Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington 2 Frank Zappa 3 David Lynch 4 Ralph Bakshi 5 University of California, Berkeley 6 Peter Falconio 7 Charles Manson 8 Brain 9 Leon Trotsky 9.1 Comments added after nomination closed 10 Kurt Cobain 11 Evidentiality 12 Nagercoil 13 Chicken 14 Democratic Peace Theory 15 Bucharest 16 Carmen 17 Battle of the Netherlands 18 Boxing 19 The NBA on NBC 20 Grand Canyon 21 Chetwynd, British Columbia 22 Redshift 23 Coffee 24 3D Monster Maze 25 Samuel Francis du Pont 26 Chevrolet Corvette 27 History of Portugal (1578-1777) 28 Ford Mondeo 29 Foolkiller 30 Emergency department 31 Haileybury College, Melbourne 32 Asgard (Stargate) 33 Super Bowl XXXIX 34 Teller-Ulam design 35 Music of Athens, Georgia 36 Jesus 37 Linux 38 International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement 39 Crazy in Love 40 Seventh-day Adventist Church 41 Bobby Caldwell 42 Miracle on Ice 43 Joseph Smith, Jr. 44 Ford Taurus 45 Homestar Runner 46 Salt Lake City, Utah 47 USA PATRIOT Act, Title II 48 Merit badge collecting (BSA) 49 Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) 50 Tumbling Dice 51 Wal-Mart 52 Terri Schiavo 53 Harrow School 54 Compact fluorescent lamp 55 Stairway to Heaven 56 Green Day 57 Analytical Marxism 58 Technology in the Stargate universe

[edit] Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

It is an informative and well-written article anenst a very prominent historical figure. --Anglius 01:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. (Ibaranoff24 03:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC))
• Weak Object. Article isn't very well referenced, in-line citations should be used with footnotes throughout the context. — Wackymacs 08:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object At first reading it seems complete, but there is a great deal of information freely available not in this article, for instance the British Government awarded him the Wellington family seat and estate at Stratfield Saye House, this is not mentioned. His relationships with his wife, Georgiana Fane, Mrs Arbuthnot, Lady Jersey etc. are not touched upon. He was a great collector of art, and as a prime-minister he was unpopular. None of this seems to be touched upon in this article. What's there is good but as a whole it seems incomplete and too lightweight for such a well documented figure. There are also plenty of better paintings (all out of copyright)t which could better illustrate this article. Finally, as Wackymacs says above the referencing is poor. Giano | talk 11:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that the article does not mention everything about the Duke, but it does impart a large quantity of information anenst his military and political activities, gentlemen. However, I am reluctant to indicate his scandalous private life. The article size is also already somewhat large. I have to admit that I do not really possess a sufficient amount of time to append this article, but I shall add a 'link' to Stratfield Saye House. --Anglius 18:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't agree, at 32KB this article is not large, in fact for the biography of an important, and very well documented historical figure it is quite small. One does not have to luridly detail the scandals of his private life, but for a biography to be comprehensive they have to be explained or at least referred to in in an unbiased and non-oppinionated way. There are other anomalies such as "Wellington is often compared to the 1st Duke of Marlborough, with whom he shared many characteristics, chiefly a transition to politics after a highly successful military career" - who compares him? Was Marlborough a Prime Minister? Were the windows of Marlborough's London house all smashed because Marlborough was an unpopular Prime Minister? This does not even tell us about the many problems Wellington's Prime Ministership encountered. Giano | talk 20:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Signore, I merely mentioned the size because it may be longer than preferable, and because I thought it was a part of the criteria. I appreciate your explanation regarding his personal life. I do agree that the article is not always very specific or explanatory.--Anglius 21:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong object; the entire "Wellington as soldier" section is a mess of uncited opinion. The rest of the article could do with some inline citations as well—but they are essential for any evaluation of Wellington's qualities. —Kirill Lokshin 19:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

That is factual, Mr. Lokshin, but I do not know where I would discover references for that section. --Anglius 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Not badly written, but needs work to satisfy Criterion 2(a). The whole text needs fresh eyes. For example:
  • 'The British government was casting about for ways to end Napoleon's threat; and Wellesley helped to supply them.' (Remove 'and' or change the semicolon to a comma.)
  • 'his father was the 1st Earl of Mornington, his eldest brother, who would inherit his father's Earldom, would be created Marquess Wellesley, and two of his other brothers would be raised to the peerage ...' ('Would' as future-in-past is laboured here, and should be rationed; try simple past tense.)
  • 'was to be eliminated at any price necessary' (Remove the last word.)
  • 'oft cited' (Make it 'often-cited' in the 21st-century BrEng.)
  • And yes, it should be BrEng, and is mostly, but for 'defense'. Check for other inconsistencies.
  • In addition, please delink the trivial chronological links (e.g., '20th century' and '1852'), as per WP policy. Leave full dates linked for the auto-format function. It's rather heavily linked, even without the trivial date links, so perhaps search for other opportunities to make for easier reading.

I did not notice those errors in punctuation and spelling, and I thank you for mentioning them, sir. However, even though the article is supposed to be succint, I do not believe that there is anything wrong with a slight amount of literary elegance.--Anglius 18:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If, by 'a slight amount of literary elegance', you're referring to redundancy and archaic language, no, it's better not to have it in this register, which should be as plain and direct as possible. Language can be elegant and plain at the same time; that's the beauty of English. What I'm objecting to is neither. Please go through it and fix it up; the job will take a word-nerd (preferably someone who's unfamiliar with the text) at least an hour, possibly two. Tony 01:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I shall attempt to shortly, "Tony1." However, I cannot promise anything presently--Anglius 01:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Please attempt to be patient with me, gentlemen.--Anglius 20:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I intend to do that.--Anglius 20:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Zappa

An informative and well-written article about the late composer (December 21, 1940 – December 4, 1993). (Ibaranoff24 02:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

• Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 03:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC))
• Comment - the first 2 headings (1 Early life and influences & 2 The Mothers of Invention ) should be subdivided into some sub-headings because they are just too long. And does he really have a statue in Germany? Renata3 04:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There is no references section, instead they are all in a 'Further reading' section - The article needs to cite sources it used and should have a Notes section for in-line citations using footnotes. Otherwise looks good. — Wackymacs 08:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object - needs copyediting (but that is minor). Main problem, as stated above, is that sources are not correctly cited. This is mostly a well structured, and well written article - it would be a great shame if it fails in it's nomination simply because sources are not cited. Rossrs 01:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Tentatively Object Good article, well composed and NPOV is spot on, completely spoiled by lack of cited sources. The info doesn't look taken verbatim from any one of the links in further reading, which is a huge plus in it's favour. I really didn't know much beyond the name of this musician before, but this bio was more informative than his own website! Please cite sources, then count this as a Support.--HasBeen 08:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Tentatively Object ditto HasBeen. Rlevse 18:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Lynch

An informative and well-written article about the avant-garde filmmaker. (Ibaranoff24 04:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

• Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 04:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC))
• Object. Private life and trivia sections need converting into prose as proper sentences and paragraphs without lists, at the moment they are breaking up the flow of the reading in the article. The article also needs in-line citations for better referencing using footnotes. Otherwise look good. — Wackymacs 08:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Agree with User:Wackymacs's comments about in-line citations and the lists - trivia and private life sections should go completely. Anything that can't be incorporated into the text of the article as prose probably isn't worth mentioning anyhow. For a director considered important within the industry more discussion is needed about what/who influences his work, and in turn who has been influenced by him, to place his work in a greater context. It would also be beneficial to include some quotes discussing his work - ideally some from Lynch and some from other filmmakers, or critics. There are also a couple of sentences that need clarification. For example : "Lynch has managed to establish himself as one of the few modern directors whose visual and verbal styles are instantly recognizable". This appears in the lead paragraph but you have to read right through to the "trivia" section to find the point even half clarified, and it's not clarified or discussed very well at all. (It's also gramatically awkward - should simply read "Lynch has established himself...". The "managed to" is redundant.) From the section "Eraserhead" - "The film shows the influence of pioneering experimental filmmakers, such as Maya Deren and Luis Buñuel." How? It's a bald statement that incorrectly assumes the reader is going to make an automatic connection - it has to be justified. This type of unsupported statement needs to be expanded upon. The section "Philadelphia and the short films" has 3 consecutive paragraphs all starting with "In (date).....". Need to avoid repeating words and phrases like this. In general the article is well written, but needs more depth in some areas. Rossrs 17:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support pending removal of trivia and private life sections. There needs to be more film-related featured articles. Zzzzz 18:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object; needs footnotes or alternative inline citations. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Needs a thorough copy-edit. For example:

'With intentions to become a painter'—better as 'With the intention of becoming a painter'.

'he was raised throughout the Pacific Northwest'—'throughout' might be an overstatement.

'made a series of complex mosaics'—Is there a better word than 'made'?

'exhibited many elements'—'contained' or another word?

'to attend the M.F.A. studies at the'—no way.

Most US and UK style manuals frown on 'due to': better as 'because of'.

Is it in AmEng? It should be; check 'cancelled'.

I can cope with all the abbreviation dots, I suppose, but please reconsider the apostrophe in 1980's; it's NY Times style, I know, but they're very old-fashioned on that point.

Please delink all of the trivial chronological items, as per WP policy at Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. Retain links for the dates that contain day and month. Tony 03:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Bakshi

An informative and well-written article about the animation legend. (Ibaranoff24 02:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

• Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 03:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC))
• Object. 'Early days' subsection is much too short. Filmography section needs cleaning up, maybe into a wikitable? References are very scarce, what about books? articles? newspapers?. — Wackymacs 08:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object Too few references. Zzzzz 18:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Sourced almost entirely from ralphbakshi.com. Monicasdude 18:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] University of California, Berkeley

I just was over there and was very surprised this wasn't featured, assuming it was a pic copyvio issue holding it back. This article is long, informative and beautiful, but I have no vested interest, so you can pick it apart as you will. karmafist 22:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Object: Way too many 1-2 sentence paragraphs are in this article. It may be long, but it is not thorough enough. Especially in the history section, too many paragraphs start introduces a topic, but there is no citations or supportment or thoroughness with all of the paragraphs in the history. There are several lists that should be converted to prose. Research facilities and Points of Interest should be combined into a single See also section, and there is only 1 reference for the entire 35 kb article, which is certainly not enough. The article contains way too many undeveloped paragraphs. There is somewhere around 23 of such paragraphs that have no more than 2 sentences. AndyZ 01:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. English could be improved quite a bit, the last few sections : 'Distinguished Berkeley people', 'Student Groups', 'Research Facilities' and 'Points of Interest' ruin the article as they are all short lists - Maybe these could all be merged into a 'See also' section?. The 'Organization' section is terribly messy, consisting of a long list which needs to be converted into prose and described in detail or either removed/merged into another part of the article. My major concern is that the article is not well referenced, 1 reference for the entire article is not good enough - what about other books, and articles? newspapers? etc. In-line citations should also be used in the form of footnotes for really good referencing. — Wackymacs 08:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object: I don't agree. I have been watching and occasionally editing the article and I feel it still contains too many vague statements, too many unsourced claims, and still too much boosterism. Mike Dillon 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The image Image:Free speech.jpg does not have a clear source or copyright statement.
  2. The images Image:Haaspav.jpg, Image:Edstadium.jpg have two contradictory copyright statements: GFDL, and Wikipedia-only.
  3. The image Image:StanleyHall final.jpg is tagged as "fair use". There's no need to use a fair-use image here: it can be replaced by a photo of the current construction site, or we can wait half a year and put in a photo of the finished building.
  4. The image Image:Tien Center.gif is tagged as "fair use". I can't tell from the article if this building is currently under construction, completed, or only in the planning stages. In any case, the options are the same as above.
  5. What is Image:Cal-logo.gif the logo of? The article doesn't make it clear.

  --Carnildo 09:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, mostly for the stub sections at the bottom, the listing of only one source as a reference, and the absence of notes of any kind. As far as I can tell, University of Michigan is the only featured article on a university; I think it's pretty good. For example, it has a section on student life, which this article lacks, and that's a huge omission. Melchoir 23:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Three points:

1. "The University of California" is rarely if ever used to refer to Cal, Berkeley -- contrary to its listing among the various names for this campus.

2. The University of California is not "separate" from the Cal campus; it is now the umbrella organization to which Cal and all the other U.C. campi belong.

3. The passage saying that Eldridge Cleaver is why the 1968-69 year had so many police and national guard on campus is largely in error. (I was there.)

The Fall quarter (fully in 1968) had Eldridge Cleaver "guest lecturing" (almost?) all meetings of a particular course, having been granted that status by its prof. The Regents objected, soon passing a rule that no guest lecturer could lecture more than twice in a given course. Some degree of brouhaha on campus ensued.

The Winter quarter had intense lobbying for the establishment of Black Studies courses by the "Third World Liberation Front" -- which at one point involved a sit-in, I think in Sproul Hall (the administration bldg.) and police came to end the sit-in IIRC.

The Spring quarter had many people informally developing the piece of land (between Telegraph & Bowditch, Haste & Dwight) owned by the University that came to be called People's Park, by planting things, adding playground equipment, etc. Roger Heyns, then Chancellor, insisted they leave so the Univ. could assert its ownership rights and, it was said, convert the land into a parking lot. In the early hours of IIRC May 15, 1969, any people camping out there were ousted and a chain-link fence erected around that block. The next day angry speeches criticizing this action were given at Sproul Plaza. Apparently student body president Dan Siegel ended his speech with the words "Let's take the park" (for which he was later charged with inciting a riot). Many people hurried to the park and tore down the fence. On that day or during the next few days, that area of Berkeley had many police, many people milling around protesting the University's actions, a few people tossing projectiles at the police, and a certain amount of police response that included shooting live bullets. One man (James Rector, reported to have been sitting peacefully on a roof just watching) was killed by a bullet, and another (also reportedly just a bystander) was permanently blinded. National Guard troops were *not* involved, though police from surrounding cities may have been called in.

National Guard were indeed called in a year later in May, 1970 after Nixon invaded Cambodia and the Kent State, Jackson State, and Augusta State shootings led to many Cal professors' holding courses off campus and at least two entirely peaceful major protest marches on Shattuck Ave. Then-state governor Ronald Reagan in a total non sequitur announced "If they want a bloodbath, let them have a bloodbath."

National Guard troops occupied Berkeley for three weeks, during which no more than two people were allowed to walk together; if three or more did so, they often found a tear-gas canister skittling along the street toward them. The most craven government action was, apropos of absolutely nothing, that one day National Guard positioned themselves around the perimeter of Sproul Plaza with fixed bayonets pointed inward. Moments later, a helicopter flew overhead spraying tear gas all over the plaza. The students thus trapped were ones who had chosen *not* to protest, but who were crossing the plaza between classes.

I copyright my above accounts, but gladly license them to Wikipedia. Daniel Asimov Daqu 01:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Daqu 01:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Falconio

I believe this is a great example of how to cover a case like this. The development reads compellingly, and the facts are presented neutrally. I'm not a fan of covering current events on WP,but if we're going to do it, this is a fine example. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The lead is too short, the article is missing a References section and requires some form of in-line citations using footnotes. The article is very listy, all the lists need to be rewritten as proper sentences and paragraphs. I'm also not quite keen on the 'Missing person or murder?' header title with it being a question. Image:Joanneleesfrontpage.jpg is missing a fair use rationale and source, Image:Falconio_couple203.jpg's license templates are clashing, PD and fair use? and its missing a source, Image:Peterfalconio.jpg has no source information, Image:Bjmurdochmugshot.jpg has an unsure license and no source, Image:Murdochcctvimage.jpg is missing a source and fair use rationale, Image:Barrowcreek.jpg is missing a source and a fair use rationale!, The other images on the page also have source/license problems. — Wackymacs 22:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. While this article's title, under Wikipedia practice, indicates its subject is Peter Falconio, it contains next to no information about him. This article appears to be an exhaustive discussion about his disappearance and the trial of his killer. Whatever the merits of the writing and research, I'm not even convinced the subject of the article meets the notability test; unfortunately, an individual murder is not "notable" in and of itself, and I've seen AfD notices over (much shorter) articles on crime victims. At the very least, the subject of the article should be more appropriately specified by its title, and a clear explanation of of any claim of notability is needed. Monicasdude 23:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment OK, OK, I got carried away. Withdrawn, yes it needs a little more work. I like it a lot, though. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Great article. Three minor points; Is the article on Falconio or his disappearence, a title cchange should happen. There are a few lists, maybe something to think about...and I dont see the need for the second Murdoch image. Other than that, fantastic! (Smerk 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

Object agree with the comments above especially relating to references and the transformation of material from list to prose. The article is not about Peter Falconio. About 75% seems to be about the trial of Bradley Murdoch. Therefore even calling the article "The Disappearance of Peter Falconio" would be incorrect. It is more "The Trial of Bradley Murdoch" than anything else - Falconio emerges from the current article as little more than a supporting character - his bio is so scant we don't even have a date of birth for him. I think the case is well and truly notable - I don't think there is any problem there. Maybe not notable in the world media, but in the Australian and to a lesser degree British media, absolutely notable. Rossrs 02:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Manson

Peer review page

Has been through peer review (link above) where an issue about lists was solved. The article is well written, and covers the subject in sufficient detail. If there are any reasons to object I'll try to address them. — Wackymacs 21:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. "References" and "Further reading" sections need to be broken out seperately. Article has only two citations, both of which are inline external links -- there is no way for the reader to tell what fact is referenced by which book. Example: due to his erratic and arguably dangerous and insane behavior, it is highly unlikely he will ever be released -- whose opinion is this? Ours? I appreciate the restrained use of images. There is a weirdly-placed and emphasized external link at the end of the "Aftermath" section. Stylistically, I think that the "Media" section is too long, and the article in the "See also" section does not need that much prominence and could easily be moved into the prose. I will be happy to support once the article is thoroughly sourced, but I hope that some of my stylistic suggestions are considered. Jkelly 21:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Article is fairly well written and thorough. However, the external link in the aftermath section mentioned above should be moved or incorporated into the article. Again, there are no citations within the article, using {{ref|#}} and notes {{note|#}} at the References section to create citations and then organizing the references section. However, if these issues are addressed, it could still use some work and expansion, especially with several 1-2 sentence paragraphs. AndyZ 15:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Object no explicit sources! Plus isn't this in bad taste to lead the whole project with, even for just one day? Well edited article though: very consise without losing content. Perhaps this alone should merit an award? --HasBeen 08:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Being a Featured Article is not the same as being on the Main Page. Also, the subject of an article cannot be used as an objection. Theoretically, any article which can survive AFD can become featured. - The Catfish 05:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment True, but this honour pretty much puts such entries into the queue for the front page, right? "The director makes selections from the pool of featured articles in accordance with these guidelines. If you want to nominate an article to appear on the front page, please do so on this page's talk page. The article must already have featured status".It's not that I'm objecting necessarily on stuffy grounds, as much as pre-empting a particular line of attack for people wanting to rubbish the wiki project. The article itself highlights the huge interest in Manson as a warped guru; do we want to run the risk of being accused of abetting this? Just a thought, not a direct challenge to the entry as such... The referencing part is the objection really. --HasBeen 09:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• No. Articles are only put into the queue for Main Page if they are added by a user, they are not automatically put there by an admin when they achieve featured status. This wouldn't be a bad nomination for the main page - There has been worse on the Main Page before, among with other murderers and serial killers. I'll see what I can do about referencing the article better with in-line citations. — Wackymacs 11:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brain

This article about the most important part of the body has much improved. It has an excellent illustration for the cover page. --EncephalonSeven 05:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

For previous nomination, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brain (archive) --Andrew Levine 07:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object. 'Brain Regions in Vertebrates' subsection is a long list which needs converting into prose and written into detailed explanation for every link it contains. The Notes section needs to be a numbered list instead of bullet list. Image:Brains.jpg is missing a license template. External links section needs to be at the bottom below the Refs and Notes sections. — Wackymacs 15:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I just changed the Notes to a numbered list and moved External links - The Catfish 19:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object and comment. Main objection occurs under the Brain Regions in Vertebrates list, where all of the parts of the brain should receive some sort of explanation besides what it stands for in Greek. Putting the greek definitions for the parts of the brain probably isn't the most relevant way to describe the regions. Also, many parts of the sublists are either capitalized or placed in bold font, which isn't incorrect, but is overused especially under the subdivisions of the brain. As for the comment, first off the Related topics is generally called See also. Virtuallly all of the links in the Invertebrates section are red and don't have any article at all. Usually, the History section of an article comes closer to the top as opposed to its location in the bottom of the article. Also, in the The biology of the brain section, the summary is placed at the end; perhaps it would be better to shift it upwards so that readers don't have to read the entire thing just to find there was a succint summary at the bottom. Some of the paragraphs in the history section could use a tiny bit of improvement; most are just 2 sentences. Other than that, it's okay. AndyZ 20:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The intro is too long and disjointed. The history section should come immediately after the intro. The brain regions section clutters up the page and it already has its own article over in list of regions in the human brain. Pathology is strangely listed before anatomy, so people have no clue what is being said. Wikification is disjointed and repetative with weird capitalizations. Phrases such as "the human brain is a collection of 100 billion neurons, each linked with up to 25,000 others" in the intro have no reference whatsoever... Ugh. I hate to be a shit but a lot of work needs to be done before this goes to FA. I'll work on fixing what I can over the next few days or so. Semiconscious (talk · home) 09:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

From this discussion, it appears that someone experienced in wikipedia formatting should reorganize the article. It could be polished further then. --68.55.196.15 18:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article needs a lot of work. While some subsections are great, the article needs to be reorganized considerably. Also, the internal logic has to be made-consistent. For example the intro states that invertebrates use ganglia rather than brains, but then the article spends a lot of time talking about invertebrate brains. There are a lot of unsourced facts, and a lot of extraneous information. Some of the headings have nothing to do with the section that follows them, see for example The importance of the brain. The sections that follow are general descriptive paragraphs about brains that state nothing about its importance. Importance for what?? Also some subsections occur at weird places and out of order. The list of brain regions should really be taken out and linked to its own article, the section should then be converted to a paragraph outlining the MAJOR subdivisions and the logic behing the various ways of subdividing the brain (eg. anatomical, developmental, functional). This should ideally be accompanied by a helpful diagram. The only useful diagram in the article is the one of a neuron, and the intro picture is nice. The other 2 are basically 'fluff' and convey no useful information related to the article. I think all the elements are there to make a great article, but it still needs tons of work. I'll be happy to work to improve the article over the next few weeks and will contribute where I can, but as of now it certainly is not ready for FA. Nrets 01:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object - needs reorganizing, needs a lot of pictures (I know it's hard to get them; btw I think we have a featured animation of human brains), needs clear & simple clasification & description of brains in different organisms (now it has overhelmingly too much about humans/mammals). Renata3 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leon Trotsky

I stumbled on this article a few weeks ago and found it very impressive. I have made just a few small adjustments to the article, as the bulk of the work was done by others. A detailed biography, extensive references section and citations, illustrative and fully-tagged images, and a talk page and history that show no significant factual or POV disputes. Andrew Levine 18:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and Support. Andrew Levine 18:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object. This is a good article, and I anticipate supporting it after some minor technicalities: 1) transform external links in main body into proper footnotes 2) ToC is too big, and many sections are stub sections. Consider removing some sections for a smaller ToC. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Fantastic article. (Smerk 03:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC))
• Support. Very well done. (EncephalonSeven 05:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC))
• Minor object. Great work, but an article of that size should have a longer introduction for the convenience of those who can't spare the time to read it through. Kosebamse 08:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The lead does exactly what it's supposed to and is as long as it needs to be. It gives a concise overview of who Leon Trotsky was, and what happened to him. Just because it's a long article doesn't mean it needs a long lead. I think maybe I will add a sentence or two about how influential he is on present-day organizations and that should be enough. Andrew Levine 17:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. "Theory" section is too short and not terribly substantive; its opening sentence, "Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky," is virtually useless. Monicasdude 15:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have removed that sentence. This article, which is a biography of Trotsky and not an overview of Trotskyism as noted at the top of the page, is too long for a detailed and substantive discussion of Trotskyism to be added, and that's why both the Theory section and the main article itself both lead off by suggesting the reader visit Trotskyism for a detailed discussion of his theories. Andrew Levine 17:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I still think the theoretical section isn't substantive enough; at the very least it calls for some brief exposition, rather than mentioning those whose ideas he did not share. Monicasdude 21:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I added a little more to the section to provide some more explanation of what Trotskyism is rather than just what it isn't (also note the subsection of the "Contribs. to Theory" section, which goes into detail about his concept of Permenent Revolution). Still, I really think that getting any deeper into Trotskyism in Leon Trotsky would actually make the article worse, given (1) the present size of the article and (2) the fact that Trotskyism was split off from this article in order to focus on that subject more, so that Leon Trotsky could concentrate more on biography. Andrew Levine 23:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object. ToC is over-complex, external links section is in Bold for some reason. The lead is very short, only one paragraph for such a long article? There are also lots of red links and more pictures would be a nice addition. — Wackymacs 15:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have fixed the External Links to remove the excessive bolding.
  • The lead is being addressed as stated above.
  • There are actually very few red links, and those lead to articles that need to be created. Their visibility is a good thing.
  • The article already has nine pictures, but I will look for a few more. Andrew Levine 17:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• The 'external links' header is in bold still, but that sections context is no longer in bold. The notes section should be a numbered list instead of a bulleted list. I meant more pictures in the sections that do not have images, mainly the middle sections. I know there are not many red links, but it would be nice if those articles were created as stubs for now. — Wackymacs 21:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• I just converted the notes to a numbered list The Catfish 23:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have one more reason to object: The 'Trotsky in Literature' section is just a small bulleted list which needs either expanding into prose or merging into another section as prose. — Wackymacs 14:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is not a valid objection, as there are over 50 current Featured Articles that include a small section that's just a bulleted list of items that could be rendered as prose but for organizational reasons aren't. For just a few examples, see England expects that every man will do his duty#References in popular culture, Octopus card#Future developments, Three Laws of Robotics#Pastiches, parodies and adaptations, etc. --Andrew Levine 03:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but you're missing the point, the fact is that this is a valid objection because it can be easily addressed. Do not compare your article to other featured articles because their circumstances could have been different, and may have been featured a long time ago. If you just fix the last few things I've mentioned I'll be willing to support ;) — Wackymacs 08:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. At 93 kb, this article could use being broken down into appropriate subarticles with summaries of those articles at the main article, a la Joseph Smith, Jr. The Catfish 23:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hugo Chavez is 100kb. It's a featured article. (P.S. Thanks for the numbered list help.) Andrew Levine 23:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. As for the length, I still think it could stand to be broken down more to keep the length down. Hugo Chavez does this too, and I can't imagine how long it would be if it didn't. I'll try to help out with the subarticle-ization. - The Catfish 05:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. I think it's an excellent article. I also think it is a bit long-winded for the general reader. Perhaps we could transform the bulk of the material here into a three-article series (with a nod to Isaac Deutscher) and edit this main article down to a shorter overview article? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - 94kb is far too long. I'm sure the authors have the knowledge and enthusiasm to write several hundred kb more, but the skill in writing an excellent encyclopaedia article on a major historical figure such as Trotsky is to write it concisely. 32kb is no longer a technical restriction but is an excellent figure to aim for when writing a featured article. Also, please try to cut down on the number of references, many of which are multiple citations from the same source and could be consolidated. More than 20 or so citations gives an article the feel of an academic paper instead of an encyclopaedia article. The lead section could do with being somewhat longer, three paragraphs would be ideal. Also, the TOC is very long, and the capitalisation of section headings doesn't conform to the WP:MOS. Worldtraveller 21:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I totally disagree with the objection about citations. It amazes me that someone can object to an article being too thoroughly cited! -- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • We've got to remember we're an encyclopaedia, not a repository of academic papers. Important controversial facts should be individually referenced, but not every detail in the general flow of the text needs to have a footnote to explain where it comes from. Too many footnotes disrupt the text and distract the reader. If every sentence had a footnote and a reference, I'm sure you'd also agree that was excessive, no? There's a balance to be struck, and it's certainly just as possible to have too many citations as too few. Worldtraveller 15:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • While I personally find every sentence having a footnote and a reference a bit excessive, it is pretty much mandated by Wikipedia:Verifiability as it now stands, if each successive sentence has a different source than the one preceding it. If the standards and guidelines should change (and perhaps they should) fine, but I don't see how we can say that complying with current standards and guidelines should disqualify an article from being featured. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Not sure I see where the verifiability page mandates such excessive referencing. I think the relevant guideline is in fact the brilliant prose criterion - excessive referencing severely harms the readability of an article and puts off many readers. I am a scientist, and of course I write journal papers with scores of citations, but when I am a general reader I have no need of such large numbers of citations - specific facts referenced, and a list of the books/papers used when writing the article are all that I require. The referencing in this article is too obtrusive, in my opinion. Worldtraveller 01:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I'm not sure how many inline citations where there when Worldtraveller saw it first, but 43 doesn't seem like too many to me. They do get a bit dense from the range 25-36, so reducing those down a little bit would be great. I agree, however, with the length problem (see Wikipedia:Summary style) and I have no idea why there is a section as short as 'Criticisms'. Remember that subarticles are your friends—people doing serious research on the guy can find all the nitty gritty details they want, while the normal Joe who wants to know what the guy did doesn't have to read for 45 minutes. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments added after nomination closed

• Strong Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing to object after looking at some technacalities, I think 94 KB is way too long, and maybe the article can be split into two separate one's as John Smith's was (is). εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Change my mind again, this deserves it. Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support- Great article Johhny-turbo 01:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - With so much trash promoted to FAs these days, this article on such a controversial subject is truly outstanding. --Ghirla | talk 16:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- As the editor responsible for 80% of the current version, I should probably address some of the questions raised above.
  • Size - Once it became clear that the article was getting really long, I suggested splitting it into more manageable chunks. However, the idea was poorly received on the Talk page, so I let it grow. And grow. And then grow some more :) If there is a consensus that the article would be better if it was split into, say, "Before the 1917 revolution", "Revolution and the Civil War", "Between the Civil War and the Exile", and "The Last Exile", I am sure it would be workable. Also, a good half of the verbiage in the Brest-Litovsk section could be profitably moved to the parent article, which I was planning to do at some point.
  • Theory - There was a separate article on Trotskyism when I started the rewrite in the fall of 2005 and another editor moved the theoretical sections of "Trotsky" to "Trotskyism" around the same time.
  • Criticism - This was a medium size section that I was going to rewrite once I got to it, but another editor moved the then current version to the Talk page due to it being controversial and poorly attributed. It could probably be rebuilt given enough time and a strict adherence to NPOV. Moving Emma's Kronstadt comments there would be a good start.
  • TOC is too long - Perhaps we could merge some shorter sections? No preference either way, really, just whatever makes it easier for readers to follow the text.
  • Too many footnotes - Trotsky is still somewhat controversial after all these years, so I tried to have attributions for anything remotely questionable. Also, I was going to move some of the footnotes into the body of the article, but got sidetracked. And if you think that Leon Trotsky is too footnote-rich, you really don't want to read the article that I put together on his sister, Olga Kameneva :)
  • The article is too verbose - Guilty as charged. The current version was a second draft and I was hoping to come back to it and do some polishing/pruning after a month or two, but haven't been able to.

Finally, I would like to thank Andrew Levine and other editors who have been trying to get the article in shape over the last month or so. Time and health permitting, I will go over the current version at some point and do some minor cleanup. Ahasuerus 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thing re: footnotes:

We've got to remember we're an encyclopaedia, not a repository of academic papers. Important controversial facts should be individually referenced, but not every detail in the general flow of the text needs to have a footnote to explain where it comes from. Too many footnotes disrupt the text and distract the reader.

It's true that most encyclopedias do not have a lot of footnotes. However, many encyclopedia editors have an industrial strength database that they use when they are writing or editing. James Monaco has his "BASELINE" database, John Clute has his master catalog, and so on. Based on their track record, we trust these editors to do a reasonable job of keeping their databases updated and accurate. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't have anything comparable. There is no master database of facts and sources and articles are not guaranteed to be have been edited by people with established reputations. Therefore, the need to document and attribute sources is much greater and footnotes are the best mechanism we have come up with so far, warts and all. Ahasuerus 06:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I have seen the changes made in this article from when it was a very simple article to what it has become now, thanks much to Ahasuerus.

Comments: about the article size. The article is big, period. You can't get around that. The only thing that breaking it up into smaller articles helps is: lowering the bandwidth of the dial-up user and more importantly, lowering the bandwidth that wikipeda's links have to handle-- minimal gains, none the less. The article is big, it will take time to browse through this much information whether in one article or in many (and it would take more time to browse through many articles than just one article). IF anything, I think the fact that the article is this big should qualify it even more as a featured article for wikipedia. Content, ie: facts, should not be inhibited by fears of article size (90+ KB is nothing). This article is very good.--So Hungry 01:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Cobain

I nominated this article back in June, and it failed. The nom was replaced on FAC by User:Windwaker but this nom was not updated. I'm not voting at this time, but I think it appears close enough to fix the nomination rather than remove it. Tuf-Kat 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Besides objections above, the section "Kurt's Gear" is not cited and needs wikifying to boot. This article is entirely fixable within the FAC period and I hope to soon support it. Andrew Levine 06:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Andrew commented before this page was updated before the new nom, so he is referring to the objections that were above at the time. Tuf-Kat

• Object. The 'Kurt's Gear' section is listy, it needs to be turned into prose, wikified and detailed. There are also image copyright/source issues, please fix this as well. The fair use images need fair use rationales. Image:Kurtinamsterdam-91-11-25screaminghard5.jpg does not have any source or license. — Wackymacs 09:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object Not really our best effort yet is it? Perhaps with a lot more work - come on, this guy is everywhere over the net. We need something that puts his own website to shame for a front page article.--HasBeen 09:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object - With respect to the lead section, nearly half of the article text deals with addiction/suicide/death but this is not summarized here. Since the lead section is a summary, the two references to footnotes probably should go in the main text somewhere. With respect to the references, it would be cleaner to have a Notes section with only footnotes (all of the forward links go here, each has a back link), and then cite the complete sources in the References section. JonHarder 15:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Many of the key features for why this failed before have been resolved. --Windwaker 00:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Jeez, he's not that important. (Ibaranoff24 03:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

• Huh? You are objecting because you don't like Kurt or I am missing something here? Renata3 04:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• This objection is not valid - You cannot object on the basis of wether the subject of the article is 'important' or not. — Wackymacs 08:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, writing is not too flash, image licences are still a problem.--nixie 11:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidentiality

(Hopefully) A good introduction to evidentiality. – ishwar  (speak) 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, straight away there are no references. «LordViD» 08:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

hi. i'm not sure what you mean. there are quite a lot of references. – ishwar  (speak) 08:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

LordViD, you should see the Bibliography section which is full of References. — Wackymacs 09:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Extremely Sorry, I missed that. «LordViD» 01:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Bibliography section be renamed References? AndyZ 15:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

i dont know. i prefer bibliography since i dont see much use in separating "references" from "further reading". nevertheless, this has been done (with help from Wackymacs). – ishwar  (speak) 19:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

merged them back together. most of the references are recommended for further reading. – ishwar  (speak) 20:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article is quite listy, these lists need to be converted into prose and explained in detail. — Wackymacs 09:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

hi. thanks. could you be more specific as to what lists you are referring? i have put some prose in bulleted lists because i thought it would organize the presentation better. do you object to this? the list in typology section is a list in the source (although there is more explanation in the source as well). peace – ishwar  (speak) 22:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment There are no pictures (although exactly what pictures there could be I do not know). Batmanand 21:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

so you dont have a suggestion for pictures? – ishwar  (speak) 00:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it was a comment. Hence I have not voted either way. Batmanand 12:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

ok. thanks. – ishwar  (speak) 00:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nagercoil

This article is an unbiased description of the place Nagercoil in Tamil Nadu, India.

• Object.

1. No references.
2. Lead section too short.
3. Several Manual of Style violations.
4. Population and Location sections one paragraph long.
5. Too POV (yes, it is biased) and poorly written;

There are several more places, which though not fully developed as tourist places, are very scenic and very beautiful (call it picture-postcard sceneries !) - this includes the Boothapandi area, near the town - popular with locals (especially youngsters - the ones with motor-cycles !!!)

«LordViD» 20:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Missing references, parts of the article require more wikification and the 'places of interest' section is written awfully. The article would also be better with more photos, though these are not a requirement for a featured article. The inline citations need to be converted to Footnotes (see Wikipedia:Footnotes) and the lead could also be improved (See WP:Lead). Refer to peer review for more specific suggestions/comments. — Wackymacs 20:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object -- poorly written. Please see wikipedia:Wikiproject Indian cities for ideas. Also check Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics for Indian city article that are featured articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chicken

• Object. This FAC is missing an explanation by its nominator for why it should be featured - but oh well... The article is missing references and has no external links section as well. The 'Chicken diseases' section should be written in detail as prose instead of a list which also links to some non-existing articles. The last three sections are also basic lists. Refer to peer review for more specific suggestions/comments. — Wackymacs 20:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As one of the few editors, I imagine, who have this article on their watchlist, I've fought a losing battle over two years to prevent this article getting bogged down with lots of weird stuff. Just now, I've returned from months away, and I see there's an entire section of the article devoted to how to hatch chickens in Sumatra. There's a featurable article on chickens on the ideal plane somewhere, but it hasn't touched down at Wikipedia yet. Jwrosenzweig 23:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A quick perusal of the history shows lots of IP edits reverted as vandalism. Given how funny chickens are, and how many jokes they are featured in, it really isn't very surprising. The Catfish 00:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There are no references, and the writing is of poor quality. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Again, no statement of references at all. Certain of the sections, especially Courting, could use some more thoroughness. 13 red links in the list of chicken diseases. AndyZ 01:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Peace Theory

Support as nominator, this is a well refrenced article that has undergone months of editing to produce a good structured and NPOV piece, with reasonable use of pictures. It's both well written and informative. Semi-self nomination, as I have contributed to the article but am far from the main contributor Robdurbar 11:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Two issues, lead-in needs a bit expansion, and Image:Fullchamber.jpg needs a suitable copyright tag. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Yeah, I never felt the pciture was too relevant anyway, so I'll search for another. As for the intro, I've added a sentence but I think it quite concisely expalins the whole topic Robdurbar 15:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• And don't be surprised if there are concerns raised about its length. This article is particularly shorter than usual. Perhpas it'd be good if you can expand some sections where main articles are linked to. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. I'll be the first to object at the length; I think the real problem is that the summaries of the subarticles are too short. If some of each of the subarticles could be returned to the main article I think it would be a great improvement. - Cuivienen 23:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I've just raided some of the subarticles for references, as many of the statements in the criticism section were uncited. I do think that the subarticles are too short and could use expansion, and I did a little bit already. With a bit more work in this department, I would gladly support. The Catfish 23:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. An important part of the article (the specific counter-examples) is shifted to another article. I can't find any mention of the Iceland Cod Wars in either (though this is not a huge problem). I suppose there is no problem with the specific counter-examples being shifted to another article, but the summary of that article is nowhere near sufficient - at a minimum some of the most prominent counter-examples should be mentioned in the main article. To improve the article (and its sub-article) Matthew White's "Democracies Do Not Make War on One Another...or Do They?" [1] might be helpful. Cedars 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Some prominent examples could well be mentioned in the main article. Matthew White's summary is unfortunately misleading since he selectively chooses to not mention many of the arguments against these wars that can be found for instance in Never at War, which he states he has read. I am unsure how many specific cases to include, Never at War discusses many other conflicts not mentioned currently or in White's list. I do think however that all the prominent examples have been mentioned. The Cod War, for instance, is arguably not a very important example since no one was killed. Ultramarine 01:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I did know that the Cod Wars were casulty-free. That said, now that specific counter-examples are mentioned in the main article, I'll withdraw my objection and leave it to others to review. Cedars 09:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Far too brief for such an interesting and controversial subject. Would be nice to have captions that conform to wikipedia:captions. It is often assumed the reader knows enough to take certain examples in context; for instance, I see World War I commonly referred (and wikilinked) to as WWI, and the American presidents from both parties example presumes the reader will understand the different ideologies of the parties or even what these parties are. Johnleemk | Talk 20:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The sentences regarding World War I and the American presidents have been changed. The article was very long before so some of the contents was moved to subarticles. It was suggested above that some of this should be moved back to the main article, which has been done. Do you think that more of the contents of the subarticles should be moved back? Ultramarine 17:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• I think there could be some more effort made to establish what sense "democracy" is being used in here. I mean, in context it's clear that it means multiparty western-style democracy. But many people feel that kind of democracy is only superficially democratic, and that other systems are more democratic (while advocates of western-style democracy might in turn call those systems only superficially democratic). Obviously it's one of those issues where getting to NPOV is tough without being really long-winded and tip-toeing around. But at the same time, it is important to have the NPOV. I think the article needs some careful thinking about how to deal with this question more objectively before it should be featured. Everyking 09:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You are right that this could be emphasized more. The intro mentions that the theory refers to liberal democracy. I have tried to make this more explicit in the article. The subarticles have more detailed explanations of the different definitions of liberal democracy that have been used in the studies. Ultramarine 17:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• What's 'the low frequency of democratic governments'? Tony 12:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Minor oppose. Please expand with the material from subarticles, and all important statements, especially those in the criticism section, should be properly footnoted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object great article. but the intro claims that it has had implications in the policy world. those seem to merit discussion. Also, the criticism section overlocks three of the most important criticism of the theory. (1) that even though the findings are true they are not statistically significant because they fall within expected variation (2) the definition of democracy and war is not stable and often manipulated by studies which count cases (3) the studies do not examine democratic characteristics but instead label democracies as a bionary. For example, there is little research on the correlation between a free press and war, competitive elections and war, etc. I'm sorry that I don't have citations for these, but I took several government classes and we read articles in peer reviewed journals to this effect. I'm sure that someone with access to isiknowledge.com could produce some cites quickly (i sadly no longer have it) Masterdebater 17:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This would be interesting if someone indeed have sources for the above. Ultramarine 05:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object Way too much material on Rummel, who is far from a leading authority on international relations. 172 19:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Rummel is only mentioned once. I do not think this is too much since he was one of the more important early researchers. Could you please explain your objection in more detail? Ultramarine 05:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • He has an entire section in the article, though he rarely, if ever, comes up in academic surveys on international relations. Rummel's following is generally among libertarian activists, not academics. 172 05:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
      • He is mentioned only once and does not have a section of his own, I do not understand your objection? Ultramarine 05:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
        • "Statistical studies supporting the DPT" is virtually a piece of advocacy for Rummel. This will be my last reply on the talk page. The talk page is where extended discussions of the neutrality of an article should be carried out. 172 05:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Unfortunately, you are misinformed. Rummel is only one of many researchers who have shown statistical support for the theory, although he was one of the first. Ultramarine 05:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bucharest

Hi. I'm nominating Bucharest because I think that it has many qualities of a featured article, particularly in terms of depth and breadth of information, images, references, etc. It is one of the more comprehensive city articles out there. Ronline ✉ 07:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article is poorly structured and frankly has far, far, far too many images. The sections do not flow well and the table in the beginning seems inadequate. Please refer to Johannesburg or Seattle, Washington for ideas about how to structure the article. I also find it hard to believe that there is only one reference for this article, and that it is not in English at all. Where did all the data and statistics come from? Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - per PZFUN =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There are actually 17 notes for sources in the article. The reference book should be deleted since the article has been completely refactored since then. Now, onto some questions - what section structure do you propose? The article is structured based on the city WikiProjects template, and has all the relevant sections... Secondly, the table at the top - is the table itself too devoid of information, or is it position awkward? Thirdly, the images. I think there is a worrying trend recently to favour short articles with small amounts of images over more comprehensive ones with many images. The images are appropriate and illustrate the subject nicely. I think for city articles, the use of images becomes particularly important to illustrate the character and overall appearance of a city. I think having a few images only in the article, with the rest in a Commons gallery, conveys much, much less about the city, particularly since the Commons gallery contains small, unsorted thumbnails, in comparison to inline images that actually correspond to the part of the article you are reading (i.e. when you read about culture, you get a picture of street art, galleries, nightclubs, etc). See the Căile Ferate Române article for similar use of images. Anyway, thanks for the comments - I like to hear what everyone thinks, because the article benefits from it. Ronline ✉ 09:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You would have to model your article on cities such as Mumbai, Canberra, Chennai and Ann Arbor. Note the structure and content. Please reduce the page content, its too large: See wikipedia:summary style. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment The numbers of photos, or complete absence thereof, is not a FA criterion. This is akin to the FAC articles where people disagree over how to do the layout, it's all mere opinion. However, I do suggest cutting the image size down some and try to avoid using photos on top of oneanother. Rlevse 14:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

They are indeed a FA criterion. They make the article unpleasant and difficult to read, and thereby not one of Wikipedia's "best" articles. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 20:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Here's a direct quote from the FA criteria page (emphais added): "It should have images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article." Rlevse 16:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we could lose one of the nightclubclub photos (probably Fire Club, since the club was more or less a copy of Club A; a superior copy, in my view, but a copy), one or two of the transportation photos, and the photo of Gheorghe Lazăr High School, but otherwise I think these pictures do a great job of illustrating the subject. Very few of our English-language readers will ever have seen Bucharest, and I think it is important to give a visual sense of the place. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Very close but not quite there yet, the article is actually missing a specific References section - I am also concerned about the amount of pictures and the amount of red links throughout the article. I'm also quite sure the lead could be improved. — Wackymacs 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are notes to source a lot of the information, and a lot of these notes were used as references. The Notes section is basically all made up of links to information (not explicative notes in the traditional sense). Should this section be renamed to References? As to red links - yes, this should be solved. As to lead, what should go in it? I agree that the lead is one of the weakest parts in the article, but I really don't see what should go in it, considering that a lot of information is already in the other sections. Ronline ✉ 07:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

See Geography of India on how to format notes and references. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

See WP:Lead for tips on writing a good lead. — Wackymacs 09:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The lead section is now more comprehensive. Additionally, many red links have either been eliminated or articles have been created. I've also added a few references. Ronline ✉ 10:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carmen

Self-nom. This seemed to pass its PR with only minor problems that have now been fixed. I believe that this page has great research, particularly on the history of the opera. --Alexs letterbox 23:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's good, except that it fails Criterion 2(a) badly. Here are some examples of faulty prose from the top:
  • 'Her pursuit of change drives her from passion to passion. After she has loved many,..'. 'Her pursuit of change' is an odd way of saying that she's promiscuous; better to remove the sentence. 'After she has loved many what? I suppose 'men' is the assumption, but it needs to be said.
  • 'the woman of the title, Carmen'. It's simple, but somehow clumsy; 'the eponymous Carmen' is the usual expression; if you don't like that word, please consider rewording it another way.
  • 'he is sunk in a pit of grief'. Sorry, but this language is ridiculous; did you get it from a program note? If so, it needs to be paraphrased in modern, plain English.
  • 'Bizet’s original plan was to have written the full score by December 1873, however caused rehersals to be postponed until August 1874, with the premiere in October.' Seriously ungrammatical; consider 'write' instead of 'have written'; there's a misspelling.
  • 'It took him a further two months to complete the orchestrations.' Shouldn't that be singular 'orchestration'? In any case, this would be simpler and better: 'to score the work'.
  • 'the libretto was not liked by the artistic community, who considered it immoral.' Can you go for a more economical expression, such as: 'the artistic community considered the libretto to be immoral.'?
  • 'The premiere did not go well, and was recorded in great detail by Halévy.' Do the two clauses belong in the same sentence? Does one flow logically to the other?

The whole article needs a thorough, critical run through by a word-nerd. I might be wrong, but it does look as though you've 'borrowed' some text from early 20th-century program notes or encyclopedias. Apologies if this is not the case. Tony 01:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Some phrases did come from The Complete Opera Goers Guide, 1921. I'll have another run through it. --Alexs letterbox 02:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've tried rewriting it, it seems okay to me, but my English is appalling. --Alexs letterbox 04:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• No, you need to enlist the support of one or two other people who are good at editing; fresh eyes and several hours are required to bring this up to FA standard. 'Compelling, even brilliant' prose is required. It's nowhere near that. Tony 05:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

PS If you're 'borrowing' slabs of text from other publications, some reference citations are needed, at least a few to give us an idea where things are coming from. It's a moral issue as well as a matter of credibility. But the language is still the main problem. Tony 05:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The lead could be improved, some of the article needs wikification, and there are too few References and footnotes. The lists need to be turned into prose and expanded. Needs a good copy-edit, and refer to peer review for more specific comments/suggestions. — Wackymacs 20:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed; however, please don't overwikifiy. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting. Tony 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I hereby withdraw my nomination. Thankyou, the comments here were far more useful than those at PR. --Alexs letterbox 06:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Netherlands

Great style accurate information and an interesting relatively unknown part of history. User:Sandertje 22:08 December 19, 2005

• Object. The times of the brilliant prose are long gone, today we require proper references. In addition, lead is inadequatly short.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Piotr, talking of brilliant prose, can you fix up your own so that your meaning is clear; I'm not trying to be arch—I really don't know what you're saying. Tony 01:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Ooops, that should tech me not to edit around 3 pm. :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object/Comment. The ESA image used for showing the geography of the battle has two problems: #1, the overlayed text is almost impossible to read, and at tremendous strain on the eyes. Someone needs to change the letters so that there is some kind of border your eye can follow to distinguish it from the background. Secondly, while the image copyright is shown, there's no explaination of where the image was obtained (except "from the ESA" which doesn't narrow it down very much) - not even what instrument took it. Furthermore the ESA's use policy does not allow commercial use without permission. According to this, Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided, Please check that the conditions given above are compliant with Wikipedia licensing policy. Most importantly, derivative work, commercial use, and use in non-educational contexts must be permitted. If they are not, please list this image for deletion. If that template is accurate, this image should be deleted immediately. I haven't checked all the other images, but I'm definitely suspicious now. Maybe if this was resolved it could be considered. - JustinWick 23:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object No references. Also this article is still in peer review, where the same objection was stated. Garion96 (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object—Criterion 2(a). Was this prepared by translating a Dutch text into English with a computer translation program? Tony 02:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Why is the battle of the Netherlands in my boxing article? User:Andman8
• Object. Firstly, the article has no references. Secondly, the lead section is too short. Otherwise, not an entirely bad article. Ronline ✉ 07:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• The writing needs some improvement generally, and references are also a must. But it's not bad, it has the potential to be featured if there's a little extra effort. Everyking 07:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object The English contains many some typically Dutch translation mistakes. (I am a native Dutch speaker). This can be corrected with relatively little effort. I also object because of missing references. Andries 23:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, to be slighted by the man who wrote "The battle ended after the bombing of Rotterdam by the Luftwaffe and the subsequent decision of Dutch military to surrender to prevent other cities suffer the same fate"... ;o)--[User:MWAK|MWAK]] 13:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Quite ironic, I have to admit. Thanks for correcting. Andries 21:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object Good article, but it really needs references. GhePeU 11:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Article is not comprehensive. See talk page for details. Wendell 18:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be of interest to know that the article is far from finished yet :o). Sandertje, relatively new to Wikipedia, was simply too hasty. In a year's time, I hope to have given you reason enough — by improvements in both style and content — to revise your opinion. Not that I'm in favour of qualifying any article as "featured", mind you. And no, Tony, none of it was created by a computer translation programme ;o).--MWAK 11:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boxing

I feel this article achieves all of the criteria for a great article. After much editing over the past few weeks it looks and reads like a professional and all encompassing encyclopedic entry. Read it and see if you do not agree. User:Andman8 19:54 December 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Support as a nominator User:Andman8 19:55 December 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There are too many short subsections and lists. There are also hardly any references and footnotes, this needs to be worked on - the article is not cited well enough. — Wackymacs 21:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There is only 1 reference - should we assume it's a summary or review of this one book? Please use inline citations for the main facts in the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no copyright info for some of the images in the article. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The NBA on NBC

Support as nominator. Only my second or third nomination in about three years. Well structured, informed and lightned. Antonio Tesh Martin 04:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This article is not even close to ready for FA.
  • Very short lead paragraph.
  • No fair use claim or rationale for logo.
  • Clunky, unencyclopedic writing in many parts "It all started on...", "He is the one who announced things like...", etc. These exist throughout the article.
  • Not much on the typical presentation of broadcasts, e.g. screenshots of pre-game show or a game in progress with graphics on the screen.
  • All the sections are really short. For the most part, they only give one or two examples of that which they claim to demonstrate.
  • The references used are not cited throughout the article. Andrew Levine 04:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object Very few pics. Tobyk777 06:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• This isn't a valid reason for an objection - featured articles do not require any pictures. — Wackymacs 20:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. That is not a valid reason to oppose. An article does not need pictures to become featured (albeit its a plus). Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) 18:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. What should the title of this article be? According to the logo it is simply "NBA on NBC". Even if this is not the case it is ususual for articles contain articles (the, &c.) in their titles. --Oldak Quill 09:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object The article has a very short lead, the main image needs a caption, the references need formatting properly, the 'Criticism of Coverage' subsection is much too short. Infact, all of the sections are one paragraph each - the article is generally too short. Refer to peer review. — Wackymacs 20:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Serious writing problems. This should definitely go to peer review first. rspeer 00:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Canyon

My previous 2 nominations failed, but this is a better article. When I found this, it already had pictures, and was very well written. I reformated it, and organzied the pictures. I think it looks great now and meets all the requirements for a featured article. Tobyk777 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry, but it has to have references. Deltabeignet 00:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment -- brilliant photos. How do you feel about the redlinks? (Not that that's a formal criterion, but I'm still wondering if we could fix them.) Also, the "Activities" head seems off somehow, as though the canyon were engaging in activities. BYT 01:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Response I formatted the photos to the way they are and spent hours on it. (After I descovered how to add pics I deicded to perfect my skills by perfecting an article picture wise.) The pictures, and the way they are layed out is the main reason for this nomination. I think that this is as good as wikipedia picture work and layout gets. The only way we could fix red links are to write more articles. Those don't concern the article nominated, so I don't think they are relavent. Yet, if the links should not be there then it may be a valid point. The Canyon doesn't engage in activities. The people in the Canyon do. If you want you could change the section heading to something like "Tourist acivites" or "Visitor activities" but I think it's fine how it is. Tobyk777 02:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object -- nice photos, but there needs to be more content. The history section should be written entirely in prose, and describe each of the different things listed. Also, references and inline citations need to be added. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment -- "It is believed that the use of postage stamps to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to the subject of the stamp) on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. " deeptrivia (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The first thing that strikes me as wrong is the placement of the images, though this is not a reason to object - The human history section is a bunch of lists and then very short subsections with a lot of red links. There are no references or footnotes - these would be great and references are a must. I think more context is needed and I think less images would be preferable. Refer to peer review. — Wackymacs 21:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The text came as an afterthought to the great images, did it? Needs more substance. Becomes fragmented towards the end (esp. Geology). Use m dashes—not space/hyphen/space—to set off subsidiary clauses. Some metric units are abbreviated, some are not (use abbreviations, I'd say, and you need a non-breaking space between the value and the unit). Tony 03:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment What is the emphasis of this article as compared to Grand Canyon National Park?--MONGO 04:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the article has overdone it with pictures — many of which deviate from general Wikipedia guidelines for images. Images should be set as "thumbs" (I tried to fix that but Tobyk777, reverted it). Users can then go to "my preferences" -> "files", and choose what size they want pictures when they view articles — we should leave the decision to users. Furthermore, in the Image guidelines, it says "Most pictures are between 100 and 400 pixels wide. Generally, pictures should not be wider than that." One of the reasons for that is Wikipedia is intended for a broad range of users and platforms (e.g. PDAs and various size screens). Also, some users are connected via dial-up. I disagree with the decision to override user preferences by specifying a particular image size. As for the "The Grand Canyon at Sunset" image, it doesn't line up properly and leaves a lot of white space on the right side of the screen. ---Aude 23:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chetwynd, British Columbia

A town of 3,000 people in northeastern British Columbia. Same as Dawson Creek, British Columbia (featured last month) but with a quarter the population and 100 km west. I believe it fulfills all the FAC criteria. --maclean25 02:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review

• Weak Support. I'd like to see the election tables cleaned up before changing my vote to a full Support, but it looks like a very well-made article. I'm rather amazed that so much information can actually be found about a small town. Maybe I should try to do the same for mine. - Blake's Star 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you be a little more specific about the tables. The problem may be due to screen resolution and browser text size which often displays tables and images differently according to their settings. It all looks fine on my screen. --maclean25
• Support Comment. Perhaps more can be said about the public education system in the town. The schools seemed to be only briefly referenced. --Chroniclev 06:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I added the names of schools, enrollment numbers and a link to the school board. --maclean25
• Object. In many places, the article only uses metric measurments. Although most of the world uses them, they are still very foreign to residents of the United States (like myself). I've been to Canada, so I have some familiarity, but many Americans have no idea how long a kilometer is, except that it's somewhat shorter than a mile. I added non-metric measurments to the climate section because I can do those particular conversions in my head, but metric and non-metric measurments should appear consistently side-by-side. Once this is done, I'll change my vote to support, but until then, I must object. RyanGerbil10 02:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. My metric/imperial objections were addressed, and very quickly I might add. Good job! RyanGerbil10 03:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose we'll have to live with the clutter of imperial equivalents. By 'most', you mean 96% of the world's population, I guess. The others are the US, Burma and Liberia; hmmmm. I note that US schools increasingly teach the metric system. Tony 03:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have added the imperial equivalents. Let me know if I missed any. It is my opinion, if anyone important or knowledgable is listening, that these common imperial-metric conversions should be a preference feature, like the date formatting. Just select in your profile which you want to see and the code hides the unselected one or does a conversion itself. The conversion feature would be really useful for money-related figures (ie. US$ to CAD$). --maclean25 03:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Well made, no serious issues. deeptrivia (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. However I was disappointed at the lack of external links. — Wackymacs 21:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There are uber ext. links in the reference section. I would like to put the more relevant/informative ones in the "Ext links" section but WP:CITE tells me not to. It says that the "Ext. links" section is for "links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. (italics not mine). --maclean25
• Oppose - The political tables need to be moved to a sub-page, and the general image placement needs to be tightened up. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If this article ever grows to include sub-pages then these political tables would be moved there. However, lacking that, I prefer to retain the two most recent elections (that is just what I thought looked best on the page) for this main page because it illustrates the voting pattern of the city compared to the rest of the electoral district. I tried to place the images appropriately but let me know how they can be better oriented and sized. --maclean25
• Minor objection. This article is excellent. I would, however, like to see two changes: the economy section could do with a little more work, and I think changes need to be made to the political tables. There's no need to remove them per PZFUN (a subpage would be useless in the circumstances), but I think the core information could be retained if smaller tables were used, as in Waterfall Gully, South Australia and Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory. Is there any chance of a map? Ambi 08:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • From what I'm hearing the political tables are detracting from the quality of the article. The Australian tables are nice but do not communicate the idea behind the tables in this article. The intention behind the tables here is to provide context of how this town relates politically to the other towns in its electoral district (which is huge - accounting for only 1,502 of 36,245 votes federally and 829 of 10,062 votes provincially). However, I will try experimenting by removing the candidate names. Also, what were you thinking in terms of a map? There is a locator map in the intro and a street map in the "transportation" section (as well as an airphoto). Were you thinking land use? or cadastral? I called Chetwynd's town hall this morning to see what they can email me but they might be awhile. --maclean25
  • I added a map showing the outline of the District's borders and the provincial highway. I'm still looking though to see what else I can find. --maclean25
    • Firstly, the Australian tables aim to do the same - they're based on booth results, not on electorate results. In terms of a map - it'd be nice to see one in relation to the remainder of Canada - or at least British Columbia. I'm sorry if I've inadvertently led yoy on a wild goose chase - I was thinking of something along the lines of this (for Canada) and this for the broader area. Ambi 00:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I placed a red dot formatted image of Chetwynd within BC and BC within Canada in the article. It can also be viewed viewed here. --maclean25
• Oppose - The map, Image:Chetwynd BC Road Network.JPG, is taken from a copyrighted website; I don't know why it's tagged as GNU? Image:Chetwynd airphoto.png, and Image:Chetwynd BC Satellite.JPG are copyrighted. Can you provide links to where you obtained Image:Chetwynd airphoto.png? Where does it say "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose."? ---Aude 00:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I removed Image:Chetwynd BC Road Network.JPG, I thought I had altered it enough to be able to claim GNU - I'm not very comfortable with the whole tagging system but I'm learning. I switched the tags on Image:Chetwynd BC Satellite.JPG as I did create it, but since I did it at the PRRD I thought better safe than sorry. The source for Image:Chetwynd airphoto.png is [2] but since it is a GIS application it requires successful manipulation of the layers. I use these at work (and give them away free and publish them for public use in government agenda packages). I sought clarification about the correct tag before using them and was told the copyrightfreeuse was the correct one. Is this ok?--maclean25

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not entirely familiar with the legal specifics for the Province of British Columbia, though somewhat familiar with the Government of Canada terms and restrictions for geospatial data. The data is copyright by the government. " Data is not licensed for redistribution via the Internet without modification [3]. However, derived works can be freely redistributed (incl. via the Internet), though reference still needs to be given to the Government of Canada.

In your particular case, I don't know whether to consider it derived or not, or if British Columbia has the same restrictions as the Government of Canada? This is as much as I know, and I'll defer to your judgment on this specific case. Maybe it's worth asking others at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights or Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps? ---Aude 03:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Maclean25 and User talk:Kmf164:

I would really like to use Image:Chetwynd BC Road Network.JPG in the Chetwynd article. Was it that I was using the wrong tag or is just not permitted. What about the unaltered version straight from the source:www.hellonorth.com (the pdf tourist magazine)? Is there a tag that would allow me to use that?

Also, I think that BC and Canada are the same for copyrights. At my work we have a license to use the geo-referenced data on these airphotos, but we can do what we please with the images (give them away, publish them - once we publish an agenda they are public property, etc.). maclean25 16:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if Image:Chetwynd BC Road Network.JPG is different and "derived" enough that you can call it your own work? If so, you need to at least credit the source (which you did). As for the license tag, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for detailed explanations and I recommend asking on the talk page there. I'm not sure which one applies in this case. Maybe you ought to check out Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others and ask the Northern Rockies Alaska Highway Tourism Association for permission to use (with your modifications), under Wikipedia terms (GFDL). Since their in the business of promoting tourism, I don't see why not they wouldn't agree? That would clear up any ambiguities and doubts. Personally, I tend to be a stickler, when it comes to copyright issues and if I'm ever in doubt, I won't use it. Again, I recommend getting more than my opinion.

As for the air photos, I don't know for sure. All I know is that Canadian data is still copyrighted (even if they allow it to be given away for free). It's not public domain, like US government data is. I think this is a gray area, and need further opinions from others more expert about Canadian copyrights. If you upload something that is "derived" from the data, then I think it's okay. In your case, is it considered derived? I don't know. Myself, I'd like to know, as I am considering using the DEM data from geogratis and making maps for some of the Canadian Rockies parks. In that case, I'd be deriving hillshading, combining with other data (roads, ...), and doing other cartographic design work that would make the maps for sure, a derived product and okay.

Sorry, I don't have more of a definitive answer for you. I think it would benefit us all to get more answers to these questions and maybe clarify the Wikipedia:Copyrights guidelines, to include issues relating to spatial data and Canadian copyright. ---Aude 17:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should sort out these issues first, and try FAC again later. Other then this issue, I think the article is very good and would be even better if we are able to include the maps and air photo image. It would also benefit the broader Wikipedia community, to have more clear guidelines on using spatial data/maps from the Canadian government. ---Aude 17:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redshift

This article has gone through the ringer: an RfC, a peer review and some yucky edit wars. But it appears now that we have a consensus version that looks pretty good. This is a partial self-nomination, since I wrote much of the article, but there are a few other editors who deserve credit as well. --ScienceApologist 02:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record:

• I do not accept that we have a consensus for the reasons I give on the Redshift talk page

Iantresman hopes to include more perspective from non-standard cosmologies than should be included in an article. This belies consideration of the Undue weight clause of the NPOV page. --ScienceApologist 15:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• I believe the article is exclusive, focusing on Astronomical redshifts, despite the intro claiming that it is an "optical phenomenon"

Indeed, that's where the term is used the most. There is mention made twice in the article that there is an informal usage associated with scattering processes. --ScienceApologist 15:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You're awefully fixated on this nonsense, guess that's what you get for calling yourself an apologist--Ytrewqt 04:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• That the article includes little on (a) The history of redshift (b) How to measure redshifts (c) How you know the wavelength emitted from a distant object.

(a) is covered under observations and causes of redshift.

(b) is covered in the definition of redshift in terms of measuring the differences in wavelengths and frequencies associated with z.

(c) is already discussed as involving comparison to lab spectra.

• There is no mention of:
• Anomalous redshifts

"Anomalous redshifts" is a subject that seems to be the sole promotion of Halton Arp. We can leave that to his page. --ScienceApologist 15:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Intrinsic redshifts

Again, a Halton Arp POV. Intrinsic redshifts are not generally accepted by the scientific community and so by undue weight do not belong on this page. --ScienceApologist 15:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Theoretical redshifts

I don't even know what this means. This is, I think, an invention of User:Iantresman for frequency shifts that haven't been observed. He has lumped together all kinds of ideas surrounding redshifts including some novel and interesting ones associated with neutrinos and some which are already discussed on the page as being discounted tired light.

• Examples of optical redshifts

Perhaps Ian can expand on this one. --ScienceApologist 15:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Solar Redshifts

Already discussed in terms of helioseismology. --ScienceApologist 15:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redshift quantizations

Shown not to exist by recent studies of 2dF. --ScienceApologist 15:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

--Iantresman 12:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record:

User:Iantresman is a well-known POV-pusher of various non-standard cosmologies. He is of the opinion that physical cosmology does not conform to a neutral endeavor and that articles in Wikipedia that deal with this subject should include the extreme minority objections. This is similar to claiming that the Evolution article should include information on the objections derived from Intelligent design. I do not claim that to say that there aren't a vanishingly few number of people who dispute mainstream cosmology and the definitions given for redshift on the redshift page, but their poo-pooing does not belong on a page that is about a subject which is actually studied in depth by scientific consensus. We make mention of "alternative theories" of redshift in the article in an approrpriate amount of space. As Ian himself points out, redshift is a bigger topic than just cosmology and astronomy, and so to bog down an article with the wranglings of Arp or some other pathological skeptic is to violate the NPOV sense of the redshift article. --ScienceApologist 16:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object until a relatively stable version is acheived. Given that there's an RfA over this, I think we should hold off on featuring the article. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 16:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC) I have relisted this vote, as the subsequent edit deleted it, probably by edit conflict. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 16:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If you look in the edit history, you'll see that this is a pretty stable version (it hasn't changed substantially for some time). Actually, the RfA isn't really over the article itself but more over me. I think it's Ian's disruptive designs to cast a bad light on an article that should be judged by the content of its character and not by the slander of a superfluous RfArb. This is the second RfArb that Ian has submitted and the first one was roundly rejected. I have no reason to believe this one will be accepted either. In any case, this doesn't give any indication for what it would take for you to support the nomination, so could you outline a timeline or a criteria you would need to support the nomination? --ScienceApologist 16:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There have been more than 100 edits since the start of December, and it has recently been through an edit war. Even if the current version matches older versions, it's not stable, just unchanged. This means it clearly fails criterion 2.(e) of Wikipedia:What is a featured article. The edit war is, of course, over whether or not the article is NPOV and comprehensive, meaning that 2.(d) and 2.(b) are at least under debate. My serious concern is, as I said, stability, which can only be proven over time. Wait 6 months, after the controversies have hopefully ended, and nominate it again. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 22:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is any difference between unchanged and stable. Do you have a proposal to change the definition of such? I believe that criterion 2e is satisfied as shown through all the wranglings in the past few weeks we still have pretty much the same article. The NPOV disputes seem to be dying. To make a comparison, the evolution article often has people come by claiming that it isn't NPOV, but that doesn't make the article not NPOV. So I think your objections are both unreasonable. --ScienceApologist 15:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at the talk page. There has been so much discussion and argument over the content of the article that FOUR archives were generated in the last couple of months. I think the dust needs to settle before we can decide whether it is stable or not. You comment that "[t]he NPOV disputes seem to be dying", and I agree completely. Let's let them die completely. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 23:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object My RfA was started mainly because of the Redshift article. --Iantresman 19:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that the RfArb has been withdrawn, I expect that this vote will still remain as shown on the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 15:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

*Object Given the current content dispute sorrounding this article this FAC seems more like an attempt of the nominator to get his version of the article "approved" by the community. Even if that isn't the case, it looks bad to submit this article to FAC with a RfArb pending. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The submission was done before there was an RfArb. --ScienceApologist 15:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I retract my previous objection and wish to apoligize to ScienceApologist for it. Keep fighting the good fight. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The submission was made 36-hours after Joshua unilaterally decided to end the Requestion for Comments, and had specifically asked for any objections, which I both made, and provided supporting evidence. See the discussion section Close RfC. --Iantresman 22:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the closing of the RfC was unilateral as you seemed to be amiable yourself to closing it as long as we abided by the results which were ambiguous at best. --ScienceApologist 15:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object on two unrelated grounds. First, I should weigh in with the comments above—the article just doesn't appear stable enough. ( The RfArb is a side issue, as far as I'm concerned, since I'd say the same thing just looking at this month's edit history.) However, the content of the article looks pretty good. I wouldn't quite rate it up to FA standards, but once the edit-war dust shakes down, I'd be happy to support if a few things were fixed:

• Inline references, of some sort, just so the reader can tell which paragraph traces back to which source. Much of this article appears to be the sort of stuff which is largely the same in many textbooks, so I see no need to be fanatical about footnotes, just slightly more comprehensive than the article is right now. At present, the single external hyperlink in the body text sticks out garishly.

I'd like to hear your suggestions on this matter. Which parts are now without footnote that you would like to see with footnote? --ScienceApologist 05:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• "...and was first observed in the Pound-Rebka experiment."
• "This letter has been considered to be the first prediction of gravitational redshift."
• "...a method first employed in 1868 by British astronomer William Huggins."
• "Currently, the highest measured quasar redshift is z = 6.4, with the highest confirmed galaxy redshift being z = 7.0 while as-yet unconfirmed reports from a gravitational lens observed in a distant galaxy cluster may indicate a galaxy with a redshift of z = 10."
• "Measuring the redshift is often easier than more direct distance measurements, so redshift is sometimes in practice converted to a crude distance measurement using Hubble's law."
• "Vesto Slipher was the first to discover galactic redshifts from ~1912, [which I presume means "circa 1912"] while Hubble correlated Slipher's measurements with distances he measured by other means to formulate his Law."

I suppose how thoroughly one footnotes depends upon how many sources one wishes to place in subsidiary articles like Hubble's law, Vesto Slipher and so on. As for myself, I tend not to trust that such articles will in fact have their own sources listed. Anville 16:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions User:Anville. I have struck-through the ones that I have quick-and-ready references for. The other ones are a bit difficult. William Huggins is widely quoted with discovering the spectroscopic redshift of Sirius in 1868, but I cannot find the letter he wrote that shows this. Brittanica doesn't cite this and just makes the comment. As for using the Hubble Law as a distance measurement, this practice is so commonplace that it will be quite difficult to find any one citation for this. I'm not sure if this is actionable. Finally, the Vesto Slipher discovery is in the same boat as the Huggins discovery: widely known but difficult to cull out the primary source that shows this to be the case. Would you be satisfied with the current list of citations, or can you help out with the ones not struck-through? Thanks, --ScienceApologist 23:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, striking out another user's comments is just a bit peremptory (see the discussion on Featured Articles Talk, going on now), but I was actually just about to strike out those bullet points myself, so I shouldn't be too miffed. (-; On the whole, I find the additional references satisfactory. It would be nice to have a pointer to a good secondary source where one could find Huggins and Slipher; certainly, I'm familiar with textbooks using information as "general knowledge" (who ever gives a footnote for the Maxwell equations anymore?). If there is a particular textbook, say, which gives more historical information than the others, then pointing to that source for the Slipher and Huggins sort of things would be a good idea. Anville 23:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• The section on "scattering" is one paragraph, and the section on "redshift surveys" is essentially one paragraph broken into choppy pieces. Both of these could use elaboration from the "main articles" on those topics, which would make them more substantial and flow more smoothly.

The scattering paragraph describes wavelength shifts due to scattering, but that is only an informal usage of redshift. Elaboration would be somewhat tangential to the main purpose of the article.

• Except that all the scientists who write about scattering, make no indication that they use the term informally, as is demonstrated by the numerous peer-reviewed citations. Unless of course you have ANY citations which suggest otherwise? --Iantresman 22:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to quote a scientist who makes the claim that they aren't using the term informally when dealing with scattering? --ScienceApologist 05:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've struck out my request for the scattering section, since it now looks adequate to me. Anville 23:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas for what to include in the redshift survey paragraph?

--ScienceApologist 15:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, the "detailed article" on this topic isn't any larger than the section here, which means that I'd have to do some further research. I'd be happier if this section gave a sentence or two to each survey, saying what its aims were, what it discovered and maybe who operated it. Anville 16:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Best wishes, Anville 11:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object on the grounds that redshift has six alternative meanings, and that's even before I get around to adding Redshift the electronic music band to the disambiguation page. This is not to impugn the quality of the article, which is excellent. Endomion 19:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Expansion of my reasons for objecting per ScienceApologist request elsewhere:

The Featured Article is Wikipedia putting its best foot forward. Suppose there were two very good articles, one about Berlin the city in Germany, and the other about Berlin the synth-pop band, and suppose the former was selected for FA. Instead of a very concise summary of the article on Wiki's front page, the reader would first see, "This is an article about the city in Germany. For the band fronted by Terri Nunn see 'Berlin (band)'. And the impression conveyed would be a Wikipedia that is awkward to use. Endomion 22:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

First, the text on the Main Page isn't taken automatically from the article's lead. Raul654, the ratified FA Director, puts it together manually, condensing the text as needed and choosing the most appropriate picture to accompany it. If the article on Berlin made the Main Page, the text would probably begin, "Berlin is the capital of Germany and its largest city..." Only by clicking on the hyperlink would the reader become aware of the disambiguation page ("for other meanings of the word Berlin, see Berlin (disambiguation)"). I note in passing that wikilinking to "Berlin", with no parenthetical modifiers, takes you to the article on the German city, which seems an entirely reasonable choice to me: I've climbed cathedrals and seen doubled rainbows, I've seen Potsdamer Platz at night, I've eaten ice cream, slept and dreamt in the German city, and I've done none of these things within the synth-pop band. (-;

Second, and this may be a fallacious reductio ad absurdum, but wouldn't this rationale forbid any article with a disambiguation page from becoming Featured? Anville 23:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Um, is that an actionable objection to the Redshift article? At most, it sounds to me like an argument for moving this page to Redshift (astronomy) or some title like that. Anville 23:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Changing vote to Support after education of FA process from young master Anville. Endomion 02:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The redshift article already accepts that the term redshift is used (a) in the so-called bathochromic shift (b) in scattering phenomenon (of which there are serveral, but for some reason unnamed), claiming that this use of redshift is informal (no evidence provided) (c) And then further ignores other peer-reviewed usages of 'redshift' (such as "intrinsic redshift", "Compton redshift"); these forms of redshift may or may not be verified, but the terms are in use.

It is quite a conceit to suggest that "redshift" means only Doppler, Cosmological or Gravitational redshifts, and marginalises the use of the term by all other scientists. --Iantresman 00:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What are you agreeing to? That wasn't what I was talking about. I find the division between frequency shifts caused by geometry (Doppler) and frequency shifts caused by interaction (Raman, Compton, etc.) to be entirely reasonable. Confusing these two types could lead to gross errors—does the Sun turning red at sunset mean that it is speeding away from the Earth? I was not suggesting that this page be moved to Redshift (astronomy); instead, I was trying to parse Endomion's objection in a reasonable way. As I indicated above, I believe that objection is probably inactionable. Anville 00:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course there is a difference between Doppler redshifts, and scattering redshifts. Just as there is a difference between Doppler redshifts, and Cosmological and gravitational redshifts. Because the article does not explain all this is the reason it is confusing. But you bring up another interesting point, the sun turning red at sunset; I didn't think this was a redshift? Is there a measured spectral shift? The scattering redshifts I have mentioned previously all produce actual spectral shifts. --Iantresman 09:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have explained myself more fully on the article's talk page. In my judgment (never perfect, of course), the section on "Scattering" explains this distinction fully and clearly. My only remaining objection to this article's FA candidacy is the lack of exposition on the 21-centimeter hydrogen line and Olbers' paradox, as I explain below. Anville 10:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I just read the article and looked at the edit history. The article is stable and it is informative. Phoenix2 00:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment In all the fuss, it slipped my mind that the article should really talk about the 21-centimeter hydrogen line. Doppler shifts of this line, of course, were how a couple clever Dutch fellows figured out the rotation curve of the Milky Way. Oh yeah, and it's probably worth including a bit on Olbers' paradox. If these are addressed in more detail, I will likely change my vote to a support. Anville 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

21 cm emission would be interesting to include, but I can't imagine more than one sentence on the issue (about the rotation curve). Olbers' paradox, in my opinion, doesn't belong in the article as it really doesn't have much to do with redshift other than the fact that in an accelerating universe, eventually all distant objects will be redshifted into the radio. Is this all you want? --ScienceApologist 14:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

One or two sentences on each topic would make me happy, as long as they're good sentences. (-; I got to play around with the 21-cm line as an undergrad, using the Haystack Observatory Small Radio Telescope (one of those many experiments which sound better in retrospect than they feel at the time), so for better or worse, the hydrogen emission line will always be with me. Anville 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I included one sentence on the 21 cm line used in mapping the Milky Way gas distribution. I'm still not sure what you want to include with Olbers' paradox. Please explain. --ScienceApologist 16:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead, looked it up and inserted the content I was asking for. My prose seems a little less than brilliant today, but at least the content is there and (I believe) reasonably clear. Now that the ingredients are together, I plan to let it simmer for a while; if no new issues arise and I don't think of anything else, I expect to change my vote to a support. Anville 19:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The Italian Wikipedia's version of this article, Spostamento verso il rosso, is Featured on their site. It gives three causes of redshift, namely Movimento della sorgente ("movement of the source"), Espansione dello spazio ("expansion of space") and Effetti gravitazionali ("gravitational effects"). If it's good enough for the Italians. . . . Anville 10:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly Object I agree with stillnotelf and then some. The article right now is the subject of a recent intense conflict between two people who seem obsessed with their opposition to each other in mulitple forums, and it seems to me that its nomination can easily be interpreted as just another tactic in that battle. Obsessional people People who seem to be on an obsesssional mission should not be rewarded in this way. Go away. Come back in 6 months. Maybe a year. The article will still be here. Try again then. Flying Jazz 17:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggesting that this is a "tactic" is extremely offensive to me, especially considering that this is an article, not a debate. I filed a peer review request which provided many helpful comments and then I proceeded to the FAC simply to improve this article which I have taken a personal interest in. I did this with the Big Bang article as well which worked fine. My contributions speak for themselves. User:Flying Jazz is making very daring and unsubstantiated accusations ("obsessed with their opposition to each other in multiple forums"), ("obsessional people") that border on personal attacks and do not address the rationale for having a featured article. The stability of the article is, I believe, well-proven in its edit history. I respectfully ask that this user reconsider his comments here. --ScienceApologist 18:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I prefaced my opinion with the word "seem" because I freely admit that I may be wrong. However, as someone new to these kinds of debates, when I look at your user page User:ScienceApologist, I see an internet persona who has defined its very existence according to what happens with this one article and in this one debate with this one other person. Sometimes we harm things through overprotection. I think that people who are on Wikipedia "with one idea in mind" (even if it's an idea I support!), are here for the wrong reason. I don't know your real motives. I only know how it seems. I stand by my comments (except where noted). Flying Jazz 18:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I respect your right to object, User:Flying Jazz, but it might be better if you asked someone to clarify their position rather than making assumptions such as this. I am involved in a number of Wikipedia projects, it just so happens that this one is the one I adopted right now. There are many different styles of editors. Some people like to spread their edits around. Others like to focus in on particular articles. I'm of the latter sort. I think you are of the former. I respect your perspective, why won't you respect mine? You can look back in my edit history to see the different projects I have been and continue to be involved in. You can check my edits to article namespaces and see what you think of them. But your painting of me in a corner is very rude, frankly, and seems a bit uncivil. --ScienceApologist 13:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I do respect the perspective of people focusing on individual articles rather than spreading edits around. There have been times in the past when I have focused on individual articles for some time. That was not the basis for my objection. I don't think your userpage and some of your comments elsewhere require any clarifications to be understood. The text speaks for itself. I think there is (and if not, there should be) a certain intermediate level of obsessiveness in individual conflicts between users that should neither be punished nor rewarded. I really don't mean to paint you into a corner, but I also don't like the idea of painting a gold star next to this article until ample time has passed. Flying Jazz 02:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there is (and if not, there should be) a certain intermediate level of obsessiveness in individual conflicts between users that should neither be punished nor rewarded. I'm not sure what you mean by this, but FA is not a reward nor a punishment. It is a way to improve articles. If you look at the progress that has been made since this FAC nomination was made in the editting of the article, I hope you'll see that it caused a lot of improvement. Please look at the articles themselves rather than the disputes on the talkpage to determine their worthiness for FA status. --ScienceApologist 07:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I also don't like the idea of painting a gold star next to this article until ample time has passed. -- I understand the concern about stability and that might not be applicable here, but I'm afraid you may be setting a fairly high bar here with your six months to a year criterion. Consider some FA pages like evolution which get many reverts a month. By your criteria, that article would be unstable and not worthy of FA status, wouldn't it? --ScienceApologist 07:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

See talk page Flying Jazz 13:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The looks are rather good now, but I noticed erroneous inconsistencies (perhaps originating from a confused text book) about relativistic redshifts, and there may be more. Modern journal papers agree with Einstein's 1911 logic that wave frequency can't change in space, in contrast with the nice looking but misleading "gravitational red shift" picture: in EM, the number of cycles that is emitted in free space is conserved; also the intro is affected by this. Sorry that I did not follow the development of this article, it was ScienceApologist who now asked me to have a look. But I do encourage to propose it again some time after these last glitches have been corrected. Harald88 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, you've got a good point. I'll go through the textbooks I have on my shelf now and see if I can devise an explanation that gets everything in the right place. Should the picture be removed, pending a fixed-up or clarified version? (Something seemed off about it, but I was too busy trying to find other stuff to include to figure out exactly what. Eit!) It's been a few years since my last relativity class, so I'll have to spend a moment figuring out just what can be deduced from what (though when it's done, it's all trivially obvious to the most casual observer). Halliday and Resnick was decent on this topic, I seem to recall, and one might be able to get something out of Taylor and Wheeler. . . . Errors found in popular exposition of relativity, film at 11. Anville 09:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Gravitional redshift is fully accounted for by gravitational time dilation between the clocks. The picture could be used to illustrate the increased wavelength due to the differing speed of light at different heights; but that has nothing to do with the subject (eventhough confusion exists about that too), and the colour change is misleading without an accompanying explanation that it refers to the locally observed colour due to different reference frequencies. All together it's more confusing than helpful in this article. Still, the picture is beautiful; maybe it can be recycled for the GRT article, accompanied by a correct explanation. Harald88 09:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give us what you deem a "correct explanation"? I guess I'm not as much a stickler for the time dilation frame discussion as you. I think the assumption that there is a continuum of frames between the source and observer to be plainly obvious. --ScienceApologist 15:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Light doesn't physically encounter any "frames". I deem a "correct explanation" the very one given in the text: " the frequency of the source is actually lowered by relativistic effects". As it happens, that accounts for 100% the frequency difference. There is no apparent in-flight frequency change in GPS, as the clocks are corrected for that. I know of no other interpretation that makes sense. Harald88 17:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

However, if you put detectors at sample intervals along the way and recorded the result, they would reconstruct an image of the photon shifting as in the picture. I think the distinction is arbitrary since no one specified how the observation is made in the image. --ScienceApologist 20:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Not so if you use Einstein's 1911 clock calibration method, which happens to be the currently used calibration method -- the only practicable one. The drawing suggests a continuously physically changing light wave and nothing warns a casual onlooker that it's mere appearance; thus it remains in this context either confusing, erroneous, or both. In any case counterproductive. Harald88 20:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not the only practicable calibration method. Let's say you had an array of spectroscopes stretching from the surface of your gravitating body out to some arbitrary point higher on the potential energy curve. If you shone a laser through the array of spectroscopes you could reconstruct the scenario in the drawing. The light wave would be "continuously physically changing" if you agreed that the laser always produced only one coherent frequency of radiation at the source. To deny this is to deny the fundamental continuity of free space. We aren't talking about two and only two frames here, we're talking about a spectrum of frames to arbitrary sampled precision. --ScienceApologist 21:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on RfArb At present, three administrators have voted to reject hearing this matter, saying that it is a "content dispute", and that evidence does not show the parties involved attempted the previous steps in the dispute-resolution process. [4] I suggest with all due respect that this indicates the RfArb not be used as a criterion during this FAC. My standing objections are based on the article's content, which in my judgment is getting better but not quite there yet. Anville 20:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My objections are also not based on the RfArb, which I strongly opposed. Flying Jazz 02:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The RfArb has been withdrawn. Anville 22:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coffee

This article was nominated previously, but I think that the reasons why it has been rejected have been resolved. This is a Good Article which has great pictures, well balanced sections, detailed, and acurate discriptions. I think it covers everything on the topic. Tobyk777 02:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose for a start - such a huge article the lead should be longer to summarise the content of the article. I think to reduce the huge size of the page the section of coffee drinks should be moved to a list of coffee drinks or something similar and a paragraph or two written in summary of the content. History seems under developed There is no consistent reference system, the aricle is a bit thin on sources. There are seveal short sections that are poorly developed like Coffee substitutes and Coffee as an artistic medium or not especially relevant sections like Coffee as a fertilizer - any organic matter can be used as fertilizer. I would suggest sending this article back to peer review.--nixie 04:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As far as sources go, the reason people often don't include them is becuase they didn't use them. Most of the time on wikipedia, people write from their personal knowlage. They can't site their brain as a source. I just knew the info I added to this article. I didn't get it from a soruce. By saying that anything which doesn't site sources for the whole thing is invalid to become an FA means that anything which people wrote from their own knowlage is invalid, which is dumb. Tobyk777 05:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No, actually, it isn't dumb at all. Read these: Wikipedia:No Original Research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. These two core policies should guide all our work, and most certainly Featured Articles. Research, not setting down what's in your brain, is what Wikipedia is all about. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Even if you write from the top of your head, you need to cite sources to prove what you think you remember is actually correct and supported by reliable sources. More common stuff like the color of coffee beans doesn't need any special sourcing, but as soon as you get into biological and historical facts, you can't go without. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, same as before:
  1. The image Image:Frappe.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  2. The image Image:Coffee cup.JPG has no source information, and no, "from Spanish Wikipedia" doesn't cut it -- the image was deleted from there due to questionable license information [5]

  --Carnildo 08:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. See above. --- Basileus Basileon Basileuon Basileuoton 03:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Fix the captions to include periods ("."), be more informative, and be complete sentances. I just skimmed the article, and if the captions are bad and other users object I think this needs work. Officialy, however, I'll leave this as a neutral comment. --HereToHelp (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:STYLE#Captions instructs "If the caption is a single sentence or a sentence fragment, it does not get a period at the end." There are currently 3 images: one is a fragment with no period, one is a genus/species label with no period, one is a sentence and a half with a period. DMacks 20:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Article is dominated by lists which need rewriting into detailed prose, there is a lack of citations and references and the lead is very short considering the length of the article. There are also lots of short sections and there are image source/copyright problems mentioned by Carnildo above. — Wackymacs 20:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think this article is too lengthy, and has too many external links. For example, why is http://www.coffeeblogging.com/ listed? The site isn't notable at all, and not that informative to merit inclusion in the external links. ---Aude 23:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Heavens no, the issues haven't been resolved! Nearly all of them still apply. It's nowhere near ready for consideration. Really, you should at least raise the issue on the talk page before nominating it to get a sense of what the contributors think about it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. (regarding others' objections). The lists have been removed. All images are now CreativeCommons or GNU-FDL. External links have (I think) been pared of non-"useful reference" sites. (what's the protocol here...do I place notes next to each Object above? DMacks 20:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The nomination's old enough that you should start fresh with a new nomination. --Carnildo 22:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3D Monster Maze

Self-nomination. Submitting as 1) it seems to me to satisfy the f.a.c. criteria 2) (Quoting the article): it has a remarkable place in the history of computer/video games, being the first 3D game for a home computer 3) all the objections/ideas from the peer review/talk page have been merged in, the reference research seems logically complete now BACbKA 21:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've split the relevant links into a references section, by using the relevant citing templates. An annotation putting each one into the article material context is present (also inherited from when it was in the external links section). Please tell me if more should be done on the references front (these are the actual references used, sorry for blurring the references/ext. links distinction previously). BACbKA 23:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added the background history on the game development and the guy behind it, along with the backing references. BACbKA 01:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Object. The article is much too short for such an 'important' game. I'd like to see more shots, to read more about the evolution of 3D-gaming (or first-person shooters), more about the programmer(s), some early reactions to the game (reviews?), something about the reason why this game is not well-known, etcetera. Also, it needs references (is the game featured in any of the histories of computer games? I think it is). -- Cugel 21:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the last section of the article (the one called "External links")? All the references are there. Some are talking about histories of computer games. 2 of them have stories about the programmers, the firm etc. I thought it is out of the focus of the game proper. I thought the relative proportion of the material to the references is pretty good. I'd be happy to elaborate more on the issues you've raised (by incorporating a digest of these issues from the references already in), but please confirm you didn't miss the pointers that have exactly the answers you ask for one click away. BACbKA 22:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I got it now by re-reading the FA criteria again. You want a section named References, and you want pointers to it from within the main text. I'll do that, by re-hashing the External links. BACbKA 23:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I put more history points pertaining to the game in; more available from the relevant gaming history in the See also. More about the programmer added, reviews put in, too. As to "why this game is not well-known", I must say, that the very question showed that the article wasn't clear enough --- it is quite known, esp. in the retrogaming scene. The newly added info and links hopefully clarify that. Reviews clippings added as well. Hopefully I have addressed all of your issues; please tell me if you still feel it is "much too short" and what further expansion direction you'd like to see. (See also the article talk page — there are a couple of minor trivia points I'm currently going to research and add). BACbKA 22:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing 'strong', but still objecting. You're doing a fine job improving the article. It's not yet ready for FA status, maybe you should take a good look at the articles about computer games that did get FA. They're much longer and more elaborate about all aspects of the game (I agree with you that it may not make sense, but an article really has to shine before it gets featured). -- Cugel 22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Please look over the FA criteria again. The lead is much too short, the article is generally too short, and it is missing references. There is nothing about the Gameplay, or the response the game received from the press and reviews. A game cover would be good in the infobox. You can add it to peer review again for more specific comments/suggestions. — Wackymacs 22:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the references and reviews, please see my answer above. I can surely add a press/reviews section in the article, in addition to the references; I'll start right away. Can you please tell me how long (number of paragraphs) you'd think the press/reviews section should be, to your taste? How much to expand the lead? And what do you mean by the "Gameplay" in addition to the "Game overview" stuff there already? I'd be happy to add that, as soon as I am sure I understand what is missing. (Pity I never got these comments during the peer review...) BACbKA 22:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• It looks better now but I keep my Object vote because the article is too short to become featured, its not an example of Wikipedia's best work. — Wackymacs 10:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object Looks very short. Is that all we know about 3D Monster Maze? deeptrivia (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, way too short to be a featured article, and missing lots of important information - who developed the game, how did the 3D engine work, were any shortcuts made in coding the engine (I'm sure there were, considering the technology it was coded on), how was the game received by the press and by gamers, how were the sales, which other games did it influence, ...? I'd love to learn more about the game, but the article doesn't give any of that information. This article certainly has the potential to become a featured article one day, but still has a long way to go -- Ferkelparade π 00:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The 3D engine exploration is not available AFAIK anywhere, and I am not going to put in any original research. Looking for the sales figures, but in vain so far. Other issues raised by this entry addressed by the recent changes to the article. BACbKA 11:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'd like to see some more detail, although I realize finding info on an obscure old game like this could be difficult. It has the basic ingredients for a FA, in my opinion, just needs some expansion and maybe a little fine-tuning. I do think it's interesting. Everyking 08:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, I recommend bringing the "reviews" section together a bit more, providing summary "linking" info to guide the reader along, and some general notes (overall critical reception, common themes/perceptions of reviewers, evaluation over time)...flat quoting of the reviews is a bit weak. Everyking 08:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done the "reviews" part. I'm at a loss about further detail digging w/o turning this into original research (although I am able to disassemble the game and comment on how it works from within, I don't think this is what you're looking for when you're asking for more details). Concrete suggestions (like the reviews thing) are desperately needed (and, of course, it would be great if you tried the game out and/or contributed to the article yourself to steer it towards the goals you suggest...) BACbKA 21:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Francis du Pont

An often-ignored yet important figure in American naval history; I started writing about him on a tangential lark from Dupont Circle and went from a stub to a full-fledged biography. Postdlf 00:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• A few questions:

1. The lead speaks of US involvement in China and Japan in the mid-19th century. Involvement in what?
2. How did his family get their close connections to Thomas Jefferson? Did he live in the area; was he somehow related?
3. And as an extension of that: "...whom he believed were incompetent and had only received their commands through political influence." Didn't he receive his post in the same way? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

1. The intro says "U.S. involvement with China and Japan."
2. See the reference to T.J. in Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours (S.F.'s grandfather). Also, though the article on Eleuthère Irénée du Pont doesn't mention it yet, du Pont started his gunpowder factory in 1802 (which grew into the Dupont corporate empire) at the urging of Thomas Jefferson, who also put in the factory's first order. I don't think this needs to be mentioned in S.F.'s article. Postdlf 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
3. From what I found, Du Pont got aboard a ship through political influence, but he earned his command by rising through the ranks and proving his merit. Maybe there was political influence in his promotions as well (add it to the article if you find it); it wasn't impossible for S.F. to simply be a hypocrite on this count. I don't think you'll find a historian that will say that du Pont "only received [his] commands through political influence," however. Postdlf 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chevrolet Corvette

This car is an american legend, and of course, the article is long, well written, with lots of pictures to illustrate it. I believe that this is featured article material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karrmann (talk • contribs) 21:10, December 15, 2005 (UTC).

• Object. The article has no references except for three external links, two to AutoWeek articles regarding the upcoming Blue Devil and one in the oldest surviving unit that points to a page that is "closed for remodeling". The links for these two sections need to be converted into full citations and references for the remaining fifteen sections need to be identified. --Allen3 ^talk 22:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. With proper references, in my opinion, it would be make a great FA.---(Smerk)

• Support. New and improved sources seem to have been added. I'd like to see them placed with their corresponding facts in the article itself but other than that, I see a wonderfully written and laid out article. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Informal and unprofessional language, for example, I will highlight awkward phrasings (or informal ones) in bold, including some omissions:

Harley Earl loved sports cars, and GIs returning after serving overseas World War II were bringing home MGs, Jaguars, Alfa Romeos and the like. [disjunct transition] Earl convinced GM that they needed to build a two-seat sports car. The result was the 1953 Corvette, unveiled to the public at that year's Motorama car show. The original Corvette emblem incorporated an American flag into the design; this was later dropped, since associating the flag with a product was frowned upon

Some of it is informal language. Some of it is ambiguous and unclear, or there is disjunct transition, and very generalised sentence, ie. almost like a grandfather telling the reader a story, which is not the tone of the encylopedia. And compressed words for very significant actions "the result was" (oh, what happened? Something might have been explained later, but the reader is left jarred)....failure to wikify some parts, and overwikification of some parts. Convinced? How? What exacty transpired between him and the development team? And so on, etc. etc. this is only one paragraph, there are many such examples.

Featured articles should have a stoic, non-enthusiastic and professional tone, while engaging the interest of the reader about the events. This article doesn't do that. It needs to be copyedited by someone knowledgeable about the subject.

Also, lack of references - there are at most, 3 references cited throughout the entire article. A standard FA should at least have ten, or even twenty. A footnote system would be preferred, but the lack of any substantial references horrifies me. "V8 engine history" is not even formatted as a reference. -- Natalinasmpf 19:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Portugal (1578-1777)

It pretty good by now. Just want to known what to improve now. Gameiro 16:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This is for featured article candidates, you should nominate this article for Peer review if you want suggestions/comments. I will do a quick review anyway: it needs a copy-edit, inline citations with footnotes and there are also several links to non-existant articles. It is very close, but not quite there yet. — Wackymacs 17:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It could really do with a less awkward title. Ambi 01:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Like what? History of Portugal (1640–1755)? This would be consistent with featured articles like History of Poland (1945–1989), though I think some people might object to having all history articles be consistent with all other history articles, rather than just worrying about making history articles consistent with all articles of the same series (i.e. as long as all Portugal history articles are the same style...). It would help shorten and simplify the article title greatly, though... Actually, yeah, I support changing the History of Portugal articles to those names. It's too much trouble to mention the events which occurred in the years that are used as benchmarks, plus those events have their own articles anyway. Really, looking over the whole "History of Portugal" articles, I notice a heck of a lot of inconsistencies and bizarre changes in style (from timeline to general Spanish history to stub article to weird digression, and so on...) -Silence 05:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think anyone who doesn't know when the Restoration occured in Portugal will be confused by the title (like myself before I read the article). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The names of the majority of Portuguese historic periods articles are now simplified to History of Portugal (year-year). I'm working now with the inline citations. Thanks for the tips. Gameiro 23:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Remember also to change the Template:History of Portugal to correspond to the changes in the names of the articles to which the Template refers. Hydriotaphia 12:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment A lot of double redirects have been created by the page moves. These all need to be fixed. --Martyman-(talk) 21:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC) All double redirects have now been fixed, but every article that links to this one now goes through a redirect page. Idealy these should all be direct links. --Martyman-(talk) 22:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Double redirects corrected. Thanks. Gameiro 23:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. If an FAC doesn't get any votes at all, does that count as 0% support, or 100% support? -Silence 07:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

My sense is that it's an indication, sub silentio, that the article needs a good deal more work. Hydriotaphia 13:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - It is a great article but it needs proper referencing. I wouldn't mind if some of the redlinks were gone too. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I voted support below. Sorry for not realizing this oppose vote was still up. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 23:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Improvements needed:
  • awkward title
  • proper referencing
  • inline citations
  • copyedit
  • red links (I'm working on them)

anything else? Gameiro 21:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Conditional Support Comment: It seems really good, especially if you want to know all about Portugal, 1640-1777, but I haven't finished reading it yet... I'm curious to know how it was written. The article appeared a couple of weeks ago almost fully formed, so I'm wondering whether it was composed offline for Wikipedia, or moved from another article, or what? I'm not implying anything at all, just curious! (Also, aren't the references supposed to be to English-language sources?) --Tsavage 23:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC) (New vote comment: I changed to Conditional support, subject to a quick clean-up of a few typos, and straightening out of some sentences. I will help with this if I get a chance, and there isn't much that I can see. Beyond that, from my week or two's FAC experience, I realize that it is impractical and not the practice to literally vet an FAC against all of the criteria to the best of one's abilities. If my livelihood or my life depended on my accuracy, I would certainly check any article I commented on much more rigorously than I do here. With that, and my lack of any particular background in History or Portugal, as givens, I think this article reads well, interestingly, in fact, and seems to cover its topic in detail, and be well-illustrated and complete. No flags pop, no alarm bells go off, so I can't not explicitly support along the general lines of the FAC criteria, provided the relatively minor cleanup is done. An issue is the non-English citations, however, on this one, I'm just going with what's there in English, which may not seem sufficient to some -- that can be taken into account in the consensus evaluation. (I'm curious as to why there are so few comments on this one...) --Tsavage 18:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC))

The rewrite of the lead is good. I checked for typos since I'd noted 'em before and it seems fine. And this is an interesting article... For these and above reasons, I've amended by vote to "support". --Tsavage 19:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

My conversion of Conditional to plain Support was premature. I'm back to the original Conditional opinion, subject to some copyediting. I don't think there is inconsistency in any of my reasons, but I assumed a greater level of copyediting than I finally read for after the many previous rereads and bits and pieces of revision. (You may want to note my comment, on Monicasdude's objection below, regarding amount of revisions in FACs)... --Tsavage 18:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment. I had been writing the majority of the article in Word for some weeks using mostly my knowledge, some websites and concise history books in Portuguese. For the earthquake, the Távora's affair and the Jesuits expulsion I selected bits of articles on Wikipedia and made small corrections. Then I used a timeline (Mattoso Vol. VIII) and corrected dates and places. I'm doing the same now for History of Portugal (1777-1834). As for the references, I've used Portuguese language books and English language websites. I don't know if only English language books are supposed to be referenced. Anyone knows? Gameiro 01:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• This one is interesting. I guess I'll go with a weak object since this article does not have many inline citations, and because it uses references written in a foreign language. Normally I like to see a note or two per paragraph, and I especially like inline citations at the end of paragraphs, since they suggest that the material in the paragraph is covered in that reference. As for the languages of the references, I'm not trying to be difficult, but since there are likely many English language books covering Portuguese history, I think English references should be used as much as possible. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 06:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I hate to be a downer, but if I were a student of portuguese history, I'd have a terrible time trying to excise sources out of this article. There are 11 inline citations, most of which are bunched together, and none of which having page numbers. There are huge portions of text with no apparent corresponding citation. And why on earth are we using Encarta as a reference? I'm afraid that I must fully object now. For some reason I had a better impression of the article's incline citations when I first posted here. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 22:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment can't make head nor tail of the first sentence. It reads "The History of Portugal from the 1640 Restoration to the end of the the Marquis of Pombal's regime in 1777 is a transitional 115 year period between the height of the Portuguese Empire and influence in the world that characterized the two previous centuries, and the decline of the Empire that culminated with the 1755 Lisbon earthquake" - Ta bu shi da yu 06:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Me neither. Well, just barely. And so easy to fix... ;) All of this FAC-ing, it can be like having a real job... --Tsavage 19:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Oppose:I like this page very much, its almost a new fact every second. Which is just how an encyclopedia article should be. However, I do feel it needs to be tightened up, a lot of words seem to be used when justa few would do, for example: "....a beloved monarch, patron of music and arts and a proficient writer on musical subjects. He was also a considerably sophisticated composer" - I may be wrong but for a start I think mucic is already one of the arts, whatever there seems to be a convoluted way of saying he was "into" music. The page need s to be very sympathetically copyedited, whoever wrote it knows their facts, but the copy editor need to be someone who has not worked on it, so has to work out what the article is trying to say with fresh eyes. I note the article is well referenced, I don't think non controversial accepted historical facts need to be footnoted so long as they are in the references. New ideas (if there are any - I don't know) do need (IMO) to be footnoted and attributed etc. Regarding the title, I see it has been "History of Portugal 1640 - 1777" , that was pretty good! I hope to change my vote very soon. A very well researched article. Regarding Tsavage's above point "....references supposed to be to English-language sources?" I don't think wikipedia should allow itself to be limted in this way. There are many great reference books other than those written in English. Are the great FAs of the other language wikipedias not to be translated because they used native references? Giano | talk 12:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: re: non-English sources. I agree with you. I mentioned it (in a mildly dissenting way) Because I'm trying to be thorough on the FAC points I cover... The position on no-English sources seems to be not quite clearly stated as official policy: WP:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English. (I find that the NOR+NPOV+Verifiability formula makes sense in principle, but in practice, the actual rules push towards a certain kind of (quasi-, pseudo-) academic style, with the citations and whatnot, that's a...little odd and out of synch with much of the material and activity... Of course, that's all part of the FUN! ;) --Tsavage 19:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - I think this is great. I have copyedited and moved to a new title, History of Portugal (1578-1777), since it starts with the dynastic crisis and Philip I of Portugal and II of Spain. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support after all the fixes *grin* -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 22:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It's very much improved, but could really do with some pinpoint references; there's even quotes without a cite. Ambi 22:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Object. Inline html references need to be converted to footnotes. (See Wikipedia:Footnote) — Wackymacs 07:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 02:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object because the very first sentence needs to be fixed -- very awkward and difficult to read -- and the see alsos should be integrated into the body of the article. Other than that, it looks great! Tuf-Kat 17:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have split the first sentence into bite-size chunks. I trust is it more digestible. I have also trimmed redundant "See also"s. I'm not sure how you would like the remaining "See also"s to be included in the text (two are timelines, the other two are elements of "History of Portugal" already included in the template)... -- ALoan (Talk) 18:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The two links that are already in the template should be removed, I think, but I've struck my objection. Tuf-Kat 06:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object—Good article, but the years in the title should be separated by an n dash, not a hyphen. Please fix. Tony 14:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Does the Manual of Style specify a format for date ranges in titles? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, looks very good now. Andrew Levine 14:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Prose needs a very extensive copyedit. "A revolt led by prominent figures as well as military officers failed and Royal courts sentenced most of the conspirators to prison or exile. This situation was aggravated when the Napoleonic Wars started." "With the transfer of the Royal court to Rio de Janeiro, the tense situation was attenuated". "Joseph I was shot in an arm". "In the 1720s, the rush suffered another stimulus". Monicasdude 16:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• re Prose needs a very extensive copyedit. I spent some time on this, followed it through fairly extensive edits (which "shouldn't" be part of FAC), and gone from Comment, to Conditional Support, to Support, back to Conditional Support, and based in part on the specifics mentioned in this objection. So, I feel obliged to comment on this:

I agree that the article could use copyediting, but very extensive seems to be an exaggeration I skimmed the article just now, and it does continue to have some awkward stuff, which makes for a valid FAC objection (as in, not great writing), period. But, "very extensive"? "Writing style" isn't a clear cut situation, FAC isn't, Wikipedia isn't, and IF procedural tactics (such as overemphasis) are used to add weight to the reasons for an objection, thereby making a consensus decision harder to evaluate if that objection remains, that simply messes up the practical process. I'm not saying that's the case here, however, I don't believe there are very many instances left. The objection should detail what exactly the "copyedit" refers to, that term is a pretty clear reference to mechanics, but it still involves the larger issue of writing style, and an argument against can almost always be made based on style. (Meanwhile, I have once again changed my vote, to conditional support, on exactly its original conditional basis: "subject to a quick clean-up of a few typos, and straightening out of some sentences".)

This objection highlights how unwieldy and plain difficult the current FAC-as-article improvement approach is. Does one hang back and only read a nomination near the FAC deadline? (I've begun to do that, which is unfortunate, it renders a FAC proceeding hard to follow, therefore, difficult to participate in and to use as a future guideline.) Or does one only check articles with lots of initial support (suspecting overly-friendly votes, or believing that it's really hard to meet "FA standards")? Should one meticulously reread an article multiple times to get the full sense of each significant set of revisions, or not vote in the first place if not always willing or able to go over it again and again over a period of up to a couple of weeks?

Really, an article shouldn't make it to FA status with a single awkward sentence, by a reasonable interpretation of the rules that says, all else being OK, it should "read properly" from beginning to end. At the same time, the goal of FA is to recognize quality and improve standards, and the application of that is...active improvement of FACs-in-process. Monicasdude's objection is necessary and valid, but extremely annoying for its timing and lack of attempt at self-resolution. Annoying isn't wrong or a necessarily a bad thing, but here, it is UNHELPFUL. I will go through the current version thoroughly, once again (though I must admit, I am growing much less inclined to do anything but vigorously object on very narrow and specific grounds and for certain nominations only, which may not be the overall intended spirit of FAC...). Again, my issue here is with the current process... Sheesh... ;) --Tsavage 18:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I was going to make corrections, which after a pretty thorough reading, I'd guess involves a maybe 15-20 areas, mostly a word or two (like "Joseph was shot in an/the arm", but 20, even for the length of the article, is a lot. At that point, it would be smoothly readable, no ambiguous or confusing or awkward bits, not "brilliant" by any stretch, but gets the job done. I would've hoped it had been taken care of in the interim. I'd do it, since I did get involved on the support side, but, looking at the nom date (Nov. 26), this article has been around for nearly three weeks, and that's also...unrealistic. So, I'm letting my conditional stand. The arbiter of consensus can duly note the conditions, etc, etc. I will further revise my approach to support. --Tsavage 03:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for whatever problems my timing may have created, but . . . I didn't take much of a look at this article before, because the negative comments looked like this had very little chance of being promoted, and my comments would just have repeated what others had already said. I said "very extensive" because I see clunky, if not outright defective, prose in most paragraphs, and an inconsistent set of citation forms. I'm reluctant to do a major copyedit on an article when I know so little about the underlying subject matter (and especially when I have trouble keeping track of who's who in the events.)

I strongly agree with you about the FAC process and articles that are subject to major revisions. It would probably be better if candidacies of articles which could not gain consensus support without major revisions were rejected quickly, rather than lingering through multiple versions of the article. Monicasdude 19:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said, you were "right" to object. I won't go into my personal process on this one (well...nah); I will continue to revise my approach to FAC support... Thanks for the reply! --Tsavage 03:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This should use inline citations. And even the current reference section is improperly formatted, with online references not quiting 'last date accessed' info.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ford Mondeo

I believe that this article is very well written, and it meets the featured article criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karrmann (talk • contribs).

• Oppose. For a start, there are no references. The article could also be greatly expanded upon. —Hollow Wilerding 23:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. References are pretty important sir Rampart 23:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's good, but it has no references. I'd support it if references were added. - Cuivienen 02:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's, overall, a decent article. At first glance, it really looks like it can be expanded on, but my main objections are on several specific grounds:

Lead section: You're going to need to flesh out that lead section. The summary at the top should be enough to stand on its own as informative, well-written, and enough to ease the reader into the rest of the article.

See also: "Contains more information about the Contour," is redundant, as we can already tell that it's an article about the Contour from the link itself.

References: As per Hollow Wilerding, Rampart, and Cuivienen.

Short sections: It would be wonderful if you could beef up the "Replacement", "Image," and "Ford Mondeo in popular culture" sections. They're very skimpy, and this simply leads the reader to think two things - that the article is choppy, and that the article may not be comprehensive. A single sentence about a topic doesn't deserve its own major subheading.

Needs a copyedit: There's a few grammatical and style issues that need to be worked out before this article can and should be held up to be "brilliant prose," a requirement for Featured Article status. There are a number of comma splices, as well as gratuitous use of "this" and "that" in a context in which the reader needs to slow down to catch what you're referring to. Some areas simply don't flow well - it seems like one person wrote the article, and someone else then came in with a thesaurus to awkwardly rephrase various sections with "bigger" words.

Red links: I don't think this last point has too much to do with promoting this article to Featured status, but there's quite a number of red links in your page. It's something that wouldn't look very good to, say, newcomers skimming through the front page article on a certain day.

Nice work, so far, and I wish you the best of luck getting this to FA status! -Rebelguys2 05:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. There are no references, the lead is too short, Image:Mondeo 1995 Verona 18TD.jpg is much too small (and its a shame because its not a bad photo). There are quite a few red links (thats not a reason for an objection, just a comment), and the last few sections are terribly short. Could do with expanding, refer to WP:Peer review for more specific comments/suggestions. — Wackymacs 07:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The 4x4 line wich was released late 95 to 97 is briefly mentioned. I do have some information, but I'd like to find some more here, because it's a mix of the 2.0L and the V6 line. Futte 13:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foolkiller

This is one of the best articles on a comic book character I've seen. Especially given the obscurity of the character. This article, more than any other article I've seen on a comic book character gives a sense of humanity to the character instead of just what he does in his adventures and what his superpowers are. Even the cover illustrations are given. This really will want to make someone track down this series. Mr. ATOZ 18:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references; see wikipedia:cite sources. Johnleemk | Talk 18:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Object. Please take this to Peer review, where I'll gladly point out the multitude of things wrong with this article. «LordViD» 18:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There are no references, the lead is very short, I'm not too fond on the gallery in the 'Foolkiller (Marvel, 1990-91) ten-issue limited series' section. 'Powers and abilities' section should be turned into prose and merged into another larger section. Notes need to be turned into footnotes (see Wikipedia:Footnote). Refer to peer review for more specific comments/suggestions. — Wackymacs 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object per Johnleemk and Wackymacs. See Captain Marvel (DC Comics) for an example of a comic book character featured article. -Scm83x 02:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This was an article written by a fan, not a scholar. Aside from the sparse introductory paragraph, it reads like an encyclopedia article existing within the character's fictional world—like it came from the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe—rather than an article in ours describing how the character was created and used over the years by expressing "facts" about the character only in terms of the works of fiction that expressed them. Captain Marvel (DC Comics) is absolutely fabulous, on the other hand—that's how an article about a fictional subject should be written. Context, context, context. Postdlf 01:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency department

Peer review 1

This is the first time this has been nominated to FAC. The Emergency department article has been through peer review and was the Article improvement drive for a week from November 20, 2005. It has been improved a lot by many wikipedians (including myself). The lead is good, the image copyrights are good, and the flow/language is good. The article is also referenced. — Wackymacs 10:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Object. It should really have more photos especially as they shouldnt be too difficult to get ---- Astrokey44|talk 11:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice but pictures are not a requirement for a featured article, so this isn't a reason to Object. Please see the FA criteria. — Wackymacs 12:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well no 4. says that although they are not required, it should have images where appropriate. It should have something like a closeup of an ER sign - perhaps different ones in different countries, and maybe the image of the building could be cropped to show the ED clearer. ---- Astrokey44|talk 03:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Astrokey's complaint is valid. It is not appropriate to say "there are no images, therefore this cannot be an FA." It is appropriate to say, "there are not enough images for this specific article topic." Images not being required just means that how many images an article should have depends entirely on the topic itself, and whether more things should be illustrated in it. -Silence 14:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OBJECT - I concur - this article is sorely lacking in imagery. I'm honestly interested to see what emergency departments look like, especially in non-western countries. - JustinWick 02:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Why are there section just on the US and UK? Those should be integrated into the supersection, and it should also have some info on the non-developed world as well. Tuf-Kat 16:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This is limited to only few English speaking countries. What about such places in the rest of the world? What about the history, invention, changes over time? Could use more inline citations and references as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Mild object. Rather thin in the references department. Do you have, for instance, something supporting the explanation that "ED" failed to catch on as a replacement term because of the TV show ER and "ED" as a shorthand for erectile dysfunction? It's probably right, and Lord knows I've gotten away with similar speculations in articles, but I've never yet submitted one for FA status either. Daniel Case 02:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haileybury College, Melbourne

Very detailed article, giving an insight into independent schools in Victoria, Australia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sendreplyfwd (talk • contribs).

Object No references at all. Questionable copyright status on images. These two obecjtions are obvious without even reading the article. Unsure of copyright status of "School Hymn." Also, the article does not exemplify "brilliant prose." Article should go through a peer review first. We need more FAs in the education category, but this one just isn't ready for the big time. -Scm83x 05:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Added references—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.230.70.23 (talk • contribs).

• These references should be made inline in the ref/note style of other featured articles, like today's featured article. Article still lacks all of the other things I mentioned. Please sign your posts. -Scm83x 06:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Needs more work, peer editing, cleanup. Not in line with WP:MOS, huge gaps in history section; no info on sports, academics or extra-curricular activities. My stock standard advice on high school articles: have a look at the Schools Portal and Caulfield Grammar School (the only high school FA) for an idea of what is required in a high school article in order to be featured. Harro5 06:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object: What little there is seems informative, but the article has too many short single paragraph sections in fact the whole page is too short, the school must have more to offer than this if it is notable, because quite frankly it doesn't sound a very interesting place, are any of it alumni notable, even infamous will do. The page reads like one of those brief synopsis of local schools written in a bland anonymous town guide - where each section has to be confined to a limited number of words. Giano | talk 08:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Object Is is a good article, however not a great one. It is certainly better than most on wikipedia however it is not worthy of being a feature article. I certainly agree with adding some well known alumni as i know Haileybury certainly does have some well known ones eg. Police Minister Tim Holding etc. This article could be fixed up to conform to a higher standard. I recommend you look at Caulfield Grammar as this is an excellent article. Haileybury College is one of the best schools in the world an unfortunately this article does not do it justice. I would also recommend adding more information on the parallel education system as this is what has made Haileybury famous. The history section could be improved, as well as what Haileybury offers, the whole article seems to be about the new girls college. I congratulate the author on their work as wikipedia definately needs more articles relating to schools, however i don't think this article is worthy of being a feature article just yet. --Adsl009 09:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object as per Giano. Tony 04:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asgard (Stargate)

Self Nomination Being well versed in Stargate, after finding this article I was able to add detail in the places it lacked. It has good tables, diagrams, and pictures. It is fully wikified and seems to cover everything about the Asgard. Tobyk777 01:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Has zero references. Only has one small image, certainly needs more, and that image needs a Fair Use Rationale. Numerous stub sections; should be expanded or merged together, using paragraphal prose style rather than making every few sentences a new section. Very short article, much of its size contributed by three big infoboxes and the excess sectioning (and resultantly large TOC). Should mention if this race has had any influence or impact outside of the series (for example, they seem almost identical to a Marvel Comics alien race from the series Paradise X). Could use some better organization, like putting the events into a "history" section. Seems to lack a "biology" or "physical description" section, which one would expect to be noteworthy for a fictional alien race just as much as "technology". Remove the "see also" section from the bottom of this article, and from every article that uses "see also" in that way that you or anyone else ever sees: templates linking to other articles can (and should) be included at the bottom of pages even without being in any section. Article should have been put through peer review before being nominated here, or checked more carefully against the Featured Article Criteria. -Silence 06:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article is missing references. All of the sections are too short, and the subsections should be merged together. The lead is very short. The templates shouldn't be in a see also section. There is no external links section. The image that is included needs a fair use rationale. I agree with everything Silence has said above. Refer to WP:Peer review for more specific suggestions and comments. — Wackymacs 11:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object: One is not supposed to mention topic issues, but this is a topic that simply won't generate comprehensive discussion. Inasmuch as this is a deus ex machina from a particular TV show, there isn't that much to say, unless one were to go ransacking fan fiction and novelizations and the like, and, were one to do that, one would need to establish that these are all sufficiently competent to be counted at the same level as the TV show. However, for a specific, content-only, objection, the sections are extremely brief in number of words and scope of coverage. Geogre 19:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Strongly Object: There's only one (?!?!) image in the entire article, and IMHO not a terribly good one. The organisation is sub-par, and it is not in any way compelling. I watched 8 seasons of the show and think it was great, but seriously there's nothing very interesting or exciting in this article. People who watch the show probably know all of this, and people who do not probably do not care, so the article needs to succeed on more abstract merits. I'm not sure really what references are possible for this (maybe episod references to the DVDs?) but there's certainly no way an article in this shape could possibly be featured. If there was about 3-4x as much information, written and organized better, and more images (this could be a copyright problem), maybe. - JustinWick 02:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object I have to agree with Geogre; the topic itself is too slight. Also, it is a good rule of thumb not to nominate articles for FA that have a word misspeled in the first line. Eusebeus 10:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree strongly with both of you, then. Any topic that is noteworthy enough to have its own article is noteworthy enough to become a Featured Article. Topical bias is unsupportable by the Featured Article requirements; if you believe that a clause should be added stating that an article's topic must be noteworthy enough, then you should bring that up on the FA talk pages, not on a specific FA nomination. "This article's topic isn't broad enough to have a high-quality article written about it" is not an actionable complaint. -Silence 11:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Geogre's point, if I understand him correctly, is that the topic itself inherently redounds to the quality of the article, so it's not just some qualitative declarative: "this topic is unworthy". I may be misinterpreting his objection though. Eusebeus 12:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That's it, indeed. I was not saying, "Trivial stuff!" I was saying, "The topic is limited by nature to being so much a part of another topic that it cannot be comprehensive." It was not an elitist sneer, but a comment about how the topic is too integrated with another to be discussed comprehensively, and I think this is relatively uniquely limited in a way that a "History of..." or "Economy of..." is not. The Asgard are too small a part of the show to be discussed without the show itself. I don't think this is an AfD topic, but I think it would be nearly impossible to generate an FA from it. Geogre 18:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Like most articles about fictional subjects, it forgets that the subject only exists in fiction after the introductory paragraph, so that the article itself becomes fiction. "Citing sources" in this context means tying the fictional "facts" about the subject to the works of fiction in which they are expressed, with emphasis upon the perspective that this subject is merely a concept used by different writers in different works. Postdlf 01:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl XXXIX

Good length, informative, a few pictures and links, no disputes. karmafist 02:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: My first impression off hand is that I am a bit concerned about Image:Bushclinton2.jpg because it does not have a specific source cited. Plus, the image does look a little distorted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: In the lead, the phrase "Many commentators and fans believe" is an example of a weasel term.-Scm83x 06:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I protest against lists in articles, thus the Trivia section needs to be merged into another part of the article or made into prose. Inline citations would also be preferable to justify any statements made in the article (See Wikipedia:Footnote). Image:Bushclinton2.jpg doesn't cite a source and is missing a fair use rationale as well. — Wackymacs 09:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I rember one commercial—vaguely—and the issue was that this guy had looked like he killed his girlfriend's cat, and then there was something about "everything is not how it appears". Can you investigate that and add it in? But, looking at the whole picture, I think that the article is in fairly good shape, but I'm not sure if it's really FA status, so I'll abstain from voting one way or the other. But it's still a nice article. --HereToHelp (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object The image Image:Bushclinton2.jpg doesn't cite a source, looks streteched, and has no copyright info. While refs are listed at the end, they are not linked to any article content. Rlevse 19:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teller-Ulam design

Well written informative article that meets nomination criteria Prodego^talk 21:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. There's some awkward wording in the introduction:
  • The Teller-Ulam configuration is a nuclear weapons design which is employed in thermonuclear weapons which is more colloquially referred to as the hydrogen bomb. - run on sentence, odd sounding. Is it this configuration or thermonuclear weapons in general which are referred to as hydrogen bombs? If "Tellam-Ulam design" and hydrogen bomb are interchangable terms, shouldn't hydrogen bomb redirect here?
  • The basic design is this: Like with any fission primary, a hollow sphere of weapons-grade material like Plutonium(Pu-239 seems to work best). Sounds weird; I would remove the first five words entirely and rewrite the remainder so that it isn't a sentence fragment. Also, "Pu-239 seems to work best" needs some sort of citation.

I'll copyedit/wikify some of it, but those two sentences stuck out. Rampart 23:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• This was not the original wording, it was changed by an IP editor after the articles nomination. I have reverted to the original. Prodego^talk 00:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent article. A few comments:

• There's a mix of straight inline links and Harvard citations that should probably be standardized. Using footnotes throughout is one possiblity, although there are doubtless others.
• The first section ("Public body of knowledge concerning nuclear weapon design") has some overlap with the "Public knowledge" sections later on. More generally, it seems, in its current wording and position, suspiciously like a disclaimer. Is there a reason why the section cannot be removed entirely, or perhaps limited to a few sentences in the introduction?

Other than that, great work! —Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Well, I think it was intended as a disclaimer. The sections which follow are somewhat speculative, and used to have that indicated in them, though an editor who didn't like to be doubted took that uncertainty out of them. I think it could be removed if the following sections were a little more cautious, considering almost none of this stuff has ever been unambiguously declassified. --Fastfission 04:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh no, here we go again... 8-) Georgewilliamherbert 06:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I love the diagrams; I'm sorry to say a lot of the writing leaves me flat. Generally, it isn't clean and flowing at the sentence level. I've seen a number of instances of non-encyclopedic lapses ("Comparing the three mechanisms proposed, we see that...") and I found the frequent mentions of discussing some point or other in "a section below" distracting. There are many sentences that are just difficult to read. (One example: "DOD official declassification reports indicate that foamed plastic materials are or may be used in radiation case liners, and despite the low direct plasma pressure they may be of use in delaying the ablation until energy has distributed evenly and a sufficient fraction has reached the secondary's tamper/pusher." Some other issues:
  • I don't mind Harvard referencing, but I don't think the anonymous URL links [6] are good enough for an FA, and the mix of both is unsightly. Why not use footnotes?
  • The section title "Basic Principal" doesn't make sense. "Technology"?
  • If the ablation pressure is thought to be the real mechanism, it should be discussed first, and the other topics, perhaps, not given equal space.
  • One-paragraph subsections, like the two stating off the "History" section, are a sympom of an organizational problem.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Just a comment on the "real mechanism" — it depends on who it "is thought by". Personally I think the whole article could use a little more attention to attribution of opinion rather than just saying one is right and the others are wrong considering the basis of making that judgment (back of the envelope calculations by amateur weapons designers) seems fairly thin to me. In any event, I'd appreciate better citation at the very least, personally. Theories do not just exist independently in space. --Fastfission 01:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, your critiques seem to tell me at least that the article has not really reached a satisfactory consensus version, and so that's another reason it shouldn't be an FA. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I think we have a working consensus. We all mutually agree it could be better, but not exactly how. It has been good enough that people aren't arguing significantly and/or counter-editing each other for some time. It's hard to achieve encyclopedic perfection in a topic area where actual detailed technical work is classified in every nation on earth, and technical testing and demonstrations are currently against international treaty and considered by most social groups to be only slightly better than committing war crimes. Fastfission and I disagree about the degree to which we accurately know some things about it, but I think we have consensus on the parameters for agreeing to disagree, and the article represents that. Others editing has confused some of that a bit but not changed the fundamentals. Georgewilliamherbert 01:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Since the History of the Teller-Ulam design was created as a separate article on 14 August 2005 it has not been edited, however the history section in the main article has. Partly because of this the history section is not a good summary of it's child article. CheekyMonkey 19:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Just a comment. don't want to keep on in this tired way (Georgewilliamherbert and I have already argued over this more than I choose to spend time doing), but if you take a look at the original form of the article you can get a better idea of at least what I think works better as an enyclopedia article. Personally I'd nix the "technical discussions" in favor of more accessible explanations (nobody is going to come to our page to actually learn how to build one, after all, and anyway we are not trying to be a replacement for NuclearWeaponsArchive.org -- we are an encyclopedia), integrate the history better (it is far more interesting than the putative explanations, in my opinion), and attribute theories better rather than trying to prove them through putatively useful calculations (which borders on WP:NOR, in my opinion). But again, that's just my personal approach to this, in terms of what is a more useful and readable article. --Fastfission 01:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Glowing Support, very good article on something which still could destroy civilization as we know it. Did you know Teller was one of the models for Dr. Strangelove? --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Why is the series of images for the Foam/Plasma pressure and tamper/pusher ablation explanations to the reaction of a different style? It's not enough for me to object, but I think that an article should have consistancy, it makes wikipedia look that much more professional, and I would prefer if the article had a similar style of diagram for both, with a preference for the top one. - Hahnchen 05:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Without the original drawing program source for the top image, it was impractical to recreate it in detail. I have no objection to an artist either starting over again with the same concept for illustration of the ablation model but the style used in the foam one, or taking my image source file and modifying it more in the style of the upper one. I believe I used Illustrator for the ablation one. Georgewilliamherbert 03:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Remove external links from the mainbody, use inline citations to reference them. Also, MoS states that bold text should be avoided in the main body.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Music of Athens, Georgia

recreated incorrectly archived FAC from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Music of Athens, Georgia.

Had it peer reviewed awhile back, only got one comment, but it was a good one and I have expanded as recommended. Athens' most notable contribution to music is by far in the field of rock, so that's what this article focuses on, but it also gives a bit of music history and some info on symphonies, university music groups and some other stuff. Tuf-Kat 22:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, gosh! I was th-th-there, man. I was one of those people (not mentioned in the article, which is just as well, but one of those people performing there then, with an album, radio play, etc.), so I'll probably confine myself to information and to your talk page, as I have a bad feeling that I'm going to be too close to the subject to objectively object or support. Geogre 01:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object—fails Criteria 2(a), and possibly, 3(a). Here are some examples at random:
  • 'the city's music rise'
  • 'somber'?
  • stop-start paragraphing in places; e.g., under 'Rock'
  • the B52's should not have an apostrophe
    • Are you suggesting the band's proper name is the B52's instead of the B-52s? Or that there should be more on them? (or less?)
    • New York Times style sheet, along with a number of grammars, say that all acronymns and numbers, when made plural, take the apostrophe. This is to prevent confusion over "B 5 2 S" vs. "B 5 2"s. Insisting upon no apostrophe is a variation, and a very, very, very American one, and a new one. The group itself uses the apostrophe. Geogre 13:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • the opening sentence needs complete rewriting: 'The music of Athens, Georgia includes a long and influential history in Georgian music, and has also become a center for indie rock and other styles of music.' 'in' and 'includes' are awkward'; get rid of 'also', and most of the 'alsos' throughout the text. Who's been influenced? Begs a question that is not directly answered. 'other styles'—bit vague right at the top. Could be good if thoroughly fixed up. Tony 02:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've given the whole thing a copyedit, and rewrote pretty much the whole lead. Does this help? Tuf-Kat 07:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's better, but the lead is still a problem. It starts with specifics, then moves in the third sentence to the bigger picture. Why not start with something like:

'Athens, the capital and largest city in the southern US state of Georgia, has a rich history of .... and has made major contributions to the music of Georgia.'

• • Unsure why the emphasis is on the city's influence of music in just one state. Didn't it have a wider influence?
  • There's a link to B-52s and a link to B-52's. I hope it doesn't have an apostrophe, but it needs to be consistent.
  • Reference numbers: please insert non-breaking spaces before them, or better still, jam them up against the preceding character.
    • Well, I wanted a link to music of Georgia since Athens is a part of Georgia, but I guess it's not really all that relevant and really hard to work into the article. I've also slightly further tweaked the lead, unfortunately no longer putting music of Athens, Georgia anywhere in the lead to be bolded. I made it consistent with apostrophes because that's how the band's article is titled. I really don't like putting refs right next to a character, but I put non-breaking spaces in. Tuf-Kat
• Object. Non-comprehensive, doesn't discuss Geogre's band. :-) But seriously, I do have a few issues:
  • The copyright status on Image:Vicchesnutt.jpg is unclear; it has a public domain tag, but a description that grants only "Written permission to use this image for non-commercial purposes from New West Records", which means the image isn't allowable in Wikipedia at all, except as fair-use.
  • The word "scene" is repeated to distraction. This paragraph, with 4 "scenes" in three sentences, is the one that finally got to me:

The local rock scene in Athens dates back to the 1970s, when the local scene was based around house parties, eccentric thrift store fashions and a wild and frequently weird atmosphere. The foundation of the 40 Watt Club in 1978 helped to kickstart the local scene, which had previously had few resources for community performances. Many members of the scene's most prominent later bands became locally renowned in the 1970s, including the B-52s.

I guess that's about it from me. It's a good article, I think. A little hard to judge this one; I'm not sure what a comprehensive article on the music of one city looks like. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Side issue for Bunchofgrapes: Athens is one of those places like Seattle: whether there was something called "Athens music" or not, the press said that there was. Critics referred to it. Thus, there is a thing referred to that way. There are even all sorts of descriptions of what it sounds like, and you can still catch references to new acts sounding "like an Athens band." "Athens" got to be like "grunge" would become: a descriptor that critics were addicted to but that no one on the ground was quite in agreement with. (E.g. it's supposed to be the "jangly guitar" and the heavy use of surf-style reverb, but that had to do with economics: Fender Squier guitars were cheap, and they had reproduced the 1960's Fender guitar pickup, so we sounded like The Ventures. Fender DeLuxe amps, Vox amps, and Orange amps were cheap. We jangled because we hadn't the money to fuzz, and we used to say that effects pedals didn't make you a better player.) </oldfogeynostalgia> Geogre 15:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • I have removed most of the "scenes" in the article, and have requested a clarification from the user that uploaded the chesnutt pic. Thanks Tuf-Kat 07:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I see the current version doesn't include a bolded "Music of Athens, Georgia" near the start of the lead. If nothing else, that's going to make for trouble trying to produce a front-page blurb if this article gets featured. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

I'm nominating this article because I feel the peer review issues have been resolved. Well written article. The layout is nice. All important information is there or linked to. NPOV is exemplified well. And links and external links are well organized. This is a self-nomination because I participated in editing the article. Scifiintel 08:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong object Object, at some length:
  • No inline citations—and no explicit references at all, for that matter!
  • The article is very unbalanced; the gospel account is dealt with at proper length, but the remainder of the article is a glorified "See also" section with inadequate use of summaries. In particular, the lead mentions various religious interpretations, disputes about historicity, etc., all of which need to be dealt with in this article. As an aside, the article is less than 26K in size, which is surprisingly short for such a fundamental topic.
  • A number of technical issues:
    • Why is there a template for the apostles at the bottom?
    • Should the article be in Category:33 deaths if the date of his death is an issue of dispute?
    • {{Main}} should probably be replaced with {{Details}} throughout.
    • Explicit "See also" statements within the text (e.g. "See articles on Barabbas and Pilate for more about the trial before Pilate") should be removed where possible.

More generally, I think this article is in need of expansion—possibly massive expansion—before it can be considered comprehensive. —Kirill Lokshin 08:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • • I fixed all your technical issues except "{{Main}} should probably be replaced with {{Details}}", what does that mean? Also, the inline citations are substituted for intext citations of the bible, and the gospels are expilicitly cited as the main source for the "Jesus' life" part of the article. I got rid of the lead problems. Articles are supposed to be 32K and below so we can't add much more without going over that. The "see also" sections are used because they do not pertain directly to Jesus' life. A biography is always the main part of a wikipedia "person" article. And a biography has been shown in a NPOV way, because his life is shown as best as historians know how to show it, and that is through the Gospels, while making the disclaimer that they're not considered accurate by most scholars. Few other sources on Jesus' life exist. I hope that resolves most of your issues with the article. Scifiintel 18:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        • The technical issues are rather minor in any case. My more significant objections—the ones concerning referencing and balance—have not only not been resolved, but have actually become stronger. What we have now is essentially Jesus in the Gospels with a large "See also" section. To be considered comprehensive, this article must include significant material from Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus. Further, it must cite reputable secondary sources, since the Gospels cannot adequately reference their own accuracy. Until some effort is made in these areas, my objections stand. —Kirill Lokshin 00:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Why not just include a section on historicity. Any article on the historical Jesus is up to Jesus without the use of the Gospels. Very little text is about him outside of that before 200 A.D. making most of it completely inaccurate. So really, the historical Jesus is simply what a historical Jew would be plus his teachings. And that is just background. I believe that is adequately covered in one paragraph. Falphin 16:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
          • The secondary sources are the external references at the bottom of the page. The religious perspectives section has been added to keep it neutral to religion. Is that better? Scifiintel 05:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Some clarification of my earlier comments: I don't want an article on the historical Jesus—we already have one. However, the historicity debate (that is, whether the Gospel account is accurate) is central to any scholarly treatment of Jesus, and I think that elements of this should be better integrated into the biographical sections. On an entirely separate issue, I'll point out that (1) the external links are not cited, and (2) random websites are not (necessarily) reputable sources. I would like to see substantial use of published works (preferably academic ones) on the subject. —Kirill Lokshin 19:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The historicity section and some notes are back, is that better? Scifiintel 20:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Better, much better! A few points I think can still be improved though: the "See also" section should be pruned of any links already present in the text (which is a lot, now that several sections have been added). Also, footnotes should be provided more liberally. In particular, any statements of the form "John Doe has said/claimed/argued ..." need to have an associated citation, as do any references to a specific book. The various "Some scholars/people/etc. believe ..." should also be tied to something more specific; a small selection of examples could prove sufficient here. Finally, the last paragraph of the lead needs to be reworked to make clear that the (non-Christian) scholars may agree with the Gospel account of his life while disagreeing with their assertion of his divinity. —Kirill Lokshin 03:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I got rid of the links that are explicitly stated as main articles already. I have a question about what you wrote. I think some non-Christian scholars agree with the Gospel accounts and they also agree that Jesus asserted his own divinity, this does not mean they agree with Jesus and believe he was divine. Scifiintel 17:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object -- structurally unbalanced, as per User:Kirill Lokshin, and in general written as though it were Jesus in Christianity. BYT 14:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC) -- Support, given improvements in historicity section, and other revisions. BYT 02:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see my above comment to see that this is the only way a biography of Jesus can scholarly be represented.... it's because we only have a few main sources, and those are the 4 gospels. If you can think of another way to present Jesus' life, please tell. Scifiintel 18:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• OK -- no attention to speak of has been given to non-canonical gospels like Thomas, to the impact of prevailing theories of textual development (See Q document) or to other attempts to identify the underlying oral tradition that existed say pre-50 AD, or to the phenomenon whereby Jesus appears considerably more human in the earliest Gospel, Mark and considerably closer to divine in the latest Gospel, John, even though the wording is generally very cagey in Johannine sources. Another way to present Jesus' life would be to examine each of these scholarly debates, and place them on the same historical footing as the orthodox (fiction), sorry, belief, that the four Gospels present a coherent life story or message. As it stands, it is an article about Christian belief, which is not the same thing at all as an article about Jesus.BYT 20:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I still don't see a plausible way to incorpaorate those three things. I think you're wrong. The Gospel of Thomas is only sayings of Jesus and to include what Jesus says in the article is not NPOV, at least seemingly bacause it always gets reverted... so we can't include that. The Q document is a theory of a document which multiple canonical Gospels were based off of. This can't be incorpaorated because it's only a hypothetical theory and it's fairly recent, no more than 200 years old. All are other sources are almost 2000 years old. Can't use that. And we can't put oral tradition in the article, because it's speculation. Scifiintel 22:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"To include what Jesus says in the article is not NPOV" -- you're obviously playing games here. I thought you were interested in an actual discussion. Present article is manifestly about Christian orthodoxy, nothing else. So sorry, I'm not changing my vote. Even if I were to vote to support, this nomination would be in trouble, I think. BYT 23:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I added a quote from the Gospel of Thomas, and the Religious perspectives section has been reexpanded. Is that Better? Scifiintel 05:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Look, I know you want to get this up for Christmas, but the article simply isn't ready. Here's what you added:

Although Buddhism in general attributes no spiritual significance to Jesus, some Buddhists believe that Jesus may have been a Bodhisattva, one who has dedicated his or her future to the happiness of all beings. Some Buddhists also interpret Jesus through Zen Buddhism, sometimes basing their perspective on the Gospel of Thomas.

• Please look again at the points I raised and ask yourself the following questions.

• "After reading this article, would someone know that the canonical Gospels were created from oral sources, with the narratives added later than the sayings?"

• "After reading this article, would someone know that the canonical Gospels exhibit a pattern of exaggerating Jesus' supernatural character -- i.e., he is closest to human in the earliest canonical Gospel, Mark, and closest to divine in the latest canonical Gospel, John?"

• "After reading this article, would someone know that there were many non-canonical Gospels that were destroyed by church authorities?"

• "After reading this article, would someone know that important finds in later years have identified some of these suppressed non-canonical gospels?"

• "After reading this article, would someone know what a sayings Gospel is, and how it differs from a narratively driven Gospel?"

• "After reading this article, would someone know anything at all about the immense amounts of work carried out to determine the process by which the four canonical Gospels were created, what their relationships with each other were, what order they were created in, and what constituencies they each appear to have been addressing?"

• "After reading this article, would someone know the context of the term "Son of God" and understand how a Jew of Jesus' time would have interpreted that phrase? Would the reader even know that it is applied to other persons than Jesus in the Bible?"

• So for example: I'm not talking about mentioning the Gospel of Thomas. I'm talking about making it clear who that Gospel's audience was, and why that matters to people today who are interested in actual historical insights on Jesus. That is one of about a half-dozen areas where this article is either silent or where it offers answers drawn from half-baked Christian proselytizing, and that is insufficient. I've tried to give you some insight on those half-dozen areas where the article isn't working for me in the questions I've posed above. If these kinds of questions remain unaddressed, then for me, the current article falls woefully short of its mark, and is not ready for prime time. BYT 13:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't care when this article is featured, I just think it should be featured. I'm reexpanding the Historicity of Jesus section because it is a major aspect of Jesus. However, what you're asking for is a description of the gospels and there historicity and names such as Son of Man. Essentially it's as if you want this article to describe Jesus, but also describe every item that describes Jesus. I don't mind describing Jesus, however, the point of an encyclopedia is to describe the topic at hand, and if you don't understand a descriptor, you look that descriptor up. And especially in Wikipedia this is true, because if you ever don't understand a term or are unfamiliar with it, such as canonical gosels, gospel, Son of God, or gospel of matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Thomas, you can just click it and see all about it. So, you wanting there to be details about the details of Jesus is wrong. That's what creates bad aritcles and articles that are too long. The article needs focus and in this case the focus is Jesus. I would like to hear what other people think about this. Thanks. Scifiintel 19:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• With respect, we disagree. I do want the focus of the article to be Jesus. But I don't think that's the same as having the thrust of the article being determined by mainstream Christian interpretation of the canonical Gospel narratives, ignoring, for instance, the recent work of people like Burton Mack and the Jesus Seminar. You apparently do want a traditional approach, and do want to ignore that work.

• If we were doing an article on Thomas Jefferson, we would include the latest and best information on, say, the paternity disputes and the allegations of personal financial irresponsibility, even though historical research on those issues was not complete in 1824. Jesus is different because ....? BYT 20:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious??? If the article has to answer to every heretic who has ever been spawned, it would take more server space than Wikipedia has! The Jesus Seminar liberals are just as heretical as Marcion and the JEDP-heresy proponents. 71.205.192.51 05:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked up Thomas Jefferson and did not see what you suggested, but I also realize that Jefferson may be a bad example. However, the reason the most recent acedemia that your talking about is not included in the Jesus article, and in most articles, is because those ideas are still considered controversial. In fact, the recent work you are referring to has not gotten large scale academic acceptance, and that's why it's not included in the article. The work is on the fringes of truth with respect to scholarly endeavor. Therefore, it is of minor significance with respect to Jesus and is not included in an article about him. If these things need to be added to the Historicity article about Jesus, I support you. Scifiintel 20:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• OK, we seem to be getting somewhere. BTW, I only meant "if I were writing an article about Thomas Jefferson..." and didn't bother to check what was actually there. But you got the point.
• I do want to mention that the questions I'm unwilling to airbrush out of Jesus have been routinely derided as "on the fringes" and "controversial" by the Christian right ... for a very long time. That they have made this argument so loudly, so consistently, and so angrily, for so long, is certainly indicative of something, namely that people don't want the questions posed in the first place. Now, Funk's stuff has been around for two decades and is still standing, so it seems worthy of discussion not only to loonybins like me, but also to some more demonstrably objective folk [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]].
• PS: If this stuff is "controversial," well, so is the implication that the Gospels are historical records.
• Finally, I think we are talking about a historicity subsection, not just a link to a separate article, right? BYT 21:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the historicity subsection is there. Scifiintel 02:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Historicity section is a huge improvement. Wow. I'd like to see how long it lasts, whether it will be commented out, etc., but I am now leaning toward supporting this article for featured article status. Very nice work. BYT 16:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object -- There's been some edit warring lately. karmafist 17:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Those should be subsiding. Scifiintel 18:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

*Object any article about Jesus that won't even mention that he is believed by millions of people to be divine....is missing something.Gator (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support alot of good changes and compromises have been made. I will follow Brandon's lead and change my vote. (I wish more people would do this on my current RFA! LOL).Gator (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I added it in the religious perspectives section and divinity is in there. Scifiintel 18:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object not ready yet and a really controversial article. A main concern of mine is that any reference to Islam keeps getting removed from the intro again and again. He is very important in Islam too and although editors might want to make a lot of the information from Christian POV, I think atleast the reference to his position in the of the world's second largest major religion can be kept, especially now that the entire religious perspectives section has been moved to its own article. Maybe some information on Islam can be added in the life and teachings section, too but the intro definitely needs it. I like working on the article and organizing information but not when much of it keeps getting removed or added. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe you missed it, but the very first paragraph says Jesus is an important prophet in Islam, do you already have what you're asking for. Scifiintel 20:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm and yet doesn't mention anything else about his position in another religion in which he is considered important. That is very POV since the other 18 paragraphs of the article are devoted to christian beliefs. One sentence is enough for Islam according to you? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

also, please add information from Islam to life and teachings, and be sure to include your sources in the article.... I'm not knowledgeable in that area so I can't do that. Scifiintel 20:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to, but wouldn't it be nice if his position in Islam was kept in the intro? This is my only major concern with the article and that paragraph keeps getting removed. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• It looks as though it's back, so you're set. Scifiintel 21:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Good to see that it wasn't deleted again. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Anonym, I was wondering if the Qu'ran had a specific account of JEsus's life. I'm sorry I'm not very familiar with it comparted to the Torah, Gospels, or Book of Mormon. But if it has its own chronalogical account it may be worth adding in teh Islam section. Right now, the article Isa only includes a large trivia section which would be difficult to use. It would provide a relgious balance to the article. Falphin 17:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Qur'an has several accounts about Jesus' life. Mostly they regard his status as prophet and messenger or his miraculous birth. But yes, I think that the Islamic perpective is in need of attention and I will try to work on it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Surah Miryam (number 19) [11] is, I think, the Surah most commonly cited when non-Muslims ask for Qur'anic refernces to Isa and Miryam, though pls be advised Falphin that this story (as with many, many other topics in the Qur'an) is addressed in small and large chunks throughout the entire text of the Qur'an. BYT 19:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: These artistic interpretations are all well and good, but it really needs a photo of the dude. --Carnildo 22:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There weren't cameras back then, but a few paintings are in the article. Scifiintel 05:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I think he means their are no profile pictures. Just parts in paintings and such. Which do look nice, but it would be nice to have a profile picture. Falphin 22:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• I might be possible to include a movie picture from the Passion of the Christ or another movie. Falphin 22:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• It's a summary so a picture would be out of palce, but if you click on the main article I added a pictue of The Passion....not sure if it will stay, but all those dramatic portrayals are listed so you can click them to see pictures. Scifiintel 18:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this was a joke. BYT 19:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, unbalanced. Historicity, background, religious and cultural perspectives are all at least as important as the Gospel biography. The balance was actually decent until a short while back when Scifiintel started throwing out everything except the text under the "Life and teachings" heading. The article was indeed too long back then, but the problem should have been addressed by cutting details from all sections, including "Life and teachings" (there is lots of fancruft in it presently), not replacing most of the article with a gigantic see also-section. (On the positive side, removing the second table of contents from the lead section and removing the list of interpretations by influential leaders were good moves.) - Fredrik | tc 00:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that the religious and cultural perspectives should be expanded and maybe we should move it up to expand it. But I don't think Historicity and Background should be expanded simply because I don't think you will find one other "person" entry in Wikipedia which includes these sections. Can you show me an example where these sections are employed so we can at least know how to go about doing them? Thanks. Scifiintel 04:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC) ... I expanded religious perspectives as most other biographies have a "public perception" category and I feel this category takes it place for an ancient religious leader. is that better? Scifiintel 05:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The reason you won't find these sections in most biographies is that they usually aren't big issues, but in Jesus' case, they are. All articles can't follow a standard layout. If you want an example, Adam and Eve seems fairly well structured in this regard. Fredrik | tc 09:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

So I suppose this means the historicity section needs to be reexpanded. You ask for a cultural interpretations or influence section, but wouldn't you say that Religious perspectives is the cultural interpretation of Jesus? Scifiintel 19:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral-to those above who think the article is unbalanced, I believe they should look at the previous article. I would like to see this article expanded to 40-45kb however, by adding a section on the historicity of Jesus. The Gospels are considered more accurate by most schollars than the Gospel of Thomas although a mention is meritable. I will gladly support when these plus sources(for non-biblical resources) are added. Falphin 16:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • One other note, I've never seen "external references used." Some of those articles should be moved to External links while some others should be inline cited, to specific points or paragraphs that they were used to write. Falphin 16:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they should just be named "references". --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if they all are. If they all are references then that would work. Falphin 17:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding reexpanding the Historicity section, so hopefully that's better. Scifiintel 19:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I see their is a note section which is nice, but could you clarify the external references. After which I will support. Falphin 22:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I fixed up the notes and references sections. Scifiintel 02:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Good, you've worked hard. I change my vote to Support. Falphin 03:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Make sure that you state that all this information is from the New Testament texts; there's no scientific proof. That doesn't mean that it's not true, nor does it mean it is, but non-Christians (like me) would appreciate you citing that. --HereToHelp (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) Sure, I can add that. Scifiintel 17:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Very strong object. Awkward writing, poorly-organized, seems to have lost a great deal of its value from several months ago, when it had vastly more information (is the new path to FAdom to scourge most of the information from the article and bury anything objectionable in low-quality sub-pages?). Use of "BC/BCE" "AD/CE" is very inefficient, space-consuming, and nonstandard, verging on POVed; what's next, "Wednesday/Fourth Day of the Week" to protect people who are offended by the name "Woden"? Jesus' satellite articles also vary from mediocre to horrible in quality, many of them little more than stubs (Parables of Jesus) and many of them in violation of Wikipedia's article standards (Jesus' sayings according to the Christian Bible, an attempt to bring Wikiquote into Wiktionary "for Jesus's sake"). Needs cleanup tags galore, not FA status. -Silence 03:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree AD/CE should be removed but not for the same reaosn. ON wikipedia, it is assumed that after the birthdate any numer with out BC/BCE is AD.(Hope that makes since). BC/BCE should remain, I've discussed this with people before and have learned it is best despit ruling to stick with the compromise. Sattelite articles don't have to be good for a featured article, that's a requirement for Wikipedia:Featured topic. You should look at the progress of the article. I'm really confused on the your objections to quotting hte NT. After all, that is Jesus's main biography. Falphin 00:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the organiztion is there, and the information is there, but I do agree that the writing is sometimes awkward and we can all work on fixing that. Scifiintel 04:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object - I'm sure that for a subject that's been studied for 2000 years, one could find a few more references for the claims made there. Also there doesn't seem to be nearly enough secular thoughts on the subject. Also where is the section on popular culture? Everything from Jesus Christ Superstar to Buddy Jesus (from Dogma (movie)) there's so many I can't even name them all. This is very important and I don't see any significant treatment. Also I don't see anything in there about the debate within the Christian faith about the scope of the salvation due to his sacrifice - to many christians the single most important aspect of his life. This debate has gone on for centuries (universalism - the belief that the sacrifice "counts" for all individuals, not simply those who profess specific belief, isn't mentioned at all in the article). There also seems to be very little treatment of differing theological implications of Jesus for catholics and protestants, or debates about the mono/polytheism of christianity depending directly on the charactor of Jesus (see Oneness Pentecostal for more info). I'm not saying that *all* of this must be in the article, but I find it blatently absurd that *none* of it is. This article is about a topic that's so complex, contraversial, and important throughout the world that I beleive that it would behoove Wikipedia to improve it *drastically*, and provide good referenced sources, before it's even considered for featured article status again. That being said, it is still much better than the majority of wikipedia articles, though I'm not sure how much that really means. - JustinWick 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It would be nice to have a treatment for a popculture section similar to the other sub-Jesus articles. It doesn't need a big section because unlike other biography's this would be way too big. The article could be suggested to be added to Wikipedia:Good articles. Falphin 02:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Very strong object There is a huge, offensive double standard going on here over the BCE/BC AD/CE wars. Not only are people violtaing Wikipedia policy in the change to BCE/CE but there is an ENORMOUS double standard going on here. See Jewish or Muslim related articles and related BCE/CE discussions. The choice should be that which offends Christians the least, as is the case with Jewish and other articles. This is not Craetionism/Evolution here. This is basic stuff.

[edit] Linux

A well written article about the free operating system with the same name. Work has been done to increase NPOV, (such as more Microsoft POV, and other common critics); the entire article is written in a way that is understandable by most people. It is seen that a lot of hard work went into getting this article to this point, and I think it ought to be considered as a featured article. This is not a self nomination, as very little of this article was directly created by me. Masterhomer 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. good article. However, I think that a notes section should be included so the reader can know which source says what. Additionally, a couple parts could be expanded; there is a section with three one sentenced paragraphs. Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) 03:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. A lot of hard work obviously went into this article. However, this article is not likely to be understood by non-computer-experts. A sentence like, "Linux started out as a terminal emulator written in IA-32 assembler and C, which was compiled into binary form and booted from a floppy disk so that it would run outside of any operating system" is meaningless to most potential readers (except perhaps for the last part). Yes, terms are wikilinked, but you can't expect readers to have to follow 100 links to understand an article, especially if many of those linked articles are going to be just as difficult to understand. The explanation of "open source" in the lead paragraph is how it should be done. I would try to rewrite this article so it is comprehensible to casual computer users who might come across the term "Linux" and be curious as to what it is. -- Mwalcoff 06:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not bad, but the language could be improved - there are several short sentences, short paragraphs and short sections/subsections. Inline citations could be good (see Wikipedia:Footnote). I think its just a tad bit too technical, as Mwalcoff has said. Looking good so far though! — Wackymacs 07:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Complete agreement with Wackymacs above. Giano | talk 13:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Great work, but still a bit too technical for the layperson. --Sjschen 03:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Object - I'm a big Linux user and as much as it pains me to do this, I just don't think this article has it. It's too technical and not well-addressed at the layperson. Also, it suffers from linkcruft. I encourage you to have a good look at Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. By following those guidelines you will make the article much more attractive, because let's face it, lots of links are ugly. For example of removing linkcruft in action, check out my edits to the article on God. Yeah, that's right, I edited God, and it was good. And then I took a day of rest. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 16:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I am nominating Michigan State Capitol as a featured link. The article is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. state capitols series and is one of the most complete as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan series. There are a number of other state capitols that have yet to be created and encouragement is needed. The Michigan site is particularly likely to receive attention as the Super Bowl will be played here in February. This aricle has been peer reviewed and the entry appears here Jtmichcock 20:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The lead isn't very long, it should summarize the entire article and prepare the reader for the in-depth context (see Wikipedia:Lead). 'Statistics' subsection is very short, all sections and subsections should be quite long (2-3 paragraphs or more each). More references would be good, I wouldn't say the article is well referenced with just two sources and one footnote. I think the article is lacking enough context to become featured. — Wackymacs 20:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have attempted to expand the introduction. As for the "statistics" section, I merged it with the above section into a "features and statistics" section. Pentawing 21:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, the Reference section has been beefed up. Jtmichcock 21:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment; the article feels skimpy. I also feel a little lost regarding what the real topic of the article is: the current capitol building or all current and previous capitol buildings? I feel like an article titled "Michigan State Capitol" should focus more squarely on the current building and grounds. Not including the lead, 10 paragraphs are about the current one and seven about the history of the previous ones; a fairly even split. I'm entering this as a comment and not an objection because I realize I'm not doing a good job of declaring what new material would be appropriate. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC) These issues have been addressed. I remain neutral, though— there's still something uninspiring to me about this article. It doesn't transcend "guidebook" or "tourist pamphlet" material. I acknowledge that the topic at hand may make that inevitable, and I do not object on that basis, either. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I think it is a very fair statement to say the the article itself does not have the "oomph" of a Rosa Parks or Howard Stern article. But that's okay. Most encyclopedia material deals with fairly mundane topics. While it's nice (and likely good advertising) to have featured articles with significant social and political consequence, Wikipedia should also feature articles representative of the whole. The article is, I believe, well written and researched and presents information that many readers will find useful. Maybe boring, but always useful. Jtmichcock 02:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Objection. I rewrote the article. Still needs more details and length. Neutrality^talk 23:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object: The images Image:Michigan Capitol Dome.jpg, Image:Michigan House.gif, and Image:Senate michigan.jpg are not under a free license. Unless the Homeland Security whackjobs have gotten to it, the Capitol building is still open to the public, so it's quite possible to make free-license replacements. --Carnildo 07:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, the whackjobs have gotten to it. There are no cameras, photography equipment, cell phones, or similar devices allowed into either chamber. I checked. Jtmichcock 12:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Is it still possible to take a picture of the inside of the dome? And are the camera restrictions lifted when the legislature isn't in session? --Carnildo 19:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • There's no cameras allowed inside the chambers at any time, however you can purchase photos at the gift shop. I do have a non-copyrighted image of the interior of the rotunda that someone graciously emailed me and I will be substituting this in the stead of the current photo. Jtmichcock 20:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I've been through there at least twice back before the paranoia, so I might have some photos of the chambers. It'll be at least Sunday before I'm able to check, though. --Carnildo 00:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, several modifications, improvements and clean up done in response to the above comments. A few notes:
  • I have replaced the photo from inside the rotunda with a free release image as well as add a photo of the cornerstone being laid circa 1880.
  • The text with respect to the current building is about double what it was. The number of references has fone from two to six and the footnotes from one to eight.
  • In response to the question about whether the article is historical or deals with the current building, under the guidelines for this Category, both have to be set forth within the article. The section dealing with the current capitol, as described above, has been expanded so that the current to historical ratio is 2:1, a good balance I believe.

I hope everyone enjoys reading the revised version. Jtmichcock 20:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

This was a WP:COTW back in October 2004, and I been tinkering with it ever since. It was substantially re-written by UW and Tfine80 in September 2005 based on the much better (and featured) article from the German wikipedia. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object - See point 5 of the FA criteria. This topic could use a more condensed treatment.- -mav 18:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. I take it you think there is too much information in the article? Are there any particular areas you would like to see condensed? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • One thing I have noticed is that the German Wikipedia is much less likely to split articles than the English one. Personally, I feel like each article should give a complete overview of the item listed in the title, which in this case is a very complicated subject. If any of the issues need to be expanded upon, separate articles should be created, but they should not simply remove the text and force the reader to navigate through the hypertext. Previously the Red Cross pages were scattered all over the place with very little coherence, which is critical on this subject because it is so commonly misunderstood. Tfine80 01:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Good attempt, but this article is 64.2k in size (biggest article I've ever seen so far), the suggested limit is 32k (See Wikipedia:Article size). This needs a serious copy-edit and cut down, there is just too much information. The Table of Contents could also be simplified. I was expecting a lot more references, including footnotes as well. — Wackymacs 19:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. (I should make it clear that it is not my article.) Some other featured articles are around the 60k mark - for example, the exquisite Sicilian Baroque. I guess I could separate out, say, History of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Activities of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Symbols of International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement? Or perhaps by organisation, to International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, both of which are redirects here? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • By organization sounds like the best way to do it. — Wackymacs 20:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, the suggested 32k limit originally came from technical issues of some browsers. Otherwise, it is just a recommendation, and the optimum size of an article depends on the topic of the article. And there are several articles in the English Wikipedia which, due to their topic, are far longer than the Red Cross article. Race or 2003 Invasion of Iraq or Joseph Chamberlain or Hugo Chávez or George W. Bush are some examples, some of them are double the size of the Red Cross article. A size of 64k translates to 20-25 pages of printed text in a book which is not that much considering that several of the books which I used as source and which are mentioned as references in the article have 600-700 pages. The two volumes about the history of the ICRC combined have over 600 pages, and that's ICRC history from 1863 to 1945 only. --Uwe 09:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding the references: first, it would be nice to know which references you miss (if you have any specific in mind that you miss). Second, the article is a translation of its counterpart from the German Wikipedia. That original version has a couple of more (German) references. The problem is that most readers will regard a list of German books in an English Wikipedia article of little use. Most readers of the English version lack the required language capabilities and access to German books and articles. Of course, the German references can easily be added if that's deemed necessary or useful. Third, the total amount of references is somewhere in the range of 2,500 to 3,000 printed pages which I have on my bookshelf, so the list of references should not be judged by the number of its items. --Uwe 09:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The very complete "History" section should probably migrate in largely its current form to a new article History of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, with a summary-style history left in this one. I'll also note that I find the table-of contents structure of the History section strange, particularly the existence of the sub-sub-section 1.2.1, "History." I'm also concerned about some wording that seems a little too POV regarding Dunant: "...his tireless activities..." for example. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object: The images Image:Henry Davison.jpg and Image:Friedensnobelpreis-1963.jpg are tagged as "copyrighted free use", but the actual terms appear to be significantly more restrictive: copying is allowed, but only very limited modification. --Carnildo 23:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • To me, the license statement "Any part of this website can be cited, copied, translated into other languages or adapted to meet local needs without prior permission from any component of the Movement, provided that the source is clearly stated." equals "copyrighted free use". I don't see how the words "adapted to meet local needs" put limits on modifications. --Uwe 09:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see any way that "adapted to meet local needs" can be stretched to cover using Image:Friedensnobelpreis-1963.jpg in an advertisement for a convention-organizing service, or using Image:Henry Davison.jpg in a textbook on 1920s portrait photograpy. "Copyrighted free use" clearly allows those uses. --Carnildo 19:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • In my humble opinion, the words "adapted to meet local needs" don't exclude any specific use. --Uwe 21:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object: It was already featured in news with an image for the new insignia. --Kodama
  • Being in the news section of the main page is not the same as being a featured article. The Catfish 03:44, 12 December 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] Seventh-day Adventist Church

Am posting this article as a Featured Article Candidate after a Wikipedia:Peer review. I have made all of the changes suggested by the Peer Review, and by my analysis, this article is Featured Article quality. Should this article become a Featured Article, it will be the first religious denomination to do so. Feel free to make critical comments as I would rather it to become a better article that is not featured than for it to be a poor quality Featured Article. MyNameIsNotBob 07:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Too many small subsections in the 'Practices and customs' section. The bullet list in 'Doctrine' section is not needed. Could do with inline citations (see Wikipedia:Footnote), logo image needs a fair use rationale since it uses a fair use tag. — Wackymacs 08:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I have expanded the 'Doctrine' section so as the bullet list could be removed. Does this need subheadings? Will work on other comments shortly. MyNameIsNotBob 11:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no need for more subheadings - there are already too many subheadings. — Wackymacs 16:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Do I need to rid the article of any subheadings? I can possibly merge some of those paragraphs if necessary - or will it be ok once those paragraphs have been expanded? MyNameIsNotBob 20:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Although sub-headings were generally frowned-upon, it seems they're becoming more acceptable so long as they head significant sections. So yes, if you exand them quite somewhat, they may be fine.--cj | talk 03:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have done some major expansions and restructuring of the article according to Wackymacs and cj's suggestions. I have not yet been able to properly reference the article. Are the changes I have made sufficient in the relevant areas and are there any other issues that need to be addressed (apart from the footnotes, external links and fair use rationale)? Thanks MyNameIsNotBob 07:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

ps, just looking at Wikipedia:logos, what do you mean by a fair use rationale? MyNameIsNotBob 07:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with fair use, but perhaps this: [12] helps? The Catfish 23:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Largely agree with Wackymacs. Too many one or two-sentence paragraphs, and too many short sub-sections. "Media ministries" doesn't flow well; it should be expanded and rewritten. Overall, the article needs expanding. A few inline cites (ie, footnotes) would be nice, and all external links should be in the "External links" section only. --cj | talk 09:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - which baptises around 2000 members a day sounds like an advert, make it an annual number of memberships. Also, the part on the Davidians should discuss that there were a couple of forms, as well as a bit more detail about the doctrinal differences. The first paragraph on the Sabbath also reads a bit like an advert, should tone down/reword a bit, and finally I find it really odd that there's not a single mention of Catholicism, given the...'contentious' view both denominations seem to hold of each other. Anyways, don't mean to be snippy, just trying to offer some criticisms to make it a better article :) (Possibly there could be an entire Relationship of the SDA and Catholic churches article, there would certainly seem to be enough material) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 00:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, I'll see what I can do sometime. MyNameIsNotBob 08:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Caldwell

I was actually quite happy when I discovered that there was no extant article on Mr. Caldwell, as he's one of my very favorite musicians and I've been following his career for quite some time. I've been honing this article since the summer, and it now seems to have reached a high-quality level of informational succinctness. Colinmarshall 02:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, sorry. Lead is way too short. No references whatsoever. Also needs a music sample. Too many section headings and short paragraphs. Image:Bobbycaldwelladlib.jpg could use a stronger Wikipedia:Fair use rationale. I recommend Wikipedia:Peer review. Jkelly 02:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Where do you recommend I link to for a music sample? I did put this up for peer review, but it seems that nobody wanted to do any peer reviewing. Colinmarshall 04:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Lack of attention at WP:PR can be frustrating. We tend to make our own music samples. See Wikipedia:Media help to get started on that. If making your own samples is not an option, or you need assistance with it, you can leave a message at User talk:Jkelly for more help. I should mention, however, that I think that the other issues that I mentioned are going to be of more concern to other commentators here. Jkelly 04:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references, lead is too short. The article is generally lacking information. It has the potential, though. I also agree with Jkelly, there are too many sections and the paragraphs are short. Refer to Wikipedia:Peer review for more suggestions. — Wackymacs 09:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object: This page need Needs references, better images, re-write and peer review. Giano | talk 13:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miracle on Ice

I think this is an especially well-written narrative of a significant historial moment in sports and Soviet-American relations. The description of the gameplay during the match is compelling, and I think of an appropriate length and detail. The selection of photos is very good. --Kharker 20:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose:
  1. Only two references cited, no footnotes or other ways of tying citations into which text drew from them.
  2. The article goes into great detail about the emotional impact from the U.S. side, but doesn't at all explore how the Soviets (their players, their coach, their fans, their media) handled the loss. There's a brief paragraph about how "Soviet ice hockey was still recognized for superior play and talent" but that's it. I imagine the game must have been as depressing for them as it was joyous for the Americans.
  3. Images have no fair use rationale. Andrew Levine 07:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose : the tone has has to be written into a more encyclopedic one eg: The match against the great Soviet team was very emotional and so memorable that many Americans still do not realize that it did not win the gold medal for the U.S. Also the Soviet view is underrepresented. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object Not enough sources. Biased coverage towards the American team. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Smith, Jr.

This is a very detailed and complete article about Mormon founder Joseph Smith. It is a focal point of WP:LDS and has recently undergone an exemplary and careful splitting process. As stated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., we'd like to see an article about Joseph Smith featured on December 23, the 200th anniversary of Smith's birth. Which of these is selected is not very relevant, at least not in my mind, but it has been suggested that this article be nominated as well and they are both worthy candidates. Cookiecaper 00:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

1. Great article, almost there. That table at the bottom can be made to look better. deeptrivia (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...what do you suggest? That box is discussed in length at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 3.

Oh, I just meant some cosmetic improvements, like thinner borders, etc. deeptrivia (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well-referenced, NPOV, and interesting. In my internet browser, however, there are slight formatting problems with the infobox at the top. I don't see any problem with the footer box. Also, some related materials could be merged into larger paragraphs. But still, I've modelled other articles (in terms of referencing and format) on this one and its counterpart. Thank you. Saravask 15:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Object. 'Physical characteristics and likeness' section is one sentence, needs merging into another section. The infobox at the top is missing borders and is a bit messed up. The table of contents is quite confusing, it could do with a more logical layout without so many subsections. There is no need for two subsections in the 'Major teachings' section. One sections title is extremely long ('Joseph Smith as a translator and prophet in New York and Pennsylvania'). The article is also too long, at 46KB - I know it has been split up into other articles already, but I think there is still too much detail in some of this article that makes it 46KB. The table at the bottom (as mentioned by deeptrivia) is not very good looking, it should look more like the infobox at the top. Apart from what I'm mentioned, it looks good (the spelling/grammar and references are excellent). — Wackymacs 19:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The Newsweek section was moved to History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as discussed on the talk page back when it was added. I've removed the physical likeness section for now and merged King Follet Discoursewith Major Prophecies, and shortened the long title mentioned above. Much of the article length is due to references, but I'll see if there are some things I can take away. The boxes have not yet been changed; please provide more suggestions on how they can be corrected, especially the box at the bottom. The box at the top is duplicated on the pages of all other Church Presidents as well. Please see those and make suggestions on changes. Thank you deeply. Cookiecaper 01:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yikes! Its now 48k in size... — Wackymacs 12:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that the body of the article is <5000 words. Alai 06:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The suggested limit is 32k, some browsers have trouble with articles larger than that. This would be unsuitable as a featured article, please see Wikipedia:Article size. — Wackymacs 08:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Many featured articles are greater than the minimum requirement. My random selection of 1 article in the each of the first 22 categories counted 10/22 (45%). Thus I see this size limit as a guide - and less necessary for strict observance now that few browsers have trouble with large article sizes. Trödel|talk 21:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• object - it's very long, the writing does not seem concise to me. The section on 'physical characteristics' is superfluous, and I think that the paragraph on a Newsweek cover is also not necessary. Generally I think the article needs a once-over by a good copyeditor to improve the sharpness of the prose. Worldtraveller 19:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support. This article is well written - steps have been taken to reign in the size. The constant attempts to include in some way new material that is POV in nature, rather than simply reverting them result in constant pruning of the article. In general this is a article that is worthy of feature status because it meets the criteria and is on enough watchlists to stay a high quality article. Trödel|talk 22:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with many of the comments below, but still think that it is a high quality article. Trödel|talk 14:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Unfourtanately, I cannot give anything better to this article than a weak object (so far). My reasons are as follows (in order of importance):

1. I KNOW that Joseph Smith Jr. had more than two short paragraphs of "Major teachings". For goodness sake, there are hundreds of websites out there that are dedicated to arguing (for or against) a position on the numerous, often controversial teachings of Joseph Smith. This article CANNOT be complete without more meat there.
2. Much of what has been said about his life is in the three seperate biography articles. If there is anything here that is not in those articles, move it there (even creating a new article, if nessicary, for his life from 1831 until death). His biography should be much more concise.
3. Although this is rather minor (and this article would have my support without this), the biography box would be more logically placed at the end of the biography section, or, better yet, beneath the general infobox at the top of the article.

If these things were adressed, I could give it my undying support, but cannot yet. --Trevdna 01:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain. I've been a contributor to the article, and would like to see it featured, so I'm not an unbiased observer. But I'd just like to comment on a few things that I think would improve the article, regardless of how the vote goes:
  • shortening of the historical sections, with more material moved to sub-articles
  • introducing a section about Smith's physical characteristics and artistic portrayals of him.
  • introducing a section about portrayals of Smith in the media, e.g., a brief historiography, portrayals in the cinema and parodies like on South Park, what various public figures said about him.
  • more about his family and friends
  • pruning of the References section of anything that's now obsolete.

COGDEN 19:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Would it be possible to rewrite several of the sections to eliminate the one-sentence paragraphs? --JohnDBuell 01:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object I concur with JohnDBuell. One sentence paragraphs should be eliminated. Roy Al Blue 23:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ford Taurus

I nominiated this article because the Taurus is a well known and best selling car, and it is responsible for bailing Ford out of bankrupcy. Besides that, it is well known very well, and it is one of the most reconizible cars nad most well known cars ever made. It's article is well written, long, and informative, and it's article is for sure featured article material.

• Object. The article doesn't cite its sources. Also, I think the level 3 headings should be removed, since they don't really help organize the article and most of them say "SHO". rspeer 00:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak support now that my objections have been addressed, as long as the information in the article really does come from those two sources. rspeer 18:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object - IMO, not exactly good enough to be a featured article. It needs some more sources and some tidying up. BTW Karrmann, don't forget to timestamp your comments. --ApolloBoy 06:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Needs more references than there currently are, the sections need to have more detailed titles (not just dates). The '1992–1995' section is very short, surely that can be expanded. The lead is much too long, some of that info needs to be split up into another section. I'm not too sure I like that huge infobox going down the side either. See also section could be expanded and the fair use images are missing their fair use rationales. Refer to WP:Peer review for more comments/suggestions on how to improve this to featured article standard. — Wackymacs 19:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It's about a particular car model and that in itself seems pov.--81.29.68.162 22:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How so? --ApolloBoy 00:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It's an incredibly common object. There is no reason to use fair-use images here. --Carnildo 22:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object Two sources seems insufficient. Also, the section headers need to be more descriptive than just listing dates. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object What ever happened to the peer review part of the process? Tarret 01:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homestar Runner

Homestar Runner is an in-depth look at this internet cartoon series, its characters and its creators. The contributors have worked hard, and it even has a spoken version. - Kookykman|(t)e

• Object. We'll need references and fair use rationals to pass this one. --Oldak Quill 00:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This article is in need of peer review. There are a couple short, one-sentence paragraphs, some clunky writing ("The Homestar Runner world features several sub-cartoons and spin-offs. These cartoons take place outside the normal Homestar Runner world..."), capitalization and punctuation errors in several places. Also there's a lot of stuff I just don't get (where is this cartoon set?) And references are need (especially for statements like "The antagonist Strong Bad, however, is more popular among many fans"). Andrew Levine 01:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Slightly agree. I was just thinking that this article would be a great featured article, but you guys are holding up some good points. I'll halfta go through and make some good edits. Then it'll be ready. And just a thought, do you think names like G.I. Joe and Sailor Moon on the page should be in italics? -- Darth Katana X
  • Comment As proper names no. As names for series, yes. Jkelly 18:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Needs a references section, fair use rationales on the images. There are too many subsections, which has ultimately created lots of stub sections which is a nono for featured articles, try merging these subsections in with the larger sections. The inline citations need to be converted to footnotes. Refer to peer review for more comments. — Wackymacs 10:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • All three images have copyright status now. - Kookykman|(t)e 15:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, there are very few references: The cartoon and the HRWiki, which are both linked to already, some twice. - Kookykman|(t)e
      • What about books, news articles (newspaper or website based), website reviews, anything other than just the homestar runner website and another wiki? In order for an article to become featured, it must fit criteria. One of the criteria is that it is well referenced and has verifiable sources. — Wackymacs 16:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • The images still don't have fair use rationales. Please see Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. — Wackymacs 16:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object: See reasons listed above --ZeWrestler ^Talk 02:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object - the fact that there's no references section is enough to keep it from featured article status. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Salt Lake City, Utah

Previous FA nomination

• Good article. Support. 70.57.85.74 17:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support, Excellent article. LordViD 17:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Object: Why is the Main article of Law and government, Law and government of Salt Lake City, a red link? If there is more that they are talking about that is missing, can we at least see it? Beyond that, this is a great article, and I look forward to lending my support. Trevdna 23:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Abstain: Had planned to give full support, as this really is a great article. However, Carnildo and Wacky bring up some good points about fair use tags, and "acceptable copyright status" is a prerequsite for what a featured article is. Trevdna 18:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Thought it has deserved it for a while now. It is a very well-written article, better even than some featured artcles I've seen, with very informative information. By the way, I removed the red link because there really isn't anything else to say about the law and government of the city. If anybody can come in and create more info on it, I commend them. bob rulz 00:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain: This article has caused me alot of heartache and frustration, but I think I've moved on. I would be happy if it became a FA, but the mangled bits of me in the article do not allow me to vote. Good luck. Jon 00:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Mild Object. There are a number of lists that should be turned to prose. Also, can the references linked to the Salt Lake City government explicitly say that the links are found at that site? I have also seen several external links throughout the main portion of the article. Such links should be within the "external link" section or placed as footnotes. Pentawing 04:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • With the numerous image problems, I have to change my vote to object until someone can resolve them. Pentawing 20:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Since no one seems to be willing nor able to resolve some issues, I have gone into the article and cleaned up as many formatting problems as possible. Nevertheless, there is still a handful of lists (I have not idea why there are two neighborhood templates in the article). Given that the images are still a problem, my vote still stands. Pentawing 22:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• 'Object – the article needs to be summarised, list be converted to prose and units should follow the Manual of Style (&nbsp;) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. I can find no information indicating that Image:Saltlakecitydowntown2002.jpg is in the public domain.
  2. The image commons:Image:Saltlaketornado.jpeg appears to be copyrighted by KTVX News 4 Utah, not by NOAA, so it is not in the public domain.
  3. The images Image:Iceskatersdowntownslc.jpg, Image:Slcinternationalairport.jpg do not appear to be in the public domain. The website they are on has a copyright statement of "Copyright © 2005 Salt Lake City Corporation. All Rights Reserved."
  4. The image Image:Gayutah2004.jpg is claimed as "fair use". However, it is quite possible for a Wikipedian to make a replacement, so it does not qualify under Wikipedia:Fair use.
  5. The image Image:Cityweekly.jpg has no fair-use rationale.
  6. The image Image:UTmap.GIF (used in Template:Utah) is licensed for educational use only. This is an unacceptable license for Wikipedia.

  --Carnildo 09:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Though a very good attempt, and very close, it has some minor problems that need fixing. The Culture section is incredibly messy, featuring a few lists that should be converted to prose, and a lot of red links. Several images have incorrect copyright status and the fair use images are missing fair use rationales. — Wackymacs 10:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This part is unclear: "Councilors are elected under specific issues and are usually well-known. Labor politics play no significant role. The separation of church and state is the most controversial topic with an ongoing Bridging the Religious Divide campaign." Please explain it. Neutrality^talk 23:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Article is still unstable. Has been edited several times today. Roy Al Blue 23:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] USA PATRIOT Act, Title II

Self-nomination: have spent a fair amount of time on this. I have summarised each of the sections of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act to give people a chance to understand what this complex bit of legislation is all about. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - a well referenced and informative article that I hope to soon support. There are, however, a couple of problems - the article lacks any pictorial or graphical element and there are, perhaps, some missing sections. To address my first issue, you could include images (an opponent arguing against a clause in Congress, for example) or a graph. My second point is to do with the fact that the article seems to only be a summary of each of the sections contained. Was there no media reaction to any of these sections or this title as a whole? Have any political commentators made points concerning any of these? What implications do they have? Are there any precedents for some of the rights granted to the government by this title? I understand there is it is hard trying to seperate material that should be included in this article and the material that should be included in a the broader article concerning the Act in general, but perhaps you could come up with a few things? If you have considerable reason for not including these extra sections just reply to this post - convince me. --159.92.101.26 11:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC) (I wasn't signed in, university network - Oldak Quill 11:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC))
  • Hmmm... you could be right at that. Out of interest, do you know where I should start looking? I think I might need to withdraw this nomination... but might let it run for a little while if its OK with everyone. People might be able to give me some valuable advise... - Ta bu shi da yu 11:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd take some keywords which are specific to this Title, or section names and start searching media websites for articles which make specific references to Sections in this Title. Can you read debate transcripts from Congress? If so, try and get some good supporting and opposing quotes. This would give you an opportunity to include images of those who supplied the quote and have "Support", "Criticism" and "Media reaction" sections. You could also take a look at books that examine the Bush administration so far (Michael Moore and others of his genre). --Oldak Quill 11:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, though sadly I don't think that Michael Moore would have actually read the USA PATRIOT Act... :P Just kidding! Ta bu shi da yu 12:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose -- This appears to be a very well-researched and informative article, but does not provide the breadth of coverage or context necessary for a featured article. As the above commenter suggests, the article does not place this Title within the larger contexts of society, the media, debates on civil rights, or the structure of the Patriot Act. A Featured Article needs to be more than a comprehensive reference -- an uninformed reader needs to be convinced that the topic is interesting, and to be led through an understanding of the subject. At minimum, I would look for 1-2 paragraphs giving background on the Patriot Act (as if the reader had never heard of it), several paragraphs summarizing the contents of this title, historical information about the powers granted and how they differ from the previous law. The enumerated list of sections is very helpful, but I'm not sure that it would be strictly required in a featured article. You should be very proud of yourself, because you've created what is probably one of the best resources on this anywhere on the internet. That should be recognized, and you might want to see if the EFF or the ACLU would be interested in this material, or if there's an alternative superlative on Wikipedia. But frankly, it may be difficult (though certainly not impossible) to get an article about such a specific topic up to Featured Article status. -- Creidieki 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've put in a bit of context on the Patriot Act and how Title II specifically functions, relating to FISA 1978 and summarizing supporting/opposing opinions. Take a look. -- Jonel | Speak 01:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Neutral It's still a lot less context and analysis than I would want from a standalone article...but maybe that's the problem. This isn't a standalone article, it's meant to be a subarticle. I don't know how to judge a subarticle for Featured Article status; it's very different. I need to think about the topic some more, and maybe it's not fair for me to vote against this article simply because it only makes sense in the context of the other Patriot Act articles. I'm withdrawing my vote. -- Creidieki 06:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • No, stick to your guns. I can see that I have more to go! I'll be writing more of a summary of the title soon, along with criticism and commentary. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
        • The thing is, I honestly don't know whether a "subarticle" should be judged differently because of its context as part of a group of larger articles. On Early life and military career of Hugo Chávez and Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., I've approved articles that had little to no analysis, and minimal context, because I thought that they worked well as part of the group of articles. Was I right to do that? Or is a "Featured subarticle" different than a "Featured article"? -- Creidieki 20:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
          • IMO, a featured subarticle should be judged the same as a featured article. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object The article has changed substantially since submission, and from my first read. This is reflected in my changing vote! As it stands, with a section stub still under criticism (and no mention there of criticism of 215), and (external, but related to my sunset clause concern below), given the uncertain status of the sunset clauses (Dec 31, 2005 expiry), it'd seem better to check this again when all that's resolved. Other than for those two specifics, it's a long article in an oddly detail-oriented way (it's its own format), but with the new introductory material, I find it at least meets the standard of the best of the current FAs, and also, of course, a reasonable application of the FA criteria. --Tsavage 21:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Conditional support (Condition being resolution Cricisms section issue, discussed below... --Tsavage 20:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)) - The expanded lead made all the difference. I believe the summary now provides comprehensive context for the topic, covering both the outstanding technical and social aspects in a way that is self-contained, and also points to an easy, logical (and hyperlinked) path for further reading (on issues that are clearly beyond the scope of this topic, such as the Patriot Act as a whole, civil liberties, the history of intelligence operations in the US, and so forth). I took a look at the Act itself, in what I believe was the final wording, and, while quite readable itself, the additional context provided here, with regard to the USC and FISA (clarifying what were simply citations in the Act itself), alone makes this particularly accessible. I find this is a distinct type of article, where the "short sentences, point-form" sort of critism doesn't apply. With the lead for context, and knowing this is only one of 10 sections, (and given the rather dramatic and controversial "Big Brother surveillance/fight against terroism" nature of the subject), it was engaging to read, in a very front-line, "these are the facts" way that a more conversational treatment would not have (although such an approach is quite possibly an alternative). Criticism - There should be some mention of the current state of the sunset provisions, if it is the case that they have been somehow amended? Note: I am not at all expert or particularly informed in the general subject area; if some critical aspects have been missed, they were obviously missed by me! --Tsavage 16:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment on substantial additions: The all-new "Summary" and "Criticsms and Support" sections add a useful additional layer of synthesis and new information. They would seem to respond to the article vs subarticle discussion (previous vote). The article is now rather clearly "standalone", IMO. However, the "Criticisms..." section could become a runaway area, as the I imagine the discussion is a very large one and finding a summary middle ground with the same scope as the rest of the article (which is so detailed, going section by section) would seem to be difficult. This is not a problem as far as quality or value, but could result in a stability issue until the section is fully fleshed out, i.e. is the article really finished (for FAC purposes) yet? --Tsavage 16:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment -- I agree that the "Criticisms and Support" section could become large if not handled well, but with its current length I don't think I can actively support the article. A couple of suggestions: How does criticism about this Title fit into the larger criticism about the Patriot Act? Does this Title contain some of the most-frequently criticised provisions? Is it often criticised *separately* from the Act at large? You might be able to get away with a few paragraphs of summary about discussion of the Patriot Act and about how discussion of this Title fits in to the larger discussions, and a conspicuous link to another article or section covering the general discussions about the Patriot Act. -- Creidieki 18:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• I changed my vote to reflect this. The stub tag doesn't help. Given the controversial and far-reaching topic, I believe a separate "Controversy surrounding the Patriot Act" article is in order, although the material in the main Patriot Act article is not there yet. (Of course, the issues surrounding subarticle creation in general is another question entirely.) Would a criticism subarticle for Title II also be needed? That'd be a function of the main criticism article. In any case, until there is one, this article now seems to be the place for the Title II critical/support stuff to develop. That means, it has to get to specifics - if I read about Title II section by section, I want to know the controversies concerning each section if any. I imagine there are. For example, the Patriot Act article points to specific sections: Critics claim that some portions of the Act are unnecessary and allow U.S. law enforcement to infringe upon freedom of speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and right to privacy. Much controversy has arisen over section 215 So, I don't know if "getting away" will "work"... This all gets quite wiggly... I supported the article with just the expanded lead (I felt it pointed to the Patriot Act proper for more detail on the social impact, which is a "getting away with", I suppose); it's a "better" article now with the new sections, but a different article as well, one which is harder to support as is. Effectively limiting scope is obviously a big deal, especially in cases like this... --Tsavage 20:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose: Consideration of unconstitionality is limited to what has already been ruled unconstitutional. This act is similar in content to the legislation in Germany that enabled Hitler to set aside unalienable rights and rule as a despot. To be unbiased the article deserves fair presentation of the growing dissatisfaction with a malignant invasive central government performing beyond the bounds of the constitution vs limited central government. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.165.252.198 (talk • contribs).
  • I just noticed this: absolutely not. I totally disagree with you, whoever you are, and really must count you as uninformed. I will not be being making such invalid comparisons. I have documented the commentary by various legal scholars, however. This should be enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merit badge collecting (BSA)

Self-nomination. I am submitting this article as a featured article candidate because I want it to be the best it can be and I feel it is well written and an excellent guide to the topic. This is the first time it has been submitted and it just completed a peer review. It is currently 25.9k in size. Rlevse 00:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Object - The very first photograph REALLY should have a caption to indicate which badges are shown, rather than having to scroll down through the article. Also, someone should check and see if those designs aren't still protected by BSA copyright, and better fair use claims should be made on all images, especially if those copyrights hold on the older badges. The newer ones I can guarantee are protected by copyright. --JohnDBuell 01:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm leaving my original Object vote stand - for now. The caption on that first image is now FAR too long. It should only relate to the badges in that initial image. Also, you might want to consider internal article links to the portions of the article that describe what "Type A" "Type J" etc. are. Finally, because the artwork on the badges IS copyrighted, you should submit proof that the BSA National office granted permission - see Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission. --JohnDBuell 17:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Added opening group photo as you wrote the above. Added caption that inclueds all MBs shown. Obtained permission from BSA Legal Div for image use on morning of 13 Dec 2005 and updated all image copyrights. Rlevse 17:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A letter from BSA on the copyright is in the works. I wrote exactly what they told me to on the image tags. I took the photos of the merit badge images used in this article. The merit badges are in my personal collection. The motif/design of the badges is what is copyrighted by BSA, which I secured permission for on 13 Dec 2005. Written confirmation of this is in the works to be submitted to Wikipedia. Where should a list of imaged badges go?Rlevse 17:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I just implemented the changes (I consider them minor, others might object), about shortening the first caption and allowing for intra-article navigation. I am changing my vote to Neutral at this time. --JohnDBuell 19:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I REALLY LIKE what you did with the layout. What suggestions do you have to get to a support vote? In the opening group image of 5 photos, should I increase it to all MBs I have images of or would that make the image too big? Rlevse 19:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as MY comments go, a bit more work on the Fair Use justifications on each image, and I think that will meet everything I have objected to. --JohnDBuell 19:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Support My objections have been met, and QUICKLY, I might add. There's a bit of text that could use a little touching up, but I don't think it's sufficient to NOT support the article. --JohnDBuell 20:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Support - I wouldn't have supported it before, but I gave the images some heavy re-sizing and tabled/sectioned the article to be navigatable and readable, and now I think it looks fantastic! Thanks for the info! Staxringold 17:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC).

Object - I thought you took those images, if they are copyrighted you should be very careful and if not you should have copyright info. And yes, those description boxes look just plan silly now. Staxringold 18:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I did take the photos, it's the motif/design that I have permission from BSA legal to use. A letter from BSA on the copyright is in the works. I wrote exactly what they told me to on the image tags. I took the photos of the merit badge images used in this article. The merit badges are in my personal collection. The motif/design of the badges is what is copyrighted by BSA, which I secured permission for on 13 Dec 2005. Written confirmation of this is in the works to be submitted to Wikipedia."Looks plain silly" is a non-specific opinion. I do agree it looks better than with the images below it.Rlevse 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a personal opinion. The bulk content of your article is in description boxes, which simply isn't going to cut it. That's why I moved the content around. As for the images, whether or not you took them, NONE of the images (save the single image that brought me to the article to begin with that I tagged) have copyright tags on them. Staxringold 18:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I wrote exactly what the BSA lawyer told me to.Rlevse 18:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Added the 'canned' copyright fairuse tag to my photos and added more explanation.Rlevse 19:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Much better - I had to go through the same things myself with my own images, so I sympathize. But you DO need to let your fair use statements indicate that YOU took the photographs, and YOU can license them under GFDL or one of the Creative Commons licenses, but that the artwork depicted on the merit badges IS protected under copyright held by the Boy Scouts of America national office. Hence statements that it won't hinder the rights of the copyright holders to sell the image is a little awkward - it's your image, but the BSA sure as heck is going to sell more badges (because of all of the boys in the program striving to earn them!). --JohnDBuell 19:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Object - Ditto JohnDBuell --Computerjoe 17:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Object. Lists should be converted to brilliant prose. -Scm83x 17:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Which list are you referring to? The caption of the opening photo has been fixed by JohnDBuell. If this was not your concern please be more specifc.Rlevse 00:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Errors vs. variations section. Also, there are not enough references, and none of the references stated are actually cited inline. Also, isn't a lot of this information, such as the "merit badge care" section non-encyclopedic. -Scm83x 02:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• VERY FEW references on this even exist. I can't list them if they don't exist. The book I cited is the only one I know of specifically on MB collecting. Two of the three refs listed are connected to the article via footnotes. On top of that, I've seen other FAC articles criticized for using inline references, so whom are we to try to please? If I do it your way, someone else would object to it. There should be more standard guidance on this vice everybody telling us different ways to do everything. What are we to do when one person doesn't like a section and another one does? You can't please everyone.Rlevse 02:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rlevse, please don't take our comments personally. Please see Wiki's suggestions about staying cool when things get hot. We are all just trying to maintain the standard of FA by only letting in the best articles. If now isn't the time for this article, you can come back as many times as the article needs to get to FA. Thanks. -Scm83x 10:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not. I'm just making the point that it's impossible to please every critiquer when they think things should be done differently.11:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Started adding refs that aren't MB-specific, but do touch on them.140.32.75.168 14:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Observation All of this is about the images and layout. Nothing about the content wording itself. Rlevse 18:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Response Images are content, and actually in this article a large part of the content. And if you don't think style applies in FACs you are crazy as a sentence like that would be edited. If the content is ugly, wrong, or difficult to follow the article certainly shouldn't be promoted to the front page. Staxringold 19:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I meant to refer to the wording. And you should give people a chance to fix such errors before reverting to things like calling them crazy.Rlevse 19:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, but you make a GREAT example of how to use images to illustrate badge types, so we're just trying to help insure that their uses are properly justified under US copyright fair use provisions...and that Wikimedia doesn't get sued :) --JohnDBuell 20:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Observation A scary amount of images on Wikipedia have questionable/nonexistant information regarding their copyright status. I wouldn't even consider voting in favor of this type of image heavy article until there was a good consensus on the legal status of the images. Is the BSA aware of the terms of the GFDL and that these images can (and most likely will) be used for commercial purposes? - JustinWick 01:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

But does that keep the BSA from selling merit badges? No. A more interesting question to ask is "How does the BSA license the images for the books that collectors use for this hobby?" Those authors are obviously making a profit, and the BSA is selling more badges. --JohnDBuell 02:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC) One other observation here - If anyone ever tries to do an article like this for the various BSA council patches, worn on the shoulder, that's going to be a LOT of letter writing, as each council has its own design! :)

BSA said I could use my own photos of my own collection for this. If it's okay with them, then why all the concern? Rlevse 02:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Objection. I welcome the recent modifications to the page's structure. However, the text still needs a lot of work, because it tends to ramble disjointedly, particularly in the discussion of the sequence of types. Many sentences lack connection, grammatical and semantic, to the sentences around them. As a result, each paragraph presents a jumbled collection of facts rather than a unified whole. --Smack (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. One of you rewrites it and thinks it's fine and another thinks it jumbled. It's a guide to collecting merit badges, not an essay. The two types of written articles are inherently different. It reminds me of school, turn a paper into one teacher and you get an 'A'; turn it into another and you get a 'C'. I amazed anything makes it through the FAC process. Rlevse 02:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This brings up a question. Is this intended to be a how-to guide on merit badge collecting, or a general overview? From my understanding, guides and how-to's are supposed to be at Wikibooks, though I could be wrong. The Catfish 04:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a general overview. If I wrote a how-to, it'd be 50 times as long. Rlevse 11:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Object. Always nice to see some work done on Scouting-related articles. Featured article status is becoming harder and harder to get every day, and the requirements are quite rigorous. Best of luck, and good job so far. However, I think there's a few issues that need to be dealt with before this becomes a featured article:

• Lists: Wikipedia featured articles are "well written," i.e., "the prose is compelling, even brilliant." My main criticism here is with the large number of bulleted lists. Granted, the list of tables is a central and necessary part of the article, but can't "Caring for your collection" be worked into a normal paragraph or two? The article as a whole doesn't flow right when everything is bulleted.

Removed "Caring..." section (see below). Do you think the rest of the "Error vs variations" section should be unbulletted, bulleted but more prose style, or something else? Rlevse 13:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Brilliant Prose: I think that the prose sections of this article require a major copyedit. Although there's really no big grammatical issues, it does tend to flow disjointedly. Each sentence in this article states a fact, but there are few transitions, explanations, and other additions to make it sound and look right. There even exist a few sentences that are flat out wrong and don't make sense, for example: "The number required for Star, Life, and Eagle varies, as has the ratio of required merit badges vs. non-required merit badges for those ranks." Of course, here I'm still ignoring the style problems within this sentence itself and the surrounding ones, for example "Star, Life, and Eagle" being repeated. Other sections of the article jump around from being encyclopedic, to being second person, for example, "be careful of ones that could conceivably be..."
• Sufficient Background Information: In the example in the previous section, you reference required vs. non-required merit badges. If I hadn't been very knowledgeable of BSA requirements, I might have been a little confused as to what this was referring to. Reading the next sentence, the unknowledgeable reader would see that there's a required list (of merit badges, apparently), but there's still insufficient information here to make the point obvious to the reader. In addition, since this is a "Purpose of merit badges" section, you might want to review the fact that Scouts earn them by completing requirements, as opposed to a very general and uninformative, "merit badges exist to allow a Scout to explore areas of interest to him and to teach him advanced skills." The term "Scoutcraft" may be unfamiliar, and it's a red link so far - discuss it a bit further.
• As a how-to guide (User:The Catfish): If this isn't a how-to guide, why does a section for "Caring for your collection" even exist? If your article is only here to cover the history of BSA merit badges and their evolution through the past century, fine, but this section isn't necessary. If it is, then this article is hardly complete. Where can I get old merit badges? What is the value, monetary or otherwise, of doing so? The list goes on and on. Of course, there's a limit before an article gets too detailed; you can always branch a section to a different article. There still has to be some substance, but branched articles have far less impact on the candidacy for the featured article itself.

As several have commented about the "Caring..." section, I've removed it. Rlevse 13:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Images: I'm not going to get into the whole copyright status of the images again. However, have you ever considered displaying the images a bit smaller here? Your average user runs his monitor display at 800x600; I'm running much larger at 1280x1024, and they still seem enormous to me. If the images were shrunk a little, which can be done in the Wikipedia article notation itself (you don't have to manipulate the original image at all), it might make the table a bit easier to read. As for the table, you may want to consider merging it all into one table with an additional column describing the merit badge type; that way, there won't be as much subsection clutter.

Cut image size by 33%. I like the tables the way they are as it makes it easy to navigate to the Type sections. What do you think? Images copyrights were fixed. Rlevse 13:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Disambiguation: The line, "certain other organizations (such as fire brigades) issue badges/awards they call merit badges," seems quite out of place, and probably unnecessary, because the page is already directed to Merit badge collecting (BSA). If you browse through Wikipedia policy pages, you'll find one on disambiguation, and how to separate different items of the same name. For example, Washington (disambiguation) differentiates between various people, places, and other subjects. It seems more fitting that a fire brigade's merit badges be mentioned somewhere else, least of all as a conclusion to the opening section regarding the BSA.
• References: A featured article needs good references. It's best to cite where some of your numbers come from. For example, the Eagle Scout requirements are actually listed on this Wikipedia somewhere; search for it, and link to it when you discuss them. The number of offered merit badges is listed online, and in the back of any merit badge pamphlet. Cite something there. I^[1] don't^[2] mean^[3] for^[4] your^[5] article^[6] to look like this, but there has to be something more backing what you have to say up. Wikipedia is not a repository for original research and commentating - nothing here should be a primary source.
• Badge history: This is hardly a comprehensive section. Besides a few detailed examples, you note the shift as largely, "depending on factors such as their popularity and changes in society (such as the shift from an agriculture based society to an industrial based society in 20th century America)." Is this in reference to a valid source? Can you give any more specifics? You might want to start talking about the change in design here, as well. -Rebelguys2 12:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's an awful lot to cover :) I'm not sure how best to do badge history unless we made a table of badges by Handbook edition. That'd have to be an internal link, or, at best, an external one. However, I did add that First Aid used to be a specific requirement, I might be able to add a bit more without making the article too long and unwieldy. There's a list of requirements in the Sixth Edition handbook for Scoutcraft, that might work for a definition, or to start an article. The "Caring for" section has been dropped. And I'm starting to wonder if I need to recuse myself and cancel my vote :) --JohnDBuell 14:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't quite sure about what to say about that section. My main problem is that the title of this article, "Merit badge collecting," seems to encompass all of these things. As a result, it's sorely lacking in the how-tos and details of actually going about to collecting badges. Rlevse's removal of the "Caring" section, though, is also a little odd, considering the circumstances. It seems now that the article isn't so much "Merit badge collecting," than a merit badge history article - tracing the different styles of badges. The "Merit badge" article itself is just a list of current merit badges. I'm not sure how to tie this all together very easily. As far as the image resizing - it looks a lot better. -Rebelguys2 14:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there have been some differences of opinion on whether the article should be a how-to or not, and is a how-to article encyclopedic? Perhaps some of it (like the 'care of' section) could just use a good rewrite.... --JohnDBuell 15:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I should rename it "Merit badge history (BSA)". It already has redirects from "Merit Badge Collecting" and "Merit badge collecting"...those came from the peer review...the BSA was added as it's specifically on BSA merit badges. Rebelguys2--LOVE your suggestions...I wish you'd seen it while it was in Peer Review-;)Rlevse 15:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing myself, either "Merit badge history (BSA)" or "Merit badge design history (BSA)". --JohnDBuell 15:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC) You'd have to rewrite your introduction and bits of the first couple of sections to properly change the article focus though.

I like "Merit badge design history (BSA)". Adding 'design' to the title would limit the scope and make it more manageable. MB history could have a book written on it. Rlevse 15:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's an official policy then - you may have to withdraw the FAC nomination for this article, re-name it, rewrite the first part of it, and submit a new FAC nomination under the new name. --JohnDBuell 15:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Pinball

Self-Nomination. The game of Pinball has a fascinating and somewhat checkered history. Quite a few of us have been working on conveying our true love for pinball in this wikipedia entry and we feel that it would be a great featured article. Please leave below any comments you have regarding the nomination of 'Pinball'. Thanks.

• Object. No references, lots of sections are too short, some sections only consist of long lists. Needs a lot of work, refer to WP:Peer review. — Wackymacs 19:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Wow, very fast! I put the nomination up less than sixty seconds ago. I'm surprised you feel that the sections are too short. Do you perhaps mean the sub-sections? The main sections are 'History', 'Features of a Pinball Game', "Machine Layout', 'Playing Techniques', etc... We could drop the sub-titles in the history section, if you feel that would tighten it. The listing mainly takes place for "Pinball Firsts', which I feel is proper. We could drop the list and write it out in longform, but then we would simply by typing "The first machine with a ramp was... The first machine with a building jackpot was..." Do you feel this would make for a better article? I do think the 'Notable Pinball Simulators" could be described a bit better, perhaps longform would be more proper for that section. I'll take another look at that. Anyway, thanks again. Totally appreciated.

Yes, I did mean the sub-sections. If you remove them, and add references, I'll take another look at it. Removing the list and replacing it with prose would be best. — Wackymacs 20:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - More pictures would really help this article. An annotated pinball machine could help with the explanation of machine layout. And you could have various machines from different eras chronicling its history. - Hahnchen 23:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references (of course), convention on external links says they should not be inline in the article itself but be collated in ==External links==, Pinball Firsts strikes me as too much of an unencyclopedic trivia bullet-point list, some sections like maintenance & repair and pinball simulation are too short. Lists should be kept to a minimum — if they make up the bulk of a section or subsection, something is wrong. The N.B. portion of the features section also seems that it could be better integrated with the rest of the prose. Johnleemk | Talk 09:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object -- Article does not use introduction paragraphs to give higher-level overview of the topic. If you don't know what a pinball machine is, then being plunged immediately into "a planar surface inclined upwarded from three to seven degrees" is entirely the wrong level of detail. Please remember that this article may be read by international citizens and should be written for someone entirely unfamiliar with the topic. The introduction to the entire article is far too short, and doesn't give the reader a very clear idea of what the topic is. I think that the "History" section would be better later in the article, once we know what pinball is, but your milage may vary. I also agree that the article desperately needs a front-on picture of a pinball machine, or perhaps a diagram. Also, of course, references. -- Creidieki 00:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven)

Partial self nomination. user:Opus33 is the primary author. I took the article, polished it up, and added a good deal of references following a trip to my University's research library. I'm particularly proud because the article includes a full (copyleft) version of the entire symphony, an ogg for each of the four movements included with the paragraph describing that movement. Raul654 02:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sexy support. Great article, very clean, very thorough, and v interesting—and, to tangent for a moment, it's past time for Wikipedia to get its first classical music FA! We have four 20th-century classical music composer FAs, and not a single pre-20th century one; 14 songs, and not a single one from before 1963 (1955 if you count "My Belarusy"). Symphony No. 5 is a great place to start. -Silence 04:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sexy object until some of Tsavage's and others' points below are addressed and the article is further expanded. Most of the other requests have been mostly relatively easy to resolve (copyediting and all that junk), but the mounting evidence of not being comprehensive is troubling. -Silence 19:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Sexy comment — Silence, do you have any of your own opinions on this article, independent of others' Jedi mind tricks? ;-) ← SARAVASK — 23:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sexy reply. Why would I have said any of the above if any of it wasn't my opinion? It's not as though votes must be in a vacuum. Changing your vote based on new evidence and comments that people make is a good sign, as it shows that one is keeping an open mind to contrary opinions and re-weighing the article according to new criticism. Someone who refuses to change his vote even when he's changed his mind is weakening the system, and I change my mind a lot. :f I still think the article's excellent and would make a worthy FA in the future, but I'd no longer be comfortable with its being FAd right now until some more of the below problems are resolved, so I've changed my vote accordingly. -Silence 09:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sexy apology. Even though I said the above with a light heart (note the smiling emoticon — no attack was intended), I retract what I said. I am very inexperienced at FAC voting; it is an interesting approach you have, and shows humility in the face of new evidence. Thanks for your reply. Saravask 07:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sexy apology acceptance. Thank you for understanding. Though we're kinda getting off-topic for the FAC now, so, back to Beethoven. :o -Silence 19:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object; a very good article, but still needs some work:

• A number of points that should be directly referenced are not:

• "Because of the length of time it took for Beethoven to compose the 5th Symphony, its proper chronological place in Beethoven's output often goes unrecognized."

• I'm not really sure what you mean by this not being referenced. The symphony was composed in bits and pieces over the course of 8 years (as is discussed at length in the article). That music historians have a hard time putting a firm date to it (relative to the other works) is an inevitable consequence. Raul654 05:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• I've moved it and slightly rephrased this to make it more clear. Raul654 05:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Groundbreaking technically and emotionally, the Fifth Symphony has had a large influence on composers and music critics, and inspired work by Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Mahler, and others. The symphony stands with the Third Symphony and Ninth Symphony as the most revolutionary of Beethoven's symphonies, and indeed, all his compositions."

• Done. Raul654 15:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Schindler's testimony concerning any point of Beethoven's life is disparaged by experts (he is believed to have forged entries in Beethoven's conversation books), and moreover it is often commented that Schindler offered a highly Romanticized view of the composer."

• Done. (got it from Anton Schindler) Raul654 05:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• The "Textual questions" section contains a single sub-section and nothing else; is there a reason for the extra level of headings?

• Fixed. Raul654 05:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• The sections on the movements are somewhat unbalanced; it's possible that there is little to be said about the second movement, of course, but the four-sentence section looks unfinished.
• The inline citations are lost in a sea of other parenthetical notes; particularly egregious is the appearance of "(op. 69)" at the end of a sentence, where it resembles a malformatted citation more than anything else. It may be helpful to use footnotes instead; otherwise, some effort needs to be made to ensure that the citations are clearly distinct from other parentheticals.

• A valid concern - I have switched over to ref/note style for inline citations and left the opus and other parenthetical information intact. Raul654 05:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Finally, the article needs extensive copyediting; sentences like "That treaty dissolved the Holy Roman Empire, of which Austria had been a province, ceased to exist, and the modern Austrian Empire began" are scattered throughout. I'll try to go over it sometime tomorrow if nobody else has done it by then. Kirill Lokshin 04:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Support now that the changes have been made. Kirill Lokshin 17:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's a good article overall, and I love the fact that it includes free recordings of the music. But some of the writing is awkward. Here's a sentence I can't follow at all: The irony that they were composed by a German was not lost on many of the audience or for the more musically educated that it was 'Fate knocking on the door' of the Third Reich. Also, ending with a parenthesized statement about the Animaniacs is not the most convincing conclusion to the article.

  Something I felt was missing was a description of the four-note motif as a rhythmic motif that appears in other movements. For instance, the scherzo theme takes the short-short-short-long rhythm of the first movement, but stays rather startlingly on the same note for a while. I felt that the scherzo theme didn't get its fair share of description: the article simply mentions that it exists and that it is played by the horns, and moves on. That was a bit disappointing.

  Also, I don't have much of a problem with short paragraphs (see my own nomination at Voting system), but I predict that others will complain. rspeer 04:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I've expanded the discussions of the individual movements per Michael Snow's objection below. I believe the things you say are lacking are now adaquently covered. Raul654 15:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Not really. The short-short-short-long motif -- the most prominent thing uniting the entire symphony -- is now mentioned once in the introduction, mentioned obscurely as "3+1" in a quote, and never brought up anywhere else. Also, other comments have drawn my attention to the poor writing in the "popular culture" section, and I agree. rspeer 22:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as bad grammatical constructions - I fixed the one you cited, and several others have copyedited the article and done some good cleaning up. Raul654 15:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• A new objection from me: the footnotes don't work right. Clicking the links doesn't take you to the appropriate places. They're probably out of order. Also, "Ibid" is archaic, although resolving this in a concise way will involve some heavy use of the complex "ref note" and "ref label" templates. I really want this article to get to featured status, but I don't have time to do the research that will get it there. But if it's getting there at some point in the future, I'll help with the technical stuff like footnotes. rspeer 23:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, sorry. I would forgive a few flaws for an article with recordings of all four movements, but this still has some rather serious problems in my opinion. (Incidentally, perhaps it's time we launched Wikipedia:Featured recordings?) One issue is that the article presents uncritically in the introduction a claim that it is "Beethoven's best known work—the most popular orchestral work of its length". Granted, this is properly quoted, but it appears the quote is more than 70 years old, and the claim is much more dubious today. The first half of the statement is probably untrue, as especially since the fall of the Berlin Wall the Ninth tends to come out ahead of the Fifth in surveys of popularity. My next major concern is the inadequate discussion of the movements from a musical perspective. While a number of things could be said beyond reciting what happens in each movement, the omission of one thing struck me in particular, which relates to the famous theme. In its rhythmic form, the short-short-short-long pattern recurs repeatedly and prominently throughout the entire symphony, not just the first movement (for example, the horns' theme in the third movement). This is an important element of what provides unity to the composition and needs to be discussed. --Michael Snow 06:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've toned the introduction down a bit. Raul654 07:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've now expanded on the descriptions of the first, second, and third movements. (particluarly the second) Raul654 15:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I think things are a bit better now, although I sympathize with the criticism below of the popular culture section. With respect to the concerns of the non-musical, I tried to make sure that links are provided on the first appearance of specialized terms. More than that would be excessive, I think. There's simply no way you can expect this article to explain all of music theory in order for its meanings to be transparent for the uninitiated. They have to follow the links and educate themselves. --Michael Snow 06:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object. It's a good article, no question, and we do not currently have a featured article on a classical "abstract" composition. However it's not quite comprehensive. The discussion of the work's form is somewhat lightweight. While there is a section on the symphony in popular culture, there is no section on the symphony's influence on other classical composers or works (if I can think of two off the top of my head - Martinu's Memorial to Lidice and Vaughan Williams' Fourth - there must be lots!). I may get time to address some of these, but I can't promise. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've significantly expanded discussion of the individual movements in response to the above objections. Raul654 15:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as influences on other composers, yes, there is a section - "Reception and influence" Raul654 15:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I still have reservations. Perhaps it just doesn't seem to me to be quite up to the best Wikipedia can offer (criterion 1), and perhaps not everything questionable is referenced. I'd certainly like to support, and will probably end up doing so, but don't feel able to quite yet. I will keep trying to come up with concrete suggestions: as soon as I can express my objections I will do so. Meanwhile I will just keep trying to improve the article. Signing off, for now, however. One thing I think would be an improvement : would there be any objection to my rearranging footnotes and references as I did them for Olivier Messiaen? --RobertG ♬ talk 17:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object - That was pretty good! The version I read a few minutes ago flowed quite smoothly (there are a couple of typos). The short paragraphs make for somewhat choppy reading, but it is not too long an article, so that kind of balances it out. I listened to the first movement as provided while reading the rest, which was cool. My objection concerns comprehensiveness. Following my normal practice when "looking up something on the Web", I keyword searched (Google in this case) for "Beethoven Symphony No. 5", and skimmed the first five or six results that seemed promising from the SE excerpt. Every page I visited included at least a couple of items of information that seemed quite relevant, and that were not found in this FAC. I'm no musicologist or even devoted classical fan, so these simply appealed to my general interest and curiosity as to why they weren't treated here.
• Critical analysis/description not mentioned here:
  • First movement: We must emphasize that the generating motif of this part also appeared in other works, either in the composer’s creation (sonata Appassionata), either in Mozart or Haydn’s works. (this seems important...especially if the "generating motif" is duh-duh-duh-duuuh).
  • Third movement: This is considered to be the key moment of the entire symphony, both psychologically and from the point of view of the musical construction. (Is this a reasonably widely held scholarly opinion/analysis?)
  • Third movement: has a free form, neither scherzo nor intermezzo (contradicts what's here; I dunno a scherzo from a...whatever, but, is this wrong?)
    • It's a scherzo. If one guy says it's not a scherzo, it's because musicologists love to be controversial and revise the common interpretation of a piece. rspeer 22:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • is rightly considered a natural continuation of Symphony No. III, "Eroica", because it approaches the same themes and it expresses the relationship between particular and general.
  • Beethoven's Fifth is also historically important: it established the pattern of what later became known as the "finale symphony", i.e. a symphony whose finale assumes a level of importance at least as great as the other movements, if not greater. (Compare, for example, the Eroica; great as the finale undoubtedly is, it is overshadowed by the first two movements).
• General information not found:
  • It is of his nine symphonies. (only mentioned in a title in References)
  • The name under which it sometimes circulated, " The Symphony of Destiny ", is linked to the words of Anton Felix Schindler... (A title in the References does refer to this)
  • Until the recent, almost inexplicable, supremacy of Vivaldi's 'The Four Seasons', this was the single most recorded piece of classical music ever. (and even second place is interesting...)
  • The symphony is immediately recognizable by its four-note opening motif. Because of the motif's resemblance to the Morse code for the letter V (dot dot dot dash), it was used as a shorthand for the word "victory" to open the BBC's radio broadcasts during World War II from an earlier Wikipedia version, posted on another site; also, from elsewhere: The four notes which launched a thousand resistance raids in World War II (reading this made doubt the whole very contemporary pop culture section, as overblown and an easy way to round this out with some "accessible" stuff for the genreal reader, while ignoring the 5th's cultural effect in previous decades...)
    • This is found (and cited) at the end of the pop culture section. (Someone complained that ending the article on an animaniacs refernece wasn't great style)
  • Written after he became deaf.
    • Incorrect. It was written while he was going deaf (a fact which I thought was in the article but apparently is not). Raul654 11:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It was meant as a quick note, but to put a finer point on it, I believe I read that he started having noticeable progressive problems with his hearing mid 1790s, and by around 1800 was probably 60% deaf, often able (from his own letters) to hear the tones but not the words of people in conversation, and to find loud noises painful (recalling best I can what I read a couple days ago). I don't believe deaf simply means stone cold not-hearing deaf... --Tsavage 15:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• No significant historical context - What was Beethoven the man going through during the composition years, both in his personal life (was he rich or poor, who working for, social climate, etc;), and in the overall course of his musical life (what stage was he at in his professional evolution kinda thing). This former seems to inadequately addressed in part with the slightly out of place tumultuous times/Napoleon stuff... Examples on the musical career context side:
  • 1792-1802: Viennese period-Symphonies Nos.1 and 2 are composed in this period. In them, Beethoven innovates within the classical style.l 1803-1815: Heroic period-Symphonies Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are composed in this period. With these symphonies, Beethoven makes revolutionary breaks with classical style; 1820-1826: Late period-This period is dominated by the most revolutionary and influential composition of Beethoven's entire career: Symphony No. 9.
  • Symphony No. 5: The Expressive Ideal Fully Formed. [...] He subjects form to context. He establishes motivic development as a fundamental of his art. He introduces the concept of drama into the formal layout of movements. He introduces the concept of primal, almost rock-and-roll-like rhythm as a narrative element. And he decrees that music must, above all, be self-expression.
• No notable recordings/performances - although a potentially controversial area, there should still be some mention of "important" recordings/performances; particularly with the emphasis given to the "textual question"; much of the article relies on quoted and attributed critical opinion, so it wouldn't be inconsistent to rely on the same for a "recordings" section.

These are all first-pass examples only (there are likely more) that immediately jumped out at me... The point is not "perfection", but being able to stand up beside other sources is a good test of comprehensiveness (unless those sources all ALL WRONG). So, I think more work is required. --Tsavage 19:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Reluctantly object. There's lots of good stuff here, but
  • (my main objection) the "popular culture section" is toe-curling. "Eventually, Donald joins Goofy in saving Mickey" adds nothing to my understanding of the symphony; things like this are information about the cartoon, not about the symphony. The paragraph on The Simpsons and Hitch-hikers is far too geeky, and tells me more about the preferences of the authors than about the subject of the article.
  • One and two-sentence paragraphs are not good writing.
  • The account of the symphony's influence is lacking. While it's fair enough to say "Every significant symphony since has been written under the influence of this achievement or in reaction against it", the article also specifies that, "the Fifth Symphony ... inspired work by such composers as Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Mahler, and Hector Berlioz". The obvious question is then: which work(s)?
  • Other than the Hoffmann quote, there's a lack of criticism generally.
  • "The symphony is one of the most often-played orchestral works of its length" is an awkward formulation, and as has been mentioned above, a 70-year old citation is not impressive support for a claim about the symphony's popularity now. I'd just say "The symphony is one of the most popular in the repertoire", which there's no dispute about and which therefore doesn't need a citation at all. Mark¹ 19:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Full of jargon. Many terms are used without definition or description (from just the first paragraph, we have "sonata allegro", "andante", and "scherzo"). Section 3.3 tells me that the second "is a lyrical work in theme and variation forms in rondo". I have utterly no idea what that means; I thought that there generally weren't any lyrics in Beethoven's music. Terms which are "basic" to musically-educated individuals, like "movement", should receive at least brief definitions. The first section announces that it's going to show us a four-note motif, then proudly illustrates eight notes; I assume that this discrepancy is related to what a "motif" is in music jargon. -- Creidieki 00:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The four note motif is short-short-short-long. It's used twice right at the beginning of the symphony - hence 8 notes. Raul654 00:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As to the rest of this objection - the purpose of using internal links is so we don't have to define every bit of technical jargon -- especially basic ones. And (no disrespect intended) if you don't know something as basic as what a movement is, then it's a bit unfair to complain that you didn't understand the entire article. Raul654 11:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You shouldn't dismiss this objection like that. If this article is featured, that means it's good enough to go on the main page, at which point it's being exposed to lots of people who probably know or can figure out what a "movement" is, but will have not a clue what "lyrical work" or similar terms mean. Hell, I'm not entirely sure what "lyrical work" means (I do music theory much more than music history). You can assume that your audience is somewhat educated, but not that they are all musicians. rspeer 23:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You're probably right that "movement" may have been too basic an example. But I strongly disagree that internal links should be used to provide dictdefs. I've been taking the view that a Featured Article should lead someone through exactly enough context to understand the concepts involved. A general reader should be able to get through this article with a basic understanding of the points made without having to go through subarticles. I'm not saying that someone could learn all of music theory from reading the article, or that an uneducated reader should understand every subtlety of the article. But they should be able to read the article from start to finish. I see that as one of the real strengths of Wikipedia -- we have a separate document about every concept, so that you can learn about Beethoven's Fifth without having to read a book about music theory first. I'm still developing my opinions on this, though; I'm very open to debate. -- Creidieki 23:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that this criticism is bizarre. Leaving aside "lyrical", which I would hope is a part of any remotely educated person's vocabulary, defining terms like "rondo" would be patronising and redundant- we must have hundreds of articles which mention rondos, so it surely makes more sense to define it once in one article than to do so a hundred times in a hundred articles. Mark¹ 00:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Whoa! I consider myself "remotely educated", and I'm even a musician, though I admit I have serious gaps in my knowledge of music history. And I don't know what it actually means for a symphonic piece to be "lyrical". Something vague about a flowing melody comes to mind, but I don't know any criterion for saying that one piece is lyrical and another isn't. Including this kind of term without at least a cursory explanation is creating an unnecessary barrier to entry in reading this article. rspeer 00:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
          • "Lyrical" here is not a term of art (which is why it's such a poor example of the point); it just means "in the manner of a lyric" (roughly, in an expressive, singing style). Mark¹ 00:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I couldn't agree with Creidieki's comment more, as in: The perfect article...is nearly self-contained; includes and explains all essential terminology required in the article, such that someone could completely understand the subject without having to read many other articles. When I read an article, I want to come out understanding something with a feeling of completion, not a more or less vague, "oh, I get the general idea, um, maybe I'll do some more reading...sometime." This is largely a function of the quality of the writing, which is more than proper grammar and syntax and a spellcheck, it's how the topic is presented. A simple recounting of the facts just doesn't do it, unless the reader is only rushing to look up some trivia or a date or something, not for understanding. Terms very common to a subject area (like, I take it, rondo) don't have to be explained, if they are properly put in context. A well-written piece has the "average" reader (here, the target is a GENERAL audience, I believe) thinking along, supplying connections, getting into the flow, not stumbling on unfamiliar terminology. I don't this is being overly detailed, and I'm not thinking of some theoretical LCD test dummy reader. For example, I read the comment about the four-note motif, with the two measure, 8-note illustration -- I hadn't registered that as a negative, because I have a small degree of musical literacy, and a familiarity with the 5th (so I hummed the two bars). But that's already way too much knowledge to require someone to bring to the piece: if I just had a vague idea of "notes" and counted to eight, I'd personally be confused. This, uh (no insult to anyone intended) presumptuous type of error is measured as the writing style and quality. I've read a few FAs that REALLY BOTHER ME, because they are "good" but they still don't work (except maybe for more specialized audiences, who probably don't need 'em). The stuff that jumped so easily out at me from other pages regarding this article (as noted in my objection), probably did so because I didn't feel I was catching the full story here. --Tsavage 01:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
        • If movement was an unfortunate example, so was rondo, at least, regarding internal links. Here is what the Wikipedia stub leads with: Rondo, and its French equivalent rondeau, is a word that has been used in music in a number of ways, most often in reference to a musical form, but also in reference to a character-type that is distinct from the form. Huh? I can figure out the rest of the article, but it's not good... There are, according to Google, "about 264" instances of rondo in Wikipedia (which include a few references to a Japanese video game called Demon Castle Dracula X: Rondo of Blood). --Tsavage 01:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't presume to lecture anyone here, simply to hopefully fully clarify my point about how the writing style can (and, here, should) put things in context. This example is from the FAC Ido lead; it is a basic writing device (an example, but worded more as an explanation that works into the flow) that presents a not-so-common-term in a context that makes it accessible to contextual understanding (and it has an internal link; also, the preceding sentences of the lead describing Ido support this understanding):

This is much in the same way that English is often used as a lingua franca at present in various international gatherings, , but Ido was made to be grammatically regular, phoenetic, and as the first language of none, to favour no one who might otherwise have an advantage in expression with his or her native language. (contrast this with something like, "Ido is a type of lingua franca. Onwards..."; compare with the use of rondo, or other terms in this FAC) --Tsavage 14:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Minor Objection Much like User:Creidieki, I am completely non-musical and hence I probably can't glean as much from this article as a musician. I have no problem with using detailed, concise terminology further into the article, but I think the introduction should be "dumbed" down a bit, in particular the picture of the notes in the introduction replaced/supplanted by a description. As for making the entire article accessable to everyone- it would probably require something the length of a book for me to understand the "Form" section (not to mention that I'm not really interested in that, but rather the other sections like "History" and "Popular Culture", which I find perfectly accessable). Sortan 04:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Several users have responded to my complaint that it's difficult for a person without musical education to read this article. I'd propose adding two sections (or subsections) at the beginning of the article -- "Symphonies" and "Beethoven". The "Symphonies" section would present historical background and context on symphonies, talking about how they were a common type of music in the time, and what their common musical features usually were. The "Beethoven" section would mention who Beethoven is, and talk about the features of his music. These two sections would give the reader a much clearer picture of the setting for this article, and would allow you to define some of the common terminology without being intrusive. I would imagine each of those sections being perhaps two paragraphs in length.

And I do feel strongly that having this material in the article leads to a better article than simply letting internal links do the trick. These kind of background sections make the article easier to read from start to finish, and allow us to only talk about the *relevant* parts of the background material. -- Creidieki 07:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• SUSUSU-PORT SUSUSU-PORT It is incredably difficult to adequtely describe in words any musical masterpiece. I believe it was another composer, Elvis Costello who said "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture". The difficulty of this task is further compounded by the need to reach both general and specialized audiences of readers. I think this article does about as good a job as any in rising to the challenge and doing justice to Ludwig Van's best known work.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are a number of positive aspects: the focus on a prominent work by a famous composer; the use of two good images (although more would be welcome); the inclusion of a full recording of the symphony; and the use of music notation to illustrate two motifs from the work. However, the article falls significantly short of several FA requirements.
  • The lead fails to succinctly summarise the entire topic (Criterion 3a).
  • Much of the writing is clumsy, even sloppy, rather than ‘compelling, even brilliant’ (Criterion 2a).
    • The disjointed paragraphing damages the flow in a text that purports to cover a serious and multifaceted topic. The insistence on one- and two-sentence paragraphs would be suitable for a narrow-column newpaper article, where the visual impact is much less intrusive, and a lower level of concentration and a shorter time commitment by readers is expected. Here, the staccato paragraphing makes it hard for both non-musicians and musicians to read, and looks untidy on the screen.
  • The language of almost every sentence needs work. Here are some examples at random from the first two sections.
    • ‘is one of the most’ occurs twice in the second sentence.
    • ‘and achieved its prodigious reputation soon afterwards’—shouldn’t that be simply ‘and soon achieved its prodigious reputation’?
    • We have ‘four-note’ and in the following sentence ‘4-note’—which is it to be?
    • ‘It is in the usual four movements’—usual for what? Throughout much of the previous century, three movements were ‘usual’.
    • In the final sentence/paragraph of the lead, ‘it has resurfaced numerous times’—first, does ‘it’ refer to the motif, the whole symphony, or (more likely) excerpts from the symphony; second, ‘resurfaced’ assumes that it’s been submerged (please explain to the poor reader, or use a better word).
    • 'date back as early as’—Do you mean 'date back to as early as'?
    • 'Eroica'—it’s usually expressed as the Eroica.
    • ‘began to make fragmentary sketches on the "C-minor symphony"’—‘on’ should be ‘for’.
    • as a ‘catharsis’ in relation to what? (This word is unnecessarily erudite here, and in any case is not entirely appropriate.) The use of ‘also’ later in the sentence introduces a layer of fog.
    • There are many redundancies; for example: ‘Because of the length of time it took for Beethoven to compose the 5th Symphony’.
    • There are typos (such as ‘charcter’ and ‘tacity’).
• There are problems with balance, logical flow, and control of detail, and in places the article fails to ‘stay tightly focused on the main topic’. The History section doesn’t start by locating the work within the classical style, and within Beethoven’s stylistic development—this would be standard fare for concert program notes, aimed at giving music lovers a bird’s eye view. Instead, we’re asked to wade through a long list of the many other works that occupied the composer around this time, before much is said about the Fifth Symphony itself. It might have been useful if these other works had cast some musical light on his composition of the Fifth, but here, it’s an obstruction to engaging the reader in the excitement of the work itself. There’s a historical divergence that doesn’t flow smoothly from or to anything: ‘At the end of that year, Napoleon and Austria signed a treaty dissolving the Holy Roman Empire, of which Austria had been a part. As a result, the modern Austrian Empire was created.’ Yet there’s no mention of the military references in the work. Why not conflate the History subsections, make it flow smoothly and cogently, and remove some of the less important material?
• The section on Form is superficial and far from comprehensive (Criterion 2b), and ends up being a wandering list of points rather than flowing prose. The ‘storybook’ approach of trying to describe in words what happens in the music just dabbles at the edges; why is it necessary at all when the recording is included?
• Some of the quotes are over the top (Criterion 2d) and unsupported by specific evidence (Criterion 2c).
• Can the saturation or sharpness or exposure of the second image be adjusted so that the print is easier to discern?
• The recording: I’ve heard more characterful readings, but the recordings and the performance are amazingly good under the circumstances (see Fulda Symphonic Orchestra), and we should be pleased to have them when audio copyright is so difficult to obtain. Most of the shortcomings can't be blamed on the high proportion of amateurs in the orchestra. For example, it’s a pity that the conductor clips short most of the dramatic rests in the first movement, like a nervous round at a gymkhana. The recording lacks clarity—and even booms—in the mid-to-low range, which you might be able to minimise with the Audacity program; it would have been so easy to adjust at the time of the recording. Can you remove the excessively long silences at the start of each movement (10 seconds for the first movement)?

It's not good enough this time round. Tony 15:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment That was an awfully polite and precise way to tear an article to shreds...

• Losing "control of detail" is a cool concept, it sounds alarming (I love learning new special terms...).
• The quality of the interpretation is a major point. My frame of musical reference is basically "pop", and by ears aren't finely tuned, so this consideration was only peripheral for me. Now, however, I don't think I could comfortably listen to this version with visions of a "nervous round at a gymkhana" twitching in my head. For classical music, where interpretation is a particularly big factor, there should be more of an accounting for the choice of samples. We wouldn't expect tribute band covers as samples for pop songs, at least, not without a lot of explanation; this is not exactly the same situation, but seems similar enough. Are there not accepted "reference" recordings (for example, that would be used in a music appreciation course)? Might well-selected 30-second samples of such do a better (fair and balanced) job than a full recording that does not adequately represent the material? --Tsavage 18:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Seems like an in-depth and accurate article. The page has been significantly improved by the reaction to comment here. Its FA material. Giano | talk 10:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Questions: From the article, can you answer these two questions: 1. How is the Fifth positioned in the history of classical music?; 2. What stage in Beethoven's musical development does the Fifth represent? 3. This is Beethoven's fifth symphony—how many symphonies did he compose in all? My objections, and some of the others above, in part address the absence of what seems to me like basic information, and they haven't been answered or remedied as far as I can see. --Tsavage 19:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Since the nomination has now closed, it's probably best to take it to the talk page (if you're interested in the article rather than the nomination per se). Mark¹ 19:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tumbling Dice

Self-nomination. I've been working on this almost non-stop for days and I think it's FA material. Decided to be bold and nominate it. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 00:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak object. Article seems a bit too short to be comprehensive to me. Most of it is about the Rolling Stones singing the song on their tours (something I'm not sure is very encyclopedic), and there's no mention of the song's origins. The fair use picture of the Stones on tour is not justified as fair use, I think — this is an article about one of the Stones' songs, not about them or their touring career (see Wikipedia:Fair use). Johnleemk | Talk 05:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no mention of the song's origins.: You mean: "The song's first incarnation was "Good Time Women", written during the recording sessions for the album Sticky Fingers. A demo was recorded in the key of G and played at 120 bpm. or maybe Jagger states, "'Tumbling Dice' was written to fit Keith's riff. It's about gambling and love, an old blues trick."?

Not fair use Yeah, okay. I got a better picture I can use. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 12:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

about them or their touring career -- Shortened and Sweetened

(see Wikipedia:Fair use) Thank you. Now I need to go buy some asprin. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 13:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I think a short sentence on where "Good Time Woman" came from would help, though; there may be not much of a story behind this song, but every song has some form of inspiration. Thanks for removing the fair use picture and trimming the live section. If we can get slightly more detail on the song's beginnings, I will change my vote to neutral. Johnleemk | Talk 06:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Saying that "Good Time Woman"'s lyrics were largely uninspired, Jasgger seeming to rip himself off on "Honky Tonk Women" wouldn't be POV, but it sure isn't verifyable. Because there's nothing and I mean NOTHING on GTW. In the meantime I culled over a few of my sources and found these quotes. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 08:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good enough. I don't think I'll support just yet, though. I won't stand in its way either. Regardless, take pride. Most of our articles don't even cite sources, while you've managed to create something that at least appears organised, structured, well-written and well-referenced. Johnleemk | Talk 09:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. "Critical Acclaim" section is not NPOV-compliant, especially since it cites only a single review. To be comprehensive and meet FAC criteria, article should include a representative sample of the the range of critical comments, particularly with regard to reviews from the time of the album's original release. Just because material like that isn't easy to find online doesn't mean it's an exception to the FAC requirement that articles be comprehensive (a problem with many pop music articles proposed as candidates here). Monicasdude 16:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've quadrupiled the length of that section. I hope you're not commanding me to find a negative review of the song. It was hard enough to find good reviews. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 17:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• The Perry book actually has five reviews of Exile on Main Street and the Kaye is the only one that really says anything worth quoting about "Tumbling Dice". New York Times, NME, Melody Maker, none of them say anything of any qoutability about the song. Tumbling Dice isn't "Imagine". I'm No Parking and I approved this message

[edit] Wal-Mart

Wal-mart should be elected as a feature article, it lists both the bad and the good of the corporation, in an encyclopedic way. Travb 00:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is an ongoing POV fork between Wal-Mart and Criticism of Wal-Mart. Assuming those two articles are eventually merged, Wal-Mart needs work on the criticism section. Specifically, critcisms used to be logically grouped into categories (eg, labor relations, supplier relations, community impacts, globalization & outsourcing). In the article now, the criticisms are a shotgun approach with minimal organization. The article also has sourcing problems re: pro- and anti- statements. Feco 00:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that it's only a POV fork if the Wal-Mart article doesn't have criticism. The "criticism" section is clearly long enough to merit its own article, with the "criticism" section on the Wal-mart page itself serving as a summarized version of that page (and, of course, just because there's a criticism section doesn't mean that criticism can't be mentioned elsewhere in the article!). Compare with Criticism of Pope John Paul II, Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox, Criticism of Christianity, etc. The trick is to use those pages for more in-depth coverage of (and responses to!) criticism, rather than as POV forks—which the above page very well may be, but then I think the solution is to change it to the preferred version, not simply to merge it in its entirety into an already-huge page. -Silence 18:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • True, but the fact is that if a merge is being proposed, the article is not stable (an FA requirement) and possibly not comprehensive either. Johnleemk | Talk 19:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, absolutely. I wasn't suggesting that the article is OK as-is; it seems pretty obvious that this article needs some work. I was just responding to the current way that people seem to be trying to fix the article (merging, rather than just integrating and making consistent). Wal-Mart has had some of the most significant and diverse criticism of any organization in years; that merits both an in-depth section and an even more in-depth daughter article. -Silence 19:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support Extremely well referenced, lots of detail, a lot of work has been put into this article. Certainly deserves to be a featured article. — Wackymacs 16:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Object. Not sure what I was thinking before, but based on what Silence, Feco and Johnleemk have said, I have decided there is still a lot of work to be done on this article. — Wackymacs 19:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• (The power of peer pressure wins again! Fufu!) -Silence 19:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No differentiation is made between external links and references. Feco's objection is also relevant. The history section also should be in prose form, not just a little bullet-point timeline. Johnleemk | Talk 16:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The images Image:Walmart rollback 1.jpg, Image:Walmart rollback 2.jpg, Image:Walmartlogosheet.jpg are used for decorative purposes only. This is not permitted under Wikipedia:Fair use.
  2. The image Image:Rocha.jpg has no source information. I have a feeling that the copyright information is wrong as well.
  3. The image Image:Walmart low morals.png is tagged as a logo, but is described as a bumper sticker. The two are not the same.

  --Carnildo 21:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object - as per comments above. I would be in favour of forking off the criticism section, it looks too long and unbalances the article. I would also prefer the history section to be in prose rather than the timeline list that it's in right now. - Hahnchen 23:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose -- A "Criticisms" section does not make an article NPOV, and frankly I don't think that the best organization for criticising material is in a separate section. There could easily be a top-level section on Wages, Worker Rights, and Union Activities; a section on Environmental Impact; a section on the impact that Walmart has on other businesses. Covered individually, these topics could be much more neutral; start with the factual information, and then move on to various peoples' interpretations and opinions and scholarship. A "criticisms" section should cover the criticism, not factual information about the store -- at the moment, half of the Walmart-related information in the article is filed under "criticism".

On an unrelated side note, none of the pictures in the article really seem to capture the interior scale very well; an interior picture that showed as much of the store as was visible would be really cool. But that's a comment, not an opposition. -- Creidieki 01:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Interesting to read (because it's Wal-Mart), and seems quite comprehensive on the areas it covers, but not nearly a well-rounded article, instead, a business profile with a big criticism section. Six specific problems, including five major holes in the coverage:
  • No history - The History section offers a timeline, but the timeline itself doesn't even offer much historical background. Needs "started in a garage..."-type coverage of the start-up years, with some mention of the what the founders were up to, the business climate, etc. And then, at least the major stages in corporate evolution.
  • No "consumer experience" However it's treated, there should be a section that covers the Wal-Mart formula: basic store set-up (layout, greeters, all that), the products, the in-house promotion media, etc.
  • No marketing - For the world's largest retailer, a reasonably detailed discussion of promotional and advertising practices is required: how do they do TV? flyers? And the larger marketing approach, like product selection, etc.
  • No pricing - Wal-Mart's low pricing strategy is a big deal, a passing mention of "discount" and "supercenter" doesn't do it, needs detail somewhere on this aspect, whether in a marketing section, or elsewhere.
  • No location development - With over 1,700 supercenters alone, how Wal-Mart selects and develops locations requires coverage, probably its own section.
  • Criticism section too long - After reading all that, it's hard to recover from the sheer range and volume and get back into any sort of balanced consideration of the company. Definitely needs significant coverage, but organized into a few broad sections and severely summarized, with reference to a separate article.

Several of the above areas will probably require sub-articles in the end, but they certainly have to be here. --Tsavage 04:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• OPPOSE. The Wookieepedian 13:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  Your opposition is invalid without a reason. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Excessive focus on complaints makes unbalanced article + i agree with above comments. Enochlau 13:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• OPPOSE. It's impossible for the top level article to remain NPOV while criticism about is treated as a subtopic. Only a PR person would divide a topic on that axis. Would anyone write an article about the Manhattan project and not mention Hiroshima except in the subarticle Criticisms about the Manhattan project? I should hope not. It would be quite reasonable to have an article Effects of the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki without severing the main Manhattan project article from its direct effects. If Walmart needs a full length article on Walmart and labour relations I can understand that. However, the nucleus of the criticism toward Walmart and it's labour practices must remain in the main article. Anything less constitutes POV. MaxEnt 07:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment

• I think the article is a bit too long. Can be condensed. deeptrivia (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terri Schiavo

With great trepidation I renominate this article for FAC. I know it has a horrible history, which can be found here here and here. But in the midst of it all, it IS a good article, well-referenced and very comprehensive. While length is a problem, other articles of similar length have passed FAC which IMHO have similar or less quality. All the issues are resolved and edit warring has stopped, in fact, no one has edited this article for even a copyedit in a week. The Schiavo episode has passed on long enough that no new information is relevant to the case, which I think makes it meet the stability criteria. I think this article is a great example of the Wikipedia process. We've had several editors from differing viewpoints contribute, and they have came up with an examplary piece of work- WP-style cosensus building in action. I really hope when you vote consider the article on its merits, and not on its history here on FAC. Borisblue 05:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. There are some floating sentences that need to find homes in paragraphs. I did a little of that, and changed one usage of "Terri" to "Schiavo". Jkelly 05:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak support as long as the article remains stable. It's the best guide to the whole debacle fiasco shebang event available on the internet. It's also perhaps too long (would upgrade to a full support if the article was trimmed). Proto t c 11:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I am also tending to support now, but I need time to read thoroughly. My main comment at the moment is (as expected) also length. The article has been pared down considerably, but, with 20 sections and three levels of headings, I wonder if some more could be floated out to separate articles. It does seem quite stable now - diff for the last 500 edits (back to 21:38, 17 October 2005) but query whether we should wait another few weeks to make sure. In any event, I would like to see advocates on both sides of the debate supporting this version. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think the length is OK as is. Much better article now. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• I haven't read through the whole thing, so I can't support yet. The length seems ok to me, but the referencing is a little hectic. Instead of inline comments every 4th word, could page numbers be incorporated into the actual references? That way they're useful to a reader, and since the note is there anyway, it makes sense to put all the information there. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

---

[the following comment added after the article failed FAC -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)]

It doeth appear that two Anon IP's have just fixed all the referencing problems; Do tell to not mess up what they have wrought.--64.12.116.14 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

There also appear to be some pretty serious numbering problems within the notes (note 9 links to ref 40, for example, and note 8 links to a pdf, not the citation in the article). Those should be fixed before being featured. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment! Please be patient as I try to call in some of the article's main contributors- they might know best where each of the references go. Strange that they haven't discovered this page yet.... --Borisblue 01:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

---

[the following comment added after the article failed FAC -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)]

Some Anons apparently discovered the reference problems and appeared to have corrected them all; I would not mess with the references section unless I knew how to do it; It can get hairy.--64.12.116.14 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

• Weak object -- There are no references in the Initial Medical Crisis section. This section includes a lot of specific factual information regarding Schiavo's medical condition, and each such statement should be footnoted. Other than that, the article looks good. -- Creidieki 02:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object -- The page needs to be trimmed according to summary style =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  Large parts are written in summary style, and in fact it has already been pared down from the previous rfas. The huge problem is the 25kb long references section. I know this may be unprecedented, but would it be OK to move them to another page, eg References for Terri Schiavo? Otherwise, I can't see how I cut through the size significantly. Borisblue 05:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  Its not written in summary style. I ignore the references/see alsos/ext links/infoboxes while calculating the article size. The article can still be heavily summarised. It contains a high level of detail which need not be present on this page. Specific instances, people (unless they are key people) should be moved to detailed articles. References should never be put in a new page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  Minus the stuff at the end that makes slightly more than 50kb. Not really that excessive compared to other stuff that gets passed here imho. However, I do grant that there is quite a bit of trivia here- let me consult with the article's regular contributors to see what can be moved/removed. Borisblue 08:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the page is at this time too long. It is otherwise a fine candidate for featuring. Stifle 09:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Better than before, but still too long-winded even without the references and external links. Oh, and don't ever remove those from the article just to pass some lower KB threshold; Summary style clearly says to ignore that type of thing and to concentrate on the amount of readable prose: anything above 30KB of readable prose has an increasing burden of proof that the extra text is necessary and it is rare for subjects above 50KB of readable prose to efficiently cover its topic in an encyclopedic manor. --mav 19:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object; I will support as soon as there are citations given to support the facts in the "Initial Medical Crisis" section. Otherwise, I support the nomination. This is as short as it can get, I think. Hydriotaphia 22:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Mav it still has too much superfluous detail. It needs to meet summary style, and still does not. Beyond that it's not terribly well written either. There are tons of orphan paragraphs and poorly flowing, choppy prose. I reallize the article has been worked on very hard by a lot of people, but that doesn't mean it meets the criteria. The article is so contentious that I'm not sure it would be possible to fix the prose and summarize it properly anytime soon. - Taxman ^Talk 22:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose far to long (please use summary style!) and the numbering of the footnotes does not seem to match by the end of the article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Can we leave this? For like, six f***ing months, can this article be nominated for nothing and referred to nowhere? Just let it sit and have the information settle and become fresh again. This is an oppose I suppose...but really, it's a matter of not being able to judge disinterestedly because so much has happened to this article with so much gnashing of teeth that I don't think an FAC is right thing to do with it at the moment. Marskell 22:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support it is a good article and 50 kb is a little much but with article's quality I believe it edeserves a support. I'm not sure how much more summary can really be done other than combining sections. See if all of the references are necessary because not every little fact has to be referenced. Falphin 03:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I too find the article far too long and detailed. It is important to put things in perspective and summarize accordingly, and while this level of detail might be interesting at present, it would be far less so in ten years time. Sortan 03:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • To clarify further, whats the relevance of the "Early Life" section? I feel that that section could be condensed to perhaps two sentences. Is it really necessary to know that she met "Michael Schiavo in 1982 in a sociology class at Bucks County Community College in Newtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania", and that he was her first boyfriend? Why do we care that "they were married on November 10, 1984, at Our Lady of Good Counsel Church in Southampton, Pennsylvania"? I feel that most of the other sections should likewise be trimmed. Sortan 03:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

---

[the following comments added after the article failed FAC -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)]

• Oppose. I tried to edit down just that - details about how she met Michael Schiavo, the church they were married at, her siblings' names - and was promptly slapped down by Patsw. (An unsigned comment by Anonamous IP address: 22:06, 12 December 2005 71.57.95.94)
• Support. If one anon can oppose, then another can support: Perhaps these details belong, and perhaps Pat Sweeney was right in "slapping down" your edit (he did not mean to slap you down). Of course, our anon votes don't count, but vote count doesn't matter in FAC nominations anyhow: It is up to FAC Editor Raul654, no matter the vote count.--71.101.34.26 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Despite the length this is a very good article and better than most for readability. Wjbean 18:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harrow School

Self-nomination. This article covers this topic accurately and extensively, and I can vouch for this as a current member of the school. It has had a peer review and I have dealt with comments. The pictures were all taken by me (and one that is out of copyright). It is already a featured article on the Schools Portal. Overall, I hope (!) that it is interesting, and truly belive it up to feature article standard. --Oli 21:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object Generally opposed to self-nominations for anything, but specific reasons as follows:
  1. Second on the list of criteria is "It should be well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable." While it seems comprehensive, and I cannot judge on factual accuracy, some of the writing could be better, the tone seems a little too sympathetic, and the edit history shows quite a bit of activity.
  2. The lead section contains quite a bit of information that goes beyond summary
  3. The TOC is huge
  4. Criterion number 5 is It should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; In places, the article goes into almost anal detail. If anything, probably a major reason to object is that there is simply too much information here to put this up as a FA in its current state.
  5. References. Two books, of which one does not appear to be publicly available, thus failing WP:V for lack of WP:RS.
  6. Finally (though this may be nit-picking slightly), the photographs are clumped together at the bottom of the article.

  In summary, a good quality article with some good effort behind it, but needs improvement in what I might call "horizontal quality" for featured status. Chris talk back 23:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Chris, all of these are very reasonable points save one, which I feel compelled to point out. FAC depends on self-nominations--in fact, most successful FACs are self-noms--because otherwise there's no one to answer and deal with any objections. I think a general opposition to self-noms here would be counter-productive. Chick Bowen 01:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Either way, the self-nom part is the least of my objections. Chris talk back 02:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I have nothing against self-nominations, but isn't identifying self-noms for transparency, as a precaution against undue personal bias on the part of the nominator? Also, to answer and deal with any objections: shouldn't an FAC have already undergone peer review AND been checked against the extensive FAC criteria by the nominator (so, not in need of much fixing, just replies from the nominator, as objections would really be against the nominator's evaluation/interpretation of the FAC criteria)? It doesn't bother me to have FAC as an article improvement zone, but then, what's the purpose of peer review, or any of the other RfC type mechanisms? (Just trying to learn as I go...) --Tsavage 21:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object for some of the same reasons -- too many one-sentence paragraphs, especially at the end of sentences. The lists, especially the campus section, need to be changed to either explain why these things are being mentioned or to simply mention them as prose; an entire heading for "The Beaks Room -- This is for Master's meetings and as a place for masters to meet at break every day." is pointless. The TOC is indeed too long. Further referencing, especially inline citations for the history section, would also be helpful. Overall, however, the article is impressive; good work. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compact fluorescent lamp

I believe this article meets the critieria for Featured status, and also would inform people of a way that they can reduce their impact on the environment and save money and time. I have done minor work on this article.

• Object.

1. Lead section too short.
2. Repeated bolding of the words CFL and compact fluorescent. Once is enough.
3. Pictures are crowded together on one section of the article; spread them out.
4. No references!

I think a Peer review is needed. LordViD 17:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong object. Same as above, last section is very short, and much of the article is just lists, tables or diagrams. FAC is for articles that mainly comprise prose. Johnleemk | Talk 17:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object – too many subsections, short lead, too much text in lists, no references, heavily US oriented. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Too many bulleted lists make it feel like a sales brochure. And are all those graphics really necessary? The page feels cluttered. Also, I have a real problem with an article where, in the Gallery section (again, is this something really needed in an online encyclopedia article?) four pictures' spell the second word of the article "flourescent." (I suppose you could make good cookies with them, though).

Marks for trying but it needs work. Daniel Case 04:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stairway to Heaven

This is a partical self-nom. I believe that a lot of work has been done recently on this article and that it is now desirves to be a featured acticle. Dan M 02:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Not enough on the history of the song; if something is "not entirely clear", how can this article be comprehensive? Anyway, putting that aside, the Lyrics section is too short - merge it with Music to form a Structure section or something like that. About a third of the article is a trivia list, which is wholly unencyclopedic. The references are not formatted properly either - see Wikipedia:Cite sources/Example style. Johnleemk | Talk 05:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. Badly in need of a copyedit. For example, I found this sentence: "We can this style of music present in many songs recorded after Stairway to Heaven's release." It's got two major problems: there's no verb, and it's written in the first person.
  2. The trivia section needs to go. Either incorporate the contents into the main body of the article, or get delete them.
  3. References are not in an appropriate style
  4. The image Image:Page.jpg shows a pretty odd-looking guitar. Does it have anything to do with the song? If it does, this needs to be mentioned in the text, and the image description page needs a fair-use rationale. If not, the image needs to be removed.

• It's the double-necked guitar that Jimmy Page played Stairway to heaven on when he played the song live in concert. It's synonymus with the song. I'm No Parking and I approved this message

• 1. I'm sure there are other problems.

  --Carnildo 22:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. If roughly half the fairly short article is characterized as "trivia," it's not ready. And, although the article cites none, I find it difficult to believe that the song has never been mentioned in reviews or substantive critical commentary. Monicasdude 15:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I agree with the above objection completely. Also, the image looks a bit awkward. I'm sure there is a better one out there, because this one just doesn't bring the article together as a whole for me. —Hollow Wilerding 16:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I usually don't go into great detail looking at FACs, but this one I know some things about. And it's just not ready for prime time. It's too thin, the prose doesn't flow smoothly (at some points it reads like lists of facts crammed together into a paragrpah) and really, what you have is something you could be proud of if you sat down and did it all in one session. But it's not a featured article. Not even close.

It's the beginning of one. Take our suggestions, clean it up, expand it and go to peer review. Then come back here.

You wanna see how to do this right? I suggest you look at Layla. Daniel Case 04:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Green Day

Recently between a couple other editors and myself we have tried to rework the article to meet the criteria of what a featured article should be and should represent in terms of Wikipedia's content. This article has also recently gone through a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Green Day. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 22:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As much as I adore Green Day, this article certainly does not meet featured article criteria. There is no coverage on the band's music, their influence in modern punk rock and pop music, and has too many choppy, bewilerding sentences; it needs to be copy-edited. I'd also recommend adding a couple of images. And why are the band's song titles italicized (Holiday, Basket Case)? The proper formatting is "Holiday", "Basket Case", which needs to be corrected. The article is certainly on the way to achieving featured status, but it has not reached its peak yet. —Hollow Wilerding 01:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• I changed the song and CD title names to double quotations (") as suggested and I also tried to rework part of it slightly. The reason why there are not many pictures is that a few images that used to be on the article had to be removed and why there are only a few images available now is that they were claimed as fairuse with no justification and it could not be determined whether they fell under fairuse guidelines or not. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• My objection still stands. —Hollow Wilerding 21:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object: Needs something under "discography", a list of studio albums and Top Ten singles or something. Why the random bolding? Italicize albums, magazines and movies, put songs in quotes. Most critically, I really don't like the idea of featuring this without a reference to something more substantial. They're a pretty major band and this article (judging from the references section) just uses a couple magazine articles and the like to write the whole article. What's there is fantastic, but it needs more critical commentary and a more scholarly approach to the band's impact and place in history. Tuf-Kat 07:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object, for several reasons:

1. The images used in the article lack rationales for fair use.
2. Several sections are in need of copyediting. For instance, this run-on sentence was particularly clumsy: The band, at the moment, is touring, promoting the album with many dates, continuing the theatrics of the shows from the Warning and Shenanigans tours by featuring a horn section dressed as a pink rabbit and a bumblebee, Billie Joe donning a crown and silk cape for the song "King For A Day" and drawn-out performances of certain songs like "Hitchin' a Ride" and "Minority", where Billie Joe uses the instrumental sections to make popcorn with the crowd, a staple of Green Day's blue live performances.
3. Some quotations are given sources in footnotes, but others have no source given at all. Additionally, there is a lot of speculative material, particularly on the meanings of various songs, that will need sources as well.
4. The lead section mentions the band's influence on other bands, but there is no mention of this in the article itself. Green Day was one of the most — possibly even the most — influential modern punk bands; the article should have more content that addresses this.
5. Nearly all of the article's content is in "History". The band's musical style, songwriting, etc., are barely mentioned. Some audio samples would not hurt, either. --keepsleeping say what 01:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - peer review was offered by a number of editors, and those sugestions which would have smoothed the passage of this article through FAC were not acted upon.--nixie 22:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Can you give some examples, I may be wrong but I think that I acted on or answered reasonably every criticism and suggestion on the peer review. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Object. I think the article is well on its way. However, the lead section simply lists the band members and their awards. Try to give a little bit of context→how did they emerge?, what's special (or not) about them: ie., give a succinct overview of their career. Secondly, please provide more critical receptions of their albums →a few quotes from some major critics (Rolling Stone, All Music Guide, Billboard Magazine etc) would be ideal. (Aslo, try to include more notes; theres only one). Thirdly, many of the paragraphs in the article are short/empty: try to give a little context, provide full and complete thoughts, don't just state sales (five or more sentences per paragraph would be good). Furthermore, too many fansites are listed, try to list a couple of their albums in the discography section, and try putting "Network" further up, and push "Lineup" to the bottom. Moreover, I noticed that a section requests sources; try finding them first→ Featured Articles should be complete. A good article nevertheless. Good job. Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) 03:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Object No sources, extremely biased. Gold Stur 20:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Support Though I'm a little late... Yellow Element 20:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analytical Marxism

Well-written, well-researched. Sir Paul 06:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Good, but I have a few minor suggestions before I Support:

1. Expand the lead, and sort out those red links in the lead.
2. Change the notes into proper footnotes using the note template and ref template.
3. Images? Anything that could represent the subject? They are not required, but are a good feature of an article.
4. The Criticisms section doesn't look wikified.
5. The Bibliography needs ISBN numbers for the books listed.

— Wackymacs 08:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Article does not provide enough context, and assumes too much knowledge of philosophy. A featured article will be read by people who have never taken a philosophy course, and has to provide enough information that they can make it through the article without having to detour into other articles. One of the biggest problems is that this article does not explain what Marxism is, or why anyone would be defending it. Other terms that are used without sufficient explanation include analytical philosophy and historical materialism. This article needs significant material added before it is sufficiently accessible. -- Creidieki

How I wish I could support this article; the topic is important and little known. However, I must oppose the article in its current state. I have the following suggestions, which, if implemented, would change my vote:

1. Many more citations are needed: in the "Justice and Power" subsection of the "Criticisms" section; most definitely in the "Denouement" section; and in the "Beginnings" section.
2. Please give more background in the "Beginnings" section. An overview of early analytic philosophy's methods and methodological presuppositions would be very helpful in this regard. More attention should be given to Popper, especially The Open Society and Its Enemies.
3. If the group called itself "Non-Bullshit Marxism," then what did they consider "Bullshit Marxism" to be? (I assume the answer is something like: Marxism as it morphed into Poststructuralism.)
4. When you deal with the way in which analytical Marxists dealt with, defended, or modified Marx's theories, you must explain what those theories were to Marx and to Marxists before the analytical Marxists. This is a problem throughout.
5. Phrases like "Hegelian obscurantism" are clear to people with a philosophical background, but they'll be opaque to everybody else. You've got to clarify these. This, again, is a problem throughout.
6. Many of these sections simply need to be greatly expanded—e.g., the "Justice" section; you've really got to spend more time explaining G.A. Cohen's theories as well as the general intellectual background in which the analytical Marxists worked. This is why you've got to explain what Rawls argued for (as well as Nozick, who, according to Cohen's own works, greatly influenced him).
7. Please make the "Method" subsection in the "Criticisms" section clearer. I just don't quite understand it, as it is. And remember to add citations as you expand.

I don't want to leave you with the impression that I dislike this article. I don't! I hope these suggestions will help you improve the article and get it featured. Best, Hydriotaphia 12:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the constructive criticism. I hope other wikipedians will help me improve the article with the suggestions above. Sir Paul 03:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Technology in the Stargate universe

This article is pretty much complete. It lists practicaly every technology worth mentioning in Stargate. It is completely accurate. (I verified it) I just think this would make a good featured article, or perhaps even an article of the day. Tobyk777 06:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. As-is, this article would be a much better candidate for Wikipedia:Featured list than Featured Article. -Silence 07:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. As per Silence, this nomination might be better served on WP:FLC. Issues with it becoming a FA include: 1) The article has no references. 2) It is organized as a long list with most entries containing only a one sentence description. The article needs to be converted into a more flowing text to be a realistic FA candidate. 3) Image:Zeropointmodule.jpg and Image:SGBC303ship.jpg both claim to be fair use images but contain no justification for why they qualify for fair use. --Allen3 ^talk 11:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • We ask for references on WP:FLC too, you know, and the copyright issues are the same. This article has more text here than the usual list, but that would not be a problem on WP:FLC; however, it is not up to the standard I would expect of a featured article. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. I recommended it to FLC not because I think it's quite good enough to be one yet, but because the people there will be much better than we are at offering the suggestions which this page will need in order to grow closer to becoming a Featured List. -Silence 21:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. As per everyone. Maybe an FLC, but this is NOT a FAC. (Hell, I created the Tech in Stargate TEMPLATE) Staxringold 00:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)