Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/June 2003 to January 2004

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

This is an archive of discussions about contested featured article candidates that were nominated in June 2003 to January 2004. Warning: not in perfect chronological order.

June 2003[edit]

Lawrence v. Texas[edit]

  • Lawrence v. Texas - in particular I like the way it treats the opinions of the dissenting judges calmly and fairly. Martin 19:21 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Good work, but I think it could use a little more info about the reactions to the case, both within and outside the gay movement. --Eloquence 02:32 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

July 2003[edit]

Victor Lustig[edit]

  • Victor Lustig - An interesting story, well told. -- Gaurav 19:27 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid I object. It's copied almost in toto -- with some wikified modifications -- from the public domain document linked at the end of the page. I'm not saying it's not good -- it is quite good -- but I don't know if it really should be highlighted as "brilliant prose". I can be convinced otherwise, of course. -- ESP 07:04 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm not trying to make the most convincing argument here, but Computer numbering formats, by the same author, is already in there. That it wasn't written specifically for Wikipedia shouldn't be a factor against its inclusion in a list of the best written articles on Wikipedia. -- Jim Regan 03:59 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • To me it is just simply an anecdote spiced with some biographical context, rather than a balanced and biographical encyclopædia article. That's just my 2¢. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 11:14, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

August 2003[edit]

Beach cricket[edit]

  • Beach cricket - A nice little article about one of the joys of summer. Lisiate 06:59, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Having read the article, I know I've played the game, but have never heard the name of it before. Is it a Australian name? Perhaps some geographical context, mentioning of the beach cricket world championship, etc could be thrown in? Pete 09:39, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • There is no world championship, it's the barebones form of cricket played in backyards throughout the cricket playing world. Lisiate 19:39, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Richard Wagner[edit]

  • Richard Wagner - thorough and (AFAICT) accurate article on a prominent classical composer, no brilliant prose listing of any classical music topics, demonstrates NPOV handling of a highly sensitive issue. --Robert Merkel 08:41, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Object. Still needs much more on anti-Semitism, particularly concerning theories regarding anti-Semitic motives in Wagner's operas, also on the use of Wagner's music by Hitler (maybe in a separate atricle, but it needs to be there) and scholarly views on Wagner's actual influence on Hitler. Bibliography is hardly comprehensive.—Eloquence 07:32, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Second. Excellent article. Too much emphasis on antiseminism detracts from the main subject (his music) and is in danger of being POV. It's fine as it is. 80.255 23:00, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed, this article is excellent, for the reasons given by User:Robert Merkel. The writing is bright and engaging, and the NPOV aspect is well-handled. Obviously, Wagner is a complicated personality, and the article could be longer in places - indeed, entire books have been written on the man, with good reason - but this article does a more than competant job in summarizing his life for an encyclopedia. - Scooter 06:21, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Command-Query Separation[edit]

  • Command-Query Separation - A beautifully clear explanation of a technical topic. -- Bill 15:35, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Object. Does not conform to MoS, provides little history of the concept (quotes from source material with original definition would be nice), does not really explain difference between query and program state change, does not contain practical examples or case studies, contained spelling error (now fixed), no bibliography -- no brilliant prose.—Eloquence 07:32, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

Basic taste[edit]

  • Basic taste - Short but sweet. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick (on August 21)
    • object. shouldn't this be a subheading under "taste"??--Alex Tan 5 Oct 2003

October 2003[edit]

Japan[edit]

  • Japan - good content, balanced and the format and heading are complete. -- Taku
    • Object. Seems far from complete, and some entries seem clumsy and problematic. One user appears to be repeatedly editing the page back to his/her original prose. Exploding Boy 11:41 14 Jan 2004

Pacifism[edit]

Wesley Clark[edit]

  • Wesley Clark - good balanced article. This is what wikipedia for. -- Taku
    • I agree, this could be a controversial article but it seems balanced and well done.Ark30inf 23:08, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • "During the Clinton administration, NATO tried to prevent Russian forces from occupying an airfield in Kosovo." - this sentence alone, not to mention some around it, besides being 100% untrue, is more POV then CNN. Nikola 19:53, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • It is somewhat true... what really happened was that Wesley Clark wanted to keep the Russians from occupying the airfield, but British General Mike Jackson kept him from doing so, saying it would cause World War III. ugen64 20:19, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Russians were not occupying the airfield, Clrak didn't want but was ordered to stop them. Nikola 15:17, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This article could go through significant changes over the next year with the election cycle in the US. I'd hold off until he drops from the headlines for a significant amount of time. --Minesweeper 09:38, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

War of 1812[edit]

  • War of 1812 - thorough. comprehensive. looks at different POVs. Kingturtle 18:58, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Disagree, is to American centric though not biased. Does not deal with the fact Britain was fighting on two fronts and the problems this caused. Or the motives for the Americans to pick a war when the British were fighting Napoleon.: ChrisG 11:23, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Holy Prepuce[edit]

  • Holy Prepuce - "these particular relics encouraged irreverent curiosity." Indeed. -- Infrogmation 05:51, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but "encouraged irreverent curiosity" is purportedly the Vatican's, not mine. I didn't enclose it in quotes, because I only have it from a secondary source (of unknown quality) at this stage. Rlandmann 06:05, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • It definitely belongs on either Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, or it belongs on Brilliant prose. I won't prejudge before I can verify the factual accuracy. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 06:23, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

November 2003[edit]

Hamas[edit]

  • Hamas - laid out nicely. easy to follow. complex issues explained for all to understand. Kingturtle 05:46, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I object in the strongest terms. In the "beliefs" section, the only thing we learn about is Hamas' beliefs about Jews and Israel. It doesn't explain what their conception of an Islamic state is, how they're organized (no, "loosely structured" doesn't cut it. Do they have a supreme leader? A council of elders? How do they make decisions? How would an Islamic state make decisions?) It's discussion of the complex relationship between Hamas and secular nationalist Palestinian organizations is so paltry as to be embarrassing. Its activities mentions in passing 'relief and education' efforts, but doesn't even say what they are. Hamas has had many famous activists. Where are the links to their articles? This is all through a cursory glance; this article is nowhere near ready. DanKeshet 06:26, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree with the objection. At the moment it reads like a piece written to color it just as a terrorist group, rather than a political/community organisation which changed into a combined poitical/community and terrorist group as a result of the occupation. One of the major groups fighting for political power in Palestinian circles deserves far more complete coverage than this. Jamesday 01:53, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I have decided to withdraw this nomination. Kingturtle 05:01, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Red Scare[edit]

  • Red Scare - superb rewrite by user:Populus flows smoothly, is historically informative and combines balance and neutrality so well that he makes it look easy! --Uncle Ed 15:07, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I think it's incomplete. A very good start and a good rewrite, but I think the relationship between the red scare and civil defense should be discussed. Also, the anti-immigrant, anti-union parts of the Palmer raids. DanKeshet 06:11, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Machismo[edit]

  • Machismo - I also liked this article that I began. Check it out and let me know! Antonio Loose Balls Martin
    • I'd disagree almost completely with "Generally speaking, machistas doubt women's rights to work, play sports or perform at other, traditionally male-dominated areas. Many machistas also believe it is their right as men to cheat on their wifes" (perhaps this is true for Latin America, but then the article is incomplete), and the article also fails to mention macho-look. Nikola 08:15, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • As a little vingette, I rather like it. However I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out that it is one of only two articles listed on this page that gets flagged as a stub under my preferences (<2000bytes). This begs a question - should "short" (suitably defined) articles not be listed on bp as a point of principle - the principle being that such articles are too narrow in scope to be truly brilliant prose? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:35, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Too short for me to support. Sarge Baldy 09:26, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Jesus Christ[edit]

  • Jesus Christ - I think it is now a rather excellent article after I don't know how many contributions. I've done a lot of the recent polishing, and I've reached the stage I can't find anything more to polish. So... : ChrisG 15:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded. I'm not even Christian but that's a very nice article. Sarge Baldy 09:22, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Object, for now. Precursors of the Jesus meme should be mentioned, especially Mithras.—Eloquence 20:00, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • —Eloquence, is your objection only that the article is not fully complete or perfect? Surely all articles on Wikipedia are by definition works in progress? : ChrisG 12:15, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Yes, they are, but articles on Wikipedia:Brilliant prose should satisfy a reasonable degree of completeness, which I feel is not met by this article. I also think that ignoring these memes is problematic in NPOV terms.—Eloquence
        • Disagree with that attitude. At best it says 'essays' can fail as provisional (which they would be, no?); at worst it condemns just about anything I might write about here. Charles Matthews 13:18, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • You may disagree, that doesn't change my objection. I can't agree to list an article as BP which I feel lacks vital information. An additional objection is that the subsection summaries in the present article are rather inadequate.—Eloquence
        • Brilliant prose - or excellent content? Isn't the idea to encourage good writing? Well, I may have the wrong idea here - but if it's a Hall of Fame why not call it that? Charles Matthews 13:34, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • See naming discussion with Pcb above.—Eloquence
            • With regard to content I actually think the article is rather comprehensive by Wikipedia standards. The article actually had to be broken up because it is so long and now provides links to substantial articles on specific issues and differing points of view. As to Mithras, there is nothing to stop Eloquence adding a sentence or two on Mithras and a link to the Mithras article. :ChrisG 14:27, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Support--while I admit that there is room for mention of Mithras (though I think Mithras has nothing to do with the historical person of Jesus), I think the article as it stands is an excellent example of Wikipedia treating a subject likely to be filled with bias in an NPOV way. I think articles like this should be on brilliant prose to encourage other articles to meet this standard: perhaps not comprehensive, but fully informative and essentially neutral. Jwrosenzweig 23:00, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Two points: with a strong objection like we have here, I think it would be inappropriate for this article to go on brilliant prode. Also, I'd like some backup for the repeated statement in the article that most historians accepte the historicity of Jesus. I believe there may be some contest around this claim. Bmills 13:48, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Battle of Oudenarde[edit]

  • Battle of Oudenarde - Finished this marathon project in about an hour... and right before Thanksgiving weekend, in fact! I cited my source (a good book, by the way), and I wrote it completely by myself (using only information from the book). It's a good article... :-) ugen64 21:38, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a very good article, but I would change one thing: you need a stronger introductory paragraph. Remember the journalistic style of writing - make that first paragraph a topic 'graf that gives the reader the who-what-when-where-why-how, boom boom boom. From a strong beginning, the rest of the article should flow naturally. Scooter 23:43, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

December 2003[edit]

Mario D'Agata[edit]

  • Mario D'Agata, here is myself again self nominating, but I dont know..just check it out and see what you think. Antonio Hard as a Rock Martin
    • Refused, you need to not start the same line with the same thing every time. Sarge Baldy 09:26, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree with User:Sarge Baldy. Each paragraph has the same opening. It's a very good, factual article, but in my opinion it needs to be "tightened up" before reaching the level of brilliant prose. - Scooter 05:52, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Urban renewal[edit]

  • Urban renewal -- I wrote this one a couple of months ago. I had decided to try to be comprehensive and not just throw up a stub, so I spent a couple of hours on it. I just realized today that no one has made any edits to it -- which means it's either brilliant or not worth reading... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Second. A really good, well-written article. Bmills 10:17, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Object. If it was Urban Renewal in the US then I would agree as far as I can tell it is good; but there is no international element to it other than the intro and conclusion. It needs to give far more than a passing mention to urban renewal in Europe. : ChrisG 12:08, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Fair enough criticism, I have to admit. I think renamimg it is a good suggestion. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:06, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Ought I to rename (i.e., move) this article, or would that be shameless self-promotion? :-) BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:40, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)~
        • Since it is really an article about urban renewal in the US then renaming it would make sense; but since you obviously know about urban renewal, it would be nice if you could also create a new short article about urban renewal using the generic parts of the article : ChrisG 00:45, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Roman Emperor[edit]

  • Roman Emperor -- detailed, well-linked explanation of the office, with a comprehensive list of imperatores to supplement it. --MIRV 18:02, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I object. Not to the contents but to the format. This article was recently extripated from List of Roman emperors and it still needs a bit of polishing to be shining and brilliant. Shouldnt be difficult. Muriel Victoria 10:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • What needs fixing? I'd be glad to clean it up. --MIRV 09:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I concur with Muriel's objection. I haven't really had a chance to touch up the article, and as it is I find it to be unsatisfactory; it is certainly not my best work, to say the least. I've proposed a revision to the article in Talk:Roman Emperor, and I'd appreciate any input on that proposed revision (or any other). Publius, 2146, 18 December 2003

Bobby Clarke[edit]

Olavo Bilac[edit]

  • Olavo Bilac, it´s got sample poems, sample translated poems, comprehensive biography, links, and picture. User:Doidimais Brasil
    • Much of the writing is awkward and unfortunately clearly non-Native speaker. Also, is it a bit short for BP? Bmills 10:15, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Awkard writing? It has been edited by other Wikipedians. It looks short, but remeber it includes a link for a long page of sample poems and translated versions.Doidimais Brasil 18:49, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Rao-Blackwell theorem[edit]

  • Rao-Blackwell theorem - what do mathematicians here think? Michael Hardy 00:59, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • As a person whose knowledge of mathematics would fit under a dime, with plenty of space to spare, I do wish that some note would be taken in articles such as this about practical applications or the significance of the theorem, if there be any. Remarks about "idempotence" (at least I learned a new 8-cent word) don't really tell me much. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:59, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Settlers of Catan[edit]

  • Settlers of Catan - good content, excellent graphics to guide the reader's eye, and an overall impressive overview of the game. --Chuck SMITH 02:30, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Strongly object. The creator refuses to compromise on any issues regarding this subject, including its copyright status. RickK 02:31, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I disagree. She has systematically stated all of her copyright arguments on her user page at User:Stardust. I may however decide not to argue here to eliminate my personal Wikistress. I just assumed that it was self-evident that it belonged here. --Chuck SMITH 02:38, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • She has stated them, and it's possible that the statement contains only one major error concerning copyright law, but that doesn't mean that the page's interpretations of law and fact are so indisputable as to show all objections to be baseless. A reliable source on copyright law would never say that "the copyrightable portions are not under copyright protection unless the registration process has been completed", because it's false: you must register before you can sue, but an infringement before it's registered is still an infringement. [1] Dandrake 03:22, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Strongly question. Should an article that (apparently) is still violently controversial be even considered seriously? It's hard to see how anyone can expect a consensus, which is what we're supposed to have here, just yet. What harm is there in a delay till article contents and people's tempers settle down? Dandrake 08:24, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • Support. Still a little early but this is looking like an excellent example of how to do a thorough game guide, with good description and excellent, lawful, use of images. Certainly shouldn't be discounted just because RickK is making baseless copyright infringement claims about it. [User:Stardust]] seems to have an excellent understanding of copyright law as applied to games, reviews and commentary on them. Jamesday 09:53, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Should really not have been listed here while still on VfD. Bmills 10:06, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • This particular article isn't on VfD, articles about rules variants to the game are. I object because this isn't an article about the game, but a guide for playing the game, as JamesDay states, which I believe should go to wikibooks. Additionally, the images are not from the game itself but from an un-offical java based program based on the game that is frowned upon by the game's copyright holder. Gentgeen 10:24, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • No, but if the merge suggestion on VfD is accepted, then this article will be significantly altered. I think it would have been better if the nomination had waited until after a consensus on the project was reached.Bmills 10:44, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Oppose. This just doesn't look to me like a true "brilliant prose" candidate. It's not exactly an ad for the game, but to me it resembles a magazine article—in one of those hobby magazines in which all the articles are flattering articles about products that just happen to have big ads in the magazine. All that stuff about how many awards it's won, why it suitable for every level from family play to competition, how it "showcases the heights of adaptive analysis, which the human mind does best" (whatever that means... how is that different from bridge or poker?) The lead photo looks like a pitchman hawking his wares. It even tells you where to buy the game and associated game paraphernalia, (covering this with a fig leaf "This article in no way takes a position on whether people should or should not buy this game...") It says that "Settlers is perhaps the first German-style board game to reach any degree of popularity outside of Europe," but does not explain what a "German-style board game" is, give any examples of other "German-style board games," or compare it against its rivals. The article's point of view is clearly that of a Settlers of Catan fan. That's not terrible, but in my opinion it is not a good exemplar of an ideal Wikipedia article. Dpbsmith 13:05, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. It's well writtin, isn't it?
      • I didn't think that was supposed to be the only criterion. From the comments at the top of the page, I thought that Wikipedia:The perfect article was supposed to express the criteria, and it says the perfect article "is completely unbiased" and goes on to elaborate. If there's general agreement that an article can qualify as "brilliant prose" even if it is not a good example of a truly neutral point of view, then let me know and I'll withdraw my objection. Dpbsmith 17:38, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dictionary[edit]

  • Dictionary - decent content and good references. Need some heading. -- Taku
    • Agree that it's close, but it needs better organization and doesn't flow very well. Could probably be expanded too, still an excellent article but I wouldn't say brilliant -- oppose Tuf-Kat 03:59, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Alanis Morissette[edit]

  • Alanis Morissette --Kaihsu Tai 20:23, 2003 Dec 30 (UTC)
    • Disagree. The prose has a tendency to ramble, and at times reads more like a record review or a segment of one of those gossipy "Hollywood insider" programs such as Entertainment Tonight instead of an encyclopedia article. The elements of a good article are there, but this needs editing. - Scooter 08:07, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Disagree. Doesnt look "clean" and does not really fit into an encyclopedia. Also i don't like the external links to Amazon under Notable works. bbx 15:55, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dim sum[edit]

  • Dim sum - I've no idea who wrote this, but it's very evocative, thorough, and well-written. Scooter 08:17, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Sure. It lists more dim sum than I've tried! --Menchi (Talk)â 08:33, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Objection: It appears to have northern-China POV, with myths such as connections to the Silk Road -- unless references are produced, I am not convinced. My guess is that many Chinese far from Guangdong would not know what dim sum is. Statements such as 'Almost all Chinese know what dim sum is' should be made VERY CAREFULLY, after substantial surveying about 900 million people! Many items listed also did not give Cantonese (which would be very useful when the dim sum lady with cart comes by.) Sorry to be a killjoy. --Kaihsu Tai 12:23, 2004 Jan 2 (UTC)
        • I don't have enough knowledge to comment on the objection. However, the problem seems to be with the content rather than the prose. If we were to change the parts of the content causing the problems, could we then list it? - Scooter 08:07, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 2004[edit]

Restriction enzyme[edit]

  • Restriction enzyme - Needs some formatting of the illustration and would benefit from some art, but the text is very good, I think. 168... 17:42, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Truncated dodecahedron[edit]

  • Truncated dodecahedron - Although the current revision is a little less interesting... Κσυπ Cyp   19:13, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The current version is fine but not brilliant. The previous version is ummmm... interesting. Very cute but the current version is more appropriate. moink 00:24, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Bacteria[edit]

  • Bacteria - great article 217.4.3.238 20:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Seconded, although the article is actually at Bacterium. Gentgeen 08:54, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It's very good. What's with the "history" at the end though? It feels like a "don't edit this, it's been peer-reviewed" warning. moink 00:46, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Needed and still needs some work, to my mind, but I've been going at it. I know enough to have spotted a few glaring holes. Still, I'm no bacteriologist, so I really think someone like that (or maybe a physician) ought to look at it.168... 00:08, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Not brilliant. Perfectly good, but not brilliant. My credentials: I took one bacteriology course once, thirty-five years ago. My impression: everything that's there is fine, but the coverage is uneven. Heavy on evolution. Light on pathogens, significance in disease, antimicrobial agents... there's a link that says "see more at Pathogen" but Pathogen is practically a stub. Nothing on genetic recombination and bioengineering. Nothing about bacteria as model systems in biology. Not enough on commercial importance of bacteria. Oh, and I think the picture with the candy-colored bacteria looks stupid; and "cocci" may mean "comma-shaped" but that is not how they look. There should be a photomicrograph or two (maybe a pitcher taken with one of them fancy new-fangled scanning electronic microscope things?) It's a perfectly good article, but it doesn't have any "wow" factor for me. Dpbsmith 01:11, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Operation Bojinka[edit]

  • Operation Bojinka Mind blowingly thorough, which is what I expect from a wikipedia article. Amazed me repeatedly with how in depth and intricate it is. Jack 04:50, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. Lead paragraph needs more info so it could stand alone as an entry in a concise encyclopedia. --mav 09:23, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. Bibliography needs to be in a standardized, useful format. DanKeshet 21:17, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Jet engine[edit]

  • Jet engine - A complex technology described well and completely. GreatWhiteNortherner 11:03, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • I object. I read the first three lines and found a bunch of innacuracies. I'll fix those at some point and then you can re-nominate it. moink 00:08, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Martin Guerre[edit]

Eureka Stockade[edit]

  • Eureka Stockade - Superb historical retelling. jengod 04:42, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • The article needs headings. Gentgeen 12:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. This currently fashionable and quite obsessive desire to sprinkle headings over everything in the vain hope that this will make complex and subtle subjects understandable even by morons with a 30-second attention span is one of the sadder aspects of this project. The entry does not need headings. It does, however, need a good copyedit to streamline the language. The fundamentals are there but it needs more work. Tannin 12:57, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I disagree, Tannin -- while headlines are sometimes overused, an article of that length should provide the user with three or four headings for basic orientation. So I also object until headings are added.—Eloquence
      • Actually, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style recomends using headlines, for they help orginize the article, both for the reader and the contributer. As BP is supposed to be the best articles here, they should conform to our style guide. Gentgeen 08:33, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • The MoS says a lot of things, some of them good advice, others bad. Life is like that. Sensible use of headings according to the task at hand is good writing. The current mania for putting a heading every 2.37 sentences whether the article needs one or not is bad writing, no two ways about it. A really well-written entry often reads best without headings, which serve only to break the flow. Oh well .. roll on the 30 second attention span. (sigh) Tannin
          • Headings are IMHO vital for reasons of organization and to aid the reader who wants to focus on a specific aspect of an article via the TOC. Bmills 12:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I've broken it up into four or so sections. I think it flows much better now. I've still got some reservations about certin sentinces, but not enough to be a full objection. My objection is withdrawn. Gentgeen 12:36, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pentecostalism[edit]

  • Pentecostalism - I found this article to be well written, flows well, and leaves me with a feeling that i've learned something. iHoshie 08:55, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Eh. I think this could be much more complete. And prettier. Aimee Semple McPherson on the other hand, is marvelous. jengod 21:49, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

Slashdot trolling phenomenon[edit]

  • slashdot trolling phenomenon BL 13:25, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • seconded, I've never used slashdot but this made everything perfectly clear (and extremely funny). Fabiform 21:46, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. I'm an avid slashdot reader, so I can say with good knowledge that this is very well written. →Raul654 03:39, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. Too much original research, too few citations.—Eloquence
      • Disagree. To typical slashdot readers at least, there's nothing original in the whole article. →Raul654 21:44, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
        • The more limited knowledge is to a defined group of people, the more important it becomes to back up our claims with citations. If all these phenomena do indeed exist and are as widespread as the article claims, it should be easy to find several examples for each.—Eloquence 00:51, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
          • It may be original research in the sense that there aren't likely to be too many professors getting grants to write about this stuff... so the collation of examples has to be done by the article's writers... which they now appear to have done extremely thoroughly. I'd prefer the examples to be in-lined with the explanatory text (sort of like on Current events) rather than the green thicket of text at the end. Course this is no object if people prefer it the current way round. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:51, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • I put a proposal on the talk page for a way to present examples inline, rather than relying on the links section at the end. Unfortunatly I can't go ahead and do it myself as I'm not a slashdotter and had a hard time finding even that one example I used. Perhaps the authors of the article will notice and take up the idea? I suppose it would be better to rely on inline examples rather than the links as slashdot's archives might not be available free or even at all one day, then we'd be left with no examples and no way of getting them. Fabiform 03:10, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Oppose as the page is now 32kb, so may be split into two articles. I think this nomination should be left until after that happens. See Talk:Slashdot trolling phenomena#Slashdot Culture vs. Trolling for the discussion about splitting the page and changing its title. Angela. 00:43, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Earth[edit]

  • Earth
    • I object. Granted, it's hard to encompass the whole world in one article, but I can think of a lot of seemingly germane things which the article doesn't cover. Here's an off-the-top-of-my-head list I posted some days back to the article's Talk page: How did the Earth form? What aspect of the Earth or its location do astrobiologists hypothesize as having been crucial to the development of its most idiosyncratic feature--life. How did life emerge and when. Have there been any noteworthy biological events since the appearance of the first cell? How does the emergence and history of life relate to geological and climate evolution? How often is Earth hit by asteroids? What have been the consequences? Do we expect more? How many human-made satellites are there and when did the first one (sputnik) go up? How do people study the Earth? What kind of scientists study it? What questions plague us, if any? What are predicted fates of the Earth? What about the ozone hole? What about the Kyoto protocol? What about geomagnetic reversals?168... 05:22, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) And where's the mention of or link to Gaia theory?

St. Francis Dam[edit]

  • St. Francis Dam - Great integration of fine writing, knowledge of history and engineering and good article design.
    • I object. Seems very anti-Mulholland, needs some copyediting for clairity, for example, the "Also, the dam was built" line in the Construction begins section seems out of place. Gentgeen 12:04, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Astronomy and astrophysics[edit]

  • Astronomy and astrophysics
    • Just a disamb page now. Bmills 13:39, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I believe the original nomination referred to the page now titled astronomy. The two fields of astronomy and astrophysics are often considered identical, but strictly speaking astronomy encompasses astrophysics. zandperl 05:04, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • You're right. We should just change the FA link to astronomy.

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis[edit]

  • Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
    • Needs TOC. The sentence So-called politically correct language stems from the belief that using (for example) sexist language tends to make one think in a sexist manner. seems just to have been thrown in. Criticisms need to include the case of people without language: can they think? Bmills 14:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Anarchism[edit]

  • Anarchism
    • Reads like a string of unconnected sentences in parts. Bmills 14:13, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Not ready yet, its still trying to pass itself off as a synonym for "communism" ;) Sam Spade 12:36, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland[edit]

  • Battle of Jutland
    • Keep. Object. The prose is not brilliant, though the article is good. Needs a good deal of copy editing. Dandrake 04:23, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC) The prose now qualifies IMHO, and the content wasn't disputed here in the first place. Dandrake 00:42, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • Requesting a reprieve. Its one-month grace period is about to expire, and I want to see if I can clean it up well enough to pull my objection, which may take a few days. If not, and nobody else does, it must go. Dandrake 21:13, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
        • Ain't nobody here to grant you a reprieve. But if leaving it here would inspire you to clean up the article, I'd second your request and ask that it be left here for at least another week. DanKeshet 23:47, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
          • Nobody but the good people who clean the page and would obliged to zap this entry now. But take a look, & tell me how far it's still off the mark. I don't claim the prose is brilliant, but we've changed the list's name, after all. Dandrake 00:42, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • second the objection. DanKeshet 21:12, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • see my comments on the talk page soon. DanKeshet 06:16, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

History of England[edit]

  • History of England
    • Object. The formatting on the page is very ugly, including lots of self-references and confusing explanatory notes and distractively excessive linking. Needs better formatting into 'series' style. DanKeshet 21:26, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • I have resolved my own objections to my satisfaction, so I'm restarting the clock on this one. I hope some others take a look at it, because I don't know the subject matter that well. DanKeshet 18:35, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Object, despite the formatting now brilliant format - thanks Dan. Its a nice article, but has too many links to main articles and see alsos. As i understand brilliant prose, a brilliant article should be complete by itself. HoE is a brilliant overview not a brilliant article. Muriel 13:00, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop[edit]

  • Cowboy Bebop - I'm rather fond of this one. About as NPOV as I can describe one of my favorite anime titles, especially one that has near universal acclaim. RadicalBender 18:47, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Unfortunatly, I object. I've never seen Bebop, so I'm only commenting on the writing, not the facts. Some of the introductuctory material needs to have a good copyedit, and the article needs to be converted to a timeless reporting style. Anything that reads as "even today" should be changed to "as of 2004", or something similar. Gentgeen 09:00, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Object currently. Facts seem good, but the start of the article does not read well, although it seems to improve as it goes. Some work on it could change my vote. --zandperl 03:39, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anal Sex[edit]

  • Anal Sex -- a thorough, sensitive treatment of a potentially squeamish topic. Reads very well, covers all angles, is unbiased, and deserves recognition for its approach. Exploding Boy 13:04, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • a thorough, sensitive treatment of a potentially squeamish topic. - is that a bad/funny/unintentional double entendre? →Raul654 20:27, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • well if it is a double entendre it was unintentional. Actually, to be honest, I don't get it. What's so suggestive about "thorough, sensitive treatment of a potentially squeamish topic"?Exploding Boy 04:18, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. While I agree that the tone/approach is good, the actual writing is poor in places. In particular, there are points at which the absence of punctuation marks makes the reading of the article difficult and potentially obscures the meaning. Bmills 11:23, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Made some editorial changes, fixed puncuation, clarified some areas. Exploding Boy 11:57, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Approve. I agree, well written, and handles the topic well. --zandperl 03:39, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Remove my objection. Bmills 12:27, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support, but please dont put it in the Main Page - we have to think about the children :) Muriel 13:03, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • oppose. This was the first article I ever edited here, after having used the wiki as a reference for over a year. The reason I felt an intense need to edit (where I had not remotely felt such an inclination before) was the ovewhelming POV against female receptive anal sex. I have reduced this a great deal over time, but I still find it to be a clear problem on the page. Just this moment, I have finshed making an NPOV edit on the page, clarifying that female receptive anal sex is not only done for the purpose of birth control or vaginal virginity, but ALSO as a matter of personal preference. The article is profoundly lacking in its focus on this area, mainly due to all the POV to the contrary (it used to basically say women didn't like it). I think this article is is a long way off from brilliant prose, but perhaps with enough concentration of effort in the right areas... things can be knocked into a satisfactory condition over time ;) Sam Spade 06:59, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Reading over it again, I'd be more inclined to put a NPOV dispute header on it than add it to brilliant prose, frankly. I really don't agree with what is suggested in the "pleasure" section. Seems VERY POV to me. It doesn't take alot of pondering to get an idea of who wrote these things, and what their opinions are, which is never a good sign. Sam Spade 07:09, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I can see no reason for a POV header. Would you care to elaborate? As to your second post, who and what are you referring to? Exploding Boy 13:51, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • I likewise don't see a need for such a header, or I would have put one there, I was making a point in the process I see the article at (i.e. closer to needeing a dispute header than being brilliant prose). The comment about who wrote the article itself is directed to them ;). I assume the sorts of things I am refering to are before your time, but we can discuss them on the talk page in question, and review the page history to see who I am refering to. The what is a bias against female receptive anal sex. Sam Spade 13:58, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. The last section ("Health risks"), especially the last paragraph, reads more like an anal sex how-to guide than an encyclopaedia article. Proteus 00:24, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

March 2004[edit]

Withdrawn FAC nomination (not subsequently archived), taken from [2]

1755 Lisbon earthquake[edit]

Removed this nomination because i agree with mav but i am not in the mood right now to pursue the suggested improvements. If anybody can volunteer, i would be happy to read! Muriel 21:01, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

i am very proud of this one. Muriel 08:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Pictures should be added directly to the article, I think.—Eloquence
    • Pictures from the XVIII century?? :) What do you suggest? Muriel 16:24, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • A google image search provides some suggestions of contemporary images: [3], [4] & [5]. fabiform | talk 16:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. jengod
  • Oppose until the lead section gets expanded. The lead section needs to be able to stand alone as a concise article in its own right. See news style. --mav 20:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Dear mav, can you elaborate on your criticism? I'm not sure if i understood and i cant improve the article if i dont. Muriel 10:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • The section starting "The 1755 Lisbon earthquake took place on..." needs to be expanded (at least a few more sentences - if not a second paragraph as well) to cover all the major points that are expanded on later in the article. --mav
  • Think there should be a reference to Oliver Wendell Holmes's poem, "The Deacon's Masterpiece: or the Wonderful One-Hoss Shay. Why? Because I first heard about the Lisbon earthquake in reference to this poem and to the theological disputes to which it refers. Dpbsmith 15:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)