Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/May 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 May 2004. Warning: not in perfect chronological order.

May 2004[edit]


(the vowel article series)

This is more a nomination for a whole list of articles, whose top is the vowel article. An excellent introduction, and I would especially commend the table of vowels, which links to further sub-articles, each of which is illustrated with a sound file. Smerdis of Tlön 15:03, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

  • (not a vote) I would like photographs/images of the mouth whilst pronouncing each vowel.... -- Kaihsu 16:48, 2004 May 7 (UTC)
    • Well, there are really only three possible pictures: spread lips, rounded lips, and neutral lips. All the other differences in vowels are not externally visible. Mid-sagittal section diagrams of the different tongue positions might be helpful for the vowels though. But these kinds of technical diagrams that are free are hard to come by and would have to be drawn. Nohat 03:37, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
  • Oppose - should have a picture of some kind for main page purposes. →Raul654 20:46, May 7, 2004 (UTC) Oh, and as I've said before: I blanketly object to featuring a "series" instead of individual articles. →Raul654 21:02, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • I added the picture of the vowels from the IPA chart. Nohat 03:37, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
    • I think your first reason is a terrible reason not to feature an article - featured articles are not merely a reservoir of articles to go on the front page, they're indications of quality. Pictures would be nice; I especially like the mouth pictures idea. But the absence of a front-pageable picture is not a great objection. If all else fails, just use some IPA symbol for a vowel, preferably an exotic one. --Andrew 21:24, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think your second objection has some merit: featuring an article because it's the head of a series is not a good idea. On the other hand, maybe this article is good enough in its own right to warrant featuring? I think so. (We also have no way to indicate good series at the moment). --Andrew 21:24, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • I withdraw the first half of my objection, however, I still object to featuring a series. I do support *this* article as it now stands. →Raul654 03:56, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • Is there no way to provide some sort of sidebar index? I know there's a chapter index; why can it not be used to link articles as well? Denni 03:53, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
  • Support. --Andrew 21:24, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • I find this article interesting as it stands, but feel it would rate feature article status if it could include two additional components:
  1. a discussion of the role of vowel shifts in regional accents. For instance, there is very little actual vocabulary or syntactic difference between Manchester English and Newfoundland English, and consonantal differences are almost nil. But vowel shift renders both almost impossible to understand by someone native to most regions of North America, especially when spoken rapidly.
  2. I have yet to run into a sound file on Wikipedia. I will admit I haven't exactly been looking, but this article cries for sound samples. I would vote feature in a heartbeat if I could actually hear what I'm asked to (sorry, "envision" is not the word, but you know what I mean). Denni 00:50, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
    • Each indivual vowel listed on list of vowels has a link to a sound clip. Nohat 03:31, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe this nomination is relatively moot now, since vowel itself has been voted up. Smerdis of Tlön 23:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

MAD Magazine[edit]

This seems comprehensive and well-written. Could do with some images, but as they are all probably under copyright, that may be impossible. --Woggly 12:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Recommendations:
  1. Rewrite the first couple of paragraphs. Once into the article, the author seems to have found his/her pace, but the lead-in is a bit awkward.
  2. Reduce the superlatives. "Brilliant" and "some of the best satirical writers and artists of a generation" may be overstating things slightly, and are also statements of opinion.
  3. Alfred E Neumann has a history of his own. This article should expand on that, including providing information on what he was originally called.
  4. "Real" advertising in the pages of MAD is a major philosophical break from MAD's previous stance, and has affected both its credibility and its sales. Any discussion of the current state of the magazine must include that.
As a contributor to Everything2 as well as Wikipedia, I suggest the author take a look at how some of its noders have handled this topic. MAD is certainly one of the icons of my generation, and I would like to see it receive the credit it is due. Denni 22:01, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
  • Disagree with Woggly on some counts, agree on others. Pictures would be good, and stripping out words like 'brilliant' to make this sound more like an encyclopedia entry would probably be good. How about 'creative'? And I think (but may very well be wrong) it's 'Newman', not 'Neumann', based on a Google search which found 6,740 for the first and 4,760 for the second. -Litefantastic 01:13, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
    • It's "Neumann"--I leafed through a book on MAD once. Meelar 19:35, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


A nice piece of work, with pictures and Latin names, discussing clover. -Litefantastic 11:47, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. The arcane use of English tipped me off that this might have been lifted from the 1911 Britannica...and it was. - Lucky 6.9 21:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - while the content looks fairly complete, the formatting could make baby jesus cry. →Raul654 22:44, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - as a big fan of clover and good formatting, I was shocked and amazed that someone would even think of submitting this as a featured article. Back to the drawing board. Denni 23:33, 2004 May 4 (UTC)

War of Currents[edit]

Well written historically detailed article on why we use AC instead of DC. - Bevo 19:44, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Not well written at all, it is too redundant. Sounds like it was written by a sheriff. Leandrod
  • Object. However, there is much to be said for this article, and its faults are easily identifiable. My recommendations to the author are
  1. rewrite the rather stiff lead-in
  2. provide a little bit more background on Edison/Tesla re. their research into and implementation of the generation of electricity. No more than a few paras, but readers should have some history on what led up to the war.
  3. remove the technical information. This is a story of human conflict, not a treatise on current carrying capacity
  4. do a thorough copyed for syntax and appropriate word choice. Read it aloud to yourself and see how it sounds.
BTW, a terrific title - sure caught my interest. Please leave a note on my talk page when you think this is ready for another look. Denni 04:13, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
  • Object for now.
    • War of Currents seems more like a journalistic headline than a topic - there was no actual War. If the phrase was used at the time, it is not covered by the article. The adoption of alternating current electricity in the United States is probably more accurate.
    • More introduction is needed, at least covering Edison and Tesla.
    • POV:
      • The first paragraph states that the conflict was due to Edison's promotion of DC, whereas the following paragraphs explain that DC was already rolled-out before Tesla's 1887 AC patents, which leads me to think that the conflict was due to the introduction of AC.
      • Were there any positives in using DC?. Was death by electrocution the only negative with AC?
      • Experimentation on animals is covered - could link to a relevant ethics topic. Should mention that Topsy was not killed because of Edison.
      • Whether Tesla also conducted a PR campaign is missing.
    • The large single image of one of Telsa's patented machines does not match the main subject - I'd rather see paired portaits of Edison & Tesla, or AC & DC equipment, or interesting illustrations related to the text - Niagara Falls, electric chair ... BTW, the current image caption would be useful on the image page.
    • The article could link/mention other technical infrastructure choices, e.g. telephone, rail, television, ...
    • The timeline is jumbled - Topsy died in 1903, but the first paragraph restricts the conflict to the late 1880s.
    • How long did patents last for at that time? This seems relevant to the urgency. How much money was at stake?
    • The article could better distinguish the conflicts in the areas of electricity generation, distribution and usage?
Good work has been done, but there is still enough room for improvement to delay its "featured" status. --Zigger 01:43, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

Slashdot trolling phenomena[edit]

Fascinating discourse on an important facet of one of the most prolific web communities on the internet. Extremely thorough and shows off a more atypical topic, while still being well-written and comprehensive. It's fun and interesting. -Xmnemonic 11:51, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Featuring this admittedly well-written article would indirectly "feed the trolls" and I thus oppose it. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've read this article before and I just don't like it. Many of the "phenomena" mentioned in it are highly ephemeral and out of date. I follow Slashdot regularly and I haven't seen the "Stephen King is dead" meme in, I dunno, six months? a year? I suppose I could find out if I cared. I've never seen the "page-widening" prank. The article is only very marginally encyclopedic. I don't think it's a very deep analysis. It comes dangerously close to being "original research." It's not VfD material but I sure don't see it as "featured article" material, either. Finally, it's sort of incestuous--material of the nerds, by the nerds, and for the nerds. There's nothing wrong with nerds. I myself actually wore a plastic pocket protector in the mid-1970's and actually had glasses mended with tape where they had broken at the bridge. Seriously. But I still think that Wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia, not a nerd social networking site. Dpbsmith 16:36, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
    • You've never seen the page widening prank? You must be new there :) Fredrik 17:32, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
      • My karma is excellent, thank you. Dpbsmith 19:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
        • Having only been modding for the past month - doing so at -1, yes, these things do persist - but they're nicely pushed down by the modding system. Heh heh, I have to admit that modding down is more fun than modding up! Die troll die! Sorry. Zoney 01:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. DJ Clayworth 19:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose by the way - it's all a lot of nonsense really that is fine to include in wikipedia - but drawing it to people's attention is another matter! Zoney 01:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is really original sociology research, which is only in Wikipedia because we happen to have a lot of Slashdotters here. If it were original sociology research on some offline subculture about which no other published research or documentation existed it would've been deleted by now. --Delirium 04:45, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The trolls are starting to troll about this article by posting links to it right now, asking for "votes"! If this gets on the front page the trolls would of "won". Krik

Jesus Christ[edit]

This is easily one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I just saw it was nominated back in Sep. 03 but was knocked down due to a very tendentious objection. I expect the same user will object again, but I think there's a fair chance of an override. JDG 08:08, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. One sentence sections such as Jesus#Alleged_relics_of_Jesus should not exist. Most others, such as Jesus#Islamic_perspectives_on_Jesus and Jesus#The_resurrection, are short as well. The article needs a massive reorganization so we are not left with huge broad sections such as Jesus#Jesus'_life_and_teaching and then small sections as named above. Consider merging smaller sections. I'm also puzzled by the particular ordering of the sections - why #3 is not grouped with #7-9 and the difference between #1 and #6. #4 and #5 also look like they belong together. --Jiang 08:19, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Please reconsider your objection (and no, this is not a self-nomination). Small sections leading to full treatments of side issues is an excellent method of organization for this type of article. Otherwise we would have one article approaching book length. JDG
      • I see no reason to reconsider. You need to explain why you have redundant and oddly ordered sections, as I have cited. If there is not enough text for a particular section then don't make one; otherwise, summary sections leading to more fuller articles need to be at least a paragraph in length. I don't see what's wrong with merging all these small sections. You still link to more indepth articles from within sections or under a "see also" list. --Jiang 20:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree with Jiang here, the article needs to be restructured by moving/merging back to/from related articles so that the sections become more balanced in size and also possibly by reordering. Overview is essential. There are also some unresolved issues debated on the article's talk page, and I'd like to know how they develop first. Fredrik 15:11, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, for same reasons as last time. An article about Jesus that doesn't even mention Mithraism, let alone other pagan predecessors of the Jesus mythology, is fundamentally flawed. There is also much more to say about the different cults of Christian worship.--Eloquence* 16:26, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • This isn't the place to argue about this, but I have to say that you, Eloquence, are way too heavy-handed in your treatment of articles dealing with religious themes. If you want to discuss, I 'll visit your talk page. JDG
      • This is not the Catholic Encyclopedia or any other religious work. Articles dealing with religious themes that also pertain to history need to include all relevant secular perspectives on the matter. As Carl Sagan put it, once religion makes claims about the physical world, these claims can and should be freely examined by scientists. It is not our job to confirm religious belief systems or to shield believers from information that they find inconvenient. The article as it presently stands is not a lost cause, but it needs a lot of work from a secular perspective to be acceptable in terms of NPOV.--Eloquence* 18:42, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral Object, more or less for the same reason as Eloquence. The skeptical view is not sufficiently represented. Andries 19:49, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, agreeing with Eloquence, and ChessMaker's comments in Talk. NealMcB 04:44, 2004 May 9 (UTC)
  • support. Interesting, I've learned something with it (especially the origin of the name). Some objectors in here are very tendentious. Others raized good questions. Pedro 21:44, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Burning Times[edit]

Self Nomination, but yes, I know, it still needs a photo (working on it really soon) and perhaps a couple 'tweaks'... Comments are appreciated! Morwen Celeb'Kuruni

  • I Appreciate all the comments, but I would appreciate, even MORE, some help in getting the page together! So far, I'm the ONLY person who's been working on it, and I need some help! I would really like to see someone able to help me, btw, all my information is from reliable sources. Unless certain authors (I can't spell thier names) are unreliable... Yes, I am only a teenager, and yes, I am a witch, that's why the 'view' on the area is not as broad and informative as it should be, and THAT's where I need help... SO, someone PLEASE help me out?
    • Let me know. I'll be checking up on the site. - Morwen Celeb'Kuruni 5/21/2004 3:11pm (us pacific time)
  • Object until it gets a picture. →Raul654 22:36, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Moreover, it has a major lack of wikilinks. The explinations are pretty thin. The majority of the article is primary source material. →Raul654 23:03, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 85% of content is the primary source text. jengod 22:54, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Most of the article is source text, and the remainder is far too short and lacking in detail. Worst however, is the question of accuracy. I suggest reviewers start by reading "Recent Developments in the Study of The Great European Witch Hunt", a review article by a Wiccan who also has an M.A. in medieval history. One sentence summary: much of what was traditionally believed about witches and witch-hunting is now proven to be mythical. Much of the original part of the Burning Times article is based on this myth. A featureable article on this topic would include origins and early form of the myth, recent historical research which debunks it, what really happened, and attitudes and beliefs today (Wiccan and otherwise). Securiger 03:20, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Article offered by securiger is devastating. Author appears to be offering the foundation mythology of one of the religions invented in the 20th century as history; since it primarily libels another religion, needs strong evidence and balanced input to even belong in this encyclopedia. Alteripse 04:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - both for the accuracy and POV reasons mentioned above, and in any case the article is riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes. Smerdis of Tlön 14:39, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
  • This article is marked as "disputed", but there are no comments on its talk page, which I presume is where the issues raised about should be discussed. This was not easy to find. Oh, and I agree, oppose. -- Jmabel 19:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, on the usual grounds: mainly source material, and completely POV. There's a great deal to say about witch hunts, but this isn't it. Dandrake 00:28, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler[edit]

Good history, well constructed article. Might still need some tweaks for NPOV though. Sarge Baldy 19:33, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral. Yes it's good now, but the topic is so controversial that it's prone to turn to garbage at a moment's notice. - Hephaestos|§ 20:01, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - it is 36 KB long. Some sections should be condensed and the detail spun off into articles in their own right. --mav 08:06, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - there was an inaccuracy in the very first sentence that I have corrected but this was an indication that there are more. I spotted two more i.e. declaration of war to the USA by Germany and the time when Hitler discovered that he had oratory talents was earlier, when he was still working for the army delivering motivational speeches. Please correct asap. I also spotted one important omission in the article, that is the irrational fighting to the bitter end. Any normal person would have surrendered just after or even before the battle of the bulge/battle of Ardennes. Why was this? The article is long and articles in Wikipedia (like any encyclopedia) shouldn't be too long. But why below 30k? Why not below 40k? Andries 09:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree, but can you help make the needed changes? And the amount is set at 32k because some peoples browsers have trouble editing beyond that amount. Sam [Spade] 01:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
      • Object, again even though most of my previous objections have been removed. The article needs to tell more about the relationship between Hitler's world view and character and his political and military decisions. If this is not possible in the main article because of the size then at least in spin off articles. I have helped and will help more. Andries 20:32, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Good, but could use perhaps a bit of splitting, with little paragraphs and a small header just below the title of each section, linking to the main article. --Johnleemk 09:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I read this article having seen two neutrals and two opposes. Thus I was expecting it to be far less impressive than it is. Although longer than the average article, the quality of writing was good and didn't have a difficulty reading it all in one sitting. In addition to what Andries mentions, I think improvements can be made:
    • For this length article, the lead paragraph does not have to be so "dense" we could easily afford two paragraphs before ==Childhood and youth==
    • The ==Hitler's personal life== section seems incomplete as it only mentions his personal life upto 1932 (i.e. the point in the chronology we have reached in the article at that point) It would be better to mention Eva Braun in that section, moving the section if necessary.
    • The section covering the late 1930s (second half of ==The Nazi regime==) doesn't quite seem to be of the same high writing standard as the rest.. short paragraphs on the Spanish civil war, Anschluss, Munich could be improved.
    • If length is a concern the section ==World War II: Defeats== could possibly focus more heavily on Hitler (holed up in Berechtsgarden in Summer 1944 and in Berlin 1945, slowly going mad) rather than world events. Also maybe true of the ==Holocaust== section, though the "Did he order it" question is adequately covered already.
  • In all, I think with a little work this article could easily deserve featured status. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. POV: "The brutal embrace of total war by all sides in World War II resulted in a savage destruction of Europe and the Racial policy of Nazi Germany (which included what is now called the Holocaust)". I dont agree with this! -Pedro 17:03, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you see what I meant in the first comment. That was added by User:Sam Spade a day after it was nominated here. There are two choices, either revert the dilettante garbage, or put up with dilettante articles. At any rate, be bold. Doesn't hurt anything.- Hephaestos|§ 01:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


Self-nomination (I only added a few minor things. There were many contributors) The article is interesting and presents a variety of perspectives on the idea. It is comprehensive without being boring and includes relevant quotes. Chubtoad 18:54, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

  • neutral. Need to talk about the after life in religions. What is also understood as imortality. Needs info for why people want to become imortal. The article is very interresting and good. Some pics would be nice. After this is done. I'll support Pedro 22:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This article means well, but is rampant with awkwardly phrased sentences, misspellings, comma disease, and a general lack of Wikification. I also contest the considerable amount of mere speculation this article contains. While some is attributed to philosophers of note, some appears to be an airing of the author's own viewpoint. I regret to say that I made it only about two thirds of the way through before giving up in frustration. Denni 05:42, 2004 May 18 (UTC)
    • Denni. Correct it then. It really needs re-writing. It needs a more jornalistic view and less speculation. --Pedro 18:16, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree that it needs rewriting. However, that is not likely to be me, for a couple of reasons: (1) I don't have any personal belief in conscious immortality, so lack a committment to writing a solid article, (2) while I am familiar with basic concepts and philosophies regarding immortality, I don't have enough "built-in" knowledge to do a rewrite without a considerable amount of research, and (3) this article needs content help first and cleanup help second. Finally (and no doubt you're good with this already, just want to make sure), commenting on problems with nominees does not obligate one to fix them. I have lots of other Wiki stuff on the go, closer to my heart than this article. I do hope someone will take it on, though. Denni 19:00, 2004 May 22 (UTC)

Common sense[edit]

(the belief, not the pamphlet)

This is a really interesting article--it explains the underlying philosophy clearly, and it's an article that only Wikipedia would have. I enjoyed it immensely. Not a self-nomination. Meelar 18:20, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now, the lead section is not okay and I find the article not mature for reasons I can't pinpoint (yet). Though I think Meelar is right that articles about interesting subjects not covered in other encyclopedias should have priority. I added a link to a Wikiquote article that I wrote. I think the article is messy probably partly because the subject has many aspects and partly because it needs copy editing. Andries
  • Oppose for now. There are so DAMN many good quotes about common sense, but my favorite is one which has been paraphrased by a number of philosophers and pundits: "The one thing about common sense is it's not very common." For that reason, I see this article as needing more work. It's an excellent start, but far too short to cover the ground it needs to cover. For instance, this quote, "Common sense is what tells us the Earth is flat and the Sun goes around it" is an aspect of common sense which ought to be discussed. A gut feeling is well and good, but there aren't a lot of brain cells in the gut. Flesh it out. Use all those great quotes as a road map for the article. I'd love to cast a supporting vote. Denni 21:09, 2004 May 16 (UTC)


Self-nomination. Well, sort of. I've edited and added here and there. I really like this section, and I think it's a subject worth checking out. I think there will be a few people who don't understand what it is and don't want to read the article, but I'm willing to take that chance. It seems like there should be more in the article, but there's nothing else to put.

  • Support (I don't know how to sign this I'm still kind of new) Very informative. Very nice. -Kerridwen 5/14/2004
  • Withhold support for now -- first of all, I think the opening is very cluttered. If it could be gone over and cleaned up for style (and if we could not open with a symbol) I think this would be improved. Also, the content feels a little thin to me -- lots of brief paragraphs. I don't know Wicca well, but the article leaves me thinking there is information I'm missing -- can someone more knowledgeable (maybe the nominator?) tell me what still needs to be added? Or does it just need a reformat? Jwrosenzweig 18:39, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
    • I've only been studying for a little over 2 years, and all the basic history is there... The only things that aren't there (from what I can see) are details on the holidays, example spells and rituals, information on the 'burning times', and divination examples. Give it those things (and maybe one or two things I'm not able to think of right now) and you'll have a full book on Wicca... I'll look into it though, see what I can dig up. Morwen Celeb'Kuruni 11:46 (US pacific time) May 14, 2004
  • Object for now. A number of problems:
    • The picture isn't very good; a larger version without conspicuous jaggies that could be shrunk automatically would be better. Maybe a picture of Wiccans Wiccaning?
      • Comment: Wiccans Wiccaning? You mean like a Wiccan Gathering? Tell you what, I'll get one if and when I am ever able to get to one and with the permission of those involved... Either that Or I'll make one with cartoon dolls, lol. j/k. But seriously, the goddess symbol and the pentacle are the two most important symbols in Wicca, so I think the picture is good, but yes, the quality is kinda... what's the word... bad. My resources are very limited... There's not much I can do, and there doesn't seem to be anyone else out there willing to throw up any images... Morwen Celeb'Kuruni 1:54 (pt) May 14, 2004
    • The business about the rejection of matriarchy strikes me as waffly. The whole Robert Graves style ancient goddess religion business is just the Aryan race mythology, reinterpreted by the contemporary ethical imperative to root for the losers; it has all the problems of Aryanism and adds some new ones. To say that scholars "hold serious reservations" about its continuing validity strikes me as still seriously understated. These matters are discussed in somewhat more detail at the matriarchy article.
      • I'm curious. How much do YOU know about wicca, other than what you've read in the article? I've studied for YEARS and barley scratched the surface. I am wondering, also, what it was you meant by bringing up Aryanism in this? What was the point of bringing it up that is? How, in your mind, does it seem "similar to Wicca" or whatever it is you're trying to make the point of... - Curious. 6-2-2004
        • I was briefly interested in Wicca when I was in high school and college; and I've read the Hutton book I've already mentioned. At any rate, the "Aryan myth" is the turn of the century belief that the Indo-European languages were spread into Europe by Aryan conquerors who displaced the pre-existing cultures. This belief, which of course featured in Nazi ideology, is not taken very seriously anymore by specialists in ancient Europe. The Goddess people, though, took their cues from mostly literary sources that were written at a time when the Aryan myth was a live issue and still seemed plausible, and turned it into the centerpiece of their theory about ancient "matriarchies" and their replacement by "patriarchies," and their belief that goddessses (or "The Goddess") were once supreme, and were replaced first by male gods, and then by the male god of monotheism. Smerdis of Tlön 18:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Some note about further historical sources would be helpful. Ronald Hutton's The Triumph of the Moon is an excellent resource.
  • This really is a fascinating subject, but I see plenty of room for improvement here. Smerdis of Tlön 18:48, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Alfred Thompson Denning[edit]

Good (but short) article (with good examples) of an important and interesting character. -- Kaihsu 13:01, 2004 May 12 (UTC)

  • Support - Interesting, good quality, solid detail. Not very long, but it seems to cover the essentials. --Andrew 20:07, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - I sectioned it up, as I felt that was necessary for my approval. Just the sort of quirky article Wikipedia should excel at. --Gregb 02:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Fascinating article, but as it currently stands I found the chronology confusing. Some facts seemed to be repeated more times than necessary, while others (his time with the House of Lords, and how he got there) are glossed over. In general I think the article needs a bit of reorganizing. Isomorphic 20:34, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No pictures, long blocks of quoted text (and legal text at that), and no real discussion of his significance/popularity. Good, but not featured material. Kudos for a good description of the British court system, though. Meelar 20:58, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The long quotes need severe pruning, and there needs to be discussion of the criticisms of his "reasoning" (although I wouldn't go so far as to call it that!). Nice to be reminded of Hinz v. Berry though. And the title (I think) should be Lord Denning: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Historical_names_and_titles. Markalexander100 03:39, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Though well-written, it should also mention 'Lord Denning's Report' about the Profumo scandal, which made quite a fuss in 1963. JoJan 11:26, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly oppose. I disagree completely with the objection to "long blocks of quoted text (and legal text at that)" - the point is that although these are indeed legal judgements, they are quite accessible to the laymen and actually pretty darn funny. (Maybe not so many as five are required, but it's hard to decide which ones to omit; they're all great.) However, Denning had an immense impact on Common Law (consumer rights in particular) and politics over several decades, and this is barely mentioned. Securiger 02:36, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
    • This could be just me, but I didn't find them all that amusing. They were accessible, certainly, but not something I had a whole lot of fun reading. I'd love to see what this article could be, though. Meelar 18:28, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


I'm shocked that baseball isn't on the list yet -- this is a superb article about a fun yet complex (and highly notable topic.) Adam Conover 21:37, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

(Addition: While I made one or two copyedits today, that's it; I've barely worked on the article, so I don't consider this a self-nomination.) Adam Conover 21:38, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was nominated less than a month ago. →Raul654 21:43, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Right you are. I withdraw my nomination, assuming that the issues raised when this article was last nominated have not been addressed. Adam Conover 21:50, May 13, 2004 (UTC)


Self-nomination. This drug is the first anti-cancer drug that doesn't simply kill rapidly-dividing cells but actually targets the mutated proteins (tyrosine kinases). A lot of basic science, but this pill is going to attract a Nobel prize somewhere in the next few years. Jfdwolff | t@lk

  • . Neutral at the moment. I have some problems understanding the jargon but I am not sure if this is due to unsufficient effort and lack of basic knowledge on my part or due to missing explanations in the article. Jfdwolff, why didn't you write in the article that its "chemical method" differs from older anti-cancer drugs? Andries 11:46, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. How you'll change your mind.
      JFW | T@lk 13:24, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks for adding it. I need some time to study the article thoroughly because the subject and the underlying biochemistry is new for me.Andries 14:09, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I don't think it is entirely my fault that I have difficulty understanding it. There should be more explanations in the article. What is TK and what is 2-phenylaminopyridine? I guess it is a good article for people who already know something about the subject. Andries 20:19, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I have to oppose for now. I have made some copyedits to improve the article, but the jargon in the molecular biology section is not accessible in the current state. In general, most things need to be explained, even if very briefly, in layman's terms. Also, In particular:
    • "Imatinib is a 2-phenylaminopyridine derivative"--What is 2-phenylaminopyridine? This should read "Imatinib is a derivative of the _____ 2-phenylaminopyridine" or "Imatinib is a derivative of 2-phenylaminopyridine, which is _____"
    • " functions as a specific inhibitor of a number of tyrosine kinase enzymes"--What do tyrosine kinase enzymes do, roughly? This should read "functions as a specific inhibitor of a number of tyrosine kinase enzymes, which _______", where ______ is a brief explanation of what tyrosine kinase enzymes do.
    • What is the TK domain?
    • What is p210bcr-abl? (i.e. where did the p210 come from?)
    • etc. Nohat 17:27, 2004 May 9 (UTC)
    • I liked it enough that I added a couple of sentences that emphasize what wolff says above and what tyr kinases usually do (which is mediate the action of dozens of hormones that promote cell growth). This is good. Alteripse 04:19, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree w/Nohat. But the article is already good; what Nohad said it would make it excelent. But, in fact, it explains too little. -Pedro 17:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein[edit]

A very thorough, interesting piece. This is a topical article with useful references as well.

Oppose - it needs to get below 30KB in size and needs an expanded lead section. --mav 10:39, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
The article still needs to be below 30KB in size, but I'm lifting my opposition for now to give people a chance to do that. --mav 08:58, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
I added an abstract/lead section. See my comments below. 172 12:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
It is still 42 kilobytes long. --mav
So what? There are many featured articles that go over 30K. Please change your vote to abstain so that this section can move up to the unopposed nominations sections and where it can attract copyeditors. Afterwards, we can both change our abstain votes to oppose votes at the last minute. 172 11:25, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
De-featuring is harder than preventing an article from being featured in the first place. I will give a conditional objection. --mav 08:58, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Support - very thorough and surprisingly well sectioned and laid out. The length is of benefit if anything (keep under 30kB? Why? Are Wikipedia running out of storage space?) Zoney 20:09, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Support, looks comprehensive Oppose - abstract/lead section is too short. Many readers want to know the essential without have to browse thru the whole article. Andries 20:13, 11 May 2004 (UTC) Andries 21:06, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
I added an abstract/lead section. See my comments below. 172 12:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Support - The article is very informative. The lead is very brief, but it contains the essentials. Compare George W. Bush. Acegikmo1 21:09, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Abstain (as main author) - I think that a couple of sections need work, so I cannot vote in support of the feature just yet. But I'd like to promote the features process, which would provide incentives for further copyediting, once the two opposition statements are withdrawn. 172 12:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - This article has been the site of too many conflicts lately, which seem to have ended mostly through exhaustion, not a good editorial strategy. It should have time to settle and attract contributors, such as the ones who were driven away and had valid concerns. VV 12:10, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
V formulated his objection in an awkward way, I think. Only the end result counts, I believe. If the current article is not good then state these valid concerns (where and why), otherwise I think the objection is unfair and needs digression. Andries 12:20, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
His point is a valid one - DNA was de-featured due to a long term edit war over that article. It seems like this article has more than its fair share of edit wars as well. --mav
Actually, everything has been pretty clam on the article since the re-write. I don't care if it's featured, but I'd like to see it spend some time on the "nominations without objections" section of this page in order to attract copyeditors. 172 08:01, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Wouldn't listing it on Wikipedia:Peer review do the same thing? Just a sugestion. Gentgeen 20:26, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination[edit]

  • Even though it is a disputed article, this is the best summation of the events/aftermath/conspiracies i have ever encountered. I think we should be proud of it. Kingturtle 02:10, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • As one of the article's editors, I would object to 'John F. Kennedy assassination' being used as a featured article. I believe it still needs reorganization and condensing, has excessive amounts of detail not specifically aimed at summation of the overall assassination, and is highly POV toward the notion that a conspiracy killed Kennedy - to say nothing of a few of its companion articles like Magic bullet theory which is even more POV. I work on this article as I have time, but believe there is still much more to do. I vote against this article being used as a feature article for now. Skybunny 13:23, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The factual accuracy is disputed (and has been for a long time). The neutrality is disputed (ditto). It suffers vadalism, trolling and reverts often several times per day. This constant hacking and slashing has produced many spelling and grammatical errors and just plain weird artifacts (e.g. '- --' used as a punctuation mark, persons described as "picket fence hatted assassin", etc). Large tracts are in italics, for no apparent reason other than their author's fervour. The sectionising long lost any resemblance to either the contents of the sections, or to logical structure. Wikification is poor, apart from many (often duplicated) links to other conspiracy theory articles. This is a bad article, and if featured as anything it would be under "stuff Wikipedia isn't very good at" 8^( Securiger 01:37, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


Self nom [1]. I would like some feedback on how to further improve this article in order to get it into FA shape. If it is already there, then great, if not, then please tell me what still needs to be done. NOTE: I already plan a minor expansion with a book reference I have. --mav 11:57, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Object. I think the chemical portion of the article is OK (as far as I can judge), but the rest of the article should be better for a featured article.
The history section merely states some facts, and does not form any kind of story. I think the fact that silver has been used for coins deserves some more text; this could go with a picture of silver coin or so (something better than the current image, at least).
The "Precautions and health effects" section reads like a point by point summary and is very unclear (what is carcinogenic?, who is Dr. Robert O. Becker and why is his opinion relevant?). Some other suggestions (not required for me to support this article) would be :
  • more data on export and import of silver (top-10 producing/consuming nations in a table?)
  • The isotopes section contains a lot of numbers - maybe these become more comprehensive in tabular form.
  • Are there any books dedicated to the subject?
Jeronimo 18:57, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Ah - OK. I was thinking more along the lines of chemistry and not history. Oh well. --mav 04:15, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Neutral, but... there has got to be a better term than "silvery" to describe silver's appearance. - jredmond 18:25, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Space burial[edit]

  • Stumbled across this one, and I think it's pretty well put together. Thoughts? -Litefantastic 22:08, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The article rather messily conflates three things: the rather silly "lipstick-sized container of ashes" affair, which hardly qualifies for the word burial; dead people in space generally; and science-fiction space burial. Someone needs to decide exactly what this article is meant to be about. Also, the lipstick business is taken too much at face value: it's not true that "about 150 people have been buried in space"; they were buried somewhere on the ground and had a small part of their ashes sent into space. Markalexander100 10:28, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I would tent to support. (Disclaimer: I wrote most of the article) Burial does not need a complete body to be buried. 1g or 7g is not much, i agree, but the people involved consider it a burial. Full body space burial is currently not practical. The science fiction mentioning fits well, I think. Burial at sea also mentions some fictious characters buried at sea (Note: the article burial at sea also originated from me). The section about space accidents can be removed, but that is only a "see also" section, and not really part of the article. I think the above objections can be overcome. -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:47, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
    • the people involved consider it a burial What, the dead ones? Anyway, astrologers probably consider astrology to be the height of rationality. We need to be a bit more objective. Markalexander100 05:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, the dead ones. After all they probably arranged for the procedure before death. I also assume that many of their friends and relatives consider it a burial. Remains of deceased may also be buried in different locations on earth. There are also some cases of empty coffin burials, where no body was recovered. I also know one case where a worker fell in a steel furnace and got completely burned up, and they ended up burying a sample of the steel. I think the quantity of the remains does not decide if it is a burial or not. Using a strict definition of burial, burial in space is probably not a burial, because the remains are not covered with earth (i.e. buried). Same holds for burial at sea. Yet, it is usually called a "burial in space/at sea", so I think the title here is appropriate and objective. I cannot change the burial procedure described by the article, but I am willing to adjust the article if you have specific complaints about the article itself. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:07, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
(Adjourning to talk page.)Markalexander100 07:13, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Four-stroke cycle[edit]

Excellently written, well illustrated article - Bevo 15:42, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Good diagrams -- Cabalamat 17:23, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear writing, excellent diagrams. Denni 19:10, 2004 May 22 (UTC)
  • Great diagrams. They are listed in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, and rightly so. But the text of this article is lacking. It is not ready to be a feature. Kingturtle 19:53, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Length should not always be a determining factor. (One of my favorite aphorisms is "More is not always better".) I considered this before I cast my vote, and came to the conclusion that, since this is discussing the four-stroke cycle and not the four-stroke engine, that it was of appropriate length. What is most important here is clear diagrammatic information, and this article, I'm sure you'd agree, has that.
  • Support. Quality, not quantity. Johnleemk 06:12, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too short for FA status, IMO. It also only has a single sentence on the history of its development and little info on its use. --mav 06:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I'm proud of the diagrams, I think they, and the article text, could use a lot of improvement before being featured. -- Wapcaplet 00:44, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Diabetes Mellitus[edit]

(Includes Type 1, 2, 3 & 4)

Wikipedia's diabetes mellitus article provides an excellent overview of one of the most serious and fastest growing diseases of our time. The article is of adequate length, neutral, includes pictures and is neately divided. But, it is not just the quality of the article that make it a worthy candidate, rather it is the importance of the topic at hand.

According to the World Health Organization, diabetes is a growing epidemic and is among the top 5 causes of death in developed countries. Less than two decades ago it affected 30 million people, now that number has grown by 6 times. To make matters worse, diabetes is growing as fast as ever, and by the year 2025 it is expected to double.

The International Diabetes Federation currently reports that diabetes affects 200 million people worldwide, and kills 4 million per year. But, this number doesn't tell the whole story. Many animals, including all known breeds of cats and dogs may have diabetes. It is believed that 50% of people with diabetes do not even know they have the disease, imagine how many would know their pets do.

Unlike most other diseases, diabetes affects people of all ages and economic backgrounds. In fact, diabetes is more common in highly developed countries. However, it is expected that diabetes will increase by 170% in developing countries by 2025.

In addition, diabetes greatly increases the risk of dozens of diseases and has many complications, such as blindness and kidney failure. By curing diabetes the prevalence of a number of other diseases will be lowered. For example, the risk of heart disease may quadruple in diabetics, breast cancer risk rises by almost 20%, and women with type 1 diabetes are 10 times more likely to develop rheumatoid arthritis. Researchers have also found links between diabetes and other diseases, including asthma.

Diabetes is a huge economic burden. In the US alone it costs $132 billion dollars per year in direct costs. If you add in lost productivity, the number grows to $196 billion. The total health care cost of a diabetic is 3 times higher. And of course, we will never be able to measure the pain, anxiety, and inconvenience it causes.

Diabetes is one of the most important disease of our time and raising awareness is the first step to stopping this epidemic. In fact, the complications and health problems associated with diabetes are only due to the unsatisfactory control of blood glucose. Theoretically, if one monitored and controlled his or her blood glucose perfectly, diabetes would not be a health concern. However, that never happens and half of diabetics are unaware of the disease that is eating away at their life. People need to be informed.

By the way, I already wrote everything necessary to make diabetes mellitus the featured article when I was unaware of the peer process. Check it out, it's all done: [2] --Exigentsky 22:36, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I think the comment on the talk page (from last year)- " badly conceived "for patients" style"- still applies; and I don't think we need to be told its spread is "Even more alarming"- that's POV or patronising or both. Markalexander100 03:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I didn't notice that as being POV, but your welcome to fix what you percieve as being wrong. I already changed that part to remove the "even more alarming" part. Even though, I do think that it is logically inferred that if a disease is expected to double that is more alarming than its current status. Anyway, it's late over here, I got to go to bed. --Exigentsky 05:25, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, the rate of increase in the rate of increase is sufficiently high that "even more alarming" is not only not POV, but an understatement, and not patronizing at all. This thing is a mess and furthermore a 'stealth' mess and increasingly rapidly getting worse. It's not clear to me how the seriousness could actually be overstated in a POV sort of way. The Talk page comment from last year has been largely addressed since then and in copyedits in the last few days (pwhew -->blowing on smoking fingers!) The article is now useful to patients though not by itself adequate information for them. See my comment of today (below) for more on this point. ww 17:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Oppose, but I hope only for an instant. Exigentsky's reasons for WP having a DM article of featured quality are comprehensive and exact: WP should most certainly have such an article. The article does not (quite) reach that quality level just now. I say this with extreme reluctance as I am a long term contributor, and am a partial cause for this (now former) circumstance. It's a long article, but DM is a complex topic and anything much shorter would be of lesser quality for that reason alone. ; it is so long that I've never had the nerve to tackle the whole thing.
Problems, as I write this, are fixable with sufficient time and effort. they include: spelling and grammar difficulties (eg, verb agreement -- which do not, mostly affect clarity), non-uniformity of coverage (some medical terms are explained, some are not), oddities of intention (is this article meant to help those with DM or who have relatives with it, or is it intended to list facts about DM? -- I think it should do the second while it does the first), and so on. I should say that I think we have 95+% 99% of a featured article as it stands. ww 19:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Two days of copyediting have removed all my qualms (save one), which allows me to support this article. The qualm: Is this meant to inform actual patients, or merely to tell about the disease. As it stands it does the latter (but not to a reseacher's level of interest) and some of the former (but only as a start). I think WP shouldn't be attempting to do much better on either count anyway (WP's a collection of neither medical treatises nor patient handbooks). The only question I have here is: should it be only one or only the other? I think doing both simultaneously is a reasonable choice, and this does both more than well enough for featured status. ww 17:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you could both come back when it's done? Markalexander100 01:55, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I'd say, and have above, that we can stick a fork in it -- it's done. ww 17:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)


(or Pretty Good Privacy)

This article discusses the most widely used system for secure communication (eg, email). It has recently been reviewed and updated by one who participated in some of the history, thus resolving some rather obscure points, technical, political, historical, and spelling. Not too technical, but fairly covers some of the pitfalls. A good, brief, account of a part of a large topic of importance, including public policy issues. Should even evoke a smile or two. Worth featuring. ww 14:41, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Very informative. Picture would be nice: how about a screenshot of some PGP-relatd program? Real PGP would be nice (I suppose PGP2 key generation would be traditional, but a GUI is probably better) but I could supply one of a GUI frontend to gnupg. --Andrew 21:24, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Andrew, I've been thinking about an image since you left this comment. Whatever is used will miss some critical abstract aspect of PGP operation as a cryptosystem, but people like them, I guess. Please put one together if you're willing to do so! ww 13:56, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article, well written and brings up the important issue of privacy and how to protect it. MikeCapone 03:57, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • I owe ww a bunch of comments on cryptographic articles, so I'll comment at some length here -- the article has a number of minor issues (it bolds words like all for emphasis, which drives me also gets an occasionally chatty or didactic tone, almost like I'm having a conversation with someone who wants to convince me to use PGP). Most importantly, though, it ceases to be fun or easy to read for me about half way through (sorry!). It becomes a very long list-like chronology of PGP's legal statuses and various versions. I may be dead wrong (I expect I am), but I think the article could be improved either by cutting out details of versioning, etc., that are relatively unimportant, or else going into much greater detail (giving the expanded stories that might make it more engaging). I think slightly more frequent sectioning would aid this also. Seems like a really good article factually, but one that needs a little prose work. Hope no one takes offense, Jwrosenzweig 22:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Much of your "debt" is hereby discharged by the commentary above. For which thanks. Most of your comments have been implemented in the article. I trust you will find it improved, and that you will approve. ww 15:42, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
      • Goodness I have to be careful about what I say! :-) You really did work that article over, based on my remarks: sorry for making so much work. I have to say, though I find the article much improved and more readable. I think you've got a very nice article on a technical subject that is well worthy of featured status. Bravo! Jwrosenzweig 16:37, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly oppose: I'd love to see PGP featured, as it's a good topic (and it's cryptography!), and the article is chock-full of excellent and careful detail. My concern is that the article is not polished enough yet. I can point out petty criticisms like: broken links to three articles which we do have; a few spelling mistakes; it's not immediately obvious whether "Ståle" is a person or a company; what does l'affaire Zimmermann mean?; awkward phrases like neither it (PGP), nor any other, is either fool, or goof, proof.; and so on. Rather than just moaning, I'm happy to go and fix these, but my point is that the article seems rough around the edges still, and could do with work to become "brilliant prose". — Matt 15:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
    • The specific points noted here have been addressed by assorted edits since this comment was posted. Matt has made some edits himself, as well. Other issues not given here may remain, but ... I'm not sure how or whether this changes 'reluctant opposition' to anything else such as neutrality or support (reluctant or otherwise), but observers should be aware that steps have been taken to address most of this. ww 19:09, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Is this article accurate? It says PGP is "the most widely used cryptosystem in the world". Is this the case? how popular is it compared to SSL to https?
    • An interesting observation. You are correct that SSL/TLS (as in HTTPS protocol) is certainly more used. Not much thought required for that, I suspect. I presume the intention here was 'intentionally used' or 'deliberately chosen' or 'not forced on' or something along those lines. I'm not sure quite how, or whether, to distinguish these various senses in a brief copy edit. I'll think about it and make a change in a bit. Unless someone beats me to it! ww 19:53, 27 May 2004 (UTC) Someone beat me to it! ww
  • Neutral - did we ever come up with a picture for it? Even a stick-figure diagram explaining the basics of PKI or web of trust could enhance this article. - jredmond 04:42, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose until a picture is added. →Raul654 04:56, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • My observation above in response to Aarchiba's comment still applies. Because of the highly abstract nature of PGP's operation, the nature of a usefully illustrative picture is not at all clear. I thought about it since the comment and have found nothing particularly sensible. A screen shot might be eye candy, but would be largely irrelevant to any of the internals. A diagram of one of the protocols might be interesting, but if accurate will be overly complex for such an article. Can you suggest what sort of picture you'd like to see? ww 16:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • How about a PGP logo like this one? A larger one maybe. This should suffice for a thumbnail on the frontpage. Ravn 17:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • It's fine with me. My only concerns are that it's not very informative, and might be a commercial logo. If it's a little eye candy is desired, the non-informative aspect is no problem, but the other is more substantive. I'll go see if I can find out. Perhaps someone else already knows?.... ww 19:26, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) It comes from the site and is explicitly noted there as available for use in personal web pages, just download it. I myself an not sure this is sufficient for WP clearance purposes. Could someone is better informed on such issues check? As another possibility, we might consider using a picture of PRZ, there are several on his web page, most noted as available for use in preparing PR material. Comments anyone? ww 19:41, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Evolution of sex[edit]

Excellent article, with images to boot! --Lexor|Talk 06:22, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral for now. Some of the terminology needs wikifying or explaining: "propagules"? And the images aren't as exciting as I'd anticipated. ;) Markalexander100 08:36, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. All y'all are smart. jengod 01:54, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It needs an expanded lead section (a sentence explaining what the 'two-fold cost of sex' means along with a couple sentences on its advantages). Also for an article on the evolution of sex, it lacks a description of the leading ideas on just how and when sexual reproduction evolved. It does do a great job of explaining the advantages of sexual reproduction. For that reason I think this article should be either merged with sex or reproduction (sexual reproduction is a redirect to reproduction) and placed under a heading like ==Advantages of sexual reproduction== or left alone to give others a chance to add the needed information. --mav 06:54, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Scientifical. But Wikify it. --Pedro 18:44, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
  • We need some more work on sexual and asexual reproduction - both deserve articles. Mark Richards 18:41, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)