Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2005

Cerebellum

A lot of work was put into this article by Nrets and me. It was sent to peer review and had an excellent reception. It's clean, it's thorough, and I think it will help fill out the number of biology Featured Articles.

• Self-nominate and support. Semiconscious (talk · home) 18:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support, I think (or rather hope) that we managed to merge general overviews with more technical details fairly effectively. We also addressed comments/concerns that came up during the peer review. Most of the illustrations were done by me or User:Semiconscious so they can be edited further if anyone has any comments on those. Nrets 20:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

*It's not there yet; needs some cleaning up, and more importantly, careful references to diagrams in the text to help the non-specialist reader to navigate her way through a lexically complicated text.Tony 07:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• I incorporated the changes you suggested on the talk pages as well as made references to the figures in the text. I know the article is a bit technical, but I think that there is enough there to satisfy a general audience, plus a lot more to provide in-depth information to whomever is looking for it. Nrets 15:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support, though I still think some terms could be better explained in the text or linked. For example, "Lesions of the cerebellum cause not paralysis but feedback deficits, manifesting as disorders in fine movement, equilibrium, posture, and motor learning" is a sentence in the lead section. Feedback deficits could be linked to, or even more fully explained. What is defined as "fine movement" and "equilibrium" in this context? --Oldak Quill 10:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've rewritten to intro to make it more clear and accessible. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - The intro section needs expansion, and the random and strange bolding of certain terms needs to be removed. The term "figure" should also be removed from the article as the images should be placed next to where they are first introduced. I would also like to see the images right-aligned so that they don't push text. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 19:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've addresses several of your concerns, expanding the first introduction a bit by including some brief history. I've removed the seemingly random bolding of phrases. The term "figure" appears at the request of another user on the talk page in response to the placement as a FAC; the user felt by adding those pointers it would assist the reader. Due to the size and number of images, we can't always place the images next to the text where they are the most relevent. However, I have cleaned up the placement of some of the images. Semiconscious (talk · home) 20:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I've continued and made some edits of my own, but I'd also like to see citing of information in the article as well as more external links. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 23:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've added many more external links that are pretty cool, I think. So much of the stuff in this article is "general" knowledge, so the three non-numbered references given at the bottom cover just about all this material. However I will continue to go through the article and look for less-than-general pieces of information so I may provide references for them. I've added one more reference already. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, I've added a few more references. I'm still working on it... Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support—the authors have used their considerable research and teaching experience to produce an authoritative and well written summary of the subject. Tony 01:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've addressed your further concerns on the talk pages. Great work; thanks for your help! Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - I've been reading through this article more closely now than in the peer review. I think that there is *great* work here, and that you guys have really done your homework. However, I think the writing quality of this article is still too uneven to represent Wikipedia's best. It's close, but not quite there. All you need is some more copyediting and clarification. What I think needs to be looked at:

:*Introduction: fragmented and not neccesarily the best 5 sentence overview of the cerebellum

• I've rewritten the introduction. I feel my briefcase example gives a very succinct view of what the cerebellum does. Let me know your thoughts. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• General features: Some technical terms thrown around here that are never explained: "perpendicular circuits"? Also, why compare the cerebellum to the optic nerve? I don't see how that analogy makes anything clearer.

• Well, another user removed my briefcase example. Let me know what you think. Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• I've tried to be aware of the jargon used all throughout this article but it's difficult for someone so accustomed to the terminology. I've addressed the one particular instance you've mentioned here, so let me know what you think. If you find any more instances, I will try to address those as well. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Re: the optic nerve, it was in there when I began my massive re-edits, and I never thought to remove it? :) It just seems as though vision is such a complicated system, so comparing the cerebellum tracts to that system makes it seem all the more remarkable. I can remove it, but I think it gives the casual reader a sense of the enormous responsibility of this structure. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:*Development and evolution: Try to make this a little more user-friendly. Some of the sentences are very awkward. Also "thisis is one of many of the ironies of the “little brain.”" I don't see what the irony is, and I think that statement is somewhat silly for an anatomy article, especially since none of the other "ironies" are pointed out.

• Tony addressed the awkwardness issues with his awesome editing. The irony issue... I've fixed the wording here, but we discuss many of the other ironies at the end of the article, such as this "motor" structure now proving to be involved in cogntive and language functions, as well as how people who have lost their cerebellum seem to function so well. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:*Anatomy: This section is generally quite good, but I would really like to see a lot more wikification - more links!

• Thanks! I can wikify a lot of the links here, but I haven't becasue they would mostly be redundant (i.e., "motor cortex" was already wikified earlier in the article) or self-referential. Suggestions? Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

These are just things off the top of my head, not the only things that can be fixed. Try to read these sections out loud and see how they flow, and you'll get what I mean. In my opinion, if this stuff is addressed, this is a featured article. I hope you guys tackle other neuroanatomy projects. Interested in brain stem, basal ganglia, or frontal lobe? Mr.Bip 05:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, if you check the talk page, you'll see basal ganglia is my next project! :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Support - A lot of the jargon has been left untouched, but I understand that this comes with the territory. Maybe I'll take a stab at explaining a few terms over the next few weeks. Still, this is quality science writing, folks. Keep up the good work. Mr.Bip 04:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• For my future projects (most immediately basal ganglia), I will try to keep the jargon to a minimum. Nearly all my experience with this is in relation to colleagues, so writing for a general audience often does not cross my mind. Always write to your audience. Thanks for the help and advice. Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support - still a bit heavy on the jargon, but I'm assuming thats unavoidable when dealing with a subject like this. Despite that, however, it's resonable easy to read, and very interesting even to a layman like me. Awesome illustrations. WegianWarrior 03:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. See my comment directly above yours regarding the jargon. I'll work on it in this article, and I'll keep it to a minimum in future writings. Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support. This beautiful effort by Semiconscious and Nrets is fully deserving of Featured status. It is well written, explains unfamiliar technical and scientific concepts clearly, has good diagrams (some drawn by the two editors themselves), and is reasonably well-referenced. The section on cerebellar dysfunction can perhaps be expanded — I particularly expected to see some allusion to the seminal work of Gordon Holmes — but still, one would not expect a treatise on the disorders of the cerebellum in what is a general encyclopedia article; I will see if I can round it out in the next few days (as it stands however, it should not be a reason to deny FA status, IMO). The reference section can do with a little cleaning up — inline references in the text are currently of the Harvard form, and link externally, whereas there is a preference on WP for intext notes that link to references, as I understand it. This is not very difficult, Semiconscious, I could show you how to Scratch that, I think I'll just wander over and patch it up for you. Some technical terms are not defined when they first occur (or linked to an article that defines them). For example, ipsilateral occurs at least twice, but I cannot see an explanation of what it means anywhere (link such terms to this article guys). I'm glad to see reference to some of the work being currently done on the cognitive functions of the cerebellum. However, the concluding sentence of the article is misleading. You might see this in the lower mammals, but in the human, getting relieved of one's cerebellum is not an altogether pleasant experience - the pancerebellar syndrome is not fun, and is conspicuously disabling (although chronic lesions often have muted effects). Would you consider removing or editing it? Kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ  04:14:18, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

• Thanks Encephalon. The cerebellum is not my "specialty" in as much as I can be said to have a specialty, so I'll have to look into some of the works you've mentioned. The sentence in regards to the pancerebellar lesions was indeed misleading... I'd written it but it didn't come across as I had intended to write it. And as I head over there to rewrite it, I see you've just corrected my error. Thanks. In regards to the anatomical location terms, I tried to cover that with a blanket "link here for help with anatomical terms" link at the top of the page. I'll be sure to follow the format you've offered in the future. The references look really good now, too; I like the separation of the general reference books into a "selected readings" section. You've done this wikipedia thing before, I see. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Really nice effort. I changed 2 headings in hope of clarity; change them back if you think they are less clear. alteripse 16:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• I hope you don't mind I edited your post to bold your support response. This is for my own clarity so I can parse users' responses as I check this page, to see if I can make any improvements to the article. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to replace the MRI (which I find blurry and difficult to use) with Image:Human brain NIH.jpg (take the picture, highlight the cerebellum, reupload and put it into the article) →Raul654 01:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• I took your suggestion and replaced the image. I left the old one as well because: I'm still partial to it, it shows techniques that scientists use to study the cerebellum, and it fills up some white space next to the TOC. Nrets 15:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender

A very good and compherensive article. --Member 16:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Has no picture, a long article, but not worthy of being a featured article IMO. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 23:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

  Articles need not have a picture to be featured. That objection is thus invalid and your vague "not worthy" is inactionable... 119 19:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

  I'll be more clear. It is mostly a synopsis, very little production content. I don't think it is best to show the world this article as what wikipedia strives for. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 22:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

  But when the subject of the article is a television show, there is little reason not to include a screenshot or two. The relaxation of the requirement is intended for articles where an example image would be difficult to obtain or create, even when you take fair use into consideration. slambo 19:25, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) There are no images. 2) Cite your sources. 3) The lead section is too short for an article of this length; it does not adequately encapsulate the entire article. 4) Too much of the article is devoted to episode synopses while not enough is discussed about the program's development and production. 5) There is some discussion about what influenced this show, but I don't see anything on the show's perception in or influence on modern culture (compare this article to other featured articles about television shows such as Blackadder or Dawson's Creek). slambo 19:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Cannot be both stable and comprehensive. The listing of (vocal) credits should correspond to the list of significant characters, as much as possible. And I do not believe that any article about an animated work can be viewed as satisfactory if it does not identify and discuss the animators at an appropriate length. Monicasdude 23:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

History of South Carolina

This is a bit of an unusual case. This article was promoted previously, but there was controversy. Some people thought it amounted to gaming the system. As a compromise, I said I'd renominate it here. First nom, second nom. →Raul654 17:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Well-written article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Overdependence on only two references (only one of which is a history) -- this verges on being a summary of a single work. Are there no topics in South Carolina's history that would benefit from more than one interpretation? As a sidenote, I find the whole business with the quick renomination rather distasteful, and hope that we can avoid allowing such things to take place in the future. - Bantman 18:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support as previous--it's a well-written and cogent article, though I can see the problems that Bantman has with the low number of references. Meelar (talk) 19:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Was the territory named after the ship that finally made it to the continent or was there some other reason for calling it Carolina? The text isn't really clear on this point. slambo 19:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  Fixed. It was named after the Latin form of Charles I's name. Toothpaste 20:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks. Now that I've had a chance to read the rest of it, Support. slambo 19:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Support I'd prefer more references, but I think this is worthy of being a featured article Tuf-Kat 21:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Object- besides the low number of refs, I still stand by my previous objection that the lead section is too long. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Eliminating the last paragraph was certainly a bold move. While the lead is still (IMO) long, it looks better now. Also, the last paragraph that was deleted was a summary of "current" South Carolina, so it may not have been appropriate for the "history" article. However, I still would like to see more refs (along with the appropriate addition of facts and expansion) and some in-line refs would be nice. In addition, the "Recent" section, IMHO, should be trimmed down- we really don't need that much detail about lotteries and college scholarships that are irrelevant to South Carolina's history. Otherwise, I stand by my comment last time that it's a well-written article on its way to FA status. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Still support: I'll be happy to work with Toothpaste or anyone else in addressing the lead issue, as it is long. (Actually, it's not so much long, IMO, as it is sutured. The seams need to be obscured somewhat from its first and second incarnations.) As for the renomination, the author had nothing to do with that. It's purely procedural and done by Raul. I also think that the two references are not the only two sources of information, but they are the sources of information that required a reference, so I wouldn't object to that, myself. N.b. I've not edited the article, that I recall, except once on its first nomination, to do a little copy editing. Geogre 00:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I like it, and it is as FAish as at least half of our FAs. Func 08:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Still support - it's a very good article and definately worthy of FA status in my opinion. However I do agree that it would be even better if other sources were checked, but that doesn't alter my vote nor my high opinion of the article -- Joolz 18:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support Phroziac ^(talk) 19:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support.Conditional object: tons of efforts are seen on post-war history, however the amount of photos and images is still inadequate and I wonder if no photos can be put onto the current events section? I'll support if more photos are added with at least one of them in the current events section. (well, as it says, current events, can anybody go and just take a picture?) Deryck C. 12:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC) The amount of pictures have increased and the arrangement of the article is good. I've no more opinions to object this as FA. However, adding more pictures can make this a better FA. Deryck C. 14:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Added a picure to the Recent events section. I'm looking for one on desegregation relevant to South Carolina, but there appear to be none on Wikimedia. Toothpaste 17:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Sorry I didn't see this before, but I agree with Bantman, two sources is just (very) inadequate. In addition there is no citation of any kind to show what material came from what sources, so verification is made much more difficult. - Taxman ^Talk 22:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, maybe object - I agree with Taxman and Bantman on this. I am also assuming that the external links were used as resources. If so, it may be best to place them in the reference section. As for the more recent events, I am assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that the sources are from news media rather than the listed sources. If so, please note them using inline notations. Pentawing 23:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't use the external links as resources. Toothpaste 23:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, how about the last point I brought up? I need this clarified and resolved before I can change my vote. Pentawing 01:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't use the news media as a source, though the sources I used might have. Toothpaste 01:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, what I need to know is the source of the section concerning recent events, since I am currently under the assumption that the listed sources didn't cover the entire thing. Some statistics might warrent inline citations since that would make it more difficult for a vandal to change the numbers and have no one noticing it. Pentawing 22:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Economic booms and busts, Desegregation, and Recent events come from Siglas, Mike (2003). South Carolina. Emeryville, CA: Avalon Travel Publishing. ISBN 1566915457. Edgar, Walter B. (1998). South Carolina: A History. Columbia, SC: USC Press. ISBN 1570032556 was used for events prior to those, and both were fact-checked against each other. Toothpaste 22:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, can you then use inline citations for the statistics (especially for the scholarship passage)? Otherwise, I can't support this article without questioning my own judgement. Pentawing 23:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Better? Toothpaste 00:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Object. The history is not properly balanced: important topics are treated cursorily, and recent events of no great moment are treated at length. In particular, the treatment of nullification and Calhoun are exceptionally superficial. Nullification is a key issue in American political history, and framing the matter as "John C. Calhoun decided . . ." without even a suggestion of Calhoun's importance or the back-history of the issue should be unacceptable. The relative size of the slave population to the white population in the early 1800s should be treated in more depth. The discussion of the Indian Removal Act, requested in an earlier FAC, is too generic, and gives no substantial information about the impact on the state. There is no discussion of desegregation of primary and secondary public schools, which, according to one of the websites referenced in the article, was more contentious than the article indicates. The discussion of recent events is far too long for the relatively minor events actually reported, and should be more comprehensive. The last paragraph, devoted to a lunatic fringe group's self-proclaimed plans, without any reason to believe the plans will bear (bitter) fruit, takes up more space than "the state's mishandling of the Hurricane Floyd evacuation in 1999," an apparently substantial matter mentioned only in passing, or the Abbeville education lawsuit, an entirely ignored matter despite its great importance. In terms of details, I think that the article's description of a British military strategy in the American Revolution as a plan to land troops in (Spanish) Florida and march north to corner George Washington is . . . more than a little curious. The discussion of the Fort Sumter battle is longer and more detailed than the rest of the discussion of the Civil War and its impact on the state. I don't believe the problems with this article can be resolved in the FAC time frame, but require extensive attention.Monicasdude 03:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support thats stronge than Monicasdude's strong object. What an immature vote. However I haven't seen him support any state history articles FAC. I think its fine with things like the Fort Sumter being longer as that was probably the biggest part of SC in the Civil War. There were no really important battles there, were there? It should be the most important part. Anyways if I were to address every concern I'd probably make a three paragraph comment which would get so long no one would bother reading it... So I'll just sign now... Redwolf24 (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I was going to let this comment speak for itself, but I came across a profile of an novelist recently which makes the relevant point far better than I would have: "Kate [Wilhelm] wrote about her first [writers'] workshop experience: she turned in an ambitious story and had it shredded. The man sitting next to her turned in some trivial fluff and got gentle, kid-glove critiques. After the workshop drubbing, Kate went down to the nearby stream and threw rocks at the water as hard as she could, until she realized her fellow workshoppers treated her story firmly because they respected her and felt the story had potential." Monicasdude 21:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support! Great article. Long lead sections are good. Andre (talk) 18:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, while Monicasdude's comments seem a bit vociferous, the article does seem poorly balanced across time. For instance: one sentence for "Throughout the Colonial Period, the Carolinas participated in many wars against the Spanish and the Native Americans, particularly the Yamassee[2] and Cherokee tribes" and a full paragraph on disputes over video gambling. This problem exists because the first three periods of the history have been broken out to substantial subarticles while the later periods have not; breaking out a couple more subarticles for the later periods and culling some of the ephemera would fix this issue (and also bring the article closer to an ideal size). Christopher Parham (talk) 18:53, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

There is a bit of backstory here, spread out over several talk pages. Several members (not all, and not the self-nominator of the article) of an FAC-promoting wikiproject have made strong and disparaging replies to previous comments I made describing the faults of articles in general terms and calling for more extensive details. However, providing details produces an equally hostile response, as shown here. The underlying problem, as I see, comes from the relatively low standards the project applies to substantive FAC criteria, and the unwillingness of some members of the project to accept in practice the FAC guideline that proponents of a nomination are "expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised." The tone of such responses is quite unfortunate. Monicasdude 23:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the dispute over FAC criteria should carry dispute to this article. Deryck C. 13:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support - well written and informative article. I was able to read this and learn things about a subject which, previously, I had no knowledge of. That, to my mind, is an indicator of what articles should be. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Extended content

Support comprehensive. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC) I'm going to stand by my original nomination of support. See the second nom (I think it is) for my reasons; they still stand true today. --JB Adder | Talk 05:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Object, the section on Desegregation is totally inadequate and misleading. To suggest that desegregation in South Carolina went smoothly, even in comparison to "hot spots" like Mississippi and Alabama, ignores the incredible efforts that South Carolina's white elites put in to their attempts to undermine the Supreme Court's order to end seperate but equal facilities--they were prepared to spend 75 million dollars "equalizing" facilities rather than desegregate and African Americans who led the movement in the State lost their jobs, were assaluted, had their homes destroyed and forced to flee SC for their lives. There is also no mention of Briggs v. Elliot, the case from Clarendon County that began the legal process that culminated in Brown v Board or of the fact that the majority of South Carolina's schools effectively remain segregated today. --Sjappleford 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC) Strong support. Well written article. Per the opinions I stated in the previous nominations. Deryck C. 08:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Object. First off, I still voice concerns about the references, since there are only 6 for the entire 43 kb article, and for that matter there are only 6 inline citations through the entire article. Second off, it is comprehensive, but by the point left by Monicasdude, the article is slightly too comprehensive in the wrong areas. A lot of that falls in the Recent Events section, which goes into a 5 paragraph summary of Hodges governorship, but stops abruptly upon reaching 2002. An addition, images and lead section should both be succint. And finally, the reference subsection under the Desegration part has to be fixed. AndyZ 22:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

See discussion of FAC archive errors SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Belgium

This is more or less a selfnom. But the article existed before and many participated in particular for copyediting. It grew to 41K a bit larger than the 40K Australia and South Africa FA but much less than the 53K of People's Republic of China. The length of this article is due to the difficulty to obtain a NPOV on Belgium which is a controversial country submitted to strong separatist trends. The balance must be always sought between the different communities and ethnic groups -- whose very existence is controversial to some extend. This article had already been featured. You can find the reasons why at

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belgium/archive1

It was later on removed. You can find the reasons why at

Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Belgium/archive1

It was reedited to reply to the critics and submitted to peer review. The comments are listed at

Wikipedia:Peer_review/Belgium

I think all critics have been taken into account.

• support of course --Vb 13:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The history section is too long and should be trimmed. The culture section is a collection of too-short paragraphs that should be combined into a couple longer paragraphs. Is there a reason the Main article: Economy of Belgium summary style isn't used here? The references also don't really look very satisfactory, especially without inline citations. Do we need the non-English names for all the provinces in this article? It's ugly, distracting and not very useful, and should be kept at Communities, regions and provinces of Belgium. Tuf-Kat 16:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • History: I think an alternative to the present version is the quite good article on Belgium at the US dpt of State [1]. One could easily wikify this but I really think wikipedia can do much better and bring more links and infos than that. I think the present version is a summary of the history of Belgium which is just a bit more expanded than this. Making it shorter would make it less good.
  • Culture: I personnaly think it is easier to read like it is. Do you think it would be nicer if litterature and cinema were merged. I think it would be ugly.
  • Economy: could you be more precise? Why don't you like the style used?
  • Provinces: Your last point is easy. I agree with you. It is addressed now--147.231.28.83 09:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object -- my comments in PR on Demographics, History and Culture aren't addressed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Your comments have been addressed in part. Could you precise a bit more what in your opinion is still to be done.--147.231.28.83 09:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I said to summarise the history. Reasons of wars etc and lists shouldn't be mentioned here. Also the subheadings under the culture section are out of the ordinary. Yes, it may help a reader but it is not recommended and not used in any other country article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:51, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • OK. I'll try to improve that.--147.231.28.83 07:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• VERY strong oppose - I recently listed this article to be removed as a featured article, which passed with little argument. This article has not been improved in any way, and still lacks competely when compared to other featured country articles. The images are awful, the history is terrible, the government section is mostly lists. It actually takes a little gaul to list this article so soon on FAC after being removed with so few changes. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What you say is not true. The article has been thoroughly re-edited since the removal of the FA status. Look at its history. Some example: the history and culture section have been utterly rewritten. References have been added and all numbers appearing can be checked from the inline references. Much has been done in the style with numerous copyedit and the NPOV has been really ameliorated. How can you say the figures are awfull! It is maybe a matter of taste but I believe your comment is strongly biased. --147.231.28.83 07:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Call it strongly biased if you'd like, however, I pretty much wrote South Africa and was a large contributer to Hong Kong, both two country featured articles. I know what it takes to get there, and Belgium isn't anywhere close. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 16:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

OK It is not necessary to quarrel. All people here seem to be your opinion so, since it was my first trial, I think I'll try later on. Cheers. --147.231.28.83 08:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Notre Dame de Paris

Partial Self Nomination - Well written and referenced, with plenty of high quality images. Not too long, not too short.--Primalchaos 18:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Partial Support - It's very well written, but the paragraphs are kind of brief. It could benefit from longer descriptions, but if other users don't have a problem with this, I will support it. - PRueda29 - 15:48 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Object - Expand the paragrpahs. The article has great potential but its paragraphs are too short. Fix this and I'll support it. - PRueda29 - 17:28 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Mild oppose. While this could be a great article, I think it needs to be expanded. As it is now, the sections read more as factoids. Develop and expand the sections.--Alabamaboy 16:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It is a good article but it still needs some work. There are a few too many lists. The significant events bullet point should be merged into the prose history sections. Good articles do not have a miscellaneous trivia section, these points need to find a home elsewhere in the article. Something also need to be done with the statistics and in the media lists. There are also several important omissions. For instance there is no coverage of the long controversy over the cathedral in post-revolutionary France, or the campaign led by Victor Hugo that eventually saw it restored. The Lead is also somewhat too short. - SimonP 16:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comments. The first photo needs to be rotated a little. A good way to expand the article would be to add some close-up photos of the three portals, and discuss their symbolism; from what recall, it was very interesting, and the interpretation was not at all obvious to me as a non-Catholic.--Bcrowell 04:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article just doesn't read well. Huge amounts of information need to be grouped into larger, better paragraphs instead of the numerous subsections in the current version. The use of Notre Dame in the media is surely a lot greater than two movies and a video game? Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 16:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal from the Order of Canada

Self-renom. Ok, I figured it should try to get this going again. Just like with my Appointment article, some of the sections will be a bit wordy. I will go through that and fix it. Plus, only two photos are used and both are under CanadaCopyright. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Previous FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Removal from the Order of Canada/Attempt 1. WegianWarrior 06:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to mention that. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Support, however I feel that the images (Image:Order Canada seal.png and Image:Ahenakew 1976.jpg) should be given a fair use rationale. Otehr than that, well written, well referened. WegianWarrior 07:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. I mainly said that those are the most free images we can use in the article or even find online. I cannot find the seal image anywhere else except for the Canada Gazette. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Object Why isn't this integrated with the Appointment to the Order of Canada? Tony 10:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I've had a look at the 'Appointment' and 'Removal' articles, and still think that they should be merged. I read the opening paragraph of 'Removal' and made two grammatical corrections; please get someone to go through the whole article and correct the prose. I'm sorry, I can't bear to do it, because I think these awards are so much poppycock, and should be trashed in every country. In view of my bias, I suppose that it's (note your incorrect usage below, Zscout) only fair that I withdraw my objection. Tony 00:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I can fix the grammar, since that is something I can fix. But, as I mentioned before, this article was put up for merging and that request was denied. The main Order of Canada article is 30 kb long, which is getting close to being "too large" under Wikipedia rules. If I sounded harsh or unreasonable, I am sorry, but I respectfully ask if either you or Raul can strike out the objection by using <s> and </s>. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Both articles are forks of Order of Canada, which is also has the FA status. The Appointment article discusses the whole process of getting into the Order and examples of certain people having unique examples, like Rush, Wayne Gretzky, and Gordon Lightfoot. In this article, two people got kicked out of the Order and my main point with this article is how it can be done, what a person has to do in order to be kicked out and short sectionson the two folks who got removed from the Order. But, if you mean why both articles were nominated at different times, I was told I cannot flood FAC's and both articles are completely different in their own respects. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, the article was put up for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Removal_from_the_Order_of_Canada, suggesting it should be merged to Order of Canada, but the VFD failed since I made the article into it's current state. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I also left a note at Tony's talk page: [2]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Trinity test

I find this article very well written and meticulously cited. While it is a bit on the short side, there are exemplary pictures that add substantially to the content of the article. Moreover, this was a significant historical event and should be given due notice. Eszett 12:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. No "after" pictures of ground zero.
  2. No mention is made of instrumentation used to record the test.
  3. You really should work a link to rainout into the last paragraph of the "preparing the test" section.
  4. No mention is made of the actual yield.
  5. No mention is made of the window-breaking effects of the explosion.
  6. No mention is made of the reaction of area residents to the explosion.
  7. No mention is made of the fallout effects of the test (ruined photographic plates in New York, for example).

  --Carnildo 07:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Re #1, The article already had a aerial photo from 1945, and a photo of the site today. I've added a 1945 photo of two men standing in the crater.--Bcrowell 18:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the lead section needs to be lengthened and better written. --Oldak Quill 11:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object
  1. This sentence needs to be rewritten: "For the actual test, the plutonium-core nuclear weapon, nicknamed the gadget, was hoisted on the top of a 20-metre steel tower for detonation — the height would give a better indication of what the weapon would be like when dropped from an airplane, as detonation in the air would maximize the amount of energy applied directly to the target (as it expanded in a spherical shape), and would kick up the least nuclear fallout." I didn't rewrite it myself, because I wasn't sure what it was saying. Maybe the thought would be clearer if it was broken up into several short sentences.
  2. I agree with Oldak that the lead should be longer.
  3. I agree with Carnildo about the need for more discussion of the instrumentation (even at a basic level: photography, seismometers, ...?) I'm guessing that the lack of information about the public reaction was because there was not much public reaction: the announcement came after the bombs were dropped on Japan, which meant the war was over, and people were a lot more likely to be interested in that than in the fact that the bombs had previously been tested. But anyhow, this should be made more clear in the article, and from the discussion on the article's talk page, it looks like that's going to require more research.

Carnildo's points 5, and 7 seem to hint that he has relevant information, so Carnildo, could you point us to the information? Re point 3, I assume there was no rainout, since the test was done in a desert, so I don't think the link would be relevant. Re point 7, I don't think it's physically plausible that this would have happened; this may be an urban folk tale.

This is a great article that's marred by only a few flaws, and I'd be happy to change my vote to support if the issues about the lead and the instrumentation were fixed.--Bcrowell 17:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The source was a book I read a few years ago called "The Day the Sun Rose Twice". I don't have access to it anymore -- those are just some of the things I remember from it. --Carnildo 19:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Demographic transition

Good article on an important topic in human geography. 70.57.82.114 03:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It needs sources, the copyright of the images needs to be clear. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, good article, may be a tad too short, but does indeed need sources. Phoenix2 05:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As Phoenix2 said, it is well written and a very interesting subject, but a little short. Detailed summaries of stage 1 and 4 (to me the most interesting stages) are necessary. At the moment it simply covers the process of the transition, are there many theories related to it? Are there any examples counter to it? Any cultural references to it? Does the theory have a history? (an example containing no truth: "The works of Aristotle contain the first known reference to a notion of 'cultural transition'"). --Oldak Quill 12:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• VICIOUSLY STRONG OBJECT. This article does a pretty crummy job for a FA. There's almost no description of anything important. And there's no way that an article can possibly be feautured if it doesn't include all the important parts (1, 4)... and the sections on 2 and 3 are too short. There's also no description or even a mention of stage 5 (which Russia is entering), where population starts to decrease because of an ever-lowering birth rate (and as the population ages, a corresponding rise in the death rate). No way in the world should this come within a mile of FA status as written. --Matt Yeager 23:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Detail stage 1 and 4 like you did stage 2 and 3. I'd also like to hear about this stage 5 that Matt there says exists. Way too short to cover a topic that's as important as you say it is. Also, I see there's been no discussion on the talk page at all... seems pretty odd for an article wanting to be an FA. Has this gone through peer review at all? Give that a shot before nominating something, please. I know it doesn't always help, but it could have at least caught the fact that you really need more sections. Fieari 21:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Pan American World Airways

This article, about a legendary American airline, has gone through peer review twice. I have attempted to address every concern that had been brought up. Is there anything else that is needed or is this article indeed worthy of FA? Pentawing 02:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe just a little more emphasis on the importance of the Lockerbie bombings. Did the airline's sales suffer? Have they been involved in the court process? I don't know, but I'm asking as this is probably the most famous terror attack on a plane besides the 9/11 attacks. Harro5 04:01, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I made a notation about Pan Am being a target of terrorists. As for the other questions, the article did implicitly say that the airline's sales suffered as fewer travel agents booked flights with Pan Am. I recall reading somewhere that there was a lawsuit, but I can't find any legitimate sources to back that up at the moment. Pentawing 06:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, now I found a source concerning the lawsuit and noted it. Is there anything more that is needed? Pentawing 07:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support Looks good, accurate, and reads well. PRueda29 15:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Turku

This is pretty much a self-nomination. This article about the oldest city in Finland has been through peer review, and I've tried to address all the issues raised there. I think it should by now be of featured article standard. Comments? - ulayiti (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Weak support -- I'd be happy to fully support if the article is properly copyedited by another user. Some sentences do seem a bit odd. (no offence meant to Ulayiti, but it will be a little hard for him to spot, as he is the primary author). =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Object at the moment. 1) The lead section is small. It needs to be expanded. 2) Incorrect use of subheadings. You've used a single ===subheading=== under a ==heading==. I suggest you promote the subheading to a heading, or merge the subheading contents under the heading. 3) The economy, media and culture sections should be expanded to twice its current length 4) What reference do you have for those figures in the =demographics= section? 5) height above sea level (47m?), breakup of religions is absent. I'll support once you take care of this. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• I've expanded the lead section, as well as the economy and media sections, now. I've also merged some of the sections with subheadings. The demographics are from Turun kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja (the final item in the references list). The breakup of religions is not measured in Finland. I haven't been able to find a figure for height above sea level (the city centre is very close to sea level since it's on the coast). - ulayiti (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

**It looks better now; but I would still like to know from where you've sourced the statistics on a) Language breakup on people b) per capita income, unemployment rate etc. in the economy section and c) a source which states that the Turun Sanomat has 70% of the readership. Use {{inote}} to format references as inline.
I've also noticed that the page has some more free images from wikimedia commons:, which can (and should) be included here. (PS. At this moment, the official site does not open.) =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Object on a few small issues that should be easy to address. (1) The recent history is pretty weak, did WWII have any impact on the city? (2) Are there any images with appropriate licences that could go in the later section of the article?--nixie 07:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've included some more images from commons now, as well as putting in some {{inote}} references (as requested by User:Nichalp). I'll look up some recent history in the library tomorrow (the Internet isn't exactly being helpful). - ulayiti (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Recent history proved quite hard to find, since most books written on the city's history only cover the Middle Ages (and maybe up to 1800), but I've now included something there. All the objections raised should have been met now. - ulayiti (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The additions look good, the article could still use a good copy edit.--nixie 12:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland

Partial self-nom. I am quite proud of this - a very comprehensive and NPOV take on a fairly controversial subjects. Has been through a Peer Review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I think this is fundamentally a strong article, but there are a couple of items I'd like to see refined before the article is promoted to FA status:

1. evolution of Nazi thought on management of the ghettos: Christopher Browning's The Origins of the Final Solution argues that there were distinct schools of thought on the ghettos before the Endlösung became policy, economic exploitation vs. elimination by neglect and therefore attrition
2. some reference to the Auschwitz trial and the identification of the victims in the Polish politics of the time
3. some history of how Poland has treated the sites at Auschwitz (including the archive and research center there) and the remains of Operation Reinhardt camps, as these were on my understanding always public institutions

I'd also point out that the numbers of Righteous is skewed by the fact that the Danes, who had the greatest success of any occupied country with preventing the deportation of their Jewish population (this, of course, also had a great deal to do with geography), generally only accepted collective recognition. The remark about the number of Righteous accordingly seems insufficient given the difficulties of establishing a basis for comparison. Buffyg 23:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately our resident specialist in this area, User:Goodoldpolonius2, is away until the end of this month. If you can be bold and improve this yourself, I'd appreciate it - this is not my area of expertise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I can address the issues from Browning on the ghettos. Don't know if I'd be too bold in addressing the others. I will get to this in the next few days. Buffyg 23:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Tnx. Don't be afraid of being to bold - I am sure we can reach a consensus in talk, if there are any problems. We did manage to reach quite a few consensuses here before, I am sure this would not be different. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:Ghetto Uprising Warsaw2.jpg appears to be under a license of "no commercial use". This is an unacceptable license for Wikipedia.
  2. The image Image:Kielcepogrom.jpg is tagged as both "fair use" and "public domain". This needs to be straightened out.

  --Carnildo 06:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • None of them is essential. I guess there is no choice but to remove them - although I will try asking for permission to use them under GDFL licence in the meantime. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Wow, is the vote over already? What a shame, this should have been able to pass with a few changes. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Palladium

This article thouroughly desribes the major aspects of this chemical. It meets the criteria for feature articles and so should become one.

• Object. The article--let alone the lead--is way too short. In addition, the article has only one reference. Because the article is so short, interesting facts and events are only mentioned in passing. For example:
  • "In 2000, Ford Motor Company created a price bubble in palladium by stockpiling large amounts of the metal, fearing interrupted supplies from Russia. As prices fell in early 2001, Ford lost nearly $1 billion U.S. dollars."
  • "The element played an essential role in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, also known as cold fusion."

In my opinion, a Featured Article would go into much more detail on both of these items (along with similar areas throughout the article).--Alabamaboy 13:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Should there be some kind of restriction on nominating articles that are obviously too short? Phoenix2 17:36, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The one reference mentioned clearly doesn't contain anything like all the information provided in the article. Other references are needed. Some inline citations would be nice. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:57, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
• Object. It doesn't mention "everything" and isn't very long. This is a regular article that is so-so. Featured articles are examples of Wikipedia's very best work. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church

I am nominating this article as a featured article. It is well-written and packed full of factual, verified information. 66.32.97.69 21:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. Lead section is too long, and there are no references. JYolkowski // talk 22:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. See its talk page - many people believe it may be NPOV. No references section either. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object As stated above: 1) the lead is too long. 2) Cite your sources. 3) There are too many single sentence paragraphs and a few single paragraph sections. 4) The writing seems too POV against the organization. slambo 01:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Must object. For starters, Image:WestboroBaptistChurch.jpg has no copyright information, the other images (while having copyright information) ought to be tagged properly, rampant POV and weasel words all over. I do realise that this is a subject that is hard to be neutral about, but I'm also sure it can be done better than it is at present. WegianWarrior 06:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object Writing style is not up to par here. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Aside from the irreparable NPOV problems, there's the erratic spelling. Monicasdude 00:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This topic matter is given space and detail far out of proportion to its actual significance, which I believe is a violation of NPOV. MrVoluntarist 03:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, trolling. The article has been nominated for deletion by the same IP who nominated it here, who there describes it as "far too long, has little to no references, mostly opinion, negative point of view, bad spelling, poor grammar". Most amusing, can it be removed now, please, Raul654? Bishonen | talk 00:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm removing this waste of time from the list now. Bishonen | talk 08:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I retroactively concur →Raul654 19:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Flag of Belarus

Self-nom. Just another Belarusian article that I worked on and sent through Peer Review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support -- acceptable now Object at the moment. The matter does not flow well. I would like to know about the present flag meaning, but I have to read a lot of the history before coming to it. The history of the flag is also fragmented. Once I finish reading =Use of the flag since 1991= , I would like to know why the flag was changed; but instead, I have to scroll through section after section to come to that information. Also, having information in brackets in the lead is odd. Information presented in brackets digress from the subject, whereas the lead should be clear and continous. Also, what is the meaning of the colours, are they the same as the 1951 flag, and what material is the flag made of? =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • While I am going to rewrite everything you ask, I have no clue what flags in Belarus are made out of. While I do have two 1995 Belarusian flags made in my possesion, I have no clue what material they are made out of. However, if I take a guess, it could be a cheap silk, maybe rayon, maybe cotton, maybe something else. I fixed the 1991 heading and made it to read 1995. I will try to fix the brackets and I added the meaning of the colors. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Just a comment, because I don't know a lot about this, but as I understand it the main question surrounding the two flags is that of nationalism and by extension the fascist association of the old flag. So the two flags have distinctly different lineages, you might say, with one (the current) representing continuity from the Soviet era and the other representing a return to the symbolism of the Civil War and WWII nationalist/fascist periods. Obviously this has deep political implications and represents a major political divide in Belarus. My point is I'm not sure this article gets at that issue sharply enough, having read through it, although it does deal with it somewhat. But it is well-written and fairly comprehensive. Everyking 08:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite right, I too was thinking about the same thing after I logged off. =Nichalp «Talk»=

I tried to make the article dicuss the political issues the main focus of the article, but if yall allow me, I can make a fork to dicuss the main political issues of the flag. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

USS Liberty incident

Well-researched, well-written, NPOV article about a relatively little-known, but important subject. ——Preost ^talk contribs 12:21, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• no Article still seems to be evolving, not in stable state. Gzuckier 15:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Article still not stable, and regularly subjected to POVing by partisans. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Jayjg , this article should have undergone a peer review before coming here. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• object a) some key elements are not sufficiently described. For example, the congressional enquiries are only covered from the critical point of view, some kind of "NPOV description" of at least the key ones is needed. b) there are a number of crucial documents referenced with direct links only. Given how volatile this subject is likely to be, proper references including author/date/summary/key points used etc. are needed. This applies particularly to the transcripts and interviews which are used in ways which aren't fully obvious from the text. Some form of footnoting system, e.g. footnotes or invisible references would help considerably Mozzerati 21:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Mild object. Need more sources and info, such as more details on this tantalizing item: "Captain William L. McGonagle, the USS Liberty's commander, received the highest U.S. medal, the Congressional Medal of Honor, for his actions during the incident. However, his medal is the only CMH not to be awarded by the U.S. President in a formal event." Why wasn't it presented in a formal event? If the editor addresses the concerns listed here, I will support. --Alabamaboy 01:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object for the reasons above. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

DualDisc

This is a resubmission and a self-nom. Myself and all the people who worked on this article and submitted comments during the first round of FAC comments have made this article a shining example of the type of article that every Wikipedia article should strive to be.

Original comments from the first round are here. All objections from that round were resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

• Support. Mirror Vax 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not stable. In terms of the relatively short life of the subject, much of the information is already obsolete. The article also does not adequately describe the problems with potentially incompatible hardware (e.g., the details in the linked Pioneer alert notice). Monicasdude 13:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • From my talk page: "I don't want to seem too negative, but I don't think you could put anything in the article that would overcome my main objection, which is that the article can't be both comprehensive and stable, as required by FAC guidelines. The situation, for lack of a better word, is developing fairly rapidly -- I saw, for example, a "recent developments" article in the new ICE magazine this week. To oversimplify an analogy, I wouldn't support any FAC for an article on "The 2005 baseball season," no matter how good it was, until the season was over. FWIW, I also think the SACD discussion is out-of-date, given Sony's pullback, and there's a reference to a November 2005 article that I assume is misdated. Monicasdude 17:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)"

• Just to clarify a bit: I think this is an excellent piece of work. The way I read the FA guidelines, though, it's too soon to be possible to write an article that meets the stability requirement for this technology. The Sony pullback I mentioned is an example of this, with that matter becoming clear, as I recall, only a few weeks ago. Monicasdude 20:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

DualDisc

This is a self-nomination. I'm nominating this article because I feel that myself as well as the others who have contributed to it have made this article an example of the style and concisiveness that every Wikipedia article should strive for. DualDisc is a new and exciting technology and will probably prove to be an interesting read for many Wikipedia readers. Please feel free to leave comments. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 03:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Object The ASCII image needs to be replaced with a real image, I think. Additionally, it feels like it might not be entirely comprehensive, although I'm not really conversant with the subject. Have you tried a peer review? Fieari 04:10, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks to User:SPUI, we have an image to replace the ASCII art. --K1vsr (talk) 18:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Good image, I like it, but the article still seems a little short. Here are some specific things I think could concievably be addressed:
      • Who designed it?
      • You mention it was put out as a marketing test, but by who?
      • Who conducted the test itself?
      • The technical details are a little skimpy... the crit section describes how there were design considerations with space and such. That would go well in the Tech section, in prose form instead of list format. This will require reworking the crit section somewhat, obviously.
      • Manufacturing warnings. WHAT warnings have they issued? What's wrong with using DualDisks in those systems? How catastrophic are those warnings? Will it damage a machine, or just not work?
      • The article in general feels a little short, and like there's more to be said. When these points are addressed, there might still be information to be added that I haven't thought of yet. Obviously, an ephemeral statement like "needs more" isn't actionable, but when these points have been addressed, hopefully what more it needs will be more obvious.
        • All these points have now been addressed. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 15:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a good start, but needs a bit more work for FA status. Fieari 01:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • Except the last one, which is admittably vague. I'm not sure what this article is lacking now, but it doesn't feel up to the same quality as our other FAs, mostly because I still have this nagging feeling that there's more to be said. I just can't put my finger on what though. I'm changing my object to a Neutral though, until I can actually name more things that can be improved. I'm definitely happy with the improvements made so far though. Fieari 05:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - it is almost totally lacking an introduction. →Raul654 06:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I expanded the introduction quite a bit. If there's more you think it should have, please let me know. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 13:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Introduction looks good now, but it could use some inline references. For example, when I saw that sentence about the possible patent infringement, I expected a link to click to get more information. →Raul654 18:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have now added an inline reference for that section as well as a list under the references section. --K1vsr (talk) 19:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• K1vsr asked me to read over this. I'm going to vote neutral for now - it seems good but slightly disorganized. I'll come back to this in a few days and if I haven't figured out why I feel that way I'll probably change to support. --SPUI (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I have a few problems with this article. But my chief concerns are:
  • The comparison with hybrid Super Audio CDs is not detailed enough - details of this are important because such discs are potentially a major competitor. Specifically a technical comparison would be appreciated. The way I see it these two disc types are two approaches to the same technical problem - how to provide enhanced audio content on a disc that is backward-compatible with traditional CD players. In this way a comprehensive discussion of the technology should offer a technical comparison of the two technologies (though obviously more detailed discussions of Super Audio CDs can be left to that article).
  • The article should explain how spherical aberration may affect playback on slot-loading systems and why deeper pits help get around this.
  • The article needs to include typical sampling rates for the DVD audio content and should also mention that traditional CD encoding is 16-bit stereo LPCM at 44.1 kHz for comparison.
  • It does not reference the patents concerned (link).
  • The article links to the Super Audio CD article through a redirect and hyphenates the title against common usage.
  • The manufacturer warnings are not cited.
  • The apparent downside that disc can have no label and thus are difficult to distinguish between outside of their packaging is not discussed
  • Dual-sided DVDs (DVD-10, DVD-14 and DVD-18) that seem an obvious precursor to this idea are not discussed.

Cedars 11:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• All points have been addressed. Thanks for your comments. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 00:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the work. I have reviewed the article and crossed-out the points I am satisified were addressed. I still believe there needs to be more discussion of Super Audio CDs and a discussion of how spherical aberration relates to problems with DualDiscs. Cedars 04:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• OK I made all the further changes that you requested. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 19:09, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Good work on the changes again, however I'm still not satisfied with the explaination of hybrid Super Audio CDs. They work because the wavelength of the laser in audio CD players is longer than that of the high density players. As a result the laser of audio CD players passes through the high density layer but is reflected by the reflective CD underlay. You can find out more about the process on page seven of the whitepaper. At a minimum this information should be added to the article. Other comparisons including those on market acceptance and the availability of players would be welcome. Cedars 10:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• I did some further re-working of that section. Let me know if you still think it needs something else. I left out any mention of market share between the two simply because there don't seem to be any hard statistics yet on SACD sales vs. DualDisc since it's still a relatively young technology. There are plenty of sales figures about SACD vs. DVD-Audio discs, but that's not relevant to DualDisc. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 16:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Good work! I am now satisfied with the technical content of the article. I will let you know if I think of any more improvements. Cedars 02:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• object (small) to improve the style I used Wikipedia:Footnote3/numlink2note.pl to convert external numbered links to Wikipedia:Footnote3 style references, however, in the process I discovered several broken links for which I couldn't get bibliographic information. These should be replaced with appropriate references which are available. Incidentally, this shows why direct external links are a bad idea. If there was a proper reference, I could probably have fixed some of those links for you myself. Mozzerati 19:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the formatting change. It looks great. I updated the links to point to new references and updated titles, etc. accordingly. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 13:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I updated the references and improved their formatting. Cedars 01:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

This is one of the best written biography articles. Conforms to NPoV and is based on solid fact. Brings out the major points and summarises the not so major ones. Has lots of interesting info.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Self nom. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now - it would be nic with more inline citations of historicaly important information, and the section 'Role as wartime Prime Minister' has a tag on it requesting expansion. Fix that, and I'm likely to support. WegianWarrior 12:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you mind specifying this objection a bit? Just "more inline citations" is difficult to amend. I assume that you by now have read my take on the question of footnotes as well. Peter ^Isotalo 03:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as I can tell, there is no inline citations at all in the article - thus making it hard for me to verify the information without reading thru all the sources listed under referneces. May I suggest the system of {{ref|<name>}} and {{note|<name>}} outlined at Wikipedia:Footnote3. I've been using it in articles I've written with good effect. Use of inline citations are an aid to verifiability, which is imortant for Wikipedia. WegianWarrior 09:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Winstonchurchilltimemagazine.jpg needs a fair use rationale. The {{TIME}} tag only covers use in an article describing that issue.
  2. The image Image:Chrost.jpg needs source information and a fair use rationale. It's a particularly famous photograph, so fair use can easily be justified. I think the original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia, [3], has information you can use to track down the source.
  3. The image Image:Church5155.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  4. The image Image:Ac.eisenhower2.jpg is claimed under fair use. It isn't essential to the article, and should probably be removed.
  5. The image Image:ChurchillFuneralProcession.jpg needs a fair use rational. Alternatively, would it be possible to replace it with an image that doesn't have a watermark scrawled across the middle?
• Also, the "trivia" section should probably be eliminated, with the information from it integrated into the rest of the article. --Carnildo 19:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• yes, miscellany section needs merging into main body; "churchill as historian" needs subheadings; and "role as wartime PM" could be expanded. Image issues also need fixing. On the TIME image - {{TIME}} indicates use "to illustrate the publication of the issue in question", so the magazine issue should also be mentioned in the text. Quite close to FA but no cigar just yet. Rd232 23:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. Fails to adequately describe Churchill's role in post WWI Anglo-Irish negotiations; implication that his role was pro forma treaty signatory is misleading. Monicasdude 16:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object -- the trivia should be integrated within the text. I see no reason why we should have Churchill's cabinet members etc. here, move it to another page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• This article is tagged with {{expansion}}, which is utterly unacceptable on a featured article. Either the tag needs to come out, the section be expanded, or both. →Raul654 22:39, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada

I hereby nominate this article for Featured Article status. This article clearly explains Canada's constitutional monarchy: How it started and how it works. Monarchy in Canada is a subject that many people are unfamiliar with. For example, many, if not most, people don't correctly understand the relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom. This article really has the has the potential to be a great main page article. That's all I have to say about that! --Mb1000 02:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The images Image:Queen canada throne.jpg, Image:Queencanada.jpg have no source or copyright information.
  2. The image Image:HM-tablet.jpg has no copyright information.

  --Carnildo 07:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Support I think that this is an excellent article and well deserving of featured article status, but the copyrights of those three images definitely need to be addressed. Once that is addressed, I will support. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 17:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The images Image:Queen canada throne.jpg & Image:HM-tablet.jpg have been tagged as {CanadaCopyright} and {promophoto} respectivley. For the third image Image:Queencanada.jpg I'm am requesting information from the person who uploaded it. If no information is found on this image, it could just be removed from the article. --Mb1000 19:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It is a good article, but still needs some work. It lacks a references section, which is required for a FA. The formatting also needs some work. The article over uses bullet points. Wikipedia articles should be prose not lists and the mass of bolding in the first paragraph is ugly. The "Royal visits" section needs more content than a single link, there certainly needs to be some content on the major royal visits in this article, perhaps in the history section. The point counterpoint arrangement of the "support and opposition" is also not ideal. It would be much better to merge the two sections and go by issue. - SimonP 01:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Object - Should undergo a Peer Review first. -maclean25 01:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object - I agree with SimonP's reasoning. The article contains interesting facts but should be rewritten in a more encyclopedia-like style. Mwalcoff 03:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Michael Thevis

The vast majority of people don't know who Michael Thevis is, but he was one of the major players in the organized crime scene of the 1980s that also included the cocaine boom. His association with Ed Wood also makes for some truly bizarre trivia. (Self nom)Mistergrind 01:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment – The headings are not formatted properly. Please read the WP:MoS for details. 2) Single paragraphs in each heading do not make a FA. Expand the paragraphs. Ref to peer review. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:43, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

OK, can you comment on the article now?

Support. Very nicely written. I had no real problems with the article. --Matt Yeager 06:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Object Further Reading/Sources Cited is confusing. Please cleary identify what references where used (as Wikipedia:Cite sources requires), this is a tiny article so you should be easily able to use Wikipedia:Footnotes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Support. I thought it was good. --Matt Yeager 23:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

It appears as though the article was deleted, so I started it up again. Got some really good sourcing and will continue to work on it. Feel free to pitch in, anyone. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brave New World

Education in the United States

I have worked a lot on this article (self-nomination) and I feel its time to bring it here. It has an excellent reference section and sources to back up figures, and it has seen peer review thoroughly (see the talk page for two lists of issues which were corrected). As far as I know, this is pretty close to perfect and as comprehensive as it can be. Of course, I would still appreciate suggestion.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Object: The article contains some boring lists in the level/grade section that should be worked into prose. The article also has several major style errors like links in section titles. Scott Ritchie 00:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I corrected the one instance of a link in the section title. As to the list (which I'm not happy with but seems community consensus keeps in place), isn't "Kindergarten consists of..." pretty much just as boring? Never mind, I changed it up some. I think all of the relevent info was already in the article, I just added a summary on Junior, Sophomore, etc. designations, what do you think? And to what other major style errors do you refer?--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:Deltonkelloghs.jpg is claimed as "fair use". Since there is no particular reason to use that specific image in the article, it should be replaced with one under a free license.
  2. The image Image:Bayloruniv patneff.jpg is claimed as "public domain". It really should have the source listed so that it can be verified.
  3. The image Image:Harvard05commencement.jpg is of unclear copyright status. The copyright status needs to be clarified, or it needs to be replaced by an image under a free license.
  4. There's no mention of homeschooling.

  --Carnildo 07:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

How about now?--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• The source website for Image:Bayloruniv patneff.jpg has a very nice copyright statement at the bottom: "Copyright © Baylor® University". There's no evidence that the statement does not apply to the image in question.
• The coverage of homeschooling is still extremely inadequate.

--Carnildo 06:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Homeschooling is not important and is not a major part of the education system. It doesn't deserve expansive explanation. And really what would I say?--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Homeschooling accounts for somewhere between 2% and 5% of all primary and secondary education in the United States, and is a very complex subject. It deserves something more than the current slightly-POV brief paragraph. --Carnildo 23:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object Except for the section comparing private and public schools, the article is written with an underlying assumption that all students are public-school students. There are multiple places where statements are made that imply or state that certain things appply to al students, when in fact they do not necessarily apply to non-public school students. For example, the article reads "Under the No Child Left Behind Act, all American states must test their students statewide to ensure that they are achieving the desired level of minimum education." The No child left behind act does not apply to private school or home-school students. The amount of supervision each state exercises over private schools and home-school students varies widely, this should be discussed. Home-schooling rates more than a brief mention. It would be nice to see some mention of the (albeit rare) arrangement of Middle School (6-8 grade), Mid-High School (9-10 groade) and Senior High School (11-12). There should be some mention of the large role played by extracurricular activities, especially sports. Dsmdgold 23:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed your concerns. I added a paragraph for homeschooling and a section for extracurricular activities. However, as the Census Bureau points out that less than 5% of students are homeschooled, I don't think it deserves much more discussion within the article than the paragraph. Public schooling is at 85%, after all.naryathegreat | (talk) 01:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Please read Homeschooling and reconsider your paragraph, especially the discusion of motivation for homeschooling. The statement "Children educated at home are not required to meet any public standards (i.e., standardized testing), and their parents are not evaluated by the state." is quite simply not true in the majority of states. I have removed it. Some discusion of the amount of oversight states excercise over private schools, and homeschools is still needed. Good write up of extra-curricular activites. An additional concern, the paragraph on sex education is distinctly POV. Dsmdgold 04:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Object: I think this is an excellent introduction to the American educational system. However, no article on a topic of such breadth is going to meet everyone's demands. For my part, here are a few ways I think the article should be improved.

1. I think your separation of K-12 education into K-5, 6-8 and 9-12 is too rigid. True, that's the most common setup in my experience, but I have seen all kinds of schemes (from a district that goes K-2, 3-4, 5-7, 8-12 to a rural district that's K-5, 6-12).
2. Calling alcohol a "destructive substance" is POV. It is potentially destructive.
3. I have never a heard of a state that probihits people from leaving school until they are 18. I don't doubt that such states exist, but how many are there?
4. I believe the U.S. is unique in that high-school and college students do not work toward passing an exam (except in AP classes). In Europe, generally, the entire point of taking secondary-level classes is to pass an exam, such as the British GCSE. The non-existence of national exams should be mentioned with some prominance, as should be the use of coursework grading as the usual method of judging student performance.

Alabama has a statewide high-school graduation exam, passing which is a prerequisite to graduation. Funnily enough, it's only been about six years since the level of this exam was raised to an eleventh-grade equivalency. Previously, the material was at an eighth-grade level. Oh, isn't the world a funny place? Anville 19:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

1. I don't think most states consider counties to be "municipalities," so you should use the term "local government" instead in the community-college discussion.
2. I think you should better clarify the fact that unlike in many other countries, religious schools do not receive direct government funding for general education.
3. You should consider putting the term "so-called" before "school choice," since it is one of those political euphemisms.
4. The phrase, "Today, sex education in the United States is patchy at best and nonexistent at worst," while probably true, is too POV. There are a lot of good sex-ed teachers out there.
5. Not "every person pays property taxes." Only owners of real property do.
6. You should consider mentioning that in some states, school taxes are subject to referenda, which increases the difficulty in raising funds. This is unique to the U.S.
7. I think the following sentence is misleading: "Some states have a statewide school system, while others delegate power to county, city or township level school boards." I've never heard of a statewide school system. Perhaps every state has a state school board, but none of them actually provides the education. Note that in many states, school-district boundaries do not necessarily reflect local-government boundaries. Mwalcoff 07:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hawaii operates a unified public school system. Judge Magney 13:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. Broadly speaking, I agree with the comments raised above. Articles with mild but pervasive POV, which I think applies here, can be a pain to fix. It's nice that the article has a "References" section, but we definitely need more footnotes or parenthetical citations in the text which tell which reference was used for a particular piece. Anville 19:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Strong object. Too many of the discussions of substantive matters are superficial and inadequate. The suggestion that "circus families" represent a paradigm for home schooling is ridiculous (and empirically unfounded). I doubt that "most" high and middle schools actually have programs for "gifted" students, and have seen many reports that such programs have been steadily eroded by fiscal constraints. The section on "special needs" students is unsalvageably misguided, and shows no familiarity with applicable laws and practices. The comments regarding the relative quality of public and private colleges are unsourced, and show little more than the author's dubious opinion. The history section is particularly vacant, missing, among other seminal events, the Land Ordinance passed by the Continental Congress. Having said all this, it is essential, for fairness to the author/editor, that the standard of quality applied to featured article candidates involving American governmental functions and institutions has been erratic at best, and in general astonishingly lax; too many resemble high school term papers turned in to undemanding instructors. This article is no worse than several existing "featured articles." The standard needs to raised. Judge Magney 13:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

What people like you have to realize is that articles can't grow indefinitely. Eventually, you have to say "well 45k is long enough" and that's all that's necessary. What do you mean the special needs section is unsalvageable? And most high schools have honors courses, if you think otherwise, you are misguided. I think you are obviously prejudiced, why would quality in American FAs be particularly lax?--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:05, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I said the special needs section was unsalvageably bad because, inter alia, it does not include any reference to the governing federal legislation, manifests absolute ignorance of such fundamental notions as mainstreaming, least restrictive environment, and IEP, and shows no familiarity with the many sorts of identified disabilities that now trigger special education requirements. I also note that the article has been sanitized with regard to racial disparities in educational opportunities, and that the "history" section includes no references to racial segregation in American education, of the Brown decision and its aftermath. The sections of the text concerning governance and funding show not a trace of recognizing the distinction between independent and dependent school districts (the former have independent taxing authority; the latter must have their budget levels approved by other local authorities with general governmental powers). This is an exceptionally bad article, a poorly informed selection of peculiarly chosen comments that never achieves genuine coherence. In that regard, its brevity may be its greatest virtue. Judge Magney 03:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Suburbs of Johannesburg

• Support – But I still think it needs a table. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Rossrs 10:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Minor point: Please spread the pictures out more throughout the article. They are all bunched up in the history and innner city sections, with the rest left blank. Harro5 09:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have spead out the images as much as I can so that they are placed in their relevant sections. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 19:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd like to see a section with list of sububs, and a few word description of them, possibly in lead. They should be linked to relevant article/section. I know lists are usually looked down here, but in this case I think it would be very useful - I would like to be able to easily check info on given suburb when reading the article, and currently I can do it only by using browser find function. The article is comprehensive, but not as functional as it could be. Nonetheless, I am impressed by Pall continuing work on the SA-related articles. Good work! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your suggestion is quite impossible. There are a good 2-3000 suburbs in the city, which would make a list several articles long. Take a look at Category:Johannesburg suburbs. Now that's only four out of 11 regions! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 19:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional object - Please format notes and references per Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style. Not enough info as is (retrieval dates esp needed). Also, things like "Hostels are another[15] feature[16] of Soweto." are jarring. Please in almost all cases put all cites at the end of the sentence behind the period. For example: "Hostels are another feature of Soweto.[15][16]" Other than that, pretty darn good. Aside: It might be better to combine all the region articles into one article instead of having so many stubs. --mav 17:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm back from holiday, and now everything has been fixed that you mentioned. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 18:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Um, are the suburbs completely devoid of Sport, cultural attractions, "Notable Natives", and the many other topics of most community articles[4]? EG does the climate or geography between the various neighborhoods vary? Also, other than a brief mention in the intro, there doesn't seem to be much about how these areas are governed. Consider this a support vote if these issues are answered, as the article seems great, as far as it goes, but any article that raises more questions than it answers seems less than an FA. I hope that the final resolution to this can wait until Páll is back from holiday--I can certainly understand the need for breaks from Wikipedia. Niteowlneils 02:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with some of your comments, and I have tried my best to include more information. However, I think this article should be an overview of all of the suburbs, and then more detailed information should be provided on individual suburb pages. Unfortunately, I can't address every concern since I'm not around my materials as I did not bring htem with me on holiday, however, if you would consider supporting the article with the knowledge that I will address everything when I get back? Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 19:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, consider expansion on "gold reefs", or resolving the redlink. I initially assumed it was related to oceanic reefs, but when I read they contributed 'dust', I realized that assumption must be faulty. Please remember some readers are quite ignorant. Niteowlneils 02:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Sesame Street

Hi all, this is a self-nom, though dozens have contributed to and revised the article. Anyway, it's a notable topic, pretty definitive article, and of international significance thanks to syndication in 100+ countries at some point or another, and many local spin-off productions.

• All of the images have been properly tagged, so far as I'm aware of. I've avoided publicity photos and other fair use images, in preference of screenshots. Sadly, there's very few non-merchandise images that could truely be free, as the set is closed to the public.
• The article has been under the scrutiny of peer review three times amd FAC twice (29 Sep 2004, 26 Oct 2004), all of which should either be found on the article's talk page, or in the recent peer review's template.
• If more references/notes are needed, please state which areas are of most urgency. I've not bothered with extraneous references, as very little of the content can be disputed.
• Finally, the article doesn't fit with the Wikiproject Television template, but I created that template a few years ago, just to fill in some spare time, and forgot it existed. I'll be eventually revising the Wikiproject to better suit what's really the best format for an article.

Fire away! -- user:zanimum (PS, my goal, even if I don't get the article featured in this round, is to have the article as the November 8th featured article on the front page, the same goal I had for the first two nominations.

• Object. It's nice to see that all the images are properly tagged, but since every last one of them is "fair use", the image description pages need to include an explanation as to why use on the Sesame Street article constitutes fair use. See Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for information on what should be included, and Sunset Boulevard (film) for a particularly good example. --Carnildo 21:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object. Most of my points were cleared up in the recent peer review, but I'd just like to see all the pics spread out better in the article. They seem to bunch up in sections, with all text in others. I feel its a better look if they are distributed evenly. Thanks. Harro5 22:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I like the article and the only thing that concerns me about the text is that there is very little discussion of the educational element of the program. Considering that it's such a cultural icon, I'd like to know more about how it influenced future children's programming, as well as some expansion on the educational side of it. ie what do its supporters consider it does very well, what does its detractors consider it does very poorly. Also the comments about educational value need to be taken out of the section covering urban legends etc, as that trivializes it. With regards to the images, they're great, but 15 is too many for any article. They really need to be culled as they make the page look very busy &ndash perhaps appropriately for a Sesame Street article :-) - but images, especially fair use images should be used sparingly. Rossrs 05:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Agree with Rossrs, more discussion of the educational element. The mearchandising section is a little short as well and has many red linksAlso need some debate on the shows current health drive (eg the Cookie Monster now advocates cookies as an "occasional food", political correctness gone bananas in my opinion). Zerbey 02:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: It's obvious that a lot of research and a lot of effort has gone into this article, and I'd be pleased to see it as a Featured Article. Sesame Street is an icon in the educational television industry. Would it not be worthwhile to expand on the content in "The Muppets" and reorganize it so that it does not appear so cluttered and disorganized? In an encyclopedic article of such prominence? RogerK 01:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Just a note, the new content on Elmo's controversy, I didn't write that, and it's got valid content, but not written completely POV. It'll be worked on...

---

Martin Guerre

• support. I fell on this article by random. It was very instructive to me. --131.220.68.177 10:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No reference, no photos, no inline references. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above. Can unregistered users vote? Phoenix2 15:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, they can. They can also nominate IIRC. But if all the above by Jerry is true, it's not going to get through anyway. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:15, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• I have converted the "Further reading" section to "References". I feel confident doing this because any modern English speaker's knowledge of this case almost certainly is derived from the Davis book. The Finlay and Davis articles are obviously the sources for the discusion of the two historians views. I doubt there is a contemporary picture of Martin Guerre, but I will attempt to get the Davis book to see if it has a public domain image that can be used. I see no need for inline references. Dsmdgold 23:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Walt Disney World College Program

I am proposing a "self-nomination" for this article because it is a full length, very well written, and neutral piece of work that meets the criteria for a featured article. (If I do say so myself) Taken from personal first person experiance, already several other people have contributed to it and it has grown. There are also quite a few supporting pages created that are well done. --Shifter55 19:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object - A reference section needs to be added (a must for FA). Second, try to minimize the use of lists and increase the amount of prose. Finally, the image does not have a copyright tag (though the source seems to be noted), though to me it looks like a logo. Hence, you should use the {{logo}} tag. Pentawing 23:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd love to support this article since I went through the program once (I was a lifeguard). Unfortunately, the article is rather dry and boring, even for one who went through the program. I agree with the above comment that references need to be added; enough media articles and press have been done about the program to make this possible. In addition, the article should list well-known people who went throught the program. First-person descriptions of the work and program, along with quotes, would also help.--Alabamaboy 00:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Panama Canal

Self nomination (though most edits under former username: Raskolnikov The Penguin). This article was a fac afew weeks ago, referred to peer review, and sent through peer review. Now all coyright issues are worked out, and it is a comprehensive and up to date article on a very important waterway. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 17:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• It is disturbing how this worked; I saw your edit about the lake (just adding a word, it was about 30 minutes ago), I took a browse through the article and thought, "Hey, ya know, this article might just be FAC worthy. I wonder if it is" but I didn't nominate it right then because I'm the touch of death for FAC noms. ;) And lo and behold, here it is. Support. --Golbez 17:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• The old FAC nom is now archived here. The Peer Review is here. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• object a) there are some sources given, but it's very difficult to guess which reference to look up important facts in. Some form of inline references would really help. b) the problems stated(all the ships are to big to fit and there are too many ships going through) seem contradictory. Something should clear this up (maybe something like "although currently business may seem healthy, XXXX has predicted a sudden irrecoverable collapse in 10 years due to inadequate width and the arrival of competition") Mozzerati 19:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I did some editing on it and added some source links around the problems ections, and also cleared up the seemingly contradictory problems. But can you elaborate on what you mean by inline references. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 22:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Support-- I enjoyed reading the article, and I found no real reason why it shouldn't be Featured. Although the above issues due need to be worked out I am quite sure that it can be done before this entry reaches the bottom of the page. TomStar81 20:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object but has lots of potential. -- First of all, great article, however, there were some issues I noticed which could be addressed, then I'll of course reconsider. I want more information on the pricing scheme for the toll, it should be easy to calculate (so people know in advance). I found a few holes in your History section, especially concerning Nicaragua over Panama. See this whole site, lots of great info[5]. What is Panamax? The term should be defined explicitly. I'd like a good map of the overall layout of the canal, showing the S etc (the pictures linked from S-shap could probably be cropped and put in the main article). Image:Panama Canal MK1888 kl.png is absurdly small. Otherwise, great work! -- Rmrfstar 23:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I added some info on the toll: price by TEU, and what a TEU is. That site proved very useful and was used to elaborate upon the history, also changed Image:Panama Canal MK1888 kl.png from 200px to 300 px, and added link to Panamax, which I just realized we had an article on. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 00:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Weak object, much better, but I think it can still be filled out more. I'd like to see a section on influence/impact etc. theres a great section on that in the link I gave you before. -- Rmrfstar 12:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now – 1) the table of contents are lopsided and badly structured. 2) Don't use capital letters in the headings unless a proper noun. 3) Inline refs are not formatted correctly. See Australia for the style. 4) There seems to be two spellings to Gatún. Which is correct? =Nichalp «Talk»=
  • I linked the references to the article, changed the table of comments and headings, and fixed Gatun spellings. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï
    • I've cleaned up the headings and units, but the inline references are still incorrectly formatted. I also feel the grammar needs to be tidied up. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:05, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - would like to support but I think there are a few flaws at the moment. A good map is essential, I think, and I am not sure I like the false colour computer-generated looking NASA image at the top - would suggest this one [6] as a possible alternative general canal view. It is not correct to say that before the canal, rounding the Horn was the quickest way to get from New York to San Francisco - Cornelius Vanderbilt set up the Accessory Transit Company during the California gold rush to take passengers by ship to Nicaragua, up the Rio San Juan, across Lake Nicaragua and then from the west coast by ship again up to California. A good proof read could be useful, I spotted several spelling errors. And particularly in the 'Current issues' section I would prefer to see less chunks of text taken from elsewhere and more paraphrasing instead. Worldtraveller 15:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I had to link Accessory Transit Company - please write the article: it sounds fascinating! -- ALoan (Talk) 16:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed the around the horn remark, paraphrased much of the info in the current issues section (except for quotes released by the canal authority), and added the sattelite pic. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 17:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Inadequate discussion of the significance of the canal, both commercial and military, when compared with alternative means of transport. There's barely a paragraph of anything between 1914 and 1999 — this is the topic that would most help in fleshing out this gap. --Michael Snow 18:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• I apologize for not presenting the problem section clearly. Next time I make a change to an article, I will edit it more thoroughly. crazysword20:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Denis Law

Self-nom (I've written around 90% of it) about one of British football (soccer)'s most notable players. It's been peer reviewed and I think it meets all the criteria (I could rename Notes to References if anyone objects but other FAs haven't). It would really be improved with a picture, but with Law's career having started in the mid-fifties non-copyrighted pictures of him are not easy to find. I might be able to get some screenshots or a book cover image as fair use though - comments about whether this would be good or bad are welcome.

If you have any objections, please detail them as clearly as you can and I'll try and sort them out while the article's still on FAC, and leave you a message once it's done. CTOAGN 12:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object Really needs pictures tbh, European Footballer Of The Year template should be at bottom, Notes are too small, no reference section. All should be easily fixable tho. (unsigned comment by PopUpPirate 18:25, August 11, 2005)

Support now, great work --PopUpPirate 11:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've renamed the Notes section. I've seen the page on a few different systems and strongly prefer the smaller text, but it did look a bit too small with some browser/screen setting combinations. I've increased it from 75 to 85 percent of normal size – does that look better? I really don't like long References sections at full size – they just seem to get in the way.

With regard to the EFOTY template, I think the most logical place for it is at the end of the article text and before the reference sections, as most readers won't scroll down to the bottom and will just miss it. Do you strongly disagree?

I'll see what I can do about images. I'll be able to scan in a book cover at the very least, although whether I can remove the text around the image seems to be a grey area. I don't think I can use the link that you left on my user page but I'll look into it. CTOAGN 22:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Life's too short to strongly disagree :D , but personally I'd put it right at the bottom, thats generally where navigation goes, just above categories. The image I sent you I personally reckon would be fine, it's deffo promo? Any probs with removing text around an image, email it us and I'll give it a crack on photoshop! --PopUpPirate 23:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

While using, say, a cover of his autobiography (or some other book) to illustrate is probably kosher under fair use, I don't think fair use allows retouching it to remove the text... you'd have to leave it as is. IANA copyright lawyer, though. Qwghlm 10:08, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've uploaded some screenshots under fair use. I'll have a go at improving the quality of them tomorrow. I think that's everything now. CTOAGN 01:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional object Apart from the mention of the '74 World Cup there isn't much on his international career (debut etc.), which is odd given he's Scotland's joint-top goalscorer. If you add some on that, and sort out the fixable minor problems outlined above (picture excepted), I think it's good to go. Qwghlm 12:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

His international career was less notable than you'd think, as Scotland didn't qualify for the World Cup from '62-'70, so it's not all that interesting. His latest autobiography just goes on about how he was disappointed not to qualify for each one. I've put the date of his debut in though. All the points raised by Pop Up Pirate have been dealt with. CTOAGN 01:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

International careers can still be interesting even if you don't qualify for a World Cup... in particular I'd like to see a reference to Scotland's 3-2 defeat of England in 1967, which Law scored in (what were his recollections? He must have been pleased with that). Qwghlm 09:04, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I added some stuff on the match you mentioned and the 9–3 defeat he played in, and mentioned that the match gave him more satisfaction than winning the league. There isn't much on his emotions during the match in his book - there's stuff on how he felt the Scots treated beating England as being more important than qualifying for tournaments but nothing that would really belong in an encyclopedia article. CTOAGN 15:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, that looks good enough to me - change my vote to Support. Qwghlm 18:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. All the images are under a license of "fair use". Since Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, the use of fair use images should be kept to a minimum. Image:Denis Law Manchester City.JPG and Image:Denis Law FA Cup Final 1963.JPG show pretty much the same thing, so one of them should be removed. Whichever two images remain need to have a fair use rationale included; see Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what should be included, and the image description pages at Sunset Boulevard (film) for a good example of how to do so. Also, if possible, try contacting Denis Law for an image under GFDL or a Creative Commons license. --Carnildo 06:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, in the first picture Law is playing for Manchester City (in a blue shirt), while in the second he is playing for Manchester United (in red). I think they're sufficiently different to both warrant inclusion. Qwghlm 09:04, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Iran

All Iran-related articles have been subject to a WikiProject for quite a while. I think it is time for all the hard work to pay off. Therefore, I am nominating this article. Newguineafan 15:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Object--no references section; the "Culture" section is little more than a list of links. Meelar (talk) 18:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Object per Meelar. In addition, are all those links to Iranian gov't sites really appropriate? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Azadidown.jpg is tagged as being a copyvio.
  2. The image Image:Iranmoney.jpg is claimed as "public domain". I find this unlikely: does Iran have no legal protection on images of its money?
  3. The image Image:Afrigha.jpg is claimed as "fair use". There's nothing particularly special about this image, so I don't think this claim is acceptable -- it's easy enough to create a replacement.
  4. The image Image:Tehran stcok exchange external view.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  5. The image Image:Iranparliament.jpg is claimed as "public domain". In view of the copyright questions surrounding other images in this article, I'd like some evidence to back up this claim.

  --Carnildo 21:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the lead should expanded somewhat; the politics section is overly long; the order of sections should be closer to that suggested by WikiProject Countries; a topics box like that in India] or Australia should be added to clean up many of the stray see alsos and lists; the external links are ridiculous and should be reduced; there should be inline references for statistics; the culture section is too short and should mention media in Iran. --nixie 02:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object – the article is incomplete. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not an actionable objection: it doesn't give any details as to what is needed to get the article up to featured quality. --Carnildo 06:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough: 1) Politics section is too long. 2) Images are not presented properly. 4) The provinces section creates a horizontal scrollbar at 800x600. The image should be reduced. 5) culture is incomplete. 6) the lead needs to be expanded. 7) external links should be pruned to topics which relate to Iran as a whole. 8) Is there a need for so many categories? 9) Inline references not formatted correctly. (see the discussion in Chennai below) 10) The history of iran template should not be there in this page. 11) no references 12) incorrect use of hyphens; use &ndash; instead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Proceed. When was the last time an article about Iran was featured? Probably never.--Nightryder84 04:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by proceed? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Proceed means I do not object.--Nightryder84 21:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• I Do not object.--Zereshk 18:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• I give two thumbs up! Why shouldn't we do this? I do agree that the links to the government departments are a little much and should have their own page. But that is no reason! THIS IS A FEATURED ARTICLE!!--Aytakin 01:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

John III of Portugal

Partial self-nomination. Underwent several improvements and Copyedit has been done. I believe it's now a fine article.--Gameiro 00:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object as before, only more so. The images Image:Order of Aviz.gif, Image:Lisbon 16thcentury.jpg, Image:Portuguese flag 1495.gif, Image:Macau oldmap.jpg, Image:Portuguese elm.jpg have no copyright information. --Carnildo 06:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Copyedit note. Come back after improvement drive is done with its work. Has potential, but there are too many short sections and tiny paras. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Much of the article seems to be written in present tense. Everyking 05:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Its looking very good now, I suggest everyone reconsider after the BioCOTW period is over. . Falphin 02:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Queen's Guard

Self-Nomination. Hopefully, this article is fairly comprehensive about the subject it covers. I've added several different reference links to it, so if there is anything missing, please feel free to add it. I do feel that this article would be a worthy addition to the list of featured articles. Hammersfan, 7/8/05.

• Object
  1. The images Image:Towersentries.JPG, Image:Oldguardnewguard.jpg, Image:Stjamessentry.jpg, Image:Queen'slifeguard.JPG are claimed as "fair use", but are also claimed to have been produced by the uploader. This is unusual: is the creator providing them to Wikipedia without it be done so under the GFDL or a Creative Commons license?
  2. The image Image:Guardmounting.jpg has no source or copyright information.

  --Carnildo 23:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object - (i) I'm sure there is more to say: for example, what does the Hounslow battalion do? What about other royal residences (say, Clarence House, or Windsor, or Sandringham, or Balmoral)? Is the "monthly schedule" only for July 2005, in which case what is happening in August and later months, or for the foreseeable future? Are there any other public duties (for example, the guard for the Ceremony of the Keys at the Tower of London is mentioned in passing, but a paragraph could be added here easily). (ii) The lead section is inadequate. (iii) There is no "References" section: presumably some of the "External links" are references, but there must be relevant paper references too. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have rectified the objections to the various images by adding the correct copyright template to each. I have also inserted the situations regarding the named royal residences, and added a paragraph, as suggested, about the Tower and Windsor guards. However, as this is not an article about public duties, but rather one about a specific public duty, I have not added anything about other tasks, as there is an acceptable article about public duties which I have linked to. I have also added links to the various articles explaining that the Hounslow battalion is simply another public duties unit, performing the same tasks as the two battalions of Guards. -- Hammersfan 16:48, 9 August 2005
    • • Neutral - thanks for the response: I think my objections are dealt with adequately, although the additions could do with linkifying. I still can't help thinking that the article could and should be better, but as I can't think of anything specific, I will not object. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Image:Queen'slifeguard.JPG is still tagged as fair use. Did you simply forget to update the tag, or is it really under fair use? Also, the license terms on Image:Guardmounting.jpg appear to be {{noncommercial}} or possibly even more restrictive: this is not an acceptable license for images on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 18:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have changed the licence on Image:Queen'slifeguard.JPG; yes, I did forget to change it as it happens. I have also removed the Image:Guardmounting.jpg image and replaced it with one from another source. Hammersfan 21:45, 9 August 2005
    • If the image Image:RCRbuckinghampalace.JPG is going to be used under "fair use", it needs to comply with the rules at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. --Carnildo 22:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I have added rationale to the Image:RCRbuckinghampalace.JPG image. I have also looked at the rules of Fair Use and am confident that it meets them. I have also added the {{AustraliaGov}} tag to Image:Guardmounting.jpg; I would prefer that this image be included, as it is of better quality than the other image, but am prepared to accept if it is felt to go against any licence agreement. Hammersfan 09:45 10 August 2005
        • Since {{AustraliaGov}} is a fair-use tag, Image:Guardmounting.jpg can be used under "fair use" if you can come up with a rationale. Keep in mind that "public domain" is a specific legal status, and does not apply to images or derivative works of images that are currently under copyright. --Carnildo 18:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lots of facts, but it's just not dazzling prose. The article needs more context and flavor, and less rote exposition of which units, how many men, and where they're stationed. How long has there been a Queen's Guard? Is it a prestigious assignment for a unit? Has the Queen's Guard ever been involved in a significant security incident (like say an assassination attempt?) The intro especially needs rewriting. The first half of the first sentence is OK, but listing the royal residences and stating which residences have mounted guards is material for the body of the article, not the intro. The intro should be a short, reader-drawing summary. Isomorphic 08:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Trafalgar

This should be WP:FA for 21 October 2005 which will be the 200th anniversary of the battle.

Has gone through peer-review:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Trafalgar/archive1
• Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Trafalgar/archive2

I believe the article is extensive and comprehensive. The objections raised in peer review was lack of references, but so much has been written about Trafalgar (and much more has come out this year) that a "further reading" section of suitable books is more appropriate. Dunc|☺ 17:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• It can be a featured article, but the main page featured article is not supposed to conflict with selected anniversaries (or In-the-News). →Raul654 18:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Where does it say that? I would have thought it a good idea to link anniversaries with FAs. Dunc|☺ 18:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, it's not written in stone or anything (none of the "rules" governing main page FAs are; they're conventions I choose to adopt), but that has been the operating procedure for quite a while now. The reasoning behind it is something like this: we already allot 1/4 of the main page specifically for historic anniversaries. It makes no sense, then, to have the featured article doing the job of that section (nor does it make any sense to have Battle of Trafalger linked prominently from the featured article, and then linked again from the selected anniversaries). →Raul654 18:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well I think it makes plenty of sense to do so where appropriate. The link of the date to the event is important in this case because of the tradition of Trafalgar Day. It is the 200th anniversary of Trafalgar and it's probably going to be all over the British press. A FA and anniversary would not duplicate each other, they complement each other. The anniversary section takes just two lines, and on 21 October also mentions four other events. The lead section on Battle of Trafalgar, as would be displayed on the main page is much longer and goes into a lot more detail. Dunc|☺ 19:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The idea sort of worries me... imagine a trend resulting in rather mediocre articles becoming FA in emergency mostly because of an anniversary; or more deserving articles not being featured because another "anniversary articles" gets in the way... I think that Raul's comments make lots of sense. Also, I rather like the idea of the encyclopedia being above as mundane contingencies as the news.

That being said, my feeling is that this article has lots of merits indeed. Rama 19:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that articles have any more merit because of their potential use as anniversary articles. Each article should be subjected to the same rigorous peer review before being featured. Neither should we get into featuring a particular article every year, just because it's on an anniversary. This anniversary won't come around for another hundred years (when it might be time to feature it again). And if I remember correctly, wasn't European Union a FA on an anniversary? Dunc|☺ 22:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going out on a limb here, but my I suggest that if an anniversery article is used as a featured article on its anniversery day it not be mentioned in the anniversery section? That would free up space for another event to be mention in the aniversery section. TomStar81 20:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries are selected based on relative majorness of the event. Since this is a very major event relative to what else happened on that day of the year, we need to have it as a selected anniversary. I also completely agree with Raul. Since the Main Page has such limited space, we need to absolutely minimize repetitive links and mentions of the same thing. Each section also needs to be stay distinct. --mav 17:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• object (light) ; I don't agree that the lack of references is justifiable just because references are common; the question is rather which reference actually was used to write this particular article. However, given your above position, I'm not going to call for proper references this time. Could you instead please fill in a bit more about what is covered in each of the further reading texts so that people know where to start reading for different areas.. Mozzerati 21:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't basically say what references were used because I didn't write the article. Dunc|☺ 22:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • worth leaving a message on the talk pages of major contributors asking for that information. Also it's appropriate to just give the references you used when you were verifying that it is reasonably correct before nominating, even if these are just the ones you originally learned about the battle from yourself. Mozzerati 06:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's an engaging article, worthy of being featured. I'm no history buff yet found it a very enjoyable read. Maybe a little bit more on the battle engagement itself would make it even better. Adidas 08:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. There has to be a proper reference section like with any other FA. I have no objection to a "Further reading"-list as long as it's kept fairly short and lists fairly general literature on the subject. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added a couple of references that I have used. The problem is that on a topic like this, there are so many books available and so many different editors of the page that it is impossible to know what everyone used. Its not as though there are a couple of standard references that everyone knows and can find. The library has shelves of books on Trafalgar (expanding daily in this bicentennial year) many of which tell much the same story. Dabbler 18:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

A very good article on the book that goes beyond simple plot summary. (Cf. Cry, the Beloved Country XP) There are some sections that are virutal duplicates of ones that appear earlier in the article. I'm hoping to go through and edit those out over the next few days as soon as I get the time. --User:Jenmoa 05:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support --User:Jenmoa 05:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Please do that BEFORE nominating, then. No reason to nominate it when it's not yet ready. Scott Ritchie 09:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object please refer to peer review, as there are still several items that need to be fixed. The lead is much to short, there are no references, and also no images. - SimonP 16:14, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment; Related reading section has movies in. Retitle section as something more appropriate? -shuri 09:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I am going to object on not just the basis of whats wrong in the article, but also the fact that you stated it in the summary. The article, however is good, and after a decent peer review will be worthy of becoming a featured article. Please give it a peer review, and then renominate it for support here. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Belarusian Republican Youth Union

Self-nom. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. On a topic that is unfamiliar to 99.9 % of Wikipedia's reader- and editorship, it is not possible to know that it is NPOV just a week after the article's creation. I strongly suggest that you postpone the nomination for at least a month so that the article can mature, especially since it is on a potentially contentious subject. So far, it has only been edited by the nominator. If you can get a few editors from be:Галоўная старонка and ru:Заглавная страница that are familiar with the organization, that would ease my fears. As to clearly-addressable objections; the article does not go into how the organization is structured at all. Where is it based, is it divided into chapters? How is its leadership selected / elected? How large is it? How much funding does it have? Is it free to be a member? Are there other organizations with similar goals that enjoy the same benefits? — David Remahl 05:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

As for other editors working on it, I do not think it is even possible. I, pretty much, will probably be the only person working on the article. Also, the reason why I placed it here is that the past few times I went to peer review, I was not getting anything on my articles because of the obscurity of them all. As for your objections (which, you do not need to apologize at all and you were not questing my objectivity, I tried to make it as NPOV as possible), they are valid. Yes, they do have branches and I will list the ones that are listed on the BRSM website. As for the actual scructure, I will also find that too. I do need to list the number of BRSM members, though the last figures I got were from 2003. While the BRSM is funded by the Belarusian Government, I do not have the exact number of what they got. I do not know about memembership details, but I can also find that out. I found a list of other such organizations similiar to the BRSM, but only the BRSM is supported by the government. The organization is based in Minsk, the capital of Belarus. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Lukashenko 2005.jpg is claimed under fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be avoided if at all possible. If a fair use image must be used, the image description page must list the source or current copyright holder for the image, and an explanation of why the image can be used under fair use must be provided for each page the image is used on. --Carnildo 06:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The current copyright of the image is © 2001-2005 Press Service of the President of the Republic of Belarus. The source of the image is at http://president.gov.by/ii/gallery/mrsh/2.jpg. I used this photo since President Lukashenko is wearing a ribbon, which is part of the "For Belarus!" campaign by the BRSM to promote patriotism inside Belarus. This also shows Lukashenko's support of the BRSM, a youth group created and sponsored by Lukashenko and his government. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The law cited in the "public domain" tag does not appear to apply to the image. It is not a formal document, a state symbol, or a work of folk art. --Carnildo 04:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will revert back to the fair use tag and claim. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object – I too feel that it should be allowed to "gather some moss" by wikipedians. A fresh article on a relatively obscure and potentially POV topic should be left alone for about two months before nomination. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:54, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • But, as I said above, the only person who would touch this article is me. While if yall want to check the POV out and see if the article is NPOV, I have sources from the US Government, Belarus Embassy in the US, President Lukashenko, the UN and the IWPR. While I still need to fix some things the first user brought up, and explain my fair use claims, I will try to add more content if I can find anything. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is, Wikipedia's strength comes from many eyes. If an article is not exposed to many eyes, and I fully believe you when you say it won't, then it is not "Wikipedia's best work". — David Remahl 07:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
      • And, the reason why it will not have many eyes because not everyone focuses on Belarusian topics. That was why I took it straight here, since I would have received nothing on peer review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Zscout, I've been in your shoes. I'd nominated Gangtok in January when it was absolutely brand new and I was the sole author. Despite having references etc., it failed then on the same count "too fresh", but I renominated it in May?June and it succeeded. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
          • Ok. At least when I run this a second time through, I should have most of my ducks in a row. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, I understand. It will probably get useful feedback here. But if people on the English Wikipedia don't focus on Belarusian topics, then they shouldn't be featured articles. Unfortunate, possibly even self-fulfilling, but true. — David Remahl 07:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
          • • I know before working on this article that there is a bias against Belarusian articles. The only FA article that deals with a Belarusian topic is the Hero of Belarus title, which I also started and built up. I got some attention, but mainly people inserting POV against Lukashenko. While, yes it is true that he has been declared a dictator by our government and by free Europe, the article was about the medal itself and its honorees. However, this article is about a youth group started and run by Lukashenko's government. While there could be more of a POV issue there, I tried to balance it out the best I could. I will follow Nichalp's suggestion and just give it a few months to let it gross moss. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object: no category, and too few ilinks (for example, the lead should link terms like youth group, moral values, propaganda, Lukashenko and several others. I also think that an article should be given a little more time, and go to peer review before FAC. Nonetheless, this is a good article, and I will support after the above objections are adressed. I would also like to take this opportunity to applaud Zscout for doing excellent job on Bielarus-related articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I added two categories, added some more ilinks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• comment currently the references are just URLs. It really helps to keep author/date/title/summary information, and preferably to say what has been taken from each. The reason is that it is possible for the contents at the end of your URL to disappear or change; if you keep biblographic information it's much easier to find the same material again later. Mozzerati 06:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I will fix that. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal from the Order of Canada

Self nom: another article fork from the Featured Article Order of Canada. However, as a word of caution: WP:WIAFA requirement 5 allows for FA's not to have pictures. However, because of this, I know it will not be Featured on the front page and I can easily accept that fact, mainly since the main article is featured. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've added the Seal to this page. -- user:zanimum
  • Cool thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Support It looks good, however I have a few problems, first I think a phrase needs to be bold in the introduction. Second I think the whole section about David Ahenakew became confusing. The last, very long paragraph needs to be seperated into at least two seperate paragraphs. And this sentence: "Ahenakew could be using the same tatic Eagleson used..." is speculative, who is speculating this? The Notes section should be renamed to accurately state the information it contains. Also where does ref 17 in Notes lead? --MechBrowman 17:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Ref 17 is supposed to be going to note 13, but I need to fix the templates. Second, I removed the sentece you discussed and I split the paragraph. I will probably go over the paragraph and write the whole thing. Also, what should be bolded in the lead section? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think either "honour revoked" or "formal removal process" would work --MechBrowman 01:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I bolded "formal removal process." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks good, but Notes section still needs to be renamed into something more appropriate, something that describes the content of that section. Ex: Other ways to leave --MechBrowman 13:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I can fix that. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- user:zanimum

Appointment to the Order of Canada

Self-renom. It failed before due to either lack or participation or because of my choice of photos. [7] Well, sadly, most of the photos I have found are either CanadaCopyright or an even more restricting license. Some, I can only find on Government websites. Well, let's see how this works out, again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. not well-written. This reads like the stuff I write in the morning before coffee kicks in. Example: "The other exception, which is not listed in the Order's Constitution, is that Canadians who are either politicians or judges serving in either the federal government or any provincial or territorial government. The Order is also not permitted to be awarded posthumously." Monicasdude 13:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reworded it as follows: "Canadian politicians and judges that currently hold office are also not eligible to be appointed to the Order. Membership the Order cannot be awarded posthumously." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

When an editor objects to an article, cites a general problem, and provides a specific example, fixing the specific example does not fix the general problem. I don't know how else to respond prudently. Monicasdude 17:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

While saying a general rewrite is a good idea, some people cite examples of confusing text. I will try to rewrite the whole thing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I rewrote the article, what do you think? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made examples of the kind of changes I think the text needs in the first part of the article. I think the writing needs to be more compact and more direct. Monicasdude 21:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you exposed a weakness of mine: I tend to make things wordy. Some of the material I removed are already present on the main Order of Canada article. I still have one more section to go, but other than it being too wordy, is there any problem you see? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't buy the idea that it took 13 years to find a date when Wayne Gretzky was free, but other than that . . . Probably a link to the Order's constitution, which is referred to, if it's online. (note: if/when my last concerns are met, I'll just withdraw the objection; I don't think it's appropriate to actively support without any real knowledge of the subject matter). Monicasdude 00:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Source of the Gretzky tidbit: http://slam.canoe.ca/Gretzky/orderofcanada.html. I have a link to the Order's Constitution at my references section (twice, actually). I just made it more noticable. As for other objections, just let me know what else you wish to be fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Stonewall riots

The Stonewall riots were an extremely important turning point in the gay liberation movement. The Wikipedia article on this subject is well-written and well-documented. Earpol 05:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Is it possible to find a picture? —thames 15:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review - also be more descriptive - how were the police violent? Did they beat people up in the street? It doesn't really go into this much in the history section. Also use footnotes too if you need it. Generally a lot of annoying voice and grammer issues too. --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Article isn't bad - focuses however only on gay men, while according to several reports both lesbian and transgender people were also not only present, but on the frontline of the fight. As long as that is the case, the article surely is not a feartured candidate. Also, the Legacy part is a bit small. -- AlexR 18:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• It needs a more detailed introduction. A picture or two would also be an improvement →Raul654 05:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Should probably have more about the Stonewall Inn itself: it was almost certainly Mafia-owned, and even as West Village gay bars of the time went, it had a very non-mainstream crowd (there should be something on this in Duberman, op. cit.). Also would be good to know what year it opened, what year it closed. As for pictures, at the very least it should be possible to get a fair-use image of a newspaper story. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cat

In the past this article has had some edit wars, likely because everyone wants a picture of their cat somewhere on Wikipedia, but those have been resolved. This article is very detailed, covers every aspect, goes into the history of cats, and has plenty of inline citations and references. Toothpaste 00:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral a good resource and an interesting read but the tone in some areas are not encyclopedic. Instances: "Virtually all...", "cats are very clean", "Indoor cats will also benefit from", "Cats enjoy many plants", "Cats are said to be 'the perfect carnivores'" Who said it? A reference needed. The diet, social and hygiene sections can do with some tweaking. Will support only after changes are made. Q: Does cats urine glow in the dark? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:21, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed the parts your first two quote reference, but I didn't write it, and I don't have reference material, so I can't say who said it. Having a cat, I could say that cat urine doesn't glow in the dark, if you're willing to accept my original research as an answer. Thanks for the commentary. Toothpaste 10:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • 1) I'm still not happy with the "perfect carnivores" claim. See WP:AWT. From what I've seen on Animal Planet there are many animals who can also dispute this claim. 2) "It should be cleaned daily and changed often (depending on the type of litter—clumping litter stays cleaner longer). A litterbox is recommended for indoor-outdoor cats as well." This reads more like a guide for keeping cats. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I found some of the parts relating to cat behaviour to be questionable. As I understand it the best interpretation of purring is that it is connected to calmness: a cat that is calm will purr automatically, but a cat that needs to make itself calmer (eg if it has been injured) will make itself purr to calm itself down, slow down its heart rate etc. This isn't mentioned in the article. Also cat signals through displaying its tail are not mentioned: tail straight up to indicate interest and friendliness, tail curled to indicate concern and questioning, tail wagging to indicate frustration and anger, tail down to indicate defensiveness. And nothing about the cat's continuing belief that to really make friends, humans need to smell their cat's rear end, and continuing bemusement when even the friendliest human declines the offer. David | Talk 11:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This is an interesting nomination in that nearly everyone believes themselves to be an "expert" by virtue of having loving relationships with their cats. That compells the authors to meet a higher standard than is required for other featured articles; similarly to a highly controversial topic (GNAA comes to mind), every claim must be stated in careful NPOV language and clearly referenced to a demonstrably authoritative source. Otherwise, loads of people will object to any old thing, or point out tidbits to add. Whether or not this is "fair", it is what must be done for this article to pass this FAC nomination, and rightly so. As for myself, I'm no "expert" (cats make me sneeze!), so I'll count myself out of this one and watch from the sidelines. Bantman 18:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Doesn't mention that they taste good. --SPUI (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Things that in my opinion need inline links to references:
    • "the oldest-known cat lived to age 36"
    • "There are 32 muscles in each ear and the cat can move each ear independently."
    • "Humans and cats have a similar range of hearing"
    • "Cats can judge within three inches the location of a sound being made one yard away."
    • "A domestic cat's sense of smell is about 14 times stronger than a human's."
  • Calico and Tortoiseshell is listed as a variety but the former is a redirect to the latter.
  • "...Some environmentalists claim" - what enviromentalists?
  • —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:27:50, 2005-08-06 (UTC)
    • Unless these are actually controversial statements without consensus among biologists, only the "some environmentalists claim"-passage needs a specific reference. Wikipedia:Verifiability is about making sure we can support our claims with decent literature lists, not to pepper our article with an excess of footnotes. We have a quite serious over-usage of footnotes in a lot of our FAC's. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not much of a fan of footnotes myself, but here I have to agree with Sig - these are facts that could reasonably be questioned or disputed by a good-faith reader of the article; therefore they should be footnoted. - Bantman 18:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • How can one reasonable question any one of the facts except the weasel wording "some environmentalists"? All of the examples appear to be perfectly straightforward statements of physical facts, the kind than can even be proven beyond any reasonable doubt with practical experiments. If biologists are not disputing any of these facts, then there is no need to use footnotes just because people might be too lazy to actually reference the sources themselves. Footnotes can be very disruptive to a text either by distracting the reader or making it seem more academic than it actually is. They are not intended to state the obvious; that's what we do in the actual text, which is then scrutinized in the FAC process and approved by community consensus. Even if I personally don't know if these specific facts are true or not, I consider it completely unreasonable to question them merely on the basis of my own ignorance. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Great article! Very thorough. --K1vsr (talk) 20:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

New Orleans Mint

Self-nom. I created this article about an important architectural landmark in New Orleans. I feel that I've made the article about as comprehensive as I can think of, and I've tried to provide many images to illustrate the important parts of the text. I think it's worthy of being a featured article. User:Absecon 59 05:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:NO Mint Booklet 2.jpg is claimed as GFDL. However, it appears to be a "slavishly accurate" reproduction of a two-dimensional work, and thus is not eligable for copyright. Further, the subject of the image may be copyrighted, in which case the only possible license terms would be "fair use" (which would be hard to argue: this image is not essential to the article).
  2. The image Image:NOmintpostcard.jpg is claimed in the upload summary as GFDL, but again, it is a "slavishly accurate" reproduction of a two-dimensional work. I don't know what the copyright status of the original is, but judging from the date, it's probably public domain. This needs to be sorted out.
  3. The images Image:1899O.jpg, Image:1898-OMM.jpg, Image:1898-O SD.jpg, Image:1846-O Quarter Eagle.jpg, Image:1855-O Half Eagle.jpg, Image:OMINTMARK.jpg, Image:1894-O-Eagle.jpg, Image:1852-O 20 Dollars.jpg have no source or copyright information.

  --Carnildo 06:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object -- Ref to Peer review – 1) No lead -- should be triple the current size 2) image sizes are huge and badly formatted 3) Presence of a long list at the bottom. 4) As far as I can see the article only deals with the mint's history. If this is the case then the title should be renamed 5) No references =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Object per Nichalp -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hatshepsut

Self-nom. The article is over the 18th dynasty Egyptian ruler, Hatshepsut. The article has been reviewed, at my request by otherss so it has undre gone a peer review. If featured this article will become Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt's example article. -JCarriker 21:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:Hatshepsut.jpg is claimed under GFDL. However, the source is stated as being a cropped scan of a book cover. The two statements are not compatible: if it's from a book cover, it can only be used as "fair use" unless the original artist/current copyright holder released the cover artwork under the GFDL.
  2. The image Image:Punt.jpg is claimed as "no commercial use". This is an unacceptable license for Wikipedia.
  3. The image Image:Hatshepsut in Civ4.jpg is claimed as fair use. However, I don't think it can be used under fair use in any article except one on Civilization IV.
  • In general, there is no reason to use "fair use" images in this article. Since the subject is over 3500 years old, there should be no shortage of out-of-copyright images. --Carnildo 22:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate your thoroughness and intentions in the first picture you are mistaken it is not a scan of a book cover, but a digital picture taken and edited by me. It have the idea, and I it was given to me by theresa knott I belive, that you cannot copyright a picture of a picture. Since the picture on wikipedia was taken by me and altered by me it should be able to be realease under the GFDL. I did not upload the Punt image or add it to the article, if you believe it to be a violation of policy please remove it. As for the Civ4 image, it is certainly fair use in the Hatshepsut article since the section is on her influence in pop culture, per her inclusion in Civ4.- JCarriker 03:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

A digital picture of what? In terms of copyright law, there is no difference between a "slavishly accurate" picture of a book cover and a scan of a book cover: they both are ineligable for copyright. The copyright status of the original remains, and the copy is considered a derivative work. If the license terms of the original do not permit derivative works, then the copy is what is known as a "copyright violation".

I've removed Image:Punt.jpg from the article and tagged it for speedy deletion.

As for the Civ 4 image, the section is on Hatshepsut's portrayal in pop culture. A screenshot from Civ 4 isn't really a portrayal of her in popular culture: she isn't the subject of the game. --Carnildo 06:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• It's not really a slavishly accurate copy, the top of the picture was rounded- I squared off the top by extending the background. I respect your opinion but I have been told such adaptations were acceptable by others. Perhaps a picture of the entire book cover would pass for fair-use? I disagree on the Civ4 pic, civfanatics.com pre-release info uses the same pic and Hatshepsut is still not the subject of the game. -JCarriker 06:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Regarding the book cover, I see no reason why any fair use image should be included in this article. There are over 3400 years worth of non-copyrighted images of Hatshepsut: let's use some of them. Your modifications to the original image may be under GFDL, but if my understanding is correct, you can't distribute them under any grounds except fair use until the copyright on the original expires.
• As for Civ 4, just because someone else is breaking the law doesn't mean we should. --Carnildo 07:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I can change the notice on the lead pic if you want; my point on the second pic is that I don't think they would do it if it were against the law, and I think they'd be caught quickly if it were since the site is known to the games creators. Please remeber the pics are released to promote the game and are expect to be distributed on the internet. If you insist I can try to contact the company for guidence on their policy it. -JCarriker 07:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think we should be using "fair use" images at all in this article. --Carnildo 18:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's very difficult finding good images of her that aren't fair use. Most of the scholarship done on Hatshepsut has been done since the 1920s. There just aren't alot of photos taken of her statuary before then, and many of those that were are highly POV such as including only the stautaury where she is wearing the false beard, and even then they aren't readily available. I respect your opinion, but with all do repect: I've been looking for good pics for the Hatshepsut article for over a year- you have been doing so only for a few days; if there were other pictures of the same quality I would have used them. -JCarriker 18:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Question: In childhood, Hatshepsut was favored by the Temple of Karnak over her two brothers, neither of whom surviced into adulthood. Am I right in assuming she was favored as pretender to the throne? If so, this sentences should be clarified. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Writing about ancient figures can be somewhat problematic; the short answer is that all we really know is that she was favored by the temple over all of her siblings. Biographers like Eveyln Wells would likely say that they did favor her as a pretender; while Joyce Tydelsely would likely tell you that she was just the court favorite.- JCarriker 03:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Suggestion: it would be really good to have some documentation of the change in perception of her over the course of the last century or so. Perhaps contrast how some work like the 1911 Britannica handled some aspects of her life vs. how the same aspects are handled by a recent scholar? -- Jmabel | Talk 16:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I'd like to suggest that Carnildo, as an exercise, attempt to collect a dozen non-free non-fair use images for any one personage or event from more than a few centuries ago. I have not tried to submit Battle of Chalons for FAC consideration for this very reason. I think that Jay has done a good job, considering that handicap. -- llywrch 01:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support but the image issue should be addressed. Most pressingly, the image tag on the top image should be changed, probably to {{Bookcover}}. Are there no two-dimensional depictions of Hatshepsut, perhaps from a wall painting? Photographs of ancient two-dimensional artwork are immune from copyright under current US law, I believe. Anyway -- if an article can be featured without an image, surely it can be featured without a non-FU image. -- Visviva 15:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Photographs of two-dimensional works are immune from copyright if and only if they are "slavishly accurate" reproductions. --Carnildo 19:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weakly support. A bit more detail would be nice, eg on military aspects. And it's slightly disconcerting that the article doesn't note her original tomb was KV20. Rd232 17:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. IANAL, but my opinion is that a non-creative photograph of ancient Egyptian art had its copyright expire long long ago. At the very least, however, it is fair use, which is acceptable. --Peter Kirby 09:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You're right. You aren't a lawyer. Any photograph or other two-dimensional reproduction of a three-dimensional work is creative, and thus copyrighted. --Carnildo 17:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Carnildo, just for clarification, do you have a legal background? There's no indication of it in the brief biographical remarks on your user page. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • No formal legal background, but after several years of following IP-related issues, I've got a fairly good grasp of the basics. --Carnildo 06:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I was under the impression that Violetriga [8]closed this nomination as a failed FAC. Don't get me wrong I appreciate the support; just seeking clarification. -JCarriker 04:50, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Paul Hackett

Self nom. Article on the Ohio lawyer who yesterday narrowly lost the Congressional race in the Second District to Jean Schmidt. Photos, references. Thorough account of the campaign. PedanticallySpeaking 16:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Support--well-referenced and thorough. Meelar (talk) 18:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Meelar. PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose-- Never a big fan of FAC that are a subject less then a week old, here we are about a subject that is a day old. Lets wait at least a week until we see what happens with the offical election results. If nothing changes I see no reason for a support if it has followed the correct FAC procedure. PPGMD 19:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the article was started in May or June and is not "less than a week old." PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think PPGMD is refering to the election, not the article itself. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Article was created on June 8, 2005. What "correct procedure" do you refer to? PedanticallySpeaking 16:10, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:PaulHackettinUniform.jpg, Image:PaulHackett and family.jpg, Image:JeanSchmidtportrait.gif are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be avoided if at all possible. If a fair use image must be used, the image description page must list the source or current copyright holder for the image, and an explanation of why the image can be used under fair use must be provided for each page the image is used on. --Carnildo 19:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

So your opposition is based solely on the photographs and not the content? Would an article without photos get your support vote? PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

No photos, or whichever one photo you think is most representative of the subject if you follow the rules for using fair use images at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. I can't promise it'll get my support, as photos are just the first thing I check. --Carnildo 04:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article looks good to me, but the election is still playing out. this article could drastically change still. Also, i'd prefer it to have a peer review first. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • How could it change? Schmidt won by a clear margin and Hackett has conceded. PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • The effects of how close this election was still have yet to be seen. An e-mail sent out by the DNC says now that the congressional republicans are worried because of how close this election was. overall, my main thought is run it through a peer review at least once.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Crew Exploration Vehicle

Article is detailed and contains all available details on the program. Clearly written with few errors. Well-referenced and up-to-date. I'll call this a self-nomination as I wrote the majority of the content. --Captain Koloth 14:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. No section on criticism, e.g. the second half of this article (which is mirrored here if you don't have a subscription) or this one which I can email to you if you'd like. Dave (talk) 19:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The images Image:Boeing-CEV-Concept.jpg, Image:CEV Lockheed Martin.jpg, Image:H lockheed cev 050503 02.jpg, Image:A-northrop.jpg are claimed as "fair use". Since this is a NASA project, there should be no shortage of public domain images we can use.
  2. The lead section is too short.
  3. The lead states that the CEV is a replacement for the Space Shuttle, but the CEV seems to be crew-only, while the Shuttle is also a heavy cargo lifter. In that case, what's the replacement for the Shuttle's cargo duties?
  4. There are plenty of inline citations, but no references listed at the end. Are there any major references that could be added to a "references" or "bibliography" section?

  --Carnildo 19:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dave: I did not include such a section as the article's purpose is to describe purely the spacecraft hardware itself, not the Vision for Space Exploration as a whole which your cited article attacks.

Even if you don't include a whole section, you should mention that it is considered inefficient in cost-benefit terms in the section that talks about the costs. If you give me your email address, I can send you the second article, which is more specifically about the CEV. According to that article, the costs cited are "complete nonsense," so it would be extremely POV not to mention it. Dave (talk) 21:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Carnildo: The CEV succeeds the Shuttle as a manned space vehicle. Major references are in the external links section. They address the cargo issue. No NASA images have been released on this as the CEV is a contractor project and the ESAS has not been released. Virtually all the available artwork is in the article. --Captain Koloth 21:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's a successor to the Shuttle as a manned space vehicle, but not as a cargo lifter, that needs to be made clear in the article.

If all images available are fair use, then you need to follow the rules for fair use images: image use should be minimized, images should only be used on articles that directly relate to those images, images need to have the source or current copyright holder indicated, and the reason why the image can be used under fair use must be supplied for each page the image is used on. See Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for an example of this sort of explanation. --Carnildo 22:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• object; wikipedia is not an internet directory (so shouldn't just have external links) / the sources are listed without full references which means that if they get moved, it will be almost impossible to tell what was linked to from the article. Mozzerati 21:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Backgammon

Support: This article is thorough and has been lingering for a while. With the exception of Chouettes one thinks this article is interesting and accurate.

The fact that Backgammon is one of the oldest games in history is especially enticing and appealing. The pictures represent some of Wikipedias finest work.

• Oppose. While the early pictures are certainly very good (especially the first one), the article needs some areas addressed. No references, no note and ref system, and effectively a cleanup notice on the choutettes section. These issues all need to be addressed before the article can become featured. The "fact that Backgammon is one of the oldest games in history is especially enticing and appealing" also doesn't really factor in here...Harro5 09:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Images "Bg sg start.png", "Bg sg w1.png", "Bg sg b1.png", "Bg sg w2.png" lacks copyright information. The section on the rules is not an easy read - might be benefitial to branch it out as a seperate article and just give an overview in the article on backgammon. The subsection on Other variants ought (IMO) to be placed under the section on the rules, as it's variations on the rules. Red links should at least be stubified, or taken out (I just don't like red links in a featured article). And as Harro5 mentioned, references really should be added. WegianWarrior 10:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object Allow me to start from the top:
  1. Expand the lead paragraph and 'History'. They are way too short for a featured article.
  2. Sort out the accuracy dispute concerning 'Choulettes'.
  3. Merge 'Backgammon in the Middle East' and 'Other variants' into one section: 'Variants'. They are too short on their own.
  4. Turn 'See also' into a list; makes it a lot neater.
• I strongly suggest you put this through Peer review. --JB Adder | Talk 01:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, the above two points form one vote. --JB Adder | Talk 01:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Lead is too short, no references, large unwikified sections. Peer review is a must, this is not yet close to FA standard. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

David Irving

Self nomination, an extensive and detailed look into his controversial life and work. You can see the previous failed nomination from January here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Irving/archive1. Most of the objections from that time have been addressed and I feel we now have a genuinely NPOV, well written and well researched article on a delicate subject. GeneralPatton 01:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:Irving Speer 01.jpg, Image:Irving Spiegel01.jpg, Image:Irving trial02.jpg, Image:Irving deported canada1992.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be avoided if at all possible. If a fair use image must be used, the image description page must list the source or current copyright holder for the image, and an explanation of why the image can be used under fair use must be provided for each page the image is used on. --Carnildo 05:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

errr... all those images are provided by Irving at his website for further use, this really is an non-issue as it has nothing to do with the content of the article itself. GeneralPatton 08:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps to clarify this, you could write to him using Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission. I have a feeling he would agree to release them into the public domain or GDFL at the very least. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If they have nothing to do with the content of the article, then I don't suppose you'd mind if I were to remove them? --Carnildo 17:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, but why? Here's the notice on Irvings website "These photographs are provided for use copyright free unless otherwise indicated" [9]. GeneralPatton 17:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That text is a license grant and should be copied to the image description page. This should then be sufficient; no need to ask if it is clear that those are the licensing terms. Mozzerati 13:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Despite the controversy on its talk page I feel that this article is a well written and informative account of an interesting subject.GreatGodOm
• Support. Comprehensive, well-written and properly referenced article. I haven't bothered trying to wade through the talkpage controversies, but I've read the entire article (with some previous knowledge of both Irving and Holocaust denial) and can't see that it has tainted anything in it. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object the content is mostly good, although a section on his techniques in "historical research" such as mis-referencing, and details of how he misrepresented sources would be good. I believe that there were accusations that he stole historical sources, these should be covered. More importantly, for an article on Irving, it is difficult to relate specific facts in the article to the sources from whch they were taken. This is crucial in making this article verifiable, particularly days/page numbers for references taken from the trial which is difficult to search. Some form of inline references such as Footnote3 or inote is probably the only way to achieve this. Mozzerati 13:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Besides trial records, is there anything in specific that needs to be more clearly referenced? I am very skeptical to this very general objecting just because an article doesn't have footnotes (which are absolutely not a criterion in of themselves). The basic rule should be not to specifically reference anything that is either very obvious or uncontroversial. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Nobody is objecting "just because an article doesn't have footnotes". There are many alternatives to footnotes which could move the article towards verifiablity; it is possible to write extensively together with each source which facts it covers; it is possible to put comments inline, using for example the inote template. Look at the work of Emmsworth (who puts comments next to his sources) or David Helvarg for examples of each.
      • The objection concerning footnotes was somewhat unspecified and since I've been noticing an alarming overusage of footnotes in FACs and I felt I needed to point this out. For example, GNAA, which is a relativly small article, contained 24 (!) footnotes that were mostly concentrated to just two or three paragraphs before I along with a few other users pointed it out at the FAC. Using the inotes and actual inline citations is much more preferable, though. I have not participated in the writing of the article, though, so I can't comment on the other objections. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • also you haven't responded to my content objections which I will break down for easier reference:
      • the article is incomplete because it a) fails to cover accusations that Irving has stolen documents b) fails to cover the recovery of documents from Irving's home by the police c) fails to cover the accusation that "if Irving can't find a supporting document, he makes one" d) fails to cover Irving's (at least partial) success in spinning the Lipstadt trial as an issue of his freedom of speech even when it was him that had initiated the trial.
      • the article is non NPOV since it states as fact facts which, whilst clearly true to most of us, are in fact disputed without giving a reference to the source of those facts a) "contributed to a variety of extremist features" b) "Today, the Dresden bombing casualty figures are estimated as most likely in the range of 25,000 to 35,000 dead" (yes, I know this is true, but that is what makes it important to reference it). c) the article describes "evolutionary psychologist Kevin B. MacDonald" without reference to the common belief that he is an anti-semitic racist which, in this context seems to be quite important.
      • the article is difficult to verify, for example the statement that his figures "were repeated in many standard references and encyclopedias" appears to require a require extensive research and access to many encyclopedias, particularly to establish a causal link, but with either attribution or a simple listing could be much easier to cope with. Furthermore, FAs should "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work" and Wikipedia's best work is verifiable in the extreme.
      • the article makes statements, which, without clear reference could be seen as defamatory and as such should not be kept in wikipedia, for example "during that time Irving also made a number of public statements indicating that 100,000 or more Germans had been killed" contrasted with "later editions of the book [changed] downwards to a range of 50,000 to 100,000" this is clearly implies that Irving is duplicitous; references should be given.

      Mozzerati 19:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

      • • Ok, thanks for your suggestions, I'm working on it GeneralPatton 21:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object. Move external links from main body to notes/references, link via footnotes. The article looks good, and it should prove the wiki strenght if we can reach NPOV on this article and FA it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There's nothing in any criteria that deems it inappropriate to have external links in the text. Unless the footnotes are actually going to contain information about the source or perhaps about the footnoted paragraph, this seems quite uncalled for. It will only add to the article looking like a paper rather than an encyclopedia article. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Tucker Max

I think that this ought to be a featured article. It is very interesting. The topic is interesting, although he is a very, very bad person. user: Albus Dumbledore

• Stop the nonsense. Hate to break it to you, but this will NEVER be a Featured Article. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously , SqueakBox 20:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nominated by troll. mikka (t) 21:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong oppose since this is missing nearly everything. Where is Snape when you need him? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: More fit for VfD than FAC. Each section is tagged a stub. Most sections are "Oh, dude, and another thing" style agglutinations. The whole of it is fannish POV. Geogre 16:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent Vfd idea. Done, SqueakBox 17:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Luftwaffe

This article is a good strong article with lots of information and good picturers. Rentastrawberry 19:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. There are several things I see that ought to be fixed up. Lead should be longer, inline references should be added. Copyright status of pictures should be assertained. Has this article been thru a peer review? If not, that might be a good place to start for comments on how to imprive an already good article. WegianWarrior 20:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Ya, I agree with WegianWarrior: the lead is underdeveloped. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 20:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The lead has, I noticed, been developed. Christopher Crossley 01:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object.
  1. The images Image:MaxImmelmann.gif, Image:Fokker Dr.I.jpg need information on their copyright status. They're old enough that they're almost certainly in the public domain, but that needs to be verified.
  2. The image Image:Luftwaffe major collar insignia.jpg is claimed as public domain "since the rank insignia of a government air force are not considered to be copyrightable". I'd like a source for this claim. Also, the photograph may be copyrighted even if the subject of the photo isn't.
  3. The image Image:Euro luftwaffe.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  4. The images Image:Model of Canadair CL-13 Sabre in Luftwaffe markings.jpg, Image:Wolfram von Richthofen.jpg, Image:Ju287.jpg, Image:Ju 87D Stukas over Russia.jpg, Image:Gernika-bombardeo.jpg are claimed as public domain. I'd like source information or other evidence that they are indeed in the public domain.
  5. The images Image:Luftwaffe logo.jpg, Image:Me262 bw 01.jpg are claimed under fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, "fair use" images should be avoided if at all possible. If fair use images are used, the image source or current copyright holder must be listed on the image description page, and an explanation as to why "fair use" is justified must be provided for each page that the image is used on.

  --Carnildo 21:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment on copyright for images Some of the photos appearing in this article had already appeared in other related (hence, linked) Wikipedia articles, such as the Max Immelmann, the Baron von Richthofen and all the other black-and-white photos. I should know, because I started to make contributions to what had been an extremely small article back in February and searched for photos already in Wikipedia to support it. Hence, I suppose, one could say that original copyright information as regards as the sources of the images, claimed as public domain, including the colour one featuring the Eurofighter Typhoon in the postwar section, should be supplied by the persons who put them into "their" articles in the first place. (By the way, I am very happy to see that this article is a feature article candidate. I have greatly enjoyed contributing much of the present text, since the history of the Luftwaffe used to be such an intense interest of mine.) Christopher Crossley 01:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review. Promising article, but a PR is needed. A minor pointer about references, though: since this is most likely a fairly uncontroversial subject, inline references are not going to be needed. Everyone seems to have become so excited about the fact that references are one of the FA criteria that it has been forgotten that footnotes are anything but a critiera in themselves. A proper reference section is a must, though. A (rather large) bibliography won't do. /Peter ^Isotalo 14:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The "rather large" bibliography came mostly from my memory when I wrote it, although I did search the internet for the publishers' names, dates and ISBN numbers. Most of the article's text was also from my memory, since I have been interested in the history of the Luftwaffe since 1974! I refrained, as much as possible, from resorting to looking at books and at internet articles (including related Wikipedia articles), but I did so when I deemed it necessary to check up on a few facts just to make sure that they were correct. My choice of bibliography might seem "rather large" by "normal" Wikipedia standards when a few references are the norm, but, as I said, there have been literally hundreds of books and articles written about the history of the Luftwaffe and they continue to be written even now (as this article proves!). Hence, in my opinion, just two or three external references will not do this subject justice, considering what an interest the Luftwaffe has garnered amongst countless aviation enthusiasts over the decades since the end of the Second World War. Christopher Crossley 01:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm definetly a friend of slimmed down reference sections. If you can do it without adding notes (these are heavily overused and for some reason thought to be identical to "inline citations") I'll support you just for that. My point, though, is that even if we have many editors who can recall most details from memory (correctly so, even) we still need to actually claim sources. If you could find a handful of books that are both general in scope, well-written, unbiased and contain all the information found in the article there isn't much stopping the article from getting through the next FAC. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I can assure you that any external printed source I quoted would have been somewhere that I got some information from, including my memory, rather than my just rattling off a list of any old sources, but because that is not the idea of a bibliography! Imagine if I had just rattled off any old source for my MBA dissertation, I don't think that I would have got away with it! My list does include the two part-works, "Wings" and "World War II", even if they had been published (by Orbis, London) way back in the 1970s and 1980s, since they were my introduction to military aviation, and I absorbed a lot of facts from them at the time; hence, I believe in being justified in citing them, even if there have been absolutely tons of stuff published on the Luftwaffe since then, of which many are verifiable, provided that they are still in print or else available to buy even if they are not. I believe those sources to be authoritative and unbiased, since they ("Wings" especially) was a collection of articles produced by very many authors, not just one or a few, some of whom have been in the aviation history business for decades. I therefore included them because of both their generality and of their neutrality, not merely because I "had" them in my collection many moons ago. Thank you for your continued support for the article, it is much appreciated. Christopher Crossley 03:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I will certainly trust your judgement in choosing sources, then. There is a technical issue at hand here. The standard practice is to place all sources that have been referenced (or should be referenced) in a section called "References". "Bibliography" could be interpreted as "further reading", which is never bad to have, but anything in this kind of section doesn't need to be claimed as an actual source. So what's needed is simply to sort through the literature list and decide which of them should be claimed by the article as actual sources and what is merely recommended reading. You can always use inline citations and/or footnotes, but only if it's really needed, like with facts that are controversial or perhaps need a note to explain some sort of complexity that doesn't fit in the actual article text. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment 2. I just looked at the article and realized that there is virtually no information about the organization of the current Luftwaffe. Since German Air Force is a redirect to this article, there needs to a minimum of information about the current operations, units and equipment of the modern Luftwaffe. Perhaps some information about policies as well. No long lists of individual squadrons and such, though. A summary with perhaps a link to a separate List of modern Luftwaffe units or something like it will do fine. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Marcel Junod

This article is based on a translation of a featured article (in German "Exzellenter Artikel") from the German Wikipedia. I'm the main author of the original German version, and most of the translation was done by User:Tfine80 with some minor edits by me. Thanks for your interest, --Uwe 21:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• One problem - it's not linked from a single other article on wikipedia (at least not from the english one) →Raul654 22:06, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the hint. The problem that it's not easy to find an article from which to link to this article. Possible candidates could include Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the International Committee of the Red Cross, but both would require a serious rework to fit in a link to the Junod article in a logical manner, without breaking the coherent style of these articles. A complete rework of the article about the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is in the making (as another cooperation between User:Tfine80 and myself), and the corresponding German article we're translating has Marcel Junod mentioned as part of a rather comprehensive history section. I expect the translation to be ready in the very near future. Best Regards, --Uwe 23:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose- besides not being linked to, the lead section is too short, there are too many quotes compromising a large quantity of the article (they would be more appropriate for WikiQuotes), and the pictures are copyrighted- I'm not sure if that's allowed. I would refer to peer review and see if it can be fixed and expanded. It definitely has FA potential, though. Great job! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The pictures have a "Copyrighted but free use" policy which includes the right to use them for any legal purpose without prior permission from the copyright holder, including copying them, modifying them and using them for any commercial purpose. The quotes are intended to illustrate Junods work from a more personal point of view, complementary to the strict neutral and factual style of the article text. In that, they serve the same purpose as the pictures. Regarding the lead section, it would be nice to know what information you miss there. As written above, the issue of not being linked from anywhere will be solved in the very near future. Thanks for your comments, --Uwe 19:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The copyright status on the pictures is good enough. "Copyrighted but you can use it for anything but slandering the subject" is a free enough license for me. --Carnildo 22:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sociocultural evolution

Self nom. An overview of one of the most important theories in sociology and anthropology, also reffered in those respective fields as just social or cultural evolution(ism). From classical unileneal evolutionism to multilenal, with neoevolutionism, sociobiology, modernisation theory, post-industrial theory and yes, I even managed to mention singularity theory in the text :) Lots of big words :) I await your comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The images Image:Danielbell.JPG and Image:Vinge1.gif do not have copyright or source information.
  • Removed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. The images Image:FranzBoas.jpg and Image:Alvin toffler.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, fair use images should be avoided if at all possible. If fair use images must be used, information on the current copyright holder must be given, and a rationale as to why fair use may be claimed must be provided for each page that the image is used on.

  --Carnildo 21:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Removed. They are not essential. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object. Support A good article there are, however, a couple of problems. First of all, the lead section is too long. The contents of the lead are good, so perhaps a large part of it could be siphoned off into an "Overview" section immediately after the lead? Less importantly, I'd like to see more pictures for the length of the article (not critcal). --Oldak Quill 18:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The lead is long, but I am not sure what can be moved out and still make it comprehensive - this is a complicated theory, actually composed of several subtheories over the course of many theories. I like my leads to be as comprehensive as possible to fit the Wikipedia 1.0 reqiurements. I am not sure if an Overview section is a good idea, it sounds like a second lead to me - but if you have a vision of how it may be done, by all means, plese try to fix it. As for the pics, I am not sure what pics other then some portaits may be relelvant here. I tried to add a pic of everybody mentioned, but many have none, and half of those have copyright problems Carnildo pointed out above. I am open for any other pic suggestions, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • After having read the entire article, I have to agree. It is excellently written in a very clear manner. Keep up the good work. --Oldak Quill 11:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The introduction is excessively long, composed of three paragraphs, each of which are way too long. Furthermore, Piotr reverts any attempt to correct his stylistic errors. I tried to seperate the intro into multiple paragraphs, and then to move some material to the article body, both of which were reverted immediately by Piotrus. Short definitions of uinlinear and multilinear are appropriate to the lead. Not this attempted whirlwind history of sociology. Also, the terms in bold should be handled more legibly. --goethean ॐ 14:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but the recent attempt at lead rewritting is against Wikipedia:Lead (recommended three paragrahps, not 5-6) and even worse, it was not comprehensive (one recent attempt simply moved 4/5 of the lead into the next section). As I explained above, this is a complex matter and the lead cannot be short if it is to remain comprehensive. The lead fits on the screen, I see no problem with this. I will see what I can adapt from the new version. I am happy to see discussion here, after few days of near inactivity. I am sure that working together we cn create a 'leaner, meaner' lead :) I am not sure what you mean about illegibility of bolded terms? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein fixed the problem with bolded terms. Your point regarding three paragraphs is ruleslawyering. Why extend the paragraphs to unreadable lengths and then point to a 3-paragraph policy to revert changes? --goethean ॐ 17:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

After some work we seem to have created a smaller, better lead. Do you still have grounds for objection? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• CommentThat whole article only had one reference? And I think the use of inotes is detriemental to the article, and at least some of them should be visible similar to other articles. MechBrowman 15:54, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support The article is very well written, and I changed the inotes my self --MechBrowman 14:48, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, long story short: this article is merged from two others, none of which had any references. I expanded this with info from referenced source, plus some material from other wiki articles, again lacking references. After a glance at the references, I see some of them are actually mentioned in the text (especially online version of some 19th century) text and thus may be moved to references. As for inotes, I am not a fan of them, I prefer footnotes - but due to the explained scarcity of references, there is really no need for them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object Not enough references. Dave (talk) 20:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not aware there is any specified number or references >1 for FA articles. I explained above why there are so few referenes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I consider good referencing to be necessary for Wikipedia to be considered authoritative. WP:CITE (which isn't policy, but which has consensus) says that it's important for veryifying facts, preventing sneaky vandalism (changing a date and hoping no one notices), convincing skeptical readers an article is accurate, and avoiding various kinds of confusion. The guide also suggests that you add sources for existing articles on Wikipedia. In general, I prefer in-line citations. Since you didn't write this, and you have no sources, how do you know anything about its reliability? I'm maintaining my objection. Dave (talk) 21:27, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have added some references, and will add more - there are books (often classics) mentioned in text (like 'White wrote in his book that...') that should add a few more, when I have some time. Article has 4 references now, using footnotes, and will have several more - does this solve your objection? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Have you fact-checked the article yourself? Dave (talk) 14:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
          • To the best of my knowledge (I read the Sztompka's book, nearly memorised his chapter on this set of theories :>, checked all external links plus some other articles, books and ecyclopedia's entries mentioned in the article (most of which I added)) and I think it is factually correct. I do think it fits with our standards. I admit I have taken much of the info from previous wiki articles, which had no references, on good faith, but they do seem to be confirmed with other materials I found off-wiki (many of it academic class) I read. Wiki being wiki, with other editors beside me constantly improving this article, I can't guarantee personally that all the facts are and will be 100% correct, but I can vouch that to the best of my knowledge most of them, when I read it last time, seemed consistent with referenced/further reading/external links material. If you see any factual errors in the article, do let me know. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The article is thorough, and I congratulate all who contributed. The new article is much more thorough and organized than either of the two original articles. However, I have two concerns:

1. More is needed to highlight the distinction between social / cultural evolution (the modern scientific theory) and social evolutionism, the (unilineal, essentially racist) worldview. Some information about this is in the article, but I think it's important to distinguish between the theory and the practice.
2. As discussed above, the lead is too long. I realize that a shorter lead is not comprehensive, but would argue that a lead is never meant to be comprehensive. A lead's only function is to summarize the topic for the reader, and hopefully entice him/her to read further. Every pool needs a shallow end to be accessible. The first paragraph could be considerably shortened or broken up. For example:

Sociocultural evolution is an umbrella term for theories explaining the development of societies over time, borrowing the term "evolution" from biological theories about the development of living organisms. Early social scientists attempted to identify the stages that all societies must pass through as they mature, and sometimes ranked societies from least to most developed. More modern Anthropologists and Sociologists have rejected this approach, noting that human societies can develop along a wide variety of different possible paths, and that it is difficult to label any society as more or less "evolved" than any other.

Even that is too long... Details in the current lead--about the diversity of the thinkers involved, the specific interpretations of the theory, etc.--will be apparent from the article itself. The lead really only needs to refer to three things: development of societies over time, early theories were unilineal (and often racist), and modern theories are multilineal.

I regret that at the moment I cannot spend more time assisting you in developing this article with more constructive examples of what I mean. However, I generally feel the new article is quite good, and with some fixes would make a great candidate for a front page article.

--Pariah 21:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for your comments. Regarding the lead, Wikipedia:Lead states that The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. and For the planned paper Wikipedia 1.0, one consensus recommendation is that the paper version of articles will be the lead section of the web version. . I try to make all leads I work in follow this guidelines. Btw, we have already shortented the lead by 1/4 since the FAC process begun. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but effective writing is a nested process. If we say that all the writing before the first subheading is the lead, then the very first paragraph should be a micro-lead, and the first sentence should be a nano-lead. The reader should be able to get a quick definition of the topic from the first sentence. This is esp. important on a wiki, where every link is potentially a black hole of information. The language could be simpler without detracting from the complexity of the information.--Pariah 16:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Enzyme

My first self-nom. Please don't be too harsh, guys~ :-D By the way, this biological article is pretty informative. The diagrams were well drawn to give a much clearer picture of the mechanism of enzymes. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support - looks great --PopUpPirate 15:26, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very comprehensive and well-explained. Easy to understand with even a very basic knowledge of chemistry. Phils 16:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support It took 2 minutes to load all the pictures on my computer. Very impressive Karmafist 17:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support, although I would recommend moving the list of enzymes to a separate page. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object, reluctantly. This article still needs some work, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results once these objections are addresssed:
  • Monomer discussion in "structure and function" is unclear
    • What do you mean by unclear? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I mean that it doesn't define its terms. My (very limited) background in chemistry tells me that monomers are single elements that, strung together, make a polymer like plastic, DNA, or a polypeptide. The article seems to be referring to polypeptides as monomers, which I find confusing. Assuming I understand the first few lines of the paragraph, either changing the word "monomer" to "polypeptide" or saying "each monomer is actually produced as a long, linear chain of amino acids..." earlier in the paragraph would help
        • Reconstructed. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Applications table is hard to follow (add lines to separate rows and/or columns)
    • Technical problems...could anyone help? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • "protein folding" should be linked to from something less ambiguous than the words "general principles," as the reader has to move the mouse over the text or click it to find out what's being linked to.
    • Any suggestion? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Fixed
  • The section on rate of reaction should probably be expanded. Saying it depends on "many factors" isn't really enough.
    • There is a sub-page. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC) fixed
  • In-line references (footnotes or parenthetical citations) would go a long way towards making this article more authoritative. Right now, it's difficult to verify many claims the article makes.
    • Is that really necessary? I saw some FAs like evolution that are without in-line references... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Editors are allowed to have their own guidelines/requirements for supporting articles, and this is one of mine, especially for scientific articles. I didn't support evolution. You could almost certainly get this featured even without addressing this objection, but only if you address everything else. Dave (talk) 13:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

**Long sentences like this one are hard to follow, even for a biology major like me:

Because the precise structure of each region tends to be fairly critical to correct function, and because the frequency of a mutation which would produce a nonfunctional active region is proportional to the length of the chain separating the amino acids involved, evolution works against having the amino acids from an active region widely dispersed, instead tending to keep the amino acids involved in each active region compacted fairly closely together in the chain and conserved against mutation, separating these regions by long stretches of 'spacer' amino acids where mutation is much less critical (although some mutations in these regions can also inactivate the product).

• • • Corrected sooner or later.
      • There will still be other readability problems even after you fix that sentence. I'll try to help. Dave (talk) 13:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • Reconstructed. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The discussion of energy in the structure and function section could probably be streamlined. I like the analogies, but it's hard to follow.
    • Fixed. -- User:TimBarrel 21:10, 10 August 2005
  • Links to names should be fixed: Fischer is a disambig (including two nobel-prize winning chemists, among others) and Koshland is a blank page. First names should probably be included as well.
    • Fixed. -- User:TimBarrel 21:10, 10 August 2005
  • The article needs a copyedit. Three examples include "short0lived" (lock and key hypothesis section), "fromevidence" and "breakdown" (in the induced fit section)
    • Fixed. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Making the kinetics section more accessible to non-biochemists may not be possible, but I hope someone tries.
    • Yup...pretty difficult... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• If all (or even most) of these are addressed, I'll support. Good luck! Dave (talk) 01:36, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

You know what, I could hardly find people knowing one or two about biology during the peer review. You are one of the guys who could give pretty clear and constructive feedback. :-) Btw, could you give us a hand in improving this article, please? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the process is sort of dumb. No one (including me, most of the time) pays attention to peer review. Maybe I should. I'll see what I can do with the article, but nixie is more knowledgeable than I am on the subject. I'm sure she'll give you a hand when she has time if you ask. Dave (talk) 13:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Support-This is a very interesting and well done article. It is exceptionally informative and explains the concept of enzymes quite clearly, even to someone who isnt in the field. I also like the diagrams, they add a lot to the article in terms of clearity and make it much more readable. --Gpyoung ^talk 03:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• For now I have to object. As a biochemist I noticed that there are several things that could be improved, there is little discussion of coenzymes (vitamins and metals), multi-subunit enzymes and where enzymes are actually active within a cell eg. organelle specificity, enzyme inhibition/allosteric enzymes. Basically this article should cover everything in the chapter TOC for a textbook like Matthews, Van Holde and Ahern or Voet and Voet (two widely used undergraduate level biochem texts).

As an editor I think the specific enzymes section should be renamed and include some more examples, and that the list is unnecessary given the link to the list on another page. The tables should also be fixed so that they are outlined.

As a general reader, the order of text could be improved, for example, the reader is hit with The advantage of enzymes compared to most other catalysts is their sterio-, regio- and chemoselectivity and specificity before something like this Enzymes are essential to living organisms, and a malfunction of even a single enzyme out of approximately 2,000 types present in our bodies can lead to severe or lethal illness - which is much easier to understand and would interest a general reader. There are similar examples throughout where diffuicult concepts are explained before the easy ones.--nixie 03:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm not the original editor, who seemed to have put the materials you are demanding into the page Rate of enzyme mediated reactions. Any ideas to improve? :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Fixed. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Coenzymes and other enzyme cofactors are now mentioned. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• For now I object.

1) I reconfigured two tables at the bottom and noticed there was a lot that could be improved in those tables. A lot of copy editing of the text in the table is required.

• Any suggestion?

2) I then looked at the main article. I did not get past the structure function section. Why the emphasise on monomeric versus oligomeric (quaternary structure)? Surely the most important thing is the residues at the active site (tertiary structure).

• This part would be deleted.

3) You cite the active site of the enzymes figure 2; I could not find firgure 2 (do you mean your first 5a-c figure?). Why is figure 2 cited in the text before figure 1? It looks like you have reaaranged everything without correcting the order of the figures. You have two figure 4's and two figure 5's. The second figure 4b has two panels a) and b. Worse your first figure 4b (i) ( as opposed to figure 4b (ii)) also has an a and b panel. Do you see how crazy this is? All the figures need to be relabelled since they are not consistent with the text or each other. If the figure has panels a) and b) you cannot label it 4 a) Label it 4 (a-b) and the second panel, 4c. For example, the succinate (is succinic correct?) dehydrogenase panel should be a 4c not a 4b.

• An anonymous user rearranged the figures. Problems fixed sooner or later.

4) The next sentence after the incorrect figure citation is "Sometimes enzymes contain additionally other binding sites." This is poor grammar and I presume not up to featured article standards. As with the tables, it looks like this article needs some proof reading.

• Any suggestion?

5) A quick scan through shows that you do not define EIS nomenclature.

• Enzyme-inhibitor-substrate

6) Is this correct with respect to non competitive inhibitors? "they disable or enable the ability of the enzyme to turn over its substrate" I don't think they can enable. You may be thinking of allosteric enzyme with regard to this statement.

• I don't write this. Let's see what we can do with it

7) Is metabolic feed back beyond the scope of this article? That is getting into the regulation of metabolism.

• If you read any book about enzyme, this part is often mentioned for good reasons.

8) Modifications seems to be too early in the article. That would be better suited with regard to the feedback control and the regulation of metabolism.

• Good advice.

9) Prosthetic groups seem to be an add on at the end. These should be discussed with respect to the active site right at the begining of the article.

• I don't think so. It's a kinda cofactors, which in most cases are discussed in the later parts. It's not desirable to have it next to the active site.

10) One of the most important aspects of enzymes that is absent in this article is conformation changes that occur during catalysis. These conformation changes are critical for enzyme function. Hexokinase is a good example of an enzyme with a large conformation change, almost like a Pac-Man.

• Induced-fit hypothesis? Did you see it?

:11) The thermodynamics section needs work and might not be appropriate for this article. The following is another example of a sentence in dire need of copy editing. "For instance, the high energy compound ATP is generated in the cell by coupling its synthesis to the oxidation of sugars, which releases more energy than the synthesis of ATP requires; then the ATP is broken down in turn by other enzymes coupled to other processes, releasing the energy stored in it to drive other, otherwise energetically unfavorable, chemical reactions."

• • Fixed. -- User:TimBarrel 21:10, 10 August 2005
• Well, it's worth mentioning as seen in all reference books. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Clearly this article has a lot of potential but it really needs to be cleaned up a lot before being a featured article. David D. (Talk) 01:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you don't hang around with the editing. I'll read it over more thoroughly and do some copy editing. I have already made quite a few changes to the table, I'll edit that some more too. I think your solution of just removing the figure numbers is perfect. Wikipedia does not need to be like a review paper. David D. (Talk) 05:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you're so good, man. Thanks a million dollars. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Javier Solana

I think this article has recovered from its antichrist believers POV, has lots of nice detail, and has had the input of many people. It covers all the sourced material available about his life, SqueakBox 02:42, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references, and lead-in is too short. - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object — no refs. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Javiersolana.jpg is claimed under fair use. As such, the source or current copyright holder must be provided, and an explanation as to why fair use is justified must be provided for each article that the image is used on. One possible format for fair use justification is provided at Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. --Carnildo 09:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object This was once an excellent article with references. SqueakBox acting in adulation of rather than fair reporting of Javier Solana removed most meat and references from article. Most of the research was mine, compiled from other internet sources. Basically it is a dumbed down version of what once existed and was treated web-wide as a credible article. Regrettably that is no longer the case and I personally have given up on sharing my vast body of information on Solana with Wikipedia because I am weary of correcting SqueakBox's damage only to have the serious editing labeled "vandalism" by SqueakBox. Good luck to all. I will do my posting from other sites and my own blogspot.User:Cumbey August 21, 2005

I have not accused Cumbey of vandalism, except of course on the 2-3 occasions when she did, but never to this article. It is not true that most of the research was done by her, that is pure vanity. She forgot to mention she thinks he is the anti-christ, which is a rather extreme POV, SqueakBox 16:23, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Cimarron

Self Nom: This article has been expanded from barely a stub to an informative article reflecting the background, content, production, and reception of Edna Ferber's novel, the 1931 Best Picture, and 1960 remake. There are few film featured articles, and only one "classic", so I think this would be a fair addition to those that already exist. The article was up for Peer Review almost a month ago, and any issues have been addressed, but I welcome criticism and further contributions. Volatile 01:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object - lead too short. In addition, it seems that the article should be on the novel, not the movies. Perhaps just a brief mention of the movies, and move the movie sections to separate article? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I brought up the concern of having the films and novel in the same section at PR (see link in intro). Since the novel and films are so closely related, I figured they'd be better off in the same article. Of course, I'm open to other opinions regarding that. I will work on expanding the introduction and novel portions, as I admit they are a bit thin. Thank you. Volatile 21:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:Cimarronbook.jpg, Image:Ferber.jpg, Image:OkLandRush.jpg, Image:Cimarron.JPG, Image:Cimarron1960.jpg have no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 08:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • All copyright information has been accounted for. Volatile 03:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. More on the novel is needed. The movies can stay, as long as they're faithfully direct in their adaptations of the book. -- user:zanimum

Model minority

Interesting article, concept about a social inequality issue. I think it deserves to be a featured article.

Quantum bird 18:50 July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Object It's not really comprehensive. It's almost exclusively about Asian Americans, with one sentence on Jewish Americans, nothing on other "model minorities" (such as Carribean Americans) and a total of two sentences on the rest of the world. The "negatively viewed successes" should include the situation in Rwanda, where such distinctions played a role in the 1994 genocide. If the article were called something like "Asian Americans as a model minority," or were significantly expanded, I'd be more likely to support. Dave (talk) 19:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This should really be named Model minorities in the United States, as that is its current content. - SimonP 00:44, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Object per above. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not sure the term is used much outside the United States. The lead section should say that it is a political term used in the U.S. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:04, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As it was said before, this article have a very limited geographic scope, with no mention of Jewish-Americans, Carribean-Americans, and Arab-Americans. With no mention of same situations in other countries. CG 16:40, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Overwhelming US-centricism. --Oldak Quill 18:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: There still appears to be room for someone to do more research and bring more citations to the article.--Nectarflowed ^T 07:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Move elinks from text to reference section, link with Wikipedia:Footnotes. Lot of tiny sections, most of which would qualify as the section-stub, even though article is not that short. Consider expanding sections or merging them, the latter would also help with the large ToC. As others note, 'Other Countries' section is too tiny, so the name should be changed to reflect the actual content. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Neptune (planet)

With Venus as a featured article, I figured I would try to help out the articles on the other important bodies in the solar system, and then I ran across this article. So far it's actually the only article on a planet in the solar system with plentiful inline citations and references. I found it to be quite an enjoyable read, more so even than the featured article Io (moon). Toothpaste 08:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object head section too short. Headbox needs conversion to be same format (at least) as Venus (planet). Preferably convert all other tables into {{prettytable}} or something alike. Circeus 22:26, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I converted the headbox into the same format as the one found in the Venus article. However, I am not sure about the other tables, given that the tables in both article are similar. Pentawing 19:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've converted the other tables using {{prettytable}}. Pentawing 23:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support-This looks like an excellent article with a lot of information. The tables really do not bother me, and the headbox looks perfectly acceptable as well (although I think it is the edited version). --Gpyoung ^talk 03:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment-I expanded the lead to three paragraphs. Does this take care of your objection, Circeus? Toothpaste 10:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object - A bit of explanation of retrogradation is necessary for the Visibility from Earth section (not much; it just didn't make sense to me how a planet can go from direct to retrograde in three months). Is there anything else that could get added to that section? A little description of the "Appearance" section would be nice, so that I (a non astronomer) know what I'm looking at. And could a listing of space missions to the planet be added? I'd also like {{prettytable}} in the table in Rings of Neptune. That's it for now; I'll let you know if I see anything else. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Appointment to the Order of Canada

This article is a fork from the Order of Canada article, which is also Featured. I do not know if fork articles could become Featured, so I will give this self-nom a shot. And I hope Raul is not getting tired of the Canadian articles that graced this page in the past few weeks either. :) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment--all three images are under crown copyright, which states "Information has been released by the Government of Canada with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use", thereby forbidding use by mirrors. This isn't compatible with the GFDL. Any chance we could get some more-free images? Meelar (talk) 15:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Two photos came directly from the Governor General's website. I can see what I can do about the photos, but I am moving into a house today. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, if nothing better is available, I suppose it'll have to do (I'm not sure "no free images" is grounds for objection). The actual article is very well done. Meelar (talk) 23:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • Having non-free images can be an objection, since a requirement at WIAFA 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." However, if I can only find images that are Crown Copyright, then I should have to justify why they are fair use. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support However I think a phrase needs to be bold in the inroduction --MechBrowman 17:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • What phrase should that be? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I recommend "appointed to membership in the Order", also you might want to briefly mention that a non Canadian can be nominated for the Order somewhere in the intro. --MechBrowman 01:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • Done. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America

This is partly a self nomination. There are no facts in the article that are not referenced, and this is a detailed and comprehensive view of the GNAA.

Please note! featured articles are not necessarily main page articles! Objects must be actionable, so if you dislike the GNAA and wish to object solely based on this criteria, your objection will be discounted.

Ta bu shi da yu 06:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Note: I have created a list of what I noticed from the FAC to see what we need to do in order to make the article up to par: User:Zscout370/GNAA to do. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note 2: don't ask us for information that is not available. This is contrary to no original research. We are not investigatory journalists. Anyone who asks for sources that require extensive investigation and the creation of a primary source (as Wikipedia) is making a non-actionable objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I dispute that note is a correct analysis of policy. Taken at its extreme, an article about a extremely obscure topic could be featurable as a stub merely because no more information is available. Similar issues were raised on the failed FAC nomination for Thursday October Christian: Not every article actually has the potential to be featured. David | Talk 11:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I am going to work to get this article Featured. While I admit it got very complicated when people began to dispute objections, but I am willing to work with everyone to get it Featured. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What you seem unable to grasp Ta bu shi da yu is that if certain basic information is unavailable, there is no way to make a proper article on this subject. Before there can be an encyclopedia article, there must be primary and secondary sources that required extensive investigation to create, so the encyclopedia article can accurately and extensively summarize the subject. There is a lot of information in the article, and the individual incidents are well-referenced, but writing a good article on the group itself appears impossible due to a lack of basic facts. Even if (and that is a big if) there is no way to properly document the membership, the article needs to discuss the methods, goals, etc. of the organization or it is just a receitation of specific trolling events that cannot even be 100% positivelky linked to the group as opposed to copycats and provide little incite into the impact of the group as a whole. While the incidents are verifiable to the extent that we know what happened, the who, why, and how remain shrouded in mystery and the subject of nothing more than speculation. Perhaps a few more years and a bit more research will lend the necessary facts to make a good article, and this stuff can certainly stay on wikipedia in the meantime, but it cannot represent wikipedia's finest work in its current state due to the unprofessional standard of the research and therefore should not be a featured article. Indrian 19:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • With respect, I would disagree with you. This is not to say I don't understand the argument, indeed I do. I believe an FA can become featured if we have enough information to describe the actions of the group. Someone has already noted the Weathermen who's leadership is still unknown. and I believe we possibly could have got Deep Throat to FA status before W. Mark Felt was revealed as DT. I know that you are not saying this, but I'm finding that many people are objecting to the group itself, and not necessarily the article.
    • The objections so far is that it is too short (it is in fact 15.4K long, IMO not too short), that it is unverifiable yet there are too many references (go figure that out), that it is prone to edit wars (not any more) and that it shouldn't even exist on Wikipedia (after 6 VfDs it is now exempt from another one, so it should exist). Your objection is possibly the most valid (though I disagree with it).
    • You should all also note that I've been described as a troll for submitting the article to FAC, and also have been told I'm a vandal and that I'm submitting this as bad faith to keep controversy going. This may explain why I've been so short with some of you. For the record (this is for those who don't know who I am), I have submitted many articles to FAC and got them through: among them are Windows 2000, Architecture of Windows 2000, Btrieve, Architecture of Btrieve, CUPS and Exploding Whale. I have almost always used peer review. So when people tell me about my "bad faith" I start getting a little pissed off (though I know I should stay frosty cool). The fact that I have to defend myself like this at all tends to tell me that people aren't reading Wikipedia:Assume good faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I will certainly go on the record to say that I do not believe you are a troll or acting in bad faith in making this nomination. I think there are people on both sides of this debate that have acted horribly, but you are not one of them. If this article becomes featured, it will not herald an end to all standards in FAC, but I will stand by my position that this article is not ready due not to the quality of what the article contains, but rather to the importance of what is missing. Indrian 03:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • At thais point, the article will probably not be Featured, mainly since I still need to add substance to the article. However, I and others have solved objections. Also, everyone is welcome to edit the To do list I created (see the link above). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

---

• Support. I have been working with Ta bu on this one, and we took the trolling out and made this article into something special. I do agree that this article should not appear on the front page. It will be asking for trouble. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This is way too short for a featured article. Ambi 07:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article: featured articles need only be comprehensive and not too long/detailed (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). If you think it is too short, you must specify what has been left out, and it must be something that can actually be added to the article (ie: it has been previously documented). -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • While a formal requirement for length is not present, if we are missing things and can beef up the article size, this objection IS actionable. If I can fix it, I can listen to any objections. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is an entirely actionable objection if you had bothered or were capable of reading all of four lines down (The activities section is a collection of random trivia about a few incidents; I know enough about the GNAA to know that they've been responsible for a lot more than that. Methods, etc - the everyday stuff (which they're a lot more well known for, IMHO) - there really is a lot more that could be said. And that's most of the article. Membership says nothing about numbers in total, active members, where they organise. There is no history section at all. The "background information" section is part history, and the rest should be merged into the lead section. Furthermore, any details of reactions to GNAA are mishmashed in with the random activities, and could well have a detailed section of their own) Ambi 00:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I was replying to your original objection, which consisted solely of "This is way too short for a featured article." -- BRIAN0918  01:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • People only make one objection on an FAC. I'd clarified it by the time you posted, and I'd appreciate if you could remove your misleading comment. Ambi 01:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you should specify exactly what information you're missing, or at least I would consider the objection inactionable. /Peter ^Isotalo 07:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • What information is missing? The length is only a problem if stuff is missing. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The activities section is a collection of random trivia about a few incidents; I know enough about the GNAA to know that they've been responsible for a lot more than that. Methods, etc - the everyday stuff (which they're a lot more well known for, IMHO) - there really is a lot more that could be said. And that's most of the article. Membership says nothing about numbers in total, active members, where they organise. There is no history section at all. The "background information" section is part history, and the rest should be merged into the lead section. Furthermore, any details of reactions to GNAA are mishmashed in with the random activities, and could well have a detailed section of their own. Ambi 10:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      • This objection is actionable provided that the information you've requested has previously been documented. -- BRIAN0918  01:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd add that the article is not that much shorter than Heavy metal umlaut, over half of which is a list of sightings. Circeus 22:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Object Unlikely ever to meet the stability criterion - plus all those VfDs!!! jguk 07:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article, where it clearly states that "stability" refers to the edit history (ie: no edit/POV wars), and not petty vandalism or VFDs which do not change the article's contents (plus, there will not be any more VFDs). -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The VFD's have been stopped, and plus (surprising enough), the last additions to the article mainly deal with the hoax related to Harry Potter. Though I do agree it is short, there is nothing much we can add that can be considered factual and could borderline on trolling. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Really? Article is very stable. The only thing not stable was a short disputed sentence and the fact that I think the logo is notable enough to include in the article. That's about it really. As for VfDs - well, there will be no more of those. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 24 foot notes for a very short article. I know we all like referencing and notes, but this is going overboard. It's disruptive to any reader that isn't used to notes (the overwhelming majority) and will annoy anyone who's used footnotes enough to know that an average of one note per sentence is nothing short of disruptive (most academics). Keep the objective in mind here, everyone; it's an encyclopedia article, not a paper. /Peter ^Isotalo 07:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article and Wikipedia:Cite sources. -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is entirely actionable. A featured article must follow the style standards of the rest of the encyclopedia, and having seven references in a not particularly disputed paragraph is just not done on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of academic papers. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Unactionable objection. The objection is also contrary to Wikipedia:Cite sources. I must say, this is the first time I've every heard anyone complain of too many references. However, if you don't like notes, then may I suggest that you check out how to hide them by going to Template talk:Ref? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not contrary to Wikipedia:Cite sources. It's not being argued that there shouldn't be references, but instead that this is an insane number, even for an academic paper. Thus it is very actionable. Ambi 09:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry?! Every fact has been disputed at some point, so every fact has been referenced. Ambi, this is not an actionable objection! For the record, however, which of the sources would you remove? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
        • As an example, why on earth do we need seven references to illustrate one small incident about releasing Apple screenshots? This is excessive. Not to mention that I think it's pretty damned rude to go around declaring every objection unactionable before making any attempt to fix it. Ambi 10:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Rude huh? Sorry you feel that way. However, what's wrong with the 7 references? If you've been paying attention, everything about this article was controversial and all activities were disputed, so this is why there are so many references. This was demanded, and so this was provided. As for "fixing" what I consider unactionable - just exactly how did you think I was going to do that?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
            • Perhaps if you'd actually thought about the objection before denouncing it as unactionable. I know the article was controversial, but don't you think seven references for one small incident is a bit of overkill? Ambi 11:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
              • This is just as actionable as saying there are too many pictures in an article. Any reference that exists solely because of dispute on the talkpage should be looked over for example. /Peter ^Isotalo 15:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I removed some redundant references already from the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I would say this is not so much "unactionable" as "shouldn't be acted on". Would that more of our articles were so strongly referenced. This actually has the apparatus to let someone verify it. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • That other articles are poorly referenced doesn't excuse the fact that this article is over-referenced. If an article is over-referenced it makes it harder to actually concentrate on the information that is relevant. And I really don't like this suggestion that eventhough the objection is actionable, it should be ignored; that's just bad manners as well as a bad precedent. /Peter ^Isotalo 10:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
        • The thing Ta bu is trying to say is that whatever event or thing the GNAA pulled off, we have to reference it or people will consider the page is just being used for trolling. Of course, we could send some references to the external links section of the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Why? The Apple incident needs one reference. It doesn't need seven for people to realise that it happened. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
            • I agree here too. If there is more than one footnote for a single event (at least for what is recognizable as a single event to outsiders), all but one should be removed. The reader to keep in mind when writing should preferably be someone who has neither heard of GNAA before nor participated in any of the VfDs or other lengthy debates about them; to this person the massive array of referencing will just seem odd. If you're adding references just because of a metadebate with other Wikipedians, think the decision over. If possible, try to use inline citations whenever possible. I'd rather see "person X said/wrote/proclaimed flame bait Y" than a footnote that is merely a link to a longer quote. Also, there's no need to use3 footnotes for several different parts of the GNAA website when the text actually says "...according to their website". That's a very good reference in itself./Peter ^Isotalo 14:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
              • If multiple references are ever necessary for one thing, it may be better to have one superscript which links to a footnote which then links to those multiple references, rather than have each reference separately documented one-per-line. -- BRIAN0918  17:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Down to half the footnotes with some clever summarizing. Good work; objection withdrawn. /Peter ^Isotalo 14:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Gnaa.png is used under "fair use". As such, the current copyright owner needs to be listed on the description page, and a rationale as to why it can be used under "fair use" needs to be provided for each page that the image is used on. --Carnildo 08:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Meets all the criteria for a FA, is well written, appears stable from the history... just because I don't like the GNAA don't mean I can't support an article about them on Wikipedia. (Vote by User:WegianWarrior on 03:54, 30 July 2005).
• Object. Too short for a FA and too many references (yes, this is an actionable objection, because it makes the article hard to read). Also violates the third rule of what a featured article is: ("Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes).") In all honesty, this reads lke an advertisment for a troll organization rather than an featurable article. The fact that it's been nominated as an FAC could be looked at as an act of trolling itself. --FuriousFreddy 18:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article: featured articles need only be comprehensive and not too long/detailed (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). If you think it is too short, you must specify what has been left out, and it must be something that can actually be added to the article (ie: it has been previously documented). Also read Wikipedia:Cite sources.-- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is an actionable objection, per what I said above. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object to objection as I asked Ambi, the length of this article will only be a problem if information is missing. Also object to being called a troll, when I am clearly not. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • "Could be looked upon as", meaning not definite, but possibly. I apoligize if it was not your intention (although you should be able to see how it could very easily be interpreted as such). Now, when this article was first nominated, it was clearly not of featured quality status. It is significantly better now, but I'm still not certain that this article is "non-controversial" and does not have "ongoing edit wars". As such, but since my previous objections were rectified, I am changing my vote to neutral.--FuriousFreddy 14:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • From WP:WIAFA, "non-controversial" doesn't refer to just any old controversy, but to neutrality and factual accuracy. Are you suggesting that the article shouldn't be supported because it is not neutral or not factually accurate? "Ongoing edit wars" doesn't refer to petty vandalism, but to significant and repeated reversion/edit wars over content (for neutrality/factuality concerns). Do you see evidence of this in the article's recent history? (If you are referring to a VFD, that is not an edit war or concern over neutrality/factuality, but a concern over notability, and the fact that it has easily survived 6 VFDs should indicate that the majority of people consider the article to be notable and its content to be at least decently written so as to make sense). -- BRIAN0918  14:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is not that much shorter than Heavy metal umlaut, over half of which is a list of sightings. Circeus 22:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Heavy metal umlaut would not hold up to current FAC requirements: it's short, almost all lists, and has no references or citations. It became featured during a period when FAC requirements were dirfferent.--FuriousFreddy 22:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Most, if not all of these objections are objectionable. —RaD Man (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. While I don't agree at all with the constant calls for deletion of this page, I don't think it's Wikipedia's best work. I agree with Ambi's objections above (which are actionable). It would be interesting to note whether GNAA has objections to file-sharing/blogging/internet forums (as one source seems to indicate) or whether they're just having fun. Dave (talk) 20:27, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • This objection is actionable in part (wrt file-sharing/blogging/internet forums), provided that such information does indeed exist, which is unlikely. -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This objection is entirely actionable. I laid out problems with most of the article which still haven't been fixed, and I think information on their motivations is kind of crucial. I'd be very surprised if there isn't any information about it around, considering the amount of GNAA material around. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It's too short, and I would like to read about the life of members of the GNAA - this tells us all about what it does, but how do its members decide what it does in the first place? David | Talk 22:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article: featured articles need only be comprehensive and not too long/detailed (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). If you think it is too short, you must specify what has been left out, and it must be something that can actually be added to the article (ie: it has been previously documented). As stated below, these people are anonymous and any speculation about who they are or what their motives are would be original research. -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Once again, this is perfectly actionable if Brian reads past it's too short. What about I would like to read about the life of members of the GNAA - this tells us all about what it does, but how do its members decide what it does in the first place don't you understand, Brian? It is pertinent information - we have virtually nothing in this article about how they work. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I did reply to his entire objection. You may want to read my entire reply before accusing me of not reading an entire reply. -- BRIAN0918  05:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • How exactly do you want us to do this when they are all (very deliberately) anonymous? If I did write something, it would be original research. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • In all their years on the internet, I'm sure GNAA must have said something about this. Are you telling me you've both read everything there possibly is to read on the subject? If you can't be bothered to research something, then fine - but don't you dare call people's objections inactionable because of it. Ambi 01:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I have been around for a long while. If a GNAA member was revealed, then we most certainly would have heard about it because something would have been done to them (prosecution, revenge, etc). Nothing is known about the membership. Objection remains unactionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • You can't just assume "they've been around for so long, so there must be more information out there that you have not found" (appeal to probability or some other fallacy). You can suggest that you would like to see information on ____, but if no information is ever provided, you can't claim that the article is incomplete unless you know for a fact that the information does exist. -- BRIAN0918  05:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • My objection is perfectly actionable. Firstly, 'too short' has always been considered an actionable objection to a FAC: it means the article is not sufficiently comprehensive. Secondly I do not accept that the only possible writing on what life is like inside the GNAA must be original research. It isn't exactly the KGB or Mossad and there are plenty of books available which explain what people working for them do all day. Are there not former members around? And anonymous people are not necessarily silent. This information does exist (because there are some members of the GNAA), and I simply do not accept that it can't be found. David | Talk 08:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. In the lead, it says the name was chosen because people are still uncomfortable talking about gays, and because "nigger" is a slur, but then it later says the name was derived from the movie Gayniggers from Outer Space. If this is sufficiently clarified in the article, assume I support. It's an informative look at trolling techniques and the internet's methods for stopping them. For those opposed to it's supposed shortness, read Wikipedia:What is a featured article: featured articles need only be comprehensive and not too long/detailed (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). -- BRIAN0918  05:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object - The article does not discuss the motivations of the group. Without this information, reading the article is unsatisfying. (Addition: It would also be helpful if the "Activities" section was broken up using subheadings). Thanks to Zscout370 for addressing all my concerns. Cedars 12:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • IIRC, it does say their motivations are unknown, which, unless someone on Wikipedia is able to find one of them and have a sit-down interview, I think it will remain true that their motivations are unknown. If this is correct, then there is no more information that can be added, so it would be complete. In other words, your objection is not valid/actionable. -- BRIAN0918  16:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • What makes you so sure that there is no information around? The GNAA has been on the internet for years, and I'd be very surprised if they hadn't talked about their motivations somewhere. Just because you're too lazy to research an objection does not make it unactionable. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • How did I become a contributor to the article? I simply replied to the FAC page for the article. I am not one of its contributors. Also, your reasoning is chock full of fallacies. Have a nice day. :)  BRIAN0918  06:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • If there is information around, please provide it. I happen to know that the information that you are asking for is not available: this is a quite deliberate action on the part of the GNAA, as they are intensely annoying, and some of their actions could be seen as criminal. Do you think that the slashdot owners wouldn't have taken measures if they knew who they were dealing with? No offense Ambi, but either provide the information or please refrain from asking for information that is non-existent. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I launched the GNAA an email, seeing what I can get from them. I asked for their motivations, why they hate blogs and how many members they have. Well, it will be ironic that they hate file-sharing networks since they admited to using Bit-torent to share the movie Gayniggers from Outterspace. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Symbolic object on the grounds that I feel this should not be an article at all, although I am aware that is an invalid grounds for objection. Everyking 23:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Then you'll be fine with me crossing it out :)  BRIAN0918  23:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Objection - The article is about a small group of Internet trolls: it is barely worthy of an entry separate from Slashdot in the Wikipedia, let alone featured article status. A number of the external links that either broken seem to be broken at the moment or go to advertising messages or "register with our site" text rather than good credible sources. The article doesn't appear to represent Wikipedia's best work. --Mysidia 00:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection for obvious reasons. At most it could be a weak/minor objection with respect to the external link problems, but two bad external links does not a featured article not make... or something like that.... -- BRIAN0918  00:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree... the subject itself can't be actionable. This has been covered by VfD several times now. Has a point with the broken links, however we often have a last retrived section. Will look into this. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that this is the worst behaviour from article nominators that I have ever seen on FAC. The whole idea of objections is to see that they're fixed so the article can become a better FA, not to try and find reasons for discounting them (which here amounts all too often to "I can't be bothered fixing them"). If you want the objection to be dealt with, fix the external links issue. It would take you all of two minutes. But then again, you'd rather declare it inactionable because you can't be bothered, like you have with all of the rest of these. Ambi 01:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • If it only takes, as you said, two minutes, why don't you fix the external links yourself? —RaD Man (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I will fix them. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I removed the Netsys link, but I will put a note that you must be a member to see the Something Awful link. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's a better referenced article than many other featured articles on Wikipedia, and does a good job treating the subject of trolling organizations. —shoecream 05:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• This is not a valid, actionable nomination. --Golbez 06:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection to a nomination... - Ta bu shi da yu 06:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Ladies and gentlemen, I finally got a motive for these attacks. They target sites that they deem pro-Zoinist. See [12], and [13]. Also, they mention other groups they work with and the people who did the attacking. We can describe the users in a section of the article, and another section for the groups they work with, like ANUS [14], [15]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Now we're getting somewhere. There's still massive holes in the article, but it's nice to see that someone is responding with further research instead of denouncing the objectors. Ambi 10:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your work Zscout370. It has really improved the article. Cedars 13:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Except... that motivation is by a known troll. I don't think it's a valid motivation: I think it's shit-stirring. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • It is something, at least something. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object: For the same reasons that I have been in favor of deletion: No names, no addresses, no motives, no verification, in other words. Encyclopedia articles are for verifiable subjects. That there have been attacks by people who refer to GNAA, that there have been attacks that other people say were like the GNAA, is one thing, but until names and documentary history can be presented, this is original research. The other axis for objection is that of importance. An FAC on a polypeptide found only in fish in the arctic ocean is on a subject with stable reference, verifiability, and, as well, on a thing with more significance than the most celebrated Internet circlej "phenomenon." When the authors can say something about the real people, we can be sure that there is a single group involved and not just a name tossed about for jollies. When the authors can demonstrate that the group, which is definable by motive, objective, and identity, has a place either as an off-shoot of a larger political act or as an ongoing struggle, then they can demonstrate that the so-called GNAA is significant enough to be a featured article. And, having written this, queue the petulant foot stamping accusations against me for daring to vote according to Wikipedia standards. Geogre 12:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • To Ambi: It is this level of objection to the article's contents (ie verification that actions are actually by the GNAA) that has required so many citations to be used in the article. -- BRIAN0918  19:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • To the objector, we can publish user names, but I do not think we can post contact information in the article. That will amount to it being spam. For those who wish to speak to the GNAA, they can just go to their website. We cannot verify an address too, but when have they ever done stuff offline anyways? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support: The large amount of attention and controversy have made this article quite accurate and well-referenced. Distasteful though it may be, this is now a mature and stable (once the VfD trolls have been taken care of) Wikipedia article. --TexasDex 19:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Support because there are few articles so carefully looked over as much as this one. This falls into probably the top ten percent as to peer review, and is rather high in popularity. I cannot see people objecting to this except on the basis of content, which is not a valid objection. Ich 19:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Completely Strongly Oppose. Article is way, way, way too short. Lacks any images other than the logo. It's existance on Wikipedia is disputed. My opinion of the nominator, after the Doctor Who 'joke' and nominations such as this has unfortunately waned. Hedley 23:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I added two images last night: one of their sig and one topic they crapflooded. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • My opinion of the objector, after reading this nasty little personal attack, has also waned. And don't give me that Doctor Who crap: I have apologised for this many times, and that has nothing to do with this FAC nomination. I have not done anything like it since then. The article will remain on Wikipedia as it has passed 6 VfDs and you know it. There is more than one image on the article. Please explain what information is missing from the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Its existence on Wikipedia is not disputed. It has been disputed in the past, but the disputes have always come out in favor of keeping it. Not a valid reason. Images have been added since your opposition. Besides, it was never a valid objection since Featured articles in the past have had no images. The only objection that might be actionable is the "too short" statement, although this isn't in WP:WIAFA, and can only be actionable if content does exist that can be added. It's that simple: if an article is allowed on Wikipedia, and is comprehensive, then the length shouldn't matter (unless it is too long; ie: overly-detailed). -- BRIAN0918  14:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh really. So if I go and VfD it now, which is perfectly in my rights, it isn't disputed? Hedley 15:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I would suggest reading WP:WIAFA completely. As it says, the only thing close to talking about not being "disputed" refers to neutrality/factuality disputes. You can go ahead and VFD it if you want, I'm sure the Wikipedia community will like you for that. Until then, its notability is not disputed, and its neutrality/factuality is definitely not disputed. -- BRIAN0918  15:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• I have added more to the article, I was wondering if yall want to come back and read it again, seeing if I am missing anything else. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• See [16] for a comparison of then and now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak support. The article can still be improved a bit. For instance, more information on the members can be found in one of the l0de radio hour recordings ("meet the gnaa" AFAIR). As for the motivations, Why your Movable Type blog must die, even if a personal essay, seems to give a good example of a target (the blogs) and why the GNAA hates them. Sam Hocevar 10:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I will try to listen to it, but I am moving into a house today. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. When an encyclopedia article cannot provide a name (other than "TimeCop") for the founder and president of a movement, I'm inclined to believe that there isn't enough information available to write a feature-article. And yes, that's an actionable objection. --Scimitar ^parley 15:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's not "actionable", because there's nothing anyone can do about it. The only thing your objection could apply to in WP:WIAFA is comprehensiveness/length, but if we've both defined an article's subject as being notable (as we have through 6 VFDs), and the article's content as being comprehensive (no other known information exists that can be added), then I don't see how it's a valid objection. -- BRIAN0918  16:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • One could apply your argument to articles such as the Weathermen: who founded the movement? Who exactly were the leaders? How bad is it for the reader if this information is not known, since what is important is the actions and declarations of the group, not the identity of its individuals. Would you have objected to Deep Throat as well two months ago? And anyway, it's not impossible to find timecop's real name. But since for all his GNAA actions he is always referred to as "timecop", not his real name, he probably does not wish this information to be publicised. Sam Hocevar 16:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, if it's possible to get TimeCop's real name, get it, include it, and my objection will disappear. Thus, it clearly is an actionable objection. As for the fact that he may not want his identity published, the concerns of an internet troll are not that high on my priority list. Since the information can be obtained, and is not included, but probably should be, the article is not comprehensive enough. --Scimitar ^parley 17:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No, it's not actionable if it requires original research (which it will - there are no secondary sources that mention his real name). We are not investigatory journalists. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. based on the guidelines, this does not meet FAC standards. #3: "Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes)." (emphasis mine) the GNAA article although quite well written is a constant point of contention, see the 5 or 6 VFD's its had, not to mention which it is a constant troll/vandalism target. To me this hits the "ongoing edit wars" part square on the head. It also does not meet all of standard #2: "Be comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-written." as a subject of vandalism and edit wars it does not classify as stable IMO. Thats my $0.02 anyway. 64.222.238.123 16:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC) (oops forgot I wasnt logged in.)  ALKIVAR™ 16:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • All articles are subject to petty vandalism (especially main page featured articles). Vandalism is not an edit war. This article isn't undergoing edit wars. As the standards stated, "uncontroversial" refers to neutrality and factual accuracy, which has nothing to do with notability (the reason for the VFDs). -- BRIAN0918  16:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've merged/removed several of the citations and references. A suggestion for lengthening the article would be to quote some of the press releases/references within the article. This will help expand some of the small paragraphs and make the article seem less like a bunch of random incidents. -- BRIAN0918  17:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• 'support this article has really made it to feature status Yuckfoo 18:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:GNAA press release.jpg is claimed as GFDL. I don't think you can do that, not when it's a screenshot of two copyrighted programs, has at least four trademarked/copyrighted logos prominently displayed, and is a screenshot of a large block of copyrighted text -- and there was no creative effort involved in making the screenshot. --Carnildo 18:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed. :)  BRIAN0918  18:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And unfixed by Zscout370. --Carnildo 20:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Based on my conversation with Carnildo, I had to place it as Fair use. The image has to be fair use since I cannot take a press release screen shot and make it GFDL. Also, to those who wish to add screenshots, please try it using Firefox and save yourself the trouble of dealing with copyright issues. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This cannot be a featured article in its current state. While this is a group that may be gaining notoriety on the internet, too much of the information is entirely speculative. All of the information on members, policies, goals, leadership, etc. is speculation. As Geogre points out, there is currently no way to create a verifiable encyclopedia article on the group, which therefore puts this into the realm of original research. While many individual events are well-chronicled and well-referenced in the article, it is impossible to discern how these individual events relate to the organization as a whole due to the lack of neccessary background information. I am sure someday this group can be put into proper perspective and perhaps be turned into a first-class encyclopedia article, but it cannot be today. Indrian 18:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't exactly "actionable" in that nothing can be done about it. -- BRIAN0918  18:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • These objections are actionable. To gain my support one would merely have to provide the proper documentation and perspective. If the objection cannot be acted upon because such information is unavailable, then the article should fail as a matter of principle. Indrian 18:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not necessarily that such information is unavailable, but that it doesn't exist, and any speculation would be original research. So essentially nobody there is "no action that can be done to correct your objection", so it's "not actionable". -- BRIAN0918  18:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • We expect the best from our featured articles. If the subject matter does not allow for the best, then the subject matter does not warrant being featured. You seem to think being featured is the natural state of an article, and all objections must involve ways to bring it up to FA status. Sometimes, based on current information, it's simply not possible to bring it up to FA status. Imagine a very well-written, well-sourced article on the seventh Harry Potter book - would you vote to feature that, even though it is entirely unverifiable? Perhaps I should say This is not a valid objection to a valid, actionable objection? Simply put, Indrian gave you the possible action - that you are unable to undertake it is your problem, not his. That you are unable to fix the article does not render it automatically good for FA status. --Golbez 18:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well said. If Mark reads nothing else from this entire monstrosity, I hope he reads Golbez's comments above. Dave (talk) 19:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • How is it my problem? I did not nominate the article nor do I care to do the necessary research. I'm simply replying to the various (expected) objections as I see fit. I do believe all articles can become featured. If any information is not known or cannot be known, then one simply says "this information has never been documented", such as in the Deep Throat article before his name was revealed. -- BRIAN0918  19:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- The fact that I can almost always be sure that Wikipedia will have content relating to developing social themes and trends remains one of WP's strongest attractions for me. This article helps to demonstrate the scope and immediacy of WP's content. Some of the objections made here strike me as unduly pedantic -- the article is well sourced, long enough to be informative, and worth featuring. -- Adrian 19:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I mean Support (what, this is not a VfD? yikes!) Now seriously, the article is well written and meets the criteria. The subject itself is not controversial, rather the existence of the article itself is, and that existence has been established definitely after 6 VfDs. I also support as per Adrian's comment above. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 01:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good piece of work on something obscure. pamri 02:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• I believe that this is a bad-faith nomination and oppose the attempt to bring the ugliness of VfD to FAC... — David Remahl 06:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • **rolls eyes** Think whatever you like. You are wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, and support. — David Remahl 05:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Relax. This is ridiculous. I know second graders who are more polite than the some of the users posting here. Addressing objections does not require explosive and insulting responses. I'd like to thank Zscout370, as he seems to be one of very few calm and rational wikipedians contributing here and to the article itself. If possible, I want to see more of his kind of contributions, relating to the individual members and activities of the organization. There are several very short sections, and more information related to those topics would be great. Even so, this is a support, because it's unclear whether or not more information like this is available. --Spangineer (háblame) 23:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, one more thing—why the link to a dead IRC channel? --Spangineer (háblame) 23:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind words and I have removed the dead link to the GNAA IRC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Support. It's as comprehensive as an article on the subject could be, without being too detailed, and I didn't see any edit wars when viewing the page history. However, after reading other people's remarks, I'm still unsure about the copyright status of Image:GNAA press release.jpg. If it is tagged correctly, assume my full support. Extraordinary Machine 00:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The question about the image was resolved above. I had to make it fair use, since I cannot take a screenshot and make it GFDL, especially if I am using IE. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Zscout cleared the confusion up for me on my talk page, so I have change my vote. Extraordinary Machine 00:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This article is on a source where little information is known. A short article is therefore expected. Having long been a reader of FAC, and having most of WP:WIAFA memorized, I know this article can pass muster. By the way, if you copy the entire article and paste it into Microsoft Word, it is eight pages long. If you copy and paste the enitrety of this ridiculously overwrought FAC discussion, it is 17 pages long as of this posting. RyanGerbil10 04:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Why not. --Golbez 17:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, I am not sure anyone knows this, but Raul654 has removed this from the main FAC section and another admin closed this debate by placing a template on the GNAA talk page notifying us about it's failure to get FA status. I sent this article to peer review so I can let the folks from here tell me what I have to do to get this article Featured. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Doesn't a properly closed FAC require a vote tally, and require the counting admin to reveal himself? --Golbez 17:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • I do not think so, but I can perform a tally if you wish. I am just going to count the supports and objections, but I will also count those that are disputed, since everyone was (except for one symbolic objection). Once I figure that out, I will add to my To do list and see what happens at the Peer Review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
      • (A) The FAC is not a vote; one major objection is enough to kill a nomination; (B) the "counting admin" (the person who failed this nom) is me; on the FAC, it's (almost) always me (with maybe 3 or 4 exceptions in the last year). →Raul654 18:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm coming in late here, but could you please point out which objections were not addressed? Please see Gay Nigger Association of America/FAC Objections for a summary. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. I was actually thinking more of FPC, which almost always carries a vote count at the end. --Golbez 18:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok, off the peer review I go. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Many-worlds interpretation

Interesting quantum physics theory hinting at the possibility of many possible worlds.

Quantum bird 01:36, 30, July 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. Something needs to be done about the dense block of mathematics in section 6. I got lost about a quarter of the way into it.
  2. Section 8 needs an explanation of exactly what is misleading about many-worlds in science fiction, in addition to the why.
  3. Section 9 needs expansion.

  --Carnildo 03:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object I couldn't understand what the intro was saying, so stopped there. Needs to be crafted so that a layman can gain an appreciation of what it being discussed, jguk 07:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I have to agree with jguk - even through I read about this theory earlier, and I am a fan of hard sf, this is worse then star trek technobabble. It may make sense for somebody familiar with quantum physics, but it needs explanation for laymen like most of us are, I am afraid. The lead is quite short, it can be expanded 3-4 times, hopefully with explanation of most of the terms like 'Copenhagen interpretation', Schrödinger's equation, state function, quantum superposition and such. The article seems comprehensive, but it is not easy to read. I don't suggest dumbing down - keep the math and such - but plese add some explanations that would allow most of this to be understood without the need to get a PhD in quantum physics first :) Section 'Speculative implications of many worlds' should be expanded or merged with sf section above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object Like the others before me, I can't consider this article well-written, primarily for the fact that it isn't well-written for a reader who doesn't understand the vast amount of detail that the article relies on. Perhaps if it had been written with us amateurs in mind. ConnorShlatz 2:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object Same as most of the other people above. The article is very vague and tends to go in circles, and even after disscusing the content with one of the main writers in the main talk page, I still have a vague idea of what MWI is about.

Chicago, Illinois

This article has been subject to a lot of work over the last few weeks and I feel it is one of Wikipedia's best. We have been working hard to correct the objections brought up in the peer review, and all of them have been dealt with. The article was also re-organized to the standard set by WikiProject Cities. It now provides an in-depth look into nearly everything one might want to know about Chicago and finally does the city justice. --Gpyoung ^talk 18:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and Support --Gpyoung ^talk 18:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support- comprehensive, well-written. Just a comment: I would remove the hours of operation and phone numbers from the museums and galleries; they seem irrelevant. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support - for the reasons stated above, and because not only is it a well written article, but one of global import being that Chicago is a city important to global culture and economy. Agriculture 19:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

With the changes that have been made, I now strongly support this article.

• Weak Support - Overall, the article is very well written and comprehensive. Much improved and has addressed past recommendations well. The reason I am voting with weak support is mainly because of the skyline photo at the top. While it is an improvement, the alternative viewpoint of the city focuses on other areas. For example, the Sears Tower (the tallest building in the US) is barely visible in the background - personally, I think that should be one of the major things visible, since that is most commonly associated with the city. Dr. Cash 19:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Article looks good! A very important city and an excellent example of how to write a good city article! Dr. Cash 16:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Chicago lit.jpg does not have information on its copyright status. "May be in the public domain" isn't good enough: either it is, or it isn't.
  2. The image Image:Home Insurance Building.JPG does not have copyright information.
  3. The images Image:ChicagoWinter.jpg, Image:Chicagocityhall.jpg, Image:Secondcity.jpg, Image:SoxPark.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, fair use images should be avoided if at all possible. Of the four images, only Image:Secondcity.jpg cannot be replaced by an image under a free license. That image needs to have the copyright owner listed, and to include reasoning as to why its use on Chicago, Illinois constitutes "fair use". The other three images need to be removed from the article and replaced with free-content images.

  --Carnildo 19:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. The city logo is still of a very bad quality resolution, and I agree with Flcelloguy's comment about the contact details of the museums so much so that I must oppose. Also, here's a link to the recent peer review, and I'm disappointed to see that none of the points mentioned seem to have been addressed fully. Harro5 07:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have removed the phone numbers and hours of operation from the Museums section and I have also found a better, higher resolution image of the city seal. As for the peer review, the vast majority of the chages proposed there have been implemented; the {{Chicago}} template has been reduced in size, the location maps have been totally redone for greater clearity, prose has been added to the Museums section, Health and Medicine was made its own section, and the images that were not tagged have been. If there is anything else that you would suggest please feel free. --Gpyoung ^talk 17:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. Unless a pressing objection surfaces, I'm happy. Harro5 07:20, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Support-I think this is one of the best big-city articles out there. I too agree that the Muesums shouldt have hours listed, this is afterall an encyclopedia, but I see that it has been fixed. POlsen 17:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I think maybe this is a good article, about an important city. 內布拉斯加 00:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose -- 1) The article size is too long. I believe I have commented on this in the previous nomination. For my reasons on page size please see the Louisville nomination below. 2) Misuse of headings. Avoid the numerous headings. Its bloated. 3) History is too long. It should be a summary of the History of Chicago, not a mirror image of that article. 4) Units are poorly formatted, it does not follow the Manual of Style. I've corrected them in the climate section of the Louisville section, it is visible in edit mode. Please make the appropriate changes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree with the article size being too long. It currently states that it's 41 Kb. Sure, in the land of 300 baud to 14.4 dialup, this might be significant, but on today's world of broadband, I hardly see this as a problem. Chicago is a very large city, and there's a lot of information to include about the city. I would rather see as much general information about the city as possible on the main city page, rather than having to click for more information on every major subsection. I also noted in the Louisville FAC discussion that the Seattle, Washington and San Jose, California (currently both Featured Articles) are both larger in size than both the Louisville and Chicago articles. Dr. Cash 16:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You haven't read my latest post in the Lousiville article on the size. Its NOT about the bandwidth, let me repeat; its about highlighting the salient points about the city. Please read Wikipedia:Summary style. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:51, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, this article is not long because it isnt summarized, it is long because it includes many different topics and tries to cover as much about Chicago as possible. It is long because of an abondance of content, not because of lack of summarization. I and many other editors have tried to cut down on the "fluff" in the article, but not much can be taken out as we seek to completely cover the city of Chicago. --Gpyoung ^talk 20:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - I really want to support this article, but I can't yet. My main gripe is that the article is not cohesive - it reads like a bunch of small sections thrown together, not a single article. This makes the article unable to convey what Chicago means, what it is; the article is currently more like a broad collection of factoids. While I realize there are some complaints about length, it does not cover enough ground. One obvious point is a complete lack of discussion of the many distinct neighborhoods and districts of Chicago (in addition to discussion, a map of these would be fantastic). This article should give a better, "broad-stroke" impression of the city, and summary style should be employed more fully to really cover the topic. There is no reason to need fair use images for a topic like this; I'm sure we have hundreds of editors that live in Chicago and can go out and snap some shots for us, making fair use claims dubious. - Bantman 19:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object - Most of my concerns were addressed in the peer review, but since then the history portion has been subdivided into far too many short sections. I also second Carnildo's objection about the images. We really shouldn't have fair use images like Image:Chicagocityhall.jpg that can be replaced by anyone with a digital camera. No featured article can have unverified images, as this one does. - SimonP 00:57, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I have re-organized the history section of the article in order to group similar sub-headings while still leaving the newly added content, now it is back down to four as with was during the Peer Review. I hope this helps. --Gpyoung ^talk 19:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Support - I feel this is a comprehensive, well-written article that is very qualified to become a featured article. In my comparison of Chicago to San Jose, California (which was a featured article), Chicago's intro and history sections seem smaller, so I don't understand why people are complaining that they are too long. The article does not seem bloated to me, I would rather see more important information on one page than scattered about several sub-pages. A lot of work has gone into this article to have it conform to the standards of WikiProject Cities and the article is now ready to be a featured article. -- Shoffman11 03:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment (not a vote either way), shouldn't there be a mention of Carl Sandburg's 1916 poem "Chicago": "Hog Butcher for the World/Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat/…They tell me you are wicked and I believe them…/And having answered so… I give them back the sneer and say to them:/Come and show me another city with lifted head singing so proud to be alive…

Similarly, no mention of the Haymarket Riot? Of Studs Terkel?

The section on music makes no mention of Chicago's massive (if perhaps belated) role in the folk revival: in the 1970s, Chicago had pretty much taken over from New York as the center of that musical movement, with the likes of John Prine and Steve Goodman and venues like the Earl of Old Town, Somebody Else's Troubles, and (later) Holstein's, not to mention the Old Town School. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:18, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The lead, at least, is now featurable, and I really desperately want Chicago to be a featured article, as fascinating and complex as it is. I'll probably tweak the article some more (under my IP address) to maske it even better. Dralwik 20:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I believe the article is a wonderful example of how a Wikipedia city article should be written. It is comprehensive and well written. I also love that through the history of the article itself many of the contributors have taken chances and have tried different things even though they don't always conform to emerging standards. I've seen this influence and filter into other city articles everywhere which in turn influences the aforementioned standards. This is an example of the beauty of Wikipedia. Many minds all building something for the masses and taking different viewpoints to get there. The day Wikipedians stop taking these chances is the day Wikipedia becomes stale and dies.

Now, while I understand the POV of some who believe the article is too long I disagree with that sentiment. It is my belief that from a usability standpoint readers would prefer lots of summary information with links into deeper articles rather than a list of a bunch of links to deeper articles. Proper use of a TOC prevents massive scrolling if one would like to jump to the section they want. If the article becomes big, then so be it, Chicago is afterall a large global city and much can be written about it. Jasenlee 21:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Asteroid

This article gives a lot of good information. I think it has the ability to be a featured article. Rentastrawberry 23:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. While this seems to be a comprehensive and well-written article, it needs references. --DanielNuyu 00:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object-Although the article is very comprehensive and well wirtten from what I can see, I do agree that it needs references. Also, I think more pictures have to be added into the article. I understand that there are not many "different looking" pictures of asteroids, however something has to be done to add pictures that do not all look the same if at all possible, and the pictures that are already there can be moved around the spread them out in the article if no new ones can be added. --Gpyoung ^talk 03:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Isle of Wight

This has literally ballooned into one of the most comprehenisve and noteworthy articles on a small but historically significant, place. It includes good summaries and links to further artciles extending sunjects. Dainamo 10:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose I think maybe the article is ok, but not quite enough for a feature. 內布拉斯加 01:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object There is no listing of references used, or any inline citations. Pentawing 21:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object – references not formatted correctly, some sections are too small while some others need a summary. The images too are poorly displayed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:51, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Acknowledged the observations above are noted for direction in getting the article to meet required standards. Not so sure about ctritcisms of brevity in sections, especially where summarised with link to longer article. Additionally when meeting the requirements of a reference article a lot of small sections can be appropriate. Nevertheless I will seek to address requirements with other contributors Dainamo 19:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Winter of Discontent

This was recently the UK collaboration of the fortnight and underwent major improvements bringing it I think to featured-standard. (I didn't do any of these changes, but will try to fix reasonable objections). The only reservation I have is that it has proved impossible apparently to obtain free images of the strikes - I think though, as famous historical images, these qualify as one of the stronger reasons for fair use, alongside covers of books and suchforth. Morwen - Talk 19:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support but then I did write it. I anticipate there may problems with the images. David | Talk 19:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose images. They are all copyvios! Dunc|☺ 20:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Not quite. There's one that might be public domain. --Carnildo 20:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. If you feel they are copyvios, can I suggest take it to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems and get them deleted entirely! I don't see why we should tolerate copyvios on non-featured articles. Morwen - Talk 21:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The images Image:Finsburyparkrubbish.jpg, Image:Callaghanwaitingatchurch.jpg, Image:Fordstrikers.jpg, Image:Outofpetrol1979.jpg, Image:Callaghancrisisiv.jpg, Image:Dayofaction220179.jpg, Image:Cohsepicket.jpg, Image:Gmwucemeterypicket.jpg, Image:Armyambulances79.jpg, Image:Crisiswhatcrisis.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be avoided if at all possible. If fair use images must be used, then the images need information on their sources and copyright owners, and need an explanation for why fair use can be claimed for each page that the image is used on. --Carnildo 20:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is just a general principle without any specific implications. "if at all possible" and "must" are vague, and could demand removal of all the images or just a few. Do you have any specific suggestions, as to, say, which images are more defensible, or how we might obtain free images of events that happened nearly 30 years ago? Morwen - Talk 21:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • For getting free images, you could contact the copyright holders and ask them to release the image under the GFDL or an acceptable Creative Commons license. You could look for images that aren't currently in the article, and ask the copyright owners to release the images. You could check places with known free-content images: Wikimedia Commons, ibiblio, the US government archives, etc. I'm not sure about British copyright law, but it's even possible that there are some images that were never copyrighted in the first place.
    • If you can't get free images, then you should trim the images used down to a minimum, and follow the rules for fair use. I'd say that the important images for the article are Image:Finsburyparkrubbish.jpg (a good lead image), Image:Fordstrikers.jpg (the Ford strike seems to have triggered most of the mess), Image:Dayofaction220179.jpg (a major event), Image:Armyambulances79.jpg (a major event).
      • If you look at the talk pages I have appealed for images from anyone around at the time. The pictures of the Ford strikers and the Day of Action are video stills from ITN; the rubbish in Finsbury Park and the Army Ambulances are probably from a large photo library which I have not yet identified. They were printed in Whitaker's Almanack for 1980. My impression is that UK copyright law is actually slightly stricter than US. David | Talk 08:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object in addition to the images issues, the lead is underdeveloped too.--nixie 23:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you suggest how it should be improved? I have expanded it a bit. David | Talk 08:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm a passing stranger who was interested in the topic, and that is why I am here. The text is informative and entertaining, and thorough. And I was impressed by the large number and diverse range of images. If the problems with regards image ownership were resolved - and I take the image policy seriously - I would support this article immediately. Without the images, or with relatively mundane stock photographs of the people involved, 10 Downing St, a lorry, striking people in general, I would still support it, although I would be less enthusiastic. If only Wikipedia had been around in the late 1970s, we would have photographs of all these things.-Ashley Pomeroy 14:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

- After reading the objections to the previous nomination, I belive this article is ready to become FAC. SVera1NY 17:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

The old nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope John Paul II/archive 1 --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The images Image:Pjp2b.jpg, Image:Giovannipaolo 2arms.jpg, Image:Dalai Lama.jpg, Image:Jp ii wailing wall.jpg, Image:Pope and Christodoulos2.jpg, Image:Qur'an.jpg, Image:Toronto.jpg, Image:Yad Vashem.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, "fair use" and other non-free images should be avoided if at all possible. If fair use images must be used, the source for the image must be given, and a rationale as to why fair use can be claimed must be provided for each page the image is used on.
  2. The image Image:Pope-shot-26.jpg is claimed as public domain, which is clearly incorrect.
  3. The rationale for why Image:Pope John Paul II with Pinochet.jpg is in the public domain is confusing.

Object, the prose isn't exactly brilliant, there are very few paragraphs over 2-3 sentences, much of the article reads like bullet points without the bullets.--nixie 23:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The nominator seems to have deleted the old nomination in preparing this one, but I seem to remember it wasn't all that long ago that there was a HUGE list of objections, and I can't see any evidence that any great progress has been made.Harro5 08:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • The edit summary indicates that the old one has been moved to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope John Paul II/archive 1. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Object. The old nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope John Paul II/archive 1. Most of my objections still stand. The Pope deserves a perfect article, and this is not it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object- he he, edit conflict. I basically typed the same thing as Piotrus, but it seems like because of the edit conflict, it "lost" my comment. Anyways, I have planning to rewrite/expand this for a long time, but haven't found the time yet because I've been quite busy. Many of the objections from last time have not been addressed yet. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Military history of Canada

An article I started back in 2003 that has since been much improved by a number of editors. In the last few weeks I've worked to cover the last omissions and bring it up to FA standards. It recently went through peer review, and all concerns raised there have been addressed. - SimonP 22:08, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Support- a great article that is comprehensive. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. What can I say, this is a really good article! Very well written, very articulate, and quite comprehensive. Really deserves to be on the main page. --Mb1000 03:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support, the only thing thats a bit flat is the opening sentence. Otherwise its a great article--nixie 06:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support - good stuff. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object- Although the article is well written and comprehensive I can't help but notice that it seems a little bit to positive at times. I'd like to see less emphasis on the 'for a country of only ... inhabitants' aspect, however unique it might be. The sentence 'Canada fully committed itself to the alliance against Communism being a founding member of NATO and signing the NORAD treaty with the United States' should be rewritten in my opinion, since it was an alliance against the threat of the Communist bloc and its sphere of influence, not an alliance against the idea itself. Also, according to the Wikipedia article on the Vietnam War, 'thousands of Canadians joined the American armed forces and served in Vietnam' which should be mentioned in the article. Regards, Lankhorst 13:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Astrophysics Data System

The ADS is a vital research tool for astronomers, and contributes as much to annual astronomical output as all the astronomers in France. My PhD would probably have taken me about 40 years to do without it, so I thought it was deserving of a good article. I've worked on it over the last few days and thought I would propose it here as I think it is comprehensive and hopefully reasonably interesting and enlightening for non-astronomers. Worldtraveller 16:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. A good summary, but it seems to fall short of comprehensiveness. Note for instance the length of the sections. Everyking 17:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What more would you like to know? If you tell me I'll include it. Which sections are shorter than they could be? Worldtraveller 18:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Some of the sections are only a paragraph or two long. Everyking 18:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

A section doesn't necessarily need to be long to be comprehensive. Please indicate what you think is missing so I can rectify it. Worldtraveller 18:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support from this ex-astronomer. Well done, sir. ADS was fortunate to be there just as the web was taking off. Query whether it is worth mentioning other on-line sources of academic journal articles, such as http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph ? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point - I'll add details of astro-ph and ADS's integration with it. Worldtraveller 16:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • done that now - Worldtraveller 17:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support: Looks pretty good to me, and meets all the criteria. Giano | talk 19:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support, well organized and seems to provide a pretty comprehensive range of info. Uber nemo 04:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Object- for now. My main issue is with the references. You have them, but there is no way to tell what fact leads to what reference. (Subsequently, the requests for reference I list here would probably be solved by simply writing what the cite is, like this: People choking on chicken nuggets is bad for business (Smith, Jonsey) where a reference by Smith and Jonsey is listed in references below.) Okay, so what is the cite for these statements?:

Several studies have estimated quantitatively how much more efficient ADS has made astronomy; one estimated that ADS increased the efficiency of astronomical research by 333 full-time equivalent research years per year...

"one [study]" - which one?

...and another found that in 2002 its effect was equivalent to 736 full-time researchers, or all the astronomical research done in France.

"another [study]" - which one?

ADS has allowed literature searches that would previously have taken days or weeks to carry out to be completed in seconds, and it is estimated that ADS has increased the readership and use of the astronomical literature by a factor of about three since its inception.

Estimated by whom?

In monetary terms, this increase in efficiency represents a considerable amount. There are about 12,000 active astronomical researchers worldwide, so ADS is the equivalent of about 5% of the working population of astronomers. The global astronomical research budget is estimated at between 4,000 and 5,000 million USD...

Who's estimate is it? To put weight to the following statement, some verification would be helpful.

so the value of ADS to astronomy would be about 200–250 million USD annually. Its operating budget is a small fraction of this amount.

Not as an actionable objection, but as a matter of curiosity, what is its budget?

Studies reveal that the highest per-capita users of ADS are France and Netherlands-based astronomers, and while more developed countries (measured by GDP per capita) use the system more than less developed countries; the relationship between GDP per capita and ADS use is not linear. The range of ADS uses per capita far exceeds the range of GDPs per capita, and basic research carried out in a country, as measured by ADS usage, has been found to be proportional to the square of the country's GDP divided by its population.

Which studies?

ADS usage statistics also suggest that astronomers in more developed countries tend to be more productive than those in less developed countries.

Is there a link to this study?

Statistics also imply that astronomers in European cultures carry out about three times as much research as those in Asian cultures, perhaps implying cultural differences in the importance attached to astronomical research.

"Statistics also imply..." Which statistics? Can you provide any more information on the implication you provide, offer a counterargument to the implication, or provide a reference or link to one who has made it?

Citing these few things would also put weight to the significant claims mentioned in the opening paragraph.

Additionally, and this is just my curiosity again, to your knowledge does any search engine in wide use by the public contain language / code / technilogical advancements introduced by ADS? What about other scientific fields (medicine, for instance). Or is ADS's innovations remain limited to ADS itself. Also, does NASA fund ADS exclusively, or does it recieve help. And do journals have to pay to be listed?

Don't get me wrong, this was an amazing article about a fascinating subject. I look forward to changing my vote in the coming days. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jeffrey, for your very detailed and helpful comments, and sorry it's taken me a few days to respond fully (thanks to Raul for letting the nomination stay up for a few days longer as well). I've now added cites to the references used for these various claims. Regarding the Asian/European cultural claim I can't find any papers countering the claim made in the one I've referenced unfortunately. I've also not been able to find out yet what ADS's annual budget is, but will make enquiries. As far as I know, ADS's technology has not been directly adopted by other journal search engines, probably because it was designed by astronomers for astronomers and may not be easily applicable to other disciplines. NASA does fund ADS exclusively at the moment, I'll add a line about that to the article, and no, journals don't pay to be listed - they're included purely on the basis of astronomical merit. Thanks again! Worldtraveller 18:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Great work, and thanks for looking into that information. Enthusiastic Support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support without reservation. —Theo (Talk) 13:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft Jet Database Engine

Self nomination (one of my focus articles). I think this is pretty comprehensive now! I have referenced it thoroughly, and attempted to explain the various database concepts as well as I can to the layman (one of the peer review comments). I have also got a table that details versions for the history - I realise that the history text is quite dry, but nonetheless necessary. Hope to have this up to scratch before moving on to MDAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well written, very readable (espesially considering the subject matter). Only (minor) thing that ought to get dealt with is the red links. WegianWarrior 09:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

  Hmmm... I'll be getting to it :) Thanks Wegian! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support --Phroziac (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Really an "object", but I'll be away the next few weeks, and I don't want to stand in the article's way because of some obsolete old objection that I couldn't strike out due to my absence. I trust Ta bu to address my points anyway. While this is good work, there are many open questions: Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  1. I'm unsure whether the longish and yet superficial explanations of "Locking", "Transaction processing", and "Data integrity" really belong into this article. Wouldn't it be better to have full-blown articles on these subjects and just give summaries (with "Main article"-links) here? After all, it's not as if Jet was in any way special: these mechanisms are/were commonplace. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Hmmmm... good point. I have created Lock (database). There are some specific things in that section to do with Jet, though. Transaction processing already exists, and I have Jet specific stuff in that section, so don't feel that a {{seemain}} would be appropriate for this section. I quite like the "Data Integrity" section, and feel that it is necessary background information. It's possible that it should be placed into its own article. Not sure, what do others think? The queries stuff is very much specific to Jet, same with security. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  2. I'm worried about the accuracy of these descriptions. The article states, for instance, that "With pessimistic locking it is guaranteed that the record will be updated." This must be qualified by "if the user obtained the lock", otherwise the obvious question a reader will ask is "then why use optimistic locking at all?". The point is that you may get more lock conflicts with a pessimistic policy, which is why optimistic schemes were invented based on the observation that most transactions won't conflict anyway. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Hmmm... my understanding might be faulty here. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

     OK, I see what you are saying. I have updated the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  3. What locking policy (policies) did Jet employ? 2PL? See also concurrency control. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Gulp... don't know! OK, definitely something that needs sorting out. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  4. I presume Jet has read and write locks, but the article talks about locking only in the context of updating. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Another fair point. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  5. "Until the transaction is committed, the only changes that are made are in memory and not actually done on disk." Yeah, really? What about logging and/or file caches? Was caching left entirely to the OS? Strikes me as unlikely, but what do I know what Microsoft did... Maybe safer to rephrase to "Until a transaction is successfully committed, changes are only recorded in temporary storage and not yet in the database itself." or some such. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     I got that from a Microsoft article. Will dig it out and add a footnote. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

     Got this from Microsoft themselves:

     "Since the operations in a transaction are saved up in memory until the entire transaction is committed, application developers can benefit from their use even when a transaction would not otherwise be necessary" [17]

  6. The article fails to explain what a "user" is. I take it that it is a software that uses the Jet DLLs, hence if one human user runs two different programs that both use Jet to access the same database, these two programs would be two "users" in the context of this article. Is that the intended meaning? If so, explain it; a layperson might think the word refers to a human user. If not, also explain it! Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     OK, will do. This is good stuff! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  7. "Queries" talks about SQL queries, but the lead-in paragraph of "Architecture" states that the ability to run SQL queries was only added in later versions... Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Good point. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  8. The lead paragraph states that Jet has been obsoleted by Microsoft SQL Server. When? When did MS stop selling applications based on Jet? Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Will check the MDAC article - it says it in there somewhere. I know it is definitely not being produced any more. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  9. Is it "jet" or "JET"? The lead paragraph has both... Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Good point. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

     Now fixed. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  10. Some minor grammatical/stylistic things such as the use of "till" instead of "until" (I'm a foreign speaker, so I may be mistaken, but "until" strikes me as more formal and more appropriate for an encyclopedia article; I've changed that myself) or "a Jet dynamic link library (DLL) that could directly manipulate Microsoft Access database files (MDB), which was a modified form of an Indexed Sequential Access Method (ISAM) database", which doesn't parse well because the singular last clause (on ISAM) refers to the plural mention of MDB, not to the singular "Jet DLL". (I haven't come up with a good idea how to rephrase this.) Another problem is that some paragraphs are written in the present tense and others in past tense. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

      Ya. Agree it needs a good copyedit. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support, especially like the table in the History section. Phoenix2 03:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Object I read the intro and couldn't work out what was going on. Needs to be restyled so that a layman can understand what it is (by all means have a few technical details later, but at least allow a layman to get an idea of what a Microsoft Jet Database Engine is, why it's important and what it does, jguk 07:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral, the table and graphic down the bottom (in the "History" section) are way to wide... Alphax ^τεχ 10:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed to 300px. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to support, much betterer now! Very detailed article on a difficult subject. Alphax ^τεχ 15:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Cochineal

I would like to self-nominate this article because it's balanced and informative. The article provides interesting facts from arround the globe, so it should be interesting to read. DariusMazeika 12:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• refer to peer review mild object Support This is a good start at an article toward featrued quality, but: 1) Cite your sources in a References section. 2) The lead section is inadequate for an article of this length. 3) The article lacks the Taxobox that is used on other articles about animals. slambo 13:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks better, thanks for making the changes so quickly. On the references, they should be formatted as is shown on the page linked above, especially important for online references is the date that they were accessed. Some editors like to see inline citations (like are described in Wikipedia:Footnote3), but I'm still indifferent to footnoting. The lead is better, but the article body now needs more information about the species to be comprehensive. A good comparison for other animal articles is Island Fox which was promoted to featured status about a month or so ago. slambo 15:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have introduced the changes proposed for the lead section and the references into the article. Comment again, please. Thank you. DariusMazeika 21:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Steady improvement, thanks. I've only skimmed it this morning; I'll re-read it later today and reconsider. slambo 11:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Just re-read the article, upgrading my vote to Support. Well done! slambo 02:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Object, I've just adjusted the reference system and given it a good copyedit, it has potential but is not ready yet. Going over it thoroughly there is still room for expansion particularly in the section where the life cycle is described, more could be added to the usage too. There is a mix of metric and imperial measurements. The exact range of catci (seems to eat cacti from two genera, but there is only list of species for 1) needs to be researched and included. There are lots of red links, and quite a few blue ones that link to substandard articles, like carmic acid, which redirects to carmine and they're not the same thing but they are both relevant to the article. Also the cost of cochineal compared to the artifical dyes seems relevant but is not mentioned--nixie 01:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Lifecycle & usage have been expanded, details like pricing, current markets and normalised list of species added. DariusMazeika 21:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Support, some more stubs for the red links, would be good before it appears on the main page. Nice work on getting the photos. --nixie 00:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comments 1) Actual images would be better over drawings of the insect. 2) I think the biology section could be expanded. 3) The history section makes no mention of the pigments cochineal replaced. Circeus 12:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for comments. I am going to improve the article after a weekend - on Monday-Tuesday. DariusMazeika 10:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The article improved according to comments 2) and 3). Currently I was unsuccessful in finding a free macro photo of the insect for 1). New images are on the page, a macro images are expected, too. DariusMazeika 21:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It could be improved, of course, but I'd say it's good enough for FA status already. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:13, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Mild support I'm just a little concerned about the second paragraph being where it is; I'm thinking maybe it should be in the Dye--History section instead of where it is. Does anyone agree with me on that? --JB Adder | Talk 23:42, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • The reason why I have put this paragraph on top, is because it describes what the rest article is about: not only the biology and the dye (as the first paragraph suggests), but also the farming, history and current market, like the second one does. DariusMazeika 07:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay. Now that I know that, I'll give my full support. --JB Adder | Talk 07:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There are a number of orphan paragraphs that are only one or two sentences that either need to be expanded or merged as the create poor prose flow. There is also a fair amount of poor grammar and sentence structure that appears as if it was written by a non-native english speaker. Nothing wrong with being non-native, but it still needs to be fixed. I'll see what I can do, but some of them I won't be able to fix because I won't know what the intent of the author was. Here's one specific one: "The dried bodies of the females or eggs are the main source of carminic acid which is used to make an expensive crimson or carmine red coloured dye primarily used as an food artificial colouring or for cosmetics named after the insect." As I understand it the dye and the coloring are known as cochineal, not the cosmetics they are used in. The sentence is not clear on which is correct. - Taxman ^Talk 16:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've wound up the short paragraphs and fixed the remnant grammar problems.--nixie 06:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • All improvements, and I've done some more, but there is still a lot of very stilted, poorly flowing prose. No offense to anyone, but the writing is far from brilliant. I'll give a little leeway on prose difficulties arising from collating sources, and trying to be careful about the research, but even that can be improved, and there are many cases throughout the article that aren't even due to that. There is also a question of fact, the 'Host cacti' section refers to the cacti being introduced into Australia to produce cochineal dye, but Opuntia tells a different story, and emphasizes the results very differently. Come to think of it, "Side effects have caused a havoc:" is hard to think of as NPOV. Also, from the coloring section: "Each method produces a different colour which results in the varied appearance of commercial cochineal. The immersion technique produces grey grains known as grey cochineal [3]. Heating technique produces almost black grains known as black cochineal." Then where the heck does the red color (or related shades) come from? - Taxman ^Talk 21:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Bart McQueary

• Support, he's planning on running for government office and this will be a great "pre-emptive" move to get people aware of who this guy is before any of the lies or mudslinging starts69.154.189.180 05:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is used for pre-emptive strikes?66.32.122.233 19:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That sounds more like grounds for deletion than grounds for featuring. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Carnildo 20:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Even though your comments have been noted and your zeal for participating in Featured Articles votes are appreciated I must inform you that your vote will not be counted when it comes time to count the votes, This is not personal and I urge you to create an account so that you can have your vote officially counted. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong object. In addition to needing a massive NPOVing, there is no copyright information on the pictures used.

WegianWarrior 05:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support, I'm sure that Bart couldn't be happier than to be featured on Wikipedia. He's determined that everyone will know his name - he subscribes to the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity." He makes it a point to make people dislike him. If he runs for office, he surely dosen't expect to win but rather use the publicity. He dosen't accept any money. So all it can do is help him. Go for it! 66.32.122.233 06:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Even though your comments have been noted and your zeal for participating in Featured Articles votes are appreciated I must inform you that your vote will not be counted when it comes time to count the votes, This is not personal and I urge you to create an account so that you can have your vote officially counted. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Terribly written, not at all notable or worthy of Wikipedia's time, no referencing system, no real information of any value...this nomination should be removed. Harro5 07:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

No Harro5 you are wrong. It says on the discussion page "A well written article that also will help serve to raise awareness."

In responce to the unsigned comment by 66.32.122.233; the article don't seem very well written to me. As it stands it is in need of NPOVing (I notice that a number of things that are, how to put it, less flattering have been edited out) as well as a rewrite to make it easier to read. WegianWarrior 10:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think more references should be cited, the lead article needs to be longer and the page could use a cleanup. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose: Right now, it's a "he said" and a "and then he did this, and then this" format, more like a news report than an encyclopedia article. Structurally, the page is focused so much on following every exploit that it's a celebration of him in the guise of a condemnation, and both POV's need to be removed. So far, he has had nearly zero effect on the world and only some slight effect on the digestion of Internet junkies, so it's not really dealing with a significant bit of history or news. The writing is choppy, and, most of all, there just isn't any logical presentation of the subject. And to the IP editor: these are actionable objections, and lawyering about it is absolutely no use. Geogre 16:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article definately needs a ton more references and a much more NPOV. Many times while reading this piece I felt that I was reading a self-promotional brochure about the guy instead of an encyclopedia article.--Alabamaboy 17:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object.
  1. The images Image:Bartley.jpg and Image:Bart 2.JPG have no copyright information
  2. The incidents described in "1.4: Internet Presence": is there any significance to this, or is it just normal forum squabbling?
  3. Overall organization: How is it organized? It certainly isn't chronological, but it probably should be.
  4. Health problems: How is his sleep apnea and other problems significant? And why is it important that he took time out from the announcement to call someone names?
  5. References: The article is completely lacking in third-party references, and much of the "so-and-so says" statements are completely unsourced.
  6. I'm sure there are other problems.

1. --Carnildo 18:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note: the article is up for WP:VFD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bart McQueary 2. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Columbine High School massacre

Self Nomination. I have been working on this article for eight months now, with the help of countless contributors. I believe this article now exemplifies the qualities for featured article status. It has been peer reviewed twice, and was a featured article candidate two weeks ago. Almost every portion of the article can be supported with facts and information found through official investigations and several sources around the internet. It is comprehensive, concise, and should be featured as one of wikipedia's best works. - PRueda29 - 15:08 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral - I haven't read all of the article yet, I'll read that when i'm not studing. I looked quickly at the pictures. You need to expand the fair use rationale for pictures with the fairuse tag. Guidelines can be found here. Furthermore, the pd domain pictures, don't seem like they are taged right to me, please elaborate why they are pd. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Srong Object. This article was a featured article candidate just last week and was rejected (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Columbine High School massacre/archive one). While the article has been improved since then, it still has not addressed several of the issues I raised, such as listing references for the sections Long-term impact and Aftershock (although this last section now has two of them). The reason these sections need plenty of references is they contain possible POV issues and interpretations that would have to have outside sources. For example, this paragraph: "In the weeks following the shootings, media reports about the two killers portrayed them as part of a "goth cult" known as the "Trenchcoat Mafia." They were portrayed as outcast "nerds" who were unpopular and ostracized by much of the school's population; later such characterizations were revised as both Harris and Klebold were documented to have both a close circle of friends and a wider informal social group. (However, they were not "popular" and could best be described as being members of the school's "rejects", although by no means were they isolated.)"

This paragraph contains several items that need referencing, such as saying "they were not "popular" and could best be described as being members of the school's "rejects", although by no means were they isolated." Who said this? If the editor said it, it is POV. If an outside source said it, it needs a reference. Finally, in its previous FAC, the article was recommended for Peer Review. According to the date tags on Wikipedia:Peer review/Columbine High School massacre, this was done on Aug. 14, but all of the review comments came on Aug 21. One day is too short for peer review comments, especially when it is renominated for FAC that same day. The article's talk page also needs a links and template tags for the old FAC comments. My suggestion is to take the time to let this article be improved by references, especially more in-line one. --Alabamaboy 19:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. After the recent edits and the addition of inline references, I fully support this article. I know I was initially hard on the article, but that was b/c the subject matter had to be fully researched and sourced to avoid future trouble with reverts and edits. In response to concerns raised , PRueda29 has done some amazing work on this article over the last day and it fully deserves to be a FA at this point.--Alabamaboy 12:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment Several peer reviwes were done to the article starting on August 14th, but I accidentally deleted them.

That's good to know. I still feel uneasy, though, with renominating an article for FAC so soon after the previous nomination. However, others don't have a problem with this then I won't worry about it too much. Also, if references are inserted for those two sections, that will remove my major objection to the article.--Alabamaboy 21:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image copyrights are probably the worst mess I have ever seen pass through FAC:
  1. The image Image:Columbine High School.jpg is claimed under fair use, but has no fair use rationale. Further, it is unlikely that the image copyright is held by http://www.chsmemories.org/, as it looks like a screen capture of a news helicopter's imagery.
  2. The image Image:ColumbineHighHarrisKlebold.gif is claimed as public domain, but I see no evidence of that.
  3. The image Image:ColumbineLibrary.jpg is claimed as fair use. However, it is quite possible for a replacement for this image to be created by a Wikipedia: there is no reason to use a fair use image here.
  4. The image Image:Eric harris dylan klebold.jpg is claimed as "public domain under a fair use agreement". What the heck is that supposed to mean?
  5. The image Image:Evacuating Columbine.jpg is claimed as fair use, but has no source or fair use rationale.
  6. The image Image:Columbine Breaking News Photography.GIF is claimed as fair use, but has no fair-use rationale.

  --Carnildo 03:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Object - Good points. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 11:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment - "public domain under a fair use agreement". What the heck is that supposed to mean? - This comment has made me laugh, a lot. I'm sorry, I'm new at posting pictures and had no clue how to do it, but I've had some help from experienced users. I hope they're tagged correctly now.

Columbine High School massacre

• Support. In the past six months this article has been greatly expanded. All the information in it has been acquired via official police investigation reports. It does suffer from routine vandalism, but those who moderate it are quick to act upon this. The article is consistant, accurate, well-written, and comprehensive. Also, the topic is popular and significant. -PRueda29 02:12 (UTC) August 13, 2005.

I have added the refferences, they were hidden within the "external links" section. - PRueda29 02:28, 13 August 2005, (UTC)

While I do agree with the copyright status of the pictures, I don't believe the article needs footnote refferences to be considered a featured article. The current featured article for August 13 - "Helen Gandy", has no in-line refferences and still made featured article status. Please consider this. - PRueda29 - 21:01, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. While the article is well written and seems factual, there are no references at all. Considering how much coverage this has received, until it is completely referenced I can't support it.--Alabamaboy 02:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. While that helps, I'd still like to see some in-line references (see Wikipedia:Footnote3), especially in the sections such as Long-term impact and Aftershock and the search for reason. --Alabamaboy 02:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  1. The copyright status of Image:Eric harris dylan klebold.jpg needs to be determined. This is a tricky one: any product of creative effort is automatically copyrighted, but is installing a security camera a creative act? I think the image is in the public domain, but I am not a copyright lawyer.
  2. The image Image:Columbine Breaking News Photography.GIF is claimed under fair use. As such, it needs to comply with the rules at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. In particular, the source and copyright holder of the image needs to be specified, and the rationale as to why use on Columbine High School massacre is fair use needs to be added.

  --Carnildo 07:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to Peer Review. The description of the massacre is long-winded, and there are many formatting and wording problems throughout the article (e.g. some time stamps had AM or PM, while others did not). Also, since the event continues to provoke strong emotions, it is best that the article be looked at more thoroughly. Pentawing 22:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Miami International Airport

I believe this article meets all of the featured article criteria and should be considered as a featured article. It is complete, consistant, factually accurate, well written, and stable, and I believe it is one of wikipedia's best. PRueda29

• Object - As much as I want to see an airport article reach featured status and hence serve as an example for other such articles, this article is missing a reference section (surely you did use some references for the history section), plus the history section does not look comprehensive enough (for instance, it lacks details of how the airport was expanded, competition it faced, passenger enplanement and flight operations growth). I believe people would also object to the fact that much of the article consists only of lists instead of prose, but given that airports often utilize lists, I can't see how the last issue can easily be resolved (someone please suggest something). Pentawing 22:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object – it starts off very nicely, but it dies down towards the end. pentawing has some good suggestions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Why not use the airport infobox template? Rdore 17:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)