Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Aviation History[edit]

kind of self nominated as I did some work (but not much). I like it specially as it takes away the idea of finding the father of aviation (a most disputed title), but show many creator from many countries inventing the airplane.--Alexandre Van de Sande 15:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. - this is nice. I suspect the writing could be tightened most of the way through, but it's not bad as yet - David Gerard 18:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. - sources are few and poorly formatted. Neutralitytalk 18:56, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - haven't read the whole thing, but the very first sentence makes me pause: Humanity's desire to fly probably dates back to the first time prehistoric man observed birds. is not encyclopedic and is unverifiable. Tuf-Kat 00:34, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Agree with the above. First paragraph reads too much like an essay. 2. Needs to be better referenced. I could only see one inline cite to a source. That should also be listed at the end for ease for the reader and much more sources used. - Taxman 04:43, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object Makes use of informal language and at times the prose feels like its attempting to fascinate the reader for the subject. This is a good article, no doubt, but it still needs work. Phils 22:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Music of Nigeria[edit]

Shaikh This was nominated recently, but didn't pass. I've made some changes, as much as I can. I can't find any photos releasable on the 'pedia, but it has two fair use album covers. There were also two comments about the lack of technical details regarding rhythm and Afrobeat. I have added a bit on both topics, but neither are particularly distinct to Nigeria. Aside from the Kutis, I think Afrobeat is more or less an English speaking West African thing, and not a specifically Nigerian thing. The same issue applies to complex rhythms, the details of which would be more appropriate at music of Africa than music of Nigeria. In any case, there is substantial info on both topics here. Here's the old nomination. Tuf-Kat 18:53, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Looks well written, though I cannot comment more on the material itself. The only thing is the very large number of red links leads me to believe there are many that are redlinked, but may not really be notable enough for their own article. I could be wrong, but consider unlinking some/many. - Taxman 03:50, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • I removed a couple of the summary style links, but none of the links in the body. While I'm certainly no expert on Nigerian music, I think all these subjects deserve articles (certainly topics of comparable importance in American or British music, or even Swedish or Japanese music, already have articles). The red-links are unattractive, but may entice casual users to write articles. Tuf-Kat 01:12, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Good article, but there's still a few problems. It links summary style to articles that don't exist. The lead could do with a bit of work (as an example, the lead sentence basically describes the music of Nigeria as being only folk music). There's some strange formatting in the instruments section, and it could do with a general copyedit. There's also some POV problems - quite a bit of the history reads like someone's opinion. The red links, however, are IMO completely forgivable - systemic bias issues comes with the territory. Ambi 12:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Changed first sentence. The instrument formatting was normal, but someone changed it during the last nomination. I thought that was maybe preferred, so I didn't revert, but have changed it back now -- the only benefit of the old way was shortening the ToC. I did a general copyedit, including toning down some possibly POV parts. I'll see if I can fill in some of the summary-style links. Tuf-Kat 22:55, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • Removed some summary links that aren't typically used in this way on "music of" articles (e.g. Nigerian musical instruments) and filled in one, on apala. The remaining that aren't written are yo-pop, Nigerian reggae, waka music and afro-juju; these are all relatively minor and recent subjects, so I don't think represent major holes. Also, I can't find much info that isn't already in the article. Is this better? Tuf-Kat
        • It's much improved after the copyedit, but I still think the lead section is a bit convoluted, and there's still quite a few instances of odd wording (i.e. Among the Igbo people, Ghanaian highlife became popular in the early 1950s). There's also some statements that are just crying out for a source. The summary links are much better now, too.Ambi 04:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, particularly based on lead section's second paragraph. "Like almost all African music" is weasel-wordy and saying that "all" Nigerian music uses polyrhythms is too categorical unless you've got sources to back it up. In general, it's a sign that this part needs to be rewritten. Also, the discussion of rhythmic techniques needs to have a better understanding of its terminology; the stress on weak beats mentioned as "rhythmic displacement" is in fact the textbook example of syncopation, which is also cited separately using a slightly different and awkwardly worded example. --Michael Snow 06:31, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Changed this paragraph, and have cited two bits. Tuf-Kat 04:06, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object (sorry, didn't realise this was on WP:PR and FAC. Once the following are fixed, I'm most happy to give an enthusiastic support!
    1. In the lead section it says: "pan-West African development of highlife and palm-wine music" - what does "pan-West" mean?
    2. In "Hausa" you have the word "complexly". Is that a word? :P
    3. What are "Praise singers"? I'm not familiar with that term... - Ta bu shi da yu 05:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Automobile[edit]

Stumbled across this article and was surprised that it was not yet a feature article, because models of automobiles such as Ford Mustang and Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9 are already listed as such. Note that it has also a comprehensive gallery of photos from past to present. - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose - needs references. The structure seems dodgy to me too, but I'll see if I can phrase that as an actionable objection later. (I'd really like this one to make it, though.) - David Gerard 19:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor objections - the Major possible subsystems part should probably go to its own page (List of automobile subsystems maybe). Same for the images at the end, though maybe a few more could be put on the right through the article. And I guess it needs references. --SPUI 01:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Iranian Revolution[edit]

This was an WP:COTW in June and it is pretty good (it even has good references). So far as I can see, the only substantial shortcoming is the paucity of images - a nice one from a news report would be excellent, but I imagine that suitable images out of copyright are few and far between. Anyway, I like it. Partial self nom, but mostly not me. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Weak support: I would like more information on the number of people killed, or fled the country under the new regime. The parts of my family there were still in the country after the new regime took power, report that a lot more than 200 were killed. PPGMD 19:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • ... on February 18 groups in a number of cities marched to honour the fallen and to protest against the rule of the Shah. This time violence erupted in Tabriz and over a hundred demonstrators were killed...; ...Tanks, helicopter gun ships, and machine guns killed hundreds...; The protests of 1978 culminated in December during the holy month of Muharram, the most important Shia holiday. Hundreds of demonstrators were killed each day, yet each day the protests grew.; Post-revolutionary impact ... More than 200 Baha'is have been executed or killed, hundreds more have been imprisoned... But I agree, better numbers (if they exist and can be verified) would be excellent. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, not bad. --SPUI 01:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1. No references. Further reading is not the same thing. That could denote books that are just offered for the interested reader but had nothing to do with creating or checking the material in the article, a very important distinction. 2. The section on post-revolutionary impact is very short for how important it is. Much could be said about that. I understand that may take some research, but that is the hallmark fo a great article anyway. - Taxman 17:43, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak object. No references. Precision in casulty stats. Plus there was a one sentence subsection (not just a paragraph but a subsection) amongst there. --ZayZayEM 04:08, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: the article is written very much with an anti-shah and/or cleric POV. The tone in the article is as if everyone in the country was unhappy with the Shah's reforms. However, a lot of people, welcomed the modernization and westernization. Furthermore, women, lost a lot of their rights after the revolution. --Navidazizi 22:58, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Rubik's Cube[edit]

It's a well written and full article and includes decent pictures.

posted by an anon, 09:37, Dec 17, 2004 --Spangineer 15:10, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Good article, but I still object. I think the description of the game should be moved to the lead, since it's short. Perhaps the patent information could be shortened or moved to another part to keep the lead moderately sized. Also, I'd prefer to see a picture of a new Rubik's cube at the top of the page, not one where the stickers are falling off. A picture of an opened Rubik's cube that displays the inner workings would be helpful for the Workings section. In the sections about solutions, why not explain some of the more common methods - solving the cube by layer versus by face (which way do experts do it?) or whatever. More info on the competitions would be great - what the official rules are, how they work. And finally, I'm not sure about the group theory section - it's interesting, but not particularly accessible to someone who is just doing research on the game. I don't think it's a good idea to have such a drastic shift in tone from the easy to read beginning to a mathematical section to an easy to read end. Could that section be summarized and/or moved to another article? --Spangineer 15:26, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ah, Rubik's Cube, how you vexed me in my youth. Well, maybe the article could still use a little work, but I'm easily impressed by big numbers and formulas, so support. Everyking 08:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Note that I worked on this article in the past (am I eligible to vote then?) Sander123 10:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I've been cubing for about 3 monthes and can get it in about a minue, cubing is so horribly addictive, its like happy cocaine which is why I love this article and am in a state of full support
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Wouldn't mind a few more pics though. Such as a tournament in progress, or the suggested "inner workings" diagram.--ZayZayEM 01:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The lead section needs expanding. My suggestion is to give a brief one/two line summary of each different section in the lead section to flesh it out. It needs to have a "gee, isn't that interesting?" reader factor. Right now it doesn't! Once that's fixed, I'll most definitely support! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support if someone manages to get better images. like from this site . Those diagrams are horrible.--Alexandre Van de Sande 15:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • 'Object. Bad lead section and the external links are improperly formatted. Neutralitytalk 21:53, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Lead section needs to be expanded a bit. Should be a summary of the article and discuss its importance. Just listing sales numbers (unatributed) is not enough. Better pictures/diagrams would be great too. - Taxman 03:30, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. (1) I don't like the first two images. The drawn image looks like the perspective is wrong and the mention of a "diagonal tilt" is puzzling. The second image is of a rather worn cube on a distracting background. Surely someone has a mint-condition cube and can take a picture on a white background like [1]? (2) The article says "Ern? Rubik holds Hungarian patent #170062 for the mechanism". It should say when the patent was granted and when it expired. (3) The "workings" section needs a picture or diagram to illustrate the mechanism. (4) The "mathematical group" section suddenly goes into the first person plural. That's not Wikipedia style. (5) There's nothing about the history of the popularity of the cube, in particular the craze in the early 1980s. (6) The material on variants like the 2x2, 4x4, 5x5, 2x3, pyraminx etc should be broken out to a new section. (7) The section "A greater challenge" is rather confusing. Copyediting needed here. (8) The "Solutions" section should mention the number of orientations when face center orientations are considered significant. Gdr 13:28, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilization[edit]

Invalid featured few weeks ago, see Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilization#Featured_article for details. Defeatured and renominated, since it is up to FAC status now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Old nomination
  • Indus Valley Civilization An outstanding example of multiple authors evolving a well-written, polished and professional entry. Wetman 02:53, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Object; my complaint that I made when it appeared on the front page remains unresolved, there's no map. --Golbez 22:43, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Explain how it didn't go through FAC properly last time. Everyking 23:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I believe what he is saying is that it was a featured article, and it was defeatured (IE, listed on wikipedia:featured article removal candiadates where consensus was to remove it), and that he is renominating it now. →Raul654 02:28, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, yeah, but what caused it to be defeatured? I mean, I can't really talk about it being featured now unless I know why it was defeatured before. Everyking 12:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a whole civilization here. Granted it's a pretty obscure one, but can't we get some more detail? I'm not asking for the article to grow massively, but I'd like to see the article fleshed out enough that we can at least see a few more subarticles branched off. That's not an object per se, though, because that's partially not an objection that can be addressed with this particular article. Everyking 15:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It doesn't matter why it was defeatured, we simply have to evaluate the present version for feature-worthiness. First of all, references are missing. A map is missing -- is the "larger than Mesopotamia+Egypt" claim justified, if most of the settlements are along the Indus? and, most difficult in this article, the "Sarasvati" conjectures have to be cleanly separated from the archaeological evidence. many wordings are suggestive, i.e. "we would like there to be a connection, but we cannot prove it". This is the stuff cranks thrive on, and we have to be very conscientous about what to include. Some parts sound more than dreams of a Golden Age than matter of fact description of archaeological remains. examples:
    • Its writing system, Indus script, remains undeciphered, and it is not known whether it gave birth to the later Brahmi script. — note: there is a 1000 years gap between the Indus "script" and Brahmi. We could as well say "it is not known whether it gave birth to the Japanese script".
    • The people of Indus were great lovers of the fine arts, and especially dancing, painting, and sculpture.
    • For 700 years, the Indus civilization provided its peoples with prosperity and abundance and its artisans produced goods of surpassing beauty and excellence.
    • geologists used satellite photographs to trace the course of ancient rivers through the Indus Valley, identifying them with the legendary Sarasvati River. (geologists 'identified' a prehisotoric river with a legendary one? reference?)
    • It is puzzling that the most ancient Vedic texts speak of a beautiful river, the Sarasvati. They recall a thriving, utopian lifestyle that emerged along its banks. it is puzzling that there are rivers mentioned in the vedas?? 'utopian lifestyle'? in the eye of the beholder, I should say
    • Perhaps the most important legacy of the Indus civilization, if such a legacy exists, was its apparent non-violence (in contrast to the warlike Indo-Europeans) — strike this blatant piece of pov
  • Even after they are toned down, most of these statements could do with some sort of reference. dab () 15:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object strongly. No references. This is a subject that is almost impossible to be accurate and NPOV without good research. - Taxman 03:21, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Tennessee State Constitution[edit]

This article is extremely detailed and addresses anything the reader would want to know. It covers all of its bases and conforms to all Wikipedia standards. It's chock-full of interesting and factual information, the exact reasons why someone would go to a professional written encyclopedia. RyanGerbil10 08:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. No references. Further, some judgments (The 1977 was the broadest call since the original writing of the constitution in 1870) need to be attributed. Mark1 08:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs references. Additionally, more comparisons and contrasts between the TN constitution and both the constitutions of other states (see State constitution (United States) etc) and the federal constitution should be given. It's a very good article, just a bit short of FA worthiness. Jacob1207 00:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. A very good first draft, but not Featured Article quality. RyanGerbil10 is correct in saying it has a lot of useful information, but it has several deficiencies:
  1. It needs references. None of those interesting facts are backed up by documentation.
  2. Problems with judgments:
    1. It needs attribution for specific judgments, such as "The third document was largely written as a response to the requirement that [the southern states] . . . explicitly [ban] slavery".
    2. There are some non-NPOV problems. In particular, the last paragraph is rather hostile to the recent amendments; the paragraph needs to be more neutral.
  3. It needs copyediting. There are a number of run-on sentences, some typos, and several very confusing sentences.
Mateo SA | talk 19:52, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Dawson's Creek[edit]

The longest, most detailed article I've written here, drawn from my commonplace books and bolstered by research in print and on-line. I had this at WP:PR a couple months ago and made some changes then. I know it lacks an image, but otherwise what does the community think? PedanticallySpeaking 18:19, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

You should probably either remove the additional cast, guest stars, and most of the credits, and turn the ones that remain into prose, or move them all to a separate page and link to that page in the article. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 18:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I like the idea of making those lists a separate article and just including the most important ones in the main article. Everyking 11:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I don't understand why it would be better to have this information in another place. With the article itself is the logical place, just as when the New York Times or Variety reviews something, they give a run-down on the credits. PedanticallySpeaking 17:07, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Too many lists that aren't formatted well and no images. Can't we get a logo or screenshot? Neutralitytalk 21:54, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. No references. You mention two books. See if you can't obtain those and use them to fact check or add material. If you have significantly used some websites for material you can format them as references too. Come on people this is a basic requirement of FA's. Please check the criteria and make sure you meet them all before listing. - Taxman 17:36, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Liverpool[edit]

  • Partial self-nom, I dont know about everyone else but I think this article is pretty good. G-Man 22:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This is an interesting article but needs more work in integrating the various comments that have been set out as single sentence paragraphs. The coat of arms of the city should be featured as should the dialect. The list of liverpudlians is too long and should be an article on its own. In fact, there are too many lists. Some of the writing needs attention, for example: "...until Liverpool has now become second only to the metropolis of Great Britain: " Tiles 23:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs more work. See for example Birmingham which would be a better candidate. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It's as good as Sarajevo, which is the featured article standard for cities. Also, the list of people from Liverpool should be moved to a separate article, and the media section should be expanded—two-line sections are not suffient for a featured article. The education section is also too short and discusses only colleges and universities, with no mention of primary or secondary education in Liverpool. Also, there's no "economy" section and no real geography or climate section. It's not a bad article–it's actually quite good–but it's not feature-quality yet. I think that soon it will be, though. Neutralitytalk 17:45, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't support. IMO Liverpool should be a disambig page, as we have an extremely important council in Australia called Liverpool council. Our Federal opposition leader in Australia used to be mayor of the local council and so we have intense media scrutiny on this place every time Mark Latham's past history comes up. When Aussies come along to look for info on it on Wikipedia, they see Liverpool in England. Hardly encourages those users to stay on the site. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • There is a prominent link to the disambiguation page at the top, although if the place is important it could have its own link at the top rather than having to go through the disambig page. G-Man 21:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the recomendations, I'll put this on the Liverpool talk page and see if things can be improved. G-Man 21:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MTR[edit]

I want to promote this article on December 31, 2004. Do you agree with that? --202.40.210.174 08:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • The colors sure are pretty...why is that date important to you? Do you mean that you want it on the main page on that date? Everyking 10:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Complete section on the trains on this system is missing, no references, lead section is too short and at least one included image does not have copyright info. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:39, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Lead section expanded somewhat, copyright info re: images ressolved, still needs work though. - Mailer Diablo 21:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, as above. Filiocht 13:16, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe that we should have an article for all stations before nominating it. Similarly, Provinces of Thailand was not nominated until each of the 76 provinces had a separate article. olivier 02:01, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Section on the trains? There is a decent article at Trains on the MTR, linked from the article. olivier
    • Still working on 'Trains on the MTR', I created it after this article was nominated. This info was avaliable in page history but someone apprently blanked it at one time. Needs improvement. I've sent it to Peer Review, if you can help me out it'd be greatly appreciated! - Mailer Diablo 21:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • There's a huge following regarding MTR from editors from Hong Kong so there's a great following. Tentative support pending more improvements. --JuntungWu 17:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Obesity[edit]

Looks like a featured article to me, except for the lack of pictures. Not a self-nom (User:Mike40033)

  • Object for now as it really needs some pictures. Evil MonkeyTalk 03:39, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • We must have one wikipedia with a belly and a digital camera. For once, a .gov image search doesn't seem to yield much. Dunc| 12:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • What about [2]? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Duncharris appears to be volunteering. JFW | T@lk 02:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object doesn't say anything about the number of obese people (by country) and See also needs trimming of links included in the text. Table in Complications section still has text on the right, needs to be fixed. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:44, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • No, these statistics are imprecise and just confuse the issue JFW | T@lk 02:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, I find it of high quality now. Perhaps we need to trim off some self-appointed "authorities" on obesity who have said something controversial. JFW | T@lk 02:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Festivus[edit]

Festivus, the holiday created by Dan O'Keefe in 1966 and later made famous by Seinfeld (the show for which O'Keefe's son would write episodes) is tomorrow, 23 December. It would be timely if this growing holiday phenomenon were to be the featured article tomorrow. —ExplorerCDT 17:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object - There is no discernible lead section (a couple paragraphs to note the significance of the subject before the first section header); there is no history of the day from before its use on the show except to mention that it was created in 1966; did Mr. O'Keefe do anything to promote the holiday before it appeared on the show? leaving this to one sentence leaves me to wonder what happened in those 30 intervening years; if the external links were used as references, they should be labeled as such. As an aside, nominating an article just a day or two before its event and requesting it to be on the front page isn't very realistic unless the article is of truly exceptional quality; regardless of its quality, however, I don't think one day is sufficient lead time to get through the votes/feedback/update cycle. slambo 18:31, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a bad effort at all, but it needs a fair bit of expansion before I'd consider it featured quality, and obviously there's no way it can be on the main page tomorrow. The NYT article looks like it might be a good source for more info, and somebody could watch the episode over again and take notes on a few more jokes and details regarding Festivus. Everyking 18:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Tomorrow's featured article is Duran Duran. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 19:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Ah, o.k. They were innovative, but even that didn't save them from being a crappy band. ;-) —ExplorerCDT 19:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bernie Ecclestone[edit]

A self-nom which I believe is quite comprehensive and well-written. However, I'll gladly accept any advice or suggestions offered. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 18:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. I appreciate the hard work that you've put into this, but purely from a style standpoint however, the article needs better prose (too many one sentence paragraphs, that's not good) and the lead section needs expanding. I think the image needs a better caption (should be a full sentence and say something interesting and relevant about the subject). The page should be moved to Bernard Charles "Bernie" Ecclestone because that's what's in bold. The whole article seems a bit short. With the content: all the information about the subject appears to come from online news reports, which though not a totally bad thing, it seems to me that we can get other sources of information. Has he written an autobiography? If so, I'd suggest you get it from your local library and get info from there. There is a book written by a gentleman called Tony Lovell about Mr Eccleston. It's called "Bernie's Game: Inside the Formula One World of Bernie Ecclestone". ISBN 1843580861. See [3]. Perhaps you could borrow this book and get useful info? If you do, be sure to cite it. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • In fact I have linked to the book in the external links section. No bookstores or libraries carry it in my part of the world, and while I could order it from Amazon, I felt that the various online articles thoroughly covered his life and business, not to mention I'd rather not spend the money. As for the title, I think there are a great many articles whose bold text does not precisely match their titles, though I have edited the opening paragraph a bit as you suggested. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 07:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • That's cool about the title. It was only a minor point. I just think the article is a bit short and the paragraphs need fixing. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not so sure a page move is required - lots of articles are titled under the normal usage, not the person's full name (e.g. Leonard Cohen) - David Gerard 14:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

THIS IS A LOAD OF SHIT WE SHUD MAKE A NEW VERSION WITH ACTUAL INFO...HU EVA WROTE THIS IS ABIT STUUUPID. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.135.153 (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • This is a self-nomination. I believe this article exemplifies a very well written city page and is one of the better examples on Wikipedia. It has been worked on by about 4 regular contributors (mostly locals, including myself) and has been through the peer review process. We implemented many of the suggestions and feel it is ready for featured status. Of course, any constructive criticism along the way is very welcome also. --Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 22:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. There is no description about the seal of the city. --202.75.80.8 01:38, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • OK. I've addressed that. (I'm one of the other partial self-nominators, by the way). Cool Hand Luke 07:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. Culture, Media, History, and Government sections too short. One source isn't sufficient. But it's getting there. User:Neutrality/talk 06:40, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. Wacky formatting on my browser and the media section is still insufficient. The article is good, but not nearly as good as Sarajevo, which is the FA standard for city articles. Neutralitytalk 03:10, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • Maybe it's your browser...and can you vote twice? [[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 19:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • This isn't voting, it's objecting/supporting. :) Neutralitytalk 19:00, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
          • OK, fine, but the way your browser sees the article doesn't seem like a good reason. And as I said, many of the sections you say are to short were pared down on suggestion from peer review because they were too long. Sounds like a Catch 22. And what does enarly mean? --[[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 19:45, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Newcastle upon Tyne[edit]

This will be the featured article on December 28, 2004. Anyone have suggestions? --Cheung1303 02:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Added a public domain picture of Jesmond Dene. There are some nice public domain images (including one of Jesmond Dene that is probably better than the one I put up) of the Newcastle area available for download at the Library of Congress. My suggestion is to download the full size TIFF version, open it in Photoshop, resize it and then change it to indexed colors and save it as a PNG. If you need help with this, send me a message. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 03:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm struggling to understand this nomination. What does 'This will be the featured article on December 28, 2004.' mean? Filiocht 08:54, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • As I said on his talk page, I think it's shows a fundemental misunderstanding of how the process works. Just treat this like any other nom and ignore the comment. →Raul654 16:28, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The article needs to be expanded - at the moment the lists are almost as long as the article itself. There is quite a lot of material already out there, for example in aricles about universities. It should be used to expand the main city article. Also, I think that stubs should be written for current redlinks, there is quite a lot of those. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "Object" the article is biased and inaccurate. Many of the elements that are claimed for Newcastle are features of Gateshead or Northumbria/County Durham.

Chicago, Illinois[edit]

As a resident of the city of Chicago, I feel that the article covers all aspects of the city well, and that it exemplifies the layout set forth in WikiProject:Cities. Not only does it fill the categories with, useful, well-organized and relevant information, it adds on to these and provides extra information without being excessive or overly wordy. The writers of the page provide excellent links to obtain more information, especially the Chicago Timeline, which is easily accessible from the top of the site. Each section of the article is written clearly and with the purpose to deliver a lot of information quickly and efficiently, which directly mirrors the goals of creating the Wikipedia.

  • Object.
    • The "see also" lists should be turned into prose that summarizes the many related articles. In fact, many of them are so short that they probably don't have to exist as separate articles at all.
    • Despite the above recommendation, the page is already a bit long, a fact which I'd suggest addressing by moving the currently longest section -- geography and climate -- to a separate article and keeping a summary.
    • Single-sentence paragraphs as found in the history section should be avoided.
    • Single-paragraph sections should be avoided. Dealing with my first objection might be sufficient to fix this.
    • Needs references.
    • Could use more images. Fredrik | talk 23:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: The above problems are glaring. Additionally, the "lead" goes into abstruse detail on some areas (pop. data, for one) and ignores most of what is to come.Sfahey 23:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger[edit]

This was nominated in June but got shot down because there was too much on his political career and too little on his acting career. The section about his acting career has now been expanded (old version for comparison). It is still much shorter than the section on his political career, but I think it is sufficiently comprehensive. Besides, his political career is arguably a more important than his acting career, seeing as over 30 million inhabitants of California are now affected by his decisions... - Fredrik | talk 20:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

comment: my heart goes out to the Californians who take it upon themselves to be affected by his decisions, so that the rest of us need no longer be affected by his acting :P dab () 21:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. The acting career section is too list-like (whilst there is no list of his films). The political career has too much detail. Possibly it should become a Political career of Arnold Schwarzenegger subarticle - especially if you expect it to go much further :) - but maybe much of it just isn't encylopedia material. See also Wikinews [5]. Rd232 12:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak support: A very well written article, but the acting career section is a bit too short. --[[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 21:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose More emphasis on his earlier years is needed. Look for autobiographical information in "Education of a bodybuilder". He redefined the "sport" of bodybuilding and his success in this area is what enabled him to continue into business, acting and politics. At this stage, this article does not do his history justice. Sorry. As a guide you should break this article into early years (his life in Graz), his immigration to the US and his early bodybuilding career, his involvement in real estate (this is where he made the bulk of his money before T2), his late bodybuilding career including the films and his Golden Globe with "Stay Hungry", etc. Lots of information for you to include. :) prometheus1
comment if the 30 million Californians are seeking to find out about the sort of man their Governor is they are better off looking into more historical information rather than the spin. He is the epitomy of ambition but he has a good heart (very, very deep down). For example did you know that in his early days (pre $50 million wealth) he made a $1 million donation to the Weizmann foundation? Now is this an example of philanthropy or strategy? Only historical scrutiny can tell. prometheus1
Oppose: Need far more on his acting career and his iconic status. Sure he is the governor of 30 million; but probably 2 billion people have seen one or more of his films. :ChrisG 10:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the current discussion, please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seattle.

Seattle, Washington[edit]

Partial self-nom. We've been kicking around the possibility of nominating this for about half a year. I think it's at least very close. Most of what would normally be long lists has been either factored out or turned into prose. Lots of pics. As you can see from the enormous number of blue links, this leads to a rather dense collection of several hundred other Seattle-related articles, most of them far shorter but pretty decent in their own right. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:49, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I added the Mapit template (combines aerial, topographic, and street maps into one external link box), and fixed the latitude/longitude values listed in the article (they were switched). --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 19:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I know that one of the things that constantly comes up in this process is references. I've added specific citations for the few statements in the article I thought might be controversial, and a rather thorough set of references for the city's history. Because the article "sits atop a pile" of other, more detailed articles, many of the detailed references are at one remove. However, if there are any particular statements that someone thinks are controversial and require a specific reference to substantiate them, just give the specifics and I can probably track those down. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:38, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Mild and conditional oppose (sorry, Joe!). First, I have to say I really like the article overall, and am very pleased at the hard work Jmabel and several others have done to give my old hometown a great and detailed article. My few objections are as follows. First, there are too many 1-line/1-sentence paragraphs: this is especially noticeable in the Utilities section, but they occur elsewhere also. Second, the top of the article is pretty cluttered with a TOC, taxobox, and two photos -- can at least one photo move down in the article? Third, while I admit that the article must of course be brief in many ways as an overview, I think it is occasionally too brief: several sections (the one on education, for example) read in many places much like a recitation of links to allow people to jump to articles with explanatory content...the sentences themselves offer too little information, I think, to make them easily readable (especially given the link density). Finally, the notes at the end of the article about Seattle's existence in TV, film, and novels are very nice, but a little too brief (the absence of Ridley Pearson jumped out at me...perhaps it's the only one, but I think it bears another look). All of these objections are exceedingly minor, I think, and I have every confidence that they will be fixed. Once Now that they are, consider me an enthusiastic supporter. :-) Jwrosenzweig 04:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to take on some of these. Let's see if I can list your issues, so that we have a chance to address them. Tell me if I'm getting any of this wrong.
  • too many 1-line/1-sentence paragraphs, especially in the Utilities section.
    • I've taken my shot at these. Some things were simply more natural as bullet-lists, so I've taken them that way. I added miscellaneous salient facts here and there to get slightly prosier style.
  • Clutter at top of article should be reduced.
    • I think I've dealt with this one now, tell me what you think. That Infobox is a monster, but it appears to be the same for all major U.S. cities. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:57, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Education too much of a laundry list
    • I think I've dealt with this, you'll have to tell me if what I did is good enough to meet your standards.
  • Want more on representation of Seattle in popular culture.
  • In particular want mention of Ridley Pearson
    • I don't know Ridley Pearson's work, and our article on him doesn't mention Seattle, so Jay, if you can add what you think is relevant about him, it would be appreciated. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:01, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

General question (not just to JayJames): how unacceptable are bulleted lists? Some of these things (like hospitals) seem to me to be inherently lists, and the effort to make them prose just makes for dull clumsy prose instead of a clear, crisp list. We could say something about each hospital but this is already a longish article. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:57, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't expect that there will always be something to say -- in such cases I think bulleted lists are fine. And I recognize the limitations of the ~40K ceiling. But I do like very much the work you did to go beyond -- one example that sticks in my head is the paragraph on power in the Utilities section. You provided several links while simultaneously offering just enough sense of history and importance to make me more interested in selecting those links. Very well done! Jwrosenzweig 18:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The thing with the link density: we've probably got articles on as good a percentage of what is notable in Seattle as on any one place. Note that almost none of these links are red. I don't see us wanting to lose many of these links, and the article is already about 37K up to 41K as I address these other issues; if we add much more prose, it's going to become too long to be featured, right? -- Jmabel | Talk 10:27, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. If anything, prose in this article should be cut down, no? --Lukobe 19:36, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) (who has also worked on this article)
I don't know about others, but when a topic can't legitimately be split up any further (and I don't think Seattle can), I wouldn't object to an article that floats up around 50K or even more (eventually IE will get it sorted out, right? We have to hope so). Granted, the general issue of "will a reader sit still this long?" still applies. I can't speak for others though. Jwrosenzweig 18:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. For my sins, I haven't actually worked on this article. Currently, the sports section is just a list of teams - this could certainly be prose, and perhaps a place to mention the Kingdome. And the demographics section could stand to be something other than Rambot data. If I have time, I may try and fix these things myself. --Michael Snow 23:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll admit, I really don't care about professional sports. Not even a little. I'm not sure I could have named some of these teams, and I've lived here half my life. Is someone else interested in working on that part? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • I've reworked it now, and I see the demographics looks better too. I still think the article could still use some more overall polishing to improve the style, but I don't know if that's a specific enough concern to be considered actionable on a featured article nomination. In any case, things have improved enough that I won't formally object at this point. --Michael Snow 08:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me: I see this has now been removed from the FAC page, and I believe I've met all the objections, but I see it is still listed on its talk page only as a Featured Article Candidate, not as a Featured Article. Has this been either accepted or turned down? Is it in limbo? Is there some further step I need to take? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:12, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

The man to ask, I think, is User:Raul654 - he usually knows about such things. I hope it's just a clerical error, since it looks to me as though the article is ready for FA (at least, after its seven days up it received comments from 5 users, none of whom objected to promotion), but I don't know the process well enough. Our standards in terms of number of votes may be higher than 5, but if so I'd hope it could stay on the page and receive more attention. Jwrosenzweig 01:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It seems to have been moved to the archived nominations page, which would indicate it was turned down. I'm not an expert on the criteria for promotion either, but I do wonder based on Jwrosenzweig's comment whether it fell short of five users. Not counting Jmabel on the assumption that the nominator is not included in the count, I only find four - myself, Jwrosenzweig, Brian0918, and Lukobe. --Michael Snow 03:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do They Know It's Christmas?[edit]

There's quite a bit of depth to this article, and what better time of year to have a Featured Article with a Christmas subject? --Modemac 16:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. No references. Almost half the article is just a list; the other half is decent but hardly inspiring, considering we have longer non-featured song articles on arguably more trivial subjects (i.e. From Me To You). Johnleemk | Talk 17:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This is an objection too. I realize that this year is a 20th anniversary and all, but the refs thing would help to help support some of the assertions (Western bias, Geldof's motivation, recording story, etc.). I know that there were documentaries and stuff at the time, maybe someone can dig this material up and have it in shape for next year. iMeowbot~Mw 18:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for the moment - this article and Band Aid (band) are largely redundant and should probably be merged - David Gerard 14:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)[edit]

Originally nominated as Autobiography (album), now a disambig page

All right, it's been a month since I last nominated this, and I've worked on it extensively. A great deal of information has been added—particularly on international chart positions; the info had been too U.S.-centric before—and I've worked hard to try to eliminate the positive slant that some people believed existed in the text, in addition to placing the album in better cultural context. Self-critically, I've decided that in November it probably wasn't quite up to featured standard, but now I think it's more or less there. The only information I'd like to have in the article that isn't already there is information that seems to be impossible to find in any of the available sources. Everyking 11:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. The coverage is improved, but the prose is still terrible. Ambi 12:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, maybe it is. I don't really think so...which parts are bad? The whole thing? I asked you to discuss this before, but you dropped it after a while, so I figured that meant you didn't have any more objections. Everyking 12:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I hate getting into spats with people, so I dropped it. That doesn't mean my objections have changed any. Ambi 23:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Slight object. I don't see a problem with the prose, but I think the article is a bit too big and contains some fancruft. For example, do we need to know the album's position for every week it was on the charts? Do we need all that trivial information on promotion? The SNL incident could use some fleshing out too. It's not clear what the nature of the backing track was — a reader might think it was instrumental and wonder how people could accuse her of lip synching. That the article says she was accused of it seems a bit POV to me. I mean, suddenly vocals come on, and she's just holding the microphone at waist-level. There's no hard evidence she lip-synched, but that's almost certainly damning, and should be clarified. Johnleemk | Talk 13:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not damning, because what she was doing was singing with a backing track—there's a distinction there, and we shouldn't blur our definitions. Anyway, the SNL incident isn't worth much space in an article about the album. It could have its own article—I'd rather it didn't, but OK—but it ought to be treated briefly here. The article does say vocal backing track, so I don't see why anybody would think it was instrumental. Anyway, I don't see how there's any fancruft in the article. The article is long, but I don't see how that can be avoided; there aren't many logical division points to break out content, aside from the singles. I tried doing so anyway with an article called "Autobiography album design" and it was unfavorably received on VfD. So I guess it will just have to be long. Everyking 13:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Perhaps what the exact problem with the track was could be elaborated. Either we tell the user what it was or provide some way for them to figure out what it was, or we don't. I think much of the promotion section should be trimmed. I'm sure Simpson's done a lot of things to promote the album; should we cover them all? Much of the stuff about the singles should be moved elsewhere, too. For example, their chart positions and promotion information. Johnleemk | Talk 16:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • All that stuff is already summarized, and more detailed in the singles articles. I think it's important to give an overview of the promotion and chart info in this article. Everyking 17:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • A separate article on music promotion, covering people like Don Kirshner, Joe Simpson and so on, would be a good place for that kind of material. There have been many successful pop albums over the years that were essentially soundtracks to popular TV shows, this is not new or notable in the instance of Autobiography. Reiterating, some of the Autobiography promotion information could be useful, but right now it's in the wrong place. (also, on the guide vocal thing, the distinction between that and lip syncing disappears once the performer's live voice is not included in the mix. That happened in both performances on the SNL episode in question, and this has been verified through analysis of the show and album recordings. I'm not on the bandwagon saying this event was unique or criminal, but there is no question that it was notable.) iMeowbot~Mw 18:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • We can't put that kind of detailed info in a general article on music promotion; are you kidding? The info is necessary in this article and integral to it. Where else am I going to explain that in September, as "Pieces of Me" was reaching its peak and being replaced by "Shadow" in the U.S., it was just getting its start in Europe? That kind of information is very important, and it fits perfectly in the "promotion" section. Anyway, Ashlee says she was singing with a backing track, not lip synching, and that was my point. Everyking 18:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Understood, that's why I wrote that some of that information could be used in another article. A great deal of it wouldn't make the cut, though perhaps it might find a good home in wikisource for a future article on the subject. Please understand that I'm not objecting to that level of detail being published anywhere, only to having so much raw data in an encyclopedia article. iMeowbot~Mw 19:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (adding an example: the data could be used in a graph showing chart positions over time, with the timing of promotional events highlighted. That would make a nice illustration for an article on promotion. iMeowbot~Mw)
                • I'll continue thinking of ways to make the text more concise, but there is no question of removing valuable information. At the very least it would have to be available in another article. Everyking 22:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. As before, there are too many quotes, too many minute details which obscure overall meaning, and the article is too long. This is not improved since its last nomination - it's simply bigger. Rhobite 07:11, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Every quote has been considered and all that remain are supposed to support and enhance the information given. Any that were considered superfluous have been removed. And you're telling me the article would be better if I removed notable detail? What sort of alternate dimension am I stuck in? No other featured candidate gets this kind of treatment; plainly it's the result of bias against the subject matter. The article is long, but I've seen longer articles get through FAC—what am I supposed to do when creating subarticles isn't an option? Didn't you yourself vote to delete the subarticle I did create? Everyking 07:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Please stop trying to make this personal. I could've said many of these concerns myself. You state that every quote has been considered, but as far as I recall, you've removed about two (out of, say, thirty?). I'm a fan of Ashlee Simpson, and I have nothing against you - but I'll say it again - the article, as it stands, is poor, and Rhobite has explained why. Ambi 10:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • If I remove all the quotes, the article will be crap. The quotes serve to support and enhance the information given throughout. I myself wouldn't dare think this was featured quality if I removed them all, I'd oppose it myself in that instance. I've never seen such a demand during a FAC nomination before. It was my understanding that I was doing the right thing by citing by information whenever possible and trying to put it in NPOV terms. It seems like there's one expectation for other candidates—a nice, comprehensive degree of detail, thorough citing and quality English—and an entirely different expectation for Autobiography, which is supposed to be short and concise and lacking proper sourcing and attribution of claims and opinions. I don't know what you two want instead. Besides, I don't think the quotes are excessive at all. It's not a particularly quote-heavy article. If anything, I think it could use a few more at some of its weaker points. Everyking 11:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • The fact is that a lot of the article is simply trivia. Fancruft. Will anyone care that Ashlee Simpson appeared on The So-and-So Show to promote this album a few years from now? Try to write generally instead of specifically. I'm not saying you should obscure everything by not mentioning anything concrete, but the level of detail in the article is so minute that it's more worthy of publication in a magazine than an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia summarises facts. It doesn't dump raw facts onto the table and expect you to make sense of them. We don't need to know the album was at so-and-so position on the Canadian charts at a particular date. Also, a lot of the singles information in the article should be spun off to their own articles. Johnleemk | Talk 12:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Well, seems to me that's radical deletionist logic, and you can't turn out a featured article that way. Chart data is of course important, as are television performances seen by millions. How anyone could call that fancruft boggles my mind. The information is integral. This could never be a featured article without it—that's the difference between featured articles and stubs. Everyking 12:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • We're supposed to summarise the chart data, not regurgitate it. There's a fine line there you should realise exists. I'm sure Simpson did a lot of things to promote the album. Should we report them all? Unless the incident was curiously of note (i.e. the lip synching scandal), just note that she appeared on So-and-So Show and be done with it. You don't necessarily need to chuck in the exact date or airing time of the show, or what lipstick she wore, etc. (not that the article contains that stuff). My point is, summarise information. And like I said, you still need to spin off the various singles' information to their own articles. Johnleemk | Talk 13:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • The singles information already is summarized and spun off to individual articles. Surely you know that, John, considering how involved you were in the La La argument? The singles chart data is summarized as well; it's more detailed in the Pieces of Me article, for instance. But album chart data doesn't have anywhere else to go, so it has to be here. I can't see the logic in having a separate article on album chart data; it's not really a logical division point. It'd probably get VfDed anyway—and then I figure you'd vote to delete it...catch-22, huh? The mentions of the various TV appearances are brief. All it does is say she was on a show and about what time it occurred; often I refrain from even giving the exact date, instead using vague alternatives such as "in the days leading up to the album's release..." Everyking 13:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • About half of the promotion section is devoted to the singles. I still say we don't need that detailed album charting info, but I won't push that point too much. After rereading the article, my doubts are overall growing — the article is passable, but it doesn't click. It's difficult to quantify, but the prose just doesn't come off very well; it doesn't flow. I'm thinking we don't need too many critics' opinions; perhaps cutting one or two positive reviews wouldn't do too much harm, considering they outnumber the negative ones? Still, I'm not sure why, but this article just doesn't click. It's just too...disjointed. There's nothing strictly wrong with it, but...it just doesn't flow well. Johnleemk | Talk 17:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it's great, but have made various tweaks and simplified what seems like needless verbosity in some spots (though I think I didn't remove any info). Does this seem better to anyone? Tuf-Kat 23:13, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • It appears that the verbosity is in the process of being reinstated and expanded. Those changes would have been a good start at improvement, though. iMeowbot~Mw 00:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Way too much fancruft. - Taxman 03:49, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, regrettably. Too little detail.
    • Limits itself to 48 external links in the body text, despite the record-breaking importance of this artist and album.
    • Only lists chart rankings and sales numbers for 5 or 6 countries, as if the authors were not aware that Simpson is becoming one of the most widely-known artists of the decade, even outside the English-speaking world. Should really have a separate section for each major international market.
    • Has quotes and information after the fact about what Simpson 'recalls feeling and expecting when crafting and singing the album, but no direct quotes from the time when she was making it. Nor are there quotes or images from the team that worked with her on the album. Even what DioGuardi or Shanks thought about the production and its reception is left to the reader's imagination.
    • The other performers and production crew get almost no mention in what otherwise tries to be a serious encyclopedia article. We're not talking about a throw-away CD here; one can expect many of these people to be famous in the near future. Peiken and Frazier don't even get a mention, nor do they have their own articles to justify the omission.
    • Could also use tighter writing style, better splitting into subpages, and less redundancy, but considering how much vital information has been omitted or ignored, those are secondary concerns.
    +sj + 07:09, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, I like your attitude, but A) you aren't kidding, are you? B) How am I supposed to satisfy both this objection and ones like Taxman's above? I'm actually thinking about splitting things off into subarticles, "Autobiography chart positions and sales", "The making of Autobiography (album)", etc., and doing some major expansion and reworking from there. But I am worried that will be controversial and my subarticles could get VfDed. Everyking 07:29, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Sjc makes good points, actually, except for the chart info and lack of external links. I mean, sheesh, we're an encyclopedia, not a tabulation of facts or links. If you want all the trivia you can imagine, go to a fan site. If you want all the links in the world, there's dmoz. Look, our featured singles articles don't contain such detailed chart info or external links; why should albums be any different? I think this article could be spun off to a couple of subpages if you addressed sjc's concerns and cut down the trivia. Johnleemk | Talk 09:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • There'll be no removal of "trivia", John; the best you can get is moving it to subpages. I won't buckle to that kind of radical deletionism. That kind of info is precious to the reader, not to mention all the work it took me to record it and dig it up after the fact. Everyking 10:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • And I think you've got some work on your hands to start digging up that info on your featured articles. In fact, I'll be voting object on those from now on unless you've got some good chart info. Everyking 10:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • And as there's no consensus for this, Raul will be well within his boundaries to ignore the objection. Please don't do this, Everyking - this is really stooping low. Ambi 12:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • There isn't a consensus for your objection, either, so I take it you'll be OK with it being ignored as well? Everyking 13:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • There's six people making this objection on this page alone. There's also those that have commented on past nominations, and all those such as Reene that commented on the talk page of the article itself. In contrast, I count one support vote on this page. Ambi 13:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • Of course, that was rhetorical; I'd never say you shouldn't have a vote. As you just said about me. Everyking 13:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - never heard of the artist or the album, so I'm a neutral reader. Unfortunately, this article contains way too much trivial information which does not interest me in the slightest, and obscures the valuable information which is there. A whole paragraph describing the movement of the album in the charts over several months is mind-numbingly boring to someone who's not an obsessive fan. It seems to me that the great problem with this article is that it's being jealously guarded by a fan, and edits by people who want to make it readable and generally interesting are being reverted. Worldtraveller 12:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You're voting object because you some of the information is boring to you? Well, since everything is going to be boring to somebody, I guess we ought to just not have any featured articles, then. It obscures the other information in the same way that an article on the seventh page of a newspaper obscures the articles on the preceding six—it doesn't. Everyking 12:27, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Other people have also suggested that there's too much information there which does not enhance the reader's understanding of the subject. You seem entirely unwilling to accept anyone else's criticisms or revisions of this article - why? Isn't that at least partly why you'd nominate it for FAC - to get other people's opinions on how it could be improved? Worldtraveller 13:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • And that is entirely untrue. Everyking 13:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • That statement might actually make some sense if you hadn't been completely unwilling to except the criticisms or revisions of Johnleemk, Worldtraveller, Taxman, iMeowbot, Rhobite, and I (and that's just on this page, this time around). If you're indeed willing to accept anyone else's criticisms or revisions, why did you state just above that you "won't buckle"? Ambi 13:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • I said I wouldn't buckle to radical deletionism, i.e. the notion that half the article should be deleted without being moved anywhere. Everyking 13:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • I'll believe that you're prepared to accept any of the criticisms or revisions of the many objectors to this article when you actually make steps to accomodate them, and show any sign of being prepared to accept some sort of compromise on the matter. Ambi 13:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • Then you should've started believing that weeks ago. Everyking 14:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • If you want the article to become a featured article, then you're going to have to revise it in accordance with the community's suggestions, or not revert anyone else's revisions with the same intent. If you're not prepared to do that, then accept that it won't become a featured article. Worldtraveller 15:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I note with semi-amusement the revert war on the history page of this article over my edit. Instead of clarifying the issue with my tweaks (of which incidentally, there were only one or two out of several dozen changes), Everyking did a blanket revert and arrogantly suggested I discuss edits on the talk. I agree with Worldtraveller's assessment that Everyking's a prick who jealously guards his article from other editors unless the changes are discussed. If you notice the dispute last time, I avoided ticking off Everyking until I realised he refuses to accept any edits unless they're discussed on the talk. Nothing would ever get done if things were like this. I'm now going to rewrite the article in full (I intentionally avoided removing material in my first minor rewrite), and Everyking's blathering comments be damned. Johnleemk | Talk 07:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • How am I supposed to deal with a person who has an attitude like this? There's not a shred of civility here. Everyking 08:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Everyking, lecturing about civility? Oh, I object due to current edit war. The article should come back when the editing situation is more stable. Gentgeen 11:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, you are probably right. But it was stable before I nominated it. Everyking 12:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • As long as you subject the article to public scrutiny yet refuse to accept others' edits, the edit war(s) won't stop. I state this as a matter of fact, and if you're going to mumble something about me being a revert warrior, btw, I haven't reverted any of your edits for ages. Johnleemk | Talk
            • John, don't tell me you still don't understand my position. I want others' help and input. I don't want others to go deleting factual, verified information unless we can reach consensus that it should be deleted. I am certainly open to discussion on all of these matters, but you know that I prefer to split detail into subarticles rather than simply deleting it if it makes any sense at all to do so. Part of the problem is that we seem to have fundamental differences about what this encyclopedia should be. I think it should have reasonably in depth, well-researched coverage of notable topics; you (I think) believe that brief summaries are satisfactory, and the reader will have to settle for non-free sources to get more detailed information. And I think that's a hard difference to overcome, since it goes to the root of opposing philosophies. Everyking 14:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • This from the person who said: rv, john can make his changes one at a time and discuss them. Johnleemk | Talk 08:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This article is currently listed at WP:RFC, & a casual glance at the Talk page shows that there are some serious disagreements over its contents. Until these issues are resolved, its inclusion obviously would violate the ideal of a "Featured article". -- llywrch 19:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, you're quite right, but Raul removed it from the FAC page, so don't worry. I'll continue working on the objections and on expanding the content and hopefully I'll have it ready for another nomination at some point in January. Everyking 19:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Which will most likely be again rejected, as long as you continue to ignore the majority of objections. Ambi 03:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • What did I just say, Rebecca? Everyking 09:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Concur with Llywrch. Edeans 00:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interstate 90[edit]

I want to post this article as the featured article of December 28, 2004. I would like to let people know more about this interstate highway. Anyone have any answers? --cheung1303 06:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object: mainly lists. Filiocht 08:28, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: mainly lists and trivia. There is probably a lot to say about the history of building the road, of what was displaced by it where it goes through cities, of its economic effects, of places where alternate routes were considered, of where it simply upgraded existing road vs. creating a new route, etc. This is not even close to a featured article. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:41, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object No way is this a featured article at the moment. Needs huge expansion on its construction, environment, history etc. etc. etc. Giano 10:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object this is more like a bunch of statistics about I-90 -- kaal 23:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for reasons above. Also, "letting people know more about" something isn't a reason to give an article featured status. --Szyslak 09:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alan Keyes[edit]

I think this is a good article with lots of precise information. Good choice for a featured article.

  • Your reason for nomination please User:Lst27? I'm already inclined to oppose simply on the grounds that you're unable to follow directions. Alkivar 02:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Let's try to have a little civility, please. →Raul654 02:17, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • That was civil, I did not name call, nor insult. If you chose to read that as rude when it was a mere statement of fact that's your problem. Alkivar 03:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Not to stir up an old fire, but telling someone they're "unable to follow directions" isn't particularly nice or civil. It certainly is an insult. Rhobite 07:18, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
          • I still call that civil considering the person in question didnt RTFM before posting. Alkivar 05:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Telling someone to RTFM is also not what I'd consider civil around here. Rhobite 05:55, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article has a disproportionate amount of material on his 2004 campaign. That section should either be spun off and summarized or simply cut down. DanKeshet 06:45, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose.quotes belong in wikiquote (Article already too long). 2004 campaign secn needs trimming to rm fluff/irrelevant details--Jiang 08:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for same reasons as above. A previous nomination failed, also due to lack of balance. As I pointed out then, the article fails to discuss the controversy over whether he would be allowed to participate in the Bush/McCain debates during the 2000 Republican primary campaign. In spite of being expanded with lots of trivia and an overwhelming quotes section, nothing has been added in that area, making its absence all the more glaring. --Michael Snow 23:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Renaissance Center[edit]

This article was a stub for quite some time, and I was able to add a considerable amount of information about this interesting and well-known Detroit landmark. (Self-nomination) Gsgeorge 01:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object - extremely short and no references. There has to be more material to add - more info on the history, on who works in there, whatever. You include a link to "Detroit Renaissance" (http://www.detroitrenaissance.com/) and say that it is "the group that financed the construction", but you don't say anything about them in the article itself. You don't have the years and dates wikied, and the "Nonetheless" in the last sentence of the lead doesn't make sense. And the last paragraph of the article seems to disagree with what you say in the lead (that the center revitalized the city). --Spangineer 02:15, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object needs expansion as Spangineer said. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:19, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. I've corrected a few things mentioned by Spangineer. Personally, I feel the article is very nice, but I can understand when you say it needs expansion. If there are enough objections I'll work on it for consideration in the near future. Thanks! Gsgeorge 12:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • ObjectIt is a nice article and the images are fantastic, brilliant in fact. However, the page need to be expanded quite a lot, and the text tidied up for it to be a feature article. Giano 13:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object too short --ZayZayEM 01:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ma On Shan (KCRC)[edit]

Ma On Shan Rail will be commenced on December 21, 2004. I want to nominate this article as the featured article of that day. I want to let the world know more about Ma On Shan Rail. Please place this article as the featured article of that day, thank you. --218.103.188.199 12:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • object. Needs expansion and references. Check what is a featured article for more information. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 13:05, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This is in no way FA material. Jacob1207 18:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for the record. Another confusion between "Today's featured article" and Wikipedia:Featured_articles. Not too hard to see why the confusion is so common considering under the article featured on the main page is a link to more featured articles, but oh well. - Taxman 21:44, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Even if this could get up to featured quality by Dec. 21 (and that would take a massive effort, since now it's little more than a stub), it would take longer than that for it to go through the process, and even then there's no certainty of getting it on the main page on a certain date. Everyking 08:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Object. Too many red links, no images, posted by an unregistered user, waaaay too short, not likely to ever be able to be an FA. Kiand 00:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object too short --ZayZayEM 01:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pulaski Skyway[edit]

Recreated from incorrectly archived old nom at [6]

Self-nomination. It's an important roadway that hasn't changed since it opened in 1932, except for the addition of a median barrier and repaving. Except for traffic data (which I haven't been able to find), I think it includes everything important.

  • Minor objections. The first image shouldn't be placed above and outside the text. ==Introduction== should not be used as a header as the lead section is considered the introduction. The ===Jersey City end=== section needs at least a basic summary of the article to which it refers. Otherwise this is a good article. —No-One Jones 01:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Argh, I tried to fix the image but now it's all fucked up. And now the TOC is rather far down; that's why I had the intro section. --SPUI 01:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Eh, I think I got it decent now. --SPUI 07:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anyone else want to give it a look? --SPUI 18:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Graffiti[edit]

reconstructed incorrectly archived nom from history at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Graffiti/archive1

Self-nom. I've spent quite a bit of time rearranging content and editing this. Might be considered a bit heavy on the images, however as Graffiti is a visual art I think this is appropriate. I'm hoping this is ready for FAC status, I think it is. Share your opinions folks. Alkivar 02:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It has come a long way, and I think it should be featured soon. I'm still looking a little bit sideways at the ==20th Century== section... it hasn't really got a flow... gangs, then WWII, then DC, then London, then Scandanavia... it's all good information, but randomly assembled. However, the bulk of the article is quite good, and it's very thorough by now. I think the plentiful graphics are appropriate. GTBacchus 07:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've reordered the 20th Century subsection, is this better? Alkivar 10:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is, although the computer I'm using now suppresses half of the first paragraph in that section, for some reason. When I click "edit" I can see it's all still there... GTBacchus 03:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Did you try purging your cache? I've had this problem with pages on Wiki before. Alkivar 03:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, needs copyediting. Fredrik | talk 11:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Is there something in particular your noticing? Alkivar 12:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I copyedited one section which really seemed to need it. The rest of the article looks better, though, at a glance. I must still object due to the much too short lead section. Fredrik | talk 12:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Cruddy lead section. Picture and TOC overlap to create formatting hell at 800x600. Could do with a bit of a copyedit (i.e. one not very long paragraph uses "in some cases" three times). What is there is quite reasonable, with a bit of an edit. However, there's really a lot missing about the bad side of graffiti - sure, sometimes it is art - but a lot of it is just vandalism, and there's very little of that there. There's also little coverage of the societal implications (I'm thinking of Giuliani's crackdown on graffiti in the early stages of his war on crime, as NYC mayor). Ambi 11:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It most certainly does mention the negative side, theres an entire section on its legality/illegality. It mentions UK campaigns to wipe out graf completely. All throught the article it mentions illegal graffiti. I dont think we can stress the point too much more without beating people over the head. On your other points, I was unaware of the formatting hell, I dont browse at 800x600 (and havent since 1998). I'll see what I can do about that. Alkivar 12:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have since reduced the lead in image size, it appears on MY computer at least to stop the overlap. Is this good enough for you? I have also added a paragraph regarding Giuliani's crackdown of the mid 1990s. Alkivar 18:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have also beefed up the lead in a bit, is this better? Any suggestions on how I can improve it more to change your objection? Alkivar 06:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wow, this article has come a long way since I last saw it. I remember tagging it for cleanup (or at least wanting to do so). It still needs minor fixes: it's wordy in some places and might be tightened, and I guess that train bombing could be part of the legal section, without its own heading. But it's pretty close to featured status. I'll see if I can do some copyediting later.
  • Comment: I've asked Zephyr to come look it over and make a few changes. He certainly knows the history having been involved with the Graffiti culture of NYC since the 1970s. Hopefully this will tighten up the article and remove some of the worthless chaff. Alkivar 19:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
File:Wiki-graffiti2.png
Computer generated graffiti reading "Wikipedia"

--[[User:Alterego|Alterego]] 22:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me, your going to object to the entire content based on 1 image? First it is not really a self reference since it does not refer to "the website" nor to anything except as a caption for the word "Wikipedia" which is contained therein. Granted this is semantics but in this case this is pretty tame. I think this easily falls under "...the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia." except that we're not discussing it merely referring. Second I should point out that Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is not a set-in-stone policy, it is merely a suggestion like the one here: Wikipedia:Make_articles_useful_for_readers which I am following. Alkivar 00:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I noticed that you have, in general, been very mean to those responding on this page. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego]] 04:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: A good article, but not featured article quality yet, imo. The structure seems a bit disorganized to me (the table of contents lists many major sections but not so many subsections - surely there's a way of dividing the subject up into 4 or 5 main sections and then breaking those down further?). Perhaps it isn't so important, but I think there should be a section on graffiti in video games (such as Sega's Jet Set Radio) - tagging "simulators". I'm also not comfortable with "computer generated graffiti" being used for "graffiti drawn using a computer". At least in music and most art, computer generated suggests that the computer is actually creating the aesthetics -- acting as creator, with some direction from the use -- not merely being used as a low-level tool. -- Oarih 11:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - self reference policy dispute needs to be sorted out. Other than I think the article is great.--ZayZayEM 01:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New York City[edit]

I noticed WikiProject New York City intends to improve this to featured level. Well, in my view, it's at it already. Andre (talk) 01:35, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support I would like to see a photo of the World Trade Center, before it collapsed, a photo of ground zero or a sketch of the replacement added to the article. But other than that, top work folks. A+ in my book. Alkivar 03:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support This article is a winner with or without the WTC. The photos mentioned by Alkivar are not even on the entries for Sept 11 or for Sept 11 victims. The article appears thorough and complete - but I'll look and see how it might be improved by Ambi's suggestion of looking at Sarajevo and Salt Lake City (unless that has already occurred.) PunkPod 05:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Not complete or fully comprehensive yet. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 07:37, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It's quite good, but still could do with a little bit of work. Several sections are overly short. Several others are in list form, and probably could be converted to prose. The table under "airports" appears to make no sense in this context - is that an error? No references! Sister cities sentence could be included in another paragraph. Demographics section is straight out of Rambot. There's some POV and bad writing in "people of New York". There's not a lot on the cultural side of the city. In addition, I think it would be wise to take some inspiration from Sarajevo and Salt Lake City, Utah]. Ambi 10:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: Everything about NYC is oversized, except the geography, and attempting justice in a single article is almost futile. However, the objection is due to POV and shaky speculation in the "People of New York" section. Also, the "Neighborhoods" is rightly a reference to a list, but it wouldn't be extranneous to mention that Manhattan is divided into Uptown, Harlem, Midtown, Downtown, Chinatown, and Little Italy. (About POV, let's be honest: there's no need to say that young folks in the city aren't bored -- they are, like young folks everywhere -- or that people don't have cars because of "hassle." They don't need cars, with the subway and bus system, and cars are kept by people who live in the outer boroughs. Cars in Staten Island or Bronx are as common as anywhere else, and garages there aren't expensive.) There is a tacit assumption by visitors that "New York" is Manhattan. The authors have insisted that that's not true, but statements like "people don't have cars" rely on it. My feeling is that massive articles on each borough need to be written & transcluded into the NYC article (see the Shakespeare article(s) for an example) and that Manhattan itself get 3 articles transcluding their summaries into the main article. It's just too big a topic to treat reasonably in one throw. Geogre 20:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It is a fact that 2/3 of NYC residents don't own cars, it's hardly just a Manhattan phenomenon. This is quite remarkably different from everywhere else in the US. Some of us have worked on Brooklyn pretty well, maybe it can be made featured one day. I look forward to developing other NYC topics as well. Why don't we organize on WikiProject New York City , which I sort of started half-heartedly recently, and haven't developed yet. As to the article itself, 'People of New York' is rather flawed, and 'Geography' is incomplete. Another problem is the article is already too long, and I'm going to consider spinning off more pages, maybe some of the detailed sports stuff.--Pharos 06:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial_skies[edit]

I stumbled upon this article, and discovered a very interesting article. I state to all:

¡Extraterrestrial_skies deserves to be a featured article!

The article is a breathtaking tour of the skies of the other planets in our solar system. The has everything:

--Ŭalabio 02:29, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
  • Object for now. Article needs quite a bit of work to make FA status.
  1. - Article title, should be "Atmospheres of planetary objects" or "Atmospheres of solar system objects"
    • in order to include the Moon... which since NOT A PLANET! doesnt belong.
I proposed moving Skies of other planets to Extraterrestrial skies on its talk-page. If now of its other editors object, I shall move it tomorrow. Ŭalabio 16:40, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
  1. - Lead in WAAAY too brief
  2. - Information on Mercury reads stilted and broken.
  3. - Information on Venus is 2 lines?!?!!
  4. - Mars section needs reformatting badly
  5. - Martian moons are NOT PLANETS! ... doesnt belong.
  6. - Asteroids are NOT PLANETS!
This boils down to definition. Unfortunately, we define planets by fiat. as we explore the universe, we shall have to define by definition. My own personal definition of planets is a round object which experienced gravitational segregation. I suppose I shall have to move the page, but I shall discuss that on the talk-page before stepping on everyone's toes. -- Ŭalabio 10:51, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
Yes and the scientific definition of a planet is based on mass and common consensus has us with 9 planets. Asteroids and Moons are not planetary bodies but have been classified as "minor planets" informally. I'm not entirely opposed to having them included, but only at having them listed as planets. using the Extraterrestrial Skies as suggest below for example allows for there to be 1 section for Major Planets, 1 section for Minor Planets and Moons, 1 section for Extrasolar moons and planets. Alkivar 17:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  1. - Jupiter needs serious work as 90% of its content regards its moons.
this entire thing needs so much work, plus its a rehash of content from other sources, I'd almost suggest VfD on this! Alkivar 08:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As for this point, it is good to collate such information. It is like trying to find the names of all of the UN-Ambassadors by going to the UN-site versus going to the sites of each nation. The value of collation outweighs redundancy here. -- Ŭalabio 10:51, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
Yes and I understand that, however this is not a list, and serves no purpose other than to replicate the content in the individual articles. This can be overcome if extensive editing of the article modifies the content to be more than just a brief rehash of individual articles. REGARDLESS of which it is not FA material Alkivar 17:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I moved Skies of other planets to Extraterrestrial skies. -- Ŭalabio 00:45, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Norse mythology[edit]

This was apparently nominated at some point, but wasn't accepted. The nomination isn't where the link on the talk page says it should be, so I don't know why it failed. I think it's a great article though. Tuf-Kat 09:27, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • It has FA potential, and we might take it there this time, but at the present stage, I have to object:
    • the intro is bad. No sense of historical depth. It is a "version" of the "ancient" Germanic mythology. no sources, except for a sybillic allusion to "runes", no century is mentioned.
    • no clear explanation of the distinction, or lack of distinction, of mythology and religion. The main part of the text is clearly written from a Neo-Pagan perspective.
      • Ibn Fadlan's account of a girl in Russia who chose to die so that she could accompany her Viking lover to the afterlife — this cracks me up. such statements belong in a fanasy novel.
    • "Cultural perspectives": unwikified ramblings.
    • "Christian interaction": here, the pagan pov is most clearly visible. The whole article seems to be more about the part of the mythology that has been lost, than about the part which has been preserved, "tainted" by Christianity.
    • I have my doubts about the usefulness of the template seemingly intending to list each and every character of norse mythology. It would be more useful to have a template of just the major characters, for which there are actually substantial articles. (not an objection)
In fact, I think quite some work will have to be invested, before this reaches FA status. I think Odin, with its smaller scope, is much nearer (but I won't FAC it myself, because I contributed to it, and don't think it is quite ready either). dab () 10:54, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I think it has improved, and I withdraw most of my objections, although I am still less than enthusiastic about parts of the text. dab () 20:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The TOC and the infobox overlap to create formatting hell. Though the article is informative, the prose needs a lot of work. Would need one heck of a copyedit before I'd support. Ambi 10:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I hope you guys will try to improve the page instead of just cutting it to pieces. It was even worse before I started to work on it. Dab, Ambi, I have deleted the table.--Wiglaf 11:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Please don't take offence at my comments - it's a good article nonetheless, and I'd like to see it get featured, but I'm a stickler for absolute quality with our FAs. I believe they should be the very best we have, so my criticisms are aimed at ironing out as many of the flaws in them so that we can get each article there. I'd be happy to help, but I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject. Ambi 12:12, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • No offense taken. I am just a bit disappointed with the reception the table got (it took a lot of work), but the criticism is probably fair and just. The main problem with the page is that depending on POV, it could cover 2000 years (from Tacitus to the last faint gasps of the beliefs in my backwards country in the 19th century (yes sacrifices and legends about the gods lingered so long). It could also be restricted to the stories in the Gesta Danorum and in the Icelandic sagas, depending on POV. I stagger at the task of editing this article, but I think it deserves as many hands as possible to improve it.--Wiglaf 12:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • I apologize if my comments seemed harsh to you -- I have no doubts you have done wonders for the article. I am also in principle ready to help address my own concerns, but this being fac, I think it's only fair to point to what I think are the sore spots. dab () 08:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • No problem. I think that the article is much better now after Bishonen's editing, and I look forward to seeing yours.--Wiglaf 08:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Ambi, how does the table look on your screen now?--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen(talk)]] 13:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • The table is now fixed, thank you. Copyedits have much improved the prose, but it could still do with another go over. Ambi 01:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I think this would make a fine featured article (disagree extensively with dab's objections), with a scholarly perspective yet accessibly presented, but a couple of several things need to be fixed first. 1.) The "Cultural perspective" paragraph, before the subsections, is odd (agree with dab on that one). It's very tenuously connected with Norse mythology--it is in fact a quarrel with a minor point in a sub-section of the previous section, so it's oddly placed, too. I think most of it should just go, while the Tollund man argument could be merged (shortened!) with previous section. 2.) Very fully referenced, as a subject like this has a right to be, and I appreciate the annotations to the secondary sources. But, I'll say it so Taxman can have a break: can we have the "Bibliography" divided into "References" (=actually used for the article) and "Further reading", please? It seems to have both together, for instance I can't believe the Rydberg reference has been used for info in the article, although it is indeed interesting further reading (of a literary nature). And somebody please rescue the "Edda" references :-( under "Primary sources".--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 12:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
hm, with what exactly do you extensively disagree? because I rather agree with what you say. I guess my main gripe with the article is that it just states, "it's like that" instead of giving a clear account of what is known from medieval texts, and what is inferred from Tacitus, Tollund man and ship burials. dab () 11:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I spoke thoughtlessly, we are indeed in substantial agreement. I hope the people who provided the references are still around, or somebody else who can deal with them--can you? I see that they need subdividing, but it would take a specialist to see how.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 17:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm an avid fan of Norse myth. It does seem to be lacking the influences section. What influenced the Norse, and who did the Norse influence before modern times. Many elements of Classical, Norse, Celtic and Russian mythologies overlap, who influenced who? If that were fixed I'd support.--ZayZayEM 02:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am strongly against such a section because firstly Celtic and Slavic mythologies were related to Norse mythology. Secondly, concerning Norse-Slavic interaction, we're hindered by the fact that so little is known about Slavic mythology at the time. Concerning Celtic-Norse it is a matter of Celtic-Germanic interaction and the only theory I know is one where Odin has Celtic origins but that one is also pretty speculative. Joseph Campbell has written some about Norse influences on Amerindian mythology and vice versa, but he consents that it is speculative as well.--Wiglaf 11:34, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Wiglaf here. It would be nice to know more about the influences, but we don't. It would be pure speculation. Thus, the concern is not addressable. Our knowledge of Germanic mythology itself is sketchy, and that of Slavic mythology is practically non-existent. dab () 12:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ammonia[edit]

This article on Ammonia is comprehensive, factually accurate, and well-written. Has graphics and includes all technical information on side. --Randy 23:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose, too much information in the table is missing: density, heat capacity, critical point, triple point, etc. Is not comprehensive yet. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:14, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose need to fill up the ? in the table before it can be featured. -- kaal 23:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • comment - is now the WP:SCOTW. Maybe should hold this up for the time being. --Deryck C. 15:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons (TV series)[edit]

Self-nom. I put about a week of research into this article, spent time contacting fansites for permission to use content, and extensively revamped it from its original. I think this is about as comprehensive an article on this TV series as any on the internet. Suggestions? Changes? Approval? :) Alkivar 03:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Where did the show start out? Presumably in the U.S.? It should say that, then. Now it just says it played in France and the U.K. at later dates. Otherwise, it's a pretty good article. Everyking 10:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Made an attempt to clarify. Is this better? Alkivar 13:03, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • That's fine with me, I support it. I like articles like this—so much that I didn't even arbitrarily add a NPOV header to the top, if you can believe that... Everyking 13:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • wiseass :P I get your point, however I will again repeat La La was marked with the {{POV Check}} template I simply made it {{NPOV}} instead. Alkivar 13:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The episode guide style for the season articles doesn't work very well - I'd much prefer to see this written in normal prose, summarising the whole season rather than each individual episode. In addition, could do with a slight copyedit (i.e. in the Premise section, and perhaps the Characters). Also, is the theme song copyrighted? The lead section is good, but I think much of the remainder of the article needs work before being ready. Ambi 11:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The episode guide comes word for word from Zakiyah's fansite and is used with permission. I really do believe an episode by episode guide works much better as the episodes really do stand alone, the only real continuous plot line is the search for a way home. As for the song copyright, I have been unable to find any copyright on the song in the US at this time. I will continue to search for it, as the song was never used in the USA its been exceedingly difficult since I do not speak or read french. Alkivar 13:03, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • By permission, do you mean they gave permission to Wikipedia to use their material, or they gave permission to release their material under the GFDL? Johnleemk | Talk 05:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Gave permission for use on Wikipedia, by default that allows GFDL does it not? I should point out that yes person is aware of what Wikipedia is, and does understand that it means giving up rights to content for reproduction. Alkivar 05:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Actually, strictly legally, no. They only granted permission to Wikipedia to use it. That means that while we have specific rights to the material, people who wish to reuse them don't unless the authors specifically grant permission to use the material under the GFDL. If they understand that, then everything's fine, I guess. Johnleemk | Talk 12:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Even though as far as content goes its short, it is pretty much as comprehensive as it can be. Support. (I'm also influenced by nostalgia of being forced to wtach this in after-school care)--ZayZayEM 01:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

List of Ohio county name etymologies[edit]

Self-nomination. This page, and its two subpages, have been up for some time with only minor tinkering from Wikipedians. Both are exhaustive--they certainly were exhausting to write--compilations of material, all sourced, on county names. PedanticallySpeaking 17:20, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object lists are not acceptable for FAC. Alkivar 18:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree - as I said the last time one of these came up, one of the criteria for a featured article is good prose, and lists (which have none) do not meet this criteria. →Raul654 19:24, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for the reasons stated above. But good job putting the list together. Jacob1207 21:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was not aware lists were ineligible as the criteria page is silent on this. I have suggested on the criteria talk page that the ineligibility of lists be explicitly stated. PedanticallySpeaking 16:45, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Sure it does - A featurd article should have: Well-written: compelling, even "brilliant" prose—the former name for featured articles.. A list has no prose at all. QED. →Raul654 21:02, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Brute force attack[edit]

Seems like a great article. Has references, well written, interesting. - 203.35.154.254 03:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Don't you think it's a bit short? Everyking 03:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • What needs expanding? I thought it was good, but I might be wrong. - 203.35.154.254 03:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment, what does the phrase "128 bits of entropy" mean? Paul August 03:42, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Far too short. Ambi 04:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I support if it is comprehensive. It explained the concept evry well to me, but length does worry.--ZayZayEM 10:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Soviet Navy[edit]

Self-nomination. It does need a little vetting, but I think it's pretty much there. -Joseph (Talk) 17:43, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

  • Object - No references. And I'm not sure if the article is in-depth enough... I'm not particularly knowledagable on the topic, but the article doesn't look long enough and detailed enough to comprehensively cover the topic. Could you perhaps talk about the major commanders-in-chief - what they accomplished, what they focused on, their strengths and weaknesses? Spangineer 18:26, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. (1) There should be more about operations, especially in World War II (e.g. operations in support of Murmansk and Archangel convoys), and in the Cold War (especially the submarine warfare in the Arctic). (2) There should be something about bases. Gdr 20:43, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs references, seems to need some expansion. This would be aided by references. Also the captions need to be turned into interesting sentences. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Expanded captions. -Joseph (Talk) 20:21, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
  • Object. Agree with above objections, the history section is way too short. 25% of article lenght are the lists, a bit too much I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I am shoving a lot of content in now. I am still going to add a section on Operation Jennifer and need to lengthen the WWII section. Probably some other things. -Joseph (Talk) 21:36, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
  • Object, for now at least, for the above stated reasons. Also, I am dubious that the Potemkin mutiny had anything to do with the Bolshevik party. Edeans 03:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blackface[edit]

Self-nomination. I simply think it's a damned good article. Comprehensive. (Note that there's a separate article on minstrel show -- which, IMO, needs help.) I've also got another photo I'd like to include (as soon as I figure out how; I'm a techno-idiot newbie). deeceevoice 02:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. No references. Johnleemk | Talk 03:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I a very well written, very interesting article. However, the headings are POV (even if I agree with them), and there are no references. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: same reasons as previous users. Filiocht 08:37, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Serious question: What is POV about the subheads? Is this about (seriously) your ignorance of the subject matter? Is this a function of the "no references" thing? For me (history buff, collector of black americana), it's a no-brainer. Talk to me. About "well-written" -- while I'm certainly not the only contributor -- thanks. deeceevoice 10:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, well, firstly (and this isn't to do with POV) the headings aren't as clear as they should be. Headings should be boring and just explain what the section is going to deal with. They shouldn't be long-winded. "Illusion and art: the shaping of racist stereotypes" is passable: barely. It seems to be pushing a anti-racist agenda, which though I most definitely agree with, is not really acceptable on Wikipedia. We don't push that POV. We only describe it and detail it, and people's opinions of it. "Darky iconography: the enduring legacy of blackface minstrelsy" "The enduring legacy" is a POV. Just call it "Darky iconography and blackface minstrelsy". "Blackface minstrelsy and the "browning" of American and world pop culture" OK, seems good. Far too long for a title however. Incidently, you are correct that I am ignorant of the subject matter, but I can pick a POV phrase/title a mile off :-) Ta bu shi da yu 12:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It is well written, Deecee, but it is also very POV. Illusion and art &c. should probably just be titled History; the Darky iconography section goes off on a related tangent, which may be best trimmed or relocated; what remains coudl be titled Iconogrpahy or better Symbology (or something even better!); and Blackface minstrelsy and the "browning" &c. is probably best titled Modern influence. The titles should NOT shape the reader's interpretation. --Dhartung | Talk 10:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, folks, for the useful advice -- and especially Dhartung for taking the time to explain. However, on one point I must take issue. I don't think the iconography segment is a tangent; it is seminal to the subject and treats the significance/impacts of blackface. If the article were more lengthy, I might see the need to truncate it, but as it stands, I don't see the information as tangential or excessive. (Is there serious disagreement on this point?) Will work on subheads. Will that address the POV? Again, I'm not being intentionally obtuse; to me, this stuff is "old hat." deeceevoice 11:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree that this section is not going on a tangent. I would advise to keep it. I think people's opinions on tangents can be affected by headings... - Ta bu shi da yu 12:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for your comments, Ta bu shi da yu -- and for your concurrence with me regarding keeping the article intact. So, headings should be "boring"? LOL Actually, people, that's precisely what I was trying to avoid! Truly, there is nothing incorrect or off-the-mark with any of the subheads in this piece. As with any work, the subheads say what the subsequent information presents -- and are borne out by the information presented. As long as the information is borne out by appropriate references, what's the problem? (I'm working on that. The information I've presented is straight out of my head -- stuff that's an accumulation of information acquired over time. I'll work to find appropriate backup.) Are the headings interesting/provocative? Yes, by design. The subject matter itself is provocative and potentially explosive. Name me one thing dealing with race relations in the U.S. that isn't. :-p That the images and portrayals of black folks concocted and purveyed by blackface minstrelsy were racist is not a matter of contention anywhere that I'm aware. It's simply an ugly fact of history. The article, however, does put such things in context in the sense that it states from the outset that virtually everbody got trashed onstage in some stupid, stereotypical manner. Such were the times. It seems there is a tendency on Wikipedia to dance around such subjects -- as in the minstrel show piece, which I view as shamelessly bland and intellectually dishonest at its core. (What ever happened to "BE BOLD!"? :-p) It speaks in general terms about stereotypical portrayal, but doesn't even once mention "racism." And that is appalling/a travesty, given minstrelsy's importance in helping to shape atavistic attitudes about "race" that plague this nation, still. And, no, this isn't my stubborn attempt to keep every single word as is. I will take a second look at the subheads -- particularly the "browning" thing since a lot of people may be unfamiliar with Richard Rodriguez -- and see what I can come up with. I just want to make the point that Wikipedia can be factual, substantive and scholarly without being bland and ponderous. Peace. deeceevoice 12:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a great article. The writing is compelling; the subject matter is fascinating and important; and the wealth of detail makes you want to keep on reading it. I'd like to see more inline references, so that if a reader or editor wanted quickly to check a few of your claims, they could do so easily. But that's not an objection. I feel this is exactly the kind of article that people will come to Wikipedia to read. It's lively, not POV. I hope you find some time to work a bit more on this to remove some of the objections. I've put articles up myself for Featured Article status, so I know what these objections can feel like. But don't be disheartened! Try to incorporate some of them and push ahead for this to become a Featured Article. Slim 10:05, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • I likely won't have time to do anything more on this anytime soon. Stuff always tends to pile up just before the holidays, and this year's no exception. I'll eventually provide references -- and may apply for featured article status later. It's just not that important to me -- something I did on a whim. Peace -- and happy holidays, all. deeceevoice 02:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object until it has proper references and the extra-long headings are shortened. Otherwise, an excellent piece on a difficult topic. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I shortened the subheads. Hopefully, they meet with approval. Will work on references probably after the holidays and then resubmit. deeceevoice 14:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Great article and the recent edits bring it into the encyclopedic - Trick 23:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support I shouldn't say too much because I started the article, but it has matured and expanded with much help from others, particularly deeceevoice and I'm proud to be a part of it. Ortolan88 18:06, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow. This has improved heaps since I last saw it. But no References? Are any of the external links references? Object for now.--ZayZayEM 10:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Lacks enough references. There is only one inline reference that I can see. Otherwise it looks very well done. It needs to have references that confirm the material in the article, ideally by multiple inline citations. - Taxman 05:46, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Rat Park[edit]

The story of a largely forgotten psychology experiment. Self nomination. Slim 10:11, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. It has a POV problem, as evidenced by the concluding comment about the 'War on Drugs'. A good copyedit to remove POV could make it up to the required standard. Dbiv 12:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dbiv, thanks for your comment. Apart from the concluding comment, can you point to anything else you feel is specifically POV and should be removed?
  • Object. My main problem is with the images. The first two seem both too big and somewhat out of place. I'd prefer to see the good Dr A as the first image. Not sure that the poppy or the junkie are needed at all. Filiocht 12:51, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
I like the junkie a lot. Perhaps you're right about the poppy. I'll get rid of it. Slim
  • Object. The article is detailed and very interesting, but it seems to be a one-sided story. I know that the scientific world can be sometimes quite conservative when it comes to accepting new ideas, but there are, surely, reasons why this work has been ignored. Was its methodology discussed? Etc. And, as Dbiv said, the final comment shows some POV (it could surely be reworded as something like "Dr Foobar deplored that so little was spent on such projects while considerable sums are expended on the War on Drugs [ref]"). David.Monniaux 13:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
David, the problem with this study is that it doesn't seem to have been criticized. Just not taken up. The author Lauren Slater goes into detail about how the drug czar Prof. Kleber and his colleagues are "disdainful of any research north of the Connecticut River." I didn't put that in because it's too POV even as a quote. But I've looked around a lot over the last couple of weeks for criticism of this experiment and couldn't find any. I have e-mailed the pharmacology journal who published it to ask if they received any critical responses, but so far I've had no reply. Slim 21:35, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I'm curious. I'm unaware of the usages of experimental psychology and drug studies, but in some other scientific fields it is common usage that the authors of papers refused by scholarly journals get a copy of the reviews of the referee that caused the paper to be refused. The mere fact that a "drug czar" and close associates were disdainful of the paper is not necessarily a good indication about this – good scholarly journals seek the opinion of several specialists, often in several countries. I doubt that whatever influence an American drug czar has, it probably cannot does not dictate his opinion to researchers in Europe or Japan. But, again, I don't know the particular usages of those fields and I don't know what happened to these papers.
Note that, on the other hand, the "drug czar" and disdain explanation may be appropriate for the absence of funding, since such things are generally set by committees staffed by national personalities. David.Monniaux 18:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for reasons above. I really want to support, though. It's an interesting topic, but it does sound crankish and could do with NPOving. Johnleemk | Talk 14:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object in its present state. I've tidied up a lot of the bad punctuation, but there's far too much "quotes" said X, replied Y, etc., which needs to be cleaned up into normal prose. At the moment it reads more like a cheap thriller than a good wikipedia article. - MPF 14:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
MPF, you put a Cleanup tag on the article, which I feel is inappropriate (as do others: another editor removed it, thinking it was there as a joke. Also, you made only a tiny number of changes, including changing "wild Norway rat" to "Brown Rat," which is not what the author said, and changing some North American punctuation to British. I'd appreciate it if you'd recommend and discuss changes here first. Slim 21:35, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: POV. The writing follows its hero so closely as to write a biography of an experiment, with a vested interest in its truth. Also, there is a very serious problem with the experiment, as it does not show in any way that there is no physical addiction to opiates, but only that, left to their own devices, rats will not choose to become addicted. I.e. the article argues that morphine isn't addictive, but that's not what the experiment shows. The experiment shows who will and will not grab morphine and get to the level of addiction, not that morphine is not addictive. It could conceivably show that rats with a plentiful supply of opiates are capable of withdrawing slowly when they get to self-administer. That's all well and good. It argues that unhappy people start taking the drugs. No shock there. However, the escalation of addiction and the physical basis of addiction isn't even argued against by the experiment. Either the professor wasn't trying to argue against physical addiction and the article misrepresents the aims, or he was making up one really terrible experimental design. Also, the physical basis of addiction is pretty darned empirical. What's not stated is that lots of rat brains have been chopped up and photographed to show the chemical alterations in the addicted brain. Geogre 15:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
George, the points you raise are interesting. First, the rats' brains: being able to view physical changes isn't enough. You have to be able to say why those physical changes led the animal to lose control of its intake. No scientist has shown that. (That goes to the heart of what the word "causation" means.) You also have to say something about what you mean when you refer to loss of control and choice. Again, to my knowledge, no scientist has done that. Second, Alexander started off with rats who were physically addicted to morphine, and who had been drinking nothing but morphine-laced water for 57 days. When he put them in Rat Park, where they had a choice, they started drinking plain tap water instead. Does this not show that morphine is not "addictive," in the sense of robbing the user of all, most or some control and choice; that is, in the sense of causing a degree of compulsion? Slim 21:35, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't see, in the article, that the rats at the outset had addiction of 57 days. That may be my fault. My point, however, is "addiction" as physiologic dependence vs. behavioral compulsion. Unhappy animals want relief, naturally. However, whether they are unhappy or happy, opiates produce a physiological change, and withdrawal causes a change. I.e. a rat or a human will become dependent upon the drug, something that the article mentions. However, the article says that the physical dependence was trivial, which is POV. Creatures that can communicate their status, and in particular humans, report pretty severe withdrawal problems, whether they were addicted by their own choice or not. E.g. patients who had received too much and too often a morphine dose in a hospital stay and were suddenly stopped were not psychologically or morally weak, and yet they became addicts upon release. This was a common enough problem with WW1 soldiers, and it continued to be a problem through the 1940's. These days, hospital protocols prevent it by tapering a dose. My problem is that the claim in the article for the experiment is that it shows a lack of physical basis for "addiction." Addiction can refer either to psychological or physical dependence. Geogre 02:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But George, don't you see that you're doing exactly what you say the article is doing. That is, you are, in my view, begging the question. First, I will make it clearer in the article that the Rat Park rats had already been fed morphine for 57 days, and where what the physicalists would call "addicted."
I1) You write "opiates produce a physiological change, and withdrawal causes a change." That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the extent to which the physical changes in the brain CAUSE. or whether they merely ACCOMPANY, the perceived physical and psychological addiction of the user. You are simply stating that there is a relationship of causation here. That has to be shown.
Actually I do dispute that withdrawal causes a change. The observation here is that when opiates are used to control pain, as in palliative care, provided that no more morphine has been given than is necessary to control the pain, then addiction does not result. If the level of pain reduces or the pain disappears, then the druig can be reduced or stopped (respectively) without the symptoms of addiction appearing. Therefore the effect that the drug has, in terms of addiction, is dependent on the degree of physical pain that the paitent is suffering. I don't think this point is covered here or elsewhere, and it may, of course not be relevant here. Matt Stan 20:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(2) SOME creatures who can communicate their status report severe withdrawal problems. Some do not. It's the same with cigarettes. Some long-term smokers end up dying because they say they cannot stop. Other long-term smokers stop cold turkey with very little difficulty. (I used to work as a smoking-cessation counsellor, so I saw these disparities firsthand and they are very pronounced.)
(3) Again, SOME patients who take morphine for long-term pain relief become what they say is "addicted." But many do not. In fact, I believe that most do not. (I will check the known figures). This is one of the issues that the psycho-social theorists rely on: that most patients who are prescribed morphine do not become either physically or psychologically addicted. Tapering a dose would not prevent addiction, if the argument is that you need ever-increasing doses to get the same hit.
(4) You talk about psychological addiction. What is that? It doesn't even have the perceived physical changes in the brain accompanying it. It is just a statement made by scientists who cannot find any physical basis for an addiction.
I can see why you feel this article is POV. But I argue that it is the physicalist side that is so POV and so completely accepted, that anything that argues against it looks POV. Take a look at Wikipedia's Drug addiction. There is no doubt expressed in that article, no room for any other debate, no questioning of results, no questioning of methodology. But the most funadamental problem is, as I said above, a confusion between a change in a physical state CAUSING a change in behavior, and the physical change ACCOMPANYING the behavioral change. This is a fundamental logical and epistemological error that all first-year undergraduate philosophy students are taught not to make. And yet all the drugs-are-addictive scientists are making that error, apparently unaware that it's cauing them to beg the very question they're seeking to answer.
That's why I find Rat Park impressive. It doesn't do anything fancy; doesn't commit any logical errors; doesn't use fancy equipment; doesn't interpret the fancy results of the fancy equipment; doesn't start talking about how the brain functions as though much is actually known about brain function. All Rat Park does is this: It takes a bunch of morphine-soaked rats ("addicts" by anyone else's standards) and it offers them morphine to see what they'll do. And what do they do? They don't want it. That has to tell us something. And Alexander is very cautious in what he claims Rat Park tells us: only that the theory of physical and psychological addiction has not been empirically proven. Slim 03:23, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Object: Its an interesting subject, but its not featured article material, there must be another side of the coin here. The picture of the opium poppy seems to be there just to make the page attractive, and the one of the drug addict for unclear reasons, although it is hard to know what images could illustrate this page - certainly Dr. Alexander and the rat . Perhaps this needs to be incorporated in a biographical page of Bruce Alexander Giano 19:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Abstain for now, there is a lot of work and thought going on here at the moment Giano 21:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the picture of the poppy is there to make the page attractive and to show readers what opium/morphine comes from. The drug addict is there to show what heroin/morphine does to people. The woman is in her early 30s but looks a great deal older.
Heroin produces dreadful effects, but do the images help explain Rat Park? Giano 21:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I felt they did. I felt the picture of the woman showed what a compulsion heroin use can become. The definition scientists use of "addictive" (I think I should make this clearer in the article) is if the activity becomes self-destructive or destructive of others, or of relationships. No matter how much you feel you need to take a substance, scientists will not say you are addicted until you start to want the substance more than you want other important things in life (food, love, work, health etc). I felt the picture of this young woman totally summed that up. The Rat Park author took rats who were the equivalent of that woman (they had drunk nothing but morphine-laced water for 57 days). Yet, he put them in Rat Park, and they suddenly didn't want it anymore.
I have a query about Wikipedia articles and illustrations in general. I would always prefer a nicely illustrated article, whether in a newspaper, magazine or encyclopedia, to one that isn't. Yet I've noticed some Wikipedia editors don't like photographs. I've had that criticism of my articles before: either that the pics are too big, or there are too many of them. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind that? Slim 22:03, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object Interesting topic, worthy of an article. But not in this form. - DavidWBrooks 21:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) (whoops - typo'd by own signature)
  • Support. Lead section includes the phrase "It was rat heaven". That's good enough for me! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
LOL I wouldn't mind being in there myself.  :-) Slim 03:24, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. As above, serious POV sections. This piece of pseudo-conspiracy theory doesn't need to have specific objections to the experiment itself mentioned (I'm not suprised an experimental conclusion based on the somewhat shaky foundation that the only evidence for physiological addiction comes from 'depressed lab rats' was largely ignored, actually), what needs to be described is evidence for physiological addiction and why this experiment doesn't address this. This should be done, preferably, not by the original authour of the article, but by someone who isn't trying to support the experiment's conclusion. This stinks of the 'all scientists are in a big conspiracy so they're ignoring this idea' argument used by pseudo scientists the world over. Psychobabble 09:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm . . . I think to be fair you should acknowledge that you're doing a degree in commerce/law, and the author of the book that drew attention to Rat Park has a PhD in psychology. The author of the original study, Bruce Alexander, is a professor of psychology; the sponsoring university is a reputable one; and the journal that published the results, and has subsequently published more material from the same man, is a reputable peer-reviewed academic journal. Based on these facts, I would suggest you have no reason to call this pseudo-science. What this was, and remains, was an experiment that went against the grain ideologically, as many rigorous scientific projects do every day. I apologize if I have created a conspiratorial tone; I will remove it when I do the re-write. The fault for that tone is mine, not Bruce Alexander's. Slim 21:05, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
I wrote after speaking to my wife, with a degree in behavioural neuroscience, who has looked fairly extensively at addiction. She assured me, as I thought, that the scientific consensus on addiction actually does exist for a reason. Gasp. Psychobabble 22:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Psychobabble, please be civil and realistic about this, and please assume good faith. It is simply false to call the Rat Park study "pseudo-science." It was funded by a major university. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal. The author has written a book about the issue, which has been published by a reputable publisher. There was a similar study showing similar results before it. There have been similar studies showing similar results since it. It is definitely a minority position, but not to the point of being "pseudo-science," or being so much in the minority that it is not worthy of a Wikipedia entry. If you want to see a real POV article on this issue, take a look at Drug addiction. To read that, you'd think no other view existed and that the matter had been settled.
I would be most grateful if your wife could supply a reference for her position and would happily incorporate it into the article. I am looking for the most reputable and most decisive studies that suggest opiates are physically and psychologically addictive. Over the last few days, I've been in touch with several scientists on the majority side of the debate, and have asked them to refer me to papers that most clearly show the opposite of the Bruce Alexander position. The papers show that the scientific community is having a great deal of difficulty in finding a consensus. For example, one recent paper I'll be quoting from in Science says: "[M]any people have at some time self-administered a potentially addictive drug, but very few become addicts"; "Mere self-administration [in rats] is not evidence of addiction"; and "There are no good animal models to distinguish mere drug self-administration behavior from the compulsive drug self-administration behavior that characterizes addiction." This paper is written by a scientist who appears to be on the drugs-are-addictive side of the debate, and the paper acknowledges that the empirical evidence to support this view is weak, though it ends by saying it hopes future studies may strengthen it. Slim 23:36, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)



Dealing with the objections: The overriding objection seems to be POV, partly due to my writing style, but largely due to there being no reference to published criticism of the study. The latter is because, using all the normal research methods, I was not able to find any criticism other than the one sentence from the former drug czar in the Lauren Slater book, which I quoted. I've therefore e-mailed the current editor-in-chief of the pharmacology journal that published the Rat Park research in 1981 and have asked him whether he can help me to find any published responses to the experiment; and if there were none, at least then I can say in the article that there were none. And I've e-mailed Kleber, the former deputy drug tzar who was quoted by Lauren Slater as saying he recalled there was a methodology problem with Rat Park but couldn't remember what it was. I've asked him if he can direct me to some published criticism of Rat Park. I'll have to wait for a while for their responses, but I'll report back as soon as I receive more information. I've also removed the drawing of the poppy and the photograph of the heroin user, which a couple of editors felt were not appropriate. Slim 09:03, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

As a scientist, my reaction, when faced with the claims of some fellow scientist of having been unfairly disregarded by mainstream science and official policies, is always that of prudent scepticism. I do not exclude that such things happen. However, there are many examples of people who try to win in the arena of the popular press / book writing for the general population the recognition that they could not win among their peers due to shoddy experimentation or reasoning.
I really find the topic interesting, but due to its sensitivity and the risks for undue endorsement of a dubious theory, I would much prefer that somebody with some good knowledge of the field look into it, before making it a featured article. David.Monniaux 18:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
David, I take your point about scientists trying to score points in the court of popular opinion. But so far as I can tell, that is not what happened here. The author of this experiment was sought out by Lauren Slater, who is a psychologist and who had heard of Rat Park but wondered what had become of it. He actually said to her during the interview: "Why do you want to do Rat Park? It's forgotten." There was no impression given that he was seeking publicity. Anyway, I've written to a few scientists in the field today, including the editors-in-chief of a couple of pharmacology/psychopharmacology journals, and so far, I'm surprised and touched by the response. One of them has assigned two research assistants to find out whether published criticism of Rat Park exists. And all for Wikipedia. Slim 03:38, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is very interesting but: 1) The experiment results - wheter Dr.Alexander hypothesis was proven right or false, and how it was ignored and why - must be added to the lead. Also, the section 'The physicalist model of drug addiction' while interesting and fairly well written, seems out of place in that article - I think it should be moved to its own article instead. Finally, some more ilinks are in order (names, concepts...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very interesting. I can think of a few Wikipedians who need such a park. - Xed 00:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 :-) Thank you, Xed. I'm one of them. Slim 00:16, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. POV issues appear to be, as far as I can tell, addressed. Informative and researched, AND interesting.--ZayZayEM 10:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. As it says in the talk page, it's not really POV - the problem is that the opposite theory has become so often repeated that people accept it as 'fact', and anything which does not agree with it seems POV. Dehumanizer 21:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Knights Templar[edit]

The page describes a very interesting topic and is a striking example of good writing, the latter being quite the exception in most wikipedia articles. (Nominated by an anon, Dec 4 →Raul654 09:28, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC))

  • Object: There are at least three references to the Templars having "connections," and yet these are never explained. There is an assumption that the Templars sort of walked into banking, with no explanation of how this came to be (crusaders need to travel & can't carry their money, so they leave it at one Templar place, get a ticket, and then travel with only the ticket, then withdraw when needed in Jerusalem or Byzantium). The heresy section is tepid on the motives of Philip the Fair, when I'm not sure anyone now doubts that he was making a grab for money and power (and, specifically, Papal power). Some plausible explanations for Baphomet are ignored in favor of some odd ones. References are weak. Templar dissolution was not overnight, but the break up of Templar power was. Discussion and link to Jacques de Molay not present. Council of Vienne not mentioned. The fact that the Hospitallers got the properties (except in Spain and Portugal) not mentioned. Dante as a defender is a sidelight that would be worth noting. Basically, it's a good overview article, but it needs to be more detailed, take its time more, and establish the story step by step. Geogre 03:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Fair, but not quite there. More details on the history of the order during the crusades. References. As a side note, it is not what I would call "a striking example of good writing", either. "What may have been all the Knights Templar in France were simultaneously arrested by agents of Philip the Fair, to later be tortured into admitting heresy" is not the apex of syntactic accomplishment. (but that alone is not sufficient reason to object, of course) Dbachmann 11:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I concur in the points raised by the two previous users and add the following. Significantly more information on the Templars' banking functions is needed. They received money and other gifts, which, being a monastic order, they didn't need to spend. So they saved it in their (very well fortified) castles. Others came to see these castles as excellent depositories and sent their riches there for safe keeping. Jacob1207 02:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri[edit]

A very well-written and comprehensive article on a computer game that's very important for many gamers, and comes from one of the most famous game designers. Nice background information, as well as information on game specifics and related topics. Solver 13:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. No references. Johnleemk | Talk 13:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor object. No references. Most of the pictures need shrinking a little. It really needs a Wikipedia:Summary style section about Alien Crossfire as well, considering that Crossfire is an expansion pack. Apart from these minor gripes, I'd support - this is the best game article I've ever seen. Ambi 14:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • What exactly are references? Links to/from other articles? I suppose it's something I could try patch up. Solver 15:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Cite sources. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Can't really put such references there, though, I think. Most of the information comes from straight in the game, so there aren't exactly many sources to cite. And the tidbits that don't come from the game can be found at Apolyton, which is linked to at the end of the article.Solver 21:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Maybe not many, but it needs some. Where did all of the material for the article come from? Some is from direct observation, but there is other material that should be referenced. There is one citation to PC Gamer, there should be others that can be done similarly. Then please add them and other sources used in a references section as per the above link. Object until references are properly done. Look at Doom and the experimental Doom/References for how this can be done well. - Taxman 19:14, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor objection. Missing effect of the game on the computer game industry. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 16:41, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have added the Influence section to the article, please see what you think. Solver 21:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Some pics probably should be shrunk a little, and I guess the CrossFire expansion should be mentioned here. It's too short for its own entry. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 22:04, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree on shrinking images. However, Alien Crossfire has once been separated from the main article, and I think that generally expansions have their own articles, too. Solver 22:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I added the WikiProject Computer and Video Games infobox (stolen from AoE) which has shrunk the images. But I still have to object. There is a lot of detail on the story concept, game concept, and game features --- but not much on development/publishing, game play (selecting units, movement, keyboard usage), what platforms it is available on, and what multiplayer is like. Are there cheats? Was there any negative criticism, like Civ III received? --ZayZayEM 06:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Also think that Alien Crossfire's should have a small summary on this page.--ZayZayEM 06:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) No references. Certainly at least the manual can be added as a reference? Jeronimo 12:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2) Insufficient images. Screenshots are fair use, so we can use them. The current screenshot hardly gives a good idea of the game. 3) The storyline of the Voice is not mentioned, even though this is a vital part of the game (add a spoiler notification). And what about the mindworms (only a little is told), locusts of chiron, isles of the deep? 4) More background on several items in the games would be desirable. For example, specifically mentioning some of the technologies created (not all of them) or some of the secret projects would give a better idea for those who did not play the game. 5) More is needed on strategy. How can you win the game? For example, in my experience certain factions are easier to play than others. Similar for multi-player. 6) The influence section is incorrectly titled. It has a bit on which games influence AC, but not which games were influence by AC. The rest is about awards and popularity, about which we need more information. How many copies of the game were (approximately) sold? Are there many multiplayer communities? There's also too little information about the expansion pack (I know it has its own article, but more is needed). 7) The lead sectin is insufficient for an article of this lenght. It should give a summary of the article's contents. Jeronimo 12:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Abstain. Good idea with the manual. There are not many references (books, articles) about computer games, although perhaps some search at ludology might net a useful thing. With manual and current 'further reading' and 'external links' I think references will be ok. On other things I support Jeronimo as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Man, do I remember the countless hours I spent playing this one. Sure, I'll support. Everyking 05:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a bad article, but it needs more references, such as the manual. Also, a longer lead section is necessary. I would like a section on how AC has impacted the genre and the industry. Andre (talk) 18:08, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, not least because it's a reminder of how I wasted all my time before discovering the Wikipedia ;o) — OwenBlacker 13:57, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodoxy[edit]

A very complete article on a subject that is interesting, or at least was for me. After reading it through it seems NPOV, and well-written. Not a self-nomination yet, but I may be making some contributions to it in the near future. --CMcQueeny 04:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Ginormous unseemly lead. No pictures (Churches, services, clergy, tapestries, icons...)--ZayZayEM 08:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Clear POV problems - several unattributed assumptions and conclusions. Parts of this are quite good, but much of the article needs a serious copyedit, or even rewrite in an encyclopedic style. Ambi 08:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • In response to both of the above: Hmm... I didn't notice any POV to speak of, but admittedly it was rather late. I'd appreciate it if you could point out some instances or parts of the article that are POV, and I will NPOV them. As far as pictures are concerned, I've actually been seaching for some already, and there should be some soon. --CMcQueeny 18:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Article needs a concise and well-written intro section. Jacob1207 23:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copyleft[edit]

The article is complete, well-structured, and well-written: it explains clearly what copyleft is; how and why it originated; the various forms it takes; and the views of both its opponents and proponents. The writing is of high quality. Sietse 13:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Insufficient references. Johnleemk | Talk 13:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree, i think there are sufficient links for reference, this is more of a concept article than something with verifiable scientific resources. Support Alkivar 23:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I actually read this entire article, and found it to be very informative. Masterhomer 10:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. No references. External links are not enough. I would find it hard to beleive there is nothing in print that covers this. Also I'm sure there are available legal opinions on the concept. A reliable external link is acceptable as a reference if it is formatted properly as shown in the link I've just given. That is basically assurance that the author has used the material there for material in the article or to fact check it. Otherwise the link could be entirely for additional informative material for the interested reader. That is a critical difference. - Taxman 18:42, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Moved to "Former Featured Article Candidates"[edit]

End of January 2005 Copyleft was moved from FAC to FFAC. I didn't want to comment here before, because of having largely contributed to the article myself (well, call it false modesty).

Anyway, I thought making it a Featured Article would have been slightly to early. There are still some issues to be sorted out first:

  • Discussions on whether copyleft should be primarily approached from GNU/FSF/RMS/software/license-by-copyright-law approach(es), or primarily from an umbrella approach about the copyleft principle keep popping up (very interesting discussion!)
  • I tried twice to elaborate the example of how Wikipedia tackles the difficult problem of being copyleft for a unique object. Moved the second version (after being removed from the copyleft article) to BDFL, but there also it was removed. This second version of that contribution can now be found here. Still think this example might clarify the copyleft concept: not having been able to find a clear example not relating to wikipedia, the contribution however remains subject to both "self reference" and "original research" objections.
  • ... see above ... e.g. more "source references" might be great!
  • The article is still definitely too long (... I guess resulting from too many attempts of people to make their favourite approach crawl up to the first paragraph - see Talk:copyleft).
  • The short definition (= first paragraph) is still not completely OK -IMHO-, as it seems to exclude copyleft being implemented outside a "license-by-copyright-law" framework...
  • ...

I plan to contribute to such improvements as much as I can, and promise to relist copyleft as FAC, once I feel at ease most of it has been covered appropriately!

--Francis Schonken 11:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Our Gang[edit]

(better known as The Little Rascals) Something of a self-nomination, though at least two others have assisted with parts of both the main article and linking. The article has been significantly expanded to include a full history of the series, and creation of a category for the kids in the series [8]. (Nominated by B Touch, Dec 5)

  • Comment - About half the page is a list of the various casts which I agree should be available but maybe not in the page itself--Evil Monkey 20:49, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Good point. I took the personnel section and created a breakout page for it: Our Gang personnel. --b. Touch 00:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs references (Wikipedia:Cite your sources) and some explanation what can be found on the mentioned websites, besides only the creator's name. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:26, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)Support - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:47, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • There are four references listed; the first is a comprehensive history/study/filmography on the series, the second two are primary sources from two of the kids in the series, and the last one dedicates a number of pages to the African-American children in the series. The two websites belong to former Our Gang kids, a point which was more apparent when the cast list was on the main page. That has now been fixed, and the references have been reformated. --b. Touch 19:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support now. Object. Were the resources listed in the 'Further reading' section were actually used to add or fact check the material in the article? If so, the section should be called references. Further reading is entirely ambiguous as to whether the resources have actually been consulted or if they are just there for the interested reader. - Taxman
  • The two autobiographies were not used as references; the other two books were. I will make changes accordingly. --b. Touch 03:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks. Two is really the minimum I am willing to support, but two print references and two more further reading is not bad. If you have extensively used a reliable external link, that can be considered a reference too. - Taxman 18:59, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I found this comprehensive, well-written and interesting to read. I like the use of images (have not checked them for copyright status) and the listing of references. I did some c.e. and linking, but I would not consider this a self-nom. Quill 23:28, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bioterrorism[edit]

Good article, only needs a little more work (which tends to happen during a nomination process) to be featured, I think. I've just done a load of wikignomery, so it's arguably a self-nom. — OwenBlacker 13:49, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object for now. while i agree this article looks good, I think it is lacking that oomph that a FAC should have. It seems well written but it just doesnt have a lot of impact. Perhaps this is due to the constant media coverage of this subject, but I do not feel this is the right time for this to be nominated. Now for specific complaints:
    1. lack of images.
    2. subsection labelled stub, needs content added there
    3. 0 reference to "first responders" and those responsible for cleanup.
    4. Category A entries all have a 1-3 line description, are Category B and Catagory C entries not worthy of this same treatment?
    5. Categories A and B have lists, Category C cops out with 1 sentance.
    6. Biological warfare programs seems to be a brief afterthought.
I have more but this is a good start Alkivar 19:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I mostly agree with Alkivar. Most importantly, the article fails to draw a line between bioterrorism and biological warfare. These may be very closely connected, but then so should the articles. In addition, the history seems incomplete (where's the sarin attack in the Japanese metro), and most of the topics are "discussed" by adding a link only. Far from featured status IMO. Jeronimo 07:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object:
    1. Category A has entries for all the mentioned biological agents, except for "viral hemorrhagic fevers". What are these?
    2. Category B has entries but not in summary form.
    3. Category C should be expanded.
    4. Biological warfare programmes and convention on biological weapons needs expansion. I'm sure there is much more material than that!
    5. Modern Bioterrorist incidents needs to be expanded in summary form.
    6. There is a sentence "Arguments given to justify this option is that people are used to plants much more than to chemical sensors and the use in public places would not worry the population. Another argument is that these GMO sentinels could be deployed on vast geographical areas and their system of detection could be introduced into the evergreen trees and the algae of the watery zones, making it possible for satellites to supervise and perceive any change of color due to an hostile agent." in Plants as sensors that is totally unqualified. Who give these arguments? How do we know this information is not just made up?
    7. Why is DARPA references in "See also"?
Ta bu shi da yu 05:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cambodia[edit]

The article should be a Featured article as it is was rebuilt by me (Before & After Minus edits between) to become a worth candidate. It has pictures, it is comprehensive, has the cosmetic changes to make it look appealing. Words don't describe the improvement of the article since the renovation, you will have to visit the article youself.  :) [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 02:07, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Update: Note whilst initally I did indeed wanted this article to become a feature article. After reading the responses below. I now withdraw my decision to nominate this article as a feature article as of now. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 04:06, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The opening section isn't very well written ("Thwe country is..." and lots of short, choppy sentences) and too much of the article is just lists (organizations Cambodia is in, leaders of the country, provinces, etc). It's got a lot of good factual content, but it's not particularly great, so far as country articles go. Jacob1207 02:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The sentences are short because that is what the Oxford: Plain English guide tells me to use. Sentences are meant to be concise. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 02:16, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the moment. I agree that there is a need to cut back the lists in the articles, maybe putting them into Foreign Relations of Cambodia in the case of the list of organisations. Evil MonkeyTalk 02:25, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
The most longest list of organizations has now been moved to Foreign relations of Cambodia [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 02:36, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too short. For an country article to be featured it should be at least 32K. Also Military of Cambodia and Transportation in Cambodia should have a summary-style section with a "main article" wikilink. Culture section is too short. Too many timelines and lists and not enough prose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:45, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
That is too harsh. India is 20KB (according to Firefox page info) and is was a featured article. Cambodia article is currently 15KB. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 02:51, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
I've added more ifnormation to the tourism section. It seems that on the Wikipedia a country article that is so neglected, can never be a feature article. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 02:56, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Numerous examples of truly awful prose, especially in the lead section, but also throughout. Needs a close copyedit from someone fairly proficient in English. Also, why might the anniversary dates be subject to change? And are both new years dates really important? I'm guessing (but don't know) that Jan 1 isn't really all that important. Psychobabble 03:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Well it seems the only way to get a person to copyedit this neglected article. Is to nominatate the article as a Featured article candidate. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 03:47, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, I hope that that's not the only way to get someone to copyedit the article, but it did motivate me to do so. I think that it significantly improves the article, but doesn't change my opposition to featured article status at this time. Cambodia is an interesting country and with further work the article could be brought up to FA status. Jacob1207 13:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The calendar (now moved) was subject to change as it would be safer to say so, then to give reader wrong information. I admit that the article does need a copyedit and I shouldn't have nominated this article in the first place - but no one wishes to spend their time on the article. They would rather use their time on something else like List of so and so etc. [[User:Squash|

Squash (Talk)]] 04:06, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

    • I feel your frustration, but nominating for FA to get a copyedit seems somewhat unethical to me :) It's a shame it comes to this... Psychobabble 02:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer[edit]

reconstructed from incorrectly archived nom at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer

Partly a self-nom... but I think it's got a couple of interesting pics, it's tidy, complete, and the GlobalFlyer record attempt will be going off soon, so it's getting topical.--PoleyDee 23:59, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Too short, no sections, no lead section and only one reference. Evil MonkeyTalk 01:38, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Reasons as above. - Aaron Hill 10:32, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Evil Monkey and Aaron Hill. Also, texts like "This plane has a LONG wing!" do not belong in an encyclopedia. Jeronimo 12:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Way too short. CGorman 21:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. post this to peer review, get yourself some content, and then relist it in about 2-3 months. Alkivar 23:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: Too short and too many one or two clause paragraphs. The permission to use, and the copyright of the 'napkin' sketch probably needs to be explored Giano 13:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Second Congo War[edit]

Originally nominated as Congo Civil War, now a disambiguation page

This is my first nomination for a featured article (so forgive me please if I break some sort of protocol or do anything wrong). After reading Congo Civil War I was struck by how well it seemed to be done. I thought that by submitting it to this process it would be given the broader readerships that it probably deserved. I did zero work on this article. Kevin Rector 15:29, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Definitely not out of line, don't worry, and yes it is a great article. I was sure to have seen it here before, and found the previous nomination in the archive. When nominating an article it's always a good idea to check for previous nominations and check if the objections listed back then have been worked on. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 21:29, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
"When nominating an article it's always a good idea to check for previous nominations and check if the objections listed back then have been worked on." See now, that's good advice. I went and added it to Template:FAC-instructions but it got ripped out quite quickly. Between that and Mirv's edit summary on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates when he fixed my first timer's faux pas (I added it to the bottom instead of the top of the list) this will most likely be my last FAC nomination. Kevin Rector 01:21, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Oeff, please do not be too easily offended by edit summaries, I'm sure Mirv meant no disrespect, we all make mistakes (that even sounds too grave) especially when first arriving. I agree that the "previous nomination check" should be listed in the template, but if enough other people disagree we might as well keep it like this. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:16, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who has given me kind words. Yesterday I was having quite a bad day, with significant amounts of very stressful work due. So I took a break and turned to the Wikipedia as I often do. I read the Congo Civil War article and thought is was so good that I wanted to find a way to recognize the people who had worked on it. So I found my way here and nominated it. I agree that Mirv probably didn't mean any disrespect, and everyone makes mistakes, and I'm not holding a grudge (for all I know he was having a bad day himself). Anyway, weigh in with your opinion on adding the bits about looking for past versions at Template talk:FAC-instructions where I've put in my suggestions. Kevin Rector 15:29, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • How about some references? Support, though. I'm pleased to see the inclusion of a map roughly outlining the extent of territory held by the factions, which I suggested during the last FAC nomination. Everyking 15:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs references. Otherwise pretty well done. Don't worry about harsh comments people make, just take them for what they are worth and try to improve articles the best you can. - Taxman 17:14, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment After much discussion on Talk:Congo Civil War revolving around the 1960, 1996 and 1998 Congo conflicts, I have stuck my neck out and volunteered to move Congo Civil War to Second Congo War, as part of what promises to be messy and tedious split. Congo Civil War will then become disambiguation, and the content on the 1996 conflict will be moved to First Congo War. This seems to be consensus, unless I hear an objection soon. The reasons for the move include: the 1996 war being vastly overshadowed in the article despite its importance; making the article a little easier to follow by putting at least one "and then everyone switched sides again"-type moment on another page and limiting mention of the shorter lived armed groups to one article or the other; and the fact that these are actually the names used to refer to the separate conflicts. Please feel free to comment or object on the CCR talk page and thanks to everyone who has said nice things and offered constructive criticism on the article as it stands now.
    • Also, in response to the helpful comments here I have made a reference section to which I have added the one book (that I am aware of) specifically dealing with the recent Congo conflict, as well as two other books that are useful. Almost all of the decent information and analyses are coming out of news articles and reports by humanitarian and human rights NGOs, think-tanks, etc, which I feel are well covered in the External Links section. BanyanTree 22:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • But if the external links are used to contribute or support specific material in the article, they should be cited properly as references, just like a print resource. Best would be to include links to primary material from the humanitarian organizations, etc that support the given claims. - Taxman 00:02, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
        • Point taken. Somebody else has already pointed out that I misunderstood "References" to mean something like the "References Cited" in a paper rather than the external links that look like endnote numbers. I'm still learning... BanyanTree 00:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Well it is like that. But if a topic has no available published literature, then we need to use the best available resources to confirm the facts in the article. No apologies needed, just keep learning and we will be all set. - Taxman 18:30, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer review. What article are you nominating now? I see no references in Second Congo War, only external links and further reading. My concern is that the material is shifting too much now for it so be a featured article. I suggest a move to peer review for a couple weeks or enough time to really iron out the changes properly. - Taxman 18:30, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Linked list[edit]

Quite comprehensive. Even has images to explain things! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. No references. Johnleemk | Talk 09:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • What references can we provide though? I know that if I'd written that article I'd have just taken it out of my head because I learned it so long ago. Still, if anyone knows of any authoritative references, we should be able to add these without any problems. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Where you learned it from would be a good start. :-p After all, surely you didn't invent the code out of thin air did you? That's original research. You need to reference a good book on C, Visual Basic, etc. Johnleemk | Talk 11:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object (for now). Article reads like it could use some reorganization. Also, the Visual Basic example in the middle doesn't jibe with the use of pseudocode in the rest of the article (excepting the "language support" C example). --FOo 15:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The original author has corrected this. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The reason the VB code is in the middle of the article is because the VB code explains how languages that don't really have a strong pointer/reference section can still do linked lists. Heck, I'd put in a COBOL one I did ages ago at TAFE when challenged that it couldn't do that. Not that I admit to using COBOL... :P So I understand why this bit got reverted back from Wikicode to VB code. Ta bu shi da yu 10:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. really seems that 90% of this article is JUST CODE. I think articles which are 90% example with minimal else, Who invented the idea of a linked list etc... doesnt belong on FAC yet. (as a side note I personally think any page which is mostly code should be non listable) and treated just like list of X articles. While I still feel there is a lot of code, it is now broken up and suits the article. In its current form I find this article both informational and clear, whereas when it was mostly code I easily got bored with it. So good job folks. SUPPORT Alkivar 22:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • That's a good point. The history of the linked list would be interesting. I should be able to find some info on this. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Information was found and added. Also, a linked list is mostly code. The descriptions are fine, so I don't see how your objection that it's "90% code" is actionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • OK, I did a count of the amount of words in the article that are code. There are about 950 (maybe out by one or two words). There are about 4,300 words in the entire article now I've added some info on the history of the linked list. That's acually about only 22% of the article that is code! So, not 90% code. :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Object. My, you like to quarrel with objections. First, the above objection is entirely actionable. You would simply remove the code, an action. It is debatable whether that is better, but it is actionable. It does seem that the article is dominated by code, even if by word count it is 22%. It takes up much more than 22% of the column inches. 2) You complained you didn't know what references to add and now the article has 5 only four days later. Can you honestly confirm that all of them were used to add or validate material in the article? 3) The lead section is very short. It could stand to be simplified especially in a first paragraph entirely aimed at non programmers, then carry more detailed information. The terms used should be explained inline especially in a lead section. The intro (and in fact the article) should explain why linked lists are important and generally what they are for and what their advantages are. The article has very little of this and the lead section has practically none. - Taxman 14:14, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
            • Taxman, I got those references from the external links the article already had. You'll also notice I added additional information I got from elsewhere, so that should explain some additional references. So please don't imply that I added them without knowing where the information came from. That's quite unfair. For what it's worth, I've been talking to the original author and he's an old computer dog that was taught how to do linked lists when he first stated computing, so that will explain the lack of references, though he added links so I suppose he used them to clarify stuff. Also note that I didn't create the original article!!!! The lead section is pretty short, so I'll try to improve this. The reason that linked lists are important is a good point, so I'll try to improve this also.
              • Its not about knowing where the information came from, its about actually using the material in the references to add or fact check the material in the article. That is hard to do in 4 days, but certainly possible. It is just important to know that you did that, so that is why I am emphasizing it so much. As to the rest, please do work on those. - Taxman 20:50, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
            • With regards to the comment that the article is dominated by code, well, I must respectfully disagree. Exactly how are you going to write an article about a programming issue without using any code? Heck, it's wikicode, a form of pseudocode. My take on this issue: it's sort of like creating an article about a mathematics topic without including any formulas or proofs. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Well I can think of a good example. Mckusick's design and implementation series about the Berkely software distribution is well less than 1% code, and discusses the code and algorithms in depth. It is a very well regarded series of books, and is also very well referenced by the way.
            • P.S. sorry if I look like I'm arguing to cause problems. That's not my intention. I'm sometimes a little vigorous in my responses. Sorry if that has caused offense. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Just keep that vigor on implementing the suggestions and we'll be all set. - Taxman 20:50, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how I missed this whole discussion, but I wrote a lot of the article, including most of the code (I agree there is a bit too much), and the reason there aren't references is because I wrote from my head, having, like most programmers, internalized the concepts of linked lists long ago (this doesn't mean it's original research; I didn't invent them or anything). I could add some references to related material, such as the CLRS section, but this wasn't actually a source. Honestly I think that outside of advantages and disadvantages, very little can be said of linked lists in prose, because they are so basic; they are to computer science as cave-painting is to art, with no one originator or recorded history. Indeed, anyone who claimed credit for them would look rather silly.
However, I think demonstrating some of the operations using *diagrams*, in addition to code, would be very neat and elucidating. I plan to do something like this in the near future. I'm apathetic as to whether the article is featured, but I would like it to be as useful as possible. Deco 09:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, although I believed that when I wrote it, having read the history section I'm quite surprised and better-informed. Thanks to the writer. Deco 09:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Some diagrams are added. Input is appreciated. Deco 10:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Music of Nigeria[edit]

recreated from incorrectly archived nom at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Music of Nigeria/archive2

I'm not sure I'm allowed to nominate articles, as I am not really active. I use Wikipedia and often fix typos and the like anonymously, but haven't done any real editing in months. But, I happened to stumble across music of Nigeria and I thought it was quite nicely done and surprisingly comprehensive. User:Guido Dimicelli

I wrote this and have been getting ready to nominate it. Some of the sections are a bit short, so oppose for now. I'll try and expand these tonight or tomorrow, and will hopefully then support. Tuf-Kat 02:10, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, support. Tuf-Kat 04:09, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Im only on the bench by a small margin; there are too many dead links, another picture would help - perhaps of a traditional instruament, and a few more external links. Not too bad though, perhaps a few more weeks and it would be up to scratch. CGorman 21:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Tuf-Kat, you should strikeout your intial opposition if you are now supporting it. CGorman 21:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I'll see what I can do WRT to pictures and links, though I don't think the lack of other articles is an appropriate objection for this one. Tuf-Kat 23:01, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
        • More external links added. I scoured free photo databases but couldn't find anything even tangentially related to Nigerian music. I went ahead and upped a King Sunny Ade album cover, though. Is this enough to get you off the bench and in the game? Tuf-Kat 17:10, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Much of it looks very good. I know next to nothing about music, but the one thing I knew about African music is that it has complicated and unique beats and rhythms. This article mentions that Nigerian music has complicated rhythms in several places, but doesn't say anything more. This seems like one of the most interesting facets of the music, so it seems there should be a fair amount about that here. - Taxman 22:04, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: This article only briefly mentions Afrobeat, and there's no mention at all of Fela Kuti's legendary club, The Shrine. It's also a real shame there are so many red links in the article. Worldtraveller 22:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maneki Neko[edit]

Self-nom: created by me and written largely by BC Lafferty. I'm not sure if it's quite up to featured snuff, but I think it's pretty close. Andre (talk) 02:56, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. I hate these things with a passion that you can only dream of, although I admit that may not be actionable. More constructively, it's missing discussion of when, how, and maybe why they have become popular outside Japan; also (in Thailand at least) there is a practice of propitiating them with various offerings, which could do with being mentioned, and there doesn't seem to be any discussion of the ones with moving arms. Mark1 04:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • minor Object. So thats what it is. The Asian restaraunt at my campus ahs one (witha moving arm) and I always wondered what its significance is. No print references, just external links. Minor trivia: Is there any relationship between this and Meowth?--ZayZayEM 07:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I've added some print references and a mention of the moving arm ones. However, I can't find any information about how they've become popular or this stuff about offerings. Andre (talk) 22:54, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a vote. Meowth probably comes from a saying that "It's useless to give a koban (gold coin) to a cat" because a cat cannot understand its value. It's a joke from creators of Pokemon. Revth 05:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • [9] has some mention of it- it seems to be a specifically Thai thing. Mark1 06:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Special relativity[edit]

Found this one while surfing, we could use more featured articles on physics and this one looks pretty sweet.GeneralPatton 06:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. This looks great. The only thing I'd say is it would be nice to see a few references throughout the text and also compiled in a References section at the end. But otherwise, it's a great piece of work. Slim 09:55, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
I took at look around the Internet tonight and the consensus on physics website seems to be that the second postulate has been experimentally verified, though none of the websites cited a source. On Usenet, there is a fierce debate about this issue, which seems to boil down to lack of a clear definition of "verified". Those who argue it has been verified (and that seems to be the vast majority) say no experiment has produced an effect that is inconsistent with what you'd expect the consequences of the second postulate to be, and that's what they mean by "verified." So it's not verified in the way that 2 plus 2 equals 4 is. Some people cite the Michelson Morley experiment, as Jeff does below, as having verified the second postulate. The only problem there is that the MM experiment was in 1881, before Einstein wrote his SP theory, and yet Einstein, as I understand it, doesn't refer to it; also, the fact that he called it a "postulate" (assuming that word was used by him) would indicate that he felt the MM experiment, if he knew about it, did not act as verification. There should probably be a fully referenced explanation of this debate in the article, unless it's confined to angry people on Usenet, in which case the doubts would count as original research and wouldn't be allowed in Wikipedia. So the question is: Has any peer-reviewed journal published an article challenging the widely accepted claim that the second postulate has been experimentally verified? I'm tentatively withdrawing my support until the issue is clarified a little, because the second postulate is central to SR and I didn't realize there were physicists who objected to it. I still love the article though; clearly people have put a lot of work into it. Slim 06:39, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
In general experiments don't and can't verify theories, they can only falsify them. Repeated attempts to falsify the predictions of a theory constitute not proof of, but evidence for a theory. In the case of special relativity there is a considerable body of experimental evidence consistent with the predictions of special relativity. There might be (and some claim there are) other theories which are also consistent with this body of experimental evidence. To say that the second "postulate has been verified experimentally" is sloppy and misleading at best. It should be removed, in favor of a section titled something like "experimental evidence for special relativity". Paul August 23:00, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
I have removed the statement that the second "postulate has been verified experimentally". Paul August 14:28, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now: good article but the lead is two short and an article as prone to error as this absolutely needs references. Were the external links used as references? I believe Einstein wrote a book on this subject which might also have been referred to? Filiocht 11:10, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Agree with above. A subject like this has many very solid references and they should be consulted and cited. Einstein's original paper is available in German here, and even translations are available. You can buy an ebook of English translations here for $10, but it is also available as a dead tree book. All of his available personal notes, including his correspondence and some of what he was thinking while proposing the theory are available digitized here. Check the local library, I'm sure you'll find other great ones. Those should provide great material for fact checking. The lead section is a bit short, but otherwise the article looks very good, though I cannot personally verify the accuracy of the material. - Taxman 16:02, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer review. This article has a serious error, namely, the falsehood that the basis of special relativity, the second postulate, has been confirmed experimentally. (No one has ever used two clocks in the same frame to measure light's one-way speed, and the postulate claims that the result must be c in all frames in all directions.) 66.147.55.213, Dec 7, 2004
  • Refer to peer review. I concur with the above; there has been no experiment to even test the second postulate, much less to confirm it! Note the utter lack of any who, where, when, and how in the article regarding the alleged experimental confirmation of the postulate. 4.152.255.86, 12-7-2004
  • Anonymous objections? I feel the two "refer to peer review" entries above should be ignored. IP address 66.147.55.213's edit history [10] shows s/he has made only anonymous edits to the Special Relativity page, and one involved the deletion of previous discussions. The second IP address 4.152.255.86 has made only the edit above. [11] Slim 04:51, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now: I don't think the article is mature enough yet. The organization is a bit too scattered, and besides, apparently SR is a contentious topic on the net (although it's in no way contested in academia). Shouldn't this page be protected (from vandalism and shady sources) before being advertised widely? novakyu 02:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Anonymous objections, so what? "Slim," "anonymous" does not always indicate "wrong." Again, where is the reference for the alleged experimental confirmation of Einstein's second postulate? Cadwgan Gedrych Dec 9 2004
You're also anonymous: no user page, no talk page and only this one edit, so it's fair to assume you're the same person as the two "refer to peer review" entries above. It's not a question of right or wrong, true or false. It's a question of attributable and verifiable. If you want to make a comment, sign in under your regular user name and stand by your words. Slim 18:14, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
"attributable and verifiable" were exactly my point (and I did sign in under my regular user name, for whatever that is worth). But it not my words that are in question, it's the unverified (and unverifiable) words of whoever wrote "This postulate has been verified experimentally" re the second postulate. The article needs to be correct, expecially regarding the most important point. (And speaking of anonymity, I have no idea who you may be really.) Cadwgan Gedrych Dec 9, 2004
It's a fair point you make that you don't know who I am, but at least I don't pretend to be more than one person, as you have clearly done above. Featured article status tends to be awarded based on numbers of objections, so if you're pretending to lodge more than one, you're cheating. Anyway, I see you've set up a User page now, so I will drop you a further note there instead of here. Slim 21:37, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Cadwgan Gedrych, SlimVirgin is a Wikipedia contributor in good standing, that's all we need to know. Your "regular" user name, on the other hand, came into being today, for the sole purpose of objecting here. "For whatever that is worth"? It's worth zero. Please don't troll WP:FAC, you won't do yourself or your cause any good by it.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 21:48, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, "all you need to know" is that the article's main part is dead wrong, just as you are about this being some sort of "troll."Cadwgan_Gedrych
I think that the second postulate of special relativity was verified by the Michelson Morley experiment [12]. Jeff8765 04:42, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
The Michelson Morley experiment predates special relativity by nearly twenty years. It does not "verify" special relativity. Paul August 05:12, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object until a decent bibliography is added. Online references are all very well, but there must be dozens of useful and significant books about this topic. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 00:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - it is just not there yet. I may help it along if/when I have time. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

HMS Dreadnought (1906)[edit]

Not at all timely or of contemporary relevance - although it will be in two years' time - I believe this article is well-written, informative, of a suitable size and possessed of an attractive illustration. It taught me things I didn't know about the ship and the writing is flawless. - Ashley Pomeroy 19:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Featured articles have nothing to do with being timely or having contemporary relevance. No need for a disclaimer. Everyking 19:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Mild object - needs section headings. Smerdis of Tlön 19:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I have added some section headings, and the word 'was' (which rather torpedoes - pun! - my premature clam - pun! - that the writing was 'flawless'. I nonetheless maintain that it flows well and is well-written). - Ashley Pomeroy 21:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The lead section could be slightly expanded. 2) I would prefere to see some offline references as well, and have the references listed in the format recommended/proposed by Wikipedia:Cite your sources. 3) The lead section mentions that this was a very important ship, but little is said about that in the article (apart from repeating this fact). 4) Little is said about the actual operations this ship served in/on. More is needed on this. (Also, the sinking of the submarine is called "ironic" - why?). 5) The table needs links to articles about the terms mentioned. It should be possible to find out what Barbettes and Conning Towers are. 6) The Dreadnought Hoax, mentioned in the "See also" section, deserves attention in the article. Jeronimo 07:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I've taken these points on board and polished the article further, although having just read the Battle of the Bulge article I'm having a crisis of confidence, because that's much larger and more impressive. In order 1) I've left the intro pretty much as it is, because it's a 'sting' 2) As for physical paper books, I have added 'Jane's Battleships' (mostly for information on the turret layout), which I have been reading and which prompted me to have a look for 'Dreadnought' on Wikipedia, and Robert Massie's 'Dreadnought', which I borrowed from the library but got bored with because Massie's thing is politics rather than machinery 3) 4) Dreadnought's influence is hard to express in a way which connects with the heart; rather like the modern-day Space Shuttle or the Me-262 jet fighter it exists as a monolithic presence, a junction-point in history, but one with no emotional resonance. Its philosophy was hugely important, but as a ship it had a thoroughly uninteresting career. I have however explained why the sinking of U29 was ironic 5) I have linked those terms and others, but I believe the table is common to several ship-related artlces 6) I have briefly alluded to the hoax in the text, as a consequence of Dreadnought's fame. - Ashley Pomeroy 20:44, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I seperated links and References -- I wasn't sure if all external links had been used as references, please restore those which were. Other than that I Support this interesting well-written article--ZayZayEM 14:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1973 oil crisis[edit]

Originally nominated as 1973 energy crisis

With the price of oil nearing $50 a barrel and fears that the price of oil could hurt economic growth next year [13], I've been finding myself explaining to a lot of younger people off Wiki the impact of a sudden oil shock (something far more overwhelming than any of the measured predictions for next year). With that in mind, in think that many readers these days will find this article an interesting one for the main page. Self-nom. 172 18:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Excellent writing for the most part, I scurried up a new image to accompany the lead section, I think it fits nicely. The one thing I am missing for sure is a references section, and maybe some external links/further reading. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 20:11, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Here's a start at expanding the notes and references section. [14] 172 22:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Mild object. Article is at 1973 energy crisis, but its not a crisis for solar energy, or nuclear energy, wind energy, etc... you see my point I think. Article should really be at 1973 gasoline crisis or 1973 oil crisis. Other than that good article (even if it is minus a few references). Alkivar 22:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. I've been wanting to change it to 1973 world oil shock for a while. Any objections to me moving the page? 172 22:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Seems to me that 1973 oil crisis would be a better title, since "1973 world oil shock" gets about 90 google hits, and "1973 oil crisis" gets 6500. But I'm unfamiliar with the subject (born 11 years later), so I don't know how the event is generally referred to. Spangineer 23:51, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
        • As "the 1973 oil crisis"! Or even simply as "the oil crisis" (but that wouldn't be a good article name). I was 110 in 1973 and I've never even heard the term "oil shock". Please move it again.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 00:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The term "world oil shock" is very common in the academic literature, though. See the JSTOR search here [15]("Shock" is borrowed from a concept in social science and economics literature, e.g., endogenous shock and exogenous shock.) 172 03:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
JSTOR is subscription only. I'll just take your word for it.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 13:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • "Energy crisis" is by far the most common term. Also, while one can say that non-petrochemical energy sources didn't have a crisis, the world was more dependent on oil (and coal) then than any time since, so the oil crisis was an "energy" crisis. If the focus of the article were solely on the economic effects, then "oil shock" would be appropriate, since it was a "shock" to markets. To people who couldn't commute to work in their cars, it was a crisis. Geogre 20:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. Ambi 00:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear, relevant and well written, although there is still some awkward phrasing in places. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|George\talk ]] 02:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This article is very US centric. What happened in the other countries that were boycotted, Western Europe and Japan? There is virtually no information about this. In the Netherlands, for example, 6 so-called "car-free Sundays" were imposed by the government. A minor issue is that it is common to list references in normal font size in a sepearate section (title References). Jeronimo 07:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • There is indeed more coverage on the U.S. than any other country, which is warranted considering how these events were underpinned by the declining power of the U.S. to control the international economy. However, coverage is not at all U.S.-centric. (Perhaps this impression is given off by the pictures, which are all U.S.-related. This can be easily corrected.) The impact on Japan, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and other Western nations; the Eastern bloc; and the Third World is thoroughly presented. Please take another look... There is also a considerably greater amount of attention paid to oil producers in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa than in most write-ups on this subject found in other reference materials. Indeed, the article starts and ends with a look at the internal conditions of oil producers in the Third World. 172

08:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

      • Can you point out where the article specifically mentions a European nation? I can't. Take the "Response in the industrialized countries" (previously "..in the US"). First paragraph: all but the first sentence is about the US. Second paragraph: entirely about the US. Third paragraph: entirely about the US (not explicitly, but f.e. in the Netherlands, DST was only reintroduced after the 1977 crisis). Fourth: same. Fifth: mostly US ("Fortune 500"). Sixth: Western world. Seventh: Australia. Eighth: US again. So only two countries are specifically mentioned in this entire section, and Australia only briefly. Call it what you want, but I call this US-centric. And that is why I object.
  • As a survivor, I do not recognise the term 'oil shock' and would prefer 'oil crisis', which was what we called it at the time. I fail to see how non-U.S. impact can be said to be covered equally; where are the 'European/African/Asian/Latin American/etc. responses' sections? The article is very US centric to my reading. So Object for now. Filiocht 08:45, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - 1973 oil crisis is the right place, but the article is still exceptionally US-centric. We had queues for oil in the UK too, you know. There was even an issue of petrol rationing coupons, although I don't think they were used ultimately . -- ALoan (Talk) 11:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Habsburg Spain[edit]

just a good-looking article I stumbled accross. dab 13:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support: I think this is one of the best pages I have read on Wikipedia. Factual, accurate, well illustrated and well written. Giano 13:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Very reluctantly object. No references and some minor touches of POV (i.e. 'intrepid'). Perhaps too many pictures. Otherwise, I second Giano. This is...brilliant. Ambi 14:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolute support. This is a tour de force. I don't personally mind that it is so long. Object. No references. Was all this information written out of thin air with no look at any authoritative references or primary sources? Adding them now is dishonest unless they are actually used to add, confirm, and cite the material in the article. - Taxman 17:27, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent addition of the references you used, much better than I could have hoped for, but please do continue to cite specific facts that may be contentious. For inline citations I prefer (Parker, 1972, pg 22-23) or similar, though unfortunately it seems there is no consensus on style for that. - Taxman 14:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. First, the "lead" jumps right into the story. In the next section, Ferdinand is "sent packing" and young Charles is introduced. When they "return" it is not clear that it is the same twosome. Many other awkward passages follow.Sfahey 17:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Sfahey and Taxman already mentioned problems with references and the lead section, and I agree with these. In addition: 1) The term "Habsburg Spain" only appears in the title of this article, and it is not clear from the lead section, nor the article, what "Habsburg" means (I know, but the average reader may not). 2) Some of the passages dealing with the revolt in Netherlands seem a bit simplistic and hence not fully correct. I suspect similar things may be true for other parts of the article. 3) The lead section makes a brief references to "cultural efflorescence", but the article does not go into detail on this topic. 4) The article is mostly chronological, but some sections cover the entire period, and would probably best be moved to the bottom, clearly separating them from the history sections. 5) The years in the titles of the sections are misleading. For example, "The trouble with the Dutch (1571-1598)" suggests the trouble ended in 1598, but the Eighty Years' War continued until 1648. Jeronimo 22:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The errors in the article are mine alone, so, I apologize. I added my sources for the original article (the list is quite exhaustive of those I used) at the end of the page. The fact that they were missing in the first place was a gross oversight, and again I apologize. I will go over and place direct citations where I can, though I am not so sure where I need to; there are some quotes from Olivares that I will cite, and some statistics in the later sections for which I will do the same. In dealing with the Dutch revolt, I in fact began with a longer explanation of the war's causes, but someone else pointed out to me that this was a history of Spain rather than the Eighty Years' War, and so I was advised to pare it down, with which I mostly agree. The cultural aspect of the period is left out intentionally; as stated in the introductory paragraph, "For information on Spanish art and culture in the period, see Spanish Golden Age," as the Dutch article divides the Dutch Golden Age from the main social/political history, though perhaps an overview would be appropriate in this article. "The trouble with the Dutch" has been retitled, though somewhat regretfully, since I thought it was a rather catchy title. At any rate, thank you for noticing the article; I had been hoping that some people would come hash through my habitually atrocious POV problems, so the attention might help improve its quality. Adam Faanes 05:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I see the note to see Spanish Golden Age, but it seems to me at least that some of that should be summarized in this article. It doesn't need to cover every detail, but all of the important topics should at least be summarized, with a link to Spanish Golden Age as the main article. - Taxman 14:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the references. However, most of my objections still remain. I'll see if I can fix some of the inaccuracies I spotted. Jeronimo 18:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • A summary on Spanish art and culture has been added and ==The Last Habsburg== has been put where it should be. I'll help tear through the main article for NPOV tomorrow. The question is now whether or not 55 KB is too long. Adam Faanes 03:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. This is a good article, but not quite there yet. I think the coverage is adequate for an encyclopeadia article, but the writing needs editing for style (for instance, the work Spain appears 8 times in the lead section) and POV. Supprised not to find Braudel's The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II among the references. Filiocht 08:56, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment maybe it was premature to nominate the article. But I still think it a remarkable feat of Adam's to quietly produce such a piece in just a couple of edits. Also, it seems our FA standards are rising all the time. I have seen FAs decidedly below the quality of this one. Anyway, I do not apologize for having drawn attention to this article, and I am sure it will be FA worthy by any standard pretty soon. dab 09:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, but most of those articles were promoted before the FAC process, so comparison to their substandard quality for the purposes of current nominations isn't relevant. See Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates and that talk page for efforts to make sure all FA's meet the same basic standards. In any case, of course no apologies necessary for noticing and listing a mostly great article. - Taxman 14:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe this was nevertheless a good nomination, as attention has been drawn to the article's potential. It is already improving, and reads better as it goes along. I tried to explain how Spain "became" Habsburg, which was missing in the original. Several sections however still go into into excess detail on events in Europe that go far beyond "Hapsburg Spain". Sfahey 00:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Abstain. It has great potential and I hope to be able to support it soon after above objections has been adressed. Please note ATM it is 44kb long, and probably needs to be split into subarticles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, and this article is not too long at 44 kb. On the issue of length and splitting up a good linear article of this size into subarticles, please see the many cogent arguments made against such a procedure w r t John Vanbrugh, on this page recently, and also see the FAC talk page discussion which was sparked by it.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 20:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support--ZayZayEM 13:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The page is quite long and could do with maybe splitting out a little detail into subarticles, and it seems a little weak on "people's history", but nevertheless it's very good. Everyking 14:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The article is getting better every day, but I think it IS too long because of the amount of material which is not about "Habsburg Spain". For example, more than 3/4ths of "An Emperor and a King" is not about Spain at all. Sure, we have to know something about what was going on in Charles' mind, but this is excessive. I condensed a lot of extraneous material in some other sections, but don't know enough about these years to do the same effectively.Sfahey 21:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I've amended some portions of the article for the items you've mentioned; I don't know what quite made me digress to talking about Thomas Muntzer in the first place, really. I tried to clarify exactly how the conflicts in Germany related to Spain. I also added back in some information about the Italian wars that got edited away in the process; I think that adding just a touch of military history adds some flavor to the history that makes it more engaging. Adam Faanes 13:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, though the article is constantly improving. Fernand Braudel's book needs to be incorporated into the text too, not just listed in References. Subsections in these massive articles essentially break them down into the short sub-articles that a few people seem to desire. No point in breaking up context for the rest of us, IMO. I think this is an outstanding example for Wikipedia, the essence of a Featured Article. --Wetman 03:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The opening section needs a lot of work. It should introduce the subject and article. Also, the article may have too many pictures (I counted 43). And the captions for the pictures could be improved, in many cases. That said, I am impressed by this article and look anticipate it will become a featured article once the objections here raised are addressed. Jacob1207 21:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I made minor changes in the "lead", which looks O.K. to me, and buffed up a caption or two. I still see the main problem here is the huge amount of material dealing with Charles I's activities as H.R.E Charles V, which I don't think have much relevance to "Habsburg Spain".Sfahey 22:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aramaic language[edit]

Not a self-nom, as I've never edited the article, but I'm quite impressed by it. It's a thorough and informative description of a historically important language, with appropriate pictures and solid references. Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:28, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • (Mildly) object at this point. It's strong on the history of the language; I suspect, though, that the historical material could be made clearer — perhaps making "Old," "Middle," and "Modern" into top level headers would be a start. Also, there's relatively little information about its grammar, phonology, or relationships with other Semitic languages: since the historical parts make reference to certain sounds, diphthongs, and grammatical features, these remarks don't have much context. -- Smerdis of Tlön 22:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with the objection, seeing as I wrote the article only a couple of days ago, and I'm still working on the part in question. The long and complex history of Aramaic makes its phonology and grammar a difficult subject. What I have so far can be seen on User:Garzo/projects#Sounds. I might support the article in a few days...
Gareth Hughes 01:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Since Gareth is still working, a few suggestions: 1) add a lead section. 2) Avoid single paragraph sections like "Classification". Integrate the information with other sections, or expand the information in that section. (As for "Classification", I would suggest putting it in the lead section. Also, the information is already in the table, so not strictly necessary in the article itself.) 3) Adding one or more sound samples to hear what the language sounds like. Jeronimo 08:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a great article, and in my view easily deserves featured article status even as it stands; however, a phonology and grammar section would be good, so let's wait a little. - Mustafaa 00:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Patent medicine[edit]

Self-nomination. Been on Peer review several weeks, and it seems to me to be interesting, readable, and as complete as I know to make it. — Smerdis of Tlön 21:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Very nice work. Minor objection. Looks pretty good overall. I've made some copyedits to fix most of the issues I saw, but one more requires someone with sources in hand. The coverage of Snake oil is one short and somewhat stilted paragraph. The term "snake oil" is arguably more common than that of patent medicine, and "snake oil salesmen" has become synonymous with any unscrupulous sales person. It could be different in Europe, but this is certainly the case in the US. So that coverage and information should be expanded. - Taxman 23:00, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC) +
    • I mentioned snake oil in the lead, and tied it to the point made below at greater length that the promoters talked up exotic ingredients that really didn't do much. -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good pictures, well-researched and good references. Sayeth 20:02, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Extremely US-centric. No mention of modern trade in similar medicines in Asia (that also has long history); goanna oil in Australia (along with other goods tarded amongst miners, settlers and Aborigines), or much of cure-alls sold in England, of which there were several (if not many). If it weren't for this, it would be great.--ZayZayEM 01:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I always thought it was a purely American term. Then isn't that acceptable for it to be US-centric? The same issue in other contries could be covered elsewhere? Not sure, just thinking. - Taxman 13:32, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've never seen the term used outside American literature. Johnleemk | Talk 13:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • How much non-American literature have you read on the subject? I was reading an English book on Pox, Plague, and Pestilence last year, it spoke quite a lot about panaceas paraded in England and Europe in the same eras (and before). Including treatments for siphilis, fish oils and gypsy herb mixes of the mediteranean. Nostrum is certainly an applicable term for those, along with traditional Asian herbal medicines and rhino horn etc., and similar anti-curse, anti-pox, anti-vampire medicines available in Africa (which probably partly inspired the American phenomenon through Hoodoo), as well as a copy of teh American phenomenon that occured in Australia amongst settlers (inspired by both American trends, and Aboriginal medicines). That it doesn't even consider the similarities between Patent Medicine and similar historical phenomenon is the reason why I don't think it should be featured. Perhaps nostrum should be seperated into a seperate article. It also doesn't mention modern hokey "cure for cancer/HIV/Diabetes" wonder-drug/vitamin "scams" that have occured of late.--ZayZayEM 03:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You do bring up a number of good points. I seem to remember some passages in Sterne that discussed eighteenth century patent medicines in England, and they probably do need to be looked up and added. Will try and track down this book if it can be had this side of the Atlantic. Some note should probably be taken of the contemporary "nutritional supplement" mess. Not sure if all traditional remedies or East Asian medical practices are quite the same thing, though. -- Smerdis of Tlön 03:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I do understand that patent medicine is not the same as traditional medicine I just feel its odd that a lot of these aren't even mentioned. Traditional/holistic medicine is the inspiration/target of modern 20/21st century patent medicines (e.g. those multivitamin pyramid schemes). European and Australian patent medicine definitely falls under the scope of this particular article ("Patent" being more of a Western thing). I'll try and get that book out again next time I'm near campus.--ZayZayEM 13:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Staten Island Ferry[edit]

After tweaking this recently, I thought it might make a Featured Article. Illustrations. History. Factoids. Disasters. External links. It seems smoothly, knowledgeably and appropriately written. Am I just a prejudiced New Yorker? --Wetman 01:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. a) Very short. b) "Ferry incidents" needs to be converted to prose. c) Information about the boats could probably be in a seperate section. d) There's really too many pictures for such a short article - it screws up the formatting of the page. e) Some of the material reads like a promotional ad (Today the Staten Island Ferry annually carries... paragraph) f) The cultural references paragraph at the bottom could have its own section, and be significantly expanded. Ambi 02:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The "Ferry incidents" are very brief paragraphs that consist of complete sentences, putting the 2003 Staten Island Ferry crash entry in context. They could be more lurid. The statistics on current usage are essential to an article concerning public transportation. Separate Wikipedia entries on individual Staten Island Ferryboats? Perhaps not, but more detail on date of launching, tonnage etc is needed.--Wetman 09:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Image:NYC-Skyline-s.jpg by User:Alex756 needs a license tag.
    • He's been notified: it's quite likely his own picture. --Wetman 09:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hawaiian architecture[edit]

Renominating. Previous nomination was shot down on insignificant copyright issues. I think its quite good and deserves to be featured. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:20, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Previous nomination here. I strongly doubt whether all the images tagged as Fair use actually qualify for that tag, copyright is not insignificant for a serious encyclopedia. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:23, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • How many Hawaiian Wikipedians do we have? Could some take photos of some of these sites, and then we'd have some GFDL pictures?--ZayZayEM 01:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • My original objection still stands: "Object, I'm afraid. This is a good article, but the majority of the photos in the article are copyrighted. A minor thing is the use of bold in each paragraph. This is not only unnecessary, but also discouraged by the WP:MOS." Jeronimo 07:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Bold section text removed. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 23:52, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Christmas[edit]

Renominated, after much retooling, in hopes of ratifying this comprehensive article in time for the holiday itself. It has been dramatically improved by many elves, who internationalized its content, added much-needed religious background, and relocated or altered many (justifiably criticized) Anglo-Amer centric and other parochial items. Consider, in the holiday spirit, if you can alter and improve anything which doesn't measure up to feature status in your mind. Merry Christmas.Sfahey 02:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, although the lead section could be a tad longer, and I suspect that that huge article wasn't written using just three references. Ambi 08:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your forbearance. I woke up just now, remembered that I hadn't added the three references which I for one had used, went to put'm in, and found you guys had already noticed! I culled some other stuff from other wiki articles which are already wiki-linked. I think many other tidbits are from others' personal experience or hearsay. Oh, and thanks for tip on the "lead". I'll get on that now. Sfahey 15:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I helped shoot the article down last time, but I think Sfahey and others have done a great job addressing the objections raised. It's a difficult subject to reference. Obviously a good deal of the information comes straight from up-to-date personal experience, and is the better for it--trying the dull job of extracting secular customs in different countries from books (let alone scholarly books) would simply mean getting old information. That said, the references for the historical and analytic parts could indeed be more numerous, as well as just better, but I think they'll do.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 11:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. see above note.Sfahey 15:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This is much improved over the last version; informative, balanced and well-written. It kept my attention all the way through. Slim 14:41, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Christmas story bit could include a main article link for Nativity, and the Nativity article I'm sure could be massively expanded... Joe D (t) 15:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Tuf-Kat 09:28, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Comment: The article now does link to "Nativity". Thanks for others' improvements since this nomination started. BTW, I annotated the "external links" section. Since only one was "mine", I was reluctant to delete either the ones which (weren't blatantly commercial but) contained ads within them, or the two which mostly just supplemented the historical info in the article itself. No problem with me, for one, if anyone wants to weed through these more critically OR wants to consider moving/footnoting/condensing the longish "Theories about the date ..." section at the end. Bishonen gave it a shot, with near-disastrous results (it led to footnotes within footnotes) and we both chose to back off that challenge. This "team effort" has been gratifying. Thanks. Sfahey 20:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. utcursch 09:20, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Giano 13:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'm not sure why the "Theories regarding the origin of the date of Christmas" is at the end of the article - why not put it right after "Dates of celebration"? Just a suggestion... other than that, a great article. And thanks for teaching me what a posada is - my host family in Mexico (while I was studying abroad there) used the term, and I just now learned what it means. --Spangineer 22:30, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. That detailed part seemed close to being a footnote.Sfahey 17:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

University of Nottingham[edit]

(self-nomination) I have been working on this for some time, and thought I'd risk trying for featured article status. --Iceaxejuggler 13:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Multiple one- and two-sentence paragraphs show poor writing style. They need to be either expanded into a full idea worthy of a paragraph or merged with good style into other paragraphs covering related ground (to paraphrase Taxman below). Mark1 08:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Except for lists, I have now combined these into longer paragraphs. --Iceaxejuggler 10:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now - it all looks pretty good, but the list of campuses could be turned from a bullet point list into text, and some details could be summarised here from the halls of residence article. I'll support when these are done. As far as I can see, no other University is featured, so well done. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I've done my best to change these lists into paragraphs + add a word or two more about halls of residence. Please feel free to make any further improvements. --Iceaxejuggler 12:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Summer Hill, New South Wales[edit]

My objections helped shoot this article's last nomination down, but most of these have been picked up, and it really is the best example of this type of article that we have. I don't really agree with the author about the landmarks section, but nevertheless, it's featured-worthy. Ambi 12:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Multiple one sentence paragraphs show poor writing style. (Two is not good either :) They need to be either expanded into a full idea worthy of a paragraph or merged with good style into other paragraphs covering related ground. Also the notable people section is odd. Either they are not that notable or they a) would warrant an article of their own, or b) are worthy of at least a few sentences in a well formed paragraph instead of a list. - Taxman 23:45, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Fair enough - excluding lists and list-lead-ins, there are now no single sentence paragraphs. The Notable Citizens section is based on a similar section in the Marshall, Texas feature article. I can kill it if you like, but it does make the area more human by including a very quick blurb about previous notable inhabitants. I've deleted the least notable person (Max Wurcker), and if you'd like I can also delete Dr Henry Hinder who is a bit marginal, but the rest are noteworthy. All the best, -- Nickj 01:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Good work on much of that. But 1) for some there are lists were there is no need for them. Especially the transportation and politics sections have no good reason not to be rewritten as prose. 2) The section on local landmarks is in an odd half list, half paragraph form, with bold headings. Overall it seems quite jarring to me. In addition the St Patrick's church note is still one sentence, and the Chinese temple is two. Those both still fall under the one and two sentence paragraph problem above. 3) I happen to like all the pictures and find them very good, but they present a serious problem in readability especially in the landmarks section. Perhaps some could be moved to a subarticle that is listed in the see also section. 4) I don't know anything specific about whether those people are notable, but as noted above, the fact that they typically have only one sentence fragment each makes it hard for me to believe they are. If they are, please expand what is said about them and at least create stub articles. If they are not worth stub and eventually full articles, don't keep them as empty wikilinks, even if you want to keep a few sentences about each here. Having the section is not a problem in and of itself to me if it is well done. - Taxman 03:45, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the feedback. Re: 1) Have left message for copyedit guru Ambi - "Help me Ambi, you're my only hope!" (with apologies to Star Wars) 2) will come back to later Converted landmarks section from bolding to headings for each landmark; Have contacted St Patrick's church and the Buddhist temple asking if there's anything they'd like to add, awaiting responses. 3) I've tried scattering the pictures throughout the article, let me know if you think it works any better now. 4) The notable citizens section has been updated now so that either the links are gone (where it's less likely articles will be written), or stubs have been added (where it's more likely that others will expand them); Also Dr Henry Hinder has been deleted. All the best, -- Nickj 02:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) Nickj 00:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think I've found a template to use when decide to retackle regional townships.--ZayZayEM 12:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Jackson 5[edit]

Originally nominated as Jackson 5 before the article was moved

Not a self-nom, though I've made some recent edits. Tuf-Kat 02:34, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

  • Weak object, while I know each member has their own page. I think the article in question here should at least contain maybe a 2-3 line bio in the member section. Or at least why they quit the group. Just for completenesses sake. Also I'm rather curious with so many members why it was called the "Jackson 5" i dont really get the straight answer from the history. make these changes and you get my support. Alkivar 04:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. Brief bios added, along with an explanation of the number. Tuf-Kat 06:59, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It seems to be overly short - about half the article consists of various lists (compare Bob Dylan). It'd be nice to see the lead section trimmed a bit, too - things like the (rather tenuous) Dashboard Confessional link could probably go somewhere else.
  • Object. Lead is too long and doesn't include the names of the members. Also includes POV language about a brother being less talented at dancing than the other. I'm pretty sure this article could be expanded as well. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:42, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Lead shortened, members included. As absurd as it is, the article no longer claims Marlon was less talented at dancing than Michael. Tuf-Kat 14:55, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • still object. More can be said of the individual members in the members section. Why not summarize the existing articles on them? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:20, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
        • Because there are existing articles on them. If someone wants to know more about one of the brothers, there's a handy link right there. Tuf-Kat 15:35, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
          • All but Michael are most important for being in this group, so this article should include a reasonable amount of information about each, more than one or two sentences. The two that are redlinks should be unlinked if they are not notable enough for their own article. Also, the statement about Michael being the more talented dancer can be put back in if you can find someone else reputable that said it that you can cite. If you cite a reasonably consensus held opinion, it is not POV. - Taxman 13:40, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
            • The two redlinked articles do deserve articles of their own. Adding more biographical info on the individuals here would make the article more off-topic -- this is an article on a group, famous as a group, and individuals have their own articles. WRT to Michael being a more talented dancer, I have removed the claim; there is no one to cite because no one bothers comparing Michael and Marlon because Michael is one of the world's most renowned entertainers and Marlon is not. Wikipedia does not need to acknowledge POVs that could theoretically be held, only actual opinions which notable people believe in. In any case, I have removed the claim so it doesn't matter. Tuf-Kat 16:33, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Kardashev scale[edit]

(self-nomination) I put this through peer review with no response. I believe it needs some more work, nothing very major, but I do not have the time right now to do it. Basically, I would like an opinion as to if this is to featured article specifications--in that does it need more work. My gripes and grievances are listed on the to-do list on the article's talk page- please look at it, in the "copy" of what I originally posted on peer review. I know this is nonstandard, but basically, I want to know if no one responded on peer review because the article was up to spec, or because they were not interested. Well on to the discussion.

[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk NonFreeImageRemoved.svg]] 01:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revised by --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk NonFreeImageRemoved.svg]] 00:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) so it did not take up so much of the page.

Please check the article's talk page.

  • Object - no lead image (hardly any images at all); the lead is far too long and detailed. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Are you objecting on the idea that the first section really should be split into 5 (I think it should, see the talk page)? Or are you objecting because there is too much information? --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk NonFreeImageRemoved.svg]] 00:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Images added and then removed, I can't win! --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk NonFreeImageRemoved.svg]] 17:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Images addded
      • Lead shortenned, second half move to its own section, more appropriate due to the nature of applying the Kardashev scale to human civilization, whose type does not yet exist. Has the page been fixed to your satisfaction? --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk NonFreeImageRemoved.svg]] 03:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Object. 1) The "hypothetical futures" section seems to be original research. 2) The "Current values" table and calculations report ten or even thirteen significant digits, which conveys false precision. 3) The calculations after the table need to be explained better. 4) Overall the article seems to be a mix of science, science fiction and unfalsifiable speculation. Maybe the science and the fiction should be split into separate articles. PRiis 20:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) PRiis 20:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • 1) I broght together many souces. A lot of people say this stuff, just that it is all over the place, from Issac Asimov to Carl Sagan to Stephen Hawking. That is why there are so many sources. That reminds me that I have to include Stephen Hawking's life in the universe cd as a source, it has a large discussion of hypotheticals by Hawking himself, but not in relation to Kardashev Scale, but into information expansion and anthorpic theory, but along pararell lines of discussion of net energy needed to maintain sentient being status (sentient beings are both entropic and anti-entropic) grows on a exponential scale in relation to the real information or technology produced by that being and not by its biological needs. 2)The lowest I can see going is to the thousandth decimal place, the percision is there because we are talking about a number that is 10^18, derived from values that are much smaller than it. You can know something to the trillionth place, especially if you are measuring it by in units that are one trillionth the size of what you are expressing it as in the end product. (ie. You can say there are 0.254233 trillion tribbles, if you have a report saying that there are 254,233,000,000 tribbles. Similarly, even though we are calculating using so-called exact values of the population, we are taking it to a percission where if we are off by 200,000 watts per person in energy consumption, and 10 million persons in the total population, changes would not be reprsented until appoximately the 13th signifcant figure if dealing with values in the 10^16 range. Note that, if the Kardashev scale value was closer to one, this type of percision would be inapproriate, but in the midsection of this logathmic scale, it is specially appropriate due to the statistical values we know. 3) Could you help me clean up the calculations, I though a page of explaination was enough. Also, from information I found, unfortunately we may not know what the true value is for 2005 due to changes in China's infrastructure (Three Gorges Dam) and the questionable numbers coming from a redeveloping Iraq (ie, do you count energy that was never consumed). 4) It is a mix of science that has been co-opted by science fiction. The specualtion is clearly noted, in my opinon. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk NonFreeImageRemoved.svg]] 02:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, maybe I was too terse. Let me clarify. 1) Section 4.2, Hypothetical futures: you should probably say who--specifically--thought of this scenario and assigned the values to each step. If that person is you, then it's original research. So the way to resolve this would be to cite where the information in this section came from. 2) Significant figures: it's the number of figures in the mantissa that matters. Your example above has six significant figures whether you express it in nanotribbles or exatribbles. World population estimates have an error on the order of 1% according to the UN. I don't know what the error on the energy production estimate would be, but I'd guess it's on the same order. No answer you derive from these numbers can have more precision than that. Including more significant figures is just misleading. I'd guess three significant figures would be right, but I assume you did the calculations so you can say for sure. 3) I'm referring here to the calculation after the table, where, apparently, you're estimating the mtoes for years 2004 and 2005. I can't find the page of explanation for these calculations that you refer to above. I'm just saying you should state what you're showing in these calculations without forcing the reader to figure out what they are by trying to see what numbers match with what. Whether those calculations even need to be included at all is a separate question. 4) Maybe this is not actionable--I'll defer to the opionions of others on this. But look at Fermi paradox to see how this sort of material can be handled. PRiis 18:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • 1) I will put in the sources for each part, since I have now seperated them and made them into tables, making sources much easier 2)I will defer to you on significant figures. That said, I would go to the thousandths place (0.814 for example), which still delinates differences between years. 3) I was using page as an exagerative word, I misunderstood you, I was refering to the calculations as an explaination itself, but I will annotate them, or remove them, if others agree to the removal of 2004 and 2005. 4( I will look into the fermi paradox page --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk NonFreeImageRemoved.svg]] 19:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • 1)sources added to hypothetical futures--[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk NonFreeImageRemoved.svg]] 20:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • 2)Fixed current values table 3) Provided explaination --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk NonFreeImageRemoved.svg]] 20:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*Support: This article meets all the main criteria for being a featured article - it is exceptionally informative and easy to read, even for the layman, it is comprehensive and well written. As for accuracy, there is no apparent disagreement in the talk pages, and it contains Italic textmany references as well as numerous explinations on errata by the chief contributor. It has a concise opening and table of contents, and contains well made graphics. All while being on an utterly fascinating subject - it is a great example of a featured article. Jeffrey O. Gustafson 7 Jan 2005

  • Object. Article has improved a lot but it is still a mess. (1) I have tried very hard to understand the diagram at Image:Development-Diagram.gif and I have failed. What do the axes represent? What do the coloured areas and lines represent? The image description talks about features like "rotating triangles" and "red curve" that I cannot identify on the diagram. You can see at Image talk:Development-Diagram.gif that I am not the only one to have trouble. (2) The images in section 2 don't appear to illustrate the text. (3) The numbers in the table in section 5 have ludicrous precision. (4) Wikipedia is not a forum for speculation, nor for original research. We must include only verifiable claims. Because speculation inherently cannot be verified it is necessary to identify who is responsible for each piece of speculation. For example, section 1.1 says "predictions are from what seems most likely given current trends in research." That is no good: "what seems most likely" is someone's point of view. This section must say something like, "Professor X proposes the following timeline" and cite the paper where he or she proposes it. Section 2 needs to name the most notable people making the arguments for and against. Section 3 says "given the fact that there must be a transition between civilization periods for each level". I don't think it's a fact, but rather someone's theory. Whose is it and what do they mean by "transition"? And so on. Almost every paragraph has speculation masquerading as fact, or weasel words like "Many individuals have pointed to". Gdr 20:22, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
Who reposted the nomination? I self-nomed a few weeks ago, but not this time. --Ctrl buildtalk NonFreeImageRemoved.svg 15:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It was posted by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson on 2005-01-07 [16] Gdr 18:37, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Television[edit]

I think this article is very in-depth. It includes a comprehensive history of the medium, technical details, and how broadcast practices vary from country to country. Denelson83 03:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. In short: this article is a mess. It should be decided what is to be told in this article, and in what structure. Some technical details are in the history section, or in the tv set section and vice versa. In detail: 1) No lead section. 2) The top image is horrible and unnecessary. It should be very easy to make picture of your own tv and put it there. 3) The history section is good, but could use a copyedit. Still, it has little recent history (widescreen, digital). These are mentioned in the "New developments" section, which should be integrated. There is also a US/UK bias in here, and there are no pictures of old tv's. 4) The technology section is vague and incomplete. It does not at all become clear how televisions work, and we only learn some stuff about the screen dimensions. I would expect a far more extensive explanation here, with a least a diagram to illustrate. 5) "Tv standards" is not a section. 6) The article also writes a bit about television programmes, but I think these would fit better in a separate article. The current "section" (3 sentences) on advertising is pathetic, and while there is a long section on networks this is insuffiencent and should be at television network or so. 7) The rest of the article is lists - which should be moved to other articles - or single section paragraphs - which should be expanded to full sections, or embedded in other sections. 8) There are no references, although there are many links and further reading. Jeronimo 07:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. What he said, especially about the pictures. Generally this article feels like it was written by a whole bunch of people over a long period of time. Which I'm sure it has, but it shouldn't be so obvious, especially if it wants to be a featured article. Also, the section on video connections should be removed wholesale, or perhaps put in a seperate article. Oh, yeah, the section on harmful effects needs much better references than a few online news sources, I'm talking journal articles or reputable books. Also I don't think I'd support an article on TV unless it either talked in a fair bit of detail about TV's influence on culture and society or did so briefly with a link to a full article. Psychobabble 08:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I have similar concerns. I think this is a good basis for a featured article but needs more work. Perhaps Wikipedia:Peer review is a better place to go with this one? I went out and found a decent PD image of television watching to replace that diagrammatic monstrosity, so that's fixed (and somebody else added a couple others lower down), but it still needs reorganization, major infills, and some polishing. --Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is unbalanced and incomplete. Television is an industry, a social phenomenon and a technology. These aspects need to be separated in a disambiguation page, so that each can be treated fairly so as not to drown out the others. The subject is vast and one article can not do it justice. And right now the social aspects are a mere footnote to a long and in places quite technical piece. Haiduc 05:23, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object The article is not structured for the layman, providing many technical terms the average person may not know, thus detracting from one's ability to understand and fully comprehend it. Michael 05:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Umm... I may well object too, but I think this nomination expired about a year and half ago... Just saying... Mad Jack 05:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh, I see. Michael 05:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's like going to a cemetery and wishing the people buried there would die Mad Jack 05:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed. Michael 05:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thursday October Christian[edit]

This article is now the most complete on the web about this subject. I have drawn together virtually all of the extant facts regarding this fascinating individual. GeorgeStepanek 01:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. It's been on VFD as the subject may not be notable. If it survives there, the article is nowhere near long enough and has no proper headings. It reads more like a list of what other people have said about him. Why isn't his date of death in the opening para? Readers have to struggle through the article to find it hidden. Dbiv 01:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, the article is short, but there may be no more to be written. Further expansion would of course be great if possible, but I strongly support hard work on more obscure historical topics like this. Everyking 02:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: It's far too small, and more importantly, far too slight. This is a figure from a partially literate generation with extremely poor history available. The most important thing about him is his parentage and the fact that he had to mate with an older woman. Beyond that, there is very little to say about a man like him. If these are all of the facts on the individual, then there simply isn't enough to say about him. Geogre 03:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This is far, far too short. Surely, there is more information on this person especially since several books mention him. I also object to the VFD (and will comment there). Zerbey 03:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Since it's on VfD, some people obviously have problems with it. Also, it's too short and therefore unlikely to be a comprehensive article on the subject. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:07, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Nice VfD rescue, yes. Good article, yes. Worthwhile to have articles on "more obscure historical topics?" Yes. Featured article? Sorry, you gotta be kidding. Maybe you've dug up everything there is to dig up from secondary sources, but if so there just isn't enough known about this fellow. And to me the contemporary Pitcairn islanders like Steve Christian are far more "fascinating" (in a repulsive way). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • In my view, we ought to consider an article featured when it has become about the best and most comprehensive we can reasonably expect it to be, short of perfection. Can this really become much better and more comprehensive? I hope it can, but I have my doubts. Everyking 10:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Googie[edit]

An interesting article about an unusual type of architecture that everyone knows, even if they don't realize that it has a name (think Jetsons. I am promised that more pictures are forthcoming. Certainly worthy of people's attention. Danny 00:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • An interesting article, indeed, but not remotely in the ballpark of featured status. Compare Palladian architecture. Ambi 00:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree; compare it also to the Googie Architecture Online site that it references to see how much more comprehensive it could be. Still, the topic is interesting and the article is a good start. —Steven G. Johnson 00:41, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object waaaay too early for this to be considered for FAC, has minimal information. Articles for FAC consideration should be comprehensive, this does not have that feeling. Alkivar 00:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Not comprehensive yet, but a good start. Try to compare to other architecture articles and expand. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:12, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: This is not a bad page, and its an interesting and promising article, but it needs a lot more information. A longer lead, then definitions or the rules of the form, or was it a free style of an era - that sort of thing. Then more examples, and if possible illustrations and plans, of exponent architects and their work. Was it domestic, civic, monumental or merely a gimmick? Why was it not given credence in its own lifetime? Is it confined to USA or known by an alternative name elsewhere? Why is it so called? It would be great to see this bought up to featured standard, suggest the nominator withdraws it for a couple of weeks, and addresses and expands a few points Giano 13:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have just made a small re-write to the lead section, but above comments still stand Giano 14:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The very first thing I wanted to know when I glanced at the article was "who coined the names Googie and/or Populuxe, what is their derivation, and what are they supposed to evoke?" The article doesn't say. Compare Art Deco... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Stall This is premature. The entry is still just a sketch. Great images are needed, and they are all around us. --Wetman 00:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory[edit]

(self-nomination) An early suburb of Canberra, Australia's capital city. Created as an example suburb for WikiProject Canberra. Martyman 01:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Wow! Fantastic! Support. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article on a suburb which is actually moderately interesting, even though limited in its scope. It's an interesting suburb I guess, and definately a good article. Psychobabble 07:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Certainly not bad, but needs work. 1) Copyedit needed. I'm not a native English speaker, but I picked out (and fixed) minor things already. A native speaker would probably find much more. 2) I miss an explanation of the name Yarralumla. 3) There are many brief sections. Some could be expanded, others be merged (e.g. Major Roads with Geography). Especially the "Notable Places" section needs expansion, given there are "main articles" quoted while the text here is only two or three sentences. 4) Some non-digital references or further reading would be very welcome. 5) The table of suburbs at the bottom is a bit ugly, and should probably be made into a proper footer. Jeronimo 08:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • 1) More copyediting has now taken place. I would appreciate it if anyone else could do some more copyediting on it. 2) The name is now further explained in the article. 3) Some expansion has taken place. Many of the notable places where spun off into their own articles when the section started getting too big. It seems strange to have more than a short summary on this page for each one when the details are listed on a seperate page. 4) I have now listed some non-digital further reading, but can't list anything as a reference if I didn't use it as such. 5) The locator table has now been replaced with a newer neater version. This is a standard suburb locator table used in most Australian suburb articles. Martyman 03:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Jeronimo has outlined most of my concerns, although I disagree with him on the fate of the footer, which is part of most Australian suburb articles. In addition to his comments - a) the lead section could do with a bit of work (it's not so much length as that it doesn't summarise the content of the article), b) the notable places section is too long - this isn't WikiTravel. It might be an idea to merge all the paragraphs into one section - I don't think summary style works well there, c) the suburb amenities section needs a good copyedit, and could be split up and merged with some others - the Summer Hill article does a much better job of covering this ground, d) it'd be nice to see the references properly styled, e) the politics section could be slightly expanded, I think. Ambi 08:19, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Many of Jeronimo's objections have been addressed above. a) The lead section has been modified. I think the lead section does summerise the article. You are comparing it to the Summer Hill lead section which is not in any was a summary as not a single fact mentioned in the lead section is repeated later int he article. b) I feel in an article about a suburb (espesialy one notable for it's landmarks) space should be used for mentioning notable landmarks. All of the landmarks mentioned are significant at a Canberra level, but I wouldn't expect to see them mentioned in the Canberra article. An article about less than 1% of Canberra should be able to go into a bit more depth about such things. c) The amenities section has been reworded do you still object to it having it's own section? d) References done. e) The politics section ahs been slightly expanded. I can't find any more relevent information than this. Martyman 21:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. As long as which particular embassies are in this suburb - rather than just "Yarralumla is home to many of Canberra's foreign embassies and high commissions"--ZayZayEM 04:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vitamin C[edit]

recreated from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December_2004

Seems to me as a very nice and complete article, including the chemical, biological, and historical aspects. Donar Reiskoffer 15:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - Well written, a fine example of a wikipedia article --Jarv 17:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It might be a good idea to mention beriberi and scurvy earlier in the article (Where it says vitamin C prevents disease). Other than that, support. Great article. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 18:54, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good: thorough, interesting, useful, and easy to read. Spangineer 20:32, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - only issue is that the image of the Goat has no image tag. Is from the USDA website but can't find any copyright info--Evil Monkey 22:06, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor object. Needs more references, and relies on list form a little too much. Great article otherwise. The table of fruit-to-vitamin-c content is also very large - could this be made smaller? Ambi 01:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Minor Object, I agree, the table on the Fruit -> Vitamin-C content definately needs shrinking, and is a classic example of when a table is unneccesary. Could be done in 1 table with 6 columns, not 3 tables with 2. Not to mention there are around 5-10 entries with same content that dont need their own rows.Alkivar 20:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • The table used to be a 6 column one, I changed it to a two column table and split it into three parts. Using a 6 column table for two field data is a bad idea for many reasons, including the fact that the data then is stored in a different order from the way it is presented and interpreted. It makes it hard to modify: for example, inserting one entry near the top forces you to shift the contents of each row that follows, whereas with the three two-column tables you only have to move the ones at the top and the bottom for each table to adjust their heights. The way things are formatted right now, it is even a trivial operation to split the data into four tables whereas changing the 6-column table into an 8-column one requires a bit of markup-fighting. And the problem is not only with editing: you also get the data in the wrong order if you copy it as text in your browser from the 6-column table. Fredrik | talk 20:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Are all of those foods necessary? I know I haven't heard of a number of them (like Lychee and Loganberry), and others are definitely not common. It's definitely interesting information, but cutting a dozen or two out would help the problem, in my opinion. Spangineer 00:07, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs more and better (less bias) references - the one vanity press? reference is dubious and inadequate. Seems a bit heavy on advocacy and short on science. I just edited the section on harmful effects - fixed a number of errors, whole article needs careful copyedit. -Vsmith 02:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Please be more specific on what problems you see. Obviously others have tried copyediting and have not seen or been able to fix what you have seen. - Taxman 04:22, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have made numerous edits to this page over the last year. Pleased to see it getting so much attention and improvement. I have plans to further update the advocacy section as its poorly written and to include a Claimed beneficial effects of Vitamin c section to balance the harmful effects one. (which I started) Lumos3 13:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, the copyedit part was the minor problem, I thought - "hmm did I fix em all?" - so went looking:
  • synthesise 3 times, synthesize 1 time (maybe the s form is correct someplace, but not to me) - even so inconsistent.
  • Intro section 1928 linked 1932 not - consistency? also ascorbic acid linked twice in one paragraph - ?
  • Inconsistent capitalisation of Arctic. The inconsistent cap of the c in vitamin C was what first caught my attention (fixed that).
These from just a quick check on part of the article tells me no one is really looking. That said, my main objection was the lack of good references and the apparent bias that jumps out in several places. Those are the real problem. Example: the lead sentence in the Reported potential harmful effects section Reports of harmful effects of vitamin C tend to receive great prominence in the world's media. screams POV. -Vsmith 23:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Should Footnotes and References be merged?? Should some of history be moved to scurvy instead?--ZayZayEM 08:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

John Holmes[edit]

Self-nom. A short article, but the best anyone can find on the Internet. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:33, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I'd support, except I really wanted it to be about the other one. -- GWO 12:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Don't get me wrong - it is a good article, but it's just too short to be comprehensive. I write articles this length all the time. Maybe a bit of offline research would be useful. Ambi 12:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The fact there is nothing better on the internet says more about the internet than about this article: it's very far from being a featured article. The article is lacking on sufficient detail on all fronts: personal life, career, the book he wrote, context etc. The available text has some silly content as well, such as the prize of his book today ($150) and "opposed to Andrew Jackson (an "Anti-Jackson").". Also, the images have no source information. Judging by the text and sources, this is little more than a summary of all that could be found about him on the web, rather than a serious attempt to write an encyclopedia article about the man, which should involve use of further sources than just the web. Jeronimo 12:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - Too short--Evil Monkey 20:58, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thought of the porn star before clicking the link? →Raul654 08:58, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
No. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:03, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
No *cough*. I'm up there, at the top. (I guess no one would be saying "too short" if it were about the other John Holmes) -- GWO
Yeah, I thought about the accused murderer too. (That's why he's famous, right? We don't watch his movies, right?) Geogre 14:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: Same objections as others. At the very least, in terms of content, we need to know his principles. What did he fight for? What against? Not being a Democrat at that time had a specific meaning (alluded to by the link), but what did that mean to him? How did it represent his state? What about the book? What did it advocate? (Incidentally, $150 isn't all that much in the bibliophile world. I say that not to denigrate, but to say that it's not a remarkable enough price to warrant a mention in the article.) Geogre 14:31, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Vatican City[edit]

I've come across this one too - seems good to me. jguk 21:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. The "Transportation" and "Communications" sections need to be de-CIAfied (i.e. converted into prose) since encyclopedia articles should not be almanacs or factbooks. --Jiang 09:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object strongly. This article needs far more content. Only the history and politics sections are somewhat reasonable, but they could use some expansion too. The Transportation and Communication articles (from the CIA book) are not in the country template, and should be moved to separate articles (again, according to the template). Furthermore we need pictures. It shouldn't be to hard to get some pictures of the St. Peter, a pope, and the Swiss Guards. Jeronimo 07:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The Vatican City is so small that Transportation and Communication do not deserve their own articles. The template does not need to be strictly followed. --Jiang 02:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Maybe they don't deserve their own article, but the information certainly doesn't belong in this article as it stands. Jeronimo 08:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Does content exist to combat the above complaints?--ZayZayEM 03:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pope[edit]

--jguk 21:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. It's long enough and detailed enough but the article could do with better organisation. It seems that the paragraphs are in random order. With such a complicated subject some subclauses are inevitable but to have the very first sentence include a subclause in brackets which is longer than the part outside the brackets is an example of how the article is in need of some copyediting. Dbiv 01:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Internet[edit]

--Randy Johnston 17:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: What exactly is the difference between Internet and the World Wide Web featured on November 1? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:13, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • The World Wide Web is just one application of the Internet. There is a world of difference between the two terms. The Internet is 35 years old or something like that. The World Wide Web was created in the early 1990s. — David Remahl 13:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The image in the lead section of Internet is rather misleading, contributing to the misconception that the Internet == the WWW — it should really be a topological map of the structure of the Internet, not a map of the hyperlink structure of the WWW surrounding Wikipedia. 2) The history section could be expanded using some info from the main history article. 3) The role of the various core protocols such for example as IP and DNS should be expanded. 4) Censorship should be dealt with. By oppressive regimes and so-called voluntary censorship by censorware. 5) The Security section is lacking. Should mention some historically notable worm outbreaks. 6) The way that the Internet is decentralised, and delegates complexity to the edges of the network should be mentioned. Advantages and disadvantages. 7) The systems that form the backend of the Internet should be described in greater detail. Are there any potential vulnerabilities or single-points-of-failure? — 8) On top of all of this; references?David Remahl 13:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree mostly with David Remahl. Some additional comments: 1) The section on "Child abuse" is vague. What is the connection? Has child abuse increased because of the internet? Or only the number of convictions, perhaps with thanks to the internet? A (scientific) reference would also be useful here, since there may not be a relation at all. 2) There are no references, just a bunch of links. I would very much like some offline references or further reading as well. 3) The "See also" list needs to be cleaned up. Some articles are linked from within the article, others are more relevant to WWW than to Internet in general, others are contained within the Category scheme. Jeronimo 12:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object on similar reasons. Also, The section on viruses seems to suggest they are natural entities. Not malicious code actually introduced into a system by programmers.--ZayZayEM 09:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP[edit]

--Randy Johnston 17:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. The article does present a lot of information in a fairly organized fashion, but it looks more like a PC World feature rundown than anything substantive. The later sections on criticisms etc. are detailed but need better organization, and there should be more information about the key differences between XP and predecessors. This article is good, but not (yet) great. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Here is its previous FAC nomination. Rhobite 04:40, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: It presents a lot of information in a fairly organized fashion, and is very comparable if not better than most operation system articles on the Wiki, by my quick check of the 'pedia, and based on edits I have made to other Windows articles. Overall I think this an article worthy of note. PPGMD 04:25, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, it is not complete enough on the technologies that power Windows XP and what Windows XP has borrowed from other OSs. It also seems a bit pro-micrososft and the writting is not well focused or organized. If these issues are rectified, I would happily support it. -Exigentsky 01:20, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • These are very general complaints. Could you please be more specific about what technologies you'd like to see mentioned? And I'm not sure that the "borrowing" issue is relevant, since (a) all OSes copy each other and (b) we already have Comparison of operating systems and (c) Windows XP is already very large. Rhobite 05:29, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that chart, in that case forget it. However, I think there should be more talk about Win2k features that are now in XP (which people do not know so well because Win2k was mostly for business.) NTFS is one such example, there should be a wiki link to the NTFS article and a brief explanation. Also, maybe a section on the future of the OS, how Indigo and Avalon will run on it for example. -Exigentsky 01:21, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator[edit]

-- Alterego 3:56, 26 Nov 2004; self-nomination
Outlines the proper usage and dynamics of the MBTI. A unique resource not found elsewhere and unparalleled on the Internet, both in thoroughness, resources, and neutrality. Politely and neutrally describes the often-heated differences between the MBTI and Keirsey Temperament Sorter. Received very few suggested corrections on Peer Review. Includes custom-made images, complex tables, and authoritative citations.

  • Object. First there's a few facts that even I (with limited understanding of Psychology) realise are missing, such as the unusual tale of the development of the test (a particularly strong shortcoming with no pages written on its developers) and what it means when you score a '0' (or nearly a 0) on one of the attributes. Actually it doesn't seem to have much of a description on the numerical score system at all, which seems fairly important to me, seeing as that's how the results are reported to the people who take the test. In addition the paragraphs under "type dynamic and table type" are full of jargon and is written in a way that I find hard to understand. I have had the MBTI types explained to me in terms that make sense, why not pitch the explanation at the level of organisational psychology explanations rather than in technical terms. And I'm sure there's a reason, but why are only 8 of the 16 categories given detailed explanations (under "descriptions of function-attributes")? If there is a reason, it should be explained because the tables attached to the section show all 16 types. It's got some good points (like the tables), but it's not quite there, I think. Psychobabble 21:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is possible to include a section on the development of the test, if that was viewed as important. I have perused around many other subjects, a few of which briefly mention their developments (notably not Microsoft Windows). It could be an entire article, or merely a couple of sentences (as is currently used). The unique history consists mostly of the fact that she and her family created the first version by writing likely items on note cards and then consulting with psychometricians from Educational Testing Services (sp). She considered other fields such as anthropology, biology, etc.. as unnecessary in the development in an indicator based on the premise that everyone knows people, therefore it should be the layman that describes them and not the doctor. I'm not sure what facts you are aware of, but it doesn't mean anything if you have a PCI score of 0. Especially on Form M, this is quite literally near impossible due to Item Response Theory. Because I am aware of the tests workings and structure I scored 0 on intuition and extroversion on my last taking. It means nothing. The "numerical score system" has been described. The article talks about the PCI score and emphasize that the "score system" you speak of is firstly nearly non-existant and secondly does not matter at all. It only matters what side of the line you fall on due to midpoint discrimination. There is a link to Psychometrics which touches on some of the key concepts used in the test's development. The jargon may be a key point here. I don't believe I have used any esoteric terms without describing them explicitly. The "fuction-attitudes" (not function-attributes) correctly point out a fact not found elsewhere on the internet: that the MBTI is highly dynamic and is very hard to properly understand. There is more than just Sensing/Intuition Thinking/Feeling. The first letter of the acronym tells you which attitude S/I T/F is in (e.g. if it is introverted or extroverted) and the last letter, J/P, tells you which is dominant in the personality. Understandably it was explained to you in the way that it would be explained to a lay client, and I took this into consideration. However, this is an encyclopedia and this information needs to be documented. This is the way the indicator actually is. When you are initially given the test you are not shown the dynamic qualities of type. The main interest is simply in figuring out which acronym best suits you so that you can move on to the description. Regarding the descriptions of the 16 types - we face a copyright issue here. I point out in the article that licensed psychologists with years of experience in interviewing and access to ~ a million tests taken write the descriptions. Many of those found on the internet were written for the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, a system in many ways incompatable with the MBTI. The best WP can do is link to the brief descriptions provided by CAPT, which is done. Not including inaccurate and custom made descriptions further and accurately emphasizes the dynamic activity of myersian typology, something which is very unique. You do not find it in this extremety in jungian typology or keirsey typology, which is often a source of oversimplification and confusion. Am taking your advice and will come up with a way to make the jargon more user friendly. Thank you. -- Alterego 07:00, 27 Nov 2004
Wow long reply. I'll only address the development point. I think mentioning the fact that one of the most widely used psychometric tests was developed by two women with no formal knowledge of psychology is worth mentioning even if in passing, as an interesting and salient fact. there doesn't need to be an essay on it. Psychobabble 01:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. All it really does is discuss the types, although it does that reasonably well. Briefly mentions skepticism about the MBTI, although this could stand a better discussion (the article is pretty NPOV in tone, but not in terms of balancing the content volume). But above all, what is glaringly absent from this article is any discussion of how the MBTI is actually used in the real world - what kinds of people use it, what they use it for, and what they do with the results. The article needs to address MBTI in contexts like pedagogy and employment screening, consider whether particular MBTI types suggest certain things socially or professionally, and deal with the possibility of cultural biases affecting the test. --Michael Snow 01:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you very much. You will see that I have revamped the Skeptical view section and will carry out the rest of your suggestions. --[User:Alterego|Alterego]] 5:16 12/1/2004


Genghis Khan[edit]

This is a perfect complete and un-biased article on Genghis Khan and his life that most people are very curious about. I think his life and achievements will be very academic. I think Wikipedia users would definitely enjoy it on front page. Let's show it! (nominated by article candidates&diff=7807674&oldid=7807612 an anon →Raul654 08:39, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC))

  • Oppose. Only two inline references, which I think hardly covers all the material in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 09:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • There isn't much "all the material" on the topic of Genghis Khan per se. This is all we got and it is good. Can you suggest some more "material"? Try Google-ing "Genghis Khan" and compare the articles out there with this Wikipedia one.
      • The issue is not the content; the issue is that the article insufficiently cites third-party sources; only two references are provided, each for specific parts of the article; the rest of the article's content has no sources. For why we need references, see Wikipedia:Cite sources. Johnleemk | Talk 09:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't like seeing a hideous infobox taking up half the width of the page at the very beginning of the article. Remove it, or at least shrink it. Everyking 11:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As mentioned before, the references are severely lacking, the modest infobox does not bother me, but the lead section could use some work, it is not too readable nor does it do a great job summarising the article. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:48, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. GeneralPatton 18:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A list of website homepages as sources is not suffiencent for a featured article. Thousands of books and articles have been written about Genghis Khan—Go cite some! —Neutralitytalk]] 03:26, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Can you? Talk is cheap.
  • Object. 1) I find the article to be rather short for a person this important, but I find it hard to indicate what exactly is missing. However, most topics can be probably be treated with more depth. 2) As others have pointed out, we need references. Also, some books and articles are definitely needed, if only as further reading. 3) There are several uncredited claims and vague sentences. E.g. "Asia is certainly quite different today than it would have been without the brief Mongol Empire.", "Some people argue ", "He is often associated", "He was one of the most charismatic leaders in the world", "probably was the founding father". The "Values of Genghis Khan" section is full of this kind of statements. 4) See also contains mostly terms that were already treated in the article. 5) The infobox is non-standard, and doesn't give much information. Also, I find it a bit strange to see his Mongolian names in Cyrillic; I'd much rather see his name in the real Mongolian script (not the communist-enforced Cyrillic). 6) Given his importance, and the fact that he has been dead for centuries, there must be more illustrations to add. Jeronimo 08:38, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I would expect at least a mention of The Secret History of the Mongols (a.k.a. The History and Life of Chinggis Khan, which, BTW, could certainly use an article). -- Jmabel | Talk 09:09, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree that references section needs to be expanded. Also most of the 'see also' should be incorporated into the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:39, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. While its big and certainly informative, it is lacking genuine references, and uses too many "some sources", "other sources", "some people" ambiguous phrasing.--ZayZayEM 08:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Swastika[edit]

Seldom do I find a page that so thoroughly addresses almost all my questions. Nuanced, detailed, richly endowed with images, and many helpful external links integrated into the main article text. Fishal 20:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - my only concern is that the article may not be appropriate as a 'Today's featured article' because we would then end up with a swastika on the Main Page. Other than that an excellent article--Enceladus 20:37, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • That concern is not actionable (and you are supporting, after all). I don't think it is a problem to feature it on the main page either. People are intelligent enough to read the accompanying text and to realize that it is not used to support nazism. — David Remahl 21:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • As long as we don't use Nazi one, I don't see the problem. The Hindu one looks quite nice, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • In any case they are completely separate issues. Just because an article is a FA does not mean it will get on the main page. They are both called "featured" which is why this is sucha common confusion, but they are separate. The main page articles are picked from among featured articles. - Taxman 23:50, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • It would not be a problem to use the nazi one either. I guess (perhaps incorrectly) that it is the version that the highest number of people world wide through accumulated through all times have came in contact with. — David Remahl 12:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Covers the ground it needs, and will perhaps help to remove the stigma from an ancient symbol. Denni 20:51, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Support: Interesting article, but still causes a shiver. Giano 21:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs more than one reference. References are a FA requirement. I could go on about pieces of flair, but I'll save that. :) It appears some of the external links are being used as references, but then those that have actually been used to reference material in the text need to be formatted as on the page I linked to in a section called 'References'. 2.) I really feel the intro needs to explicitly state that the swastika is not just what nearly 100% of English speaking readers will associate it with. But because that is such an overwhelming association, ignoring it seems very odd. Otherwise seems very well written and complete. Nice work. - Taxman 23:57, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • There are still only 2 print references, neither particularly relevant to most of the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I don't think the Unicode code points deserve to be in the lead section. The lead section needs to mention the use of the symbol by Nazi Germany since that is a very common understanding of the symbol today. Also, "Allegedly, the Nazis believed that ... Aryans ... were the prototypical white invaders." Did they or didn't they? Who alleges this? Does anyone dispute it? References definitely needed here. Gdr 00:48, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
    • I fixed the lead section part. Johnleemk | Talk 05:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I trust that this objection has been addressed - the Chinese unicode has moved lower doen, but some Sanskrit is there (quite properly, I think). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: the lead is still inadequate. At the moment it seems to be a repository for trivia; it should be a summary of the most important points of the article. Mark1 06:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I moved the Unicode trivia, but the rest of the info is relevant: it describes the symbol, briefly states who it was used by, and tells the source of its name. Fishal 19:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • The lead is not the place to tell us that a swastika is an "irregular icosagon"; that tells us something about icosagons, but nothing about a swastika. And the lead still makes no attempt to summarise the article: see Wikipedia:Lead_section#Lead_section. Mark1 01:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • This objection has been addressed, I think: I can't see any "trivia" there now. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely, a well done article on a controversial subject. Zerbey 01:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. For the main page, the Aryan pic with the dots rather than the tilted Nazi version should be used. Add a couple of references though. Chameleon 12:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A good NPOV article on a controversial subject - and it is important (and interesting) to know that the symbol is not only a Nazi one. A few more references wouldn't hurt, although there is quite a few in the external link sections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tuf-Kat 21:10, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Andre (talk) 21:29, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Dbiv 01:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article includes the sentence, "The swastika symbol was found extensively in the ruins of the ancient city of Troy." There was no city called Troy - though often Ilium is the city to which this term refers; more importantly, this city has not yet been discovered. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 02:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know what you're getting at here. "Troy" and "Ilion"/"Ilium" are different names for the same place. The link you gave redirects to Troy. Proteus (Talk) 19:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. In general, I find the article a bit disorganised, and it reads like a huge collection of "swastika facts" rather than an encyclopedia article. The article should become far more coherent, and remove redundant parts. Some additional, specific objections: 1) The first section and the lead section have a lot of overlap. 2) The article has a lot of "single sentence facts", which bear little relation with the preceding or following paragraphs, and it reads like a list at times. The "Jainism" subsection is an extreme example of this. 3) The "worldwide taboo" section repeats itself a bit, and actually shows the taboo is not worldwide, making the title inappropriate. 4) References should preferably be organised according to the WP:MOS, and I would really like to see more books; even if just as further reading. 5) The article's subdivision is partially chronological, partially geographical, and partially by means of use, and this is not done consistently. For example, the use in religion/mythology results in works of art, and the Indians in North America also used it as a religious symbol. It seems that the geographical approach would work best, using chronological order within these sections. 6) The "origin of the swastika" section gives only one explanation apart from the "no idea" explanation (the reference to the book should (re)appear in the reference sections, by the way) It is not clear whether there are more theories. Jeronimo 20:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Objection challenged: The categorical structure makes sense, and it makes more sense now that I have moved the section I had added (in the wrong place) about its use in Native American religion. The article talks about its decorative uses, its religious uses, and finally its use in modern times. Fishal 05:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Only one part of my objection is "challenged" here. I'm not saying the categorical structure does not make sense, I'm only saying it isn't applied consistently, and it still isn't. The sections art&architecture and religion&mythology are largely overlapping, since the reason for its use in art is mostly religion (most of the buildings mentioned are temples of some sort). This leads to duplication, and I think duplication is undesirable and, in this case, unnecessary. Furthermore, "modern use" is not a categorical classification, but a chronological one. So again, this is inconsistent. Another minor error I spotted: a synagogue is mentioned under the "Christianity" section. Jeronimo 07:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • nice article, but I have to object until the following (minor?) gripes are satisfied: (a) either merge or expand the 1-sentence "Jainism" section; (b) the entire "Early Indo-European traditions" section reads like neo-pagan internet myths. either remove, or give sources (excavations, manuscripts...). remove the proto-indo-european part altogether (this is complete speculation). Where and in what contexts was a swsatika ever referred to as "Thor's hammer"?? dab 15:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • removed it myself. reluctant support as long as nobody re-introduces it without references. dab 10:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting article about widespread and longtime use of what is now a reviled symbol. A2Kafir 17:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - could still do with more proper references. --ZayZayEM 04:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - I also agree that it should have more references --Alex Krupp 06:19, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: Missing source info, copyright tags, or insufficiently justified copyright tags, on some images: Image:Swastikapistols.jpg, Image:Whirling log.jpg, Image:ASEA logo pre 1933.jpg, Image:Lotta Svärd.jpg, Image:Swastika.jpg. —Steven G. Johnson 01:18, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh dear - in extremis, I suppose these could be deleted? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support! Interesting and well written. Exigentsky
  • Comment: maybe we should start over? The article has been substantially rewritten since the vote started. dab 15:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Is there a procedure for that? Fishal 22:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • well, we could argue that there are unaddressed objections, so the article failed to reach FA consensus for now, but rather than wait a couple of weeks, we could just archive this discussion and re-add it to the top of this page immediately (as it seems consensus is just around the corner, really). I don't think there is really an official procedure for this: it's my suggestion, and if others agree, just do it. dab 09:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Actually, the article has changed so much since its nomination, it seems to be experiencing growing pains. I propose taking it off this list and re-nominating it once all the new matrerial is sorted out better. Fishal 04:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • agree. there is no hurry. dab 20:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dragon Rouge[edit]

In my opinion, it is a very intersting topic and there has much work done in very short time. Please have a look at it, it is worth it to be at wikipedia'S front page!

  • Object. Lead section too short. No references. Some instances of POV (e.g. calling the critical press "tabloid"). The whole section about opposition is poorly balanced. Again, references are needed. I live in Sweden but have never heard of this movement, despite the claim of "fame" in Sweden. Link to some of the "tabloid" articles. See also links to several articles that have already been mentioned. Do 500 members really make it the "leading magical organization" in northern Europe? Says who? Alchemy is listed in see also. Why? Does the movement have any official religious texts? The section The Initiatoric Draconian Magic is not clear on what each step actually constitutes; what does a follower have to do to achieve each step? How is the movement financed? What do the different elements in the "official logo" symbolise? In short: this article has some way to go before featured status. — David Remahl 13:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. "Initiatoric Draconian Magic" section is unintelligible to a reader with no prior knowledge of this group. The section also needs to be formatted properly. "Opposing Views" is POV. Section headers shouldn't capitalize every word. Rhobite 17:12, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Lead needs expansion. See also section needs to be more carefully linked (magic is a disambiguation) and info on why these "see-also links" are related needs to be included. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 17:38, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. Impossible to understand for people unfamiliar with the subject. Needs references, for example in regard to Swedish fame. Haven't heard of it, and a find a worldwide organization with only 500 members quite small. I doubt it's as famous as the author would like it to be. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:10, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. is this for real? article reads more like a very bad joke. Are we sure this actually exists? Can we get soem verifyable sources. Perhaps a list of famous members? Some reason why this is even worthy of inclusion on Wiki? Alkivar 00:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: Lead is almost non existent, but even if it were not, the content of the article is insubstantial. There are no references. At various times I've lived all over Europe and never heard of it. It may exist. It may be notable; but it is not featured article material. Giano 08:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: No lead, POV issues, references--ZayZayEM 03:42, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)Support. 04:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)