Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2005 to July 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 July 2005 1.1 Bettie Page 1.2 Eric Heffer 1.3 Battle of Gallipoli 1.4 Robert Stanley Weir 1.5 Suburbs of Johannesburg 1.6 Calvinism 1.7 Adolf Hitler 1.8 Yola language 1.9 History of South Carolina 1.10 History of South Carolina 1.11 Sail Training 1.12 Bobby Fischer 1.13 William Brydon 1.14 The Strangerhood 1.15 1964 New York World's Fair 1.16 Inspector Gadget 1.17 Anarcho-capitalism 1.18 Nikola Tesla 1.19 Cryptography 1.20 Governor General of Canada 1.21 Vampire Lifestyle 1.22 Sybian 1.23 John Henninger Reagan 1.24 Donald Bradman 1.25 Transformation problem 1.26 Race and intelligence 1.27 Caesar Augustus 1.28 Supreme Court of the United States 1.29 Washington Metro 1.30 Earth 1.31 Dogpatch USA 1.32 2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal 1.33 U.S. presidential election, 2004 1.34 Rum 1.35 Gay Nigger Association of America 1.36 Nuno Álvares Pereira 1.37 Starfleet ranks and insignia 1.38 Pope Benedict XVI 1.39 Rastafari movement 1.40 Wilfred Benitez 1.41 Bertrand Russell 1.41.1 Writings 1.42 Wilfredo Gómez 1.43 Cerritos, California 1.44 History of nuclear weapons 1.45 Jean Schmidt 2 June 2005 2.1 Stuyvesant High School 2.2 Nix v. Hedden 2.3 History of Poland (1945-1989) 2.4 Krag-Petersson 2.5 Pathological science 2.6 Funeral of Pope John Paul II 2.7 Eleanor Rigby (song) 2.8 Megatokyo 2.9 Pope Benedict XVI 2.10 Burkhanism 2.11 Sydney Boys High School 2.12 The Times 2.13 Spice Girls 2.14 John Wesley 2.15 Medieval hunting 2.16 W. Mark Felt aka Watergate's Deep Throat 2.17 History of South Africa 2.18 Guns N' Roses 2.19 Ed Wood, Jr. 2.20 Kurt Cobain 2.21 Multiple sclerosis 2.22 Battle of the Coral Sea 2.23 Pope John Paul II 2.24 Cleopatra VII of Egypt 2.25 Agriculture 2.26 Beowulf 2.27 Half-Life 2 2.28 Hampshire 2.29 Joachim Gottschalk 2.30 History of the Ryukyu Kingdom 2.31 Antarctic krill 2.32 Ismail Raji al-Faruqi 2.33 Eamon de Valera 2.34 Xanadu House 2.35 Convention on Psychotropic Substances 2.36 Kerney Thomas 2.37 Karla Homolka 2.38 Deaths in Ciudad Juárez 2.39 Slasher film 2.40 Leonid Brezhnev 2.41 Starfleet ranks and insignia 2.42 Interlingua 2.43 Star Wars 2.44 Internet Explorer 2.45 2004 Atlantic hurricane season 3 May 2005 3.1 Edgar Allan Poe 3.2 Fitz Hugh Ludlow 3.3 Phishing 3.4 Bob McEwen 3.5 Beastie Boys 3.6 The Scream 3.7 Claus von Stauffenberg 3.8 Caulfield Grammar School 3.9 Suicide 3.10 Theodor Adorno 3.11 Dice 3.12 Blade Runner 3.13 Indian Independence Movement 3.14 David Helvarg 3.15 Outstanding objections at point of failure 3.16 McDonald's Corporation 3.17 Anschluss 3.18 Milpitas, California 3.19 World War II 3.20 Hurricane Ivan 3.21 Ranks and insignia of Starfleet 3.22 Chicago, Illinois 3.23 Star Wars 3.24 Maurice Hilleman 3.25 Spanish and Portuguese names 3.26 Bagrationi 3.27 Democratic Republic of Georgia 3.28 Edgar Allan Poe 3.29 Governor General of Canada 3.30 David Beckham 3.31 Joseph McCarthy 3.32 Democratic Republic of Georgia 3.33 Bagrationi 3.34 Kentucky Derby 3.35 Alan Watts 3.36 Privacy 3.37 Internet forum 3.38 Neville Chamberlain 3.39 Blenheim Palace 3.40 Screenwriting credit 3.41 Portugal 3.42 Charles Darwin 3.43 Thunderball 3.44 Mary Magdalene 3.45 Military History of Puerto Rico 3.46 Rock carvings at Alta 3.47 Eutrophication 3.48 Chicago, Illinois 3.49 Guns N' Roses 3.50 Tooth enamel 3.51 Funeral of Pope John Paul II 3.52 Official Monster Raving Loony Party 3.53 University of Wales, Lampeter 3.54 San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge 3.55 Pope Benedict XVI

[edit] July 2005

[edit] Bettie Page

A bit of a self-nom: I wrote the first version over a year ago, but many other people have made changes, & added more material to make it more than I could. I have sent this thru RfC, although this only received one comment, I made the changes suggested there. So now I ask: shall we label this a Featured Article? -- llywrch 23:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the lead section should be re-written so that it encapsulates the most important points of the overall article. As it is now, half of the lead section is about the early party of Betty's life, which really isn't among the most noteworthy things about her. ike9898 01:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review As was said above, the lead needs to be expanded upon, but also the Revival section is a little short. (As an offside note, putting an article through RfC isn't enough when it comes to feature articles; Peer review can also help people review, comment on and expand the article, and thus is a very helpful tool when it comes to FAC) --JB Adder | Talk 10:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • When I wrote "RfC", I meant peer review. Here is the response I received. More undoubtedly would have been useful -- & still would be -- but I worked what I had. -- llywrch 02:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay. I still, however, stand by my statement about the extremely short Revival section. Expand it please, if you can. --JB Adder | Talk 04:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Query What's the basis for claiming "fair use" on the Dave Stevens illo? N. Caligon 03:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that fair use does not apply in this context. Were the article a review of Dave Stevens work, it would probably fit fair use criteria. In this context, it seems much closer to a true copy-vio. I'm going to take it out of the article as a precaution. Feel free to replace if you clearly articulate why it is not a copyvio. ike9898 18:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Heffer

This is a complete self-nom - as of now, no-one else has edited the article. It's a biography of a left-wing Labour Member of Parliament from Britain. The article is comprehensive and one of the longest biographies of British politicians. It has an extensive list of references. David | Talk 21:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't read the entire article but have a couple of suggestions to bring it up to standard: the prose needs to be cleaned up and, less importantly, it could do with a few more pictures. --Oldak Quill 22:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree about the pictures but they would almost certainly have to be fair use and I don't think my good friend Carnildo would like that. David | Talk 11:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment it looks good and certainly seems comprehensive. I would like to know why Image:Ericheffer.jpg is considered PD. There are also more sections then there need be, especially at the beginning where there is a section per paragraph. - SimonP 22:44, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can answer the image question quickly: the image in question is an official publicity photo which was given out c. 1975 to those who wanted a picture of Heffer to print. Such images are, certainly in the UK, considered as free of copyright by implication: if you ask for someone to send a photo to print in your book or magazine, and they send you one, they are consenting to its publication. A few years ago I was involved in compiling a book of biographies of current MPs and sending out letters asking for photos, which we were advised did not need to inquire into copyright status. David | Talk 22:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • An official publicity photo in 1975 was presumably a good sharp paper copy? Is it possible to get a better-quality scan of it? This is really blurry. :-( Bishonen | talk 00:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It seems like it should be tagged {{PD-release}}. Alternatively the {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} might be more appropriate if someone still does own the copyright, but will not, or cannot, enforce it. Either way it would do no harm to add the explanation of why the image is free to use to the image description page. - SimonP 00:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • It does say it's a publicity photo in the image description page. David | Talk 08:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment from a quick skim over it, the table of contents is overwhelming, and many of the section headings are totally uninformative, so I think it could be organised better. There are also lots of terms that could be Wikilinks. The lead is missing a couple of things, who described him as one of the best read MPs? Which left-dominated city council? Is it known what illness killed him and where he is burried?--nixie 23:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've had a go at tackling these objections. The TOC is now cut down to headings and subheadings and the lead is rewritten. The article already explained that he had cancer. David | Talk 11:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The images Image:Heffer'slastspeech.jpg and Image:Heffer1985walkout.jpg are listed as "fair use". Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia. As such, fair use images should be avoided if at all possible. If they must be used, the source of the image must be given, and a rationale for why the image can be used under "fair use" needs to be given for each page the image is used on. --Carnildo 07:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I move to strike out this objection. The article is what is being featured, not the pictures. David | Talk 08:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • If the pictures aren't a part of the article, then I assume you wouldn't object to them being removed? --Carnildo 19:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Whoah there Neddy! If this article wasn't up for FAC would you have similarly objected? The fair use images do now have justifications in commented-out text, and perhaps you will consider whether this is enough to withdraw your objection. David | Talk 11:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
        • The rationale for Image:Heffer'slastspeech.jpg looks good, and I suppose that of Image:Heffer1985walkout.jpg will do, but neither image has information on the source listed on the image description page. --Carnildo 17:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support, on condition that "He was rated as one of the most effective of the large 1964 intake of Labour MPs" is explained (rated by whom?)Deus Ex 17:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This statement is partly my impression given that Heffer is almost always named among examples of MPs from the 1964 intake, but also on the offer of a job which he got in 1967 (one of the first of that intake to be offered something). I've tracked down one direct reference though. David | Talk 09:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very impressive stuff. Mark¹ 03:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I think maybe this is not important enough of article. 內布拉斯加 00:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "Not important enough" is not suitable grounds for objection. You need to specify fixable problems with the article that keep it from being suitable for featured status. --Carnildo 03:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe you missed the question I asked above about the quality—the blurriness—of the top image? Is it possible to do something about it? I do find this article very interesting, and I'm not about to object because of a blurry image, but it is the first impression a reader gets. If you've scanned it from a less-than-good print in a book, I suppose the quality can't be helped, though. (I've wikified the Lead suitably, I think, please see if you agree.) Bishonen | talk 03:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm working on it but it will take some time. Thanks for your work on the lead, which was written after the rest of the article. David | Talk 23:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very impressed. Well structured and appears thorough to my limited knowledge of Eric Heffer. Rwendland 22:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Gallipoli

This is an well-written article on one of the most important battles in WWI, and marked turning points in Australian, British and Turkish history. edgeworth 11:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment References? If references are added, I'm likely to support. WegianWarrior 12:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object- no references, the lead section is a little too short, and the "Aftermath" section, with a bullet point list of "What if..."s, seems out of place. Otherwise a comprehensive and well-written article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for same reasons as above --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object: A potentially excellent article on a subject of great significance, However, it still needs work, and should probably be referred to peer review.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Stanley Weir

I created this article about the lyricist for O Canada. It compiles research from several sources and, if I may be immodest, is the most complete biography I have found on the man. It also corrects a common error perpetuated by and often copied from the Government of Canada's biography that he was an MLA for Quebec, which was actually his brother, William Alexander Weir. This article has already been peer reviewed but I welcome any further criticism or contributions to the article. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Mild object Change the dating format; we're not using that ISO whatever international format in main article texts yet. Daniel Case 04:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That's your settings, dude. You can change how you see the dates on your end. They show up as "January 1, 2001" to me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 04:41, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not everyone who reads Wikipedia has an account with settings that can be changed. That format can be used, of course, but I've noticed, when just reading, that most articles follow the (month , year) form or the (day month, year) form, not YEAR-MO-DAY. I just think it makes it easier on visitors even if it is in the manual of style.Daniel Case 23:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course that would be an simple change to make but I don't understand the objection. The format is approved in Manual of Style and I like the fact that it follows international standards better and is easily formatted to user preferences by MediaWiki software. If you could be more precise about what you mean by we're not using that ISO yet, I would appreciate it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • There's an ISO standard that gives that format. I can't remember what number it is. As for other comments, see above response.Daniel Case 23:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Update: Date format changed by User:Dbiv. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object, the content is fine, but the sectioning is really distracting for such a short article. Tweak the format and it'll be fine.--nixie 04:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I was indeed having some trouble formulating a more reasonable sectioning format as was noted in the peer review. I strongly prefer the section formatting changes that User:Harro5 has now made. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks heaps better, from your reading on the subject, do you know the cause of death and where he was burried? The sentence on his death is lonley there on its own.--nixie 00:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, there is no information on his last days or burial site. Some of the best resources are the contemporary ones that are from before his death. I have e-mailed his great grand niece who is listed on a site as researching his family. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suburbs of Johannesburg

Self-nom. I have worked extremely hard on this article and had great assistance from several other people. After User:NicholasTurnbull finished helping me slave away with the map, I feel comfortable nominating this article for FAC. It is an extremely comprehensive look at the suburbs of the city of Johannesburg, South Africa, itself already a featured article. I have tried to look at both the social and economic importance of all the different areas of the city. Thank you! Páll 08:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

'Weak support Have added the numbered map Object none of my concerns have been dealt with Neutral: Its no doubt a good article but a few points: 1)Para 2: I don't like a place being compared with another, in size growth etc. A place should stand up on its own. 2) The term "suburb" used here is not clearly defined. I'm assuming that the word suburb in this case means an administrative sub-division of Jo'berg? 3) Terms are used such as ... Regions 2, 3, 4, and 7,.... Its hard to visualise or understand the same without a visual aid/map. The links are not helpful either. 4) A few differences would help. The suburbs are separated by a postal code is all that's mentioned. Is there an administrative head to the region? Are police jurisdictions the same throughout? Do they have an administrative headquarters? 5) A table would be nice to get an overview of the population, area, density, and if residential/commercial/industrial etc. User:Nichalp/sg 18:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why not compare it to another? Most people have never heard of JOhannesburg, and it helps to give a reference to the sprawl of the city. No, suburb means exactly what I have defined it as, a neighbourhood. The only difference about it from the rest of the city is its character, and the fact that it has a seperate post code. And there are about 1700 suburbs in the city, probably more. A tableis impossibel to make. And the regions are mentioned when a sublink is provided, and they are also mentioned in the upper map. Páll 21:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

1. I find it absurd that Jo'berg is not heard of in the way you portray it. Its one of the most prominent African cities, not a small town. Even so, a line on Jo'burg's status would be helpful in the lead.

Absurd or not, most people do not know where Johannesburg is, or what it is. [[User:PZFUN|Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)}]] 09:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Johannesburg, much like the city of Los Angeles, .... I am not familiar with LA's growth, and I'm sure the same can be said of umpteen cities around the world. I firmly state again: no place/region should be compared to another. Its like saying "county A" of England is equal to the size of province "B in China". It doesn't help a third party sitting in Brazil does it?

Most people are familiar with the fact that Los Angeles is an extremely large and spread out city with no real centre, although I will change that. [[User:PZFUN|Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)}]] 09:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

1. "Suburb" is a very loose term and I ask you to please refine it. From the article on neighbourhood ".. neighbourhood is a geographically localised community located within a larger city or suburb...". So a neighbourhood is a subset of a suburb, but in this case it is equal to a suburb. I understand what you mean, but on what basis are East, North South etc classified? I'm sure there must be some rationale for separating them into six regions. Is it for administrative, geographic or just arbitary reasons?

I have defined it exactly as what it is. It is a neighbourhood. There is no particular rationale apart from convenience and the tendency for the different areas to be different from each other due to socio-economic reasons. There is no oficial distinction. [[User:PZFUN|Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)}]] 09:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

1. I'm asking you to refine it as, in my city suburbs have a different meaning. My city is made up of two districts, a city district and a suburban district. Together they make up the metropolis. Now the suburbs are clubbed under either the Western Suburbs or Central Suburbs, on the basis of the two railway lines that service the suburb's location. The term suburb is also used to all the townships/ stations which lie beyond the metropolis and are serviced by the city's rail network. And yes, the two have their own local flavours and post codes.

2. I was asking for the table for the six regions mentioned in the article, not the 1,700 locations. User:Nichalp/sg 09:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with tables like that is that most of that information is not known. There are only gueses as to the population of Johannesburg, although I'll see what I can do to get better census information. [[User:PZFUN|Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)}]] 09:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Johannesburg1931.jpg is claimed to be GFDL. I find this quite unlikely, as the image was taken in 1931. --Carnildo 20:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I changed it to PD, which it is. Páll 21:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Objecting again. The copyright status of Image:Pic-sandton.jpg needs to be resolved: is it a copyvio, or is it in the public domain? --Carnildo 03:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A very interesting and informative article, with plenty of educational content, and has a good balance of topical coverage. Definitely a well thought out and thorough summary of the Johannesburg suburbs. The quality of writing is very good, as is the style of presentation of the article and the overall appearance of the article as a whole. In summary, a very good article. --NicholasTurnbull 21:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• (conditional) Support, Ok I'm lazy. I just happen to know more of Palls articles :-P Make sure that any remaining niggles are solved first though! :-) Kim Bruning 00:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional opposition. First, the significance of the area mentioned is questioned. Second, the arrangement of images is quite messy and the distribution of images is quite uneven (some sections come with 3 to 4 pictures while some have none). Deryck C. 09:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The significance of what? What area do you mean? The images work absolutely fine on every computer I've looked at this article in, and I do not have images to use in the sections that have no photographs. [[User:PZFUN|Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)}]] 09:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support A very thorough, well-written piece about the different suburbs/sections of Johannesburg. The article is very informative for those who do not live in the city or in South Africa in general. Nice work! Bumm13 07:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

*Object- Nichalp raises some good points. What is a suburb? Can it just be defined as a "neighborhood"? What is a "neighborhood"? Such a term is extremely vague and unclear. In addition, shouldn't the article be moved to "Suburbs of Johannesburg, South Africa"? Otherwise a well-written article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I've defined suburbs as best I can. Any discussion over the meaning of neighbourhood should be done on its separate page. why delve into huge explanations of what forms a neighbourhood in an article like this? There's no reason to. It should not be moved to Johannesburg, South Africa because wikipedia usually leaves major cities without top level designations, therefore New York City exists at New York City, not New York City, New York. The Johannesburg article itself does not use ", South Africa". [[User:PZFUN|Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)}]] 03:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see that the article should stay at its current name. Sorry... :-) Anyways, I still think the lead section/def. of "suburb" could be improved. The lead section is assuming that the reader knows information about neighborhood, suburbs, city, etc. The lead section neither defines the article nor does it tell what will be discussed in it. IMHO, it should start off with "The Suburbs of Johannesburg are the towns located within..." or something like that. Having the opening sentence saying that "The suburbs vary widely." is not a good start to the article, as the first sentence should define what the topic is about (see the Johannesburg article). Thus, I think the lead section could be rewritten. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey there, I just rewrote the opening paragraph. What do you think? Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 03:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's better. Support. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calvinism

Thorough, clear article about a religious topic. My own reference books were not clear at all on the topic--using relgious terminology they didn't explain. This is exactly the sort of article Wikipedia needs. Bravo to its editors. PedanticallySpeaking 13:54, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

1. Support PedanticallySpeaking 13:54, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Object the article looks good, but it needs some improvements. The lead does not meet guidelines. I would like to see Calvinism placed in the context of other movements such as Lutheranism, Catholicism, Anabaptism. What areas does Calvinism agree with other Protestant movements and what areas does it disagree. What reasons do these other groups have for rejecting Calvinism. It would be good to see a list of some major churches that consider themselves Calvinist. The educational institutions section is also very short and only lists those found in the United States. - SimonP 15:53, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

   Comment - you helpfully point out the weakness in the US-centeredness of the educational institutions. It would be a challenge to describe Calvinism in relation to all those things with which it differs - which would necessitate describing those other views in sufficient detail that a fair contrast can be made - without losing focus. We've attempted to stay on topic, to allow contrasts to arise incidentally in order to avoid making a bewilderingly controversial article out of a simply descriptive one.

   However, if it reads too much like an advertisement (if this is, more bluntly, what you are saying), we could try to give a sharper view of the controversies that surround this theology - many of these are described in very detached, neutral tones, and perhaps that is why they do not stand out for you.

   A similar choice is made in not listing denominations, in the article. Reformed churches, as the lead says, traditionally hold to Calvinistic doctrines. The sidebar provides another brief help in that regard. The breadth of the Reformed movement is challenging to encompass. We tried to keep the focus narrowly on what the Calvinism is, rather than who the Calvinists are. Is that really a weakness? Mkmcconn (Talk) 23:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. A good start, but I think the section on "Historical background" should be renamed "History" and give a more encompassing overview of the historical development. While maybe a differentiation from Catholicism is not necessary (that should be in some article on the Reformation), Calvinisim should be situated in relation to the two other strains of Protestantism that arose more or less concurrently: Zwinglianism and Lutheranism. The unified doctrine (Zwinglians and Calvinists) developed through the Consensus Tigurinus in 1549 and the Confessio Helvetica posterior (1566) should be mentioned and put into context, also other milestones like the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canon of Dordt. The geographical spreading of Calvinism should be covered, too. The French wars of religion and the Edict of Nantes... maybe all this is so much that you'll have to spin it off into an article History of Calvinism, but if so, make that history section a summary of the spin-off article and provide a "Main article..." link. Lupo 17:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hitler

This article is a carefully balanced, detailed and objective treatment of a controversial and oddly polarizing topic which continues to be the source of both misleading caricature and seemingly endless popular fascination (and as such, one of the most vandalized entries in Wikipedia). Support. Wyss 02:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support I was planning to nominate this until Wyss did the job. I fully support the nomination since I learnt a quite a few things and the article is pretty well balanced and concise. Though there might be issues of vandalism especially after putting it in the main page I think this article should be made featured article after locking it maybe? And please vote for the article NOT the person. Thanx.--Idleguy 03:03, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:Adolf Hitler Bigger.jpg appears to be a German government image captured by the US Army. What's the proper copyright on it?
  2. The image Image:AHWatercolor1.jpg is tagged as {{PD-Art}}. If that's the correct tag, and it's correct about being copyrighted for life + 100, then since the artist died in 1945, it won't be in the public domain for another 39 years.
  3. The images Image:Adolf Hitler im Ersten Weltkrieg.jpg, Image:Adolf Hitler und Benito Mussolini in München 1940.jpg, Image:Adolf Hitler im Reichstag Marz 1938.jpg are tagged as {{PD-USGov}}, which is clearly incorrect. These images were almost certainly captured by the US Army towards the end of World War II. What's the proper copyright tag for them?
  4. The images Image:Adolf-Hitler-7.jpg, Image:Inge Terboven and Hitler.jpg, Image:Hitler-girl.jpg, Image:Hitler-car.jpg are tagged as {{PD}}, with a reference to Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags/archive1#WWII Nazi pictures, Image:Hitler bunker.jpg, but following that discussion indicates that the conclusion was that all copyrighted photographs of German origin are under a term of "life + 70", so works published after 1935 are still copyrighted.
  5. The image Image:Hitler walking out of Brown House after 1930 elections.jpg is of unknown copyright status.
  6. The image Image:Himmler Hitler.jpg is claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, fair use images should be avoided if at all possible. If a fair use image must be used, a rationale as to why it is fair use must be provided.
  7. The image Image:Adolf Hitler in Paris.jpg is tagged as {{PD-US}}, implying that it was published before 1923. However, the image was clearly taken after 1939.

  --Carnildo 04:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

  • • Images created in Nazi Germany and copyrighted under the Nazi government are of indeterminate status. It is an incredibly complicated situation seeing that the countries own laws were fuzzy and the inheritance by both the Soviet Union and the US (and the insuing independent states) makes the situation worse. The copyright of Mein Kampf, created before the rise of the Nazi government, is now held by the Bavarian state government. Nazi Government copyrights are perceived by many to be null-and-void, in any case they are never enforced. I have spent numerous hours trying to find out in the past - it is just as flawed to declare them copyrighted as public domain. --OldakQuill 18:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Note, Hitler willed most of his personal property (including the copyright to MK) to the German government shortly before he killed himself, so the Mein Kampf comparison to photo copyright issues is likely not relevant. Wyss 02:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Most of the photos were taken from the National Archives, so I am not sure what copyright status they fell under. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

If the photographer died over 70 years ago (1934 or earlier), then the image is considered public domain in Germany; all others are copyrighted. For images with the copyright held by the Nazi government, the copyright was passed to the Federal Republic, which transfered all previous Nazi-era copyright to Transit-Film Gesellschaft in 1963. (Trasit is a company fully owned by the current German government.) Transit still vigorously claims copyright on many WWII-era images created by the Third Reich, and the U.S respects copyrights that the German government claims are valid, so long as the photos were taken after 1922. The UK declared that Nazi-copyrighted material was public domain under the Enemy Property Act of 1953, but the United States never claimed this. Since Wikipedia servers are based in the U.S, we have to follow U.S. law. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 04:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Can we ask Congress to sign on to it? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, since even Britain repealed the act in the 70's, it seems unlikely to work. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 00:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Interesting, but just the sight of him still makes too many people's blood boil, and this could be a bad influence. Codex Sinaiticus 04:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not actionable. From above, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed". Please point out specific things in the article that can be fixed/improved. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would tend to agree with Spangineer on this one. Your objection is not actionable — it does not give the editor any pointers on how the article could be improved. Being featured does not necessarily mean it will appear on the front page, it means that we feel the article is of exemplary quality. slambo 15:00, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • This vote is not only actionable, it is despisable POV! Featured articles are not determined as such on whether the subject matter makes people "cheery" or otherwise. This is currently an invalid opposition. --Oldak Quill 18:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't feel bad, Codex. A lot of people think that. But the rules are that only actionable objections can be made. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 04:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak oppose This article looks great, but the lead seems very weak to me, especially the last paragraph. Maybe it could be expanded a bit to more greatly emphasize Hitler's influence on 20th century history? It seems a bit.. bland. Other than that, I have no objection at all. --malathion ^talk 19:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

As I said, controversial :) In my personal experience, AH is a lose/lose topic in terms of consensus. If for some reason no consensus to feature it emerges, I still think the article is a real credit to Wikipedia. I find the copyright objections to the photos interesting, but more related to AH's contorted (and still volatile) legacy in Germany than to any serious copyright issues. Wyss 00:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support I fixed my own objection. --malathion ^talk 02:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support, informative and comprehensive. Phoenix2 03:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Object, like the lead the legacy section lets down the rest of the article, it's a collection of unrealted underdeveloped points. They should both be improved.--nixie 04:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support, and hope this article can survive the vandalism to keep its current qualilty. I'd probably advise that if the FAC is successful, someone (ie. Wyss) make a note of the version when the FA passes so that it can be reverted to it vandalism and POV gets bad. Harro5 04:46, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Support, informative article. This'll be a milestone if it gets passed. --Oldak Quill 22:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Just from looking at the introduction, there are already major mistakes in this article. The first sentence is wrong "Adolf Hitler was the Führer und Reichskanzler (Leader and chancellor) of Germany from 1933 to his death". He was only Chancellor in 1933, and wasn't Führer until 1934. Also, it says "The racial policies that Hitler directed"-this is wrong, Hitler did not personally direct racial policy, he endorsed the racial policy proposals of his subordinates. Although much of the inspiration for racial policy came from Hitler's personality/books/speeches, he did not actually direct racial policy. I recommend this article be sent to peer review, and the authors of this article read Ian Kershaw's "The Nazi Dictatorship", which deals with Hitler's power and the extent to which he directed policy. There are also generalisations, for example in the Repression section "Thousands disappeared into concentration camps. Many thousands more emigrated, including about half of Germany's Jews." With the extensive references this article has I wouldn't expect such vagueness-no attempt to use specific figures, no distinction between how political enemies, social enemies (what the Nazis called "asocials") and Jews were treated, no distinction between "concentration camps" and extermination camps. It same paragraph also says "the SA, SS and Gestapo (secret state police) were given a 'free hand' "-hardly encyclopaedic language.Deus Ex 17:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Most of these objections revolve around interpretations that are still way controversial. AH did personally direct racial policy in Germany, although semantics and language differences can influence descriptions of how the underlying administration and bureaucracy implemented his leadership. I'm comfortable with both interpretations (I see them as mostly semantic). Although I didn't write it, and agree that the term free hand is a bit fast and loose, it's apt enough if the context is understood. In the past I've personally removed the Fuhrer title from the opening paragraph but it keeps re-appearing. Wyss 23:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, " AH did personally direct racial policy in Germany" goes against everything that Ian Kershaw says about Hitler in his books, and I don't really understand then why Kershaw's biography is listed as a reference if his arguments are ignored. This article fails as NPOV as it shows one side the of the argument-what is known in Nazi Germany historiography as the "strong dictator" argument. The "weak dictator" school and Ian Kershaw's view, what he calls a "synthesis" of the two should be considered too. From what I've read in "The Nazi Dictatorship" (written by Kershaw), Hitler did not personally direct racial policy. In fact there is no record of any racial policy initiated by Hitler-they were all initiated and drawn up by his subordinates and confirmed by him, but they were very much inspired by Hitler's anti-Semitism. And Kershaw is considered today one of the world's leading historians of Nazi Germany.

The Repression paragraph is inadequate and needs revision. Apart from what I've already said, "They were also subject to a barrage of hate propaganda" is questionable, it would be more accurate to say "the German public were subject to a campaign of anti-Semitic propaganda". The treatment of anti-Semitism is too vague-it should mention that the Kristallnacht was a turning point, in that it was the first major act of state approved violence against Jews (previously state persecution had been through the law). Some other things the article doesn't mention are his personal life, e.g. his relationship with Eva Braun, the fact he had a very short "working week" (he only worked a few hours a day-I can find the specific figures)-so he was often unreachable by officials. The legacy section is poorly organised, and there is no section on historiography-i.e. the "master/weak dictator" argument, which you must have come across from the references, especially Kershaw. Deus Ex 00:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I notice you've begun making edits to the article... I was going to suggest that. I've already replied to the endorsed/directed question. As to his working hours, they seem to have been not overly long, but varied somewhat. He rose late, sometimes in the mid afternoon, and didn't sleep until the crack of dawn. The article is already very long, which is why topics such as Braun and his suicide are discussed in separate articles. Wyss 01:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, sorry but I don't find your reply to the endorsed/directed question adequate. "Hitler directed racial policies" is not a fact, it is an interpretation, but in this article it is presented as a fact. It would better to say "racial policies in Nazi Germany", which does not make reference to Hitler specifically, because the extent to which Hitler actually directed racial policy is disputed by historians, and many modern historians would accept Kershaw's position that he was "a dictator without having to dicate".Deus Ex 09:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

They burned a lot of papers in April 1945. Recently declassified Sov docs indicate that while in custody after the war, Gunsche and Linge said AH "pored over" blueprints for the first gas chambers (that's in the article now). I agree with Kershaw nonetheless, that AH (at first) was so skillful in both selecting his key aides and assoiates, along with motivating them, that specific orders were often unnecessary. However he was capable of active management, especially regarding things that keenly interested him, was even criticized for it from time to time and serious historians do disagree on the directed/endorsed issue. Since he was fuhrer, with absolute power which he could target rather much as he pleased, I think directed/endorsed is an interesting discussion but hardly a distinction capable of deflecting historic responsibility. I'm ok with the term "enabled" btw but other editors have consistently changed that to "directed". The preponderance of evidence does continue to tilt towards his having given direct, detailed orders on this one. It should also be noted that the last line in his political will, dictated to Traudl Junge hours before he killed himslef, exhorted the world, in effect, to keep exterminating jews. Wyss 18:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think "enabled" is more appropriate given the debate amongst historians. I just read through part of the article and compared to the Britannica entry, and I've got a few questions. 1. What source is the info about Hitler's indoctrination in his early life? There is no mention of it in the Brittannica entry, and if it is speculative or not completely substantiated, then I think it should be cut back to just the reliable facts. The Brittanica entry just says "Hitler already showed traits that characterized his later life: loneliness and secretiveness, a bohemian mode of everyday existence, and hatred of cosmopolitanismand of the multinational character of Vienna." 2. "he immediately enlisted in the Bavarian army"-was there actually a "Bavarian army", Brittanica says "volunteered for the German army" 3. "Hitler's street-corner oratory, attacking Jews, socialists and liberals, capitalists and Communists"-not a very good sentence. The article needs to explain (briefly) why these groups might be distrusted. It also needs to make explicit Hitler's opposition to the (unpopular) Weimar 4. Need to mention 1930 alliance with the Nationalist leader Alfred Hugenberg and importance (Hitler got coverage in Hugenberg's newspaper, able to reach a national audience). According to Brittannica, this alliance also helped Hitler to gain finance from industrialists and business magnates. 5. "Given this, claims that the German economy achieved near full employment are at least partly artifacts of propaganda from the era." I'm not sure about this. Between 1933-39, unemployment dropped from about 5.6m (depends on whether official figures/estimates) to about 50,000 in 1939-so low foreign workers had to be used. I'm not sure about the War years, but in 1939, unemployment was certainly extremely low.Deus Ex 23:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm now opposing this because Wyss, the originator of the nomination, is citing constructive improvements of the article as Vandalism.

The above vote is unsigned. Its cited reason is a complaint about my behavior, not the article content, so I don't think it should count. Wyss 23:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object Lacks information on the life period from 1924-1930. Themanwithoutapast 02:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yola language

I am nominating Yola language because I found it fascinating and I learned a lot from it. In all my linguistic studies I had never heard of such a thing, so I guess you could say I really learned something about this "other" branch of Middle English that missed out on the Great Vowel shift! I feel this is some of the best of wikipedia; hence my nomination. Codex Sinaiticus 02:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Every FA has a list of references at the end; while sometimes I don't see why it's necessary, this is not one of them. This is crying out for a bibliography. It's a great start, but I'd work on it some more and put it through peer review before I came back here. Daniel Case 03:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object 1) Cite your sources in a References section. 2) There is no lead section. 3) The article needs a map showing where the language is used. 4) The Yola song section, that appears to be only song lyrics, is longer than the rest of the prose. Compare this to other featured articles about languages such as Laal language, Nafaanra language or Gbe languages. slambo 15:06, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, we've got a lead section now, but with so little else in the article, it does not appear to be comprehensive enough compared to other featured articles about languages. slambo 17:25, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Object Three paragraphs of prose does not make a featured article. Whilst probably the literature on the language is limited, we can surely do better than this. Morwen - Talk 20:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. There is a language template that has been successfully applied to most of the recent language FAs. It's not entirely applicable to extinct languages, but most of it is. Besides being way too short, the following (full-blown) sections need to be added before we can even think of renominating it:
  • History
  • Classification
  • Grammar
  • Sounds
  • Geographic distribution (or something like it)
  • Vocabulary

Peter ^Isotalo 10:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of South Carolina

Moved the old nomination to an archive. Since it was last nominated, this article has been majorly fixed up, in its wording, its table on contents, and its lack of content, plus a section and subarticle on 1787-1850 was added that granted it two or three objects. Toothpaste 22:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak support You have certainly put a lot of effort into researching and writing the article (you went as far back as prehistory? Done fairly well!) However, my main concerns are:
  1. The labelling of the first section (that can be easily sorted; try Pre-colonisation instead of Prehistory)
  2. Colonial Period through to Antebellum South Carolina; they come across as summaries more than sections (which is especially worrying for Colonial Period due to its lack of length)

  If you can sort those out, then I'll put more support behind it. --JB Adder | Talk 05:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I fixed number 1. I think I fixed number 2. Thank you for your help. Toothpaste 05:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You've done enough to sway me...my vote is changed. Good luck. --JB Adder | Talk 08:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Object--the writing in many sections is choppy. My biggest problem is with the lead--it seems to be a disparate collection of summary sentences, with no connection between them. A similar problem can be found in "Antebellum South Carolina", which skips from nullification to Denmark Vesey to the Trail of Tears without establishing why these facts were important, or what connection there is between them. In short, there needs to be more explanation--a few sentences along the order of "In the ante-bellum period, South Carolina's economy was based mainly on the slave-trade and cotton planations" (or whatever). Less telling and more explaining. Meelar (talk) 16:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Geogre fixed the lead for me, and I fixed Antebellum South Carolina. Did we do well enough? Toothpaste 21:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The lead should be good now (I added a paragraph about Reconstruction and trimmed a few details of the civil war). As for the antebellum section, not quite. For example, the first sentence is "Due to the invention of the cotton gin in 1786, the economies of the Upcountry and the Lowcountry became fairly equal in wealth, although also triggering a massive rise in the slave trade". Why would the invention of the cotton gin spur this change? Also, the paragraph about Denmark Vesey needs an introduction--something like "Tensions over the institution of slavery were a key feature of South Carolina life during the antebellum period".
      • I explained the causes of the cotton gin's effects and added your suggested introduction to Denmark Vesey. I'd say this Southern U.S. Collaboration of the Week worked well. Toothpaste 20:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Support--my objections have been addressed quite satisfactorily. Good work. Meelar (talk) 15:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The TOC is weird. I'd prefer it if was the normal standard setup -- Joolz 01:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I had changed it from the way it was because, as the edit history shows, someone complained. Toothpaste 13:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support I can now support it :) Well done! -- Joolz 18:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Wonderful read, nicely laid out and very much adheres to NPOV. A fine article. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of South Carolina

Very comprehensive, more so than half the existing state history articles combined, and covering major American historical event significant to South Carolina from the first Native Americans to the Charles Town Landing to the Civil War. 26 hours over 3 days were spent writing the article, and I'm the only contributor, so pushing it to 1.0 has been an uphill battle, but I think it's there. Toothpaste 03:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Did nothing happen in South Carolina after February 21, 1865? --Carnildo 04:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As per above. There is no information concerning South Carolina during Reconstruction (I am curious as to how the Union forces dealt with the state, since it was the first to secede), the late 1800s, and the 1900s. You could also mention the social and economic changes happening in South Carolina today, especially since the state is attracting many companies due to its low cost environment, notably for industrial types (e.g. foreign car companies such as BMW). Pentawing 04:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

(They were especially vicious to it, of course, and SC suffered more from Sherman's March than Georgia did.) Misnamed article at this point, as this is really half the story. It's great work, but it is only half the story. (I.e. I'd object, but my objection has already been lodged.) Geogre 18:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Content seems to be there. The only problems now are wording (e.g. grammar) and links for the periods after the Civil War. Pentawing 06:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikified all the links after the Civil War section. Could you please point out problems in my wording? Toothpaste 15:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I did some copyediting, but there are a lot of sentences that could be broken down into smaller sentences. Though the article has drastically improved since I first saw it, I would suggest that it be referred to peer review. Pentawing 00:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Too long for a history of 200 years (38kb!). Better shorten the existing passage and add the things after the war. Deryck C. 09:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object, only because we need to cover the last 140 years. This is a good start, though. Don't worry about the length; you can break off detail into subarticles if you need to. Everyking 10:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I added information all the way up to 1998, and later today I'm going to wikify the text. Aside from the above, is there anything else that could be added? Toothpaste 19:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, it looks good to me. Could do with a few more illustrations? Phoenix2 02:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I added two more. Toothpaste 03:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Image:Sumter.jpg and Image:Hodges.jpg have no copyright information. --Carnildo 05:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You only get to object once. Add your new objections to the old one if you want, but you can't vote twice. Everyking 06:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • FAC isn't a vote. I'm objecting on two separate grounds, so I'm doing so in two separate places. --Carnildo 07:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • It is a vote. The number of objections matter. One might not be enough to kill a nomination, but two might do it. I had a FAC where I remember at least 1, and I think 2 objects, but those weren't enough to kill it because the supports outweighed it. Everyking 07:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I've replaced the pictures that had no notice, anyway. Toothpaste 12:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Mild object - Lack inline citations, overwhelming TOC, inadequately short lead section, longer than necessary overall (see Wikipedia:Page size), and disproportionate coverage (too much on the Revolutionary and Civil wars while not enough on 20th century history). Spinning off of the more detailed sections and leaving summaries in their place per Wikipedia:Summary style would help a great deal. --mav 16:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I summarized the sections on the Colonial Period and the American Revolution, then gave them a separate article. Better? Toothpaste 21:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, better. Some other points above are still valid. --mav 17:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment; Needs to mention the title of the article in the first sentence, and needs to include at least a little bit of pre-history in the lead. --Spangineer (háblame) 17:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. Toothpaste 17:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support - A thorough, detailed and well-laided out article, I think it's now up to featured status -- Joolz 18:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. A history of South Carolina which doesn't even mention the Jackson-era nullification crisis cannot be said to be comprehensive. And it wouldn't surprise me if there were other significant events between the adoption of the Constitution and the beginning of the Civil War. Probably involving that Calhoun guy. Monicasdude 06:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Monicasdude -- I went to this article just a few days ago looking for a little info on the nullification crisis, and felt shocked that it was not at all available. I also agree that a failure to provide much on Senator Calhoun (an admittedly controversial, but also a mercurial and dynamic politician) is definitely something I'd expect addressed before FA status was granted. It's a solid article in many respects, but not yet featurable. Object. Jwrosenzweig 05:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The lack of any discussion of the Indian Removal Act and its impact on S.C. is also glaring -- I know 1787-1850 isn't the most exciting period in American history, but I think a treatment of some of this is really necessary. Jwrosenzweig 05:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm writing the section(s) on 1787 to 1850 on my userpage, and it will probably be given a subarticle. I've addressed a lot of the complaints about the article very quickly, usually within a day, but I think right now it would be best just to submit this again later after doing more work. Toothpaste 09:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Minor Object- lead section is too long (yes, I know that you expanded it after someone said it was too short, but see Wikipedia:Lead section). Otherwise a well-written article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed the lead. Better, or worse? Toothpaste 20:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sail Training

with the summer race series kicked off and going strong, thought it might be a good time to raise the awareness of why all these tall ships are still around and what they're doing when they're not at some dock being a simple tourist attraction with thousands of looky-loos asking if it's a real pirate ship. Seasee 02:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  1. The images Image:Navclass.jpg and Image:Furling.jpg are under a license of "Used with permission, no modification or third-party use allowed". This is an unacceptable license for Wikipedia.
  2. The image Image:Alanvilliers2.jpg does not have copyright information.

  --Carnildo 04:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not sure in what style this article is supposed to be in. At times it looks more like a guide/essay than an encyclopedia article. Is that the intention or am I missing something? Pentawing 06:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Reply Image:Alanvilliers2.jpg is tagged fair use while use of Image:Navclass.jpg and Image:Furling.jpg have been discussed and used with permission of the respective copyright owners. Image tagged fair use and images that retain copyright have been used in recent featured articles Image:Rudranath Capildeo.jpg, Image:Beatles-singles-heyjude-uk.jpg, Image:Pvxlstudio.jpg. As for the article being more like a "guide/essay", i'm a little confused as i personally usually think of an encyclopedia as a type of guide filled with essays about many different subects and don't understand what exactly is being questioned. -Seasee 00:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • There are only two sections where the wording is questionable in my opinion: the introduction and Pros and cons of sail training. For instance, I have a problem with the following passages since they look opinionated (there are others as well):

Sail training is not intended to (be) a vacation. The sea has always been associated with some element of risk and if one were looking to stay warm and dry, they should be looking at cruise ships instead of sail training vessels.

From its modern interpretations to its antecedents when maritime nations would send young naval officer candidates to sea, sail training provides an unconventional and effective way of building many useful skills on and off the water. (Is the passage stating a fact or an opinion here? Try rewording this a bit).

The passage concerning cruise ships should also be reworded since it is obvious that sail training is a difficult endeavour. Once the wording problems are addressed, I will reconsider my vote. Pentawing 01:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Fischer

Bobby Fischer is famous not only as former World Chess Champion, but also for the controversy surrounding his views on September 11 and his long detention in Japan and subsequent adoption of Icelandic citizenship. The article has been through peer review, and includes a merge of the formerly separate Bobby Fischer (biography) article. I have made a few minor edits to this article, but all the real work has been done by others. Quale 17:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Peer_review/Bobby_Fischer
• Mild object most of my concerns were addressed in the peer review, but the lead is not long enough and I still have concerns with the ==Fischer in popular culture== section. - SimonP 22:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've racked my brain, but I just can't think of any way to expand the lead. Can you give some ideas on what else could be included there? --malathion ^talk 14:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The lead is now much approved, good work. I still do not think much of the popular culture section, but it is not a major issue and I have withdrawn my objection. - SimonP 00:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • I've merged the popular culture section into the Popularity of chess section. Is there anything else preventing a support vote? --malathion ^talk 01:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Support, great work and thanks for being so responsive to comments. - SimonP 17:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I want to support, and will once Simon's points are taken care of. Very good article on the whole though. Harro5 02:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good work dealing swiftly with issues arising from the FAC. Support. Harro5 01:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support with note: I inserted a 2nd paragraph of the lead. I fully understand if it's reverted, but I had wanted to indicate some of the areas that could be included to introduce the man's significance and interest and to give a thumbnail sketch of the parabola of his public life, his cultural significance. It's US-centric and leaves out, e.g., how the Icelanders have remained supportive of him, so I make no great claims for that paragraph except that I hope it's a vague pointer to a way of making the lead bigger. Geogre 19:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that's great. I reworded it a bit but that's a good contribution. Thanks a lot! --malathion ^talk 20:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The section on his recent detention and subsequent Icelandic citizenship needs expanding. Try yanking something from Wikinews ;) - Haukurth 22:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

  Oddly enough someone else said I should cut that part, because it used to be quite long. Anyway, I'll add some stuff back in from the old article. Check back in 10-15 minutes. --malathion ^talk 22:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

  Done. --malathion ^talk 23:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for a swift response. It's good to have more detail but the current text belies its origins as day-by-day news updates. Maybe this could be rewritten into a more readable account with less obsessive footnotes. That would solve my current objection. As for the rest of the article I'll read it again tomorrow before commenting further. - Haukurth 23:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

  I'm not certain that this objection is actionable. Since Fischer disappeared, information about him and what's going on in his life is very fragmented. An attempt to write a flowing prose account of his activities since his disappearance would either read badly because of the holes in the story, or obsfucate the holes. Also, I think this is the first time I've seen someone object to an article getting featured status because it had too many footnotes. ;) --malathion ^talk 23:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

  I think coherent information is not too hard to find. Fischer has given several interviews with Icelandic media and he's not even that hard to find. My dad ran into him at a restaurant the other day and chatted with him at length while they waited for their orders. Heck, *I* could maybe even get an interview with Fischer if I really wanted, in the name of Wikinews/Wikipedia/whatever. Talk about original research. At least that would get us a GFDL-picture. - Haukurth 00:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  Hey, go for it. Maybe I just don't know what you have in mind, so its probably best if you could rewrite the sections you are having problems with. --malathion ^talk 00:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  I found out that most of the in-text citations in that article were dead anyway. I removed them. I also tried to fix up the timeline feel of that section, but I left some dates in where I thought they were relevant. Let me know what you think. --malathion ^talk 13:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak objection. A lot of further reading resources and offline references cited, but the article does need some expanding (even though it is quite big by now). — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  Expanding how? Please be more specific about what you think needs improvement. --malathion ^talk 18:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  Changed my mind. No more expanding, great article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:BobbyFischer.jpg, Image:Young Fischer.jpg, Image:Fischerchess92.jpg, and Image:Fischer arrest.jpg are claimed as "fair use". Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia. As such, fair-use images should be avoided if at all possible. If they are used, the source needs to be identified, and a specific rationale for why the image can be used under fair use needs to be placed on the image talk page. --Carnildo 20:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia:Fair_use guideline permits the use of the images in this article. Please post on the talk page for that guideline if you disagree with it. Until the guideline is changed, this objection does not have a rational basis. --malathion ^talk 21:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd prefer to see at least one picture of him that's not fair use. (suggestion - try googling for images of him and emailing the owner to ask permission). →Raul654 16:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • From Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Image_Copyright: CC, CC-by, CC-by-SA, GFDL, GPL, BSD (and alike), and public domain are all OK. Plus FA requirement five states: "Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status. However, an article does not have to have a picture to be featured." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I've gone through the article and tried to help the prose a little but I still feel it needs polishing to reach featured standard. I tried rewriting the Icelandic chapter but it's still not very good. I'm afraid I must still object since I feel the prose is too disconnected. The article just doesn't flow well and even though the subject is interesting the article doesn't do a good job of drawing the reader in. It's too obvious that different authors have written different chapters at different times. The chapter about the religious beliefs comes out of the blue and breaks up the chess carrier narrative. What about his later religious views? Surely some information can be found. This just isn't comprehensive enough. I think the separation into References and Further reading is not useful, except perhaps to reveal the poor quality of the article. Fischer's major biographies weren't used as references? That's just not good enough. But the article is obviously improving and if it improves enough I will certainly change my vote. I'd love this to become a featured article. - Haukurth 23:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  Generally speaking I think that in order to satisfy your objections, this article would have to be expanded until it is a full length biographical novel. Any biographical article is going to need to be highly selective about what is relevant enough to put in and what isn't and that's going to mean that a lot gets left out. Wikipedia's length requirements effectively forbid comprehensively covering anything as huge as a person's entire life. If you can think of something in particular that should be added and that we have information available for, that would be moving in the right direction. Otherwise I can't even begin to act on your objection on comprehensiveness. --malathion ^talk 23:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  It's not so much that I want everything to be expanded - it's more that I want a better overall balance. The guy is famous for his chess so we need a reasonably comprehensive and coherent account of his chess carrier. The article doesn't really live up to that as it is. Fischer's "religious beliefs around 1975" and the speculation about the jewishness of his parents take up proportionally too much space. The best way to fix the proportions is to expand the important sections. We have many much longer articles on Wikipedia, especially featured ones. And I don't want the article to be the length of a biography but I want Fischer's biographies to be used as sources for the article. I wish you the best of luck. - Haukurth 01:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  I sort of understand what you're saying here, but I just can't act on it. The kind of information you seem to want is just not available, and other featured articles like Garry Kasparov are less detailed and developed than this one. Let me know if you can think of any more concrete ways to improve this though. --malathion ^talk 15:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support Although note I've done a lot of work on this article, and I'm clearly trying to get it featured, so maybe my vote shouldn't be counted. --malathion ^talk 22:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Brydon

A self nomination. I researched this page from multiple sources, including the archives of The London Times going back to the Victorian era (access kindly provided by a university Athens account!) Brydon is a colourful footnote in the history of British imperialism and I don't think there's too many sources of comprehensive information on him available on the Internet. Wikipedia is the perfect vehicle for this kind of information. --Peripatetic 02:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC) 01:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) No sources are cited. 2) The image Image:N01553 8.jpg has no copyright information. It's almost certainly public domain, though. Would it be possible to get a higher-resolution version of the image? --Carnildo 03:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Update Have addressed above concerns expressed by Carnildo. Have supplied multiple references and sources, and also a couple of external links. PD image now available. --Peripatetic
  • Support. Looks good, especially with the new image. --Carnildo 17:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support - I made a couple of edits, mainly in style so they are not major, but I did change the bit in the lead paragraph about being "legendary", as I thought that needed to be toned down a bit. The article is short, but I think it's very good, and it's one of those subjects that can be covered well while still being succinct and I like to see good articles that aren't otherwise readily available, as you said. I would delete the category "British heroes" until the category actually exists. The red link doesn't look good. Rossrs 01:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Update Have also fixed the "Category" issue pointed out by Rossrs. Btw, thanks for your input and suggestions :-) -- Peripatetic 09:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I think the introduction needs to make it clear that Dr Brydon was not the sole survivor. Other than that great article about an interesting episode. Lisiate 22:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Update Tricky piece of rewording!! How does the following sound? Comments/improvements welcome. --Peripatetic 23:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • He is reputed in British imperial history for being the sole survivor of an army of 16,000 that perished on a forced retreat from Kabul to Jalalabad during the First Anglo-Afghan War, although this is factually inaccurate.

• Object, the last paragraph and the section The retreat to Jalalabad is a direct cut and paste from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, plagarism does not look good on the main page, the article has been maked as a copyvio. Bring back a rewritten version--nixie 23:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This article now sports a copyright violation notice.  Denelson83  03:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Strangerhood

• Refer to peer review 0) There is no reason listed here for the nomination (yes, not actionable, that's why it's point number 0). 1) Cite your sources in a References section. 2) The article is too list-heavy with not enough prose to balance the lists. 3) The Theories section needs to be reworked into prose and less like a discussion. 4) There are no images. slambo 01:58, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Almost exclusively lists. Phils 16:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • And, I'd add to that, the prose in the lists is not very well-written. Object, Refer to peer review. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:38, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Object I'm a little questionable about this one. So far, there has been only one constant editor for this article, which kinda tells me that this person is one of the creators, making this a vanity article. Also, there is a lot of information here which doesn't seem to be on any of the external links. I'd actually be closer to saying that this would be better in VfD than FAC. --JB Adder | Talk 23:27, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Somebody has worked very hard on this article, but there are too many lists. The plot is also very detailed and well written, but this article, so far, does not seem to meet the criteria for a featured article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1964 New York World's Fair

Self-nomination. I was the original author of this piece, created back in 2002. I was unaware that it had been nominated to be a Feature Article in July, 2004, and just stumbled across the nomination and discussion yesterday. Subsequently, I've corrected what I believe to be the major objections to the article and have removed portions that I did not feel were factually correct. I've also listed my sources to the material. I will follow this closely over the next few days and will monitor suggestions for changes as they arise. Thank you!

• • Object Image:1964Fair.jpg is a copyvio - fair use - has little to do with fairs. Dunc|☺ 14:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Update I do know the difference between "fair use" and "Fairs." Thank you though, for pointing it out to me. The image was incorrectly attributed by the individual who added it to the article as being copyrighted TO ME! I have modified the TALK page of the photograph to indicted that it is properly "fair use." The New York World's Fair 1964-1965 Corporation would have held the copyrights to the photograph. However, the photograph may have already passed into public domain since much of the Fair Corporation's copyrighted materials, including the Fair's logos, have now passed into Public Domain. nywf64 15:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • My understanding is that nothing passes into the public domain by abandonment. Monopoly franchises held by dissolved corporations, out of print books from defunct publishers, texts by authors who left no estates, and the like enter a sort of limbo where it seems unlikely that anyone will ever again profit from the monopoly, but those who use them do so at their risk. It's not certain that the rights to this aerial photo were held by the Fair itself in any case. Smerdis of Tlön 17:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The picture in question was taken in 1964 or 1965. Assuming that it was copyrighted in the first place, it is covered by the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. As a result, the earliest it could pass into the public domain is 2059. --Carnildo 19:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Update Good points regarding copyrights. I would assume then that this photograph is probably still copyrighted by someone. What is your suggestion to resolve this? I do not have access to photos that are aerials of the Fair other than those that were taken by/for the Fair Corporation. Should I remove the photograph or should I keep it there and claim "Fair Use" for it? An overview of the Fairgrounds seems an appropriate photograph to accompany an opening that is an overview of the Fair and the article itself. I would have access to other photos of the Fair that belog specifically to individuals from whom I could secure copyright clearance. Would one of those be better even if it was not an overview of the Fairgrounds? Any suggestions would be helpful. Please, also comment on the article itself. Someone along the line thought it might be worth of a Featured article so that is why I dusted it off and resubmitted it. Had it not been originally nominated, I would never have considered doing it. If enough people think it's simply trash, I will, of course, remove the self-nominaton. Thanks! nywf64 01:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    • An image under an open license would be much better than a "fair use" one. Good choices would be an image of the fairground entrance, or of distinctive architecture from the fair. I seem to recall the fairgrounds including some rather famous UFO-like structures. --Carnildo 03:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Not objections (or support), just remarks: shouldn't there be more comparison of the '64 and '39 fairs in terms of magnitude, layout and how the space was used, etc.? Also that the Unisphere echoed the Trylon and Perisphere? Oh and I think Herbert Hoover made one of his last prominent public appearances there, maybe at the opening. Also possibly worth mentioning: the Texas Pavilion was financed by Angus Wynne, who lost a lot of money on it, forcing him to sell Six Flags over Texas. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:59, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the input. The Fair was a very involved event. I've touched on that a bit by including the section on the problems with the BIE, Robert Moses and the financial debacles the Fair faced. I could go into much more detail on the Fair, there is much that can be said about it. However, I felt that the best thing would be to present a concise synopsis of the highlights of the Fair, that the majority of the readers would find interesting and then supply the links to the other websites that go into greater detail. There is a WIKIPEDIA article on the 1939/1940 World's Fair and readers are refered to that in the article and can make their own comparisons. I wanted this article to be specifically on the 1964/1965 World's Fair. And yes, Herbert Hoover probably did attend the Fair. He, along with Harry Truman, was an honorary Chairman of the World's Fair Corporation. And, yes, Angus Wynn did loose his shirt on the Texas Pavlions and Music Hall. But, again, I would risk info overload if I put all of those tidbits into the story -- and, believe me, there are many more that could be added. But much of that is covered at the other websites that specifically deal with the Fair in detail. I think a more concise presentation of the Fair and what it was about is called for here. nywf64 13:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm. It's not really a notably long article. I agree that there is an article on the '39 Fair, but I would actually be intrigued to know how their geographic footprints compared, and have no idea where to start looking. As to the rest of this, I guess I feel this could use more "color". (And given the well-known Disney connection, the less-known Six Flags connection seems of particular interest.) As I say, neither supporting nor objecting to this being featured, just making suggestions. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Update I've removed the original photograph with the questionable copyright issues. I've replaced it with a photo that an acquantance has donated to the GNU that his father took back in 1964 of the Fairgrounds. I hope that I've documented and credited this appropriately. If not, please let me know what should be changed. nywf64 02:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me. --Carnildo 03:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inspector Gadget

This article has been through massive rewrites and reformatting. It has also been peer reviewed and all suggestions have been considered and applied accordingly. Its a good informative article full of information unique to Wikipedia. --The_stuart 19:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Object the lead section mentions that this article pertains only to the animated series, but doesn't direct the interested reader to articles about either of the two films or anything else about the characters. slambo 20:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • 1) The article is too list-heavy; there is not enough straight prose to offset these lists. 2) Cite your sources in a References section. 3) I'd like to see more on the series' creation and development; as it is, this information is rather sparse near the end of the article (it should be the first section after the header). 4) the lead section does not fully describe the contents of the article. slambo 20:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I agree with Slambo. Most of the lists should be reformatted into prose. A comprehensive discussion of the animated series should probably discuss various spinoff adaptations, especially the live-action movies which many people are familiar with. Regarding media - 1) is it possible to get a clip of the theme song?, and 2) is it possible to clean up the screencapture images? They seem somewhat dark and not at all sharp. Slambo's comments regarding references, lead section and others also need to be addressed. - Bantman 21:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review Don't restrict yourself solely to the animated series; as was said above, the two movies should also be explained here. I strongly suggest you read other TV series articles, have a look at how they structure their articles, and base this one around those. --JB Adder | Talk 23:34, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, needs some brush-ups. Like The Strangerhood, there are too many lists. Although somebody did work hard on this, it does not seem fit to be considered an excellent or featured article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object, the article is made almost entirely of lists. Phoenix2 22:04, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support. Despite possible problems mentioned by the above users, the article itself is very well written with interesting pictures provided. Deryck C. 09:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Compare this article's content with that of other featured articles about television series, such as Blackadder, Doctor Who or even Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme) to get an idea of the level of quality that we are trying for with FA nominations. slambo 15:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-capitalism

This has to be noted as a self-nomination, as I have worked extensively on this article. However I think it has developed very well over the past few months from something that badly needed cleanup to an article that I think gives a novice a clear understanding of the subject, and the controversies surrounding it. It also (and I may be asking for trouble by saying this) seems to have managed to ascend from the mire of the constant Anacp/Anarchist edit conflicts and present things in a neutral manner that both sides seem to agree on. (I'm going to duck now.) Saswann 19:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  1. The images Image:Ideomap-v21.gif and Image:LysanderSpooner.jpg have no copyright information.
  2. The image Image:Download la gold.jpg is under the license of {{permission}}, which is an unacceptable license for Wikipedia.
• --Carnildo 21:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

As a side note, the two vector images can be easily reproduced. Phils 10:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

First image replaced with Image:Ancap chart.JPG with clear copyright info. Saswann 19:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

2nd image commented out. Saswann 19:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Spooner died in 1887, over 100 years ago, since the photo was taken during his lifetime, I think it's clear its a PD image(?) Saswann 19:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Obviously. It's too old to by copyrighted. RJII 19:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Object, It's stil very POV. For instance it missrepresents anarchism (all the talk in Talk:Anarchism shows that), but has been improved. You also have to get very deep into the article to learn that "Anarcho-capitalism is a radical development of liberalism." // Liftarn

pulled the "radical development of liberalism" into the lead section. However, I am unsure how the article misrepresents anarchism-- aside from showing Ancap belief that apparently "misrepresents anarchism." Saswann 12:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

What's your point? If something is a development of liberalism it can't be anarchism? American individualist anarchism is a radical development of liberalism as well. RJII 19:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support, very comprehensive. One can tell tons of work was put into this article. When I enjoy reading an article and gain a good understanding of the topic, and other issues like pictures and things are cleared up, it gets my vote. Well done. Phoenix2 17:06, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, I'm still finding very basic NPOV problems, spelling errors, and even factual inaccuracies even today, which I'm amazed the other editors failed to notice. Further, this article is a controversial one that has been the subject of many edit wars, so I'm not convinced of its chances for on-going stability. Kev 20:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Note - this editor is openly opposed to capitalism. RJII 19:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nikola Tesla

Re-nomination. Originally nominated in July 2004. The article is coming along nicely; it currently has beautiful wikification and good narrative arc; and is one of the finest biographies I've seen. It remains long, but has greatly improved the incisiveness and style of its text, added new sources, and controversies have been mediated by editors who are not zealous Teslaphiles. +sj + 06:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Structural things: Why is there a separate section on his education, wouldn't this be better merged into the relevant parts of his life? The ===h3=== heading in the honors section are over doing it considering the amount of text. External links should probably f ollow after references. Text things: The lead seems quite underdeveloped. --nixie 06:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:BrochureWardenclyffe .PNG and Image:Tesla.jpg do not have copyright information. --Carnildo 07:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object per above. Could someone dig up previous peer reviews and nominations? - 131.211.210.15 11:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cryptography

This article seems to be well writen in my opinion, it's not biased, and it has some nice external links for additional information. It follows the Manual of Style, and is accurate IMO. Exir Kamalabadi(Talk)(contribs) 04:59, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Object, it's a well structured summary article, but it has no references, also some more images would be nice--nixie 05:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references. Otherwise, the article seems fine, though. No need for additional images, IMHO. Phils 11:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - Referance the article and i'll support it. --ZeWrestler 14:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object This is very much a summary article, and I don't think it's quite FA status. --JB Adder | Talk 23:52, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Many external links are given, and the article is somewhat thorough, but offline references need to be cited to inform readers where the author(s) got the information from. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. One word: comprehensive. Also rare to see such good articles with open-ends on Wikipedia. Deryck C. 09:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Mild object. Unless inline reference is done. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Governor General of Canada

Re-nomination. See here for the previous nomination. No one either supported or objected to it; there was just one comment about the references, which I addressed by adding two more references. --Emsworth 19:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object, a decent article but not comprehensive. It covers the basic facts, but skips most of the detail. For instance there is no mention of the dispute between Lord Minto and Laurier over control of the armed forces, and virtually no history after 1974. The ==political role== section makes no mention of the current main political role of the GG as Canada's highest patronage appointment. Something on the selection process within the PMO is needed. The GGs role as a proponent of Canadian culture also needs more attention. The Governor General's Awards are given brief mention, but nothing about how they came about, the other wide range of awards go unmentioned. In a similar vein this page also needs to mention both the Stanley and Grey Cups, perhaps the most important link between the office of the GG and majority of Canadians. The controversy section also needs to be reworked. Citizens for a Canadian Republic are a pretty minor fringe group, far more important in recent years have been debates over costs. - SimonP 02:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. It really looks quite good at a glance, but is it suitable as brilliant prose? — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Withdrawn. -- Emsworth 17:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vampire Lifestyle

I am listing this article here because it appears to be complete, and has references and considerable collaboration which has made it quite good (in my opinion). Therefore I have listed it on peer review and am now nominating it for featured status. I guess this counts as a self-nomination. I think it would be good because it is on a very non-conventional topic, as well. I realise that there are no images, but there are truly no appropriate ones (we tried). Falcon 05:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This article looks like it was written by a practitioner of the vampire lifestyle, and is too POV to be a FA. Whig 06:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• object 1) cite your sources in a References section. 2) There are no images. 3) The writing seems a little repetitive to me, especially in the lead section. 4) I'd like to see more discussion on the origins of this subculture; can it be traced to a specific person or group? How far back do we have references mentioning such a lifestyle? slambo 11:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. slambo above acurately summarizes the problems with this article. Phils 16:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Send to Peer Review due to the above comments. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Although I don't object to this being sent back to peer review, I would question why nobody made these comments there when it was up there. Thank you all for the input, though. Falcon 16:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• object per above. --Briangotts 02:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object per slambo and Whig. - Jersyko talk 01:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Object per all above. I have a history of trying to improve the page in question. The nominator (and a like minded individual) blocked my efforts with highly POV actions and personal attacks. I finally had to remove it from my watchlist to avoid seeing how awful it was and the continuous nonsense Falcon pulled. The idea that it would be a featured article is absolutely absurd. Now that there are additional editors pointing out how much the article needs to be improved, perhaps it finally will get done. DreamGuy 23:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

"Some self-styled vampires claim that, in order to replenish their vampiric energy, they will sometimes feed on the blood of other humans, but some will also feed on other things such as themselves, animals, plants and the elements" --- No, It is looked down upon HEAVILY to "feed" from onesself.

[edit] Sybian

Note: If you have questions/comments/objections to this being put on the front page, please leave them on my talk page or this talk page. It is about a sex toy, so I know there will be objections.
Disclaimer aside, this article was brought up from a stub to what we have now. Of course, we added what we could add without spamming for porn sites and included non-nude images, but it has come a long way. It was copyedited and proofread, was at Peer Review for some time. It should be good to have a FA about a sexual topic, but this could test many unforseen subjects. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Question Can an article be a FA, but not useable on the Main Page? Is there a policy on this? I don't think this should ever appear so prominently on the Main Page, but to me that doesn't mean it should be on a list of the highest quality articles. ike9898 02:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • If the subject is not appropriate, it can be marked as not featured on the front page, but can still gain Featured status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, an article can be featured but considered off-limits to the main page. The only instance of this is Wikipedia, which is a featured article but considered too self agrandizing for purposes of the main page, so it will never be the daily featured article. →Raul654 20:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. All but one of the images are claimed as "fair use". Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, so fair-use images should be avoided if at all possible. --Carnildo 04:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, most photos re-appear on various websites, and I am not sure about the original copyright nor I am not sure who took them when. If that is the case, I will make all photos that you think are copyright issues PD, since the main source is not known. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Tagged them all. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    • That doesn't fix anything. You can't go around claiming to release other peoples' work into the public domain. --Carnildo 07:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, if I cannot seem to use Fair use, and the original author and date of pictures are unknown, what I am supposed to use then? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
        • You can continue using fair use. I don't think (personally) it's that much of an issue, though everyone's right in saying that we shouldn't be encouraging these images at all. Ronline 11:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, Carnildo is following policy: "Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status. However, an article does not have to have a picture to be featured." However, Carnildo and I should try to find out what is considered acceptable copyright status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I went ahead and put them all back to fair use. Until I hear something different, I am sticking to those. I will try to find some photos either today or tomorrow. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
            • If yall would like to find some copyright OK pictures, I went onto Google and looked at [1]. Of course, if you do not like porn, there is always a filter you can use. But, this is mainly for my point that it is not known who took the photos when, so that was why I was thinking PD first. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
        • What are you supposed to do? You could continue using the images under fair use, in which case I would continue to object. You could remove the images, and I'd remove my objection, but that would leave the article a little light on images. You could track down the creators of the images, contact them, and ask for GFDL/Creative Commons licenses. You could find other images where the creators are easier to determine, and ask for those images under a suitable license. You could contact the uploader of the one free-use image in the article, and ask for more pictures. You could find a store selling those machines, and ask for one to be taken out of the box so you can photograph it. And I'm sure there are other things you can do. --Carnildo 03:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Does the nominator have one of these at home? He could take some pictures. ike9898 20:23, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
            • No, since I do not have that money and I am also a guy. I will try better, but I knew i lost this fac, badly. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Notwithstanding the image copyright issues (which do need to be resolved), this article is clearly not up to the standard of a featured article. I find that it reads like an FAQ / "about our product and its history" page off of the manufacturer's website. There is little or no objective commentary; no sales figures; no discussion of its niche use in porn; no discussion of its impact on society (rather, subsets thereof); really, nothing but a history of development and a sales pitch ("negatives - it costs too much"). I would suggest sending back to peer review for more work. - Bantman 02:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • The use in the porn industry I tried to avoid, since it's just like any other sexual thing: someone put up sites showing girls riding these machines. I do not know which site came first, what sites are out there, and then, it will begin the slope of advertising/spamming, and I refuse to do that. I do not have sales figures, but I can get that. As for it's impacts on society, I do not know, except woman get better orgasms. As for it sounding like a sales pitch, where does it sound like that? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, my concerns are similar to Bantmans. The article needs sales figures, how popular is the product since it is an expensive sex toy, is it stocked in most sex shops? If you're going to go to the effort of writing a FA quality article about a sex toy you may as well mention its specific use in porn. There should be some images that have free copyrights, assuming there is a patent, diagrams should be avaiable and you could make free images from there. Since the intention of the creator seems to be to make a tool for sex therapy, the article more that covers what the makers think, what do sexologists think of the product? The first paragraph of the concerns section really is of no relevance, at least in regard to concerns people may have about using the product and should be moved or removed.--nixie 04:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • When I searched for Sybian and problems, all I got were about guys having penile problems and women having no problems getting orgasm. I lose there. Same thing for the sales figures, all I get are direct sales websites. Once again, I lost. Photos, not even looking for something good, but I am about to delete a few. I got rid of two, one more can go. If people want to see an attachment, they can look at the first photo. I might write something on the porn use, but I am not sure how I can present that. Pretty much, I lost. Raul, you can close it, since I cannot answer some of the objections here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The references section has 10 entries, 6 of which are from sybian.com, and 2 of which are from toyslove.com (a page which appears to have been created specifically to be linked to from wikipedia?). Can the inline citations be tweaked so we don't have repeat entries listed in the references? I would also like to see some sales figures. Are they constructed "on demand?" -- Norvy (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Henninger Reagan

Self nom. Profile of a 19th century Texas politician who served as a Congressman, Senator, and Postmaster of the Confederacy. Stable article, illustrated, complete, and has references. PedanticallySpeaking 14:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I moved the picture to infobox format, but I found the article a little short, and the lack of headings was a little irritating. --Scimitar 15:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't see the need for the infobox format for the photo since his dates are right there in the lead. I added some headings. PedanticallySpeaking 15:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Object, good article and quite informative, but too short. Phoenix2 16:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I agree with Phoenix. -- Zantastik 19:50, July, 2005 (UTC)
• mild support It does seem short, but I'm not so sure what needs to be added; you've already touched on all the topics that I would want to see in a biography article. The structure is good and flows well chronologically. Are there any other images that could be added such as during his military or political careers? slambo 11:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article is well-written and well-formatted, but it is much too short to be a FA (maybe short is the wrong word - FA's should be comprehensive). Ronline 11:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Regarding the shortness objection, I quote from the FAC guidelines. An FA "covers the topic in its entirety; does not omit any major facts or details" and "should stay tightly-focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." PedanticallySpeaking 16:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. While I agree that an article shoudln't go into all the minutiae of this man's life, it simply isn't comprehensive enough yet to merit featured status. --Zantastik talk 16:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'm curious to know what all the objectors think is missing from the article to disqualify it as not comprehensive. All the key points that I look for in a biography are there, so what do you all think should be expanded? slambo 19:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Bradman

I was surprised to find that there has never been a featured article about Don Bradman. He is one of the all time greatest Australian icons and, arguably, the greatest cricketer ever. I looked up the page about him, found that it was quite well done and covered most of what is significant about his life and career and status in Australian culture. Mistertim 05:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Too short and no refs, refer to peer review or WikiProject:Cricket's contribution project.--nixie 05:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Too short, no references, the one and only image has no copyright information, the "lead section" is a single sentence, and I'm sure there are shortcomings as well. Refer to peer review. --Carnildo 06:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review. Articles aren't featured because of the importance of their subject. They need to fulfill all the featured article criteria. Bishonen | talk 06:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• What they said. Refer to peer review. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:19, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Too short for such a famous person. The picture does not have a valid source. It is a good candidate for FA if it can be doneup. Why don't you nominate the article in the Cricket Collaboration of the Fortnight first? User:Nichalp/sg 09:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've nominated the article there. User:Nichalp/sg 18:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Most definitely refer to Cricket project, as they are producing lots of featured content. Phoenix2 16:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• I haven't looked at the Cricket project, but will do so; possibly Peer Review also. About the length of the article - I thought that while there are good reasons for it becoming a longer article (such a significant person), the length was nevertheless appropriate for an encycolpaedic entry, and it met the FA criteria of being tightly focussed on the main topic. Mistertim 02:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review This needs to be expanded, especially the first paragraph (it'll be the first thing they see when they hit the front page). Surely there is more information you can find on him. (I'm actually quite certain there is more info. Check your library for a biography; I'm sure there's one in there somewhere.) --JB Adder | Talk 23:59, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transformation problem

Mario Ferretti did all the writing. I churned out wikistyle maths, more readable tables, typeset, subedited, and called Mario on the academic stuff until we got the core texts listed. So a partial self-nom. For reviewing pleasure, I suggest that you force PNG display of math, I find HTML math to be rather small when it will fit comfortably on one line.

Compared with Wikipedia:What is a featured article

1. An example of best work. A simple statement of the transformation problem is difficult, I think this one is an excellent example of the best work of Wikipedia.
2. Comprehensive (summary of debates which reached pitch and resolved in the 1970s), factually accurate (it meets my recollection of the Sraffian debates), stable (yup), well-written (for this branch of Marxist economics, this is very clear writing).
3. Uncontroversial. Yes, it covers disputes that resolved in the 1970s, and indicates where opposition exists (from different disciplinary stand-points, and from non-disciplinary sources).
4. Style standards. Yes, typographically, in terms of organisation.
5. Images as appropriate. It has one image demonstrating a key element of the critique. Hopefully a few more suitable charts could be generated as appropriate by a specialist.
6. Appropriate length. I feel that this is the appropriate minimum length at which the transformation problem could be explained in an encyclopedic manner.

Finally, the article has been proposed to Peer Review, but my expectation is that there aren't enough specialist editors working on Peer Review to investigate this article. A main reason why I'm proposing it to FAC where it is likely to get a hearing. Fifelfoo 03:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Strong Object. While the article does seem to meet most of the featured article criteria, it misses the biggest one: "Be well written." The prose is too dense and academic for the general lay person to understand. For example, in the first paragraph of the lead it says, "In Karl Marx's Economics the transformation problem is the problem of finding a general rule (or set of functional relationships) to "transform" Marx’s "economic values" defined and used in Capital's Volume I into the "competitive prices" (or " prices of production") of Capital's Volume III. This problem was first mentioned by Marx himself in Chapter 9 of Capital's Volume III, where he also tried to solve it."

To understand what this means a reader must already have knowledge of "Marx's economic values," "competitive prices," "prices of production" and much more. Many other examples exist throughout the article. While I believe this could be an excellent article, it needs to be written in an encyclopedic manner so that average readers can understand it. A first step toward this would be to get rid of all of the undefined academic jargon like "embodied-labour quantities." As it is now, only someone who is already an expert in the field will be able to plow through it. --Alabamaboy 14:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No lead, and several structural problems. I also agree with the above vote. Phils 16:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, needs a lead to even be a featured candidate. Phoenix2 16:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Race and intelligence

This is the most well researched and referenced article I've found and seveal experts in the field are active contributors. It is quite neutral and fact-based despite the controversiality of the subject matter, and its strict focus on concrete reporting of the facts despite the "taboo" associated with it embodies what Wikipedia is all about. If ever an article deserved to be featured, it's this one. --Malathion 19:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Archived peer review
• For the interested commentator, consensus scientific statments and surveys on which this article is based: --Rikurzhen 00:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" a report from the American Psychological Association [2] -- later published as Neisser et al (1996)
  • "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" [3] -- later published as Gottfredson (1997) -- a statement signed by 52 intelligence researchers meant to outline "conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence".
  • Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1987). "Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing". American Psychologist, 42, 137–144. (some details in this section)
• Right now, this article may not satisfy the stable criteria because it has recently undergone a transition to Wikipedia:Summary style for the sake of meeting size limits. That said, the prospect is that future edits will be minor, so I support. --Rikurzhen 20:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. While the topic of this article is controversial, the article itself is not controversial in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Despite the disparate personal views of the editors, no NPOV or accuracy dispute exists. Trust that the WP process has taken care of these things. Trust but verify ;) (see above). --Rikurzhen 00:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Non-stable because controversial. That the topic is controversial is not a problem, but the article itself has too much ongoing controversy. Jun-Dai 20:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • There is quite a lot of debate on the talk page, but looking at the edit history, almost all of the edits are from a few editors following the consensus and progressively improving the article. The one revert war that I can find (with User:Zen Master) seems to have been resolved. --Malathion 20:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The dispute is by no means resolved, there is still an open request for arbitration. zen master T 14:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• • It's my observation that controversy has not actually been a stability issue for this article in the past. Current controversies on the talk page involve fine details (e.g. where the phrase culture-only or environment-only is preferable, or whether a graphic is an appropriate detail for a summary section). The major change to content/structure in the last several months has been the shift to summary style: concern about stability should focus there. --Rikurzhen 20:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Still objecting. You can see on the talk page that controversy exists over the article in it present state. That is even more apparent in this thread. Also, a few points that have been percolating in my brain: The article makes vague reference to objections to the notion of race as a valid biological category of humans and to the validity of intelligence quotients, but it gives no serious space to the objections, even though they, as far as I have known, are pretty significant [4] [5] . Most of the article takes for granted that these are valid, even though they are very much in question. The agenda isn't quite as clear and the bias quite as strong as it is in some similar articles (see Intelligence quotient), but this article as it stands is problematic, to say the least. In fact, it's probably the most extreme case I've seen nominated here, though I confess I haven't been around for long. Jun-Dai 23:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • You'll want to famaliarize yourself with the consensus scientfic statements I pasted above and the extensive reference list of primary and secondary sources for this article before taking to tertiary web sources. What you're pointing out is a failing of the public media, not this article. The existence of objectors is covered extensively before data and interpretations are discussed. Examine the article and sub-articles for more details. --Rikurzhen 00:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • <Jun-Dai 01:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)> The content of the sub-articles does not provide a basis for this article being featured. The fact that objections are somewhat better covered in the sub-articles doesn't make up for the heavy slant of the main article. </Jun-Dai>
        • Claims that this article is non-neutral or factually incorrect should warrant an NPOV tag and a serious discussion on the talk page. Such claims would have to address the content of the three major references I posted above. But with countless editors over the past years, this article has not degraded to an edit war of POVs, but rather has instead made excellent progress towards all of the criteria of FAs. If you still insist on your point, please give some criticisms with citations instead of merely implying that the many editors of this article are all mistaken. --Rikurzhen 01:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
          • <Jun-Dai 02:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)> I'd agree that the article warrants an NPOV tag, but that's a larger fight than I'm willing (or have the time) to take on right now. Meanwhile, leaving aside issues of bias and characterizations of consensus for the moment (I still object on those terms), I do have one comment: The paragraph on racial distinctions consists of a bunch of disoorganized, mostly extraneous information. The sentences "The national and state governments of the United States employ race in the census, law enforcement, and innumerable other ways. Many minority races have political organizations to represent their interests. Racial discrimination is illegal in many areas of public and private life, including employment" are not directly related to the article, and seem much more like they are trying to pose an argument (in defense of racial distinctions or the validity thereof). The paragraph, within the context of this article, shouldn't really contain any information other than to explain what "racial distinctions" are, which is something it barely touches on, even though it is so central to the background of the topic. If these sentences are important in explaining the history of racial distinctions with regard to the study of race and "intelligence", then, then there should be some explanation as to why they are important, as it is not at all clear in the paragraph itself. What's more, how does one "employ race" in the census, etc.?
            • That section has been bouncing around for a while. It is intended to bring non-Americans up to speed on the race consciousness that exists in U.S. society. This was specifically requested. Your suggestions for improvement are of course appreciated. Feel free to chip in if you have specific ideas. --Rikurzhen 02:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The fact that the article requires a self-referential paragraph in the lead section to defend itself shows that it's not ready, and not likely to be so anytime soon. --Michael Snow 20:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I assume you mean this: This article conforms with the mainstream opinion among researchers on intelligence, and conclusions presented here are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence. That was added because many people will find the results presented in the article surprising as the public press has not reported on them, and it was desirable to prepare them for the suprise. That's a feature of the topic, not the article's quality. If there's a problem with this article, that's not it. --Rikurzhen 20:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Be that as it may, self-referential writing is terrible and should be avoided at all costs - I cringe whenever I see it. [this article, this paragraph , the views presented here, 'etc, are dead giveaways]. Perhaps some rephrasing is in order. →Raul654 20:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Are there any tricks for avoiding that kind of langauge? --Rikurzhen 20:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd suggest just deleting it outright. It's not clear what useful purpose is being served with that "warning" anyway. --Malathion 21:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Still object, and as I investigate further I get increasingly suspicious that this and related articles suffer from a serious lack of balance in their presentation. In reading the article, one gets the distinct impression that there is a connection between race and intelligence. This is naturally a very controversial position to take, so the article does not say so bluntly, but casts the overall picture as reflecting "mainstream opinion" in the field. The (now-removed) paragraph I noted served to reinforce this impression further.

Malathion asserts that "seveal [sic] experts in the field" are working on this article. Now, perhaps someone with serious expertise could really confirm that this article describes the "mainstream opinion" among those who study this phenomenon. But in looking around, I have found only Rikurzhen making any claim that resembles expertise in this field, in this case "a graduate student in the field of genetics." Reasonably related to the topic, yes, so I'll assume Rikurzhen has more-than-usual familiarity with the subject matter, but not such a high level of expertise that we should show excessive deference.

This is not my field of expertise either, so it is difficult to address issues point-by-point or identify precisely what elements make the article unbalanced overall. However, the article feels like it is pushing an agenda, and while it may be subtle this only makes it more insidious. Having a paragraph like the one cited is a red flag, and makes me think the content needs to be carefully scrutinized.

I will explain a little of how the article achieves such an unbalanced effect, even while making gestures toward neutrality and without blatantly advocating the position it works to promote. From what I can tell, the issue of race and intelligence is part of a larger debate over the heritability of intelligence generally. The content here appears to lean heavily to the theories of Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton, supporters of the idea that intelligence is heritable. For a critical view, the article relies heavily on Stephen Jay Gould, an exponent of popular science who is not particularly a specialist in this area. It does not acknowledge researchers and experts in the field who dispute Jensen and Rushton's theories; examining the nature of publications in the footnotes confirms this. Perhaps the editors involved are not familiar with the material needed because they have not engaged the scholarship on the other side, I don't know their reasons for the path they have ended up on. But the effect is clearly to balance the "serious science" in support of a connection between race and intelligence, against the "popular science" that denies this connection, and it is easy to guess how the reader is expected to resolve the issue, based on the relative credibility of those cast as the proponents for either side of the debate.

Quickly looking for information on the internet other than Wikipedia, I found a short biography of Jensen (described as a "major proponent of the hereditarian position") listed on an Indiana University website about Human Intelligence. Here, Jensen is effectively contrasted with a contemporary named Leon Kamin (an "active critic of the hereditarian theory of intelligence"). Interestingly, Jensen and Rushton have fairly substantial Wikipedia articles about them, with significant contributions from some of the same editors working on this article. Kamin, on the other hand, has no article at the present time. This may not be malicious, but clearly an article about Kamin is needed at some point, and I also consider it likely that this article needs to incorporate his views. Anyway, such observations strongly suggest to me that Wikipedia's coverage of articles in this field overall suffers from serious systemic bias.

Basically, this is an article about scientific theories that has gone astray and tried to become an article about scientific facts. Report the facts about the competing theories; do not report the theories as if they were fact. A major overhaul is needed here, and I think it would be a serious embarrassment to Wikipedia to call this a featured article in its present state. --Michael Snow 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a scientific fact. There are only theories and the increasing confidence in those theories as they survive experiment and test. I suspect you're uncomfortable with the article because you feel a conflict between your prejudices and the theories the article seems to support. But that's exactly why the article is a good one. --mc6809e

It's not my field either, so I can't comment concretely, but I'd like to know whether the position that intelligence and race are connected is actually controverial among those more "in the know". It's certainly controversial in popular culture, but if the research points us in a different direction, I don't think Wikipedia should shy away from contradicting popular opinion. It may very well be the case that the "serious science" is being accurately reprenented here. Btw, sorry about any typos; I recently switched to the Dvorak keyboard layout. --Malathion 23:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe there are any experts in the field of intelligence working on this article, but most of the contributors are PhD scientists/students. If you'd like to famaliarize yourself with the science on which this article is based, at least three top-prority references exist (see above). More recent literature reviews are also available. --Rikurzhen 23:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Michael, I don't think that is a valid objection. You cannot a priori label an article as NPOV because it presents a scientific consensus (for example, the heritability of intelligence, or the correlation between race and measured intelligence). For example, google finds you lots of critics of the points laid out on Evolution, but that doesn't make Evolution POV. Granted, there could be other reasons for Evolution or Race and intelligence being NPOV. But the fact that viewpoints outside the scientific consensus come off as less reliable is not one of those. That being said, I would love it if we were able to replace the viewpoints attributed to Gould and others with more satisfying arguments. Suggestions are welcome (don't think we haven't looked). Arbor 09:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional support. The online references need to be properly formatted according to MoS guidelines. A simple hyperlinked title is not sufficient: if the article is printed, or the linked source document is moved or erased, the reference becomes useless. Other than that, this is a great article about an interesting subject. Phils 21:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't quite understand. You're suggesting the references should be moved from their sub-page to the main page? --Rikurzhen 21:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • No... I think you're talking about the footnotes. It does look like the footnotes section could use some cleaning up. --Rikurzhen 21:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have been fighting with the footnotes and references for that article for quite some time. I agree that currently they are below par, but it's a huge task, and not much precendent on WP on how this should be handled. I tried to solicit some guidance for this very article at Wikipedia:Footnote3 (which is the style we are trying adopt). But rest assured that everything will be in order real soon now. (The FAC caught us somewhat off-guard, a major refactoring is in progress due to the transition to Wikipedia:Summary style. Excuse the mess.) Arbor 08:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The article presents a unique challenge: consensus statements of expert opinion contradict widely (and in many cases stubbornly) held beliefs. As a case in point, that IQ is substantially heritable is beyond significant technical dispute among experts (both consensus statements reflect this [6] [7]), but outside the field, heritability is very much in dispute (see above comments regarding the general heritability of intelligence [8]). Given these disparate perspectives, the article's point of view on the issue of heritability is, to my mind, a model of NPOV (see this section and the related sub-article). As an editor who was drawn to the subject because of the expert/layperson belief dichotomy, I take pride in the WP community's unique response, which has been, in short, to assemble an article with unusually high verifiability. --DAD ^T 03:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object, the summary section bothers me, it brings up a number of things not coverd in the article and I can't think of any featured artlcies where there is a summary at the end, it is not encyclodedia style. In paricular the final statement about genetic engineering needs to go, since the genetic determinants of intellegence are unknown this is highly unlikey and it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article to speculate about the future. The other parts of the summary should be moved to their respecitive sections.--nixie 03:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting. The summary was a remnant from the time when this article was >150k. As with the suggestion above, I've commented it out for the moment. --Rikurzhen 04:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • The article also used both inline cites, like Ralpf (1996), and footnotes. The inlines should probably be changed to footnotes for internal consistency.--nixie 06:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
      • There's an editor who's particular keen on fixing up the references. The footnotes are new, so we're still half-way finished. --Rikurzhen 06:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'll vote in a few days, when the editing activity has decreased somewhat :) --nixie 08:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm one of the editors and I never like the summary either. I say kick it out with all speed. Arbor 08:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. For all the reasons nixie listed, and very poor writing to boot, the Summary should be removed. The statement about iodine is novel; the first part of the Summary reads like everyone trying to have the last word, which is ridiculous -- the article should speak for itself. --DAD ^T 17:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Easy ... Done. --Rikurzhen 17:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I strongly object to large scale deletion of long standing material. At the very least, much of the material should be moved to other sections as suggested. Ultramarine 17:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Extremely unstable right now. Ultramarine 19:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Instability is largely due to cleanup either recommended by, or inspired by, the present FAC. --DAD ^T 19:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object Totally concur with Michael Snow. Also very biased in favor of the hypothesis that there is a relationship. 172 18:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The evolution and global warming articles are also very biased in favor of the scientific consensus ... unless we decide to fabricate data and include our own opinions, that's not something we get to change; see the consensus statements linked above. --Rikurzhen 18:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. the hypothesis that there is a relationship is scientific consensus (see the helpful material linked on the top of this page for support for that statement). I don't understand the sentiment underlying your comment, unless it's a knee-jerk reaction (for which I have strong sympathies)—in that case I urge you to read up on the material and reconsider your objection. Arbor 19:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    • <Jun-Dai 02:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)> That may be true, to a limited extent--but the very concept of race as a biological categorization of humans, or that intelligence can be measured in any particularly meaningful manner is not consensus, and while this is made clear in a few of the external links, it is by no means clear in the text of the article, which seems to imply some sort of consensus on these matters. </Jun-Dai>
      • The article does not imply consensus, it reports it. As editors, that's all we can do. Because the scientific consensus statements listed above directly contradict your statements, I'm guessing you're referring to the popular consensus. Just as Evolution and Global warming do not dwell on the popular consensus, the present article does not. --DAD ^T 02:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
      • While there is a great deal of public discussion of whether race is a vaid biological category, social and medical scientists still go around using race in their research; thus our hands are tied. We must report on what the IQ research says, without introducing personal bias. Although we do report examples of these kinds of critcisms (including Sternberg et al, 2005), we can't act on that POV by not report on anything else. Stepping out of the WP NPOV/NOR shell for a second: the theoretical considerations of some population biologists wrt race do not seem to have penetrated into other fields, where concepts of race as still grounded in "common sense" and "self-reported race". --Rikurzhen 02:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Absurdly strong support, if I (as a fledgling editor of the article in question) am allowed to comment. I "found" this page at the time of its VdD six weeks ago (or so), and have since tried to help. This is potentially the best Wikipedia article I have ever seen, and a shining example of (1) our "secret sauce": NPOV, and (2) the fact that collaborative editing can produce amazingly informative, correct, well-written, and relevant material ('Wiki works", and not only about Pokémon), and (2a) even if the material is controversial. I would also like it to be a shining example of (3) references and verifiability, by pet peeve about WP. It already far outclasses most other WP articles in that respect, but there is some cleanup left to do. After the article went to Peer Review, we started a major reorganisation based on Wikipedia: Summary style which has kept us entertained during the past few weeks, so the current article is in a state of flux. I would suggest we wait until it stabilises again. Arbor 19:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object POV pushing propaganda which states what is not true: that there is a scientific consensus supporting the concept. The "research" presented is largely junk science, and vociferous objections from the scientific community are not cited. Stirling Newberry 23:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. "The concept" has no clear antecedent. Any meaningful response and/or edit requires knowing what you mean. Kindly explain. Also, vociferous objections are cited in multiple places, from accusations of racism and biased results (including comparison of one scientist's goals to Hitler's) to more moderated objections that neither race nor intelligence have any scientific basis and that any attempt to study them is not science and/or is ethically wrong. All appear to be carefully cited. Kindly elaborate on what objections are not covered. --DAD ^T 00:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Race and intelligence is an area of intelligence research studying the nature, origins, and practical consequences of group differences in intelligence. Members of any racial-ethnic group may be found at any IQ level, but averages among groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ scale. Similar clustering is seen amoung racial-ethnic groups in related variables, such as school achievement or reaction time. In the U.S., most variation in IQ occurs within individual familes, not between races. However, differences of average IQs among groups has been pronounced enough to merit a scientific investigation.

This is the intro-paragraph, and it is a mendacious misstatement of current knowledge, POV propaganda and crypto-racism. Stirling Newberry 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ad hominems aside, do you think the differences of average IQs among groups has not been pronounced enough to merit a scientific investigation? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 02:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm sure we are all well-aware of the first paragraph. I note your (SN's) post does not answer either of my questions, which were asked with the genuine hope of engaging your concerns. The accusations you level are quite serious (and surprising) since the first paragraph reflects several published consensus statements, as has been repeatedly noted on this page. I'm sure other observers would find it helpful to know what base of support you are drawing upon. Best, --DAD ^T 02:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Quadell: The scientific investigation has been going on for decades. Perhaps a better question is, "What published statements -- preferably indicating broad consensus -- contradict anything in the first paragraph?" --DAD ^T 02:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is POV pushing on its face. [9] is an example of the kind of debunking that Rushton et al regularly get. The article is crypto-racist right wing pseudo-science. Stirling Newberry 02:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

as far as I can tell, Richard Nisbett, the author you cite, would agree with the intro paragraph and would endorse the article, if not all the POVs therein. --Rikurzhen 02:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

That very Nisbett article is listed right on the Race and intelligence page, and nothing in Nisbett's article contradicts anything in the first paragraph. Nisbett is concerned with whether the gap is closing, and his viewpoint is prominently featured in the article. He also is concerned with evidence for heredity, and the malleability of IQ, points of view which receive extensive treatment and which the article favors no particular position. Nisbett's accusations against Rushton and Jensen are quite mild compared to the vitriol that the R&I article aims at them. You have just provided outstanding evidence of the article's NPOV. --DAD ^T 02:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. This article seems to have several objections based on the fact that it's a controversial topic, but I think controversial topics should be able to be featured articles. It gives a lot of interesting information, it's well-organized and well-illustrated, it's meticulously referenced, and it describes all veiwpoints about as fully as could be expected. There is of course room for improvement - but I wish every article on Wikipedia were as NPOV as this one! The authors have had to work extremely hard making the article NPOV, since it's such a sensitive topic, and the effort has paid off. There will be some people who will object to any article that contains information they don't like, and that's disappointing, but I don't see how any article could explain the current state of knowledge and debate much more fairly. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 02:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. There is no scientific nor even pseudo-scientific consensus to describe the issue only in terms of "race" and "intelligence". The supporters of the article would love to get the controversy bogged down analyzing their sources using their one sided method of framing the issue, they completely ignore all criticisms against how the issue is framed and the historic evidence against the subject (see scientific racism). I theorize that most/all of the pro editors of race and intelligence must be ultra racist or insanely politically motivated themselves because nothing else comes close to explaining their support for the unscientific one sided presentation of the subject which subtly presumptively induces racism in others -- not to mention the repeated obfuscation, repetition of language confusion, and misdirection on talk pages. If the issue is described and framed only in terms of "race" and "intelligence" the brain will only think about the issue in terms of "race" in search of causes which will make it easier for the supporters of the article (aka the psychology of language propaganda experts) to later on intentionally confuse description of the issue with cause for the issue. zen master T 03:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• • I guess it goes without saying that ZM has a unique view on this subject, which we've been unable to corroborate with citations, and thus is not found in the article. Lengthy discussions to that effect can be found in the article's talk pages. And yes... we all just love being called ultra-racist obfuscating propagandists ;) --Rikurzhen 04:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This article is a shining testament to Wikipedia's abiding flaw. This (and a disturbingly large collection of support articles) are all strongly POV. Carefully done, well written and researched, but heavily biased. Some of the reasons this article is "stable" have to do with the obvious enthusiasm and eloquence of its major contributers. I see the comment by Jun-Dai that this is a "larger fight than I'm willing (or have the time) to take on right now" and suspect many others have felt the same. I know I have. We need a William M. Connolley analog to balance this out. brenneman^(t)(c) 04:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • William M. Connolley wouldn't be needed if people respected the IPCC consensus statements as representative of expert opinion on climate change. Likewise, if people would respect the APA and WSJ consensus statements and the Snyderman & Rothman survey data, then we would all be much better off. --Rikurzhen 05:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The general US population, including even Stanford professors, NYT science reporters and MDs (who write papers on which medications suit which people, etc.) call certain loose categories or subsets of the US population "races". (I think it is an objectionable practice on many grounds, but they could care less what I think about it. I know. I've written to some of them. Guess what the response was.) The US education system is strongly, if not completely, tied to selecting individuals for college entrance and other valued positions in society on the grounds of I.Q. tests -- tests whose names suggest that they measure something called "intelligence." I am troubled because I see no clear definition of "inte lligence" other than the tests that supposedly measure it. Perhaps I am simply uninformed at some deep and hidden level and can be reformed. Be that as it may, the results of parceling the US population into groups that roughly reflect genetic herit age, and that also roughly reflect the social ills and/or the social perks that the society doles out to people, and then using the testing instruments that purportedly measure "intelligence", turn out to raise some very important warning flags that need to be understood and heeded by the electorate.

When college administrators use testing instruments as part of their admissions procedures, they are (or ought to be) interested in determining whether an individual will have an adequate foundation to efficiently utilize the college environment. Tests can be constructed that determine whether that foundation exists. People desiring to take other paths in life will likely undergo similar evaluations before significant resources are devoted to trying t o train them.

The results obtained when the averages for scores on these tests are computed for the so-called "racial" groups indicate something of profound importance for makers of public policy: The several groups are not equally well prepared to do well in endeavors that require the aptitudes measured by the tests. Green people do great, and pink people do poorly. It does not follow logically that pink people do not do well because they are pink. It does not follow ethically that because some people are pink the institutions of society should not be allowed to function for their full benefit. It does not follow from any principle of economic utility known to me that one sector of a population should be disadvantaged either through design or th rough neglect and therefore be unable to make its optimum contribution to the society as a whole.

The terms used to discuss and debate this question are ill-suited to rational discussion. In fact, they are very heavily loaded with emotional baggage. Thos e factors, in turn, distract most people from the true issues and result in emotionally volatile confrontations. The fact remains, however, that rational planning intended for the public good cannot afford to ignore the clear signs that something is not going well.

I fully share the negative reactions that I suspect are behind many objections to this article. I flinch at the very mention of the word "race". I question the intelligence of people who appear to have a circular definition of intelligence. I would like it much better if we had single clear words tied firmly to adequate operational definitions instead of a situation in which there are probably as many definitions of "race" as there are people who use the word. But such words and their defini tions enter a language by a slow process of adaptation, failure, and reformulation. We are not there yet, and we will not get there without facing the issues and working through them.

My own background is in physics, in philosophy, and a bunch of other t hings that have even less direct bearing on this issue. So I am clearly aware that I would be out of my depth if I tried to assure other people of the formal correctness and the experimental adequacy of the conclusions reported in the "Race and Intelligence" article. On the other hand, I have from time to time raised rather incoherent objections or fears pertaining to things that I have flagged for myself as questionable and have later found the article to have been amended to resolve the problems I have noted. I have also never picked up on the slightest hint of evasiveness or manipulative behavior on the part of the major participants engaged in improving this article.

Give us a better term than "race" if you can. Give us a substitute for "intelligen ce" that makes it transparently clear that we are measuring capabilities and inferring from them some kind of underlying capacity without, perhaps, really needing to do so. But examine the article with an eye to determining whether it tells people what the fight is about, why there is a fight, what the payoff is if we can determine what disadvantages some groups and how to prevent that from happening. P0M 07:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This and many supporting articles suffer from systemic bias, as others have noted. Jokestress 08:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This article is not stable and not uncontroversial as explained on the criteria page. This should not have even been nominated based on those guidelines. Jokestress 17:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Fantastic article One of Wikipedia's very best. Being made even better due to this exchange of views. For those who find the article one sided; What do you think intelligence is? What physically executes those information processes? What at conception is the blueprint for the hardware (wetware) those processes run on? What is passsed from parents to children? Parents's parents's paremts... that's ancestory right? ancestory is another way of saying race right? Chimps are different from humans due to genes. Oranges are different from tangerines due to genes even tho they can interbreed. What farmer uses environment to change an orange tree to a tangerine tree? Who wants a world with less diversity in their fruit? Humans have many qualities we can be proud of, only a few of which are measured by IQ tests. IQ tests do not measure who is the superior human. But rejecting evidence and logic because you don't like the conclusion isn't being even a bit superior. 4.250.33.21 08:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Ok there! Most of this discussion should probably go on the articles talk page. Let's all just cool our jets. (Including me.) brenneman^(t)(c) 13:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article should be moved to Research on race and intelligence or should be expanded to discuss popular beliefs and arguments on the issue from outside the scientific community. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:50, 2005 July 16 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the root of that suggestion is very good. (For example, both global warming and global warming controversy exist.) But I think in practice it would be better to expand the current History section of this article into Race and intelligence (History), and use that article to detail the ideas/writings/etc inside and outside the field and up to the present, which would include popular beliefs, criticisms, etc. I've been not-so-subtly trying to tempt people to work on this idea. --Rikurzhen 05:25, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm glad to see you're receptive, but I'm not sure why current popular viewpoints would be filed under History. Really, I just think the article should make clearer that the belief that race and intelligence are not connected is widespread and give some suggestions for why that is (especially when 200 years ago it almost certainly was not so widespread). Is there any polling data available on this issue? Christopher Parham (talk) 05:49, 2005 July 16 (UTC)
      • I have seen polling data on experts and heard of polling data on public intellectuals like newspaper editors, but nothing on the general public. The idea that history is a good context to explain current popular views is just a suggestion, but it makes sense to me in the context of Gould's The Mismeasure of Man and the fact that the present is a product of history. (Not that we need to debate that point on the FAC page.) --Rikurzhen 05:55, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • These comments are being discussed on the Talk:Race and intelligence page here and here.
• Object The graph in the leading section of the article makes a bold statement suggesting that race is strongly correlated with intelligence. This would have been fine if the graph was well supported by research, but the graph makes a questionable interpretation of a study of 1,880 adults in Journal of School Psychology. The distributions IQ scores of non-white adults is of course what makes the graph controversial and looking at the study it is clear that African-Americans constituted 10.21% of the sample, while Asians and Hispanics groups PUT TOGETHER constituted less than 1.3% of the sample! If the active contributors to the article are experts in the field, I suggest that they update the graph based on research specifically carried out to study the correlation of IQ scores and race
  • Except the graph is based on data taken from that study and others. For example, Roth et al 2001 did a meta-analysis with over 6 million test subjects. See the full footenote. The White and Black averages are verified by the concensus statements (listed at the top of this page) and while the numbers for Asians and Hispanics are less precisely known, the given values are representative of the set of published figures. This would be better discussed on the talk page. --Rikurzhen 23:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I did see the other studies mentioned in the footnote, however given a bold statement made by the graph, I will not remove my objection until more detail is given on the other studies. Please provide the titles of the articles and the journals where the articles were published for the following references used to substantiate the footnote: Roth et al., 2001; Rushton, 1995; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994

129.34.20.23 18:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

How much time do people have to weigh in on a piece before a determination is reached? I've been spending a great deal of time on the (unexpected) FAS process for Blackface and just happened to see the FAS for this article, which I've never seen before. Unfortunately, I have a bunch of deadlines of my own to tend to. That means likely no time to read this until mid week. Will there be time left for me to still be able to weigh in? deeceevoice 11:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object Concur with Michael Snow, this is not FA material. St33lbird 19:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object until neutrality has been determined. --JB Adder | Talk 00:05, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caesar Augustus

I nominate this page because it is a comprehensive article, detailing the life of Rome's first, and (traditionally) greatest, Emperor. It covers, in great detail, aspects of his life before, during, and after his rise in power from his life as the boy Octavian to the reign of Emperor Augustus. I believe this article desives to be prompted to the rank of Featured Article. Roman Emperor July 11, 2005 05:39 (UTC)

• Object, could do without Chronology section, though that could be turned into a EasyTimeline, also the websources need retrieval dates. Secondly, such a major historical figure should have a few book sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object. Thought it was a good article, but there aren't any print references listed. Once that's fixed, I'd love to support. --Scimitar 14:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It's certainly long and apparently comprehensive. However, it's difficult to tell which sources are used for what, and the lack of print references is not good. At times, the language veers toward POV; I think this could be fixed by better attributing statements to their sources. (The article's diction is also sometimes florid and "unencyclopedic". I personally don't care too much—better florid and factual than dry, proper and wrong. Still, saying things like "fate had different plans" is not quite cricket.) Anville 19:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. A history article that long needs better referencing. --malathion ^talk 11:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Object It is a little on the POV side and is a bit thin on sources.Dejvid 12:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'm undecisive about this one; I don't know whether I should support or object. This is quite a thorough article, I'll agree to that, but the Chronology section isn't really necessary (it simply summarises the history sections), plus I think, if any can be found, some references to Augustus in literature, maybe. --JB Adder | Talk 00:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Court of the United States

This is a really comprehensive article, detailing various perspectives of one of the fundamental parts of the United States government. It is NPOV and well-written, and also has many references and in-line citations. I believe that this article is ready to be a FA. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 9 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)

• Object. The article could use a little reorganization, especially moving the history up ahead of fairly trivial stuff on the Bar requirements and citation style. Also, O'Conner's retriement should not get a paragraph in the history section when no other Justice's retirement is mentioned at all. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 9 04:07 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! The O'Connor paragraph in the history section has already been removed. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 9 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)

• Object. Not comprehensive, needs a good copyedit. And for Pete's sake, remove that O'Conner bit. Neutrality^talk July 9, 2005 09:52 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! See above comment; the paragraph has already been removed. I'll see what I can do in terms of adding more/reorganization. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 9 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)

• Object. A good article, but needs some copyediting. Mwalcoff 13:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; I'll see what I can do. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 02:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. There are a couple problems. First of all, the history section seems to start with the Warren Court--there is no information on what kind of decisions the Court made previous to that (for example, the various disputes over economic regulations during the Gilded age, and so on). Secondly, the "Current Justices" section notes the existence of a "liberal wing", a "conservative wing", etc., but then fails to connect these terms to the discussion of constructionism and activism below. Best, Meelar (talk) 15:32, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; I'll see what I can do. Unfortunately, I'm a bit busy right now, so it might take a while. Thanks for your patience. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 02:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Absolutely, utterly, undisputably inadequate. "Loose constructionism" is a neologism used by bloggers and lazy journalists, without real meaning; the rest of the "Judicial Philosophy" section is a superficial discussion of dictionary definitions. A disproportionate amount of text is concerned with transient, current issues and anticipatory discussion of the fight over SDOC's successor. The "History" section omits everything between John Marshall and Earl Warren, except for a discussion of changes in the number of court members and a passing reference to Plessy v. Ferguson. I'm sorry, but most of this reads like an excerpt from a bad junior high school textbook that was never copyedited. And there's a huge NPOV problem in describing the Warren Court as more active and "loose constructionist" while omitting any mention of the 1900-1930's courts that invented "liberty of contract" and took a chainsaw to economic regulations without ever grounding their opionions in constitutional text. Monicasdude 15:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; I'll see what I can do. Unfortunately, I'm a bit busy right now, so it might take a while. Thanks for your patience. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 02:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Reluctantly oppose. There's some good stuff here, really there is, but I don't think its comprehensive. For example, the reference section doesn't cite any books. Charles Warren's is the standard for the early years of the court. There's also the Holmes Devise history. Rehnquist published a good book on the court as well. There are many studies of how the court works, e.g. Bob Woodward and Scott Anderson's The Brethern. And though I've not seen it, I'm sure Linda Greenhouse's book based on the Blackmun papers will be useful. The history section is unfortunately weak and perhaps these books can help. Oh, and the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, that's ever useful. A stylistic issue troubles: the table about the justices. It's awkward, it runs off screen, and it's hard to copy. The information would be better presented in a bulleted list of the justices. That would be much more user friendly. Again, I think there's a solid foundation, but there's still a bit more work to do. PedanticallySpeaking 16:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks once again for the input! I see this article needs some major reworking. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Metro

Somewhat of a self nom; I think this article is pretty worthy. A GFDL map, lots and lots of photos (thanks to User:Schuminweb), LOTS of history and operational information, and the child pages (the lines) are quite well done too. --Golbez July 8, 2005 05:31 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Looks very good (great work with all the crisp GFDL pics), but I'd like to see the {{ref}} and {{note}} system introduced. I know this would have come up at some stage, but clearing that up may stop any oppose votes. I'll have another look and vote after this is done. Thanks. Harro5 July 8, 2005 05:40 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I figured that might. I'll get on it, but a question - what's the best way of saying "This reference applies to this entire section"? --Golbez July 8, 2005 06:16 (UTC)
• Oppose. The top two pics shouldn't be side by side - they completely mess up the formatting of the top part of the article. The lead section is a mile too short. Speculation about new additions and the accidents section far outweighs the entire history section. More generally - the article is quite good in some specific areas, but seems to leave out a lot of more general content about the network, its stations, etc - it feels like there are some large holes in it. Ambi 8 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)
  • Has there been a peer review at all? If so, please link to it. Harro5 July 8, 2005 07:36 (UTC)
    • Past discussion has established that the community believes PR is not a formal requirement for FACs. Phils 8 July 2005 10:36 (UTC)
      • Oh I know that, I just wanted to make sure we're not re-addressing points already discussed elsewhere. Thanks for the link though. Harro5 July 8, 2005 11:04 (UTC)
• Comment - I've expanded the lead slightly, I referenced the hell out of it, and I added a lot of info on stations. I also juggled the pics a bit to help the top flow more. --Golbez July 9, 2005 01:30 (UTC)
• Object. References are not properly formatted. Phils 9 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)
• Object. Must include information on the unusually strict rules and enforcement on the Metro. In January of this year the Metro board considered removing the seats on the train, but this very important possibility is not mentioned. See the following articles in the Washington Post:
  • "Mouthful Gets Metro Passenger Handcuffs and Jail"
  • Eating incidents
  • "Squad's Officers Target Metro Scofflaws"
  • "Metro Police Get More Leeway Handling Traveling Snackers"
  • "Youthful Snackers On Metro Get Break"
  • "School May Punish Girl Who Ate in Metro Station"
  • "Metro Snack Patrol Puts Girl in Cuffs"
  • Other
  • "Between Metro and Cell User, a Disconnect: Officer Shoves, Arrests Pregnant Woman Over Loud Call"
  • "Metro Officers Keep a Keen Eye on Riders: New Behavioral Profiling Techniques, TSA Training Help Target Suspicious Subway Passengers"
  • "Metro Considers Removal Of Seats: Standing Room Would Increase"

Neutrality^talk July 9, 2005 14:58 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Nothing from any architecture critic about the rather remarkable architecture of many in-city stations (and nothing identifying any of the architects who designed it). Nothing about the escalator at Dupont Circle (which I believe is, or at least was when it opened, the longest single-span escalator in the world—and with a wonderful view as one emerges). Nothing about how construction was originally financed. Nothing about the decision not to have a Georgetown station. Nothing about influence on its design by the successes or failures of any other city's system, nor about what aspects of it were innovative, or what unusual technical challenges were involved in building in a historic city. Nothing about its influence on any other systems. Nothing in terms of demographics of ridership except the total number of daily riders. And the only comparisons to other systems is one, in passing, to New York. In short, while it's not a bad article, there is an awful lot more that could be written here. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:50, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Earth

This article is well-written and presented with many pretty pictures and facts. It covers the topic comprehensively and summarizes many related topics. And well, I just like it. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 21:39 (UTC)

• Object. There are many extremely short sections, and much of the article consists of lists. There is virtually nothing about terrain, climate, and the biosphere (collectively these should make up half of the article, in my opinion). Most of the human social statistics doesn't belong (it should be moved to Human or society or some similar page). The information about humans should concentrate on how we take advantage of and affect Earth, not how humans trade or communicate with each other or what the population makeup is. There is at least one factual error (Mount Everest being the maximum deviation; see the talk page), and the article is poorly referenced overall. The coverage of Earth's physical composition is decent, but could be improved; I'd like to see clearer definitions of the Earth's layers (and this image being used instead; additional illustrations would also improve the article). Suggest peer review. In fact, I started a half hearted attempt to rewrite this article a couple of weeks ago, but didn't get far. Fredrik | talk 7 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
• mild object My first thought on clicking through was, of course, "mostly harmless" (and I see many reverts in the history to that effect), but looking at it now, I agree on the sparse references. With so much published information elsewhere, I'm left wondering what was omitted to keep this article at this length. slambo July 7, 2005 22:01 (UTC)
• Object, per Fredrik. Phoenix2 July 8, 2005 01:19 (UTC)
• On top of that, it needs resectioning having "Descriptions of Earth" as section 10 is poor formatting. Refer to peer review. - Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 08:01 (UTC)
• Comment. Well the writing is on the wall with this one. I don't agree with many of the above comments, for example, I can't see including a figure that ignores the distinction between the inner and outer core, no matter how pretty the figure is. However, I do agree with enough of them that it is not worth arguing the point. The bit about Everest is particularly embarrassing since I was one of the people that pointed out problems with that section when it was first added (in fairness it has been significanly improved since then), but I hadn't noticed that no one fixed the Everest remark. Anyway, thanks for your input and advice. Dragons flight 00:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dogpatch USA

Thurough and intresting article that has been through peer review.--The_stuart 7 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)

Comment: It's been less than 48h on peer review and didn't attract any comments in that time: Wikipedia:Peer review/Dogpatch USA. Lupo July 7, 2005 14:50 (UTC)

Yeah, thats why I went ahead and added it here. I thought that if it didn't get featured, at least it would get noticed. --The_stuart 7 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)

Well, maybe you should have left it on peer review a bit longer and someone would have had time to look at it. Phoenix2 7 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

Maybe--The_stuart 7 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

You need a couple of weeks for peer review to really get some good stuff coming through. Granted, it's nothing in comparison to FAC, but it looks bad to yank it after only two days. Harro5 July 7, 2005 22:55 (UTC)

• Object for now, but I will support this fascinating and informative piece as soon as a properly formatted references section is added. Is that link the only thing you used for research? Meelar (talk) July 7, 2005 16:34 (UTC)

There are alot of intext sources--Imfinite 8 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)

Then they should be properly formatted and added to the references section. No FA is complete without one. Meelar (talk) July 8, 2005 13:49 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:Dogpatch USA.JPG does not have a copyright tag.
  2. The image Image:General T Cornpone.JPG does not have a copyright tag. When you say some of the images composing it are "used with permission", what sort of permission did you get? Permission for Wikipedia to use them, or permission to use the images under the GFDL or other free license?

If you look at the image, an email conversation giving permission is attached.--Imfinite 8 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)

By a strict reading of the email exchange, what you've gotten is permission to use the images, unaltered, in the Wikipedia article on Dogpatch USA and nowhere else. Such permission rules out such things as using the images in other articles, or combining images as you have done. --Carnildo 8 July 2005 03:49 (UTC)

• Carnildo 7 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)
• Object. There are many little problems in this article (I won't even bother with the bulk writing unless there's a peer review), most notably the strange use of POV ===Level 3=== headings and the weird "setting the scene" intro (I mean, "dilapidated"! When does anyone need to use that word?). Also, can a place have an afterlife? Send back to peer review for at least a fortnight. Harro5 July 7, 2005 22:55 (UTC)
• Return to peer review for reasons listed above. Give it a couple of weeks. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)
• Support awesome article.--Imfinite 8 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)
• Mild object. This is a fascinating subject which excited me more than any article I've seen recently. If the comments above are addressed--especially the POV issues and the need for more references--I will wholeheartedly support this article.--Alabamaboy 8 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)
• WITHDRAWN I am withdrawing my nomination for this article from FA so that it can be peer reviewed--The_stuart 13:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal

Self-nom. I believe I have addressed all the items brought up in peer review and think this is a good, strong article—one of my best. --[[User:JonMoore|—JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 5 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)

• Object. Sorry, it's not bad, but it's too short and thin for a FA, and with a kind of tunnel vision, it could and should open up in various directions. For instance, I can't believe it doesn't even mention the other candidates! Or does it..? I can't find them. Bishonen | talk 5 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)
• Object, only because it is too short. Phoenix2 5 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
• Oppose. The aftermath section reads like it has been cut-and-pasted from an RNC profile of Mitt Romney. Why is there a pic of him? And the paragraph of how successful the Games were is terribly POV, and doesn't have enough fact to support "one of the most succesful"-type statements. Harro5 July 5, 2005 23:10 (UTC)
• Oppose All reasons above. LordMooCow 09:17, 3 July 2005 (GMT+10)

[edit] U.S. presidential election, 2004

I submit this article because of it's depth and usefulness. This article seems very fair and neutral, despite the sticky political subject. Many questions I have had, some I couldn't even articulate properly are anwsered here, especially the Ohio situation. It also includes much information that could have been left out if not for the author's attention to detail. --Kode 22:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support Very well written informative article. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} July 5, 2005 04:29 (UTC)
• Support can't believe they've managed to make an article like this so balanced Borisblue 5 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)
• Support. A great time to put this up for FAC. People have accepted the 2004 election results, and there's no reason for any more anon vandalism than usual. Great article (pity about the size of the TOC, but it has to be like that), and it sets a standard for all future election pages. Harro5 July 5, 2005 05:31 (UTC)
  • Changing to oppose. As has become quite obvious, this article has some major flaws in terms of missing information. Looks like it needs lots of writing, and then a long stint on peer review. Harro5 July 7, 2005 11:48 (UTC)
• Object (replacing earlier comment with no vote). Having read the whole thing:
  1. There's five citations in the text, and these use a plain external link, they should use {{ref}} and {{note}}.
  2. Additionally there are many plain external links (not in reference format) in the text that should be split out and cited properly.
  3. More citations! While there is references the article does not cite sources (a rule for featured articles), and the current references section does not aid the researcher who may wish to trace the source of a fact.
  4. There is a section "Overview", but the introductory section above the fold is supposed to provide a 2-5 paragraph overview (that section is only one very short paragraph).
  5. There is an empty section "Timeline".
  6. There are a lot of single paragraph (very short paragraph) sections, either they don't need splitting under their own headings, or they can be expanded.
  7. Newspaper endorsements contains a link to subarticle, but there's no summary which is the point of subarticles.
• These should be easy to fix (I'll even help if I find the time), and since I'm not qualified to comment on the factual accuracy or comprehensiveness of the article and don't object to the prose, when they are fixed I'll consider removing my vote. Joe D (t) 6 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)
• Object. Good work getting this a NPOV, but it needs quite a bit of work to be a FA. The lead needs to be considerably longer, at least two or three paragraphs. The overview section should be turned into prose, rather than a list of bullet points. Sections like ==Ballot access== and ==Newspaper endorsements== should be more than just tables, and should get some explanatory prose. These small tables also do not look very good in their current formatting. They would look better if they were right aligned and floating. The external links section should be cleaned out. It is huge and looks especially bad on the TOC. It would also be good to see some book references, rather than just news websites. Also the page has some major gaps. There is noting on the issues in the election. Topics like Iraq, social security, and national security, are nowhere mentioned. - SimonP July 5, 2005 13:15 (UTC)

• Support Very informative, very nice work, great info! Nice use of pictures. So I definitely support! LordMooCow 09:20, 3 July 2005 (GMT+10)
• Object. Agree with SimonP. You need to mention the issues of the campaign, otherwise the article does little or nothing to explain why Bush won. It shouldn't be that difficult to find reliable info: opinion polls by newspapers on the most important election issue for example. At the moment, if you search for "economy" or "Iraq", there isn't a signal reference in the entire article. Deus Ex 6 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)
• Object--there needs to be more coverage of the unusually contested Democratic primary especially. For example, there is no reference to Howard Dean outside of a sentence on an unrelated issue, despite his frontrunner status and dramatic fall from grace. Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 14:17 (UTC)
• Object. Per above objectors. Reorganizing this article according to summary style (e.g. Primaries, Campaign, Results, Controversy) is extremely important and would help resolve all the other objections. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 6 16:55 (UTC)

[edit] Rum

Self-nom. About a month ago there was discussion on this article's talk page about nominating this article for FA status. Since then the article has been on peer review and seen a significant expansion. At this time I am not aware of any outstanding issues remaining and wish to submit the article for Features Article consideration. --Allen3 ^talk July 3, 2005 00:38 (UTC)

• Support, with a minor objection: aren't song titles usually in quotes rather than italics? Daniel Case 3 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)

I have checked the style manual, and made the appropriate correction. --Allen3 ^talk July 3, 2005 17:20 (UTC)

• Object. Naval section has a sentence with the clause, "well until the practice was abolished", which doesn't seem to make sense. The use of well in such a context goes with the phrase "well after". This section should probably also mention the famous quote about "rum, sodomy, and the lash", although it's variously attributed (I've seen Churchill and Nelson; it may have circulated enough that the original source might not be traceable). Also, the lead mentions use in mixed drinks, but the article fails to mention any such drinks specifically. --Michael Snow 3 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)
  • The "rum in cuisine" section appears to mentions numerous rum cocktails: Rum and Coke, Cuba Libre, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 3 16:06 (UTC)
  • I will take your issues in order. The grammar in the sentence you pointed out has been corrected. The well-known quote "Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash" was not included as it deals more with naval tradition than rum. As for the mixed drinks, would changing the term used in the lead to cocktail help any? --Allen3 ^talk July 3, 2005 17:20 (UTC)
    • I'll withdraw the objection, I did get hung up on the cocktail/mixed drinks bit but that's more my fault than the article's. I would still mention the quote — the section on naval rum emphasizes the association between the two in the public's mind, and the quote is classic evidence of that association. But if others see it differently, it's not worth holding this up over. --Michael Snow 4 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)
• Yo ho ho and a Bottle of Rum. I'd like to see a wikiquote on rum too. Support User:Nichalp/sg July 3, 2005 06:21 (UTC)

A wikiquote page on rum has been started, and the article has a link in the "See also" section. --Allen3 ^talk July 3, 2005 17:20 (UTC)

• Support. Good coverage of many different aspects of the subject: history, varieties, culture. ike9898 July 3, 2005 14:31 (UTC)
• Support, comprehensive. Phoenix2 Canada Day Weekend! 3 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)
• Object. I see that you have moved the list of rum brands to a new article, but the major brands should probably be mentioned in the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 3 23:05 (UTC)
  • Could you provide a definition of "major brand" that does not have problems with either WP:NPOV or WP:V? As most rum producers do not publish numbers on the volume of their production, it is not possible to produce a verifiable list of the largest rum producers. Business press estimates of case volume also tend to be restricted to either the North American or European markets and ignore the rest of the world. Without case volume or some other measurable method of determining which brands qualify for consideration as a major brand any such list is inherently a POV exerise. There is also the question whether brands as Stroh or the larger cachaça should be considered for such a list. Due to the differing definitions of what speicifically qualifies as rum, this is another problem without a single good solution. It is due to issues such as these, plus the regional bias to favor brands available to each individual editor, that the list was moved to a seperate article were all brands may be listed. --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 14:02 (UTC)
    • You could say something along the lines of "Major rum producers include Bacardi, Captain Morgan, (any others you may add)." For various reasons, including its historic notability and sales volume, Bacardi is certainly among them. Captain Morgan, according to its article, is among the top fifteen selling spirit brands in the world, which would seem a good basis for inclusion. If there are other brands that can reasonably be included, include them. The definition being used, specifically, is the definition of major. There's no need to provide a list of the largest rum producers; all that's needed is a mention of the major names in the field. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 4 16:42 (UTC)
      • I have added a line as suggested to the first paragraph. I tries to give the list variety in both style and geographical representation. I chose Stroh as the spiced rum to include a European entry, and because Captain Morgan is owned by the same parent company as Bundaberg and Myers. --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 18:43 (UTC)
        • Great. The article is extremely well written. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 4 19:10 (UTC)
• Support. Ambi 5 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
• Support. Wonderful article. Fascinating read.--Alabamaboy 5 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
• Object. I have several objections, mostly classified under "not comprehensive" and "POV". First, the issue discussed above re: rum production and sales needs to be resolved. Without any idea of how much rum is produced in the world or in key markets, and how much sales they are worth, the article cannot be considered comprehensive -- the article gives no quantitative indication of consumption. At least for the large producers, they are owned by public companies and good information should be available. It is not acceptable to relegate even major rum producers to a "see also" list. There should be more of an idea of how rum's popularity has waxed and waned, especially in the modern period. The involvement of rum in the slave trade is given less than one sentence's treatment, and should be expanded significantly. I would like to see example brand names and price points for the various categories of rum. I would also like to see more discussion of the components of rum from a food science / chemistry perspective. Under "POV", the categorization language needs to be cleaned up; right now it reads as if Spanish-speaking islands only produce cheap rum, which I know is not true. Other issues include some grammar errors and no pictures of production methods. - Bantman July 5, 2005 22:13 (UTC)
• Object Not much info really. It's good, but not great. Then again I guess you can't have so much info with rum, but nah, it's not FA material. LordMooCow 09:25, 4 July 2005 (GMT+10)
  • Please be more specific - this objection at the moment is not actionable, and is thus invalid. Ambi 7 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)
• Object. I believe that Bantman's intelligent objections need to be addressed before this article can attain featured status. The article must be comprehensive and authoratative in order to be featured. --Zantastik talk 13:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Nigger Association of America

• Attempt One

Self-nom. After a round of Peer Review and some more editing, Ta bu felt like this article was ready for FAC again. I, who helped Ta bu fix everything last time around, agree. What we took care of can be seen at Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America/FAC_Objections and I can assure you that this FAC will not be a pissing match as last time. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Withdrawn nomination, since people have left over it and I cannot resolve every objection. Evem if I do, people will still object. This is a battle that cannot be won. I went ahead and replaced this nom with Belarus. Zach (Sound Off) 22:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The article is good and exceeds most of our FA standards. The subject is silly, but so are a lot of other featured articles. Gmaxwell 21:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. -- Norvy (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC) Oppose. They are described as an organization, but there's no mention of their structure. It says they have a president. Was he elected, or was he the creator of the organization? What other positions are there within the organization? Are there specific targets decreed by the higher ups, or is it more a loose collaboration of trolls, who hit whatever they can? -- Norvy (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We do not know if he is elected and we do not know of other positions in the organization. I have no idea how they select their targets and who orders the targets. And there is a good chance that we cannot find this out, and if we tried to get it in there, we will be slammed with a WP:NOR warning. While your objection is valid, as all are, I am not sure what I will be able to do to fix it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If it isn't publically known, our article should say it's not publically known. "Background information" could easily say GNAA's internal structure is unclear; indeed GNAA may have no real structure or actual members. Its business is conducted in secret, and those acting in its name may simply be individuals working under the GNAA "brand". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:07, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • I owe you one Finlay. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I added Finlay's statement into the article, Norvy. Will this be acceptable to you, as a compromise? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
          • It's better, but it still doesn't answer my questions. The addition should also be reflected in the lead. -- Norvy (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Sure. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'll return from my wikibreak for one quick comment -- please, please, take a deep breath before commenting on this nomination. This is a controversial topic, but not worth using excessive bold text (Raul isn't stupid, he can tell what a valid objection is) or questioning people's character. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not waste hours yelling at each other. And, as last time, I support. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:19, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support. But no front page publicity Raul, K? Redwolf24 (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I will conduct a second straw-poll to see should this be on the front page. Personally, it will not kill me to have it not on the front page, but I am not sure how others feel. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. If this article is promoted, I won't be putting it on the main page. →Raul654 22:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - this article does not indicate in what way this group is notable, and why their activities should be of interest to a general reader. Most of the article is taken up with blow-by-blow descriptions of how people can annoy other people using the internet, and in my opinion this is not the best that Wikipedia can produce. Worldtraveller 22:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The article does. I think you should read the entire lead section again, as it most definitely establishes the groups notability. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It tells me they are an organisation that tries to irritate people, but that might not even be an organisation at all. I am left mystified as to why there is such a lengthy article on them. Worldtraveller 22:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The lead section says nothing of the sort. It quite clearly states it is an organisation. The significance of the organisation is found in the second paragraph. Allow me to break it down for you:
        1. Members engage in such nafarious activities as flooding weblogs, producing shock sites, prank-calling technical support telephone lines, and IRC channel disruption such as IRC floods.

           These are the notable activities they engage in. They are more than just nuisance, it is positive disruption

        2. As a consequence, targeted communities generally consider GNAA members a nuisance and frequently respond with technological and social anti-trolling measures such as moderation systems to limit future disruption caused by the trolling. The inner-workings of the GNAA are not well known, and some speculate that the GNAA only consists solely of unconnected individuals acting in the name of the group.

           This is how the communities respond to them, which is notable in itself.

      • I hope this clears up this issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Not really. I don't see how prank-calling technical support lines is in any way a notable activity, and I don't think a 'group' that does this is worthy of an encyclopaedia article. How people respond to nuisances is not inherently notable either. Worldtraveller 18:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object: the "Activities" section has become quite a mess. For instance, there is one OS X hoax listed in "Website disruption" and one in "Hoaxes and spoilers". Maybe the Freenode trivia should be moved to the "Backlash" section instead. Also, the "Notable members" subsection is too long and has a lot of uninteresting stuff. I would only keep Gary Niger, the "Why your Movable Type blog must die" author, the "Last Measure" developer and the "l0de radio hour" host, and move the other ones to that list of nicknames at the end. Apart from that, the article is quite better than last time and I would support it again. Sam Hocevar 22:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I took out the members you did not list, since I do not think they are either notable or even members of the GNAA. I also thought that the two OX references were for two different things. One OX release dealt with the GNAA crap-flooding their websites and the other was a hoax release. I also moved the Freenode sutff to the bottom of the article, as you requested. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, there are the crapfloods, but there are also the "In July 2005, the GNAA released a 2.2 gigabyte, falsified pirate copy of Mac OS 10.4" and the "In June 2005, the GNAA created a fake Mac OS X Tiger release" hoaxes. Sam Hocevar 00:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • So, you want all of those Apple-related events to go into one category/section. If so, where should it go? Hoaxes? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
        • No, I just want the two OS X for Intel hoaxes to be in the same subsection. I will do it. Sam Hocevar 13:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Done. I now understand why we were apparently both confused, the same information was mentioned in two different places. Sam Hocevar 13:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object article still doesnt seem worthy of being a featured article, content is good but I really dont think this is an example of "exemplary prose". I definately oppose front paging this one too.  ALKIVAR™ 23:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So, if I do a grammar check and conduct a poll to see if this stays off the front page, will you support the article getting Featured Status? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Alkivar, what parts need improvement in grammar? I would like to action your objection. I agree that the article should not be on the main page. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object—The register of the text is uneven, varying from formal to rant-like, over-personal utterances. Some of the sections are too short—the structure needs to be rethought. There's no wider placement of the topic in socio-political terms. I wonder what the motivation of the contributors is to have this promoted to FA status. It would be embarrassing to have this title prominently displayed in Wikipedia. Tony 06:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony1, could you give some specific examples? I would like to action your objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object, I don't think this is suitable for a featured article. — JIP | Talk 06:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there something that I could fix, or have the other folks have the same objection as you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We would like to action this. Unless you have a specific reason why you don't like the article that is related to its content, we will not be able to action your objection. If you are objecting to the subject matter, this object cannot be actioned. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Just chiming in here - Ta Bu is correct, in that simply stating that you don't think it's suitable isn't suffecient. As the top of the FAC page clearly says, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." →Raul654 22:32, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Wikipedia:What is a featured article says an article must be comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-written. This article is a constant target of vandalism. Zoe 06:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • While any article is the target for vandalism, the article has been stable and has not produced an edit war in the past few months. And, for future reference, the reverting of my edit by Ta bu one or two days ago was a mis-understanding, not an edit war. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Zscout. This article is pretty stable. Could you please advise what specific parts of the article are factually inaccurate, and could you please advise what still needs to be added to the article to make it comprehensive? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • No. I am quoting the criteria for FAC status. This article fails those criteria. If you feel otherwise, then change the criteria to say that a Featured Article can be one that is obsessively attacked by vandals on a daily basis. Zoe 08:20, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm well aware of that - I have read the FAC criteria also and having had at least 4 articles get to FA status I know all about this page. I asked you a specific question: you have told me that the article is not factually accurate and is not comprehensive. This means that you can see inaccuracies, which I have asked you to point out to me so that we may address them. It also means that you must know further information that we have not added to the article to make it comprehensive, I am asking you (politely) what that information might be so that we may action your objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Zoe - IIRC stable does not refer to simple vandalism Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I am not claiming that it's not factually accurate or comprehensive. I am claiming that it is not stable. Zoe 05:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
          • In that case, you are wrong and I cannot action your objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
            • I'm going to very respectfully disagree with Zoe's interpretation here. The stability requirement says that articles that are changing very much on a day-to-day basis cannot be featured articles. The stability requirement was put in place (by me) specifically to exclude timely articles that change significantly by the day. However, it is not intended to apply to articles that are the subject of a lot of vandalism (all article appearing on the main page get a lot of vandalism. Are we doing to de-feature them all?) because the vandalism disappears minutes or hours later and doesn't contribute to the "day to day" changes. Anyway, so I looked at the diffs for the GNAA article for the last week, and while there were some changes, it wasn't radical - it was about average for a FAC nom, which is why I have to disagree with Zoe here. While I might not agree that this article should be a featured article (I haven't really decided yet), I don't think it can be called unstable. →Raul654 22:43, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Object This organisation's principal claim to notability is that they have successfully trolled Wikipedia with amazing persistence. Not noteworthy outside Wikipedia, therefore, not article-worthy. Don't feed the trolls. Kosebamse 11:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • How can you say such a thing? The only thing they have about Wikipedia is a PR, while their Naruto hoax was downloaded by tens of thousands of people, and one of their OS X hoaxes hit countless tech news sites, and was even mentioned on TV. The article does not even mention Wikipedia! Sam Hocevar 13:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I can say such a thing because I have watched the whole "Gayniggers troll Wikipedia" opera from the beginning. Some Wikipedians may consider them notable because of their tireless trolling here, but's that's all. There are thousands of trolls elsewhere who are just as attention-craving as these and may be as successfull in trolling newssites and what not. Trolling as a phenomenon is notable and article-worthy. A gang of trolls is not. Kosebamse 14:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Considering that the GNAA article you are referring to actually does not even mention Wikipedia, I find this to be a very strange and most definitely unactionable objection (you want us to remove material that is not there!). - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
        • The relevance of GNAA is greatly overestimated here because trolling Wikipedia is a central activity of GNAA. Wikipedia articles, and far mor so Featured Articles should be about phenomena that are notable outside Wikipedia. The article is no more relevant than, say, Ta Bu's writing style or Kosebamse's reaction to trolls. And every piece of discussion about it gives those GNAA people a little more attention, and that's what they want - they did not start an article about themselves to contribute to a collection of the knowledge of mankind, but to promote themselves. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Kosebamse 05:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
          • The GNAA are notable outside of Wikipedia. You don't appear to know what you are talking about. What parts of the article overestimate the significance of the GNAA? Or are you objecting to the article as a whole? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Your polemics aside, I am indeed objecting to the article as a whole. I repeat that Wikipedians overestimate the GNAA's notability precisely because of their trolling Wikipedia. Making it a Featured Article amounts to shouting to the world "A gang of idiots has trolled us and we are stupid enough to take them seriously". Kosebamse 08:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
      • And, technically, I am not allowed to reference anything they have done on Wikipedia. There is a rule that I was made aware of that I cannot use our encyclopedia as examples of what the GNAA has done, since it is called self-referencing. But how, exactly, I am trying to "feed the trolls." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
        • That is a good rule, because it prevents people from creating their own noteworthiness on Wikipedia. And I believe that every bit of attention that is given to that "association" is food for them. So, technically, even discussing this FAC nomiation is feeding the trolls. Unlike Usenet however, Wikipedia cannot just choose to ignore them, because they have a great degree of freedom to create their own vanity articles and unless deleted after due process these will stay and annoy people, which is why they are created. But taking said gang seriously and regarding them as noteworthy outside Wikipedia IMO amounts to feeding them. Kosebamse 19:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Does not "Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work." While it is a good article, it does not reach FA status. I also agree with the above comments and raise a final issue of my own--how do we know that this article's FAC isn't another of this groups attempts to gain attention? If this article was selected as a FA, it is likely that the group will begin bragging about how they pulled one off on Wikipedia. --Alabamaboy 13:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • They are already bragging about themselves, and indeed that's the whole point of their existence. Look at their website and you know what I mean. Kosebamse 14:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a little vague. What in particular is it about the article that needs improvement? Please be specific so that we can action your objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The item I raised is an overall issue. On Wikipedia:What is a featured article, the number 1 issue is "Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet." To me, the article is not the best that Wikipedia can offer. As a subpart of this, the article is not stable or well written. Since the article's creation, it has not been stable for more than a few days (for proof of this, look at the massive, continual number of edits at [10]). I also have concerns about the accuracy of the article, since most of the references seem to be from either the GNAA, its members, or people tied in with the organization. Without references to independent source material, the article is not trustworthy.--Alabamaboy 14:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Will review the references, however the article is pretty stable. You can't say it is not stable due to edit warring because the last edit war happened at least 2-3 months ago, and this was resolved later. I might point out that when an article is submitted to FAC it will often go through changes: Windows 2000 did, as did Exploding whale. All the changes you mention happened because of FAC. If no changes are done to the article while on FAC, we're damned. If we make changes to the article to address concerns while on FAC, we are also damned. Thus I find this rather unfair. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, my point was that there was that the article has not been stable for more than a few days over the last year. For proof of this, look at the massive, continual number of edits at [11].
• Object. As per Tony on structure and register. I'm also very concerned about some of the references. For example: the article states that "They registered thousands of usernames en masse to mark Slashdot editor "michael" as their foe", but the referenced site shows only a few dozen; the 4chan site doesn't mention GNAA at all, despite being listed as a reference; the reference on the Xanga flooding of slashdot only mentions GNAA in a comment to a blog, which is pretty meaningless - how do we know they had anything to do with it at all?; the "membership", "notable members", "prank calls" and "shock sites" sections are totally unreferenced. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • The 4chan reference did refer to the GNAA at the time. It should have a date on the reference when it was last referenced: will check. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I reworded a the michael slashdot foe freak list setence to reduce the number of users. I took out the 4chan reference. While I know you wish to have me find references for every single attack, there was a problem I faced last time where I and Ta bu had objections for too many references. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The things that OpenToppedBus notes really do need to be referenced. Last time, the issue was more with the fact that some areas had way more references than necessary (like one Apple hoax having about five references in the same sentence when it wasn't particularly disputed), markedly interfering with flow. More references of genuinely disputed items is a good thing.
      • Given that this is a group which deliberately sets out to create misinformation, yes, I do think we need references for each claim. Also, given that they set out to create misinformation, I'm very wary about accepting references from the GNAA's own websites. If that's the best reference we have for one of their attacks, then the article should say no more than that they "claim to have" disrupted or trolled or whatever it is, rather than that they actually did. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
        • • Which references are unreliable, however? The attack of the show reference is reliable, the Harry Potter reference to shock images is least credible, we should change that to their claim. The spoilers is definitely reliable. All else seems OK to me. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
            • "The spoilers is definitely reliable" - really? I only have the GNAUK's word for that. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, poorly sourced/referenced, over-credulous, would feed the trolls even moreso than usual. WHBT, WHL. -Sean Curtin 00:57, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not poorly sourced. It has many, many sources in the notes section and every single fact is referenced. In fact, it was so well referenced that one of the objections last time was that there were too many references - which we addressed by taking out several of them. As for being over-credulous, could you refer to the exact sentences so that I may action this objection? As for feeding the trolls, that's hardly an actionable objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article makes little claim for the notability of this group outside of certain internet communities (who are far more vocal than their size would suggest). Parts of the article read, to me at least, as nothing more than a list of ways to annoy people in a juvenile manner. Apart from these reasons, this article is far from stable now, and would probably be even less so if were to becoma an FA, and as for being uncontroversial... Rje 01:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • The group is not really notable for activities performed outside of the Internet, it would be factually inaccurate to say otherwise. Please note that this does not make them unnotable. Which parts of the article read as a list of ways to annoy people in a juvenile manner? As for the article not being stable: this is incorrect. It is pretty stable, except for the odd spate of vandalism. Your objection to it being uncontroversial... what specific part of the material written is controversial? If it is the subject matter covered, then this will not be actionable. If it is a non-neutral POV or factual inaccuracy, we will sort this out. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If the group are not notable outside of certain internet forums then I personally think their notability is very small. It seems to me they are a group of prank-callers, both on the internet and on the phones, with a massive ego, "The GNAA runs a conference call system, which they use to troll various companies and people, including AOL. They have produced an MP3 which combines excerpts from their prank AOL calls with the "Hey, everybody! I'm looking at gay porno!". The article also contains little evidence that the GNAA are an organization, the membership section sounds like a big in-joke to me, rather than just a bunch of kids citing the GNAA when they mess around on the net. Also there is a lot of mention of individual events/attacks but hardly any of these are discussed in terms of the group, why do the "group" attack the sites they do? Finally: the article makes no mention of the group's objectives or motives. Rje 11:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Lack of notability is an issue with the subject matter itself. How you want me to fix their notability, I'm really not sure. Certainly the GNAA are notable enough to exist in Wikipedia, 6 VfDs have established this. As for the evidence that the GNAA are an organisation, we cited member names. How did you want me to action this? Do you want me to remove the whole section? Please state, for the record, how you want me to action your objection. I'd like to point out that one of the objections last time that the article was full of speculation, now you want us to speculate what their motives are, when noone really knows. I can't see how I can reasonably action your objection. Finally, could you please tell me which part is controversial due to being against NPOV policy? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Includes completely trivial source text; includes completely unimportant details; fails to convey the groups lack of importance. One illustration falsely suggests "GNAA" is a trademark. - Nunh-huh 02:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Please point out the trivial source text and unimportant details so that we may sort this out. The GNAA trademark is actually part of the GNAA's logo, however I'll clarify this with a caption. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That would be:

      GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY? Are you a NIGGER? Are you a GAY NIGGER?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!.

• • • • Then I must oppose the objection. This is quite notable as it's what they use in most of the crap floods that they perform. It's also in the screenshot. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't see it in the screenshot, but if it's there, It's twice as unnecessary. The article is already longer than its appropriate length, and goes into inappropriate detail. It thereby fails to meet the 6th criterion of Featured articles. You should be looking for things to cut, rather than avoiding cutting them, if you want featured article status. - Nunh-huh 21:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
          • It is necessary because the signature text identifies a GNAA attack. I have noted this to say why this is significant, thus it should resolve your objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
            • You say it is necessary, and I say it is not. That's not a resolution, it's a disagreement. Nor have you addressed the issue that a reader of this rather too lengthy article comes away from it with an unrealistically high assessment of the "group"'s importance. I believe the article is too long, you do not (we disagree over "appropriate length"); you feel the detail is appropriate, and I feel it is inappropriately excessive. So we have a fundamental disagreement over one of the criteria for featured article. - Nunh-huh 03:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
              • Which is it? Too long or too short... the last FAC objection by Ambi was it was too short. How do you expect me to sort out two totally seperate and conflicting objections?! And I have told you that the information is necessary. We originally pasted the whole sig in, then we cut it back. If someone stumbles over the article, they will be able to identify the GNAAs handiwork by this text. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
                • Which is it? Too long. It's just plain silly to include a lengthy sig on the grounds that someone might sometime backtrack a sig to Wikipedia. - Nunh-huh 02:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object Is it really right ot have a FA about a racist vandalistic orginization? Tobyk777 04:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. See Nazi. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • There does seem to be a difference in their historical significance, if I am not mistaken. Kosebamse 06:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Of course. That's not what he was asking. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Your comparison is plain ridiculous. Nazis deserve an article, and a featured one if you ask me. An internet troll gang doesn't. If I read him correctly, Toby seems to question their significance, and rightly so. Kosebamse 08:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
          • If I read him correctly, Toby mentions racism, vandalism and organisation. Nowhere in his objection do I see anything about Internet or troll gangs, nor could anyone infer that from what he wrote without further explanation from him. Sam Hocevar 09:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As Nunh-huh notes, fails to convey the group's general lack of importance. Methods section is still incomplete - for instance, doesn't cover any of their IRC behaviour. The "notable members" section needs work, particularly since it goes on about someone who a) isn't notable, and b) apparently isn't a member. There is no history section - the background information section should either be merged into the lead section or split off as the beginning of a history section. I'm also cynical that some of the information that this article says cannot be found actually cannot be found, particularly after the reluctance of the proponents of the last FAC for this to actually do any additional research at all. Ambi 07:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Will look into resolving these objections. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I actually posted a reply, but it seems to have been eaten by Wikipedia. The IRC behaviour is now complete, I have fixed up the membership section. It's almost impossible to get the history, and anything we did add would be redundant with the activities and background information sections. As for you feeling cynical, I might also be excused for feeling cynical considering that I have actually collaborated with you on another article before (Cyclone Tracy) and have already demonstrated that I am perfectly capable of researching topics and winkling out information about obscure topics. If you need further example of this, please see Exploding whale. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support can't see anything wrong with it. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't have a problem with this article being featured (perhaps not a main page candidate) as a general rule like some of the others, but I don't find this well written enough to qualify. It seems disjointed, which is a nebulous sort of objection that more or less sums up to "write it better". It seems... incoherant to me, and a little unorganized. More assertion of why it is interesting would be a good start, followed by organizing the various sections around a central theme of the article. Merely stating, "these guys did this and that" isn't enough for me to support it as a FA. I don't personally know much about the organization or what they've done, but on the talk and VfD pages and such there seem to be plenty who are more familiar with it. So, I'm objecting on grounds of coherance and comprehensiveness. Fieari 08:18, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not wish to be rude or offensive, but if you don't know anything about the GNAA, how can you say it is not comprehensive. However, I will start work on the style. I think part of the problem is too many headings. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • As I said, I got the impression it wasn't comprehensive from the comments made by others. It may well be comprehensive, but from comments I've seen made, it might not be. You're right though, I don't know for certain. Fieari 19:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I wish to address the structure issue. The structure is not too bad, IMO. The division into background information addresses the issue of a general lack of information about the GNAA's history (a history section would really be too short), the membership section is a good idea, because it discusses what is known about the GNAA members and also points out that they are all anonymous. I have coalesced "backlash" into the activities section, as this is really related to their activies, and I've also created a lot less sections. A grammar check is possibly needed to resolve disjointedness. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support I reworked the writing style of a lot of the article significantly to be more encyclopedic. In general though I think it seems a bit sympathitic to their aims and doesn't focus much on the damage caused, although it doesn't seem to be a huge problem, but it could do with some expansion. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Symbolic object (again) because I feel this is no different than a gang of hoodlums who have access to the internet, and I wouldn't want any ordinary gang of hoodlums to have an article. However, that objection is obviously not actionable so it shouldn't count. Everyking 08:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to support purely out of irritation with the other opposing votes. I labeled my vote clearly as symbolic because I recognized that such an objection could never be actionable. Others seem to have no hesitation about trying to make real objections on those grounds, however. Regardless of whether one thinks this should have an article or not, one is obligated to set that aside if one wants to vote. Everyking 04:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object As far as I can tell, this is an entire article comprised entirely of trivia. The reference section suggests thorough non-importance, as all the entries are forum threads, blogs and such. Has this group ever been featured in a published book? Newspaper? Magazine? Academic journal? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:25, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am in total agreement and I raised this very issue above. Worse, most of the references to forum threads, blogs and so on seem to be from either the GNAA, its members, or people tied in with the organization. Without references to independent source material, the article is not trustworthy. I suspect, though, that there are no solid references to this group since a Google search of "Gay Nigger Association of America" only turns up 880 hits.--Alabamaboy 13:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object, just on the princple of the thing, this article by definition cannot be "Wikipedia's best work." Adam Bishop 20:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Dattebayo.jpg is tagged as "copyrighted fair use". However, it has no source or copyright information, and if it is used under "fair use", it needs a fair use rationale, as outlined in Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. --Carnildo 03:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object, vandalism magnet.

• Comment the =pranking= section needs to be expanded. User:Nichalp/sg 06:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: I thought this had been removed once already. Oh well here goes: Basically, I think wikipedia can (and frequently does) better FAs than this. The very title is offensive to many people. However, these are not actionable reasons, the following are: The article needs to be longer and it needs some proper written references rather than internet sites. Is this organization globally notable, or even widely notable in the USA? The lead itself reports that: "The inner-workings of the GNAA are not well known, and some speculate that the GNAA consists solely of unconnected individuals acting in the name of the group" so how do we know this article is correct, the whole thing is too vague and too short of reliably attributed fact. I've read it in its entirity three times, no way is it anything approaching an FA Giano | talk 17:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nuno Álvares Pereira

A good piece on Portuguese general that became a mystic in 14th century.--Xixicoco 1 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)

• Object. Not a bad article, but it needs to be longer, especially the religious life section. It also needs to have some references to become a featured article. - SimonP July 1, 2005 22:12 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review first. I agree, the article, though with its merits, is far too lacking for a serious FA bid at the moment. Perhaps a month in PR will yield enough critique and further research time to beef it up substantially. --Girolamo Savonarola July 2, 2005 02:23 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review, not long enough and unreferenced. - Mgm|^(talk) July 2, 2005 12:50 (UTC)
• You can refer to peer review, but unless major additions are made there, it won't be featured.
  Phoenix2 Canada Day Weekend! 2 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
• Object too short. User:Nichalp/sg July 3, 2005 10:06 (UTC)

[edit] Starfleet ranks and insignia

Second candiacy: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia/Archive 1

This is the second FAC case. Article was significantly improved and past objections on article to be canon rather than fanart is (in my opinion at least) met. Minor issues have already beeing fixed. All parties involved with earlier FAC will be notified. Thats all I got for now. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 30 June 2005 23:54 (UTC)

Correction, this is the third time this article has been placed here. Round one can be seen at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ranks_and_insignia_of_Starfleet.

THIS NOMINATION HAS BEEN CLOSED AS OF 3 JULY 2005

---

• I still want to support this nom. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)
• Support - very comprehensive, I found it interesting. - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
• Tentative Support - much improved from the last time. Still has issues with graphics layout (viewing this on IE), and there should be a sentence and wikilink to Star Trek canon in the introductory paragraphs, but that's the extent of the objection here. Will switch to firm support if these can be addressed. --khaosworks July 1, 2005 01:24 (UTC)
  • I added the Wikilink. The setence reads as follows: Starfleet ranks and titles have evolved through both live action productions, official publications, and the fanon of the Star Trek Expanded Universe. The most official ranks established are those which appear in Star Trek films and television productions, with ranks appearing in publications from Star Trek producers considered "secondary", but nevertheless still officially established Starfleet titles. The least official of all ranks are those which appear in Star Trek fan literature, such as magazines and websites published by private persons with little or no affiliation with the Star Trek series. Such ranks are considered conjecture, yet occasionally may find their way into semi-official Star Trek sources (an example being the rank of Branch Admiral). As for the images, what images seem to be causing you the most problems?Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
    • Specifically, the Enlisted Ranks section. The Petty Officer graphics do not flow with the text (the larger graphic is aligned to the right as well), causing a huge blank space. I also note that some graphics do not seem to initially want to load - this may be because there are too many graphics and IE times out or something. --July 1, 2005 05:28 (UTC)
      • I am having many images not even show up, so it could be a Wikipedia problem. I will check into the page and see what I can do. And if your first objection is solved, then I request you to strike out that section, please. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)
        • I cannot fix it without screwing anything up. I need to copy this template so I can see what magic I can do. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 05:41 (UTC)Ok, I fixed it, I hope everyone likes. If not, I got a few more tricks up my sleeve. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)
• Support, interesting article. Image:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 1 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
• Support once again an even more improved article. -SocratesJedi | Talk 1 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like to support, but one thing I still don't understand is the "public domain" tag on recreations of the insigna by Wikipedia. Do the creators of Star Trek really hold no copyright whatsoever on the design? Phils 1 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)

As I understand matters, such a design may be patented or trademarked but it cannot be copyright, although a specific representation of it may be copyright.—Theo (Talk) 1 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)

• • The reason why they are public domain is that I drew most of the images myself, so I released them into the public domain so there were no issues about copyright. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. A curious topic but one well-covered.—Theo (Talk) 1 July 2005 11:02 (UTC) I have made my support conditional on the fixing of Taxman's list below.—Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)
• This one has been through the mill: I think it now meets our criteria and would support but for one caveat - query whether all of the images taken from live action programmes have a sufficiently "free" copyright status. -- ALoan (Talk) 1 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)
• Object. (Taxman ^Talk July 1, 2005 13:17 (UTC)) Certainly much improved. I will not continue to object after the following issues are handled. There are a lot of them as you can see, but I think they are all fixable. 1) Still needs a clear explanation of which sources are official and which are not. It mentions that some are and some aren't but only says which is which for a few of them from what I could see. 2) Still a lot of unsourced claims and pure opinion. That is not acceptible under the NPOV and No original research policies. Since this same objection has been leveled many times on this article, I thought I would list out every instance I could see in order to facilitate fixing them. These need to be restated factually and many of them need sources to back them up, or failing that, they should be removed. So here we go:

"Since promotion to Commodore is not mentioned, it may be assumed that the rank was no longer in service."

"It can therefore be assumed, unless additional information is promulgated by Star Trek producers or through official sources, that subsequent to the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation the rank of Commodore ceased to exist."

"An episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, entitled "Inquisition", may have shown a modern Fleet Captain insignia"

"...as "Deputy Director", the title possible indicating that the position of a Deputy Director of Starfleet Intelligence would hold a rank equivalent to that of a Fleet Captain."

"Based on the rarity of the rank of Fleet Captain, it may be assumed that the rank is an honorary title, bestowed .."

"In such cases, it can be assumed that Fleet Captain is not a prerequisite for promotion but rather a special rank bestowed under certain circumstances."

"This gives rise to the interesting theory that Pike may have been a Captain in title only, but was actually a Commander or possibly even a..."

"...was most likely a Captain at some point in his career..."

"Spock may have been permitted to wear full Commander insignia as a "spot promotion", due to his position as Enterprise First Officer, or the insignia oddity may have been a script oversight."

"One may assume this is similar to the practice onboard modern day U.S. aircraft carriers where..."

"In Star Trek: The Motion Picture, although not referred to in the dialogue, the characters of Uhura and Sulu become Lieutenant Commanders as is evidenced by an examination of the Motion Picture era sleeve stripes." - several examples have been given for characters referred to by ranks other than what the rank looks like, so this is another assumption.

"This may have been a protocol of Starfleet whereby the rank of Lieutenant Commander may be verbally shortened to Lieutenant. This would also explain the nomenclature of Valeris during the time frame of Star Trek VI. Alternatively, accidentally calling a Lieutenant Commander “Lieutenant” may simply have been a script error."

"While simply a costume error, Star Trek fans have speculated the existence of a new rank known as "Second Lieutenant Commander", senior to a Lieutenant yet junior to a regular Lieutenant Commander" Just give a source for this one.

"This was, perhaps, a means to distinguish Ensigns in the Motion Picture from Crewman, since..."

"Information from the prequel series Star Trek Enterprise indicates that in this earlier period of Starfleet history, Lieutenant Junior Grade did not yet exist as a rank." Just because it is not seen, what evidence is there that it doesn't exist?

"...the statement from "Divergence" may have been a plot error or an indication of the point at which Lieutenant Junior ..."

"Fan apologists have suggested that the case of Kim was owing to the isolation of Voyager in the Delta Quadrant, while the suggested lack of a Lieutenant (junior grade) rank in Enterprise may explain Sato and Mayweather. Others have suggested that Voyager..." - Needs sources

"When Star Trek was first created, Gene Roddenberry allegedly had stated that, within Starfleet, there were no enlisted ranks since..." - Needs source

"An alternate "shoulder tab theory" indicates that such tabs indicate membership..."

"Due to the plot of Star Trek Voyager, it can perhaps be assumed that the ship has very few enlisted crew members..."

"As O'Brien was seen wearing a hollow pip insignia, fans have speculated the insignia of higher warrant officer ranks extending..." - Source needed.

"Earth Starfleet possibly also maintains the ranks of ..."

"It is possible, however, that the Starfleet Academy students in Star Trek II were senior cadets, most likely fifth year or graduate level students, given the advanced nature of their training."

"...one possible explanation of Wesley’s uniform is that the grey tunic was a sort of “junior youth” uniform similar to the present day Sea Cadets or the Cadets of Junior Naval ROTC. Another explanation is that the uniform is indeed a established Starfleet uniform..."

"Wesley’s field commission as Ensign was apparently revoked and he began wearing the standard uniform of a Cadet."

There may have been more I missed and there may have been some of these that were sourced but it wasn't clear, so that would be easy. There were a lot more that were of the form "evidenced by this=> foo result", of which many are also opinion, but weren't nearly as egregious as the above. - Taxman ^Talk July 1, 2005 13:17 (UTC)

Do you think we can use footnotes to satsify the requirements? If so, me and others will try to start crawling for sources and where everything is taken from. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)

I think the problem is a different way of saying "some people have said...", these sentences are cop outs. The sentences need to be changed to include who is assumeing this information. Conditional support if this is adressed. Also is there any information on who designed these insignias? If there is this should be included in the article somewhere. MechBrowman July 1, 2005 23:13 (UTC)

I am checking Google now, but not much has been found. I also could not find any designer, so far. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 2 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with MechBrowman. They need to be written as facts instead of opinions. A source of who made the claim would be a great way to do that, and footnotes as a way to cite that source would be fine as long as they are quality sources. - Taxman ^Talk July 2, 2005 03:48 (UTC)

Changed to Support -Husnock 1 July 2005 15:49 (UTC): I might as well support an article I worked so hard to create. HOWEVER- I respect what people said last time about the article not having enough real world info. Also I really appreciate the fact that it has been far too soon since the last FA was closed for a renomination. Its not good form to just keep renominating and renominting until one can get it past. A few months should actually go by. In addition, this will probably (again) draw a huge amount of fire from anti-Trek people or people who feel fiction subject articles should not become an FA. Those people are welcome to their opinion and, in fact, I understand where some it out comes from. If that doesnt happen, I will vote to support but I did not renomiate this. -Husnock 1 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)

Link (Legend of Zelda) is a FA and was on the main page; I didn't see anyone protest against it. As long as we keep a reasonable proportion of different kinds of featured articles, there is no problem with articles about fictional subjects. This has been discussed before. I fail to see how this is going to "draw fire from anti-Trek" people any more than Libertarianism drew fire form conservative Wikipedians/readers. Phils 1 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)

The last two FA nominations drew heavy criticism, name calling of the article, attacks on those who worked on it, among many other incivilities. I would hate to see that happen again. I actually find that interesting Legand of Zelda didnt draw such protests. I guess we will see how it goes here. BTW, I now vote support! -Husnock 1 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)

• Support - this article is more comprehensive and better supported than any other piece on Trek rank and/or insignia I've ever seen before. John Elder 1 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm as much of a Trek fan as the next guy, but I don't beleive this article is 'Encyclopedic' enough to be featured on the front page. The Link article mentioned above probably shouldn't have been featured either, though it did provide a break from the more serious subjects offered. Also, whereas the Link article held appeal for a mass audience, Starfleet ranks would only be of interest to those familiar with the show. I suggest instead featuring an article on Trek itself. Autopilots July 1, 2005 20:25 (UTC)
  • Inactionable: So what is the suggestion for improvement? An opposition to a featured article candidate must give a point which it opposes and a measure to correct the article otherwise it may be considered inactionable. General dislike of the article is not, within itself, sufficent. Per Wiki policy: Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page. This was a problem with the last nominations in that some people simply opposed the article for even existing but offered no points or measures to correct. -Husnock 1 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)
    • Husnock is correct that this objection is invalid. Philosophically, we believe that any article that can survive VFD should (in theory) be featurable. The purpose of the actionability requirement is dual-fold: to encourage people to give feedback (with specificity) so as to encourage improvement to the article, and to combat objections which don't meet with that philosophy that any VFD-survivable article can theoretically be become a featured article. →Raul654 July 1, 2005 20:40 (UTC)
      • This article seems to me as being the first one to actually test the idea of any article that hasn't been successfully VfD:ed can become an FA. So far it has been vehemently opposed on both grounds of principle as well as actual article quality. If the discussion concerning this article isn't enough to state at least somewhat of a precedent then I would like you, Raul, to explain how we set such a precedent. /Peter ^Isotalo July 2, 2005 10:24 (UTC)
        • Actually, you are mistaken. When this article was last nominated, there was a discussion about the matter at hand on the talk page, following which all those (except for yourself) who had opposed on grounds that it was "too crufty" agreed that it is not a valid objection, and reworded their objection to provide actionable criticism. Look at WP:FA has a number of articles about entirely fictional subjects, so the claim that this article becoming a FA would set a precedent is false. Phils 2 July 2005 10:58 (UTC)
          • Every FA is a potential precedent as long as it doesn't violate the FA criteria quite obviously. Just have a look at a lot of the FAC's; the serious ones are bound to contain at least one comment about what was (or wasn't) approved in previous FA's about a similar subject. And for the umpteenth time: this is not about fictional subjects being invalid as FAs. It's a matter of pretty extreme cruftiness. Seeing how some participants view an FA as something that should be handed out mainly for mere effort, not objective quality, I'm thinking we should actually try to have some sort of paragraph about cruftiness even though I loathe instruction creep. Insisting that anything that survives a VfD is eligable for FA is just not a useful criteria and is to me a pretty obvious invitation to some serious point-making. I'm myself extremely tempted to polish up pure pseudo-articles like differences between the Norwegian and Danish languages and demand that it be FA'd just to see what happens. /Peter ^Isotalo July 2, 2005 14:03 (UTC)
            • The place to argue policy is the village pump, not here, thank you! Borisblue 4 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)
• I would actually be very interested in seeing the Norwegian/Danish difference article be made into an FA. -Husnock 2 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
  • Well, I hate to tell you that such an article is even less merited than the one we're discussing. /Peter ^Isotalo July 3, 2005 21:11 (UTC)
• OK, I'll concede to the inactionable label, though I must disagree with that established policy (a debate for another time and place) Autopilots July 1, 2005 21:44 (UTC)
  • If you're interested, the place is the village pump Borisblue 4 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
• Strongest support possible: I actualy forgot to vote. -_- --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 1 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)
  • Nominators could vote? i didn't vote for my Carl Friedrich Gauss nomination either!
    • I believe that when a person nominates, they also give a "hidden" support vote. I personally think, just like with the WP:FPC, the nominator should place their intent to nominate and support after they place the reason why. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 2 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
• Support It is an excellent article, that has only gotten better through the revisions and prior FAC processes, and it is clearly the finest article on the subject out there. --Wingsandsword 2 July 2005 01:58 (UTC)
• Object, per Taxman. Ambi 2 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)
• Object, per Taxman's comments and refer to Peer Review because this is starting to get old. The same objections, both normal and "inactionable", seem to be appearing in every nomination and they are still not amended. Re-nominating the same article so soon, despite deep controversy and extremly poor behavior from one of it's most avid supporters against valid objections, is as far as I see it a very real abuse of our trust. This whole affair is only a few more personal attacks and high handed edits from becoming a very real disruption to make a point. Once more I would wish that the authors of these articles tried concentrating on something with real substance and informtion value, like the main Star Trek article or maybe something about medals or ranks. /Peter ^Isotalo July 2, 2005 10:24 (UTC)
  • I agree, even one of the people working on the article was surprised about its nomination. So, let's send this to peer review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 2 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
  • I dont think its fair to say people abused wikipedia by working on the article or that this was nominated to make a point or disrupt wikipedia. For the record, I did not renominate this article. Also, who has behaved poorly? Has someone associated with this article broken Wiki rules and regulations? No user name was mentioned above, so its unclear to what is being spoken of. -Husnock 2 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
    • Well, since I've already pointed out to you exactly what I'm talking about before [12] and because of the obviously offensive nature of your posts (without a hint of remorse), I assumed you didn't want me to bring it up again. But here goes [13]. You accused me of being biased, "narrow-minded" and of being a liar shortly before 'removing the objections and comments of others from the FAC without any consent. /Peter ^Isotalo July 3, 2005 21:11 (UTC)
      • Okay, now we're down to petty mud-slinging. I clicked on the links you have above and none of them are inappropriate. I stated that your statements were untrue and narrowminded. I nver said "you are a liar". A person can make untrue statements without knowing it and therefore not be a liar. I did it at the Hanoi Hilton article and was promptly corrected in that what I said was a falsehood. As far as "removing comments without any consent" that is a LIE although, to be fair, maybe you didn't realize it (although I think you probably did). The comments you spoke of were moved to the discussion page of the first featured article candidate and were done so with the full consent of all involoved: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia. The move to the discussion page was discussed on the talk page (a discussion to which you never contributed) and then moved over becuase the discussion had gone outside the scope of the FAC and was then a discussion about the very validity of a fiction article as an FA. You never voiced an objection, never stated on the talk page you wanted the comments back in the main article, and nver reported it. I've tried to be civil, here, but everyone can pretty much see there is some kind of personal dislike for both me and this article. Bringing up stuff that happened two FACs ago, then saying my comments here are "offensive", what are you trying to prove? It looks like (at least to me) that you are attempting to discredit one of the article supporters by making accusations. Give it up man. If you think I'm behaving badly, there are numerous pages to report me to admins for blocks or bans. I think people are tired of hearing about it and even mroe so since you once again drew this back to me even though I wasnt the one who even renominated this page. -Husnock 3 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)
        • The links were from a previous FAC. If there was a problem on how that was dealt with, then tha is when, in my view, they should have been handled. But now, its back to personal attacks, which I want to remind everyone on here, it's a no-no to perform on Wikipedia. So, if we got issues to settle, take it to the talk page. Let's use this main space to see if the article is worthy or not for Featured status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 3 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is a certain level of geektitude that, while fine for wikipedia, I do not think needs to be advertized on the front page, particularly if the project really wishes to be taken seriously and win over the skeptics. I'm sure this will be dismissed as "inactionable" or some such, and the vote will likely be discounted, but, well that's my 2 cents anyway and I at least wanted to say it. For full disclosure here, I will also point out I don't really care for the whole featured article thing in general. -R. fiend 2 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
  • Inactionable Inappropriate FAs can in fact be banned from the main page. So the "irrelevant for main page" objection is null. Borisblue 2 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)
    • If enough people complain that it is not suitable for the main page, I'll mark it as so. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 18:37 (UTC)
  • The FAC candidacy is not a simple vote. This listing allows us to improve article, I want to hear all concerns. Later we can fix it. Objections that are objecting the existance this article does not belong here. Any article on wikipedia can be a FA. The only articles that cant be a FA are the ones inaproporate to be on wikipedia which should be placed on a VfD. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 2 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)
    • Why should the VfD, which apparantly is a simple vote, be used as a guideline for FAC, which isn't? A VfD is dependent on timing, how many ultra-inclusionists that happen to be watching that particular week and (sadly) the prestige or experience of whoever wrote the article. This is as far from quality control as one can get. Are you saying that this 100% populistic section of Wikipedia should decide the only basic criterium for what constitutes a valid FAC? What would be the point of this? What would it say about the notion of this being "the best of Wikipedia"? /Peter ^Isotalo July 3, 2005 21:11 (UTC)
      • Raul also says that any article that survives VFD would be, in theory relevant for FA. What do you mean there's no quality control? I've been working my butt off for over a week fixing flaws nickpickers found in my Carl Friedrich Gauss FAC. There is quality control, lots of it but that is, and should be restricted to the article's content rather than its topic. This is FA policy. If you want to argue for a new policy the place to do that is the village pump, not here. Borisblue 4 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
• Todos, this FA nomination should be closed. It was way too soon after the last one and, while massive corrections and updates have been made, this is still going to draw fire and a lot of controversy. Lets close the FA now and mover to peer review. -Husnock 2 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
  • I agree, let's close it now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 2 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)
  • Anne Droid: With two votes you are the weakest link. Goodbye. <ZAP>
  • Fine. FAC is closed, this doesnt mean the article is bad, just there is enough room for improvement to shut this FAC. I hope we establised the leftover problems better. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 4 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)
    • (Via edit conflit with coolcat) I didn't want to remove this nomination until I checked with Coolcat (the nominanator). He said it was OK with him to withdraw the nomination, so I have removed it. →Raul654 00:59, 4 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Benedict XVI

I want to resubmit this article. It has grown considerably and has become much more stable since last time considered (May 3). 83.109.188.50 01:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Note: the archive can be seen at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope Benedict XVI/Attempt 01. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Minor Object There are still a couple of external links that should become notes, in the Papacy section. Otherwise I would agree that the article has received major improvements. --JohnDBuell | Talk 03:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am fixing those right now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Conditional Support Can a couple of the shorter paragraphs in the body of the article, describing the Pope's early career in the Roman Catholic Church be tightened up a little? --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object. While the article is quite good now, my feeling is that this is one which will constantly be changing as Benedict does more in his papacy. We really haven't seen him address some of the major issues (adoption, contraception, etc.) that were so heavily discussed at the time of the conclave. I feel that these issues will set off POV edit wars, and this article is unlikely to remain stable for long. Harro5 05:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

How's that any different than any other revisionist biographical writing? :) And years from now, if there's a MAJOR change in church teaching, how's that going to prevent anyone from prior to such a shift getting pages vandalized? Popes have been discredited posthumously before.... --JohnDBuell | Talk 05:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he has clearly addresses all the issues you are mentioning while he was a professor, cardinal and prefect of the CDF, and has written numerous books. His views are well known. 83.109.174.82 17:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for the POV editing, that has pretty much been silenced now. The last main POV issue, the use of the styles, pretty much died off. Plus, every article that was featured on the main page was vandalized, no matter what topic it is. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• BTW, I will support the nomination and support this article becoming FA. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Better articles have been voted out beacuse they relate to the current events. Perhaps we should make it into some kind of a rule? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That is already covered by the stability criteria. --mav 02:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support My major worry the previous time was stability, and the article has quieted considerably since then. --MikeJ9919 01:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Agree with Harro5. The lead section is also way too short and the TOC is a bit long. --mav 02:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What I did in the references section is what we should do to reduce the TOC? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support on condition the lead section has a solid 2 or 3 paragraph summary of the article content. Re: Harro5's objection, Featured Articles can be about on-going or changing events, in fact they are the ones usually picked up by mainstream news and "featured" by the rest of the world. Stbalbach 02:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • But we already have a section called "Overview". Wouldn't a longer lead section be redunant then? 83.109.149.64 13:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • See the Wikipedia style guidelines and other examples of featured articles. The purpose of the lead opening is a high level plain language low-factual high-style "hook" to draw the reader in, to let them decide if they want to read more, then like peeling an onion, the article gets progressivly more detailed, repeating the same material but with more detail each time, so the reader can stop reading when they know enough, or keep reading to get into the nitty gritty. Stbalbach 14:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I've tried to expand the section slightly, improvements are welcome. 83.109.128.127 19:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, looks good to me. Phoenix2 03:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: suggest anon assasinates the Pope in order to speed up the completion of the article as a current event. The only issue I see here is that the act of assasination itself could be seen as introducing original research into the article. HTH. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: ? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The idea of having a feature article about a major world leader who has barely assumed a lifetime office is absurd. I have no doubt that perhaps the article will have some substance once something can actually be said about his papal reign in context, but doubtless that will require either considerable time or his vacating the role (if not both). As a matter of comparision, would you dare have a featured article about an active and ongoing war? --Girolamo Savonarola 01:33, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
  • Do you have a problem with how the article is formatted? If not, then there is nothing I can do to resolve this objection. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe the problem is inherent to the subject at this point in time: the article is about a pope - clearly the most defining characteristic of the man - who has barely been pope. How possibly can the article cover his papacy at this point in time? I am not debating anything about the article's content or format. The problem is that I don't believe that an article about a barely regnant pope should be able to be featured, being as the defining facts for which he will be remembered have yet to be apparent. There's nothing wrong with articles about active people, but those just thrust into the spotlight for an influential job whose powers they've barely exercised? Clearly you can at least see my objections, even if you don't share them. To answer your question succinctly, the article itself does not concern me one way or another. The situation and context does. --Girolamo Savonarola 03:24, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
      • Well, I mainly think the purpose of the FAC is to allow people to comment about any technical issues about the article. This is from the main WP:FAC page: "If you oppose a nomination, write Object followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed (featured articles, despite being featured, may be marked so as not to be showcased on the Main Page)." Of course, some might say it has been quick to be put on here, and this is the second time around the article has been placed on FAC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I believe that my objections have been at least partially reflected within other objections which may touch more directly on policy, such as rapidly changing events and so on. I believe, however, than an article about a Pope that deals very little with his life as Pope can be regarded as a technical issue. As can I suggest a technical solution: continue to work on the article and wait for more events to develop until his papacy can become a full and substantial part of the article (what he's done beyond his initial investiture). Look at virtually all other Pope's articles (aside from the short-lived ones) and you'll see that the best written ones are mostly about their papacy, not their backgrounds or initial beginnings. Also, your citing a second nomination for FAC within a short time of a religious leader a large number consider second in authority only to God should not be seen as anything other than what it is - a second nomination, not a mandate for featured status. I appreciate that it's a good article about an important person, but I simply can't support it at this point in time. I know that my technical solution is not what you want to hear, but suggestions can be specific and helpful while also unable to be immediately implemented. These are merely my thoughts - if you want to force a specific policy objection, then I suppose I'll just agree with the other objections and cite the fact that the article is almost certainly going to be heavily re-edited, likely with points of editorial controversy and contention, for a long time afterwards and thus deals with current events and is too unstable to be realistically expected to be consistently a model article. I don't know what more you want me to say. --Girolamo Savonarola 02:30, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
          • Thats fine. FA requirement three states: "Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes)." Of course, we might have issues about his early days, especially those of him involved with the Hitler Youth. I have no clue on what is the truth or not, since many of the people that could mention his activities in the group might have lost their memory of him or have passed away. Plus, every article on the front page has been vandalized, and we still have problem with vandals. One problem with the article itself is that some want more pictures of the Pope for the article. I will not fight anymore, mainly I am just here to fix anything that could be done. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:31, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article still contains the POV-laden prefixed style, "His Holiness" which issue has been silent of late but is not at all dead. Wikipedia should not pronounce honorific styles but mention them in referred context. The Pope John Paul II article was appropriately changed before submitted for FAC (though since defeated, he is now prefixed "Servant of God"), this practice should not be endorsed as the best Wikipedia can do. Whig 29 June 2005 04:38 (UTC)
• Support: The article is well written and thorough. "His Holiness" once at the beginning of the article is not POV, it is information on official address, he is correctly referred to as Ratzinger throughout the rest of the page. The very nature of the papal office will ensure that such a figure will be controversial from now through to eternity, so the page will probably be vandalised and frequently updated etc. However the page as it is at the moment FA standard, and has to judged on that, if that standard changes in the future then there is a process to deal with that eventuality. Giano | talk 29 June 2005 09:39 (UTC)
• Object As someone said before: His reign as pope has just begun and when he starts dealing with more major issues POV wars will wage. We need to think about the future of this article. No sense in having it featured now only to have another vote to remove featured article status later Nick Catalano (Talk) 29 June 2005 12:35 (UTC)
  • The papal office is only a part of his life. He has been the most influential man in the Catholic Church for years already and is famous also as a theologian. He has already dealt with the "major issues"; everyone knows what his opinion on these issues are and he has made them clear numerous times.
• Support. While I agree that major POV wars will results in this article in the future, his life up til now is fascinating and worth feature article status.--Alabamaboy 29 June 2005 16:19 (UTC)
• Object, I don't think an article on any current leader can become a FA, as they cannot meet the stability criteria. - SimonP June 29, 2005 17:05 (UTC)
  • I do agree that we still have vandalism issues with the article, and once it becomes featured, it will be possibly be hell on earth to revert it back. As for the styles issue, there was a vote conducted on the use of HH prefixed in the article. The result did not meet consensus, but a slight majority voted to use the prefix. As for it being dead, I know not many have talked about the issue, but I still think Wikipedia will not have a set gudieline for a while. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 29 June 2005 18:48 (UTC)
    • We have to judge this article on what we see before us now; not on what it may or may not become. We cannot assume the role of prophets. The Pope is indisputable important to many millions of people. He is an international figure. This is an encyclopedia, the subject and the page currently meet the criteria for FA. What more is there to say. Giano | talk 29 June 2005 18:58 (UTC)
      • I'll see what happens here, report to the guys who work on the article what happened at the FAC and see what kind of magic we can pull off. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 29 June 2005 19:01 (UTC)
        • Comment it is pretty plain to see that this article does not meet the stability criteria. All the arguments for keeping here are also in fact arguments against the stability criteria for FAs. Personally, i dont understand the necessity of that criteria; wikis are, of course constantly evolving. Perhaps we need to look at the big picture and redefine/eliminate the stability criteria? Borisblue 30 June 2005 10:00 (UTC)

• Mild Objection. 2 comments: First, this article is too holy. How can an encyclopedia article start with "his holiness"...!? Second, just a comment (this point itself is neutral): articles in this wikipedia are designed to be changeable. Therefore possible changes in the future does not affect its wellness.
  • there was a vote conducted on the use of the prefix in the article, and a majority voted to use it. So I believe this is not the right place to protest against the "Holiness" thing.
    • correct Giano | talk 30 June 2005 18:44 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Benedict-salute.jpg is claimed as "copyrighted fair use", but I don't think we can claim that, and further, "fair use" images should be avoided if at all possible. Also, the image tag {{vatican}} is unclear. Are these fair-use images, or are they free-use under certain conditions? (Note that I'll be out of town until Tuesday, and probably won't be able to access Wikipedia until then) --Carnildo 1 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)
• Support.--Xixicoco 1 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)
• Support Well written, and also well structured article, detailing the Pope's life. Besides...he is a Pope. Antonio Not Holy in any way Martin 1 July 2005, 21:52 (UTC)
• Support Well written, stable and NPOV. Worthy of being a featured article. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 2 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

[edit] Rastafari movement

This article having been peer-reviewed and no substantial blocking issues to featured article status identified, I believe this article provides a signficant and substantial addition to the list of Wikipedia featured articles. Whig 29 June 2005 03:09 (UTC)

• Support, SqueakBox June 29, 2005 03:17 (UTC)
• Object, the article does not cite any references, the role of women in the group is only mentioned in passing. --nixie 29 June 2005 05:01 (UTC)
• Object: Interesting, comprehensive but no references. Giano | talk 29 June 2005 09:43 (UTC)
• Object: Contents of this article are too far from modern reality, yet the nature of this article is not historic. --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:28:06 (UTC)

[edit] Wilfred Benitez

This was my first article ever. The article has definitely improved, as, when I wrote it I was a novel writer and POV. the photos are a plus, and the layout is pretty good in my opinion. I think people should also know about the downspirals many boxers live after being on top of the world; largely ignored by society that once held them high, they come to a crashing end after their career is over. Benitez exemplifies that. Antonio Americas Most wanted sex object Martin

• Object: is missing several featured article criteria Joe D (t) 28 June 2005 21:16 (UTC)
• Comment: This user now has three FAC nominations running concurrently. Be wary that all have major flaws, and will likely not get the attention they each so sorely need. Harro5 June 28, 2005 22:51 (UTC)
  • FYI, taken from above instructions: "Please do not place more than one nomination at a time — this makes it difficult to do each article and its objections justice." Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 28 June 2005 23:37 (UTC)
• Object: Should not be here, it is not featured article quality at all! Needs expansion, tidying, changed layout, references etc. Giano | talk 29 June 2005 12:07 (UTC)
• Comment Take another look, although it still lacks comprehensiveness and references. Sfahey 30 June 2005 04:57 (UTC)

• Excellent rescue job, improved layout etc. It is now a nice concise Wikipedia biography, even though it lacks references. Regarding becoming a FA it is too short and has insufficient detail about the man, what is he doing now for instance, I'm sure there is a lot more that could be said here. Sorry I still object. Giano | talk 30 June 2005 07:58 (UTC)

• Neutral. This article is well-written, yet the person talked about is not famous enough. At least I've never heard of this guy. --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:31:58 (UTC)

I agree it is still not FA quality, but not having heard of someone is not a very good reason for objecting, especially if you consider "Soda can stove", "Exploding cows", and today's FA. FWIW, more millions of people have heard of Wilfred than many featured articles topics. "Neutral" was perhaps though an acceptable choice.Sfahey 1 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)

Thanks for being neutral as opposed to opposed, 9check out the redundancy there, hehe), but Benitez was the first, and because of boxing rules now, will forever be, the youngest guy ever to win a world title. He was the first Latino to be a three division world champion, the fifth boxer in boxing history overall, and the first in 40 years. He is a member of the International Boxing Hall of Fame and almost saw himself in the middle of an international problem when he became stranded in Argentina for one year. Ask on the internet who Wilfred Benitez or Wilfredo Gomez are, and you will get more than 2,000 pages of answer. Still, I appreciate that you didnt oppose. Thanks and God bless!! Antonio Let the Music Play Martin

• Object. The two images on the page are both "copyrighted used with permission", which is an unacceptable license for Wikipedia. (Note that I'll be out of town until Tuesday, and probably won't be able to access Wikipedia until then) --Carnildo 1 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

According to what I last read, wikipedia does allow photos copyrifghted by others, as long as we have been given permission. Antonio watch your skirts, ladies, I got a camera :) Martin

Only if that permission is compatible with the GFDL see [14]--nixie 2 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)

[edit] Bertrand Russell

Long, well-written and more important accurate article about one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century. --ThomasK June 28, 2005 12:30 (UTC)

• How about references? If works were used from the bibliography to write the article, they need to be cited properly. And inline citation would be a real help as well for an article of this scope. --Spangineer (háblame) June 28, 2005 13:07 (UTC)
• Object, a good and comprehensive article but the formatting needs to be improved. There are too many one sentence paragraphs, and why is the succession box in the middle of the article? Personally I would also like to see the quotes section moved to Wikiquote. - SimonP June 28, 2005 15:15 (UTC)

• • Right, I fixed the succession box. But in my opinion there should be a few quotes in the Wikipedia article. --ThomasK June 28, 2005 16:24 (UTC)
• Object. It needs to be made clearer what information comes from which documents: footnotes and separation of Bibliography (works by Russell) and References/Further reading (works about Russell used to fact-check/write the article. I don't really have a problem with the few one-line paragraphs SimonP mentions, but I agree tthe quotes belong in Wikiquote, unless they are used in the text to underline some aspect of Russell's persona. Phils 28 June 2005 19:34 (UTC)
• Comment. I recommend adding more info about Russell's support of world government. See http://www.vcn.bc.ca/wfcvb/whywf.htm, http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Bertrand_Russell/future.htm . Nathan256 29 June 2005 11:48 (UTC)
• Minor object. This looks extensive, but it has several problems. In addition to mentioned above lack of references, the text needs careful going over ilinks - some terms are linked only in their second/third/etc. usage or not at all - examples (Principia Mathematica (which I linked now), World War One, Pacifism, 20th century). I am sure with a little editing work this can be a FA, but now it is still a work in progress needing some editing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 29 June 2005 19:04 (UTC)
• Object, the copyright on the images needs to be established and the article should have references--nixie 30 June 2005 08:48 (UTC)
• Object, yes, long, long, too long. Nobody will be interested to read an article of 7919 words.--Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:36:59 (UTC)
  • Image tag fixed. Deryckchan, maybe you are not interested to read this article. Russell did extensive work, to summ up is actually not possible. --ThomasK July 1, 2005 05:00 (UTC)
  • I, for example, do like my articles long and comprehensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 1 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)
• Object in the strongest possible terms. This article is a puff piece for an unmitigated scoundrel widely regarded by those familiar with him, barring his small albeit influential circle of devotees, as one of the worst monsters in recent history. Inadequate attention is paid to his advocacy of world dictatorship through nuclear terrorism. Inadequate attention is paid to support of eugenics and against populations with darker skin-hues. I will not support until the said problems are corrected. Cognition 1 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)
  • Cognition, I repeat the protest i made at the Carl Friedrich Gauss vote. Please use a civil tone and don't attack the editors who put up their baby articles here. And again, please note that aggressive edit summaries are an especially bad idea. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 2 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)
    • I am not attacking the editors. I am criticizing the article for omission of vital information, which, according to the instructions on FAC, is an essential part of this process. Cognition 2 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)

OK.. so you're merely criticizing the article for omitting the vital information that BR is "an unmitigated scoundrel" (cliché alert) and a monster? I'd better re-read those FAC instructions. Seriously, to contribute to this process, please make only actionable objections. Bishonen | talk 2 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)

No, for whitewashing his support for eugenics and support for an unprovoked nuclear attack on Russia in order to establish a one-world government. [15] [16] If one believes that this does not make him a monster, that is a commentary on his humanity, about which I have nothing more to add. Cognition 2 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)

Comment. Cognition (talk • contribs) is a follower of the LaRouche movement, which teaches that Bertrand Russell is, literally, evil. Two arbitration committee cases have ruled that editors may not act in a way that appears to promote the views of Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 04:36 (UTC)

• • • • • You are replying to my argument by addressing the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself, which is a logical fallacy. Further, you have no evidence that I am a follower of the LaRouche movement. While my user page expresses my admiration of Lyndon LaRouche, he is just one of many people I admire. Cognition 2 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)
          • Your edits betray you. You are a follower of Lyndon LaRouche, and Bertrand Russell was not evil. Those are both facts. This isn't the place to discuss it, however; please see your talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 05:20 (UTC)
            • • Now you are arguing from authority, despite the fact that I am using NON-LAROUCHE sources. Go figure. Cognition 2 July 2005 05:24 (UTC)

[edit] Writings

I think perhaps we need to break off the 'Further reading' into a seperate link as its making the article overly long and somewhat intimidating for some readers - partly why it failed as a candidate I assume - How do people feel? [I appreciate he is not known as a peer but I have added the style to bring it into line with the majority of other peerage articles.

[edit] Wilfredo Gómez

informative, if maybe rookish, article about legendary boxer's life. Nice photos as well. Antonio men and women's knockout Martin

• Object. Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
  1. The images have no sources. Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
  2. 2nd img caption: Miguel Hernández links to the wrong person. Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
  3. Lead is too short. Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
  4. Only one "Biography" section, which is actually more a list of fights. Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
  5. Nothing on his early life: where was he born (in Las Monjas, Puerto Rico :-), how did he grow up? Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
  6. No references. Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
  7. Tone sometimes too casual. First example: "Coming from Puerto Rico, however, meant that the big bucks and exposure of the American media would not come easy, and Gómez had to move to Costa Rica, from where he began to tour all of Central America in hopes of finding matches." (big bucks, had to — who says he had to move to Costa Rica? Why not just "moved to C.R."? Why could he not have made his way in the U.S.?) Second example: "Puerto Rico was shocked by Gómez's defeat" (Was it? Says who? And what about all those people who couldn't care less about boxing? I'm sure those exist in Puerto Rico, too!) Third example: "is now back in Puerto Rico, getting his life back on track" First, it's kind of eerie to switch to the present tense (why not "returned to P.R."?), and second, what does "getting his life back on track" mean exactly, and who says so? When did he return to Puerto Rico? Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
  8. Especially towards the end, too superficial: "He later moved to Venezuela, where he made a few wrong decisions and ran into trouble with the law." Why? What decisions? What does "trouble with the law" mean? (Apparently, he became a drug addict. What drug(s)? Coke?) Did he stand trial? Was he ever convicted, and if so, of what? Did he spend some time in jail? If so, where and for how long? Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)

     See also [17], which hints at some of these questions, but more definitive sources would be good. Lupo 28 June 2005 08:51 (UTC)

  • Dear Lupo: Hi1 How are you? My regards and salute to you. As far as the Wilfredo Gomez, it was my third article, back in 2002. I believe the page has improved a lot in three years, specially since when I wrote it I was new and it was POV. I worked on some of the issues you mentioned, mosly based on what I myself heard (as far as his early life) both from Gomez himself and from elders in Las Monjas when I lived in Puerton Rico. I think three links is good enough, and the link you offered is a little POV as far as his fights and specially about his life after boxing. He HAS stayed out of trouble since he was in trouble. Anyways, I wanted to thank you for the time to read the article I originated, which always flatters me and I hope you enjoy it now better since I made a few fixes. Thank you and God bless you!

Your wiki-friend, Antonio El Feroz Vargas Martin

• Refer to peer review. - Mgm|^(talk) June 28, 2005 09:00 (UTC)
• Object: Object: Far too little information. The lead is too short. I would like to see it more sectioned and clearly laid out, and of course the big crime no references. Giano | talk 28 June 2005 11:48 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is not well-structured enough and the person is not famous. I've never heard of him. --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:39:15 (UTC)
  • He IS famous. Gomez is well known in England (where boxing fans have spoken to me about what would have happened between him and Naseem Hamed), Ireland, (same with Barry McGuigan), Australia (same with Jeff Fenech), Ghana, where people remember him for his fight with Azumah Nelson, and, specially, the United States, where he became a bonafide television boxing star during the early 1980s, Mexico, a country that had many legendary fighters lose to him and one, Salvador Sanchez, give him his first defeat, Puerto Rico, where he is a national sports hero, and Latin America, where he is generally considered to be the third greatest Latin American boxer of all time, behind Roberto Duran and Julio Cesar Chavez. Furthermore, an Argentine television reporter for Telefe recently said that although Sergio Palma was the WBA world Super Bantamweight champion, Gomez (WBC world champion) was the king of that category at the time. Gomez became only the eighth boxer to win titles in three different divisions and is a member of the International Boxing Hall of Fame. He is more than famous, he is a legend. Antonio 33 ko's in a row Martin

[edit] Cerritos, California

Excellent article. Far more inoformative than those of other cities Ive read, actually Id say 300 percent more informative. Excellent choice and layout of photos as well. Antonio extramultiple lanes road Martin

<Jun-Dai 28 June 2005 07:39 (UTC)> It is too detailed for a single article. The local landmarks section should be broken out into another article or set of articles, retaining two or three of the main ones. There are too many pictures; there should only be a few, and they should be larger. The article seems mostly like a listing of discrete and not terribly-related buildings, projects, etc. There certainly doesn't need to be three sections for individual high schools. Even one high school should not have a section unless it has had a significant impact in the world's awareness of Cerritos, which is not apparent from the article. All in all, this seems more like a brochure or travel guide than an encyclopedia article. That Frank Sinatra once performed in Cerritos is not relevant information for the article. </Jun-Dai>

I have a question about the usability of the photos in the article. They all seem to be from the City of Cerritos website ([18]), which has a clear copyright notice and no separate info on the copyright status of the photos, yet the photos have all been given either {{fairuse}} and {{PD}} tags. Also: Some of the text in the article looks like it was directly copied from the city website.

I also agree with Jun-Dai that the article is a rather jumbled listing of various locations around the city without any good indication of the importance of each location. Whitney High School, for example, has at least a state-wide reputation for the quality of the school, while the article gives no indication of that.

The article should also cover some of the local controversies, such as the problems with expanding the Cerritos Auto Square. There is also nothing about the Aeromexico DC-9 airplane that went down in Cerritos. BlankVerse ∅ 28 June 2005 08:25 (UTC)

• • Actually, the Aeromexico DC-9 IS mentioned. There is a small photo of the tragedy in the article as well. Thats the only thing I knew Cerritos for before I read the article. I thought Cerritos was a farm town before I read the article. Beng an aviation fan, I guess if I ever go there, I'd still feel chills thinking of the Aeromexico plane! Antonio Puertorriquena Airlines Martin

Needs to be divided into separate articles. Also, pictures are too small. Kaldari 28 June 2005 18:26 (UTC)

• Object. Lots of problems here: Too many, too small images with a bad layout; unencyclopedic wording in many places of the article (the city takes prides in its beautification..., Cerritos' tradition of intelligent, progressive government is reflected in its civic facilities., etc...); many lists ("City beautification", "Notable characteristics"); structural problems ("Tournament of Roses Parade" has the same heading level as "Geography" and "Demographics", some sections are also out of place: the "Landmarks" section should be put after "Geography" and "Demographics", and couls probably use a renaming); insufficient references (the single web-based reference is also ill-formatted); inappropriate lead. This article should spend some time on Peer Review. Phils 28 June 2005 19:46 (UTC)

• Object – please look at other cities that have gained FA status. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 29, 2005 18:21 (UTC)
• Object, sufficient reason stated above. Image:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 29 June 2005 23:08 (UTC)

• Support. Another well-written and well-furnished city article. However, yes, a bit too long. --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:41:08 (UTC)

• Object. I like the information, but the alignment is really grotesque. I would switch to support as long as there's an observable improvement in textual arrangement. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 1 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)

[edit] History of nuclear weapons

This page gives a lot of good information on the subject. This page seems like one of those pages that the Wikipedia community can brag about. Therefore I believe that this page could be a featured artice candidate.

• Support, somewhat long, but looks like featured material to me. I am not necessarily voting fot this article because this topic should be featured, but it is a good article. Image:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 03:28, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strong objection – 1) The article is too long and cries out for a summary. There is absolutely no need to go into detail and delve on Marie Curie, Earnest Walton, Hitler being appointed etc. The entire prelude is unnecessary and should be summarised into a small paragraph and merged with the section below. 2) The text details too much information on USA and USSR (especially the former); and just a whisper on the other countries' nuclear history. It should be balanced between the seven stated nuclear powers and others who have given up or have undeclared arms. 3) The text on the Cuban missile crisis is not only superfluous but heavily tilted to the US POV. 4) Non P-5 countries labelled under "nuclear proliferation", is another blatant POV. Countries like India and Pakistan haven't signed the NNPT and India's nuclear weapons are indigenous. 5) CNN has an informative interactive map. Replicating a similar map here would well illustrate all countries' arsenals. 6) There's hardly any information on nuclear disarmament and the treaties are given a fleeting mention. 7) Nothing is mentioned on each country's nuclear doctrine: first-use or no-first-use. 8) Information is also lacking on the number of tests each country has conducted and the size of their nuclear arsenal. 9) Latest developments in Libya and Iran are not covered. 10) The titles of each section 'knot of war', 'power of the sun' can be toned down. 11) Dirty-bombs and the Al Quaida's plans are also not covered. I strongly feel that this article should be worked on from scratch, and articles of this nature should be kept in Peer Review for at least a week before nominating it here. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 28, 2005 06:21 (UTC)

• Comment: Just on a few of these points (as you can see below I don't think the article is at all "finished"):

1. I disagree that the prelude is unnecessary -- the context out of which they were created was desperately important to later conceptions about them. But more importantly for the article, the section is designed so that somebody with absolutely no knowledge of basic nuclear physics can quickly be brought up to enough speed to understand the rest of the article without having to fish around a lot of science articles first. Sure -- it could probably be made more concise in places, but I think the point of the section is justified.

2. While I agree there should be a more "international" approach, most of that will be going into later sections, especially those on proliferation and the India/Pakistan arms race. But we should not be surprised if the US/USSR end up dominating a lot of this history; they were the engines that drove a good deal of the work done by other countries and the models they emulated (with a few interesting exceptions, but again, that's for the proliferation section).

3. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest point at which weapons were almost used in an all-out war between two nuclear armed nations. It could perhaps be edited down a bit but I think it was a fairly important episode in the overall history, and is the "concrete example" for the dangers of brinksmanship. It only takes up three paragraphs at that, one of which is a famous Khruschev quote which I think wonderfully reflects upon the gravity of it all. And I don't think it is from an extraordinarily US POV, honestly; I went to some trouble to make sure that nobody was painted as a villian or hero (because honestly, in my own POV of it, it wasn't the nations that were the problem, it was the whole system they had set up).

4. India's program was not completely indigenous but that is not really here or there. There should be more on the India/Pakistan as I noted but I don't think it's POV to classify their role in the overall history of nuclear weapons as proliferation. What would you suggest it be? I don't see how not signing the NPT gets one around of the fact that they are part of the weapons "proliferating" to other nations, whether or not they officially broke any treaties or not.

5. I agree about the map.

6. Yes, another section for that is in the works. International agreements, proliferation, etc.

7. There is a huge amount on nuclear doctrine in general -- I am not sure it is a good use of space to iterate each country's specific professed policies. I do not think it is the place of the article to necessary state how things "are now" -- that is for articles like Nuclear weapons and the United States which is a "current" rather than "historical" article.

8. Ditto, more or less. I feel like this sort of specific information should be relegated to other articles, such as List of countries with nuclear weapons and nuclear testing.

9. Proliferation section, again. Or do you find that term too POV? ;-)

10. Okay. You come up with good titles, I will use them. These things do not grow on trees.

11. Proliferation/terrorism/"the state of things today"/etc. section to be added. Though I don't know what Al Qaeda's plans are -- do you? I know of some people who'd be interested. ;-)

So yes -- I am trying to improve this article, though it takes a lot of TIME. Each of those large sections is about four hours worth of work to write from scratch, to source, to find all sorts of little details so that it is not just overly general. And then it will need editing to make it more concise again. Anyone who wants to help is most welcome. You can see the article's talk page for more of that. --Fastfission 29 June 2005 23:20 (UTC)

The page is a whopping 53kb. Parts of it have to be summarised. The prelude is unimportant. It details the history of radioactivity, not weapons. If I was interested in reading about nuclear technology, I would rather read the main nuclear article. Just mention here when radioactivity was discovered and who thought of the use in warfare. That's all that's needed here. That was paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 should detail the WW2 and the Manhattan project. It should be a summary. Hiroshima and Nagasaki should follow it. Then the rest of the article, summarise it. Details should be kept in sub articles.

Granted, the two superpowers dominated the scene in the cold war, but extraneous details from the two should be summarised, and other countries' coverage increased.

The Cuban Missile Crisis: Refer to this phrase: On October 28, the Soviet ships stopped at the quarantine line and, after some hesitation, turned back towards the Soviet Union. Khrushchev announced that he had ordered the removal of all missiles in Cuba, and U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk was moved to comment, "We went eyeball to eyeball, and the other fellow just blinked.". It’s a clear US POV. The article on the Cuban Missile Crisis is much more neutral. This text gives a reader that the Soviets chickened out, when that was not the case. It was Kennedy who accepted the deal to remove the Jupiter missiles before Khrushchev called back the ships. No doubt the CMC is a very important point, but it should be a summary, again.

India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea's programmes: adequate coverage should be given to all nations.

Put details of the tests conducted & total warheads into a simple table. Basic doctrine can also be included. Eg. USA, Russia and Pak have first-use. India has no-first-use.

Yes, I find the term proliferation a POV.

Al-Quida plans to make use of dirty bombs. Local area, max damage. Iran's recent developments should also be included.

Cut the length of the article. Its too long. You can take your time, but this needs to go through the Peer review first. Its a little to hasty to feature this in the current draft. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 30, 2005 09:18 (UTC)

Listen, I am not going to write long replies here anymore, go to the article's talk page if you are interested in helping out or being the critic. I think my idea for the article will produce a far superior piece of work once it has all been put together and edited down. Yours would be a list of facts. I prefer coherent narrative history in "History of..." articles. It is meant to be able to be read straight through by someone with only a minimal knowledge of the subject, they will not have to scurry around Wikipedia for all of the explanations unless they want details. Wait until the page is done, or help with it, before you comment on what is or is not there. It is incomplete, as I have said. Proliferation simply means the acquisition of nuclear weapons -- I don't see the POV. When the UK got weapons, it was proliferation. When Pakistan got weapons, it was proliferation. No difference in my mind. I've never seen someone object to it as POV before, it is a common scholarly term. --Fastfission 30 June 2005 17:49 (UTC)

That's Ok. Just address my concerns and let me know once you've finished. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 1, 2005 13:36 (UTC)

• Comment: Currently the article says "See the main articles at History of physics, Nazi Germany, and World War II." Isn't "Main articles: History of physics, Nazi Germany, and World War II." the standard? - Mgm|^(talk) June 28, 2005 07:25 (UTC)
• Object the article is deeply Amerocentric. There is virtually nothing on the French, Chinese, and British nuclear programs. There is some good content on the Soviet program, but much less than on the American one. The section title ==Red cloud on the horizon== is also clearly expressing a Western POV. - SimonP June 28, 2005 15:12 (UTC)

• Ah yes, a section on these will be added. I am not sure why "Red cloud on the horizon" expresses a Western POV -- do you mean a non-Russian one? Why not? They too saw the idea of a Red Bomb as being on the horizon -- they just thought it was a positive thing! I think it is a Western POV which interprets a sentence like that as POV, but anyway, if you have a better title that is not something bland ("Soviet bomb") and does a little better for the narrative structure of the article, please feel free to add it. The article is meant to be able to read straight through, or in individual sections, which are thematic while also being chronological. But yes, the British, Chinese, French, etc. Except that on at least two of these not much is known, and how they have played out in the overall history in other than a relatively minor role is not clear to me (they don't embody any of the "big themes" in my reading of it, but I'm open to suggestions). The British are interesting because they wanted an independent deterrent from the U.S. The French are interesting because they felt it necessary to join the club also, and also because they tested quite a lot. The Chinese are interesting because they wanted to join the club and thought they could get help from the USSR but then they couldn't and so they just made it independently, more to ward off the USSR than the USA, but eventually also with the ability to ward off the USA. These are my readings, anyway -- all of which would fit under a "proliferation" section, i.e. "who else makes weapons and why", which is always a "reactive" sort of action (they make one, so we make one, so they make one, etc.). So anyway, any thoughts on that would be appreciated on the talk page. --Fastfission 29 June 2005 23:26 (UTC)

• Object. Per Nichalp and SimonP above. Phils 28 June 2005 19:35 (UTC)
• Comment. The article is still in progress, though I haven't had time to work on in awhile. Hence it immediately drops you off into nothing in the last two sections. And yes, it needs to be edited down a bit in places. It'll get there, but it's not there yet... if you look at the talk page, you can see my overall plan for it (I have been rewriting it from scratch over time) -- I'd love for contributors willing to help write new copy! --Fastfission 29 June 2005 23:20 (UTC)
• Neutral. Good article in whole, but some parts and pictures are redundant. --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:43:14 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Schmidt

Self nom. Profile of the Republican nominee for Congress in the Second District of Ohio, running to replace Rob Portman, who resigned in April. Photos, notes, and a pretty complete bio, I hope. PedanticallySpeaking 14:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, this article could use some variation in the alignment of the pictures. Image:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 21:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put a couple pictures to the left. PedanticallySpeaking June 29, 2005 16:36 (UTC)

• Comment. The number of external links is absolutely overwhelming. Some are unecessary (links to her hometown's website, and the websites of the local clubs and comittees she is in) and at the very least should be moved out of the text into an External Links section. Some external links on the other hand act as pointers to the source for specific statements: these should be made into footnotes. Otherwise a solid article, although the subject is not really spectacular (no I won't object on grounds that it isn't "spectacular" :D). Phils 08:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since we do not have a Miami Township article, I wanted people to be able to go to its site, especially as Schmidt is proud of having lived there her whole life. Second, the organizations are unlikely to have articles written about them here and I wanted people to be able to go to them. I didn't know what the 20/20 Committee was until I looked at the site. Why go through the duplicitative effort of creating footnotes? Everything's already in the bibliography. PedanticallySpeaking June 29, 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Footnotes detailling where the info came from makes it possible to track back the source even after the document pointed to by the URL is modified/goes down, and are useful in case the article is printed out. I feel at least our FAs should be print-ready. Phils 29 June 2005 19:48 (UTC)

• Support; at least on a cursory glance, this looks quite good. Everyking 22:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. All the photographs in the article are claimed as "copyrighted fair use". Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, so images that are not under a free-content license should be avoided if at all possible. (Note that I'll be out of town until Tuesday, and probably won't be able to access Wikipedia until then) --Carnildo 1 July 2005 05:54 (UTC)
  • Might I suggest emailing her -- Jean (at) JeanSchmidt.com -- and asking her to give us a GFDL'd picture? →Raul654 July 3, 2005 02:00 (UTC)

[edit] June 2005

[edit] Stuyvesant High School

This is an exemplary school article which apparently has been nominated before as a FAC but I cannot find any record of prior discussion. In any case, I would like to resubmit this as a candidate to become a featured article on Wikipedia. (Support) Bahn Mi 07:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No reference section. Also, convert those external links to footnotes; in the current form they are utterly useless if the document is printed, or if the linked documents are no longer available or moved to another URL. However, I have to say I am quite impressed with the article; it really establishes the school's notability, and is way above the average high school article. Phils 07:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is a really good piece and am happy to support. Will need a few trivial rejigs of external links to references to satisfy the hoop-jump requirements but this is very nearly there. Pcb21| Pete 10:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If this article gets references I'll support. It is the best high school article I have seen and better than most university articles. Falphin 16:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support this looks good, frankly the complaining about references is a weak objection since there are about 100 external links used to back up claims and 23 inline links to references.  ALKIVAR™ 21:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • References need to be in a references section using proper formatting. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, there are rarely articles this good on high schools. Image:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 21:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. There are quite a few Stuy alumni on Wikipedia, and we try to keep these pages informative and relevant. If there are hoops to get through, we'll nurse it through them. RossPatterson, Stuyvesant '76
• Object. Call me a killjoy, but I dislike the cosy touches: the nickname right in the first sentence, the humorous claim that the building is sinking, the old prank made obsolete by the swimming pool. The combined effect of them is of an angle, a "voice", behind the article, and a little nostalgia and self-satisfaction in the voice—probably very justified, but still not ideal here. The extremely detailed description in the "History" section of the new building and its present-day use adds to the impression: "large glass [yeah..?] windows", "computers for work or play", "a popular hangout", "hundreds of square feet of carpet for sitting and socializing", "being caught in the elevator without a pass guarantees one a trip to the dean", "when the escalators do break down, groans can be heard as Stuyvesant students grudgingly clamber up the steps". Such things sound a little too ordinary to mention, and too warm and proud and cosy. Cool down the style of the new building description and shorten it, please. Btw, there is an interesting critical perspective on the school demographics in the spin-off "main article" Stuyvesant High School student body. I think it's a pity that no suggestion of it has survived into the summary section "Student body"—I realize it's a short summary, but a sentence or two about the criticism would be great for perspective. Apart from these points, I agree that the article is very good, and I will support if they're addressed. Even if they're not, I'm prepared to withdraw my objection, since all the other voters seem to like the article's temperature, provided somebody puts up a good argument for why I'm wrong and sour. Bishonen | talk 03:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Pruned some of the nostalgic invisible voice from the history and added criticism on the student body User

• Object: I must say that the tone of the writing, and the specific language of it, really does read like a tri-fold brochure that would be handed out by the admissions folks at Stuyvesant. Once upon a time, I wrote things like that for St. David's School, and sentences like "it became obvious that the building was too small" sound like the wording we use for parents and donors, not encyclopedia articles (as there is an implicit 1st person POV in there). There are grammatical errors as well: "there has been allegations" and "obsoleting" a joke. Stuyvesent is one of the great schools, but I do think that it's overlong for having no references (i.e. something this long really can't go without references) and it's promotional in its tone. If school-generated materials were used in the preparation of the article, they really should be cited. Geogre 13:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object: References are needed. The "Notable Alumni" section consists of just a link. "While Stuyvesant accepts students purely on their academic merit" puts a POV accross that the allegations that there's a bias are unfounded. -- Joolz 13:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object:Strange adjectives "accomplished alumni" in what way are these people accomplished do they play the piano, arrange flowers, and sing in French? In what way are the academics "rigorous"? Links within the text should be footnoted. The two lined paragraph "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Stuyvesant was struck particularly hard by the AIDS epidemic, with at least four teachers dying from that disease." strikes me as odd. Why "particularly"? Are all American schools losing staff frequently in this way? What is the significance of the paragraph, were the parents concerned? Or was it just the staffing shortage that was the problem? I've no idea what a PSAL pool is, and the prank doe not seem that prankish to me. I think this needs a huge re-write, and of course some references. Giano | talk 14:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support- this article is an exemplary example of wikipedia's collaborative effort, it is concise, referenced, and very rich in information abulanov

[edit] Nix v. Hedden

Self-nomination: I'm interested in getting this United States Supreme Court case to FA status. I used the court case itself as the source, so only one reference is required. Not many people seem to have commented on this, can't find any other information. I think it's comprehensive now. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, P.S.: I might also note that if this does get to FA status this would be resolution to next years April Fools day issue. The case and its decision appears so unlikely that it might be seen as an April Fool's day joke. The ultimate in trickery would be to put this on the front page (with an image of a tomato): all those botanists viewing our site will go: no it's not! It's a fruit! But this will be an accurate and factual encylopedic entry. Jimbo would be proud :-) Ta bu shi da yu 05:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure if I should support or object this one, but I'll make a comment about some things upon which others may base their objections. The subject matter is certainly intriguing, however I have a number of concerns. Firstly, I don't like how it is divided into "The case" and "The decision". Both consists mainly of quotations. Also, some of the wikilinks seem out of place—for example, there is a link to classify even though such an article does not exist (and if it did, would probably be better off in Wiktionary). While I don't think it is ready to be a featured article yet, with more work it will make a good one some day. Ben Babcock 05:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a Wikiproject on this very issue: see WP:SCOTUS. Also, this is a reasonably standard structural division for U.S. Supreme Court cases. I'm not quite sure why the quotations are an issue, I am willing to work on this however. How should I rephrase them? As for wikilinks... I'm actually a bit suprised we don't have an article on classification systems! They are an article in their own right. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Have fixed the direct quoting: a minor copyedit should (hopefully) have done the trick. Have removed the classify wikilink (unless someone can point me to a classification article!). Kept the structure, as agree with WP:SCOTUS - our supreme court cases (no matter how obscure) need to be consistent to remain NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I like the topic, but this may be a little short. I don't agree that one reference is all that's required, because ideally you shouldn't be writing just about the case, but about the various things directly associated with it, such as reactions, legal precedents, things like that, which you could only get from other sources. I'll grant this could be difficult if the case is obscure; I don't think I had ever heard of it before now. Everyking 05:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The case is obscure, granted. The case itself, as far as I can see, did not become a major legal precedent on anything: the way courts deal with dictionaries appears to have been decided long before this. If other sources on this case can be found, please feel free to add them! However, due to its obscure nature, not many people have commented on it. We seem to be the ones who make the most comment — all without doing original research! With regards to writing only about the court case: I disagree, with respect, because the case itself should be the main focus of the article. If it had major repurcusions, they should be most definitely documented. This one didn't... It merely legally defined a tomato as a vegetable and not as a fruit. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If it really did just drop like a stone into the water without any ripples, OK, using just the case is fine. And if this really is all there is to write, I suppose it might have FA potential, although I have little enthusiasm for one this short. Everyking 06:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Ya... I would be the first to add more info, had there been any :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Concise article on an interesting court case. Is it possible to get the dictionary definitions which were used as evidence in the case, and maybe use them as external links? Also, the article could mention how legal maxims like "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" were applied to this case. For the main page, how about a picture of tomato salad? That is certainly *not* a dessert. :) Graham 07:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The legal maxim I actually wanted was "ejusdem generis", latin for of the same kind. [19]

However, I'd understand if it would be difficult to incorporate the use of legal maxims into the article, to comply with the policy of no original research. Graham 02:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• support. Well written, concise. There is nothing else to say in terms of consequences, implications, so it's complete. It's sourced and the intro is fine.--Fenice 20:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I have an objection. The article is overly concise. It has no external links (at least give links to an online copy of the case and a case summary). There are a couple of long block quotes. It'd be best, especially for the first one, if the quotes content is also summarized in the article (to tell you the truth I can't tell what side those expert witnesses are on). More references would be nice- are those quotes in the decision? It also doesn't meet the wikiproject guidelines. It should have a breakdown as Roe v. Wade does for each justice and what side they were on. Also, there are a couple of cases which cited this one [20]. Don't worry there is plenty of time until April 1. This link is Broken 22:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It appears that Everyking and BrokenSegue are correct: this may be a little premature for FAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now - a good start, but, as per the talk page, I think you need to identify the particular law in point in this case, discuss the previous cases cited in the judgement, and put it in its legal context (including the usual rules of legal construction). -- ALoan (Talk) 28 June 2005 14:51 (UTC)
• Comment: Could you get a better picture of a tomato? The current one with someone's hand in the photo looks rather amateurish. Deus Ex 29 June 2005 09:17 (UTC)

• Object. The case certainly did not decide that "legally, a tomato is a vegetable"; at most in decided that a tomato is a vegetable under US law, and I strongly suspect that it only decided that a tomato is a vegetable for the purposes of a specific subsection of a specific act. In FAC terms, the article is not comprehensive. Mark¹ 30 June 2005 01:57 (UTC)

[edit] History of Poland (1945-1989)

Partial self-nom. The title sais it all, I believe, at least as far as the content goes. I believe the article meets all of our standards (PR archived recently, comments adressed). For comparison to similar FA articles, see History of post-Soviet Russia, History of Russia or History of Scotland. Your constructive comments, as always, much awaited and appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object—needs major NPOVing. I was rubbing my eyes in disbelief after reading just the second sentence, which puts "liberated" in quotes when referring to the liberation of Poland by the Red Army in 1944-45. Seriously, this is loaded with right-wing POV. Everyking 22:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Removed quotes, although the word liberarated without quotes is also misleading (suggesting that Red Army brings liberty is an oxymoron :)) Any suggestions what term to use here instead? Please give specific examples of other "right-wing POV", I'll be happy to fix them, if you can't - this is, after all, the purpose of this review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Update: changed to forces of Nazi Germany were driven from Poland by the advancing Red Army of the Soviet Union. This should contain no POVed terms, right, left or otherwise. Better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Fine, that's NPOVed, but the rest of the article still needs heavy NPOVing. Everyking 23:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd again ask you to be more specific. Have you even read the rest of the article? If so, please give me specific examples that you deem POVed. The article has passed the PR, and nobody has even once mentioned it is POVed on its talk page. Unless you become more specific, I am afraid you comment is not going to help to improve this article much. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object, too many grammatical things; but of course these can be fixed. Phoenix2 01:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As I am not a native speaker, I can do only that much with the language. I hope if you spot any language problems, you will fix them - I, unfortunately, can't help much in that regard - to me the article reads good already. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Let me look through this 7000+ word article. The third sentence is "With little opposition from the Western Allies, who had accepted the fait accompli at the Yalta Conference, Stalin's agents, the Polish Communists, soon forced the opposition (the delegates of the Polish government in exile, the members of the Armia Krajowa resistance movement and any non-communist political parties) to either join them or face being exiled, imprisoned or even murdered." Can you imagine if the post-war history of Italy was written in such a fashion, although it very well could be. It would never survive on Wikipedia, let alone be a featured article. Reading these comments, I see the POV used to start with the second sentence. Also, the English is horrible, with section heads like "The Stalin's era (1945–56)" Ruy Lopez 01:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I fail to see POV in this sentence. Please help me out. At Yalta, Western Allies accepted Stalin demand's regarding Polish borders and government - fact. Polish communists persecuted their oppositing, up to imprisonment and execution after staged trails - fact. Also, I don't see any 'strong, hotile words' in this sentence, but feel free to rewrite it so it is more NPOV to your liking. And by all means, list other sentences then this you are unhappy in the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • After reading 172 comments, I agree that 'Stalin agents' is somewhat POVed and incorrect, deleted this phrase. Hopefully, this will make the sentence NPOV enough? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Look at the History of Italy as a republic article. The involvement of the USA in Italy was equal to or greater than that of the USSR in Poland, yet you don't see the entire article revolve around this, how horrible Italy's leaders are and whatnot. How come the Italy article doesn't say "With little opposition from the USSR, who had accepted the fait accompli at the Yalta Conference, Roosevelt's agents, the Italian capitalists, soon forced the opposition (the newly formed Italian government, the members of the resistance movement and any non-capitalist political parties) to either join them or face being exiled, imprisoned or even murdered."? I am not interested in that article, I am just using it as a point of comparison to show how POV this article is. Everyking came in and saw super-POV on the second sentence, then I come in and see it on the next sentence. Polls show the vast majority Americans are unhappy with the way things are run in the US, but the USA article doesn't say Americans are wage slaves living under a tyrannical regime with bogus elections and whatnot. Ruy Lopez 13:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I am afraid your criticism is not constructive. Comparison of Italy to Poland, or USA is almost pointless - the situation was very different, besides, you are yet again adressing some vague, general issues, not any specific points backed by facts or even POVed words! Your latest posts gives more details on the irrelevant history of Italy - and none about Poland. You write about the 'super POV' which you saw - and still fail to quote specifics of it: I don't even know if the POV you refer to is pro-Polish, anti-Western, pro-Soviet, anti-Communist, pro-aliens from Mars or something else :) I still don't know which part of the sentence that you quoted you consider POVed and why, as you have not responded to my correcred sentence posted above (based on specific and constructive comments by 172 on article's talk page - tnx). Have you even read the article after the second sentence of the lead, or considered that the lead, being a summary, may containt one or two phrases which may need tweaking for more NPOVed words? Please, point me to the exact POVed or erroneus phrases, like "liberation" or "Soviet agents", and I will gladly fix them. But triple please, be specific - or if you consider the article beyond hope, list it on VfD :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Trying to establish equivalency between USA involvement in Italy and Soviet involvement in Poland ignores some basic facts. The most fundamental fact of course was that Italy was a democracy, with the Italian Communist Party allowed to compete without much hindrance in free elections (it won 34,4% of the vote in 1976, for example). In Poland all opposition to the Polish United Workers Party was quashed, and certainly no "capitalist" parties were allowed even to exist, never mind compete in fair elections. Balcer 05:24, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Poland was an ally of Great Britain and USA, while Italy was an enemy. That makes a sight difference ? Lysy 29 June 2005 15:03 (UTC)

• 'Show's a great deal of promise. I'll try to help Piotrus resolve some of the objections. 172 03:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support - though some sections still need expansion. In particular the later years of the period (Solidarity, Martial Law, Jaruzelski regime etc) need some improvement. A concluding section would also be useful. Balcer 28 June 2005 21:12 (UTC)
  • History of... articles rarely have conclusions (or better said, I haven't seen any yet), but it's an interesting ideas. Still, it would logically have to be something like 'comments on history of...'. Feasible, but I'd like to see it in talk first.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 28 June 2005 21:25 (UTC)

• Support - comprehensive, informative and well balanced. Lysy 29 June 2005 17:11 (UTC)
• Support - I am fixing the article now for grammar, but as I looked at the article, it is pretty good explaining the socialist period that took place in Poland. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 30 June 2005 18:31 (UTC)

[edit] Krag-Petersson

Self-nomination. Having trouble finding any sort of information on the Krag-Petersson rifle, I did my best to pull all avilable information together in this article. I believe it is the most comprehensive article (in english) avilable on the 'net today. Hopefully, y'all will find it suitable for becoming a featured article (and if not, I'll do my best to make it suitable =) )WegianWarrior 09:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - compare Krag-Jørgensen. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being in an excelent position to do so (since I wrote most of that one too), I fail to see what you try to say... are you wanting this one to have as much / the same sort of information as the one on the K-J? Trouble is, since less than 1000 K-Ps was manufactured for use by the norwegian navy, there is neither much to be found in the way of interesting models, prototypes or usage by other nations. WegianWarrior 06:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I meant that it compares unfavourably with Krag-Jørgensen. If online sources are lacking, what about offline sources? Sorry, but I would not support the article in its present state. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a print source - see the references section! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object, this might just not be the most comprehensive article on 'net. Phoenix2 18:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is more comprehensive on this subject than any other online resource I've found. Off course, I would love if you could prove me wrong on this - since I could add more to the article. WegianWarrior 06:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please provide a more comprehensive article so we can update this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it is the most "comprehensive" on this gun on the internet, but featured articles need to be a tad bit longer. Image:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 02:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This article seems a bit too short. I'm not a gun expert per se, but maybe you could add information like collector's information, influences on modern gun design, and maybe an expansion on the Usage section. --Omni gamer 06:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Too short of an article for FA. Craigy (talk) 02:55, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • No offense, but disagree. If this is the most information that can be found on the article, then it is the right size. I feel that this is not actually an actionable objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support seems pretty comprehensive to me, I know that WegianWarrior thoroughly researched it. Feel that it should be an FA. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, isn't there some fire arms infobox to add? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think I found the one you was refering too. WegianWarrior 28 June 2005 07:37 (UTC)

• Comment; Since the main objection people have seems to be the lenght of the article, as opposed to the contents, I've rewritten the major parts of it... all while refering to the only good source avilable; Norske Militærgeværer etter 1867, ISBN 82-993143-1-3. Hopefully this will answer some of the objections. WegianWarrior 20:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pathological science

I just stumbled on this article and was impressed at its comprehensiveness and neutrality, considering that the topic is potentially controvercial. Aside from the fact that it has no images, I think it's almost ready to be a Featured Article as-is. --P3d0 02:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• nominate and support. --P3d0 02:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I should have known that comprehensiveness and neutrality aren't enough per se.
• Object, yes the article does not have an image among other problems. Phoenix2 03:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A featured article doesn't need images, and "other problems" is not a specific rationale that can be addressed, so you risk having your objection ignored unless you can be more specific. --P3d0 06:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not having an image is a valid criticism, but it's not enough to stop a nomination; "Other problems" is so vague it's inherently inactionable. →Raul654 19:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Wish I could agree, because there ought to be a good article on the subject; but it's too much of a hodge-podge and seems to be doomed to stay that way. It argues with itself, and that shouldn't be featured. The cold fusion section, for instance, is an argument, not an illustration of the idea of pathological science. And the last paragraph and its list are hopeless. To be sure, these criticisms should be in the talk page (and are), but it suggests why I'm objecting. Maybe put it up for Peer Review and then try again? --Dandrake 07:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. How is "Pathological Science" different from "Pseudoscience" and "Junk Science"? The Pathological Science article seems to consist of two things: (1) Langmuir's definition of the term, and (2) examples of bad science. The examples of bad science seem like they should go in either Pseudoscience or Junk Science. (I also don't see why we need separate articles on Pseudoscience, Junk science, Bad science, Cargo cult science and others, but they're not FA nominees.) As for Langmuir's views, from what I can see, the term has had only limited impact. I think several articles, including this one, should be merged into say Pseudoscience, and Langmuir's views should be a paragraph (or maybe a section) in that article. I also agree with Dandrake above that this acticle is a hodge-podge. Zashaw 21:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. As to the question of how it is different -- my understanding of Langmuir is that it is supposed to be limited to theories which enjoy support from reputable scientists which do not have evidence for them (or have much evidence against them). This would differ from pseudoscience, which is a term used usually to designate activities outside the realm of science masquerading as scientific, and junk science, which to my knowledge has no attempted philosophical definition (is used in a strict pejorative sense). These differences could be commented on in the article, of course.
• Oppose. I don't think the article is very clear. I would appreciate more direct quotes from Langmuir, and any discussions of the term in the philosophy of science literature. I don't think more space should be devoted to Cold Fusion than is to N-Rays, Langmuir's initial example. I don't understand the section "Scientific theories which are not pathological science" -- clearly a whole lot of things could be listed under such a heading, and I'm not sure there's any reason to call Lysenkoism out from all of those possibilities specifically, for example (which is not to say I have any opinion over whether Lysenkoism would fit into the definition or not. If it was going to be mentioned at all, it would be most interesting if presented as a problematizing force -- what do national politics and incentives do to notions of pathological science? Is science transnational? etc.). I'm sure we could scrounge up some N-Rays pictures if we hunt around a bit.. --Fastfission 05:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Funeral of Pope John Paul II

I am renominating this article for featured status. Previously, this article had been nominated here and here, and turned down, mostly because the even was very recent, and too many fair use pictures were used. It was also peer reviewed. In my opinion, sufficient time has passed between the funeral and now. Also, I have tried to cut down on the number of fair use pictures, and changed them with ones in the public domain. Since I have worked on this article, this nomination is a partial self-nom. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:15, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Roughly half of the images are still {{Vatican}} "fair use"; the others are {{PD-USGov}}. If this is acceptable, I would support. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, great article; very comprehensive. Phoenix2 18:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I finally get some time to thoroughly review a FAC again. Unfortunately, I have to oppose this one. I agree with the above that this is a great article, but I believe it is not correctly, or sufficiently referenced. First of all the web-based references (the only references available) are not formatted according to the MoS page WP:CITE. There are no retrieval dates, and no information about the linked document aside from the title, making it difficult for readers to find essential information about the sources (authors, publication, date of publication) once the corresponding documents are no longer online or archived with a different URL. I also think the article does not cite its sources precisely enough (no footnotes). I could find a lot of examples of strong, precise, or even unusual statements that would need to have their source indicated in footnotes, to make it easier for intrigued readers to fact-check these statements. Comprehensiveness is pretty useless if readers can't make sure the details in the article come from reliable sources, especially for such a high-profile article. Consider the following sentences for examples of statements that I believe should have specific source information in footnotes: This tradition originates from ruthless cardinals looting the papal chambers upon the death of past popes., Pope John Paul II instead chose to be buried in his favorite pair of Polish-made brown leather shoes, an American size ten and a half, which he wore on his travels throughout the world. There are many more. The article also slips into conjecture (on rare occasions, but nevertheless): The funeral was perhaps the most-watched live event in the history of television., One of these would have required Cardinal Martínez Somalo to tap the head of the pope with the ceremonial silver hammer, a practice that is believed to have ended some time ago. My final criticism to this article of otherwise pleasing quality is the (also rare) use of "artsy" language in some places. Consider Centuries of sacred rituals are set in motion upon the death of a pope.; in my opinion, figures of speech like this do not have their place in an encyclopedia. Besides, such sentences are pretty useless: simply enumerating the rituals at hand is sufficient. The reader can then easily see that the funeral of a pope brings a lot of rituals with it, without being told so explicitly in a rather tourist-guidy style. We're close to FA quality here, but not quite there. Phils 20:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Use of copyrighted images potentially not permitted by fair use. Images taken by wikipedians would be preferable even if they were of somewhat lower quality. On varrious photography forums around the net I saw dozens of teriffic pictures, is no one willing to go convince even one of them to come submit their work here? Gmaxwell 02:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eleanor Rigby (song)

This is a self-nom of an article that I wrote a while back. It's improved a lot since then, I think, and the big Beatles' songs seem to feature prominently as featured articles, so I figured it was worth a submit. Anyway, any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks! --The PNM 06:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I see some areas that could be expanded - there is no mention that there is an instrumental version on Anthology 2. It could also mention covers - I know of one by Godhead (band), there have no doubt been others. Morwen - Talk 12:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added a section on covers and a little blurb about the strings only release on anthology 2. Any other suggestions? Thanks! --The PNM 14:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• mild object 1) In the section "The story behind the song", we read in McCartney's quote about the shop name, then we read further down that "Rigby" came from a shop name, and then we read again that "Rigby" came from a shop name. It's a little repetitive. 2) There is very little to inform the reader how this song fits in with the group's career, other than the fact that it was released along with "Yellow Submarine" on a single. Did this song demonstrate a shift in music style or some other turning point for the group? 3) My first thoughts when I hear the name of the song are of the smokestacks in the movie ("Yellow Submarine") all blasting at once as the cellos begin with that note, making it look like a whistle is blowing to signal the end of the work day. I think there is more that could be said about the symbolism that was used both in the lyrics and in the song's video presentation in the movie. 4) There are no samples from the song. A 10 second clip should be enough. slambo 13:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've tried to address some of these. I reread the repeition in the "Story Behind the Song" and almost cringed -- a healthy dose of deleting solved that, I hope. I tried adding a blurb in the introduction about "Eleanor Rigby" marking the continuing evolution of the Beatles started in Rubber Soul -- I mention that it's the first Beatles' song with no Beatles playing earlier -- but I'm not sure if I should add more context. Any ideas? I also added the audio clip at the end of the song. As for the Yellow Submarine movie, I need to rewatch in and do some research -- I'll hopefully do that shortly. Anyway, does it look any better? Any more suggestions? Thanks! --The PNM 14:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • For an analysis of the symbolism to be NPOV, it really needs to be presented in a "X states that Q symbolizes A, but Y disagrees stating that Q symbolizes Z instead". It's tricky, but with reputable sources, such a discussion can be done. I can add in my own interpretations, but that would fall into the original research realm. BTW, thanks for making the updates so far; I see steady improvement. slambo 14:57, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see anything remaining in the article that was objectionable. I know there was some other cover, by some jazz guitarist, Stanley Something, who was famous briefly for being the first new artist signed to Blue Note Records in yeasrs (this was the '80s) and he was famous for playing the guitar by just tapping the strings on the fretboard. He did it on his first album.

*Object, principally to the "Meaning" section. It's a summary of the lyrics (which don't really need to be summarized), plus an editor's interpreatation. I don't think this is consistent with guidelines re: NPOV and no original research. Monicasdude 19:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Fair enough. Move me to the agnostic category, mostly to do with my opinions about FAs in general rather than this piece in particularMonicasdude 15:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Okay, removed the meaning section from the article -- other Beatles' featured articles have had sections like this but I guess "Eleanor Rigby" is so simple a song it's not really neccesary. --The PNM 19:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Megatokyo

I think that this is an excelent article on wikipedia that is both complete and infroming and would bring variety to the Featured articles of Wikipedia. It would also be helpful in the event of not being of the quality required for such an honor to be notified of what does need to be fixed so that it would be possible to fix the problems. user:Vcelloho 21:23 Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Object no references =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, the article deals more with criticism of the comic than with its style and content. Radiant_>|< 14:54, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support; well-written, and helpful. ChercherEccles 18:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support; well written --Kiba 12:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, good article. Phoenix2 18:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice article about an interesting and good webcomic.--Kross 19:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV essay on the comic - not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 02:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Incorrect forum to place this. Please go to VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose: would love to support, but cannot due to NPOV issues. For instance, the criticism section is full of weasel words. There are various assertions sprinkled through the article, for instance "Much of the early humor consists of video game culture jokes, as well as culture-clash issues—a testament to Caston's writing." Suggest that author (who, incidently, writes extremely well) reviews WP:NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Benedict XVI

It has grown to a very impressive article. --83.109.174.227 (link to nominator's IP added by User:Phils).

Withdrawn, I agree with the concerns raised below. 83.109.148.242 21:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Impressive indeed, but the lead section requires expansion. Phils 15:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Not stable, completely inadequate lead section, no organized references section. --mav 16:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object It is still experiencing tons of edits and vandalism. See the talk page for all the issues that have yet to be resolved. Maybe in a couple of months. Bratsche^{talk random} 18:05, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Too soon. Let the news settle in first. Everyking 18:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I agree with Maveric and Bratsche, this article is still too much the subject of debate to be stable enough for a featured spot. Ben Babcock 20:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - This is way too unstable, also I would suggest that it is too close to his election. I am not too keen on current, or very recent, news stories, or figures involved in them, being promoted to featured article status. Let's wait awhile. Rje 00:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - As mentioned above, the article is too unstable. We deal with vandalism and continious editing/sub-paging. There is still some information that is not clear yet, some of which includes his Coat of Arms, his Theology and early life. Though I do want to give thanks to those who edit and debate the article and it's contents, I do not think this is the right time for the article to be elevated to Featured Article. Zscout370 (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object- I do believe this is an excellent article, with a lot of information on the pope. Yet, I agree that there's going to be a ton of editing on the page. Every new appearence that the pope makes for the next couple of weeks will surely be added to the article. Let's wait a while, and see if the article stabilizes. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 01:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I think this article is quite impressive in its breadth and depth of coverage for having been worked on for such a short time. I think however that it is premature to feature it for a while, as substantial editing changes continue to be made, and the article which is featured might differ substantially from the article as it stands presently. Also, by the very act of featuring this article, it is likely that we would attract more vandals as were such an annoyance in the early days of this article's creation. Whig 03:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• neutral - I think this article is a credit to wikipedia. I doubt if there is a more thorough article on Ben anywhere at this stage in his papacy. But the article does need more work. It is possibly a bit premature to make it a featured article just yet. But it does deserve that acolade and will get it in the near future. Maybe we need another category - potential featured articles covering those that are nearly there but just not yet. FearÉIREANN 03:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object Good article, but still in the mold. Sjakkalle 07:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral - For those that object due to vandalism. Does that mean that you would propose a FA article be un-FA if people suddenly start vandalising it? Whether one support or object to FA should be based on whether the article is good in content and not whether people like vandalising the article. -- KTC 09:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• comment after the initial wave of vandalism I suspect this page is on rather a lot of people's watch lists so I doubt vandalism would be a problem.Geni 09:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • A FA will get vandalized no matter which way you slice it. Articles about netrual subjects, like the Medal of Honor and the Order of Bath, got vandalized a lot due to them being a FA. Reversions come quick in Wikipedia, but if you take the vandalism out, you still have problems with the stability. We are still talking about cutting the article down into managable pieces, and there is still more to be added. Zscout370 (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object, agree with the above concerns. Neutrality^talk 04:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Object very good article, but a "Sex abuse scandal" revels a tendency, offensive to the person, and a prejudice. It would be important to discuss why people didnt like him, rather than using that section, maybe with keeping some info (i'm not saying that is useless). But not an all section! I'm not seeing an encyclopedia, like wikipedia that uses writing to offend people. Would you like a sex scandal section in your biography? -Pedro 22:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It's an important, contentious subject, and to leave it out would be POV, not the other way around. I wouldn't want a section about a sex scandal in my biography, no, which is why I will endeavor in life not to do anything that would justify one. Benedict, however, even if by inaction, has done so and it should be noted. Kairos 12:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I said keep what's important and factual, If you use that and make a fire out of it (like in the article), it is surely POV. -Pedro 10:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object to the article becoming featured, for the reasons given above. It's too new and unstable. Kairos 12:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The majority of the article is sourced from current events news articles. The footnote external links will be mostly DOA within a year as news sites remove article links, even if this made FAC, it would need a close review within a year or so as links expire. Most news sites dont keep links for long. Stbalbach 04:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burkhanism

This is a shameless self-nom. Burkhanism is an utterly obscure subject--of interest mainly to students of Altai history and/or Agni Yoga--for which few non-Russian-language sources exist.

For several years I have been hunting down information on Burkanism, and set this site up to make things easier for the next interested person who comes along. Everything I know is here, either in the article itself or in the linked citations at the end. One source (who wishes to remain anonymous) kindly agreed to let me use his photographs of several Burkhanist artifacts, which would otherwise not be seen by anyone outside of Siberia.

So, what do you think? Dawud 07:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object – poor presentation of the material, no categories, unclear if the links are external links or references. Paragraphs are too short. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Object 1) list your references as described on cite your sources. 2) The "Practices" section looks like little more than a list; tell us a little more about each of them, such as describing the symbolism and significance of the practices. 3) with only one person listed, the "Famous Burkhanists" should be combined into another section or expanded if possible. Since that one person is a red link, tell us more about him. slambo 13:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: information is pretty limited to the early years, and doesn't seem to talk about post-1921 at all. Everyking 00:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object, as several paragraphs are indeed too short. Phoenix2 18:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is too vague to be actionable. Can you be more specific? →Raul654 21:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will see what I can do. --Dawud

[edit] Sydney Boys High School

This article is quite a thorough report about Sydney's premiere public boys school. It is neutral, detailled in content, accurate and well written and is not prone to any major changes. --Protarion 10:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• There are no references, see Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Joe D (t) 11:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object, images have no copyright information, the bulk of the article is lists rather than prose. --nixie 13:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Based on the above two comments, I'd refer this to peer review. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Suggest consulting Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Not comprehensive enough, I'm afraid. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Times

Propose. This is an excellent article which is now NPOV owing to the efforts of many Wikipedians. I have had some involvement in its development, but this is really an article which many people have worked on. It has been commended by The Times newspaper (see Talk:The_Times) but is an objective article neither biased to or against the newspaper. An impressive piece. I hope you agree! --Mrclarke 16:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object- no references, only one "real" section (history). Maybe add a few sections on impact, current status, etc? Thanks. Flcelloguy | Give me a note! | Desk 16:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object, for many reasons, mainly that it's nowhere near comprehensive: there's an unreferenced weasel term ("some claim") in the introduction; doesn't include cover price; there's little on the Times' and its readers' public image; the current circularion figures are burried in the history section; there's little on what supplements the paper runs (and comparisons of those with rival papers' supplements); has it won any notable awards? does it sponsor any notable events (e.g. the Guardian does Hay festival, the Mail does ideal homes etc)? History doesn't mention the launch of the website. Joe D (t) 16:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object, for the same reasons as above... Maybe with the sections about the owners, editors, and columnists, you could say, if they had one, what impact they had on the newspaper... Yrjö 16:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object for the reasons mentioned above, especially because much of the article is a big list of names--Quadraxis 02:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spice Girls

First, I am not going to type using big words and try to sound like a professor. I am merely going to state my reasons for why this article should be a featured article candidate.

One, this article has gone through many changes. In the beginning, it was small, and only gave a bit of information on the Spice Girls, but with time, it grew, and grew, through the good and bad times, to present day.

Image copyright violations occurred in the past due to a user who was unsure of how to post images under fair usage (whatever the template might be). However, that issue has now be resolved, and every picture displayed in this article contains fair use, and exhibits pieces of the Spice Girls career, from album covers, to their appearances in commercials, to scenes from music videos.

There were a few mistakes that were added to the article originally - one that was extremely incorrect but could not be detected until recently, but has now been cleared up.

Despite easy and hard times, the Spice Girls article is definitely an article that took time to be completed, illustrating that its editors took time to search thoroughly for information and facts - not just post assumptions and terribly incorrect data.

That is why I think the Spice Girls article should be the featured article. DrippingInk 19:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written, readable, accurate. 64.231.118.193 19:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Above vote appears to be a sockpuppet vote from the nominator. (evidence). slambo 14:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Object 1) the lead section is too short and doesnt adequately summarize the entire article. 2) cite your sources. 3) It's an article about a music group, but there are no samples of the group's music. slambo 20:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Never strike out someone else's comments. slambo 18:01, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, sufficient reason stated above. Phoenix2 00:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Mild object. What Phoenix2 said. Otherwise, it's a good article. --FuriousFreddy 01:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references. Deltabeignet 03:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. There's no requirement that references be provided in the text, especially in an article like this. Nor is there a requirement that the summary does more than this one does (how could one summarise this sort of information?). The demand for samples of the music is peculiar; is slambo asking editors to break copyright laws? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a current FA policy that all FAC articles must have sources as a primary prerequisite. Short (thirty second or less) .ogg clips of a handful of the group's most notable songs are fair use. As far as summarization, nixie seems to have described well what is needed below. --FuriousFreddy 17:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not asking anyone to break copyrights. 10 second clips as a demonstration of the music style is fair use. The same goes for quoting a couple sentences of text in an article. slambo 18:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll grant you that ten seconds would probably be more than enough for anyone in this case, but it's surely simply not true that samples are necessary. Following your analogy, are you saying that articles on writers must contain quotations from their works? This seems excessively rigid, and isn't mentioned anywhere in the FAC guidelines so far as I remember. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Making a handful of .ogg samples of "Do You Wanna Be My Lover" and a few other Spice Girls records isn't at all an arduous task. I was asked to do it when I nominated The Supremes; the idea makes sense. --FuriousFreddy 23:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • If I had suggested that it was arduous, this would have been an adequate response. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Please do not insult other Wikipedians. I only said that because, based upon responses such as "but it's surely simply not true that samples are necessary", it seems that you think making the samples would be too much trouble (that is, making editing the article, it would seem, in your eyes a more difficult or "arduous" task than previously planned.) If you didn't think it was too much trouble ot add the samples, I humbly apoligize, but that appears to be what you are saying. I like this article; there are just some criteria, both required for all FA nominees (references and citations) and unique to music related articles (song samples). --FuriousFreddy 14:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Insult? Still, I accept your apology. Could you point me to the explanation of the criteria that you mention? I'm new to the FAC business, and though I never intend to nominate an article, I'd be interested to see the details. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • It read like an insult, is all. As far as your request, see Wikipedia:What is a featured article. The music sample inclusion is a sort of unspoken rule, it seems, when it coems to music-related articles. I'd never thought of doing it myself until I was requested to. It does make sense, and soemtimes it can be fun. If you don't do it, I won't object to the FAC nomination (that is, after the lead is legnthened and the references added), but some other editors probably will. --FuriousFreddy 18:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • It goes along the lines of comprehensiveness. We don't specifically state that biographies require birth/marriage/death info, but if it's not there, we cite it as an actionable objection. When the Timpani article came through, one of the objections stated was that there were no sound clips. When we write about authors, I see no reason not to include a quote quote or two to demonstrate the writier's style. When we write about painters, sculptors or architects, we need to include images of their works. Sure, it's not listed as a strict requirement, but an article about someone who produces artworks in any form should have samples of the artworks to show the artist's style. slambo 11:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • That undersuts my request to FuriousFreddy above. Wouldn't it be a good idea to explain this in the FAC criteria, rather than letting people nominate articles and only then be faced with objections? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Perhaps a better explanation of "comprehensive" would be useful on the criteria page. Did this article go through peer review? The objections that have come up so far are items that are often noticed and corrected there before the nomination here. slambo 15:15, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, the lead is missing several things, like the time period the band existed, how the band formed, number of albums, merchandising spin-offs like the movie, for a featured article the lead is supposed to summarise the entire article. All featured music artists have samples, they need to be .oog files, and if they are less than 30 seconds long then they are acceptable as fair use.--nixie 13:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Ahem, my reasons for this are that the lead section doesn't require the article itself. It is, after all, a summary, and tossing everything into it would be pointless. The rest of the article would only serve as a place to pick up the little nit-picks and what-nots. Secondly, no sample music is required. Just like DrippingInk said, Wikipedia is not an HMV store. Third, the information itself is extremely readable, is presented with images suited, and goes beyond what I even knew about the Spice Girls. The career records and achievements is a perfect addition, and with cites to the various sources, it is now obvious that this information is not made up. I am truly impressed with the editors of this section. All of them. This article is extremely well-done, and I give it ten out of ten stars. 64.231.161.245 21:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Above comment appears to be a sockpuppet vote from the nominator (evidence). slambo 14:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • (The above comment was made from an IP address that shows exactly seven edits, all on June 19; 64.231.118.193 has made exactly five edits, all on June 18) From the lead section page: "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I don't think the lead on this article meets this criteria. Compare the lead on this article with the leads on other recently featured articles such as Igor Stravinsky, The Temptations or The Supremes. The music samples are an actionable objection; an article about a music group isn't entirely comprehensive without samples of the group's music. As to the references, Wikipedia:What is a featured article states: "Includes references, arranged in a ==References== section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources)." All of my objections still stand as there has been no change to the article. slambo 11:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Wow, you people here on Wikipedia truly are complete fools. I'm surprised someone hasn't slapped you straight across the face yet. DrippingInk 19:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please avoid making comments such as this. Continued personal attacks can be considered grounds for blocking. I would much rather see that energy directed to ensuring that the objections listed above get addressed in the article. You know much more about the subject of this article than I do (I favor jazz from the 1920s and 1930s myself); this article is close to featured quality, and it would be nice to see the objections resolved. slambo 20:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Object reluctantly for the reasons given by slambo - I have had my eye on this article for a while, but it needs a better lead, references and (subject to copyright concerns, particularly as this is a UK band) sound samples. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object for the reasons above stated (sound samples, references, lead), and some problems with neutrality. The sentence A cleverly constructed image combined sex appeal with post-feminist self-confidence ("Girl Power", as they labelled it) guaranteed them a large female fanbase, at least., for example, is hardly indisputable, and needs to sourced to whoever believes it. There's some other stuff that should be copyedited out, like giving the hook for "Wannabe", which isn't particularly useful here and seems out of place. Tuf-Kat 02:17, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • As stated before, and I don't care if you scream back at me, you're all complete idiots. The Spice Girls were obviously going to obtain a female fanbase in the least. This does not need to be sourced because it's damn well obvious. And the hook for "Wannabe" is certainly useful, and nowhere near out of place. To ALoan, your comments are much more respectable, except for the sound samples, which are not required to complete an article.

• • Hopefully most of you Wikipedians will learn something - because most of you aren't that wise at all. DrippingInk 19:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Wesley

Nicely detailed capsule biography, well organized, lucid narrative and useful links. In its depth and engaging style, this article exemplifies Wikipedia's advantages over other online references. The article has been criticized on the talk page as being NPOV and a "hagiography". I disagree. Although there is little or no negative content in the article, I don't believe that lack of same means the article is innaccurate or misleading. In fact, I believe that in both its form and content, John Wesley represents the best of Wikipedia. — J M Rice 18:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) The lead section is too short and doesn't adequately summarize the article's content. 2) cite your sources. slambo 20:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral at this point: I have listed a number of areas for potential expansion on the talk page. Wesley should be seen in less of a vaccuum, I think, and I don't think it would be extranneous to discuss what the Methodist Church under his direction did, nor the sorts of adherents that he attracted (blue stockings at first, then field believers, and the uneasy coalition between the upper class and "rocking" folks). Geogre 14:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Object: Does not appear to be an active article. Perhaps some time on peer-review would help. Geogre 14:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object I'd like to see more from Heitzenrater's books, e.g. The Elusive Mr. Wesley: John Wesley his own Biographer. I just checked, and the book IS still in print. Also in full agreement with slambo's objections, above. (sorry, forgot to sign my comment!) --JohnDBuell | Talk 20:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval hunting

Self-nom. I think it's a well-written article. Please make suggestions. 80.111.96.99 03:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It is a well-written article, but it limits itself to Western Europe for no apparent reason. The name implies a broader scope. Remember that we're writing for a global audience. I might support if the title is brought in line with the contents or vice versa. — mark ✎ 13:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: the term medieval is in itself in most cases reserved for Western Europe. Other areas of the world operate with different categorisations. There could perhaps be a stronger emphasis on Eastern and Northern Europe, but for the most part the nobility of these regions emulated the court culture of Western Europe (the exception would have to be the Byzantine Empire). 80.203.101.24 14:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The article name and scope are appropriate, the objection is without merit. Medieval means Europe, and hunting (along with most things related to nobility) meant doing it the French way. User:Stbalbach

• Comment. The article is pretty good. I think it could be better with additional people. I would recommend it follow the path to Featured Article by first getting a Wikipedia:Peer review, then move to a vote once its had more attention. User:Stbalbach

[edit] W. Mark Felt aka Watergate's Deep Throat

Self-nom. Detailed, sourced account of Mark Felt's life with references. If someone wants to add specific footnotes--I don't understand how the footnote system works--see my list here. PedanticallySpeaking 14:44, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Footnoting is now (almost) done. There are a few footnotes to fill in. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Thorough and readable. --Ian Pitchford 15:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object Great work on getting it done so quickly, but I feel that this needs to mature a bit before I think it should be nominated, after all the article is only 18 days old. PPGMD 15:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are precedents for quicker elevations to Featured status. Today's featured article, the Warren County Canal, was started on April 15, 2005, and made featured status on May 2. PedanticallySpeaking 15:37, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

There may be precedents, that doesn't mean I agree with them. Particularly on articles that can get politically charged, I believe in a wait and see attitude. But hey you never know how these votes turn out. PPGMD 15:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well constructed, impressive example of the ability of Wikipedia to put together an excellent article in a short amount of time --John Kenneth Fisher 15:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Though it may eventually get even better, this article appears to be thorough, accurate, neutral, and readable. Jon the Geek 16:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Some of the writing still needs some work, e.g. "Tolson submitted his resignation, dictated by Felt, and Gray accepted it, the acceptance also dictated by Felt." My reaction was, huh? A couple of the captions need a bit of polish as well, e.g. "Hoover made Felt the third ranking official in the Bureau in 1971." Has the article been through Peer Review? The Talk page does not indicate this. --JohnDBuell | Talk 16:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Tolson sentence has been altered. No, it hasn't gone through PR. PedanticallySpeaking 15:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that the writing has been improved, some of the comments below do indicate more work to be done, and as such, I feel I cannot change my vote at this time. --JohnDBuell | Talk 05:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I agree with the concerns about occasional awkward writing, and there's also no way something is ready to be featured when the comment "Citation needed" appears at several points in the text. I also suggest that the section about his pardon be trimmed down; its detail is out of proportion to the rest of the article and not particularly necessary for a topic that should really be handled as a relatively simple addendum to the account of his trial. --Michael Snow 18:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have gone through and tried to tidy the prose. The citation needed have been fixed, though the final paragraphs (written by others) need source notes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Support, good article. Phoenix2 19:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, for an article made in less than a day, this is quite full. And if we can Spring Heeled Jack as a FA, he can be, too. As some of you may know, I was one of the people to vote to keep all Deep Throat info on the Deep Throat page, so my support is assured. --WizardOfTheCDrive 20:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Hi there. As a relatively new Wikipedia contributor, I had to look up featured article criteria to understand what is being proposed. I would have to say the Felt article in its current form does not quite meet criteria for a FA. A FA is supposed to be an example of Wiki's "very best work"; in particular, its prose must be "[c]ompelling, even "brilliant"." In this regard, the Felt article is very nearly there, if we confine our meaning of prose to the type of writing that is seen in non-fiction works like encyclopedias (which is what Wiki is). It needs a little more work but on the whole is very encouraging. However, a FA should also be stable. Here there are more problems. I note from the Edit page that the article is still being actively edited. Secondly, the Felt and DT articles may in the near future be merged, and I'm not sure what implications this holds for one of them being nominated for FA - what if its decided that Felt should be merged into DT, since it is arguable that Felt's entire significance from a historical point of view is really his involvement in the Watergate scandal as DT? Note, I'm not pushing that point, and in fact will oppose such a motion if only because this article is much better written than the DT article. I'm just pointing out possible hurdles toward FA status.~ Neuroscientist 05:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is so close to being there. I have footnoted the entire article, and have noticed that the last few paragraphs are not sourced properly. This has let it down - right at the end we get some weasel words creeping in! Also, if you notice, there are several Fill in! bits in the "Notes" section. These obviously need to be filled in :-) Ta bu shi da yu 09:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quotes in end paragraphs are someone else's doing, so I don't have information on their sourcing. PedanticallySpeaking 15:26, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Support, but this could use another pass or two from editors before it is featured. It's not as tight as it once was. Don't have time to work on it myself, but there was an article in The Nation showing Felt was in charge of finding out who Deep Throat was, and we should add stuff about the book deal. Jokestress 17:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now I still think its too early to give this a run for FAC, information is still being added to it, its still in the news. Although the article looks very very good, I still think its a bit too soon, maybe wait til the fall for another FAC run.  ALKIVAR™ 22:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support A wonderful article and an important one. --jenlight 08:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Object Whatever the quality of the article to date, it's got to be viewed as a work-in-progress right now. Monicasdude 19:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• support: The timeliness and significance of this article showcases the incredible collective effort, by an ensemble of talented Wiki editors, to preserve institutional memory. Making it a featured article would truly be in keeping with the Wiki's mission. Noting the vast contrast between Felt's invaluable disclosures and the destruction of files kept by J. Edgar Hoover during the Watergate era, and the similar contempt for public disclosure evidenced by latter day thought police (e.g. Executive Order 13233), the outcome of voting on this nomination will be a very telling indicator of which road Wikipedia is headed down. Ombudsman 18:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object: While the story of W. Mark Felt is an intriguing one, I don't feel that this topic should be a featured article. I feel the point of a featured article is to bring to the attention of the Wikipedia readership an often overlooked, but always very well done article. The W. Mark Felt article has seen plenty of publicity on the main page in the last month. Because he has been in the news so much, I think we would be wasting an opportunity to bring a different article some extra traffic. Badammcqueen 22:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the whole article is filled with pictures of other people. This seems to be unique for an article about a specific person. -- Dissident (Talk) 29 June 2005 17:02 (UTC)

[edit] History of South Africa

Self-nom. This article failed the last time it was nominated due to concerns over its length and image copyright status. The length issue I believe is a non-starter, as while the article is around 60k, that is only 20k per millenium of South African history. The image copyright issue has been fixed by my creation of an image tag that describes the law under which the images have been used. Apart from that, I think this article is definitely one of the best we have here on Wikipedia, and incredibly thorough while being concisise for the amount of history it covers. The old discussion can be found here. Thanks! Páll 03:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support Everyking 09:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, the article is great, but the images a remain a problem since a non-commercial licence is not compatible with the GFDL. Also I think that the html links in test should be references clearly using a footnote template--nixie 11:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course non-commerical licence immages are not compatible with GFDL, that's why they are seperate licenses. All of the text on wikipedia is released under GFDL, however the images may be released under different licenses. Páll 13:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, but all images need to have a commercial license because non-commercial licenses are being disallowed as announced by Jimbo Wales. It was in the Signpost a few weeks back. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:40, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - same reasons as before in the failed nom. No effort has been made to address those. Especially telling is that the ==Apartheid== section, instead of being a summary of the Apartheid article, is in fact almost exactly the same size. Also, as is, having almost half the article on that aspect of South Africa's history unbalances the whole article. In addition, there are overly romantic heading titles like ===Stalked by a shadow===, ===Winds of change===, and ===Into the future===. There are also no inline cites except in the last section of prose. --mav 17:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. My understanding is that the 32k length limit for articles is just a rough guideline, not a firm limit. The article is long because it's on a big, important subject, and and because people put a lot of work into it. I don't see anything in the article that looks like filler. The discussion of the Boer War, for example, is long because it tries to present an accurate NPOV picture of a controversial topic. I understand the concern over licensing for the photos, but this is for only a relatively small number of the photos covering recent times, and the plain truth is that they add immeasurably to the article. I find the subheadings like "Winds of change" to be refreshing. Too much of the writing on wikipedia is awkward, formal, and boring. This article is a nice change from that. --Bcrowell 20:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • All featured articles need to stay tightly on topic and not go into unnecessary detail on subtopics (leaving more detailed descriptions of sub-topics to other articles). The Apartheid section of this article does not follow that FA criteria and its length, relative to the length of the other parts of South Africa’s history, is more than is necessary to summarize that part of South Africa’s history. Nobody here has mentioned the 32KB limit and nobody is complaining about the length of the Boer War section. --mav 15:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I see. So are you just complaining about the length of the apartheid section? I'd assumed we were talking about the total length of the article, and just using the apartheid and Boer War parts as specific examples. I disagree that the length of the apartheid section is longer than it should be in relation to the rest of the article; it's about 1/3 of the article (not half), and I think that's about right. It's true that it's comparable to the length of the apartheid article, and not only that but it's much better written, and includes a lot of excellent photos. To me, reading the apartheid article and reading the apartheid section of the history article is like night and day; the section in the history article is much better in every way, and I don't think the people who did such a good job on the history article should be penalized because the apartheid article has never been brought up to the same level of quality. --Bcrowell 17:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The history of South Africa was not written down until the late 16th century, and even then was only written down to cover the small area that is now known as Cape Town, therefore the beginning of the article is short because the amount of known information about the subject is short. The apartheid section is detailed because it covers perhaps the most relevant subject to South African history as well as the current situation in the country. Why don't you mention which details and subjects you find to be extraneous and worth moving to the apartheid article, which has no real history of apartheid and instead focuses on the law (and is also at the moment in the middle of a huge edit war which would make "offshoring" imprudent as it could flare the edit war further). Remember one of the Wikipedia maxums, "If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself"! Páll 18:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll make those changes this weekend. That means somebody else will need to work on adding those inline cites and verifying or removing the images listed below. The other things are not that important. --mav 02:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I've worked on the images, as described below in my reply to Carnildo.--Bcrowell 16:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object agree with mav. Why can't the history be summarised and chunks of detail moved to dedicated articles for each top level section? It would be easier to read just gist of South Africa's history if it is made shorter. I also don't see the significance of the map of SAF in the lead.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A history of a country should be long. Appartheid section is long but then it should be - after all it is the most (in)famous part of the country's history. Of course I wouldn't object if other sections were expanded, but the current 63kb is impressive and tells me the article is fairly comprehensive, especially with that many subarticles. All considered, another great FA by our resident SA specialist, Páll. What's next on your list 'to FA'? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So size alone tells you this is comprehensive? That's absurd. --mav 02:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Where did I write that it's the only indicator I use? It's an important 'first impression' indicator, but of course one has to read the article to be more certain. Of course getting a PhD in the related area would help as well, but we have to draw a line somewhere...:p --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The copyright status of some images is unclear or unacceptable. In particular:
  • Image:BantuPottery.jpg has no information
  • Image:Bartolomeu dia cape of good hope.jpg has no information
  • Image:TrekBoers crossing the Karoo.jpg is claimed as GFDL, which I find unlikely
  • Image:Langlaagte.jpg has no information
  • Image:Earlytown.jpg has no information
  • Image:Apartheid sign.JPG is claimed as PD, but the image it's cropped from has no information on copyright
  • Image:Apartheid Passbook.jpg, Image:Political Rally in 1985 in South Africa.jpg, Image:Nelson Mandela Being Sworn In.jpg are claimed under the South Africa no-commercial-use license, but the uploader says they're "from the UN archives"
  • Image:Architects of apartheid.jpg, Image:Sharpeville Massacre.jpg, Image:Rivonia accused.gif, Image:Soweto Riots.jpg, Image:South African Miners.jpg, Image:Mbeki swearing the oath of office.jpg are claimed under a no-commercial-use license, which is not an acceptable license for images on Wikipedia.
  • --Carnildo 23:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Many of the ones that were listed under the Sout Africa noncommercial license look like they were available from the UN without the noncommercial restriction, and somebody has updated all the tags appropriately. I've replaced a couple that seemed legally dubious with other UN photos that show something similar. It would be great to have the others cleared up, too, but I don't see most of them as a huge issue. A lot of them seem to be 19th century oil paintings. Some of the images, e.g., Image:Soweto Riots.jpg, are truly iconic, and I think it's worth including them, even if we have to claim fair use. I've added some more photos from the UN, and at this point, I think the images are substantially in good shape legally.--Bcrowell 16:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree that anyone redistributing our content can probably claim fair use for Image:Soweto Riots.jpg, but I'm not sure about the others. Remember, the purpose of Wikipedia is not just to create an encyclopedia, but to create one that is open content. --Carnildo 19:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • South African copyright reserves images for 50 years if taken by the government, and the Architects of Apartheid image was definitely taken before 1955, in fact it must have been taken sometime around 1945-46 by the people who are in the photo. I have seen the Sharpeville Massacre, Soweto Riots, and South African Miners images in so many places that I would have a hard time believeing they are anything but fair or free use. They are in EVERY text book on South African history in South Africa. Páll 20:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Copyright doesn't work that way. Just because everyone and their dog uses an image doesn't mean it's out of copyright, it could just mean that there's widespread copyright infringement going on. And fair use isn't a type of copyright license. It's a defense allowing use in what would otherwise be an infringing situation. Fair use must be considered on a case-by-case basis: there's no such thing as a blanket "fair use" decision.
    • If Image:Architects of apartheid.jpg is really more than 50 years old, and if South African law says that images that old are no longer copyrighted, and if the law applies, then the proper tag for it is {{PD}}
    • I've researched the copyright status of the Soweto riots photo, and added some notes to its description page, Image:Soweto_Riots.jpg. The copyright has now gone back to Sam Nzima, the photographer, and he has made efforts to collect royalties. I think it should be in the article because it's such an important, powerful, and well known image in the history of South Africa, but I'm afraid it can only be used under fair use.--Bcrowell 21:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guns N' Roses

Self-nomination. Article has been heavily revised since it was last considered. 26 Dec 2005

Partial self-nom.This article was previously nominated and it failed because some people considered that the history section was too short. This has been fixed. More than five paragraphs of additional information has been added, as well as new photos. The article has all the qualities for being a featured article. References, lenght, pictures, point of view. If you compare any heavy metal band article in wikipedia with this one, you will see a great difference. This article looks extremely profesional. It should be a Featured Article. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support, comprehensive well written article. Should be an interesting read. Marine 69-71 01:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article is way too fannish, especially the lead, which reads like liner notes or material from a fan's web page. There are no inline citations, which I think are pretty important when you're stating that people are heroin addicts, threatened to kill other people, etc. For instance, "Members of the crew at the time even stated that Slash had to be carried on to the stage by a group of people and that he often passed out after the concerts ended." Which members of the crew? Where can this statement be verified? Or this: "His excessive elusiveness has led to several stories that claim that he is suffering from serious bipolar disorder." Is there any way to verify this statement that he's mentally ill? Almost all the photos are claimed to have been used under fair use, and Rose.JPG has no legal information. The article has essentially no critical discussion of the band's music. Were there any themes that were important in their songwriting? How does their music compare stylistically with other heavy metal bands' music? --Bcrowell 01:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. What Bcrowell said was right: the article in general, but especially the lead, is on the "fannish" side. I am not one that complains about hidden citations, but I would like to see much more referencing. This article has a lot of potential, but I don't think it's there quite yet. My suggestion would be to get it copyedited by someone who is relentless at it (Bishonen might actually be willing to help if you ask her nicely), do a peer review, and go from there. It will get there; you just need to work a little more on it. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 04:57, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I didn't even make it past the first sentence before POV became an issue. The rest of the article didn't improve upon that issue. I remember I objected to this article last time because there was no singles discography (a standard on even stubbed artist articles); there still isn't one here. --FuriousFreddy 06:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Wood, Jr.

• This is an excellently contructed article on a cult figure.
• Doesn't seem to omit anything important.
• Is concise and comprehensive.
• Provides information researched from several non-internet sources.
• Appropriate use of pictures.
• Fleshy bibliography/filmography sections, which don't just consist of long lists of titles.
• Plenty of links to other appropriate articles, which have also been written well.
• Would make a refreshing change from having other more famous Hollywood personalities in the Featured Article slot.
• Comment. Nominated by anon 130.209.6.40. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

• Object. No references. Article is fairly short and half of it is a giant list (Filmography and Bibliography) sections. This should go to PR first. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object--for now. Lack of references and detail in places. However, this article is well-written and looks to be well on its way to FA status. Edeans 02:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Cobain

Not a self-nom, I stumbled across this article a little while ago and thought it was pretty good except for the lead and the bit about the supposed murder. I cleaned both those up, added some inline citations and I now think its ready to be featured. Tuf-Kat 07:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Support- Artical is well written. --ZeWrestler 12:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object given the number of really good biographies available like Come As You Are: The Story of Nirvana and Cobains own journals I think alot biographical detail could be added to this article including the time before nirvana, his health problems, his influences and attitudes toward the changes in his life. Given all the press coverage of the murder theory this could potentially also be a seperate section. All the images have sketchy copyright information, for example I think the claim for fair use of Image:Kurt Cobain BW.jpg would be a lot stronger if it was the Rolling Stone cover rather than this verion which gives no credit to the artist or sign of the origin.--nixie 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Your suggestion has been taken and made. The image was replaced with Image:RollingstovecoverCobain.jpg.
    • The rest of the images have the same problem, also the image problem was not by only objection.--nixie 05:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The situation on the talk page about Category:Murder victims was never resolved, and needs to be decided upon first. This is a serious problem with the NPOV status of the article and should be taken into consideration. -- LGagnon 19:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've rebrought this up on the talk page. Anybody interested in the discussion, go there. Tuf-Kat 01:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Brilliant article though its grammar needs improvement. Cedars 01:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. pmam21^talk_articles 01:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - while a very good start, there is much more to be said. As nixie says, there are good biographies out there to be used and cited to fill the article out. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple sclerosis

This appears to be a relatively comprehensive, well researched and referenced article exemplifying the best of Wikipedia. Whig 08:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. While being comprehensive, the article presently has a number of shortcomings that should be addressed before it is featured. (1) It has no references to recent & thorough scientific review articles, a bit of a "must" for a tricky disease like MS. (2) The section "Cause" completely bypasses significant recent evidence on EBV, Th1/Th2 imbalance etc that should be written here. (3) Charcot's clinical triad is missing, as well as a reference to his work on MS. (4) The section "emotional aspects" is unwikified. I'm quite willing to cooperate in raising the article's standard, but I'll need help. Sadly we have no wiki-neurologists who could review the article for us and offer input. JFW | T@lk 09:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Not being a neurologist myself, I lack the knowledge of the up-to-the-moment research, and I think it would be a useful inclusion if someone can provide this with appropriate references. With that said, all encyclopedic content is likely to be a bit "dated" and it isn't really possible to incorporate every current strand of research in every medical article. If this is the principal blocking issue, I don't know what we can do except ask for help from someone with specific expertise in the field. As for the wikification of various sections, I'll be glad to help in any way you think needed. Whig 19:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  In regard to point (2) EBV and MS, this study has apparently been retracted. [21] Also in regard to point (2) Th1/Th2 imbalance, what I have been able to find is inconclusive at present. Do we really need to include withdrawn studies and inconclusive causal theories in order to make this article featurable? Whig 05:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  They messed up the data, but when it was corrected the hypothesis was still supported. There are numerous other studies that found EBV seroconversion associated with MS incidence.

  Presently the "Cause" paragraph treats the immune system like a black box. There must be data on HLA linkage and other predispositions (see Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) 126200 for example - HLA-DRB1*1501-DQB1*0602 is associated). JFW | T@lk 07:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  I've added a Reference section with Readings including clinical reviews which can be moved up above Readings if used as references for this article. I can email some UpToDate articles if anyone wishes to help if you email me. Petersam 06:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. The "treatment" section is not ideally structured as a long bullet point list; it makes it look messy and encourages unstructured editing (cf. "Trivia" sections in some articles). I think paragraphs with subsections would make more sense.--Eloquence* 15:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Object- for the reasons stated above. However, it is a good article that with some improvement could become a FA- I'll see what I can work on! Flcelloguy Give me a note! ^{Desk 02:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Object. Lead is too short. Stub section: Signs and symptoms - expand. List secton: Treatment - transform into normal text. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Battle of the Coral Sea

Very well-written article; comprehensive without extraneous detail; excellent flow & style. NPOV throughout, appropriate supporting images and well-structured body. - Offtherails 01:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Scimitar 22:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Minor Objection- First, the lead section is too short- maybe another paragraph? Second, there are too few inline cites (only one), and it is not formatted correctly- try getting more references and putting more in-text citations. Otherwise a well-written article; I will be happy to support in the future! Flcelloguy ^{Give me a note! 22:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
• Object. Inadequate references. I haven't read A Record of Activities in Cooktown During World War II, but I don't believe it provided much of the material in the article. ;) We also need evaluations of the battle by historians in the field- names and quotes. Also, the tone is very narrative and not very encyclopedic: I'm thinking of phrases like "mindful that his primary role was to protect Port Moresby" and "Their fears were realised". Mark¹ 02:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Quite short, one reference. At best, a bottom line of what passes for FAC in our current standards. And plese remove the external link from body and transform into a note. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Inadequate references and inline citation. - Taxman ^Talk 14:50, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pope John Paul II

An anon user nominated this article but neither created this page nor put the FAC tags correctly, so I went ahead and did it. Flcelloguy 22:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two things to mention:

1) A user signed his (her?) four tildes ( ~~~~ ) before the title (===[[Pope John Paul II]]===) of this section. I'm not sure what he meant, but I went ahead and removed it.

2) Originally I was not planning on pushing for this article. I simply noticed that an anon user had attempted to put the article up for FAC but had done it incorrectly. However, after actually reading the article and reading the comments, I have decided to push for the article, since it seems like the anon user isn't coming back. Thanks for all the comments and suggestions, and I'll be getting to them over the next week or so. (I'm travelling over the next week and might have limited computer access, so bear with me please!) Thanks! Flcelloguy 02:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have now added a few paragraphs for the "Health" section, though the sub-article ( {{main|Health of Pope John Paul II}} ) is kept. In addition, I have expanded the introduction (lead) section to make it more inclusive- it is now 3 paragraphs long. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions and comments, and I'll be working on the rest soon! Flcelloguy 02:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Due to above, my Support is now full. JDG 16:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More Recent Update: Sorry it's been taking me so long, I've been busy cleaning up competition... Anyways, after re-reading the article for the umpteenth time, I would have to agree with some of them- the focus on death, too little focus on S. America, etc. These are major changes and will take some time to fix, depending on how busy I am (feel free to help!). Thus, I plan to take this article to peer review after I'm done fixing all the objections and then re-submitting it as a FAC. However, feel free (as always) to put more input here. Thanks everyone for your comments and suggestions! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update: All minor objections (such as fixing confusing uses of John Paul to John Paul II and the "Health" section) have been taken care of. Thanks to everybody for their comments and suggestions. I will be taking a look at the rest of the comments/suggestions over the next few days, and will get to them soon! Thanks! Flcelloguy 02:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support Comprehensive, NPOV. Could do a better job of using references to back up its statements, and may focus too much on his recent death and the possibility of beatification. --Bcrowell 22:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but I would suggest tightening up the intro a bit. Everyking 22:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Support (now Full Support, see Above. JDG). Bring the Health section back into this article and blow away the sub-article. Wikipedia is becoming a click fest. The current activism in favor of short core-topic articles with many sub-articles is very misguided. When you sit down to read a major topic article you don't want to be chasing down scores of sublinks and subsublinks-- you want all the relevant info in that article. This is what Enc. Brit and almost all serious ref. works do, and it's for a reason. You put all or most of the detailed stuff in far-flung sub-articles that far fewer readers visit and you've succeeded in what: reverse-dissemination of information. JDG 00:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Most Wikipedians support sub-articles, and the idea that we shouldn't shove a huge amount of text down the reader's throat at once, though. So I don't think that's a fair thing to ask. Everyking 04:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm only asking for the restoration of a single section. I'm not sure where you get "most Wikipedians". Has there been a vote? I'm not sure if Flcelloguy is actually pushing for this article such that he's making changes in line with comments here. If he is and he wants my particular support, he'll restore Health. I won't oppose if he fails to, though. JDG 05:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please see above note. Thanks! Flcelloguy 02:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • Agree, Health needs to be expanded into a subsection. Sub-article should remain, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abiding by Summary style is an FA requirement and bringing all the content at Health of Pope John Paul II would imbalance the article toward the later part of his life even more than the article already is. --mav

This is really a requirement for FA? The first sentence of the link you give says "In order to make Wikipedia maximally useful to a diverse readership some people believe that articles should be written in summary style." That certainly doesn't sound like something that has risen to policy status. I really think it's time for a major vote on article length. I think a 32kb limit would be extremely detrimental and I'm sure many agree. JDG

See item 6 at Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Summary style does not require articles to abide by the 32KB limit, it just says that once an article reaches that length of prose it may be getting too long. As is, this article has less than 34KB of prose and since it covers a very important topic it should be easy to justify even more prose than there is already. So long as it is written well and stays tightly on-topic. --mav 20:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • I have now written a few paragraphs for the "Health" section, though it still links to the "Main" article on his health. Flcelloguy 02:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Much of this article is excellent work. But its organization, and the lengthy treatment of the relevant sections, make it seem as though the most important aspects of his papacy were his death and its aftermath. I also think the discussion of his ecclesiastical career in Poland needs a bit more development (and context), that his positions on social and economic justice need more exposition, and that the discussion of his political influence needs a bit more development and structure. Monicasdude 03:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, Monicasdude! I just have two comments/questions: 1) When you say you think the emphasis is on his death and aftermath, are you proposing that we cut down on the death/funeral sections? Most of those are already two or three short paragraphs and have another "sub" article of their own. Second, could you please tell me which sections of the articles you feel need improvement? That would be a great help. Thanks very much! Flcelloguy Give me a note! ^{Desk 02:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)}

• ^{Support. I wouldn't agree with moving the whole health article back into the main piece, but a small summary would be better than a heading and a link. Other than that, a worthy FA page. Harro5 11:38, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Support. I agree with Harro5 regarding the health section. JYolkowski // talk 17:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Object - An article on such an important topic needs to really shine. So far, this article has several issues I think need to be addressed before that can be achieved:}
  1. ^{Lead section is too short for an article this size on such an important topic. Condensing the ==Overview== section (which is the purpose of a lead section, btw) and merging the current lead section will accomplish that.}

^{Please see above- I've now expanded lead section, and I'll take a look at the "Overview" section soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy 02:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)}

• 1. ^{TOC is overwhelming and there are way too few inline cites.}
  2. ^{Having a heading with the only content under it being a link is appalling. Add a paragraph or two about his declining health to the death subsection and rename that to reflect the change.Then make the link to Health of Pope John Paul II inline instead of it being a main article link.}

^{Done. (Again, please see above) Flcelloguy 02:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)}

• 1. ^{The ==Other== section is just a list of what looks like miscellaneous trivia. What is its purpose?}

^{I'll be looking at the rest of the suggestions soon- thanks everyone! Flcelloguy 02:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)}

^{I agree with you that the "Other" section is just trivia. The only one that looks like it could be incorporated into the article is the first one about "Totus Tuus". Would there be any problems if I incorporated that one and deleted the rest of the section? Thanks. Flcelloguy Give me a note! Desk 02:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)}

• 1. ^{Confusing use of 'John Paul' instead of 'John Paul II' in some parts of the article.}
  • ^{Fixed- all "John Paul"s now say "John Paul II". Flcelloguy 02:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
  1. ^{Organization: Having ==Biography== and ==Life's work== are odd as the major level 2 sections. One's life work *is* a very large part of their biography. Nixing these level 2s and finding a better way to organize would help. As is, the article does not seem to have a cohesive structure (moving this material out of its current level 2 section would likely fix this).}

  ^{I hope you are not advocating abandoning of lv 2 sections? I added them to this article some time ago - although they have been much changed by later editors. I generally find 2nd level sectioning very helpful. Perhaps sth should be moved from one lv1 section to another, but leveling the sections would do more harm then good, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)}

  1. Over-concentration on declining health, death and funeral in the ==Biography== section. As is, those aspects take up half of that section (this could be fixed by reorganization under a different level 2 heading or by condensing).
• Aside: I was surprised to see that the further reading, notes, external links, references, and interwiki links have a very significant impact on the physical size of this article and that without them this article isn't nearly as large as it seems from the page size warning - 34KB (just a note for anybody who is thinking about objecting due to the article's apparent size). --mav
• Support- The article is very informative, and extremely NPOV. --User:SVera1NY
  • The above vote is this user's only edit ever. --mav
• Object Very little focus on Latin America, though this region is home to the world's largest Catholic population. (Maybe I went through this article way too fast, but is Liberation Theology even mentioned?) Also, the section on "criticism" should be woven in with the rest of his text. History actually contains far more many shades of grade than the picture presented by those who seem to imagine there to be only two perspectives on the past ("supporters" and "critics"). 172 06:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The organization needs work. The contentless health subsection needs to be expanded or turned into a simple see also. The image gallery also looks as though it is missing two pictures. Good articles really shouldn't have an other section and the factoids listed there should be merged into the prose. - SimonP 18:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Health section now done (see above). Thanks! Flcelloguy 02:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I've tried fixing the gallery, but it's not working. I've posted a help comment on the help desk. Any ideas? Thanks! Flcelloguy | Give me a note! | Desk 16:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Agree with most of Mav and other users' objections. Several days ago I put this article in Polish Wikipedians Notice Board to do 'close to PR' section, just because I don't think it is FAC ready yet. Close, true, better then several of our current FAs, true, but not something I'd nominate just yet. Although it is close enough so that with one-two editors willing to put some time and address those objections we can make it a FA in that voting run yet :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Witkacy 22:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object, I agree with the criticisms about the balance given to different portions of his life, too little in some aresa too much in others. Also, what is up with the 31 external links to obituaries?--nixie 06:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I, too, personally felt a bit overwhelmed at the large number of external links when I first read the article. However, should we delete some of those? I'm a bit hesistant because now that we have so many links, how do we choose which ones to keep and which ones to delete? Thanks, Flcelloguy Give me a note! ^{Desk 02:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)}

All the links seem to link to a particular media organisations direcoty of links about PJPII, I'd delete them all except the criticisms and the ones specifically labelled as directories.--nixie 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. Flcelloguy | Give me a note! | Desk 16:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The late Pope looks good but the lead is a bit long. Dralwik 17:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Pope John Paul II was a great man.Yo Mama 5000
  • But this article is not. I would even go as far as to say that in it's present form it offendes the pope - he deserves so much better. Please, people, don't let your admiration for the men get in the way of this review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleopatra VII of Egypt

I nominate this article because it is very well-written and informative. Matjlav 18:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Cleopatra has had a huge impact on cluture, and the section in this article is simply too short at present. --Scimitar 18:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object, there's more controversy surrounding her death than this article mentions. I saw a documentary on discovery which suggested she was murdered. This article doesn't mention this option as well as the fact there was no snake in the mausoleum and that she wasn't the type to commit suicide and so on. There's enough notable speculations to report in a section on her death. Mgm|^(talk) 19:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review This could be an FA, but it doesn't seem comprehensive enough. As one of the most famous women in history, there should be more here. slambo 19:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Object--no references. Meelar (talk) 20:39, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Object For all of above reasons Giano | talk 21:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object- please use references and citations. Flcelloguy 15:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agriculture

Good thorough treatment, but not overly detailed for such an umbrella topic. Very strong History section. Partial self-nom. JDG 00:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's a good summary for such a vast topic, but it needs a longer lead section and the environmental problems and policy sections should be turned into prose. - SimonP 16:52, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I agree with Simon P here. Generally, it's an interesting read, but the Environmental Problems, Policy and Methods sections need expanding. They're basically just lists at the moment. Perhaps you could start off with including small summaries of each (e.g. "aeroponics is..."). Extraordinary Machine 18:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As well as the objections listed above, I would like to see specific source citations inline. I have marked it up accordingly. --Theo (Talk) 19:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Overall, it's a good article, but I must object since I don't really see any mention of how the finished goods are transported; a major part of farming is getting the product to buyers since failure to do so means no income from the product that is created. In my eyes, Agriculture isn't just planting and growing, it's also selling and transporting the finished product. For example, the North American "wheat rush" every fall can generate revenues large enough to subsidize some small railroads for an entire year. Many farmers in America join together into co-ops to market and transport their crops to buyers. The Canadian Wheat Board was setup as an agency that would handle much of the marketing of various grains across Canada. There's more that could be said, and I think it needs a mention here. slambo 19:46, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Object too many lists, stats are not up to date (and I'd prefer to see stats from the FAO than the USDA), the format is bad in places, the list of methods and see alsos needs pruning to only the immediately relevant links, there is very little information on livestock (should have a section similar to crops), there needs to be a decent discussion of pest and disease management and trade of agricultural goods and futures, environmental policy and problems need to be prose.--nixie 22:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Far to broad a subject to be covered by one article. Each small diversity could be long article in itself e.g. "Wheat Production in East Anglia", or "Agriculture in Ancient Egypt". Not too mention the minefield of "Genetic crops" The word agriculture can only really be a vague dictionary definition. Agriculture should be a category not an article. Not voting on this as my comments are not really actionable. Giano | talk 12:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Well, folks, you're right. I see now that as good as the existing text is, a number of other areas need to be fleshed out, foremost among them Livestock, as nixie says. But I disagree vehemently with Giano. When writing for WikiP I always keep kids in mind, your typical 12 or 14 year old who was just hit with a homework assignment. Poor kid needs to do a writeup on Agriculture, surfs optimistically over to the best new reference work in the world and is met with "Please use the Agriculture-related links below.", which links lead off to endlessly detailed, often obscure sub-aspects. No, we need strong entries for high--level topics like this. This movement to severely limit article size and throw everything relevant into sub-articles is downright poisonous. This is an encyclopedia, not a vast index-finger workout room. JDG 20:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Further comment Children today are not told "go find out what is agriculture" even at a young age thay are given a defined (excuse the pun) field to research, e.g what do cows eat to make milk, what are daddy cows called, why does mummy cow need a calf once a year, etc. etc. etc. That is the detail that needs to be covered on every aspect of agriculture if you are writing for children, or even adults who want to know more. Then one can cover more complex issues calving indexes, feed conversion rates. Yields per hectare. Fertiliser nitrogen rates per hectare to improve protein yields in milling wheat, the perceived detrimental effects of those rates on the environment, before one even approaches the history of the subject, the projected future of the subject, it's effects on the landscape. Agriculture in the political field of the 21st century (very relevant in Europe). The effects of irregation in agriculture on the economy of a country (think Egypt, Aswan damm) and so on. Giano | talk 20:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, being a parent of a 10-year-old, I've heard and helped with many of the homework assignments that have been assigned this year. Sometimes the question is "What is TOPIC?" Other times, it's "Find 5 facts about TOPIC." For questions like these, I showed my son how to do a quick search on WP to find an answer. So, yes, we do need to think about children accessing the site for homework with broad questions. However, we do need to stick to certain conventions when nominating articles for featured status. I don't think these two goals are at odds with each other since brilliant prose can be, and often is, accessible to younger readers. slambo 17:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beowulf

• Vote For. Nice Read. Very Interesting. 4.238.245.162 23:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I think the storyline and translations sections need to be split, and we can probably do without an excerpt as well as long as the Project Gutenberg link is referred to. Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Doesn't appear comprehensive. An article on this length might be sufficient for a more minor work, but Beowulf is important enough to warrant a more detailed review. Everyking 12:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article is in quite a good state, but it's nowhere near long enough to be featured. Much, much more could be written about such an important work, and this article is not yet comprehensive. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I fixed 4.238.245.162's nomination of this article. As an inexperienced user, s/he did not know that it also had to be posted on Featured article candidates. I did not know whether to delete the nomination or to complete it, but I chose the latter, because the information is OK, and as far as the length and coverage are concerned the page has been quite static for a very long time (most contributions during the last months have been quite minor edits). Hopefully, this discussion can inspire further work on the article.--Wiglaf 15:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object, not comprehensive. Neutrality^talk 19:45, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, not comprehensive. Lead is too short and fails to even summarize what the work is about. The excerpt from the work itself is basically filler to cover for the fact that this article doesn't have nearly enough depth on the subject. --Michael Snow 20:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lead is too short, prose seems bad (lots of single-sentence paras). Article is rather short, so I doubht it is comprehensive enough for our standards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object there seem to be few references, and I'm not sure what they cover, please consider more texts or explain which ones covered all the material. Also please condsider inline references such as footnotes. Mozzerati (signed 20:24, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC))
• Object - can't say much about detail of the piece, but would strongly advise converting inline numbered external links to use Template:Note and Template:Ref. I also think that more notes need to added to source specific info, for instance to indicate the source of where J.R.R. Tolkien thought a particular translation was bad. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It needs to be expanded, as I have seen more comprehensive summaries of Beowulf - as a poem, as a cultural archetype and as an example of Anglo-Saxon language - in GCSE (UK - aimed at 14-16 year olds) textbooks. It is just not yet good enough --Batmanand 15:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object, I agree, It's not comprehensive.
• Object. Not comprehensive, and relatively superficial. Monicasdude 01:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Half-Life 2

Self-nom. Me and some editors have been fixing this article up and now I believe it is worthy for FA status. I tried to incorporate everything that was said while it was peer reviewed, and I think we did a good job. Thunderbrand 04:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: could you add something about how many copies of the game have been sold (preferably mentioned in the lead)? I thought I once heard this had been one of the fastest-selling games in PC history...Harro5 04:48, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I added it to the lead. The only thing I can find is how many were sold from Nov-Jan, and Valve hasn't said anything new lately. Thunderbrand 04:58, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Primarily because assertions are mostly unsourced. For example, what were the positive reviews mentioned in the Lead? Who "feel[s] that it is very frustrating to only learn the story in small bits and pieces throughout the game"? I also dislike the title of the ==Notes== section; conventionally, we use that heading for footnotes, but it also gives little clue as to what the section addresses. Is it about ==Player perspective==? --Theo (Talk) 23:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I tried to fix it up as best I could by what you said. Thunderbrand 00:40, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The changes address my concerns. --Theo (Talk) 01:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Contains empty and very short sections. The 1984 comparison is original essaying and speculation, as is the part about Half-Life 3. Many references are made to "some players" without specifying who they are and providing references. There is hardly any information about the gameplay, and particularly too little information about the Source engine and how its much-hyped physics powers were applied. The "controversies and criticisms" section should be prose, not a bullet list. There should also be more information about the game's development history and other things surrounding it besides controversy, such as marketing/hype and reception by reviewers. - Fredrik | talk 21:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Much of the infomation you mentioned was moved to new articles or already exist in other articles, such as Source engine, since the page was becoming way too long. Thunderbrand 22:15, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

There should be summaries to replace what was moved. Fredrik | talk 23:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I summarized the weapons section, and the other sections that were moved already have summaries. Thunderbrand 23:58, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. (sorry for the rather extreme delay in voting) A good start, but clearly not FA-quality yet. What bothers me most is the disorganized plot section; the plot summary itself should be more comprehensive, and there should be less room for speculative 1984 comparisons. Right now, the summary itself also lacks cohesion in my view (A few examples: i) does it make sense to mention the G-Man to people who know nothing about HL, just to say Freeman then finds himself in City 17, without explaining the G-Man's role at all, or reporting his words; ii) "it seems that the massive energy discharge caused by the "resonance cascade" " is ambiguous wording. What level is this written on: does "it seem" so to Freeman, the general population of the virtual world, or is it the article's authors' speculation?).

The Setting could easily be converted into flowing prose, and describe the actual setting as a whole, rather than simply compare it to 1984. The very choice of 1984 as only comparison strikes me as somewhat POV; I mean, why not compare it to Doom III, for instance (I'm not saying that's what should be done, I'm just giving an example of how arbitrary the choice is, as HL2's setting is reminiscent of many "post-apocalyptic/post-invasion" works. The 1984 speculation, if it has to stay, needs to be turned into prose and provide even more specific hints (The Civil Protection seem distinctly like the Thought Police, reinforced when Freeman witnesses the storming of a flat. doesn't say much). The best would be to quote authoritative reviewers mentionning the "Orwellian" atmosphere, or drawing comparisons to 1984 (I know there have been). What about the Eastern Europe reference, where does this come from?

I also feel there are too much reminiscences of the personal authors' views and comments (examples: which is, appropriately enough, referred to as the Seven Hours War). More of this: The general atmosphere of the game has a distinct totalitarian and authoritarian feel that makes it similar even without the specific details mentioned above and inferred from in-game., However, the Gravity Gun survives (probably due to its zero-point nature) and is made incredibly powerful - Sentences like this (which are equivalent to describing the highly subjective "look and feel" of the game) border on personal comment (even if the game developers' intent was clearly to produce the effect described) should be avoided if possible.

The "Notes on the narrative" section, while interesting should stay even more factual and present less conjecture, unless it can be shown by quotes that the questioning of the narrative technique of the game presented in taht section reflects what major reviewers thought. (consider: Although these are certainly intentional devices on the part of Valve Software, [...] It could be said in Half-Life that the player's bewilderment is meant to mirror Gordon's [...] . By the opening of Half-Life 2, however, Gordon has proven that he can survive in a strange and hostile environment, and should therefore be at least somewhat more level-headed and inquisitive., These complaints, of course, only prove that the game's designers have successfully [...].) The paragraph about the Gordon's not aging could be reduced to a single-sentence mention, as the rest is fan speculation; the stasis theory does not follow from the endings of the games.

Too many microsections; the "Weapons" and "Enemies" sections, for example, need serious help. Ask yourself if it is worth making an extra section just to say many of the weapons from the first game return, with some new ones. At best briefly mention both enemies and wepaons from Half Life make "comebacks" in HL2.

The "Multiplayer" section likewise needs some cleanup; the paragraph about fan disappointment needs to be reduced and stay factual (However, there are arguably just as many players for whom the novelty of annihilating enemies by blasting them with barrels, computer monitors and even cars will never be exhausted., It is common for a player to immediately blame some factor beyond his or her control for a defeat. — personal comments like this need to go).

The "Game engine" section does not seem satisfactory for a game so highly praised, specifically for its physics and game engine. The confusing mention of Steam being used to upgrade the engine, doesn't cut it. (Additionally, when coupled with Steam, the engine can be easily upgraded to include many new graphical technologies. One such example is high dynamic range imaging [...], if they used Steam to upgrade the engine to add HDRI, say it clearly, and say when they did it; from the wording right now, it is not unequivocal wether they did it, plan to, or just could possibly do it).

I only have one word for the section about Steam: quotes. Quote reviews, mention and source specific problems users have had with the system. Without sources, this section is useless. The "Controversies" and criticism quotes could also use some external links to media websites (specifically about the code leak, and legal battle with Vivendi). It would be nice if it were turned to prose too. The HL3 paragraph is pure speculation. I hope I wasn't too harsh, and my comments will be useful to help get this to FA level. Phils 19:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object - The "note" template used in the "Notes" section is designed to be used in conjunction with the "ref" template, so that the "^" "symbols" in front of each note, links back to the noted text. Otherwise they don't work, this should be fixed. Paul August ☎ 20:18, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hampshire

Partly a self-nomination, as myself and the UK geography WikiProject have masively expanded the article over the past couple of weeks. From the references I've run out of things to add, so I think the article is pretty comprehensive. Compare with Dorset, which is already featured. Joe D (t) 21:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very interesting to read. Meelar (talk) 21:07, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I don't have a strong opinion about this article, and that is probably because in general it is just flat to read. There isn't anything wrong with it as such, it's just that Hampshire isn't that interesting a place. Harro5 21:23, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Object Nothing on sport. I think there should be a section on that. Southampton and Portsmouth have football clubs. Hambledon is important to the history of cricket. Hampshire County Cricket Club is at the Rose Bowl. There must be loads of sailing and yachting with the Solent nearby. Also, the picture of "Southampton from Netley Hospital" looks like a lot of grass and some trees - I thought Southampton was an urban area, jguk 22:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, done (except the image caption, which is correct, though the foreground is dominated by the hospital grounds). Joe D (t) 23:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You can't see Southampton in that picture (unless you expand its size greatly). It's a misleading caption that should be removed - or perhaps better the whole picci could be removed. It's still not in the same league as Mumbai yet, jguk 19:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object on several grounds:
  • Source citation is inadequate. For example, I recall that only the western half of the county was occupied by Jutes so I wish to check the assertion that the county was occupied by Jutish tribes. Theo (Talk)
• Response: Reference and filmography added 6-6-05.

  I have split the endnotes from the references. It feel that more inline source citations would be better but insisting on rigourous citation seems inappropriate. --Theo (Talk) 07:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Significant omissions include:
    • Culture including sport (already noted by jguk above), educational institutions (e.g. University of Southampton, and Winchester College), theatres (e.g. the Nuffield Theatre company developed West End shows), and fine art (e.g. Millais was a native, and Lowry was a regular visitor and painted local scenes).
    • East Hampshire is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
    • Famous residents including Gilbert White (Natural History of Selborne), Captain Oates, Benny Hill, and Craig David.
    • Historically, the Mayflower, the Titanic, and Supermarine (manufacturers of the Spitfire aircraft and flying boats).
    • The Boat Show.
    • Basingstoke as a financial centre, not just a traditional market town.
    • "Hampshire Hog" as the nickname for those born in the county.

Theo (Talk) 23:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • OK, added several of these and will look into adding theatres and people tommorow. I'm not sure whether the Titanic should go on the main article, but I'll certainly add that and other notable ships to History of Hampshire later. Can you clarify the Mayflower connection? I'd never heard of a connection and the Mayflower article doesn't mention Hampshire. Joe D (t) 23:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    The loss of the Titanic is a defining moment in Hampshire's history because it involved the loss of so many residents of Southampton (the county town). The Mayflower originally departed Southampton; this is stated in that article. --Theo (Talk) 07:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose for some quibbles. It seems odd for an English county's area and other measurements to be given in square miles first, then kilometers (the infobox only gives kilometers). Also, I assume the source for the demographics in the infobox is Office for National Statistics & Hampshire County Council, but that should be specifically cited in some way. The first sentence under "Physical geography" is odd -- is that a geological use of categories? (also why is that section "physical geography" but the main article "geology"? I suggest sticking with one or the other) And the second sentence refers to a "weak" variety of clay, which I guess uses some meaning of "weak" I'm not familiar with. There are an awful lot of statistics under "economy" that aren't cited, but should be (also under "transport"). Tuf-Kat 23:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • What's odd about miles? They're more commonly used than metric for measuring large distances. The sub-article of Physical geography is partly named such as a standardisation of the sub-article names across counties, and partly because the only other physical geography in the section is climate, for which there isn't enough to say for an extra article, or to split the section into geology and climate sections. The first sentence of geology is simply saying Hampshire can be divided in two by what its geology and landscape are like, I'll try and think of a less ambiguous way to phrase it though. I'll go and change "weak" to "non-resistant" and link to the sources now. Joe D (t) 23:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that a culture section should be added, universites should also be mentioned somewhere. The seascapes are lovely but don't really give an impression of the city areas or urban environment, the cathedral in that pic is compltetly obscured by a large tree, so you have one from a different angle. Also, what's the sifnificance of the yellow shaded regions on the district map?--nixie 04:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak support I'm sure the length can be expanded.Object Agree completely with nixie. Would also like to see average temperatures, rainfall; and the sports section expanded.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 11:58, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comments: I've added stats to the climate paragraph and changed some photos around to hopefully give a better idea of the towns and cities, but since I don't live in Hampshire and only rarely pass through it I don't have that many photos of my own to use, so am mainly relying on what other people have uploaded already. I've added a little culture, but haven't added Nuffield because I don't have and can't find a reference for its notability. The yellow areas are independent unitary authorities as it says in the list below the map. Update: I've also added a sentence linking to the universities in the settlements section, which I think is probably all that's needed on this topic for this page. Joe D (t) 16:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joachim Gottschalk

A once-famous but now obscure German actor who defied the Nazis for love and family. - Wellreadone 23:33, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Object No references. Not comprehensive: the article is almost exclusively about the circumstances leading to his death, with almost nothing on his acting career, not even a list of the movies he was in. Phrases like "his devoted fans" sound fannish. There is no copyright information on the photo; from what I understand about Nazi-era copyrights, this is a big can of worms.--Bcrowell 00:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Response: Reference and filmography added 6-7-05.

• German Copyright Law -- Article 72

(1) Photographs and products manufactured in a similar way to photographs shall be protected, mutatis mutandis, by the provisions of Part I applicable to photographic works.

(2) The right afforded by paragraph (1) shall belong to the photographer.

(3) The right afforded by paragraph (1) shall expire 50 years after publication of the photograph, or if its first permitted public communication took place earlier, after the latter, but 50 years after its manufacture where the photograph has not been published or legally communicated in public within such period. The period shall be calculated in accordance with Article 69.

The photograph of Gottschalk was an "autogramme" postcard, signed by Gottschalk and given to a fan. Therefore, it was published more than 50 years ago.

Can anyone refer us to more info on Nazi-era copyrights? There used to be some at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags#WWII_Nazi_pictures, but it looks like it's gone, now. From what I recall, it was very complicated, with, e.g., two different laws applying to two different types of photographs, and complications because it was an empire rather than a single nation. This seems to be a FAQ, since I remember it coming up more than once before this (e.g. for blitzkrieg). --Bcrowell 03:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On German copyright, and the distinction between a "Lichtbild" (50y) and a "Lichtbildwerk" (life of author +70 or 80), see Template_talk:PD-Germany, that template's deletion discussion, and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Holding_Cell. Lupo 10:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This is far, far short of being comprehensive. Look at some featured articles to see the kind of standard that's expected. Everyking 04:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review --nixie 04:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Interesting and sad story, but it does not meet the FA criteria. Giano | talk 15:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Ryukyu Kingdom

This article should be nominated. Very little has been published elsewhere on the rich history of the Ryukyu Kingdom. As it kind of overlaps with another article on Ryukyuan history: Ryukyuan history and Ryukyuans, some attention is also needed to bring the two articles under the same heading.

• Object:Needs a map. Needs images. Needs references. Needs 3000 words. It's terrible, what's the mater with this place today? Giano | talk 18:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support: 3000 words and references can be searched in libraries. We can all work on it. Map can be easily found on-line. Dunshi 19:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• strong object. Sorry, but there is a rather large amount of work needed before this article is FA-worthy. To start with: 1) there is no lead section. 2) there are no images. 3) cite your sources. 4) The The Origins of the Ryukyu Kingdom and its dynasties section is exactly one sentence and doesn't even list any of the dynasty names. 5) The External links section is longer than the rest of the article. Please review Wikipedia:What is a featured article before nominating articles in the future for FA status. slambo 19:19, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Compare this article to the content in History of the Grand Canyon area to get an idea of the comprehensiveness that is needed for a History of REGION article. slambo 19:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Please, do not nominate articles that do not meet basic FA criteria. Phils 19:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• refer to peer review for additional ideas. Not comprehensive enough to be a feature article. --Scimitar 20:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object, refer to peer review or the article improvement drive.--nixie 00:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Are those Wikipedia mirror site links I see in the ext. links section? It looks like there's at least a few. Everyking 02:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object- Please write a more comprehensive article. Featured articles should offer an in-depth look at the topic and contain a lot more information and writing. Flcelloguy 03:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Looks kind of sloppy, and needs a map.

[edit] Antarctic krill

After much discussion I want to sponsor this article again. All objections and suggestions and language have been worked on, references added, some images moved off. An academic group from Australia, USA, Germany, Japan and Norway found no errors. Thanks go especially to user:lupo, User:Yakuzai and in Scandinavia to User:Salleman. The article covers the basic biology, ecology, geography, fisheries and some unique bio-features of this key species of Antarctica, which is probably (in terms of biomass) the most successfull animal of the planet (yet known to only a few), and gives an outlook for future ventures of Ocean Engineering (I contributed to the article).

• nominate and support Uwe Kils 18:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, it is clearly evident that a lot of work went into this article since the last time you submitted it, but the problem can be fixed. The article needs some variation in the positioning of the pictures, and there still may be too many. Phoenix2 18:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thanks for your comment, Phoenix2, I moved images out but others moved them back in Uwe Kils 18:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Support, ready to be featured after lots of hard work. Phoenix2 00:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a potential FA, just wait to see what others think. Phoenix2 18:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support this time around. It's still a little text-light, or maybe it just seems that way because of the wealth of quality images, but it has greatly improved. --Scimitar 19:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)*
• Support The only thing i would add more to is the section on eyes, oh yeah and maybe renaming subheading from "Systematic" to "Morphology" as that would in my view be more comprehensible to the average reader. I think as it stands it is a very comprehensible article that is informative and interesting with some great supplementary images.Yakuzai 23:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support- it is amazing how much this article has improved since the beginning of its first FAC. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - much improved! — Catherine\^talk 02:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support I (?re)reoriented the pictures in an alternating fashion, and did some edits toward the end, where the redo had tailed off a bit. This was largely gilding the lily, as I think the meat of the article, in its newly rewritten state, had already made it feature quality. Sfahey 04:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object, I find the way the citations have been done to be quite hard to follow, a simple numbering system would be better. I raised this in the last FAC, the graphs need better captions. --nixie 05:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thank you for the comment - I added to the captions where senseful - I agree with Lupo on the numbering of refs - we will kep on putting more in (maybe change it in the end) - best greetings to Australia Uwe Kils 12:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Big improvement on the captions, and adding the bullet poitns to the references list has made it much easer to read, Support--nixie 00:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support, of course, even though I don't like the alternating left-right image placement at all; it makes the article looke piecemeal. To nixie: we once had a numbered reference scheme, and it's a maintenance nightmare. Two references are in image captions, they both got shown as "[1]", and somehow it made the numbering in the main texts start at 2, and it was very difficult and maintenance-intensive to make the ref numbers agree with the list at the end. (A ref reading "[7]" should indeed go the an entry numbered "7", otherwise it's worse than useless.) The current scheme uses symbolic references as they are common in many scientific papers (it's a scheme I have used successfully in all my peer-reviewed publications) and doesn't have that problem. Lupo 06:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also like the images better on the right - change them back Uwe Kils 11:37, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Support, on balance: I suspect that there is probably more to be said, but the nominator ought to know what should be in the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Much better now. Can we get the lists at the bottom formatted as * lists? Morwen - Talk 12:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hallo Morven - we still collect more (see comment of Lupo, who did most of the ref work) later we might change it Uwe Kils 12:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Interesting and informative. One suggestion: It would be nice to include a little more on what eats the Antarctic krill other than the very brief "Position in the Antarctic ecosystem" section. BlankVerse ∅ 13:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thank you for the comment - I added some more, will later add some on the whales Uwe Kils 14:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

added whale birds squid seal fish consumption data from Hampton Uwe Kils 17:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Support because what is there is great, but I'd still like to see more effort on providing explanation of jargon, and more context for many of the overly technical bits. Older Comment: great stuff, especially the thorough citation. If there's anything factually incorrect in there, a knowledgeable person could find it easily. But it seems the most imporant points have avoided citation. Specifically claims of the largest biomass, the specific amount of the biomass, and speculation of the largest biofeedback mechanism. This is enough to object on, but I'm assuming you can get those citations easily enough, so I'll support once you have. Also the citation system is confusing. What is the difference between Kils79 and H+83? Also, what is meant by directly utilizing the phytoplankton cells? What would be not direct? There are other examples of writing that appears like it would be clear to someone knowledgeable in the subject, but is a bit hard to parse for someone like me. I'll try and help if you like, or just go through and add some inline context for places where people might get confused. - Taxman ^Talk 14:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• thank you for the extensive comment, I will work on it - direct: means not over the traditional food chain phytoplankton small copepods, large copepods, mysids, little fish - biomass: this is much disputed, in lack of methods and because of the huge area we do really not know much - I was on a venture with 11 research vessels fron 10 nations, and we still have only a vague idea of the stock in Scotia Sea alone - and much krill lives under the ice - Uwe Kils 14:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I understand that even less than I understand what is in the article. You mean that instead of going to progressively larger organisms a 6cm organism eats the phytoplankton? Well then just say that! Actually part of the rest of the article does I think, so just explain it a little more. The whole of the text is rather terse, so explaining some biology bits with very short (a few words sometimes) bits of context goes a long way and wouldn't be too wordy. - Taxman ^Talk 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

is this better?: "The size-step between krill and its prey is unusually large: generally it takes three or four steps from the 20 micrometer-tiny phytoplankton cells to a krill-sized organism (via small copepods, large copepods, mysids to 5 cm fish)^[KK79]. The next size-step in the food chain to the whales is also enormous, a phenomenon only found in the Antarctic ecosystem." Uwe Kils 02:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• it says not largest biomass but animal biomass Uwe Kils 14:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Ah yes, I saw that, but didn't specify. - Taxman ^Talk 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The "Kils79" ref should have been "KK79". Fixed it. The system for deriving the symbols is pretty simple: if there's only one author, use the first few (3 or 4) letters of his last name. If there are multiple authors, use only the first (upper case) character of each last name. If there are many authors, use the first and add a "+". In all cases, append a two- (or for short symbols, four-) digit year. Break ties by appending lower case letters, beginning with "a". Lupo 14:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of that system but it sounds standard. Could you either explain it at the bottom or link to an article explaining it? As for the rest, it sounds like you guys will work that out well. - Taxman ^Talk 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

It's the "alpha.bst" style from BibTeX, used widely in Computer Science publications (and maybe in other fields, too). For an example where it's used, see Design Patterns by the "Gang of Four" (Gamma et al.). I do not know if that style corresponds to a recommendation by some style guide (it's neither APA, MLA, nor Chicago), but I somehow doubt that Patashnik just made it up. Lupo 07:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the biomass: the FAO05 reference gives estimates from 1985 as ranging from 125 to 725 million tonnes. Surely there must be a more recent estimate? The CCAMLR upped its catch quotas significantly (from 1.5 million tonnes to 5 million) after a change in the methodology of arriving at such estimates in the 1990s. I would also like to see a reference for the recently added statement thatCrabeater Seals supposedly eat 120 million tonnes of Antarctic krill each year. Even with the highest estimates, that would be one sixth of the total biomass! I find that hard to believe. Lupo 14:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BONNER B 1995 Birds and Mammals - Antarctic Seals. in Antarctica Pergamon Press 202 - 222 I gave that on the crabeater page - the Antarctic is hard to believe - the high biomass estimations are based on what the whales once took (details are in Nicol, S.; Endo, Y.: Krill Fisheries of the World, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 367; 1997) Uwe Kils 15:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I looked it up, Bonner writes at least 63 million tonnes, so lets change it to this figure, I have in my notes 120, will try to find the source or call colleagues about it, but even 63 off one species is astounding, taken that the whole yield from all oceans and all species, fish, mulluscs, cephalopods, srimps ... is only about 100 million tonnes a year - some say the ants are the biggest, but that would be a collection of many species, others say the copepods, but that too are hundredth of species - E. s. is one species all over the Southern Ocean - Uwe Kils 15:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Support Made all of my comments on previous FA nomination page; thus support. Batmanand 19:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support the article seems to be complete and is written in an understandable way. From looking around in other encyclopedias and in the internet I got the impression that this is the best article about this topic. Kudos to all authors and in particular to Uwe Kils -- mkrohn 01:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful article, and the Images are just so good. Though I can't get that last ref-note link in the intro to work (mn|nicol|NE97), it's missing, or something. Shanes 04:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Lupo 06:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

I mirrored two comments from the first nomination down below to have a compact reference for our Wikiversity projects - thank you all for your help - it was a lot of fun to work with you - I think it is amazing what humans can create in no time if they work accross all boarders and ages with our new communication tools - good luck to you Uwe Kils 10:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• (mirror)SUPPORT This is very different from the usual featured article format, but it is good. It explains in depth most of what (I would imagine) students of the subject need to know. I thought I was totally disinterested (still not riveted) by the subject, yet it held my attention to the end, and I have learned something. So in spite of being a little unconventional in its style and format, I have changed to support, now that it is reliably referenced. I would ask other objectors to give it a second read and see it accordingly for what it is, something well written and informative, on a subject little referred to elsewhere. Giano | talk 18:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• (mirror)Support I've rewritten the difficult systematic section to be more intelligible to the non-specialist, and I would now support this interesting article - perhaps pleopod could be explained also. jimfbleak 05:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support Great article. Lisiate 23:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support Worthy article. Alex.tan 04:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ismail Raji al-Faruqi

I believe that this article should be nominated. Been working on it since Sept 2004, and I think its ready now. Menj 09:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object: This needs to be more in depth. It's more his CV than a biography. There is no objectivity here at all. The quote. " .....is widely recognized as an authority on Islam and comparative religion" - recognised by whom? The reference section is the wrong place, and the formatting seems generally to be erratic. This need to be expanded and then given another (it's already been there once) long period on peer review. Giano | talk 09:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Looks like a solid start, given the extensive biography and the fact the article is rather well-formatted (on this point I disagree with the above), but i) it has serious POV problems (see Giano's comments above) ii) it fails to explain al-Faruqi's significance as an author. What were his views, what were his actual achievements; currently the article does little but list the various positions and honors he held. The three sentences explaining the presumed "focus" of his work at the end of the second section are insufficient. Phils 20:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. the first line isn't even a complete sentence, and the discussion of his death in the introduction is much too speculative. RickK 06:17, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eamon de Valera

One of the most important Irish politicians of all time, critical in the foundation of the Republic of Ireland. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review. Structural problems, and lacks references. Phils 20:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review. Overwhelming TOC, bad section organization (find better ==Level 2== themes and organize the current sections under those), no references, lack of inline cites, and goes into more detail than needed (the more detailed text could be in daughter articles). --mav 17:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review. Gigantic structural problems. Move cabinets to sub-article. Neutrality^talk 19:56, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

  It's actually been peer reviewed. Circeus 19:47, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

  It was peer reviewed after this FAC request - check the dates. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • • My very bad, THe fact remains that the peer review has been archived in the meantime without providing much actual help, apparently. Circeus 22:29, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

But 'dev' was American and he was not in power when the Republic of Ireland was set-up.Fine Gael were.He also opposed the treaty see he wasnt critical in setting up the Irish Free State either,if that is what you meant.--Muc Fíníneach 15:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xanadu House

Self Re-Nomination for the Xanadu House article I have been writing and revising for the past few months. The article, since last time nominated now meets the criteria for nomination articles, and now includes several references, more pictures and a better quality of writing as well as many correct spelling and grammar mistakes. The article is neutral throughout, and gives consistent reading pleasure with lots of detailed information and links to external sources for even more information. I hope that this time the article will be accepted, however if there are any objecting comments and opinions I will continue to improve the article. Wackymacs 18:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Inappropriate structure and lead section. The lead section doesn't really summarize the article or even explain what the subject will be. The article is titled "Xanadu House", but the lead section doesn't say if it covers the last "House" still standing or the entire project. Also, the lead should mention the nature of the foam (insulation, "plastic foam", and finally polyurethane foam are mentionned later, why not be precise right at the beginning?). The Pre-History section, apart from being somewhat strangely named (shouldn't it be just a "Concept" subheading under the "History" section). The first sentence is already obscure: why is Rob Masters referred to as "Creator of Xanadu", in quotes. Is he the creator or not? Does someone dispute the creation? Moreover, the entire section does not flow logically; for example, the sentence he decided to take a slightly different approach by creating a series of show homes around the country, seems to imply that he was trying to promote his constructions before, but this is not made clear; it is only said that he was a pioneer "in building and living in them". There are countless such imprecisions ("Bob Master's partner Tom Gussel", business partner, lover, friend?). The origin of the name is further obscure, did Gussel choose it, or was it derived from Samuel Coleridge's poem "Xanadu"? Many people are introduced with very little context if any at all; who is Kubla Khan? Roy Mason? Jacques Beufs? Jacques Rougerie? If there are no Wikipedia articles on them, at the very least mention their professions and nationality, and perhaps when they lived. The next section, "History", seems to begin as if the rest of the article did not exist. The "Construction" subheading answers many of the question readers might have had while reading the previous sections (nature of the foam, etc) giving a strong that the article was written by different people who did not review each other's work. The following sections only strengthen the feeling that the article is disjointed: there is no longer any structure or logical order in the sequence of (relatively small) sections. The form of the "using computers in the house" (which is more of a description of the House's interior) is rather bad: the list summarizing the features of the House feels like it was taken straight from a promotional leaflet. It should be turned to prose, and the authors should focus on electronics related features, if the section is to keep the name it has now. (Outside pool and garden has nothing to do with using computers inside a house). The subheadings in that section contain more questionable prose. The "Kitchen" subheading for example, begins with The house itself grew some of that food. Xanadu had a built-in greenhouse. The first sentence of the Work at Home section exemplifies ambiguous and inconsistent use of the word Xanadu throughout the article. When the authors write Xanadu suggested a way to do business at home..., do they mean the creators of Xanadu, the Xanadu project, or should it be taken to mean The Xanadu House's design...? The last few sections should be merged with the History section, and de-POVed (The "Future" section contains wild speculation, and might be get rid of entirely). I am unsure what to do about the Xanadu Book section, perhaps move it to the end.

I hope I wasn't too harsh. In any case I invite the author to take this to Wikipedia:Peer Review. I might lend a hand in improving the article, too.Phils 21:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow thanks for the great feedback and constructive criticism.I took into account some of the issues you mentioned and have already addressed them (see updated article). Though the leading paragraph still needs work, and maybe the sections should be reorganized (mainly the "using computers in the home"). I've merged the other sections into the History section. I've removed the "Future" section, I agree that it wasn't very relevant to the subject that much and was pure speculation. If you want to make any changes feel free, because this article still needs a lot of work doing on it. Wackymacs 21:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It's already somewhat better now; thank you for addressing my concerns. I'll see if can make some research so I can help improve the article. Phils 09:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks I like the improvements so far, the best source of research is in-fact the Xanadu book itself because the book includes pretty much everything about Xanadu - but sadly the book is limited in its explanatory of detail about the homes which is why the sections of the article about each room are quite short. I couldn't find much about the architects themselves, and what they went on to do after Xanadu which I'd like to find out.Wackymacs 10:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Too informal. To choppy. Some images not captioned. Exploding Boy 18:38, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to Peer Review. There are problems here with style, sources and comprehensiveness. --Theo (Talk) 22:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Needs a thorough copyedit. Many examples of poor grammar, enough I'm not sure they could be quickly fixed. Needs more sources, and inline citations for important/contentious facts. - Taxman ^Talk 21:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Elasticsoul 21:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Made extensive edits to improve grammar, logical flow, and remove redundant information or information not directly related to Xanadu House. [Interesting article, btw!] The parts I cut out are mostly below, some with my comments:

History - Redundant; mentioned previously in the article Xanadu House was an architectural house project originating from the 1970s. Roy Mason, an architect, planned the Xanadu home by creating a clay concept. His vision of the future home of the 1990s was to use plastic foam for the building's main structure.

There were originally three Xanadu homes built, one in Kissimmee, Florida, one in Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin, and the third in Gatlinburg, Tennessee.

Xanadu is owned by a vacation ownership property, Star Island Development Corporation, 5000 Avenue of the Stars, Kissimmee, FL 34746. It was purchased to be the sales office for this timeshare resort.

The polyurethane hardens in a couple of days, then paint can be applied and space cut out of the foam for windows and doors to be mounted in.

It was put on sale in 1997 and was re-sold in 2001.

The computers had a number of advantages and disadvantages;

Both ordering food from home and maintaining household calendars, records and home bookkeeping can today be done because of the Internet and Secure Online Credit Card Payments.

do a certain action when the computer can do it for you, while you're not even there. Shown in the picture to the right are two girls in the bedroom typing on a computer.

"In the home of the future, people may be able to control coffeepots and front door locks from their bedrooms."

Great Room: The form of entertainment where family members sit around a television set is passive with little or no interaction between the family members and the Television or with each other. A home computer, on the other hand, allows interactive entertainment.

Work at home: This concept has been adapted to today's homes because of the Internet, and Personal Computers, the majority of people working will work from home running a home business or either working for a company through email and websites. Having access to news services from home has become even easier with RSS newsfeeds. In the recent years, working at home has advanced to a new level that the creators of Xanadu did not even dream of having: Video & Audio conferencing over the Internet.

Spa: Sauna temperatures were controlled by computer, pre-set temperatures could also be used.

Security: - doesn't refer to Xanadu House (AKAIK) A computer can control the locking system of doors and windows in the home require a user to enter a password to enter their home, or either uses their thumbnail print as a key of identification that you own the home and has the privilege to enter. Today, this idea is seen as rather silly because computers can be used to do much more than speak to increase security levels in the home.

Disadvantages preventing picture hanging , or would take automated tasks for granted, resulting in you thinking you never have to do housework again.

Reaction unlike a good piece of architecture which would last a long time, Xanadu a bad piece of architecture After Xanadu House was built, there was not a sudden shock and crave from other designs which caused an outburst of futuristic looking homes,

Book was a hardcover, with contained 260 pages of material

- and some too outdated to be considered any longer

Elasticsoul 21:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Convention on Psychotropic Substances

Re-nom. Broken links have been fixed, references have been converted to endnotes, and more content about meth has been added. The treaty text itself has been wikisourced. (Thank you, Smoddy, for your help!) Remember me 12:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• As Remember me says, I fixed up the footnotes in this article. I think it is well written, has good images, and is very well referenced *wipes sweat from brow*. Therefore, I support. smoddy 13:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but...well...the writing is a little dry, and full of extremely long chemical names. A tough read, especially for a generalist. Maybe we could move the sections on adoption and controversy up above the specific drug sections, to draw people in? Meelar (talk) 20:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • That suggestion has been implemented. Philadelphia, LA 21:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Object The Convention is an international agreement but there is no discussion of the politics surrounding its creation or continuing existence. The article has relatively too much focus on individual substances whilst ignoring the real controversy regarding the legalisation of some drugs. The Convention is regarded as one reason why some countries find it difficult to adopt a more liberal approach to drug use. In short, the article needs to take a more strategic perspective on the issues. JPF 22:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Support This concern has been adequately addressed.   JPF 16:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • A lot of political background has been added. 205.217.105.2 19:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, This one should have made it in already. Let´s try to get it right this time.Tparker393 09:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object, my objections from last time still have not been met. It still concentrates way too heavily on psychotropics, and not enough on stimulants. It still needs more balancing, and at least 1 image of a stimulant (no Ecstacy does not count). But it is looking better. Support looks much better now.  ALKIVAR™ 22:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Pics of a meth lab, amphetamines, and crystal meth have been added. In addition, text has been added explaining stimulants' role as an impetus for the treaty's creation; the section on the recent rise of stimulants has been expanded; and there is substantial coverage of specific stimulants (cathinone and methcathinone) that were placed under international control after 1971 through the Scheduling process. Tangible 13:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The orignial nomination is here.—Theo (Talk) 08:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. My previous concerns have been addressed. This is much improved.—Theo (Talk) 08:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. strikes me as UN glorification, despite the limp "controversy" section. to be NPOV, i believe it should approach the subject with far less acceptance of the proposition that the UN (or anybody, for that matter) can tell me, a peaceful adult, what i can put in my body, or even have access too. sounds like it was written by a UN panel, from what i saw. didn't read every word though. SaltyPig 14:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The controversy section has been expanded to include a discussion of proposed denunciation. Joo-joo eyeball 17:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is important information and as a featured article it will clearly raise awareness. --Howrealisreal 20:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kerney Thomas

great article...spent a lot of time on it...self-nomination...good info and tells as much as possible about his ministry.

• Refer to peer review. 1) cite your sources 2) There is almost nothing about the man outside of his ministry work; tell us about his youth and family 3) It's bad form to show a screen shot without pixelizing out the phone number; it looks more like an advertisement than a featured article. slambo 01:13, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

"He has been married to Debra L. Thomas for 27 years and has two children, Kerney Thomas III and Krystle." uh...thats family info right there...geez this guy is a 3:00 am tv preacher...not exactly a wealth of pics of info out there...

Exactly, only one sentence. It isn't nothing, it's almost nothing. A bit of judicious digging around should be able to find some more information. Who were his parents? Where was he born? Where (in what cities) has he lived? Where did he go to school? Does he hold any advanced degrees? Has he been honored by any notable groups? I can appreciate that the information may not be easy to find, but with it missing here, the article is not, IMHO, FA quality yet. slambo 20:31, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've pixellized the phone and url on the screenshot and uplaoded the image to a different filename, and formatted the image in a manner more consistent with other biography articles. The original image didn't have any copyright or fair use tag on it, so it may get deleted by one of the automatic image deletion processes (see Wikipedia:Untagged images). Since I'm guessing that the image was a screenshot of a TV broadcast, I've tagged the updated image with {{screenshot}}. So, there's one objection down, how about those references? slambo 20:44, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review. No references, details are quite sparse, odd unsubstantiated language ("humorously and incorrectly points out..."? What does that mean?), photograph's toll free number needs to be pixellated, blurred or cropped out, arguments ("appears to be unbiblical according to Scripture") skirting original research and or POV ("many find humourous" - how many? Is there a survey?). Needs a lot of cleaning up before it approaches consideration. No offense meant to the nominator, who has done substantial work on this, but more needs to be done. Nominating this for FA is very premature. --khaosworks 02:28, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I'd like to encourage the submitter to flesh out this article, because it is interesting, and the general topic of TV preachers, and late-night ones specifically, has a certain fascination. But the article just isn't anywhere near as complete as, say, Eugene Scott or Tammy Faye. There are no references at all, except to Thomas's own web site, and that makes the whole article come off as something subjective, written by one person who thinks Thomas is amusing. For instance, there is no reference to back up the statement that "He leads a very controversial broadcast in Christian circles, as most of his teachings are considered false." There is an external link to a third-party web site about him, but all that site really does is list a bunch of his quotes. --Bcrowell 14:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object, not comprehensive. Neutrality^talk 19:55, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karla Homolka

Read the CNN.com article about this lady today, and thought it was interesting. Came to el pedia, expecting to find a couple of paragraphs; imagine my surprise when I found this massive treatment of the person, case, and common myths. --Golbez 00:27, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

• 'Object. Lead's too short. Dralwik 02:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object the misconceptions section in not really in an appropriate format and all those facts should be refferenced.--nixie 02:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Not sure this is comprehensive? Also, she's about to be released, so this may be a bad time to make this a FA (generally right in the midst of a current event is a bad time because we want the article to be relatively stable). Also the "misconception" section gives me a slight impression of a pro-Karla POV...those are just some thoughts, I'm not voting on it. Everyking 05:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object!. Incredibly POV and wishy washy. Consider sentences like: This was an utter failure if it is to be believed. Many of the myths floating about the internet were far more sickening than the actual details of the case (which were, indeed, very upsetting in their own right). Unfortunately, due to the very nature of the internet, many of these tall tales are still to be found, while the factual details -- protected by the publication ban -- are much more difficult to find.; Most of the ban breaking was done on the unfortunately named alt.fan.karla-homolka Usenet newsgroup.; The whole article is also written in a rather informal style, and the single reference (without any footnotes to acompany the external links are insufficient to make this article credible. The "Common misconceptions" section will also have to go (or be completely rewritten in another form) for me to support this FAC; right now, it feels like a sensational tabloid infobox. Phils 22:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object, highly POV. Neutrality^talk 19:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review. Even having just copy edited the article, I still feel that it is POV, light on sourcing and needs to have the sensational "misconceptions" section rewritten. This is too much to address here. --Theo (Talk) 21:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• object - seems like there is only one reference for quite a lot of material! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deaths in Ciudad Juárez

Very informative, well developed, with lots of photos, a list of the body findings and of the names of those women identified, well illustrated, neutral and it covers the subject in depth. Antonio Peace for Juarez Martin 05:55, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Needs formatting work, especially the lists of women (should use # lists) and the list of references. Morwen - Talk 11:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now. Needs a toc, the lists are confusing in that there is too little visual distinction to mark the top of each new one, the rest of the refs need bullet points. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:23, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review 1) There is no lead section or any section headers until you get to the footnotes. 2) Image placement isn't as good as it can be; with three large pictures in one spot, the text is a little hard to follow. slambo 11:25, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Object--needs a new title. These are obviously not the only deaths in Ciudad Juarez, and this title doesn't tell the reader what the article is about. Meelar (talk) 13:45, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it does. That's the only way that the Spanish media has dubbed the cases, anyways. Antonio Juarez Angels Martin
    • I'm not sure – there's alot of gang/drug violence in Cd. Juárez, some of which might be related to the deaths of the women, but much of which involves men. The title as it stands now I think would work if all of that were included, though perhaps "Violence in Cd. Juárez" would be better. If it's going remain an article exclusively about the mysterious deaths of women, maybe "Deaths of Women in Cd. Juárez" would be better. But on the other hand, I (as someone fairly familiar with what's been going in the city) immediately knew what this article was about when I read the title. Regarding the article itself, it looks like there are some good resources out there that allow this article to get more detailed. Since it's in the news right now, it's especially difficult, but I'll object until this article is more in-depth. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:21, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll defer to your judgement on the title, then, but I wish there was somewhere more specific we could put this. Ah well. Meelar (talk) 19:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Quite interesting but too short and superficial to be a featured article. this reads more like a page filler in a Sunday newspaper. The links in the article need to be footnoted and annotated, then considerably expanded. Giano | talk 12:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I would like to see sources cited for the many assertions within this. I also seek more depth. How do the victims break down by age? Are there statistics about their birthplaces? And so on. --Theo (Talk) 15:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slasher film

The article is informative, covers all the major milestones of the genre, with dates, names, has a neutral stance on the subject, references serious academic discussion on the topic and popular criticism. It has working links and does not cover the same ground as other articles.

• Object. No where near comprehensive enough. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:20, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Object As Evil Monkey says, this is barely an outline. Although it mentions academic works it has no references. It also screams for an image or two. Dsmdgold 02:43, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Object Virtually none of the basic requirements are met; please read the requirements before nominating articles to FAC. Phils 06:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This meets none of the FA criteria. On a side note to this article, we really need to rethink letting anons nominate articles for featured status - they end up adding poor candidates like this which doesn't help the process. Harro5 06:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Object This should not be here! Giano | talk 12:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object, not comprehensive. Neutrality^talk 19:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leonid Brezhnev

I personally found this article a most helpful reference. JBurnham 14:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object I haven't read the entire article yet, but I must object on the lack of References. slambo 15:39, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can add one (all of the content here is easily verifiable, bordering on general knowledge). In the meantime, are you having a tough time with any specific claims, which I can try to verify for you? JBurnham 16:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now. This statement suggests a need for references:
  • Brezhnev ruled the Soviet Union longer than any man except Stalin, but his posthumous reputation is very low, both in Russia and among historians.

It isn't so much that I doubt the claim as I think the article would stand a better chance as exemplifying the best of wikipedia with a reference section. --Scimitar 17:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object. References are an absolute requirement for a FA. Claims like "his orders are dated June 22nd" (relating to his being drafted during WWII) must have precise source information, regardless of how well-known the facts are. Phils 18:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It also occurs to me now that the three first paragraphs or "Crisis of the regime" are largely irrelevant to Brezhnev's biography and redundant with respect to other Soviet Union articles; the two first paragraphs basically detail generalities about the Stalin era and its economic consequences, and the third paragraph is a rather vague description of sociopolitical problems in the 1970s Soviet Union—Brezhnev is never mentionned, nor are any of his specific measures or policies that could have contributed to the situation; while it's good too provide some context, I feel three paragraphs is too much of a digression, and could be condensed. Phils 19:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It could definitely use a mention of his (bumbling) role in the Yom Kippur War →Raul654 19:05, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Follow up - when I made that comment, since I made that comment, I have expanded the Yom Kippur War article considerably, so that now you can just merely copy/summarize what is written there. →Raul654 08:29, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Very informative. No doubt written by someone very knowledgable on the subject. I can see no gaping errors but without references it might as well be fiction. Cannot these frequent non referenced articles be sifted out and legitimately failed before time is wasted looking at them. Giano | talk 12:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object, not comprehensive. Neutrality^talk 19:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lead is too short, no references. Comment: it looks like just a bio. Our standard is to have a discussion of influences, policies, and such, and I see few of that in the article as well, leading me to say it may not be comprehensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Starfleet ranks and insignia

THIS NOMINATION HAS BEEN CLOSED. For a debate on the validity of this article as a Featured Article Candidate, please see the FAC's talk page

This is a renomination of the article formerly named "Ranks and insignia of the Starfleet". Original nomination page was closed 20 May 05. The resubmission has been after addressing the following concers:

1. Table of contents was considerably shortened
2. References were updated and put ito proper Wikipedia format
3. Conjectural rank information was purged leaving only ranks which have been mentioned in a live action or literature source
4. Photos added extensively thoughout the article

• Support: The nominator of this article gives full support as a featured article due to the extensive research and time that has gone into writing the material. -Husnock 05:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strongest ever support --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Is this article based on fictional material? Yes. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Is that against a "Featured article" requirements? No. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

If you are objecting this on the basis of it being "fictional" I personaly don't want to hear about it. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Too bad. Suggest if you don't want to hear objections, don't read fancruft FAC nominations. — Xiong熊talk* 17:15, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Valid objections are one things. Calling an article names becuase you don't like is something completly different. I believe you also referred to this as a "petty collection of images" last time. Now its "dribbling bits of fanwisdom". Your comments are very clearly inactionable. -Husnock 19:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Image quality of rank insignias can be better but that would be pointless as we have to use small images so that people with slow connections can see the page without waiting a decade. Also insignia is notvisible on screen remotely close to current size unless you zoom on dvd, etc. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Star trek isn't a random tv show. It inspires us engineers to develop the technology. This show is one of the most known thing on planet earth. Every one knows "photon torpedo" "Mr. Spock", "beam me up scotty" even if they dont regularly watch the show. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support, as before, excellent Everyking 05:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Very strong object ; my major previous objection, the lack of inline citied sources, is still valid. Things like " some publications " absolutely need an inline cite. With all the changes the TOC is again overwhelming, the lead section too long (3 paras max) and the article is now bloated with more detail than necessary (that is what daughter articles are for; see Wikipedia:Summary style), making the article a longer read than necessary (the 10KB lighter version I first read was much better). This nom is also very close to the previous failed nomination. --mav 11:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I will make the corrections you mention, but really don't know what to say to the statement that the article is now "bloated". Brekaing the article up would lose the very inforamtion that makes it worthy of being a featured article. In addition, there has been almost no change to the text since the last nomination. All was done was adding several pictures which is what featured articles should have. So, I see the "bloated article" objection as inactionable unless you can expand upon it. As of now, the following corrections have been made:

1. Shortened opening paragraph
2. Shortened table of contents

I will be adding the citations you ask for this weekend. Will this at last be acceptable? I hope so. -Husnock 14:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

TOC has now been reduced too much. Some subsectioning is needed. That is the trouble with longer than necessary articles; it is becomes increasingly difficult to have properly subsectioned sections without also having an overwhelming TOC. Oh and this version was much more tightly on topic and is the version that I gave high praise to in the previous nom. See your talk page for more. --mav 15:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The version you mention is nearly identical to the version we hav enow except that we added pictures. The pictures are important for an FAC. I feel it would only draw objects and complaints if we removed all of them. I feel they should stay. -Husnock 16:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I have "re-expanded" the Table of Contents. It is now halfway between what it was before the first edit and what it was after the major shortening. It is now only has two levels with no more than 3 sublevels for some portions. I feel this should be good enough. Inline citations will come this weekend. -Husnock 16:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. :) --mav 16:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I am also pleased to announce that in-line citations have now been added throughout the entire article. I hope this will change your objection to a support. -Husnock 05:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe this objection has been handled in that the table of contents has been shortened and inline citations have been added. The other point you made, about the article containing too much information, I do not know how to change that. if the last part is inactionable, can we assume your vote to object has been handled? -Husnock 08:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

You can change that by summarizing the larger sections and moving the detail to daughter articles. Thus it is an actionable objection. Making sure articles do not go into unnecessary detail and that they cover subtopics in other articles is a specific FAC criteria (see #6 at Wikipedia:What is a featured article). You may have noticed a page size warning when viewing the edit page of the article. Our guideline on page size is linked from there. You should read it. I also noticed that a significant amount of prose was hidden in templates. This is non-standard. Also non-standard is the use of templates to hide tables, but I can let that slide. Search for 'some publications' - it still needs a cite. --mav 16:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Please look again and give a specific for any mateiral that is not cited. I went through the article line by line and added footnates everytime a publiction was mentioned. The rest of what you say...well, I'll see what I can do about breaking up the article without losing the content.-Husnock 19:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Third paragraph under the Lieutenant Junior Grade discussion. Taxman mentions that other parts need cites as well. --mav 21:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

All conjectural info has been removed and the term "some publications" has been purged from the article. even gave you the "daughter article" you were asking for! -Husnock 00:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Looks good. Has a better title now, as several people had requested. CDThieme
• Support: A great article, and a good example of what can be found here. The change since the prior FAC have really improved the article, and some sections have been vastly improved. --Wingsandsword 07:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. With the various changes I have contributed to the article, I have realized that an article of this caliaber can easily be used to show what Wikipedians can do with just a little tweeking and conversing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support - very informative, and I don't believe it to be fan-cruft. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose in every way possible -- and the repeated nomination is simply invalid. I'm sure I could nominate any page here a few dozen times, and eventually it would pass when nobody was looking, or after I'd rounded up a few of my buddies to plump for it. No intrinsic change has been made to this page, nor can it ever be improved to FA status without becoming something altogether different from what it is: fancruft, an elaboration of details from a fantasy universe. Every time I see this come up on FAC, I like it less. The addition of character headshots makes it much worse; they are irrelevant to the topic of the page, which is ranks and insignia. They tell you in the Army, You don't salute the man; you salute the rank. Dribbling little bits of fanwisdom in among the images does not an article make. Nothing about this page is notable. Nobody outside Trek fandom could care less about anything here; so far as I know, nothing about it has ever had any effect even on other fancruft, such as Empire ranks and insignia, let alone on anything in the Real World. There is not even a description of the Vietnamese sweatshop where they sew the things up. Everything about this page is hermetically sealed, contained within a fantasy universe. Move to Wikifan or, failing that, Delete. — Xiong熊talk* 17:15, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

• I submit this entire vote is inactionable as it simply expresses a strong distaste for the article based on personal feeligs, offers no points to improve upon and it makes statements like "nothing about this page is notable", "dribbling little bits of fanwisdom", "everytime I see this page I like it less", "nor can it ever be improved to FA status". I have also just noted the racial comment that this article was put together in a "Vietnamese sweat shop". Clearly inappropriate thing to say, not valid reasons at all for oppoing an article. -Husnock 19:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, there are a few actionable elements in there. 1) Not renominating without fixing issues brought up only a week ago has been mentioned by others including me, 2) He believes there is excessive minutae and the article cannot be featured without reducing that, 3) believes the character headshots make the article worse, 4) the real world aspects of the topic have been ignored. All of those save the first are currently actionable, because changes can be made to fix them. - Taxman ^Talk 14:16, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

• I feel that any objection to an FAC which bashes the article and calls it nasty names should by its very nature be inactionable in accordence with Wikipedia:Civility. Xiong has atatcked this article both here, on the previous nomination, and on his user page. The most recent addition was a statement that "this article stinks" (see talk on his UP). But, this is a horse beat to death and sent to the glue factory. I reported this to admins, was (rightfully so) advised to calm down so I did. Xiong's opinion's, however, mean very little to me. He made up his mind about this article a long time ago and at the level of name calling and bashing there is nothing I could ever do that would put this article past him as a successful FA. I have actually withdrawn the nomination, but am leaving the page active to get constructive feedback upon the request of others. -Husnock 15:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Much work still needed. The rank pip graphics (especially in the "Officer insignia" page) still wrap around for me (using the "Classic" Wikipedia skin); for example, the "Captain" pips appear as three dots over one dot. The images don't line up properly, especially under the "Captain" section, where the text and pictures are forced into one very narrow column with way too much whitespace at the left. I don't like that the insignia for the ranks are given all together in a table before they're discussed; I feel that the insignia for a rank should be immediately above the discussion of the rank. I don't understand why "conjectural and alternate insignia versions" are given from dubious sources ("Hollywood Pins"?), or a Mirror Universe episode (the "Lieutenant Commander" conjectured pips), or when they conflict with known canon (like the five-pips "Fleet Captain"). Some headings are pushed aside by pictures (Wesley forces the "Provisional Ranks" heading rightwards, and Tucker pushes "Lieutenant Commander" over) when a "br clear=all" should be used. It's not clear from the tables which insignia are badges and which are sleeve stripes. However, on the plus side, I do like the use of all the pictures; it helps convey the long and rich tradition of Star Trek by showing a sample of the sheer number of characters in it. - Brian Kendig 18:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Most of those issues have been handled, most important of which is the removal of conjectural and alterate ranks. Also, getting rid of the tables would be a very big deal and conflict with other opinions about the article. Are you still having format problems with the browser. -Husnock 22:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry your browser is being such a bad boy! You make a valid point if there are such problems with the pictures. I'll see what I can do. as for as the conjectural sources, define "dubious sources"? I felt I cited where all those pictures came from. Hoolywood Pins, BTW, was a big company in the 1990s that supplied rank and insignia Star trek patches to major convetions and they were connected to the costume department of PAramount. Maybe a link to what they are on a separate article? Anyway, Ill work with your objections. -Husnock 19:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Husnock - change your screen resolution to 800x600 for a while. This is the resolution that most people on the Internet surf under. Then you will see that the insignia in the Officer insignia table are scrunched together and the screen shots in much of the article, especially in the Captain' part of the ==Officer rank information== section, squeeze the text in between them. The width of the Flag Officer insignia table also caused horizontal scroll. --mav 22:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

My browser is Safari on Mac OS X 10.4.1. It's not being a "bad boy", it's rendering the page as it is presented; nothing's telling it not to wrap the pips. I believe the solution is not to turn the "four pip graphics in a row" into "one single four-pip graphic" (this would mean that every insignia would require its own graphic, greatly increasing the image count on the page), but instead to force the table to a specific width, or else make the tables less wide. As for "dubious sources", I had no idea what "Hollywood Pins" is (it's not described in the article) and I don't feel that selling an insignia pin at a convention makes the insignia canon. Overall, between the layout problems (images making text and headings flow incorrectly) and the organizational problems (listing a bunch of ranks in a table apart from their descriptions, then listing a bunch more ranks in another table apart from their descriptions, etc.), this article does not yet represent Wikipedia's finest work. - Brian Kendig 22:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The Browser issues are, without a doubt, one of the most valid objections I have seen and that has pretty much convinced me to abandon this as an FAC. Others have asked to keep the nomination open, so I will. As far as Hollywood Pins goes, they were one of the primary costume providers for Star Trek VI. I actually knew a women who worked for them. It was a huge company in 1991 but went out of business (rather quickly) in 1995. I will link Hollywood Pins to its own article and describe this. Someone also questioned the validity of Star TRek Encyclopedia as a source. That books was published by Mike Okuda, who works directly for the Star Trek show, and his publications I would consider one of the most offical sources available. -Husnock 15:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. First and foremost, conjecural ranks (and massive, unsourced conjecture in general) do not have their place in the article, at least not in the form seen in the article; a short and concise mention of such ranks is enough. Presenting them as virtually equal with canon ranks is not acceptable in my eyes. My second concern is about images (I know I have on occasion said I don't normally consider images when voting on an FAC, but I feel the (over)use of (bad) images in this article inappropriate): The sheer amount of extremely low quality live action picture adds nothing and breaks formatting in all my browsers (Camino, Firefox, Safari), the most popular Mac browsers. This article's merit rests almost solely on the images of the insignia; just as we have objected articles in the past for their high list-to-prose ratio, I object this article in part because anyone who reads this without seeing the pictures for whatwill lose about 50% of the information provided by the article. Trust me, there is an increasing number of Internet users who don't have access to pictures, for whatever reasons. Anyone who's worked in the accessibility "business" will know what I'm talking about. Finally, I might be an idiot, but I still do not understand how images such as this are in the public domain? Do the Star Trek producers hold no rights whatsoever on all these designs? (Various sources) is also not a valid source information. At least provide the address of the mirror you found the image on, and show you have done a minimum of research to find the original source of the artwork. Phils 20:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

You're not an idiot! The copyright status of the movie pins, as far as I know, is as follows. Thye have been recreated and recopied in dozens, if not hundreds, of books and manuals and, in the modern age, on the internet. Paramount does not, as far as I know, get a royalty on the use of rank pin images when theya re used. Also, in the copmputer age, some of them are pretty easy to create on a computer. A good example would be that the U.S. Army does not get a royalty for the use of Army Colonel insignia in films and TVs since the insignia itself, is immensly common. Also, movie pins were created in 1982, almost 25 years ago. I think the original copywrights dont apply anymore. This was actaully beat to death quite heavily in the nomination page|last nomination. I suggest you go there for more coverage on the topic. -Husnock 22:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyright doesn't work that way. Ease of reproduction does not invalidate copyright; neither does a lack of copyright prosecutions (although you might be able to claim doctrine of latches if they do come after you). Copyright on corporate works lasts (IIRC) 135 years these days, so the copyrights won't expire for quite some time -- and even under the original copyright law, they'd be protected for another five years. And the point about the US Army is a straw man argument: the Army (and the US government in general) is unable to create copyrighted works. --Carnildo 00:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't call you names! -Husnock 00:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see no name-calling there. I was characterizing your reference to US Army ranks as a "straw man argument", because US Army rank insignia are not copyrighted, and therefore referring to them in a copyright discussion is misleading. --Carnildo 01:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To quote from the article you so thoughtfully linked: "the creator of a "straw man" argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous". Sidesteps? Misleads? Mischaracterizes? Sounds pretty insulting to me. I was answering your question to the best of my knowledge. I also dispute that Army insignia is not copyrighted. The copyright law is actually quite complex especially for unit patches, badges, and medals. The Medal of Honor is absolutely copyrighted. Rank insignia probably isnt copyrighted but I have read some documents through my work at the National Personnel Records Center which states before World War II they might have been. -Husnock 01:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In your case, it probably wasn't intentional, but it's still sidestepping and misleading. And the Medal of Honor isn't covered by copyright. As the article indicates, it was originally covered by a design patent, and after that patent expired, it, and other military medals, are covered by a special non-copyright law: 18 USC 704, part of the criminal code. --Carnildo 02:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I kinda like the screenshots. Would it be OK if just one example per rank were kept? Once this article is redone in summary style, that will probably be needed anyway. The images in the wider tables are also too wide. This results in the page looking nasty at anything below 1024x768 screen res. --mav 21:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Resubmitting this 7 days after removing it from the FAC page is inconsiderate to the editors who have spent their time reviewing the article, especially when the past objections were not fixed. Specifically I commented the conjectured ranks are "original research and are given way too prominent of placement in the article." And you say you've fixed that, but the reality is far from it. There is still an entire section on conjectured admiral ranks with only two different fan websites of unkown quality supporting it. As I said before the sources used "would have to have some reasonable level of quality, such as a published fan magazine. A geocities (for ex) homepage listing a made up rank certainly doesn't qualify as something that Wikipedia should be covering, unless that website is demonstrably popular and widely recognized." Good job going through and providing citations, but there are still many comments that appear as author opinion, not collation of sources. I'd list them out, but I think there are enough other problems to work on first. After sifting through a lot of this I presume "conjectured" in the other tables means that rank never appears in official Star Trek sources. That is really unclear though. Much better would be to state or make clear somehow that it never appears in official sources. And is the Star Trek Encyclopedia an official source? If not, that should be made clear. The article still needs a much clearer separation of what are official ranks seen in official sources and what is not. That would help cut down on the bloating of the article, which is clearly too long, with too much minutae. The criteria do call for using summary style, and moving excessive detail off to daughter articles. As a side note, which has nothing to do with this article meeting the criteria, and would not lead me to continue to object to the article it if did meet them, it does sadden me some that so much effort is put into Wikipedia articles on pure fancruft with no redeeming social value. - Taxman ^Talk 20:20, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Social value is entirely subjective. There are probably more people who care about Star Trek than category theory, a topic I am sure no one here would dare describe as "mathcruft" or "minutiae" (although only a fraction of the world's population knows about it). Phils 10:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, which is why I separated my opinion on the topic from my take on whether this article is of featured quality or not. - Taxman ^Talk 14:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. This is an extremly thorough and interesting article complete with appropriate citation. It has my full support. I am, however, concerned about its quick renominiation, but that does not diminish my support. -SocratesJedi | Talk 21:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm a lifelong Star Trek fan, and I've written my share of what people consider fancruft, but here's what I think needs to be looked at:

• The headshots - way too many of them, and why are they there, exactly? Are they actually necessary?
• Conjectural ranks - takes up much too much space for what is basically non-canon information. If they are adopted in a widespread manner by fandom and thus fanon, that needs to be mentioned.
• Real world info - What impact has this topic had on Trek fandom or the real world in general? Are these ranks iconic? Have they passed into popular culture? Notability is a problem here, but I'm not sure what could be done to redress this.
• The O'Brien mess - this is probably the most significant thing, in my view, about the ranks in Starfleet, since for years and years there was so much fan debate on O'Brien's rank pins and their implications before they settled it in Deep Space Nine. Basically, the production team were inconsistent and making it up as they went along, but right now the information is buried in a couple of paragraphs in the Enlisted Ranks section. It should be teased out and given a bit more prominence, perhaps.

The "O'Brien Mess" is actually pretty well explained in the "Enlisted rank Information" section and the aritcle links to the main article on Miles Edward O'Brien which is where the problem whould be brought out in more depth. Can I get you to pull back this objection? I see the intro as covered as to O'Brien with the article on the character covering this in detail. -Husnock 22:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looking at Miles O'Brien, it actually covers the rank issue in less detail than this article. However, I will withdraw my objection on this point, although I still feel that the discussion could be organized better. --khaosworks 00:32, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

The reason I'm registering this as an object and not a mild object is that I think that it needs reorganising and cleanup to make it read more coherently. Splitting it up into daughter articles, or splitting up the ranks themselves into smaller sets of images might be an idea, since at the moment there's a hell of a lot of images and adjoining text to plow through and refer to each other. The information is not cleanly presented, and thus it becomes a hard read, so in all good conscience I cannot support it as the "best" Wikipedia has to offer. --khaosworks 21:51, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Object (withdrawn, see below). Where to start? Resubmitting this article doesn't change what it is and must always be. Some good work has gone into it, but it's still fancruft. I can tolerate it in the encyclopedia but I don't want it on the main page. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

"I don't want it on the main page" is purely inactionable. And thank you for "tolerating" it, but your personal views on articles are not a basis for denying one as a featured article. -Husnock 00:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Marking an FA so that it never is put on the Main Page is completely actionable. Wikipedia is thus marked and this article, if it passes, will almost certainly also be thus marked. --mav 14:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: But the fancruft objection is fundamental inactionable, no? Notwithstanding the issues involving resubmission, articles are supposed to be reviewed here for "style, prose, completeness, accuracy and neutrality." I think this article is outstanding in a large number of those categories, which is why I supported, even though it relates to a specific fictional universe. Will you reconsider your objection and present one that is more actionable? I would like to think that all articles in Wikipedia could be brought to FA status given enough investment in time and talent into them. Why exclude any given category of article if it is a well-done work? -SocratesJedi | Talk 23:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Probably it is inactionable, but what can I say? Those are the grounds on which I object. In the interests of civility and good relations, I could offer some more constructive criticism, but this would probably just be a rehash of what others have said: conjectural ranks, nothing much to connect the hermetically sealed fictional universe described with the real world, excessive distracting and irrelevant screenshots, etc. For the record, it doesn't seem to display properly in my browser either (Firefox, Windows XP, 1024x768). "Why exclude any given category of article if it is a well-done work?" Well, call me an elitist, but I don't subscribe to this view of the featured article system. For an article to "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work" I think it should be about a 'serious' topic. What constitutes a serious topic of course relies on subjective judgments, but in my opinion a collection of made-up details about what is already a fictional topic does not qualify. We have already had to endure Dawson's Creek on the main page today. I think we can tolerate the presence of fancruft (up to a point), but we shouldn't be showcasing it to the world as the best we have to offer. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

A direct quote for the criteria for Featured article candidates: "If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page". Why object when you know it is inactionable? -Husnock 01:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Calling an objection inactionable allows it to be thrown out on a technicality. You can go ahead and ignore my objection (although note that I did also make some actionable criticisms), but this just dodges the question of whether the article is really suitable for featured status. My objection stands, even if you choose to disregard it when tallying up the votes. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Zscout370 asked me on my talk page what I considered to be a serious topic. I think just about every article on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2005 qualifies, with the possible exception of Dalek and Dawson's Creek, although both of those have a greater claim to eligibility than this one. If this article was about Star Trek as a whole I would probably consider it eligible, but it's actually about a minor aspect of Star Trek, padded out with fan conjecture. Which particular articles I consider featurable is my personal opinion and is not really relevant to the question of how Wikipedia should conduct its FAC process. I am more interested in establishing the convention that not every article is entitled to be featured, however well-written it might be. It seems a little odd to me that while we take into account an article's content and argue furiously over how best to format references etc., we're unable to question the subject matter because such complaints are not actionable. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Which particular articles I consider featurable is my personal opinion and is not really relevant to the question of how Wikipedia should conduct its FAC process. This makes no sense. It's akin to saying "Which particular people I consider eligible to vote is my personal opinion and is not really relevant to the laws applicable in my country". If you want to discuss fancruft on FAC in general, please join the discussion here, though. Phils 10:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support. This article is thorough, well-researched, and extremely informative. In my opinion, it meets all the criteria at Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Featured article status should be based on the quality of the article, not one's opinion of the subject matter. I understand the concerns over triviality of this topic; however, I feel that a high-quality article merits feature status even if one does not find the topic interesting. There also seems to be some confusion between featured articles and those featured on the Main Page. While all articles featured on the Main Page must be featured articles, the converse is not true: not all featured articles will be featured on the Main Page. I agree that this article is probably not the best candidate for the Main Page, and I would support marking it not to appear on the Main Page, but dislike for the article's topic is clearly not an appropriate objection to featured status itself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I don't understand the relationship between the "conjectured" and "N/A" texts in the boxes. They both seem to go where insignia should, in which case I don't see what's being conjectured (or by whom). And Admiral Morrow is overlapping with text. Mark¹ 05:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The first few tables show that the rank that was actually used or witnessed on various ST programs/movies. Conjectured ranks will be shown below, though I do wish if we provide a link to the bottom. The N/A shows that we do not have it, or it was not used. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This has just been fixed. -Husnock 23:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I believe this article to be in breach of criterion 6 on Wikipedia:What is a featured article; the headshots and lists of names of characters to hold certain ranks, as well of the inclusion of conjectural ranks that cannot be verified meet my definition of too much detail. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:58, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• After discussion on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates I withdraw my previous inactionable objection, offer my apologies if commenting on broader questions of the FAC process was inappropriate here, and object on the grounds that the article describes in more detail than is sensible the intricacies of a fantasy world constructed by some fans around a fairly two-dimensional work of fiction. It is not appropriate to go into vast amounts of detail on a topic like this, where fans have filled in the gaps, and the article spends its time talking about a conjectured system, much of which never existed in the original fictional work. Also, it doesn't render properly in my browser, and my set-up is in no way unsual. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional object. Some of the headshots should not be included because they don't relate to the subject. For example, a picture of the first lieutenant commander to appear in Star Trek is appropriate, whereas a picture of an ordinary admiral is not. Other than that, while I personally find the topic dull and uninteresting, I think the article is written well enough to be included as an FA, and my personal tastes are irrelevant. --Scimitar 18:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As it stands this article is too long and is over-illustrated (specifically, the number of headshots is too high). I have no problems with the topic, even though I do not find it particularly interesting. --Theo (Talk) 18:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: Leaving aside the question of self-indulgence/hermetic isolation, and judging the article in its own terms (which is difficult) it appears to have areas for improvement, but no more than other featured article candidates, and these are being addressed by an activist editor. It is hard to avoid the impression that it is currently written under the assumption that the reader is already familiar with Startrek, and its terminology (compared with the British Army officer rank insignia article for example). A non-expert (like me) will probably be confused by the article because they lack the assumed knowledge; for instance, the "Officer rank information" section appears to be self-contradictory to the uninitiated: It says that "Other than Louvois... no other staff officers have ever appeared in Star Trek as Captains", but in the feature film section says: "Spock and Montgomery Scott who were both promoted from Commander to Captain" appeared (and functioned as staff officers). Does this mean that in Trek-lore "Star Trek" means only the TV-series? Or that Spock & Scott are only conjectured to be Captains? For this page to break out of its ghetto it must be written for non-experts (i.e. fans). I hope that if this is written for the general reader it will become a featured article, but presently it reads very much like an inter-fan discussion. One thing which isn't clear to the outsider is how the various types of source material stand in relation to each other: The page says that something is "pure theorizing", which presumably means it is unauthorized fan comment, but since the entire premise of Startrek is speculative, wouldn't this describe everything in the article? Wragge 19:19, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Exactly. It is really hard for anyone with at least a passing familiarity with Star Trek to take a step back and judge this on its merits, but I bet if you showed it to someone who'd never seen or even heard of Star Trek before, they would be totally lost by it. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think this is my biggest problem with the article. Approaching it from the viewpoint of a fan, it is mildly interesting, but from the viewpoint of a non-fan, my eyes start to glaze over just from the introduction. There is just nothing here to clearly tell the reader why all this is significant. At least Dalek tried to relate to the real world - I would never nominate any of the companions-related articles for FAC, for example, precisely because while they provide information, they just aren't major enough (and probably will never be) to become an FA. --khaosworks 01:24, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Support on the condition that it does not appear on the Main Page —thames 19:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Update: Major revisions to the article have included a massive cutback on pictures and the removal of all conjectural and alternate ranks to a separate article. Also, I have removed the phrase "some publications" from the entire article, replacing it with which specific book, mnual, or group of such manuals. I ask that objections based on these issues be reviewed by the posters and, if corrected, withdrawn. -Husnock 23:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I am concerned about the following paragraph in the introduction: Starfleet ranks and titles have evolved through both live action productions, official publications, and the fanon of the Star Trek Expanded Universe. The most official ranks established are those which appear in Star Trek films and television productions, with ranks appearing in publications from Star Trek producers considered “secondary”, but nevertheless still officially established Starfleet titles. The least official of all ranks are those which appear in Star Trek fan literature, such as magazines and websites published by private persons with little or no affiliation with the Star Trek series. Such ranks are considered conjecture, yet occasionally may find their way into semi-official Star Trek sources (an example being the rank of Branch Admiral).

Now, I know what you're trying to say, but I'm afraid that a non-fan may become quite confused. What does it mean to be "least official", "semi-official" and "most official"? What are "secondary" publications? Needs to be more clearly written, and licensed sources, on-screen sources, fan sources need to be distinguished and the hierarchy more laid out (or a reference to some other article that discusses "Star Trek canon"). This is not my only concern - just the one that leaped out at me the moment I started reading the article. By the way, I don't know if it's been mentioned, as this article gone through peer review? --khaosworks 00:39, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The opening was much more detailed answering those very points but, in response to an objection above, was shortened to three paragraphs. The explanation of were the ranks are mentioned, sources, and the conjectural question is the body of the article. -Husnock 01:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, shortening it has not improved clarity. Perhaps you could break up the introduction by putting ina heading that does discuss sources. --khaosworks 01:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

It looks as though Husnock is working hard to improve the article, and respond to the critics here; I would have liked to withdraw my objection, but I find that the text has mostly been re-organized rather than completely clarified for the non-fan. Thereore, I have to reiterate my incomprehension: How many staff officers have appeared in "StarTrek" as captains? Is it one as the Captain section says, or three as given in the Commander section? Re-reading this, I think the confusion is partly my fault, as the first section probably means Captain in the sense of "ultimate onboard authority", and the second "holding the rank: Captain". To an outsider, the most interesting aspect of the article is the way Gene Roddenberry's originally egalitarian vision was compromised through the series into a very hierarchical command structure with visual differentiations in uniform, and the development of Enlisted ranks. That's sociologically quite interesting, and could be a way to develop the article into something even Xiong could approve of. However, my objection must stand for the time being, because I think the article still depends too heavily on an assumed level of fan knowledge. Wragge 17:40, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

The lack of a "real world" aspect to this is a very valid point and one of the legitimate reasons this isnt a Featured Article I am actually going to try and add some things about the real people who invented the insignia such as William Ware Thesis. -Husnock 01:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's good news - I was worred that you'd been discouraged by all of the negative feedback. That would be a shame as I think your perseverance is close to paying off. Wragge 02:17, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

• Support. The latest changes address my objections. --Theo (Talk) 16:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment:Yes, I have to admit, I see improvement here. The article -- from a purely technical standpoint -- has reached an impressive level. Now, here is what might be done to pass for an encyclopedic article:

Reorganize the presentation around something real. The current structure is built around the ranks themselves; that is, fleet ranks, officer ranks, enlisted ranks. This is a castle built on sand, because the ranks themselves are not only fictitious, they have never been taken seriously by the producers. Each new film or show brought a new version of every rank, each version unrelated to earlier ones. It's important to remember that these insignia are simply costume accessories -- ways to dress up actors. It's much more important to producers that a new film looks new than that there be any self-consistent explanation for the look.

It's all superficial. There is nothing to stop a scriptwriter from creating a character for one show holding the rank of Biologist Major (acting), without making any real effort to tie this into any overall structure. Perhaps the effort that Trek producers have made to be consistent is laudable; other shows just don't bother -- but it's misleading. Trek producers, scriptwriters, and costume designers as a body doubtless have a less complete reference on this topic than this page. It's not that they couldn't assemble such; it's that they just don't care that much.

One route out of the ghetto for this article might be to reorganize it around Real World production dates. The show began in 1966, when America was embroiled in the Vietnam War. This polarized the nation (and the world) and Star Trek may be viewed as a reaction -- utopian, eglitarian, a military vessel on a scientific mission. ("Set phasers to stun.") In this context, the piano insignia appears to comment on the real war of the time.

Later on, note that Wrath of Khan appeared during the saber-rattling Reagan years -- and presto!, the uniforms were made much more bold and militaristic to appeal to contemporary viewers. Recent series have been produced against the backdrop of the endless war over oil; insignia have become weary-looking, as has public support for the war.

Tie Trek ranks and insignia to those of real military arms. To what extent have film and series designers drawn on US and European models? Why? Have producers and designers commented? Caution against original research, but I daresay with enough digging, primary research into the topic can be uncovered.

Minimize the compulsive need to display every insignia; this is a sure sign of cruft, the obsession with the complete set. But if you've seen one shoulder board with a couple of gold buttons on it, you've seen them all. A more interesting question is Why are the buttons gold today? Why were they square silver blocks yesterday? Who made the change? Can names and perhaps headshots not be shown of the real people who designed these insignia?

Caution against fictional-universe explanations. The 24th Century has not happened yet. All of these bits of cloth, metal, and plastic were sewn in a sweatshop or stamped out in a Third World factory right in our own time. Who makes these insignia? Do fans buy theirs from the same manufacturers as the official producers? I'd be very impressed with a photo of a dozen Malaysian teenagers sitting around a table banging out Trek insignia for affluent Westerners to wear to their next con. I'd be even more impressed with an interview with one of these workers. What do they think about this topic? What other insignia do they make in the same shop? What is the process?

Can Trek insignia be related to those of similar shows? Did George Lucas take them into account? What about derivative or parody appearances -- feature films, say, in which some character wears a Trek costume to a prom? Has an elected official ever been seen wearing Trek rank insignia? (It's not beyond possibility in the weird world of politics.) Many spoofs and send-ups of Trek and Star Wars have been produced -- to what extent were the insignia copied?

Star Trek was not the first space adventure series. Buck Rogers came out in 1929; I don't know if any rank insignia were ever worn by a character in the 1939 serial films. To what extent may this have influenced Trek producers?

My comments, relentless and unwelcome though they may be, all come back to the same point: Tie the topic to the Real World. Only then can the page become an encyclopedic article on a notable topic. Even I will grant it's only a short step from that to FA. — Xiong熊talk* 05:32, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

I am subdued by the very good points and civil nature with which this was presented. It seems that the potion wore off and Hyde Xiong has been replaced with Jeckell Xiong. Very, very valid points. The way the unforms changed for the feature films is a very interesting topic as yes, in was in 1982, when the military was on the rise as defenders in the Cold War.

I have limite dinfo on where these insignia come from except for knowledge of one company called Hollywood Pins which supplied some rank badges for Star Trek VI. The man who invented all Star trek rank, William War Thesis could almost deserve his own article. I will have the research it.

So, thanks for the very valid and noteworthy comments. They will be taken seriously and take away almost all the bad things I said about you behind your back! -Husnock 17:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is exceptionally well-written, informative, and fascinating--top-shelf. It is also nice to look at, replete with diverse images. If an editor would go through it and remove redundant information, this would be a fine feature article--better than most, I believe.
--(nominated by 24.14.32.36)

Agreed. I went through and made some edits today, hopefully cleaning things up a bit.--AaronS 17:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Object. While I don't have a problem with the contents & I feel its well rounded; some sections are too long. The history section is half the page length, and should be summarised into about six paragraphs. Climate can be merged with geography. A section shouldn't have a solitary paragraph. Similarly a heading shouldn't have a solitary sub heading.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 09:08, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Boston has existed for 375 years. Wouldn't it follow that it have a long history? Moreover, the history section is perhaps the most interesting.--AaronS 16:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

If it is so interesting, then a History of Boston, Massachusetts article is in order. Then this article can have a more condensed treatment of the city's history. --mav 16:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Done and done. The history section has been much condensed.--AaronS 01:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Excellent history summary, but 1) I still would like to see climate merged with geography (unless you would like to add a new paragraph). 2) Sports, media and transportation should not have any sub headings. Rationale: Their content is too small. Instead, use this syntax for a heading: [ ;'''xyz''' ]; these do not appear in the ToC. (See the =media= section in Mumbai) 3) This article has very few references, this concerns me. You'd have to use inline references for all figures you'd used, be in the demographics, area etc. See the Mumbai page as to how facts are referenced through the Wikipedia: footnote3 style 4) I also feel that much of the geography should be under =demographics=. 5) elevation of Boston? If you can resolve the above, I'll lend my support.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I eliminated the H3 in media, sports, and transportation; I also combined the climate and geography sections and moved the neighborhood passage from geography to demographics. However, a lot more work is needed before this article can be considered worthy of Featured Article (I should note that it has been barely more than a month ago that many of the sections were merely lists, especially sports, notable Bostonians, and sites of interest). Pentawing 20:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object. the history section is now just a list of unrealted facts, I suggest you put together two or three coherent paragraphs describing the most important events in Bostons history. The media, transport, sports sections don't need those ===h3=== subheadings. Arts doens't mention anything about fine arts, I assume Boston has galleries etc, those big lists in the arts section don't do alot for the readability of the article. The Colleges and Universites section is also a pretty bland list. --nixie 02:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to Peer Review. There are too many issues with this article to address here. --Theo (Talk) 21:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Pentawing 03:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interlingua

Interlingua because is a notable constructed language in that it is one of the few international auxiliary languages (along with Esperanto and Ido) from the 'heydey' of IALs that is still alive today. It also has its Wikipedia with a bit over 1900 articles, making it the third largest Wikipedia in a conlang (behind Ido and Esperanto). (The next largest conlang Wikipedia, for Occidental/Interlingue, has just above 200 articles.)

I can't say it's a self-nomination since I've had a lot of criticism and support on the way to getting it here, but I did do a lot of research and a lot of writing to get it this far. Thus, I can't claim to be unbiased in this, so I won't be voting. Almafeta 22:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Too many red links, no references. Denni☯ 23:25, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

I included three of my primary references, in one case moving them out of external links. I'll have to return to the library soon to get the publisher's info and ISBNs of the other two books. As to the red links? Well... it seems I've got some more writing to do. Almafeta 00:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object agree with Deni, there is a red link to the color argument. What is this? Also, the section "Criticisms of Interlingua" uses weasel words, a pet hate of mine. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

"Weasel words" are required to remain NPOV. Almafeta 15:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to Peer Review. For starters: pronunciation should be 'Phonology' or 'Sounds' and should use IPA transcription instead of loose approximations. It would be nice to have phoneme inventories (vowels, consonants) instead of unhelpful clues like 'the vowels are like Spanish and the consonants are like English'. — mark ✎ 08:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars

Self-nom. Definitely featured article status. A cultural icon that is one of the greatest motion picture series and is vastly acclaimed as such.- B-101 20:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC) Past FAC nomination here.

Please, do not nominate articles that do not meet basic requirements for FAs (References in this case). Sections like "Third Reich" are nothing but wild speculation and conjectures unless you provide authoritative sources to back your claim. This is an encyclopedia: we report and expose facts, we don't present original analysis and research. Phils 21:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I would however like to note that much progress has been done since the last time this was submitted as an FA. Phils 15:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review. Please note this nomination wasn't made on a subpage either. Mgm|^(talk) 22:21, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review. Not ready to be a FA - there would be many people who would want to weigh in on a Star Wars article before it became featured. Harro5 22:34, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review. Please respect the criteria for FAC nominations and please be patient when requesting the peer review. If no comments come out of the PR, try advertising it a bit more. Peter ^Isotalo 12:22, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review and I will make it a point to review it myself. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:48, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review serious concerns with structure of article. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Explorer

After many rewriting and reorganization, and run through peer review, this article is now quite informative, and much less biased as previous revisions. The article is now quite stable, with no current edit wars. P.S. FYI, the previous nomination can be found in this archive. --minghong 06:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object

From the article: Comparatively speaking, the default Internet Explorer interface is less cluttered than some of the internet suites. Isn't this more a matter of opinion than fact? Can it be backed up anywhere?

Also from the article: Internet Explorer is derived from Spyglass Mosaic. What is Spyglass Mosaic? I had to read the Mosaic article to find out. I would recommend adding a brief description to that sentence, saying: Internet Explorer is derived from Spyglass Mosaic, a web browser developed in the mid 1990s. or something like that.

Finally, there is a section on criticisms of Internet Explorer. I feel that that would make the article somewhat POV- could there be a section for praise of Internet Explorer?

Otherwise the article is very well-written. Keep up the good work, Minghong and other editors, in making this article even better! Thanks for all your hard work. Flcelloguy 15:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I have tried balancing the article with praise of IE or fair criticism of IE's competition. Unfortunately this kind of edit is quickly revoked, since most of the editors here are pro-Firefox or just anti-IE --Beachy 16:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Except the criticism section, most of the article is "praise"! And the criticisms are already very neutral. I think those are constructive criticisms that should stay. --minghong 19:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Object for now. I'd like to see some more development on the criticisms part in relation to the rest of the article. There's a lot to be said about IE, including the bad stuff. I'm not being a biased Linux user; I'm being objective. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:52, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Is there such thing as a neutral Linux user? I thought you had to make it your lifestyle - all that CLI/kernel hacking/shell upon shell upon shell etc? Are you guys comfortable discussing mature, high-performance graphical applications like web browsers? --Beachy 21:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Beachy, I am. I'm a Linux user and I wrote a good proportion of the Windows 2000 article. Why don't you give it a break, huh? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Give it a break? Where's the fun in that? :-P --Beachy 05:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't want to put words in his mouth, but I'm sure Linuxbeak is comfortable talking about... Firefox.AlistairMcMillan 00:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Touché! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 03:28, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

If it's Firefox he wants to talk about then I'm afraid he's come to the wrong article! --Beachy 05:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support, not sure what else needs to be covered in the "Criticisms" section. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • One further comment: this is the reason I asked whether we should refer to our own articles in the references section. The article has (quite rightly) turned into an umbrella article for many subarticles. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support, definitely less overtly biased than it was. Worth keeping a watchful eye on though, especially with all these Linux/OSS fans on the loose --Beachy 05:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly object. Even a brief look at the edit history reveals intense battling about POV, in large part instigated by Beachy. Take a look at this diff, for example, where he inserted a comment "The reason for IE decline is likely to be in part due to security hysteria caused by Firefox advocates and misguided OSS zealots. No reason to advertise other browsers here" into the article. His allegations of a media conspiracy against Microsoft are equally problematic. According to Beachy's user page, he has made it his personal mission to "balance POV" in this article, apparently by inserting his own. This does not bode well for the future of this article. In terms of the specific content, my main objection is not against the criticism section (which could, however, go into more detail), but against the "History" section, which, on the bundling of MS IE with the operating system, only has this to say: "The integration, however, was subject to numerous criticisms. See United States v. Microsoft for details." That is ridiculous, especially since we have literally hundreds of leaked memos that document Microsoft's strategy to dominate the browser market after it decided that Netscape could develop into an independent platform that might threaten its OS monopoly. These are not "criticisms", but facts which are not disputed by anyone and which belong, at least as a summary, into the History of Internet Explorer. As it is now, the reader is left in the dark as to the origins of Microsoft's domination in the browser market, which makes the whole article appear like the product of Microsoft's marketing division.--Eloquence* 16:36, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course Microsoft is always trying to dominate the World. But Wikipedia may not be a right place to add this, as it would easily turn into flame/edit wars. --minghong 18:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • If the article is the way it is not because of any real factual considerations, but out of fear of edit wars, then I must object even more strongly to declaring it feature quality.--Eloquence*
      • Oh come off it you two. Everyone in the browser market would like to dominate it. Particularly Firefox, with its aggressive SpreadFirefox campaign, aided by the militant web standards evangelists. Then there's the Linux/OSS advocates who can't afford/stomach running Windows, and therefore protest about Internet Explorer being the dominant browser. Why can't you guys accept that IE walked all over Netscape in terms of code quality, featureset and usability? THAT'S the reason it beat Netscape, and we are ALL better off for this having happened. Of COURSE you'll get edit wars if you say the only reason that IE is successful is because of a corporate conspiracy. --Beachy 00:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, and one of my "problematic" edits that Eloquence refers to is the following:

        "After having fought and won the browser wars of the late 1990s, Internet Explorer began to see its usage share shrink. Having attained a peak of about 95.4% in 2002, it has been in a minor decline due mainly to media coverage of security concerns and a greater awareness of alternative browser choices for technology savvy users. Statistics indicate the current most significant competition comes from open source Gecko-based browsers, in particular Mozilla Firefox. The media has played an instrumental role in the decline of Internet Explorer usage and Its neutrality is questionnable. Some of the most outspoken critics of Internet Explorer are open source advocates. Much money and effort has been spent on a marketing campaign for Mozilla Firefox and on the Web, a widespread grass-roots campaign advertises this open source browser as an allegedly superior product."

        This is the truth, for f**ks sake! I know you guys don't like it.. but there's not one incorrect statement there. It's a ridiculous state of affairs to have an allegedly neutral encyclopedia run by OSS advocates who have a hard-wired problem with Microsoft. It seems to be your default behaviour.. none of you can see past your corporation hang-ups and conspiracy theories. I despair... --Beachy 00:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • And one more thing - how dare you accuse me of 'instigating' edit wars? Firstly it takes two to tango. Secondly, you obviously have not been watching the edits too closely. In a couple of cases, I was editing or removing information that was proven to be factually inaccurate, despite resistance from other editors. Therefore, without my intervention the page would have been misrepresentative. Eloquence, Minghong, et al: I know our opinions differ, and I know I am outnumbered here. This does not mean I am wrong, and that you can make attempts to discredit the constructive input I have put into this article. Eloquence, as a Wikimedia representative, you should know better than this --Beachy 00:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --144.214.120.252 01:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Although this is a fine article, I see two problems. In ==History== "The improvements were astounding" seems entirely subjective and I would prefer it to be an opinion ascribed explicitly to some source. In ==Usability and accessibility== "Comparatively speaking, the default Internet Explorer interface is less cluttered than some of the internet suites." involves a tautology that can be eliminated by deleting the first two words, and, more significantly, seems to be self-evident: either name the suites or lose the statement. It is not useful to know that IE does not have the most cluttered interface, which is all that this sentence tells us. --Theo (Talk) 21:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed by changing "astounding" to "significant" and removing the paragraph about UI cluttering. --minghong 00:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Beachy's conduct above is illustrative of the damaging and disruptive behavior which has harmed collaboration and the productive settlement of NPOV disputes on this article. The featured article standards require that an article be stable; this cannot be assured when active POV-pushing and abuse is disrupting it. --FOo 21:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I love that FOo is claiming I'm biased in this very personal statement. Compare this to his statements from the IE discussion page:

    "accusations that your fellow editors are biased certainly do constitute personal attacks ...it is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia ... When is it useful to say that someone is biased? I'm not sure it ever really is ....if you choose to behave in a manner which violates Wikipedia policy, you're not going to get to contribute it. That would be bad. Cut the personal attacks"

    -- practice what you preach, Fubar! And regarding your talk page observation ..KABOOM! :-) --Beachy 01:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't want to go personal. But does that mean this can't be a featured article just because of one's disruptive behavior? You know, we did try to stop him, but it isn't easy to change one's mind. (see his talk page) --minghong 00:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Classic Fubar and Classic Minghong. --Beachy 00:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Pointing to one's talk page, eh Minghong? And why not - yours is certainly the biggest cracker of them all! "I've been spreading Firefox before the creation of Spread Firefox community site" I can't believe you left that on there... --Beachy 00:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly Support. This is a very significant article. While I don't like IE one way that we can help fight it is if we know how it got developped and so on, after all the truth works better than myths or lies. CAPS LOCK 00:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, and editors who happen to list "conspiracy theory" as one of their recreational activities (you know who you are) are probably not the best thing that ever happened to this article --Beachy 01:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. My objections have been addressed. --Theo (Talk) 08:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 Atlantic hurricane season

(Self-nom) I'm not trying to stuff the box with hurricane articles here, but this IS a good article, and I promise the last I will nominate for a while. The only thing I can really think it's lacking are references, but really, there are few things to reference. All roads lead back to the NHC, and NHC links are spread liberally throughout the article. I'll try to find a link for Gray's forecast, but beyond that, I think it's pretty good as-is. --Golbez 09:01, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you elaborate? Every storm has NHC links; Gray's forecast is linked at the bottom (and I may make a footnote); and the major storms have references in their own articles. What exactly is lacking a reference? --Golbez 21:50, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• It's mostly a formatting issue. You need to mention the NHC links in a seperate reference section. Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree, that would create a huge Reference section that helps no one. External links has a link to the NHC and should (if it doesn't now it will soon) have a link to the NHC's 2004 page, and each storm has the proper links. How would moving all of the reference links to a single section be useful? --Golbez 22:35, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Er, unless you mean simply mention them, which can be done. :) --Golbez 23:37, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • I've all the references I can think of; I'll concatenate them in an end section later today. Requesting more comments. --Golbez 17:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 06:45, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Although it still needs a reference section which simply describes the sources, this can be done with little problem. I've thought that this article was worthy of a nomination for a while, I just never got around to nominating it myself. bob rulz 01:08, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] May 2005

[edit] Edgar Allan Poe

This article has been subject to a peer review and a previous failed FAC. The article has been improved since the last FAC, and is deserving of another consideration for featured status. Harro5 04:46, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Am I missing something, the peer review request was just put up on May 23--nixie 06:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Non-comprehensive, poor formating and referencing. Emily Dickinson is closer to FA-status than this is. Neutrality^talk 06:46, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: This is very interesting but has a poor layout, the links within the text would appear better as footnotes and too many very short paragraphs. Giano | talk 08:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I agree with the above. The lead section should be longer, and the current layout and structure does not do the article's content justice. A good example for this is the Legacy and Lore section, which has too many small paragraphs and thus feels disjointed and hard to follow. Phils 15:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poor layout, not especially a comprehensive article either Jtkiefer 05:11, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

YEA YOU SILLY ASS HOES YO UCAN ALL KISS MY BLACK ASS!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit] Fitz Hugh Ludlow

An edited GFDL release of a biography written by one of the two Ludlow experts who are currently on-the-case. It's got a bit of everything: Hasheesh eating, the underground railroad, the Mormon exodus, an awful love triangle, the bohemian literary community of New York and the incipient literary community of San Francisco (including a young Mark Twain).-Moorlock 00:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Opppose. I think there are POV issues in this article. For example the second paragraph. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phishing

This artical has been used twice as a source for articals written about Phishing in general. I believe that because of this, this artical has what it takes to become a featured artical. --ZeWrestler 18:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to Peer Review - This article could be FA worthy, but it doesn't read very well right now. I see several run-on sentences (such as the first sentence of the lead section), and the grammar isn't quite clear in other places. Rather than a text copy of a sample scam email, better would be a screenshot of an email client with a scam email displayed (to show that they usually will include html code that loads real-looking graphics). Only two references and those to online news sources? There is a lot more information on the internet about phishing, like all of the information released by the United States Federal Trade Commission [22]. slambo 19:19, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Peer review. Agree with Slambo's excellent feedback. Harro5 00:10, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Object for reasons described above Giano | talk 08:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bob McEwen

Self nom. A profile of the former six-term Ohio congressman who is running in the special election to replace Rob Portman. Yes, I know it needs a photo (there's some here if someone would like to add them), but it is detailed, has references, external links, see alsos, etc. PedanticallySpeaking 18:11, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong oppose--very POV. In the first sentence, e.g., there was "who denounced government spending, unless it was to be in his district". Accurate as it may be, it's pretty clearly making a judgement about his fitness. Further down, the same assertion is made. It also says that (paraphrase) "his attention to foreign matters led to his receiving a zero from the Consumer Federation of America". Should we really be attributing causes this way? This article is problematic. Refer to PR. Meelar (talk) 21:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have redone the lead to attribute the bit about pork spending in his district. The Consumer Federation bit was to show that he was criticised for his attention to foreign affairs at the expense of domestic ones. PedanticallySpeaking 18:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Still object, but improving. A couple problems with this article. First of all, there's the section on "In the spotlight in his last term". The last half of it, essentially, is one long, critical quote. It's not really an encyclopedic treatment, nor very neutral. Secondly, there's this sentence: "His attention to foreign matters over domestic ones was one reason he was given a "zero" rating multiple times by the Consumer Federation of America for his votes on consumer issues."--can we know this is true? Maybe the CFA gave him a zero because he really hated consumers. Maybe it was because certain businesses donated to his campaign. Who knows? the point is, we can't attribute a cause like this without a source. Finally, the House Bank scandal should be more fully explained, especially since the article itself is a redlink. Meelar (talk) 19:02, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted consumer sentence completely. An explanation of the House Bank scandal really goes beyond the scope of this article, which is why I put a link to the article I hope someone will write in the future. The key point is that he bounced checks, which is stated in the article. PedanticallySpeaking 20:21, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I cut down the Gottlieb quote in question. No, it is not a neutral quote but quotes from others do not have to be neutral. I am trying to show how he was perceived and this quote shows one of the papers covering his district didn't think much of him.
I have added a few words of explanation about the House bank and some additional quotes from McEwen himself taken from the Congressional Record. PedanticallySpeaking 14:34, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I still object, but this is getting much closer. My only problems now are the lead, which is still non-neutral. Is there any reason to include the Cleveland Plain Dealer quote? Most articles on politicians don't quote hostile editorials in the lead section. Also, you might want to check links such as this one [23]--all the Library of Congress links that don't go to actual bills are broken. Getting much closer now. Meelar (talk) 17:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. If you want to see a quality NPOV article, try to model this on the Barack Obama FA. Harro5 23:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

If the McEwen article violates the NPOV guidelines, it seems to me the Obama one does too. PedanticallySpeaking 18:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak object. Length is good. Just needs some NPOV'ing and a picture, if possible. --Merovingian (t) (c) 15:49, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Regretably, I must oppose. Here are my reasons:
  1. Having previously directed Representative William Harsha's re-election campaigns to Congress in 1976 and 1978, McEwen ran for Harsha's seat when he retired in 1980 and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in what The Washington Post called "a fail-safe Republican district."

     I would very much like to see a reference to the newspaper article that said this, using Template:Ref and Template:Note, along with the reference in the references section.

  2. The lead section is interesting, however I believe that the quotation from Tom Deimer should be going into the main body of the article — as it stands now having this in the lead section seems to be inferring that Wikipedia's position on this policitian concurs with Mr Deimer, which is clearly not the case because of our NPOV policy. My suggestion would be to put this into "Congressional career" and to, again, properly reference that quote to give us more specific information so we can verify the quote and check the context of that quote.
  3. The Chillicothe Gazette would salute him for his work on funding for U.S. Route 35, a limited access highway linking Chillicothe to Dayton

     Source? add to notes and to references

  4. Perhaps it would be better to rephrase "McEwen was not a man to mince words." Perhaps this is true, however I feel that this is a little POV to say so... however, others may disagree so this is a minor point. The fact that you backed this up is excellent, however, but nonetheless I would urge a rewrite of the paragraph. Take this point as you will.
  5. Martin Gottlieb of the Dayton Daily News thought McEwen's performances showed why he had remained in the background previously... (etc)

     Source to article?

  6. who the Dayton Daily News said "is an unknown small businessman who hasn't thought things through"

     Source to article?

  7. Martin Gottlieb of the Dayton Daily News said "McEwen was collateral damage" to Gingrich's crusade.

     Source to article?

• Will look into this further, must do other stuff now. Sorry! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beastie Boys

I don't know who has principally written this article (not a self-nom), but I nominate it. It is a fine article that does the legendary group justice. And obviously my vote is Support. --Kitch 13:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Yes, the article prose is good and flows well, but where are the references? slambo 14:49, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I didn't notice on my first pass, but a few of the images are missing captions. slambo 15:28, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. Address Slambo's comments please. Also, you've left out the chart ranking for "Right Right Now Now". Harro5 00:01, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Scream

This article failed it's first FAC nomination. Since then, most of the objections have been addressed. The article is well written, and contains everything you can say about the topic. There are very few articles in the FA list on fine arts, this one would help. Deepak 21:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well written and interesting article. Good work with the photos too. Seems to have addressed most of the issues in the previous FAC well. Harro5 23:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm concerned about this sentence, refering to the "inflatable" Scream:

Critics will observe that by taking the figure out of its context (the landscape), Fishbone has destroyed the unity of Munch's work, thereby neutralizing its expressive force.

Is this the author's judgement, or is this a judgement from a known critic? If so, could we attribute this opinion to a specific person? (Otherwise, I don't have a problem with this article, & very much enjoyed reading it.) -- llywrch 02:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sentence changed to "critics have observed" and added a reference. Deepak 22:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Better, but the reference is not clearly linked to the comment, & (if I'm looking at the right one), it is nothing more than an unsigned web page on Earthlink with no clue to the qualifications of the writer: she/he could be a highly respected critic with well- earned tenure -- or just a dog. -- llywrch 17:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object, there are some things that I think need to be changed. First the run on of these sentences imply that the litography plate has been stolen

Munch later also translated the picture into a lithograph (shown below), so the image could be reproduced in reviews all over the world. However, the original is currently missing from the Munch Museum, having been stolen by art thieves in August 2004.

Besides the discussion in the lead, there is no discussion of why Munch produced multiple copies of the Scream, and no mention of the predecessor Deranged Mood at Sunset 1892 and Anxiety 1894, both are set in the same scene as the scream. The lithograph should possibly be covered in more detail, why did Munch want to distribute the image? Also, there is no mention of the exhibitions where the painting was shown that were closed down or criticisms of the work at the time it was first shown.

Where you have links to reference material I think you should use one of the footnote systems like Footnote 3 or Footnote 4.

--nixie 05:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Far more can be said in all areas of the article. --Oldak Quill 12:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Question Aren't all of those pictures violations of copyright? Munch died in 1944, so if we count 70 years from his death, copyright would end in 2014. And the picture of thieves taking the piccis is copyrighted to an anonymous photographer - so wouldn't copyright expire 70 years after it was taken, ie in 2074? The same goes for all the piccis on Edvard Munch, jguk 13:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The US copyright law covering visual arts for life + 70 years only applies to works made after 1978, so the scream is definately life+50 years and is therefore PD, hence the inflatable scream and other tacky merchandise. As for the image of the theft, if AP bought it off the anon bystander AP probably own the copyright and this iamge should be listed as a copyvio. --nixie 23:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object: I think this is a well-written article, but I agree with some of the objections above (such as nixie's need for slightly more coverage of Munch context). I may support if some good edits are made in that vein; in the meantime, I have gone ahead and refactored the reference material in Footnote3 fashion. --DanielNuyu 00:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Claus von Stauffenberg

Not a self nomination. I think it’s quite ready now to be a FAC. GeneralPatton 23:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. Small problems:

1. The mention of the July 20 Plot in the lead is just that - a bare mention. I know it is expanded later, but I don't know what the plot was, and so would be disinclined to read on as it doesn't say what Claus did and what the plot entailed.
2. Can't you think of a better section heading than "The plot"? Harro5 23:32, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - inadequate two-sentence lead; I also suspect that it is not comprehensive: it would be worth asking a German-speaker to compare and incorporate any material from de:Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg, particularly the references. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I have written a better lead section, but I still object until it is cross-checked with the German version and filled out. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - to short, as mentioned above. This is an ok article, but fails short of FA. I could give you many examples of similar articles, which are close - but not close enough to our modern standards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object: An interesting subject, but there is a lot more to be said here. Giano | talk 21:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• I agree that it should be more comprehensive. Also, resist the tendency to parrot the hero myth of this guy, who was really just another fascist—although at least the article isn't too bad in that regard. Don't count my comments as a vote. Everyking 05:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caulfield Grammar School

This article has been subject to a peer review, of which there was minimal feedback, and has been reviewed by the team at School Watch. I believe it to be one of the best articles on a high school that exists on Wikipedia, and this would provide a great benchmark for all other school articles to meet as a guide for how to write a school article is debated. Harro5 04:00, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - This article contains little information of interest to any significant subsection of the general public. Cedars 04:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I'm not even sure this article should survive VFD, let alone be featured. Firebug 04:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Article is mostly list, it lacks meat. It doesn't draw me to conclude that this is a really encyclopedic subject, perhaps we should establish more notablity? It also fails to draw the reader along, ... frankly it's rather boring at its current state, which is something I have not found to be the case for other featured articles, ... or even most articles in the wikipedia. I must object until these issues can be addressed.--Gmaxwell 04:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It's not the worst article I've seen on a school, but it's a long way short of featured status. The article has a motto, information on each campus, and a bunch of lists. Academics? Debating? Sports? Culture? Caulfield's quite a prestigious school, but you wouldn't learn much about why from this article. Ambi 06:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Have incorporated some of the content suggested by Ambi. Harro5 07:13, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's now quite a lot improved - kudos, I must say. However, I still think there's a lot of opportunities for expansion. Ambi 09:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I wonder if it mightn't work better to have a history section for the entire school, and then a seperate campuses section describing more the function, infrastructure, location, etc, of each one, potentially leading to the prospect of a spinoff article for each of the two topics. The more I think of it, I think that this would improve the structure quite a bit. Also, as part of the history, it may also be worth mentioning the Nanjing vandalism incident somewhere.
      • I still feel the academics section could be expanded a bit, although it is good already. My high school was undoubtedly worse than Caulfield, but we could've said almost the exact same things about our ENTER and subject scores. Looking at the front page of the site, I wonder if things like learning mentors could go in here. Average class sizes? Virtual campus/lack of laptops?
      • Governance - covering student leadership was a really good idea, but what about parents? Is there a School Council sort of thing?
      • Music - what's there is good, but I notice that it mentions a band as part of a historical note. It may be worth dedicating a paragraph to the school bands themselves (and any other such groups around).
      • Houses?
      • Boarding/day students? Perhaps boarding could be a section of its own?
      • Fees!
      • Intake each year/waiting list?
      • It might be an idea to make Tamsyn Lewis, Ron Walker and Stuart Maxfield into redlinks - I know it looks a bit worse, but they really do deserve articles.
      • Debating - is there an intra-school competition on top of the DAV one?
      • What about competitive public speaking - Rostrum/Rotary?
      • Could we perhaps have a little more information on sport - teams/facilities/major victories?
      • There's some other place in the article when it mentions infrastructure in a historical event without it being previously mentioned in the article - Twin Halls project, for one - was this at Monash or at Caulfield?
      • Uniform! (how could I forget that one?)
      • Scholarships?
        • I've crossed the comments that are now moot. I think there's still a few more things that could be added, and I also agree with what Spangineer has to say. Ambi 08:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: admirable effort to make something more than a stub for a school. It's a lot better than a lot of school articles, I've seen recently. I'll have to read in more detail before I vote, though. Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not going to formally object, but some of the an images are is untagged, and it would be nice to see more about the school's history (almost all of the article content dates from the last 10 years of the school's 125-year history). JYolkowski // talk 14:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC) One image is still untagged. JYolkowski // talk 21:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Tagged now. Harro5 22:07, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Support then. JYolkowski // talk 00:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not a believer in the "featured article" concept and this is an example of why I dislike it so intensely. The article as of 17 May was quite concise and readable, now after a few hours on FA it's bloated beyond belief. Please withdraw it and revert all the padding. Articles don't need to be featured to be of high quality. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Feel free to comment on which of the versions you prefer, but I feel the current one has some useful info that should stay. I am open to discussion about most of the new stuff. Harro5 21:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, fails on the well written criteria as it is currently a fleshed out list, overwhelming TOC, copyright status on images is unclear. It may well be the best article on a school but it doesn't meet the criteria of a featured article (you ca take up the merits of those criteria in talk).--nixie 03:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like more info on what criteria this article fails to meet. Reading over the criteria list, it is hard to see what is wrong with this page. As for having too long a contents section, it is better to have headings than long unfragmented paragraphs which are difficult to read. Harro5 05:05, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • How about we start with criteria 1, Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet., explain to me how this page offers anything that isn't covered on the schools excellent website and how it compares with a unique resorce like Imagism--nixie 08:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'll object for now. It's a good article, but it can still use info on uniform, housing, fees, scholarships, etc. as suggested by Ambi. Mgm|^(talk) 16:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added info on fees and scholarships, but adding info on uniforms on creates more lists. I really don't know what more can be added, and whether it actually would be needed. Time for votes! Harro5 06:35, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • My objection remains for now. I agree that the article needs some proze-ification before it's featureable. I'm quite happy with the content (maybe some more history). Sorry, don't have the time to help ya. Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - good work with the expansion, but practically the whole article needs work on flow and prose. There are disconnected, short paragraphs everywhere—these need to be converted to longer, well-written paragraphs. Also, the lead is too short—you can probably move the vision statement into the lead, for starters, and then touch on the history and other important info (2-3 long paragraphs would be good). --Spangineer ∞ 17:51, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • While I have single-handedly compiled the info for this article, I would really appreciate it if someone else wants to help with the wording. The current piece is in my own words, and so naturally it's hard for me to see its faults. I can't see the disconnected paragraphs, or the lack of flow, but I'd be grateful if someone who can wanted to edit these sections for wording. Thanks. Harro5 22:20, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Object to avoid scuttling the ongoing Schools debate that appears to be successfully moving toward compromise. The article is well done. --Unfocused 13:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Objections need to be actionable. If there isn't anything that can be done, your objection can be effectively ignored. JYolkowski // talk 21:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed; the same could be said about a few of the earlier objections as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:56, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
      • Yes, it may be ignored, but it shouldn't. The Wikipedia:Schools issue under discussion has had some very heated moments, and many users don't believe grammar and high school articles should even exist. Featuring this article at this time may ruin all the work that's been done toward compromise. The action I'm suggesting is to wait a month or two before considering this article because that's about how long it will take to know if the concepts we worked out there will be effective at stopping the VfD fights over schools. This is a good article, but I think the prose leans more toward verbose rather than concise. --Unfocused 07:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for now with a couple of minor concerns. In the second lead paragraph does Victorian mean the place or the architectural style (I mean, having read the article it is clear, but at least for non-Australian readers I think this might be confusing), "in Victoria" or "in Melbourne" might be a better wording. Also, regarding the Nanjing vandalism incident Ambi noted, it has been incorporated into the article but I'd like to know HOW the issue was resolved, if this is public information. Other than that, prepared to support. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:35, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  • Support now, although I don't know how I'd feel about this being on the Main Page. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:04, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  • Chris, I've addressed your problems as best I can. I know the people responsible for the vandalism were returned home and suspended, but naturally wasn't able to hear what was said to the Chinese. I know something was said as when I went on the China trip we got a full warning about the repercussions of misbehaviour, and this was cited as an example. Harro5 00:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• I would ask anyone considering a vote to not go on previous votes, and have a look at the article yourself. It has changed significantly since this FAC began. Thank you. Harro5 01:16, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - while well-written, it reads like a school's information brochure, and it's entirely too verbose with details that aren't interesting unless you live near it. And phrases like "The boarding house and boy's dormitories is located inside the school's boundaries, and next to the main classroom buildings." are redundant since they're true for 90% of all boarding schools. I would support this as a FAC if substantially condensed. Radiant_* 08:21, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide

I found this (by chance), but it's clearly very detailed and comprehensive. I don't personally see any reason why it couldn't be considered as a FA.--Joewithajay 22:54, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Object the empty sections indicate to me that this is still a work in progress. It also has an insufficient lead and no clear references. Let the author finish it and send it to peer review--nixie 23:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't see the empty spaces before, yes you're right. --Joewithajay 09:33, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Good article but with empty sections and a "please expand" notice it's not ready to be a feature article. Cedars 10:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, once those parts are expanded the whole thing needs to be refactored. What is especially needed is the creation of daughter articles where much of the detail can be held. Summaries of those daughter articles would be at Suicide. That may even be a good idea to do now, given the size of the article, but those summaries would be incomplete. --mav 11:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - incomplete. Also needs to have an expanded hotline section to make it more international (it only covers the US). - Ta bu shi da yu 05:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object Not only is it a work-in-progress, but I'm not sure this kind of article should be plastered on the Main Page as a FAotD. --Kitch 14:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Surely it is not in line with NPOV to refer to an article on suicide as "this kind of article" (or at least, I would have said so until it started including links on how to go about an attempt, now I might have to VERY grudingly agree... adam black 2005 July 5 01:54 (UTC)

[edit] Theodor Adorno

• This article seems comprehensive, well-written, and detailed. Voyager640 09:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support On the condition that references are added to the text, other than this anomaly, a fine piece of work. --Knucmo2 22:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Needs copyediting. ex: "Critiques of Adorno's theories come include others of a Marxists." -- This is the first sentence of the Marxist Critcisms section. I considered editing it myself, but I think I would have missed the shade of meaning that the author intended. I agree that with just a few changes this should become a featured article. User:JoelRichardson 27 May 2005

Article needs editing for the sake of language issues (in the english language version, anyway). I doubt whether it's a "feature article" has any bearing on that or is important to anyone but wikipedia-folk.

[edit] Dice

Good read, seems to fit the criteria. --Twinxor 21:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object. Close, but lead is way to short, and the history could use a paragraph about rising popularity of dice with the 20th century grow of various games - as it stands, the last date in history is from 13th century. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support - great article. Yes lead para should be longer. ike9898 00:39, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• object for now. Lead section should be more clear. As it stands, it talks about the dice being a cube and then it states that the dice can be any other shape - maybe this should be changed to "a dice is a usually cubic object" or something like that. Also, the sections on the use of dice in d&d could be summarized; I'd also like to see more information on the non-gambling applications for dice, like their use in children's games. Also, does the youth in the sentence "Horus derided the youth of the period..." refer to more than one youth? With the use of "his" it makes the sentence unclear. Good work though.

Graham 12:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• The comments of "Graham", the User:Pianoman87 who vandalized the article by correcting "wear and tear" to "ware and tare", and clearly has ignored the first sentence of the article, need not be heeded. (BTW, that's Horace.)

Noted later: An article only P-M had worked on was vandalized with an obscene personal attack 3 days ago by User:203.144.21.77, and PM seemingly hunted down & rv'd the IP's other (recent) cases, then took an interest in Dice two days later. Well, i won't dignify my speculations by repeating them here.

--Jerzy~t 15:04 & 19:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I have struck thru most of my own contrib immediately above, and removed the strike-thru markup on PM's contrib (except for his now changed vote), consistent with PM's & my statements immediately below. --Jerzy~t 19:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The ware and tare thing was not deliberate vandalism. I use a speech synthesizer to do my work, and it usually correctly recognizes homophones, so when it said tear (as in tears that people cry), I thought it was incorrect, so I changed it. I appologize for that, and will try to be more careful in the future. What are you trying to say about any connection between the dice article and my previous work? Take any reply to my talk page.

Graham 01:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

(This is not a reply, tho it is occasioned by the contrib above. I may still owe a reply, & will deliver it where PM suggests, if i come up with one i consider appropriate.)

I consider myself obligated to make this public statement. I erred in suspecting Graham/User:Pianoman87 as a vandal. I regret using that label in a summary, where it is a permanent record; the summary for this contrib will contradict my earlier summary. (That is the best i can do w/o confusingly falsifying the edit history by expunging that revision.) This error reflects lack of caution on my part, since i pride myself on being aware of the danger of trusting one's (inevitably inadequate) imagination as a guide to possible alternative explanations.

I did look (between my two previous edits here) for further evidence of vandalism, w/o finding any. In that light, i took PM for one of the rarer varieties of vandal: the subtle vandal, who disguises the damage they do, especially with valid editing, so that it remains in place relatively long, as a minor blemish, rather than making a big splash that is quickly reverted. (And the unstated speculations i mentioned, which grew out of my short investigation, would be now been even more unworthy of exposure than before.)

The reversions PM did of User:203.144.21.77's vandalism deserved to be taken at face value: as diligent service beyond his obligations.

Overall, i would wish i had earlier taken PM for a valuable colleague, as i now do.

--Jerzy~t 19:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

My objections have been resolved. Changed vote to support. Graham 01:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the article be rendamed Die (game) or Die (somthing. The wikipedia policy is to use singular. I can see though why it would be called dice because it's hard to find somthing to put after it. Not a vote BrokenSegue 01:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This article is fairly solid but it contains a number of omissions:
  1. Traditionally single dice are commonly used in children's games of nineteenth century origin such as Snakes & Ladders and Ludo. The statement about multiple dice being traditional is, therefore, not the whole picture.
  2. I would like to see acknowledgement of the prevalent practice of calling a single die "a dice" (even though the misuse offends me).
  3. The section on materials is exclusively about polyhedral dice. This should be associated with the polyhedrals section or made more general.
  4. Novelty dice include "decision dice" with an optional behavioural word on each face: an example that I recall bore "sleep", "eat", "work", "play", "clean", and "TV". Others have been made for sexual games and to promote awareness of desirable work practices. I lack the details to add this comprehensively.
  5. Other symbolic dice that spring to mind are the direction dice in Adventure (game) and Mississipi Queen. I am sure that there are more.
  6. Chase (1986) was an abstract board game designed by Tom Kruszewski for TSR that used dice as playing pieces. I imagine that there are others.

  --Theo (Talk) 23:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blade Runner

This article has been nominated before. I've managed address the majority of the objections; and made some additions (Soundtracks, criticism, religious symbolism) so hopefully all is well. BR ROCKS!!! - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Object. There is still no synopsis of the film, a basic requirement (whether written or not) for articles about literary works. Morwen - Talk 08:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

A point. Still I'd like to note it is a major improvement with the first time it was FACed. Hopefully the objections will be resolved and the article will pass the FAC this time - keep up the good work, Roy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Synopsis added. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Support. I think the article is now ready for prime time, now that the deckard is human or a replicant debate is out of the way. vaceituno 09:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Minor object, the lead needs a little bif od work to better summarise the content of the article. I'm also not a big fan of the single sentence paragraphs, if they can be merged into longer paragraphs I'll support--nixie 10:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

One other thing, is the Criticism section really all that has been said in the way of criticism? It seems pretty short for such a widely studied film, also, more generally should there be a distiction between critical (by film critics) and academic criticism--nixie 01:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure more has been said, but its mostly along the same lines... I can certainly clarify that to some degree. A distinction should be made if enough material that resides distinctly in each category can be found. But I don't see the section growing enough to require it, and I doubt enough academic criticism exists. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Google Scholar gives 1,160 citations for the film; even the MLA Bibliography, an index primarily about literature rather than film, yields an instant 93 articles. That would seem to be more than enough academic interest that something should be said about it in the article. In my personal experience it is perhaps the most discussed sci-fi film in academia. (But I can see no reason to make an artificial or rigid separation between newspaper critics and academics.) I haven't really looked at the article since its last FAC nomination, so I'm not voting yet. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: You and I obviously are not agreeing on what constitutes criticism; I bolded it for a reason. I speak of negative comments made about the film by academics. I cannot remember coming across one in the years I've studied the film. As to it being discussed; I've covered the majority of the main themes in the film with Significance and Issues section. There are certainly others (Mortality for example); but to expand the article to such an extent may force a separate article? I don't know if it would, but I want to avoid that for now. The criticism section is for what people see as the films faults. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 18:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)> Roy, I think you have a misunderstanding of what criticism is. It is not limited to negative critiques, it covers all kinds of judgements, with an emphasis on involved, thought-out, and interpretative judgement. While the term can refer to negative criticism in casual conversation ("Why do you always have to criticize!" or "Do you have any constructive criticisms about my paper?"), in more formal contexts (such as our articles on the Wikipedia), it refers as much to positive critism as to negative. Once you add the word academic (i.e., academic criticism), any negative connotation is gone. </Jun-Dai>

• Support -- good before and much improved now. — Xiong熊talk* 13:05, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

• I have a problem with lines like this: "If the famous origami unicorn in the Director's Cut reveals Deckard to be a replicant in the film's final moments, then the audience's expectations and prejudices are themselves called into question – and, by extension, our own humanity." WTF? --Tagishsimon (talk)

Indeed, wtf?

Agreed. This sentence (and others like it) read too much like lines from an Intro Lit-Crit essay written the night before it was due. Awkward, overlong and just a mite pretentious. Object. Anville 13:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on! You're doing a smashing job so far... a little nip and tuck and all will be well Anville. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Mention could be made of Harrison Ford's complete unwillingness to be interviewed on the subject of Blade Runner - what's all that about? And then there's the continuity error of Deckard being sent after, err, five replicants but only dealing with four of them. --Tagishsimon (talk)

It could be. Ridley didn't get on with the crew doing his first film in America, and had a stand-offish style with actors. Continuity moved to and dealt with in replicant; it may make its way back into a continuity section if someone feels like compiling it... but that's close to a trivia section.

I've added a Future Noir paragraph in Creators to mention Ford's history with Blade Runner. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• The Soundtracks section still bears some evidence of cut & paste from wherever it was nicked from - towards the bottom, the track listing & comments have a couple of occurrances of odd character strings "Vocals on tracks 3$-1òú 9 (disc I) a" ; I'm not entirely sure what information is being conveyed & have left them alone for the time being. I corrected one of these in another section - I'm kinda a little worried about the copyright implications of the appearance of what I take to be copy&paste telltales. --Tagishsimon (talk)

The website it was copied from is in the soundtracks section; and it is notes from a bootleg CD. It's not an issue.

• Finally, I think it needs copyediting in parts. There are more than a handful of lines such as "The predecessor to Blade Runner is Fritz Lang's silent film Metropolis;" where one winces slightly at the word employed ("predecessor") without necessarily being awake enough to work out how to improve the sentence. Antecedent? Derivative? Homage? Echo?. Other jarring moments ina quick read-through included

How is predecessor inappropriate? Antecedent's nice; but is a looser meaning of precede; Metropolis didn't just go before... it had the pedestal.

A nice turn of phrase, but what does it mean? Anville 13:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I meant for it to communicate Metropolis was held as the best (most influencial) dystopic sci-fi film prior to Blade Runner; yeah sounds a little subjective now that I say it out loud... but there ya have it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• • "Scott contracted Syd Mead as a conceptual artist, both of whom were ". Aaaargh.

Not sure what's wrong here, but I trust you.

• • The Joanna Cassidy parenthesis intruding into the Religious symbolism section

I had to get rid of the much maligned trivia section somehow; removed.

• • Use of the word "thru"

thru > using - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

--Tagishsimon (talk)

• "this footnote is missing, please see the article history and try to fix it." - can we have this fixed? - Ta bu shi da yu 18:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Fixed by me and CS42. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  • The writing in the article needs a lot of revision. For one thing, much of the article is too colorful in its descriptions, giving it a much more personal tinge on the part of the writer, and detracting from its encyclopedic value. Some of the worse examples:
    • "After a breathtaking flyover of sprawling industrial complexes"
    • "Its dark, ambiguous moral, visual and thematic complexity was ahead of its time and kept it from immediate popularity, but served to endear it with academia, polarize film critics and ensure its cult classic status"
  • The synopsis needs to be trimmed to about half its length. We don't need a blow-by-blow of every single plot point in the film. Also, there are references to things like the Voight-Kampff test, which, while nicely linked, should either be explained in a parenthetical statement, or simply generalized ("he performed a test to on Rachael that would determine whether she was human"). Passages like these don't belong in a brief synopsis of the film:
    • "Deckard is initially passive aggressive with Gaff but"
    • "It's the worse replicant escape Bryant has seen and he needs Deckard's "magic" to get the situation under control."

Finished 2nd draft. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Additionally, rather than interpreting the film ("Tyrell has the appearance of a living god from within a pyramid above the clouds that exudes wealth and power. This self-image is reinforced when Tyrell assumes the role of the gods by dimming the sun on command."), the article should limit itself to making references to other people's interpretations.

    Reference added, is that sufficient? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    <Jun-Dai 18:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)> Not exactly. The problem is that the article still presents the statement as fact, when it is merely an interpretation of the film. It should read like something along the lines of:

    • John Soandso has written that "Tyrell has the appearance of a living god from within a pyramid above the clouds that exudes wealth and power. This self-image is reinforced when Tyrell assumes the role of the gods by dimming the sun on command." He is referring to the line in the screenplay that reads "The windows darken, a polaroid effect that seems to give Tyrell the power to turn off the sun."

    Now that's not a very well thought-out example (and it assumes that there is a John Soandso that has written a relevant critique of the film), but at least it poses the statement with the correct distance. More importantly, this was just one example--the entire section on the "Significance and issues" (a problematically vague title) reads like a series of term paper synopses, which is not how an encyclopedia article ought to read. There is far too much primary research and interpretive writing in this article and there shouldn't be any.

Well its a fact many have interpreted that way; the "wealty and power" borders on fanfact and I think Ridley mentioned that was his intention, although I cannot deny it there may be extrapolation of interpretations (re: role of gods)... although I'm convinced I saw that somewhere... couldn't find it though. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Another example is the sentence "The first draft of the entire human genome was decoded in June 26, 2000, by the Human Genome Project, followed by a steadily-increasing number of other organisms across the microscopic to macroscopic spectrum." This, along with the whole section on cloning, does not belong in this article. In a paper on Blade Runner that has a point to prove, sure, but not in any sort of encyclopedic article on just the film itself.

    More importantly (you're probably not going to like this point), there is much too much focus on interpretation of the film. While it is certainly relevant how the film has been interpreted, it dominates the article--break it out into a separate article, and try to keep the section size down to something not much larger than the current size of the synopsis section. As a guide to how an article on Blade Runner should look, try looking at Casablanca (movie). It is a pretty good model. </Jun-Dai>

I already took a look, inspired the criticism section... but not much else. Blade Runner's article should be much sexier than that! :"D

• • Last but not least, the article reads like the work of Blade Runner fans. Detail on topics like Blade Runner soundtrack bootlegs belong in an entirely separate article, if anywhere at all. They should have, at most, a sentence in an article on Blade Runner. The article should mostly be dedicated to what the movie is, why it is relevant, and truly notable facts about the film. It should not be a fan's article on the film--it should be an article for the general public. Jun-Dai 21:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

    I almost entirely agree but... the article is mostly about the movie etc. The soundtract section has the appearance of being larger than it is because of the tables; to split it or reduce bootlegs to a sentence I currently do not agree with. As to the rest, I'm on it... hopefully with help from others. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    <Jun-Dai 18:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)> If you feel that the soundtrack bootleg information needs to be available to the reader, make it a separate page, and link to it. The table, etc., should not be on the main Blade Runner page--it takes up too much visual space for something that is not at all central to the topic. </Jun-Dai>

Fine... for some reason I dislike creating articles. So what should it be called? Soundtracks of Blade Runner? And what should the significance and issues section article be called? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking of renaming it Criticism and themes, therefore combining "Criticism" and "Significance and issues" sections into one. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Independence Movement

This article is an article which has many useful links to other pages which give a very in-depth and un-biased view on the Indian Independence Movement. 210.84.199.81 (01:55, May 17, 2005)

• I think this is an A effort and certainly covers a lot of ground. It's very close to FAC material. However, I do think it spends a lot of time talking about the nitty gritty of battles and details, and in doing so losing the overview. Since there are a number of links to more detailed articles throughout, it may behoove the author(s) or FAC nominator to do a bit of pruning: condense the details a bit more, and make sure every section's first paragraph explains the relevance of the events of that section to the overall development of the Indian indepedence movement. Otherwise, the reader is presented with a long string of narrative about which riot happened when and who led each, rather than an idea of how each event contributed to a story-arc of ultimate independence. —thames 15:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• I endorse the above comments and add this question: Are the two first sections (The beginnings of the British empire and The establishment of the Company's rule) really necessary. It seems to me like these subjects are duly covered elsewhere and that the links to the relevant article could be put in a See also section. I think it is safe to assume that anyone interested in this article knows that India was under British control, and what the East India Company was. Phils 16:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Regarding the points mentioned above: the first two sections should be condensed to about two sentences establishing the basic point that India had come under British control, and in general the article reads like a cobbled-together pastiche of the "Main articles" associated with each section. It lacks a solid narrative flow and leaves out much that could help provide much-needed context. In particular, what actually constitutes the movement, the activity of Indians themselves, is often missing. What were they doing leading up to the 1857 mutiny, and where did the movement go during the aftermath? The article really only tells you what the British were up to. Then 73 delegates materialize to form the INC, and to the reader these delegates might as well be manufactured out of thin air. In reality, many were already notable figures in the movement and elaborating on this would improve the reader's comprehension. The politics within the movement - who was included, who got left out - also need to be discussed, yet they're almost completely omitted. There's a lot of important stuff there, and it goes back way before the Pakistan solution. --Michael Snow 22:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Object -- Its too long IMO, Coming back to the FAC after a week, I'd be willing to make this an FA. PS. is it OK if an anon nominates?  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 12:50, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Helvarg

Self-nom. I submitted this prematurely on April 11, 2005 and moved it rapidly to Peer Review. You can see that first submission here. I have expanded it substantially since that submission and I have addressed all the peer review comments. --Theo (Talk) 09:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support. My concerns have been adressed. Object The article is comprised almost only of a listing of his books. Phils 10:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Approximately 20% of the article is devoted to a description of his books. Are you suggesting that this should be abbreviated or that the other sections should be expanded? --Theo (Talk) 11:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Plus about one third of the article is just a list of his works. I expect more of a featured article about a person than five ten-word sentences about his "Early Life". The subsections about his books are good. Looking at the article in detail (which, quite unprofessionaly, I did not do until now), I think the article might need some restructuring more than anything else. For example, wouldn't it be a good idea to separate the treatment of his works —the paragraphs about his books are really good, BTW— from his life? Some information is in subheadings it clearly does not belong into (like the paragraph about his awards and the following sentence, about his activities outside journalism; both are in the "Broadcasting" subsection). Once these structural issues have been fixed, and sections about the man himself are expanded, I will support this FAC. Sorry for the harsh first reply, but as I said, the current heading structure doesn't do the article's content justice. Finally, and on a completely unrelated note: what's up with having pictures on the FAC page to "illustrate" nominations? These pictures clearly serve no purpose; I can understand Piotr putting one to celebrate his 10th FAC, but I hope this doesn't become a general habit. Phils 11:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The article has now been refactored to address you objections. They were all helpful. The picture flowed from Piotr's suggestion endorsed by two other editors on the FAC talk page. --Theo (Talk) 15:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• To be perfectly blunt, while I am deeply impressed with the amount and high quality of the work that Theo has done on this article, I personally don't think the guy's that notable. --Dcfleck 11:48, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Notability does not, in fact, appear to be a criterion... therefore my objection is moot. Currently, however, I think the article could become a better one by paring it down - there is some duplication of information here that careful editing could probably eliminate. I will try my hand at it this weekend. --Dcfleck 12:04, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • If he's notable enough to be covered at all, then the article can become featured. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I agree with DCfleck. I think a lot of effort seems to have been put into the page, but I don't think Mr. Helvarg is especially notable in any way. He seems to be a minor author who has not made much impact in any of the fields he's been involved in. In fact, he is so un-notable, that the lead intro text mentions Mr. Helvarg's commentary on the totally un-notable Spongebob controvery, a spat which lasted all of 5 seconds. If that is one of his major accomplishments, I'm not sure why this article even exists. That being said, my objections center around the writing/content: the article reads like a promotional text taken from bios or blurbs about the man. An encyclopedia article should centrally contain information about why this person is important, and what he has done that has had an impact. This article certainly details the things Mr. Helvarg has done, but the article fails entirely to demonstrate that he has achieved anything important. It needs a significant rethinking, and either additions, or rewriting, in order to demonstrate what is important about this subject. —thames 14:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • On notability, you are missing Filiocht's point. If a topic is notable enough to be an article, it can become a featured article as long as it meets the criteria. The criteria, if you look at them again, have nothing at all to do with the topic, thus, any article able to meet them can be a FA, no matter how obscure or unimportant the topic. The rest of your commentary seems valid though; if the article does nothing to tell why he is important that is a problem. - Taxman 15:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

    It seems to me that I have failed to demonstrate the importance of the Blue Frontier Campaign of which Helvarg is president. I take the point that he would be of no interest if his greatest achievement was to write about Spongebob; I only mentioned this article because it brought him to the attention of people outside the fields of politics and marine conservation, in which he works. In an early draft of the article there was more about the Campaign but, since that has its own significance outside Helvarg's ambit, it seems inappropriate to repeat that material in this article. Am I mistaken in this? Should there be more about the Campaign in this article? I have made his presidency more obvious in the opening paragraph and slightly reduced the emphasis on his journalism in the second.

    The suggestion that the text is promotional gives me more of a problem. I knew nothing of the man before I stumbled over his stub so any promotion is a matter of style rather than intent. What makes him encyclopedic? Publication of three books, of which two were influential, and establishment of a lobbying group that has attracted the explicit support of senior US politicians. All this is in the article (which, frankly, includes everything that I know of the man) so it is a matter of emphasis rather than material: rewriting rather than expansion. How do I recast it to address your concern? --Theo (Talk) 16:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

    I do suggest playing up why the Blue Frontier Campaign was important, and what exactly those two of this books achieved. Always make sure you highlight the most important things up top. Editors have a slogan: say it, say it again, and say you said it. Don't assume the reader knows what effect this guy had--make sure they know after reading the first two sentences, and then make sure they know after reading the first section, and make sure they know after reading the whole thing. It's probably best to drop the Spongebob thing from the intro text: it would be like mentioning the effect Bill Clinton had on the cigar market in his intro text. Right now the article reads like: David Helvarg did this and this and this and this and this and this and this. It should read: David Helvarg did this really important couple of things, also, here is some background information and details. —thames 17:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

    I have taken all your advice to heart. Does the latest refactoring adequately implement your suggestions? --Theo (Talk) 19:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

    It's a very solid start. I'll change my vote to Abstain. —thames 20:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

    Looking at the course of your edits over the past two weeks one can clearly see how much work you've put in. You deserve the highest kudos for your unflinching ability to take constructive criticism with grace. One area which did not receive any revision is the section on Mr. Helvarg's books. When I made my original comments about sounding a bit too much like "promotional text", the section on books was one of the principal sources of my frustration. Again, I think each description leans a little bit too much toward saying what the book is about, rather than explaining why the book is important enough to have two or three paragraphs written about it. Address that and you'll have my vote. —thames 13:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

    Thank you for the praise. I am, however, at a loss to see what changes you seek to the books section. The War against the Greens subsection contains one paragraph describing the book's contents, one reporting key ractions and one explaining its significance. This seems to be the format that you describe. Likewise, the Blue Frontier subsection has a paragraph about the contents and a second about the book's consequences. The other two subsections do not meet your criteria; largely because they cannot do so. The Conservation Guide is too recently published to have any appreciable consequences and and Feeling the Heat has had no significant effect beyond being placed on some academic reading lists. While reviewing the article in the light of your comments, I did notice and fix my omission of the genesis of Feeling the Heat, but that hardly addresses your concern. I feel faintly foolish at my inability to see what changes you seek. Can you be more explicit? --Theo (Talk) 18:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Article, and lead section in particular, reads very much like the sort of promotional writing style I would expect to find in a publication for which Helvarg worked. Not that it's necessarily poorly written, but it's not close enough to NPOV for a featured article. In the lead, for example, playing up the John Kerry angle, or the list of places where his work has been published. This looks like a CV, not an encyclopedia article. While I disagree with the earlier comment and think he is notable enough for an article, the article needs to spend more time establishing what effect he has had on the world. Instead of being a recap of highlights in his career, it should place his work in context to allow greater understanding. Areas where I would be interested in seeing more detail - his broadcasting career and work prior to his current environmentalist emphasis, and his role in the Spongebob brouhaha (it's difficult to figure out how the brief mention here fits within the controversy as outlined in the Spongebob article). --Michael Snow 21:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comments. To take your points in order:

  1. I added the reference to John Kerry to address Thames suggestion that I demonstrate the effect of Blue Frontier Foundation. The organization exists to shape opinion. I explored "support of some politicians"/"some senior politicians"/"at least one Senator" but these all seemed weasely. What do you suggest?
  3. Helvarg is a journalist with wide geographic experience. Stating it as being on every continent seemed like a happy medium between "all over the world" and listing the many countries in which he had worked. What kind of phrase do you favour?
  4. I am at a loss to see how the article might do more to establish his effect on the world without resorting to opinion. He has reported on all manner of significant issues, which has presumably increased understanding of those issues. Is that not implied? He has published books that garnered responses that are described. He has established a special interest that has engaged the attention of the people that it is lobbying but has yet to demonstrate any significant effect upon legislation or behaviour. What, specifically, needs to change for the article to address this concern?
  5. I have expanded the material about his broadcasting and journalism. Is this the kind of thing that you advocate? Similarly I have expanded the material about Helvarg's contribution to the Spongebob debate.

  --Theo (Talk) 23:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  Trying to respond in order.

  1. Since you note in #3 that there is no significant effect so far, it might be more appropriate to talk about where the Foundation came from (i.e., an outgrowth of his book) and what it is (a grassroots lobbying organization) than what its effect has been. Kerry is fine to mention in the article, but using him in the lead smacks of PR/marketing tactics that try to translate "Bigshot X has made supportive noises about us" into "Look how important we are because Bigshot X is one of our strongest supporters".
  3. Sorry, in writing "places" I was more focused on the laundry list of publications after the mention of continents. Given the context I should have narrowed this down better. Your happy medium is a fine solution with respect to the phrase in question, the stuff that follows is more the problem.
  4. It's difficult to point to any one item, and I think much of the problem is the overall impression created by the article, along with how the body interacts with the lead. Improving the lead section may help somewhat. The implied premise that journalism generally increases understanding of the subject matter is fine and need not be stated as such. But since it theoretically applies for all journalism, it would help if you can highlight any way in which Helvarg's contribution to the field is unique. Can you point to him as a pioneer in his field, even if this means pioneering in a rather specialized facet of the field?
  5. Yes, this helps, and I can now comprehend the context for Spongebob much better.

  To sum up in a way: it's difficult to get the feeling that it's a featured article when it sounds like it's about a run-of-the-mill environmental activist. The article need not show that he's more important than other environmental activists—featured articles on relatively minor topics are fine—but it does need to show what distinguishes him from other environmental activists. Otherwise, it just seems like a generic article about a generic subject. --Michael Snow 00:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  In other words, the writing needs to be brilliant. :) --mav

  Thanks, Maveric. Perhaps my attempts to address Michael's further points has moved it more in that direction. I have excised John Kerry from the introduction, moved the illustrative list of publications into the Journalism section and emphasised the unique expertise that he brings to bear as a lobbyist. Is this enough? --Theo (Talk) 11:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support with a reminder that we are voting on the article, not the subject. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:39, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• object your references section is quite brief, but probably sufficient, however, it's difficult to see which reference has been used to provide facts for which area. A system of inline references such as footnotes would help considerably. Mozzerati 19:53, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

  Thank you. I have now attempted to clarify how to find the sources. --Theo (Talk) 23:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. There is a difference between bloating a short article and writing a quality article on a significant entity. The notion that "If he's notable enough to be covered at all, then the article can become featured" is one reason I don't like the whole "Featured Article" thing in general. -R. fiend 20:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  I am not sure how to amend the article to address this objection. Please clarify. --Theo (Talk) 23:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  There is no way to adress this objection, as it goes against established practice of FAC vote, and arguably against the spirit of Wikipedia. One reason this encyclopedia is so great is that you can find loads of detailed information about topics that recieve little coverage if any at all in printed encyclopedic reference works; this is what we need to put on display with our Featured Article sections. Very notable topics are covered just as well if not better in printend encyclopedias. Phils 23:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  Exactly! Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

  Unactionable objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support as per Filiocht. Kudos to Theo on the massive rewrite since the last FAC--although not worthy then, it is now. Congrats. Meelar (talk) 15:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outstanding objections at point of failure

• Michael Snow on May 18: "[...] article need not show that he's more important than other environmental activists—featured articles on relatively minor topics are fine—but it does need to show what distinguishes him from other environmental activists."

Article rewritten that day in attempt to address criticism. Awaiting comment from Michael Snow. --Theo (Talk) 23:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

To the extent that I've raised specific, actionable objections as is expected in the FAC process, it's probably fair to say that the changes have tried to address them. I think the article needs improvement and still feels as much like a promotional bio as an encyclopedia article, but I express that as a general impression and it's less easy to point to specific things that should be done. As a result, I'm not enthusiastic enough about the result that I would support renomination, but I'm not looking to pursue continued criticism of the article either. --Michael Snow 00:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Mozzerati on May 18: "it's difficult to see which reference has been used to provide facts for which area."

Annotated article with Template:Inote and added explanatory note to ==References== on same day. Asked Mozzerati to identify where further source citation was needed. Awaiting response from Mozzerati. --Theo (Talk) 23:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I responded with an comments in the article as requested. Mozzerati 20:31, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

• Dcfleck on May 20: "I think the article could become a better one by paring it down"."

Dcfleck condensed ==Career== section on May 23 and offered to do the same to the rest. Awaiting excision by Dcfleck. --Theo (Talk) 23:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] McDonald's Corporation

Self-nomination. --218.102.93.237 12:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) the lead section is too short for an article of this length and does not adequately encapsulate the corporation's history. 2) Cite your sources. 3) The article text is too list-heavy. slambo 14:43, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This article is *far* from FA quality. The mother-of-all-basic-requirements, adequate lead and reference sections, is not fulfilled. Moreover, the article is almost entirely comprised of lists, and the structure is next to non-existant. The "Quick Facts" and "History" sections must be disposed of and rewritten into coherent prose. The "Overview" section lacks cohesion in parts (the text does not really flow logically from one sentence to the next).Also reconsider the order of the different sections in the article. I doubt the article is entirely comprehensive; there is little to no mention of McDonald's publicity and corporate image campaigns (except for the caption of the pixelated "i'm lovin' it" picture), for example. You'd think that'd deserve it's own section. Phils 15:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Send to Peer Review. I see many things that a FAC should have, but not present in the article. My problems are already mentioned above, so I would suggest to sent it to the Peer Review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object 1) Not sure about the relevancy of the quick facts section as being a suitable introduction to an important article. 2) Certainly featured article material, and found the slang section appropriate, but this perhaps could be interpreted into a different section, rather than having a bulleted section all of its own. 3) The layout is jarring, too many lists. --Knucmo2 18:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC) (TALK)

[edit] Anschluss

I only partly contributed to the article, however it has a good structure and features both historical events and a deeper analysis of the Anschluss. Themanwithoutapast 14:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Its a comprehensive and interesting article. However, I'm a bit sceptical with respect to the section Understanding the Word: Legacy of the 1938 Anschluss, which reads like a subjective assessment about issues that are still controversial. I would thus suggest that the article should first undergo peer review. Martg76 16:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The issues are controversial, but attempting to assess them does not imply that their presentation is subjective. I have only recently replied to concerns of this sort on the discussion page — if you would care to state your objections more substantially with a view to improvements, please feel free to join either there or on the peer review page. I would also like to have peer review complete before putting the article up for assessment of the exmplarity of its virtues. Buffyg 12:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I already raised some concerns on the talk page around May 9 (although not in great detail), but when this page was suggested for featured status, I was surprised to find that my edits show up neither on the talk page nor in its edit history. I will try to make some more substantial remarks when I have more time at hand.Martg76 16:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I took a look at the talk page because I had a vague recollection that you had made remarks previously, but I didn't see anything major. It is possible that someone accidentally clobbered your remarks by invoking edit against a previous version. If May 9 is the correct date, it is possible that any of the remarks made that day or since erased yours. I was a bit surprised to discover that this can cause subsequent edits to be lost; I would have that the versioning mechanism in wikipedia would have some way to handle potential forks like these... Buffyg 17:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Another article which apparently skipped Wikipedia:Peer Review when it most definetly shouldn't. Mainbody note - use Wikipedia:Footnotes. Too long section names. External links = references, not formatted accoring to Wikipedia:Cite sources. Pics are few and strangely spaced - I am sure more can be added, for example from German Wiki. The current article *looks* bad, and is rather short - I am sure it can be made more comprehensive, again likely by translating a much longer German Wiki article. I would like to see info on how exactly it helped German military and economy, on how it fitted into the growing Western appeasment foreign policy (not even linked from the article) and what was the world reaction to the event, and on how it influenced Munich Treaty (it most definetly put pressure on Czechoslovakia, by increasing German borders with them and showing Hitler's power, AFAIK). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

First I'd like to point out, I was kind of confused with the rules of suggesting an article for featured article and thought peer review and status of featured article candidate could be done in parellel. In reference to the remark on "incorporating" the German wiki content of the Anschluss - well that might be a problem, because the german wiki article on the Anschluss does not exist - there are just a couple of paragraphs within the "history of Austria" article. To the critisism on the substantial mattters - well I will try to include them (especially foreign press statements - I thought I did include them, but... ahmm... apparently I forgot). The pics are few, because - although I searched a lot for some with clear copyright status, many are still copyright-protected (not sure what you mean with strangely spaced). To sum it up - I concur that it would be better to have a peer review first (sorry about my mistake in procedures here). Still, I think the article has the basis for a FA. Themanwithoutapast 23:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Strangely spaced - if possible, they should be evenly spaced with one next to lead. But perhaps this is only my personal esthetic POV :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, most of what we do here (suggestions, objections, discussion, etc.) belongs in WP:Peer Review. Ideally, articles in Peer Review are the ones with a "basis for a FA", but that aren't quite ready yet. When your article lands here, there shouldn't be much left to correct (relatively speaking, of course, improvement is always possible). Phils 09:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a PR should be a formal requirement of any FAC? Discuss in talk, plz.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milpitas, California

(Self-nom) That's right - the Milpitas article is going for a featured article nomination. Here are a few good reasons why I think this article is such a fascinating and high-quality work on Wikipedia:

1. This article is really detailed for a suburb with a population of only 62,698 people. The Sunnyvale, California and Santa Clara, California articles still look sort of like stubs, but those two cities each have a population TWO times larger than the Milpitas article (about 120,000). This article is even beginning to rival that of San Jose, California. The "Television" and "Radio" sections (under Media) is more detailed than the media list on the San Jose article. Although it may not be as big as some of the other featured aticles, the article size for Milpitas is tremendous. Because I used many offline resources for this article, some of the information available can not be seen in any other place on the World Wide Web.
3. The images are colorful and fascinating. In fact, I myself took many of the photographs. These pictures actually give readers an idea of what Milpitas is like, and the different sides of the city are also shown. This article is just studded with these jewels.
4. Reliable sources are also used for this Milpitas article. I used many offline resources - all of them are found under the "Bibliography" section. I have also used many of the external links in writing this article, but I didn't heavily rely on them. This article has absolutely NO copy-and-paste work. That's right - I have done no cheating by copying texts from other websites. This article is totally an original work that I have written and spent hours writing on. The bibliography and external links sections all cite the resources for this article, so you know that this is a serious no-nonsense work that I have written originally.
5. The history section shows the rural past of Milpitas. Many people just see Milpitas as an ordinary suburb of San Jose, but when you read about the history, you can see the rich cultural heritage and the local life of this formerly farming town. I have used the books Milpitas: A Century of Little Cornfields, Milpitas: Five Dynamic Decades, and History of Milpitas as important sources for this article.
6. Urban layout, neighborhoods, geography, transportation, and climate are all really detailed, with nothing important missed. This article is about a small suburb, but it is huge!
7. See also, external links, and bibliography direct readers to more information on this town. Besides citing references, these detailed lists give ample resources for further study.
8. I have worked very hard on this article for weeks and put lots of information in here. These weeks have been fun and also educational for me. The flowing sentences, dazzling illustrations, detailed information, etc - this is just brilliant prose. I have been working on this for months, and it has really gotten a long way. Come on, let's give this article a try for a featured article nomination!

-- Milpitas guy 06:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Object Good work overall. Two things that should be fixed are the overwhelming Table of Contents and lack of inline references to your print sources (e.g. footnotes or parenthetical citations) for things like climate, "issues," and so on. I think the header organization could be improved (for shrinking the table of contents) by working the "notable corporations" into the text above, making the police a bold line like "mayor" instead of a header, and making "geography" and "physical geography" a single section. Otherwise, it's probably featurable. Dave (talk) 13:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Object — Its too early. I agree, you have made substantial good contributions to the Milpitas page, but much of it is new and has not undergone significant peer review to date. Lets put this off for at least a few months to give it time to develop some significant review/criticism/corrections. To get that ball rolling, here are some observations:

• Factual error: "Highway 237 begins at Milpitas and goes east to Sunnyvale."
  • Comment: Changed to "west" now.
• No city logo, seal or flag.
  • Comment: They were available on the city's website, but when I uploaded them, the Wikipedia server said that .bmp files aren't recommended. I linked to the seal from inside the article, but I can't upload them. Can anybody help me with this? Milpitas guy 21:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • City seal has been uploaded (see Milpitas,_California#Law_and_government). Maybe the city does not have a flag, so the seal will work just fine if the article becomes featured. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Is race needed/important in the following sentance? Why? "The Milpitas Police Department (MPD) is headed by Chief Charles Lawson, an African American who has been serving as chief since 1994."
• Media section lists many stations and newspapers that do not originate in Milpitas. Area-wide media would be better seperated into a Media of the San Francisco Bay Area or San Francisco Bay Area Media page that every city/town can reference, and then only have the local media (KICU, KTEH, Milpitas Post) talked about on the Milpitas page.
• Photos of Yosemite Drive and UP Railroad are unappealing and uninformative (empty pavement, empty rail line with no station, no crossings, no switches).

• They really don't look boring to me, but if some people think it's boring, maybe we can get some more pictures. Milpitas guy 21:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • They're not ugly pictures, I just don't understand how they are relevant to the article. Can you tell me what they are supposed to illustrate? What makes them different than any other random piece of pavement or railroad? I don't get it. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this article is on its way, but its not there yet. At least list it on Wikipedia:Peer Review before making it featured. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Great work. I wish all city articles were as detailed and informative. Danny 00:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

After looking over the images on the page, it seems there are at least two (maybe three) copyright violations:

• Image:Alviso adobe.jpg from [24] [25]
• Image:Milpitas mid 1900s 1.jpg from http: xtalk.msk.su/photo/Milpitas/photo26.jpg (bogus formatting is needed because of the spam filter) — when questioned about this, the tag was changed to GFDL!
• Image:Milpitas rr.jpg has no source information

--ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The images were from the Milpitas history site, and they seemed to be on the public domain. Image:Milpitas mid 1900s 1.jpg is copyrighted or public domain? I really don't know. If not, delete it. This image seems to be the only questionable pic around here. Possibly a copyright violation. Anyways, I'm not familiar with copyright laws. If that image does violate copyright, pull it off. Milpitas guy 21:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Milpitas rr.jpg is also from the Milpitas history site at [26]. Milpitas guy 21:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• CopyrightedFreeUse is probably fit more for the images from the Milpitas history site. They probably aren't public domain. Sorry about that. Milpitas guy 21:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I followed some of your suggestions for improvements.. As for Highway 237, "east" was changed to "west." I guess I had accidentally flipped the directions! Milpitas guy 21:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Please leave the URL for the source of the "mid-1900s" image. Under US law, all creative works have copyright automaticly upon creation or publishing. You can't just take these images and declare them "CopyrightedFreeUse" without getting a license/permission to do so from the original copyright holder. The fact that they are published on the web only implies that they are licensed for viewing on the web in their original context. Automaticly, all rights are reserved. I will be listing these three images on Wikipedia:Copyright Problems. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

That's not true at all. There are many websites that utilize the Public Domain on their websites as well. Wikipedia isn't the only one. bob rulz 02:35, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Unless you know a priori that the image is public domain, there is no indication of it, and you have to assume that it is copyrighted. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Object - Oh, you were making it seem like no other websites utilized Public Domain. My mistake. Either way, I object to this becoming a featured article. I didn't look over the whole article, but from what I can tell it reads a lot like a travel guide, while the media section is unnecessarily large. Some of the formatting is strange too, wand it relies too much on lists and not enough on "describing" the objects that are located in a list (their location, importance, etc). Overall, with some work, it could work its way up to featured article status, but for the moment its still simply an above-average article. bob rulz 01:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

---

I have cited the sources from inside the article. External links (in brackets like this: [27]) also cite the sources. Milpitas guy 22:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I have also followed Harry491's and Chris' suggestions. The table of contents is now shorter and inline references were added. Possible copyvio images are now removed. This article now looks much better. Feature this article? Milpitas guy 22:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Object, there are too many list and not enough prose, particularlty in the later part of the article. For example

1. why are all the schools listed, when they are on the list of schools in the district?
3. radio and tv stations should be stuck on a separate list and summarised on this page like the media section in Brisbane.
4. the Law and government section should also be written as prose instead of breaking it up with headings (this will also decrease the lenght of the TOC)
5. shopping center list should be turned into prose or merged with the neighbourhoods section so the reader has some idea where they are, same with the parks section

The ordering of the sections needs to be tweaked too, see Summer Hill, New South Wales, the only suburb I can think of that has come close to featured status. With the format issues addressed this article should get to featured status --nixie 03:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Object – 1) I'm against the abuse of the ToC for geographical places. The ToC is too long. 2) There's no culture section. Sure its a suburb, but still a lot can be said about the culture of a place. Kalimpong is a Featured Article (50,000 residents); take a look at the size, headings and how to use the Footnote 3 style for inline references. 3) The Climate sections should be reworded, it reads more like a travel magazine. 4) Media section is too long, you could enter a few famous radio stations or better still make a new page titled: List of Milpitas radio stations. If this is not feasible, display it horizontally using a table. 5) Also some weasel words are used: "fairly good"; "good condition" (by whom?) 6) Needless text inserted Even though they have a white line to the left that warns drivers from crossing it, careless and speeding drivers often ignore bicycle lanes, so all bikers must exercise caution and ride as far to the right as possible. This is unnecessary, more like rules for motorists in the town. ==government== section is too small. A final analysis reveals that this needs a copyedit.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 13:15, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World War II

previous FAC

[edit] Hurricane Ivan

As the 2005 Atlantic season approaches, and the 2005 Pacific season is already underway, I wanted to get a hurricane-related article on FAC, possibly to put on the front page as the season begins. Tropical cyclone, despite my best efforts, isn't yet ready; I hope to be able to nominate that within a month. However, of the four major storms for 2004, Ivan was probably the best article. It has all the best elements - lots of pictures (all of which are public domain or used with explicit permission), artwork made by Wikipedians explaining Ivan's strange path, the Infobox, detailed descriptions of the storm, the path it took, its effects, etc. I think, at the moment, this is the best storm article from 2004, and I submit it to FAC. (It also has the best picture, the ISS pic - that one is just beautiful) --Golbez 19:18, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Support - but - there needs to be a references section in this article. There are seven inline sources, but nothing to "consolidate" them at the end. --tomf688^(talk) 19:32, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

What's the best way to go about doing that? Isn't there a new footnote template now or something? --Golbez 19:34, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if a template exists, but also not sure how well it would work. For example, a lot of info came from the NHC website, but that isn't really referenced in the article. --tomf688^(talk) 19:46, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved the references to the bottom, and am seeking out new references. --Golbez 08:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Object. Lead section fails to provide an adequate overview of the article. Right now it recaps the storm's path and intensity but makes no mention of its effects. The "Effects" section needs better organization (possibly subheadings by geographic region). Also, the article really does not discuss efforts to deal with the aftermath and recover from the devastation; damage estimates are about all that's provided. --Michael Snow 22:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Object, in addition to the valid points raised by Michael Snow, the list of preparations should be spun out into prose. There are several one sentence paragraphs that could be expanded or merged, for example Hurricane Ivan is also suspected of bringing spores of soybean rust from Venezuela into the United States, why is this significant? The anwser is not obvious to all readers. A brief description of storm categories should probably be added too, some people might now know that category 5 is the worst etc.--nixie 03:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It really does need to be more comprehensive. Everyking 04:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Good points; I've gone through the article and have tried to deal with some of the problems mentioned above. The recovery and rebuilding section will take a bit more work, but is definitely a good idea. It seems like all of the hurricane articles are suffering in the recovery aspect as well. --tomf688^(talk) 18:09, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

And this gave us the opportunity to realize the numbers were wrong. They added up right, but a few were off by one, etc. So far as I can tell, they've all been harmonized with the NHC's tropical cyclone report. --Golbez 18:23, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ranks and insignia of Starfleet

THE NOMINATION FOR THIS ARTICLE WAS WITHDRAWN 20 MAY 05

This is a self nomination for the ranks and insignia page of Starfleet. This article is comprehensive of every rank mentioned in the Star Trek series and provides color tables and charts with additional information. Photos are also provided and the entire article is referenced with source material provided. -Husnock 07:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

To Administrators: I will be offline until 16 May 2005. Please do not close the vote until after I return and can read comments which came in over the weekend. Thanks! -Husnock 23:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I found the frequent use of [the] viewing audience a bit distracting. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 07:31, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Comment: Well, it has to be used, since Star Trek appeared in many formats. The awards look great, though I would try to find better photos (if possible) of the various Star Trek characters. Zscout370 (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortuntatly the photos are really that best that anyone can hope for as they are screenshots. The "really good photos" out on the interent are copyright by Paramount and people using them typically rip them off websites without permission. I was careful not to do that and verified that all pictures on the page were fairuse. -Husnock 17:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Also bear in mind that making ranks too large makes them unreadable as they wont fit a page. Most images are actualy larger but are resized. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 19:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support:My concerns were answered on my talk page. The nominator stated that the pictures were screenshots, so the quality of the pictures will not be that great. Also, all pictures used are able to be used on Wikipedia with little to no copyright problems. I will change my vote now to support. Zscout370 (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The images of insignias are all listed as "public domain" but I couldn't find any evidence that they had been released by the copyright holder. Can someone verify that? Dave (talk) 16:56, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • In regards to your question, the insignia pictures are public domain becuase they are incredibly common on the internet and have been copied, recopied, and recreated dozens if not hundreds of times. Indeed, on my own computer, I made about one fourth of the images. The stripes, especially, are public domain because anyone can draw a picture of a stripe. The pips are the same, as they can be recreated by anyone simply by drawing a colored circle. The only questionable area is the movie era rank pins, but these are assumed public domain becuase of the high degree to which they can be found in publications both hardcopy and internet. Also the pins were invented in 1982, over 23 years ago, and as far as I know can be used without permission. -Husnock 17:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: "the insignia pictures are public domain becuase they are incredibly common on the internet and have been copied, recopied, and recreated dozens if not hundreds of times" How does that make them public domain? And what about all those movie stills? Phils 17:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Pictures drawn by people on their own computer (like stripes and pips) are released to public domain by the users. The screenshots are fairuse based on Wiki image tag rules. As stated before, the only grey area is the movie rank pins, but these can be found in hundreds of different sources, half of which were published independently without connection to Paramount. I cant prove this without a letter from paramount, obviously, but I image the movie pins were released into the public domain years ago, since they were first created in 1982 and Paramount probably doesnt gets royalties everytime the movie pins appear somewhere like in a book or internet. -Husnock 17:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I will personally redraw some of the various ranks and make them PD/GDFL, if that is ok with everyone. Zscout370 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Wait, if I create these images, will they be PD or GDFL? Zscout370 (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
        • If you make them, you can release them under either one. You just have to say "I release this under ______." I think there's even a template for it. Dave (talk) 19:21, May 11, 2005 (UTC) Update: the template is {{PD-user|Your user name}}
• Support, it's admirably crufty. Everyking 22:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object, material is not referenced, title is wrong. It should be Ranks and Insigniae of Starfleet. RickK 23:55, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll withdraw my objections. RickK 22:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Insigniae? Zscout370 (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The title is wrong and thus it shouldn't be a Featured Article because it's not "Insigniae"? That must be a British English thing, as I've always seen it spelled as "Insignia", the dictionaries I have says it's insignia, and a one letter difference between American and British English is hardly a reason to deny the quality of this article. --Wingsandsword 00:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Very surprising comment, I must say. The article is completely referenced. All references are listed at the bottom of the article, both live action and publications, with references in the actual text . I read up on how to reference things in Wikipedia and will reformat the section on Monday 16 May. As far as the spelling, I have never seen insignia spelled the way you are referring. I agree with above, minor reasons for denying an article Featured Article status. What can we do to change your mind? -Husnock 00:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It probably is a British spelling, but articles on here can either be American English or British English. However, the articles must be one of the other, not both, mixed in the text and title. Zscout370 (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Insignae is not an English spelling. Insigniae is the only valid spelling of the plural of insignia. I'm American, not English. If you're using "ranks" you have to use "insigniae". RickK 05:48, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ahem - "insigniae" is not the British English spelling either - I've never seen it, and my Little OED states "insiginia ... n.pl. badges or marks of office etc." - presumably the singluar is insignium or somesuch. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Insignia is the way it is spelled, at least in the United States with regard to military rank: (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ranks/officers/o-rank.html) (http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/insignias/enlisted.html) (http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/comm.html) as examples of official US and UK Military pages that always spell it insignia, it is also spelled like that in the official Star Trek Encyclopedia --Wingsandsword 15:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, it should be Ranks and insignia of Starfleet ie. not capitalised due to not being a proper noun. Further to the above discussion, from http://www.dictionary.com/, "Usage Note: Insignia in Latin is the plural form of insigne, but it has long been used in English as both a singular and a plural form: The insignia was visible on the wingtip. There are five insignia on various parts of the plane." --Oldak Quill 11:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree on capitalisation; re "insigniae" - I should have known it would be explained at insignia. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I have moved it to the uncapitalised form. However, would it not be better named "Ranks and insignia of the Starfleet"? --Oldak Quill 13:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Beat me to the move ;) I have never seen Starfleet used as a noun, with an article, definite or indefinite. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Not really, within the Star Trek setting it is virtually never referred to as "The Starfleet", just "Starfleet". Characters do not say "I'm joining the Starfleet" or "The Starfleet is reassigning me." they say "I'm joining Starfleet" or "Starfleet is reassigning me."

--Wingsandsword 15:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Wangsandsword is right I think. Isn't Starfleet a proper noun? You usually don't have the before them. Its like saying "I'm work at the Walmart.", or "I'm going to join the The United States Navy." User:Peb1991 23:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• "Starfleet" is frequently an adjective. I'd like to see the article titled "Starfleet ranks and insignia". Great article. Support. CDThieme 04:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support It's a very good reference, well researched and very thorough. This article is even how I really found wikipedia originally, as I was looking for information on the subject and this was the best resource for it on the web. It is accurate, well researched, helpful, and even acknowledges and notes the various alternate and sometimes obscure theories. The idea that Kozinski was a Warrant Officer also makes me smile, since I suggested it on rec.arts.startrek.tech back in '96, and it's good to know that an idea I put forth has apparently found wider acceptance. --Wingsandsword 00:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This appears to be a very well reserached and informative article, though your published sources aren't cited correctly. There should be author and publisher information included instead of just a title. See "books" under Wikipedia:Cite sources. Ganymead 01:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • All references will be updated by Monday May 16 to the proper format. -Husnock 02:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • It seems comprehensive as far as I can tell. When the references are up, I'll support. You may also want to move some of the larger tables to appendices because they can interfere with the text. Good stuff overall. Dave (talk) 03:57, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I've noticed that the TNG, DS9, VOY pics are made of multiple images - the table wraps incorrectly, so these really need to be saved as single images. Reduce your browsing window to half size to see what I mean. Otherwise - great!--PopUpPirate 08:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

As for the images being a single image, I am on it, fixing that. Zscout370 (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

PopUp, go to the Cadet ranks section, is that what you wanted? Zscout370 (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep, carry that through and it'll be there, for me at least! --PopUpPirate 20:37, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, setting a proper width fixes that. Many images are used many times, not all of us have t3 links the page thakes forever to load if we combine all ranks, there is no reason to combine images. Please understand the reson of many images that add up to the same thing. For instance the TNG pips, those are merely same image beeing repetively used right? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object Reluctant on technical grounds - Wow, just wow. One of the most interesting articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. Some technical points that need to be fixed before this is FA quality though:
  1. Things like "several Star Trek publications have confirmed that..." need to be backed up by inline citations (the easiest to use is the inote/explain-inote system; see the edit page of helium for an example). But the extensive self-referencing of the episodes and films used is fine, IMO (not sure how it would be possible to be more specific ; DVD chapter and/or time segment?).
  2. The lead section is in very bad need of expansion. An article this size needs three good-sized paragraphs. See Wikipedia:lead section.
  3. The TOC is overwhelming. I'm not sure how to best deal with that, but consolidating some 4th and all 5th level subsections would help (the photos already help to break up the text and you can always use ; instead of real headings). Filling the white space next to the TOC with image(s) would also help.
• Again, I'm a bit floored by this masterpiece of research. Very, well done. --mav 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I've been talking out of my ... hat. I went to dictionary.com, and they claim that insignia is a plural as well as a single. I was mistaught in school. I'll withdraw my objection, and I apologize. RickK 18:29, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Highest Support. This is one of the most complete, confirmed, and best insignia chart on the web if not the most complete, confirmed, and best. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 19:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

"Smaller" images that sum up to a larger one is better. This way repetive symbols are uploaded to user once saving tem and wiki hddspace, and bandwidth. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I, personally, still do not agree with what you stated. Based on the events of today, I am going to show you on why one image is probably better than many. You know that when an image on Wikipedia goes missing, it is replaced with "Missing Image: Filename.ext." Well, with one image, you only see that notice once. But with many images used to make up a rank, as you like to use, we will see many of those notices pop up, possibly destoring the template. I also wish to show you a link that user PopUpPirate showed me, which also displays a problem of the many image use. This image, [28], shows what a smaller window size can possibly do to the template. CoolCat, I know you worked hard on these images, but I just want you to reconsider your method based on what I have said. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Very impressive. Now why can't we have article of this quality about real things? Guettarda 22:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Like Ranks and insignia of NATO ? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose -- pure fancruft, lowers the image of the project as a whole. Mostly a collection of images (although there is some text). Finally, "Alternate and conjectural ranks" is not even factual on the petty level of fancruft; pure conjecture. — Xiong熊talk* 04:58, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • In that case, you should probably list the article on VfD as being a mix of trivia and original research. --Carnildo 06:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "Pure fancraft"? "Petty level"? "A collection of images"?. To be honsst, that sounds a lot like flaming the article. I submit there is nothing petty about this article and it is far more than a colelction of images. I urge you to change your oppose vote to a comment or remove it. Calling the article names helps noone. -Husnock 23:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "Pure fancruft" is not an actionable objection, and is therefore invalid. Also, pasting the article into Word gives me a word count of more than 8,000, which, even allowing for image captions and the like, is I think slightly more than "some text". Proteus (Talk) 17:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. What are the sources for the various conjectural ranks? None of the references jumps out at me as not being part of canon, and if the source for the conjectural ranks is canon, then I don't understand why they're being described as "conjectural". How widespread is the use of the different fanon rank systems? --Carnildo 06:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Very common. Since some eras are poorly documented (the original pilots, first movie especially) in terms of insignia, any listing requires a certain amount of educated guesswork from the patterns of the insignia and analogs to real world Naval ranks and other Trek eras. Debate, educated guesses and speculation on the ranks and insignia of Starfleet have been around since the beginning of Trek fandom, and probably always will. One reason this article is well respected by dedicated Trek fans is that it acknowledges all the various models in circulation, discusses them all and their merits, and makes a quite conclusive argument for the ones it uses, and matches perfectly with the on-screen evidence we have available already and official documentation, making it the best source for this information on the web. As an example of some of the hypothetical ranks: the TNG era "Branch Admiral" with just a colored rectangle insignia, a "Fleet Captain" in the TNG era with 5 pips and "Ensign Junior Grade" insignia with a hollow pip are all from the old FASA Star Trek: The Next Generation Officer's Manual for their old licensed roleplaying game (although the license for the game was pulled after the book, and it's widely believed that the low quality of the book was responsible) --Wingsandsword 19:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Still object, but on different grounds. In the current version, the "Officer Insignia" table has problems causing the TNG and DS9/VOY rank badges to wrap around. See Image:StarTrekInsigniaProblem.jpg --Carnildo 20:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose mainly due to the very small intro paragraph, a featured article really needs a more in depth introduction. I am also concerned by the presence of "conjectured" ranks/insignia etc. an encyclopedia is not the place for such conjecture, although I am aware of the problems in writing an article about a fictional universe. This is a very well researched article, but I do not consider it to be of featured article quality at this time. Rje 16:04, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong with us describing conjecture that exists in the real world. I have no doubt that such conjecture is rampant in among hard core Trekkies, but I'll continue to object until inline citations prove this (lead needs to be expanded as well). If it does turn out that this article is making original conjecture, then yeah, that original research should be removed. --mav 01:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: I conjecture that this will never reach the rank of Featured Article due to crufty minutiae abounding with original research. Edeans 19:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Nothing actionable there. --Carnildo 05:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you elaborate? Do you simply just not like the article? What about it do you find "inactionable"? -Husnock 23:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe Carnildo is objecting to Edean's oppose, not objecting to the article. - Brian Kendig 22:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      • If that is the case, then Carnildo should come here and vote under support, so it can be a bit clearer. I do admit this will be a close vote. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't support, yet, and I've expressed that opinion. However, I don't think that Edeans' objection is valid: an objection must express a rationale that can be addressed. An objection of "Crufty minutinae abounding with original research" gives no indication of what can be done to fix problems with the article. --Carnildo 03:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
          • The most we can take from the main statement is to ditch the original research and find sources to back up some information. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
            • The latter part of that - the objection to the original research - is definitely actionable. Take it out or back it up with citations, although Edeans really does need to be more specific about which parts are original research. →Raul654 21:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. The page is extremely ugly - the tables appear to be far too wide for the page; the rank graphics are being stacked vertically rather than shown horizontally. For example, the first column by "Fleet Admiral" looks like three bars over two bars, and the last column looks like an open-parenthesis on top, five pips stacked vertically beneath it, then a close-parenthesis under that. The graphics for "Ensign" look like a big letter 'T', with a big blue rectangle on top and a little grey rectangle under it. This could be because I have Wikipedia set to use the "Classic" skin (which I've heard deals differently with image overcrowding) and I only have the browser window set to about 800 pixels wide, but still, more work has to be put in to make this page presentable when the window isn't really wide. - Brian Kendig 21:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I will try to change the way the images are presented. A similiar complaint was filed above, and there is a screen shot of Brian's objection. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Aside from the problem with the pip images being wrapped, this article is just confusing to me. In the tables, what does "Conjectured" mean, and if there's a rank badge being conjectured then why isn't it being shown? Conjectured is in italics and N/A is in bold; these should both be either italic or bold. Should the column heading "Feature Films" really be that, when it only means "films 1-5 and the first half of 6"? There's a "Flag Officers" table then an "Officers" table then a text section about admirals then a table of admiral insignia then more text and tables mixed in a confusing fashion, ordered by rank and then by series... the result is that the article seems, to me at least, to have an amazing wealth of information but is in way over its head when it comes to organizing this information clearly. It almost seems to me like the article has bitten off more than it can chew. I think more work has to be done to streamline this article (in particular, do away with the fourth-level sub-headings) before it can become Featured. - Brian Kendig 00:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Inadequate lead. Incidentally, the first image in the "Cadet ranks" section overlaps with the text on my screen. Mark¹ 03:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support. Incidentally, the entire page renders fine for me on Firefox. – ugen64 03:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not about the browser, but your screen resolution. I have a screen resolution 1280*1024 which is highish but not at all uncommon, and there lots of overlapping pictures which cause ugly whitespace and are thus detract from the writing. Pcb21| Pete 15:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Nominator for this page is now back online as of 15 May 2005 and will attempt to deal with the issues raised here. Most important of which is the sources and references.

As of 15 May 05: Vote appears to be: 8 Oppose and 5 Support. As stated above, valid issues will be addressed. People logging on and stating they just dont like the page...well, we cant do anything about that. -Husnock 22:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Article Revamp

Based on all comments above, the following major actions have been taken in the article:

1. All sources and references have been formated per Wikipedia guidelines and placed in a refererence section at the bottom of the article.
2. Original research ranks ahve been cleared out of the Alternate and COnjectural insignia section
3. A new opening section has been written, before the table of contents
4. A new page layout has been established with clearer defined sections
5. The spacing of pics and talbes has been modifed in an attempt to make the article more user friendly
6. Sections have been added on every officer rank (the sections which do not yet contain info will be written withint 48-72 hours).

I urge persons who ahve voted preivously to opppose to look at the changes we have mdae and alter your vote if you feel it is appropriate. After writing the new officer sections, nad giving the vote a few more days after that, I will place a notice on the Administrators Noticeboard for a final decision. Thanks to everyone foe inputs and advice. -Husnock 03:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The expanded lead helps, but I still don't see inline citations and the TOC is still overwhelming. --mav 14:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Not much can be done about the table of contents. I pers0nally think the table is now rather well organized. As far as in-line citations, I feel that would clutter the article if I understand the concept correctly (EX:Page 13, Chapter 4, Book 2, etc after each fact?) Also a lot of the ranks reference live action production as the primary source in the dialouge of the text. -Husnock 15:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I know this will be hard to pull off, but I wish for you to look at the article on Pope Benedict XVI. The editors have added footnotes to each section, so you put the footnote next to the source material and put the sources (with the footnote number next to it) at the bottom. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

---

And yet a TOC that is not overwhelming and inline citations are required to pass FAC. The inote/explain-inote system has invisible cites. Thus no clutter. --mav 16:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't let this pass without comment - inline citations are not required to pass FAC. Wikipedia:What is a featured article says "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations", not "must contain inline citations". There seems to be a slippery slope that will require any featured articles to look like an academic treatise, not an encyclopedia article (this is the same slippery slope that made the criterion for references go from "when and where appropriate" to required). -- ALoan (Talk) 20:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

No use certinaly is not appropriate use. The numerous sentences that have statements that include "some publications" absolutely need to have inline citations. The inote/explain-inote system is the easiest to use and is invisible to readers (so objections that inline citations are ugly and/or distraction to readers are not valid). --mav 21:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Au contraire: no use certainly can be appropriate if use would be inappropriate or if such use would not be an enhancement (although I entirely accept that inline citations are entirely appropriate in certain circumstances). If you are saying it is always appropriate or always an enhancement to use inline citations, then I think "appropriate" is the wrong word to use in the featured article criteria. Anyway, I have started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article, in case anyone is interested. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I still dont see the TOC as "overwhealming". A lot of other FACs have even more complicated Table of Contents. And, a very simple Table of Contents is actually not listed on the critical requirements for a Featured Article (it says something like "substantial but not overwhealming"). I really see no problem with the TOC. After the recent layout change, its actually pretty easy to follow.

As far as these citations go, that seems awhole lot of work when it is already talked about in the main text. I reviewed the text and most everything a rank is mentioned, it is followed by a mention of which episode it appeared in and which character held it. Books and manuals are mentioned in places, as well, but really apply to everything on the page in conjunction with live action sources. Thus, referencing a specific page out of a specific book which talked about a specific rank, would be very, very time consuming and difficult.

I encourage everyone to look at Medal of Honor and Order of the Bath. They made it to FAC pretty easily and without the type of indepth/intext citations you are talking about. Seems to be a lot of resistance over here. Im going to carry on as described above. I hope the Admins understand the huge amount of time placed into this and justly reward the article with FAC status. -Husnock 17:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I compromised and removed all the sub-headers dealing with the individual series. I feel thats as far aS table should be cut down, although perhaps we can trim it to not have sections for each rank, yet that was a thing that was stated above that the article should have. Cant make everybody happy, but I hope the TOC changes are what people are talking about here. -Husnock 18:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Off-topic:Man, those are the same two articles I am trying to use to justify that my article, Hero of Belarus, should become FA! Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

---

COMPLETION OF ARTICLE

The article is now complete. As for featured article status, I now count the vote tally as follows:

• 6 Votes for Support
• 4 Votes for Oppose
• 2 Oppose Votes which I feel should be disregarded
  • Vote calling article "petty" and a "collection of images" be disregarded
  • Vote calling article "crufty minutiae abounding with original research" be disregarded

Counting the questionable opposes, its a tie and I have asked the admins on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page to declare this a featured article. Thanks for everyone's help. -Husnock 05:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• That's not how it works. In order for an article to be be promoted to "featured" status, any and all actionable objections need to have been withdrawn. Objections that do not specify a problem to be fixed can be ignored. --Carnildo 06:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Frankly, those two objections aren't actionable. Calling an article "petty", how do you change that? "Crufty minutiae"? This is an article about the rank systems and insignia of a fictional universe written by dozens of authors over 40 years, 10 movies and over 600 TV episodes (as well as hundreds of books) that depicts a span of over 220 years, there are going to be huge piles of minutiae that all have some relevance, it is a slightly complex topic. --Wingsandsword 08:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Both those objectors raised the issue of conjecture and original research; that's a valid issue which it's not at all clear to me has been resolved. Mark¹ 09:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Critical comment. Were it not for the rigid demands that opposing an FA have to fall within the narrowest of interpretations of the FA criteria, this would actually be a pretty strong objection. This is really difficult to point out, since there is obviously so much effort put into the article and in of itself it looks good and is well-researched, but I seriously question the validity of making fancruft (that is completely confined to the subject matter itself) an FA. I could imagine a thousand different articles on sci-fi, RPG or fantasy being FAs, but this is where I draw the line. I can not accept that a detailed description of pure fiction minutiae be held up as a model example of encyclopedic content. I am not looking forward to seeing the logical conclusions of the precedent that this FA might result in; namely nominations of articles like Ambassador class starship, forest moon of Endor or perhaps a future geography of Mordor. / Peter Isotalo 09:15, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The conjectured ranks are original research and are given way too prominent of placement in the article. The criteria call for factual, accurate, and verifiable. The article needs to remove the conjecture, or at least entirely separate it from what are actually verified ranks appearing in official sources. At the very minimum, to satisfy the no orignial research policy, all of the conjecture would need to be cited directly to the source it comes from, using a citation system such as Wikipedia:Footnotes. And those sources would have to have some reasonable level of quality, such as a published fan magazine. A geocities homepage listing a made up rank certainly doesn't qualify as something that Wikipedia should be covering, unless that website is demonstrably popular and widely recognized. - Taxman 15:13, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • 100% agreement with Taxman. This is my major outstanding objection to this FAC (see above). The numerous sentences that have statements that include "some publications" absolutely need to have inline citations. The inote/explain-inote system is the easiest to use and is invisible to readers (so objections that inline citations are ugly and/or distraction to readers are not valid). This article is also starting to get too long. --mav 20:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • You all have pretty much won as this is not going to be a FAC. Some people were nice, others were not. To the people who called the article names that was just low and dirty. I actually wonder if some joker is going to add a VFD tag now and say its "pure fan fiction". How amazing. Well, in the end, we still got a pretty good article out of it. I'm done with it now and rest the case. -Husnock 21:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm very sorry to hear that, because, as I said in my original reluctant objection, I very much like this article and think of it as one of the most interesting articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. But that alone is not enough. --mav 21:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - this is all very good, but isn't WikiCities where the article (or, at the very least, the conjectural ranks) should be held? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Sorry, but this is, well... fancruft. Not only does it cover a subject that is entirely fictional (and let's not forget that), it also rests heavily on conjecture. I wouldn't want to delete this article, and I recognise the work that's gone into it and that it will be of considerable interest to some people, but I just don't want to see fancruft featured on the main page. Now someone will probably object to my objection on the grounds that it's not actionable, but in my view the very subject being covered here means that however well written this article is, it is not worthy of being called an example of "Wikipedia's very best work", to quote from the official definition of an FA. Move it to the Star Trek wiki and have it featured there. If we were building a Star Trek encyclopedia this would be a fantastic article, but we aren't, and it isn't. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The subject isnt entirely fictional as the television series and movies have created these insignia for wear by actors therefore they no have reality. I see it more as a society article since these ranks ahve devloped over 40 years. As far as being conejcture, the article is well referenced and provides sources for most everything that is listed. In any event, it doesnt matter as I have closed the book on this and am not pursuing FAC status anymore. I am merely waiting for this page to be archives. So, you can take your objections elsewhere as this is a closed topic. -Husnock 21:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago, Illinois

I am renominating this article because I believe that it is a sample of Wikipedia's best: flowing writing, amazing pictures, detailed information, etc. on one of the most fascinating cities in the U.S. and possibly in the world. The main objection in the old nomination was over the main picture, which now has been settled. (See Talk:Chicago/Archive.)User:Dralwik Hello? My current project 20:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC).

Archives: December 2004 FAC and April 2005 FAC

• Comment: Please demonstrate that the previous objections have been addressed. --mav 01:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object until the ideas put forth in Talk:Chicago, Illinois#Sections to be added/revised/considered are done. Neutrality^talk 03:18, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Er, where is the consensus to do that at? If that were implemented the TOC of this article would be huge and the prose way longer than necessary. The ==level 2== sections used at the already FA Seattle, Washington are far more logical, IMO (too many subsections there though). -- mav 14:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There are 2 other proposed revisions to the WikiProject Cities structure or format for city template (Indian city template and Proposed revised city template) at its talk page. Petersam 18:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • minor object too many skyline images, what's the use of the first skyline image? it is ugly,

and the ones from bellow are more elucidate (3 for the same thing is too much), and one at least has a garden, it seems nicer, I'ld put that in the beggining, at least the reader will not think what I think: To much concrete in this article! -Pedro 13:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• 'There was already a discussion about the choice of the top picture as mentioned at the start of this nomination thread. The picture was selected democratically via a vote the discussion board for the article.

Comment: Speaking as somebody who actually lives in Chicago, with deep family roots going back for generations, I can tell you that this article has numerous factual inaccuracies, and that anybody actually from here would know that the person writing it had no understanding of this city whatsoever. To take a particularly ludicrous example - Italian beef having cheese on it? No sir, that's something more like a Philadelphia cheese steak, and you're getting this from somebody who >grew up eating the real thing<.

The article was protected from posted comments by Boothy443's tireless acts of censorship, defended by Boothy on the oh-so-postmodernist basis that all misstatements of fact are but the editor's "opinions", but the article remains pathetically bad. There's the firm, blanket statement that Chicago has the climate typical of the entire Midwest - a region stretching from Canada in the North, the Appalacian mountains in the South (well below the rain line, well into Winter), Ohio in the East and Colorado in the West. There is no climate typical of that entire region. And then the one about Chicago having four "well defined" seasons, when anybody living here knows that during most years, "springtime" weather in Chicago is a semi-random fluctuation between summer and winter, and can't help but notice the drastic shift in temperature that usually comes in the middle of that "well defined" Autumn.

We have "Chicago style pizza" being offered as an example of local food - it's nothing of the sort. The so-called "Chicago style" pizza can be found almost everywhere in the Central Plains states I and those I know have been, so it's not really specifically Chicagoan, and most pizza served here is not, and has never been deep dish. Nor is all local deep dish anything resembling what is usually called "Chicago style". Consider the version found at a certain very well known location on Rush street, with the sauce on top of the cheese, instead of vice versa. Let's see if our 'Chicago authority' can name the place - because I very seriously doubt that our little friend has ever come within 50 miles of my home town. While you're at it, consider the Pizzeria Uno version, in which such un-stereotypical ingredients as pesto show up. The point that I'm driving at here, kiddies, is that the supposedly "Chicago style" pizza, in the form people expect to find, is almost non-existent here outside of the multistate chain pizzerias which started calling the stuff "Chicago style" as a marketing ploy, not because any of us had ever heard of the stuff prior to the 1980s.

There's the so-called "Chicago Garbage Dog" - certainly, nobody I grew up with had ever heard of the thing before Vienna Beef products decided to start posting a story about the thing, in an advertising poster one can find in locations like "Five Faces" on Division, which is probably where this author heard about it from, by word of mouth. Again, mythology created to move a product, in this case Vienna Beef wieners. Most of the goodies associated with the dog with "the junk on top" as the tourists on Division street like to call it, like the sport peppers and gardiniera are things that one would have found on Tri-Taylor (aka "Little Italy"), not a neighborhood noteworthy for its hot dog consumption.

We have machine politics being spoken of in the past tense; one need only drop by the Amnesty International site and look up "police torture" to be disabused of that misunderstanding. We have the amazing statement that Chicago's "unique culture" came about due to its status as a "melting pot", in fact, it has historically been one of the most heterogenous, voluntarily segregated cities in America, and one of the least receptive to the assimilationist notion of the Melting Pot. A quick trip up Milwaukee should show even the most casual visitor just how much. I could go on and on, and I suppose that I already have. What becomes very obvious to anybody who knows this city firsthand is that the author has done nothing more than dust off the common tourist cliches, and try to pass them off as knowledge. The article is pure garbage. I'm astounded that anybody would even argue in favor of keeping it online, much less giving it an award. - "Joseph from Chicago"

[edit] Star Wars

Star Wars is an incredible force in today's culture and many readers may be interested in learning more about it, especially with all the media hype

• Please, do not nominate articles that do not meet basic FA requirements like references and a lead section. Now about the content of the article itself: there is still a lot of work to do on it before it can do its subject any justice. The structure is not coherent (we have a "Films" section *before* the "Overview" section —a section which contains a bit too much trivia to be a real overview—, and a few sections later, another section called "Movies", many insignificant non-sections like "Setting" or "Toys"). The prose could use rewriting in some parts, and a lot of factr-checking (the entire "Themes" section is full of unreferenced speculation). Currently, this article is good as a collection of links —albeit an unorganized one, but it does not provide a readable and comprehensive overview of the topics related to Star Wars while presenting the SW articles Wikipedia has to offer, like it should do. Phils 10:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Article existance and relevance to real word is not a criteria for it becaming FA. Register, learn how the wiki works, IMPROVE the article, then renominate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - no references. Will look at this later. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Further: there are major structural problems here. I suggest that the story overview a plot synopsis of all 6 of the episodes and that the overview and the film series be merged into one section (or better yet, remove the arbitrary sections "Overview" and "The Film Series". I have issues with seeing a list of major and minor characters in the format given at the start - a brief summary of the ones listed should be given but that section should not be before the story. The setting subsection and story should be merged. Major themes and influences, IMO, should be before the Expanded Universe, though there may be good reasons for the layout here. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maurice Hilleman

I think this is an excellent article and a very timely subject. Missi (22:37, May 16, 2005)

• Object: not comprehensive is the most important thing, but it also needs references. Basically, the article should have an intro that gives a general summary (the basics: what you might find in a paper encyclopedia), followed by sections which deal with parts of his life in greater detail. It's not bad, though, I could see it being featured with some more work. Everyking 08:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object: I agree with Everyking for the most part. The article could use topical subdivision: biographical info, medical achievements, political involvement. Something like that. —thames 15:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review. There's no subsectioning or references. Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish and Portuguese names

Good read, I think it fits all the criteria, but the References part, which is probably covered by the External Links section. Fito (21:53, May 16, 2005)

• No vote. I'm one of the contributors to this. I think it's a nice article, but not necessarily up to featured article standards. Nothing specifically wrong with it, just a bit run-of-the-mill. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:36, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Inadequate lead section, no references, and inaccurate title (the article also covers Catalan names). Mark¹ 07:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object 1) the article gives the idea, when you start to read, that it is name+father surname+mother surname - when I start reading that, I thought "How odd!". It is explained that in Portugal it is the reverse in Portugal's section, but the person is already missleaded in the lead section.

2) I dont know why Spain should be placed first. If we are talking in Iberian names the article should be named Iberian names and countries/regions ordered by the name in English, a Portuguese reading it will probably look at that. Besides Catalunya is in Spain. Iberian would be a better name. Even the Peninsula today is only named Iberia. In the past it was Hispania, but Spain took the name for itself... (but this is not important)

3) it lacks more information, I guess. In Portugal you can only have 4 names -except the husband's name - I dont see this desapearing as the article states! Maybe in the south, not here. It depends on the wish of the woman. And that info seems from someone that added a biased (he wished it) info, completly unproveen.

• for example "Joana Maria Silva Castelo Branco" has only 4 names, because "Castelo branco" is just one name. her first name has the maximum of 2 names. So she can't have the name Joana Maria Rafaela ....

5) the names in Portugal are regulated by law, you cant give the name you want, normally old arabic (Fátima, Alzira), biblical (José, Maria, Jesus is not common like in Spain), saints, Roman (Rui). (you need to investigate better on this). Noone can be named Areia (sand), Raio de Luz (ray of light) and other odd names, including names in English. In Brazil they can have any name, it just nedd to be portugalized. In fact, it is popular to spread Brazilian name lists on the email, cause there are some that are really odd and funny.

• For example, in Portugal there is a list with Russian names, they investigated in that countries what names the immigrats' children (born in Portugal) should have.
• How it is in Spain? i've been informed that they take the name of the saint of the day they were born. It also occurs with mine, but I'm an exception. I happened to be borned in Saint Peter's day (a holiday), so I'm Pedro (and my programmed name Miguel was throw to second place), because Saint Peter is celebrated in here, and while my mother was celebrating... well I ruined her party in the middle of the night.

6) Portuguese surnames are usually taken from a place (Braga, Guimarães, Miranda, Sousa, lisboa,..) or someone notable to the family (in the middle ages, and colonial age in the colonies: Sousa, Costa, oliveira, etc.), or even fruit trees (oliveira, silva, pereira), or profession (ferreira) - names of fruit trees were used by Jewish people origin families during the inquisition. So a family named "Pereira" can really have jewish heritage. But I dont know all this for sure, it surely needs a lot of investigation. -Pedro 11:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bagrationi

Object. Too many lists, too little prose. --Oldak Quill 10:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Object. Agreed with Oldak. If you can turn the article into something more substantial, I will change my vote. Linuxbeak 12:51, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Object strongly. There's an ongoing dispute over an important historical point, namely whether the dynasty decended from an Armenian family. Strong objection until it's resolved. That, and the article is mistitled: "Bagrationi" is not used in any English-language scholarship; the form "Bagratids" is preferred in every text I've looked at. Isomorphic 14:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Isomorphic fully ignored all data of the Georgian historiography and Georgian historical sources. Unfortunately, his "research" is very tendentious. -- Levzur 14 May 2005

Considering that this is an English language Wikipedia, wouldn't it be of more use to users if the resources were in English? It's hard not to overlook research that is not provided either in one's mother tongue, or in a widely-used language like French or German. -- llywrch 16:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Object There is next to no information in this article, except for dates and many, many links to inexistant articles. Phils 10:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Republic of Georgia

It is article about the 1st Republic of Georgia (May 26, 1918 - March, 1921) and has potential for being a Featured article candidate. -- Levzur May 6 2005

• Object 1) The lead section is too short compared to the article text. 2) The grammar needs to be cleaned up throughout the article (for example, "In 1917 was restored the Autocephaly of the Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church.").3) The sections after Politics are basically just lists with very little prose to describe why the items in the lists are significant. 4) Why are all the section headers third level (===Section===) and not second level (==Section==)? 5) The article is missing a map of the country (at least an outline map showing the borders involved). 6) There are quite a few single sentence paragraphs that need to be either expanded or combined. slambo 12:49, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Someone else added the strike over objections 1, 2, 3 and 6. I only struck objections 4 and 5. slambo 15:18, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing the article again today, I believe that these four objections still stand. The lead should be at least two paragraphs long and summarize every section. There are still many places where the grammar coule be improved. The sections after Politics are still just lists presented in paragraph form. The Politics section closes with eight paragraphs of one or two sentences each, and there are a couple other one sentence paragraphs further up in that section. slambo 15:25, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I would be very happy to see an article about Georgia reach featured status, but this isn't ready yet. Along with the things Slambo mentioned, there are elements of bad grammar and strange capitalisation throughout the article. Long sections of this article seem to just be lists...and there are too many red links. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object See guidelines at Wikipedia:What is a featured article as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical states and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries on improving this article so that it becomes a FA. Petersam 07:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Levzur, please do not strike over other people's comments. You can respond by adding to them like this. Four historic states which are FAs are listed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical states. Petersam 02:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edgar Allan Poe

This article has been subject to a peer review and a previous failed FAC. The article has been improved since the last FAC, and is deserving of another consideration for featured status. Harro5 04:46, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Am I missing something, the peer review request was just put up on May 23--nixie 06:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Non-comprehensive, poor formating and referencing. Emily Dickinson is closer to FA-status than this is. Neutrality^talk 06:46, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: This is very interesting but has a poor layout, the links within the text would appear better as footnotes and too many very short paragraphs. Giano | talk 08:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I agree with the above. The lead section should be longer, and the current layout and structure does not do the article's content justice. A good example for this is the Legacy and Lore section, which has too many small paragraphs and thus feels disjointed and hard to follow. Phils 15:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poor layout, not especially a comprehensive article either Jtkiefer 05:11, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

YEA YOU SILLY ASS HOES YO UCAN ALL KISS MY BLACK ASS!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit] Governor General of Canada

Self-nomination. -- Emsworth 19:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• comment; whilst there are references and they do have HTML comments saying what they cover, the information is pretty minimal. Has anybody tried fact checking this? I'm worried that it might be quite difficult as it stands. I think that inline references (e.g. based on Template:inote given Emsworth's aversion to footnotes) would really help. Based on the number of FACs Emsworth has done I'm not making this an actual objection. Mozzerati 15:18, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

[edit] David Beckham

I hereby nominate this article. Feel free to add comments. --202.75.80.8 01:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Mild Object 1) The lead section is too short to give an overview of the entire article. 2) Only one picture? There have got to be others that could be used of him in action on the playing field. 3) There is nothing that I can see about his youth except the first sentence of the lead section. slambo 15:27, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Object I'm afraid. The quality of prose throughout is somewhat lacking, I personally find the text regarding his Man U career clunky. The article also claims that Beckham has spent his career at only two clubs, which is incorrect. This article is alright but until the quality of writing and factual information improves I will not support. Rje 01:31, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I have to echo the above. Also, the current form of the celebrity lifestyle section is not satisfactory. A lot of one sentence paragraphs and sentences without transition make it feel too disjointed. Phils 10:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph McCarthy

Not a self nomination. I just think it's well written.--Richy 09:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support An awesome, awesome article. It should be featured and made a feature-article-of-the-day stat. --Kitch 12:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object but it looks like it will get there pretty soon. 1) The lead contains the massively POV statement "...became the subject of aggressive witch-hunts...". That should be rephrased more factually. Part of the POV is that the article has a section on Venona, but the rest of the article and especially the lead completely ignores it. It's importance should not be overlooked (or overstated). The lead section and of course the rest of the article should state the facts and let the reader decide, not cram the witch hunt POV at them. Much of the rest of the article seems to do a very good job at that. 2) The Truman and Eisenhower sections are so short they should be combined, expanded, or merged elsewhere if they are not really central to the issue. 3) There's a one sentence paragraph at the end of 'Senator' that should be handled similarly. 4) The Crucible section contains the conjecture "This was probably the primary cause for...". That needs to be either cited to a source or the facts need to be stated. 5) The references need to be properly formatted as at Wikipedia:Cite sources. I'm concerned about the reliability of an article with only online sources, is it possible to get and use some high quality print references too? 6) It is impossible to tell where specific information in the article came from or to verify it without some inline citations. Please cite any contentious or important facts to a source. - Taxman 22:48, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Republic of Georgia

It is article about the 1st Republic of Georgia (May 26, 1918 - March, 1921) and has potential for being a Featured article candidate. -- Levzur May 6 2005

• Object 1) The lead section is too short compared to the article text. 2) The grammar needs to be cleaned up throughout the article (for example, "In 1917 was restored the Autocephaly of the Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church.").3) The sections after Politics are basically just lists with very little prose to describe why the items in the lists are significant. 4) Why are all the section headers third level (===Section===) and not second level (==Section==)? 5) The article is missing a map of the country (at least an outline map showing the borders involved). 6) There are quite a few single sentence paragraphs that need to be either expanded or combined. slambo 12:49, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Someone else added the strike over objections 1, 2, 3 and 6. I only struck objections 4 and 5. slambo 15:18, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing the article again today, I believe that these four objections still stand. The lead should be at least two paragraphs long and summarize every section. There are still many places where the grammar coule be improved. The sections after Politics are still just lists presented in paragraph form. The Politics section closes with eight paragraphs of one or two sentences each, and there are a couple other one sentence paragraphs further up in that section. slambo 15:25, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I would be very happy to see an article about Georgia reach featured status, but this isn't ready yet. Along with the things Slambo mentioned, there are elements of bad grammar and strange capitalisation throughout the article. Long sections of this article seem to just be lists...and there are too many red links. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object See guidelines at Wikipedia:What is a featured article as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical states and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries on improving this article so that it becomes a FA. Petersam 07:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Levzur, please do not strike over other people's comments. You can respond by adding to them like this. Four historic states which are FAs are listed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical states. Petersam 02:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bagrationi

Object. Too many lists, too little prose. --Oldak Quill 10:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Object. Agreed with Oldak. If you can turn the article into something more substantial, I will change my vote. Linuxbeak 12:51, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Object strongly. There's an ongoing dispute over an important historical point, namely whether the dynasty decended from an Armenian family. Strong objection until it's resolved. That, and the article is mistitled: "Bagrationi" is not used in any English-language scholarship; the form "Bagratids" is preferred in every text I've looked at. Isomorphic 14:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Isomorphic fully ignored all data of the Georgian historiography and Georgian historical sources. Unfortunately, his "research" is very tendentious. -- Levzur 14 May 2005

Considering that this is an English language Wikipedia, wouldn't it be of more use to users if the resources were in English? It's hard not to overlook research that is not provided either in one's mother tongue, or in a widely-used language like French or German. -- llywrch 16:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Object There is next to no information in this article, except for dates and many, many links to inexistant articles. Phils 10:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kentucky Derby

A great horse racing article. Patricknoddy 8:56am May 7, 2005 (EDT)

• Whistleblow. I believe 63.17.137.171 is impersonating Patricknoddy. The time format is even incorrect (see here for an example). Linuxbeak 13:31, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've left Patrick a message at User talk:Patricknoddy asking if this was him. Angela. 19:30, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't Patrick. He hasn't edited in about a month. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
      • In lite of the above comments, Motion to nulifiy current vote and motion to investigate suspected user. Linuxbeak 02:46, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • Patrick said on my talk page that the nomination was by him. Angela. 21:24, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, regardless of who wrote it. Not expansive enough: 70% of the article is the list of winners (and too many of them are red links). plattopus^talk 17:46, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Nine paragraphs, plus a few floating sentences, on a 130 year old race appears to be very brief to me. Let alone the fact that there are no references. As Plattopus says: this article is far from Featured Article standard whoever nominated it. Rje 23:46, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Kentucky Derby *should* be a FAC, by the subject, but the page itself is disappointing. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Watts

A great article that fits featured criteria. --Benna 06:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Reads like an essay as it is full of opinion and conjecture that starts as soon as the lead section with "he was sensitive to certain new leanings in the West, and was in a position to be a proponent for certain shifts in attitudes regarding society...". What leanings?, how was he sensitive?, how was he in that position?, who says?, etc. There are many more, but another example: "In his mature work, it becomes clear that Watts was not especially committed to the Zen Buddhism with which ...". Citations to external sources could fix that, but it would take some research since the three references listed at the bottom don't appear like they would be of adequate quality to support the facts in the whole article, but I could be wrong. - Taxman 14:14, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Parts read like an essay, as Taxman states above. Parts also read like a biography, sometimes almost like a breathless obituary. Quote: "His was a philosophy informed by the lifeways of Asia, intended to be shared with those people whom modern life had afforded some leisure time they might devote to contemplation, self-development, sensuality, enjoyment of nature, and fun." That lead sentence, on a terribly biased paragraph, seals the deal for me. A lot of cleanup is needed before consideration here. --NightMonkey 19:57, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy

I've rewritten this article, expanding it into more of an overview page of the different types of privacy. It's been on peer review with just a few comments, so I've decided to nominate it for featured article status. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. I think it's pretty good, but the prose could use some improvement (this edit shows the sort of thing I'm talking about) and I don't think it's comprehensive enough yet. A good start would be adding a discussion of "victimless crimes" (like consensual sodomy or private drug use) where privacy is a key defense of offenders and improving the writing style. I'll work on it a bit myself, too. Good luck, Dave (talk) 14:26, May 7, 2005 (UTC) [edited to fix a wikilink]

• Object. This article deals almost exclusively with the Unitd States and United Kingdom in contemporary society. It is not comprehensive in that respect, and also does not have any history of privacy (for example, I know there are theories that privacy in Western culture is a relatively recent product of individualism) or the concept that privacy does not exist or should not be tolerated (communal societies). Also, the references given cover only a very, very small portion of the article's content. 119 15:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with these objections. For the record, my objections above were just a starting point, not an exhaustive list. Dave (talk)

• object a) needs some copy editing (I did quite a bit). b) I think that many more reference are needed (see work from Schneier for example). c) When you do find those references I think that going through them will turn up many more important issues. d) Particularly important are the security benefits of privacy. e) Fails to mention personal and cultural reasons for wishing privacy (even shyness) f) should cover explicitly privacy in different cultures. I'll try to look some stuff up since I think this is an excellent and important topic. g) some pictures; Tabloid journalists? cameras? a film-star's mansion? h) there needs to be coverage of privacy and lack of privacy in literature, especially 1984. i) also other general art, a large number of artists have covered surveilence in their works. Mozzerati 21:53, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

[edit] Internet forum

I've rewritten this article, with the help of Stevietheman. It's been on peer review with a couple of comments, and I'd like to see it become a featured article. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Not nearly long enough. The history needs to be delved into more deeply, and pretty much every other element of the article needs expansion too. plattopus^talk 17:51, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references. Not comprehensive: there is not earnest coverage of the social aspects of forums or their place within the Internet and wider society; there is no history; the article is just not fleshed out, there are many topics given a one-sentence island, with context unexplained (and the top screenshot is not explained in the text, though the caption gives importance to this forum being the largest). Currently, I think the article is only a broad description of contemporary forum software. 119 23:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Nicely written but only scratches the surface. What about avatars, user profiles, registration, even a reference to trolling and flame wars? --PopUpPirate 14:23, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neville Chamberlain

I stumbled across this excellent article some time ago. I went through peer review some months ago with no comments. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Completely inadequate lead section, lack of inline citations, way longer than needed to cover the topic at this level (articles on sub-topics can go into more detail; see Wikipedia:Summary style). --mav
  • Well, I did just write an expanded lead section but a database error ate my homework: I'll recreate it later. For my money, the cited references are sufficient: if inline citations are now the de facto norm I will give up nominating featured article candidates - particularly ones, like this one, that I didn't write. And your final objection seems to amount to a complaint that the article is too comprehensive, which seems somewhat perverse: which sections would you prefer to see spun out into sub-articles? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comprehensive is one thing, too detailed is another. The longer an article is, the less likely a reader will have the time or patience to finish it. A well-written article will present an amount of detail that is sufficient to be considered comprehensive for the given format (here, an encyclopedia article), without forcing the reader to read through more text than is needed. Subtopics can and should be covered in more detail in other articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style). The headings in this article need to be redone before a determination on what can be spun off and summarized here is made. ==Level 2== sections could be: Family, Early political career, Prime Ministership, Lord President of the Council and death, and Legacy. The other sections would be subsections of the above as appropriate. Adding invisible inline cites using inote is very easy. --mav 16:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
      • OK - I have expanded the lead again, although someone with a better feel for the details could no doubt do better. Re summary style, I'm still not convinced of the need to restructure this article and break it up: it is around 60k long. Re inline citations, they are not a formal requirement: "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations" does not mean "must contain inline citations". Save where a fact is disputed or controversial, where a specific source would clearly be required, I'm also not convinced that inline citations would add much value to this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an academic publication. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
        • 'Appropriate use' certainly is not meant to include no use. At the very least, a cite is needed anytime a specific figure is given, exact date, or potentially controversial fact is given. As is, the article simply takes too long to read and thus will be of limited use. Wikipedia can and should have that much detail and more, but having it all in a single article is only going to be useful to a limited audience. --mav 16:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blenheim Palace

A self nom. I re-wrote this page recently. The former was a little sad, and this is England's greatest private house (in at least one sense of the word). Consequently the page is quite long! Do not be put off. I've limited myself on the architectural detail and there are lots of pictures, and (I think) some interesting stuff about the people who have lived there. Some photographs of the interior would be nice, but they are not available - so the external links will have to suffice. As ever thanks to Bishonen for the copyedit, English etc. Giano | talk 20:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional support. I feel the lead section is not entirely appropriate. Citing the plaque on the Palace and then ending the introduction aprubtly with "This is only a fraction of the true story." gives the impression that the author(s) wanted to create a sort of suspense, and give an incentive for users to read the rest. While the intent is laudable, I think the main goal of Wikipedia is to be a vector of information, not entertainment (that isn't to say articles can't be entertaining, but that should be secondary). I feel the lead section should better summarize the rest of the article, so that readers looking up "Blenheim Palace", but who do not have the time to read the whole article get a broad overview of the subject. This might be a subjective view, so I hope I'm not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, what do others think? Now back to this article in particular, the last sentence of the lead is innapropriate in my eyes. Otherwise the article is superb. Phils 08:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Any better now? Giano | talk 09:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• There you go. Phils 11:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Spelling mistakes ("Churchill's") and persistent POV ("sadly", "cunningly", etc.). Mark¹ 07:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• I have removed the 2 x "sadly" and the "cunning" although I don't really think it is POV to describe a deliberate architectural trick as cunning. Spelling: I have removed the wrongly apostrophised "Churchill's" - I can't see any other mistakes, apart from 18th century quotes which are marked by (sic). Giano | talk 12:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Also weasel words: "obviously", "it was assumed", "probably" etc. Whose judgments, whose assumptions? What is "mysterious awe"? How does it differ from other kinds of awe? Similarly for "immense grandeur". I suspect "Agustus" is a relative of Augustus. And I have a terrible feeling of deja vu. ;) Mark¹ 02:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've changed the words you object to. Sorry about the "déjà vu" have you tried an aspirin? Giano | talk 07:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't think that will help. Grammar: "This is only a fraction of the true story, the truth is"; "to supposedly thrill the walker". "It is interesting" to whom? "It is therefore not surprising" to whom? Mark¹ 07:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think I will bother to address any more of your objections. You are clearly not going to change your vote to support. Looking at the great interest it has caused so far the page looks likely to fail FAC anyway. The phrases you object to now seem quite clear and comprehensible to me, so I think I'll leave them. Giano | talk 07:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object This is far too good to be exhibited on the front page. Besides, many apparently have serious reservations ;)--Wetman 22:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Screenwriting credit

Self-nom. An article on the convoluted process by the Writers Guild of America which determines who "wrote" a film. Comprehensive article and bibliography. Was on peer review here a couple months back. And, no, there's no picture. I don't know how anyone would illustrate it, short of a screen capture of the relevant title cards. PedanticallySpeaking 18:16, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. From the content, this is FA material to me (although some footnotes to indicate the section/paragraph some figures were found in would be fitting). However, the title is innapropriate unless the current article is expanded to cover screenwriting credit attribution processes in other countries. I'm not usually one to complain about Wikipedia being too US-centered, but let's not exaggerate either; screenwriting credit is too generic a title for the current article. Phils 19:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, this article is good but it only covers the WGA, so it should be named in such a way that people know that the article only talks about the credit as ruled on by the WGA. For a picture you may want to use the WGA logo or the cover of a screenplay--nixie 03:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comments. A good picture would be a screen capture of the title credits for a movie mentioned in the article that had gone through WGA arbitration—especially if it was a complicated one with a couple of writing teams. You also don't mention the "Alan Smithee" pseudonym that gets used when writers want to disassociate themselves from a film. And what about Harlan Ellison's fight over The Terminator? BlankVerse ∅ 09:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought Alan Smithee was just for directors who wanted to remove their name. PedanticallySpeaking 17:17, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portugal

Self-mon. Portugal's article is inspired by the following articles: Cambodia, India, and South Africa. The best ideas were added. This article has a good structure of information (what I couldnt find in the ones that i've inspired in, encyclopedia inspired and a big and zipped amount of very useful information for various activities: Historians, tourists, economy (agriculture, relevant resources, where one can invest -obviously by reading and making you're own assumptions-, transportation, communication) demography, etc.. etc... The article is intended to be an enciclopedia article and not an Internet Portal, size seems ok in relation to other FA articles. The last atempt for nomination was very useful. All the usefull objections were fullfilled. If you are objecting, please say where it can get better. -Pedro 17:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object - same reasons as given in the last peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Portugal and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portugal/archive2. Use the current FA country articles, Cambodia, India, and South Africa as a guide to see how much detail should be covered in this article vs the daughter articles. I also object to the fact that this FAC comes so close after the failure of the previous FAC. --mav 20:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• I dont agree on that articles being exemplary, they have almost nothing and are badly structured! I disagree making the article worse just to fullfill your view. Sorry. Now the time is also a criteria? Now, having information and the interval of time is a reason to object? -Pedro 20:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Those articles are featured and cover the same type of subject. Using them as examples is thus called for. There are no hard and fast requirements for relisting, but it is frowned upon to relist soon after failing. --mav 00:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Darwin

I think this is an excellent candidate for a featured article. Mandel 06:22, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Generally support, a good article on one of a very few Englishmen deserving to be called great. A few minor things I'd like to see sorted, the lead could do with a bit of expanding and the linking to main articles at the top of a number of sections should be made more consistent. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:14, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Completely inadequate lead section and needs a great many inline citations. ==Views on religion== is a stub section, combine with another section. A couple short paragraphs about social Darwinism and eugenics in the ==Legacy== section are enough. Having a whole section on that is overblown for an article on the man (section would make perfect sense at reaction to Darwin's theory and/or at another article that deals with his work on the interpretation of his work). --mav 08:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree "views on religion" is too short. But it's a bit contradictory to claim another section as too long though. Mandel 12:46, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

No it is not contradictory since that other section is not tightly related to the subject at hand (the man and his work). --mav 15:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The section is useful as there is a lot of misinformation out there on Darwin's view of eugenics/social darwnism/race etc. perpetuated by Creationists who deliberately misunderstand history and nuance. But anyway, I shunted it off to the "reaction to" article even though it is a little chronologically incorrect, because it did seem to take up a bit too much space on the page. --Fastfission 16:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Lead is too short. Rewrite 'Journey on the Beagle' section from bullets to normal paras. Too many meaningless subsections, merge some with better titles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thunderball

Self-nom, 2005 is the 40th anniversary of the film's release. The article goes into great detail about the film, the novel, the comic book adaptation, and the controversy over the film rights that has been in court since the release of the novel in 1961. Good information and an interesting read. K1Bond007 16:10, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment all this discussion and no vidcaps from the film? slambo 02:34, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good call, added three images from the DVD. K1Bond007 03:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Object it's not clear at all which references cover which material. Please consider a system of inline references (or possibly footnotes) or at least expanding the description of each reference. This will make it easier to verify. Mozzerati 16:54, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
  • I added inline references. Any better? K1Bond007 19:21, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Magdalene

Well documented, well written, a prime example of what Wikipedia is all about. Nick Catalano (Talk) 13:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) the lead section is insufficient compared to the length of the article. 2) Biographical information should be the first section after the lead to give the reader a frame of reference for the subject's life (for example, compare this to John D. Rockefeller or Mahatma Gandhi). slambo 13:46, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Insufficient lead. Insufficient exploration of both her traditional and apocryphal rôle - ie. her import and rôle to the Catholic Church, orthodoxies, protestants, etc. The second part of this criticism is to do with insufficient discussion of theories as to her being the wife of Jesus and having written the gospel of John. Even ideas put forth by spurious, populist literature such as Jesus having handed the leadership of his church onto her - this information being later supressed by the phallocracy that was Christianity. --Oldak Quill 18:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC) PS. I think the article is currently too stunted and section, perhaps a better flow between section and a sense of development could be achieved?
• Object. I too feel that the "flow" of this article is poor, it does not read very well as a continuous article. I also feel that too much is made of the conspiracy theories and fictional works centred on her and there is not enough information regarding her place in the Christian faith. Rje 19:40, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. While I did some copy editting to this article, I feel one weakness that hasn't been mentioned yet is that the references in this article -- & there are many, which is a commendable strength -- needs to be better organized. There are only 4 cited at the bottom, while the text refers inline to countless more. Fix this, & this article will only be stronger. -- llywrch 21:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Military History of Puerto Rico

Self-nom, I've written articles for Wikipedia since May 2004. I've worked on this project as a way of celebrating my first year with Wiki. I hope that you all like it and that it meets Wikipedias standards. Tony the Marine

• Comment

I just wanted to add that I wrote the article in a "timeline style", a chronological order of military events which occured. I didn't want the article to be too long, therefore I added many wiki links to articles (some of which were written by me) for the reader who would be interested in more specific details of a certain event or person. I hope that you all enjoy it. Tony the Marine

• Support. Good article; some things (such as format of the references) should be looked over, but all in all good article. Linuxbeak 11:47, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not a very good paragraph structure - some free floating sentences with repetitive structure. Short paragraphs, etc. --Oldak Quill 12:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. In addition to Oldak objection: Lead is too short. References = external links, and are not formated (last acess on...?). At least one elink in main body (remove, link with note). I wouldn't worry about the lenght - feel free to expand from the linked articles, so that each section is larger then a section-stub. Besides that - good work, with some help should be ready for FA. A general note: try using Peer Review before FAC - why so many people forget about this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article should mention Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, the only U.S. Army port in the Caribbean. Plus it could be illustrated by lots of public domain images; see [29]. Neutrality^talk 06:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well written, nice article. Every article can be made better, but I think this article is as good or better than other featured articles we've had in the past. This one has my vote.Cjrs 79 21:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rock carvings at Alta

Self-Nomination, renominated after spending a week on peer review and incorporating suggestions as far as possible (link to first FAC nomination). Complete rewrite after the original article was tagged as a copyvio, comprehensive overview of the archeological site, background history and possible interpretations of the carvings. -- Ferkelparade π 08:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Has the copyvio been removed from the history to avoid legal problems? Are there any English language print sources on the site to add to the reference section? Those points are easy to solve. The rest looks crisp. Support. Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, the copyvio has been deleted, the current article is a rewrite from scratch. There used to be an English translation of Arvid Sveen's book, but I cannot find anything about it at the moment, so I'm not sure about the English title and the ISBN number...there are probably a couple more books in English about the site, but I'm not really a fan of listing stuff as a reference if I haven't had a look at the book myself. Thanks for your support, Ferkelparade π 09:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Hmm it looks good, if a little short. But if it covers all the facets of the topic I guess that is fine. The thing stopping me from giving full support is that two references is pretty minimal for a FA. Aren't any of the original or current academic papers on the site available? - Taxman 14:33, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I have the list of references in Arvid Sveen's book, but all of the works he cites are in Norwegian, have (to my knowledge) never been translated and are not really easily accessible. So far, I've had no luck with tracking down something in English (which seems quite odd, given the site's significance), but I'll try to dig up some more references. Would adding the main reference works from Arvid Sveen be helpful? -- Ferkelparade π 18:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No, youryour stance before was good. It is dishonest to list a reference you have not properly used to add or fact check material in the article. If there's nothing else in English, I don't have any answers for you, but I can't support something with so few references. We are a reference work after all. - Taxman 21:27, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • I see your point about too few references, but I don't want anybody to say I'm not willing to do some homework :) I just spent the evening doing some more extensive research for sources, I was able to track down most of the standard works in the university library...a couple hundred pages to read, and probably some changes to the article coming up. I hope to have a much better references section after the weekend, or in the middle of next week at the latest -- Ferkelparade π 22:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • That's awesome. If everyone did that, it would be hard to believe the postive impact on Wikipedia. I'm looking forward to seeing the even more well researched article. - Taxman 15:18, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
          • Hmm...it seems it will take a bit longer than expected until I'll get all my reference books and be able to do some reworking of the article (probably about a week). Is it okay to let this nomination sit here for a couple more days, or would it be better to withdraw the nomination for now and renominate in a week or two? -- Ferkelparade π 13:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Looks good, but as a person who once studied communication, I definetly can't stand for Petroglyph to be included only as 'see also'. Explanation of petroglyphs and how those carvings relate to them should make at least a paragraph, if not the entire section. Once it exists, I will support. A few more ilinks wouldn't hurt much, the article feels a little 'ilink light' to me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm...of course, a paragraph about petroglyphs could be worked in, but I didn't really think it was necessary - after all, petroglyph and rock carving are basically just two names for the same thing, meaning basically some form of symbol carved into rock, and I thought that much was clear from the context :P About the ilinks: true, the second half of the article is a bit light on links, but that's mainly because pretty much all the terms that could reasonably be linked have already appeared in the beginning of the article and have been linked there. I'm open to suggestions on further links, though -- Ferkelparade π 13:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, the entire Wiki section about cave paintings, petroglyph, pictograms, ideograms, writing and basically the history of symblos and communications is in poor shape - something I intend to rectify soon :) I have rewritten petroglyph article now, hope it gives you an idea how to incorporate petroglyph into your article. Note that 'rock carving' is only one meaning of petroglyph: the second is that they are an image depicting an event. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eutrophication

I ran across this article and it seems to meet the criteria. It is well written, and really helped me understand the subject. It is referenced, organized and has a useful illustration. ike9898 13:52, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) the lead is too short for the length of the article. 2) aren't there any other images that could illustrate this (i.e. charts and graphs). 3) The third-level headings result in too many short sections; these should be combined or at least changed from sections to something that doesn't use section headers. 4) The article text doesn't wikilink to very many articles; for example, the third paragraph in section 1.1 should link to the geographic locations for each of the names. slambo 15:20, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that I've addressed concerns #2 and #4 since you wrote this. Have another look, if you don't mind. ike9898 16:30, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The lead is too short and there are too many subsections with little content; either expand the subsections or consider removing the third-level headings. The US EPA picture that was added is informative but it is of very poor quality. Replace it if you can find a better one (this is not part of my objection). Otherwise, good article. The large reference section, as well as the knowledgeable writing, attest extensive research. Phils 17:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object I think ike9898 is correct in nominating this article, as it is full of facts and covers the subject well. My objection is that the writing is a bit difficult to follow in places and I agree with Phils about the layout. Although some parts are very good, there are others that really make little sense. I will try and fix those myself, but it could takea few days. I'm also not thrilled with the illustrations and charts (the EPA chart is just too busy or fuzzy), but that is really minor objection. - Marshman 17:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Changed my vote - Marshman 18:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago, Illinois

I nominated this article because I believe it is a showcase of what Wikipedia should be: lively writing, fascinating photographs, and dozens of links to find more information on a certain place or person. I have looked at the previous nomination, and it appears all the objections have been met. Dralwik 12:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Object. - There are objections still being discussed on the talk page. Primarily the main picture is my concern since it's being fought over. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• just an observation: to many images of buildings. It seems Americans really like concrete. :| -Pedro 21:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guns N' Roses

This is a partial self-nomination. This is one of the best articles of any band in all of Wikipedia, as well as one of the best sources of information on Guns N' Roses that can be found in the internet. The article spent more than a week in peer review and went through one extensive copy-edit. The original criticism on the article was the fact that it was "fannish" in language and content. That issue has been adressed. This definetively should be a featured article.Coburnpharr04 23:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I like it, but it would be nice if there were inline references, perhaps using footnotes. Tuf-Kat 18:45, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's a little short, and subarticles would be nice, but support nevertheless. I had hoped to build up some music articles like this myself, but they got torn apart on grounds of "fancruft". Glad to see this one's in good shape. Everyking 19:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'd have to say object for now. It's nice, but it's still a bit fannish ("the band's defiant 1987 debut album", "...one of the most popular rock and roll bands ever"). If those were referenced with footnotes, as TUF-KaT suggested, then they can stay. Second, there should be, in place of a list of music videos, a list of singles with release years and chart positions (BTW, song titles should be in quotation marks,instead of italicized). Finally, the lead paragraph should be a little longer for an article of this size. --FuriousFreddy 17:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• object - at the moment the history section is skewed in favour of the recent reincarnation of the band. I'd say much more needs to be said about the early years, Appetite for Destruction and Use Your Illusion, which is what they're by far best known for. Also, there's very little about the lifestyle of the band, heavy drug intake, stories of debauched parties etc. There was an excellent documentary about them not long ago, on VH1 I think, and at the moment this article is not half as interesting as the documentary was. Also a couple of minor points - 'pseudonymous last names' in the history section: Rose is not a pseudonymous surname, not sure about Guns'; and "Guns n' Roses' is..." sounds very odd to me, are would be better in my opinion. Worldtraveller 19:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• • I have no idea of what you are talking about. The history section is actually longer than the "new gn'r" section. Also, the drug abuse reputation of the band is adressed in the legacy section. What else can be said? I don't think it is necessary to have full paragraphs explaining what drugs they were using or whatever, since that is part of the drug abuse article. Also, if you are refering to the "Behind the Music" documentary, it is obvious you know nothing of Gn'R. That documentary was heavily criticized in the media because it was biased in favor of the former members of the band. Axl Rose even threatned to sue VH1. Since wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, it would be inapropiate to follow the line of the documentary on the article. So far your argument against the article isn't because it does not follow the FA standards, but because it does not cover extremely minor details of the group's hey day. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 01:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The history section on the revived group is larger than every other history section. That seems disproportionate. As for drug abuse, well, were they already heavy users when the band started? How did it affect the song writing, the band dynamic, live performances etc? Did it lead to disagreements and the eventual breakdown of the band? It's my understanding that the various habits led to quite some tension in the group. You seem to misunderstand my point about the documentary - I'm not saying follow its line in any way, I'm just saying it was a really enjoyable and interesting thing to watch. If it was heavily criticised and if Rose threatened to sue, then that could be mentioned in the article. This article currently is not as interesting and enjoyable - not very brilliant prose - and that's why I'm opposing. If you think I know nothing about the band, well, you should be writing the article with people like me in mind anyway. Worldtraveller 19:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tooth enamel

• Nominate. Though only someone with an excellent knowledge of dentistry would be qualified to comment on the more technical aspects of this article, this article is a comprehensive well-written, illustrated treatment of Tooth enamel. It seems to me that it deserves featured article status. --Zantastik 22:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose for two objections: the references need formatting work (see Wikipedia:References) and it needs to say something about how much of this is true for non-human animals. Which animals have enamel? Is it created the same way? If there's a lot of variation, then much of this article may be better moved to human tooth enamel or primate tooth enamel or whatever. Tuf-Kat 18:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I added the material I could find on animal tooth enamel. It seems like there are some very specific but slight differences of enamel in animals that would probably not warrant a completely unique article on the subject. For the most part, the development and function of enamel is similar. The types of teeth is an entirely different story, and each animal could probably have their own article on teeth, with horse teeth being a good example. dozenist 15:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Change to support Tuf-Kat 16:26, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Tuf-Kat above makes a sound point. I would probably never have thought of it, but it makes sense. Also, I agree the references need formatting. However, the article is of amazing technical detail and precision, and we need more of this. Phils 20:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • In-line references have been added. dozenist 15:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - The article itself is very professional, but seems unbalanced. Some sections are a little too short. I do enjoy the technical detail, and how the introduction is worded to offset the technical detail so those who don't understand can still at least follow it. Ben Babcock 21:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • For some sections being a little too short, I am not sure how to change that much. There is a limit to what I can find, but I will keep looking. I have already added some, but not much more. Maybe with the other additions I have made, those sections will appear better. dozenist 15:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Funeral of Pope John Paul II

I put this article on peer review a few weeks back, and have addressed those comments. This article was also nominated for featured status previously and failed. All of the issues there have been resolved as well. The article is factually correct, with many pictures and a comprehensive coverage of a important world event. Bratsche^{talk random} 18:14, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The problems have not been resolved. Two people objected last time because it had tons of fair use images, and now it is being renomianted and *all* of the pictures are fair use. →Raul654 18:24, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought the problem was that the pictures were not legally used. I didn't see anything against fair use pictures on the FA criteria list. If this is truly a problem, I will withdraw this nomination. Bratsche^{talk random} 18:41, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Using fair use pictures, while not prohibited, is discouraged (particularly for featured articles). It's one thing to use a fair use picture on a featured-article-candidate if you really don't have much hope of finding a copyleft one, but I don't think that's the case here. It is legitimate to object when an article has tons and tons of them, like this one. →Raul654 18:45, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't understand this nomination at all. PJPII's funeral hadn't even happened a month ago; he wasn't even dead yet. I can't imagine an article reaching a FA level of quality without a process of maturation. I see a lot of edits, but insufficient contemplation. — Xiong熊talk* 23:50, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Practically all articles are developed from scratch, or minimal quality, to featured quality within a month. I will cite Emsworth as my example: many of his articles are developed to a FA quality within several days. Thus, the quantity of time is irrelevent to the quality of the finished product. I assume your "maturation" refers to editing by a number of independent users during this time - this article has certainly undergone rigerous inspection and amendment. Emsworth does not wait for his article to be reviewed by many users over a period of several weeks before nominating, and there is no reason why he should. Essentially, I doubt the actionability of your critique. Time and quantity of independent editing may be indicative of a reviewed quality article, but it is not a direct relationship. Nor is it a criterion of a featured article, most users do not have the patience to leave their work to ferment for months before nomination. This article may well not be featurable yet, but do you have any thing more constructive and actionable to put forth? --Oldak Quill 11:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd like to note Emsworth usually writes article about events that happened years (often centuries ag0) and/or people who are long dead and for which there is a lot of widely accepted documentation and information available. Phils 11:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The status of this event as a very recent event actually hampers it, as in the case of pictures. Since only accredited, professional photographers with the AP, L'Ossovertare Romano, or Catholic News Service were allowed anywhere close to the casket, Mass, or anything else (probably because of security reasons) there aren't amy free use pictures that we could use on this article. The fair-use images make it look very professional, but if they're not appropriate, then the article will probably image-less. And for the record, the article has gotten comments on both the previous FAC nomination, and on peer review. Once the comments stopped for about a week, I archived the PR request. There's no use, as Oldak said, letting the article ferment for a month. Bratsche^{talk random} 18:00, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • On the subject of the images, the White House has released a photo essay for the funeral taken by White House photographer Eric Draper, the copyright status of these pictures isn't immediately obvious since photgraphs taken by federal employees aren't immediately in the PD, however you could email him and ask. --nixie 04:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Official Monster Raving Loony Party

A fascinating article, it would be fantastic to make this a featured article onthe day of the election. Jooler 10:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No lead, no references and some poor, weaselly and POV wording. violet/riga (t) 11:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur. Can we refer this to Peer Review first? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:55, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Please do not nominate articles that do not meet basic FA requirements; they will usually be dismissed without further consideration. Post this on Wikipedia:Peer Review to get criticism and help to reach FA quality. Phils 12:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review. Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] University of Wales, Lampeter

The University of Wales, Lampeter is an interesting institution in that it is the oldest university in Wales, but simultaneously the smallest public university in Europe. This is a self-nomination and the article has recently been peer-reviewed.

• Object 1) the lead section is too short compared to the length of the article. 2) three of the sections are simply lists, and in the third of these, Academic departments, I expected the wikilinks to go to articles about the departments and not the departments' subject matter (the English link goes to the article on English, and not the English department at the university). 3) only one reference for all of this information? For the number of facts that are presented here, it seems more likely that there would have been many more references, especially when you look at the edit history for this article. slambo 15:57, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting how much Peer Review can miss! I've tried to deal with your suggestions anyhow, I've expanded the introductory passage and added a couple more references. I'm not really sure what to do with the lists - they don't make up a huge part of the article in terms of word count, but I'll think of something to make them more attractive hopefully! Many thanks Twrist 23:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I agree with all the objections slambo presents above. In addition, I have a few minor requests; the article should provide translation (if only approximative) of the University, as well as the The College Yell (I assume it's Welsh)? In the notable academics section, it would be helpful,to indicate the dates between which these people were at the UoW. The article also seems somewhat short compared to others we have about other universities and colleges. It might be that there isn't more to say about such a small university; on the other hand, there's almost always something more to say. Phils 08:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm on the job of finding out when the listed academics were at the institution. As for the college yell, its only partly in Welsh, as far as my own knowledge goes... maybe the rest is latin or something? I'm afraid I can't translate it anyhow Twrist 23:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge

This is the best article I've seen about a bridge, tunnel or road. -- Samuel Wantman 07:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. While it is a good article in many ways, it is too unstable and too weighted towards current events. Much of the content - somewhere around half - is dedicated to events surrounding the current construction of the Eastern span of the bridge, which are really only momentarily relevant. As an encyclopedia article, I think that such information should really be put into historical context, in which case it should really just be given a small section at most. Nothing that is going on with the Eastern span is of more significance than, say, the events going on at the time of the bridge's initial construction. Additionally, since half of the bridge is about to be replaced, it is about to become a dramatically different bridge. Much of the current article is going to be out-of-date within a year or two, which makes it ineligible, at least in my interpretation of the "stable" requirement. Jun-Dai 07:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • A separate article can and should concentrate on the details of the current reconstruction as well as having an appropriately-sized amount of text in this article that summarizes the most important points about the current reconstruction. --mav 16:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Question about the configuration: It appears from bus schedules that buses go betwen the Transbay Terminal and the bridge. But there is only a connection to the lower level of the bridge. How do inbound buses get to the terminal? --SPUI (talk) 07:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

see "http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.788602,-122.392856&spn=0.009601,0.009938&t=k&hl=en" - the ramps into and out of the terminal (the loop) are transit only, note the connection with the outbound off ramp that runs parallel to the one with the automobiles (not shown in the map, but present in the satellite image. Leonard G. 8 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Jun-Dai. The focus on recent modifications of the bridge is too great. Phils 16:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many of the reasons for objecting above are ironicly what I like about this article and why I chose to nominate it. Wikipedia, by its very nature is able to do things that traditional encyclopedias could only dream about, and one of them is to be extremely current. We can have articles that are up to date AND encyclopedic. Think about it, many people more than normal are likely to look up this article because it is a timely subject. What is being faulted should be held up as an example of what is possible with this media. -- Samuel Wantman 18:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that focus on the current popular consciousness of a subject should be the aim of a separate wiki. I think it is good that we can have up-to-date information on current events, but this should never be used as the focus of an article that is not a current event, and current events should (IMO) never be featured. Reconstruction of the Eastern span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (or some more suitable title) ought to have up-to-date information on the current ongoings of that project, and over time it should develop a historical perspective. The article we are discussing, however, is not a current event (even though current events are going on related to it), and it should not be focussed on what is happening now--such things only need a mention and, where someone is willing to supply the details, a separate entry. Jun-Dai 19:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I've implemented the suggestions above. There is now a separate article entitled: Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge --Samuel Wantman 08:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I also pulled out the weld controversy details from the replacement article, now in its own sub-sub article.

Think this is close to time to re-submit? Leonard G. 8 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Benedict XVI

It has grown to a very impressive article. --83.109.174.227 (link to nominator's IP added by User:Phils).

Withdrawn, I agree with the concerns raised below. 83.109.148.242 21:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Impressive indeed, but the lead section requires expansion. Phils 15:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Not stable, completely inadequate lead section, no organized references section. --mav 16:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object It is still experiencing tons of edits and vandalism. See the talk page for all the issues that have yet to be resolved. Maybe in a couple of months. Bratsche^{talk random} 18:05, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Too soon. Let the news settle in first. Everyking 18:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I agree with Maveric and Bratsche, this article is still too much the subject of debate to be stable enough for a featured spot. Ben Babcock 20:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - This is way too unstable, also I would suggest that it is too close to his election. I am not too keen on current, or very recent, news stories, or figures involved in them, being promoted to featured article status. Let's wait awhile. Rje 00:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - As mentioned above, the article is too unstable. We deal with vandalism and continious editing/sub-paging. There is still some information that is not clear yet, some of which includes his Coat of Arms, his Theology and early life. Though I do want to give thanks to those who edit and debate the article and it's contents, I do not think this is the right time for the article to be elevated to Featured Article. Zscout370 (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object- I do believe this is an excellent article, with a lot of information on the pope. Yet, I agree that there's going to be a ton of editing on the page. Every new appearence that the pope makes for the next couple of weeks will surely be added to the article. Let's wait a while, and see if the article stabilizes. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 01:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I think this article is quite impressive in its breadth and depth of coverage for having been worked on for such a short time. I think however that it is premature to feature it for a while, as substantial editing changes continue to be made, and the article which is featured might differ substantially from the article as it stands presently. Also, by the very act of featuring this article, it is likely that we would attract more vandals as were such an annoyance in the early days of this article's creation. Whig 03:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• neutral - I think this article is a credit to wikipedia. I doubt if there is a more thorough article on Ben anywhere at this stage in his papacy. But the article does need more work. It is possibly a bit premature to make it a featured article just yet. But it does deserve that acolade and will get it in the near future. Maybe we need another category - potential featured articles covering those that are nearly there but just not yet. FearÉIREANN 03:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object Good article, but still in the mold. Sjakkalle 07:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral - For those that object due to vandalism. Does that mean that you would propose a FA article be un-FA if people suddenly start vandalising it? Whether one support or object to FA should be based on whether the article is good in content and not whether people like vandalising the article. -- KTC 09:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• comment after the initial wave of vandalism I suspect this page is on rather a lot of people's watch lists so I doubt vandalism would be a problem.Geni 09:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • A FA will get vandalized no matter which way you slice it. Articles about netrual subjects, like the Medal of Honor and the Order of Bath, got vandalized a lot due to them being a FA. Reversions come quick in Wikipedia, but if you take the vandalism out, you still have problems with the stability. We are still talking about cutting the article down into managable pieces, and there is still more to be added. Zscout370 (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object, agree with the above concerns. Neutrality^talk 04:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Object very good article, but a "Sex abuse scandal" revels a tendency, offensive to the person, and a prejudice. It would be important to discuss why people didnt like him, rather than using that section, maybe with keeping some info (i'm not saying that is useless). But not an all section! I'm not seeing an encyclopedia, like wikipedia that uses writing to offend people. Would you like a sex scandal section in your biography? -Pedro 22:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It's an important, contentious subject, and to leave it out would be POV, not the other way around. I wouldn't want a section about a sex scandal in my biography, no, which is why I will endeavor in life not to do anything that would justify one. Benedict, however, even if by inaction, has done so and it should be noted. Kairos 12:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I said keep what's important and factual, If you use that and make a fire out of it (like in the article), it is surely POV. -Pedro 10:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object to the article becoming featured, for the reasons given above. It's too new and unstable. Kairos 12:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The majority of the article is sourced from current events news articles. The footnote external links will be mostly DOA within a year as news sites remove article links, even if this made FAC, it would need a close review within a year or so as links expire. Most news sites dont keep links for long. Stbalbach 04:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)