated to Wikipedia). Yes, Peter, I want a totally stable article, but, like "consensus," this is an ideal -that is NEVER achieved in heaven. (Are we in heaven? No.) I moved the legal section to a sub-article to reduce the main article size, so I do not understand your objection here. "And what's up with section titles like "Notable court cases in the Terri Schiavo saga"? Definetly not serious material." Yes, of course the legal sage is important. Why should it not be? Also, if you don't like my title, then change it; I am not married to this title, and you are able to fix this "minor" problem, so I don't see why you don't. "Obsessing this much about one very narrow subject..." I'm not 'obsessing," but merely spending the proper time to fix all the important details -which is a "good" thing.--GordonWatts 20:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Object. Agree with above comments. In addition, why is this article being brought back for a vote so soon? Yes, the article was somewhat stable for the last week, but as has been stated before (endlessly stated), the article should be allowed to sit a month or two to show everyone how stable it is. The last four edits on the article are all rvs--this would indicate it is still not stable.--Alabamaboy 13:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "In addition, why is this article being brought back for a vote so soon? " I'm taking a Wikibreak, and will not be around for a while. I wanted to do something positive to get the ball rolling before I went on break. Your objections are well meant and thoughtful, as I recall in the past, and have some merit, but I disagree, AlabamaBoy, on the emphasis you have assigned to waiting.--GordonWatts 14:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. for the same reasons as before. GordonWatts, we do not vote "for Terri or against her", we are talking about an article. Rama 13:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your thoughts, Rama; I assume good faith on your part.--GordonWatts 14:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object – 1) its *not* stable. Look at the history of reverts between Sep 13 and 20. 2) 87 kb. I told you to reduce the page size. User:Nichalp/sg 13:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Likewise, thank you, Nichalp. Whether I was right or wrong, I addressed that above.--GordonWatts 14:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object for all the reasons above and more. The page size seems excessive (I thought we'd pared it down already!) and one caption does not follow the standards of Wikipedia:Captions. Johnleemk | Talk 14:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support. If you read all the links provided, you will see that Mark really did say it would be OK to renominate in a couple of weeks -and we see the page has experienced actual improvement in many areas; if you don't focus in on a few areas in need of improvement, then you can see the many strong areas of the article, which we had fixed.--GordonWatts 14:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'd like to see the article made more concise and the readibility improved. The introduction should be much stronger and more of a summary (too many details in the intro right now). I also agree with other comments that the article should be more stable before being nominated. Carbonite | Talk 14:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thx 4 your feedback, C; We had a slightly better intro, which is still preserved in the Chinese and Spanish wiki articles on Schiavo, but it was tossed out a while back after my 4-3 vote was forgotten or overridden on that matter. Since, as I've said, I'm taking a wiki break (too much time online! -not from any hard feelings or anything), I am editing there much less; We have a new crew of replacement editors (Marskell and admin Taxman). FuelWagon, Ann, and Patsw are all regular editors, very familiar with the ins and outs and still edit there regularily. If you'd like to help out, you are more than welcome. I've done the best I can with it as far as I can see. Thanks again for the feedback, even if it is not quite what I wanted.--GordonWatts 14:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object To be clear, this is a too-hasty nomination but it is not bad faith. I have discussed with Gordon extensively and edited myself—this is earnest and good faith, he is just pushing it forward too soon. Stability is almost there but length has still not been addressed. I agree completely with comment on intro. In fact, I think the second and third paragraph should be reduced to a single sentence. There are other parts which could similarly be made more readable. Marskell 15:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As above objectors. Why was this renominated with outstanding objections clearly unaddressed? In this light, nominator appears to lack understanding of requirements to be made a featured article. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Christopher, you raise good points. See the below in comments.--GordonWatts 21:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The article is the same length as it has always been. Thus, how you can claim that the objection that the article is too long has been addressed is beyond me. When the page is smaller, perhaps around 40-50 KB, renominate; until then, people will continue to object. If you keep renominating without fixing these problems, which have repeatedly been pointed out to you, you're just wasting your time. BTW, if you wish to reference the previous nominations it might be useful to link to them. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • "article is the same length ...how you can claim that the objection that the article is too long has been addressed is beyond me." I thought that when Mark scratched out the length objection and when I agreed, that this was sufficient proof, but apparently consensus disagrees, so I will try to address it; "BTW, if you wish to reference the previous nominations it might be useful to link to them." If you click on the links in that little paragraph below (the one I created especially for your concerns), it will lead you to links from both of the archives; I promise you. The sentence begins: "Comments: User:Christopherparham raises some good points..." Also, it has other links, and is best read chronologically, clicking on each link as you read.--GordonWatts 12:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral while I helped Gordon with the image issues, I am not sure if they meet the Fair use rules that Carnildo has and I believe that three nominations in three weeks is a bit too many. Zach (Sound Off) 20:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • They do: See below, Zach.--GordonWatts 21:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments: User:Christopherparham raises some good points. Since it is the primary responsibility of the nominator to try and address them, here goes.

Here, an Aug. 26, 2005 nomination for Terri Schiavo, a stable article, was narrowly defeated by what looks to be a 6-11 or 7-10 margin, and it had problems, but Mark, the FA-editor says here that we fixed most of them, and suggest renominating in a few weeks. However, here, when it was renominated on Sept. 05, 2005, a few weeks later, after all his concerns were addressed, and then re-nominated, as Mark had suggested, it was rejected by Mark, who has the authority to make decisions: He went with concensus, instead of the policy, which (as others have repeatedly explained to me) states that he has the absolute power to promote if the actionable objections are addressed.

Since I addressed ALL of Mark's concerns (see below), this nom was a shoe in -a given -a certain to pass nomination.

However, since then, the edit war on that page (the only problem outstanding on my list) has calmed down, making it reeligible. Since he's a good editor, admin, bureaucrat, and have made many contributions, I expect he'll keep his word here -after an uncertain delay as his discretion.

However, was "my list" really the "correct list?"

Let's take a closer look at this diff. The speaker is Mark, aka Raul654, the FA editor, and, while he may not address *every* concern on your list, he was very representative of the groups views, and took me to town on many problems:

Mark says, in relevant part: "Object strongly. Here's the short list of what's wrong with the article: TOCright breaks the manual of style, the TOC (with its 37 sections) is quite overwhelming, the article has no introduction, it has no references section to complement the inline linking, it has a see also section (which should be converted to prose, inserted into the article, and the section deleted), every image used in the article is fair use, and it's 80 kilobytes long and should be shortened and/or broken into subarticles. →Raul654 04:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)"

and

"OK, I've gone ahead and fixed most of the problems. However, the article still needs references (specifically, it has plenty of html commented references; people need to uncomment them into some acceptable inline style, and compile them into a references section) and add copyleft images. →Raul654 02:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)"

In plain English, that means that the only problems at his last pass then were "references' (which I built from scratch) and images (which I fixed in large part but not completely -by personally driving to Terri Schiavo's grave and taking pictures and GNU releasing them under GFDL).

Now, Mark thinks the article size is not too long, and I agree. Also, there are a few Fair Use pics in the article, but does this create a problem? Well, recently the September 10 Featured Article about Scientology had a picture here which is definitely Fair Use. (So, we see that a few Fair Use photos are acceptable if that's the best you can do -and it is.)

So, the only lingering problem was the recent, brief edit war. It is long over, the page has calmed way down, and so much so that I have "retired" and am now on a "wiki-break," and feel like an old man, being worked to death.

While I think all your concerns were addresses (assuming Mark correctly represented you and did a good job as FA-editor), then the page is ready for FA-status, but that raises another question: Why did I have to show you all this, when it is clearly in the archives of the 1st and 2nd failed nomination??

Thx!--GordonWatts 21:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"was narrowly defeated by what looks to be a 6-11 or 7-10 margin" - You don't seem to get it - if it had a hundred support votes, all it takes is one ectionable objection which is not properly addressed, and the FAC will fail.

"Since I addressed ALL of Mark's concerns (see below), this nom was a shoe in -a given -a certain to pass nomination." - Raul does not make unilateral decisions for or against promotion, he makes the decision based on the discussion for the FAC. Even if you fixed everything he points out, if editor A makes an actionable objection that Raul feels is not properly acted on, then the FAC will fail.

"Now, Mark thinks the article size is not too long, and I agree." - First, everybody thinks the article is too long. That you agree, yet still brought it to FAC, only betrays either your continued ignorance of the Criteria (and of wikipedia policies and community norms), or exposes what in essence is a bad faith nomination.

By the way, Object per all above. Though the nominator has good intentions, this article will not be ready until there is a complete overhaul by the nominator in line with the repeated objections raised throughout the past three FACs, or a different group of editors begin editing the article in line with the Criteria. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Jeffrey, as I mention below, another editor is actively working on getting the article length reduced and clutter removed; I may help out, but I've over-worked myself; I thought the length was not an issue, and that's why I renominated, but I will see what I can do to fix this.
• Object: this article is entirely over-detailed, not just in the verbatim extracts from the various court cases but also in the inclusion of such details as the name of the church where the Schiavo's married (ask yourself, is this really encyclopaedic?). In fact, it reads more like a chapter from a book on contentious medical cases rather than an encyclopaedia entry. I also note that the Fair Use tag for the lead image contains the phrase "use of this photo is not reccommended (sic) for articles", so why is it in this one? Indeed, why is it here at all if it should not be used in articles?. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Filiocht, We are working to reduce the length. Marskell, one of the newer editors is making good progress. I would help out mre, but I have over-worked myself in the past, and need time to rest a little, but I will help out if/when I can to get the article smaller -if I can find things that take up extra space -and delete (or shorten) them. You are welcome to help out, but it may be eye strain, lol.--GordonWatts 12:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Nominated 26th August, 5th September and now on the 21st September. Not excatly what I understand as a 'few weeks'... While I do realise there is no fixed time between a failed FAC and a renom, there was virtually no time between the first two, and jusat ten days between the second and this one. Wouldn't it be better to wait until people relax and also give the article time to _prove_ that it is indeed stable? WegianWarrior 09:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • WegianWarrior, see my answer to AlabamaBoy: I am going on (am on) wiki-break to address "real life" responsibilities, and want to get the process going before I leave. We are working on the length issue too.--GordonWatts 12:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • In that case, would it not make more sence to finish working on the lenght issue, take your wiki-break (we all need those from time to time) and then nominated it? That would also give the article time to prove stable? Anyhow, it is your choice to push it so soon after the last failed nomination, but I still don't think it was the best idea. Enjoy your wikibreak =) WegianWarrior 09:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Too long and too much frivolous detail. This objection was brought up so many times before that saying previous objections have been dealt with is specious. The article also fails to give an overview of the importance of the case and what effects or impact it had on anything. The details of the case and day by day events need to be shrunk to less than half of what the article currently has and only detail important enough to be kept at all should be moved off to subarticles. Since that is directly in the criteria, and it has been pointed out so many times, ignoring that does border on bad faith. How long do we need to have this sit here before we remove it? Gordon, if the most important objections are not adressed, the article does not meet the criteria and will not be promoted. Please lets remove this nomination and not have more fuss over it. - Taxman ^Talk 12:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• It's still borderline too long, but the bigger issue is the lack of balance in the article. It fails to cover the various topics in relation to their importance, which is key for an article in proper summary style as the criteria call for. It still lacks overview and impact discussion. For ex I don't think anywhere it mentions the attention the case brought to living wills/medical powers of attorney, except the link to your article which is innapropriate by the way. The only link of yours that is proper is one that covers important legal information covered nowhere else. I'll let other editors decide if that article is important enough, but the others have to go. Sorry, but as we told you, properly summarizing this article will take some time. - Taxman ^Talk 23:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I get the picture: "Consensus" thinks this Terri is too long, and, as I speak, I am reviewing what can be cut out of the article. However, I did not nominate in bad faith. See Marskell's comment on that order; Further, Mark, the FA-editor (who will no doubt take heat for his statements) did indeed edit here that he was scratching out this statement: "it's 80 kilobytes long and should be shortened and/or broken into subarticles," meaninig it was OK by him, and then, he went on to say here "so if/when this nom fails, it might be a good idea to renominate it again in a couple weeks." That supports my claim that the article was not perceived to be too long, and that I acted in good faith; Nonetheless, Marskell and I are working on reducing the length to address your objection.
  • That being said, thank you for your work on the article; if you have time (and I know you are busy), your continued help wouold be appreciated.--GordonWatts 12:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • So now you see the picture? Why not the 23 other times people told you it was too long and therefore didn't meet the criteria? Even if he did scratch that out (and that is weak evidence that he doesn't think it is too long anymore), 2 or so editors thinking it is not too long and 20 thinking it is outweighs that. More than that, even one reasonable, actionable objection can keep an article from being featured. There must be consensus that the article meets the criteria, and not some percentage of rough consensus--full consensus is typically needed. So leaning on this one thing that Mark said is very weak. Also, when he said a few weeks, that is not a blanket endorsement to apply if the major objections to the article have not been fixed. Summarizing an article is not easy and it is not really possible for it to meet the stability criteria for a while after that. That's why so many people kept telling you not to renominate the article until it had been summarized and then still wait a bit. All these things added up mean that if the nomination wasn't in bad faith, you were unreasonably leaning on very weak reasons to renominate and being rude to the multiple editors that had valid objections that were ignored. So this nomination should be removed. - Taxman ^Talk 13:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • On the whole, I agree in principle with you Taxman, but given recent history on RfA, I'd suggest that this nomination should be allowed to run its course. Who knows, it may even produce a salutary lesson in how consensus emerges on Wikipedia. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: I just noticed a lot of "hidden comments" that make the article look larger than it really is: <!--(Page 4 of 10 of Judge Greer's Order, 2nd Paragraph)--> -- a LOT of them -this might make the article look 5-10% larger than it reallt appears to the reader, the main point of importance. (We assume that it will load fast, even with extra HTML hidden comments.)--GordonWatts 13:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC) UPDATE: I reduced the size from 84Kb to 80 KB 79KB 46 KB in one small set of edits. We're making progress, and it would be sin to stop here.--GordonWatts 13:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• While I applaud such efforts, I remain skeptical on the practicability of paring down the article in time for this nomination to succeed (although I do not endorse scrapping this nomination, as per Filiocht's comment). I recall around the last time, we made excellent progress, reaching about 50 or 60kb before people began accusing us of destroying the article and the consensus it reached. I feel this article is in a bit of a quandary. You see, it has to meet two (in this case) opposing criteria: ample length, and sufficient stability/consensus on the article's current state. However, the only way to satisfy the whims of every editor involved is to bloat the article beyond a reasonable size. To reduce it would lead to condemnation because detail X is not included, as occurred in the last nomination. (This conundrum reminds me of the messy Ashlee Simpson business, where one or two ardent Ashlee fans destabilised the article after it was pared due to comments on FAC, leading to not one but two major arbitration cases. Hopefully this article doesn't go so far.) Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see both conditions fulfilled, but alas, it seems the only way to pare down the article will be to ruffle the feathers of a sufficient number to block this FAC. Johnleemk | Talk 14:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the good analysis: Excellent point here, John: I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't: Notice that I've reduced it from 84 to 80 and then to 79 Kilobyters today (and now to 46 Kb), which addresses concern "A" -the length, but in a traditional catch 22, I might be accused of "destabilizing" the article, thus missing concern "B" --the stability issue. OK, I'm still making progress. Everybody can go take a lunck break now and relax.--GordonWatts 14:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• You're not in a catch-22, you were well informed of the fact that the article needed to be summarized and that it would take a while to reach stability and high quality after that. That's why you were told so many times to wait longer before nominating again. As it is the article suffers from some pretty severe issues. - Taxman ^Talk 23:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • I wouldn't say that the length was really addressed. When a 500 lb person loses 50 lbs, they're still not considered to be fit. Yes, reducing the size of the article is an improvement, but there's still plenty more cutting that needs to be done. There's too much in the article right now, especially since there are multiple sub-articles to deal with many of the details. Carbonite | Talk 14:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Frankly, it makes me sad to be harsh while GordonWatts obviously works a great deal to improve the article, but I think it is important to understand that by saying "reduce the size", we do not mean "cut a few things here and there". For me, and apparently for some other contributors here, the point is that the article should be a summary of the whole affair, a condensed text. What we see here is just a collection of random facts taken here and there, without any global understanding of the whole topic. It is the very nature of the articele which is at odds with the status of featured article, and a complete re-work of it is, I fear, necessary before it achieves a featurable status. Rama 15:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Interim Update
      • OK, thank you for the kind words, Rama. Now, I did even more copyedit, and read the entire article, word-for-word (except the "reference section, which I wrote from scratch) --I conclude that every bit of "extra stuff" has been removed, and the article appears to be now 46KB (was 84 KB), and the only way to further reduce article size would be to remove stuff to sub-article.
      • Any suggestions?
      • Also, when looking through the article, I will again make an honest disclaimer: I think that several links (compilations, reference, advocacy, articles) go back to papers I once managed: Three of them are extras which can easily be replaced, if someone feels that I added links that were not of good quality (vanity links) -one is a reference to a court action, and it is one where no other news media showed up -it is (I think) irreplaceable -unless someone can find news coverage elsewhere of that item. I would not touch those sections, as they seem to have been accepted over the months by the other regular editors, but I am telling you to be honest.
      • That being said, if anyone has any ideas on moving stuff to sub-articles, I will be glad to hear it. (I personally would jam the article to FA status to set a new standard for article length: 79 or 80 KB is OK -but that's just my feeling here, that this would be OK. All the same, the article length is now 46 Kb; Everybody happy?) I may look again at the sub-article thing, but now, I'm going to take a break. Remember: I'm on a wiki-break and didn't expect to go into 3rd overtime.--GordonWatts 15:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment The move to split everything in to sub-articles was a touch unilateral. I certainly cannot change my vote as stability becomes an issue—other editors may not like it and while I knocked 5+ off myself this really required some talk discussion. Two things, since you are not responding on talk there Gordon:

• Cutting an article in half is NOT a minor edit. I guess some people get in the habit of hitting minor for everything but you should avoid it.
• 33 edits is impossible for others to wade through. Featured article requests are indeed a way to promote rapid improvement but having at it willy-nilly for three hours and then asking "everyone happy?" is just not the way to go. Marskell 18:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Answer Yes, it was unilateral, but I did not make any "substantive" changes, except to shorten things by replacing "words" with numbers (eg blah blah for 2 years...) and use of abbreviations (eg blah blah said Terri couldn't do this blah blah). Therefore, the "split" did not affect the stability. "Cutting an article in half is NOT a minor edit." Yes, it was, since the substance stayed the same. "33 edits is impossible for others to wade through. Featured article requests are indeed a way to promote rapid improvement but having at it willy-nilly for three hours and then asking "everyone happy?" is just not the way to go." No; 33 edits = 15 minutes (or less) if you have a fast connection. Page through the history. OK, I answered all your questions, and I made constructive improvements, so the "5 edit/day" aggreement can be waived under that exception. Your move. PS: Thanks for your assistance.--GordonWatts 18:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No no no. You've taken an established article and moved 40% of it to a side. This is not minor. It simply isn't. It shouldn't have even been done without discussion on talk, especially given how touchy this article is.

And 33 edits = 15 minutes indicates a lack of forethought more than a fast connection. The whole point of our agreement was to think about every change made. To put this in perspective, I was editing while you were: I read the full article and made two dozen minors in one edit—much easier for the next person coming along. Of course the edit conflict killed the changes. Marskell 18:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"and moved 40% of it to a side" 43.0378% to be (almost) exact (34/79=43%+change). "This is not minor." It is if the substance is not changed. It was not. It shouldn't have even been done without discussion on talk" It was discussed in talk: This talk, not the Talk:Terri Schiavo, which has been dormant and vacant for a little bit; The "Talk" said to reduce size, presumably by a split. This was the only way to do it without removing stuff and starting World War III. "especially given how touchy this article is" -or because the article is touchy, I acted to preserve the work done in the past. "think about every change made." I did. I think fast. If you don't believe me, then try and find even one error in my last several day's edits. OK? "two dozen minors in one edit—much easier for the next person coming along" I did one section at a time, to keep from overloading my brain. "Of course the edit conflict killed the changes" oh, and to preserve my changes, save your work; Even though they looked lost, you can hit "back" and get your work, copy it into Microsoft Word, save it, and introduce it later --or save it to Word (and spell-check it like I do) before you hit "save page."

PS: The job got done; I am sorry if you lost some work; please save your work next time. Did I do OK, all the same?--GordonWatts 18:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The massive reduction in article size was certainly needed and may prove to be very beneficial long-term. However, so many changes were made that this article can not possibly become an FA on this nomination. Other editors are undoubtedly going to spend time re-adding text that was moved out. In short, this article is currently as unstable as an article can be.

Unless there are objections, I suggest closing this nomination and letting the article stabilize over the next month or two. Discussion on how to improve the article should move to the talk page. I believe this will give the article its best chance at becoming a Featured Article. Carbonite | Talk 18:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"Other editors are undoubtedly going to spend time re-adding text that was moved out" No text was lost. I merely moved it, and, in its place, added a small section summarizing the court cases. To add text would duplicate unnecessarily. Since no sustentative change was made, the article is stable, but I'd prefer someone review my work. "Discussion on how to improve the article should move to the talk page." We are quite happy, thus no major improvements are needed, which leads me to my last point: Unless there are objections, I suggest closing this nomination and letting the article stabilize over the next month or two." I object: I think the article is stable, except for one minor thing: Uncertainty on the reliability of the work Marskell and I did in reducing it; If others can review our work, that would offer confidence in the accuracy, hence stability. "I believe this [your suggestion to wait] will give the article its best chance at becoming a Featured Article." I disagree with your premise, because the underlying theory on which it was based (e.g., that things needed to be added to the article) was flawed, but thank you for the kind words. So, would someone please step up to the plate and do their part, namely a review of our work? (If we did not err, then the stability was not affected.)--GordonWatts 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Whether you or I think anything needs to be added to the article is basically irrelevant. Whenever an article goes through such a major change, it remains unstable for a period of time. Unstable articles are not suitable for being promoted to Featured Article.

There's really two ways to proceed on this:

1. Continue to argue that the article should be promoted on this nomination. With the unstability of the article and amount of opposition, this just isn't going to happen. However, continuing to press the issue does have the potential to generate enough ill will that the article's future chances are harmed. This needs to be avoided.
2. Let the nomination close and move discussion to the article talk page. Let other editors improve the article for a reasonable length of time (a month or two sounds about right). When the article is stable (no major changes for a while), find someone uninvolved with editing the article will nominate as a FAC. The objections at this point should be much easier to address.

Carbonite | Talk 19:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I may not agree with consensus, but I will accept it, in this case too. Now, I would like to point out that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Terri_Schiavo

is not updated to the most current version of this page -that is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo

So, not all may have heard that the article split; and, some may agree with my assertion of stability, and change consensus. I am willing to let the nomination proceed as is, and accept the results of a few more days' discussion, with the hopes that our consensus can be actioned by Mark, in whatever way he deems appropriate. You don't mind letting this new development get reviewed do you, Carbonite? Your suggestions are for me to wait, and you seem thoughtful and reasonable, but I ask you to wait a few days before the hastily passed action one way or another. Is that cool?--GordonWatts 19:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove the nomination, nor will I demand that anyone else do so. My comments were advice and you're quite free to ignore it if you wish. However I would suggest that you remember what you hopefully learned from your RfA: Pushing the issue often ends up working against you. I'll leave you with a pertinent quote "The chief cause of failure and unhappiness is trading what you want most for what you want now." Carbonite | Talk 19:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed; this was essentially my concern.

[Note: Marskell was agreeing with Carbonie here, apparently, but I posted between their 2 posts.--GordonWatts 19:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)]

Gordon, by "killed the changes" I meant they had become redundant. I do of course do a copy before saving. As for whether it's a minor, you are wrong. Wikipedia:Minor edit: "A major edit is basically something that makes the entry worth relooking at for somebody who wants to watch the article rather closely." Splitting 43% of it absolutely qualifies. It made me want to re-look at it and I can't imagine that wouldn't be true of anyone else who watches it. Put another way, you want people to change their votes based on the changes—how could they be minor? In any case, we have to wait and see if other involved editors approve of the split. And Carbonite is right—move it back to talk there. Marskell 19:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Simply look at the last version before I touched it, page through the history diffs, and if no error exists, then pass it. PS: Please note the "sub-article" is the exact information that was in the main article, except I had to make sure full names were used when introducing characters. In other words, the split was claen. "It made me want to re-look" Good; That's what I am requesting: A review of our work.--GordonWatts 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The article looks vastly better with the edits and the spinning off of the sections into their own article. The lead is also much improved. I think this article is on the right track. That said, I think the editing cut out something important. The article seems to be missing a section on the falling out between Michael and her parents. This missing section, which would come after the section titled "Rehabilitation efforts and the malpractice suit," is needed. I can't believe I'm saying to add to the article, but it needs this section to be complete. Otherwise, this is now a very good article. The key, though, will be to see if the article remains stable for a time (I believe, though, that using the subarticles will help the stability issue). If it can remain stable for a week, I will vote to support it.--Alabamaboy 20:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • While I haven't had time to look at the article in detail, I think Alabamaboy's assessment is correct - while I'm not sure if it's FA material, it's definitely on the right track now (assuming it stays this way). →Raul654 20:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "That said, I think the editing cut out something important. The article seems to be missing a section on the falling out between Michael and her parents. This missing section, which would come after the section titled "Rehabilitation efforts and the malpractice suit," is needed." You gave me a scare, AlabamaBoy: I thought I needed to add something back in; however, upon closer inspection, all is well: For example, look right after Terri_Schiavo#Rehabilitation_efforts_and_the_malpractice_suit, and you'll see: Terri_Schiavo#Notable_court_cases_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_saga. Then, click on that link, which would be: Selected_court_cases_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case, and read the very first sentence: "On February 14, 1993, Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, and the Schindlers had a falling-out..." That having been said, I think I will add a sentence or two in the main article referencing that. (I may also review the recent deletions others have made and see if anything was indeed deleted that is of import.)--GordonWatts 12:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto Raul. Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • FYI, I fixed that paragraph in the main article, in response to AlabamaBoy's concern: went from 45-to-46Kb, but I'm not sweating at this point.--GordonWatts 13:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Notice: Under the text move guidelines (a proposed policy), I am moving text from the Terri Schiavo article to the two related talk pages (this one and the "regular" talk page. Here is the text removed from that page: [20]

• The Register's compilation The Register's mirror link

• Watts, Gordon W. "Living Wills: Unexpected Weaknesses." The Register, 11 April 2005. ^{[21] [22]}

• The Register mirror link

Edit summary:

Current revision GordonWatts (Talk | contribs) Removing links that would give the appearance of impropriety and biased conflict of interest related to vanity links

PS: I give credit to Taxman for reminding me of my responsibilities here: "The only link of yours that is proper is one that covers important legal information covered nowhere else. I'll let other editors decide if that article is important enough, but the others have to go...- Taxman ^Talk 23:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)"

--GordonWatts 00:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

• Object, article clearly not stable: Of the last ten edits at the time of voting, five is described in the edit summary as a revert. I'm begining to wonder if this article will ever be stable enought to be an FA. WegianWarrior 09:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment': my object above still stands but more so given the reversions that are going on. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The article talk page is terrorized by FuelWagon who has upset the progress I made; Please do not blame me or punish me for it; I have worked tirelessly to improve the article, and he has messed up the references section and made many edits against Wikipedia:Cite_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, when he removed references, which were approved here regarding adding of controversial links that were needed to cite sources -and also continues to argue about article length here in this page's talk -even when all consensus says he is wrong. REASON: The reason the page is unstable is due to ONE SINGLE editor, FuelWagon, and the reason he is allowed to violate consensus is because ALL YOU simply do nothing to stop him, and you do not file a RfC or participate in talk. Mark and others think that progress is being made, but if we fail, it will be because YOU did nothing; I have done all I can: I am an editor -not a "miracle worker."--GordonWatts 01:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You are thinking about this in entirely the wrong terms. You are not being blamed or punished. The article simply does not meet the FA criteria and will not until it is properly summarized (addresses the points in relation the their importance) and stable. That will not happen soon, even without the current dispute. No one said getting articles to featured status was easy, but currently the article is in a terrible state (in any of the recent versions) in regards to meeting the FA criteria. If you let this nomination be removed as it should have long ago (and likely would have been if not for your combative edit warring to put it back last time), then the article can proceed on to improve. FAC is not the place to resolve an editing dispute. - Taxman ^Talk 13:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree completely. Last week I suggested [23] that the best course of action would be to remove the nomination and let the article stabilize. Of course this suggestion was met with strong resistance from Gordon. This really is the best way to move forward since no progress has been or will be made on this particular nomination. Carbonite | Talk 13:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Mee too. Gordon, let it drop for a while to see if a real consensus can be found around what should be in the article. This must be the first time that an FAC entry threatened to rival the article for size. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Re.: Edit wars You may think that lack of edit wars prove stability, and that edit wars are bad. (To some extent, this is true.) However, consider this: Do we have any edit wars in articles like Underwater Basket Weaving (if there is such an article)? No! You know why? Nobody cares about this mundane, obscure stuff. In Terri Schiavo's case, the edit wars, while bad, are reflective of the high level of interest in the issue: A "good" thing.--GordonWatts 05:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • "This must be the first time that an FAC entry threatened to rival the article for size." Oh, we've worked that hard? That is a good omen and sign that we've made positive progress. Great!--GordonWatts 03:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
            • In reply to Filiocht & Carbonite's concerns: "But miracles still happen." [24]--GordonWatts 02:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC assistance requested re FuelWagon's disruption here, where he argues with →Raul654

Since we all are complaining about the article length (and some of us are complaining about FuelWagon's disruption here), I was wondering if some brave admin would either co-opt with me for a RfC re: FuelWagon --or take action to keep him from de-stabilising the Terri Schiavo page. I just barely get it fixed when he keeps messing up the references section, taking out approved references to cite our sources; As we discussed in talk, I removed all links that look like vanity links except those approved by the resident Admin, Taxman.

So, will someone assist me in combating this editorial vandalism here by the argumentive FuelWagon. (I do not mean this is disrespect; I too wanted the article length to stay the same, but I am man enough to comply with consensus here.) Thx.--GordonWatts 03:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, and I didn't approve any links darn it. Stop misrepresenting me. I said only a link covering important legal information should be allowed to stay, and that I would let others decided if it was important. It seems like people dispute the article contains anything truly important. - Taxman ^Talk 13:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Brief Clarification to Taxman: I never said you approved of any specific links. All the same, the one link of mine that I tried to tie down and keep was indeed the only reporting of the Terri's Law Oral Arg. hearing in Lakeland: I know: I was there. So, it is for this reason that I assert that this link qualifies as needed by your good descriptions.--GordonWatts 02:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "It seems like people dispute the article contains anything truly important." Yes, but we will beat the deletionists incorperated: Teamwork -and Faith.--GordonWatts 02:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object - lacks coherent timeline (10 year gap where everything happens), not stable, I fear that The Register will reappear as a source. Buried comments in the source are also troubling. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "lacks coherent timeline (10 year gap where everything happens" Comment: You can't have your cake and eat it too. (American Idiom: You can't have both things; Choose one or the other.) If you shorten the article, it will arbitrarily make a time-gap (which is covered in the sub-article). If, on the other hand, you choose to report *all* the facts, the article length will be about 80 Kb. "not stable" Some "edit warriors" are not stable, and need to be disciplined; The article is like a lake: Large fluctuations in wind temperature result in only small changes in water temperature: The lake (and, by extension, the article) is relatively stable. "I fear that The Register will reappear as a source." That is not my fault: I have removed ALL "Register" sources from the visible comments: If others chose to put them in, you will have to accept the consensus: "Consensus" does not always go our way, but if we are mature, we accept that: You must accept that too. "Buried comments in the source are also troubling." Huh? What comments? I removed ALL of them, and only put a few back in to notify others that I had removed the links to my paper, The Register. What would you like me to do? Lie about it? Be silent and not up-front? Put the sources in NON-hidden sections for the public viewing? Please clarify, Hipocrite - «Talk», or, otherwise, I will discount this particular criticism. Since it is my responsibility to answer critics, however, I hope that I have answered them all.--GordonWatts 00:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The article can be shortened without cutting relevent facts. It takes at least two to edit war, and one of those is you. The Register remains in hidden comments. It is a non-notable, non-reputable source. I'd like you to stop pushing your newspaper into the body of articles. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The Register remains in hidden comments.I think it should be treated like any other source, but I will agree to your compromise; BTW, thank you for not wanting to remove it altogether as some are: It should remain for future generations as we need to cite our sources. "I'd like you to stop pushing your newspaper into the body of articles." Done, according to your wishes. "It is a non-notable, non-reputable source." Hold on a sec: I asked you on the Terri board:Do you think I lied about the news report of that Oral Argument hearing? By the way, a reporter need not be notable -none of us reporters are usually notable, but we still produce reliable news coverage. In what way is my news coverage unreliable or false? Here are links to the news stories in question:
      • #{{note|OralArgNewsStory}} From Staff Reports. (Watts, Gordon W., Editor-in-Chief) "Lakeland Appeals Court holds Oral Arguments for Terri's Law," The Register, June 14, 2004 link mirror link
      • #{{note|QuoWarranto}} Ford, Cheryl, R.N. "News Coverage of Terri Schiavo's family's challenge to Mike Schiavo's guardianship," The Register, June 16, 2004 link mirror link
      • I await your answer to my question. Thank you for your time.--GordonWatts 22:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• There is an edit war that was ongoing, so it can't be a featured article till this is sorted out, however: I can see one or two sentence paragraphs in several sections. This doesn't look too good. I don't really think a footnote in the lead section is such a good idea: this material should be covered in the main section and readers should read on to find out more info. I feel that the structure is not clear - someone should look into making this a lot clearer. - 203.134.166.99 03:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Grace Note, is that you at this Australian IP address? Well, whomever you are, thank you for your input, but instead of talking about problems, why don't you try to help us with solutions (or, if you already are and have, THANK YOU for your assistance here).--GordonWatts 03:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • One solution: (1) Block anyone and everyone who's monkeying up & disrupting the article; (2) Fix it; (3) Feature it; (4) Relax and smile!--GordonWatts 03:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy in Love

Support Huge improvement from the article which I think deserves to be an FA. If there is anything for me to edit, let me know. Person22 18:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The original nomination page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crazy in Love/archive1. Extraordinary Machine 19:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Image:BeyonceGrammy.jpg has fair use rationale, but no source or copyright information. The prose is awkward in places (definitely needs a copyedit), and some of it seems fawning, e.g. "New Musical Express provided the single with the highest praise they could offer by voting it the best single release of the year" – well, for all we (the readers) know, the highest praise NME could offer would be to declare it as the best song in history. The "Chart performance" section needs cleaning up and trimming, and I don't think we need to have descriptions of Beyonce's costume changes during the music video in the "Music video" section. The "Live performances" section could do with a little condensing as well. Extraordinary Machine 19:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I can also tell you that the NME actually has several levels of hyperbole above that anyway, as a former long-suffering reader. There's also a good chance that the following week they declared it the worst song ever. Leithp (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Although the article is certainly on its way to becoming featured, I don't believe it has apexed just yet. My objection stands until the above comments made by User:Extraordinary Machine are corrected. —Hollow Wilerding 20:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  • The article contains many instances of non-encyclopedic/"fanzine"-type writing, along with awkward prose that could be cleaned up with a copyedit.
  • Most of the article's content is "Chart performance". Where's the information about the song itself — its lyrical content, meaning, songwriting process, impact, anything? Look at "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)" for examples of what I mean.
  • The "Music charts" section is a beast; it's a quarter of the article on its own, and half of the table's cells are question marks. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts for guidelines on redoing the chart.
  • The image Image:BeyoncePrice.jpg is tagged as a promotional photo, but is credited to WireImage, which provides photos under a non-free license. No source is given for Image:BeyonceGrammy.jpg, but it appears to be a news photo and probably also non-free.
  • The link to the sample points to a non-existent page. --keepsleeping say what 21:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The sample seems to have been deleted. Either the link from the article needs to be removed, or the sample needs to be re-uploaded and tagged as "yes, this really is used". I think there's a template for that. --Carnildo 00:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Yet another single/song nomination which doesn't include information about the instrumental musicians who performed on the track, and therefore fails the comprehensiveness test. The "Live Performances" section also includes lengthy discussion of occasions where Beyonce did not perform the song, but lip-synched it, which seems rather odd. Roughly half the article space is devoted to presentation and discussion of charting information. The most interesting thing in the article, to me, was the fact that New Zealand releases are certified gold for selling 5000-6000, a standard which demonstrates, to me, the lack of overall insignificance of being certified gold in New Zealand; I therefore wonder whether such reports about sales and chart performance in such minor markets are even worth mentioning in articles. Monicasdude 16:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beyoncé Knowles

Support She deserves to be in the featured article because this shows her accomplishment, life and success during her solo music career. If there is anything I need to fix, let me know.

• Oppose. One of the images is being used incorrectly (album covers are only meant to illustrate articles about the album), and two have no sources. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I just removed the album cover image. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The images Image:Bey and Prince.jpg, Image:Beyonce.JPG have no source or copyright information, and could be deleted at any time.
  2. The image Image:Bkbrits.jpg has no copyright information.
  3. The image Image:Soulbk.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but does not have a fair use rationale explaining why the use in Beyoncé Knowles constitutes "fair use". See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for details on what's needed.
  4. Lists appear to take up about two-thirds of the article. These should be removed or worked into the prose.
  5. I can't be sure because of all the lists, but there don't appear to be any references.

  --Carnildo 07:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I deleted the first three photos Carnildo mentioned since they did meet the new WP:CSD criteria. Zach (Sound Off) 17:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - lack of references and copyright info is a major problem. I think the three photos of Beyoncé accepting awards is overkill. One could be justified perhaps. Three can't possibly constitute fair use. What is the second and third photo showing us that we haven't seen in the first one? Writing style is disjointed - the career section reads like a stream of unrelated facts - it just does not flow very well. I agree that Knowles is a great candidate for a featured article. I suggest looking at some of the featured articles in the categories of "Media" and "Music" to get a feel for the standard. KaDee Strickland is an excellent one to refer to, especially in relation to using and citing references. Rossrs 10:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very very short for an article about a prominent artist. Check Kylie Minogue for a FA about a female singer. CG 19:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• A while ago I asked about something on the talk page and there's never been an answer. Everyking 04:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too short, choppy, and listy. Does not follow a chronological biographical scheme, makes little mention of the singer's heavily documented childhood and pre-Michelle Williams career with Destiny's Child. The article does not once even mention mention the singer's mother and costume designer. --FuriousFreddy 01:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object strongly: no references, and the following sentence is POV (though maybe true): "In the same year, Beyoncé was Punk'd by Ashton Kutcher just a couple of minutes after ruining Christmas at Universal Studios Hollywood." - 211.30.179.151 12:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose this article really really really sucks -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Destiny's Child

Support The Supergroup band Destiny's Child deserves to be in the featured articles for their great achievement in music! They have comprehensive articles and also very detailed profiles. They also are not complicated. They write to the point about this band very well. -Person22 03:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Not well organized: the "fashion" section is a joke, as is the endorsements and products and filmography (both of which seem better suited to the individual members' articles). Discography and Awards need a summary here and a pointer to the main article. The section heading "Final Destiny and the Future" sounds like advertising, not an encyclopedia. "Records and Facts" needs to be incorporated into the rest of the article. Needs references, preferably with inline citations. The article is in general not very well-written (lots of passive voice, for example), and there are a lot of one sentence paragraphs. Tuf-Kat 04:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, then. What do we need to do to improve this article? Furthermore, the endorsements and the fasion shows proof that they have accomplished and supported by helping that company, so it is vital. How can we improve? What can we fix?
    • I think his comment is pretty clear about what needs to be done - remove the passive voice, condense the one sentence paragraphs, add inline citations, 'etc. →Raul654 04:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The issue with the fashion section that is that it's marketing speak. I've read it and have no idea what it's about. Apparently, one or more members of Destiny's Child, in collaboration with some other people, did something involving some kind of company that does something related to fashion. That's all I can get out of it. What is "infrastructure for licensing and brand management"? They brought "trend-setting style and a creative take on fashion to stylish women everywhere" -- please! I know oodles of stylish women, none of whom would be caught dead wearing anything promoted by trash like Destiny's Child. Cite your opinions to whoever holds them. And the endorsements appear to be specific to each individual, so why list them here instead of in their articles? Tuf-Kat 04:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support Looks great OmegaWikipedia 06:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Destinyschild.jpg is of much higher resolution than is needed. It should be reduced to a size of 480 pixels or smaller to comply with fair-use requirements.
  2. The image Image:DestinyFulfilled-photo.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but does not indicate the source or copyright holder. Without those, it's impossible to claim fair use. Further, the image seems to be unneccesary to the article, and should be removed. (the image appears to have been cropped from the Destiny Fulfilled album cover, Image:DestinyFulfilled.jpg, and therefore can not be classed as fair use, and should be removed for that reason. Rossrs 14:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC))
  3. The last quarter of the article is lists of various sorts. Most of these should be removed or worked into the prose.
  4. I can't be sure about this because of how many lists there are at the end, but there don't appear to be any references.

  --Carnildo 07:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with the previous criticisms relating to the lack of references, image copyrights and writing style. There are errors throughout the article that could easily be fixed and just look careless. Simple things like using capital letters for "Destiny's Child" and in song titles. "Fanzine" type language is a problem - for example "supergroup" is not a real word and it appears in two sentences in a row. "Independent Women ...raced up the charts and spent an astounding 11 weeks... is another example. Stevie Wonder and Al Green should not be referred to as "Soul legend"(s). This type of language needs to be removed. Be consistent in use of the members' names. Kelly Rowland is referred to as "Kelly" and as "Rowland" for example. Standard format should be either full name or surname only, never just the first name. Lead paragraph is far too brief and should be a synopsis of the article. "Final Destiny and The Future" is a very cheesy non encyclopedic heading. The "Fashion" section - completely meaningless. If it needs to be there at least explain why it's there. It reads like a publicity blurb - its style is totally different to the rest of the article, and needs to be reworded or removed. The "Records and Facts" section is a bit like a "Trivia" section, something to be avoided. Any facts worth keeping need to be absorbed into the article, and the section deleted. Having said all that, there are some very good things about the article, so take heart, but a lot of work is required to get it up to FA standard. Rossrs 13:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Supergroup" is a perfectly-good term in several scientific fields, including mathematics and theoretical physics. It's just that this isn't science. --Carnildo 17:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Supergroup is a perfectly valid word in music too. See Supergroup (bands). I don't see how Destiny's Child could qualify as one, though. Tuf-Kat 19:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I stand (somewhat) corrected. "Supergroup" is a word. When I go to work tomorrow, I'll aim to use it in a sentence at least once, if I can somehow steer the conversation to theoretical physics, which I'm sure I'll manage. Perhaps I should have said "Destiny's Child is not a supergroup". Perhaps if they'd been salvaged from the remnants of a bunch of other old bands, maybe. OK, somebody calling them a "supergroup", and me calling them not, are both examples of POV, and more than a good enough reason to excise the word from the article. Rossrs 11:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review, and welcome back with the article to FAC when it fits the FAC criteria. Bishonen | talk 23:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Revew as per Bishonen. I put a "cleanup" tag on the article, and discovered it was an FAC when I clicked the talk page to stay why it needs cleaning up: This article reads like a fan page, has no cohesive style, is improperly formatted, and is hard-to-read.. --FuriousFreddy 00:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Megatokyo

This article was close to featured standard at the end of its third nomination (first, second), and I think it's been improved to the point where it can be featured. If not, this should kick-start edits on the article again. --L33tminion (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong support! --Masamage 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is a real nitpick, but the last sentence of piro and largo is kind of repetitive and trivia-ish where it is. Best merged in the beginning of the section(s) if possible. RN 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well...hmm. I guess I disagree! It seems to me like it would disrupt the flow a lot worse at the top than at the bottom, and I think more generally that it's interesting enough to stay. Maybe someone else is more creative than I. --Masamage 06:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Edit: Okay, so Jimmy did it and it looks excelent. Fine, be like that! ^_^;; --Masamage 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Amazing! It looks great - thanks :). RN 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support — I supported this article during its last nomination and — near the end of it — agreed to User:JimmyBlackwing's request that I give it a copyedit, so as to improve quality further and dispell concerns over the prose. This has been a very informative article on the subject since at least the third nomination (I wasn't here for the first two), and I've felt like it was either at FA or really close to it during that last process. Though I haven't participated in any further improvement since the last FAC, I know its regular editors have and I do believe this article is now ready. Ryu Kaze 14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Structure. I'd really like to see the "History" section go at the top of the article. I've also given thought that some of the other sections could possibly be reordered a little, such as moving the themes section up, having plot before characters, but I'm less dead set on those. Additionally, for comprehensiveness' sake, I believe that it would be notable to talk (at least briefly) about the comic's fanbase, which has on a number of occasions overwhelmed conventions Fred has appeared at. Some mention of the author's reputation as being too self-disparaging might also be in line (particularly the penny-arcade thing). Fieari 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: I've moved the sections around. Is that better? Also, Characters is above Plot on purpose - see articles like Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy X or Shadow of the Colossus. While these are all articles about video games, the principle is the same. As for the comic's fanbase... while it may be notable, I'm having a hard time believing it's verifiable. The only semi-usable comments about the fanbase I've heard are from Gallagher himself, but even they are questionable. And discussing the author's reputation seems to veer off into non-notable trivia, to me - he has an article of his own for mentioning stuff like that. JimmyBlackwing 19:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Characters should be before Story in my opinion. It's easier to talk about a story when the characters have already been introduced. That's why those three articles JimmyBlackwing mentioned (which I wrote in large part) are organized as they are. If you don't put the Characters section first, it's not going to serve very much purpose since the Story section would then have to go about introducing the characters anyway. That just ends up making the Story section unnecessarily bloated, unfocused and incoherent. Ryu Kaze 20:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I've read through it and have some more notes (I'm sure after 2/3 FACs the editors of this article are getting sick of me - sorry about that :)) :

1. (feel free to ignore this one, as I'm not sure how much MoS-style factors in here) "now" is used in the first sentence - perhaps "as of" or similar should be used
2. " it has received negative criticism as a result of Gallagher's changes" - this seems like a POV statement to me, and perhaps is best left to the reception section

   That's not POV. It's a fact that the comic has recieved criticism for this reason, and sources for that fact are cited in the article. (On the other hand, isn't "negative criticism" redundant?) --L33tminion (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   "Negative criticism" isn't redundant, no. "Criticism" isn't inherently negative. It's just rigid analysis. Criticism can be positive. Ryu Kaze 01:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   Okay, thanks. --L33tminion (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

3. The intro paragraphs are missing the comic's IMPACT. For example, there should be some kind of BANG that says "this is unquestionably popular." Maybe website hits i.e. "is a webcomic which at the height of its popularity brought in X visitors a day." Right now it just says it is a webcomic that has a positive reception...

   I don't follow your reasoning behind this, actually. Why is that required for the article to meet featured standard? If someone can think of a way to add that sort of information that's NPOV, I don't oppose that, but still. --L33tminion (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

4. What is "Dead Piro" filler art? This really interrupts the flow of that part of the article for me, as it doesn't seem obvious to me what it is

   Fixed that bit. Piro (Gallagher) refers to the days where he publishes filler art instead of a full comic as "Dead Piro Days". I found the easy solution was to remove the reference to that piece of trivia. If someone wants to readd it, then that will need to be explained. --L33tminion (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

5. "pitting Ping against Largo in video game battle" this whole sentence doesn't make much sense to me - is it one video game battle, multiple ones?

   Multiple (if you ignore the fact that Ping is a video game in some sense). Personally, I think "in video game battle" sounds better and is more accurate than either "in a video game battle" or "in video game battles". Largo's conflict with Ping (and Miho) is ongoing. Nonetheless, if it's really confusing, it should be changed. --L33tminion (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

6. The reception section is really good, but is a bit disjointed and goes back and forth between comments on the art, Caston's influence, and the story. For example, in the last paragraph in the first two sentences we see it talk about the art of it, but then it goes back to the story and Caston's influence in the same paragraph when parts of that were already discussed at the beginning...

I would be very happy to finally support this after these are addressed. It is obvious the editors have worked hard on it. RN 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support To sum up what I said last time this is a quality article that deserves featured article status. --Vcelloho 01:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support looks good :). RN 02:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - why is there an RSS feed link in the infobox? It seems to be a parameter in the infobox, presumably agreed upon by WikiProject Webcomics. But surely an RSS feed is just a way of subscribing to the comic? Why should Wikipedia provide a link to that service? We should link to the website, but to actually provide an RSS feed link seems like advertising: "subscribe to this comic here". I know this is a general WikiProject Comics thing, but I'd like to know what people here think, and whether anyone can provide links to discussions at the WikiProject. Carcharoth 14:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics hasn't had a debate on the subject. IMO, providing a link to the RSS isn't any more "advertising" than providing a link to the translations. --L33tminion (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It is a great article, thanks to the efforts of its editors. Nifboy 23:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberpunk

Self-nom. OK, for a while now, I've been trying to throw good information after bad in an effort to make SF coverage less, well, fannish. This is why I hacked on Three Laws of Robotics until it made FA, and lately, I've been trying the same thing at Cyberpunk. My fellow editors and I have tried to break down the writings of lit-crit professors and role-playing gamers, two of the most abstruse subcultures H. sapiens has yet to generate. I'm pretty proud of the result. The article has gone through two previous FACs, the first in April and the second in September. The first time it failed, deservedly; the second, it got a pretty favourable reception. I believe we managed to address several of the objections which the commentators hadn't struck out (summarized on talk), and there've been a few improvements besides. As always, I look forward to reading your comments. Anville 22:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Some comments:

• This is really close; the lead is great.
• Quite a few weasel terms in there, particularly the pernicious "some" (people, critics, readers, etc.). Also, though less problematically, there is overuse of "often", particularly in the Style section.
• The Film and Television section still seems like a fairly random list with a jumpy chronology and little indication of what import the various entities mentioned have. I also think the detailed and rather snarky commentary on the box office results and critical response to the various Matrices is a veer off-topic. This section needs the most work, IMO.
• Likewise, the Games section jumps around chronologically (and appears to ignore anything pre-1990; seems like some early text-adventure games (A Mind Forever Voyaging) may deserve mention), and includes a digression about Steve Jackson games.
• I can't help but think that at least some history from the Literature section needs to come before the Style section, as it is describing the style of writing, which we know nothing about at this juncture; conversely, there is some philosophical/analytical stuff in the Literature section (the Brin quote) that seems like it would be better elsewhere.
• The aside about "aggrandizing the genre" is too clever by half (maybe three quarters), stopping the article in its tracks while really adding nothing to the reader's understanding.
• I think the sub-genres need their own sub-section.

Jgm 02:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. It was close enough last time, it should pass this time. Some notes: merge small paras into larger ones, try to reformat lead into 3 paras. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object for a couple minor reasons. 1) We have way too many "fair use" images on here, get a few more gfdl/cc-by-sa's on there. 2) way too many see also's... you have some after sections (which is ok) and then an entire see also section. More of these links should be worked into the text somehow. And whats with the Futher Reading section, is it or is it not linked into the text? if so its notes, if not its merely external links. Getting better but theres still stuff in need of work.  ALKIVAR™ 02:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I really enjoyed this article. I see no issue with the images since it is hard to come by non-commercial material on the subject, and the rationale provided for each fair use image was adequate. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 02:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - This was enjoyable enough, quite peppy to read, informative -- I mean, I think it is a good, solid encyclopedia article for someone looking up cyberpunk. I don't think I have the literary qualifications to cast a vote, mainly because I haven't read widely enough in the genre to get a feel for whether the article is...representative. All of the high profile stuff I could think of offhand is there and in seemingly useful context, Gibson, Blade Runner, Max Headroom, Snow Crash, "steampunk", film noir/Chandler, RPGs, etc, etc. I disqualify myself from voting because I feel perhaps there's something missing, maybe in the synthesis area, but I'm not at all sure what it is, and I suspect that's due to my not knowing the territory well enough. My one specific criticism: the Matrix paragraph, which obviously deviates from the proceedings, and reads more like a mildly veiled fan trilogy critique (reference to the original Matrix, with passing mention of the others, is likely sufficient)... --Tsavage 18:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, well-written and comprehensive. And I got a nice ego-boost by finding out that a book I read as a twelve year old had "prose..too dense for novice or casual readers". There are also a few cyberpunk comics, Hard Boiled & Transmetropolitan for example, but I wouldn't say their inclusion is vital in what is a fairly long page anyway. Leithp (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, What he said. Let's crank up the Billy Idol, and jack in:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A lot of effort has gone into this one, and it shows. Ambi 00:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support I liked the article, but would make a few suggestions. 1) Cut out the discussion of Matrix sequels. It's out of place and not needed (and I didn't like the sequels at all!) 2) Better incorporate the Max Headroom information. It's currently a one-sentence paragraph. Subcategories for live action and anime might help break up the long text 3) The section on Operation Sundevil is odd. Either give more information or cut it all together. What were the real reasons for the raid? It needs some attention. 4) Consider making a list of topics related to cyberpunk and then linking that in the see also. All in all, though, great work! InvictaHOG 17:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Highway 66

self-nom. I feel this article does a great job in both discussing the highway and its impact on people and vice-versa. It keeps both the aspects which have become standard for articles on highways (e.g., route infobox and related routes) as well as discussing how the highway was created, evolved, and eventually decommissioned and the impact that all of this has had on the people traveling on it and popular culture. Rt66lt 03:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. No map of the route.
  2. The image Image:Chain of Rocks.jpg has no source or copyright information.

  --Carnildo 04:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I have corrected the copyright issue. I had personally taken the photo and didn't know there was a specific template that needed to be used. Also, a map is on the way, courtesy of SPUI. Thanks.Rt66lt 14:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The second paragraph of the lead needs work. It says that politics and publicity made it famous, but the rest of the paragraph doesn't support that. The lead should explain how 66 had iconic significance for so many people, and should give the year it opened. The first pic is too big -- it squishes the TOC an awful lot. Section headings should follow normal rules of capitalization -- only proper nouns and the first word. It needs a thorough copyedit (The following year... would officially disband in 1976. for example, is in dire need of changes), then the next sentence refers to something Avery "claimed", but I don't see where he ever said why traffic would grow on the highway. The paragraph about GIs after World War 2 doesn't make much sense to me -- it seems to imply that soldiers used the road to return home after the war, but since the war was not fought in North America, I don't see how they could have. It claims there are several novels about Route 66, but only gives the one example and doesn't explain why that one is so important. Tuf-Kat 04:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrote opening line of the second paragraph, removed parts of it. Picture has been moved to the History section. Section headings have been fixed (thanks to SPUI), removed Avery's claim and the returning GIs has been removed (the intent, I believe (I didn't write it) was that after the war, they would return to Route 66 to go to California, which was often the case according to the references, but I simply wrote about vacationers in general). Removed "several novels" about Route 66. Rt66lt 01:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the article is really very interesting but in needs a good copyedit. From the lead on the phrasing is awkward and there are there are places where the tense changes - and probably shouldn't, particularly in the Early 20th Century American pop culture section. Other minor things include the capitalisation of section heading where they should be in lowercase; a map, which although not necessary, would make a useful addition; and some of the items listed in the see also section would probably make interesting additions to the text rahter than in appearing in a list where they have no context, anything that already appears in the text shouldn't be on the list.--nixie 05:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization of section headings (along with shortening of titles) has been done and I moved most of the "see also" list into the article and discussed them. Currently, only the "List of cities on US 66" remains, removed rest. Rt66lt 01:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• I can make a rough map; if I haven't within a few days let me know on my talk page. --SPUI (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object—Substandard prose, I'm afraid. Take the first sentence:

'U.S. Highway 66 or Route 66 was and is the most famous road in the U.S. Highway system and quite possibly the most famous and storied highway in the world.'

Why clutter the opening clause with 'was and is'? Why not just 'is'? What's a 'storied' highway? Why use both 'road' and 'highway'? (Better: 'Highway 66 is the most famous highway in the United States, and possibly in the world.') And why not name the article simply 'Route 66'? Much neater. Have you read the criteria for FAs? Tony 14:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Highway 66 is the official name of the road; Route 66 is generic. The article was originally titled "Route 66", but was changed. There is a lengthy discussion of this on Talk:U.S. Highway 66.Rt66lt 14:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrote mentioned section. Currently reads "Route 66 was a highway in the US highway system." Sorry, I see no way to retitle the article and keep it standard with the other highway articles.Rt66lt 01:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object – the prose does not have an encyclopedic tone in some places: But it became more than a highway. It was a major migratory path west, arguably the "Oregon Trail" of the automobile era.; many Americans enjoy Route 66 nostalgia 2) Route 66 sign should be placed below, in the first section. 3) No route map. 4) Headings too wordy (it should be as terse as possible) and should be in small casing. 5) Business, Bypass, Optional, and Alternate US 66? Plz explain 6) Plz go through Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units (8 point) regarding the units and use of the &nbsp; 7) Claims such as arguably the "Oregon Trail" ; possibly the most famous and storied highway in the world references needed to support this. User:Nichalp/sg 18:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed "Oregon Trail" and the "nostalgia" statments from the article. I had moved the sign picture to the Revival section, but moved it to top of "History". Retitled most of the headings. Retitled the Business, etc. to "Bannered Routes" and gave a definition. Fixed the spacing on measurements. Rt66lt 01:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have went through and cleaned up prose and unencyclopedic statements. I think I got all of it, but I will re-read the article again tomorrow, after I've been away from it to give me a new look at it.Rt66lt 01:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with the cleanup: It was a major migratory path west. It would give livelihoods to... should be edited to Route 66 was a major migratory path west, and helped improve the economy of towns along the route.... And what is meant by "decommissioning" of a highway? Is the highway abandoned completely? User:Nichalp/sg 12:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Support Thanks to recent minor changes, this is now a great article. --PopUpPirate 09:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Regretful Object Well, I just tore through the entire article changing it to one, single tense, changing spellings, etc. I don't really think this article is stable enough yet to be a FA. It might be a good idea to flesh stuff out a bit more. --Matt Yeager 06:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benzene

This a nomination, but most certainly not a self-nom. I know little about chemistry, even less about benzene, however I stumbled across this article totally by accident (I pressed Random Article!) and , having read it through, feel this article has just about everything I could want in an article about an element/molecule/chemical. It has the "sciency" stuff (I know, sounds like a bad shampoo advert), the history, uses, methods of extraction, health risks, reactions, and has a reasonable set of references and external links. Although admittedly it has no photos, there are images, and at least there are no copyright issues. It is stable, uncontroversial and not too long. My one reseravtion is the shoryt lead, but I do not think that is enough not to nominate it. Finally (and I know this is not part of the FAC criteria, but I think it is worth mentioning still), the Chemistry section of FA is a little... anaemic. It currently has 8 articles. Let's make it 9 with this excellent example of how science on Wikipedia SHOULD be done. Batmanand 09:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object—Nowhere near comprehensive; too short; needs editing, although not too badly written. Why isn't this on the peer review list instead? Tony 14:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object-Although I agree that the Chemistry section strongly needs more FA articles, I would recommend the Benzene article to a peer review process first. There are definitely good points in it, but also sufficient opportunities for improvement. The article is also part of the Chemicals WikiProject and its current status there is merely B-Class. Better alternatives can be found on the List of A-Class articles of that WikiProject. Wim van Dorst 20:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC).
• Object at present: this is a good article but not quite there yet. I would welcome it going to Wikipedia:Peer review to get some comments from the wider community on Chemistry articles, but this is not the best article to have come out of WP:Chem. Physchim62 20:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object, but it's on its way. It doesn't have full FA quality now, although it certainly is an above-average chemistry article. We should get a peer review first. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I agree with the above. I think that sometime soon we at WP:Chem should put another article through the sort of intense peer review that hydrochloric acid had. But this is certainly cloase and a good potential FA, thanks for pointing it out, Batmanand! Walkerma 04:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magneto (comics)

self-nom, article seems worthy of being a featured article to me. zen master T 08:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object – no references User:Nichalp/sg 09:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object—Poorly written and superficial.Tony 14:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because it wasn't written by snooty english majors doesn't mean it's poorly written. And lack of references seems like a poor excuse to deny something fa status but I digress. zen master T 18:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually references are a requirement ( see featured article criteria). Without them, the article can't be verified. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Zen, instead of being combative, why don't you read the above instructions here: What is a Featured article; and address the objections? User:Nichalp/sg 05:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't care that much about this particular FAC nom, I just think the current FAC policy is biased against certain subjects and is too formal/red tape oriented, among other, separate issues. zen master T 06:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. No references are given
  2. There's far too much emphasis on the character history, and the history focuses too much on "Magneto as person in the X-Men universe" and not enough on "Magneto as a comic book character".
  3. There are too many non-free images in the article. I'd suggest removing everything but Image:Magneto.png, Image:Uncanny1.jpg, and Image:Magnetomoviex2.jpg].

  --Carnildo 20:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is there this requirement for references? A comic book character article isn't likely to have many direct references (except the original source material). And the majority of reference sections I've seen do not point to free sources so why is there this glaring hypocrisy that separately requires only free images? Is the goal to control what people are reading with the reference sections (regardless of whether the sources are free or not [of course])? zen master T 21:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

References are required because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. See WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NOR, and Wikipedia:What is a featured article for more information. I see no hypocracy about requiring free images but not free references: the images are directly included in the article, while the reference material isn't. --Carnildo 21:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Citations are more than enough evidence, the points needing referencing are lost by the time readers get to the reference section and the reference section really just seems like a "book of the month" club for that particular subject. Reference sections should be a sub page of every article perhaps (size concerns). I am somewhat familiar with wikipedia policy but they kind of don't make sense. If free images are preferred over non-free then to be consistent free source content should be preferred over non-free? Why make it easier for people to buy books from amazon.com if a goal or preference is for free content sources? Does it even make sense for a comic book character article to have references? zen master T 21:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Zen-master, please take a positive attitude to the reviews; far from being written by 'snooty English majors', they are bona fide attempts to maximise Wikipedia's readability and value. We like plain, crisp, easy-to-read text that flows smoothly and has authority. It's not about intellectual snobbery. Tony 07:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I apologize, I nominated the article on a whim while grumpy after an edit war so it was bound to happen like this. I think my point is why are there such specific/strict wiki criteria for featured articles when, for example, something seemingly just as important, the AfD process, is almost totally determined on a case by case basis. Can featured article status also be determined more on a case by case basis? Is the requirement of a reference section not as applicable to an article on a comic book character? zen master T 08:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• If you take a look at the list of featured articles you can see loads of different topics have been covered. Any possible bias to topics is caused by what people prefer to work on. References are just as necessary for articles on comic book characters as other articles. We need them to back up what's said in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Any serious literary works (this does not include fanguides and fictional canon) should be referenced for an FAC. If no such works exists, I would recommend FAC:ing higher-level articles instead. In this instance X-Men or simply comic book would be appropriate. Particularly the latter is in an absolutely unacceptable state for a top-level article. Wikipedia gains little or nothing from focusing the attention of the average reader on more in-depth coverage of heavily over-represented subjects that concern themselves almost exclusively with the hobbies of young, white, mainly American and/or Western European males. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose; too focused on Magneto as a real person in the fictional Marvel universe, but needs to include information on Magneto as a fictional character in the real world. My suggestion is to retool the article away from a fannish fictional history of the character to an objective overview of the character's development in Marvel comic books. For example, devote a different section to Magneto's development under each of the major writers and/or artists who used the character extensively. Concentrate not only on the narrative ("Magneto killed this guy"; "Magneto became a good guy"); discuss Magneto's personality and character development under different creators. The character's biography will thus still be there, but it'll be presented in a real-world context that a non-fan will appreciate. As for sources, I'd wager they exist. There are all sorts of critical analyses of animation available; there's bound to be some stuff on comic books. Good luck. BrianSmithson 11:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nicolas Sarkozy

(Partial self-nomination, wrote some of it.) I think it's now rather complete. David.Monniaux 20:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Observation: the article sort of looks a little bit austere with only one image; obviously it will be difficult to gather Free ones, yet I wonder whether some special effort could be made in this direction. Rama 21:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I've already asked Sarkozy's party for other photographs, they didn't answer. I suspect they don't know ho to handle requests like that. Perhaps now that we've had a full-page article cited on the front page of Le Monde they'll pay attention if I make another request.

As for taking the photos ourselves, this is obviously difficult: people like Sarkozy are always surrounded by journalists, photographers, policemen, security guards etc. Unless you're accredited as a journalist (which is near impossible for us, because the criterion for a journalism card is basically being a paid employee of a news source), it's only through sheer luck that we could do it (as Anthere did for Jean-Pierre Raffarin). David.Monniaux 05:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support Nice work. 172 | Talk 23:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support Rama 23:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, please add a list of the sources you have used to write the article.--nixie 03:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • References added. There are also some press sources scattered through the article. David.Monniaux 22:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd be a good idea to provide full citations for the links included in text so if the sites go down or the articles are removed then there is a record of who wrote the article and who published it.--nixie 10:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Done. David.Monniaux 07:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Undistinguished prose at best, including misspellings ('cozy'), unevenness of register, and redundant wording ('he felt inferior in relation to his wealthy classmates'—just 'to' would do). Stop/start paragraphing at the top. Tony 11:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Needs good copyedit. I would suggest to place it in peer review so that editors can comment on the prose. After that is done, this article will be excellent and worthy of FA. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyediting done. David.Monniaux 05:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • When you say 'done', I immediately wonder how simple it was. A quick look at random revealed that it's far from 'done': 'professing Catholic'—not idiomatic English; no hyphens after -ly adverbs; the heading 'Ambition for the future' should be two words, not four; one-sentence paragraphing is a problem, at the start and in a number of other sections; check the logic of the hierarchical headings—and why a three-line section at one point? See if you can get someone else to look through it thoroughly—it needs a fresh pair of eyes. Tony 06:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I used {{cleanup-copyedit}}. I guess there were not very thorough. David.Monniaux 16:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think this article is not really NPOV. It doesn't give an impression of Sarkozy's personal style and how it is reflected by the press. It should be stated already in the head that Sarkozy's opponenents see him as populist, careerist and activist. Some anecdotes or citations illustrating these points could make the article much more fun and interesting to read. Example of citations: "Each morning when I am shaving, I think about it" (the 2007 presidential pool), "One should wash that city out with a kärcher" (the suburb of Courneuve after the death of a young boy), "I am ruling the only cabinet which works also on sunday". One should also mention that for months the French press has been making the main titles with the quarrels between Sarkozy and Chirac, often ignoring major European or world-wide news. One could also cite some press title like "Sarkommence" from Liberation. IMHO, this could improve very much the article. Vb 08:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to work on that, but I'm afraid that discussing a person's style is fraught with POV. Sarkozy's opponents claim that, though he shows himself everywhere, he actually does little with real long-lasting impact; but should we fill entire sections with such claims? David.Monniaux 19:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to improve the article a bit in this direction but I am not French and not specialist in the French politics and also not very fluent in English. I therefore cannot help you more than this. However I am ready to support this article if it gets less boring. I think the biographical details may be interesting but a discussion of the image of Sarkozy in the French press and of his particular style is very important. Sarkozy is a controversial character and this should be brought more clearly to the front. Of course the price to pay is to risk non NPOV. Yes indeed. But political correctness is not the goal of WP and is not NPOV either. An easy first step would be to expand the quotation section. Vb12:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belarus

After a good session at Peer Review, I feel that this article is ready for FAC. While I have worked on Belarusian related articles before, I was asked to edit the main Belarus page. I took the user up on the suggestion and made significant improvements to the article (Diffs [25]). While I worked with two great editors at Peer Review, I welcome others comments as well. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Why this article doesn't use the Template:Infobox country? CG 12:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Because I used the template so we can stick more things into the article (eg free up space). Plus, I went off the format of Belguim's article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer you use the infobox. User:Nichalp/sg 15:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I saw the box, and it could be easily turned to the template. I prefer that at least featured articles follows a little more standarisation. CG 18:07, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed the infobox due to the suggestions at the talk page. Zach (Sound Off) 08:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:Stanislav Shushkevich.jpg is claimed under fair use, but does not indicate the creator/copyright holder. Without that, it's not possible to claim fair use.
  2. The image Image:Belarus dress.jpg is claimed as "public domain" on the grounds that it's from a US Government web site. However, images on the Library of Congress are in general not works of the federal government. The actual copyright status of this image needs to be determined.
  3. The image Image:BelarusHistoricalCoatOfArms.png is claimed as "fair use and permission". This is far from an ideal license: would it be possible to get the creator of the image to release it under the GFDL or the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license?

  --Carnildo 22:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• • For the third image, I will just remove it outright. Though, IMHO, it falls under {{PD-BY-exempt}} since it is a former national symbol. The second one, I will provide information on the copyright holder. For the first image, I have the copyright of the website that hosted the image, but I do not know much about the copyright. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The law, at least as expressed in English, doesn't seem to cover former symbols. --Carnildo 23:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I removed the third image, I added the copyright of the website hosting the first image and I reverted to the fair use image for the second one (since I know the author and copyright). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I've found copyright information for the newer version of Image:Belarus dress.jpg. It's from the Library of Congress Country Studies series: one of the few cases where something on the LOC website is public domain as being a work of the federal government. I've reverted to that image and updated the description page accordingly. --Carnildo 20:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Wipes forehead Ok, while I know you still object about the first photo, I did not get a response from the website on who made the photo I am using. While I know where it came from and the copyright of the website, I have no clue who took the photo or when it was taken (but it is from 1991-1994, if that helps). I am also using this photo because it has a photo of the 1991 flag. I have drew a photo of the 1991 flag, and we could use that instead if you choose. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
            • You should replace the photo. Without knowing the copyright holder for the image, it's not possible to claim fair use. --Carnildo 21:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
              • Replaced the image with the w/r/w flag I drew myself. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW, the flag drawing is PD-user. Zach (Sound Off) 08:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Support. --Carnildo 03:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support as long as there are no objections and the lead clearly states it is a dictatorship. Impressive - Zscout is doing great job (as usual), but I am not sure if this is comprehensive - I fixed some links/problems in the history section (which partially overlaps with Polish one). There may be some other links which can benefit from fixing. If there are no objections, I assume it is comprehensive and support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The lead states "Since independence, Belarus has been the focus of international attention due to the authoritarian leadership of President Alexander Lukashenko, who has ruled the country since 1994. Due to this, Belarus has been excluded from joining the Council of Europe. Belarus is considered to be Europe's last dictatorship." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Changed to Oppose – I would like Tony's comments resolved.Conditional Support Neutral – I've helped Zscout in PR, but I still feel it needs a copyedit. User:Nichalp/sg 10:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC) Prose at the moment is acceptable, though would like to see my inline comments addressed. User:Nichalp/sg 13:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments addressed. Zach (Sound Off) 17:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Concern that the text needs a thorough run-through to bring it up to standard (Wikipedia says 'brilliant' prose). I'll give it a go some time after Tuesday, after which I'll decide whether to support the nomination. Tony 16:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Some other users have been copy-editing the article. Zach (Sound Off) 08:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

---

• • Comment

Considering the size of the country - This article has a large and expansive scope and I feel it adequately begins to address the lives and people of the land. Nice anthropological work Zscout! 69.161.109.170 07:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• • It needs thorough editing. I've gone through the first section making numerous small changes. The bit about the name of the country is very messy—so much information, scripts, 'Lacusa', transliteration—and could be simplified and shifted down to introduce the next section on the origin of the name. As is, the impact of the opening is compromised. Tony 09:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose—Poorly written and poorly organised. The opening needs to prepare the reader for the topic, but contains messy information about the name in a number of languages, or it did before I moved that stuff to the second section. The first section now needs more relevant, quality information, and most of the 'Name' section below it needs to be binned, or savagely pruned. Who cares about what people call the country in other languages, except perhaps for Belarussan and English? The history jumps from 1994 until 1986; wasn't the Soviet experience worth talking about? It's very densely linked, so I've removed the low-value years, which won't help the reader at all. I haven't read the rest, but already I oppose the nomination. Tony 14:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I reverted some of the changes, because India (an FA), has information about the name. I believe it is important, since not only Belarus has more than one official language, people would want to know why this country got it's current name. Plus, it is significant, since Belarus was called Byelorussia, and we have to note that someone will take offense to that. I did add information that Belarus was a founding member of the UN, in 1945, but nothing significant stood out of my mind of what happened in Belarus since after the war but before Chernobyl, unless you want to make a very, very minor note that JFK's assassin lived in Minsk. As for the interwiki links, I might get rid of duplicates. However, I believe some of the things you put in the article as i-notes were insulting. Zach (Sound Off) 20:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC) While I put some changes back in, what you done to the article, IMHO, caused more hurt than good for the article. Zach (Sound Off) 20:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I see nothing worth mentioning that would sway my vote to oppose. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm changing my vote to Strongly oppose. The main author has reverted my recent work on the opening, so that typos (e.g., 'though' rather than 'through'), grammatical errors (countries mixed up with nationalities in a list), other stylistic problems, and inappropriate organisation of information are back again. Most reviewers don't bother to roll up their sleeves and try to improve the articles they oppose; I do, and if you don't want my help, I'll just go through picking out example after example of why this article is substandard, to support the case that it should not be considered for promotion to FA status (at the moment, it would be an embarrassment). I note the following statement at the top of the page: 'you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised'. By the way, I don't care what you interpret or misinterpret in the article on India, or Belgium, or any other country: if it's poorly done here, it doesn't bear comparison. Tony 00:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I added some of your stuff back in, but as I mentioned in the edit summaries, some of the information I cannot provide because it does not exist, like who selected Suskhvich to be the first leader. But, while I welcome the grammar errors, the gutting of the lead was what caused me to revert. But I am also adding back the useful information you have provided. Zach (Sound Off) 00:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• OK, let's get down to work. First, some random examples of what you've reverted after my numerous improvements to the opening sections.
  • 'The area of Belarus was settled by the Slavs'—It wasn't called 'Belarus' in those days; I'd fixed this nicely.
  • 'the 6th and the 8th century'—one or two of them?
  • 'caused the state to be impacted gravely'—nice one.
  • 'Belarus first declared their independence'—one country or several?
  • 'which still dominate the country today'—they don't just still dominate it, they still dominate it today, do they?
  • 'the invasion of the Mongols into Rus'—invasion into?
  • 'which was headed by under one monarch'—hello?
  • 'Belarus being officially called the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic during the Soviet-era'—um....
  • 'Byelorussia and Ukrainian Soviet republics and the Soviet Union'—couple of things wrong here.
  • 'upon the issuing of May Constitution, Europe's first modern codified national constitution, which abolished all subdivisions of the states and were merged into the Kingdom of Poland'—illiterate.

I must stress that these are only a small number of examples of the poor writing that pervades most sentences. I'm not dealing yet with what can only be described as an obsession with names and titles in the opening and the first section, including the information about informal surveys conducted by some obscure website to see which version of the name of the country was used on a majority of websites. This, before we've been informed of the major issues in summary, bird's-eye fashion, so we know just a little about the subject we're going to read about. This is where you need to engage the readers in your topic, convince them that it's worth reading on, not make them wade through endless names for the country in various languages at various historical times, complete with cyrillic script and transliterations, nested in a forest of parentheses. If you have to have this name stuff, it goes much further down, sequestered into its own section to warn off the majority of readers who won't want to wade through it. It can't possibly qualify. Tony 00:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I am having a few folks copyediting the article. As for the names, like I said before, it is important. People need to know that when they see Byelorussia on the Internet, they need to know that it is an informal name for Belarus and is considered offensive to some. Plus, I included the informal survery in, since it was linked to the article before I even touched it. I thought it would be interesting to present in the article what name was used the most and used the least. Zach (Sound Off) 06:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well keep going—there's lots to do. I hope someone's writing about the Soviet period. The section on Ecomony needs considerable work. Tony 07:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I will try to find out more information about the Soviet-period, and I am finding out a little bit more on Belarus trading with the European Union. I also could write about the use (or delay of use) of the Russian rouble. Zach (Sound Off) 13:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Particularly as the Soviet experience must have partly shaped Belarus as it now is. Some important matters may be:

• • to describe succinctly the Stalinist system in political and economic terms, as it applied throughout the Russian empire, with brief references to historical milestones within the period (the death of Stalin being one of them);
  • to describe how this may have applied in Belarus in particular, bearing in mind its economic strengths and weaknesses;
  • to describe how Belarus dealt with the fall of the centralised economy and Russian control: how is this still felt in the country?

These are major issues, don't you think? Tony 15:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, these are major issues that shoudl be dealt with, though I cannot promise on what else could be added. While Belarus did undergo an overhaul after the Wehrmacht left, I just do not know how much. As for the centralized economy, Belarus still uses that now, but Belarus was one of the last republics to leave the USSR. Though, IMHO, Russia still plays a key factor in Belarusian affairs, since Putin and Lukashenko usually meet each other a lot and have a good friendship. Zach (Sound Off) 22:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony, to give you a heads up, the article is 33kb big now. I am now getting warnings about the article is too large. If you wish, I can reformat the whole History of Belarus and add the fine details that you request. While I want to add as much as I can to please you, but I do not want to make the article too big for anyone. Zach (Sound Off) 23:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment at Zach's request, I've gone through and copyedited the article as best I can. Could those pointing to spelling/grammatical errors in the text please check to see if they're still there (and if I've introduced any new ones!)? Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'll go through it later today. With respect to the Soviet period 'black hole' in this article, this is kind of information that would be of great value to some readers, is probably not easily findable on the net, and will give a deeper picture of the country today (and wouldn't hardly count as 'original research'). Is there any foreign investment in the country, given that it has apparently been slow to open up to capitalism? Is there resistance to attempts to internationalise the economy? (I'm sure this can be done in a NPOV way.) People considering doing business there might end up going to Wikipedia: now that would count toward's W's 'unique presence on the Internet', as stated in the criteria. We want to know about this. Tony 00:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not a huge secret that Belarus is going back to the Soviet-era, and many websites on both sides of the fence state the same thing. While the information is hard to come by, it will not count as original research if it has been published on the Net or in another source. If I made it up, then it would be original research. As for the foreign investment, I have read that some McDonalds are in there, but many of the industries are nationalized, such as the Belarus Tractor Factory. NPOV is not a problem, since (surprisingly) most people when coming to my articles about Belarus mention the grammar issues, not POV issues. Sorry about the earlier reverting and misunderstanding Tony. Zach (Sound Off) 00:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• PS It's not about pleasing me, but the readers. The section on government, which needs massaging, starts 'Belarus is a republic governed by a President.' Then we learn that there's a parliament. The caption about national dress implies that what you see is the only national dress. Is this the case? Tony 01:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I reworded the first part of the government and fixed the caption of the photo. The dress is not the only one that can be worn in Belarus, but during various cultural and ceremonial events, there will be people dressed like that in some way. Zach (Sound Off) 01:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

More on the basic structure of goverment, please. Can the President veto legislation, and can the veto be overriden by the legislature? Is the current president the inaugural holder of that office? Surely each chamber by itself can't create laws: that's what it says currently. What is the process for changing the constitution (two-thirds majority in both houses, possibly)? Surely the Consititutional Court isn't a 'sub-court' ....? Does the upper house have no choice but to confirm judicial nominations (not 'appointments', please) by the President.

These are basic matters that readers deserve to find when they go to Wikipedia after hearing of some crisis in Belarus's government. Tony 03:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I also happened to write the article Constitution of Belarus. While I do not know much about the governmental functions, but from what I seen, if Luka wants something done, he will decree it. Even if it is important like national symbols, he institutes them via decree. While Lukashenko is the first and only elected head of state, there was a guy before him that served from 1991-1994 at the position of Speaker of the Supreme Soviet. Zach (Sound Off) 03:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I added some of the information you wanted in above, and some was already there in the history section. However, I am at 34kb now and my edits are not saving at all. Zach (Sound Off) 04:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Edits that don't save are a general problem at the moment, unrelated to the size of an article. Check whether they are in fact saved, even if you get the notice that they haven't. The suggested size of 32 kb is only a guideline. Many country articles exceed this. More history is needed (Soviet period), and I don't think it matters it you go over, even up to 40 if absolutely necessary. Tony 09:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

At least 40 gives me some type of benchmark to reach for, since Australia is about 40kb. Zach (Sound Off) 17:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, after seeing oppositions from above. Article is well written in many ways, but needs some more work. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Some of the claims in the Economy section require referencing. I've made a few changes where it was looking a little POV. I still think the lead:
  • requires a few sentences at the end of the paragraph, giving a bird's-eye view of the topic
  • should have only very brief mention of the name, in English and Belarussian only, without the cyrillic script (leave that for the articles in cyrillic, since here, it complicates matters for the reader, where we want to captivate them)
  • should be followed by a briefer section on the history of the name of the country.

Nice job on the Soviet period. Tony 09:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Which particular claims do you think need citing? As for the name part, I was asked to expand it earlier at this FAC. Even with a short statement about the name, people will still ask who started it, when did it start and other things. What else are you suggesting for the lead? Zach (Sound Off) 06:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • One more thing, as for the "birds-eye view," did you want it at the economy article and what do you want me to say in it? Usally, if the section is going to sound like a lead, then it should be at the head of the section. Zach (Sound Off) 06:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stroke order

A shortish yet complete article on an unusual and interesting topic. Largely a self-nom. Well illustrated, well laid out, and well written (if I may say so). One potential objection may be that there are only three references, but they are well-known and highly respected sources, and much of the information presented in the article is common knowledge (to those who are familiar with Chinese characters). Exploding Boy 21:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object, information is laid out nicely, but the article is just too short, IMHO. Phoenix2 22:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Shortness is not really a valid objection in this case. If you'll take a look at Wikipedia:What is a featured article, point 2 states that "[a featured article should cover] the topic in its entirety, and . . . not neglect any major facts or details," while point 5 states that "[a featured article] should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." This article both covers the topic in its entirety and is of appropriate length for the subject matter. In other words, the questions really are "is the subject of sufficient importance to be covered in some detail" and "does the article cover the subject in sufficient detail". The answer to both is yes. Exploding Boy 22:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• CommentObject How did the stroking come to be? What was the previous writing system before it and what advantages did it have over it? Just not comprehensive enough, unfortunately. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object slightly - images are great but badly laid out, fix that and maybe pad it out a bit, and it'll be great imo --PopUpPirate 22:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment—Quite well written, although I'll suggest a few minor changes to the language when the article has been extended. Tony 01:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This is not comprehensive. What about - comparison with other systems of writing? Is standard stroke order unheard of elsewhere? I seem to recall stroke order is used in various input methods for CJK. Additionally, the lead section should be a summary of the article, not what it is at present. Morwen - Talk 08:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not comprehensive. To the authors'/collaborators' credit however, I must say the illustrations in the article are really great. Phils 11:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I'm not disappointed, but (and this comment isn't just sour grapes) I disagree with the comments posted, and it seems to me that some voters are not thoroughly reading articles before voting on them. But anyway. Another time. Exploding Boy 02:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The examples in the Stroke order rules section would be much clearer if they showed each stroke being added in order (presumably only possible with an image). The right uptick in the Types of strokes section doesn't show what the stroke looks like. How do the rules make writing easier? Why is stroke order of more importance is brush-writing (presumably as opposed to pen writing)? Mark¹ 05:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. And what about Chinese character? Turning the focus on the top-level article instead of a very specific sub-article would be far more enlightening to those who want to learn about Chinese characters. I might add that it barely mentions stroke order and does so in the rather oddly named section "Orthography". / Peter ^Isotalo 06:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Excuse me for butting in here, since I'm not an experienced reviewer of Wikipedia articles, I won't venture an opinion on whether this article is suitable or not, but since one of the criteria mentioned is not being part of an ongoing edit war, and since the other reviewers don't know who User:Exploding Boy is, I'd like to point out that my experience is that any and every article edited by User:Exploding Boy is part of an ongoing edit war. I've detailed my complaints at the talk page of the stroke order article. --DannyWilde 03:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This is, of course, both inappropriate for discussion here and absolute nonsense. As can be plainly seen, the recent issue at Stroke order seems to have stemmed from a misunderstanding. At any rate, it's a moot point since the article has be soundly rejected as an FA candidate and since I've agreed to work on it further and have in fact actively solicited input from DannyWilde. This proposal should really be retired from voting, since it's not going to go anywhere from here anyway. Exploding Boy 06:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object: Right now, the article is missing important aspects: for example, what is the correct stroke direction? This is no trivial desicion, as for example the ノ in 文: should it be written from bottom left to top right, or from top right to bottom left? My lecturer told me it should be from bottom left to top right, yet the stroke is confusingly called Right diagonal stroke in the article. Another objection is the given Dots and minor strokes last rule next to the stroke order image of 火, which shows the dots written as first. Exceptions are bad for an example. --Abdull 15:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oh My Goddess!

Self nom: I think article qualifies to be a FAC, there is always room for improvement but lack of suggetions in peer review suggests this is perfect. So hence a FAC. --Cool Cat ^Talk 03:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Support -- Your images are all fair use, but that can't helped. More importanatly though, I didn't see a reference section. If you can get one or two references on the page you will have my full support. TomStar81 03:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Better as far as referances are concerned? --Cool Cat ^Talk 04:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Unilateral Support -- Sorry about not getting back here sooner, collage work has started piling up again. Yes, thats much better, and it solves my objection. Good Luck (and by the look of things, you need alot of it 8-) TomStar81 07:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  • No references.
  • Most of the article is lists. Is is really necessary to have an episode listing and soundtrack listing?
  • No fair use rationale on any of the images.
  • The placement of the {{Spoken Wikipedia}} template looks pretty bad on this end. Is it supposed to be at the top like that?
  • It's also rather short when you look at it sans the list content. Is there anything about this anime besides the name and story that could be written about? Has it had an impact on anime in general? -- Bobdoe (Talk) 04:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It has been around for over a decade under diferent titles. I'll include those referances (so as not to make this original research, help is welcome :)). I am not sure where the spoken wikipedia template supposed to be at. People place it on diferent locations. So I am inclined to believe there isnt a rule. Where do you think it will look best? --Cool Cat ^Talk 04:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok both sountrack and epuside list tables are gone. --Cool Cat ^Talk 14:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, first with the breakdown of text to list ratio I would suggest that this might be better on featured lists or it needs the content restructured. Second the text that is there is fannish and the grammar needs work. The story section is the only substantive block of text and after reading it I only have a vague idea about the story of this anime, it reads like a confused review rather than a summary of the plot and presents fan opinion as fact and an example:

Belldandy is one of the most recognized characters in anime, (really?) and is considered the inspiration to dozens of demure magical characters (like whom?). The series is well-loved by fans for several reasons: its artwork is generally recognized as beautiful without any of the characters being victims of gratuitous fanservice, and the storylines balance screwball comedy with sweet romance that never gets saccharine (sounds like it came from a fan site rather than an encyclopedia).

--nixie 04:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not write it I merely added stuff, I need ideas to improve it ;) --Cool Cat ^Talk 04:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Per all the above. Phils 09:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I have itoduced shot summaries for each character. Also working on history asap. --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article consists of an extremely brief lead, a story recap, a crufty naming discussion (only fans care about these kind of details) and then some lists of episodes, characters and songs from the soundtrack. It has virtually no information about how the subject relates to other anime, why it's popular, it's cultural influences, etc. This needs to go back to the drawing board and (hopefully) return with severly shortened lists, preferably none at all, much shorter story recap and a serious in-depth article. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure how to expand the article in that direction without jumping into original research. --Cool Cat ^Talk 11:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's okay to make observations of the obvious as long as you don't make subjective judgements. I'm sure you can find quotes made by the makers of the series about influences and such in interviews and the likes. / Peter ^Isotalo 18:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Pretty much agree with exactly what Peter said. The article lacks the depth of research needed for a FA. Two websites and two links to the sound track don't come close. FA's should be well written, meaning almost entirely prose. The lists need to be moved off to separte list articles and linked to in the appropriate place. Then replace them with prose reflecting what about the list is important to the topic. You say no comments in PR mean its perfect, but it also can be that people see the article has no chance to be a FA in the current state and don't want to be rude, or people just don't happen to get to that article. Either or both appear to be the case here. - Taxman ^Talk 14:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I realise that was wishfull thinking on my part. Take a look at the progress. I am rewriting most of the story section. I needed coments from people to improve the article that is all, if I can make it a FA in the process, its not a loss. Peer review is dead. :P --Cool Cat ^Talk 15:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Peer review is not dead, there are just not enough reviewers to get to all the listings and some don't get many comments. Some do though, if you look at the page. If you think peer review is dead, the real question is how many listings have you reviewed and offered suggestions on what it needs to be a FA? Of course, first you need to spend time knowing the criteria and how they are applied. Anyway keep improving the article, but FA status doesn't appear in the cards anytime soon. - Taxman ^Talk 17:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• What channel in Japan was it broadcast on? In what timeslot? What were the ratings and reviews like? Morwen - Talk 08:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The recent AIC version? TBS and affiliates, in post-midnight timeslot like most anime for older guys. [26] You want japanese reviews or english? The 'fan' reception was lukewarm, from where I'm sitting. --zippedmartin 14:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool. However I was saying the article should say that. This article is currently written from the point of view of a Western anime fan, which is not really appropriate for an international project. It needs more info about its original context. Morwen - Talk 16:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree completely, see comments below, but was replying here so coolcat and others had the answer with the question. Have dug up some interesting ratings stuff from Newtype too, page 159 of the 2005.07 issue, ratings table: 4.04-4.10 - 2.6; 4.11-4.17 - 2.4; 4.18-4.24 - 2.2; 4.25-5.01 - 1.9; 5.02-5.08 - 1.5. In perspective, lower than shounen stuff (Bleach gets between 3.8 and 4.7), and way less than the big hitters (Sazae-san 18.3-22.3), but on par for this kinda (post-midnight seinen) thing, Monster 's 2.5-3.6, Mahoraba 's 1.2-2.1. What's actually interesting is the huge tail off in viewers - supports my impression that there were a lot of very high expectations that weren't fulfilled by the slow meandering through the weaker early stories of the manga rather than skipping forward to where Fujishima gets up to speed. I'd be writing all this into the article rather than here... but there's nowhere to put it, execept under the dreaded 'plot' section. --zippedmartin 17:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, how do you suggest we add that to the article? :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. I sympathise that peer review got you nowhere, but this is the *last* anime article I'd want to hold up as a template of how to do things.

• Article needs a proper head. Take out the fallicy about it being a shōjo manga (it's in Afternoon ffs...) and then read Wikipedia:Lead_section - needs to be a summary of the article not a (misleading) definition.
• Manga cover pls (fair use), at the top. I can do this later propably.
• Something about the animators. Why is it all anime articles are giant plot summaries and lists of seiyuu and ep titles? ja:合田浩章 (Gōda Hiroaki) is a big part of this series and the article manages to not even mention him.
• Some kind of references for the few bits of the article that aren't plot summary or lists-of-stuff would be nice. And then hunt for more actual information to put in the article.
• The whole plot section. Write one summary common to the original and the adaptations there, a couple of paragraphs long, and relegate the rest to where it won't be frightening off poor readers who've only had a single sentence head to prepare them for pages of plot. Going straight from lead to Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow. is ridiculous, write the spoilers out of it.
• Other stuff. Lots of other stuff. Like, bug me on my talk if you need help on anything specific. --zippedmartin 14:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

  I tried to answer to all of your points. The plot section is almost completely gone as this article has grown too large to be broken into smaller peices (its something about 66 additional articles now). Anything else you want done? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. As much as I'd like to see this featured, it is far cry from FAC standards. The lead is too short, references are non-existing, Soundtracks is a stub section, Oh My Goddess! (TV) can probably have the episode summaries moved to the separate articles (and they are missing from 1x12 onward anyway). I'd like to see something more about how the series was invented and how it influenced other anime and international otaku fandom - it is, after all, one of the best well known anime/manga series. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

  All done, thats 24 new articles for TV and 5 for ova plus one for the movie. Although this leaves little on the article. Recently added cast section. As much as I want to write about how this serries influenced anime and manga world, I sadly lack the knowlege to do so. You seem to know what you are talking about, I kindly ask you enlighted us. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  As much as I wish, I know little beyond the fact that it did. It seems to be one of the best well-known anime series - this should be described. I am sure some Googling would provide useful information, unfortunately, I don't have time to do so myself.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object it's far from what a FAC should be: Why is this manga important or popular ? How popular it is, anyway? Something like criticism or professional reviews, how it influenced the anime genre, etc. It currently just tells the plot. bogdan 15:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  I do not know why it is important. If I write criticism myself its going to be original research. I do not have any access to professional reviews. The reviews I have my hands on only explains the manga for a paragraph and those are comercial ones which just cover the first episodes plot. I can only write about things I know and knowlege I can acquire. Insisting on something I cannot acquire is wrong. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Southeastern Anatolia Project

Self nom: Article gives knowlege about the project with graphs and stuff. Hence FAC --Cool Cat ^Talk 03:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object until it is copyedited and some of the pictures are removed. I know you asked me to help me, but I didn't know it was for FA. Acetic'^Acid 03:22, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. Too many images for the amount of text.
  2. The images Image:AtaturkDam.jpg and Image:GAP Region.jpg are claimed as "fair use". However, there's no reason why they can't be replaced with free-license images, so they should be removed.

  --Carnildo 04:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I can expand the topics though I need to now what to write about. I do want to keep it at reasonable technicality. I could not find any good airborn picture of the dams aside from one satelite image. --Cool Cat ^Talk 05:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Not very close to a FA either. Please spend some time getting familiar with the FA criteria and how they are applied to other articles. If you need to know what to write about, do some good research on the topic. Find the best sources available. Anything less than 6 or 7 good sources and some citations for the most important or contentious points means we don't have any idea if the article is factually accurate. - Taxman ^Talk 14:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Looks generally disorganised. The article moves straight from a short summary to a large graph of cotton yields. The acronym USDA is used without explanation. There appears to be a neutrality dispute as well. Compare with other FA's such as Kylie Minogue. Dmn € Դմն 23:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John III of Portugal

Partial self-nom. After the Biography Collaboration I think it is now a fine article. Underwent countless improvements on language issues, image problems and the content itself. Gameiro 00:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support, well-referenced, fine lead and apparently complete (can't vouch for accuracy). Minor issue: Under Inquisition Pope links to the current one. Could someone find out who was Pope at the time. The text isn't very clear whether the Inquisitor was appointed in 1515, 1536 or a completely different year. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Kudos to the collaborators, but this still needs some work. It seems to be missing a fairly large section. The article goes straight from outlining his life to discussing the declining state of Portugal during the later part of his reign. Where is the description of the nation's condition during the early part of his reign? The writing also needs improvement. Trade is not generally described as being "intense" and scholarships are not generally "attributed." The article also has some formatting problems. There are far too many one sentence paragraphs, and the images are poorly arranged. The article fails to use the standard footnote style for the quotations and other in text references. - SimonP 17:53, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • FA's use different reference styles I don't see anything wrong with current system.
• There is a section John_III_of_Portugal#The_Portuguese_Empire_under_John_III, I think this can be solved with just a bit rearranging of existing sections. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral I will support if SimonP's objections are met. This should probably be archived as a FAiled FAC considering its been a month. I hope to see this one up again. I don't think there is anytrhing wrong with the images or references though. Falphin 15:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support with minor issue. It would be nice to see the lead be organized into three summary paragraphs. While it may or may not be complete it is just a bunch of 2 sentence paragraphs which doest not follow Wikipedia:Lead. Newbie222 17:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The João III article is a mess. The first thing it needs is for someone to get the Paulo Braga biography and use it for the facts. Get those straight first. Then go on to the other stuff. The statement that the head of the Inquisition always came from the royal family is dead wrong, for example. Where did the writer get that howler?

[edit] Warez

Self-Nom (I've edited this on more than one occaision but not all content is mine.) This article has been used on several occaisions as a reference for media publications. The article is quite in depth but I know its missing stuff, I'd like to hear what objections are out there so as to get this up to snuff... If the media likes it we damn well better make sure its done right!  ALKIVAR™ 07:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object – reasons
  • No images, a screenshot of a popular site or program perhaps?, a diagram depicting the bootlegging process?
    • Taken care of now.
  • Just one references. Would like more references
    • Filled in some additional references I was too lazy to add before.
  • Inline references not correctly formatted. See Bhutan for an example.
    • Is the new inline reference format correct?
  • often based in mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand and Russia I would like to see a reference for these countries.
    • See the references, in particular the BSA Global Piracy Report for 2004 or 2005.
  • ISO (in this case, an image file intended for a writable DVD). (it can also be written on a CD)
    • This is correct as written. It specifically mentions that in this case the ISO is referring to a DVD image not a CD image. CD based Vid rips are typically in VCD format or DivX which may or may not be released in a CD burnable ISO image.
  • It should be more of prose than bulletted text.
    • Working on this.
  • Sections such as legality etc are too small.
    • Working on this as well.  ALKIVAR™ 09:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Nichalp/sg 10:03, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Object – the lead needs improvement, as prose it is difficult to read. Maybe this article would benefit more from peer review? Cedars 12:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Significant concerns about the faulty, awkward prose. POV may be a problem in parts ('Even worse,' with respect to piracy—let's stand back and just provide the fact in this instance, unless you want to specify whose interests are at issue.) Pointillistic paragraphing towards the end. Tony 14:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Prose has been gone mostly over and condensed, cleaned up, and rewritten in sections. Do you still see problems with the prose?  ALKIVAR™ 22:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. "Common wisdom" sentences (such as the mention of China, HK, Russia as powerhouses of piracy), unsourced, sweeping POV claims ("The software piracy "scene" typically isn't profit based, most members of the warez community openly detest and campaign against those making a profit from copytheft."), poor structure and formatting (use of bold and lists) make this article unfit for FA status. Also, it is not comprehensive. Some very important topics recieve little coverage (especially, as mentionned above, "Legality"). Phils 14:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • One, common wisdom is usually right. Two, it has been sourced now. As for the rest the listing is being worked on , but I cant think of a way to express the arguments pro and con in any clearer way than that list. And I will soon be working on the Legality section... Is there anything else you think needs work?  ALKIVAR™ 22:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Bad style throughout. Poor grammar and phrasing, every section title is Unnecessarily Capitalized, generally hard to read. RSpeer 05:36, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Grammar and phrasing has been worked on, all section capitalization is fixed as of this point in time.  ALKIVAR™ 22:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry - though it has improved, there are still style problems that are hard to quantify. Parts of the article come across as using pretentiously inflated language. Some examples:
      • "profit-orientated" to mean "profit-oriented"
      • Excessive passive voice, like "File verification is accomplished" and "thus the need for an efficient system of handling files was apparent" (which incidentally conflicts in tense with the phrase before it, too)
      • Empty words, like in "This method also creates the facility of downloading..."
      • Confused language, like using "RAR file extension" to mean "RAR file format"

In your comment the same language inflation shows through, when you used "as of this point in time" to mean "now". The article isn't bad, it just isn't one of Wikipedia's best. RSpeer 00:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review. Big time. I looked through the article, and it is a mess (grammar, and in some cases incomplete sentences). Some of the listed references are questionable as well. Pentawing 23:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I went through and cleaned up much of the wording and grammar. Nevertheless, I am not sure of the accuracy or comprehensiveness of the content. My vote still stands. Pentawing 01:13, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates

A very important book in the history of computing and statistics based on Monte Carlo methods. The article is well written and has a high quality picture which gives a sense of what the article is about. Klonimus 03:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Too short:
  • I see where the "million random digits" comes from, but what about the "100,000 normal deviates"?
    • 100,000 numbers distrubuted under a normal distribution
  • How high-quality are the random numbers? What tests were used to determine randomness?
  • More detail is needed on the generating system: what did the electronic simulation of the roulette wheel consist of, what computer was used, and what was the computer's part in the whole thing?
    • It collected data from the roulette wheel
      • What, did they have a guy spinning a roulette wheel a million times and manually writting down each number as it came up? Or was there a contraption that detected which slot the ball landed in, and there was a non-human spinning it a million times? If so, how could they ensure that the robotic precision of, well, a robot, wouldn't interfere with the randomness of the numbers? Are there pictures of this wheel anywhere? Fieari 06:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • The article says that the book was the largest table of random numbers ever produced. What was the typical table size for earlier books?
    • 10,000 digits or less, the largest table up to that time period was 100,000 digits
  • How much did the book cost to produce?
  • How much did the book cost to buy?
  • How many copies were sold?
  • Who was the typical buyer?
    • Researches, and sleepless people.
  • Which machines were the punch cards for? Was it the standard IBM card, or another format? Or multiple formats?
    • IBM punch format, other machines could read it or required a simple conversions routine,
  • Do we have an article on books of random numbers as a whole? If we do, this needs to link there. If we don't, one is needed.
    • Alot of this is described in the article on random numbers. Klonimus 05:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • --Carnildo 04:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object: too short (Carnildo objecting for that same reason, that's a new one). A good start, but you're gonna need to stretch it out to at least about three times this length to meet a bare minimum of what people will be willing to consider featured quality. This is only two paragraphs so far. Everyking 04:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• The article is too short and is missing a lot of information. Much of the information can be obtained from the introduction of the book (linked to from the page), the rest can be obtained from the "Short history" reference I put on there. I'm happy to add to it and turn it into a good article, but I haven't done it yet. Of Carnildo's questions, the only ones which simply cannot be answered in general are how much it cost to produce, how many copies were sold, and who was the typical buyer (the data for that information just isn't out there, I happen to know). The rest are very easy to answer and would be required for a featured article.--Fastfission 05:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Sevenpenny seizure. The book of tables was an important 20th century work in the field of statistics and random numbers. The article needs to explain, in greater depth, why it was an important 20th century work in the field of statistics and random etc. Which important projects would otherwise have been impossible without it? Which machines, which computers, which devices were built with this book? How important was it, really? The impression I get from reading the Tom Jennings link - and who is Tom Jennings? - is that it is a little curiosity, and amusing thing to have on one's coffee table but hardly even notable as an individual Wikipedia entry, let alone a featured article. If it is to remain, could we have an ISBN and author details (presumably "The RAND Corporation", but was there a foreword). Did you know that it's still on sale? [27] Well, you know now. The top review in the non-featured section is priceless; the reviewer drolly complains about the non-random nature of the numbers printed in the outer lower margins of the page. How were the digits determined? The article skims over that bit. "an electronic simulation of a roulette wheel attached to a computer" confuses me; "attached" in particular. -Ashley Pomeroy 23:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Mathematics can come across as quite dull and difficult to understand for a lot of readers, and this article isn't hardly going to spark any major popular interest, no matter how important the book is. If you really want people to get interested in math, improve any number of higher-lever articles like logarithm, statistics and equation. Or why not take on a real challange, like mathematics? / Peter ^Isotalo 18:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The word table is used a lot but it is never explained what exactly it means in this context. Is it a Table (database), Table (information), Mathematical table, or something else? There is also no precise definition within the first few sentences that addresses what this book is about—the reader shouldn't have to guess based on the book's title alone. It should say something like "blah blah is a book that lists tables of random numbers generated from blah blah..." Random numbers is also linked to twice within the article. —jiy (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Guerre

This is a self-nomination of an article that has been nominated and failed before (see old discussion). I believe all the objections expressed at the time have now been met. AxelBoldt 23:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written and documented. Phils 13:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Wikipedia, being as it is editable by anyone, needs to go to extra lengths to support its information, and that includes inline references, which this article lacks. For every, or at least most facts presented, there should be an immediate link to a reference supporting that information, so someone researching the topic can easily determine whether or not the wiki is accurate at that time or not (such as in the case of stumbling across vandalism). Fieari 21:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The reference for the historical information is the book by Davis; I wrote that in a later section, but maybe it's better to write it at the beginning? AxelBoldt 00:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I know of no autoritative reference publication, online or not, that explicitly backs every statement with an inline reference. This would mean about 30-50 inline references per page (on A4/US letter paper). Phils 11:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Phils - the requirement is for citations "where appropriate", which in my interpretation (as featured article director) means that statistics, quotations, judgements, disputed/controversial facts, 'etc; it does not mean you need a citation for every statement. →Raul654 21:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Johnson

Self nom. Profile of Ohio's lieutenant governor, potentially the next governor considering the investigations surrounding Bob Taft and others in Ohio government. Detailed, has photos, bibliography. PedanticallySpeaking 15:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:BobTaft.jpg, Image:Bruce Johnson's family at swearing in.jpg, Image:Bruce Johnson giving inaugural speech.jpg, Image:Bruce Johnson and Jennette Bradley.jpg are claimed as being in the public domain. However, works of individual states are not automatically in the public domain: it varies from state to state, and sometimes from department to department within the state government. --Carnildo 20:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This could qualify as a featured article if in fact the process to oust Ohio Gov. Bob Taft were an active reality. Recent polling by the Columbus Dispatch newspaper indicates that people may not like Bob Taft (very low poling numbers), but that they are neutral in his removal (hovering around 50%). Furthermore, the Democratic (opposition) party isn't pushing for Taft's resignation, but rather basking in his incompetence. In any event, Johnson is not planning on running as Governor in 2006 and doesn't have the organization in place to even start at this point. To me, this is a very well researched article that isn't relevant to Ohio residents at present. -- Stu 22:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Is your objection based on information you have on the status of Ohio's copyright claims? PedanticallySpeaking 17:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Featured status is determined by the quality of the article itself, not by other factors such as notability. Everyking 04:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The featured article in my opinion should be well written and have relevance to someone. My input was based on how the author/submitter presented it as topical to politics in Ohio today. While the article is well researched, it isn't featured article material. Stu 12:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Not topical? Johnson is the number two official in the State of Ohio. By virture of his office he is notable. It is irrelevant that impeachment is not likely or that Johnson is not presently a candidate for governor. If anything should happen to Taft, politically, medically, or something else, Johnson would become governor. These factors, as Everyking points out, are not relevant to what makes a featured article. PedanticallySpeaking 17:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Taft's troubles aside, I disagree with you on Johnson's importance and the "urgency" that accompanies this article. Stu 02:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral, but will change to support once Carnildo's copyright concerns are addressed. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind Stu's objections--if he's claiming that Johnson isn't notable enough to have an article, that's clearly false, and this article is clearly of feature-caliber, so I'm not sure that his objection is in any way actionable. The photo licences are a legitimate concern, however. We can't assume that Ohio releases its photos into the public domain. Honestly, the claimed photos aren't necessary to the article; they could probably be removed without harming it too much. Aside from the photo issues, this is excellent work. Meelar (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • My objection to the article is that while Johnson is second in line to Taft, such an impending shift is not as likely as user:PedanticallySpeaking claims it to be in his nom. Had the nom been made when Taft's ethics charges were news, then yes, this would have been more topical, however, given the current political climate in Ohio, Johnson's chances at being named Governor are slim to none barring an act of God. I've never disputed the research quality, but I do feel that the article overly long. Now, as for the photographs, I think that the face shot is perfectly fine for the purpose of the article. I do have an issue with the swearing-in image, because the source isn't listed. I do agree with Meelar that the article could run without the images withour any problem. Stu 02:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, OK. I'll freely admit, I consider the actual statement made in the nom to be of very minor importance. I'm not sure what PedanticallySpeaking should do to improve the article and gain your support. Is it actionable? As far as length is concerned, it's only 39 kb. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'll give some support - well written and researched as Meelar said. However, like one or two other of PedanticallySpeaking's former featured article candidates, there had been problems with image copyright issues. I'll support this well-written piece of work, but we should probably clean up the images quickly. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support - as soon as the issue with the images is sorted out, will change to support. Article is well written, thorough, and PedanticallySpeaking once again provides extensive references. I strongly feel the article should be judged on its own merits, and if a subject merits an article, that article should be eligible for consideration regardless of concerns about being topical etc. Rossrs 15:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support the problem with the images and copyrights can be worked out. It is a great article and well written. If I understood Stu (above) correctly, I feel that it is nonsense to say an article is too informative for the attention it has in real life because the goal is to get articles as complete and sharp as possible without bias. If I misunderstood Stu, I apologize and shall revoke my comments about Stu's opinion, however, I would keep my support for this article. It truly is a great article: nicely researched (such a long list of references! :) ), great format, easy to read, factually complete, I have no reason to object or stay neutral. I did notice, however, that the External Links portion was very short with only one link. However, I cannot consider this a negative thing because I do not know about the supply of quality links regarding Bruce Johnson--one link may be all that is out there. --Lan56 17:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article seems extremely POV to me. For example, in the lead is this sentence: "If the Coingate investigations of Governor Taft and others in state government force Taft from office, Johnson would become governor in his place." At this time, few objective political observers in Ohio or elsewhere think that the scandal will force Taft from office. In addition to these POV issues, the article's prose is not the best I've seen. While it is okay, the language and tone of the article read more as a summary of Johnson's career than as an article about his life and career. --Alabamaboy 02:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• All photos were removed from this article today. 66.213.119.98 14:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrogen

Nominating hydrogen for my 1000th edit. Toothpaste 06:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Toothpaste, congrats on your 1000th edit. I really like this article, and hope that the nomination succeeds. A few opening comments:
  • Table at top: 'colorless' is a funny epithet above that brown, tube-like thing.
  • Query question marks against 'magnetic ordering'.
  • You might consider engaging more readers at the start by elaborating just a little on 'Scientists are now researching new methods for hydrogen production.' Perhaps point out hydrogen's potential as a partial solution to greenhouse?
  • The level of explanation of terms is a little inconsistent. Your (now deleted) first sentence in 'Hydrogen atom' was a bit simplistic, yet then you hit us with 'Coulomb force' and 'spectral lines' a sentence later. I know they're linked, but since the text is not overly long, you might consider glossing a few of the terms that lend themselves to brief, less technical explanation, leaving those that cannot be simply explained as links. This might encourage more non-chemists to stay engaged throughout.
  • The sections 'Notable characteristics' (which is a misnomer, I think) and 'Hydrogen atom' (which is stubby), might be conflated under the heading 'Basic features'. Both sections currently start by talking about the same thing from slightly different angles.

Well done indeed! Tony 08:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I think that might be a mistake in the photo, perhaps, since the photo of helium looks like the exact same thing. I consulted all the books I used in helping to write the article on the magnetic ordering, but there was no information. I fixed your other three comments, though. Thank you for helping out. Toothpaste 09:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Support Everything it should be. Doesn't need an image under "Appearance" but not critical --PopUpPirate 11:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object for the moment. Lots of good content but there are some points I'd like to see addressed:
  • What's a lifting gas? Term is used in intro but not explained.
  • I think the intro could summarise more of the article content.
  • Intro gives a slightly different etymology to the history section
  • The explanation of the hydrogen spectrum seems a bit unclear and slightly inaccurate to me.
  • You say that in space H exists as individual atoms - true, but they can be huge clouds of individual atoms; see H I region and H II region, which probably should be linked to.
  • powering the universe - not really correct. Hydrogen fusion powers stars.
  • Applications section is mostly list, which should be converted to prose.
  • The ground state energy level of the electron in a Hydrogen atom is 13.6 eV, which is equivalent to an ultraviolet photon of roughly 92 nm. - I understand what this means, but then I've got a PhD in the study of astronomical spectra - not sure a layman would understand this. The following paragraph is a bit patronisingly written in my opinion.
    • Just to add to this, could be worth mentioning in this bit that when the average photon energy in the early universe dropped below 13.6eV, hydrogen recombined and the previously opaque universe became transparent. Incidentally the wavelength is 91.2nm. Worldtraveller 10:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • A lot of the stuff in the 'see also' section should be discussed in this article. Generally it's considered that see also sections are redundant, as anything mentioned in them should be discussed in the main article.
  • General suggestion - you could give the equations for the proton-proton cycle and the CNO cycle, they're quite simple, and informative I would think. Also, an image of an H II region and/or Jupiter could be quite nice and illustrative. Worldtraveller 15:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Except that I'm not sure 'introduction' is synonymous with 'summary'. It should prepare the reader for the more detailed information to come, and allow her to navigate more easily through the article. It may define the scope, or may not. Tony 15:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

True, the terms are not synonymous - I should have said 'lead section' instead of 'intro' - sloppy conflation on my part. WP:LS states that The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Worldtraveller 16:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Not at all comprehensive, and includes significantly dubious material. Paracelsus story is, at best, an unverifiable legend; is it really plausible that he was the first to use acids on metals? Hydrogen is not difficult to produce in large quantities -- the economics may be difficult, but not the process. The energy levels/quantum mechanics section is simplified to the point of meaninglessness, and conflates early quantum theory with later quantum mechanics. Fuel cell use goes back at least forty years, apparently predating significant alternative fuel proposals. Chemical reactivity of molecular hydrogen is at least as significant a factor in absence of atmospheric hydrogen as light molecular weight. Most conspicuous omission is discussion of nuclear fusion power generation research. Problems with tone of article, which mixes high-school level writing with more appropriately rigorous discussions. Monicasdude 16:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: The above editor has objected to dozens of FACs and, as far as I can tell, has never cast a supporting vote. He's of course free to do this, but I note this here so that Raul can take this into consideration in a close vote. This editor is pleased to impose elite science journal standards on others even while his own prose falls far short of those heights, and is pleased also to make cracks like the "high-school level writing" gibe above just to give an extra twist of the knife along with his incessant no votes. This sort of thing is just an unnecessary downer and really I just feel his votes should be discounted until he can get past all this self-vaunting at others' expense. JDG 06:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: The above editor has spent an inordinate amount of time posting malicious nonsense aimed in my direction after no other editors supported his position in an edit war he started with me. I haven't objected to "dozens of FACs" -- I've posted on less than two dozen. I think that this article -- like too many recent candidates -- fails the comprehensiveness standard, and falls far short of the "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work" standard. I make no apology for saying that articles on scientific topics here should be held to a higher standard of rigor than high school science texts; I think that point should hardly need to be stated. Monicasdude 23:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: The above editor now has five or so fellow editors diverting their time and attention to an RfC with one purpose: to get him to pause, reflect on his bullying ways and change them so that even more time and attention isn't sunk into the endless tussles, dustups, conflagrations and kabuki dances he kicks up literally everywhere he goes. So far these efforts have been approximately as effective as a guy with no arms throwing jello shots at an 80 foot tall titanium-hulled robot remotely controlled by an evil mastermind in an Arctic bunker, but we keep on keepin on. Wish us luck, gentle colleagues. JDG 01:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• I appreciate your frustration at JDG's tone, but there's no choice but to address his/her comments as best as possible; if any of them are unreasonable, they should be fairly easy to debunk in a few sentences. Maybe JDG has a few valid points (I don't know). I say this as a supporter of this nomination. Tony 07:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Whose frustration at my tone?? Are you trying to say my frustration at Monicasdude's tone? JDG 16:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, got the names wrong; yeah. your frustration at Monic's tone. Tony 03:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bulk vending

This article is just awesome. 24.54.208.177 03:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Too Many Images. The section in the center with nothing but images is ... not very encyclopedic. Text, please! --FOo 05:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose: Too many images. Putting off for those who have narrow band connections. Use the <gallery> tag sparingly User:Nichalp/sg 05:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC) 1) ToC granulated: too many headings. 2) Are bulk vending machines only available in the US? 3) Inline formatting of references is incorrectly done. Take a look at some recently Featured articles for how this has been done. User:Nichalp/sg 19:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:6way.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but since it's quite easy for a Wikipedian to create a free-license image to replace it, there's no reason to use it. --Carnildo 07:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • All right, those images have been removed. 205.217.105.2 12:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Get rid of the watermarked images. Like Carnildo said, just take some pictures of vending machines. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The lead is too short, there are too many lists, the article reads like a promotion for the upsides of bulk vending and it contains the section "Miscellaneous tips", which is a very obvious usage guide. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppossum. After the second sentence of the main body it becomes entirely US-centric. The article has a very informal, fannish style. I get the impression that the writer is enthusiastic, probably quite knowledgeable in the field, which are not always positive attributes when writing for an encyclopedia. A good encyclopedia writer should be a skilled researcher and a talented writer, not a specialist. He should be able to take the words of several specialists and turn them into encyclopaedic-quality writing; this page reads like unprocessed crude oil rather than high-quality petrol. In particular, it has led in this case to lots of bald assertions and formulations along the lines of "the consensus seems to be" and "it is generally regarded", because the writer - being a specialist - has not sourced and cited things which he believes to be self-evident. The 'Business opportunities' section seems libellous. The numerous instances of current prices will be a nightmare to keep up-to-date. Certainly, the wealth of detail is interesting, and I envisage this being forwarded around people's email inboxes for the photograph of a machine's internals alone, but it's not of encyclopaedic standard. Given the fact that it reads like the work of one man, I doubt it will ever be of encyclopaedic standard. Certainly not featured article standard. The picture of a laundromat doesn't seem to have a bulk vending machine in it; and the caption mentions 'quarters', what are they? -Ashley Pomeroy 23:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If you hang out on the Yahoo vending boards long enough, you'll understand the reasons for putting "it is generally regarded," "the consensus seems to be," etc. These guys can't agree on anything, and they usually don't like to be quoted, either. As on Wikipedia, though, the rough consensus tends to get it right eventually. 205.217.105.2 19:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hulk Hogan

Not a self Nomination, I just think this is a well written and interesting artical and I don't even watch professional wrestling. --Richy 14:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article needs a lot of cleanup for content and layout. And more importantly, there's no references. With some work, I think this will get to Featured Article status eventually. ;) --Jtalledo (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. None of the images has source or copyright information. --Carnildo 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Despite having worked on this article quite a bit myself, it's not ready, mainly for the two reasons given above. --Chrysaor 05:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Phelps

Self nom. I've worked for a loooong time on this article, to make it as fair, balanced, and comprehensive as possible, a difficult task when involving someone like Phelps. There is still much to be added, but in the past few days I've gone to work foot-noting the hell out of the thing (thankfully, "Addicted to Hate" and the Topeka Capital Journal put all of the interviews with Phelps and his friends, enemies, and family in one place). The copyrights on the pictures are solid, the subject is timely, and the article thoroughly researched. I think this belongs on the front page. Mistergrind 04:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Minor cosmetic objections: 1. Some sections seem to have a lot of short paragraphs which would be better merged to improve flow. 2. Incorrect format of quotes: short quotes (four lines or fewer) should be enclosed in quotation marks and embedded in the text. They should not be italicized. Long quotes (longer than four lines) should be formatted as blockquotes. Slightly less minor objection: The references section is very short indeed, and is called "Sources cited/biographies." It only contains three items, but it's not clear which is which. One would assume that a very long article such as this would have more than one or two sources. Perhaps the bios could be added to the external links section (which should be moved -- sources should be at the very end). Otherwise, distasteful a subject as it is, good job. Exploding Boy 06:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• As much as I despise Phelps and everything he stands for, we need more sources to back up all the extreme statements in this article. Almost all inline citations are from a single online source, which is apparently nor sympathetic to Phelps. Also, there are a lot of microsections, making the table of contents unnecessarily long; these should be reorganized. Phils 14:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Although there are only three references, the main one, "Addicted to Hate," is mainly made up of interviews with his children, enemies, Phelps himself, friends (such as Pete Peters) and members of the Westboro congregation. I debated, myself, on whether or not to include a lot of the ATH info, because it seems biased. Ultimately I decided to, because as I examined the book, although it seems biased, ultimately it is the facts that make it seem so; the simple truth is that Phelps has given very little to write positively about.70.243.38.28 19:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Phelps51.JPG has no source or copyright information.
  2. The image Image:FPhelps.jpg is claimed under "fair use", but does not have a fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed.

  --Carnildo 20:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Due to POV. I don't like the man either, but this article seems a little too empassioned about him being a dispicable fellow to be a good encyclopedia article. Take the following example (only an example, fixing only this won't change my vote)

In the realm of traditional fire-and-brimstone sermons, the one that Phelps credits for helping to develop his hatred was relatively tame by any standards: Christ inviting all men to come into God's service, likening the afterlife and God to a rich man who has made a great banquet and invites many to come dine with him.

• • Does Phelps really credit himself for devloping hatred? That's the sort of thing I'd really need to see some quotes on. The article makes some claims that I find slightly hard to swallow. Does he really think about himself in such terms? I've found that most people are pretty rational if you accept some certain irrational premises first... but this article doesn't present that side of the story. What does he really think about himself, and his activities? I mean, even the premise that God hates "Fags" doesn't back up all the things written here. I understand that most of what you have written comes from a few, biased sources. Would it be possible to find more sources to explain things better, and in a more dispationate way? Words like hate, while applicable to quotes, should be avoided in the main text of the article unless directly referencing a phrase someone said. Otherwise it colors the article in a POV way. Now, I'm sure he really is as despicable as you say... but can't we describe that in a more nuetral manner? Fieari 21:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• This is the problem run into when dealing with Phelps... people don't seem to understand that when the article is NPOV, it's not going to seem as NPOV as some other articles. There are people out there who just don't give you good things. There are other people, like Phelps, who due to mental instability, don't provide the reasonable "flow" you'd expect, and so people automatically assume that there's something amiss in the article. As pointed out above, someone who doesn't know much about Phelps would assume that "God hates fags" doesn't back up Fred's theology. These people seem to miss the point, which is made very clear by people quoted in the article, that they believe Phelps is mentally ill, a statement that would appear to be easily verifiable based on his actions and beliefs (such as that he'd like to see children adopted by gay couples turned over to child molestors). Now for the most part everything I've written I've done so trying to use as many quotes as possible, and to not try and make it anti-Phelps: I just present the facts as they are. So the constant NPOV accusations really get on my nerves.70.243.38.28 22:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Allow me to go into more detail.
    • "...an image emerges of Phelps as a ferocious child abuser and wife beater, who..." -- Is this original research? If not, who does this image arise to? Can we quote him/her/them? I'd argue that this sentence, as it stands, is currently and horribly POV. It could be made NPOV, however, and still keep all the facts, which WOULD emerge an image of Phelps as all that, but wouldn't put it in those terms. The facts alone should suffice. Don't push the point.
    • "...ownership of a book...", "In the book..." -- (Nitpick) Err, what book? If it's public domain, why not link to to inline here? Does this book have a title?
    • "In the realm of traditional fire-and-brimstone sermons, the one that Phelps credits for helping to develop his hatred was relatively tame by any standards: Christ inviting all men to come into God's service, likening the afterlife and God to a rich man who has made a great banquet and invites many to come dine with him."
    • In order to further illustrate the POV, I've attempted to reword the above statement in a more NPOV manner:
    • "Phelps is quoted [source] as crediting a sermon many consider to be relatively tame for inspiring him to his hatred: Christ inviting all men to come into God's service, likening the afterlife and God to a rich man who has made a great banquet and invites many to come dine with him.</nowiki>" (also, a link to either the bible chapter or the sermon itself if available might be interesting)
    • "he was part of a failed mission to convert" -- The word failed, while accurate, is a little strong and adds to the negative tone of the article. A more nuetral term might be useful here, such as unsuccessful.
    • "The campaign ended badly: ..." -- POV. You can state the fact without judging it.
    • In general, you state many things as fact, whereas they are mostly claims by individuals. For example, "At the same time, even though he had gone back to being an attorney, Phelps continued to force the children to sell candy." How do we know that he forced the kids to do so? Well... because the kids said so. But people can lie. I doubt they did, but in an encyclopedia, we like to state things that we KNOW are true. Someone could concievably dispute that the kids actually did these things. No one can dispute that the kids claim that they were forced to do these things. So change the wording to more accurately reflect your source-- personal anecdotes.
    • That's the biggest source of POV here... treating things recounted in anecdotes as fact, when they should be treated as claims... even claims backed up by a great deal of plausibility, but still claims.
  • The facts should speak for themselves. I agree with you, Phelps is a madman. But we can say that in a NPOV way. Fieari 00:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No offense to your work, but this article has a ways to go to reaching featured quality. It is far from NPOV. Instead of making claims, it should simply state known facts. For example, an NPOV article shouldn't say "Through interviews with his children, family members, congregants, friends, and enemies, an image emerges of...". That is making a claim. Instead it should say so and so described him as... and His son says this and that, etc. That kind of stating opinions is pretty much throughout the article. - Taxman ^Talk 23:02, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Rant. I put this article up for peer review (link), and none of this was brought up there, in fact hardly any feedback was given at all. What is the point of having a peer review which gets completely ignored then when somebody does a feature nomination, all this comes out? Why should we use peer review at all? Seems we should all just nominate anything here, since it's the only place any feedback gets given. End Rant. I'll look at the language over the next 24 hours and attempt to correct any POV I can find in terms of claims vs facts etc and see what people think then. Djbrianuk 19:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We can't get to everything on PR. Sometimes when I see an article on PR that doesn't have a chance to make FA I choose to spend my time reviewing something else. I'm not saying that is the case here. But what PR needs, is more reviewers that know the FA criteria. How many listings on PR have you reviewed? Only then is your rant justified. - Taxman ^Talk 20:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. This thing is gonna go down the drain, but I think it's pretty good and so I just want to give it a vote before it gets sent to "Former Canidate" status.Timmybiscool 16:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I feel it would give a bad impression to visitors to see this article on the front page. It would contradict Wikipedia's Neutral POV status. I think the article needs a few improvements anyway. Dantecubed 04:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So where's the bias in the article? What exactly needs to be fixed? --Carnildo 04:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Darwin

Self-submit that objections raised previously (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Darwin/archive 1) have now been met, and this is a reasonably worthy candidate...dave souza 06:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Qualified support; good article overall, but I'd like to see better captions. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Captions revised..dave souza 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support - captions seem to be quite good now. There are a few small changes that I will make in the article, but overall it seems like a totally appropriate FA. I would like to see careful, each fact footnoting, but I know I am in a very small minority on this, and it's hardly a FA criteria. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, a few format issues should be addresses, first the main article links breaking up the Orchids, Variation, Descent of Man and Worms section don't do much for readibility, would it be possible work them into the text, after all a blue link in the text is effectively the same as a {{main}} link in this case. I also think the works section of the article is poorly organised, list of publications would be nicer on the eye if it was presented as a table, (Year!Title/URL1!Alternate URL), even if you don't make a table this section needs to be tidied up. Why is there a section on links to his works, when all his works are listed as links anyway? The Alternative links also repeats the resources already listed. Finally the Commemoration section should be written as prose rather that a list of points.--nixie 04:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

These issues have been addressed, but I don't have the expertise to make a table of the works section so have tried revising the formatting....dave souza 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, but a little reluctantly. Since every major subsection under "Biography" seems to have its own satelite article, it seems like a lot of page space is wasted in duplicating those articles. That being said, I think the overall quality of this article is better than the quality of the satelite articles (the "inception of theory" section is much better written than the Inception of Darwin's theory article, IMO), and the overall quality of the article itself is quite good. It just needs to be a little more controlled in layout, IMO. – Seancdaug 16:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Layout being tightened, any further ideas welcome...dave souza 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• This is a good article related to one of the most important scientific topics ever. I'll probably support the nomination after going through the article to tweak the text on the clause level. Tony 01:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC) At the opening, I wonder about the statement 'who achieved lasting fame as originator of the theory of evolution through natural selection'. The two planks of the theory are natural selection and sexual selection; if you feel that it's inappropriate to mention the latter at the opening, can 'through natural selection' simply be removed at this point? Tony 01:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The reason for qualifying evolution as "through natural selection" is that Darwin is often wrongly characterised as having introduced evolution as an idea, though theories of evolution were current and controversial throughout his early life. My non-expert thought was that sexual selection is a sub-set of natural selection, and as it wasn't covered in the famous Origin but added in Descent of Man, having it in the intro might confuse some people. Thanks for tackling the layout/style concerns, work in progress....dave souza 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a subset of natural selection. Victorian and 20th-century scientists had a history of neglecting this second half of the theory for 'moral' reasons, and it is still all too common for people to ignore sexual selection; yet it is so important. Accordingly, I strongly argue that it be announced at the start. For this reason, I strongly argue that it be announced at the start. Tony 10:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Will go along with that. In his intro to his abridged Origin Richard Leakey describes sexual selection as an "accessory mechanism" (not necessarily a great authority, just had the book to hand), but it's certainly an important part of the theory....dave souza 11:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Not happy at all with the section entitled 'Return to celebrity and science', which I've just slightly edited.

• • Was he a celebrity before he left? I don't think so.
  • 'printed for distribution': isn't that just 'published'?
  • Lots of things hit you unexplained: 'plants'—are they the fossils previously mentioned? 'radicalism', 'controversial', 'hazards', 'Grant'—all a jumble that needs to be disentangled and explained to the poor reader.
  • 'Chile, and the South American landmass, was slowly rising'—Isn't Chile part of that landmass?
  • Why 'startling'? Making the account colourful is fine, but it's becoming opaque.
  • 'the collections of others'—other finches? other islands?
  • 'Eras's lady friend'—Is that your abbreviation?

And on and on ...

I'm starting to wonder whether this is too big a job to bring up to standard. Can you entice some other editors to help? It's a very important article, and I want this nomination to succeed. However, at the moment, I must oppose it. Tony 08:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This is extremely valuable feedback. The aim of minimising article size while including a lot of information has resulted in obscurity. I'll go over this section now and aim for clarity...dave souza 18:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through the next section—'Family, work, and development of theory', the title of which sums up a problem I have: the detail in which relatively inconsequential aspects of his life are treated, compared with his intellectual, scientific development. His relationship with Aldous Huxley is dismissed in one, stubby little sentence (six words, is it?). I think some of the account of the more mundane aspects of his life should be trimmed in this summary article. I've gone through this section making numerous alterations to the language. Please look at the commas I've inserted. Tony 01:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 19:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)I've gone through the whole article except Darwin's family. I hope I've improved it. Please check.

[edit] Ashlee Simpson

Another Everyking-driven article on Ashlee Simpson, although this one I spent a lot of time on. Its a very good article on a pop star :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - contains too much fancruft and trivia, and a pro-Simpson POV pervades throughout. Also, the fact that this and related articles have led to several arbitration cases against the main author for his steadfast refusal to let anyone else make substantial edits does not do much for this article's claim to be representative of the best of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 19:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Could you please give an example so I can fix it? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• RN, please see the comment I made about your other current FAC, I think the same issues apply here as well. Worldtraveller 23:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• If you mean the album your comment is exactly the same as here.... please ignore your dispute with Everyking and try to help me out here and give me an example or something to work with :-) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• World, are your objections the same as raised by Johnleemk? You're falling silent on the issue which is kind of troubling (your objection veers on being too broad to act upon) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Big surprise. Hey, at least you're not actively warring over it anymore. Everyking 23:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • At one stage you were banned from editing this article for a year because of your behaviour - I have never remotely been 'actively warring'. Worldtraveller 23:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Some detailed objections here, but I also strongly advise looking through the extensive talk archives in which numerous editors raised strong objections to the style of the article. In general it reads like a magazine article or a fan page rather than an encyclopaedia article.

• highly rated MTV reality series - who rated it highly?
• ...used a pre-recorded vocal track...This led to accusations that she had lip synced... - what is using a pre-recorded vocal track if not lip synching?
• The U.K.-sourced "La La" single - what does that mean?
• Simpson cut her hair shorter... - trivial, only of interest to hard core fans.
• Frequent use of 'Ashlee' instead of 'Simpson'
• Simpson often wears shirts with "punk"-style designs and typically has her fingernails and toenails painted black - trivia, not notable.
• are sometimes described (positively or negatively) as raspy - defensive tone here
• Ashlee got a tattoo of a star on her left wrist after the release of her album, and another tattoo of two cherries was seen on her ankle in 2005. [13] As of August 2005 Simpson has a new tattoo, of the word "love", located on her right wrist.[14] - trivia, only of interest to die-hard fans.
• Criticisms and controversy should be woven into the narrative rather than given a separate section.
• Due to some of her actions and performances... - which ones? Why? This is extremely speculative and vague
• a more popular theory - by what reckoning?
• "completely [lost] [her] voice" - what is she actually saying here? Either quote directly or paraphrase and drop the speech marks.
• the incident was made apparent when her drummer hit the wrong button - why 'was made apparent' instead of 'was caused' or something like that?
• Various explanations for the booing have been suggested - why not just cut this altogether? It has an extremely defensive tone and seems to be pure speculation.
• which was originally said to be called In Another Life - said by whom?
• although "L.O.V.E." was originally said to be the first single - said by whom?
• although there have been rumors that Simpson stole Valderrama from Lohan - according to whom?

Worldtraveller 21:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks - I'm working on these and others at the moment - please check back in a few days :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks again World - those helped out a lot.... I'm pretty sure I addressed those and some more, sans a couple cases. Namely the tattoo/punk-style thing - instead of just removing it I tried to highlight its notability. Anyway, thanks again, and even if this doesn't pass I think your comments really helped me tone down the NPOV in the article. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It has improved and I commend you on the work you've put in, but I think there's still an awful lot here that's superficial and unencyclopaedic. Why is the fact that she's apparently going to appear on Oprah notable at all, let alone notable enough to appear in the intro? used a pre-recorded vocal track...led to accusations that she had lip synced: the former is the latter - this clearly seeks to tone down what happened. Her next tour is planned for the fall of 2005 - reads like promo material. The whole section offering opinions about why she got booed makes me cringe - as I said before, not our place to speculate, and it reads like a defensive fan article. Around the time of the petition looks like an attempt to belittle the negative point about the petition. Set list from tour dates is not encyclopaedic in my opinion. A point of writing style - there's a paragraph that contains stuff about her voice and then her worst-dressed accolade - a jarring non sequitur. "I decided that I didn't want to talk about that because it's super personal," she said of the situation - that's extraneous, you can just give the reference to support the fact, and generally there are too many quotes from Simpson, they make it read like promo material.

The article looks well written, I just don't think it is encyclopaedic enough in content at the moment. Worldtraveller 20:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have an idea: why don't you write your own version of the article in your user space, and then everyone can look at it and decide whether any of its changes are worth including? I think this would actually be very easy work because all you'd be doing is chopping it back to a few paragraphs. Everyking 21:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

When people take the time to offer extensive constructive criticism, it's astonishingly rude to respond with inane and snide remarks. Be civil and avoid personal attacks. If you can't do that I will have to file an RfC or RfA. Worldtraveller 21:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Are threats any better than a sneering—but quite truthful—remark? In fact I think they're worse. But I encourage you to start an RfC or an RfAr or whatever else you like, and see how much support you have. Everyking 21:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Everyking.... please understand that he's trying to give criticism on how to improve the article in HIS OPINION.... it doesn't neccesarily mean we have to do that exact thing to get his support. Often times we can just reword something rather than eliminating it. To clarify, many of the problems he points out are valid, but he's just giving what he thinks is the best solution (in some cases axing it completely) which could very well be wrong. The important thing is to look at the problem and try to work with it rather than doing what he suggests as a solution. Does that make sense? (Hopefully it does).Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

EK, he's got some good points - although, I don't know if simply "chopping" them up is the best solution. Perhaps we should try to come to a comprimise on the talk page. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

RN: Redundent double positives like "...through the success of her chart-topping..." sound POV/fannish; either one is sufficient--having both sounds like hype. Also, "...popular reality show..." is somewhat POV and ambiguous. Should be more fact-based, such as highly rated (if that was the case). Similar issues with "...successful two-month North American tour." Would be much better if "successful" was replaced with something more tangible, like something relating to profitability, or number of sold out shows, or if applicable lack of cancellations due to low ticket sales. Anything quantifiable is superior to generic adjectives. Waterguy 03:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Waterguy - I went ahead and tried to quantify all of those a bit.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm abstaining for the moment at least, because I think it's generally good but doesn't really flow very well. Tuf-Kat 22:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Fair enough... I'll see what I can do:) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Change to support. Reads a bit better now. Tuf-Kat 16:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Everyking 23:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I applaud the efforts to slim this article down, but it still has some issues. I won't object further if the following are fixed: 1) It's too positive and I'll give specific examples. The lead fails to mention she is generally panned heavily by the critics. The phrasing regarding the critics refers to it as mixed while pretty much giving examples of negative press. I've never seen honest positive press about her to balance the negative, so mixed is a stretch. Pretty much everyone outside her fanbase that buys her music in droves thinks she's horrible as a singer and artist. Yes that's my observation, but it's a lot more widespread than this article even attempts to address. Most artists are simply ignored by those that don't like them, but not her. The 'controversial incidents' aren't that at all, but very simply indications of how much she is disliked. There's not much controversial about them. You don't need to be negative about her everywhere, and it's not and won't be if these issues are adressed since it notes how well her albums have sold and all her fame. 2) The lead is too short. Wikipedia:Lead section calls for 2 or 3 paragraphs for an article this size. Autobiography has basically the same problems. - Taxman ^Talk 03:13, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I finally have an idea of what to fix now :). BTW on the converse I really haven't too many serious reviews that universally pan the album either - could you live with it characterized as recieving "mediocre" reviews? Thanks again :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think what I mean is the new intro I just did for Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I can live with whatever is the case, and yes that lead captures it fine as far as I can tell. "Critical reviews were mixed" sounds like some were negative and some positive. It does seem like most were just mediocre, so clarity on that would be good. - Taxman ^Talk 04:23, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • Autobiography received a fair bit of critical praise—and even the critics who didn't praise it generally gave it so-so, not dismal reviews. Read our article on the album to see this. So to characterize her critical reception the way you want would be just plain inaccurate. I think "mixed" is fair and accurate in that regard. Everyking 07:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Everyking what he's saying is that in that section we don't any positive reviews to back it up though... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
          • OK, well grab one from the album article then if you like. Also, as to critical reception, there was also the tour—I think I read pretty much every article published about it and the impression I got was that the reviews were mostly good, that people thought she put on a good show. There was some negative press as well, I'll grant, but it mainly consisted of lingering SNL barbs. Everyking 07:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Nothing's going to change the fact that she is pretty much laughed at. Brushing it off as lingering SNL barbs is part of the problem. There's always going to be positive critics because their job depends on it and everyone knows that. So go back to mixed reviews and make it clear some were positive and some were negative, if it is the case that they were about even. The article doesn't need to move to a negative POV, but it can't be hagiographic and pretend in the lead that she is not viewed negatively by a large number of people. - Taxman ^Talk 14:28, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
            • I changed the lead quite a bit to reflect the impact of the SNL incident - in your opinion what else needs to be done? Should I try to emphasize more in the intro that she's more of a mediocre/average singer, maybe point out more the differences of opinion between the negative and positive reviews? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
              • Ok, it seems a lot more balanced now. Biggest problem left is there are just way too many short pragraphs that makes the prose choppy and flow poorly. A great article shouldn't need them. Either expand or merge with related material. - Taxman ^Talk 15:23, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
            • OK, thanks a lot for your help Taxman. I've crunched the paragraphs as much as I can and me (and possibly EK too) are out of ideas at this point.... do you think its good now, or...? Thanks again. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
              • In the interests of being fair, the lead has swung too far the other way. In my best attempt to be neutral I think it is clear that while the criticisms are strong and common, it is also clear she is very successful and her music sells well. If the lead has two sentences clearly stating the negative criticism (well done I think), it could now use one mentioning how succesful. Instead of chart topping, which sounds promotional, just mention her albums have sold very well and she had her own show on MTV that did well (try to specify how well). Try to keep it short too. One sentence should really do it, two could easily overdo it. After that is fixed, I'll probably go neutral. I don't think the article is great, no offense, but I don't think I could motivate myself to find specific issues. Maybe that's just my bias against pop culture topics in general, so sorry, but neutral won't hurt the article. Autobiography has the opposite problem, in that the only non positive mention is that reviews where mixed. Some mention of the negative publicity/criticism that came from the promotion of the album should be mentioned in the lead. Again, probably only one additional sentence. Sorry for combining the advice, but they're related and it saves an edit. - Taxman ^Talk 14:03, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Seems NPOV. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

*Object. Perhaps after many incidents whether good or bad surely will have more info than this. Furthermore, it seems like Ashlee is receiving only kids awards and no major awards have been said. Maybe if they focus on the history of Ashlee Simpaon a bit further. Also, like other popstars, each album should be explained and analysed in detail. It's too little so far. I however congratulate you on this nomination." *Support: It is now better. Keep up the good work! I have now seen that she has won a substantial award. (Which is a Billboard award). Well Done!

• • Sadly, the article used to be fairly rich in detail, but has been trimmed back a good bit since January or so due to deletionist criticism. (On the other hand, I think it still has a reasonable length, and it's been growing recently.) So I don't think an objection is actionable if implementing it would mean a flare-up of massive conflict. Anyway, you need to sign. Everyking 07:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What exactly is your objection? What specific parts need to be added/removed for your support :)? The album itself is described in excrutiating detail in its own article... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, well I added another (substantial) award Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Perhaps I'm a glutton for punishment (seeing how James doesn't really like me), but I'll weigh in anyhow. The article struck me as being "almost there"; not bad enough to object to, but nowhere near good enough to support. The captioning isn't in line with Wikipedia:Captions. I think the article is a bit fancruft-heavy; does it matter what/how many tattoos Ashlee has? The list of various minor performances is something I'm unsure about; on the one hand, most of them seem irrelevant to me, but on the other, take them out, and there's not much of an article. Who is Mr. Blackwell? The personal life section implies Simpson and Cabrera are together, but the "current activities" section indicates Simpson stole Lindsay Lohan's boyfriend, Wilmer Valderrama. I'm not sure we need a detailed description of how Ashlee got Punk'd, either. Nevertheless, I remain neutral; let's see what happens next. Johnleemk | Talk 14:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments:
  1. As for the tattoos etc., they are relevant because they are widely reported by the media (maybe unfortunately but that's a POV), so it would seem to me a bit intellectually dishonest not to record them, in fact what's in the article right now is mostly just the media has widely reported - sans some stuff about her doing commercials earlier there isn't a whole lot of fancruft in there (and yes, the hair is even more relevant whether anyone likes it or not). Maybe the importance of image could be expanded upon though.
  2. You may be right about the captions - I'll fix that today :)
  3. You're definately right on the boyfriend thing, it is confusing and I'll rework it
  4. About the punk'd part though you may be right that it verges on fancruft... I'll think about that one
• Thanks again for the comments :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • • OK John we took care of the captions, removed the Punk'd mention, clarified the boyfriend thing and more.... let me know what you think :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've clarified and linked Mr. Blackwell. Waterguy 03:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Got a couple of problems here — the criticism of Ashlee appears to be rather weaselly; might we cite one or two editorials or columns slamming her for these actions? Second problem is that that paragraph does not segue well into the SNL incident. The Valderrama incident isn't too clear — shouldn't there be a slight mention of that in the personal life section? Also, the references/notes are whispered, but I could have sworn that somewhere in policy, it is advised not to whisper them because readers with deteriorating eyesight (i.e. aging academics) may have trouble reading them. Like Worldtraveller, I am still a bit concerned about the pro-Simpson POV of this article. I ignored it before, but now that there's a paragraph on criticism, it seems to me that the article is rather imbalanced (especially as much of what I've heard about Simpson is indeed negative); might the criticism be expanded to cover an extra paragraph or two? I'm not objecting yet, just having a lot of trouble with supporting. Johnleemk | Talk 13:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You want something added to the article? Well, this is certainly a change of heart. Problematically it only pertains to criticism, criticism which is already explained in adequate detail. Everyking 14:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Damnit, I knew it was only a matter of time. Oh, well. "Adequate" you say? Perhaps 80% to 90% of comments I have heard about Ashlee are negative, and either refer to her lip syncing or being an artificially produced pop star. The former is covered well by the article; the latter is not. Since arguably more print is devoted to criticising Ashlee than discussing the colour of her finger- and toenails, the least we could do is have a couple of paragraphs about her other negative press. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, as mentioned to taxman and WT I've done everything I can think of to balance this, in addition footnotes like this are standard in FA as far as I know.... your comments have been very helpful, thank you. If you have any more please don't hesitate to share them :).
• Object. It is great that this article has been slimmed down. It is much better than it was when there was only one editor, a policy which was thankfully tackled by the arbitration committee. The input from a second editor has toned down the kind of excess still on display at Pieces of Me, where we learn that Ashlee's single "debuted [in Denmark] at 5 and peaked at 4, after which it fell off the chart; in Sweden, it reached a peak of number 31 on the singles chart, while in Norway it stayed on the top 20 singles chart for 12 weeks, peaking at 3 in its fifth week". And it is nice to see that subsequent editors have added negative criticisms of the much-maligned Ashlee. But the article is compromised, in my eyes, by the "Controversial incidents" section, which reeks of spin. That was the reason I disliked the article back then; not so much the excessive detail, which is hilarious, but the spin, which makes it hard to trust either the article or the person writing it. A lesser criticism is that the article says nothing about the process of manufacturing Ashlee. I have a rough idea how people such as this transition from being competent singers and the sisters of famous people into actual pop stars, with a contract and a product and songs, but this article skips the process entirely. The fact that this lady's parents cannot spell my good name, and dare to impugne my muscular masculinity by naming their daughter after me, has no bearing on my decision. (Subsequent edit: to be fair, some of the later objects - the process of pop rather than my name - are addressed in the article on Autobiography, her album, although it still reads like a massaged press effusion).-Ashley Pomeroy 16:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how we can talk about "manufacturing" Ashlee. For one thing, that would be POV; for another, the only side of the story we have access to, if you even believe there is another side, is the official side. So how can this be addressed? Everyking 16:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd already reworked the controversy section many times before and just now reworked it again for factual accuracy, and I really don't see any more spin in it. What are the remaining spin problems in your opinion? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Every serious (ie, not just a press release) media account I've read about this woman puts her in the same category as Hilary Duff and Lindsay Lohan. They were, according to these accounts, celebrities first, and then were signed to record deals as a way to 'cash in' by stamping their names on a formulaic product. Ashlee Simpson is depicted as a spin-off of the already successful Jessica Simpson franchise. An encyclopedia article about Ashlee Simpson cannot just ignore this. Her career, after all, follows a pattern established by child stars like Rick Nelson, Patty Duke, and Alyssa Milano (to name just three), and people shouldn't have to read between the lines to figure that out.67.67.120.228 22:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point - I put this into the critcism section. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • As mentioned I've got several editorials slamming her now and all the cricism I can think of... thanks for your comments :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object --Revolución (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, you just can't object without a reason - it has to be actionable Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

General comment- Everyone, please stop taking things so personal around here. There is a difference between constructive criticism and a personal attack, and everyone here is taking everything as a personal attack. Also, these edit wars and arbitration cases were MONTHS ago - there may be some lingering stuff left, but as you can see the article is improving rapidly and will hopefully be featured article quality before this FAC is over.... so please keep your comment strictly to the article at hand. Thank you and thanks to everyone for their criticism, help and comments Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Writing is not up to featured standard, and needs work for flow and style. Format of numbers inconsistent -- numbers that can be expressed in one or two words should be written out, other numbers are given numerically. Exploding Boy 06:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I reworked the prose mercilessly and I believe I have addressed this objection... if not could you please give me an example of the flow/style? Thanks for your comments :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article is much improved, but there's still work to be done:

• In the "Awards and More Controversy" section, we offer speculation as to the reasons for the Orange Bowl booing (off key singing, halftime show "too MTV"), but no inline citations for those opinions.
• In the "Early 2005" mention of the "Stop Ashlee" petition, we provde a link to a story about the petition but not the petition itself.
• In "Style and Personal Life", it's noteworthy that she has tattoos, it's even worth mentioning that she has 3 of them. But I don't believe the specifics about what the images are and where they're located on her body are of interest to a general reader seeking information about Ashlee Simpson.
• In "Criticism" : Assuming she is a manufactured artist, much of the media speculate that Simpson was pushed to fame through the aggressive management style and contacts of her father, Joe Simpson, who is her manager and was the executive producer of her reality show on MTV. I don't think we should be attributing assumptions to anyone in the media, let alone "much of the media" collectively.
• The "Astroturfing" text in the same section should mention the Wired Magazine "Jargon Watch" entry for "Ashleeturfing".
• External links are not balanced, and sites with any negativity have been repeatedly removed. Of the 7 present links, 3 are unarguably "pro" (the official site, the official online team, and the unofficial fan site), three are neutral (TV.COM, IMDB, Notable Names), and one has a mild "pro" pov IMO, but is neutral at best (wikicities). Skyraider 15:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

1. True
2. Petition is www.petitiononline.com/StopAsh/ of course
3. Fair enough..... I guess the references can take care of that
4. As mentioned below that's a tough one
5. I guess so
6. Again, WP:NOT a link farm and there should only be a minimal set of links, although maybe the fan site could be taken out (it really doesn't make sense to have an "anti" ashlee link as there are several references for that and besides the WP:NOT rule it opens up the externals links to silly edit wars (on any article)) basically from what I understand you're just supposed to have the imdb links etc. and then the official sites, including an official fan site. However, since there is no official fan site we have an unofficial one here instead. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C</sup&amp;gt;} 15:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• • OK, it looks like Johnleemk took care of some of the criticism part. I removed one of the pro links anyway since there was a pro since, and took care of the rest of your problems Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm still very much dissatisfied about the criticism section being weaselly, as many assertions we make there are not being backed up by the references, which only make one or two broad generalisations. The Orange Bowl incident has some speculation that is not referenced (i.e. backlash against MTV-isation of the halftime show). Overall, the article is starting to look a lot better than it used to be, but I'm not ready to support just yet. A lot of the sentences don't flow well (although there are slightly fewer of them than before), and their phrasing often sounds similar to what you'd find in a fan magazine. Johnleemk | Talk 15:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, well I'm not sure what to do here except attribute them specifically to the editorials. As for the sentence flow I've tried my best, and I guess its up to someone else at this point I'll take one more shot at it. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I took one last shot at the prose and backed up the orange bowl claims. As for the criticism the references do back them up (I believe) and I couldn't find any good sources for any other claims (and I don't really know of any others...) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Another criticism I forgot to mention: description of future events is not encyclopaedic. Exploding Boy 15:55, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • Saying "scheduled" isn't enough :)? Ryan Norton ^{;T | @ | C} 16:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. If the article does not begin with the fact that she has no talent at all and would not be notable or have an article at all but for her sister, then it is extremely unbalanced and this subject should never be a FAC. I mean, name me one thing she is notable for except for being a sibling and screwing up the opportunities she got? --Noitall 19:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, saying that and an edit summary "forget it", its no wonder people get defensive when putting a lot of effort into these. Anyway, if you have a specific objection I'd like to hear it, but that is completely unactionable Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, I have not edited one thing on this article even though I think it is wildly out of balance. I figure it is your article and the subject is too unimportant that I would leave it alone. But as for FAC, forget it. The article states, "Ashlee Simpson eventually rose to prominence in her own right", which is ridiculous. Ashlee has had constant and total media exposure with the world's best media companies on all forms, movie, records, cable, etc. Yet she is only truly notable "in her own right" for Saturday Night Live and the Orange Bowl incidents. Actually, now that I type this, I would probably support FAC if this article was entirely re-written to show what a no-talent person could accomplish when married to a talented and popular sister and having a media savvy father dedicated to making his daughters famous. But the article has none of that flavor. --Noitall 19:51, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

See also: Paris Hilton (vacant whore). Exploding Boy 19:56, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • This seems rediculous... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Paris, at least she is notable for "famous for being famous" and for being in the tabloids on her own right for her wild antics. Further, the article clearly addresses what is notable about Paris. In this case, it is "famous for being a sister of someone famous" and "famous for screwing up the incredible opportunities presented to her after having years of professional training and the world's best media exposure." The article does not come close to addressing this and is much more suited to a fan site. --Noitall 20:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • If I change the intro a bit to note the varying opinions on why she is successful (assuming I can find a credible reference(s)) and expand the criticism to note this would that address your objection? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of changes, including changing the flavor of the article, rather than just tweeking. I will reconsider anything. --Noitall 06:23, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• *sigh* I've searched through over 1000 links on google in an effort to come up with credible sources for anti-ashlee claims such as these, with basically just coming up with just [28] (which ends up being pro-ashlee in an odd way). I guess if you want something overly critical you could see the talk page, lol (I still don't have any sources to back up the riding coattails of sister claim though...). That what's makes this subject hard is the lack of sources. Anyway, I'll see what I can mash together with what I've got :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• I am beginning to think I will support this article, but only after some minor issues I have are clarified. For example, certain pieces of information don't fit into some sections, such as the paragraph about her backing band in her biography, or the sentence about her vocal range in the middle of her personal life section. Also, I won't support until we clear up that commented out paragraph near the end of the article; either we reference it, or we get rid of it. By the way, I don't think iMDB lists Ashlee as having starred in Raise Your Voice any more. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ryan, you are buried way too deep in the issues to see the big picture. Here is a true measure of notability, 2,220 google references for "Ashlee Simpson sucks". [29] and 574 for the huge sentence "Ashlee Simpson has no talent"[30]. I mean, really, she is notable for having no talent. --Noitall 14:37, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Not that I want to knock James or anything, but you honestly can't say that until you look back at what he (Everyking) inadvertently caused because of the huge misunderstanding we had about Ashlee Simpson and her related articles. Ryan is being extremely reasonable, if you ask me, especially considering some of your statements seem to imply you'd prefer us to distort the article with POVed assertions. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think if you vote in a way that would require the article to be reworked in a manner that would dissatisfy everyone but yourself, your vote is inactionable. Opposing votes need to be at least vaguely compatible with majority sentiment in order to be actionable. Everyking 22:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Come on now EK, I think I've even seen you present a better understanding of "actionable" than that. Actionable means literally able to be acted upon, and certainly working the article so it would be entirely anti-Ashlee is possible, therefore actionable. But it is also possible to be actionable, but not help an article follow the policies and get closer to meeting the criteria. In that case we just think the objection is improper or whatever word you want, but it is actionable. We can still get a consensus for ignoring the objection. - 18:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I should note that Raul removed this from FAC so it failed. Anyway, I digged through about 100 links on both the search queries Noitall mentions - but they are almost all message board posts, blogs, or student newspapers without references to back it up. Ergo, not credible enough for here. I also searched for '"Ashlee Simpson" criticism' '"Ashlee Simpson" critique' '"Ashlee Simpson" coattails' and much more. It's not that I disagree at all its just that credible sources for claims like that are nearly impossible to find (and pretty much all the ones we have now are opinion columns from reputable papers which have wild speculation). Its not like Paris Hilton where there's an actual porno to back it up, and if we just put that kind of criticism in without references to back it up it will be massacred on the next FAC. Anyway, Carnildo mentioned a spokesman review column that might be useful which I'll see if I can get ahold of. In the mean time we've got a month till we can put this on FAC again, so we should try to do what we can until then. Plus with another album coming out lengthening the article should be slightly easier to do by then. Noitall, remember next time you comment on FAC you need to make it clear what needs to be done, and not say you "might" support, otherwise Raul is probably just going to ignore it when he filters the FACs. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Whoops, Raul just put it back... so the show is still going on.... I'll update the talk page again :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, there is no "expert" opinion or research to decide such issues. The references are valid only to what the general public generally thinks of her. And they generally think that she has no talent. That said, I have not edited on this article and don't intend to. My only true and "actionable" statement is that, as it stands now, this article comes nowhere close, even in the universe, of FAC status. You and others are welcome to ignore my comments and continue building an "I love Ashlee" fan site, and that will be fine with me. It just does not qualify for FAC. --Noitall 23:13, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Listen, at least the FAs here I've seen about celebs here have little to no criticism of the person - this one at least has somewhat of an in-depth NPOVing of the controversies and a brief overview of the criticisms. Also, believe me when I say that I'd get more specific and critical if I could (you can see the stuff on the talk page that is over-the-top criticism of her father etc.), and you may vote support - but many others here will oppose if I do it without credible references, and probably some others who arn't here will jump in just to oppose on that note. Of course, someone here can correct me if I'm wrong :). In the mean time, I'll try to rework the intro and criticisms as much as I can - also, I do agree with johnleemc's comments about the structure - but I'm not sure what to do about it - I'll try to think of something about that :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This article seems shallow to me. On reading this I get no impression of how she fits into the history of American popular music. I'm not even sure what genre of music she performs, other than "pop" or "pop rock." The closest thing to this is the single dismissive statement by a critic that her music is a "mundane melange of Avril-ish brat pop and Sheryl Crow cod rock." Which artists have influenced her? Whom does she acknowledge as her musical mentors? Whom are the artists she has influenced? There is a great deal about her life and career, very little about her music. For that matter, there is very little about her voice. We are told that Mariah Carey sings in a whistle register, but all we learn about Simpson's voice is that on occasion it has been damaged by acid reflux. The whole article reads like something from People magazine (which is high praise, of a sort). A hundred years from now, people reading this article would have some idea of what kind of celebrity she was, but very little idea of what kind of singer she was. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taoism

Inherently readable, referenced, great article. --PopUpPirate 23:32, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• A couple of relatively minor objections. First, since Pinyin is the preferred romanization system, shouldn't the article be titled "Dao" rather than "Tao"? Second, there seems to be a rather random mix of Pinyin and Wade Giles in the article. Third, the tone and style verge into the chatty in some areas: academic writing prefers to avoid terms like "I" and "we" ("one does" rather than "we do" is preferrable). The Chinese character dao really should be explained closer to the beginning of the article, and does it not still mean "road" or "way" in Chinese as it does in Japanese? And lastly, and most nitpickily, the image of the character is a bit large... Otherwise looks good. Exploding Boy 07:07, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding Tao/Dao, doesn't Wikipedia use the most common name in article titles? The Google test upholds using Tao over Dao, as would (I assume) any newspaper headline search. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Tao" is far more common in Western countries. Users of the en wiki are more likely to search for "Tao". The name should be kept. Phils 13:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Taoism is more common. see Daoism-Taoism Romanization issue --Jiang 17:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Concerns addressed : image size fixed by someone else, I've copyedited it all and changed some wording. Tao is imo preferable to Dao, also. --PopUpPirate 20:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• minor objection: "overview" should not be a section heading. the lead section is the overview. Come up with some other label, merge the overview section with the lead, merge the overview section with the rest of the article, or do both--Jiang 04:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree - overview section has been integrated in other parts of the article, yep much more suitable mixed in. --PopUpPirate 20:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed the I/we problem (we --> one). It is a good article though. With some further tightening would make a great feature. Sunray 10:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Salvatore Riina

Self Nominated, Mafia boss from Sicily. I've worked quite a bit on this article from it's original stub (most of it used to reside at "Toto Riina" before a redirect to his full name) and I think I've managed to create a fairly thorough piece that hopefully fits the criteria for a Featured Article. If it it doesn't make the grade then constructive criticism is appreciated so I that I can work on it some more. Thanks. Robert Mercer 19:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I'm pretty sure there's no free images on the subject, so I doubt you can avoid fair use, but still the images need a fair use rationale. - 131.211.210.12 11:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support, it is a very well written article, has several good images. I don't see any reason not to have this as a featured article. --DA Roc 22:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rosicrucian

It is an article about an ancient esoteric movement, which is very active in current-days. It presents the inception, history and legend surrounding the movement and the mysterious "Rosicrucian Order" (including internal links to the articles on their main XVII century foudation documents: "The Manifestos"). It presents also a list of deceased notorious world persons, at different periods, known or considered to have been Rosicrucianists (or at least to have influenced the movement). It also gives an insight into the foudation of modern groups, current aims and studies, and establishes a NPOV relation among all the current-day groups (i.e. instead of having long texts about each group in the article, as some wiki languages have, each group - at least the main ones - has its own article accessible from this main article). It has many internal related references and also external links to groups and to the most deep studies available on the Rosicrucians from a variety of old and current authors, for readers who might want to learn more about it. It may be an example to other articles on similiar subject. The Portuguese language version "Rosa-cruz", which absorved some material from this article, is already a "featured article" and the French version "Rose-Croix" is at this time also nominated. It is currently available in 13 languages at Wikipedia. --GalaazV 01:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. It's an interesting topic, the prose is very well-written, and it has lots of great free images; but there are some improvements that need to be made before it's ready to be featured.
  1. All images need descriptive captions in complete sentences
  2. The lead section should have two paragraphs for an article of this size. The second paragraph could summarize the content in the article.
  3. The last sentence in the first paragraph refers to "some": does that mean "some modern societies" mentioned in the previous sentence? Or "some critics"? This ought to be specified, preferably with a footnote to an example of one who holds this view.
  4. You say that the early Rosicrucians "held certain views in common". Which ones?
  5. You state that the pamphlets "caused immense excitement throughout Europe", but the article doesn't say why. What was in the pamplets?
  6. The Lutheranism paragraph contains only one sentence and seems out of place. Perhaps you could flesh that out into a longer paragraph that give many of their teachings? Maybe that should even go in the lead section, as a summary.
  7. How were so many greats (such as Mozart and Shakespeare) associated with Rosicrucianism? Were they known followers? Did they influence Rosicrucianism without knowing it? More detail (where known) would be helpful.
  8. You mentioned that Rosicrucianism probably had little influence on Freemasonry. It probably had little influence on Islam as well, but why is that noteworthy? I assume that you note its lack of influence because others have contended that it did in fact have such influence. If you were to add a paragraph here giving information on the former view, preferably with a footnote, it would help.
  9. The «» symbols aren't used in English.
  10. I've re-written the "modern groups" section to conform to certain style guidelines and to add clarity. It would be better if the subsections were entitled "para-Masonic groups" and "Esoteric Christianity groups" (without the "Personalities related to. . ."), and if the sections each began with a paragraph explaining what each category was about. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:42, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Object beyone the points made by Quadell there are too many lists and too little prose.--nixie 03:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support this is an interesting article and a piece of knowledge vital for understanding the esotericism movement and its undercurrents in the enlightenment. General public knowledge in the matter is very scarce. Nixdorf 06:50:58, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
• Support most of the objections above are fairly likely to be addressed and repaired as a result of its appearance on the front page. This article is worth featuring, as it's actually a whole constellation of related articles. Featuring this article would show off several other articles of near-feature-worthiness. Pedant 09:17, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
• Object - a good start, but the lead section is inadequate, and there are too many lists of people - move them to List of Rosicrucians or whatever and mention a few of the more important personalities in paragraphs explaining who they were and why they are relevant. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object - On principle. The article is okay now and could become better with editing. But whatever state it gets into from this process, the subject matter is such that future revisions will inevitably become weighted down with true-believer claptrap. These future revisions will continue to hold the "Featured Article" seal of approval, and I don't think that's desirable. Bacchiad 15:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This objection does not look actionable to me, and seems to display a lack of belief in the wiki process. If an article meets the featured article criteria (comprehensive, stable, NPOV, well-referenced article, etc), we should feature it. We should not withhold featured status for fear of what later editors may or may not do. Subsequent revisions that do not improve the article further can always be reverted. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I second ALoan's comments. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:22, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• The prose is nowhere near good enough yet. Can you find someone to go through it? For example, the opening paragraph doesn't really tell me what the movement is all about. Instead, we're told that 'Several modern societies have been formed for the study of Rosicrucianism and allied subjects.' That belongs lower down. Origins in the 15th or 17th centuries: the fact that they're not contiguous centuries is unusual and interesting; it needs some type of acknowledgement, such as 'is believed to date from either the 15th or 17th centuries ....'. Please don't finish a sentence with 'thereof' in modern English! Tony 01:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support, and I request that everyone lend a hand to address the objections. Sam Spade 17:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Howard Dean

After having read this article many times, I have found it to be exhaustively researched, minutely detailed, and remarkably even-handed. I believe that it meets all of the criteria in spades and I therefore submit it as a candidate to become a featured article. --12.217.121.245 02:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, while I agree the article is well written and quite balanced it comletely lacks references of any sort.--nixie 02:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean aside from the "Further Reading" section and the rather lengthy list of websites at the end?--12.217.121.245 02:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, facts should be easily verifiable, this is important for things like $ in campaign donations and so on to be given as inline cites.--nixie 02:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
      • How difficult is it to verify information by scrolling down to the bottom of the page? (By the way, I count seven in-line citations in the presidential candidacy section.) --12.217.121.245 02:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Html links in text should not be used in the place of a proppper footnoting system which allows the reader to view the URL and records the URL for future reference if the site goes down. These links also don't address the verifiability of other parts of the article, the reader should not have to guess which one of 20 external links or books contains the information they may want to check.--nixie 02:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I note that the articles on Barack Obama, Margaret Thatcher, Jean Schmidt, Joshua A. Norton, Sid McMath, Ralph Yarborough, and John Major all lack proper footnoting. Shall we strip them of featured article status? --12.217.121.245 03:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Mabye, but rather than being combatitive why don't you fix this article, it shouldn't take very long since you appear to know the subject matter well?--nixie 03:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
              • 1. I don't know how to footnote. 2. Even if I did know how to footnote, I don't know which link goes where because I didn't write the article. The fact is that nowhere does it say that a featured article has to have footnoting. It says that it must have sources, which the Dean article has in spades. If a skeptical reader doesn't believe what he reads and wants to check the facts, I fail to see how the writers have any responsibility to him other than to provide their sources. --12.217.121.245 03:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
              • The Schmidt article went to great lenghts, even without using a footnoting system, to make that article easily verifiable. It would benetit the reader if this article at least attempted to verfiy some of the more specific facts mentioned.--nixie 03:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
                • Nixie - The featured article criteria call for inline citations (which html links in the article are a perfectly acceptable form of), and a complete listing of references in a references section at the bottom. →Raul654 06:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
                  • Even if that's the case, there's still the fact that the article already has seven inline citations. --12.217.121.245 06:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
                    • Using the footnote style is definately neater and more helpful. You may also see the print version where the raw link displayed spoils the text. User:Nichalp/sg 10:21, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• To clarify (1) More things in the article should have inline cites for verifiabily (2) It is not clear if the external links listed at the end of the article are in fact references that were used to write the text or if they are general interst articles about Dean the same is true for the further reading section, where those books actaully consulted to write the text (3) 3/6 html links in text that were assumedly used as refernces are dead, and one is a link to an ad - not a reference (4) There are incomplete citations in the text like the Time one, that are not included in a list of references, and the websites linked to in text are also not listed in a list of references.--nixie 07:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:Howarddean.jpg and Image:AlGoreHowardDean.jpg are claimed under "fair use". However, I see no reason to use them, since we've got a GFDL picture of him at Image:DSCN4189 howarddeanstatehouseportrait e.jpg. --Carnildo 04:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm pretty sure that Image:Howarddean.jpg qualifies as a publicity photo. The Al Gore photo, on the other hand, is clearly the property of Reuters and is therefore banned under Wikipedia policy. I'll just nip over to the page and remove it, then mention why in the talk page. --12.217.121.245 04:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • In that case, Image:Howarddean.jpg needs a fair use rationale, as described in Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. --Carnildo 18:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, Image:Howarddean.jpg does not need a fair use rationale, because publicity photos are not considered fair use. Wikipedia policy says, and I quote, "Since such photos are distributed for reuse by the media, there is an implicit license for their use. Such photos are not fair use, and are not subject to the fair use restrictions." As I read it, that means there is no problem with using the picture. --12.217.121.245 21:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support with reservations. The article is well done, well researched, and balanced. The main controversy here seems to be over the use of citations. I personally prefer inlined cites that look like this [31]; not all websites referenced in cites like that need to appear in the bibliography (or "references") section IMO; however, if the FA guidelines specify a particular format, I guess that's the law. In general, I don't see any statements in the article that are controversial or strange enough for me to be like "woah, WTF, let me see the source." Also, I am a little worried -- we just had an FA about Jean Schmidt, should we have another US politician so soon? Sdedeo 22:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with you in many aspects, perhaps you should start editing the way the featured articles would have you edit, as every article has FA potential. In response to your worry about too many US politicians, I should let you know that those who select the order of the FAs make sure that their order gets varied. (This is to nominate for FA status, it doesn't go directly to the front page, look at the WP:FA page). -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{11:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Hopkins School

Self Nomination, Support I've worked for a long time on this article, along with Harro (founder of WikiProjects Schools) to get this article into tip-top shape. It has interested, copyright info'd images, encyclopedic information, and has already become a Wikiproject Schools FA. Here's the first attempt at FA status, though the article was incomplete (issues fixed) Staxringold 21:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Great effort to clean up this article, and I'll be happy to feature it at the Schools Portal if it becomes a WP:FA. Support, although I'll be interested to hear what Carnildo has to say about the copyrighted images (thought I'd just come out and mention that...full disclosure!). Harro5 22:03, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Just a note, I have been given express permission to use those images. I can expand the fair use justifications, but please don't vote against because you think I'm using copyrighted material without permission. Staxringold 22:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. In all three images, you state that "As a Yearbook Editor I, Staxringold (James Ringold), have been given permission to use Development Office materials such as this". What is this permission? Is it permission to use in the yearbook (in which case use on Wikipedia is a copyvio), permission to use on Wikipedia (an unacceptable license), or permission to release under the GFDL (acceptable)?
  2. Image:HopkinsSchoolHeathCommons1.jpg and Image:Hopkins Old Dining Hall.jpg are rather high-resolution to be claiming "fair use" on.
  3. Image:HopkinsMascotGoat1.gif states that "the promo photo tag basically applies". Is this image officially part of the school press kit or equivalent?

  --Carnildo 23:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry if it was unclear. No, not just in the yearbook, I've been given express permission to use these photos. I'll update the copyright info a little bit. Staxringold 01:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object There's a loooong way to go. A quick look at the opening reveals numerous problems.
  • The itty-bitty paragraphing destroys the flow.
  • 'North America' and then 'the country' later in the same sentence doesn't work.
  • What do you mean by 'somewhat' divided schools?
  • The quote-mark fairy has been splashing around in the second mini-paragraph.
  • 'Comprised of' is better as 'consisting of' or 'comprising'.
  • 'The Hopkins' motto' is ungrammatical, and if it really is 'the breeding up of hopeful youths', it's great fodder for stand-up comedians.
  • '... only qualified students are accepted and are then placed where they should be based on ability'—back to the drawing board for that clause.

If the parents fork out US$24,000 a year in fees, they should hope that the school's junior English students are taught to write better than this. Sorry. Tony 15:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Serious object. I believe this article could be a wonderful FA, but as it is now it is missing major sections and information. For example, the school has existed since 1660, yet the article has no history of the school at all. I would imagine the history section of the article would be rather large. Also, I'm sure the school has produced more noted alumni than the few mentioned here. As it is now, the article reads like an informational brochure promoting the school.--Alabamaboy 18:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony: To start off, please don't be offensive without cause. Also:

• If I don't paragraph, people complain about long blocks of text without organization. I went this way.
• Changed 'the country' to 'the United States'
• All three schools go to the same Hopkins, and all three go to all school assemblies. However, generally Junior schoolers have classes with Junior schoolers, Middle schoolers with Middle schoolers, and Upper schoolers with Upper schoolers.
• Removed single quotes for various schools, as those are their names
• Changed Comprised of to Consisting of
• It is "for the breeding up of hopeful youths," and I fixed the sentence to not be so wordy
• Reworked the admittance sentence

Alabamaboy: The school was a one-room schoolhouse until 1926, there isn't exactly a lot of history worth mentioning before that. As for noted alumni, I left the list as it was in the old stub article, as many of our 'famous' alums aren't really that major. Also, what sections seem particularly POV? Staxringold 01:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • If the school was a one-room schoolhouse until 1926, then the article should have stated that. Now that you've added in the history section, the article looks much better. I do wonder, though, what your references are for the history in the history section. Please list them.--Alabamaboy 02:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. While my reason for opposition is not addressed literally in the featured article criteria, I nevertheless feel that the content of this article is not suitable for a featured article. Featured articles are, accoring to the criteria "the best what wikipedia has to offer". Information about any regional educational institution in any country is relevant to only a minute fraction of wikipedia visitors. As featured articles function as a "showcase" and are used for wikipedia promotion, I don't think articles with such a limited value to the vast majority of wikipedia users should be featured. Esthurin 02:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to give offence, Stax; it was a bit naughty of me. Although my final statement was a slight exaggeration, I stand by it in principle. I'd remove mention of the school motto, frankly; the school should reword it, because the sexual overtones are inescapable in modern English.

The problem is that the whole article needs serious rewriting. Can you find someone to go through it? What about one of the English staff at the school who's good at editing—surely they have an interest in it? Tony 01:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The motto is what the motto is. I understand that breeding is a sexual statement, but so is 'ejaculate,' but they don't edit old Hardy Boys that say "Oh Boy," Chet ejaculated (or something of that sort). The text is what the text is. As for an actual editor editing the article... This really isn't on their radar. If you want to dig through for smaller notes, I'll be happy to give 'er a good ol' fashioned American hack n' slash job, but I don't know what needs reworking/wording/writing or needs to be added/removed entirely. Staxringold 01:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not interested enough in the topic to work on it; as I said, try the teaching staff at the school. Tony 02:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] El Ángel

This is mostly a self-nomination, and my first FAC. This is an article on one of the most important landmarks in Mexico City, and I've been working on it since last May. I followed most of the recommendations I received during peer review, and in the process I created many articles related to important figures of the Mexican independence movement too. Overall I think the article is quite complete at this point and meets all the criteria to become a FA -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 19:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Object- while this article is well-written, I don't think it is quite comprehensive enough. Aside from the list of people entombed, there are only a few paragraphs on the history, and the only other section is the description. I would recommend expanding the history, making it more comprehensive, adding sections on the cultural impact, etc. See Statue of Liberty (which is NOT a FA) for example. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. While I agree with your comment, I honestly don't think I could add much more material without falling into original reasearch, specially when it comes to cultural impact. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 21:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Image:ANGEL OF INDEPENDENCE.JPG has an unverified tag. Unless the source of the picture can be nailed down that photo will keep the article from becoming featured. TomStar81 20:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Fixed -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 21:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Technical Note: for some reason the above has appeared on the Spoo FAC subpage, yet when one goes to edit it, it does not appear. I haven't a clue how to fix this. Whoever does may obviously remove this note entirely. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Fixed; {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/El Ángel}} was listed on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spoo. The {{...}} simply "adds" the page content. I've removed it from the FAC for Spoo and instead listed it directly on the FAC page. Hopefully, if I did it right, there should be no visible changes, except that it doesn't show up at the Spoo subpage. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Concern—It needs a bit of copy edit, but is not too bad; however, the main problem is that it's just too short. Can you expand it significantly, contextualising the monument in terms of the history of commissioning, designing and building these structures? I'm not sure that there is and can be enough meat here to qualify as a featured article. Tony 23:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)

Been on FAC twice already, here's the last one. I think its ready or pretty much ready now. Everyking did most of the work, and I reworked the references and writing style. Rather thurough article Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

First nomination here, second here. Extraordinary Machine 21:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• SupportObject. The article only mentions in passing her SNL troubles. However, this lipsync controvery spanned a much larger media circus than one would know by reading this article. First off, the incident made massive news (inspiring such sites as this: [32]). In addition, the incident lead to SImpson being severely booed at her next big appearance (at the Orange Bowl in Jan, 2005) [33]. Simpson was also repeatedly compared to Milli Vanilli (sp?). However, according to this FAC article, the cultural and media response to all of this was, "The following week the incident was the subject of several skits." For an article on a pop album to be FA, it should address all of the cultural responses arising from the album's release. If all of this controvery is covered in detail (and referenced) I will vote to support.--Alabamaboy 01:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is about the album. The coverage SNL gets is generous, considering that. There is considerably more coverage in the Ashlee Simpson article, an entire section devoted to the incident, and that's where the info generally belongs. Everyking 03:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • AlabamaMan check your talk page I left a message about this hours ago :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I posted a response. As for Everyking's comments, all of this controvery came about while Simpson was promoting this album and playing songs from this album. As a result, it needs more here than a brief mention.--Alabamaboy 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support, of course; thanks to RN for helping out a bit with it recently. Everyking 03:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support - comprehensive and well-written but not excessively long given the subject matter. Cedars 07:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - contains far too much fancruft and trivia, and a pro-Simpson POV pervades throughout. Also, the fact that this and related articles have led to several arbitration cases against the main author for his steadfast refusal to let anyone else make substantial edits does not do much for this article's claim to be representative of the best of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 19:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Could you please give an example so I can fix it? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• • The article has been reworked a bit for POV - in addition there is very little fancruft/trivia left in the article (if any) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • He defines fancruft as anything more than a few paragraphs, what most of us consider near stub length. And I don't think that's an exaggeration—I know what he thinks from hard experience. His objection is not actionable because if it was done nobody but him would think it was even close to featured quality. Everyking 08:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
      • That's so untrue it's offensive. See here and here.
        • This is actually considerably more moderate than what was done a few days later. At the time I was obviously outraged by that, but by comparison to the total butchering of the article that came later it was mild. But, lest I rehash this stuff excessively, the key point of it all is that none of these radical revisions, removal of huge amounts of content, was ever done with any attempt at compromise or consensus beforehand (compared with my emphasis on meeting halfway, which fell on deaf ears literally for months before something began to be achieved). Everyking 18:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • As I see it, the tone of the article is essentially, "This album was a hit on the charts, but not with critics", which I think reflects the reality of the situation. In my opinion, the article is several steps above most other articles on recently released albums in Wikipedia; some of which are little more than track listings, others are swamped by minutiae trivia and crufty detail, and precious few are supported by references. I'm sorry, but I can't see the "pro-Simpson POV" that supposedly "pervades" throughout the article. Please give specific examples of POV, or else your criticisms may be considered inactionable. Extraordinary Machine 21:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Some specific examples of POV and other problems:
      • Ashlee claimed they were inspired... - claimed? They're her lyrics aren't they?
      • she wanted to do more rock-oriented music that some of her bigger influences did - that's just awful phrasing
      • For its part, The Village Voice... - this phrasing seems to be trying to give particular emphasis to what this one magazine is saying
      • "Autobiography" opens the album with retro instrumentation and dark chords... - this paragraph combines opinion, excessive quotes from the lyrics and a single positive review.
      • The description of pieces of me is also opinion followed by a quote from one positive review.
      • ...arguably the album's most rock-oriented... - who's arguing? Why? This is pure opinion.
      • "Better Off", described by People magazine... - only positive reviews quoted.
      • "Don't you know you're only wasting time", she sings; by stalling "you make your misery my company." - this is not encyclopaedic writing at all.
      • as she has said... - this one's come up repeatedly - this phrasing makes it look like Wikipedia endorses what she is saying. Many editors have tried to correct this but have had their edits reverted.
      • a melancholy song - POV
      • Lengthy descriptions of how the album sold in Norway and Switzerland are pure cruft, only of interest to hardcore fans.
      • The chart diagram is uninformative and illustrates nothing unique about this album.
      • the most rapidly added song on radio - what does this mean?
      • her voice had been weak in rehearsal due to acid reflux - a regurgitation of her PR. No source, unverifiable.
      • It appeared to viewers that Simpson had been lip synching - singing along to a pre-recorded track is lip synching, this phrasing is that of a defensive fan trying to deny that she was doing so.
      • although other explanations were that the crowd thought her voice was off-key or that they were expressing dissatisfaction with the half-time show in general - completely unnecessary fannish defence.
      • may have caused "La La", promotion for which began in the U.S. in November 2004, to have fared more poorly on the charts than it otherwise would have. - pure speculation
      • enabled Simpson to end the Autobiography era of her career on a high note - POV
      • The album's photography is credited to Mark Liddell, and its design is credited to Soap Design Co - trivia. Not encyclopaedic. Worldtraveller 15:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
        • What's the point of trying to satisfy any of your objections, some of which are sane, when others are wildly unreasonable, asking for the violation of consensus that has held for months now and for the removal of information that survived through long revert wars? Everyking 18:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks World - I'll work on these - please check back in 2 or 3 days Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • OK World, me (and apparently ExtraordinaryMachine) took care of most of these and more. Sans the chart and the performance in other countries, which was just tweaked a bit, there shouldn't be many if any POV issues/unreferenced stuff left. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. 21:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Abstain. While I'm very impressed by this article, I encountered "hidden" ref/notes and editorial comments while performing some minor edits, leading me to believe that this article is still very much a "work-in-progress". However, I still think it's a great article nonetheless, which is why I am abstaining rather than voting "object". Extraordinary Machine 21:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Nah, the hidden ref/notes are just noting which references (from the references section) are used where. Editorial comments are just notes from me being pedantic... there are no real problems as far as I know in the article Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I removed (Well, userfied) the comments... any change in opinion :)? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Very well. If there is nothing else to be done, I now vote support. Just so long as you're sure everything is referenced and in order. Extraordinary Machine 21:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's quite good. My only suggestion is to provide a link in the references section for the two chart compiling companyes. Tuf-Kat 22:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral, as with Ashlee Simpson. I can't shake the feeling that the tone of the article wouldn't be out of place in a fan club publication. I'm sorry, I really do want to see this article featured, but I can't in good faith support an article that I feel doesn't make the cut. I won't stand in its way, however; it is a good possibility that my opinion may be clouded by the huge conflict Everyking had with myself and several other editors. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • John, your comments on the Ashlee Simpson article were quite helpful... is there anything in particular you see wrong with this? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Like I said, it's difficult to quantify in words. I think it's a decent article, but the tone of writing just sounds too positive. Then again, most articles about celebrities on Wikipedia seem that way to me, so, like I said, I'm not sure if that's sufficient grounds to object. Johnleemk | Talk 13:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object --Revolución (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • How is this an actionable objection? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. That's the best I'll give considering it's pop culture. But it seems as neutral as possible I suppose. There's been good work done dealing with objections and balancing the article, so I won't stand in the way any more. Object. Agree with John Lee. Same problems as her article. Short paragraphs make for poor flow. The SNL bit gives only the pro Ashlee explanation. If you're going to go into 6 paragraphs on how it did in the charts, sqeezing the SNL bit and the Orange bowl into one paragraph under 'promotion and publicity' is a bit much. - Taxman ^Talk 03:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • What would be your suggestion? (aside from delving deep into the incedent as the ashlee simpson article already does this) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I maintain that the SNL and Orange Bowl incidents should only be dealt with briefly in this article, which is about an album. The chart stuff, on the other hand, is directly relevant to this specific subject so warrants a bit more detail. Everyking 04:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Erm... what I mean is should I extend the criticism somehow or try to make the chart stuff more pithy? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I guess I agree, it shouldn't be expanded, it just shouldn't toe the PRO Ashlee line only. For ex. Acid reflux is a claim that I don't think many people beleive. My opinion on that doesn't matter, but we can't promote that claim as correct. Have your chart details of how the album did in 233 countries around the world week to week, I don't care, other than it makes the article look a little silly. My point was more that hiding the criticism under that heading is whitewashing it. Maybe make it promotion and criticism or something. The elminating the short paragraphs helped a lot in my opinion. - Taxman ^Talk 17:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, heading renamed and we took out most of the POV stuff out of the criticism (which made it shorter but more damning) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Some phrasing is still POVed, and on occasion, the prose reminds me of what you'd find in a fan magazine. For example, "It appeared to viewers", although readable in a neutral manner, implies that the situation was different, and that Ashlee wasn't lip synching, although there's no way we can tell for sure. It should be clarified that numerous media sources do not believe the official explanation of Ashlee's camp about the incident. Johnleemk | Talk 15:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Are there any official media sources that seriously doubt that explanation? I mean beyond sarcasm and jokes. Everyking 18:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, some phrasing is still POVed and WorldTraveller pointed out many of them (which I'm still working on on this particular article). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• OK, the POV issues should be mostly gone folks. let me know what you think. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Tentative support after making several changes to tighten the prose and smooth the flow (and some snipping at POV portions of the commentary on the tracks). I'm not quite sure about the reviews section, though — it seems to me that it leans ever so slightly in favour of Ashlee. (Compare the length of the quotes from positive and negative reviews.) Johnleemk | Talk 13:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just added a few quotes from another negative review. Hopefully, that should make sure things are balanced out. Extraordinary Machine 18:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. If my comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ashlee Simpson were any indication, my only question is, how did she get a separate page for an single nothing album??? Don't answer. I know the answer: her fans wrote it. This FAC would truly make Wiki the laughingstock of encyclopedias. People magazine doesn't even gush this much. No way. --Noitall 07:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You may want to note that even among radical deletionists the idea that #1 albums should not have articles is seldom heard. As for your other point, this article has no "gush" at all. Did you actually read it? Everyking 07:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Noitall, it would be appreciated by many here if you were to list specific examples of "gush" within the article (like Worldtraveller did) instead of accusing its editors of "building an "I love Ashlee" fan site". Otherwise, your objection may be considered inactionable and thus ignored by Raul. Extraordinary Machine 17:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I specifically referenced my comments on the Ashley Simpson FAC, which is obviously related and they obviously apply. I am not going to repeat them all, because I already referenced them and they occureed at the same time. It gushes because she is notable for having no talent and the article makes her look like Madonna. It is entirely misleading, and, yes, looks like a fan site (which it actually is -- nobody does this much work for such a non-notable talent, notable non-talent). You have to get half way into the article (nowhere in the summary), before you get "Critical reviews of Autobiography were mixed." You have to be kidding me. How about something like, "a substantial number of people state that she has no talent and only had the opportunity to make this album because of the success of her sister, her father's dedicated star-pushing, connections in the industry, and media manipulation." --Noitall 02:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Google searches for terms such as "Ashlee Simpson sucks" do not count as references. The objections you raised on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ashlee Simpson refer to the Ashlee Simpson article, and not Autobiography. I'm beginning to doubt you have read the Autobiography article at all, or at least thoroughly, as it states in the second sentence of the lead section that critical reception was mixed (and it has done for at least a week). Also included in the article is a direct quote from the Billboard director of charts stating that Ashlee's success would not have occurred if not for her sister, along with several negative reviews in the article. You're here to comment on the article, not its subject. Unless you provide specific examples of "gush" within the article, your objection may be considered inactionable. Extraordinary Machine 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too much unskeptical presentation of information that's ultimately sourced from the performer's publicity machinations. Monicasdude 02:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you give us an example, please? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Other than the material sourced as "Simpson said," to interviews with her, to comments from her label and her publicists? It's the bulk of the article. Monicasdude 16:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

What sources shall we use instead, or in addition? Everyking 18:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Division of Korea

I think this article does a very good job at meeting the requirements of a featured article. It seems to show the various sides and opinions in a very neutral way. It's a reasonable sized article, with an adequate level of formatting and pictures. And it's nicely informative and educational! --Rebroad 19:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose: It seems to have an essay like quality, particularly the beginning of the Historical Background section. I also noticed some copyediting mistakes. It lacks any references, and recapitulates much which (I would assume) should be in the History of Korea, History of Japan, and World War Two articles. Take it to Wikipedia:Peer review first. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose no references and {{fac}} has to be in the talk page. User:Nichalp/sg 06:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Korean dmz map.png has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 22:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose—Not well written, in particular, flawed approach to punctuation, a certain 'jerkiness' in places; paragraphing often detroys the flow. At the top, it would be good to broadly locate this issue in its historical period.

[edit] Don't Speak

An article that originally took a lot of time to work on — although the English was not perfect and the image of the CD single cover was a bit blurry, those problems are now a thing of the past. This article has been nominated for featured article because it is rare to see a song actually on the front page of Wikipedia. Other reasons include the time taken to work on the article, the information and the references. I hope you agree with me. The final choice is up to you. DrippingInk 21:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I like the article. It explains the success of "Don't Speak" throughly from start to finish. Good references, and much better job on this article than the Spice Girls. That's a different story though. Excellent job. Winnermario 22:07, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Send to peer review. Needs a lot more work. See Yesterday (song) for an example of a featured article about a song. --Michael Snow 22:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review, lead is ok in my opinion, but sections are too short. As above, compare to Yesterday (song). Phoenix2 22:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Send to peer review. There are major problems. I'm sure it's not comprehensive. It doesn't explain the lead-up to the song very well, for example, and there are oddities throughout (like the calling the men in the video "pathetic" - what's pathetic about them? Or that "The road was not straight" line, which is not encyclopedic in tone). It's a good start, but it needs work to be featured. Tuf-Kat 22:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, needs some more info. But I am glad to see that blurry single cover was fixed. Everyking 23:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. 64.231.176.176 00:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The above anon. must have been drunk writing that line. What does it have to do with the article status? Actually, I would gladly help improve this article since "Don't Speak" is one of my favourite songs. Winnermario 00:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. I remember this. The first single of 1997 to spend more than a week at the top of the charts in the UK. I think it knocked Orbital's Satan off the top spot. It would probably have been a monster hit if the record company had released it later on in the year, but they snuck it out in the January graveyard because the group was unknown. Still, though, I have to oppose. The article is fairly good as far as it goes, but it's just too short. And the reason the article is too short is because there isn't enough to write about Don't Speak without resorting to padding of the "in Denmark, the single entered the chart on (date) before climbing to (position) on (date) and dropping to (position) a week later before leaving the chart altogether on (date)" variety. There's not enough meat to make a meal out of it. Although far from non-notable, the song just isn't-notable-enough; very few pop songs are worth more than a bare summary of dates, chart positions and personnel, especially as the 1980s and 1990s and 2000s has seen pop music - actual pop music singles, individual songs, rather than the phenomenon of pop stars - become such a trivial, tangental part of popular culture. You could write a lengthy article about, say, Do They Know It's Christmas or We Didn't Start the Fire or possibly even Men at Work's Down Under, but not this. The song is not about anything more than a lost love, it didn't play any part in a big cultural movement. And it doesn't really encapsulate 1997 or the late 1990s in any way. Unlike, for example, In the Air Tonight by Phil Collins, you can't write about how it has come to be an aural metaphor for its time period, either through association with popular television or literally because the production techniques were widely imitated. The guitar solo is pleasant. I'm petering out. -Ashley Pomeroy 16:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • A) I believe you can deal with music-related topics without taking jabs at me. B) This song was one of the biggest hits of the '90s in the U.S., and if you feel it should not have an article, go ahead and put it on VfD, where I'm sure the result would be a very decisive keep. Everyking 20:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article looks like it needs TONS of work. Like this statement

"...the song is generally thought of as a number one hit in No Doubt's home country, this being demonstrated through its success on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay, where it held the zenith position for sixteen consecutive weeks...."

No, it's not generally thought of as that here. Most people don't consider the Hot 100 Airplay to be indicative of charts, only the actual Hot 100 itself. The charts are also not placed in their correct hieracy. Why is Adult Top 40 listed TWICE?! There is no need to list a chart position twice just because it crossed over two years. Pick a year and list its peak OmegaWikipedia 18:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. If it was a number one during two years, there is no reason that it cannot be listed twice. Your arguement is not very effective, I must say.

Huh? Peaks should be listed. Anyway, I hope no one gets offended, but the article looked a bit messy, so I gave it a facelift. OmegaWikipedia 00:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Everyking is right, this was one of the biggest songs of the 1990s, and even if it's only about bittersweet heartbreak (aren't the majority of songs about that these days?), it had depth and structure. Love will always be the strongest thing in the world, and songs about love (or this being the reverse) are just as notable as any other topic out there.

A heartbreak is a story to tell. So are all those other mentionables above. Winnermario 22:07, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Just not enough information under each of the sections. The beginnings to the tables are not enough. This thing's got a loooooooooong way to go yet; it just needs much more writing. --Matt Yeager 00:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, for an article on a song it is notably missing any description of the lyrics or the music (melody, cords etc), it also makes some pretty big claims that aren't supported, for example how did a notably un-ska song start the ska revivial of the mid 90s?--nixie 05:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, most of your comments are acceptable. This song will be worked on immediately. DrippingInk 20:08, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Repetitious, writing needs much improvement, lack of consistency in spelling (eg: break-up, breakup), seems too short, unsupported claims, and I second the question of how a totally un-ska song led to a ska revival. Exploding Boy 06:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

They were an overall ska band, you idiot. 64.231.163.4 20:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh really?? Exploding Boy 23:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to seem like I'm attacking you, Exploding Boy, but they were an overall ska/rock group. Winnermario 00:17, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I know that. But it really wasn't clear in the article. Exploding Boy 15:29, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose—Writing not good enough. Tony 04:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Solarquest

Fantabulous article about the most splendiferous game in the galaxy. Kaptain Krunk 12:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object – no references, images are too large, sections have hardly any content. Ref to Peer Review. User:Nichalp/sg 12:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review, 1) lead is too short 2) Article doesn't contain games project info box 3) there's too many large fair use pictures without a reason on why it has been claimed fair use 4) I don't think you need 3 images of the game board and accessoiries. One will suffice to illustrate it and avoid a lot of copyright problems. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Object—Lacking in content; superficial. Simply describing the features of a game and wacking in a few pictures does not make a featured article. Try writing an article on a whole class of such games, and saying something a little more useful about them, if you want to author a FA. Tony 13:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Send to peer review -- This needs a peer review. Then maybe it will survive voting. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not yet FA standard. Much of it is a description of the game and its rules. Before resubmitting this, compare it to the Monopoly article, which is a Featured Article. The difference is staggering. Granted, Solarquest does not have the history that Monopoly has, but still. There needs to a be a dramatic reorganisation of the article (put all the "gameplay and rules" stuff together, have one history section, not bits of history scattered through the article). As people have said, peer review may be the best way to have a fresh start for this article. Batmanand 14:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, a lot of articles placed on Peer Review used to not get enough feedback to make it worthwhile, but maybe involvement in Peer Review has improved in the past six months. 205.217.105.2 16:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TV-FM DX

I believe all the objections from last time have been addressed. Andre (talk) 18:46, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Support Slightly too techy in parts but it's unavoidable I guess. It's certainly the place I'd look if I wanted information on it. --PopUpPirate 22:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Object, but may support later if it's cleaned up. The itty-bitty paragraphing is a real problem—needs some flow. Why 'miles' and 'feet', at least mostly? The spelling is not US, so why not use metrics consistently? Tony 06:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC) Comment. Well if it's written from a UK perspective, miles and feet are still the most pre-dominantly used measurements of distance. Not very scientific, I know, when we're metric in just about everything else. How this sort of thing should be handled on Wikipedia, I don't know. Angmering 14:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The UK is now a metric country. As a matter of practicality, and to be inclusive rather than exclusive, metrics should appear, possibly with US measurements in parentheses. Tony 08:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not a mostly UK thing, but someone recently changed all the spellings from US to UK. I don't know why, but I didn't revert it. Andre (talk) 15:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. metric equivalents absent. A significant population of readers come from countries that do not use the imperial system. It would be unfair for them to keep using convertors.
  2. User the non breaking space when connecting numbers to units. eg. 15&nbsp;MHz. which renders it as 15 MHz; 16&nbsp;mm etc.
  3. All inline links should be formatted using a footnote style. eg. the {{ref}} type.
  4. Federal Communications Commission is introduced without also defining acronym, which is used later on in the article. It should be mentioned that it is a US govt. agency.
  5. The history section lists only three four countries. Any more notable events in other countries?
  6. ...pre-war band to a new band at 88–108 MHz you've not mentioned the significance of the move. This band is known as "broadcast band" and was adopted my by most countries for commercial FM. (at least that's what I recollect)
  7. ...India, Middle East, North... --> "...the Middle East....
  8. The cities are not formatted properly. You've used CITY, STATE for US locations and CITY, COUNTRY for non-US. For example you've used Chicago, Illinois, and Monterey, Mexico. Since this article is on a global topic, I'd suggest you drop the display of the state as Chicago is globally well known. So [[Chicago, Illinois|Chicago]] and Monterey in Mexico would be more appropriate. (there's also no other Chicago in the US so the name of the city won't conflict) Similarly with Riverhead, Long Island, New York, and Melbourne, Victoria. This problem also is present in =Notable tropospheric DX receptions=. The main problem here is that it is assumed that readers would know of all of US states.
  9. Who is George Palmer?
  10. 'Roger Bunney also published... reads more like a promo for the author, not needed.
  11. Australia and South Africa are linked multiple times. Please remove duplicate wikifying.
  12. =Afternoon TEP= needs expansion
  13. Woodruff T. Sullivan III? ---> astronomer and physicist Woodruff....
  14. Use of single sub-headings under a heading. 4.1, 6.1, 9.1. Either merge with parent topic or have two subheadings.
  15. Anthony Mann? Todd Emslie? format as I've shown for Woodruff.
• There may be more issues I might catch later, but that's all I can muster up for now. User:Nichalp/sg 08:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  1. With the exception of Image:Arecibo.arp.750pix.jpg, all the images are under a license of "fair use with permission". This is far from an ideal license: would it be possible to contact the creators of the pictures and ask for the images to be licensed under the GFDL or the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license?
  2. The image Image:Arecibo.arp.750pix.jpg is under a license of {{noncommercial}}. This is not an acceptable license for Wikipedia.

  --Carnildo 20:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I agree with most of Nichalp's points, but would add that the article is just too long in its current state (39KB, by my count). Considering the highly technical content of the article, this is deadly. It should either be scaled back, or split up. Plus, some of it just seems to meander rather randomly: the list of major meteor showers is kind of silly, IMO, as this is the sort of information better covered by an astronomy article. It seems sufficient to point out that meteor showers can and do affect DX reception. – Seancdaug 16:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Virtually all of the DX television reception reports were sourced from 1960s-1980s U.S. and U.K. radio/television/scientific technical journals. Because these journals almost invariably used miles as a distance reference, I felt it was proper to avoid metrics in the article. Even today, U.S. TV FM DX groups such as the WTFDA, commonly use miles in connection with distant reception reports.

Bivariate-correlator 13:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

As a compromise, I recently added metric measurements in parentheses.

Bivariate-correlator 10:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy VI

This article has received a lot of attention in an effort to make it a featured article. With the help of several editors, this article has had a CVG peer review, a regular peer review. Several editors have collaborated on this in order to have this article reach featured status. All of the pictures have fair use rationale and correct copyright tags, fancruft has been identified and removed, and the article meets the featured article criteria. Furthermore, this article is not a gameFAQs duplicate.

Nominate and Support --ZeWrestler ^Talk 13:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oh dear, no. Erwin
  • Why don't you want any Erwin? -- Bobdoe (Talk) 18:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You need to state an actionable objection. Borisblue 18:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • mmmmmmmmmmmmk. The article is of sufficient calibre, yet the subject is Final Fantasy VI, which is shit. Try FF7. Erwin
      • This object still does not count. Your complaint needs to be fixable in order for it to hold weight.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 11:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The section on censorship is gigantic, and doesn't need to show every single instance of censorship in the game. The Graphics and Musical score sections are too big with unecessary white space. The censhorship section is all muddled up, the Production credits is unnecessary, and the image on the infobox, according to consensus, should be the English boxart (with the exception of games not released in English). - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • • • Support, I guess. All complaints addressed except for the Infobox issue. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • The "consensus" regarding what image to put in the infobox does not, as far as I can tell, exist. The discussion went on for months, and I don't think any sort of reasonable observer could say that anything resembling a "consensus" was reached. Furthermore, there are a number of practical reasons for having the game logo there: the game was released multiple times in North America (and, if we're casting the net as "English," at least once in England, as well). There is nothing in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Infobox description of proper infobox usage that indicates that box art is any sort of mandated standard, and the writeup even points out that its precise usage is "strictly voluntary" and that "many variations on this archetype are in use in various articles." Final Fantasy VI is hardly unique in using this format, and it's been that way, without comment or reversion, for months. – Seancdaug 21:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, the page specifically states Additionally, consensus is that the image shown should be game box art. There is consensus on this, if you look at the discussion you linked to that was just one user (User:Slike2, who has since stopped contributing) objecting. The consensus on this issue was reached long before that discussion. Jacoplane 15:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The "consensus" note was added by Andrevan after this discussion started, and one editor saying so does not a consensus make ("something akin to a supermajority"). A cursory look at the discussion I linked indicates that no consensus was reached: two people were actively in favor of using the box art, a handful more said that they either didn't care one way or the other, or could accept whatever, and a few more said that the important thing was having the logo in the infobox, which, I would like to point out, the article in question had all along. Furthermore, there are numerous articles that do not use the box art in the infobox, and it has never once been raised as a serious issue before (and some, like the Final Fantasy VII were even mooted as an ideal example of the form). All that being said, I've placed the Japanese box art in there now, in the interests of reducing controversy, but it remains, for all the reasons I and others have cited, an extremely problematic solution, as this is a case where the box art is probably more misleading than it is useful, given the multiple versions of the game released under various different names in various different regions. – Seancdaug 16:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • The discussion above is a bit of a red herring. They're discussing box art vs. screenshots. We're using the logo, which is part of the box art, and in this case, more concise. -- Norvy (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I do believe there was a consensus and I agree with that guideline on WP:CVG; however, given that Final Fantasy 3/6 (whatever) has been released so many times and there are a number of box covers for it, I don't think the logo is a big deal - in fact, it may make it easier also considering it was released as FF3 and FF6. The consensus dealt with screenshots anyway, not a logo, which in any other situation I would also oppose in favor of boxart. K1Bond007 19:14, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • To start off, the spaces added in the graphics and musical score sections were put in to make the reduce visual clutter. Without the spaces, the pictures of those two sections would run into the next sections. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It shouldn't have visual clutter, and it shouldn't have blank space. I suggest you add content to the sections or just remove the images. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • About how many instances of censorship would you say is acceptable? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As little as possible. I'd prefer just one example. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:14, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • We've trimmed it to four graphical change examples, which I think is a good sample without going overboard. What do you think? -- Norvy (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • In responce to the production credits being unnecessary, I believe that they are necessary, and they have been used in other video game featured articles. A good example would be Super Mario 64 credits.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Those were added sometime after it was featured. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 21:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I'm a perfectionist, and I'm not 100% satisfied with everything about the article, but I think it's come a long way, and is more than worthy of FA status. – Seancdaug 21:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to neutral in light of the lack of article stability cited by BrianSmithson. – Seancdaug 16:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. I'd really like to support this one, but... eh, there are a lot of things wrong with it, in my view. The excessive censorship images, lack of flowing prose in the plot section, etc. It's a good article, I think, but I'm not sure it's worthy of being featured. --Dalkaen 22:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. I can't say anything about this article because I've just started playing Final Fantasy III for the first time and don't want it spoiled. AngryParsley 19:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support a great game(which I didn't finish yet...), in a wonderful article. igordebraga ≠ 22:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Does not conform with all WikiProjects, one of which is the WikiProject CVG, which states that the infobox picture should be the box art. Andre (talk) 00:02, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Read what Seancdaug wrote above about the discussion. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Other than that, little of what I've said has been properly addressed. If you fixed everything BUT the image in the infobox, I'd support it, but until then, I stand by my vote. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • I will not support unless box art is used. Andre (talk) 00:43, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • Currently, the box art is being used. What other WikiProjects does the article not conform with? — WARPEDmirror 21:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support I think it has reached a magnificant level with all the feedback and the contributions coming from both the Final Fantasy WikiProject and editors. It has my support. Derktar 20:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC).
• Support The censorship section seems a managable size, as does the music section. There was an awkward phrase I think I made flow better and one fact I fixed. The infobox seems a little crouded with all the images, but it's not a big issue. This looks like a great article. Fieari 20:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. It's really hard to tell that there are two game boxes. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The idea was actually adopted from the main template page. The only change I made was to alter the style so that it matched the current infobox template. – Seancdaug 14:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. User:Seancdaug keeps reverting things to past tense that should be in present; he also insists on making album titles bold in an article that is not about albums. Besides, the page is hardly stable right now, which is one of the requirements for featured-article status. BrianSmithson 15:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I take some offense at your characterization of my edit (which happened only once, I would add), Brian, though I do apologize for the error: the "reversions" were a mistake owing to an edit conflict, and I will gladly correct them. That being said, you're right about the stability question. In light of the issues that have been raised during this vote, I'm withdrawing my vote until such time as the page achieves stability. – Seancdaug 16:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Sean(?). I misinterpreted your edit, and I thought you had made similar changes before. There have been so many cooks in that kitchn, though, so it could have been anyone. Again, apologies. If the page attains some stability in the next couple of days, I will change my vote. The article is already much better than Wario, another video-game FA. BrianSmithson 16:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
      • No problem, and the very fact that I was running into edit conflicts kind of proves your second point. I think the major complaint, though, was about the infobox, and I expect that the resolution of that issue will do a great deal to stabilize the article. – Seancdaug 17:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • I would hardly call it better than Wario; it's not just the content, it's also the writing. For one, Wario keeps lists down to a minimum... and although Wario's in a different situation than a game, that character list should have much more content, opposed to being just one sentence. Not to flip flop, but I'd rather not support it unless the character list gains a little more content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you saying that the character list in this game should have more information, or are you referring to the Wario article. If your refering to this game, would the fact that the 14 major characters of FFVI have their own articles help? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, I'm speaking of FFVI, and yes, I know they all have articles, but no, that doesn't make it appropriate for the characters section to be underdeveloped. - A Link to the Past (talk)
      • That's exactly why I think it's better than Wario, though, Link. The FF6 article as it (sort of) stands now does not suffer from the list-o-mania that so many video-game articles do (we've pruned it of that). Wario currently takes a "In this game, Wario could do this. In this game, Wario could do this" approach, which makes it read like a fanpage. I think the FF6 characters section can stand a bit of fleshing out, but I'm perfectly happy with it as it is and would in fact prefer it that way. BrianSmithson 20:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
        • So should the character section be expanded or would that be considered going into the Fancruft territory.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
          • It is on a different level, however, because a video game article should either have an indepth analysis of the characters or no character list at all. It may have a list, but this list has a large amount of content, necessary content. And yes, it NEEDS extra content - there's fancruft, and then there's lack of info. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
            • The thing is, what kind of content would you be looking for? Adding length for length's sake seems pointless. And the thing is, the section was longer, several months ago: the problem is that most of the content was either fancruft or repetition of what was said better in other articles. Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I'm honestly curious as to what you think is missing. – Seancdaug 21:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
              • It just needs an extra sentence on each character at least. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
                • So you've said, but that's not actually useful: adding extra text simply for the purpose of making something longer is the very definition of "cruft." The question is what content you think is missing, what needs to be said about each character, but currently isn't. There's no point in making the thing longer if we don't have anything else worth saying. – Seancdaug 22:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
                  • Look at their pages, take a sentence. If it's not cruft there, it's not cruft here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
                    • Actually, it most certainly can be, because of the different scope. Someone reading Locke Cole is almost certainly looking for detailed information about the character. Someone reading this article might be, but s/he might also be looking for information about the gameplay, or the music, or any countless number of other things. An article covering the game in its entirety cannot afford to be as detailed as an article devoted to but a single part of that game, and what's perfectly acceptable in the latter is fluff and cruft in the former. Furthermore, it's unneccessary repetition: there are links to every single character article right there in the section, so why on earth waste space by copying and pasting existing info? Again, it's entirely possible that there is character information that deserves to be in the Final Fantasy VI article that we've missed, but you've given no hint as to what you think that information might be. You've just said you want the section to be longer, and seem positively uninterested in the actual content of the section. Which strikes me as a positively surreal attitude to take for an encyclopedia. So I ask again: what sort of sentence would you like us to take from the individual character pages and add to this article? – Seancdaug 22:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know, you seem to be an FFVI fan, you work it out. One extra sentence on the character is certainly not cruft. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • But that's just it: I am a fan. If I had to, I could wax on nearly indefinitely about every single character in the game. But, then again, I'm also not the kind of person who would be consulting an encyclopedia for information about the game, am I? The question isn't what sort of fannish minutae we can add to the section, but sort of thing the "average" reader would be likely to look for. That's why I keep asking you, as (apparently) a non-fan: what are you looking for? What's missing? And, more to the point, if you can supply a single thing that you think should be there but isn't, what's the point of expanding the section? If we don't have anything else important to say, why add extraneous prose (more precisely, cruft) to the article? – Seancdaug 00:21, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd have to say Seancdaug makes an exceedingly valid point. :P --Dalkaen 00:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • It is NOT cruft. You're avoiding the matter at hand, that all the characters list is, is a list of characters with one sentence slapped onto them. You're avoiding cruft to the point of giving bare-bone information, and going for minimal information, as opposed to the middleground. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • Link, I have done no such thing. The reason I posed my initial question was to engage your complaint. You're the one who has the problem: it's up to you to help us understand how we can resolve it. You keep barely skirting around the meat of the issue: the fact that we're having this discussion is my way of trying to attain the "middleground." But there is absolutely nothing to be gained by adding random information (that, furthermore, is already available in other articles) simply to pad the article, which is already plenty long as is. "Make it longer" is not a particularly constructive comment. "I would like to see more information about x" is, and that's what I'm still waiting for you to respond to. – Seancdaug 01:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • Everyone, relax a few minutes. We are here to discuss this article and how to make it into an FA. Not to squabble like little school girls. (no offence to the female editors) Lets take a deep breath, count to 10 and try to work together, rather then against each other. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Just to itemize what's in the article, as far as I can see, each character has a:
        1. Full Name
        2. Name in Japanese
        3. Brief background
        4. Character type (i.e. class)
        5. Combat technique
      • Keep in mind Featured article criteria #6: It should stay tightly-focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail, using summary style to cover sub-topics in other articles. So, for the third time, what's missing? -- Norvy (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I added a sentence to the Terra description. It is a brand new sentence that I did not copy from the other article on her. Is this addition to her what you want done to the others, or should I delete the sentence? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Norv, it's a matter of undevelopment. One extra sentence would not harm anything. And Ze, looks good. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:25, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
          • Padding does not equal development, and we can't develop anything without some sort of idea as to what our ultimate goal is. And you have resolutely failed to address that very basic issue. What kind of information should we add? If there's no specific rationale for expansion, then that expansion is meaningless (again, this is what "cruft" means). "Not harming" is not the same as "helping," after all. – Seancdaug 01:40, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
            • Use Ze's edit as an example. I personally hate it when there's a large series of small paragraphish parts in articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:08, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
              • What if we rewrite the "Characters" section as prose rather than a list? Maybe break the section into two or three paragraphs, either separating by major characters (Terra, Locke) vs. minor characters (Mog, Umaru), or based on broad classes (fighters, magic-users, rogues)? The paragraphs would go something like: "Final Fantasy VI features fourteen playable characters blah blah blah that fit into the traditional role-playing-game classes of fighters, magic users, and rogues." Then begin the fighter paragraph: "Cyan Garamonde is blah blah blah." This would avoid the list-o-mania that I've mentioned before, and it might let us add another sentence on the more important characters without it looking unbalanced if we leave the minor figures alone (I mean, how much more can you say about Gogo?). Or am I barking up the proverbial wrong tree? BrianSmithson 02:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
                • I agree that this is probably the best solution, and, indeed, that's basically what I did when I worked on improving the Final Fantasy VIII article a month or so ago. – Seancdaug 02:58, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
                  • That'd do well, that's what I usually do with lists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I wasn't sure about the boxart, but I'll accept the logo if people really want to have it. Other than that it's a great article. Jacoplane 19:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This article (about a great game may I add), is very informative and is better than some video game featured articles. I see no issue with the logo in the infobox. Though, as Sean noted earlier, there is no real "consensus" - though most articles do use the North American box art. The best known N.A. box art is Image:Ff3usbox.gif, which of course contradicts the title of the article. The only other N.A. box art is Ffabox.jpg, which is box art for a compilation known by another name. I don't believe the game was as successful in Europe as it was in America (probably because it was first released there when the graphics were fairly dated), thus making Image:Ff6eupsxbox.jpg a bad choice. As the article is in English, using any of the Japanese box art is stupid. The logo is the way to go. — WARPEDmirror 21:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I'm willing to bet if the Final Fantasy Wikiproject was polled, they'd endorse the logo. I also see no reason to bloat the character section with information about a character's astrology sign or weight when that information better serves the reader in the character's page. -- Norvy (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Wait, did I just read what I think I read? Are you saying that all information on Terra can be summed up in a single sentence? That the character list will take up half of the article's space if each character got even a SINGLE sentence added to them? Again, you're saying that middleground is cruft, and that the only appropriate information is almost no information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Great article, the recent streamlining since I've been gone has made it even better. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:30, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support A good article that isn't too wordy or full of info that is meaningless to the casual reader. It is definitely deserving of featured status. Amren ^(talk) 16:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose—Hardly meets the criterion of 'brilliant' prose. Take, for example, awkward sentences such as: 'Towns contain shops where players can buy items, and villagers who offer information.'

Or 'Magicite also imparts various statistic bonuses as characters gain experience levels. Magicite also ...' Two successive sentences start the same way. Why 'also'? Every new sentence could be 'also'. 'Statistic bonuses' is a non-item. How do you gain experience levels?

Or this huge snake: 'In addition, the English localization features several name changes, either because of length restrictions ("Stragos" becomes "Strago"), Nintendo content guidelines (the magic spell "Holy" becomes "Pearl" to avoid religious connotations), or simply because of cultural differences between Asian and North American audiences (Terra's Japanese name, Tina, sounds exotic to Japanese speakers because of its usage of the rare "Ti" sound, but is a common Anglophone name).' This is indigestible—so many phrases tacked onto each other like roof-tiles.

The large amount of text given over to an account of what is, frankly, a superficial, plot-driven story that would do poorly as a high-school attempt at fiction, makes me wonder whether this ranks with the best the Wikipedia has to offer. I can see that the authors have worked hard, and in its own way, it's OK; but I'm afraid an unfeatured article it should stay. There's nothing special about it. By the way, please don't use male generic pronouns; be inclusive. Tony

• Fixed your first example that applied to the game. What else exists in the Final Fantasy VI game that you think is awardly worded. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I've gone to the correct article and found it very easy to pluck out equivalent examples, which I've inserted above. The first example remains awkward in the article, despite your recent changes. My overall feelings are unchanged, although it is a step up from F IV.

Another example (they're so easy to find): 'Final Fantasy VI's combat is menu-based, meaning the player selects a battle action for the character from a menu of choices.' The possessive form is clumsy here; 'menu' should not be repeated in the same sentence; both cases of 'the' need rethinking. Isn't 'of choices' redundant?

With such a topic, the article would need to be very special to qualify for featured status. Tony 16:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• During the Peer Review we were told that we hadn't covered the storyline fully enough. Now you are saying too much of the text is dedicated to the story. Which is it? I also fail to understand why you added a comment next to male pronoun male-pronoun, rather than just fixing it. By the way, for the sake of clarity, you shouldn't edit your past comments. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I did edit my past comments. And one of my key concerns is that it's a boring little superficial story. Why not let people experience it simply by playing the game? Why write it out in an authoritative resource such as Wikipedia? It's just not of the quality we expect of featured articles. Tony 16:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that people should experience the story themselves. But this it what we were advised to do during the peer review. So I request comment from other editors, should the storyline section have ever been expanded? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:59, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Let me put my previous, intemperate comment in context. Don't get me wrong, I'd probably play the game myself if I had access to it (although I wouldn't purchase it). However, the story-line is made for a game, and requires interactivity to be of any value. Once it's removed from its original context, as here, it comes across as one long stream of sub-Lord of the Rings plot-sequence. Without characterisation, it's uninteresting; to a certain extent, this lack of characterisation is compensated for by the human element in the playing of the game—that's my point.

To be constructive, I'd consider changing my opinion if:

• • the prose were lifted to the specified 'brilliant' standard (I'm not interested in working on it intensively, but you might find others);
  • there were a stronger account of any criticism the game may have received;
  • there were an outline of the technological/feature improvements thus far in the series;
  • there were a section positioning this game in the array of similar games that have been developed (not in terms of plot/content, but technically);
  • there were some mention (at the top?) of the demographic at which the game is targetted, and the marketing strategy of the manufacturer;
  • there were an account of how such games (or this one in particular) are developed, from initial idea right through to production and marketing.

Then it will start to look like among the best that Wikipedia has to offer.

I'd be inclined to shorten the plot section, so that it's more of a summary. The stream of names, in particular, won't mean much to the unitiatied reader. Give us an overall idea of the flavor of the plot, and its movement in broad brushstrokes only. At the start of the plot section, you neglect to state that the story occurs in some kind of fictional, mediavalist world. (I'd ignore the previous advice to expand the plot, in the light of my argument here.)

I'm interested to know how much of the information here is simply a repeat of what you receive in the accompanying hard-copy, or that is embedded in the game. Can one of the authors let us know? Tony 01:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• The problem with many of your suggestions is that much of the information you desire simply does not exist in any kind of accessible form. It's difficult to present an account of the development of this particular game simply because the English-language material on that topic is sparse, and anything beyond that would likely fall under the rubric of original research. And I think it's important to remember that this is not an article about computer role-playing games, so any "general" overview of "how such games are developed" would likely belong elsewhere to begin with. As for "any criticism the game may have received," I tend to agree, but the vast majority of commentators have pointed out (with some degree of relevancy, I think) that more often than not such writeups are a thinly disguised example of POV-pushing, and that unless a case can be made of the notability of a particular strain of criticism in the larger sense (like a direct link to sales, or whatever) that such things are very rarely encyclopedic. As for the plot section, none of it is "simply a repeat of what you receive in the accompanying hard-copy." It is a summary, although perahps a longer one than you'd like. And uninteresting though it may be (and, understand, I'm not really disagreeing with you here), I'm not convinced that it's irrelevant to a writeup of the game, which is a more useful rubric for inclusion, IMO. – Seancdaug 12:14, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, I agree with Tony, the quality of the writing isn't there, take for example this monster:

Together with other members of the Returners and anti-imperial sympathizers, including Locke, a thief who searches the world for a special treasure that can restore life, King Edgar of Figaro, who has publicly allied with the Empire, but secretly provides supplies and aid to the Returners, and former Imperial general Celes, Terra manages to open the gate to the world of the Espers in a bid to enlist their aid against the Empire.

I may have a thing for tables at the moment, but the list of characters would look better as a table (Character!Description!Special ability) or actially written as prose than as a list. It would also be usedful for the reader to have been introduced to the cast before the plotline. I think it would aslo been informative in terms of the franchise to describe how this game was technologically different from its predecessors, did final fantasy V have Mode 7 graphics, are there any gameplay differences between the Super Nintendo and the playstation versions, I assume this kind of info would be in the early reviews mentioned in the reception section. It's kind of crufty, but it should probably mention how many hours it takes to play through the game, and that this was a very popular RPG amoung gamers (beyond the sales figures which don't mean alot without the reader knowing how well video games sell normally).--nixie 12:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Return to Oppose per nixie and Tony. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Comment- Now the infobox image is the box art. So... igordebraga ≠ 17:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Godfather

The article has been worked on by the Featured Article Drive team.

I've worked on this article over the past month, and I now feel it meets the criteria for what film articles should be. I'd like to think this article could be featured, and perhaps appear on the Main Page. The Godfather is an excellent film, and I hope this is considered to be an excellent article. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 14:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object, for the following reasons:
  • The lead section needs to be expanded, and the blatant spoiler in the opening paragraph removed.
  • Cite your sources so that others can verify your work.
  • The images Image:Godfather vhs.jpg and Image:Al Pacino and Robert Duvall in the Godfather.jpg need information on their copyright holder (most likely Paramount Pictures), as well as fair use rationale.
  • The section headers need to be modified to conform to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings).
  • Statements such as "The role of Don Vito Corleone was memorably acted by Marlon Brando" violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.
  • Last, but definitely not least, is that it's not comprehensive enough. Most of the sections are only a short paragraph or two long (the longest contains three paragraphs). Much more information is needed to expand them. I suggest modelling the structure of the article in a similar way to how the Casablanca and Sunset Boulevard articles are presented. Extraordinary Machine 16:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  • needs more depth to qualify as featured. Many very short sections give it a choppy effect. For example "Critical acclaim" - it's one of the most discussed films of the last 30 years - what did the critics say?
  • Images are tagged, but neither have a fair use rationale on the image description pages as per Wikipedia:Image description page. The screenshot for example - why that particular one? What is it adding to the article?
  • The two references quoted seem to have been used only for a few minor points in the article, which suggests that most of the article is not referenced. (The two references are back to front also - the information that is supposed to be referenced by reference 1 actually cites reference 2 and vice versa).
  • Trivia section should be merged into article and then trivia header removed.
  • some POV (Brando's "memorably acted") and issues with colloquial style should be reworded. ("smashing" records, "rocketed into the limelight" as examples
  • lead section contains an absolute spoiler - should not be there. Rossrs 16:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Will address these AFAP shortly. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 15:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Object. This article was not ready for the FAC. However, I do understand that people didn't properly address problems with the article in the Peer Review, a case I commonly see. Rob, fix the complaints stated above and I will change to support. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Thanks for all the feedback so far. As Link mentioned, none of this was brought up in the Peer Review. I'll take this page as a to-do list and make the article better. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 21:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: adding to this to-do list, a Trivia section is usually frowned upon (I personally am not a fan). While the stuff here is good, it really should be included into another area of the article and the Trivia section deleted. Thanks. Harro5 21:45, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Most of the text isn't mine; rather, my work is more the cleanup and copyediting and tweaking. I'll see about incorporating that "trivia" elsewhere. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 15:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Needs info on the various themes in the film: good and evil, the end of innocence, etc. Andre (talk) 00:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you mean, "the end of innocence"? Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 15:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object: I think it need some work somehow. 2 or 3 references seem to be not enough but it not actionable objection anyway. Disclamier: I am a member of the FAD team.--Kiba 01:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What claims need referencing? I may have missed a couple. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 15:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleon I of France

This article is a former featured article candidate. You can view its previous nomination here

This was a failed FAC from several months ago, but it has had around 700 edits since then, and I think it deserves another shot at featured status. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) those headings make the ToC ugly. 2) Some sections are too short. 3) Overall page size 50kb! The article should be written in summary style. 3) Phrases such as It appeared the Napoleon of old was back.... This is not written in encyclopedic style. User:Nichalp/sg 05:48, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:NapLogo copy.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 07:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I took that out to avoid your objection, but I guess some friendly fellow decided to put it back in. Oh well --Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Article should be written in summary style, sections which have more information than necessary should split off into their own article. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I agree about the summary style. This article is too long, and some of the information is redundant with related articles like Napoleonic Wars. Phils 10:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object, and think it should go back to Peer review. "In May, 2005 a team of Swiss physicians claimed… A team of physicians from the University of Monterspertoli led by Professor Biondi recently [when?] confirmed this." No citations for any of this, and pretty obviously the sort of thing that needs a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Support, I am a Napolean expert and this article is pretty good in summarizing him. This article failed previously to mentioned in Featured Article, but after more than 1000 edits. I think it deserves another chance.

-- Mercenary2k | Talk 12:18 AM, March 4, 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

• Object. I don't think that the article is too long, but I am dissapointed that there are so few inline citations. Out of 5 notes, nr 1 and 2 seem to be broken (not linked in main body). As for comprehensivness, I realize the article is already long (but there are FAs close to twice his lenght), and I'd like to see Polish Legions in Italy linked somewhere in the article. Finally, there seem to be a copyvio problem.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Oppose. No response to any objections, no improvement to the article. See comments below. The article has a serious shortage of line citations and violates WP:NPOV. For example, the introduction praises the Napoleonic Code and describes Napoleon as a benevolent despot. Nowhere in this article do I see that he also reimposed slavery on the French Caribbean (the revolution had ended it) or that the Napoleonic Code not only erased all the revolution's advances in women's rights, but imposed new inequalities that had not been a part of the Ancien Régime. Married women in France had enjoyed property rights until Napoleon's era. Moreover, his continuous wars decimated the adult male population so badly that after he escaped from Elba he could scarcely raise an army. A pro-France and pro-Napoleon POV seeps into other issues, such as the unqualified assertion of the rather controversial view that the Russians deliberately burned Moscow in 1812. Durova 06:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, strangely, this nomination includes a reposting of several unanswered objections from six months ago. I've tried to solicit attention at the Napoleonic Era group of the military history project. If no one is interested in attending this nomination and bringing the article up to FA quality I'll convert my objection to an opposing vote (quite sadly, since Wikipedia clearly needs a feature quality biography of this man). Durova 20:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Support, I don't see how the following can be interrpreted as Pro-Bonaparte/Pro-french POV:

After all, the military record is unquestioned—17 years of wars, perhaps six million Europeans dead, France bankrupt, her overseas colonies lost. And it was all such a great waste, for when the self-proclaimed tête d'armée was done, France's "losses were permanent" and she "began to slip from her position as the leading power in Europe to second-class status—that was Bonaparte's true legacy."^[34]

This is a balanced, comprehensive and well-written if not consistantly brillant article. It passes my review. Especially since I still feel somewhat "dirty" about giving a passing grade to World War II, which is not IMO, as good as this one.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. It's just too long, there isn't much else wrong. I would also note that 5 references for 53kb of text, especially when each is only cited once, is a little bit on the short side. I'd add refs and shorten the text. Staxringold 12:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apple typography

I stumbled across this article while browsing pages about fonts, and was instantly taken with how well it presents the history of an influential typographical design of the past few decades. I was moreover pleased to find that the article has a number of cited sources and credited images. This seems to me to be featured article material. --FOo 03:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• comment needs a longer lead, though I agree -- it's a great article! Tuf-Kat 05:41, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. A very informative article, but it is not well-formatted, and has a poor structure. As mentionned above, the lead section should be longer, and there are too many micro-headers. I'll see what I can do about that myself, but until then, I object this becoming an FA: Phils 11:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object Besides the above points, info on support for OpenType fonts can be put in a para rather than scattering it all over. Points that can be added:

What are the differences between support for opentype that exists in Tiger and in Windows XP? What type of fonts are being used for displaying asian & Complex text languages now? Are there moves to switch to opentype fonts for these? You can find some pointers at the kannada wikipedia (in english). Otherwise, a very good article. pamri 18:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this article doesn't seem to be intending to deal with font support in OS X so much as Apple's use and styles of typography. The first is a software technical issue; the second is an artistic and industrial design issue. --FOo 18:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but can the title or lead be reworked to make this clear? My questions on asian language support/OpenType fonts(OTF) were not that far off since my doubts are based on the section on Apple Advanced Typography (AAT) and a bit of googling has cleared some of my doubts. The question is a technical one but answers an artistic design issue, because the choice of fonttype for asian languages (especially indic) play a role in the quality of its rendering (See http://sharma-home.net/people/arun/languages/kannada/ for an example) and it hardly takes a line or two to answer. The section on AAT didn't make it clear what made it different from OTF's and whether it supported features like GPOS/GSUB that OTF provides for Indian languages and if not, how are Gujarathi and Hindi being displayed now. I have taken the liberty to rename the line 'Features exclusive to AAT currently include:', since most of them are available in OTF. See http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/featurelist.htm This fontforge document answered my 2nd doubt. I will try to see, if I can add these myself. pamri 07:04, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

OpenType does not provide very good support for Indic languages when compared against that provided by AAT. All of the slack is taken up by Uniscribe, and this means it cannot be changed by font developers. This is the SIL's primary reason for developing their own Windows/Linux technology called Graphite (Macs are hard to come by in the far-flung areas where the SIL do their work), and is one of the areas where AAT differs substantially from OpenType. I wrote the section on AAT in the Apple typography article, and also the section at the Kannada wikipedia cited above. If anything is not clear to you please let me know and I will do my best to improve upon it. Nicholas 23:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Nick. It would be good if you can add a bit about Indic support to the AAT section. Pamri • Talk 04:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support Tlogmer 00:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No lead. Mark¹ 02:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burning Man

Featuring the Burning Man festival while it was running would be a nice community gesture. (unsigned by JimD)

• First of all, featured articles don't work that way. It is much more likly to get on the "In the news" section, if the page is updated for this year. Secondly, I object to this page being featured as it has no references at all. Gentgeen 05:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Not FA level. Also lacking references.--Alabamaboy 17:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Has this even been through peer review? Too much insider/fannish writing. No references. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Needs references, and frankly, the article reads more like a press release than an encylcopedia article (in agreement with Jmabel). The getting around section, as well as many others, are blatantly POV ("Walking is also a great way to get around"). Please avoid peacock terms -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] 21:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It has no references, which are a requirement for a FA. The travelogue-esque nature of several parts of the article is also a problem; it should read like an encyclopedia article, not an advice guide. It should have been peer reviewed before being put here. I also find it lacking in information as to what kinds of events go on there; I've seen numerous new articles about noteworthy artwork, tech, and other curiousities at Burning Man, yet I see none of them mentioned in this article (even that kid in the bubble at this year's event isn't mentioned, and he's been given quite a lot of coverage). Increase the details on what exactly goes on there. -- LGagnon 22:15, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elton John

I am nominating this article because I think it is representive of Wikipedia's finest work. It has good images, as well as a detailed (but not unnecesarily long) overview of the subject.

• Object. It's not a bad article, but there are several important obstacles to it becoming a featured article. Some of the images, such as Image:Oct272.jpg and Image:Wik-elton.jpg, have no copyright information, others, such as Image:Ejohn4.jpg and Image:Ejohn2.jpg, are claimed to be fairuse without enough justification. The article also lacks a references section, which is required for a featured article. There are also several smaller stylistic issues. - SimonP 02:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article still needs work (I'm one of the recent contributors to it). In particular, coverage of Elton's work in the 1980s is very threadbare. Also, I think having 'Film work' and 'Musicals' as separate sections from the main timeline is probably a mistake; it would be better to fold them in, so you can see where The Lion King happened in relation to his other work. Ditto for "That's What Friends Are For" from the 'Personal life' section. Wasted Time R 03:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Wik-elton.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  2. The image Image:Oct272.jpg has no source or copyright information, and doesn't seem to be linked to anything in the article, so it should be removed.
  3. The image Image:Ejohn3.jpg has no source information. It's impossible to claim "fair use" without providing the source and copyright holder.
  4. The image Image:Ejohn2.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but does not specify the source, and has no fair use rationale.
  5. The image Image:Ejohn4.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but is not particularly important for the article. Any fair use claim is dubious.
  6. The image Image:Elton Tommy.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but has no source information or fair-use rationale.
  7. The image Image:Furnish.jpg has no source or copyright information.

  --Carnildo 07:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object - no references, and the issue with the images needs to be addressed. There is no critical comment about him or his music and for someone of his stature, I think that's needed. I also think there are some very minor POV issues. Why, for example single out a relatively inconsequential (my opinion) hit such as "I'm Still Standing" and include it in the lead paragraph where it assumes a distinction that it may or may not be worthy of. I think it's a great song, but it was not a major turning point in his career. I don't think it's practical to discuss each and every album, and I'm glad you haven't, but it's essential to discuss each and every phase of his career comprehensively. The writing style changes dramatically at "1980s and onwards" - the earlier sections are free flowing prose, for the most part well written. In "1980s" there are numerous short unrelated sentences that completely break the flow of the article and create a choppy, incomplete effect, which suggests that section was rushed through in order to finish the article. These are all things that can be fixed though. Rossrs 11:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Until the images are credited (I added the unverified template to Image:Oct272.jpg as per those above), I cannot support the article. Also, the musicals section is almost empty, there are no references, the quotations should be moved to wikiquote with a link, the discography section is empty, and the article needs to be cleaned up. Other than that, it's well done, and has very few redlinks (until the end—perhaps these should be filled in, or removed?). -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{21:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Brisbane

Well written, informed article of this transforational city. Mathieumcguire 00:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review, this is not how a city article should look and it is missing basic information, and references.--nixie 01:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • See Johannesburg for an example of a featured city article.--The Brain of Morbius 01:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review: it has a long way to go.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Peer review - I agree it's missing a lot, in fact missing such basic necessities as references. I live in Brisbane too, and the main impression I get is that the article doesn't really represent the Brisbane that I know. That may be POV on my part - I'd have to read it through several times to be sure. Move it to peer review and I'll be happy to discuss my thoughts further, because here is not the place to do that in detail. I've heard of "Brissie", I've heard of "BrisVegas" but I've never heard of "Brisneyland". I should get out more perhaps. ;-) Rossrs 10:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object—It's not ready yet. -- Tony 00:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object -- article does not have completed sections, lead to short, and long lists instead of prose. User:Nichalp/sg 06:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Too many redlinks, and no references. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{21:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Modified Newtonian dynamics

This article does a wonderful job of covering all the major points in a in-depth yet accessible way. It also explains the underlying mathametics for the expert. Even for the layman, the topic is described both conceptually and with equations. Every point is addressed in a methodical and analytical manner, a great example being the section Consistence with Observations. In short, it is a great example of what an encyclopedic article should be, both accessible and in-depth, offering something for everyone. There could hardly be a candidate more suited to being a featured article. I nominate Modified Newtonian dynamics. Loom91 07:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Tally: The current opposition tally is- 6 Loom91 18:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:Newtonianfig3.png has no source or copyright information.
  2. The image Image:Newtonianfig4.png is under a license of {{permission}}. This is not an acceptable license for Wikipedia.

  --Carnildo 08:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references. Lead secion is a brief mention of the name and author rather than a summary, see this page. 119 08:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

  Responding to the submitter's request I reconsider, I still object on the lead section. It does not summarize the rather weighty sections 'Consistence with the observations' and 'Discussion and Criticisms' and so is not a complete summary, in my opinion. 119 04:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

  Your wish is my command. I've added yet another paragraph to the intro, briefly touching on the main points of the two sections mentioned by you. I'm afraid of making it too lengthy. Loom91 17:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) The lead section is too short to adequately summarize an article of this length. 2) Cite your sources in a References section. 3) The image captions in the first section do not adequately describe the images. 4) The image placement in the first section leaves too much whitespace. 5) The mathematical description in the second section doesn't need to show every algebraic step from the initial equation to the last; show the initial equation, state assumptions (e.g. "We assume that, at this large distance r, a is smaller than a0 and thus..."), then show the solution for the variable that you are reducing to (i.e. "Solving for v, the equation is reduced to..."). 6) There are several places in the prose that need a copyedit for grammar (e.g. "As an effective theory, it describe the dynamics of accelerated object with an equation, without any physical justification." from the beginning of the Discussion and Criticisms section). slambo 16:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Has Slambo gone on a vacation or forgotten this page. He has made no changes to his objections since the first day! Loom91 18:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems Slambo has abandoned this discussion. What can be done about this? Loom91 18:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object, per above: no references. Phoenix2 17:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good enough for me, now that there are references. Images/diagrams seem well placed. Support. Phoenix2 21:12, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Slambo's objections 1 through 5 addressed(i hope adequately). However my first language is not English and therefore I'm ill equipped to do grmmatical and spelling corrections(6th objection). A little help in this direction from anyone will be highly appreciated. On the two objections raised by Carnildo, the first image is nothing more than line diagrams which can be drawn by anyone and no copyright can be claimed on them anymore than a copyright can be claimed on a drawing of a circle. The objection raised about the second image is a valid one, thus I'm removing the image. Please help me in correcting grammer and change your votes to accept. Thank you. Loom91 18:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to claim copyright on an image such as Image:Newtonianfig3.png. --Carnildo 19:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems CArnildos is the only objection remaining, and I could solve it in 5 minutes but unfortunately I have lost my copy of Microsoft Paint to a virus attack on my XP. If anyone mails me a copy of MS Paint at loom91@yahoo.com then I will upload an alternate image. Alternatively, someone kind can do the image themself and upload it. Thanks.Loom91 07:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The final objection has been addressed! I've replaced Newtonianfig3.png with a public domain drawing by me, DarkMatterHalo.png. That takes care of the lot. Now will you please change your votes to support? Loom91 07:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have rectified the grammer and spelling errors. I believe that takes care of all existing objections. Anyhing else? Loom91 19:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support as all claims above seem to have been addressed, and it is a well written article. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] 21:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose the link LSBs should be repaired. Vb10:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)~

Repaired? How? I don't get what's wrong with the link.Loom91 17:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. Alright, fixed the link well and proper. Loom91 17:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I didn't know this theory. I've learned something. Why haven't you put a nice picture of the universe to make it a bit more appealing and allow the administrators to put it on the main page. Vb19:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object—I'm surprised that it was nominated before a thorough copy-edit: I've made numerous small changes to the opening; the authors should try harder. Tony 13:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you please be a little more specific as to exactly which grammatical errors remain, I unfortunately fail to find them. Loom91 17:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

In any case, I've touched up the intro some more, see embedded comments for rationales. Loom91 17:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I've edited another section. However, please let me know whether you'll be able to address the concerns below; if not, I won't go ahead with the edit. Why isn't that extraordinary photo on the discussion page in the article? It's an ideal article for photos. Tony 02:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not inserting the photo as it does not provide copyright information and is thus not suitable for a Featured Article. If you know that it fits in Wikkipedia policy, please let me know and I'll include it. And thank you for your work in the article. Loom91 18:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The standard applied to (all) other math and physics articles is to have the article start with the words In physics, ..., although in this case, In astronomy, modified Newtonian dynamics is .... Discussions about style and etc. can be carried out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. linas 18:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Addressed! Loom91 17:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. My main point is that I believe this theory is not accepted by the community of physicists, not even as an alternative, and this should be noted in the lead section (I'm not a physicist, so I've asked the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics to comment). It's not clear what happens if multiple forces act on a body: should one first add up the forces and then apply the modified second law to find the acceleration, or the other way around; this is the same in Newtonian mechanics, but not in this modification. Some more comments, all from Modified Newtonian dynamics#The change:
  • the difference between and is not explained;
  • the formula should say instead of ;
  • the sentence below does not seem correct English to me;
  • I don't believe that "the form of µ doesn't change the consequences of the theory", only that it does not change some consequences of the theory (like the rotation curve);
  • "doesn't" should be written "does not";
  • "every day world" should be "everyday world";
  • "a is greater than a₀" should be "a is much greater than a₀" (and why the font tag in the subscript?).

Having so many questionable aspects in such a short fragment does not bode well. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Your first point is addressed. The final sentence in the intro uses almost your exact phrasing. On your second point, it is most certainly not appropriate to explain basic vector notation. The article is long enough already. On your third point, the difference is of spacing, but I'm not familiar with LaTeX. As you know LaTeX, perhaps you can change the formula. The difference is trivial. Your other points are all now addressed. Loom91 18:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Of course, the points noted by Jitse should be addressed. About Jitse's first point: Only a handful of scientists advocate MOND as an alternative to dark matter. But this theory is taken seriously by the rest of the scientific community. They take it as a challenge to try to disprove it. See e.g. Joseph Silk's article cited in this article. So, I suggest that the fact that the theory has only a limited number of advocates be mentioned in the introduction. Another point are the links in the references. If possible try to also link to preprints. You need a subscription to APJ to access Silk's article, but this article is also available on the Arxiv preprint server. Count Iblis 21:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I haven't contributed to this article, but I work in the field. The article could one day be good, but there are lots of small scale problems. For example, just to take the introduction, what does "Although Milgrom and others have demonstrated consistently ratifying evidence in favor of MOND, there has been little truly conclusive research" mean? It leaves the reader (and me) 100% confused about the observational status of MOND. How about "(beyond the mitigating influence of the Sun's gravitational field)"? What is "mitigating" about the Sun's field? There are also lots of examples of improperly informal language.

"Overview" section needs rework. The image of the dark matter halo is ugly and needs to be redone.

The mathematical derivation of the predicted rotation curve is too technical for an encyclopedia article, and also is rather laborious.

"Consistence with the observations" is a bit too much editorializing for my tastes, and misrepresents the scientific process as a form of "box checking". A good version of this section would focus on the actual criticisms and responses on the question of MOND, not just rehash a debate on the scientific method (imagine if every article on controversal science had this section.) That would be very interesting and encyclopedic: what were the actual methodological criticisms laid against MOND over its history?

An important fact is only obliquely mentioned: that MOND, as it was first stated, violates the (considered fundamental principle of) Lorentz invariance by postulating a preferred frame of reference. This has been rectified by the TVS paper, very recently, which recasts MOND in terms of a Lagrangian. A classic objection to MOND was that it could not explain the cosmological evidence for dark matter (e.g., spatial flatness); it remains to be seen whether or not the TVS formulation can do it.

In any case, I find the discussion of the impact of TVS on MOND, and the general question of general and special relativistic effects in MOND, to be severly lacking.

My general suggestion here is that this article could be great, but it needs serious work. A problem is that it is rather cluttered and poorly organized. I would suggest future editors start by cutting out lots of stuff, and trying to get a better outline format.

All the best, Sdedeo 02:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The intro has been reworked, all the sentences you objected to removed. Can you be more specific about which points in Overview need to be reworked? It's very difficult for me to edit if you give only vaugue impressions about your objections. I can not see how MOND postulates a 'preffered' frame of reference. Which frame does it prefer? How can you call that simple algebra techinical when articles on physics routinely make use of exotic and little-undertood mathematics such as Hilbert Spaces, Bra-ket notation and that sort of things? That's what I call techinical! About TeVeS, I know little about it. As you said you are working in the field, how about adding what you know to a new section about TeVeS? Also perhaps TeVeS should be treated as a separate matter, since it deviates from MOND in its native form.A good article is born from many people working together, everyone adding to the part they know most about. Please consider taking some time to improve the article. I have edited out the preamble about scientific method and instead placed a link to the original article for reference. Please let me know your thoughts Loom91 18:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Loom. My feeling is that this article is quite a ways from being a featured article candidate, which is why some of my objections are broad.

The algebra demonstrating that MOND gives flat rotation curves is not necessary. You don't have to prove statements in the article; you can just state them, and (hopefully) provide a reference if the statement is in any way contentious. Similarly, in the "mathematics of MOND", you should really not be busting out with the gradient operator. This is just a general tradition in popular science articles: avoid equations unless absolutely necessary; describe results with words and metaphor. It should be possible to describe the essentials of MOND without using the gradient, e.g..

As I've said (and so has SCZenz), one of the major objections to MOND was its conflict with Relativity. Another (connected) objection is the fact that "classic" (i.e., non-TVS) MOND could not make any cosmological predictions. Since cosmological evidence for dark matter has been a major thing since the early 1990s (at least), MOND's failure there is extremely notable, and not covered in the article.

The discussions of MOND vis a vis scientific methods are still pretty contentious. As I've said, you should really source any statements that suggest MOND is criticised because of a conflict with Occam's Razor. AFAIK, astronomers have not really challenged MOND on such broad grounds, but you might be able to find references.

Re: preferred frame stuff. This is part of MOND's conflict with General Relativity I've discussed above. In a nutshell, the local physics inside a freely-falling reference frame should be universal. However, MOND says that some freely falling reference frames (e.g., that of a spaceship free-falling into the Sun) are different from others (e.g., one on the outskirts of the galaxy.) The two experimenters will measure different values of the inertial mass of (e.g.) the electron, according to MOND. You would be able to distinguish the two reference frames, which is a violation of relativity even in the weak field limit.

I hope this helps you improve the article. Unfortunately, I don't think it will make FA status this time around, but perhaps in the future. I'll definitely put it on my list of things to look at later in the year.

All the best, Sdedeo 00:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object, as per Sdedeo. In particular, I am concerned with the treatment of the scientific method in the article. And inconsistency with General Relativity is not to be ignored lightly. -- SCZenz 04:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ignored lightly? How? MOND is not a relativistic theory, niether does it claim to be one. That is the ream of TeVeS. Loom91 18:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems quite strange to have a large-scale theory of gravity and motion that's not compatible with GR. We already have one theoretical divide, between QM and GR--we don't need more unless absolutely necessary. But this really comes back to treatment of the scientific method. To say MOND is a phenomenological model that may give quantitatively accurate values for the rotation curves is one thing, but the article's claims are considerably stronger. -- SCZenz 21:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

References are not correctly cited; missing are the volume and page numbers. Authors should be given a first name as well as a last name. Suggest using the WP reference templates to provide a uniformity of style. See Wikipedia:Cite sources for pointers to templates. linas 18:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

You might even want to organize references according to whether they are historical or popular, etc. See Riemann hypothesis for such an example. linas 19:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The section called "external links" should be merged with the section "references". The external links should be credited with authors and dates as well. The reason for this is that many journal articles are now available on pre-print/reprint servers on the web; and so there is often no real difference between a print reference and a web reference. It also eliminates the bad habit of citing random web links wihtout given an author credit or dating the thing. linas 19:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I take it that you are commenting rather than making a formal objection since you haven't used an Object to begin, but I will try to answer your concerns anyway. First off, page numbers? You are being too strict. The featured article criterias are not that strict! I have mentioned the date in each case, which makes finding the issue trivial, and from there the mentioned article can be tracked from the Index.I'm taking your suggestion and merging "external links" with "references", and the links are credited with authors whenever appropriate. I can't cite an author for a pre-print server! Loom91 17:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cathedral of the Assumption (Louisville)

I think that this is a very complete article with lots of nice photos.--Exir Kamalabadi^{Feel free to criticize me} 05:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. What, if anything, does the copyright tag {{Church}} mean? Are the images public domain? Are they copyrighted-free-use? Are they "fair use"? It's used on the images Image:Churchfont.jpg, Image:Steeple.jpg, Image:Bapistry.jpg, Image:Font.jpg, Image:Coronation window.jpg, Image:Cathedra.jpg, Image:Cathedral organ.gif, and Image:Nave.jpg, and on the sound files Image:Glorylord.ogg and Image:Verbumcaro.ogg. --Carnildo 06:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object – 1) No references 2) Misuse of subheadings. Please increase the length of each subheading or merge with the parent heading. User:Nichalp/sg 06:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - images are a problem as stated above. Perhaps you could ask User:Essjay, who seems to have added most or all of them, to clarify the copyright status of them. If they are indeed fair use, then a fair use rationale should be put on each image description page, and you may consider reducing the number of images used, if this is the case. The use of references is essential, and the article is lacking in these. Lead paragraph needs to be expanded, and the number of small (one paragraph and even one sentence) sections should be condensed into broader headings. At first glance it looks like the subject has been covered with extreme brevity - this is a somewhat misleading impression created by the number of headings and small sections. On the whole it's well written, but these a fairly major issues that need to be addressed. Rossrs 14:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If the images are fair use, then every last one of them should be removed, and replaced with a free-license image. There's nothing here that can't be replaced by a Wikipedian with a camera. --Carnildo 18:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • yes of course, quite correct. Rossrs 10:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vishnu sahasranama

I am requesting comments on whether Vishnu sahasranama should be a featured article candidate.

Thanks,

Raj2004 19:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Object – 1) the references have to be moved to the end of the article. 2) Some sections are too short. 3) If you want comments please go through the Peer review. Will review more thoroughly later. User:Nichalp/sg 21:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - the image has no copyright status. Much of the text reads very well, but I know nothing about this subject. Peer review is a good suggestion. Rossrs 14:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review. This is not the place to solicit comments on FA suitability. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In-N-Out

I would like to nominate In-N-Out as a featured article. This article is one of the most comprehensive works on this restaurant that I have ever seen. Anything you would like to know about this place has been added to this article. There are plenty of references to prove factuality. The article is stable; there hasn’t been any major revision for a while. This article is surprising well written and is actually compelling to read. Since it is just a burger place it can’t be too controversial of an article. It has been written in appropriate Wikipedia style standards. The article contains a lot of images in appropriate places. Even though the article is comprehensive it is not too long. Topics are divided into different section and stay on topic. SenorAnderson 23:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral Oppose. I previously put this article on peer review, but I do not think that all of the comments that were posted there have been applied yet. There still seems to be a lot of lists on the article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, the copyright status of Image:IN-N-OUT BURGER MENU BOARD.JPG (which I raised on its talk page) still has not been addressed yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And another thing: The history section looks like it still needs work. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object, due to the following:
  • "just-in-time" isn't really a business model, its an inventory strategy and it hyperlinks to the wrong article. Maybe it might be better to just say the food is "made-to-order"?
  • "locations's" is grammatically incorrect.
  • "food preparation area (where the tomatoes, onions," is an incomplete sentence.
  • Dedicated "mechanical/electrical rooms" strike me as unusual for small fast-food outlets. Please elaborate.
  • "employee locker rooms" are important to understanding the corporate culture, are these just a set of lockers or are they part of a set of employee facilities. Please elaborate.
  • "concrete tables and benches" sound awfully uncomfortable, are they really concrete or are they just set in a paved area?
  • The "two-box" design could use something visual to aid understanding (either a diagram or a photograph).
  • "larger restaurant site, newer restaurants" - the first noun is singular, the second is plural.
  • "the Snyders" are introduced in Advertising without any mention of who they are.
  • The list for the "secret" menu is a bit overwhelming - maybe you could move it to a new article?
  • Link 666x666 in Trivia to the Number of the Beast (numerology), non-Christians might otherwise be baffled by the reference.
  • Details of store numbers would be appreciated.
  • The History could be a bit more detailed.
  • The menu photograph should be relabelled as being in the public domain.

I'll probably be back to add more comments. From the WikiProject on business, "each article should have a section discussing the company's business model, which intimately tied to how a company is put together and one of the major factors usually shaping a companies history" and "management philosophy, vision, and values is also a major element of coporations and their behaviour which often go under-reported". I think you do a pretty good job of outlining both but any enhancements would be welcome. Good luck with the nomination. Cedars 03:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, "the Snyders" are introduced in the history section: In-N-Out's first location was opened in October 1948 by Harry and Esther Snyder Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The copyright status of Image:IN-N-OUT BURGER MENU BOARD.JPG needs to be clarified. Is it GFDL as implied by the upload comment, public domain/no rights reserved as implied by the rights summary, or "fair use" as implied by the discussion page?
  2. The "trivia" section should be worked into the prose or removed.
  3. There seems to be too much emphasis on the menu.

  --Carnildo 07:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• This one's a little overboard. A guy drove up and took a picture of the menu board. In-N-Out may be abe to trademark the menu board, but as a photo of a menu board I don't think there's much claim for copyright of the photo. Now a transcription of the text they may, but not the photo this user took. Besides the template on that image page is wrong. It claims no source information, while the user clearly claims he took the photo. - Taxman ^Talk 20:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

  There are three conflicting statements as to the copyright status of the image. Before the article can be considered to be of featured status, this needs to be straightened out, or the image needs to be removed from the article. I don't see what's "overboard" about that. --Carnildo 21:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  Agree with removal, especially since this photo can be easily retaken and properly tagged by any number of people. -- Norvy (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose featured article candidacy. Except for the recent notation, this is one of the most boring articles on Wiki. It looks like someone dumped their Business 101 weekend writing assignment on here. --Noitall 06:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry but I must agree..... it's unbelivably, unreadably dull. --PopUpPirate 23:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I concur with all those who say this article is boring to read. I liked it better when it was a stub. :) sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 08:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tupac Shakur

My reason for nominating this article was because it has a good length to it and regains the quality no matter how long it is. It is supported by quite a few images with captions as well. It will make a good read since people can find out about why he was murdered and how his songs are still going to this day. Thorpe 19:33, 27 August 2005

• Object. I think it's a good article, but there are some problems with it that will have to be remedied before it is worthy of becoming a featured article. For example, more than half of the lead section is devoted to the origin of the name "Tupac Shakur", whereas the lead really should be a summary of his life and career (a "mini-biography", if you will). The only reference in the article is in relation to conspiracy theories surrounding his death. Also, Image:Pac5.jpg, Image:Tupac-pensive.jpg. Image:Bblogo.jpg and Image:2Pac Makaveli-The Don Killuminati front.jpg are claimed as "fair use", and will need fair use rationale on their image description pages. And the page for Image:Tupac-mugshot.jpg claims that it has been released into the public domain, but on the legal section of the web address featured on the photograph, it says "Certain materials reproduced on this website are believed to be in the public domain." Are you absolutely sure that the image is in the public domain? Extraordinary Machine 21:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• It looks good but it needs references (besides the conspiracy one) and preferably inline citations. Could probably use a copyedit too. Tuf-Kat 23:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:Pac5.jpg is claimed as an album cover, but #1, it's been cropped (fair use images should not be modified), and #2, it doesn't specify what album.
  2. The image Image:Tupac-pensive.jpg does not have definitive information on the source and copyright holder.
  3. The image Image:Tupac-mugshot.jpg is claimed as "public domain", but not all police mugshots are public domain.

  --Carnildo 07:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. An article about a major musician (indeed, any noteworthy musicial artist) should devote a substantial and appropriately proportioned amount of text to a discussion of the artist's music; and for a major musician that discussion should be based on an appropriate set of sources. This article goes nore more than a single step beyond characterizing the music as "hip-hop" and "rap." Monicasdude 17:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object, I agree with Monicasdude there is no real discussion of his music, lyrical themes and style etc. The section -his future plans- is poorly named, and the source of this information, and indeed all references used to write this article need to be clearly identified.--nixie 05:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Equivocal objection: Whilst I think the article is, on the whole, of featured article standard, I agree with the points made by Monicasdude and nixie. The article doesn't do his artistic career justice.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terri Schiavo

The previous nomination can be found here

"Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status." I am re-nominating Schiavo, and the process led me to this archived page, so I will go ahead and use it.

New info (ATTN: Nichalp) re Article Length: I just saved the Terri Schiavo page in *.txt format on my computer: My computer says that it is "69.7 KB (71,438 bytes)." which is accurate. Wikipedia claims says of "Talk" page that: "This page is 119 kilobytes long," so are my computer's numbers are accurate?? My computer says the "Talk" page "117 KB (120,015 bytes)," so my computer is telling the truth about the article page too, I believe. (PS" I saved the talk and article pages in HTML format, but I shall not discuss those figures, as they are not accurate.) So, in conclusion, since I can't pull up the edit dialogue and get "wikipedia's" assessment, we will have to guess that my computer is accurate: Terri Schiavo is larger than 55Kb or 65Kb, yes, but it is not 80Kb; it is more like 70Kb, references and all, FYI. Look at it yourself and see if I've read right, please. Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• New News: Today's FA uses a "Fair Use" image, so apparently Fair Use is OK for Featured Articles
• NEW News: I have not fully studied all there is on the Fair Use issue, but I have new news on that standard -which I'm refactoring and placing at the top here: The Main Page lists a "Featured Article," Space opera in Scientology doctrine, which uses two images: One is made up with software, but the other, here, is clearly copyrighted and used under "fair use"; Since this is in a "Featured Article," then this feature shows by example that some images can indeed be "Fair Use." While I would like to personally visit Bob and Mary Schindler or email them, if that's not possible, then we can use the images we have, and still be legal --AND "pretty enough" to be a "Featured Article." I consider this concern closed unless someone can show how today's FA and Schiavo are different; However, Carnildo, raised good points in his links: If we use too many fair use images, then other will be limited on what they can copy; however, the few images on Schiavo are not enough to warrant that concern. The only other problems that remain are the length, which is a tad long, by some standards (??), and the edit war, which I expect to end soon, but I do NOT consider that a problem for the article -only for the editors.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• NOTE. Since there is ongoing concern of the edit war, please let me point out that I asked my father about it, and, if you want to remain credible in my eyes, I ask you to read this entire page, at least once, and pay special attention to my father’s remarks concerning the edit war. See e.g., below, before the page gets too long to be manageable.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the previous FAC nomination of this article. That FAC nomination has undergone heavy editing since it was archived on September 3, 2005. Lupo 07:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• NEW:Here's Talk:Terri_Schiavo the talk page, and the disagreement is "important," but both sides are close to an agreement, so don't come here if you are too lazy to actually educate yourself on the nuances of the disagreement; The actual disagreement that locked the page centers on one small paragraph: I wish to report both objections that an attorney had, and FuelWagon wants to report only one. He had in the past promised to not complain if I could quote a major player in the Schiavo saga, and said that this was superior to a mere description, accusing me of "original research" for merely reporting on facts; I did as he asked, and sourced (verified) it with links, so what's the holdup? Come and help out; PS: You remember Wagon as one of the six who favoured SUPPORT, as opposed to the eleven who OPPOSED Fac nomination. Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"(If you are resubmitting an article) Use the Move..." Already did, but it still shows this page.

Reason for (re)nominating the article:

There will be initial criticism for renominating the article so soon after it failed, but many have stated to the effect that Terri Schiavo is FA-worthy; and, let me add that the recent "emotional concerns" do not matter for FA-worthiness, because its fitness as a candidate is a state function, that is, the fitness to be a featured article is a property of the Schiavo article that depends only on the current state of the system, not on the way in which the system got to that state. My fellow scientists will understand this logic is more logical than the emotional concerns to wait: We editors (including Mark himself) have fixed ALL the problems that Mark (Raul654, the Fac editor), brought, and most of the problems that other editors mentioned; Only a few concerns remain, such as the length, but George W. Bush is about as long, and Terri Schiavo was arguably comparably as well-known as Bush.

The article is very stable, having only a few edits in recent times; there is, however, a LOCK on the article at the moment, and this hints that there is instability, but the existence of disputes is not a guarantee of instability. In fact, with the lock -and the negotiations going on in talk, the article is very stable.

In fact, a lot of work was done recently to procure images, first-hand, to release under GNU and avoid Fair Use. As well, the references section was created anew and much copyedit was done -with much blood-sweat-and-tears on the part of many editors, who don't always agree on things: For example: FuelWagon, the one who provoked me to ask for page protection does not always agree with me on things, but we both think Schiavo is FA-worthy, and so do some other editors.

To keep things orderly, I will not participate much in this renomination, since I contributed heavily in the past, but I want to set up areas of concern, here, and if the article meets most or all of these, then support it:

Policy Concerns:

• Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work.
• Comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-written.
• Uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy,
• Comply with the standards set in the style manual,
• Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status.
• Have an appropriate length

Mark's concerns, addressed below:

• TOCright breaks the manual of style, the TOC (with its 37 sections) is quite overwhelming - We fixed that, and Mark scratched that out.
• the article has no introduction - We fixed that, and he scratched it out too.
• it has no references section to complement the inline linking -I fixed that almost single-handedly. Come and see.
• it has a see also section (which should be converted to prose, inserted into the article, and the section deleted) - we did that
• every image used in the article is fair use - Not any longer.
• it's 80 kilobytes long -We greatly cut the article down - You happy now?

Since the major problems have been ironed out, it is only logical to renominate, and I regret having waited: My inaction does nothing to honor the collective work of all the editors who have worked on this -and it does not honor the casual reader who wants to see a top-notch article.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. For the reasons above and below. Chiefly, the problems have been ironed out. If a few remain, deal with it: Life isn't perfect: This is a very quality article, representing the very best of Wikipedia and its editors. The few remaining disputes are discussed in Schiavo's talk page. Other than that, it;s good to go. For that reason, I support.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Article is clearly not stable (it currently is even protected due to a recent edit war), and there are many unresolved points on the talk page. Lupo 07:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The page is right now protected. 2) The article stands at 87 kb. That's unacceptable for any FAC, and especially such an over-blown and over-politicized subject. 3) It's been, what? Two weeks since the last nomination? This thing needs at least six months, probably several years to cool down enough. This is not "the best of Wikipedia". It's merely an outlet for the frustrations and non-notable opinions of those closely involved or deeply engaged in the affair. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of writing and it's very unbecoming an FAC. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Peter for your concern in comments above and below, but let me assure you that the "frustrations" of the participant, editors, etc., are a reflection on them, not on the article: We are not getting voted on; The article is. Also, since many complaints herein have been addressed or are not a reflection of the article itself (maybe a reflection on the "edit warring editors"), then many of the complaints (except maybe article length) are not actionable or relevant to the vote; Thank you, still, for your feedback, Peter.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • On a side not to Gordon: please don't use this nomination as yet another forum for intricate Schiavo-discussions. This is not the place for it. Accept votes as they are; if they're inactionable, Raul (and no one else) will decide if they're valid or not. No one with any formal powers will intervene and especially not Jimbo. Peter ^Isotalo 08:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object.
  1. Article is not stable, as evidenced by a recent revert war and current page protection.
  2. The images Image:TerriSchiavo2.jpg and Image:Schiavo catscan.jpg are claimed as "fair use", but have no fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed, and the image description pages at Sunset Boulevard (film) for a good example.
  3. The image Image:TerriSchiavo2.jpg does not indicate the creator or copyright holder. Without that information, it's not possible to claim fair use.
  4. The image Image:Schiavo.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but the fair use rationale provided is inadequate.

  --Carnildo 08:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Carnildo, the image currently at Sunset's link above says: "It is believed that such poster images may be exhibited on Wikipedia under the fair use provision," which does not raise the standard or tell us anything new. Further, Fair Use is legal; Lastly, I personally posted many photos I took myself, to address your complaint, and you will have to accept a few Fair Use photos -unless you have a better idea. Most of the current photos are GNU, and not Fair Use, so what is the "legal problem?" Your problem is perceived, not real. I respect your opinion, but it is a non-real problem. (Unless you can get Jimbo or someone in power to argue with me on this, then I will accord this issue zero weight.) Relax. It will be O.K.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Please read and understand all of the following before complaining about my objection again: Wikipedia:Fair use, Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale, Jimbo Wales on fair use, non-commercial, and by-permission images, Jimbo Wales email on non-commercial and by-permission images. --Carnildo 05:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I have long been aware of Jimbo's concern's, but I never perceived "Fair Use" as illegal, merely "bad style," that's all (in reading Jimbo's past comments) --and I need a little time to research this, Carnildo; there may be details of which I am not aware. Thanks for the links -will get back with you.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Hey, Gordon, since you know Terri's family personally, could you ask them for some photos to GFDL? I'm thinking in particular of a photo of Terri before the incident. That could be a good way to resolve the copyright problems. Borisblue 06:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I may be able to help out here, but I can not guarentee anything; You also may contact them at the contact link at http://TerrisFight.org They may very well answer you. Have faith; Ask and you shall receive.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object - This article is clearly not in a stable state yet. And it is far too soon after the previous nomination to renominate. The size does not worry me unduly, but query whether the legal toing and froing could be moved to a separate sub-article which is summarised here - this article should be about the person, not the legal cases. Also query whether all 79 references are required - in some sections, almost every other phrase has a footnote. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • ALoan, where do the rules say there has to be any mandatory waiting period? The rules simply say: "Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status." I did that. Now, I agree with you on article length, but a few dissenters may compel the regular editors to look into that. Lastly, Mark, the Fac editor (Raul654 is Mark) is the one who called for the reference section, and this is policy; Yes, 79 or 80 references is a lot, but we must document, verify, source, and link to verify our claims. It will be OK; The "References" section is at the bottom and won't affect things. Oh, the "stability" issue: Yes, My father addressed that; see below.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • First let me say that I respect the effort that you and others are putting into getting this article featured: in principle, it certainly can and should be featured, but only when it meets the featured article criteria - that is to say, when it is comprehensive, accurate, stable, NPOV, well written, has appropriate images, and is of an appropriate length. Irrespective of its other merits, this article is still unstable (as evidenced by the edit war and page protection) and the only way to show that it is stable is for it to stay in an acceptable form, without significant revisions from day to day, for a substantial period (that is, for at least a few weeks - and no, this is not written down either, but it is what I would expect). I will reconsider my objection when the article is stable. Now, regarding your question, "the rules" also do not state that there has to be a waiting period between FAC nominations. It is, however, the usual practice to wait for a sensible period after a FAC fails before renominating (otherwise, as we are seeing here, everyone's time is wasted with the similar objections coming up all over again). And when an article is unstable, like this one, the waiting period is likely to be longer: the only way to demonstrate stability is to wait. It certainly takes more than one week after an unstable article fails FAC for the article be demonstrably stable. (Sorry, I don't see how your father's reported comments address the stability issue: you say "I told him about the dispute on the talk page, and asked him if an article could still be of good quality -even if its recent editors had questionable quality -as shown by disputed. He said that he didn't see why not." - I don't see how that contributes significantly to the issue of stability). Finally, this is a consensus process: you need to convince everyone with an actionable objection that this article meets the featured article criteria. It is really not necessary to write screeds of justification and rebuttal to do that. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • "First let me say that I respect the effort that you and others..." Thank you for your feedback. Now, I understand your concerns on the stability issue, and, yes, I understand that we have to figure out some things that aren't written rules of policy; Let me reply: While there is currently an argument on the talk page and both POV and "Page lock" banners on the article, the page is generally stable, and that is what counts for FA. Here's additional proof: "**I think you misunderstand the stability requirement - the stability requirement is meant to discourage articles that are *currently* unstable; it's not meant to apply indefinitely to the future. In the case of this article, it's only gotten 5 small edits in the last week, which (to me, as the person who wrote that requirement) is relatively stable [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 05:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)". ~~ We all have small objections, but overall the article is great; and, if you have a SERIOUS objection, you are expected to try to correct it: While the main responsibility falls on the nominator (me) to correct errors, I've done more than my fair share. (I went out to the grave site and took photos, and I fixed, er, created anew, the references section, and done major copyedit + MANY OTHERS have helped me; I'm not the sole contributor.) Conclusion: Since I have done my part -and more -then any objectors are expected to navigate their way to the Schiavo talk page and settle the relatively simply and small (but important) dispute that remains -complaining is OK if you have a valid concern, but it must be balanced with "action" to work. Thank you in advance for your help here in Schiavo's talk page!--GordonWattsDotCom 22:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sorry Gordon, I warned you that you should have waited a while. This article is extremely unstable, with a recent page protection to boot! Borisblue 12:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Do not re-nominate unstable articles so quickly. Phils 13:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Phils, My father addresses the stability issue below, and I address the "waiting period" issue in the answer to ALoan, above.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree fully with Peter. Renominating just because you feel it should be featured is inappropriate. There was consensus on the FAC talk page against it, so even if some people though you should nominate it, you should have been able to see this coming. Multiple objections have been levied for it being too long. Please use Wikipedia:Summary style to trim the article down without losing information. Yes it is possible, but no one said it was easy. Prioritize properly what information really needs to be included to give a proper overview. And no, that won't likely be possible to do and reach stability in a few days. - Taxman ^Talk 15:16, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Object. Too quick a renomination, edit warring, too big, etc. And I'm confused how you justify the size by saying that Terri Schiavo was "arguably comparably as well-known as Bush". Bush is the leader of the free world; Schiavo was a news story for perhaps a few months. Ral315 15:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ral315 My father addresses the stability issue below, and I address the "waiting period" issue in the answer to ALoan, above. "Bush is the leader of the free world; Schiavo was a news story for perhaps a few months." Terri Schiavo will remain a story for the rest of American History; She will be remembered along with Dred Scot, Abraham Lincoln, and others, but her article is longer for now because she, like George W. Bush are "current" news.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Bush doesn't need or deserve such a large article either, regardless of being "the leader of the free world" (a statement which in itself is subject to debate, though this is the wrong place). Object for many of the above given reasons. Fredrik | talk 17:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• weak oppose, for reasons of instability stated above; the article itself is fair enough I suppose; but just because (even if) antagonists agree on a version, it does not follow that it is FA-worthy. Especially if both factions are (for different reasons) obsessed with the subject. Also, some annoying excess-linkage (stuffed animal (!), fax, dove, high school, iced tea..... I mean, seriously, what good is a link to testimony or April in this article?) dab (ᛏ) 20:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• • My Motives for Re-Nomination.
  • Featuring Terri Schiavo was not my idea. I got it from Neutrality, who edit warred with me and refused to accept this 4-2 (or 4-3?) concensus on the intro. In spite of his argumentiveness, I must give credit to Neutrality for being the one who suggested the nomination of Terri Schiavo as a Featured Article:--GordonWattsDotCom 19:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Rebuttal to the above.
  • The article was mentioned as a Featured Article Candidate in the past two peer reviews:
• ""The last peer review request was done in the midst of the media circus and was very helpful. Now that the situation has calmed down somewhat I'm hoping for a FAC. Comments? Neutralitytalk 22:51, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• "I think it's a possibility. I'm pleased at how the article has become about as NPOV as it's going to get; a side-effect of that though is that the article is huge, and it might be challenging to shrink it and keep everyone happy...JYolkowski // talk 19:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)"
• "There is huge value in the references in this article...Please could you convert to a system which preserves the full reference information...I would suggest Footnotes or another system of inline references...Mozzerati 18:07, 2005 May 9 (UTC)" Gordon: We fixed that.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Even in the fist peer review there existed positive comments:--GordonWattsDotCom 19:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• "...I say feature it now. -- Glen Finney 17:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)"
• "I think it is pretty neutral, more so than commercial news I saw about the case...AC 1:03, 21 April 2005"
• Even in the first peer review, we had comments like: "The article has improved a lot since the last time I looked at it...--nixie 23:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

• • Conclusion.
  • Since the article was highly-praised by people on both sides of the issue who normally don't agree --even back in the peer reviews, and since the article has dramatically improved since then, it is more ready. The edit warring will quit ...if there is stability brought on by a Featured Article status. If the article was (almost) ready for FA-status in the peer reviews, and if it has had improvements since then -on several successive occasions -then how can it get less ready? I think it is nothing more than pack mentality. Are we not smarter than that?--GordonWattsDotCom 19:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, you seem to have this very backwards. We don't promote articles to featured status in the hopes they will become stable; we promote stable articles to featured status *because* they are, among other things, stable. →Raul654 19:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • It goes both ways: The article is deserving because it was almost ready in the past 2 peer reviews, and has improved much since. However, nomination also affects stability -in the same way stability affects quality of nomination. ~~ It works both ways -not one, not another, but both. However, if there is "Pack Mentality," no matter how ready the article is for Feature --the Featured Editors are not ready for the article. Pack Mentality, where one person follows another without a full examination of the logic.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
        • You seem to be having a really hard time understanding how this FAC process of gaining consensus works. We'll all give you some leeway because it is your first time, but come on now, you're not even trying to listen to what people have to say. With well over a year of sustained FAC participation, I can guarantee you this article will not be promoted if you keep up what you're doing. People have repeatedly told you the article needs to be trimmed down. Continuing to ignore that isn't going to help. Please, step away, and stop with the polemics. - Taxman ^Talk 20:31, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
          • I am flexible on the length issue, but many editors with 'expertise on editing this article think it should be this long; Who are you or I to disagree? PS: On the "concensus" thing, Taxman, I think you misunderstand what happened in the past three (3) reviews -the two peer reviews and the last FA-review. There were more positive comments than you imply, and you should ask yourself "why" if the article is that bad: And, it has improved, with the only "major" concern being the recent edit war, but I address that below, when I discuss what my father had to say about it, so I won't repeat it here. I've addressed all concerns, and any more opposition -even if it from many voters -is "emotional," not logical; see below for my answers on the lingering concerns.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article is currently protected from editing due to edit warring, is listed at WP:RFC, and thus does not meet the stability criteria that is required for featured articles. There also seem to be ongoing debates about the article's content on its talk page. Extraordinary Machine 20:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object since me and Carnildo's objections were never resolved last time around. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • False: I made special efforts to personally obtain pictures that i personally took to sooth your objections re Fair Use -not that Fair Use is illegal; it isn't.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • After talking to Gordon, I decided to be bold and fix the image problems myself. While I do wish to see the article become FA, I just think with the edit war going on and page protection, it will have to wait. I am going to work with Gordon and Carnildo to fix the image problems. Abstain from voting. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • We need a little time to research Carnildo's concerns; thx for being bold, Z Scout.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Object - Edit war, stability, and length. You mention that George Bush's article is also really long, but you might also note that George Bush's article is not featured, either. Fieari 21:26, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • First, I want to agree that a few things could be removed from the article, stuff like Terri's cat, for example. With that said, I will take an opportunity to tell you the feedback I received from my father, when I asked him about this.
  • What my father said, when I asked him about the edit war:
  • My father is not a "computer-type," but a common working man, but I called him up today and asked him about the edit war situation, the only thing that is a major concern (except now I think maybe a little fat can be cut from the article, but it still is quality). I told my father, born in 1935, who runs his own auto part sales business, the situation about the nomination and the edit war. (Pop used to be personal friends with "Big Daddy" Don Garlits, as both were in drag racing about 30 years ago, here in the Tampa Bay area, not that this affects his wisdom or anything.) Anyhow, I told him that a featured article represents the very best of our collective contributions.
  • I told him about the dispute on the talk page, and asked him if an article could still be of good quality -even if its recent editors had questionable quality -as shown by disputed. He said that he didn't see why not.
  • My opinion is that the edit war is possibly a reflection on the editor -however, this is not a popularity contest of the editor -but one of the page itself.
  • If you don't believe me, contact me, and I will put you in touch with my father.
  • Since the page was in the past considered by many for FA, and since the current status is much-improved (with no regard to the editors themselves in any edit war), then the transitive property reigns: If the past versions of Schiavo were good enough to be considered for FA; and, if the current versions are better, then the current versions are definitely better then the previous standards -which they passed well enough to get many positive rave reviews -in both peer reviews (see quotes, this page) -and the past FA-nomination (see archives, which show it was a closer vote than you and your fellow editors would imply here).
  • CONCLUSION: If the reader, you that is, don't at least read this entire page (it's not that long), then you are disrespecting the past three sets of editors, myself, and my father. Do you want to do that? I am not asking you vote "for" me (although that is my formal nomination request); I am, rather, asking you to either read the page and vote accordingly, or, instead, if you STILL have complaints, come and help out. Either help out -or don't complain -but you have no moral justification to speak unless you can certify that you have at least read this one small page here.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Object - The reasons given above by others are overwhelming and do not need repeating. The nominator has crossed the line into "abuse of the system" long, long ago. - Bantman 21:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • The article was considered for FA in the 1st two reviews, and it has improved since then. Did you even read the page, or are you just following the crowd? PS: Read the comments (above) from my father on the issue -and he is not a "computer person," by the way, but a common man.
  • Regarding abuse, let me point out that the FA candidacy is not a review on the nominator -or editor -or edit wars -it is a nomination of the article. If the article was seriously considered for FA twice in peer reviews, and almost passed the third time (the "vote" was close, if you actually counted them), then I am inclined to believe the abuse is on the part of people who seem to say that the editors in the past peer reviews were wrong or stupid to suggest a FA nomination. If I were the only one who shared the feeling that the Terri article was FA material, I'd be inclined to believe you might be right, but since the past three reviews (the two peer reviews and the recent FA review) had many positive comments, and since it has improved since then, I say you are abusing the process: Your "no" vote implies the past three (3) sets of reviewers were stupid abusers of the process by voting positively: No respectful at all. Your only valid concern is the recent edit war, and I address that above -and share insight that I got from asking my father about this. I hope you would respect him enough to at least look it over.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • We understand that you are nominating the article; however, the featured article criteria state that a features article should be "mostly static, and not change rapidly from day to day" and be "uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars". The Terri Schiavo article meets neither of these requirements. Also, since you have reverted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates more than three times in 24 hours, I have reported you at WP:3RR. Extraordinary Machine 03:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Correction: my apologies, you have not violated the 3RR, but I advise you not to pursue featured article status for Terri Schiavo for at least some time after this nomination fails. Extraordinary Machine 03:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • No problem, Extraordinary Machine , regarding the 3RR mistake: We all slip up; and, yes, there is a current edit war, but that is one (singular), not edit wars, plural. It was mostly static, as Mark said in the recent FA-nomination (see archive link at very top), and now it is very static, and when the page unlocks, it will probably be fairly static, based on the edit history of the last months. ""uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy" It is not an uncontroversial topic, but all sides usually agree that it is NPOV (with an exception on this recent edit war on a small section). "...after this nomination fails." Huh? You are assuming it will fail. While it looks bad, I have met the technical requirements, "Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status," so I don't see the problem. The problem is perceived, not real.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Support I don't know where these accusations of instability are coming from. What's the objective measurement of stability? It's a good article and is a better written and more complete summary of this very important case than you will find anywhere on the Internet. I have nothing against Sun Yat-Sen or the History of Alaska but the material in those articles organized in a useful way is duplicated all over the net. The Terri Schiavo article on the other hand is a unique demonstration of how the competitive editing process of the Wikipedia can produce timely, comprehensive, and good enough quality. patsw 04:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"Stability" means that the article does not constantly change dramatically, as, e.g. in an edit war. Borisblue 05:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object – Currently protected from editing (thus not suitable for FA at this juncture), and definately needs a summary as the article takes up 54kb (excluding refs, ext links etc.) User:Nichalp/sg 05:15, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Questions 1 & 2. (1)How do you see the size in Kb? (I used to know how but can't do it now-days, but even then, my "saved" copy was a different size than the Wikipedia servers said, lol.) (2)Also, where's the policy on article size that sets an upper limit? (If I get a chance, Wagon and I will maybe try to trim it down, but it's harmelss and complete as it, I think.)--GordonWattsDotCom 05:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • PS: Yes, it's long, Nichalp, but, as I've said before, current events (Bush, Schiavo, etc.) are going to be longer than ancient ones (Lincoln, Washington, etc.).--GordonWattsDotCom 05:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • When you click edit, if the article is above 32 kilobytes, above the edit window you'll get a message saying "This page is X kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." 32 kilobytes used to be considered the approximate ceiling for how large our articles should go. Nowadays, with references and whatnot, we accept that around 45 or 55 kilobytes is a more reasonable ceiling. However, bigger than that is generally unacceptable. →Raul654 05:24, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Mark. I thought it was automatic, but since the page is locked, I can't get that function; ALSO, Nichalp, regarding the edit war, I address that above, hopefully to your satisfaction.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Brilliant Flash: Mark just now said that 55 Kb was alright for a total size, Nichalp, and the references can't push the total up that much more, and are very essential to document, source, verify, and such make it legit. So, I see no problems with the article length, but I admit I do not know it all, and should hope to see if any fluff exists, fat that can be cut off.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
        • That's incorrect. I removed the references, see alsos, notes, interwikis and the infobox and then previewed. Without all this the article content comes to 54kb, otherwise it touches 80kb. don't compare the article to GWB, that article is not a Featured one. User:Nichalp/sg 05:38, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
        • I acknowledged your removal of the references in my comment above and was about to clarify that the addition of them might push the total up above the 55 Kb (but I had an edit conflict and could not clirify) but still the article is close enough for me; nonetheless, I admit I don't know all there is about the details, and have an open mind that maybe some extra fluff can be removed.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Question for Nichalp re length: What happens if the article is featured as is? Do readers howl at the length if/when they click on it? I think they would simply ignore something if it were too long, and since the extra Kilobytes are merely boxes, notes, etc., then I don't think it would detract from the "look and feel" of the article; forget "legal" arguments: I "feel" that I am right, and I surf the web all the time, and apparently others feel this way: Many long pages exist, and one day will be featured articles, so this standard of 80-90 Kb is, IMHO, not too long, lol.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• • [paste after edit conflict] Yes, it may be a current (ok recent past) event, and I don't deny that contemporary figures will have a lot of material about them, but that does not justify the need for having such a long article. You would need to add the detail to dedicated articles link you've done in the case of " Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case". You need to summarise the text here. Newspapers and magazines summarise all the time, so it isn't too difficult to get a summary here. Also if you want to check the size of the page offline, save the material as .txt and see the file size. Your ultimate aim is to get it featured, but why don't you wait for a few more weeks till things cool over? As the history of FAC goes, articles which are submitted immediately after being failed have a lesser chance promotion than those which have been nominated after a sufficient period of time. User:Nichalp/sg 05:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• In that case WW2 would have a massive entry. Wikipedia:Summary style will address your queries. User:Nichalp/sg 05:51, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • "but that does not justify" does it not? Maybe - maybe not - "would need to add the detail to dedicated articles link" Hold on a second: You're saying one article is too long and the linked one is too short? So, why can't you just shift a little material and make it ALL good. Hmm... Interesting! "need to summarise the text here" We did. It is the intro. We all worked on that -well many of us here did. "if you want to check the size of the page offline," Thx! However, it gave me different measurements when I saved it -maybe I used HTML instead of Text formats. May check later to see if my version's the same size as what Wiki-servers say... " but why don't you wait" Why should I? Since fitness is a state function, the burden of proof is on those who oppose moving forward, and especially since "Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status." "As the history of FAC goes..." Thx for your analysis, but might does not make right, nor do two wrongs (in past nomination history) make right. Right is right regardless of the "history." The article is what is being judged, not it's history, not the editors, not the edit wars: The article is fine whether or not there exists an edit war on some small (but important) point. We are judging the article, not the article's editors, lol. I know this page is growing faster than inflation, but you did read it all, Nichalp, right? I did! (As nominator, I hope I have upheld my responsibility to be responsive to ALL concerns; have I?)--GordonWattsDotCom 06:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Still object - both for the fact that it's apparantly unstable (as proven by the fact that is has been protected) and for the problems with the images pointed out above. And of a wild tangent, what does the submitters father has to do with this??? WegianWarrior 06:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "And of a wild tangent, what does the submitters father has to do with this???" Two things: 1) His analysis makes sense: The fitness of the article is what is being assessed, not the fitness of the editors, and the editor arguments do not necessarily affect the article (because the "lock" will soon be over, I am sure) -and 2) Since many people have morals, I thought they would respect my father's opinion and increase the depth of understanding.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • So.. basicly you're asking us to support because your father says so? Uhm.. no, I don't think so. I'll support or object based on the article as it stands at the time I cast (or change) my vote. WegianWarrior 06:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • "So.. basicly you're asking us to support because your father says so?" Read what I wrote: I did not say my father said to support it; I said that he suggested that it could still be a good article -even if there existed arguments on the talk page; Furthermore, I don't ask you to do as my father suggest because he says sol I would ask that you look at his ideas that I shared and see if they make sense, but read them, which maybe you haven't? Thx for your interest.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Object due to instability. A protected article can't become featured because it is profoundly unwiki -- page protection goes against the core principles of the Wikipedia project, and we can't be featuring articles that are the antithesis of the wiki spirit. In addition, I find the lead highly unsatisfactory because it doesn't state why this issue became such a high-profile event (i.e. the very reason it has an article at all). And I agree that the nominator's father's opinion on an article he appears to have not read is pretty irrelevant. If he thinks it's a worthy FA, he should become a Wikipedian and support on this page. Tuf-Kat 06:27, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, Gordon's father's opinion wasn't on the article's FAC, but on the idea that edit war-ravaged articles shouldn't be featured. Borisblue 06:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"And I agree that the nominator's father's opinion on an article he appears to have not read is pretty irrelevant." Let me repeat it, since you may not have understood my comments above: My father did not comment on the article itself (he has not read it) -contra he commented that there is no problem in featuring an article (in general) if it's of good quality -whether or not there is an "edit war" among the editors; My father is just another person; However, if his idea has merit, I would hope you consider: Who is being judged: The editors -or the article? The name of this page is not "Featured editor candidates" -it is "Featured article candidates" --and the article is fine -very complete and refined in fact -even if we editors get crazy at times.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

You have to realise, though that some articles attract more 'crazy' editors than others. And the fact is, if there is frequent warring, this page will have to be protected, have NPOV notices, etc. all of which would affect the article and look bad for Wikipedia. Stability is set in stone as a FA criteria. To get this article featured, you have to resolve that dispute with fuelwagon and get that page protection lifted, and then let the article go for two or three weeks without an edit war. Patience. Borisblue 06:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"Stability is set in stone as a FA criteria"Wiki is, by the very definition, unstable, but for a very controversial topic, Schiavo has been surprisingly stable; Edit wars are normal for ALL pages -that does not affect the page -it affects the editors. The page is invariablely protected for a few days and then opened back up, and this will be the case here, barring disaster, so it is certainly stable enough for FA.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments: At least two people (TUF-KAT and Wegian Warrior) have misquoted or misrepresented what I wrote about my father in this talk page, and a third person Bantman was kind enough to admit that he didn't study the what I quoted in regards to the history of the nominations entirely before voting; Since I am not going to get mad at you for disrespecting my father, I would hope you also don't get mad at me for criticizing you for not fully understanding and/or studying the fact.

My point here is not to offend a person by mentioning their name and saying they are a bad person; We all make mistakes and/or get too busy to fully read a page; Contra, my purpose in making this comment here is to point out that people have not studied the basic facts and arguments herein, and thus sometimes make uninformed decisions.

My conclusion is simple: Please just take a little time to read and study the facts; I am trying to study the materials that Carnildo asked me to research --before I comment further, and I would hope my global neighbors would do the same for me here -regardless of how you feel or vote --if you don't mind. Thank you for your concerns.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Misqouted or misrepresented? No, I'm confused what he has to do with this at all. Most wikipedians are sensible enought to realise that what they vote for (or against) is the article itself, not the editors or the edit history of the article. Please don't assume stuff because you gotten emotinaly involved. If the article stabilises, and if the issue with the images is cleared up (which should be easy enought), I'll reconsider my vote. If not.. well, then I won't cahnge it. WegianWarrior 07:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't pretend to know it all about copyright, but if the images were so bad, why have they remained to this day? Also, you did misrepresent what I wrote, but it's no big deal; if you re-read our dialogue, you'll see the nuances, but as to my question on the images... Hmm...? Emotionally involved? Does that invalidate the quality of the page, which has improved since in each sucessive review?--GordonWattsDotCom 07:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The images are not bad, they just need - as pointed out - better rationale for their use. Which is why, incidentaly, I pointed out it should be easy enought to fix.

Your involment don't invalidate the page - but it might make you, how to put it, liable to read things into comments other didn't intent.

As far as the misrepresentation go... see my previous point. Misunderstood, perhaps, and I still can't even see why you thought it nececarry to bring up. Again, most wikipedians are sensible enought to realise that what they vote for (or against) is the article itself, not the guys who wrote it. WegianWarrior 07:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Your points are good; I admit I don't know the fullness of the image use issue, but getting GNU FDL images is easier said than done (harder done than said) -and should only be done if actually needed. I wonder if it is really needed, but if "justification" is all that is needed, you might be able to help fix that -ZScout370 is working on that as well. What do you think should be done? If you can suggest a proposed solution, I investigate doing it.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The very simple explonation is that you need to explain in full on the image-page why you feel that the use of the image in the article is fair use - the links Carnildo gave explains it pretty well. There is even a template sort of thingy at Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. WegianWarrior 07:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

WW, I just looked at all seven images: Four I took myself and released under GNU; The other three have good explanations, two of which were done just now by ZScout270, and the other with a good rationale relating to ist release: Here, you can see for yourself: Terri Schiavo. --GordonWattsDotCom 07:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I've just looked over the three 'non-free' images, and noted the following:

• Image:TerriSchiavo2.jpg Still needs a rationale why it's important to have in the article (just noteing that others have used it isn't explaining why wikipedia uses it)
• Image:Schiavo.jpg Should include _why_ it's important to the article (should be very easy to fix)
• Image:Schiavo catscan.jpg Ditto - why is it important to the article to have it (well, I realise why, but it ought to be written at the imagepage) in the article?

Off course, it could be that my ISP has cached the page and won't show me the latest version properly. At least you seem to understand my concerns over the images and are working to adress them. Now if only something could be done to the issue of (apperant lack of) stability, we might be home and dry. WegianWarrior 08:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I most certainly did not misunderstand anything. You are apparently under the impression that anybody should care about your father's opinion -- I'm sure he's a wonderful and very intelligent man and all that, but I have no reason to suspect he knows anything about Wikipedia, encyclopedias, edit warring, featured-article-status or anything else relevant to the subject at hand. Your father thinks a disputed article can be featured... So your father's opinions overrides the opinions of Wikipedians who have spent a lot of time thinking about what the qualities of a great article are? We should all just drop our objections because some dude's dad thinks so? Guess what? I asked my friend, Jeff, and my other friend, Mark, and they both figured an article of disputed neutrality should not be considered "featured". On the other hand, my third friend, Tim, thought it was the stupidest question he ever heard (OTOH, he thinks Wikipedia itself is a stupid idea), and his dog responded by looking at me hungrily. So, do Mark and Jeff beat your dad, or are we to assume that your father's opinions are better-informed than theirs? Of course, if your dad, Mark, Jeff, Tim or Tim's dog were to write out their reasoning somewhere we could see it, such as for example, on a freely-editable page like this one, we could judge for ourselves instead of trusting you and I to adequately inform each other about our respective friends and family's ability to form rational conclusions on this subject. Tuf-Kat 07:43, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

The short answer (I'll stick to that) is that my father did not opine on the article itself -merely the concept of what can and can not be featured -but, yes, I'll agree he knows less about it than you or I --OTOH, let me point out that, since you ask for one: "to write out their reasoning somewhere we could see it, such as for example, on a freely-editable page like this one," let me point out that his opinion is so close to mine that my "reasoning" should represent his as well; Yes, he did say this, but I will write it out -again, my my: The edit war reflects on the editors who are at fault (as yet to be officially determined by a vote or admin analysis), but the article will only be locked for a little bit in all likelihood, and the "wiki" open nature of it will probably be little affected, and the article's fitness is like height or temperature: It is what it is -a state function -the daily tempers of the editors little affects the article, for few sustentative edits happen in relation to the article -it changes little over time: It is stable. Nominate. Vote to Support. Chill.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, your position is that the article is disputed but that this dispute will not amount to any substantive changes. I don't find that at all convincing, and I note that the article's lead still does not adequately explain why Schiavo is important. Tuf-Kat 08:30, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

"If I understand correctly, your position is that the article is disputed but that this dispute will not amount to any substantive changes." Correct. "I don't find that at all convincing," Time will tell, and probably find me correct. "and I note that the article's lead still does not adequately explain why Schiavo is important." OK, I agree it could use more clarification, but let me tell you why she was an important news item: A woman who had speech troubles might have been able to feel pain but was dehydrated slowly (which has happened to other people, falsely diagnosed as PVS, and who reported MUCH PAIN) -and that the average citizen said to himself - herself "Hmm... what if I can't speak; "Will they do this to me?" LET ME TRANSLATE: It scared the hell out of a lot of people! That's why it was news, he heh. Clarification: I'm not saying that Terri was PVS -I'm not rearguing the case; I'm instead saying that she may have been able to feel pain, and nobody knows because they refused to let her have communication or blink therapy.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• weak objection: there are at least a dozen spots in the article which need clarification. i listed them in Talk:Terri Schiavo a few days ago. i think eventually, the article can meet my standards of quality writing. Kingturtle 09:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CF-101 Voodoo

This is a self-nomination (my first). I think this article is a valuable addition to the store of information about the post-Second World War history of the Canadian Air Force. Comments and suggestions for further improvement would be most welcome.

• Comment--I'd love to support, but all the images are under crown copyright, which doesn't allow commercial use and is therefore incompatible with the GFDL. If the planes themselves were run jointly with the U.S. govt., as per the article, would it be possible to get some public domain photos? Or perhaps an enterprising Wikipedian could get a photo of one of them in a museum? Meelar (talk) 21:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

If you take a look at the F-101 page you will see that all the images are CF-101s. The USAF hasn't been very forth coming releasing more then a handful of their older photos in high quality, and IMO, a featured article deserves more then a static photo from a museum. In particular when dealing with UK and Canadian military subjects finding a free photo will be kind of hard since they do no release into the Public Domain like the US Government does. Overall the article looks good I am going to read it over, a check it against Jane's for basic details tonight. PPGMD 19:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the lead would not be complete without briefly mentioning the information in "Squadron operations" and whether they saw combat. 119 19:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made an adjustment to the lead, and to the squadron operations section that should address this. --Voodude 13:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] August 2005

[edit] Cerebellum

A lot of work was put into this article by Nrets and me. It was sent to peer review and had an excellent reception. It's clean, it's thorough, and I think it will help fill out the number of biology Featured Articles.

• Self-nominate and support. Semiconscious (talk · home) 18:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support, I think (or rather hope) that we managed to merge general overviews with more technical details fairly effectively. We also addressed comments/concerns that came up during the peer review. Most of the illustrations were done by me or User:Semiconscious so they can be edited further if anyone has any comments on those. Nrets 20:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

*It's not there yet; needs some cleaning up, and more importantly, careful references to diagrams in the text to help the non-specialist reader to navigate her way through a lexically complicated text.Tony 07:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• I incorporated the changes you suggested on the talk pages as well as made references to the figures in the text. I know the article is a bit technical, but I think that there is enough there to satisfy a general audience, plus a lot more to provide in-depth information to whomever is looking for it. Nrets 15:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support, though I still think some terms could be better explained in the text or linked. For example, "Lesions of the cerebellum cause not paralysis but feedback deficits, manifesting as disorders in fine movement, equilibrium, posture, and motor learning" is a sentence in the lead section. Feedback deficits could be linked to, or even more fully explained. What is defined as "fine movement" and "equilibrium" in this context? --Oldak Quill 10:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've rewritten to intro to make it more clear and accessible. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - The intro section needs expansion, and the random and strange bolding of certain terms needs to be removed. The term "figure" should also be removed from the article as the images should be placed next to where they are first introduced. I would also like to see the images right-aligned so that they don't push text. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 19:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've addresses several of your concerns, expanding the first introduction a bit by including some brief history. I've removed the seemingly random bolding of phrases. The term "figure" appears at the request of another user on the talk page in response to the placement as a FAC; the user felt by adding those pointers it would assist the reader. Due to the size and number of images, we can't always place the images next to the text where they are the most relevent. However, I have cleaned up the placement of some of the images. Semiconscious (talk · home) 20:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I've continued and made some edits of my own, but I'd also like to see citing of information in the article as well as more external links. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 23:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've added many more external links that are pretty cool, I think. So much of the stuff in this article is "general" knowledge, so the three non-numbered references given at the bottom cover just about all this material. However I will continue to go through the article and look for less-than-general pieces of information so I may provide references for them. I've added one more reference already. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, I've added a few more references. I'm still working on it... Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support—the authors have used their considerable research and teaching experience to produce an authoritative and well written summary of the subject. Tony 01:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've addressed your further concerns on the talk pages. Great work; thanks for your help! Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - I've been reading through this article more closely now than in the peer review. I think that there is *great* work here, and that you guys have really done your homework. However, I think the writing quality of this article is still too uneven to represent Wikipedia's best. It's close, but not quite there. All you need is some more copyediting and clarification. What I think needs to be looked at:

:*Introduction: fragmented and not neccesarily the best 5 sentence overview of the cerebellum

• I've rewritten the introduction. I feel my briefcase example gives a very succinct view of what the cerebellum does. Let me know your thoughts. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• General features: Some technical terms thrown around here that are never explained: "perpendicular circuits"? Also, why compare the cerebellum to the optic nerve? I don't see how that analogy makes anything clearer.

• Well, another user removed my briefcase example. Let me know what you think. Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• I've tried to be aware of the jargon used all throughout this article but it's difficult for someone so accustomed to the terminology. I've addressed the one particular instance you've mentioned here, so let me know what you think. If you find any more instances, I will try to address those as well. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Re: the optic nerve, it was in there when I began my massive re-edits, and I never thought to remove it? :) It just seems as though vision is such a complicated system, so comparing the cerebellum tracts to that system makes it seem all the more remarkable. I can remove it, but I think it gives the casual reader a sense of the enormous responsibility of this structure. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:*Development and evolution: Try to make this a little more user-friendly. Some of the sentences are very awkward. Also "thisis is one of many of the ironies of the “little brain.”" I don't see what the irony is, and I think that statement is somewhat silly for an anatomy article, especially since none of the other "ironies" are pointed out.

• Tony addressed the awkwardness issues with his awesome editing. The irony issue... I've fixed the wording here, but we discuss many of the other ironies at the end of the article, such as this "motor" structure now proving to be involved in cogntive and language functions, as well as how people who have lost their cerebellum seem to function so well. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:*Anatomy: This section is generally quite good, but I would really like to see a lot more wikification - more links!

• Thanks! I can wikify a lot of the links here, but I haven't becasue they would mostly be redundant (i.e., "motor cortex" was already wikified earlier in the article) or self-referential. Suggestions? Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

These are just things off the top of my head, not the only things that can be fixed. Try to read these sections out loud and see how they flow, and you'll get what I mean. In my opinion, if this stuff is addressed, this is a featured article. I hope you guys tackle other neuroanatomy projects. Interested in brain stem, basal ganglia, or frontal lobe? Mr.Bip 05:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, if you check the talk page, you'll see basal ganglia is my next project! :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Support - A lot of the jargon has been left untouched, but I understand that this comes with the territory. Maybe I'll take a stab at explaining a few terms over the next few weeks. Still, this is quality science writing, folks. Keep up the good work. Mr.Bip 04:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• For my future projects (most immediately basal ganglia), I will try to keep the jargon to a minimum. Nearly all my experience with this is in relation to colleagues, so writing for a general audience often does not cross my mind. Always write to your audience. Thanks for the help and advice. Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support - still a bit heavy on the jargon, but I'm assuming thats unavoidable when dealing with a subject like this. Despite that, however, it's resonable easy to read, and very interesting even to a layman like me. Awesome illustrations. WegianWarrior 03:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. See my comment directly above yours regarding the jargon. I'll work on it in this article, and I'll keep it to a minimum in future writings. Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support. This beautiful effort by Semiconscious and Nrets is fully deserving of Featured status. It is well written, explains unfamiliar technical and scientific concepts clearly, has good diagrams (some drawn by the two editors themselves), and is reasonably well-referenced. The section on cerebellar dysfunction can perhaps be expanded — I particularly expected to see some allusion to the seminal work of Gordon Holmes — but still, one would not expect a treatise on the disorders of the cerebellum in what is a general encyclopedia article; I will see if I can round it out in the next few days (as it stands however, it should not be a reason to deny FA status, IMO). The reference section can do with a little cleaning up — inline references in the text are currently of the Harvard form, and link externally, whereas there is a preference on WP for intext notes that link to references, as I understand it. This is not very difficult, Semiconscious, I could show you how to Scratch that, I think I'll just wander over and patch it up for you. Some technical terms are not defined when they first occur (or linked to an article that defines them). For example, ipsilateral occurs at least twice, but I cannot see an explanation of what it means anywhere (link such terms to this article guys). I'm glad to see reference to some of the work being currently done on the cognitive functions of the cerebellum. However, the concluding sentence of the article is misleading. You might see this in the lower mammals, but in the human, getting relieved of one's cerebellum is not an altogether pleasant experience - the pancerebellar syndrome is not fun, and is conspicuously disabling (although chronic lesions often have muted effects). Would you consider removing or editing it? Kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ  04:14:18, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

• Thanks Encephalon. The cerebellum is not my "specialty" in as much as I can be said to have a specialty, so I'll have to look into some of the works you've mentioned. The sentence in regards to the pancerebellar lesions was indeed misleading... I'd written it but it didn't come across as I had intended to write it. And as I head over there to rewrite it, I see you've just corrected my error. Thanks. In regards to the anatomical location terms, I tried to cover that with a blanket "link here for help with anatomical terms" link at the top of the page. I'll be sure to follow the format you've offered in the future. The references look really good now, too; I like the separation of the general reference books into a "selected readings" section. You've done this wikipedia thing before, I see. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Really nice effort. I changed 2 headings in hope of clarity; change them back if you think they are less clear. alteripse 16:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• I hope you don't mind I edited your post to bold your support response. This is for my own clarity so I can parse users' responses as I check this page, to see if I can make any improvements to the article. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to replace the MRI (which I find blurry and difficult to use) with Image:Human brain NIH.jpg (take the picture, highlight the cerebellum, reupload and put it into the article) →Raul654 01:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• I took your suggestion and replaced the image. I left the old one as well because: I'm still partial to it, it shows techniques that scientists use to study the cerebellum, and it fills up some white space next to the TOC. Nrets 15:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avatar: The Last Airbender

A very good and compherensive article. --Member 16:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Has no picture, a long article, but not worthy of being a featured article IMO. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 23:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

  Articles need not have a picture to be featured. That objection is thus invalid and your vague "not worthy" is inactionable... 119 19:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

  I'll be more clear. It is mostly a synopsis, very little production content. I don't think it is best to show the world this article as what wikipedia strives for. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 22:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

  But when the subject of the article is a television show, there is little reason not to include a screenshot or two. The relaxation of the requirement is intended for articles where an example image would be difficult to obtain or create, even when you take fair use into consideration. slambo 19:25, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) There are no images. 2) Cite your sources. 3) The lead section is too short for an article of this length; it does not adequately encapsulate the entire article. 4) Too much of the article is devoted to episode synopses while not enough is discussed about the program's development and production. 5) There is some discussion about what influenced this show, but I don't see anything on the show's perception in or influence on modern culture (compare this article to other featured articles about television shows such as Blackadder or Dawson's Creek). slambo 19:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Cannot be both stable and comprehensive. The listing of (vocal) credits should correspond to the list of significant characters, as much as possible. And I do not believe that any article about an animated work can be viewed as satisfactory if it does not identify and discuss the animators at an appropriate length. Monicasdude 23:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of South Carolina

This is a bit of an unusual case. This article was promoted previously, but there was controversy. Some people thought it amounted to gaming the system. As a compromise, I said I'd renominate it here. First nom, second nom. →Raul654 17:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Well-written article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Overdependence on only two references (only one of which is a history) -- this verges on being a summary of a single work. Are there no topics in South Carolina's history that would benefit from more than one interpretation? As a sidenote, I find the whole business with the quick renomination rather distasteful, and hope that we can avoid allowing such things to take place in the future. - Bantman 18:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support as previous--it's a well-written and cogent article, though I can see the problems that Bantman has with the low number of references. Meelar (talk) 19:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Was the territory named after the ship that finally made it to the continent or was there some other reason for calling it Carolina? The text isn't really clear on this point. slambo 19:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  Fixed. It was named after the Latin form of Charles I's name. Toothpaste 20:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks. Now that I've had a chance to read the rest of it, Support. slambo 19:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Support I'd prefer more references, but I think this is worthy of being a featured article Tuf-Kat 21:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Object- besides the low number of refs, I still stand by my previous objection that the lead section is too long. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Eliminating the last paragraph was certainly a bold move. While the lead is still (IMO) long, it looks better now. Also, the last paragraph that was deleted was a summary of "current" South Carolina, so it may not have been appropriate for the "history" article. However, I still would like to see more refs (along with the appropriate addition of facts and expansion) and some in-line refs would be nice. In addition, the "Recent" section, IMHO, should be trimmed down- we really don't need that much detail about lotteries and college scholarships that are irrelevant to South Carolina's history. Otherwise, I stand by my comment last time that it's a well-written article on its way to FA status. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Still support: I'll be happy to work with Toothpaste or anyone else in addressing the lead issue, as it is long. (Actually, it's not so much long, IMO, as it is sutured. The seams need to be obscured somewhat from its first and second incarnations.) As for the renomination, the author had nothing to do with that. It's purely procedural and done by Raul. I also think that the two references are not the only two sources of information, but they are the sources of information that required a reference, so I wouldn't object to that, myself. N.b. I've not edited the article, that I recall, except once on its first nomination, to do a little copy editing. Geogre 00:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I like it, and it is as FAish as at least half of our FAs. Func 08:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Still support - it's a very good article and definately worthy of FA status in my opinion. However I do agree that it would be even better if other sources were checked, but that doesn't alter my vote nor my high opinion of the article -- Joolz 18:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support Phroziac ^(talk) 19:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support.Conditional object: tons of efforts are seen on post-war history, however the amount of photos and images is still inadequate and I wonder if no photos can be put onto the current events section? I'll support if more photos are added with at least one of them in the current events section. (well, as it says, current events, can anybody go and just take a picture?) Deryck C. 12:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC) The amount of pictures have increased and the arrangement of the article is good. I've no more opinions to object this as FA. However, adding more pictures can make this a better FA. Deryck C. 14:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Added a picure to the Recent events section. I'm looking for one on desegregation relevant to South Carolina, but there appear to be none on Wikimedia. Toothpaste 17:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Sorry I didn't see this before, but I agree with Bantman, two sources is just (very) inadequate. In addition there is no citation of any kind to show what material came from what sources, so verification is made much more difficult. - Taxman ^Talk 22:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, maybe object - I agree with Taxman and Bantman on this. I am also assuming that the external links were used as resources. If so, it may be best to place them in the reference section. As for the more recent events, I am assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that the sources are from news media rather than the listed sources. If so, please note them using inline notations. Pentawing 23:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't use the external links as resources. Toothpaste 23:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, how about the last point I brought up? I need this clarified and resolved before I can change my vote. Pentawing 01:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't use the news media as a source, though the sources I used might have. Toothpaste 01:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, what I need to know is the source of the section concerning recent events, since I am currently under the assumption that the listed sources didn't cover the entire thing. Some statistics might warrent inline citations since that would make it more difficult for a vandal to change the numbers and have no one noticing it. Pentawing 22:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Economic booms and busts, Desegregation, and Recent events come from Siglas, Mike (2003). South Carolina. Emeryville, CA: Avalon Travel Publishing. ISBN 1566915457. Edgar, Walter B. (1998). South Carolina: A History. Columbia, SC: USC Press. ISBN 1570032556 was used for events prior to those, and both were fact-checked against each other. Toothpaste 22:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, can you then use inline citations for the statistics (especially for the scholarship passage)? Otherwise, I can't support this article without questioning my own judgement. Pentawing 23:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Better? Toothpaste 00:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Object. The history is not properly balanced: important topics are treated cursorily, and recent events of no great moment are treated at length. In particular, the treatment of nullification and Calhoun are exceptionally superficial. Nullification is a key issue in American political history, and framing the matter as "John C. Calhoun decided . . ." without even a suggestion of Calhoun's importance or the back-history of the issue should be unacceptable. The relative size of the slave population to the white population in the early 1800s should be treated in more depth. The discussion of the Indian Removal Act, requested in an earlier FAC, is too generic, and gives no substantial information about the impact on the state. There is no discussion of desegregation of primary and secondary public schools, which, according to one of the websites referenced in the article, was more contentious than the article indicates. The discussion of recent events is far too long for the relatively minor events actually reported, and should be more comprehensive. The last paragraph, devoted to a lunatic fringe group's self-proclaimed plans, without any reason to believe the plans will bear (bitter) fruit, takes up more space than "the state's mishandling of the Hurricane Floyd evacuation in 1999," an apparently substantial matter mentioned only in passing, or the Abbeville education lawsuit, an entirely ignored matter despite its great importance. In terms of details, I think that the article's description of a British military strategy in the American Revolution as a plan to land troops in (Spanish) Florida and march north to corner George Washington is . . . more than a little curious. The discussion of the Fort Sumter battle is longer and more detailed than the rest of the discussion of the Civil War and its impact on the state. I don't believe the problems with this article can be resolved in the FAC time frame, but require extensive attention.Monicasdude 03:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support thats stronge than Monicasdude's strong object. What an immature vote. However I haven't seen him support any state history articles FAC. I think its fine with things like the Fort Sumter being longer as that was probably the biggest part of SC in the Civil War. There were no really important battles there, were there? It should be the most important part. Anyways if I were to address every concern I'd probably make a three paragraph comment which would get so long no one would bother reading it... So I'll just sign now... Redwolf24 (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I was going to let this comment speak for itself, but I came across a profile of an novelist recently which makes the relevant point far better than I would have: "Kate [Wilhelm] wrote about her first [writers'] workshop experience: she turned in an ambitious story and had it shredded. The man sitting next to her turned in some trivial fluff and got gentle, kid-glove critiques. After the workshop drubbing, Kate went down to the nearby stream and threw rocks at the water as hard as she could, until she realized her fellow workshoppers treated her story firmly because they respected her and felt the story had potential." Monicasdude 21:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support! Great article. Long lead sections are good. Andre (talk) 18:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, while Monicasdude's comments seem a bit vociferous, the article does seem poorly balanced across time. For instance: one sentence for "Throughout the Colonial Period, the Carolinas participated in many wars against the Spanish and the Native Americans, particularly the Yamassee[2] and Cherokee tribes" and a full paragraph on disputes over video gambling. This problem exists because the first three periods of the history have been broken out to substantial subarticles while the later periods have not; breaking out a couple more subarticles for the later periods and culling some of the ephemera would fix this issue (and also bring the article closer to an ideal size). Christopher Parham (talk) 18:53, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

There is a bit of backstory here, spread out over several talk pages. Several members (not all, and not the self-nominator of the article) of an FAC-promoting wikiproject have made strong and disparaging replies to previous comments I made describing the faults of articles in general terms and calling for more extensive details. However, providing details produces an equally hostile response, as shown here. The underlying problem, as I see, comes from the relatively low standards the project applies to substantive FAC criteria, and the unwillingness of some members of the project to accept in practice the FAC guideline that proponents of a nomination are "expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised." The tone of such responses is quite unfortunate. Monicasdude 23:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the dispute over FAC criteria should carry dispute to this article. Deryck C. 13:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support - well written and informative article. I was able to read this and learn things about a subject which, previously, I had no knowledge of. That, to my mind, is an indicator of what articles should be. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support comprehensive. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm going to stand by my original nomination of support. See the second nom (I think it is) for my reasons; they still stand true today. --JB Adder | Talk 05:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object, the section on Desegregation is totally inadequate and misleading. To suggest that desegregation in South Carolina went smoothly, even in comparison to "hot spots" like Mississippi and Alabama, ignores the incredible efforts that South Carolina's white elites put in to their attempts to undermine the Supreme Court's order to end seperate but equal facilities--they were prepared to spend 75 million dollars "equalizing" facilities rather than desegregate and African Americans who led the movement in the State lost their jobs, were assaluted, had their homes destroyed and forced to flee SC for their lives. There is also no mention of Briggs v. Elliot, the case from Clarendon County that began the legal process that culminated in Brown v Board or of the fact that the majority of South Carolina's schools effectively remain segregated today. --Sjappleford 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support. Well written article. Per the opinions I stated in the previous nominations. Deryck C. 08:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. First off, I still voice concerns about the references, since there are only 6 for the entire 43 kb article, and for that matter there are only 6 inline citations through the entire article. Second off, it is comprehensive, but by the point left by Monicasdude, the article is slightly too comprehensive in the wrong areas. A lot of that falls in the Recent Events section, which goes into a 5 paragraph summary of Hodges governorship, but stops abruptly upon reaching 2002. An addition, images and lead section should both be succint. And finally, the reference subsection under the Desegration part has to be fixed. AndyZ 22:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belgium

This is more or less a selfnom. But the article existed before and many participated in particular for copyediting. It grew to 41K a bit larger than the 40K Australia and South Africa FA but much less than the 53K of People's Republic of China. The length of this article is due to the difficulty to obtain a NPOV on Belgium which is a controversial country submitted to strong separatist trends. The balance must be always sought between the different communities and ethnic groups -- whose very existence is controversial to some extend. This article had already been featured. You can find the reasons why at

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belgium/archive1

It was later on removed. You can find the reasons why at

Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Belgium

It was reedited to reply to the critics and submitted to peer review. The comments are listed at

Wikipedia:Peer_review/Belgium

I think all critics have been taken into account.

• support of course --Vb 13:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The history section is too long and should be trimmed. The culture section is a collection of too-short paragraphs that should be combined into a couple longer paragraphs. Is there a reason the Main article: Economy of Belgium summary style isn't used here? The references also don't really look very satisfactory, especially without inline citations. Do we need the non-English names for all the provinces in this article? It's ugly, distracting and not very useful, and should be kept at Communities, regions and provinces of Belgium. Tuf-Kat 16:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • History: I think an alternative to the present version is the quite good article on Belgium at the US dpt of State [35]. One could easily wikify this but I really think wikipedia can do much better and bring more links and infos than that. I think the present version is a summary of the history of Belgium which is just a bit more expanded than this. Making it shorter would make it less good.
  • Culture: I personnaly think it is easier to read like it is. Do you think it would be nicer if litterature and cinema were merged. I think it would be ugly.
  • Economy: could you be more precise? Why don't you like the style used?
  • Provinces: Your last point is easy. I agree with you. It is addressed now--147.231.28.83 09:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object -- my comments in PR on Demographics, History and Culture aren't addressed. User:Nichalp/sg 18:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Your comments have been addressed in part. Could you precise a bit more what in your opinion is still to be done.--147.231.28.83 09:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I said to summarise the history. Reasons of wars etc and lists shouldn't be mentioned here. Also the subheadings under the culture section are out of the ordinary. Yes, it may help a reader but it is not recommended and not used in any other country article. User:Nichalp/sg 17:51, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • OK. I'll try to improve that.--147.231.28.83 07:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• VERY strong oppose - I recently listed this article to be removed as a featured article, which passed with little argument. This article has not been improved in any way, and still lacks competely when compared to other featured country articles. The images are awful, the history is terrible, the government section is mostly lists. It actually takes a little gaul to list this article so soon on FAC after being removed with so few changes. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What you say is not true. The article has been thoroughly re-edited since the removal of the FA status. Look at its history. Some example: the history and culture section have been utterly rewritten. References have been added and all numbers appearing can be checked from the inline references. Much has been done in the style with numerous copyedit and the NPOV has been really ameliorated. How can you say the figures are awfull! It is maybe a matter of taste but I believe your comment is strongly biased. --147.231.28.83 07:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Call it strongly biased if you'd like, however, I pretty much wrote South Africa and was a large contributer to Hong Kong, both two country featured articles. I know what it takes to get there, and Belgium isn't anywhere close. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 16:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

OK It is not necessary to quarrel. All people here seem to be your opinion so, since it was my first trial, I think I'll try later on. Cheers. --147.231.28.83 08:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notre Dame de Paris

Partial Self Nomination - Well written and referenced, with plenty of high quality images. Not too long, not too short.--Primalchaos 18:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Partial Support - It's very well written, but the paragraphs are kind of brief. It could benefit from longer descriptions, but if other users don't have a problem with this, I will support it. - PRueda29 - 15:48 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Object - Expand the paragrpahs. The article has great potential but its paragraphs are too short. Fix this and I'll support it. - PRueda29 - 17:28 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Mild oppose. While this could be a great article, I think it needs to be expanded. As it is now, the sections read more as factoids. Develop and expand the sections.--Alabamaboy 16:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It is a good article but it still needs some work. There are a few too many lists. The significant events bullet point should be merged into the prose history sections. Good articles do not have a miscellaneous trivia section, these points need to find a home elsewhere in the article. Something also need to be done with the statistics and in the media lists. There are also several important omissions. For instance there is no coverage of the long controversy over the cathedral in post-revolutionary France, or the campaign led by Victor Hugo that eventually saw it restored. The Lead is also somewhat too short. - SimonP 16:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comments. The first photo needs to be rotated a little. A good way to expand the article would be to add some close-up photos of the three portals, and discuss their symbolism; from what recall, it was very interesting, and the interpretation was not at all obvious to me as a non-Catholic.--Bcrowell 04:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article just doesn't read well. Huge amounts of information need to be grouped into larger, better paragraphs instead of the numerous subsections in the current version. The use of Notre Dame in the media is surely a lot greater than two movies and a video game? Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 16:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal from the Order of Canada

Self-renom. Ok, I figured it should try to get this going again. Just like with my Appointment article, some of the sections will be a bit wordy. I will go through that and fix it. Plus, only two photos are used and both are under CanadaCopyright. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Previous FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Removal from the Order of Canada/Attempt 1. WegianWarrior 06:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to mention that. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Support, however I feel that the images (Image:Order Canada seal.png and Image:Ahenakew 1976.jpg) should be given a fair use rationale. Otehr than that, well written, well referened. WegianWarrior 07:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. I mainly said that those are the most free images we can use in the article or even find online. I cannot find the seal image anywhere else except for the Canada Gazette. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Object Why isn't this integrated with the Appointment to the Order of Canada? Tony 10:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I've had a look at the 'Appointment' and 'Removal' articles, and still think that they should be merged. I read the opening paragraph of 'Removal' and made two grammatical corrections; please get someone to go through the whole article and correct the prose. I'm sorry, I can't bear to do it, because I think these awards are so much poppycock, and should be trashed in every country. In view of my bias, I suppose that it's (note your incorrect usage below, Zscout) only fair that I withdraw my objection. Tony 00:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I can fix the grammar, since that is something I can fix. But, as I mentioned before, this article was put up for merging and that request was denied. The main Order of Canada article is 30 kb long, which is getting close to being "too large" under Wikipedia rules. If I sounded harsh or unreasonable, I am sorry, but I respectfully ask if either you or Raul can strike out the objection by using <s> and </s>. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Both articles are forks of Order of Canada, which is also has the FA status. The Appointment article discusses the whole process of getting into the Order and examples of certain people having unique examples, like Rush, Wayne Gretzky, and Gordon Lightfoot. In this article, two people got kicked out of the Order and my main point with this article is how it can be done, what a person has to do in order to be kicked out and short sectionson the two folks who got removed from the Order. But, if you mean why both articles were nominated at different times, I was told I cannot flood FAC's and both articles are completely different in their own respects. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, the article was put up for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Removal_from_the_Order_of_Canada, suggesting it should be merged to Order of Canada, but the VFD failed since I made the article into it's current state. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I also left a note at Tony's talk page: [36]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity test

I find this article very well written and meticulously cited. While it is a bit on the short side, there are exemplary pictures that add substantially to the content of the article. Moreover, this was a significant historical event and should be given due notice. Eszett 12:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. No "after" pictures of ground zero.
  2. No mention is made of instrumentation used to record the test.
  3. You really should work a link to rainout into the last paragraph of the "preparing the test" section.
  4. No mention is made of the actual yield.
  5. No mention is made of the window-breaking effects of the explosion.
  6. No mention is made of the reaction of area residents to the explosion.
  7. No mention is made of the fallout effects of the test (ruined photographic plates in New York, for example).

  --Carnildo 07:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Re #1, The article already had a aerial photo from 1945, and a photo of the site today. I've added a 1945 photo of two men standing in the crater.--Bcrowell 18:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the lead section needs to be lengthened and better written. --Oldak Quill 11:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object
  1. This sentence needs to be rewritten: "For the actual test, the plutonium-core nuclear weapon, nicknamed the gadget, was hoisted on the top of a 20-metre steel tower for detonation — the height would give a better indication of what the weapon would be like when dropped from an airplane, as detonation in the air would maximize the amount of energy applied directly to the target (as it expanded in a spherical shape), and would kick up the least nuclear fallout." I didn't rewrite it myself, because I wasn't sure what it was saying. Maybe the thought would be clearer if it was broken up into several short sentences.
  2. I agree with Oldak that the lead should be longer.
  3. I agree with Carnildo about the need for more discussion of the instrumentation (even at a basic level: photography, seismometers, ...?) I'm guessing that the lack of information about the public reaction was because there was not much public reaction: the announcement came after the bombs were dropped on Japan, which meant the war was over, and people were a lot more likely to be interested in that than in the fact that the bombs had previously been tested. But anyhow, this should be made more clear in the article, and from the discussion on the article's talk page, it looks like that's going to require more research.

Carnildo's points 5, and 7 seem to hint that he has relevant information, so Carnildo, could you point us to the information? Re point 3, I assume there was no rainout, since the test was done in a desert, so I don't think the link would be relevant. Re point 7, I don't think it's physically plausible that this would have happened; this may be an urban folk tale.

This is a great article that's marred by only a few flaws, and I'd be happy to change my vote to support if the issues about the lead and the instrumentation were fixed.--Bcrowell 17:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The source was a book I read a few years ago called "The Day the Sun Rose Twice". I don't have access to it anymore -- those are just some of the things I remember from it. --Carnildo 19:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Demographic transition

Good article on an important topic in human geography. 70.57.82.114 03:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It needs sources, the copyright of the images needs to be clear. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, good article, may be a tad too short, but does indeed need sources. Phoenix2 05:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As Phoenix2 said, it is well written and a very interesting subject, but a little short. Detailed summaries of stage 1 and 4 (to me the most interesting stages) are necessary. At the moment it simply covers the process of the transition, are there many theories related to it? Are there any examples counter to it? Any cultural references to it? Does the theory have a history? (an example containing no truth: "The works of Aristotle contain the first known reference to a notion of 'cultural transition'"). --Oldak Quill 12:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• VICIOUSLY STRONG OBJECT. This article does a pretty crummy job for a FA. There's almost no description of anything important. And there's no way that an article can possibly be feautured if it doesn't include all the important parts (1, 4)... and the sections on 2 and 3 are too short. There's also no description or even a mention of stage 5 (which Russia is entering), where population starts to decrease because of an ever-lowering birth rate (and as the population ages, a corresponding rise in the death rate). No way in the world should this come within a mile of FA status as written. --Matt Yeager 23:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Detail stage 1 and 4 like you did stage 2 and 3. I'd also like to hear about this stage 5 that Matt there says exists. Way too short to cover a topic that's as important as you say it is. Also, I see there's been no discussion on the talk page at all... seems pretty odd for an article wanting to be an FA. Has this gone through peer review at all? Give that a shot before nominating something, please. I know it doesn't always help, but it could have at least caught the fact that you really need more sections. Fieari 21:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pan American World Airways

This article, about a legendary American airline, has gone through peer review twice. I have attempted to address every concern that had been brought up. Is there anything else that is needed or is this article indeed worthy of FA? Pentawing 02:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe just a little more emphasis on the importance of the Lockerbie bombings. Did the airline's sales suffer? Have they been involved in the court process? I don't know, but I'm asking as this is probably the most famous terror attack on a plane besides the 9/11 attacks. Harro5 04:01, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I made a notation about Pan Am being a target of terrorists. As for the other questions, the article did implicitly say that the airline's sales suffered as fewer travel agents booked flights with Pan Am. I recall reading somewhere that there was a lawsuit, but I can't find any legitimate sources to back that up at the moment. Pentawing 06:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, now I found a source concerning the lawsuit and noted it. Is there anything more that is needed? Pentawing 07:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support Looks good, accurate, and reads well. PRueda29 15:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turku

This is pretty much a self-nomination. This article about the oldest city in Finland has been through peer review, and I've tried to address all the issues raised there. I think it should by now be of featured article standard. Comments? - ulayiti (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Weak support -- I'd be happy to fully support if the article is properly copyedited by another user. Some sentences do seem a bit odd. (no offence meant to Ulayiti, but it will be a little hard for him to spot, as he is the primary author). User:Nichalp/sg 14:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Object at the moment. 1) The lead section is small. It needs to be expanded. 2) Incorrect use of subheadings. You've used a single ===subheading=== under a ==heading==. I suggest you promote the subheading to a heading, or merge the subheading contents under the heading. 3) The economy, media and culture sections should be expanded to twice its current length 4) What reference do you have for those figures in the =demographics= section? 5) height above sea level (47m?), breakup of religions is absent. I'll support once you take care of this. User:Nichalp/sg 18:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• I've expanded the lead section, as well as the economy and media sections, now. I've also merged some of the sections with subheadings. The demographics are from Turun kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja (the final item in the references list). The breakup of religions is not measured in Finland. I haven't been able to find a figure for height above sea level (the city centre is very close to sea level since it's on the coast). - ulayiti (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

**It looks better now; but I would still like to know from where you've sourced the statistics on a) Language breakup on people b) per capita income, unemployment rate etc. in the economy section and c) a source which states that the Turun Sanomat has 70% of the readership. Use {{inote}} to format references as inline.
I've also noticed that the page has some more free images from wikimedia commons:, which can (and should) be included here. (PS. At this moment, the official site does not open.) User:Nichalp/sg 08:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Object on a few small issues that should be easy to address. (1) The recent history is pretty weak, did WWII have any impact on the city? (2) Are there any images with appropriate licences that could go in the later section of the article?--nixie 07:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've included some more images from commons now, as well as putting in some {{inote}} references (as requested by User:Nichalp). I'll look up some recent history in the library tomorrow (the Internet isn't exactly being helpful). - ulayiti (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Recent history proved quite hard to find, since most books written on the city's history only cover the Middle Ages (and maybe up to 1800), but I've now included something there. All the objections raised should have been met now. - ulayiti (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The additions look good, the article could still use a good copy edit.--nixie 12:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Jews in Poland

Partial self-nom. I am quite proud of this - a very comprehensive and NPOV take on a fairly controversial subjects. Has been through a Peer Review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I think this is fundamentally a strong article, but there are a couple of items I'd like to see refined before the article is promoted to FA status:

1. evolution of Nazi thought on management of the ghettos: Christopher Browning's The Origins of the Final Solution argues that there were distinct schools of thought on the ghettos before the Endlösung became policy, economic exploitation vs. elimination by neglect and therefore attrition
2. some reference to the Auschwitz trial and the identification of the victims in the Polish politics of the time
3. some history of how Poland has treated the sites at Auschwitz (including the archive and research center there) and the remains of Operation Reinhardt camps, as these were on my understanding always public institutions

I'd also point out that the numbers of Righteous is skewed by the fact that the Danes, who had the greatest success of any occupied country with preventing the deportation of their Jewish population (this, of course, also had a great deal to do with geography), generally only accepted collective recognition. The remark about the number of Righteous accordingly seems insufficient given the difficulties of establishing a basis for comparison. Buffyg 23:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately our resident specialist in this area, User:Goodoldpolonius2, is away until the end of this month. If you can be bold and improve this yourself, I'd appreciate it - this is not my area of expertise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I can address the issues from Browning on the ghettos. Don't know if I'd be too bold in addressing the others. I will get to this in the next few days. Buffyg 23:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Tnx. Don't be afraid of being to bold - I am sure we can reach a consensus in talk, if there are any problems. We did manage to reach quite a few consensuses here before, I am sure this would not be different. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:Ghetto Uprising Warsaw2.jpg appears to be under a license of "no commercial use". This is an unacceptable license for Wikipedia.
  2. The image Image:Kielcepogrom.jpg is tagged as both "fair use" and "public domain". This needs to be straightened out.

  --Carnildo 06:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • None of them is essential. I guess there is no choice but to remove them - although I will try asking for permission to use them under GDFL licence in the meantime. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Wow, is the vote over already? What a shame, this should have been able to pass with a few changes. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palladium

This article thouroughly desribes the major aspects of this chemical. It meets the criteria for feature articles and so should become one.

• Object. The article--let alone the lead--is way too short. In addition, the article has only one reference. Because the article is so short, interesting facts and events are only mentioned in passing. For example:
  • "In 2000, Ford Motor Company created a price bubble in palladium by stockpiling large amounts of the metal, fearing interrupted supplies from Russia. As prices fell in early 2001, Ford lost nearly $1 billion U.S. dollars."
  • "The element played an essential role in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, also known as cold fusion."

In my opinion, a Featured Article would go into much more detail on both of these items (along with similar areas throughout the article).--Alabamaboy 13:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Should there be some kind of restriction on nominating articles that are obviously too short? Phoenix2 17:36, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The one reference mentioned clearly doesn't contain anything like all the information provided in the article. Other references are needed. Some inline citations would be nice. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:57, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
• Object. It doesn't mention "everything" and isn't very long. This is a regular article that is so-so. Featured articles are examples of Wikipedia's very best work. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Westboro Baptist Church

I am nominating this article as a featured article. It is well-written and packed full of factual, verified information. 66.32.97.69 21:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. Lead section is too long, and there are no references. JYolkowski // talk 22:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. See its talk page - many people believe it may be NPOV. No references section either. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object As stated above: 1) the lead is too long. 2) Cite your sources. 3) There are too many single sentence paragraphs and a few single paragraph sections. 4) The writing seems too POV against the organization. slambo 01:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Must object. For starters, Image:WestboroBaptistChurch.jpg has no copyright information, the other images (while having copyright information) ought to be tagged properly, rampant POV and weasel words all over. I do realise that this is a subject that is hard to be neutral about, but I'm also sure it can be done better than it is at present. WegianWarrior 06:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object Writing style is not up to par here. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Aside from the irreparable NPOV problems, there's the erratic spelling. Monicasdude 00:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This topic matter is given space and detail far out of proportion to its actual significance, which I believe is a violation of NPOV. MrVoluntarist 03:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, trolling. The article has been nominated for deletion by the same IP who nominated it here, who there describes it as "far too long, has little to no references, mostly opinion, negative point of view, bad spelling, poor grammar". Most amusing, can it be removed now, please, Raul654? Bishonen | talk 00:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm removing this waste of time from the list now. Bishonen | talk 08:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I retroactively concur →Raul654 19:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Belarus

Self-nom. Just another Belarusian article that I worked on and sent through Peer Review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support -- acceptable now Object at the moment. The matter does not flow well. I would like to know about the present flag meaning, but I have to read a lot of the history before coming to it. The history of the flag is also fragmented. Once I finish reading =Use of the flag since 1991= , I would like to know why the flag was changed; but instead, I have to scroll through section after section to come to that information. Also, having information in brackets in the lead is odd. Information presented in brackets digress from the subject, whereas the lead should be clear and continous. Also, what is the meaning of the colours, are they the same as the 1951 flag, and what material is the flag made of? User:Nichalp/sg 20:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • While I am going to rewrite everything you ask, I have no clue what flags in Belarus are made out of. While I do have two 1995 Belarusian flags made in my possesion, I have no clue what material they are made out of. However, if I take a guess, it could be a cheap silk, maybe rayon, maybe cotton, maybe something else. I fixed the 1991 heading and made it to read 1995. I will try to fix the brackets and I added the meaning of the colors. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Just a comment, because I don't know a lot about this, but as I understand it the main question surrounding the two flags is that of nationalism and by extension the fascist association of the old flag. So the two flags have distinctly different lineages, you might say, with one (the current) representing continuity from the Soviet era and the other representing a return to the symbolism of the Civil War and WWII nationalist/fascist periods. Obviously this has deep political implications and represents a major political divide in Belarus. My point is I'm not sure this article gets at that issue sharply enough, having read through it, although it does deal with it somewhat. But it is well-written and fairly comprehensive. Everyking 08:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite right, I too was thinking about the same thing after I logged off. User:Nichalp/sg

I tried to make the article dicuss the political issues the main focus of the article, but if yall allow me, I can make a fork to dicuss the main political issues of the flag. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] USS Liberty incident

Well-researched, well-written, NPOV article about a relatively little-known, but important subject. ——Preost ^talk contribs 12:21, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• no Article still seems to be evolving, not in stable state. Gzuckier 15:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Article still not stable, and regularly subjected to POVing by partisans. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Jayjg , this article should have undergone a peer review before coming here. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• object a) some key elements are not sufficiently described. For example, the congressional enquiries are only covered from the critical point of view, some kind of "NPOV description" of at least the key ones is needed. b) there are a number of crucial documents referenced with direct links only. Given how volatile this subject is likely to be, proper references including author/date/summary/key points used etc. are needed. This applies particularly to the transcripts and interviews which are used in ways which aren't fully obvious from the text. Some form of footnoting system, e.g. footnotes or invisible references would help considerably Mozzerati 21:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Mild object. Need more sources and info, such as more details on this tantalizing item: "Captain William L. McGonagle, the USS Liberty's commander, received the highest U.S. medal, the Congressional Medal of Honor, for his actions during the incident. However, his medal is the only CMH not to be awarded by the U.S. President in a formal event." Why wasn't it presented in a formal event? If the editor addresses the concerns listed here, I will support. --Alabamaboy 01:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object for the reasons above. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DualDisc

This is a resubmission and a self-nom. Myself and all the people who worked on this article and submitted comments during the first round of FAC comments have made this article a shining example of the type of article that every Wikipedia article should strive to be.

Original comments from the first round are here. All objections from that round were resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

• Support. Mirror Vax 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not stable. In terms of the relatively short life of the subject, much of the information is already obsolete. The article also does not adequately describe the problems with potentially incompatible hardware (e.g., the details in the linked Pioneer alert notice). Monicasdude 13:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • From my talk page: "I don't want to seem too negative, but I don't think you could put anything in the article that would overcome my main objection, which is that the article can't be both comprehensive and stable, as required by FAC guidelines. The situation, for lack of a better word, is developing fairly rapidly -- I saw, for example, a "recent developments" article in the new ICE magazine this week. To oversimplify an analogy, I wouldn't support any FAC for an article on "The 2005 baseball season," no matter how good it was, until the season was over. FWIW, I also think the SACD discussion is out-of-date, given Sony's pullback, and there's a reference to a November 2005 article that I assume is misdated. Monicasdude 17:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)"

• Just to clarify a bit: I think this is an excellent piece of work. The way I read the FA guidelines, though, it's too soon to be possible to write an article that meets the stability requirement for this technology. The Sony pullback I mentioned is an example of this, with that matter becoming clear, as I recall, only a few weeks ago. Monicasdude 20:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Winston Churchill

This is one of the best written biography articles. Conforms to NPoV and is based on solid fact. Brings out the major points and summarises the not so major ones. Has lots of interesting info.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Self nom. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now - it would be nic with more inline citations of historicaly important information, and the section 'Role as wartime Prime Minister' has a tag on it requesting expansion. Fix that, and I'm likely to support. WegianWarrior 12:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you mind specifying this objection a bit? Just "more inline citations" is difficult to amend. I assume that you by now have read my take on the question of footnotes as well. Peter ^Isotalo 03:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as I can tell, there is no inline citations at all in the article - thus making it hard for me to verify the information without reading thru all the sources listed under referneces. May I suggest the system of {{ref|<name>}} and {{note|<name>}} outlined at Wikipedia:Footnote3. I've been using it in articles I've written with good effect. Use of inline citations are an aid to verifiability, which is imortant for Wikipedia. WegianWarrior 09:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Winstonchurchilltimemagazine.jpg needs a fair use rationale. The {{TIME}} tag only covers use in an article describing that issue.
  2. The image Image:Chrost.jpg needs source information and a fair use rationale. It's a particularly famous photograph, so fair use can easily be justified. I think the original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia, [37], has information you can use to track down the source.
  3. The image Image:Church5155.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  4. The image Image:Ac.eisenhower2.jpg is claimed under fair use. It isn't essential to the article, and should probably be removed.
  5. The image Image:ChurchillFuneralProcession.jpg needs a fair use rational. Alternatively, would it be possible to replace it with an image that doesn't have a watermark scrawled across the middle?
• Also, the "trivia" section should probably be eliminated, with the information from it integrated into the rest of the article. --Carnildo 19:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• yes, miscellany section needs merging into main body; "churchill as historian" needs subheadings; and "role as wartime PM" could be expanded. Image issues also need fixing. On the TIME image - {{TIME}} indicates use "to illustrate the publication of the issue in question", so the magazine issue should also be mentioned in the text. Quite close to FA but no cigar just yet. Rd232 23:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. Fails to adequately describe Churchill's role in post WWI Anglo-Irish negotiations; implication that his role was pro forma treaty signatory is misleading. Monicasdude 16:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object -- the trivia should be integrated within the text. I see no reason why we should have Churchill's cabinet members etc. here, move it to another page. User:Nichalp/sg 19:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• This article is tagged with {{expansion}}, which is utterly unacceptable on a featured article. Either the tag needs to come out, the section be expanded, or both. →Raul654 22:39, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monarchy in Canada

I hereby nominate this article for Featured Article status. This article clearly explains Canada's constitutional monarchy: How it started and how it works. Monarchy in Canada is a subject that many people are unfamiliar with. For example, many, if not most, people don't correctly understand the relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom. This article really has the has the potential to be a great main page article. That's all I have to say about that! --Mb1000 02:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The images Image:Queen canada throne.jpg, Image:Queencanada.jpg have no source or copyright information.
  2. The image Image:HM-tablet.jpg has no copyright information.

  --Carnildo 07:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Support I think that this is an excellent article and well deserving of featured article status, but the copyrights of those three images definitely need to be addressed. Once that is addressed, I will support. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 17:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The images Image:Queen canada throne.jpg & Image:HM-tablet.jpg have been tagged as {CanadaCopyright} and {promophoto} respectivley. For the third image Image:Queencanada.jpg I'm am requesting information from the person who uploaded it. If no information is found on this image, it could just be removed from the article. --Mb1000 19:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It is a good article, but still needs some work. It lacks a references section, which is required for a FA. The formatting also needs some work. The article over uses bullet points. Wikipedia articles should be prose not lists and the mass of bolding in the first paragraph is ugly. The "Royal visits" section needs more content than a single link, there certainly needs to be some content on the major royal visits in this article, perhaps in the history section. The point counterpoint arrangement of the "support and opposition" is also not ideal. It would be much better to merge the two sections and go by issue. - SimonP 01:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Object - Should undergo a Peer Review first. -maclean25 01:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object - I agree with SimonP's reasoning. The article contains interesting facts but should be rewritten in a more encyclopedia-like style. Mwalcoff 03:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Thevis

The vast majority of people don't know who Michael Thevis is, but he was one of the major players in the organized crime scene of the 1980s that also included the cocaine boom. His association with Ed Wood also makes for some truly bizarre trivia. (Self nom)Mistergrind 01:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment – The headings are not formatted properly. Please read the WP:MoS for details. 2) Single paragraphs in each heading do not make a FA. Expand the paragraphs. Ref to peer review. User:Nichalp/sg 07:43, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

OK, can you comment on the article now?

Support. Very nicely written. I had no real problems with the article. --Matt Yeager 06:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Object Further Reading/Sources Cited is confusing. Please cleary identify what references where used (as Wikipedia:Cite sources requires), this is a tiny article so you should be easily able to use Wikipedia:Footnotes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Support. I thought it was good. --Matt Yeager 23:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brave New World

Attempt one

Self-Nomination I have been working on this article for some time, and feel that the text is up to Wikipedia standards. The article now features an image, corrected links, and a well-sized introduction. These were the main reasons for its failed previous nomination, and now that they have been fixed, I believe the article is up to standard. Rusty2005 12:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Weak Object. Someone raised this point when I tried to push The Giver to FA, so I feel it's only cricket that I raise the same point here. The article is pretty good as far as it goes, but it doesn't really leave me with a sense of the novel's significance. How many copies has it sold? What awards has it won? Do some schools require it and others ban it? Also, I agree with 195.137.101.199 that the article should compare Brave New World with more than just Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. This comparison we have now, furthermore, sounds too much like Original Research. There must be scholarly articles on this topic; might we see citations to a couple? (I mean, I made that comparison in my 11th-grade English term paper.) I recall coming across (in a Huxley biography?) some talk of a BNW movie for which Huxley did some writing, but which never got off the ground. Information like that would make a valuable addition, though I don't think it's absolutely essential. Likewise, I believe the article could benefit from any biographical material about Huxley's writing the novel itself. (So what if it falls foul of the New Criticism's "intentional fallacy"?) Finally, I would like to see a couple more relevant pictures — say, images of later editions, if they have any aesthetic appeal at all. (And maybe we could scare up a good photo of Malpais?) This isn't a major point; I would probably change my vote to "support" even without more pictures, assuming my other points were addressed. Anville 16:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. All well and good, I can see the improvement, but were are the references?? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. As the others above said, the article needs more depth in several areas and needs to be references thoroughly (with in-line footnotes). If this is done I will support this as a FA b/c the novel is one of my favorites.--Alabamaboy 00:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Support. Nicely written through and through. I can't see your guys's objections as being worthwhile. I think this is just fine for being a featured article. --Matt Yeager 05:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Must object for now - no references, no citing of sources. Some of the sections might do with a bit of editing for brevity, or might do with branching out to seperate articles (for example to Characters in Brave New World, The World State (Brave New World) or something like that). The synopsis is anything but brief, again an idea might be to put most of it in a new article (named something like Synopsis of Brave New World perhaps?) and par it down significantly in the article. Refer to Wikipedia:What is a featured article. I do think it's a good article overall, but not FA-material as it stands now. Again, I repeat my plea for proper references and citing of sources.WegianWarrior 08:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Education in the United States

I have worked a lot on this article (self-nomination) and I feel its time to bring it here. It has an excellent reference section and sources to back up figures, and it has seen peer review thoroughly (see the talk page for two lists of issues which were corrected). As far as I know, this is pretty close to perfect and as comprehensive as it can be. Of course, I would still appreciate suggestion.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Object: The article contains some boring lists in the level/grade section that should be worked into prose. The article also has several major style errors like links in section titles. Scott Ritchie 00:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I corrected the one instance of a link in the section title. As to the list (which I'm not happy with but seems community consensus keeps in place), isn't "Kindergarten consists of..." pretty much just as boring? Never mind, I changed it up some. I think all of the relevent info was already in the article, I just added a summary on Junior, Sophomore, etc. designations, what do you think? And to what other major style errors do you refer?--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:Deltonkelloghs.jpg is claimed as "fair use". Since there is no particular reason to use that specific image in the article, it should be replaced with one under a free license.
  2. The image Image:Bayloruniv patneff.jpg is claimed as "public domain". It really should have the source listed so that it can be verified.
  3. The image Image:Harvard05commencement.jpg is of unclear copyright status. The copyright status needs to be clarified, or it needs to be replaced by an image under a free license.
  4. There's no mention of homeschooling.

  --Carnildo 07:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

How about now?--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• The source website for Image:Bayloruniv patneff.jpg has a very nice copyright statement at the bottom: "Copyright © Baylor® University". There's no evidence that the statement does not apply to the image in question.
• The coverage of homeschooling is still extremely inadequate.

--Carnildo 06:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Homeschooling is not important and is not a major part of the education system. It doesn't deserve expansive explanation. And really what would I say?--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Homeschooling accounts for somewhere between 2% and 5% of all primary and secondary education in the United States, and is a very complex subject. It deserves something more than the current slightly-POV brief paragraph. --Carnildo 23:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object Except for the section comparing private and public schools, the article is written with an underlying assumption that all students are public-school students. There are multiple places where statements are made that imply or state that certain things appply to al students, when in fact they do not necessarily apply to non-public school students. For example, the article reads "Under the No Child Left Behind Act, all American states must test their students statewide to ensure that they are achieving the desired level of minimum education." The No child left behind act does not apply to private school or home-school students. The amount of supervision each state exercises over private schools and home-school students varies widely, this should be discussed. Home-schooling rates more than a brief mention. It would be nice to see some mention of the (albeit rare) arrangement of Middle School (6-8 grade), Mid-High School (9-10 groade) and Senior High School (11-12). There should be some mention of the large role played by extracurricular activities, especially sports. Dsmdgold 23:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed your concerns. I added a paragraph for homeschooling and a section for extracurricular activities. However, as the Census Bureau points out that less than 5% of students are homeschooled, I don't think it deserves much more discussion within the article than the paragraph. Public schooling is at 85%, after all.naryathegreat | (talk) 01:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Please read Homeschooling and reconsider your paragraph, especially the discusion of motivation for homeschooling. The statement "Children educated at home are not required to meet any public standards (i.e., standardized testing), and their parents are not evaluated by the state." is quite simply not true in the majority of states. I have removed it. Some discusion of the amount of oversight states excercise over private schools, and homeschools is still needed. Good write up of extra-curricular activites. An additional concern, the paragraph on sex education is distinctly POV. Dsmdgold 04:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Object: I think this is an excellent introduction to the American educational system. However, no article on a topic of such breadth is going to meet everyone's demands. For my part, here are a few ways I think the article should be improved.

1. I think your separation of K-12 education into K-5, 6-8 and 9-12 is too rigid. True, that's the most common setup in my experience, but I have seen all kinds of schemes (from a district that goes K-2, 3-4, 5-7, 8-12 to a rural district that's K-5, 6-12).
2. Calling alcohol a "destructive substance" is POV. It is potentially destructive.
3. I have never a heard of a state that probihits people from leaving school until they are 18. I don't doubt that such states exist, but how many are there?
4. I believe the U.S. is very unique in that high-school and college students do not work toward passing an exam (except in AP classes). In Europe, generally, the entire point of taking secondary-level classes is to pass an exam, such as the British GCSE. The non-existence of national exams should be mentioned with some prominance, as should be the use of coursework grading as the usual method of judging student performance.

Alabama has a statewide high-school graduation exam, passing which is a prerequisite to graduation. Funnily enough, it's only been about six years since the level of this exam was raised to an eleventh-grade equivalency. Previously, the material was at an eighth-grade level. Oh, isn't the world a funny place? Anville 19:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

1. I don't think most states consider counties to be "municipalities," so you should use the term "local government" instead in the community-college discussion.
2. I think you should better clarify the fact that unlike in many other countries, religious schools do not receive direct government funding for general education.
3. You should consider putting the term "so-called" before "school choice," since it is one of those political euphemisms.
4. The phrase, "Today, sex education in the United States is patchy at best and nonexistent at worst," while probably true, is too POV. There are a lot of good sex-ed teachers out there.
5. Not "every person pays property taxes." Only owners of real property do.
6. You should consider mentioning that in some states, school taxes are subject to referenda, which increases the difficulty in raising funds. This is very unique to the U.S.
7. I think the following sentence is misleading: "Some states have a statewide school system, while others delegate power to county, city or township level school boards." I've never heard of a statewide school system. Perhaps every state has a state school board, but none of them actually provides the education. Note that in many states, school-district boundaries do not necessarily reflect local-government boundaries. Mwalcoff 07:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hawaii operates a unified public school system. Judge Magney 13:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. Broadly speaking, I agree with the comments raised above. Articles with mild but pervasive POV, which I think applies here, can be a pain to fix. It's nice that the article has a "References" section, but we definitely need more footnotes or parenthetical citations in the text which tell which reference was used for a particular piece. Anville 19:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Strong object. Too many of the discussions of substantive matters are superficial and inadequate. The suggestion that "circus families" represent a paradigm for home schooling is ridiculous (and empirically unfounded). I doubt that "most" high and middle schools actually have programs for "gifted" students, and have seen many reports that such programs have been steadily eroded by fiscal constraints. The section on "special needs" students is unsalvageably misguided, and shows no familiarity with applicable laws and practices. The comments regarding the relative quality of public and private colleges are unsourced, and show little more than the author's dubious opinion. The history section is particularly vacant, missing, among other seminal events, the Land Ordinance passed by the Continental Congress. Having said all this, it is essential, for fairness to the author/editor, that the standard of quality applied to featured article candidates involving American governmental functions and institutions has been erratic at best, and in general astonishingly lax; too many resemble high school term papers turned in to undemanding instructors. This article is no worse than several existing "featured articles." The standard needs to raised. Judge Magney 13:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

What people like you have to realize is that articles can't grow indefinitely. Eventually, you have to say "well 45k is long enough" and that's all that's necessary. What do you mean the special needs section is unsalvageable? And most high schools have honors courses, if you think otherwise, you are misguided. I think you are obviously prejudiced, why would quality in American FAs be particularly lax?--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:05, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I said the special needs section was unsalvageably bad because, inter alia, it does not include any reference to the governing federal legislation, manifests absolute ignorance of such fundamental notions as mainstreaming, least restrictive environment, and IEP, and shows no familiarity with the many sorts of identified disabilities that now trigger special education requirements. I also note that the article has been sanitized with regard to racial disparities in educational opportunities, and that the "history" section includes no references to racial segregation in American education, of the Brown decision and its aftermath. The sections of the text concerning governance and funding show not a trace of recognizing the distinction between independent and dependent school districts (the former have independent taxing authority; the latter must have their budget levels approved by other local authorities with general governmental powers). This is an exceptionally bad article, a poorly informed selection of peculiarly chosen comments that never achieves genuine coherence. In that regard, its brevity may be its greatest virtue. Judge Magney 03:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suburbs of Johannesburg

Self-nom. I have worked extremely hard on this article and had great assistance from several other people. After User:NicholasTurnbull finished helping me slave away with the map, I feel comfortable nominating this article for FAC. It is an extremely comprehensive look at the suburbs of the city of Johannesburg, South Africa, itself already a featured article. I have tried to look at both the social and economic importance of all the different areas of the city. Previous nomination can be seen here. Thank you! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 16:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written, well-illustrated, and well-referenced, and I think it gives a good level of detail for an overview article. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons as Mindspillage. Nice job!--Bcrowell 23:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons 82.172.247.104 12:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC) --- Oops, forgot to log in Djadek 12:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No significant discussion of governance or governmental structures. I don't understand why there are separate articles on the city, its "regions," and its "suburbs." Seem to be 3 articles on the same general subject. If the details would overwhelm a single article, should be broken down into individual articles on individual regions or suburbs, not 3 different overviews. Monicasdude 13:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Because the significant discussion lives at the appropriate place, Government of Johannesburg. And no, the city, its regions, and its suburbs are completely independent entities. Its like asking why there should be an aritlce on New York City, on the boroughs of New York, and the different neighbourhoods of New York. They're related, but completely independent of each other so far as articles on Wikipedia are concerned. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 16:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

But there aren't separate articles on New York City, boroughs of NYC, and neighborhoods of NYC. There may be heirarchies of articles like NYC > Manhattan > Greenwich Village. But Johannesburg isn't part of a heirarchy; it's just part of a set of overlapping overviews. And if the suburbs and regions are as distinct as you say, there should be articles on Govt of suburbs of JBrg and Govt of regions of Jburg. The article you cite doesn't explain how subdivisions of Jbrg are governed; it just says the subdivisions have "operational responsiblity for some govtal functions. Monicasdude 17:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If there is nothing there, its just for the fact that it hasn't yet been written. I don't see these articles as overlapping in any way. And there are articles on the government of Regions of Johannesburg, see Regions of Johannesburg. That articles discusses the government structure of the regions. The reason there is no articles on the government of the suburbs is because there is none, although a few suburbs such as the City Centre have elected to create Ambassadors to the region that are neither police officers nor tourist officials. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 17:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sesame Street

Hi all, this is a self-nom, though dozens have contributed to and revised the article. Anyway, it's a notable topic, pretty definitive article, and of international significance thanks to syndication in 100+ countries at some point or another, and many local spin-off productions.

• All of the images have been properly tagged, so far as I'm aware of. I've avoided publicity photos and other fair use images, in preference of screenshots. Sadly, there's very few non-merchandise images that could truely be free, as the set is closed to the public.
• The article has been under the scrutiny of peer review three times amd FAC twice (29 Sep 2004, 26 Oct 2004), all of which should either be found on the article's talk page, or in the recent peer review's template.
• If more references/notes are needed, please state which areas are of most urgency. I've not bothered with extraneous references, as very little of the content can be disputed.
• Finally, the article doesn't fit with the Wikiproject Television template, but I created that template a few years ago, just to fill in some spare time, and forgot it existed. I'll be eventually revising the Wikiproject to better suit what's really the best format for an article.

Fire away! -- user:zanimum (PS, my goal, even if I don't get the article featured in this round, is to have the article as the November 8th featured article on the front page, the same goal I had for the first two nominations.

• Object. It's nice to see that all the images are properly tagged, but since every last one of them is "fair use", the image description pages need to include an explanation as to why use on the Sesame Street article constitutes fair use. See Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for information on what should be included, and Sunset Boulevard (film) for a particularly good example. --Carnildo 21:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object. Most of my points were cleared up in the recent peer review, but I'd just like to see all the pics spread out better in the article. They seem to bunch up in sections, with all text in others. I feel its a better look if they are distributed evenly. Thanks. Harro5 22:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I like the article and the only thing that concerns me about the text is that there is very little discussion of the educational element of the program. Considering that it's such a cultural icon, I'd like to know more about how it influenced future children's programming, as well as some expansion on the educational side of it. ie what do its supporters consider it does very well, what does its detractors consider it does very poorly. Also the comments about educational value need to be taken out of the section covering urban legends etc, as that trivializes it. With regards to the images, they're great, but 15 is too many for any article. They really need to be culled as they make the page look very busy &ndash perhaps appropriately for a Sesame Street article :-) - but images, especially fair use images should be used sparingly. Rossrs 05:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Agree with Rossrs, more discussion of the educational element. The mearchandising section is a little short as well and has many red linksAlso need some debate on the shows current health drive (eg the Cookie Monster now advocates cookies as an "occasional food", political correctness gone bananas in my opinion). Zerbey 02:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: It's obvious that a lot of research and a lot of effort has gone into this article, and I'd be pleased to see it as a Featured Article. Sesame Street is an icon in the educational television industry. Would it not be worthwhile to expand on the content in "The Muppets" and reorganize it so that it does not appear so cluttered and disorganized? In an encyclopedic article of such prominence? RogerK 01:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Just a note, the new content on Elmo's controversy, I didn't write that, and it's got valid content, but not written completely POV. It'll be worked on...

---

[edit] Martin Guerre

• support. I fell on this article by random. It was very instructive to me. --131.220.68.177 10:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No reference, no photos, no inline references. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above. Can unregistered users vote? Phoenix2 15:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, they can. They can also nominate IIRC. But if all the above by Jerry is true, it's not going to get through anyway. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:15, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• I have converted the "Further reading" section to "References". I feel confident doing this because any modern English speaker's knowledge of this case almost certainly is derived from the Davis book. The Finlay and Davis articles are obviously the sources for the discusion of the two historians views. I doubt there is a contemporary picture of Martin Guerre, but I will attempt to get the Davis book to see if it has a public domain image that can be used. I see no need for inline references. Dsmdgold 23:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Walt Disney World College Program

I am proposing a "self-nomination" for this article because it is a full length, very well written, and neutral piece of work that meets the criteria for a featured article. (If I do say so myself) Taken from personal first person experiance, already several other people have contributed to it and it has grown. There are also quite a few supporting pages created that are well done. --Shifter55 19:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object - A reference section needs to be added (a must for FA). Second, try to minimize the use of lists and increase the amount of prose. Finally, the image does not have a copyright tag (though the source seems to be noted), though to me it looks like a logo. Hence, you should use the {{logo}} tag. Pentawing 23:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd love to support this article since I went through the program once (I was a lifeguard). Unfortunately, the article is rather dry and boring, even for one who went through the program. I agree with the above comment that references need to be added; enough media articles and press have been done about the program to make this possible. In addition, the article should list well-known people who went throught the program. First-person descriptions of the work and program, along with quotes, would also help.--Alabamaboy 00:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Panama Canal

Self nomination (though most edits under former username: Raskolnikov The Penguin). This article was a fac afew weeks ago, referred to peer review, and sent through peer review. Now all coyright issues are worked out, and it is a comprehensive and up to date article on a very important waterway. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 17:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• It is disturbing how this worked; I saw your edit about the lake (just adding a word, it was about 30 minutes ago), I took a browse through the article and thought, "Hey, ya know, this article might just be FAC worthy. I wonder if it is" but I didn't nominate it right then because I'm the touch of death for FAC noms. ;) And lo and behold, here it is. Support. --Golbez 17:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• The old FAC nom is now archived here. The Peer Review is here. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• object a) there are some sources given, but it's very difficult to guess which reference to look up important facts in. Some form of inline references would really help. b) the problems stated(all the ships are to big to fit and there are too many ships going through) seem contradictory. Something should clear this up (maybe something like "although currently business may seem healthy, XXXX has predicted a sudden irrecoverable collapse in 10 years due to inadequate width and the arrival of competition") Mozzerati 19:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I did some editing on it and added some source links around the problems ections, and also cleared up the seemingly contradictory problems. But can you elaborate on what you mean by inline references. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 22:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Support-- I enjoyed reading the article, and I found no real reason why it shouldn't be Featured. Although the above issues due need to be worked out I am quite sure that it can be done before this entry reaches the bottom of the page. TomStar81 20:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object but has lots of potential. -- First of all, great article, however, there were some issues I noticed which could be addressed, then I'll of course reconsider. I want more information on the pricing scheme for the toll, it should be easy to calculate (so people know in advance). I found a few holes in your History section, especially concerning Nicaragua over Panama. See this whole site, lots of great info[38]. What is Panamax? The term should be defined explicitly. I'd like a good map of the overall layout of the canal, showing the S etc (the pictures linked from S-shap could probably be cropped and put in the main article). Image:Panama Canal MK1888 kl.png is absurdly small. Otherwise, great work! -- Rmrfstar 23:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I added some info on the toll: price by TEU, and what a TEU is. That site proved very useful and was used to elaborate upon the history, also changed Image:Panama Canal MK1888 kl.png from 200px to 300 px, and added link to Panamax, which I just realized we had an article on. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 00:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Weak object, much better, but I think it can still be filled out more. I'd like to see a section on influence/impact etc. theres a great section on that in the link I gave you before. -- Rmrfstar 12:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now – 1) the table of contents are lopsided and badly structured. 2) Don't use capital letters in the headings unless a proper noun. 3) Inline refs are not formatted correctly. See Australia for the style. 4) There seems to be two spellings to Gatún. Which is correct? User:Nichalp/sg
  • I linked the references to the article, changed the table of comments and headings, and fixed Gatun spellings. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï
    • I've cleaned up the headings and units, but the inline references are still incorrectly formatted. I also feel the grammar needs to be tidied up. User:Nichalp/sg 08:05, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - would like to support but I think there are a few flaws at the moment. A good map is essential, I think, and I am not sure I like the false colour computer-generated looking NASA image at the top - would suggest this one [39] as a possible alternative general canal view. It is not correct to say that before the canal, rounding the Horn was the quickest way to get from New York to San Francisco - Cornelius Vanderbilt set up the Accessory Transit Company during the California gold rush to take passengers by ship to Nicaragua, up the Rio San Juan, across Lake Nicaragua and then from the west coast by ship again up to California. A good proof read could be useful, I spotted several spelling errors. And particularly in the 'Current issues' section I would prefer to see less chunks of text taken from elsewhere and more paraphrasing instead. Worldtraveller 15:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I had to link Accessory Transit Company - please write the article: it sounds fascinating! -- ALoan (Talk) 16:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed the around the horn remark, paraphrased much of the info in the current issues section (except for quotes released by the canal authority), and added the sattelite pic. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 17:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Inadequate discussion of the significance of the canal, both commercial and military, when compared with alternative means of transport. There's barely a paragraph of anything between 1914 and 1999 — this is the topic that would most help in fleshing out this gap. --Michael Snow 18:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• I apologize for not presenting the problem section clearly. Next time I make a change to an article, I will edit it more thoroughly. crazysword20:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Denis Law

Self-nom (I've written around 90% of it) about one of British football (soccer)'s most notable players. It's been peer reviewed and I think it meets all the criteria (I could rename Notes to References if anyone objects but other FAs haven't). It would really be improved with a picture, but with Law's career having started in the mid-fifties non-copyrighted pictures of him are not easy to find. I might be able to get some screenshots or a book cover image as fair use though - comments about whether this would be good or bad are welcome.

If you have any objections, please detail them as clearly as you can and I'll try and sort them out while the article's still on FAC, and leave you a message once it's done. CTOAGN 12:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object Really needs pictures tbh, European Footballer Of The Year template should be at bottom, Notes are too small, no reference section. All should be easily fixable tho. (unsigned comment by PopUpPirate 18:25, August 11, 2005)

Support now, great work --PopUpPirate 11:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've renamed the Notes section. I've seen the page on a few different systems and strongly prefer the smaller text, but it did look a bit too small with some browser/screen setting combinations. I've increased it from 75 to 85 percent of normal size – does that look better? I really don't like long References sections at full size – they just seem to get in the way.

With regard to the EFOTY template, I think the most logical place for it is at the end of the article text and before the reference sections, as most readers won't scroll down to the bottom and will just miss it. Do you strongly disagree?

I'll see what I can do about images. I'll be able to scan in a book cover at the very least, although whether I can remove the text around the image seems to be a grey area. I don't think I can use the link that you left on my user page but I'll look into it. CTOAGN 22:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Life's too short to strongly disagree :D , but personally I'd put it right at the bottom, thats generally where navigation goes, just above categories. The image I sent you I personally reckon would be fine, it's deffo promo? Any probs with removing text around an image, email it us and I'll give it a crack on photoshop! --PopUpPirate 23:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

While using, say, a cover of his autobiography (or some other book) to illustrate is probably kosher under fair use, I don't think fair use allows retouching it to remove the text... you'd have to leave it as is. IANA copyright lawyer, though. Qwghlm 10:08, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've uploaded some screenshots under fair use. I'll have a go at improving the quality of them tomorrow. I think that's everything now. CTOAGN 01:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional object Apart from the mention of the '74 World Cup there isn't much on his international career (debut etc.), which is odd given he's Scotland's joint-top goalscorer. If you add some on that, and sort out the fixable minor problems outlined above (picture excepted), I think it's good to go. Qwghlm 12:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

His international career was less notable than you'd think, as Scotland didn't qualify for the World Cup from '62-'70, so it's not all that interesting. His latest autobiography just goes on about how he was disappointed not to qualify for each one. I've put the date of his debut in though. All the points raised by Pop Up Pirate have been dealt with. CTOAGN 01:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

International careers can still be interesting even if you don't qualify for a World Cup... in particular I'd like to see a reference to Scotland's 3-2 defeat of England in 1967, which Law scored in (what were his recollections? He must have been pleased with that). Qwghlm 09:04, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I added some stuff on the match you mentioned and the 9–3 defeat he played in, and mentioned that the match gave him more satisfaction than winning the league. There isn't much on his emotions during the match in his book - there's stuff on how he felt the Scots treated beating England as being more important than qualifying for tournaments but nothing that would really belong in an encyclopedia article. CTOAGN 15:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, that looks good enough to me - change my vote to Support. Qwghlm 18:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. All the images are under a license of "fair use". Since Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, the use of fair use images should be kept to a minimum. Image:Denis Law Manchester City.JPG and Image:Denis Law FA Cup Final 1963.JPG show pretty much the same thing, so one of them should be removed. Whichever two images remain need to have a fair use rationale included; see Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what should be included, and the image description pages at Sunset Boulevard (film) for a good example of how to do so. Also, if possible, try contacting Denis Law for an image under GFDL or a Creative Commons license. --Carnildo 06:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, in the first picture Law is playing for Manchester City (in a blue shirt), while in the second he is playing for Manchester United (in red). I think they're sufficiently different to both warrant inclusion. Qwghlm 09:04, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iran

All Iran-related articles have been subject to a WikiProject for quite a while. I think it is time for all the hard work to pay off. Therefore, I am nominating this article. Newguineafan 15:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Object--no references section; the "Culture" section is little more than a list of links. Meelar (talk) 18:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Object per Meelar. In addition, are all those links to Iranian gov't sites really appropriate? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Azadidown.jpg is tagged as being a copyvio.
  2. The image Image:Iranmoney.jpg is claimed as "public domain". I find this unlikely: does Iran have no legal protection on images of its money?
  3. The image Image:Afrigha.jpg is claimed as "fair use". There's nothing particularly special about this image, so I don't think this claim is acceptable -- it's easy enough to create a replacement.
  4. The image Image:Tehran stcok exchange external view.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  5. The image Image:Iranparliament.jpg is claimed as "public domain". In view of the copyright questions surrounding other images in this article, I'd like some evidence to back up this claim.

  --Carnildo 21:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the lead should expanded somewhat; the politics section is overly long; the order of sections should be closer to that suggested by WikiProject Countries; a topics box like that in India] or Australia should be added to clean up many of the stray see alsos and lists; the external links are ridiculous and should be reduced; there should be inline references for statistics; the culture section is too short and should mention media in Iran. --nixie 02:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object – the article is incomplete. User:Nichalp/sg 05:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not an actionable objection: it doesn't give any details as to what is needed to get the article up to featured quality. --Carnildo 06:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough: 1) Politics section is too long. 2) Images are not presented properly. 4) The provinces section creates a horizontal scrollbar at 800x600. The image should be reduced. 5) culture is incomplete. 6) the lead needs to be expanded. 7) external links should be pruned to topics which relate to Iran as a whole. 8) Is there a need for so many categories? 9) Inline references not formatted correctly. (see the discussion in Chennai below) 10) The history of iran template should not be there in this page. 11) no references 12) incorrect use of hyphens; use &ndash; instead. User:Nichalp/sg 08:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Proceed. When was the last time an article about Iran was featured? Probably never.--Nightryder84 04:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by proceed? User:Nichalp/sg 08:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Proceed means I do not object.--Nightryder84 21:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• I Do not object.--Zereshk 18:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• I give two thumbs up! Why shouldn't we do this? I do agree that the links to the government departments are a little much and should have their own page. But that is no reason! THIS IS A FEATURED ARTICLE!!--Aytakin 01:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John III of Portugal

Partial self-nomination. Underwent several improvements and Copyedit has been done. I believe it's now a fine article.--Gameiro 00:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object as before, only more so. The images Image:Order of Aviz.gif, Image:Lisbon 16thcentury.jpg, Image:Portuguese flag 1495.gif, Image:Macau oldmap.jpg, Image:Portuguese elm.jpg have no copyright information. --Carnildo 06:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Copyedit note. Come back after improvement drive is done with its work. Has potential, but there are too many short sections and tiny paras. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Much of the article seems to be written in present tense. Everyking 05:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Its looking very good now, I suggest everyone reconsider after the BioCOTW period is over. . Falphin 02:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Queen's Guard

Self-Nomination. Hopefully, this article is fairly comprehensive about the subject it covers. I've added several different reference links to it, so if there is anything missing, please feel free to add it. I do feel that this article would be a worthy addition to the list of featured articles. Hammersfan, 7/8/05.

• Object
  1. The images Image:Towersentries.JPG, Image:Oldguardnewguard.jpg, Image:Stjamessentry.jpg, Image:Queen'slifeguard.JPG are claimed as "fair use", but are also claimed to have been produced by the uploader. This is unusual: is the creator providing them to Wikipedia without it be done so under the GFDL or a Creative Commons license?
  2. The image Image:Guardmounting.jpg has no source or copyright information.

  --Carnildo 23:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object - (i) I'm sure there is more to say: for example, what does the Hounslow battalion do? What about other royal residences (say, Clarence House, or Windsor, or Sandringham, or Balmoral)? Is the "monthly schedule" only for July 2005, in which case what is happening in August and later months, or for the foreseeable future? Are there any other public duties (for example, the guard for the Ceremony of the Keys at the Tower of London is mentioned in passing, but a paragraph could be added here easily). (ii) The lead section is inadequate. (iii) There is no "References" section: presumably some of the "External links" are references, but there must be relevant paper references too. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have rectified the objections to the various images by adding the correct copyright template to each. I have also inserted the situations regarding the named royal residences, and added a paragraph, as suggested, about the Tower and Windsor guards. However, as this is not an article about public duties, but rather one about a specific public duty, I have not added anything about other tasks, as there is an acceptable article about public duties which I have linked to. I have also added links to the various articles explaining that the Hounslow battalion is simply another public duties unit, performing the same tasks as the two battalions of Guards. -- Hammersfan 16:48, 9 August 2005
    • • Neutral - thanks for the response: I think my objections are dealt with adequately, although the additions could do with linkifying. I still can't help thinking that the article could and should be better, but as I can't think of anything specific, I will not object. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Image:Queen'slifeguard.JPG is still tagged as fair use. Did you simply forget to update the tag, or is it really under fair use? Also, the license terms on Image:Guardmounting.jpg appear to be {{noncommercial}} or possibly even more restrictive: this is not an acceptable license for images on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 18:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have changed the licence on Image:Queen'slifeguard.JPG; yes, I did forget to change it as it happens. I have also removed the Image:Guardmounting.jpg image and replaced it with one from another source. Hammersfan 21:45, 9 August 2005
    • If the image Image:RCRbuckinghampalace.JPG is going to be used under "fair use", it needs to comply with the rules at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. --Carnildo 22:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I have added rationale to the Image:RCRbuckinghampalace.JPG image. I have also looked at the rules of Fair Use and am confident that it meets them. I have also added the {{AustraliaGov}} tag to Image:Guardmounting.jpg; I would prefer that this image be included, as it is of better quality than the other image, but am prepared to accept if it is felt to go against any licence agreement. Hammersfan 09:45 10 August 2005
        • Since {{AustraliaGov}} is a fair-use tag, Image:Guardmounting.jpg can be used under "fair use" if you can come up with a rationale. Keep in mind that "public domain" is a specific legal status, and does not apply to images or derivative works of images that are currently under copyright. --Carnildo 18:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lots of facts, but it's just not dazzling prose. The article needs more context and flavor, and less rote exposition of which units, how many men, and where they're stationed. How long has there been a Queen's Guard? Is it a prestigious assignment for a unit? Has the Queen's Guard ever been involved in a significant security incident (like say an assassination attempt?) The intro especially needs rewriting. The first half of the first sentence is OK, but listing the royal residences and stating which residences have mounted guards is material for the body of the article, not the intro. The intro should be a short, reader-drawing summary. Isomorphic 08:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Trafalgar

This should be WP:FA for 21 October 2005 which will be the 200th anniversary of the battle.

Has gone through peer-review:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Trafalgar/Archive1
• Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Trafalgar

I believe the article is extensive and comprehensive. The objections raised in peer review was lack of references, but so much has been written about Trafalgar (and much more has come out this year) that a "further reading" section of suitable books is more appropriate. Dunc|☺ 17:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• It can be a featured article, but the main page featured article is not supposed to conflict with selected anniversaries (or In-the-News). →Raul654 18:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Where does it say that? I would have thought it a good idea to link anniversaries with FAs. Dunc|☺ 18:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, it's not written in stone or anything (none of the "rules" governing main page FAs are; they're conventions I choose to adopt), but that has been the operating procedure for quite a while now. The reasoning behind it is something like this: we already allot 1/4 of the main page specifically for historic anniversaries. It makes no sense, then, to have the featured article doing the job of that section (nor does it make any sense to have Battle of Trafalger linked prominently from the featured article, and then linked again from the selected anniversaries). →Raul654 18:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well I think it makes plenty of sense to do so where appropriate. The link of the date to the event is important in this case because of the tradition of Trafalgar Day. It is the 200th anniversary of Trafalgar and it's probably going to be all over the British press. A FA and anniversary would not duplicate each other, they complement each other. The anniversary section takes just two lines, and on 21 October also mentions four other events. The lead section on Battle of Trafalgar, as would be displayed on the main page is much longer and goes into a lot more detail. Dunc|☺ 19:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The idea sort of worries me... imagine a trend resulting in rather mediocre articles becoming FA in emergency mostly because of an anniversary; or more deserving articles not being featured because another "anniversary articles" gets in the way... I think that Raul's comments make lots of sense. Also, I rather like the idea of the encyclopedia being above as mundane contingencies as the news.

That being said, my feeling is that this article has lots of merits indeed. Rama 19:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that articles have any more merit because of their potential use as anniversary articles. Each article should be subjected to the same rigorous peer review before being featured. Neither should we get into featuring a particular article every year, just because it's on an anniversary. This anniversary won't come around for another hundred years (when it might be time to feature it again). And if I remember correctly, wasn't European Union a FA on an anniversary? Dunc|☺ 22:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going out on a limb here, but my I suggest that if an anniversery article is used as a featured article on its anniversery day it not be mentioned in the anniversery section? That would free up space for another event to be mention in the aniversery section. TomStar81 20:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries are selected based on relative majorness of the event. Since this is a very major event relative to what else happened on that day of the year, we need to have it as a selected anniversary. I also completely agree with Raul. Since the Main Page has such limited space, we need to absolutely minimize repetitive links and mentions of the same thing. Each section also needs to be stay distinct. --mav 17:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• object (light) ; I don't agree that the lack of references is justifiable just because references are common; the question is rather which reference actually was used to write this particular article. However, given your above position, I'm not going to call for proper references this time. Could you instead please fill in a bit more about what is covered in each of the further reading texts so that people know where to start reading for different areas.. Mozzerati 21:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't basically say what references were used because I didn't write the article. Dunc|☺ 22:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • worth leaving a message on the talk pages of major contributors asking for that information. Also it's appropriate to just give the references you used when you were verifying that it is reasonably correct before nominating, even if these are just the ones you originally learned about the battle from yourself. Mozzerati 06:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's an engaging article, worthy of being featured. I'm no history buff yet found it a very enjoyable read. Maybe a little bit more on the battle engagement itself would make it even better. Adidas 08:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. There has to be a proper reference section like with any other FA. I have no objection to a "Further reading"-list as long as it's kept fairly short and lists fairly general literature on the subject. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added a couple of references that I have used. The problem is that on a topic like this, there are so many books available and so many different editors of the page that it is impossible to know what everyone used. Its not as though there are a couple of standard references that everyone knows and can find. The library has shelves of books on Trafalgar (expanding daily in this bicentennial year) many of which tell much the same story. Dabbler 18:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DualDisc

This is a resubmission and a self-nom. Myself and all the people who worked on this article and submitted comments during the first round of FAC comments have made this article a shining example of the type of article that every Wikipedia article should strive to be.

Original comments from the first round are here. All objections from that round were resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

• Support. Mirror Vax 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not stable. In terms of the relatively short life of the subject, much of the information is already obsolete. The article also does not adequately describe the problems with potentially incompatible hardware (e.g., the details in the linked Pioneer alert notice). Monicasdude 13:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • From my talk page: "I don't want to seem too negative, but I don't think you could put anything in the article that would overcome my main objection, which is that the article can't be both comprehensive and stable, as required by FAC guidelines. The situation, for lack of a better word, is developing fairly rapidly -- I saw, for example, a "recent developments" article in the new ICE magazine this week. To oversimplify an analogy, I wouldn't support any FAC for an article on "The 2005 baseball season," no matter how good it was, until the season was over. FWIW, I also think the SACD discussion is out-of-date, given Sony's pullback, and there's a reference to a November 2005 article that I assume is misdated. Monicasdude 17:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)"

• Just to clarify a bit: I think this is an excellent piece of work. The way I read the FA guidelines, though, it's too soon to be possible to write an article that meets the stability requirement for this technology. The Sony pullback I mentioned is an example of this, with that matter becoming clear, as I recall, only a few weeks ago. Monicasdude 20:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

A very good article on the book that goes beyond simple plot summary. (Cf. Cry, the Beloved Country XP) There are some sections that are virutal duplicates of ones that appear earlier in the article. I'm hoping to go through and edit those out over the next few days as soon as I get the time. --Jen Moakler 05:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support --Jen Moakler 05:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Please do that BEFORE nominating, then. No reason to nominate it when it's not yet ready. Scott Ritchie 09:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object please refer to peer review, as there are still several items that need to be fixed. The lead is much to short, there are no references, and also no images. - SimonP 16:14, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment; Related reading section has movies in. Retitle section as something more appropriate? -shuri 09:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I am going to object on not just the basis of whats wrong in the article, but also the fact that you stated it in the summary. The article, however is good, and after a decent peer review will be worthy of becoming a featured article. Please give it a peer review, and then renominate it for support here. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belarusian Republican Youth Union

Self-nom. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. On a topic that is unfamiliar to 99.9 % of Wikipedia's reader- and editorship, it is not possible to know that it is NPOV just a week after the article's creation. I strongly suggest that you postpone the nomination for at least a month so that the article can mature, especially since it is on a potentially contentious subject. So far, it has only been edited by the nominator. If you can get a few editors from be:Галоўная старонка and ru:Заглавная страница that are familiar with the organization, that would ease my fears. As to clearly-addressable objections; the article does not go into how the organization is structured at all. Where is it based, is it divided into chapters? How is its leadership selected / elected? How large is it? How much funding does it have? Is it free to be a member? Are there other organizations with similar goals that enjoy the same benefits? — David Remahl 05:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

As for other editors working on it, I do not think it is even possible. I, pretty much, will probably be the only person working on the article. Also, the reason why I placed it here is that the past few times I went to peer review, I was not getting anything on my articles because of the obscurity of them all. As for your objections (which, you do not need to apologize at all and you were not questing my objectivity, I tried to make it as NPOV as possible), they are valid. Yes, they do have branches and I will list the ones that are listed on the BRSM website. As for the actual scructure, I will also find that too. I do need to list the number of BRSM members, though the last figures I got were from 2003. While the BRSM is funded by the Belarusian Government, I do not have the exact number of what they got. I do not know about memembership details, but I can also find that out. I found a list of other such organizations similiar to the BRSM, but only the BRSM is supported by the government. The organization is based in Minsk, the capital of Belarus. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Lukashenko 2005.jpg is claimed under fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be avoided if at all possible. If a fair use image must be used, the image description page must list the source or current copyright holder for the image, and an explanation of why the image can be used under fair use must be provided for each page the image is used on. --Carnildo 06:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The current copyright of the image is © 2001-2005 Press Service of the President of the Republic of Belarus. The source of the image is at http://president.gov.by/ii/gallery/mrsh/2.jpg. I used this photo since President Lukashenko is wearing a ribbon, which is part of the "For Belarus!" campaign by the BRSM to promote patriotism inside Belarus. This also shows Lukashenko's support of the BRSM, a youth group created and sponsored by Lukashenko and his government. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The law cited in the "public domain" tag does not appear to apply to the image. It is not a formal document, a state symbol, or a work of folk art. --Carnildo 04:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will revert back to the fair use tag and claim. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object – I too feel that it should be allowed to "gather some moss" by wikipedians. A fresh article on a relatively obscure and potentially POV topic should be left alone for about two months before nomination. User:Nichalp/sg 06:54, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • But, as I said above, the only person who would touch this article is me. While if yall want to check the POV out and see if the article is NPOV, I have sources from the US Government, Belarus Embassy in the US, President Lukashenko, the UN and the IWPR. While I still need to fix some things the first user brought up, and explain my fair use claims, I will try to add more content if I can find anything. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is, Wikipedia's strength comes from many eyes. If an article is not exposed to many eyes, and I fully believe you when you say it won't, then it is not "Wikipedia's best work". — David Remahl 07:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
      • And, the reason why it will not have many eyes because not everyone focuses on Belarusian topics. That was why I took it straight here, since I would have received nothing on peer review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Zscout, I've been in your shoes. I'd nominated Gangtok in January when it was absolutely brand new and I was the sole author. Despite having references etc., it failed then on the same count "too fresh", but I renominated it in May?June and it succeeded. User:Nichalp/sg 07:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
          • Ok. At least when I run this a second time through, I should have most of my ducks in a row. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, I understand. It will probably get useful feedback here. But if people on the English Wikipedia don't focus on Belarusian topics, then they shouldn't be featured articles. Unfortunate, possibly even self-fulfilling, but true. — David Remahl 07:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
          • • I know before working on this article that there is a bias against Belarusian articles. The only FA article that deals with a Belarusian topic is the Hero of Belarus title, which I also started and built up. I got some attention, but mainly people inserting POV against Lukashenko. While, yes it is true that he has been declared a dictator by our government and by free Europe, the article was about the medal itself and its honorees. However, this article is about a youth group started and run by Lukashenko's government. While there could be more of a POV issue there, I tried to balance it out the best I could. I will follow Nichalp's suggestion and just give it a few months to let it gross moss. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object: no category, and too few ilinks (for example, the lead should link terms like youth group, moral values, propaganda, Lukashenko and several others. I also think that an article should be given a little more time, and go to peer review before FAC. Nonetheless, this is a good article, and I will support after the above objections are adressed. I would also like to take this opportunity to applaud Zscout for doing excellent job on Bielarus-related articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I added two categories, added some more ilinks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• comment currently the references are just URLs. It really helps to keep author/date/title/summary information, and preferably to say what has been taken from each. The reason is that it is possible for the contents at the end of your URL to disappear or change; if you keep biblographic information it's much easier to find the same material again later. Mozzerati 06:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I will fix that. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal from the Order of Canada

Self nom: another article fork from the Featured Article Order of Canada. However, as a word of caution: WP:WIAFA requirement 5 allows for FA's not to have pictures. However, because of this, I know it will not be Featured on the front page and I can easily accept that fact, mainly since the main article is featured. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've added the Seal to this page. -- user:zanimum
  • Cool thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Support It looks good, however I have a few problems, first I think a phrase needs to be bold in the introduction. Second I think the whole section about David Ahenakew became confusing. The last, very long paragraph needs to be seperated into at least two seperate paragraphs. And this sentence: "Ahenakew could be using the same tatic Eagleson used..." is speculative, who is speculating this? The Notes section should be renamed to accurately state the information it contains. Also where does ref 17 in Notes lead? --MechBrowman 17:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Ref 17 is supposed to be going to note 13, but I need to fix the templates. Second, I removed the sentece you discussed and I split the paragraph. I will probably go over the paragraph and write the whole thing. Also, what should be bolded in the lead section? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think either "honour revoked" or "formal removal process" would work --MechBrowman 01:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I bolded "formal removal process." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks good, but Notes section still needs to be renamed into something more appropriate, something that describes the content of that section. Ex: Other ways to leave --MechBrowman 13:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I can fix that. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- user:zanimum

[edit] Appointment to the Order of Canada

Self-renom. It failed before due to either lack or participation or because of my choice of photos. [40] Well, sadly, most of the photos I have found are either CanadaCopyright or an even more restricting license. Some, I can only find on Government websites. Well, let's see how this works out, again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. not well-written. This reads like the stuff I write in the morning before coffee kicks in. Example: "The other exception, which is not listed in the Order's Constitution, is that Canadians who are either politicians or judges serving in either the federal government or any provincial or territorial government. The Order is also not permitted to be awarded posthumously." Monicasdude 13:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reworded it as follows: "Canadian politicians and judges that currently hold office are also not eligible to be appointed to the Order. Membership the Order cannot be awarded posthumously." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

When an editor objects to an article, cites a general problem, and provides a specific example, fixing the specific example does not fix the general problem. I don't know how else to respond prudently. Monicasdude 17:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

While saying a general rewrite is a good idea, some people cite examples of confusing text. I will try to rewrite the whole thing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I rewrote the article, what do you think? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made examples of the kind of changes I think the text needs in the first part of the article. I think the writing needs to be more compact and more direct. Monicasdude 21:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you exposed a weakness of mine: I tend to make things wordy. Some of the material I removed are already present on the main Order of Canada article. I still have one more section to go, but other than it being too wordy, is there any problem you see? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't buy the idea that it took 13 years to find a date when Wayne Gretzky was free, but other than that . . . Probably a link to the Order's constitution, which is referred to, if it's online. (note: if/when my last concerns are met, I'll just withdraw the objection; I don't think it's appropriate to actively support without any real knowledge of the subject matter). Monicasdude 00:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Source of the Gretzky tidbit: http://slam.canoe.ca/Gretzky/orderofcanada.html. I have a link to the Order's Constitution at my references section (twice, actually). I just made it more noticable. As for other objections, just let me know what else you wish to be fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stonewall riots

The Stonewall riots were an extremely important turning point in the gay liberation movement. The Wikipedia article on this subject is well-written and well-documented. Earpol 05:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Is it possible to find a picture? —thames 15:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review - also be more descriptive - how were the police violent? Did they beat people up in the street? It doesn't really go into this much in the history section. Also use footnotes too if you need it. Generally a lot of annoying voice and grammer issues too. --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Article isn't bad - focuses however only on gay men, while according to several reports both lesbian and transgender people were also not only present, but on the frontline of the fight. As long as that is the case, the article surely is not a feartured candidate. Also, the Legacy part is a bit small. -- AlexR 18:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• It needs a more detailed introduction. A picture or two would also be an improvement →Raul654 05:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Should probably have more about the Stonewall Inn itself: it was almost certainly Mafia-owned, and even as West Village gay bars of the time went, it had a very non-mainstream crowd (there should be something on this in Duberman, op. cit.). Also would be good to know what year it opened, what year it closed. As for pictures, at the very least it should be possible to get a fair-use image of a newspaper story. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cat

previous FAC

[edit] New Orleans Mint

Self-nom. I created this article about an important architectural landmark in New Orleans. I feel that I've made the article about as comprehensive as I can think of, and I've tried to provide many images to illustrate the important parts of the text. I think it's worthy of being a featured article. User:Absecon 59 05:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:NO Mint Booklet 2.jpg is claimed as GFDL. However, it appears to be a "slavishly accurate" reproduction of a two-dimensional work, and thus is not eligable for copyright. Further, the subject of the image may be copyrighted, in which case the only possible license terms would be "fair use" (which would be hard to argue: this image is not essential to the article).
  2. The image Image:NOmintpostcard.jpg is claimed in the upload summary as GFDL, but again, it is a "slavishly accurate" reproduction of a two-dimensional work. I don't know what the copyright status of the original is, but judging from the date, it's probably public domain. This needs to be sorted out.
  3. The images Image:1899O.jpg, Image:1898-OMM.jpg, Image:1898-O SD.jpg, Image:1846-O Quarter Eagle.jpg, Image:1855-O Half Eagle.jpg, Image:OMINTMARK.jpg, Image:1894-O-Eagle.jpg, Image:1852-O 20 Dollars.jpg have no source or copyright information.

  --Carnildo 06:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object -- Ref to Peer review – 1) No lead -- should be triple the current size 2) image sizes are huge and badly formatted 3) Presence of a long list at the bottom. 4) As far as I can see the article only deals with the mint's history. If this is the case then the title should be renamed 5) No references User:Nichalp/sg 08:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Object per Nichalp -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hatshepsut

[edit] Paul Hackett

Self nom. Article on the Ohio lawyer who yesterday narrowly lost the Congressional race in the Second District to Jean Schmidt. Photos, references. Thorough account of the campaign. PedanticallySpeaking 16:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Support--well-referenced and thorough. Meelar (talk) 18:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Meelar. PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose-- Never a big fan of FAC that are a subject less then a week old, here we are about a subject that is a day old. Lets wait at least a week until we see what happens with the offical election results. If nothing changes I see no reason for a support if it has followed the correct FAC procedure. PPGMD 19:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the article was started in May or June and is not "less than a week old." PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think PPGMD is refering to the election, not the article itself. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Article was created on June 8, 2005. What "correct procedure" do you refer to? PedanticallySpeaking 16:10, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:PaulHackettinUniform.jpg, Image:PaulHackett and family.jpg, Image:JeanSchmidtportrait.gif are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be avoided if at all possible. If a fair use image must be used, the image description page must list the source or current copyright holder for the image, and an explanation of why the image can be used under fair use must be provided for each page the image is used on. --Carnildo 19:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

So your opposition is based solely on the photographs and not the content? Would an article without photos get your support vote? PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

No photos, or whichever one photo you think is most representative of the subject if you follow the rules for using fair use images at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. I can't promise it'll get my support, as photos are just the first thing I check. --Carnildo 04:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article looks good to me, but the election is still playing out. this article could drastically change still. Also, i'd prefer it to have a peer review first. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • How could it change? Schmidt won by a clear margin and Hackett has conceded. PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • The effects of how close this election was still have yet to be seen. An e-mail sent out by the DNC says now that the congressional republicans are worried because of how close this election was. overall, my main thought is run it through a peer review at least once.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crew Exploration Vehicle

Article is detailed and contains all available details on the program. Clearly written with few errors. Well-referenced and up-to-date. I'll call this a self-nomination as I wrote the majority of the content. --Captain Koloth 14:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. No section on criticism, e.g. the second half of this article (which is mirrored here if you don't have a subscription) or this one which I can email to you if you'd like. Dave (talk) 19:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The images Image:Boeing-CEV-Concept.jpg, Image:CEV Lockheed Martin.jpg, Image:H lockheed cev 050503 02.jpg, Image:A-northrop.jpg are claimed as "fair use". Since this is a NASA project, there should be no shortage of public domain images we can use.
  2. The lead section is too short.
  3. The lead states that the CEV is a replacement for the Space Shuttle, but the CEV seems to be crew-only, while the Shuttle is also a heavy cargo lifter. In that case, what's the replacement for the Shuttle's cargo duties?
  4. There are plenty of inline citations, but no references listed at the end. Are there any major references that could be added to a "references" or "bibliography" section?

  --Carnildo 19:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dave: I did not include such a section as the article's purpose is to describe purely the spacecraft hardware itself, not the Vision for Space Exploration as a whole which your cited article attacks.

Even if you don't include a whole section, you should mention that it is considered inefficient in cost-benefit terms in the section that talks about the costs. If you give me your email address, I can send you the second article, which is more specifically about the CEV. According to that article, the costs cited are "complete nonsense," so it would be extremely POV not to mention it. Dave (talk) 21:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Carnildo: The CEV succeeds the Shuttle as a manned space vehicle. Major references are in the external links section. They address the cargo issue. No NASA images have been released on this as the CEV is a contractor project and the ESAS has not been released. Virtually all the available artwork is in the article. --Captain Koloth 21:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's a successor to the Shuttle as a manned space vehicle, but not as a cargo lifter, that needs to be made clear in the article.

If all images available are fair use, then you need to follow the rules for fair use images: image use should be minimized, images should only be used on articles that directly relate to those images, images need to have the source or current copyright holder indicated, and the reason why the image can be used under fair use must be supplied for each page the image is used on. See Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for an example of this sort of explanation. --Carnildo 22:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• object; wikipedia is not an internet directory (so shouldn't just have external links) / the sources are listed without full references which means that if they get moved, it will be almost impossible to tell what was linked to from the article. Mozzerati 21:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Backgammon

The article has improved tremendously since its original FA nomination, having been through a couple of peer reviews and a GA review since then. All of the concerns in the original FAC have been addressed, and the article is now more well-referenced and balanced than it has ever been. It has a good selection of images, the editing disputes of a few months ago appear to be resolved, and I've given it the best copyedit I can come up with, so I believe it is time to submit it for FA. —ptk✰fgs 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- looks good to me. Goldfritha 02:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There appears to be over use of bolding. Check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting). Jay32183 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe I've addressed this. Better? —ptk✰fgs 05:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, that problem has been fixed. I'll review the article further, the bolding really just jumped out at me. Jay32183 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*Comment Under the heading International competition, shouldn't that be "21st century", not "20th century"? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes, it should. And now it is. Thanks! —ptk✰fgs 22:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The prose is OK, though some of the paras short but I don't see a way around this really. However, this sentence in the lead is a bit clunky - "The game is essentially a race, and luck plays a measurable role, but backgammon offers a significant scope for strategy." Needs some restructuring. I can do it if you want. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've taken a shot at it, but any suggestions would be welcome. —ptk✰fgs 07:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, pretty good, may support later.Support --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd mention that it, or its ancestors, date back pretty far in the lead, that's important.
  • automatic doubles ... the Jacoby Rule is still in effect. - Meaning what, that a gammon will count double under Jacoby after automatic doubling or that it won't unless manual doubling is also called? Is automatic doubling only valid if the Jacoby rule is also used, or are they independent? Clarify. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • variants - they all seem to be cited to an exhaustive rules site, why were these specific ones chosen out of the "many"? Preferable if you cite at least one source each showing that these variants are somehow more popular than all the others made up in school one day.
  • doubling cube - I seem to recall the creator of the cube made the statement that in a perfect game there would be one double offered, and it would be declined, and that later a mathematician showed that was not correct. Notable bit of trivia, that doesn't seem to be mentioned in this article. Or am I hallucinating? :-) Even if I am, you should probably mumble a sentence about it generally being logical to double if you think you are >50% likely to win, and logical to accept if you think you are >33% likely to win, and why.
  • Monte Carlo - link first mention, not second

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I'd mention that it, or its ancestors, date back pretty far in the lead, that's important.
    • There was a concern a while back that this article contradicted go (board game), in that both were stating that their topics were the oldest game in the world. If I remember clearly, we simply ditched that, thinking that it was not terribly important, not wanting to get into a war over the differences between tabula and modern backgammon versus those between ancient and modern go. At any rate, I've added a phrase to the end of the first paragraph in the lead indicating that the tables family is among the oldest known.
      • automatic doubles ... the Jacoby Rule is still in effect. - Meaning what, that a gammon will count double under Jacoby after automatic doubling or that it won't unless manual doubling is also called? Is automatic doubling only valid if the Jacoby rule is also used, or are they independent? Clarify.
    • Since most money play is subject to negotiation and house rules anyway, I've cut the last part of that paragraph as it's not particularly relevant unless we're trying to produce a comprehensive text on the rules of backgammon, which we're not.
      • variants - they all seem to be cited to an exhaustive rules site, why were these specific ones chosen out of the "many"? Preferable if you cite at least one source each showing that these variants are somehow more popular than all the others made up in school one day.
    • Backgammon Galore seems to include pretty much anything played on a backgammon board as a variant of backgammon. This is neither accurate enough nor precise enough for our purposes, but it serves their backgammon-oriented audience well. I made the selection in this article somewhat arbitrarily, selecting only those variants which had a close resemblance to backgammon and some sort of respectable history, after the article's second peer review. If it would be better to simply move these back over to tables (board game), where they came from, I'd have no objection to that. Any suggestion here would be welcome.
      • doubling cube - I seem to recall the creator of the cube made the statement that in a perfect game there would be one double offered, and it would be declined, and that later a mathematician showed that was not correct. Notable bit of trivia, that doesn't seem to be mentioned in this article. Or am I hallucinating? :-) Even if I am, you should probably mumble a sentence about it generally being logical to double if you think you are >50% likely to win, and logical to accept if you think you are >33% likely to win, and why.
    • I think this is a common misconception about the cube, in that some folks believe the leader always has an incentive to double and the trailer always to drop. I don't recall ever reading a passage about this from an authority on the game, and certainly not from the inventor of the cube, who remains unknown. What do you think about adding a short paragraph about this to the strategy section? There is certainly a citation available to Magriel or Robertie. For what it's worth, the gammonless and cubeless take point for the trailer is about 25%, and the doubling point for the leader is more difficult to pin down.
      • Monte Carlo - link first mention, not second
    • I've addressed this in a recent edit. Thank you for your input! —ptk✰fgs 02:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lets see:

• Sole years and centuries shouldn't be linked.
• The "Strategy" section contains a list of game terms, please convert it to a full-blown paragraph with encyclopedic commentary (e.g. "In addition to this one, a few other strategies may be used as well, including...").
• Stubby paragraphs should either be expanded or merged.
• The variants in the "Variants" section should be converted to table form, with names and explanations, instead of a stubby section for each variant.
• Avoid time expressions for the present (e.g. "currently").
• Bolding shouldn't be used anywhere besides the primary article's subject. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The last is not strictly true, see MOS:BOLD. Apparently bold can be used for definitions. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your input.

*Sole years and centuries shouldn't be linked.

I believe I've removed all of the wikilinked dates and centuries from the article text. There are, of course, some bare years which are linked inside <ref> tags which are needed to permit users' date preferences to work.

*The "Strategy" section contains a list of game terms, please convert it to a full-blown paragraph with encyclopedic commentary (e.g. "In addition to this one, a few other strategies may be used as well, including...").

I am not sure it would be appropriate to add further detail on strategy to this article, as Wikipedia should not be a how-to guide.

*Stubby paragraphs should either be expanded or merged.

*The variants in the "Variants" section should be converted to table form, with names and explanations, instead of a stubby section for each variant.

I think the biggest problem with this section was an excessive use of subheadings and the {{main}}template. I've reformatted it as a series of paragraphs; please take a look and see if it works better now.

*Avoid time expressions for the present (e.g. "currently").

I caught one use of this at the end of the History section and I've modified it to avoid this problem.

*Bolding shouldn't be used anywhere besides the primary article's subject.

As AnonEMouse notes above, WP:MOSBOLD specifies that bold formatting should be used for lists of specialized terms. There was quite a bit of excessive bold text in the article before, but I believe that what is there now is appropriate. —ptk✰fgs 01:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed her own to their own. Stop reverting. What idiot believes women are the only ones playing backgammon. - icarriere 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, your use of "there" was grammatically incorrect (I reverted it) then your use of "their" (Is INCONSISTENT with the rest of the article), and then the use of "his/her" is still inconsistent to the rest of the article. If you want consistency you will want to change ALL references to "his" and "her", but before you consider that I highly recommend you review the Talk:Backgammon page for the topic "They/their as a singular". Before you make any changes please discuss your rationale with the rest of us, and if there is consensus modify the entire article mpetch 22:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Footnote formatting is inconsistent, and a review for reliability of sourcing is in order. There must be numerous reputable books to which this article can be cited; this sample source used relies on a Usenet post, which is not a reliable source. Backgammon galore appears to be a personal website, which relies on Usenet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe I have addressed these concerns in a recent edit.[41] I've used the {{cite ...}} templates for all of the sources in the article, which should go a long way toward presenting a more consistent citation style. I've removed a number of sources which didn't appear to be reliable.

Backgammon Galore, despite being self-published, is probably an example of when we actually could use this kind of source, at least for the core rules. Unfortunately, its outstanding coverage of the rules is much more authoritative than a lot of the other content on the site, which itself cites usenet posts, as you've noted above. Besides the two variants, and a short paragraph about automatic doubles (which is a "house rule", anyway), the only things cited to Backgammon Galore were also cited to Hoyle and Robertie. I went ahead and removed all of the references to Backgammon Galore, as well as any text that was solely supported by it.

I wish I could say that the same caliber of sources were available for backgammon as they are for chess, but what we have now is probably the best we can do. Scholarly coverage of backgammon is pretty scarce, and I've pretty much cleaned out the bound collections and microforms at my university library, as well as JSTOR, and everything I could find available through interlibrary loan.—ptk✰fgs 03:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I did discover that in removing the Backgammon Galore citations, a few things in the "Doubling cube" section became uncited. I've found supporting material in Robertie and updated those citations. I've also added ISBNs for all of the books. Please let me know if there's more I've missed. —ptk✰fgs 04:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - 1a: glaring errors of prose, and logical problems here and there. Here are examples from the lead.
  • "but most share the same common elements" - spot the redundant pair of words.
  • "one of the oldest classes of board games" - most experts would say to use singular "game" here.
  • "Although the game is essentially a race, backgammon offers a significant scope for strategy." Just why racing and using strategy should not normally be found together is unclear.
  • Why "his or her", then just "his"? Initial bow to non-sexist language enough? Better to pluralise "players/their" to circumvent the problem.

Then, further:

• • "The ancient Romans played a number of games with remarkable similarities to backgammon." Better: "of remarkable similarity".
  • "Not much specific text about the gameplay has survived." More encyclopedic: "Little specific ...".
  • "twelve" then "12": usually only single-digit numbers are spelt out, unless sentence-initial. The rules are a dog's breakfast in this respect. Better decide on a consistent style.
  • Caption to the board: it's a real sentence, unlike most captions, so it needs a final period.

This is a good article, but should be fixed throughout before promotion.

I will make a pass over these later on. The unfortunate story behind "his or her" is that neither "his" nor "her" survives there long before it's altered to "player"/"their" or something else terrible. There's no way we'll ever get away with using plural pronouns throughout the article, as we need to refer to exactly one of the two players far too often. I guess I'll put it back the way it was, to "her". Of course, I will be dead long before everyone is satisfied with the selection of pronouns in that sentence. —ptk✰fgs

I think the problem with "his or her" isn't that it is used, but that it isn't used in every instance of a singular pronoun. Whatever method you chose, you need to use it consistently. Jay32183 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll need to go over the rest of the article later tonight, but I believe I've addressed the problems you identified above. I've left "twelve" spelled out in only one instance, where it is used in a translation from Latin. As for the "classes of..." phrase, I find a lot of support in the OED for "class(es) of [plural]" and none for "class(es) of [singular]", so I still prefer that sentence as it is. Tables, cross and circle, mancala, and so forth are all categories containing numerous games, so I think it is an appropriate use here. —ptk✰fgs 22:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I found some very useful copyediting guides on your user page, and I've done my best to make sentences in the article clearer and more straightforward (the bulk of my changes are in this diff: [42]). If you have a chance to look over it again, I would welcome your input. —ptk✰fgs 04:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it took me a few hours, but I've just realized what you meant by "the rules"... not referring to the formatting rules for numbers, but to the rules section of the article. I've tried to follow the style used in the backgammon literature here, which would never refer to the "two-point", "five-five" or a "roll a three". The rules section is consistent in its use of numerals for single-digit numbers where that is the convention: "the 2-point", "roll a 3" and "roll 5-5" are the accepted notation style in this topic area. —ptk✰fgs 05:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Irving

Self nomination, an extensive and detailed look into his controversial life and work. You can see the previous failed nomination from January here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Irving/archive1. Most of the objections from that time have been addressed and I feel we now have a genuinely NPOV, well written and well researched article on a delicate subject. GeneralPatton 01:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:Irving Speer 01.jpg, Image:Irving Spiegel01.jpg, Image:Irving trial02.jpg, Image:Irving deported canada1992.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be avoided if at all possible. If a fair use image must be used, the image description page must list the source or current copyright holder for the image, and an explanation of why the image can be used under fair use must be provided for each page the image is used on. --Carnildo 05:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

errr... all those images are provided by Irving at his website for further use, this really is an non-issue as it has nothing to do with the content of the article itself. GeneralPatton 08:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps to clarify this, you could write to him using Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission. I have a feeling he would agree to release them into the public domain or GDFL at the very least. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If they have nothing to do with the content of the article, then I don't suppose you'd mind if I were to remove them? --Carnildo 17:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, but why? Here's the notice on Irvings website "These photographs are provided for use copyright free unless otherwise indicated" [43]. GeneralPatton 17:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That text is a license grant and should be copied to the image description page. This should then be sufficient; no need to ask if it is clear that those are the licensing terms. Mozzerati 13:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Despite the controversy on its talk page I feel that this article is a well written and informative account of an interesting subject.GreatGodOm
• Support. Comprehensive, well-written and properly referenced article. I haven't bothered trying to wade through the talkpage controversies, but I've read the entire article (with some previous knowledge of both Irving and Holocaust denial) and can't see that it has tainted anything in it. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object the content is mostly good, although a section on his techniques in "historical research" such as mis-referencing, and details of how he misrepresented sources would be good. I believe that there were accusations that he stole historical sources, these should be covered. More importantly, for an article on Irving, it is difficult to relate specific facts in the article to the sources from whch they were taken. This is crucial in making this article verifiable, particularly days/page numbers for references taken from the trial which is difficult to search. Some form of inline references such as Footnote3 or inote is probably the only way to achieve this. Mozzerati 13:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Besides trial records, is there anything in specific that needs to be more clearly referenced? I am very skeptical to this very general objecting just because an article doesn't have footnotes (which are absolutely not a criterion in of themselves). The basic rule should be not to specifically reference anything that is either very obvious or uncontroversial. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Nobody is objecting "just because an article doesn't have footnotes". There are many alternatives to footnotes which could move the article towards verifiablity; it is possible to write extensively together with each source which facts it covers; it is possible to put comments inline, using for example the inote template. Look at the work of Emmsworth (who puts comments next to his sources) or David Helvarg for examples of each.
      • The objection concerning footnotes was somewhat unspecified and since I've been noticing an alarming overusage of footnotes in FACs and I felt I needed to point this out. For example, GNAA, which is a relativly small article, contained 24 (!) footnotes that were mostly concentrated to just two or three paragraphs before I along with a few other users pointed it out at the FAC. Using the inotes and actual inline citations is much more preferable, though. I have not participated in the writing of the article, though, so I can't comment on the other objections. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • also you haven't responded to my content objections which I will break down for easier reference:
      • the article is incomplete because it a) fails to cover accusations that Irving has stolen documents b) fails to cover the recovery of documents from Irving's home by the police c) fails to cover the accusation that "if Irving can't find a supporting document, he makes one" d) fails to cover Irving's (at least partial) success in spinning the Lipstadt trial as an issue of his freedom of speech even when it was him that had initiated the trial.
      • the article is non NPOV since it states as fact facts which, whilst clearly true to most of us, are in fact disputed without giving a reference to the source of those facts a) "contributed to a variety of extremist features" b) "Today, the Dresden bombing casualty figures are estimated as most likely in the range of 25,000 to 35,000 dead" (yes, I know this is true, but that is what makes it important to reference it). c) the article describes "evolutionary psychologist Kevin B. MacDonald" without reference to the common belief that he is an anti-semitic racist which, in this context seems to be quite important.
      • the article is difficult to verify, for example the statement that his figures "were repeated in many standard references and encyclopedias" appears to require a require extensive research and access to many encyclopedias, particularly to establish a causal link, but with either attribution or a simple listing could be much easier to cope with. Furthermore, FAs should "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work" and Wikipedia's best work is verifiable in the extreme.
      • the article makes statements, which, without clear reference could be seen as defamatory and as such should not be kept in wikipedia, for example "during that time Irving also made a number of public statements indicating that 100,000 or more Germans had been killed" contrasted with "later editions of the book [changed] downwards to a range of 50,000 to 100,000" this is clearly implies that Irving is duplicitous; references should be given.

      Mozzerati 19:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

      • • Ok, thanks for your suggestions, I'm working on it GeneralPatton 21:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object. Move external links from main body to notes/references, link via footnotes. The article looks good, and it should prove the wiki strenght if we can reach NPOV on this article and FA it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There's nothing in any criteria that deems it inappropriate to have external links in the text. Unless the footnotes are actually going to contain information about the source or perhaps about the footnoted paragraph, this seems quite uncalled for. It will only add to the article looking like a paper rather than an encyclopedia article. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tucker Max

I think that this ought to be a featured article. It is very interesting. The topic is interesting, although he is a very, very bad person. user: Albus Dumbledore

• Stop the nonsense. Hate to break it to you, but this will NEVER be a Featured Article. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously , SqueakBox 20:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nominated by troll. mikka (t) 21:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong oppose since this is missing nearly everything. Where is Snape when you need him? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: More fit for VfD than FAC. Each section is tagged a stub. Most sections are "Oh, dude, and another thing" style agglutinations. The whole of it is fannish POV. Geogre 16:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent Vfd idea. Done, SqueakBox 17:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luftwaffe

This article is a good strong article with lots of information and good picturers. Rentastrawberry 19:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. There are several things I see that ought to be fixed up. Lead should be longer, inline references should be added. Copyright status of pictures should be assertained. Has this article been thru a peer review? If not, that might be a good place to start for comments on how to imprive an already good article. WegianWarrior 20:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Ya, I agree with WegianWarrior: the lead is underdeveloped. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 20:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The lead has, I noticed, been developed. Christopher Crossley 01:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object.
  1. The images Image:MaxImmelmann.gif, Image:Fokker Dr.I.jpg need information on their copyright status. They're old enough that they're almost certainly in the public domain, but that needs to be verified.
  2. The image Image:Luftwaffe major collar insignia.jpg is claimed as public domain "since the rank insignia of a government air force are not considered to be copyrightable". I'd like a source for this claim. Also, the photograph may be copyrighted even if the subject of the photo isn't.
  3. The image Image:Euro luftwaffe.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  4. The images Image:Model of Canadair CL-13 Sabre in Luftwaffe markings.jpg, Image:Wolfram von Richthofen.jpg, Image:Ju287.jpg, Image:Ju 87D Stukas over Russia.jpg, Image:Gernika-bombardeo.jpg are claimed as public domain. I'd like source information or other evidence that they are indeed in the public domain.
  5. The images Image:Luftwaffe logo.jpg, Image:Me262 bw 01.jpg are claimed under fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, "fair use" images should be avoided if at all possible. If fair use images are used, the image source or current copyright holder must be listed on the image description page, and an explanation as to why "fair use" is justified must be provided for each page that the image is used on.

  --Carnildo 21:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment on copyright for images Some of the photos appearing in this article had already appeared in other related (hence, linked) Wikipedia articles, such as the Max Immelmann, the Baron von Richthofen and all the other black-and-white photos. I should know, because I started to make contributions to what had been an extremely small article back in February and searched for photos already in Wikipedia to support it. Hence, I suppose, one could say that original copyright information as regards as the sources of the images, claimed as public domain, including the colour one featuring the Eurofighter Typhoon in the postwar section, should be supplied by the persons who put them into "their" articles in the first place. (By the way, I am very happy to see that this article is a feature article candidate. I have greatly enjoyed contributing much of the present text, since the history of the Luftwaffe used to be such an intense interest of mine.) Christopher Crossley 01:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review. Promising article, but a PR is needed. A minor pointer about references, though: since this is most likely a fairly uncontroversial subject, inline references are not going to be needed. Everyone seems to have become so excited about the fact that references are one of the FA criteria that it has been forgotten that footnotes are anything but a critiera in themselves. A proper reference section is a must, though. A (rather large) bibliography won't do. /Peter ^Isotalo 14:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The "rather large" bibliography came mostly from my memory when I wrote it, although I did search the internet for the publishers' names, dates and ISBN numbers. Most of the article's text was also from my memory, since I have been interested in the history of the Luftwaffe since 1974! I refrained, as much as possible, from resorting to looking at books and at internet articles (including related Wikipedia articles), but I did so when I deemed it necessary to check up on a few facts just to make sure that they were correct. My choice of bibliography might seem "rather large" by "normal" Wikipedia standards when a few references are the norm, but, as I said, there have been literally hundreds of books and articles written about the history of the Luftwaffe and they continue to be written even now (as this article proves!). Hence, in my opinion, just two or three external references will not do this subject justice, considering what an interest the Luftwaffe has garnered amongst countless aviation enthusiasts over the decades since the end of the Second World War. Christopher Crossley 01:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm definetly a friend of slimmed down reference sections. If you can do it without adding notes (these are heavily overused and for some reason thought to be identical to "inline citations") I'll support you just for that. My point, though, is that even if we have many editors who can recall most details from memory (correctly so, even) we still need to actually claim sources. If you could find a handful of books that are both general in scope, well-written, unbiased and contain all the information found in the article there isn't much stopping the article from getting through the next FAC. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I can assure you that any external printed source I quoted would have been somewhere that I got some information from, including my memory, rather than my just rattling off a list of any old sources, but because that is not the idea of a bibliography! Imagine if I had just rattled off any old source for my MBA dissertation, I don't think that I would have got away with it! My list does include the two part-works, "Wings" and "World War II", even if they had been published (by Orbis, London) way back in the 1970s and 1980s, since they were my introduction to military aviation, and I absorbed a lot of facts from them at the time; hence, I believe in being justified in citing them, even if there have been absolutely tons of stuff published on the Luftwaffe since then, of which many are verifiable, provided that they are still in print or else available to buy even if they are not. I believe those sources to be authoritative and unbiased, since they ("Wings" especially) was a collection of articles produced by very many authors, not just one or a few, some of whom have been in the aviation history business for decades. I therefore included them because of both their generality and of their neutrality, not merely because I "had" them in my collection many moons ago. Thank you for your continued support for the article, it is much appreciated. Christopher Crossley 03:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I will certainly trust your judgement in choosing sources, then. There is a technical issue at hand here. The standard practice is to place all sources that have been referenced (or should be referenced) in a section called "References". "Bibliography" could be interpreted as "further reading", which is never bad to have, but anything in this kind of section doesn't need to be claimed as an actual source. So what's needed is simply to sort through the literature list and decide which of them should be claimed by the article as actual sources and what is merely recommended reading. You can always use inline citations and/or footnotes, but only if it's really needed, like with facts that are controversial or perhaps need a note to explain some sort of complexity that doesn't fit in the actual article text. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment 2. I just looked at the article and realized that there is virtually no information about the organization of the current Luftwaffe. Since German Air Force is a redirect to this article, there needs to a minimum of information about the current operations, units and equipment of the modern Luftwaffe. Perhaps some information about policies as well. No long lists of individual squadrons and such, though. A summary with perhaps a link to a separate List of modern Luftwaffe units or something like it will do fine. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marcel Junod

This article is based on a translation of a featured article (in German "Exzellenter Artikel") from the German Wikipedia. I'm the main author of the original German version, and most of the translation was done by User:Tfine80 with some minor edits by me. Thanks for your interest, --Uwe 21:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• One problem - it's not linked from a single other article on wikipedia (at least not from the english one) →Raul654 22:06, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the hint. The problem that it's not easy to find an article from which to link to this article. Possible candidates could include Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the International Committee of the Red Cross, but both would require a serious rework to fit in a link to the Junod article in a logical manner, without breaking the coherent style of these articles. A complete rework of the article about the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is in the making (as another cooperation between User:Tfine80 and myself), and the corresponding German article we're translating has Marcel Junod mentioned as part of a rather comprehensive history section. I expect the translation to be ready in the very near future. Best Regards, --Uwe 23:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose- besides not being linked to, the lead section is too short, there are too many quotes compromising a large quantity of the article (they would be more appropriate for WikiQuotes), and the pictures are copyrighted- I'm not sure if that's allowed. I would refer to peer review and see if it can be fixed and expanded. It definitely has FA potential, though. Great job! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The pictures have a "Copyrighted but free use" policy which includes the right to use them for any legal purpose without prior permission from the copyright holder, including copying them, modifying them and using them for any commercial purpose. The quotes are intended to illustrate Junods work from a more personal point of view, complementary to the strict neutral and factual style of the article text. In that, they serve the same purpose as the pictures. Regarding the lead section, it would be nice to know what information you miss there. As written above, the issue of not being linked from anywhere will be solved in the very near future. Thanks for your comments, --Uwe 19:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The copyright status on the pictures is good enough. "Copyrighted but you can use it for anything but slandering the subject" is a free enough license for me. --Carnildo 22:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sociocultural evolution

2nd attempt, self-nom. Hopefully it will get more then 4 votes it did last time. I think objections are adressed: pics have proper copyright notice, several references and footnotes are added and lead has been decresed by 25%. I feel that any further reduction of lead would damage the article (see also Wikipedia 1.0 lead requirements), besides, we have many FAs with longer leads. Click here for former nomination. Your comments, as always, much welcome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support A long read, but well presented and argued. The only change that I would make would be to shorten the sections that have their own articles (such as Neoevolutionism and Sociobiology). slambo 02:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Support Really well written. I don't understand the creation of the Overview section (I never though the intro was too long), but it doesn't matter. Also I don't know if you need to repeat all of the references that are also in the notes section. -MechBrowman 03:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Support Looks good, Piotrus. The lead is definitely more readable, and the rest of the article is quite comprehensive. --Pariah 03:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional support descriptive captions on the images would be good.--nixie 00:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sociocultural evolution

Self nom. An overview of one of the most important theories in sociology and anthropology, also reffered in those respective fields as just social or cultural evolution(ism). From classical unileneal evolutionism to multilenal, with neoevolutionism, sociobiology, modernisation theory, post-industrial theory and yes, I even managed to mention singularity theory in the text :) Lots of big words :) I await your comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The images Image:Danielbell.JPG and Image:Vinge1.gif do not have copyright or source information.
  • Removed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. The images Image:FranzBoas.jpg and Image:Alvin toffler.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, fair use images should be avoided if at all possible. If fair use images must be used, information on the current copyright holder must be given, and a rationale as to why fair use may be claimed must be provided for each page that the image is used on.

  --Carnildo 21:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Removed. They are not essential. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object. Support A good article there are, however, a couple of problems. First of all, the lead section is too long. The contents of the lead are good, so perhaps a large part of it could be siphoned off into an "Overview" section immediately after the lead? Less importantly, I'd like to see more pictures for the length of the article (not critcal). --Oldak Quill 18:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The lead is long, but I am not sure what can be moved out and still make it comprehensive - this is a complicated theory, actually composed of several subtheories over the course of many theories. I like my leads to be as comprehensive as possible to fit the Wikipedia 1.0 reqiurements. I am not sure if an Overview section is a good idea, it sounds like a second lead to me - but if you have a vision of how it may be done, by all means, plese try to fix it. As for the pics, I am not sure what pics other then some portaits may be relelvant here. I tried to add a pic of everybody mentioned, but many have none, and half of those have copyright problems Carnildo pointed out above. I am open for any other pic suggestions, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • After having read the entire article, I have to agree. It is excellently written in a very clear manner. Keep up the good work. --Oldak Quill 11:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The introduction is excessively long, composed of three paragraphs, each of which are way too long. Furthermore, Piotr reverts any attempt to correct his stylistic errors. I tried to seperate the intro into multiple paragraphs, and then to move some material to the article body, both of which were reverted immediately by Piotrus. Short definitions of uinlinear and multilinear are appropriate to the lead. Not this attempted whirlwind history of sociology. Also, the terms in bold should be handled more legibly. --goethean ॐ 14:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but the recent attempt at lead rewritting is against Wikipedia:Lead (recommended three paragrahps, not 5-6) and even worse, it was not comprehensive (one recent attempt simply moved 4/5 of the lead into the next section). As I explained above, this is a complex matter and the lead cannot be short if it is to remain comprehensive. The lead fits on the screen, I see no problem with this. I will see what I can adapt from the new version. I am happy to see discussion here, after few days of near inactivity. I am sure that working together we cn create a 'leaner, meaner' lead :) I am not sure what you mean about illegibility of bolded terms? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein fixed the problem with bolded terms. Your point regarding three paragraphs is ruleslawyering. Why extend the paragraphs to unreadable lengths and then point to a 3-paragraph policy to revert changes? --goethean ॐ 17:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

After some work we seem to have created a smaller, better lead. Do you still have grounds for objection? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• CommentThat whole article only had one reference? And I think the use of inotes is detriemental to the article, and at least some of them should be visible similar to other articles. MechBrowman 15:54, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support The article is very well written, and I changed the inotes my self --MechBrowman 14:48, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, long story short: this article is merged from two others, none of which had any references. I expanded this with info from referenced source, plus some material from other wiki articles, again lacking references. After a glance at the references, I see some of them are actually mentioned in the text (especially online version of some 19th century) text and thus may be moved to references. As for inotes, I am not a fan of them, I prefer footnotes - but due to the explained scarcity of references, there is really no need for them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object Not enough references. Dave (talk) 20:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not aware there is any specified number or references >1 for FA articles. I explained above why there are so few referenes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I consider good referencing to be necessary for Wikipedia to be considered authoritative. WP:CITE (which isn't policy, but which has consensus) says that it's important for veryifying facts, preventing sneaky vandalism (changing a date and hoping no one notices), convincing skeptical readers an article is accurate, and avoiding various kinds of confusion. The guide also suggests that you add sources for existing articles on Wikipedia. In general, I prefer in-line citations. Since you didn't write this, and you have no sources, how do you know anything about its reliability? I'm maintaining my objection. Dave (talk) 21:27, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have added some references, and will add more - there are books (often classics) mentioned in text (like 'White wrote in his book that...') that should add a few more, when I have some time. Article has 4 references now, using footnotes, and will have several more - does this solve your objection? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Have you fact-checked the article yourself? Dave (talk) 14:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
          • To the best of my knowledge (I read the Sztompka's book, nearly memorised his chapter on this set of theories :>, checked all external links plus some other articles, books and ecyclopedia's entries mentioned in the article (most of which I added)) and I think it is factually correct. I do think it fits with our standards. I admit I have taken much of the info from previous wiki articles, which had no references, on good faith, but they do seem to be confirmed with other materials I found off-wiki (many of it academic class) I read. Wiki being wiki, with other editors beside me constantly improving this article, I can't guarantee personally that all the facts are and will be 100% correct, but I can vouch that to the best of my knowledge most of them, when I read it last time, seemed consistent with referenced/further reading/external links material. If you see any factual errors in the article, do let me know. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The article is thorough, and I congratulate all who contributed. The new article is much more thorough and organized than either of the two original articles. However, I have two concerns:

1. More is needed to highlight the distinction between social / cultural evolution (the modern scientific theory) and social evolutionism, the (unilineal, essentially racist) worldview. Some information about this is in the article, but I think it's important to distinguish between the theory and the practice.
2. As discussed above, the lead is too long. I realize that a shorter lead is not comprehensive, but would argue that a lead is never meant to be comprehensive. A lead's only function is to summarize the topic for the reader, and hopefully entice him/her to read further. Every pool needs a shallow end to be accessible. The first paragraph could be considerably shortened or broken up. For example:

Sociocultural evolution is an umbrella term for theories explaining the development of societies over time, borrowing the term "evolution" from biological theories about the development of living organisms. Early social scientists attempted to identify the stages that all societies must pass through as they mature, and sometimes ranked societies from least to most developed. More modern Anthropologists and Sociologists have rejected this approach, noting that human societies can develop along a wide variety of different possible paths, and that it is difficult to label any society as more or less "evolved" than any other.

Even that is too long... Details in the current lead--about the diversity of the thinkers involved, the specific interpretations of the theory, etc.--will be apparent from the article itself. The lead really only needs to refer to three things: development of societies over time, early theories were unilineal (and often racist), and modern theories are multilineal.

I regret that at the moment I cannot spend more time assisting you in developing this article with more constructive examples of what I mean. However, I generally feel the new article is quite good, and with some fixes would make a great candidate for a front page article.

--Pariah 21:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for your comments. Regarding the lead, Wikipedia:Lead states that The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. and For the planned paper Wikipedia 1.0, one consensus recommendation is that the paper version of articles will be the lead section of the web version. . I try to make all leads I work in follow this guidelines. Btw, we have already shortented the lead by 1/4 since the FAC process begun. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but effective writing is a nested process. If we say that all the writing before the first subheading is the lead, then the very first paragraph should be a micro-lead, and the first sentence should be a nano-lead. The reader should be able to get a quick definition of the topic from the first sentence. This is esp. important on a wiki, where every link is potentially a black hole of information. The language could be simpler without detracting from the complexity of the information.--Pariah 16:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enzyme

My first self-nom. Please don't be too harsh, guys~ :-D By the way, this biological article is pretty informative. The diagrams were well drawn to give a much clearer picture of the mechanism of enzymes. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support - looks great --PopUpPirate 15:26, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very comprehensive and well-explained. Easy to understand with even a very basic knowledge of chemistry. Phils 16:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support It took 2 minutes to load all the pictures on my computer. Very impressive Karmafist 17:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support, although I would recommend moving the list of enzymes to a separate page. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object, reluctantly. This article still needs some work, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results once these objections are addresssed:
  • Monomer discussion in "structure and function" is unclear
    • What do you mean by unclear? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I mean that it doesn't define its terms. My (very limited) background in chemistry tells me that monomers are single elements that, strung together, make a polymer like plastic, DNA, or a polypeptide. The article seems to be referring to polypeptides as monomers, which I find confusing. Assuming I understand the first few lines of the paragraph, either changing the word "monomer" to "polypeptide" or saying "each monomer is actually produced as a long, linear chain of amino acids..." earlier in the paragraph would help
        • Reconstructed. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Applications table is hard to follow (add lines to separate rows and/or columns)
    • Technical problems...could anyone help? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • "protein folding" should be linked to from something less ambiguous than the words "general principles," as the reader has to move the mouse over the text or click it to find out what's being linked to.
    • Any suggestion? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Fixed
  • The section on rate of reaction should probably be expanded. Saying it depends on "many factors" isn't really enough.
    • There is a sub-page. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC) fixed
  • In-line references (footnotes or parenthetical citations) would go a long way towards making this article more authoritative. Right now, it's difficult to verify many claims the article makes.
    • Is that really necessary? I saw some FAs like evolution that are without in-line references... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Editors are allowed to have their own guidelines/requirements for supporting articles, and this is one of mine, especially for scientific articles. I didn't support evolution. You could almost certainly get this featured even without addressing this objection, but only if you address everything else. Dave (talk) 13:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

**Long sentences like this one are hard to follow, even for a biology major like me:

Because the precise structure of each region tends to be fairly critical to correct function, and because the frequency of a mutation which would produce a nonfunctional active region is proportional to the length of the chain separating the amino acids involved, evolution works against having the amino acids from an active region widely dispersed, instead tending to keep the amino acids involved in each active region compacted fairly closely together in the chain and conserved against mutation, separating these regions by long stretches of 'spacer' amino acids where mutation is much less critical (although some mutations in these regions can also inactivate the product).

• • • Corrected sooner or later.
      • There will still be other readability problems even after you fix that sentence. I'll try to help. Dave (talk) 13:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • Reconstructed. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The discussion of energy in the structure and function section could probably be streamlined. I like the analogies, but it's hard to follow.
    • Fixed. -- User:TimBarrel 21:10, 10 August 2005
  • Links to names should be fixed: Fischer is a disambig (including two nobel-prize winning chemists, among others) and Koshland is a blank page. First names should probably be included as well.
    • Fixed. -- User:TimBarrel 21:10, 10 August 2005
  • The article needs a copyedit. Three examples include "short0lived" (lock and key hypothesis section), "fromevidence" and "breakdown" (in the induced fit section)
    • Fixed. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Making the kinetics section more accessible to non-biochemists may not be possible, but I hope someone tries.
    • Yup...pretty difficult... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• If all (or even most) of these are addressed, I'll support. Good luck! Dave (talk) 01:36, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

You know what, I could hardly find people knowing one or two about biology during the peer review. You are one of the guys who could give pretty clear and constructive feedback. :-) Btw, could you give us a hand in improving this article, please? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the process is sort of dumb. No one (including me, most of the time) pays attention to peer review. Maybe I should. I'll see what I can do with the article, but nixie is more knowledgeable than I am on the subject. I'm sure she'll give you a hand when she has time if you ask. Dave (talk) 13:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Support-This is a very interesting and well done article. It is exceptionally informative and explains the concept of enzymes quite clearly, even to someone who isnt in the field. I also like the diagrams, they add a lot to the article in terms of clearity and make it much more readable. --Gpyoung ^talk 03:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• For now I have to object. As a biochemist I noticed that there are several things that could be improved, there is little discussion of coenzymes (vitamins and metals), multi-subunit enzymes and where enzymes are actually active within a cell eg. organelle specificity, enzyme inhibition/allosteric enzymes. Basically this article should cover everything in the chapter TOC for a textbook like Matthews, Van Holde and Ahern or Voet and Voet (two widely used undergraduate level biochem texts).

As an editor I think the specific enzymes section should be renamed and include some more examples, and that the list is unnecessary given the link to the list on another page. The tables should also be fixed so that they are outlined.

As a general reader, the order of text could be improved, for example, the reader is hit with The advantage of enzymes compared to most other catalysts is their sterio-, regio- and chemoselectivity and specificity before something like this Enzymes are essential to living organisms, and a malfunction of even a single enzyme out of approximately 2,000 types present in our bodies can lead to severe or lethal illness - which is much easier to understand and would interest a general reader. There are similar examples throughout where diffuicult concepts are explained before the easy ones.--nixie 03:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm not the original editor, who seemed to have put the materials you are demanding into the page Rate of enzyme mediated reactions. Any ideas to improve? :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Fixed. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Coenzymes and other enzyme cofactors are now mentioned. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• For now I object.

1) I reconfigured two tables at the bottom and noticed there was a lot that could be improved in those tables. A lot of copy editing of the text in the table is required.

• Any suggestion?

2) I then looked at the main article. I did not get past the structure function section. Why the emphasise on monomeric versus oligomeric (quaternary structure)? Surely the most important thing is the residues at the active site (tertiary structure).

• This part would be deleted.

3) You cite the active site of the enzymes figure 2; I could not find firgure 2 (do you mean your first 5a-c figure?). Why is figure 2 cited in the text before figure 1? It looks like you have reaaranged everything without correcting the order of the figures. You have two figure 4's and two figure 5's. The second figure 4b has two panels a) and b. Worse your first figure 4b (i) ( as opposed to figure 4b (ii)) also has an a and b panel. Do you see how crazy this is? All the figures need to be relabelled since they are not consistent with the text or each other. If the figure has panels a) and b) you cannot label it 4 a) Label it 4 (a-b) and the second panel, 4c. For example, the succinate (is succinic correct?) dehydrogenase panel should be a 4c not a 4b.

• An anonymous user rearranged the figures. Problems fixed sooner or later.

4) The next sentence after the incorrect figure citation is "Sometimes enzymes contain additionally other binding sites." This is poor grammar and I presume not up to featured article standards. As with the tables, it looks like this article needs some proof reading.

• Any suggestion?

5) A quick scan through shows that you do not define EIS nomenclature.

• Enzyme-inhibitor-substrate

6) Is this correct with respect to non competitive inhibitors? "they disable or enable the ability of the enzyme to turn over its substrate" I don't think they can enable. You may be thinking of allosteric enzyme with regard to this statement.

• I don't write this. Let's see what we can do with it

7) Is metabolic feed back beyond the scope of this article? That is getting into the regulation of metabolism.

• If you read any book about enzyme, this part is often mentioned for good reasons.

8) Modifications seems to be too early in the article. That would be better suited with regard to the feedback control and the regulation of metabolism.

• Good advice.

9) Prosthetic groups seem to be an add on at the end. These should be discussed with respect to the active site right at the begining of the article.

• I don't think so. It's a kinda cofactors, which in most cases are discussed in the later parts. It's not desirable to have it next to the active site.

10) One of the most important aspects of enzymes that is absent in this article is conformation changes that occur during catalysis. These conformation changes are critical for enzyme function. Hexokinase is a good example of an enzyme with a large conformation change, almost like a Pac-Man.

• Induced-fit hypothesis? Did you see it?

:11) The thermodynamics section needs work and might not be appropriate for this article. The following is another example of a sentence in dire need of copy editing. "For instance, the high energy compound ATP is generated in the cell by coupling its synthesis to the oxidation of sugars, which releases more energy than the synthesis of ATP requires; then the ATP is broken down in turn by other enzymes coupled to other processes, releasing the energy stored in it to drive other, otherwise energetically unfavorable, chemical reactions."

• • Fixed. -- User:TimBarrel 21:10, 10 August 2005
• Well, it's worth mentioning as seen in all reference books. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Clearly this article has a lot of potential but it really needs to be cleaned up a lot before being a featured article. David D. (Talk) 01:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you don't hang around with the editing. I'll read it over more thoroughly and do some copy editing. I have already made quite a few changes to the table, I'll edit that some more too. I think your solution of just removing the figure numbers is perfect. Wikipedia does not need to be like a review paper. David D. (Talk) 05:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you're so good, man. Thanks a million dollars. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Javier Solana

I think this article has recovered from its antichrist believers POV, has lots of nice detail, and has had the input of many people. It covers all the sourced material available about his life, SqueakBox 02:42, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references, and lead-in is too short. - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object — no refs. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Javiersolana.jpg is claimed under fair use. As such, the source or current copyright holder must be provided, and an explanation as to why fair use is justified must be provided for each article that the image is used on. One possible format for fair use justification is provided at Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. --Carnildo 09:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object This was once an excellent article with references. SqueakBox acting in adulation of rather than fair reporting of Javier Solana removed most meat and references from article. Most of the research was mine, compiled from other internet sources. Basically it is a dumbed down version of what once existed and was treated web-wide as a credible article. Regrettably that is no longer the case and I personally have given up on sharing my vast body of information on Solana with Wikipedia because I am weary of correcting SqueakBox's damage only to have the serious editing labeled "vandalism" by SqueakBox. Good luck to all. I will do my posting from other sites and my own blogspot.User:Cumbey August 21, 2005

I have not accused Cumbey of vandalism, except of course on the 2-3 occasions when she did, but never to this article. It is not true that most of the research was done by her, that is pure vanity. She forgot to mention she thinks he is the anti-christ, which is a rather extreme POV, SqueakBox 16:23, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cimarron

Self Nom: This article has been expanded from barely a stub to an informative article reflecting the background, content, production, and reception of Edna Ferber's novel, the 1931 Best Picture, and 1960 remake. There are few film featured articles, and only one "classic", so I think this would be a fair addition to those that already exist. The article was up for Peer Review almost a month ago, and any issues have been addressed, but I welcome criticism and further contributions. Volatile 01:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object - lead too short. In addition, it seems that the article should be on the novel, not the movies. Perhaps just a brief mention of the movies, and move the movie sections to separate article? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I brought up the concern of having the films and novel in the same section at PR (see link in intro). Since the novel and films are so closely related, I figured they'd be better off in the same article. Of course, I'm open to other opinions regarding that. I will work on expanding the introduction and novel portions, as I admit they are a bit thin. Thank you. Volatile 21:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:Cimarronbook.jpg, Image:Ferber.jpg, Image:OkLandRush.jpg, Image:Cimarron.JPG, Image:Cimarron1960.jpg have no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 08:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • All copyright information has been accounted for. Volatile 03:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. More on the novel is needed. The movies can stay, as long as they're faithfully direct in their adaptations of the book. -- user:zanimum

[edit] Model minority

Interesting article, concept about a social inequality issue. I think it deserves to be a featured article.

Quantum bird 18:50 July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Object It's not really comprehensive. It's almost exclusively about Asian Americans, with one sentence on Jewish Americans, nothing on other "model minorities" (such as Carribean Americans) and a total of two sentences on the rest of the world. The "negatively viewed successes" should include the situation in Rwanda, where such distinctions played a role in the 1994 genocide. If the article were called something like "Asian Americans as a model minority," or were significantly expanded, I'd be more likely to support. Dave (talk) 19:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This should really be named Model minorities in the United States, as that is its current content. - SimonP 00:44, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Object per above. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not sure the term is used much outside the United States. The lead section should say that it is a political term used in the U.S. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:04, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As it was said before, this article have a very limited geographic scope, with no mention of Jewish-Americans, Carribean-Americans, and Arab-Americans. With no mention of same situations in other countries. CG 16:40, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Overwhelming US-centricism. --Oldak Quill 18:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: There still appears to be room for someone to do more research and bring more citations to the article.--Nectarflowed ^T 07:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Move elinks from text to reference section, link with Wikipedia:Footnotes. Lot of tiny sections, most of which would qualify as the section-stub, even though article is not that short. Consider expanding sections or merging them, the latter would also help with the large ToC. As others note, 'Other Countries' section is too tiny, so the name should be changed to reflect the actual content. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neptune (planet)

With Venus as a featured article, I figured I would try to help out the articles on the other important bodies in the solar system, and then I ran across this article. So far it's actually the only article on a planet in the solar system with plentiful inline citations and references. I found it to be quite an enjoyable read, more so even than the featured article Io (moon). Toothpaste 08:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object head section too short. Headbox needs conversion to be same format (at least) as Venus (planet). Preferably convert all other tables into {{prettytable}} or something alike. Circeus 22:26, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I converted the headbox into the same format as the one found in the Venus article. However, I am not sure about the other tables, given that the tables in both article are similar. Pentawing 19:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've converted the other tables using {{prettytable}}. Pentawing 23:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support-This looks like an excellent article with a lot of information. The tables really do not bother me, and the headbox looks perfectly acceptable as well (although I think it is the edited version). --Gpyoung ^talk 03:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment-I expanded the lead to three paragraphs. Does this take care of your objection, Circeus? Toothpaste 10:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object - A bit of explanation of retrogradation is necessary for the Visibility from Earth section (not much; it just didn't make sense to me how a planet can go from direct to retrograde in three months). Is there anything else that could get added to that section? A little description of the "Appearance" section would be nice, so that I (a non astronomer) know what I'm looking at. And could a listing of space missions to the planet be added? I'd also like {{prettytable}} in the table in Rings of Neptune. That's it for now; I'll let you know if I see anything else. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Nigger Association of America

This is partly a self nomination. There are no facts in the article that are not referenced, and this is a detailed and comprehensive view of the GNAA.

Please note! featured articles are not necessarily main page articles! Objects must be actionable, so if you dislike the GNAA and wish to object solely based on this criteria, your objection will be discounted.

Ta bu shi da yu 06:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Note: I have created a list of what I noticed from the FAC to see what we need to do in order to make the article up to par: User:Zscout370/GNAA to do. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note 2: don't ask us for information that is not available. This is contrary to no original research. We are not investigatory journalists. Anyone who asks for sources that require extensive investigation and the creation of a primary source (as Wikipedia) is making a non-actionable objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I dispute that note is a correct analysis of policy. Taken at its extreme, an article about a extremely obscure topic could be featurable as a stub merely because no more information is available. Similar issues were raised on the failed FAC nomination for Thursday October Christian: Not every article actually has the potential to be featured. David | Talk 11:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I am going to work to get this article Featured. While I admit it got very complicated when people began to dispute objections, but I am willing to work with everyone to get it Featured. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What you seem unable to grasp Ta bu shi da yu is that if certain basic information is unavailable, there is no way to make a proper article on this subject. Before there can be an encyclopedia article, there must be primary and secondary sources that required extensive investigation to create, so the encyclopedia article can accurately and extensively summarize the subject. There is a lot of information in the article, and the individual incidents are well-referenced, but writing a good article on the group itself appears impossible due to a lack of basic facts. Even if (and that is a big if) there is no way to properly document the membership, the article needs to discuss the methods, goals, etc. of the organization or it is just a receitation of specific trolling events that cannot even be 100% positivelky linked to the group as opposed to copycats and provide little incite into the impact of the group as a whole. While the incidents are verifiable to the extent that we know what happened, the who, why, and how remain shrouded in mystery and the subject of nothing more than speculation. Perhaps a few more years and a bit more research will lend the necessary facts to make a good article, and this stuff can certainly stay on wikipedia in the meantime, but it cannot represent wikipedia's finest work in its current state due to the unprofessional standard of the research and therefore should not be a featured article. Indrian 19:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • With respect, I would disagree with you. This is not to say I don't understand the argument, indeed I do. I believe an FA can become featured if we have enough information to describe the actions of the group. Someone has already noted the Weathermen who's leadership is still unknown. and I believe we possibly could have got Deep Throat to FA status before W. Mark Felt was revealed as DT. I know that you are not saying this, but I'm finding that many people are objecting to the group itself, and not necessarily the article.
    • The objections so far is that it is too short (it is in fact 15.4K long, IMO not too short), that it is unverifiable yet there are too many references (go figure that out), that it is prone to edit wars (not any more) and that it shouldn't even exist on Wikipedia (after 6 VfDs it is now exempt from another one, so it should exist). Your objection is possibly the most valid (though I disagree with it).
    • You should all also note that I've been described as a troll for submitting the article to FAC, and also have been told I'm a vandal and that I'm submitting this as bad faith to keep controversy going. This may explain why I've been so short with some of you. For the record (this is for those who don't know who I am), I have submitted many articles to FAC and got them through: among them are Windows 2000, Architecture of Windows 2000, Btrieve, Architecture of Btrieve, CUPS and Exploding Whale. I have almost always used peer review. So when people tell me about my "bad faith" I start getting a little pissed off (though I know I should stay frosty cool). The fact that I have to defend myself like this at all tends to tell me that people aren't reading Wikipedia:Assume good faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I will certainly go on the record to say that I do not believe you are a troll or acting in bad faith in making this nomination. I think there are people on both sides of this debate that have acted horribly, but you are not one of them. If this article becomes featured, it will not herald an end to all standards in FAC, but I will stand by my position that this article is not ready due not to the quality of what the article contains, but rather to the importance of what is missing. Indrian 03:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • At thais point, the article will probably not be Featured, mainly since I still need to add substance to the article. However, I and others have solved objections. Also, everyone is welcome to edit the To do list I created (see the link above). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

---

• Support. I have been working with Ta bu on this one, and we took the trolling out and made this article into something special. I do agree that this article should not appear on the front page. It will be asking for trouble. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This is way too short for a featured article. Ambi 07:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article: featured articles need only be comprehensive and not too long/detailed (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). If you think it is too short, you must specify what has been left out, and it must be something that can actually be added to the article (ie: it has been previously documented). -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • While a formal requirement for length is not present, if we are missing things and can beef up the article size, this objection IS actionable. If I can fix it, I can listen to any objections. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is an entirely actionable objection if you had bothered or were capable of reading all of four lines down (The activities section is a collection of random trivia about a few incidents; I know enough about the GNAA to know that they've been responsible for a lot more than that. Methods, etc - the everyday stuff (which they're a lot more well known for, IMHO) - there really is a lot more that could be said. And that's most of the article. Membership says nothing about numbers in total, active members, where they organise. There is no history section at all. The "background information" section is part history, and the rest should be merged into the lead section. Furthermore, any details of reactions to GNAA are mishmashed in with the random activities, and could well have a detailed section of their own) Ambi 00:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I was replying to your original objection, which consisted solely of "This is way too short for a featured article." -- BRIAN0918  01:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • People only make one objection on an FAC. I'd clarified it by the time you posted, and I'd appreciate if you could remove your misleading comment. Ambi 01:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you should specify exactly what information you're missing, or at least I would consider the objection inactionable. /Peter ^Isotalo 07:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • What information is missing? The length is only a problem if stuff is missing. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The activities section is a collection of random trivia about a few incidents; I know enough about the GNAA to know that they've been responsible for a lot more than that. Methods, etc - the everyday stuff (which they're a lot more well known for, IMHO) - there really is a lot more that could be said. And that's most of the article. Membership says nothing about numbers in total, active members, where they organise. There is no history section at all. The "background information" section is part history, and the rest should be merged into the lead section. Furthermore, any details of reactions to GNAA are mishmashed in with the random activities, and could well have a detailed section of their own. Ambi 10:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      • This objection is actionable provided that the information you've requested has previously been documented. -- BRIAN0918  01:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd add that the article is not that much shorter than Heavy metal umlaut, over half of which is a list of sightings. Circeus 22:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Object Unlikely ever to meet the stability criterion - plus all those VfDs!!! jguk 07:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article, where it clearly states that "stability" refers to the edit history (ie: no edit/POV wars), and not petty vandalism or VFDs which do not change the article's contents (plus, there will not be any more VFDs). -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The VFD's have been stopped, and plus (surprising enough), the last additions to the article mainly deal with the hoax related to Harry Potter. Though I do agree it is short, there is nothing much we can add that can be considered factual and could borderline on trolling. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Really? Article is very stable. The only thing not stable was a short disputed sentence and the fact that I think the logo is notable enough to include in the article. That's about it really. As for VfDs - well, there will be no more of those. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 24 foot notes for a very short article. I know we all like referencing and notes, but this is going overboard. It's disruptive to any reader that isn't used to notes (the overwhelming majority) and will annoy anyone who's used footnotes enough to know that an average of one note per sentence is nothing short of disruptive (most academics). Keep the objective in mind here, everyone; it's an encyclopedia article, not a paper. /Peter ^Isotalo 07:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article and Wikipedia:Cite sources. -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is entirely actionable. A featured article must follow the style standards of the rest of the encyclopedia, and having seven references in a not particularly disputed paragraph is just not done on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of academic papers. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Unactionable objection. The objection is also contrary to Wikipedia:Cite sources. I must say, this is the first time I've every heard anyone complain of too many references. However, if you don't like notes, then may I suggest that you check out how to hide them by going to Template talk:Ref? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not contrary to Wikipedia:Cite sources. It's not being argued that there shouldn't be references, but instead that this is an insane number, even for an academic paper. Thus it is very actionable. Ambi 09:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry?! Every fact has been disputed at some point, so every fact has been referenced. Ambi, this is not an actionable objection! For the record, however, which of the sources would you remove? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
        • As an example, why on earth do we need seven references to illustrate one small incident about releasing Apple screenshots? This is excessive. Not to mention that I think it's pretty damned rude to go around declaring every objection unactionable before making any attempt to fix it. Ambi 10:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Rude huh? Sorry you feel that way. However, what's wrong with the 7 references? If you've been paying attention, everything about this article was controversial and all activities were disputed, so this is why there are so many references. This was demanded, and so this was provided. As for "fixing" what I consider unactionable - just exactly how did you think I was going to do that?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
            • Perhaps if you'd actually thought about the objection before denouncing it as unactionable. I know the article was controversial, but don't you think seven references for one small incident is a bit of overkill? Ambi 11:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
              • This is just as actionable as saying there are too many pictures in an article. Any reference that exists solely because of dispute on the talkpage should be looked over for example. /Peter ^Isotalo 15:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I removed some redundant references already from the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I would say this is not so much "unactionable" as "shouldn't be acted on". Would that more of our articles were so strongly referenced. This actually has the apparatus to let someone verify it. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • That other articles are poorly referenced doesn't excuse the fact that this article is over-referenced. If an article is over-referenced it makes it harder to actually concentrate on the information that is relevant. And I really don't like this suggestion that eventhough the objection is actionable, it should be ignored; that's just bad manners as well as a bad precedent. /Peter ^Isotalo 10:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
        • The thing Ta bu is trying to say is that whatever event or thing the GNAA pulled off, we have to reference it or people will consider the page is just being used for trolling. Of course, we could send some references to the external links section of the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Why? The Apple incident needs one reference. It doesn't need seven for people to realise that it happened. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
            • I agree here too. If there is more than one footnote for a single event (at least for what is recognizable as a single event to outsiders), all but one should be removed. The reader to keep in mind when writing should preferably be someone who has neither heard of GNAA before nor participated in any of the VfDs or other lengthy debates about them; to this person the massive array of referencing will just seem odd. If you're adding references just because of a metadebate with other Wikipedians, think the decision over. If possible, try to use inline citations whenever possible. I'd rather see "person X said/wrote/proclaimed flame bait Y" than a footnote that is merely a link to a longer quote. Also, there's no need to use3 footnotes for several different parts of the GNAA website when the text actually says "...according to their website". That's a very good reference in itself./Peter ^Isotalo 14:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
              • If multiple references are ever necessary for one thing, it may be better to have one superscript which links to a footnote which then links to those multiple references, rather than have each reference separately documented one-per-line. -- BRIAN0918  17:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Down to half the footnotes with some clever summarizing. Good work; objection withdrawn. /Peter ^Isotalo 14:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Gnaa.png is used under "fair use". As such, the current copyright owner needs to be listed on the description page, and a rationale as to why it can be used under "fair use" needs to be provided for each page that the image is used on. --Carnildo 08:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Meets all the criteria for a FA, is well written, appears stable from the history... just because I don't like the GNAA don't mean I can't support an article about them on Wikipedia. (Vote by User:WegianWarrior on 03:54, 30 July 2005).
• Object. Too short for a FA and too many references (yes, this is an actionable objection, because it makes the article hard to read). Also violates the third rule of what a featured article is: ("Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes).") In all honesty, this reads lke an advertisment for a troll organization rather than an featurable article. The fact that it's been nominated as an FAC could be looked at as an act of trolling itself. --FuriousFreddy 18:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article: featured articles need only be comprehensive and not too long/detailed (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). If you think it is too short, you must specify what has been left out, and it must be something that can actually be added to the article (ie: it has been previously documented). Also read Wikipedia:Cite sources.-- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is an actionable objection, per what I said above. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object to objection as I asked Ambi, the length of this article will only be a problem if information is missing. Also object to being called a troll, when I am clearly not. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • "Could be looked upon as", meaning not definite, but possibly. I apoligize if it was not your intention (although you should be able to see how it could very easily be interpreted as such). Now, when this article was first nominated, it was clearly not of featured quality status. It is significantly better now, but I'm still not certain that this article is "non-controversial" and does not have "ongoing edit wars". As such, but since my previous objections were rectified, I am changing my vote to neutral.--FuriousFreddy 14:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • From WP:WIAFA, "non-controversial" doesn't refer to just any old controversy, but to neutrality and factual accuracy. Are you suggesting that the article shouldn't be supported because it is not neutral or not factually accurate? "Ongoing edit wars" doesn't refer to petty vandalism, but to significant and repeated reversion/edit wars over content (for neutrality/factuality concerns). Do you see evidence of this in the article's recent history? (If you are referring to a VFD, that is not an edit war or concern over neutrality/factuality, but a concern over notability, and the fact that it has easily survived 6 VFDs should indicate that the majority of people consider the article to be notable and its content to be at least decently written so as to make sense). -- BRIAN0918  14:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is not that much shorter than Heavy metal umlaut, over half of which is a list of sightings. Circeus 22:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Heavy metal umlaut would not hold up to current FAC requirements: it's short, almost all lists, and has no references or citations. It became featured during a period when FAC requirements were dirfferent.--FuriousFreddy 22:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Most, if not all of these objections are objectionable. —RaD Man (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. While I don't agree at all with the constant calls for deletion of this page, I don't think it's Wikipedia's best work. I agree with Ambi's objections above (which are actionable). It would be interesting to note whether GNAA has objections to file-sharing/blogging/internet forums (as one source seems to indicate) or whether they're just having fun. Dave (talk) 20:27, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • This objection is actionable in part (wrt file-sharing/blogging/internet forums), provided that such information does indeed exist, which is unlikely. -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This objection is entirely actionable. I laid out problems with most of the article which still haven't been fixed, and I think information on their motivations is kind of crucial. I'd be very surprised if there isn't any information about it around, considering the amount of GNAA material around. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It's too short, and I would like to read about the life of members of the GNAA - this tells us all about what it does, but how do its members decide what it does in the first place? David | Talk 22:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article: featured articles need only be comprehensive and not too long/detailed (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). If you think it is too short, you must specify what has been left out, and it must be something that can actually be added to the article (ie: it has been previously documented). As stated below, these people are anonymous and any speculation about who they are or what their motives are would be original research. -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Once again, this is perfectly actionable if Brian reads past it's too short. What about I would like to read about the life of members of the GNAA - this tells us all about what it does, but how do its members decide what it does in the first place don't you understand, Brian? It is pertinent information - we have virtually nothing in this article about how they work. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I did reply to his entire objection. You may want to read my entire reply before accusing me of not reading an entire reply. -- BRIAN0918  05:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • How exactly do you want us to do this when they are all (very deliberately) anonymous? If I did write something, it would be original research. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • In all their years on the internet, I'm sure GNAA must have said something about this. Are you telling me you've both read everything there possibly is to read on the subject? If you can't be bothered to research something, then fine - but don't you dare call people's objections inactionable because of it. Ambi 01:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I have been around for a long while. If a GNAA member was revealed, then we most certainly would have heard about it because something would have been done to them (prosecution, revenge, etc). Nothing is known about the membership. Objection remains unactionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • You can't just assume "they've been around for so long, so there must be more information out there that you have not found" (appeal to probability or some other fallacy). You can suggest that you would like to see information on ____, but if no information is ever provided, you can't claim that the article is incomplete unless you know for a fact that the information does exist. -- BRIAN0918  05:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • My objection is perfectly actionable. Firstly, 'too short' has always been considered an actionable objection to a FAC: it means the article is not sufficiently comprehensive. Secondly I do not accept that the only possible writing on what life is like inside the GNAA must be original research. It isn't exactly the KGB or Mossad and there are plenty of books available which explain what people working for them do all day. Are there not former members around? And anonymous people are not necessarily silent. This information does exist (because there are some members of the GNAA), and I simply do not accept that it can't be found. David | Talk 08:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. In the lead, it says the name was chosen because people are still uncomfortable talking about gays, and because "nigger" is a slur, but then it later says the name was derived from the movie Gayniggers from Outer Space. If this is sufficiently clarified in the article, assume I support. It's an informative look at trolling techniques and the internet's methods for stopping them. For those opposed to it's supposed shortness, read Wikipedia:What is a featured article: featured articles need only be comprehensive and not too long/detailed (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). -- BRIAN0918  05:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object - The article does not discuss the motivations of the group. Without this information, reading the article is unsatisfying. (Addition: It would also be helpful if the "Activities" section was broken up using subheadings). Thanks to Zscout370 for addressing all my concerns. Cedars 12:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • IIRC, it does say their motivations are unknown, which, unless someone on Wikipedia is able to find one of them and have a sit-down interview, I think it will remain true that their motivations are unknown. If this is correct, then there is no more information that can be added, so it would be complete. In other words, your objection is not valid/actionable. -- BRIAN0918  16:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • What makes you so sure that there is no information around? The GNAA has been on the internet for years, and I'd be very surprised if they hadn't talked about their motivations somewhere. Just because you're too lazy to research an objection does not make it unactionable. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • How did I become a contributor to the article? I simply replied to the FAC page for the article. I am not one of its contributors. Also, your reasoning is chock full of fallacies. Have a nice day. :)  BRIAN0918  06:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • If there is information around, please provide it. I happen to know that the information that you are asking for is not available: this is a quite deliberate action on the part of the GNAA, as they are intensely annoying, and some of their actions could be seen as criminal. Do you think that the slashdot owners wouldn't have taken measures if they knew who they were dealing with? No offense Ambi, but either provide the information or please refrain from asking for information that is non-existent. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I launched the GNAA an email, seeing what I can get from them. I asked for their motivations, why they hate blogs and how many members they have. Well, it will be ironic that they hate file-sharing networks since they admited to using Bit-torent to share the movie Gayniggers from Outterspace. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Symbolic object on the grounds that I feel this should not be an article at all, although I am aware that is an invalid grounds for objection. Everyking 23:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Then you'll be fine with me crossing it out :)  BRIAN0918  23:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Objection - The article is about a small group of Internet trolls: it is barely worthy of an entry separate from Slashdot in the Wikipedia, let alone featured article status. A number of the external links that either broken seem to be broken at the moment or go to advertising messages or "register with our site" text rather than good credible sources. The article doesn't appear to represent Wikipedia's best work. --Mysidia 00:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  1. [44]
  2. [45]
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection for obvious reasons. At most it could be a weak/minor objection with respect to the external link problems, but two bad external links does not a featured article not make... or something like that.... -- BRIAN0918  00:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree... the subject itself can't be actionable. This has been covered by VfD several times now. Has a point with the broken links, however we often have a last retrived section. Will look into this. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that this is the worst behaviour from article nominators that I have ever seen on FAC. The whole idea of objections is to see that they're fixed so the article can become a better FA, not to try and find reasons for discounting them (which here amounts all too often to "I can't be bothered fixing them"). If you want the objection to be dealt with, fix the external links issue. It would take you all of two minutes. But then again, you'd rather declare it inactionable because you can't be bothered, like you have with all of the rest of these. Ambi 01:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • If it only takes, as you said, two minutes, why don't you fix the external links yourself? —RaD Man (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I will fix them. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I removed the Netsys link, but I will put a note that you must be a member to see the Something Awful link. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's a better referenced article than many other featured articles on Wikipedia, and does a good job treating the subject of trolling organizations. —shoecream 05:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• This is not a valid, actionable nomination. --Golbez 06:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection to a nomination... - Ta bu shi da yu 06:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Ladies and gentlemen, I finally got a motive for these attacks. They target sites that they deem pro-Zoinist. See [46], and [47]. Also, they mention other groups they work with and the people who did the attacking. We can describe the users in a section of the article, and another section for the groups they work with, like ANUS [48], [49]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Now we're getting somewhere. There's still massive holes in the article, but it's nice to see that someone is responding with further research instead of denouncing the objectors. Ambi 10:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your work Zscout370. It has really improved the article. Cedars 13:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Except... that motivation is by a known troll. I don't think it's a valid motivation: I think it's shit-stirring. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • It is something, at least something. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object: For the same reasons that I have been in favor of deletion: No names, no addresses, no motives, no verification, in other words. Encyclopedia articles are for verifiable subjects. That there have been attacks by people who refer to GNAA, that there have been attacks that other people say were like the GNAA, is one thing, but until names and documentary history can be presented, this is original research. The other axis for objection is that of importance. An FAC on a polypeptide found only in fish in the arctic ocean is on a subject with stable reference, verifiability, and, as well, on a thing with more significance than the most celebrated Internet circlej "phenomenon." When the authors can say something about the real people, we can be sure that there is a single group involved and not just a name tossed about for jollies. When the authors can demonstrate that the group, which is definable by motive, objective, and identity, has a place either as an off-shoot of a larger political act or as an ongoing struggle, then they can demonstrate that the so-called GNAA is significant enough to be a featured article. And, having written this, queue the petulant foot stamping accusations against me for daring to vote according to Wikipedia standards. Geogre 12:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • To Ambi: It is this level of objection to the article's contents (ie verification that actions are actually by the GNAA) that has required so many citations to be used in the article. -- BRIAN0918  19:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • To the objector, we can publish user names, but I do not think we can post contact information in the article. That will amount to it being spam. For those who wish to speak to the GNAA, they can just go to their website. We cannot verify an address too, but when have they ever done stuff offline anyways? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support: The large amount of attention and controversy have made this article quite accurate and well-referenced. Distasteful though it may be, this is now a mature and stable (once the VfD trolls have been taken care of) Wikipedia article. --TexasDex 19:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Support because there are few articles so carefully looked over as much as this one. This falls into probably the top ten percent as to peer review, and is rather high in popularity. I cannot see people objecting to this except on the basis of content, which is not a valid objection. Ich 19:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Completely Strongly Oppose. Article is way, way, way too short. Lacks any images other than the logo. It's existance on Wikipedia is disputed. My opinion of the nominator, after the Doctor Who 'joke' and nominations such as this has unfortunately waned. Hedley 23:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I added two images last night: one of their sig and one topic they crapflooded. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • My opinion of the objector, after reading this nasty little personal attack, has also waned. And don't give me that Doctor Who crap: I have apologised for this many times, and that has nothing to do with this FAC nomination. I have not done anything like it since then. The article will remain on Wikipedia as it has passed 6 VfDs and you know it. There is more than one image on the article. Please explain what information is missing from the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Its existence on Wikipedia is not disputed. It has been disputed in the past, but the disputes have always come out in favor of keeping it. Not a valid reason. Images have been added since your opposition. Besides, it was never a valid objection since Featured articles in the past have had no images. The only objection that might be actionable is the "too short" statement, although this isn't in WP:WIAFA, and can only be actionable if content does exist that can be added. It's that simple: if an article is allowed on Wikipedia, and is comprehensive, then the length shouldn't matter (unless it is too long; ie: overly-detailed). -- BRIAN0918  14:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh really. So if I go and VfD it now, which is perfectly in my rights, it isn't disputed? Hedley 15:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I would suggest reading WP:WIAFA completely. As it says, the only thing close to talking about not being "disputed" refers to neutrality/factuality disputes. You can go ahead and VFD it if you want, I'm sure the Wikipedia community will like you for that. Until then, its notability is not disputed, and its neutrality/factuality is definitely not disputed. -- BRIAN0918  15:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• I have added more to the article, I was wondering if yall want to come back and read it again, seeing if I am missing anything else. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• See [50] for a comparison of then and now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak support. The article can still be improved a bit. For instance, more information on the members can be found in one of the l0de radio hour recordings ("meet the gnaa" AFAIR). As for the motivations, Why your Movable Type blog must die, even if a personal essay, seems to give a good example of a target (the blogs) and why the GNAA hates them. Sam Hocevar 10:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I will try to listen to it, but I am moving into a house today. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. When an encyclopedia article cannot provide a name (other than "TimeCop") for the founder and president of a movement, I'm inclined to believe that there isn't enough information available to write a feature-article. And yes, that's an actionable objection. --Scimitar ^parley 15:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's not "actionable", because there's nothing anyone can do about it. The only thing your objection could apply to in WP:WIAFA is comprehensiveness/length, but if we've both defined an article's subject as being notable (as we have through 6 VFDs), and the article's content as being comprehensive (no other known information exists that can be added), then I don't see how it's a valid objection. -- BRIAN0918  16:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • One could apply your argument to articles such as the Weathermen: who founded the movement? Who exactly were the leaders? How bad is it for the reader if this information is not known, since what is important is the actions and declarations of the group, not the identity of its individuals. Would you have objected to Deep Throat as well two months ago? And anyway, it's not impossible to find timecop's real name. But since for all his GNAA actions he is always referred to as "timecop", not his real name, he probably does not wish this information to be publicised. Sam Hocevar 16:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, if it's possible to get TimeCop's real name, get it, include it, and my objection will disappear. Thus, it clearly is an actionable objection. As for the fact that he may not want his identity published, the concerns of an internet troll are not that high on my priority list. Since the information can be obtained, and is not included, but probably should be, the article is not comprehensive enough. --Scimitar ^parley 17:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No, it's not actionable if it requires original research (which it will - there are no secondary sources that mention his real name). We are not investigatory journalists. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. based on the guidelines, this does not meet FAC standards. #3: "Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes)." (emphasis mine) the GNAA article although quite well written is a constant point of contention, see the 5 or 6 VFD's its had, not to mention which it is a constant troll/vandalism target. To me this hits the "ongoing edit wars" part square on the head. It also does not meet all of standard #2: "Be comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-written." as a subject of vandalism and edit wars it does not classify as stable IMO. Thats my $0.02 anyway. 64.222.238.123 16:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC) (oops forgot I wasnt logged in.)  ALKIVAR™ 16:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • All articles are subject to petty vandalism (especially main page featured articles). Vandalism is not an edit war. This article isn't undergoing edit wars. As the standards stated, "uncontroversial" refers to neutrality and factual accuracy, which has nothing to do with notability (the reason for the VFDs). -- BRIAN0918  16:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've merged/removed several of the citations and references. A suggestion for lengthening the article would be to quote some of the press releases/references within the article. This will help expand some of the small paragraphs and make the article seem less like a bunch of random incidents. -- BRIAN0918  17:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• 'support this article has really made it to feature status Yuckfoo 18:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:GNAA press release.jpg is claimed as GFDL. I don't think you can do that, not when it's a screenshot of two copyrighted programs, has at least four trademarked/copyrighted logos prominently displayed, and is a screenshot of a large block of copyrighted text -- and there was no creative effort involved in making the screenshot. --Carnildo 18:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed. :)  BRIAN0918  18:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And unfixed by Zscout370. --Carnildo 20:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Based on my conversation with Carnildo, I had to place it as Fair use. The image has to be fair use since I cannot take a press release screen shot and make it GFDL. Also, to those who wish to add screenshots, please try it using Firefox and save yourself the trouble of dealing with copyright issues. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This cannot be a featured article in its current state. While this is a group that may be gaining notoriety on the internet, too much of the information is entirely speculative. All of the information on members, policies, goals, leadership, etc. is speculation. As Geogre points out, there is currently no way to create a verifiable encyclopedia article on the group, which therefore puts this into the realm of original research. While many individual events are well-chronicled and well-referenced in the article, it is impossible to discern how these individual events relate to the organization as a whole due to the lack of neccessary background information. I am sure someday this group can be put into proper perspective and perhaps be turned into a first-class encyclopedia article, but it cannot be today. Indrian 18:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't exactly "actionable" in that nothing can be done about it. -- BRIAN0918  18:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • These objections are actionable. To gain my support one would merely have to provide the proper documentation and perspective. If the objection cannot be acted upon because such information is unavailable, then the article should fail as a matter of principle. Indrian 18:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not necessarily that such information is unavailable, but that it doesn't exist, and any speculation would be original research. So essentially nobody there is "no action that can be done to correct your objection", so it's "not actionable". -- BRIAN0918  18:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • We expect the best from our featured articles. If the subject matter does not allow for the best, then the subject matter does not warrant being featured. You seem to think being featured is the natural state of an article, and all objections must involve ways to bring it up to FA status. Sometimes, based on current information, it's simply not possible to bring it up to FA status. Imagine a very well-written, well-sourced article on the seventh Harry Potter book - would you vote to feature that, even though it is entirely unverifiable? Perhaps I should say This is not a valid objection to a valid, actionable objection? Simply put, Indrian gave you the possible action - that you are unable to undertake it is your problem, not his. That you are unable to fix the article does not render it automatically good for FA status. --Golbez 18:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well said. If Mark reads nothing else from this entire monstrosity, I hope he reads Golbez's comments above. Dave (talk) 19:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • How is it my problem? I did not nominate the article nor do I care to do the necessary research. I'm simply replying to the various (expected) objections as I see fit. I do believe all articles can become featured. If any information is not known or cannot be known, then one simply says "this information has never been documented", such as in the Deep Throat article before his name was revealed. -- BRIAN0918  19:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- The fact that I can almost always be sure that Wikipedia will have content relating to developing social themes and trends remains one of WP's strongest attractions for me. This article helps to demonstrate the scope and immediacy of WP's content. Some of the objections made here strike me as unduly pedantic -- the article is well sourced, long enough to be informative, and worth featuring. -- Adrian 19:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I mean Support (what, this is not a VfD? yikes!) Now seriously, the article is well written and meets the criteria. The subject itself is not controversial, rather the existence of the article itself is, and that existence has been established definitely after 6 VfDs. I also support as per Adrian's comment above. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 01:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good piece of work on something obscure. pamri 02:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• I believe that this is a bad-faith nomination and oppose the attempt to bring the ugliness of VfD to FAC... — David Remahl 06:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • **rolls eyes** Think whatever you like. You are wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, and support. — David Remahl 05:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Relax. This is ridiculous. I know second graders who are more polite than the some of the users posting here. Addressing objections does not require explosive and insulting responses. I'd like to thank Zscout370, as he seems to be one of very few calm and rational wikipedians contributing here and to the article itself. If possible, I want to see more of his kind of contributions, relating to the individual members and activities of the organization. There are several very short sections, and more information related to those topics would be great. Even so, this is a support, because it's unclear whether or not more information like this is available. --Spangineer (háblame) 23:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, one more thing—why the link to a dead IRC channel? --Spangineer (háblame) 23:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind words and I have removed the dead link to the GNAA IRC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Support. It's as comprehensive as an article on the subject could be, without being too detailed, and I didn't see any edit wars when viewing the page history. However, after reading other people's remarks, I'm still unsure about the copyright status of Image:GNAA press release.jpg. If it is tagged correctly, assume my full support. Extraordinary Machine 00:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The question about the image was resolved above. I had to make it fair use, since I cannot take a screenshot and make it GFDL, especially if I am using IE. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Zscout cleared the confusion up for me on my talk page, so I have change my vote. Extraordinary Machine 00:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This article is on a source where little information is known. A short article is therefore expected. Having long been a reader of FAC, and having most of WP:WIAFA memorized, I know this article can pass muster. By the way, if you copy the entire article and paste it into Microsoft Word, it is eight pages long. If you copy and paste the enitrety of this ridiculously overwrought FAC discussion, it is 17 pages long as of this posting. RyanGerbil10 04:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Why not. --Golbez 17:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, I am not sure anyone knows this, but Raul654 has removed this from the main FAC section and another admin closed this debate by placing a template on the GNAA talk page notifying us about it's failure to get FA status. I sent this article to peer review so I can let the folks from here tell me what I have to do to get this article Featured. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Doesn't a properly closed FAC require a vote tally, and require the counting admin to reveal himself? --Golbez 17:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • I do not think so, but I can perform a tally if you wish. I am just going to count the supports and objections, but I will also count those that are disputed, since everyone was (except for one symbolic objection). Once I figure that out, I will add to my To do list and see what happens at the Peer Review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
      • (A) The FAC is not a vote; one major objection is enough to kill a nomination; (B) the "counting admin" (the person who failed this nom) is me; on the FAC, it's (almost) always me (with maybe 3 or 4 exceptions in the last year). →Raul654 18:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm coming in late here, but could you please point out which objections were not addressed? Please see Gay Nigger Association of America/FAC Objections for a summary. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. I was actually thinking more of FPC, which almost always carries a vote count at the end. --Golbez 18:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok, off the peer review I go. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Many-worlds interpretation

Interesting quantum physics theory hinting at the possibility of many possible worlds.

Quantum bird 01:36, 30, July 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. Something needs to be done about the dense block of mathematics in section 6. I got lost about a quarter of the way into it.
  2. Section 8 needs an explanation of exactly what is misleading about many-worlds in science fiction, in addition to the why.
  3. Section 9 needs expansion.

  --Carnildo 03:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object I couldn't understand what the intro was saying, so stopped there. Needs to be crafted so that a layman can gain an appreciation of what it being discussed, jguk 07:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I have to agree with jguk - even through I read about this theory earlier, and I am a fan of hard sf, this is worse then star trek technobabble. It may make sense for somebody familiar with quantum physics, but it needs explanation for laymen like most of us are, I am afraid. The lead is quite short, it can be expanded 3-4 times, hopefully with explanation of most of the terms like 'Copenhagen interpretation', Schrödinger's equation, state function, quantum superposition and such. The article seems comprehensive, but it is not easy to read. I don't suggest dumbing down - keep the math and such - but plese add some explanations that would allow most of this to be understood without the need to get a PhD in quantum physics first :) Section 'Speculative implications of many worlds' should be expanded or merged with sf section above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object Like the others before me, I can't consider this article well-written, primarily for the fact that it isn't well-written for a reader who doesn't understand the vast amount of detail that the article relies on. Perhaps if it had been written with us amateurs in mind. ConnorShlatz 2:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object Same as most of the other people above. The article is very vague and tends to go in circles, and even after disscusing the content with one of the main writers in the main talk page, I still have a vague idea of what MWI is about.

[edit] Chicago, Illinois

This article has been subject to a lot of work over the last few weeks and I feel it is one of Wikipedia's best. We have been working hard to correct the objections brought up in the peer review, and all of them have been dealt with. The article was also re-organized to the standard set by WikiProject Cities. It now provides an in-depth look into nearly everything one might want to know about Chicago and finally does the city justice. --Gpyoung ^talk 18:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and Support --Gpyoung ^talk 18:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support- comprehensive, well-written. Just a comment: I would remove the hours of operation and phone numbers from the museums and galleries; they seem irrelevant. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support - for the reasons stated above, and because not only is it a well written article, but one of global import being that Chicago is a city important to global culture and economy. Agriculture 19:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

With the changes that have been made, I now strongly support this article.

• Weak Support - Overall, the article is very well written and comprehensive. Much improved and has addressed past recommendations well. The reason I am voting with weak support is mainly because of the skyline photo at the top. While it is an improvement, the alternative viewpoint of the city focuses on other areas. For example, the Sears Tower (the tallest building in the US) is barely visible in the background - personally, I think that should be one of the major things visible, since that is most commonly associated with the city. Dr. Cash 19:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Article looks good! A very important city and an excellent example of how to write a good city article! Dr. Cash 16:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Chicago lit.jpg does not have information on its copyright status. "May be in the public domain" isn't good enough: either it is, or it isn't.
  2. The image Image:Home Insurance Building.JPG does not have copyright information.
  3. The images Image:ChicagoWinter.jpg, Image:Chicagocityhall.jpg, Image:Secondcity.jpg, Image:SoxPark.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, fair use images should be avoided if at all possible. Of the four images, only Image:Secondcity.jpg cannot be replaced by an image under a free license. That image needs to have the copyright owner listed, and to include reasoning as to why its use on Chicago, Illinois constitutes "fair use". The other three images need to be removed from the article and replaced with free-content images.

  --Carnildo 19:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. The city logo is still of a very bad quality resolution, and I agree with Flcelloguy's comment about the contact details of the museums so much so that I must oppose. Also, here's a link to the recent peer review, and I'm disappointed to see that none of the points mentioned seem to have been addressed fully. Harro5 07:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have removed the phone numbers and hours of operation from the Museums section and I have also found a better, higher resolution image of the city seal. As for the peer review, the vast majority of the chages proposed there have been implemented; the {{Chicago}} template has been reduced in size, the location maps have been totally redone for greater clearity, prose has been added to the Museums section, Health and Medicine was made its own section, and the images that were not tagged have been. If there is anything else that you would suggest please feel free. --Gpyoung ^talk 17:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. Unless a pressing objection surfaces, I'm happy. Harro5 07:20, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Support-I think this is one of the best big-city articles out there. I too agree that the Muesums shouldt have hours listed, this is afterall an encyclopedia, but I see that it has been fixed. POlsen 17:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I think maybe this is a good article, about an important city. 內布拉斯加 00:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose -- 1) The article size is too long. I believe I have commented on this in the previous nomination. For my reasons on page size please see the Louisville nomination below. 2) Misuse of headings. Avoid the numerous headings. Its bloated. 3) History is too long. It should be a summary of the History of Chicago, not a mirror image of that article. 4) Units are poorly formatted, it does not follow the Manual of Style. I've corrected them in the climate section of the Louisville section, it is visible in edit mode. Please make the appropriate changes. User:Nichalp/sg 11:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree with the article size being too long. It currently states that it's 41 Kb. Sure, in the land of 300 baud to 14.4 dialup, this might be significant, but on today's world of broadband, I hardly see this as a problem. Chicago is a very large city, and there's a lot of information to include about the city. I would rather see as much general information about the city as possible on the main city page, rather than having to click for more information on every major subsection. I also noted in the Louisville FAC discussion that the Seattle, Washington and San Jose, California (currently both Featured Articles) are both larger in size than both the Louisville and Chicago articles. Dr. Cash 16:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You haven't read my latest post in the Lousiville article on the size. Its NOT about the bandwidth, let me repeat; its about highlighting the salient points about the city. Please read Wikipedia:Summary style. User:Nichalp/sg 17:51, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, this article is not long because it isnt summarized, it is long because it includes many different topics and tries to cover as much about Chicago as possible. It is long because of an abondance of content, not because of lack of summarization. I and many other editors have tried to cut down on the "fluff" in the article, but not much can be taken out as we seek to completely cover the city of Chicago. --Gpyoung ^talk 20:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - I really want to support this article, but I can't yet. My main gripe is that the article is not cohesive - it reads like a bunch of small sections thrown together, not a single article. This makes the article unable to convey what Chicago means, what it is; the article is currently more like a broad collection of factoids. While I realize there are some complaints about length, it does not cover enough ground. One obvious point is a complete lack of discussion of the many distinct neighborhoods and districts of Chicago (in addition to discussion, a map of these would be fantastic). This article should give a better, "broad-stroke" impression of the city, and summary style should be employed more fully to really cover the topic. There is no reason to need fair use images for a topic like this; I'm sure we have hundreds of editors that live in Chicago and can go out and snap some shots for us, making fair use claims dubious. - Bantman 19:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object - Most of my concerns were addressed in the peer review, but since then the history portion has been subdivided into far too many short sections. I also second Carnildo's objection about the images. We really shouldn't have fair use images like Image:Chicagocityhall.jpg that can be replaced by anyone with a digital camera. No featured article can have unverified images, as this one does. - SimonP 00:57, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I have re-organized the history section of the article in order to group similar sub-headings while still leaving the newly added content, now it is back down to four as with was during the Peer Review. I hope this helps. --Gpyoung ^talk 19:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Support - I feel this is a comprehensive, well-written article that is very qualified to become a featured article. In my comparison of Chicago to San Jose, California (which was a featured article), Chicago's intro and history sections seem smaller, so I don't understand why people are complaining that they are too long. The article does not seem bloated to me, I would rather see more important information on one page than scattered about several sub-pages. A lot of work has gone into this article to have it conform to the standards of WikiProject Cities and the article is now ready to be a featured article. -- Shoffman11 03:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment (not a vote either way), shouldn't there be a mention of Carl Sandburg's 1916 poem "Chicago": "Hog Butcher for the World/Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat/…They tell me you are wicked and I believe them…/And having answered so… I give them back the sneer and say to them:/Come and show me another city with lifted head singing so proud to be alive…

Similarly, no mention of the Haymarket Riot? Of Studs Terkel?

The section on music makes no mention of Chicago's massive (if perhaps belated) role in the folk revival: in the 1970s, Chicago had pretty much taken over from New York as the center of that musical movement, with the likes of John Prine and Steve Goodman and venues like the Earl of Old Town, Somebody Else's Troubles, and (later) Holstein's, not to mention the Old Town School. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:18, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The lead, at least, is now featurable, and I really desperately want Chicago to be a featured article, as fascinating and complex as it is. I'll probably tweak the article some more (under my IP address) to maske it even better. Dralwik 20:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I believe the article is a wonderful example of how a Wikipedia city article should be written. It is comprehensive and well written. I also love that through the history of the article itself many of the contributors have taken chances and have tried different things even though they don't always conform to emerging standards. I've seen this influence and filter into other city articles everywhere which in turn influences the aforementioned standards. This is an example of the beauty of Wikipedia. Many minds all building something for the masses and taking different viewpoints to get there. The day Wikipedians stop taking these chances is the day Wikipedia becomes stale and dies.

Now, while I understand the POV of some who believe the article is too long I disagree with that sentiment. It is my belief that from a usability standpoint readers would prefer lots of summary information with links into deeper articles rather than a list of a bunch of links to deeper articles. Proper use of a TOC prevents massive scrolling if one would like to jump to the section they want. If the article becomes big, then so be it, Chicago is afterall a large global city and much can be written about it. Jasenlee 21:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asteroid

This article gives a lot of good information. I think it has the ability to be a featured article. Rentastrawberry 23:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. While this seems to be a comprehensive and well-written article, it needs references. --DanielNuyu 00:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object-Although the article is very comprehensive and well wirtten from what I can see, I do agree that it needs references. Also, I think more pictures have to be added into the article. I understand that there are not many "different looking" pictures of asteroids, however something has to be done to add pictures that do not all look the same if at all possible, and the pictures that are already there can be moved around the spread them out in the article if no new ones can be added. --Gpyoung ^talk 03:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Isle of Wight

This has literally ballooned into one of the most comprehenisve and noteworthy articles on a small but historically significant, place. It includes good summaries and links to further artciles extending sunjects. Dainamo 10:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose I think maybe the article is ok, but not quite enough for a feature. 內布拉斯加 01:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object There is no listing of references used, or any inline citations. Pentawing 21:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object – references not formatted correctly, some sections are too small while some others need a summary. The images too are poorly displayed. User:Nichalp/sg 07:51, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Acknowledged the observations above are noted for direction in getting the article to meet required standards. Not so sure about ctritcisms of brevity in sections, especially where summarised with link to longer article. Additionally when meeting the requirements of a reference article a lot of small sections can be appropriate. Nevertheless I will seek to address requirements with other contributors Dainamo 19:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Winter of Discontent

This was recently the UK collaboration of the fortnight and underwent major improvements bringing it I think to featured-standard. (I didn't do any of these changes, but will try to fix reasonable objections). The only reservation I have is that it has proved impossible apparently to obtain free images of the strikes - I think though, as famous historical images, these qualify as one of the stronger reasons for fair use, alongside covers of books and suchforth. Morwen - Talk 19:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support but then I did write it. I anticipate there may problems with the images. David | Talk 19:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose images. They are all copyvios! Dunc|☺ 20:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Not quite. There's one that might be public domain. --Carnildo 20:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. If you feel they are copyvios, can I suggest take it to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems and get them deleted entirely! I don't see why we should tolerate copyvios on non-featured articles. Morwen - Talk 21:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The images Image:Finsburyparkrubbish.jpg, Image:Callaghanwaitingatchurch.jpg, Image:Fordstrikers.jpg, Image:Outofpetrol1979.jpg, Image:Callaghancrisisiv.jpg, Image:Dayofaction220179.jpg, Image:Cohsepicket.jpg, Image:Gmwucemeterypicket.jpg, Image:Armyambulances79.jpg, Image:Crisiswhatcrisis.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be avoided if at all possible. If fair use images must be used, then the images need information on their sources and copyright owners, and need an explanation for why fair use can be claimed for each page that the image is used on. --Carnildo 20:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is just a general principle without any specific implications. "if at all possible" and "must" are vague, and could demand removal of all the images or just a few. Do you have any specific suggestions, as to, say, which images are more defensible, or how we might obtain free images of events that happened nearly 30 years ago? Morwen - Talk 21:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • For getting free images, you could contact the copyright holders and ask them to release the image under the GFDL or an acceptable Creative Commons license. You could look for images that aren't currently in the article, and ask the copyright owners to release the images. You could check places with known free-content images: Wikimedia Commons, ibiblio, the US government archives, etc. I'm not sure about British copyright law, but it's even possible that there are some images that were never copyrighted in the first place.
    • If you can't get free images, then you should trim the images used down to a minimum, and follow the rules for fair use. I'd say that the important images for the article are Image:Finsburyparkrubbish.jpg (a good lead image), Image:Fordstrikers.jpg (the Ford strike seems to have triggered most of the mess), Image:Dayofaction220179.jpg (a major event), Image:Armyambulances79.jpg (a major event).
      • If you look at the talk pages I have appealed for images from anyone around at the time. The pictures of the Ford strikers and the Day of Action are video stills from ITN; the rubbish in Finsbury Park and the Army Ambulances are probably from a large photo library which I have not yet identified. They were printed in Whitaker's Almanack for 1980. My impression is that UK copyright law is actually slightly stricter than US. David | Talk 08:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object in addition to the images issues, the lead is underdeveloped too.--nixie 23:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you suggest how it should be improved? I have expanded it a bit. David | Talk 08:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm a passing stranger who was interested in the topic, and that is why I am here. The text is informative and entertaining, and thorough. And I was impressed by the large number and diverse range of images. If the problems with regards image ownership were resolved - and I take the image policy seriously - I would support this article immediately. Without the images, or with relatively mundane stock photographs of the people involved, 10 Downing St, a lorry, striking people in general, I would still support it, although I would be less enthusiastic. If only Wikipedia had been around in the late 1970s, we would have photographs of all these things.-Ashley Pomeroy 14:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pope John Paul II

- After reading the objections to the previous nomination, I belive this article is ready to become FAC. SVera1NY 17:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

The old nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope John Paul II/archive 1 --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The images Image:Pjp2b.jpg, Image:Giovannipaolo 2arms.jpg, Image:Dalai Lama.jpg, Image:Jp ii wailing wall.jpg, Image:Pope and Christodoulos2.jpg, Image:Qur'an.jpg, Image:Toronto.jpg, Image:Yad Vashem.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, "fair use" and other non-free images should be avoided if at all possible. If fair use images must be used, the source for the image must be given, and a rationale as to why fair use can be claimed must be provided for each page the image is used on.
  2. The image Image:Pope-shot-26.jpg is claimed as public domain, which is clearly incorrect.
  3. The rationale for why Image:Pope John Paul II with Pinochet.jpg is in the public domain is confusing.

Object, the prose isn't exactly brilliant, there are very few paragraphs over 2-3 sentences, much of the article reads like bullet points without the bullets.--nixie 23:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The nominator seems to have deleted the old nomination in preparing this one, but I seem to remember it wasn't all that long ago that there was a HUGE list of objections, and I can't see any evidence that any great progress has been made.Harro5 08:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • The edit summary indicates that the old one has been moved to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope John Paul II/archive 1. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Object. The old nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope John Paul II/archive 1. Most of my objections still stand. The Pope deserves a perfect article, and this is not it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object- he he, edit conflict. I basically typed the same thing as Piotrus, but it seems like because of the edit conflict, it "lost" my comment. Anyways, I have planning to rewrite/expand this for a long time, but haven't found the time yet because I've been quite busy. Many of the objections from last time have not been addressed yet. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Military history of Canada

An article I started back in 2003 that has since been much improved by a number of editors. In the last few weeks I've worked to cover the last omissions and bring it up to FA standards. It recently went through peer review, and all concerns raised there have been addressed. - SimonP 22:08, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Support- a great article that is comprehensive. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. What can I say, this is a really good article! Very well written, very articulate, and quite comprehensive. Really deserves to be on the main page. --Mb1000 03:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support, the only thing thats a bit flat is the opening sentence. Otherwise its a great article--nixie 06:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support - good stuff. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object - Although the article is well written and comprehensive I can't help but notice that it seems a little bit to positive at times. I'd like to see less emphasis on the 'for a country of only ... inhabitants' aspect, however unique it might be. The sentence 'Canada fully committed itself to the alliance against Communism being a founding member of NATO and signing the NORAD treaty with the United States' should be rewritten in my opinion, since it was an alliance against the threat of the Communist bloc and its sphere of influence, not an alliance against the idea itself. Also, according to the Wikipedia article on the Vietnam War, 'thousands of Canadians joined the American armed forces and served in Vietnam' which should be mentioned in the article. Regards, Lankhorst 13:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have cleared up the Communist wording, but I am not sure about your other suggestions. With the WWI section I do think it is worth noting that the numbers are "remarkable." Close to ten percent of the Canadian population upped and went to fight in Europe. I also don't think more mention needs to be made of the Vietnam War. It is only one of many conflicts that have seen significant Canadian participation, despite official non-involvement. The Crimean War, the U.S. Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, and likely the current war in Iraq have also all seen thousands of Canadians participate. Overall Canadian participation in these events had little effect on the military history of Canada. The issue is also well covered at Canada and the Vietnam War. - SimonP 14:04, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't really specific in my objections. My general objection with the article is that its tone strikes me as biased in favour of Canada. Not that it is that nationalistic but consider:

• “Once engaged, the Canadian forces performed admirably in South Africa.“
• “The Canadians were well known for their trench raiding skills, and were often used by Allied commanders in difficult and demanding missions. “
• “Canadian, along with British and Polish troops, were subjected to attacks from the strongest and best trained German troops...”
• “...and Canada has a long and honourable history of participation in these missions. “

I'm not an expert on the field, but try to prevent the article turning into a summary of Canada's heroic feats of war. (On a sidenote: I'm from Holland and I deeply respect those WWII veterans I see walking by every year in Wageningen or other places).

Other sentences you could look at are:

• “Countless others shared the suffering and hardship of war.“ - seems self-evident to me
• “A total of 619,636 men and women served in the Canadian forces in the First World War, and of these 66,655 gave their lives and another 172,950 were wounded. Nearly one of every ten Canadians who fought in the war did not return.”

Seems like even more than 10%!

Good luck, Lankhorst 16:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for being more specific. I agree a number of these sentences are problematic, less because they are inaccurate and more because their somewhat flowery language is unencyclopedic. I have gone through and changed the sentences you mentioned, and several others that were similarly written. One remaining sentence that I am not a big fan of is the opening one. If someone could think of a better opening I would be much obliged. - SimonP 16:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

My compliments! About the opening sentence: why not try the approach as used in Military history of France which is neutral and informative about the articles' contents.

Now that my objection has been taken care of, I Support.Lankhorst 17:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I'm sorry I missed this on peer review, but although the article has some really good sections, I'm afraid as it is now it has too many questionable statements, significant omissions, and some nationalistic bias. And that's only up to 1815. Some examples:

• "In 1763, the British emerged victorious, and the French were almost completely expelled from North America."

They were? Actually, I believe many or most of them stayed put.

• "In 1754, the Seven Years' War spread to North America,"

I thought it spread from North America to Europe.

• "...the French had begun to challenge the claims of the New England colonists for supremacy in the Ohio Country to the west of the Appalachian Mountains, into which increasing numbers of the latter were moving to find cheap homesteading land."

Homesteaders in the Ohio Country in 1754? Fur traders, yes. Homesteaders, not so much.

• No mention of the French-Indian victory over the Braddock Expedition?
• No mention of Six Nations activities during the American Revolutionary War??? The split of the Iroquois into "Canadian Iroquois" and "American Iroquois"?
• No mention of the Loyalist exodus from the U.S. to Canada after the American Revolutionary War? The article seems to imply that all the Anglo-Canadians had lived there all along.
• Pretty good coverage of the War of 1812, although the coverage of American Indians is perhaps too terse, and does not put the British-Indian alliances into a wider context.
• But the 1812 coverage stumbles badly when it comes to summing it up: "The borders that had existed before the war remained as they were... [A]lthough the war had been won largely by British regular troops and by her navy, it has long been seen as a Canadian victory."

Seen by whom? Canadians of course! This should be clarified -- the British did not win the war, but the Canadians had dodged a bullet, and could claim with satisfaction a sort of victory. The footnote seems to imply a historical debate, but leaves the reader hanging. (And by the way, not all the footnotes work -- and that footnote style makes the numbers up in the text illegible, in my opinion).

• "Canada has the reputation of being one of the world's most peaceful nations."

This may be true, or it may be PR. Is this a verifiable statement? Source?

[this unsigned, from User:Kevin Myers 16:05, 26 July 2005]]

You raise some valid points, and I have corrected sections. I disagree that mention needs be made of more minor incidents. We must remember that this is a summary article, and it has already reached 44kb. Smaller incidents and more specific detail should be confined to sub-pages, as is standard practice. For instance the Braddock Expedition should be mentioned in French and Indian War, the Militia Myth should be discussed at War of 1812, and the Iroquois participation and UELs at American Revolutionary War. - SimonP 16:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I have to agree here. Unless you can demonstrate that the minor incidents are in fact more important than what is in the article now, it should be left out. Summarizing a big topic requires leaving some things out. The key is to balance it properly of course, and cover every important truly topic without covering every detail. - Taxman ^Talk 22:06, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

It is also important to note that there is an important difference between the French and francophones. The French left but the francophones stayed. It is true that some are unaware of the difference, so I have rewritten that section. The Ohio Company, founded in 1749, was primarily concerned with settlement, the fur trade was only a secondary concern. It should still be noted that the numbers were quite small, and I have now written that the potential for settlement rather than much actual settlement that was the main issue. You were correct that a couple of the footnotes were broken, they are now fixed. I'm not sure what you mean about the footnotes being illegible, the page uses the standard footnote format used throughout Wikipedia. - SimonP 16:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

(Just so you know what I mean: this article uses footnote style #3 I believe ("ref" and "note"), rather than "fn" and "fnb", which I find superior and more legible -- purely personal preference which I should not have brought up here. I'm not sure if there's actually a "standard" format, but of course this ain't the place to discuss that...) --Kevin Myers 02:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'll note that I still believe the article has serious problems; most of my previous objections remain. The article is fixable, but not yet fixed. For instance, consider this revised sentence: "[T]he French had begun to challenge the claims of the New England colonists for supremacy in the Ohio Country." The principal rivals to the French in the Ohio Country were Virginians, Pennsylvanians, and Marylanders; none of these colonies are part of New England. To some this may seem a trivial detail; to me it suggests that more scrutiny is needed, and that the article is not quite ready for "prime time." --Kevin Myers 03:20, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in Ohio history, but I've always heard New England. This view seems to be supported by several websites, e.g. this one states that "most of these first settlers were farmers, and came from the New England area of the United States. In later years the immigrants/settlers were from Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky." - SimonP 13:21, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

That website is talking about post-Revolutionary settlement, about 35 years (and four or five wars!) later than the period in question. On the frontier, that's a world of difference. I don't want to belabor the point (too late!) -- I just cited it as an example of something that was to me clearly wrong. The sentence is easily fixable like this: "[T]he French had begun to challenge the claims of Anglo-American traders and land speculators for supremacy in the Ohio Country." To simplify things for everyone, I'll just fix what I think needs fixing in the article, and leave this page alone. --Kevin Myers 13:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article. --Scimitar ^parley 19:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now, but I anticipate supporting. 1) Ok, in relation to my comments above, I made them in general, but I do agree at least some mention should be made of any major conflicts Canada had soldiers in. Vietnam is the one missing example I can see (the fact that they did not send troops directly, but did contribute supplies and support is notable), and it and any other conflicts with thousands of Canadian soldiers involved do meet the level of importance criteria to at least be mentioned briefly, even if you summarize all of them in one decent paragraph. In relation to that, some of the other sections are unecessarily long, such as the 'American threat' and perhaps WWII. 2) The one and two sentence paragraphs should be eliminated, especially in the lead. They cause poor prose flow and show areas that should either be expanded, eliminated, or merged with related material to flow better. Other than that, great material, and good overall structure, writing and coverage as far as I can tell. - Taxman ^Talk 22:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I've made some of the easier fixes. There are fewer short paragraphs, and I have mentioned some conflicts Canada has indirectly participated in, though I have mostly just added links to the relevant subpages. I think 'American threat' is of appropriate length as it covers almost a century from 1776 to 1867. In the past I have considered moving the WWII information to a separate article and replacing it with a summary similar in length to the WWI section. I raised the issue in the peer review, but no one commented on the idea. - SimonP 02:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Those were good, but now digging into this, I'm getting moe concerned about the POV, especially in the American Threat section. Even the title is a little worrisome. Was American truly a threat to Canada for a hundred years? Was America's goal really to invade and take over Canada? The summary of the War of 1812 seems to promote that and is a bit at odds with the summary of the reasons for that War in the full article on it. Calling the Fenian invasions an "American invasion" seems to imply government support. Is there evidence to back the claim "...it ignored the Fenians openly organizing and training to invade its neighbour."? Then Fenian section seems to give a lot of coverage to what seems to be a minor affair. - Taxman ^Talk 16:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Historically the primary, and realistically only, military threat to Canada was from the United States. Up until the late nineteenth century there was a long series of incidents where war seemed possible and Canadian forces were mustered. See articles such as Trent Affair, Fifty-Four Forty or Fight, Aroostook War, Caroline Affair, and War Plan Red. You are right about the War of 1812. While the Americans did plan to annex Canada, it was far from their only goal one, and was an idea that developed once war with Britain seemed inevitable, rather than a major cause of the war. The Fenians Raids are a fairly important event. They defeated a Canadian force at the Battle of Ridgeway and the attacks were an important impetus for the creation of Canada in 1867. The American government did ignore the Fenians, and some local politicians even gave them tacit support. Later, once the raids caused something of an international incident, the American government did move against them and confiscated their weapons. You are right in pointing out that there is no need to call it an "American invasion," which could imply a government operation. - SimonP 19:07, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, but a lot of that needs some additional backing up, that annexing Canada really was one of the aims of the War of 1812, similar to the reference you added to the Fenian section. For example, I don't know for sure you are right about your characterization of the Fenian affair, but having that reference makes it a lot easier to check. Is that reference also the support for the American government ignoring the Fenians? - Taxman ^Talk 23:03, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• The book cited is a pretty standard text on the subject and covers all the generally accepted facts on the subject, including the involvement of the American government. Rather than return to the library to get a reference for 1812, I've added one to the Canadian Encyclopedia's article on the subject. It's is pretty clear on the matter, stating that "like many other Americans, [the War Hawks] believed that it was the "manifest destiny" of the United States to take over all of British North America. Here was their chance to do so." - SimonP 23:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

That particular quote comes from the "junior" version of the Canadian Encyclopedia, which takes a complex historiographic debate and reduces it to a simple statement for kids, which is, alas, so simplistic as to be misleading. For more nuanced interpretations, see for example Canadian historian Reginald Stuart's United States Expansion and British North America, where he writes about the invasion of Canada in the War of 1812: "But what seemed like [U.S.] territorial expansionism actually arose from a defensive mentality, not from ambitions for conquest and annexation." British-American historian Reginald Horsman has a slightly different take: "The United States did not declare war because it wanted to obtain Canada, but the acquisition of Canada was viewed as a major collateral benefit of the conflict" (from "On To Canada", listed in the references section in the War of 1812 article). Some U.S. politicians called for the annexation of Canada, and many would have welcomed it had the U.S. invasion been successful, but very few (and certainly not War Hawks like Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun) claimed to be motivated by the annexation of Canada.

And I do think the heading title "The American Threat" is clearly POV, since from the American POV of the time, the war stemmed from "the British Threat." (As Reginald Stuart says, Americans considered the War of 1812 to be a "defensive" war.) A neutral heading might be something along the lines of "Border Conflicts" or "Troubles along the U.S. Border" or whatever. --Kevin Myers 06:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It was dumb of me to not notice that was the junior version, oddly the real encyclopedia has virtually nothing on the causes of the war. I have gone back to the library to find a better source. Chartrand states the "the Americans initial ambition was to invade and conquer Canada." Desmond Morton states that "seizing Canada would avenge British inspired Indian wars and provide rich rewards in fertile real estate." Even Roger H. Brown, who is one of the main proponents of the war being a defensive necessity, is also quite clear in his Republic in Peril that the War Hawks were dedicated to taking Canada. He states that "Republican congressmen discussed the concepts freely and openly during the first weeks of debate" and quotes several of the speeches discussing the benefits of taking Canada. I also don't think either of the quotes from Horsman or Stuart contradict the current wording of the article. - SimonP 22:25, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Support Well written, covers all the bases. TomStar81 05:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Fierce object 1. Article is marred by nagging pockets of amateurish and unencyclopaedic quality. Sentence construction, tone, diction, and grammatical integrity are often questionable:
  • "For nearly all of the first century of its existence, the chief threat to the inhabitants of New France came from a mighty confederacy of Native tribes, the Iroquois, and particularly from its eastern-most component, the Mohawks."
  • "In the earliest battles, superior French fire power rapidly dispersed massed groups of Natives, but the Natives soon changed tactics. They adapted centuries of skill at hunting and an intimate knowledge of the terrain with firearms obtained from their British allies into a highly effective form of guerrilla warfare that threatened all of New France except for the fortified cities."
  • During the seventeenth century, there were only minor skirmishes between the two great powers. (...) During the eighteenth century, matters became much more serious."
  • "This expedition was poorly organized and had little time to do its work, having arrived in mid-October with little time left before the St. Lawrence would freeze over."
  • "Yet by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle that ended the war in 1748, France got Louisbourg back..."

2. Too many factual inaccuracies. Evolution of native tactics, measure of "safety" afforded by fortifications in 17th century, British nomenclature of French and Indian Wars, etc. Some serious and thorough fact checking would not be a luxury.

3. Amazingly bad wikification throughout. The Battle of St. Foy makes a good example; also, the editors inexcusably fail to link to any battles of the American Revolutionary War (which certainly deserves its own heading), Quebec, St. Jean, Trois-Rivieres, Cumberland, etc.

A cursory read of the article – stopping at the War of 1812 section for lack of time and temperament – produced the above objections. I think it a reasonable assumption that similar problems persist throughout. Albrecht 06:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed some of the things you pointed out, you are correct that adjectives like mighty don't belong in an encyclopedia. I've also added some links. I'm not sure about the errors you claim exist. The nomenclature French and Indian Wars was perhaps unclear that it was referring to the British colonists, rather than the British in Britain. This has been fixed. It nowhere claims that fortifications were particularly effective, it claims that the fortified cities were fairly secure, which is true. I'm also not sure what is wrong with the evolution of tactics. That section is quite close to the Morton reference which is given. Traditionally there was a view the Native tactics of guerrilla warfare had been practiced since time immemorial, but that view is today universally rejected. - SimonP 12:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Support User:Nichalp/sg

[edit] Astrophysics Data System

The ADS is a vital research tool for astronomers, and contributes as much to annual astronomical output as all the astronomers in France. My PhD would probably have taken me about 40 years to do without it, so I thought it was deserving of a good article. I've worked on it over the last few days and thought I would propose it here as I think it is comprehensive and hopefully reasonably interesting and enlightening for non-astronomers. Worldtraveller 16:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. A good summary, but it seems to fall short of comprehensiveness. Note for instance the length of the sections. Everyking 17:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What more would you like to know? If you tell me I'll include it. Which sections are shorter than they could be? Worldtraveller 18:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Some of the sections are only a paragraph or two long. Everyking 18:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

A section doesn't necessarily need to be long to be comprehensive. Please indicate what you think is missing so I can rectify it. Worldtraveller 18:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support from this ex-astronomer. Well done, sir. ADS was fortunate to be there just as the web was taking off. Query whether it is worth mentioning other on-line sources of academic journal articles, such as http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph ? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point - I'll add details of astro-ph and ADS's integration with it. Worldtraveller 16:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • done that now - Worldtraveller 17:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support: Looks pretty good to me, and meets all the criteria. Giano | talk 19:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support, well organized and seems to provide a pretty comprehensive range of info. Uber nemo 04:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Object- for now. My main issue is with the references. You have them, but there is no way to tell what fact leads to what reference. (Subsequently, the requests for reference I list here would probably be solved by simply writing what the cite is, like this: People choking on chicken nuggets is bad for business (Smith, Jonsey) where a reference by Smith and Jonsey is listed in references below.) Okay, so what is the cite for these statements?:

Several studies have estimated quantitatively how much more efficient ADS has made astronomy; one estimated that ADS increased the efficiency of astronomical research by 333 full-time equivalent research years per year...

"one [study]" - which one?

...and another found that in 2002 its effect was equivalent to 736 full-time researchers, or all the astronomical research done in France.

"another [study]" - which one?

ADS has allowed literature searches that would previously have taken days or weeks to carry out to be completed in seconds, and it is estimated that ADS has increased the readership and use of the astronomical literature by a factor of about three since its inception.

Estimated by whom?

In monetary terms, this increase in efficiency represents a considerable amount. There are about 12,000 active astronomical researchers worldwide, so ADS is the equivalent of about 5% of the working population of astronomers. The global astronomical research budget is estimated at between 4,000 and 5,000 million USD...

Who's estimate is it? To put weight to the following statement, some verification would be helpful.

so the value of ADS to astronomy would be about 200–250 million USD annually. Its operating budget is a small fraction of this amount.

Not as an actionable objection, but as a matter of curiosity, what is its budget?

Studies reveal that the highest per-capita users of ADS are France and Netherlands-based astronomers, and while more developed countries (measured by GDP per capita) use the system more than less developed countries; the relationship between GDP per capita and ADS use is not linear. The range of ADS uses per capita far exceeds the range of GDPs per capita, and basic research carried out in a country, as measured by ADS usage, has been found to be proportional to the square of the country's GDP divided by its population.

Which studies?

ADS usage statistics also suggest that astronomers in more developed countries tend to be more productive than those in less developed countries.

Is there a link to this study?

Statistics also imply that astronomers in European cultures carry out about three times as much research as those in Asian cultures, perhaps implying cultural differences in the importance attached to astronomical research.

"Statistics also imply..." Which statistics? Can you provide any more information on the implication you provide, offer a counterargument to the implication, or provide a reference or link to one who has made it?

Citing these few things would also put weight to the significant claims mentioned in the opening paragraph.

Additionally, and this is just my curiosity again, to your knowledge does any search engine in wide use by the public contain language / code / technilogical advancements introduced by ADS? What about other scientific fields (medicine, for instance). Or is ADS's innovations remain limited to ADS itself. Also, does NASA fund ADS exclusively, or does it recieve help. And do journals have to pay to be listed?

Don't get me wrong, this was an amazing article about a fascinating subject. I look forward to changing my vote in the coming days. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jeffrey, for your very detailed and helpful comments, and sorry it's taken me a few days to respond fully (thanks to Raul for letting the nomination stay up for a few days longer as well). I've now added cites to the references used for these various claims. Regarding the Asian/European cultural claim I can't find any papers countering the claim made in the one I've referenced unfortunately. I've also not been able to find out yet what ADS's annual budget is, but will make enquiries. As far as I know, ADS's technology has not been directly adopted by other journal search engines, probably because it was designed by astronomers for astronomers and may not be easily applicable to other disciplines. NASA does fund ADS exclusively at the moment, I'll add a line about that to the article, and no, journals don't pay to be listed - they're included purely on the basis of astronomical merit. Thanks again! Worldtraveller 18:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Great work, and thanks for looking into that information. Enthusiastic Support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support without reservation. —Theo (Talk) 13:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft Jet Database Engine

Self nomination (one of my focus articles). I think this is pretty comprehensive now! I have referenced it thoroughly, and attempted to explain the various database concepts as well as I can to the layman (one of the peer review comments). I have also got a table that details versions for the history - I realise that the history text is quite dry, but nonetheless necessary. Hope to have this up to scratch before moving on to MDAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well written, very readable (espesially considering the subject matter). Only (minor) thing that ought to get dealt with is the red links. WegianWarrior 09:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

  Hmmm... I'll be getting to it :) Thanks Wegian! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support --Phroziac (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Really an "object", but I'll be away the next few weeks, and I don't want to stand in the article's way because of some obsolete old objection that I couldn't strike out due to my absence. I trust Ta bu to address my points anyway. While this is good work, there are many open questions: Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  1. I'm unsure whether the longish and yet superficial explanations of "Locking", "Transaction processing", and "Data integrity" really belong into this article. Wouldn't it be better to have full-blown articles on these subjects and just give summaries (with "Main article"-links) here? After all, it's not as if Jet was in any way special: these mechanisms are/were commonplace. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Hmmmm... good point. I have created Lock (database). There are some specific things in that section to do with Jet, though. Transaction processing already exists, and I have Jet specific stuff in that section, so don't feel that a {{seemain}} would be appropriate for this section. I quite like the "Data Integrity" section, and feel that it is necessary background information. It's possible that it should be placed into its own article. Not sure, what do others think? The queries stuff is very much specific to Jet, same with security. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  2. I'm worried about the accuracy of these descriptions. The article states, for instance, that "With pessimistic locking it is guaranteed that the record will be updated." This must be qualified by "if the user obtained the lock", otherwise the obvious question a reader will ask is "then why use optimistic locking at all?". The point is that you may get more lock conflicts with a pessimistic policy, which is why optimistic schemes were invented based on the observation that most transactions won't conflict anyway. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Hmmm... my understanding might be faulty here. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

     OK, I see what you are saying. I have updated the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  3. What locking policy (policies) did Jet employ? 2PL? See also concurrency control. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Gulp... don't know! OK, definitely something that needs sorting out. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  4. I presume Jet has read and write locks, but the article talks about locking only in the context of updating. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Another fair point. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  5. "Until the transaction is committed, the only changes that are made are in memory and not actually done on disk." Yeah, really? What about logging and/or file caches? Was caching left entirely to the OS? Strikes me as unlikely, but what do I know what Microsoft did... Maybe safer to rephrase to "Until a transaction is successfully committed, changes are only recorded in temporary storage and not yet in the database itself." or some such. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     I got that from a Microsoft article. Will dig it out and add a footnote. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

     Got this from Microsoft themselves:

     "Since the operations in a transaction are saved up in memory until the entire transaction is committed, application developers can benefit from their use even when a transaction would not otherwise be necessary" [51]

  6. The article fails to explain what a "user" is. I take it that it is a software that uses the Jet DLLs, hence if one human user runs two different programs that both use Jet to access the same database, these two programs would be two "users" in the context of this article. Is that the intended meaning? If so, explain it; a layperson might think the word refers to a human user. If not, also explain it! Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     OK, will do. This is good stuff! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  7. "Queries" talks about SQL queries, but the lead-in paragraph of "Architecture" states that the ability to run SQL queries was only added in later versions... Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Good point. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  8. The lead paragraph states that Jet has been obsoleted by Microsoft SQL Server. When? When did MS stop selling applications based on Jet? Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Will check the MDAC article - it says it in there somewhere. I know it is definitely not being produced any more. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  9. Is it "jet" or "JET"? The lead paragraph has both... Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Good point. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

     Now fixed. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  10. Some minor grammatical/stylistic things such as the use of "till" instead of "until" (I'm a foreign speaker, so I may be mistaken, but "until" strikes me as more formal and more appropriate for an encyclopedia article; I've changed that myself) or "a Jet dynamic link library (DLL) that could directly manipulate Microsoft Access database files (MDB), which was a modified form of an Indexed Sequential Access Method (ISAM) database", which doesn't parse well because the singular last clause (on ISAM) refers to the plural mention of MDB, not to the singular "Jet DLL". (I haven't come up with a good idea how to rephrase this.) Another problem is that some paragraphs are written in the present tense and others in past tense. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

      Ya. Agree it needs a good copyedit. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support, especially like the table in the History section. Phoenix2 03:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Object I read the intro and couldn't work out what was going on. Needs to be restyled so that a layman can understand what it is (by all means have a few technical details later, but at least allow a layman to get an idea of what a Microsoft Jet Database Engine is, why it's important and what it does, jguk 07:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral, the table and graphic down the bottom (in the "History" section) are way to wide... Alphax ^τεχ 10:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed to 300px. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to support, much betterer now! Very detailed article on a difficult subject. Alphax ^τεχ 15:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cochineal

I would like to self-nominate this article because it's balanced and informative. The article provides interesting facts from arround the globe, so it should be interesting to read. DariusMazeika 12:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• refer to peer review mild object Support This is a good start at an article toward featrued quality, but: 1) Cite your sources in a References section. 2) The lead section is inadequate for an article of this length. 3) The article lacks the Taxobox that is used on other articles about animals. slambo 13:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks better, thanks for making the changes so quickly. On the references, they should be formatted as is shown on the page linked above, especially important for online references is the date that they were accessed. Some editors like to see inline citations (like are described in Wikipedia:Footnote3), but I'm still indifferent to footnoting. The lead is better, but the article body now needs more information about the species to be comprehensive. A good comparison for other animal articles is Island Fox which was promoted to featured status about a month or so ago. slambo 15:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have introduced the changes proposed for the lead section and the references into the article. Comment again, please. Thank you. DariusMazeika 21:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Steady improvement, thanks. I've only skimmed it this morning; I'll re-read it later today and reconsider. slambo 11:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Just re-read the article, upgrading my vote to Support. Well done! slambo 02:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Object, I've just adjusted the reference system and given it a good copyedit, it has potential but is not ready yet. Going over it thoroughly there is still room for expansion particularly in the section where the life cycle is described, more could be added to the usage too. There is a mix of metric and imperial measurements. The exact range of catci (seems to eat cacti from two genera, but there is only list of species for 1) needs to be researched and included. There are lots of red links, and quite a few blue ones that link to substandard articles, like carmic acid, which redirects to carmine and they're not the same thing but they are both relevant to the article. Also the cost of cochineal compared to the artifical dyes seems relevant but is not mentioned--nixie 01:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Lifecycle & usage have been expanded, details like pricing, current markets and normalised list of species added. DariusMazeika 21:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Support, some more stubs for the red links, would be good before it appears on the main page. Nice work on getting the photos. --nixie 00:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comments 1) Actual images would be better over drawings of the insect. 2) I think the biology section could be expanded. 3) The history section makes no mention of the pigments cochineal replaced. Circeus 12:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for comments. I am going to improve the article after a weekend - on Monday-Tuesday. DariusMazeika 10:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The article improved according to comments 2) and 3). Currently I was unsuccessful in finding a free macro photo of the insect for 1). New images are on the page, a macro images are expected, too. DariusMazeika 21:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It could be improved, of course, but I'd say it's good enough for FA status already. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:13, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Mild support I'm just a little concerned about the second paragraph being where it is; I'm thinking maybe it should be in the Dye--History section instead of where it is. Does anyone agree with me on that? --JB Adder | Talk 23:42, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • The reason why I have put this paragraph on top, is because it describes what the rest article is about: not only the biology and the dye (as the first paragraph suggests), but also the farming, history and current market, like the second one does. DariusMazeika 07:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay. Now that I know that, I'll give my full support. --JB Adder | Talk 07:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There are a number of orphan paragraphs that are only one or two sentences that either need to be expanded or merged as the create poor prose flow. There is also a fair amount of poor grammar and sentence structure that appears as if it was written by a non-native english speaker. Nothing wrong with being non-native, but it still needs to be fixed. I'll see what I can do, but some of them I won't be able to fix because I won't know what the intent of the author was. Here's one specific one: "The dried bodies of the females or eggs are the main source of carminic acid which is used to make an expensive crimson or carmine red coloured dye primarily used as an food artificial colouring or for cosmetics named after the insect." As I understand it the dye and the coloring are known as cochineal, not the cosmetics they are used in. The sentence is not clear on which is correct. - Taxman ^Talk 16:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've wound up the short paragraphs and fixed the remnant grammar problems.--nixie 06:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • All improvements, and I've done some more, but there is still a lot of very stilted, poorly flowing prose. No offense to anyone, but the writing is far from brilliant. I'll give a little leeway on prose difficulties arising from collating sources, and trying to be careful about the research, but even that can be improved, and there are many cases throughout the article that aren't even due to that. There is also a question of fact, the 'Host cacti' section refers to the cacti being introduced into Australia to produce cochineal dye, but Opuntia tells a different story, and emphasizes the results very differently. Come to think of it, "Side effects have caused a havoc:" is hard to think of as NPOV. Also, from the coloring section: "Each method produces a different colour which results in the varied appearance of commercial cochineal. The immersion technique produces grey grains known as grey cochineal [3]. Heating technique produces almost black grains known as black cochineal." Then where the heck does the red color (or related shades) come from? - Taxman ^Talk 21:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bart McQueary

• Support, he's planning on running for government office and this will be a great "pre-emptive" move to get people aware of who this guy is before any of the lies or mudslinging starts69.154.189.180 05:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is used for pre-emptive strikes?66.32.122.233 19:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That sounds more like grounds for deletion than grounds for featuring. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Carnildo 20:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Even though your comments have been noted and your zeal for participating in Featured Articles votes are appreciated I must inform you that your vote will not be counted when it comes time to count the votes, This is not personal and I urge you to create an account so that you can have your vote officially counted. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong object. In addition to needing a massive NPOVing, there is no copyright information on the pictures used.

WegianWarrior 05:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support, I'm sure that Bart couldn't be happier than to be featured on Wikipedia. He's determined that everyone will know his name - he subscribes to the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity." He makes it a point to make people dislike him. If he runs for office, he surely dosen't expect to win but rather use the publicity. He dosen't accept any money. So all it can do is help him. Go for it! 66.32.122.233 06:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Even though your comments have been noted and your zeal for participating in Featured Articles votes are appreciated I must inform you that your vote will not be counted when it comes time to count the votes, This is not personal and I urge you to create an account so that you can have your vote officially counted. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Terribly written, not at all notable or worthy of Wikipedia's time, no referencing system, no real information of any value...this nomination should be removed. Harro5 07:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

No Harro5 you are wrong. It says on the discussion page "A well written article that also will help serve to raise awareness."

In responce to the unsigned comment by 66.32.122.233; the article don't seem very well written to me. As it stands it is in need of NPOVing (I notice that a number of things that are, how to put it, less flattering have been edited out) as well as a rewrite to make it easier to read. WegianWarrior 10:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think more references should be cited, the lead article needs to be longer and the page could use a cleanup. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose: Right now, it's a "he said" and a "and then he did this, and then this" format, more like a news report than an encyclopedia article. Structurally, the page is focused so much on following every exploit that it's a celebration of him in the guise of a condemnation, and both POV's need to be removed. So far, he has had nearly zero effect on the world and only some slight effect on the digestion of Internet junkies, so it's not really dealing with a significant bit of history or news. The writing is choppy, and, most of all, there just isn't any logical presentation of the subject. And to the IP editor: these are actionable objections, and lawyering about it is absolutely no use. Geogre 16:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article definately needs a ton more references and a much more NPOV. Many times while reading this piece I felt that I was reading a self-promotional brochure about the guy instead of an encyclopedia article.--Alabamaboy 17:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object.
  1. The images Image:Bartley.jpg and Image:Bart 2.JPG have no copyright information
  2. The incidents described in "1.4: Internet Presence": is there any significance to this, or is it just normal forum squabbling?
  3. Overall organization: How is it organized? It certainly isn't chronological, but it probably should be.
  4. Health problems: How is his sleep apnea and other problems significant? And why is it important that he took time out from the announcement to call someone names?
  5. References: The article is completely lacking in third-party references, and much of the "so-and-so says" statements are completely unsourced.
  6. I'm sure there are other problems.

1. --Carnildo 18:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note: the article is up for WP:VFD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bart McQueary 2. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)