Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2004

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

Neil Young[edit]

No, he's not as important as Elvis or Dylan, but I think its a pretty comprehensive article. Self nomination -- I wrote nearly all of this, modulo some copy editing. --- GWO 16:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Lots of blank links though.--Crestville 18:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Good stuff, but the one and two sentence paragraphs need to be fixed. The lead section could stand to be expanded. The discographies would also look better in a separate list article that is linked in this one. Are all of his albums so notable that they deserve their own entries? They could stand to be unlinked until someone chose to write an article about them in any case. - Taxman 00:28, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • The entire 'Other achievements' section needs to be turned into prose. - Taxman 13:48, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't understand. It has always been prose. Terse prose, perhaps. But it is prose. -- GWO 16:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Well prose didn't have the precise definition I was thinking, but in general, more of a cohesive paragraph like it is currently than the broken up list that it was. It could still use some improvements in flow now, but I won't object over that. - Taxman 01:36, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
          • I've expanded them a little, and ironed some of that terseness out. -- GWO 15:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but tepidly. The redlinks are no big deal. The linking of redneck bugs me more, especially since "Sweet Home, Alabama" is not, likely, a response to "Southern Man," but to (big surprise) "Alabama," from "Harvest," with which it actually shares chords (i.e. Lynyrd Skynyrd was not only taunting him lyrically, but saying, "This is how you play guitar"). At any rate, there is still a bit of immaturity to the article, still too much of a narrow POV (e.g. the lead jumps into the types of songs he's known for, but it's probably better to say, "Neil Young is a rock and folk musician regarded as one of the most important figures of the 1960's through 1990's" -- something a bit more global than getting to what songs he's loved for). Nitzche is a controversial figure in his own right. He got to be so much The Man that he began shoving his approach down a lot of throats, and it's arguable whether he did good or ill by Neil (yes, Neil liked him). Anyway, these are quibbles. It's of FA quality with a bit of copy editing now. Geogre 03:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    WRT Southern Man / Alabama. The same chords, well you can't read too much into that. The chords to SHA are D/C/G, with a shuffle 6th in each bar. I could real off 30 songs with that chord progression without breaking sweat. (Actually, if this [1] is to be believed, the chords are distinctly not the same). Southern Man, however, is mentioned explicitly in the lyrics. I'll get on the copy editing (the lead section was one of the few bits that weren't mine :)) -- GWO 08:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, SWA isn't just DCG (which is the old I-IV-V, which is every rock song ever), but a particular formation of the C and G that are the same as "Alabama" and "Ziggy Stardust" and a few others of that time but which are not used very commonly. Young liked that C formation (to tab it, it would be 3/5, 2/4, 0/3, 3/2, 3/1), and you almost never see it anywhere else in LS's stuff (although the Gsus is used plenty of places, part. in "Freebird"). Lyrically, they refer to "Southern Man," of course, but the title invokes "Alabama," which is a song that is even less deft in its criticism. I also think that "redneck" absolutely shouldn't be part of the reference. That's POV. The struggle over Civil Rights reflected in the song battle was the Dixiecrat stuff. Wallace and Maddux were ignoramuses, but it's irresponsible and inflammatory to refer to the entire southern Democratic party (which was anti-Civil Rights act) that way. We saw the fruits of that kind of name calling just recently. Geogre 17:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, I can't speak for how common x32033 is LS's work but its ubiquitous in folk music, (Cos of the easy fingering to the full G). And anyway that's not what's tabbed here, [2] or how I was taught to play it. And I don't think its in Alabama either. Compromise : mention that it has relevance to multiple Young songs. -- GWO
  • Support, as it's an excellent article, but I'll consider changing to object if Geogre's points aren't fixed up. Ambi 07:27, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support now. Filiocht 16:57, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC) Object. The lead section is inadequate, there is no explicit references section (were all those books and links used?) and there is a bit too much of the "fan" to the writing. For instance, I fail to see how a sentence like: 'During the late 1970s, Young was sometime referred to as a "disciple" of the "master" Bob Dylan and seemed on the verge of surpassing the legend.' can be seen as anything other than POV, not to mention confusing for the imaginary reader who is here because they want to learn about a subject they currently know little or nothing of. Who did the referring? Why would Dylan be the "master"? Which "legend"? On what basis is the claim that he 'seemed' to be surpassing Dylan made? Why all the "ironic" uses of ""? There are more statements that raise similar questions, but this is the most blatant. Filiocht 08:51, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • After a few unsuccessful attempts to write something more coherent, the passage about Dylan as master has simply been deleted. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:36, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Filiocht: Could you elucidate on what (if anything) you consider "fan writing" remaining in the article? -- GWO
  • Object, I agree with Filiocht that there is too much "fan" writing. Also, I'm not a big fan of the strictly chronological layout; I'd like to see some separate and more in-depth sections on e.g. his person and his music in general (including more detailed critique). The main problematic aspect of a chronological layout is that it is much harder to find information in the article unless you have knowledge about the subject in advance -- a much more comprehensive lead section might also solve the problem. Some recent photo would be nice too (there must be some fan somewhere who has taken one who'd be willing to release it under the GFDL). Finally, Neil Young might not be as important as Elvis or Dylan, but he makes better music ;) - Fredrik | talk 01:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Fredrik: Could you elucidate on what (if anything) you consider "fan writing" remaining in the article? -- GWO
      • There is some POV in it. For example, "weak selection of songs" (which I disagree with, Re-ac-tor is a masterpiece). Also, I agree with Paul August's point below about understatement. And Dylan isn't even mentioned in the current revision. More context and information about influences and impact is needed. Fredrik | talk 05:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I think the comments on the albums, such as "weak selection of songs", accurately reflect the critical consensus (such as it is) on those records. And the brevity reflects the general consensus that these are considered Young's minor works. -- GWO 15:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've tried to address all the actionable points above, and requested more info on those that I don't consider actionable at the moment. Feedback from the present objectors would be nice. --- GWO 15:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. But wanting to support. This is a good well written article on an important musical figure. However I think it understates the depth and expanse of his work, as well as his importance and influence. Some comparison to Dylan needs to be made I think. Paul August 02:43, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Gut feeling would be that any comparison with Dylan will be POV, by definition. Would we insist that the Shakespeare article contain a comparison with Cervantes? Filiocht 13:43, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Well I don't think any comparison with Dylan would be necessarily POV, consider the following quote from Young's body of work ranks second only to Bob Dylan in terms of depth, and he was able to sustain his critical reputation, as well as record sales, for a longer period of time than Dylan … As to Shakespeare, I don't know about Cervantes, but I might expect a comparison with Christopher Marlowe. Paul August 14:45, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think the allmusic quote is NPOV or terribly accurate. "Second only to Dylan in terms of depth" according to whom? Fans of Bruce Springsteen, Lou Reed, Joni Mitchell, Laura Nyro, Tim Buckley, Nick Drake might kick up some disagreement there. A longer period of time??? Every Dylan album from 1963 to 1974 sold pretty well. Many since (Slow Train, Love & Theft) have done OK too. Young's peak lasted from Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere to ... Tonight's The Night, which is 5 years. He's had returns to occasional good sales (Unplugged, Freedom & Ragged Glory spring to mind) but I bet Trans sold fewer than Saved, and Everybody's Rocking did worse than Down In The Groove. -- GWO 15:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I actually think that the quote reinforces my point by being so clearly POV in itself, as demonstrated by GWO. I'd add, which recent Young album gets near Love and Tefth in any department? Filiocht 15:26, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I don't want to dispute the relative accuracy of the quote, but I do dipute that "any comparison with Dylan will be POV, by definition". Paul August 16:54, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I'm interested to see how, apart form sales figures, they could be compared objectively. Filiocht 15:32, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
My thoughts on how to link them : (i) Neil was, for a while, the rock press's favourite "New Dylan". Springsteen had overtaken him by 76 though. (ii) Dylan admits to listening to Neil on "Highlands". Not liking, necessarily. (iii) Neil played at Dylan's Tribute Concert, and dubbed it Bobfest. (iv) They both play harmonica badly, and have whiny voices. Any more for any more. (v) They're not dead yet. -- GWO
Well potentially applicable concepts like "depth", "range of genre and style", "longevity", "influence" along with many others are all objectifiable (although perhaps difficult to measure). Interpreted broadly enough every statement is POV. Paul August 16:55, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
But why compare Young to Dylan? Why not compare him to Joni Mitchell. There are just as many interesting parallels in those two careers, including the wide variety of styles. (Few Dylan albums couldn't be classified as folk, blues or rock). Sales volumes are probably closer too. Why not compare Young to David Crosby or Steve Stills, instead? -- GWO
Well probably for the same reason that "the rock press" called him the "New Dylan" and not the "New Mitchell". Dylan is a kind of "gold standard" and a comparison to him might, IMHO, help establish the relative importance of Young. However Comparing him to Dylan, doesn't preclude comparing him to others. By all means do compare him to Mitchell, they do have "interesting parallels, and this would also "help establish relative importance". At any rate it's just my opinion ;-) Paul August 17:37, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
I've got nothing Neutral to say, wrt to comparing Young and Dylan. If you want to right something, I recommend you add it.
the same reason that "the rock press" called him the "New Dylan".
That reason is "laziness", and an insatiable desire to pigeonhole people and promote the Next Big Thing. Let's not do that. GWO
For what it's worth ;-), [3], a repository of Neil Young information available on the internet, has a page [4] which chronicles some of the comparisons which have been made of Young and Dylan. Here are some of the quotes they cite:
  • Young is still about as individual, talented and touching a musical poet as American popular music has produced, worthy of comparison with Bob Dylan. John Rockwell, New York Times
  • Young is comparable only to Bob Dylan in terms of his contributions to songwriting and rock n' roll. David Rosen, Ink Blot Magazine
  • Though Neil Young will never have the iconic clout of Bob Dylan, there are citizens who'll tell you he's made better music … Robert Christgau, Playboy
  • Whereas Bob Dylan's music formed the aesthetic spear-head of generational rage and moral fervor in the mid-Sixties, Young's subsequently expressed, with equal credibility, the accompanying guilt, self-doubt and paranoia, especially in its obsession with time and age. Stephen Holden, Rolling Stone.
Perhaps the above comparisons are all hopelessly POV, but it must mean something that these (and many other) writers have thought it important to make such comparisons. It seems to me that something of what is being said above could be useful and relevant to our article. Anyway, since I'm not objecting to the article, perhaps all this discussion should just go to the talk page? As I said above I think this is an excellent article on an important subject. I'm just trying, perhaps incompetently, to make it even better ;-) Paul August 16:36, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
A selection of music critics really like Neil Young, and think he's (nearly) as good as Neil Young. Fair enough. Sadly, thats a self selected bunch (Dave Marsh, for example, has also compared the two, noting
"Instead of a unified body of work, Neil Young has forged only a series of fragments, some relatively inspired, some absolutely awful.[5]"
Do we include both of these analyses, one or neither?
Other than the fact that 70s rock critics are capable of banging on about Dylan at terrifying length, do these comparisons tell us anything (a) interesting or (b) insightful? Secondly, is there a critical consensus which we could reasonably summarise, thereby maintaining our NPOV? IMHO, the answer to both those questions is no. Which is why I am not going to write anything in the article, on that issue. If you want to try synthesise something coherent from these critics' squawkings, I wish you luck, and if you succeed you're a better man than I. -- GWO
NPOV is NOT about only summarizing critical consensus. The idea behind NPOV is to include different opinions, including less widely held ones, but attribute all opinions to their supporters. Fredrik | talk 18:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But we can't report everyone's opinion, and in the lack of anything like a consensus, who's opinions do we select? -- GWO
In general, we should present opinions with prominent supporters or opinions which can be demonstrated to be popular (if not in majority). Being able to quote four different critics is certainly good enough. Fredrik | talk 19:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Five, if you count the AllMusic guy, but whose counting ;-) Even a comment like "Neil was, for a while, the rock press's favourite "New Dylan" " might be helpful ;-) Paul August 18:55, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Also I agree with Geogre's suggestion of adding something like "Neil Young is a rock and folk musician regarded as one of the most important figures of the 1960's through 1990's" to the lead, would also help address my concern. Paul August 19:10, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
I've got no problem with that, and will act upon it. I have been thinking about the Dylan/Young issue, and I really can't think of anything accurate and non-superficial to say about them, specifically --- GWO
  • FYI: Starting, Saturday, I will be on vacation for two weeks, (islands … sun … snorkeling … no computers … ahhhh) so if I don't respond to someone's possible query, you now know why ;-) Paul August 03:08, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way I would like to make it clear that I don't think the "Dylan" issue above should keep this article from being a FA. Paul August 03:18, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)


I like winamp. 5.06 came out recently, and it's made the news as Nullsoft's plug has been officially pulled by AOL recently (google news), and people are sad to see it go. Covers the history well, although not in detail (this would probably change after it was featured, I guess). And yes, it's really a self-nom because NSV isn't quite big enough yet and that's one of the features of the newer winamp that I like. --TIB (talk) 00:18, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object Too short with the features just being a list. Needs more info about developement, being purchased by AOL, people involved etc. --Enceladus 00:33, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed Object for now, needs much more backstory, doesnt even state when ACTUAL first version was released, just states when 1.0 came out (hell I was personally beta-testing it for a year before then). Needs list of all versions and release dates (you can leave out minor patches like an X.XX-A and an X.XX-B etc...). Shows photos of Ver 2 and Ver 5 skinned, yet does not include photo of Ver 1 (or its predicessors) or Ver 3. No list of things such as reasons for bug fixes is necessary. More details on types of plugins should be included. Especially considering its visual plugins is what made it more popular than its competitors. Alkivar 05:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Generally lacking in content and context. 1) Context: this should especially be added in the lead section. It is not even immediately clear it's talking about a computer programme here. Throughout the article, computer terms are also explained barely or not at all. 2) Content: Most of the topics are dealt with only briefly. We need more on the history, its developers, the major features of all versions (not just the latest one). I also miss comparisons with other media players, both in features and popularity. There is no mention of how many downloads there have been or the approximate user base. And why is it available for free? What extras does the Pro version have? How many users use the Pro version? How is the software reviewed by "experts"? 3) If you used the external links for collecting information, they are references, and should be listed as such. Jeronimo 10:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. News that AOL has pulled winamp and has layed off staff at Nullsoft may well have been premature. Check out the Nullsoft Talk Page. CheekyMonkey 00:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


A lovely, clear example of the element template. A good brief coverage of its properties, history, and various forms (through pictures). +sj+ 05:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(talk) 23:58, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object for now. Unless it gets a major expansion, I fail to see the point of the Gold rushes section. Filiocht 10:52, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Light objection: There are a few one sentence paragraphs, and many of them, like the "Gold Rush" one, are tantalizing. (E.g. gold rushes had an enormous effect on the world. Thanks to the gold rush, California got settled, San Fransisco became a city of note, the US expansion to the Pacific was completed in record time, the railroads were built, and the US grew to be a power in the world (inviting immigrants, who came over for the 2nd major rush).) (Also, the paragraph that mentions the role of New World gold in the renaissance. That's huge. The gold trade built Brussels because of banking. It was responsible for the settlement and brutality of the Spanish in South America. It created the age of piracy.) Other than these historical teasers, the article is extremely well covered. Geogre 15:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The history is section is rather inadequate now, as others have pointed out. The one paragraph section should be merged or be expanded. 2) There is only one reference, which certainly doesn't cover all of the content. More are needed, including books if possible. If any of the external links were used as a references, add these. Also, please use the proposed style at Wikipedia:Cite your sources (not required). 3) The lead section should be expanded, incorporating at least some of the history, thus providing a better summary of the entire article. 4) The isotopes section should be expanded. The only reference gives much more text on this topic, so there is more to say. 5) In the compounds section, this sentence should be explained: "Although gold is a noble metal it can form many compounds". I also think it should be mentioned earlier on that gold is a noble metal. 6) I would like to see a table or so of the top 5 or 10 gold exporting/producing nations, including the amount of gold. Jeronimo 19:59, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Good info - just needs more work as pointed out above. Must have more references. -Vsmith 02:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. As one of the major authors of this article, I still feel it does not cover enough history. I will work on expanding the isotopes section, lead section, consolidating small sections and adding all the references used. I'll also look into finding some good sources for the history and add some more in that area as well. --mav 18:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. With so much U.S. in the history (probably too much, relatively) I'd expect some mention of the free silver movement (no article! Is it under some other title?) and William Jennings Bryan's Cross of gold speech (stub!) and I imagine there were similar issues in other countries. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:44, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Ol' Dirty Bastard[edit]

Self-nom. I mostly rewrote this, from its original text but did not begin it. Content is concise, although could probably stand to have more on his musical career. As it stands now musical career and legal troubles are about the same length. Since he has recently passed on I figure this would be a good time. Alkivar 15:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Comments: Looks quite good. 1) Many paragraphs, and all of those in the "Legal Troubles" section, start with "In <date>"; it'd be nice to reword a few of these. 2) Any chance we can refer to him as "Jones" rather than "ODB" or "Dirty"? At least some of the time? — Matt 18:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • That would be more encyclopedic. The title of the page should not change however, since it is certainly what he is beter known as, and more often refered to as. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 18:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Granted that it would be more encyclopedic, however NO ONE, except for his family and personal friends, referred to him by his given name. Check any of the obits (most dont even mention his real name), check any news articles (again most dont have his real name), he is known as the "ol' dirty bastard" by virtually everyone. I have gone back through and changed some of the ODB's to something else. Alkivar 21:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - seems a bit sketchy.--Crestville 18:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • sketchy? is there something in particular your objecting to? or is it simply you dislike the man? to quote from above "All objections must give a specific rationale that can be addressed" Alkivar 21:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Good article, but one thing was confusing. The "Life and career" section makes references to his legal problems ("with a court-ordered probation hanging over his head", etc.), but I don't know the specifics until I read the "Legal troubles" section below that. Is there any way these two sections can be merged? Light object for now. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:21, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • yeah i'm aware of this fact. Originally the two subjects were merged into one long section, but I felt it made more sense to seperate his career from his legal troubles. Is there something you would recommend to help fix this? Alkivar 21:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I would much prefer to have the two sections be merged once again. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:57, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) I don't like the constant "ODB"s either. Perhaps they might be appropriate when discussing his musical career, but they certainly aren't in the sections on his illegal activities. 2) His real name should come first, and his aliases should be listed as such. 3) It's very short for an FAC, and doesn't have very much detail. 4) Too many paragraphs are too short. 5) Apart from in the "legal troubles" section itself, his criminal career seem to be glossed over. From reading the introduction, for instance, you'd have no idea how serious some of the crimes he committed were. Proteus (Talk) 18:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
1) see above, I have corrected this.
2) I think "Ol' Dirty Bastard" should come first as its what he is best known as. His real name is still within the first sentance.
3) It has more detail than the VH1 and MTV biography pages on the man. I think that its got enough content to warrant FAC. ANY article can always use more content, and I am sure this one will grow with time. I'm sure shorter articles have been considered and approved as well. Length is not a necessary consideration according to What is a featured article, however this article is comprehensive and "does not omit any major facts or details".
4) see my comment #3. unless you have a specific objection to the timeline formatting I consider this a non-issue.
5) his career is "glossed over" ??? We mention specifically all of his offenses, we link to their definitions, anything more than that would be POV.
Alkivar 21:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Good summary of his recording career and such, but I think that this article needs more information on this rapper's impact and his criminal career. Object for now. Andre (talk) 23:59, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • OBJECT - He is now old news. Mfecane 04:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • This objection is inactionable and therefore invalid. →Raul654 04:51, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Passenger car[edit]

Here's one that I've been working on for about a month now. I've included a brief history of the passenger car along with information on major types of passenger cars and a few photos that I've taken at railroad museums in my area to illustrate a few of the car types. I've also included a bit on the differences between heavyweight and lightweight cars, which I have yet to see discussed anywhere else on the site. slambo 17:53, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral. It's a very nice article, but it's exclusively about North American practice. It needs considerable expansion to cover practice in the rest of the world. -- Arwel 22:22, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've expanded the History section a bit based on a refence that I had. There's a bit more on European developments now. I'm still digesting this information, but at least there's a start to including it in the article. The car types list really doesn't change all that much with this new reference, just the different dates of introduction. slambo 02:01, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Abstain, a bit low on wikification. Happy to change vote when it's fixed :-) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:32, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Is it more linked phrases or more section headings or what? I'm not entirely sure what needs to be done based on your comment. The only part that I haven't already listed on the Talk page is that I'd like to expand the intro paragraph, but I haven't been able to come up with sufficient prose to do that. slambo 11:52, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
There's a little bit more to the intro paragraph and a couple more links. What else do you suggest? slambo 18:09, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Positive, well-written on a good broad topic, could use more photos, detail, and references. Vaoverland 12:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks :) I'd really like to get some more exterior photos, especially of these car types from European or Asian railroad use (anyone out there who can help with this?), or some from the early days of railroad construction. I've taken a quick look through the Library of Congress website, but didn't quite find what I was looking for. I'm also looking through my own library of railroad resources for more information and details. slambo 14:52, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The lead section should be expanded to at least two paragraphs, and provide a summary of the entire article. See Wikipedia:Lead section. 2) History section stops in the early 20th century. Should be expanded to modern day. 3) References are inadequate. The only reference doesn't seem to cover most of the content, and certainly not the more recent content. 4) Units should be presented in at least metric units, or both imperial and metric, but not in imperial measures only. 5) A lot of potential information is missing. Who manufactures passenger cars? How many passengers fit in the average passenger car? What are the dimensions (length, weight, height)? How many are pulled by a train? How do they compare with passenger cars in for example metro systems or trams? Jeronimo 19:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll get on them right away... slambo 22:05, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Adding metric unit conversions is done (at least I don't see any that I missed). I've found a couple other references in my own library that basically support what was already written, and the new information in them is slowly being added as I go through it all. I hadn't thought of putting a manufacturers section in, but it can easily be added (I can think of a few off the top of my head that could easily be expanded into articles of their own like American Car and Foundry and Budd Company, and Pullman Company already is an article but needs to be brought up to date to include the company's products as Pullman-Standard). slambo 11:38, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
You're right, I'm still working on it, and I do intend to add a section on military uses and specialized passenger cars for military use. slambo 18:50, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This article is improving daily. If it's not ready yet, please give it more time as long as concerns are being addressed in a timely maner. Vaoverland 21:38, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair Use[edit]

I actually find this article to be really informative and worth reading just for fun; not just for rules on posting. It's also complete and only lacks a photo (kind of hard to add though - maybe an example?). Nrbelex 06:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • This was nominated before. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/Index/September_2004#Fair_use. Have previous objections been addressed? Jeronimo 22:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Looking over the previous two objections, the first one is not actionable, and the second one I doubt is a real concern. But I do think the lead section is too long, some content should be moved to an appropriate section. I made a composition of a few corporate logos to accompany the lead, but after reading Wikipedia:Logos I am a bit in doubt. I think it's ok to have it there, but if anyone feels it should not be included in the article feel free to remove it. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 14:09, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • I might just point out that a previous poster in the old FAC was wrong. Fair use and fair dealing are not the same thing, and they are not used interchangably in Australia. I should know. I've talked to the NSW State Library people about it a few times, along with a lawyer friend who knows a bit about this. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I've modified the lead section and edited the caption for grammar and clarity. I think that's sufficient to support. Johnleemk | Talk 11:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) No references (only some weblinks, which are not explicitly presented as such). The article does refer to some lawsuits, but it is not clear how we are supposed to find information about them. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. 2) Many sections have only one paragraph, which suggests there is either more to be said on that topic, or the topic doesn't deserve its own section (perhaps a subsection). For example, fair use on the internet only describes a single case, rather than "fair use on the internet" in general. Much more content is needed here. 3) Many section titles repeat the tearm "fair use", which is unneccessary and undesireable per the WP:MOS. Jeronimo 08:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak object. Generally excellent article, but should cite some print sources, at least by way of "further reading". I'm sure there are good books on the topic, or at least books with first-rate chapters on the topic. Also, presumably there were sources (online or off) used in putting this together, but they seem to go unacknowledged. I presume you (collectively) didn't just happen to know about all these court cases... -- Jmabel | Talk 09:36, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


Self-nom, in as much as me providing most/all of the infomation in the norwegian section. As far as I can see, the pictures just added makes it comply with all the FAC guidelines.

Whoops, forgot to sign my nomination... me bad WegianWarrior 05:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • References? Mark1 06:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Added the ones I've used - can't speak for the others who have edited. Also, didn't add sources others can't access, such as me bugging people I know who owns a Krag ;) WegianWarrior 06:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: the references should IMHO support (at least) the bulk of the article. That requires reinvestigating, checking and sourcing material which is currently unreferenced. Incidentally, I don't think "this website" is the best way to identify a source. ;-) Mark1 08:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My estimate is that the references cited supports between 80% and 90% of the article as it stands... of course, if it is needed to come up to the standard needed, I could "sprinkle pagenumbers" thruout the text. However, if your objection is based on the fact that the main source cited isn't in English, then I fear that no article on more obscure subjects can ever reach Featured status, as there simply is not any printed material avilable in English... WegianWarrior 09:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please do not sprinkle page numbers (see my comment at "Alchemy" below"), Wikipedia is not a learned journal.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 18:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
if your objection is based on the fact that the main source cited isn't in English No, it isn't. Mark1 00:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Interesting subject but in need of a major copy edit. I started, but do not have time just now. Filiocht 09:24, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Lesch-Nyhan syndrome[edit]

support (self nomination) i think this article would be a great candidate seeing as it has been substantially re-worked. i think its ready for featured status. --Larsie 16:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    • Looking at the edit list, it appears that this is a self-nomination. jguk 19:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support even more. Geogre 17:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object I do not understand why this article was renominated less than 10 hours after it was removed from this list as a failed candidate. The only changes since then are to link in neurotoxicity and to remove the words even and lips. My objections made when this was on the FAC page earlier remain. In summary, this article is not accessible to the layman and contains too much jargon. jguk 09:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I am somewhat curious as to why it was removed as all objections were addressed and fixed. the jargon has been formatted to be understandable if you read carefully (which is how you should read an article anyway). also there were more supports than there were objections. --Larsie 17:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • There were objections listed, specifically a number of people still felt there was too much jargon. That is presumably why it was not promoted. When not promoted after about two weeks articles are removed from here. The convention is that a few weeks pass and perhaps another round of peer review before relisting here. Thats just for politeness and respect for other editors time. Another person just noted on the peer review listing they still feel it has too much jargon. - Taxman 16:46, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is seriously flawed. In the "males" section, the text is highly repetitive, repeating itself and repeating parts of the introduction. This is unacceptable. Enochlau 14:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are of course entitled to your vote, but repeating parts of the introduction is not that bad, because the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. That requires being somewhat repetitive in ideas if not literal quotes. Repetiveness within a section is not good of course. - Taxman 16:46, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
the introduction is meant to introduce the article and the following paragraphs within the article are supposed to elaborate on key points within the introduction. unacceptable? have you ever written an essay in school? come on now. --Larsie 18:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Enochlau: No, I mean this:
    • From Paragraph 2 of Male section: Within the first few years of an affected individual’s life, extrapyramidal involvement or involuntary muscle contractions (e.g., dystonia, choreoathetosis, opisthotonus) and pyramidal involvement (e.g., spasticity, overactive reflexes (hyperreflexia) and extensor plantar reflexes) are clear.
    • From Paragraph 5 of Male section: Individuals develop involuntary muscle contractions in the form of dystonia, choreoathetosis, and opisthotonus.
    • Put simply the structure is very poor, and this repetition I have quoted above is just one example of why it really can't be a featured article. Enochlau 22:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

oh and if those who can't understand the jargon in the article please point out where, so that it can be fixed, or even make some changes of your own. for those who can't understand it would be difficult for yourself to write an article like that and it goes both ways, so for people who are able to understand the jargon it would be difficult to change it to something else as it already makes sense the way it is. --Larsie 18:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Computer mouse[edit]

Seems to be a nice complete account--Enceladus 02:37, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Yes, it seems pretty good. I added some information about coloured mouse buttons that was missing. My 1) objection is about the history section. Douglas Engelbart is credited with inventing the mouse. That seems to be contested by some. Here is an article about a Swedish inventor, Håkan Lans, who claims to have invented the computer mouse. Apparently he lost a legal battle in the United States recently. The Swedish minister for industry and trade at the time, Leif Pagrotsky is quoted in the article as saying "they stole his patent." Wikipedia's article on the subject says that he invented a digitizer, not a mouse, which may be accurate. [6] [7]. My hunch is that this is something that has been exaggerated and simplified by an over-enthusiastic Swedish press, but I think it should be investigated before we feature the article. 2) Very little seems to be supported by references. 3) Doesn't touch on gyroscopic mice [8]David Remahl 07:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Firstmouseunderside.jpg lacks a source. I've asked the uploader to provide one. Lupo 07:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • As per Chmod007's objections. Additionally, I don't think it's very well organized. Andre (talk) 00:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks nice, but a lot of the technical side is missing. A nice trivia bit would be that the BIOS communicates mouse movements in discrete units called mickeys (no kidding). JFW | T@lk 17:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revolver (album)[edit]

Part of Featured Albums Project, and not a self-nom, though I've made a few edits. Tuf-Kat 18:08, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • object. I don't think this qualifies as brilliant prose. The first sentence of the article proper begins with "as a sidenote" which is a bad sign and generally it falls short. It also seems to be lacking information such as sales, chart position, band member's opinions/interviews on the subject. Seems a fairly long way from FAC to me Psychobabble 00:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, for now. It's a bit disorganised, and I'm not sure why Tommorow Never Knows warrents it's own section. I'm more than happy to take a look, and it is a very good article.--Crestville 18:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, structure is frankly a mess. 1) The text after the Lead ought not start with the short "side note" section 1. American release (thematically an aside and chronologically obviously not the first thing that happened). 2) The second section, 2. Songs, with its single subsection "Tomorrow never knows", needs heading levels revision. If "Tomorrow never knows" is the only song thought to deserve its own subsection, 2. Songs, 2.1 "Tomorrow never knows", and 2.2 Other songs would be a logical hierarchy, with any general material about the songs (e. g. the misplaced last paragraph in the "Tomorrow never knows" section) moved to the 2. Songs level, before 2.1 and 2.2. However, that would present the songs in a different order from on the album, so it's not something an outsider can easily fix (I started to, but gave up). It would be better if the contributors re-thought the structure in a more integral way, with some rewriting. Incidentally, "Yellow submarine" and "Doctor Robert" are described as "also" reflecting the growing drug culture of the 1960s, but I can't see anything for the "also" to refer to.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 19:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Auto Train[edit]

This is a self-nomination. This article is a collaborative effort of Vaoverland and Slambo. Each of us has been working daily and/or nightly on railroad-related articles. This one should have a broad appeal to include families and younger Wikipedia readers and presents an interesting opportunity to learn more about trains, including several types of locomotives, passenger cars, auto carrier freight cars (called autoracks in trade terminology) and even the old favorite, the caboose. It is also about a new innovative business idea, making profits, growing too much, having bad luck, and bankruptcy and failure. Resurrection of failed private railroad passenger service is what Amtrak is all about, and this is an example. There is also a mention of the debate underway about privatization of such services. All photos are credited and used with permission, and we have enhanced some of the articles with internal link, such as autorack, and are working on the few which still lack an article. Suggestions for improvement are welcome. All aboard? Vaoverland 10:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • The photo's that are "courtesy of" somebody must be released under an suitable license, and this must be mentioned on the image pages. In addition, you should Cite your sources by adding references. Jeronimo 12:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • "Auto-Train Corporation: an innovative concept" is a poor section title. Not only does it sound like it came from a promotional brochure; it also doesn't describe the contents of the section. --Doradus 15:33, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • section title changed to "Auto-Train Corporation: an innovative railroad." Perhaps that is better, but open to any constructive suggestions for improvements. Vaoverland 18:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Skateboarding trick[edit]

Seems pretty good, interesting! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Image:Skateboarding.jpg needs a source. I've asked the uploader to provide one. Lupo 07:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure I've come acrros this image while browsing the U.S. Marines photo archive [9], see for an image I extracted from it: Image:Surfing in Hawaii.jpg. I added the U.S. Marine PD tag. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:13, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This is not an an article about skateboarding tricks, it is a list of such tricks. Lists are generally not eligible for FAC status, while this article has no content without the list. The list itself is also quite poor, not explaining the different groups, and referring to non-explained other tricks. Especially the more difficult tricks would need illustrations (maybe even a video). (Minor error: "It is called a 'nollie' for two reasons." is followed by only one reason). In addition, there are no references. Jeronimo 12:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It's a list, and it needs a major copyedit. This article isn't even close to FAC status. It is interesting though I agree :) Zerbey 17:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: it needs a lot of formatting and tidying, but I like it. I should hold off voting, though, to ask: is there a reference for lists not being eligible for FA status? The article does have a Lead section (i. e. displaying it on the Main page wouldn't in itself be a problem).--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 22:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1.) No references 2.) Not comprehensive. Doesn't trace the origin of skateboard tricks or tell anything about their affects, safety, etc. Doesn't cover the various obstacles used to slide or jump on etc. Many additional topics would need to be covered to be comprehensive. 3.) The lists are not great writing. Many are just one sentence, and some are not even proper sentences. I can't see how this would be considered great writing without being written in proper paragraph form. - Taxman 13:33, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)


Well written, interesting, covers all ascpects (social, religious, legal, biological) of the topic. -- Kpalion 18:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object, 1) no references. 2) lacks image(s) (though not a strict requirement for FAC:s IIRC). — David Remahl 21:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: I think that the article could be merged with Incest taboo as much of the Incest article seems to be about prohibition of Incest and the Incest Taboo is about why we prohibit incest. And there is also no pictures but that may not be appropriate for this article.--enceladus 21:39, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

OK Soda[edit]

Self-nom. I finally got around to addressing the last of the issues brought up in the last nomination here. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:32, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Support. Can you expand the lead section a little, though? You haven't addressed all of them, 1) I want to see more about why the drink failed, 2) Cult following... can't have been very big if there was only 2 sentances worth :) Can you research this? 3) No references. Zerbey 17:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Well... It's very difficult to say decisively why a product failed. I think that in the absence of a professional opinion, any detailed speculation on the matter would be unavoidably POV. However, the article does contain the line "Most soda drinkers found the taste unappealing and the soda did not test well", which is a pretty bold statement as it is, and covers the drink failing from a taste perspective. What kind of references do you think we could include? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:12, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
    OK, i got bored again and after doing some in-book searching on amazon, there actually turned out to be some decent references there, so I was able to add some concrete numbers about the failure and add some books that reference the soda directly. What do you think? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:10, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
    An improvement but see my other concerns. Zerbey 17:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • What is meant by "OK Soda never captured more than 3% in any of the target locations"? Three percent of what? Overall I think the structure has improved and I like the effort to address the directions of inquiry I noted last time. I agree with Zerbey though that the existence of a cult following could stand a little more discussion. For example, what was the following focused on - the soda's taste, the manifesto, the art on the cans? --Michael Snow 05:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    I reworded that line. I'm not sure if you can really identify why a particular phenomenon gathers a cult following, but judging from the content of the fan sites that are left, it's all of the above; I've tried to incorporate some of that as well. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:54, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
    I appreciate the problem - the additional changes work for me. --Michael Snow 17:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:OK Soda - can.jpg lacks a source. I've asked the uploader to provide one. Lupo 08:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    The image is fair use, as it is related to a discussion/criticism of the can art itself. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:54, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
    I wasn't disputing the license. I was asking for a source. Could you please provide one? Lupo 15:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Gotcha, I've included the source on the image page. Thanks. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:02, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Seems incomplete without some sales numbers and marketing budget numbers. Were 2 cans sold or 1 million? A $100,000 budget or millions? It says never got more than 3% of the market in test locations, but we have no idea how big that is. Also the word "test" is used several times as jargon that may not be entirely clear to someone not familiar with marketing. What exactly defines not "testing well"? A quick explanation of test marketing could help that. What tests were used, simple retail sales in test locations or taste testing or what? - Taxman 00:24, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
    A good idea, definitely. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a source for this sales or budget information anywhere. I will try to reword the "test" phrases wherever possible; I am of course referring to market share in "test" markets, not taste-tests like the "pepsi challenge", or anything. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:21, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Mariavite Church[edit]

Good article about very interesting religious movement that was established in Poland, but it is almost unknown there. I've started this article, but since that time many other Wikipedians have added lots of new information. Slawojarek 18:03, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support--enceladus 02:22, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, I'm afraid. The language is not up to scratch (good for a non-native speaker, but not good enough for a featured article). Examples at random: there are a lot of traces similar with Protestantism; Kozłowska received an order to fight with the moral decline of the world; During the meeting with pope they were reprimanded. Mark1 05:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Visit of King George IV to Scotland[edit]

Very well written and a fascinating subject. Kosebamse 23:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Kudos for an excellent article on an obscure topic. The only (very minor) gripe I have is that the "Outcome" section could perhaps do with a reword. Ambi 07:21, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. The lead needs some work: in what sense did the visit "divert the King from diplomatic intrigue in Vienna"? Scotland's national identity is not "kilted". And some of the writing is not great: He was obese and was widely unpopular with many offended by his treatment of his wife, and had been struggling to manipulate the government which was seen as a corrupt oligarchy by radicals who went as far as civil war following the revolutions which shook America and France tries to fit in a little too much information. Mark1 07:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I'm sorry, I don't want to cavil at this interesting article, but I just don't think it's (yet) well-written enough to be featured. The sentence about obesity and mistreatment of his wife is still very odd, although now shortened, and quite a few other passages similarly yoke unrelated things by violence together, inside or between sentences. The reader is sometimes totally taken by surprise. For the benefit of those ignorant about Scottish history (like me), the presentation needs to be more pedagogical and reader-friendly. And what is "the rebellious radicalism of the time" in the Lead? It sounds kind of POV, but I can't tell, because it doesn't turn up below (as far as I can see). Even though parts are already excellent, I think the whole needs editing for style and clarity by someone who knows the background well. (Is plaided really a word?)--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 23:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Republic of China[edit]

I have had nothing to do with this article, other than reading it after looking (and tweaking) Flag of the Republic of China. It seems pretty good to me -- ALoan (Talk) 15:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object, good artical but somehow lacking -- 00:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • This objection is not actionable because it is too vague. →Raul654 01:16, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Not perfect, but good. - Xed 01:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Not fully complete. Good (even excellent) article, but not featured-standard. Needs properly formatted "sources and further reading" section with ISBN numbers before I will support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 02:15, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment. ISBNs are optional according to Wikipedia:Cite sources. Gdr 14:11, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
    • What should be added to make it "fully complete"? What makes you say that this "good/excellent" article is not feature-worthy? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object I can't see why this article isn't merged into Taiwan, which, as the article notes, is the most common term for this Chinese province anyway. The term 'Taiwan' should be used instead of 'ROC' throughout (though obviously 'ROC' should be referred to somewhere). The second paragraph is confusing: countries that seemingly 'move' are unusual - this paragraphs assumes the reader has some familiarity with what went on when the Communists took over China proper (plus the comments being made would look better in the History section). Can't see what the sentence: 'The ROC might be the first country in Asia to legally support same-sex marriage'. I'm interested in what it is, not what it might be! jguk 06:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • disagree with merge. The Republic of China existed from 1912-1945 without Taiwan being a part of its territory and until 1949 with most of its territory consisting of China proper. Therefore, the two are clearly not synonymous. Having people read about the Republic of China being one of the Allied Powers and having the link redirect to Taiwan will just confuse people. The notion that the ROC and Taiwan are synonymous, like Chen Shui-bian's statement on October 10, received a good amount of criticism from both the People's Republic of China and Pan-Blue Coalition supporters in Taiwan. In the interests of NPOV, we cannot effectively endorse the pro-independence position by merging the articles. I'm not sure what is so confusing about the second paragraph so can you be more specific? How can we fix it? This is relevant in the lead, in addition to the history section, because the political situation must be cleared immediately since that's the most confusing and significant aspect of the subject. --Jiang 07:51, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object I agree with jguk it should be merged with Taiwan and Republic of China could become an article on the former state. That there's not even a redirect from the Taiwan page is indeed surprising and only generates confusion. On the verge if not beyond beeing POV. And why is History of China mentioned as a main article under history? Moravice
    • Having Republic of China being an article on the "former state" supports the Communist POV that the Republic of China no longer exists and has been replaced by the People's Republic of China. Most people in Taiwan would find the notion offensive, not to say inaccurate. I understand the current setup may cause some confusion for those directed to Taiwan, but this is the most NPOV way around it. Taiwan cannot redirect to the Republic of China because it has a history separate from the Republic (it existed well before and Koxinga did not hide out in the Republic of China!). The best we can do is to leave note on top of Taiwan (unless someone can think of something better). But for reasons also given to jguk, a merge will be neither NPOV nor accurate. History of China is a main artilc under history because the Republic is an era of Chinese history though it can be moved to the see also part of the section since there's already an article on the history of the Republic of China to serve as the main article. --Jiang 16:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I see your point on the problems with moving the article, but the Taiwan page could be moved to Taiwan (island) or something of the sort. It does at first glance seem quite idiotic to have the titles China, People's Republic of China, Taiwan and Republic of China like this, but I understand now it is dificult to do it much differently. Moravice
        • It does seem idiotic, but that's the diplomatic situation with Formosa/Taiwan/ROC/Chinese-Taipei - Xed 17:36, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I've already said I support this, but I would prefer to have more about the United Nations in the article (I know there is a China and the United_Nations, but even that doesn't mention the WHO Sars fiasco, where the UN practically ignored Sars in Taiwan due to the ROCs lack of recognition) Recent news - [10] shows slight progress - Xed 18:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Disagree with merge. Could one or two more photos added to summary sections?--ZayZayEM 03:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anarchism in Spain[edit]

Looks like feature article material to me. Loads of information and some nice pictures. Plus the subject itself is pretty interesting. Wareware 05:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object, for the same reason as last time it was nominated: the article is far more sympathetic to the anarchists than to their opponents- not NPOV. Mark1 05:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Their opponents were fascists. How sympathetic to them do you want us to pretend to be? Chameleon 08:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Is that truer of this article than of featured politics and government articles Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., Bruno Kreisky, or (even more so) Barack Obama and Sid McMath? Who exactly do you feel should be shown equal "sympathy"? (I promise that is not a rhetorical question, there is no way to meet your objection without clarification.) -- Jmabel | Talk 05:44, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Short answer: we shouldn't be actively sympathetic to anyone. Longer answer: there is a lot of coverage of how the anarchists were repressed, and little or none of why they were repressed. A lot of people (I strongly suspect most people) in Spain were rather opposed to the anarchists; the article gives the impression that their opponents were just fat men in pinstripe suits smoking cigars (much of the capitalist class began a bitter war against unions, etc). Mark1 07:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for the following reasons (for now (as I haven't read all of it yet)):
  1. Lead section is too long - there's normally no need to have greater than 3 paragraphs; 6 is definitely too many!
  2. At 44kb the article is too long - some of the sections could very easily be shortened here and spun off into other articles, if necessary.
  3. Shouldn't use the word 'libertarian' in first sentence. It has different meanings in the US than elsewhere plus it isn't commonly used outside the US.
  4. I get the feeling that the article isn't aimed at the layman: someone who knows nothing about anarchism or Spain. This would require a change in approach to think of the reader, explaining all terms clearly (eg no layman will be familiar with the term 'anarcho-syndicalism', and or even 'feminism' i the sense intended in the article).
  5. In need of a copy edit - some long sentences could be broken up, one and two sentence paragraphs could be merged into longer paragraphs, and there's the occasional grammatical error.jguk 06:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • SOme images need source and licensing info. I've asked the uploader to provide that. Lupo 08:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


A great example of the country template. +sj+ 06:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. This looks quite good, but a few remarks. 1) The lead section is insufficient, and should present a summary of the article. 2) There are some differences here with the country template. While that is not (necessarily) a problem, I would like to know why this is, since conformation with WikiProjects is one of the "requirements" mentioned at Wikipedia:What is a featured article. In particular, why is the "Prefectures and regions" (together with the disputes subsection) not listed under a level 2-heading? Also, the link to the appropriate subarticle is missing. Also, several of the other sections have been put under "Society". 3) There are no references, only further reading and external links. Please add references (which may come from the aforementioned). In addition, the style of the further reading is not as described in Wikipedia:Cite your sources, and the external links section is messy; some are barely (if at all) relevant to the article (e.g. "stock market crash", "male love in Japan"), the Wikitravel link appears twice, etc. Please review those. Jeronimo 07:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Removed second link to Wikitravel. Fg2 11:15, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Second this objection. To tell the truth, I'm not at all surprised it took this long for someone to point out that "male love in Japan" (and a historic practice discontinued over 100 years ago!) has no relevance being on the top page of the country article. I personally had not removed it (and still haven't) as a proof that many wikipedians consider it perfectly okay to represent a lopsided view of Japan. If anyone would bother, please move it to Pornography in Japan (a project of mine, needs more work) where it is more fitting. Revth 17:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. history section 4 times the desired length. Other sections need some more minor trimming to confirm to summary style conventions. --Jiang 07:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. Links need to be cleaned up and references need to be given. I don't mind a long history section, since Japan has a long history, but maybe you can do some trimming if there's a history of-article. Also, I would like to see the Geography and Society sections moved up to just after History. They seem far more important than the politics section. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:33, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The sources all need ISBN numbers and need to be properly formatted. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:23, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Promising article, but needs some standardising. As Jeronimo and Neutrality point out, the "Further reading" list sure does need formatting, and more urgently raises the question of what the actual sources for the article are (further reading surely implies that the listed books specifically were not mined for the article?). However, books listed don't need ISBN's, where does that come from? See Wikipedia:Cite sources: "The ISBN (which is wikified automatically) is optional." See also sample entries in Wikipedia:Guide to layout. See also Wikipedia:ISBN, not a wholehearted recommendation by any means.--[[User:Bishonen|Bish (Bosh)]] 01:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • further reading surely implies that the listed books specifically were not mined for the article? No, it implies that the reader has not read the books, not that the writer hasn't. Mark1 04:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but I disagree. References is for information gathered for the article. Further reading is for information not in the article that might interest the reader. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Exactly, and this is a distinction that needs to be made. Anyone who wants to fact-check an article needs to know which references were actually used. Further reading is for those who want to learn more. Filiocht 09:19, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
          • No. Neither references nor further reading are information: they are sources of information. A reference is a source which has been used in writing the article. If there is no references section, then the references are probably somewhere in the further reading section (they are further reading because not all the information in that source will have been incorporated in the article). (Having said that, there should be a references section). Mark1 09:23, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • Yes, because a list of references is information about how the article was made, and for readers who know the area, they can even indicate any underlying biases. Filiocht 09:27, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Awkwardly written in some areas; a few factual errors. Exploding Boy 17:28, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not actionable. If you see an awkward sentence or a factual error, why not simply correct it? Or let someone here do it, but then you need to list them all for it to be actionable. — David Remahl 22:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


The entire section discussing the article in question was deleted, surely accidentally, in a process documented at Talk:ß. Should the previous participants be notified that it has been resurrected? --Jerzy(t) 19:33, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC) [sig belated by several minutes]

  • Well, I have some sympathy since I stet inadvertantly deleted discussions about once a week (cat earlier today, for example), but putting it back 5 months later is a bit steep! How about treating this as a new nomination? Have the issues below been addressed? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ß (Contested -- Jun 28)[edit]

This is another very interesting and informative one. User:Cow 01:39, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I've left some questions on the talk page. Markalexander100 03:06, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The writing isn't clear enough IMO. Needs rewriting with particular attention to clarity. (I'd have a go myself, but I'm busy working on objections to X Window System ;-) - David Gerard 12:57, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The part of the lead section telling the difference between β and ß is kind of silly; it doesn't need to explain it in that much detail, at least not in the opening paragraphs. ✏ Sverdrup 21:39, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) ""ß" should not be confused with ... beta ("β"), which it closely resembles,...Indeed the resemblance is not close enough to enable substitution of the one with the other in typeset material without the result looking extremely unprofessional." -- can we express this another way? It seems a little too coercive / didactic in tone to me. 2) Can we move the whole "comparison with Beta" thing into its own section? 3) "this is considered typographically wrong." -- can we use a more informative word than "wrong"? "Incorrect in typography"? -- Matt 23:27, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Other than the "typographically wrong" bit, which I think is a fair criticism, I support. I've just moved the "comparison with Beta" chunk into a new section "ß and β", between usage and miscellaneous, where I think it fits relatively well (though I sha'n't be offended if people disagree and move it back or elsewhere). -- OwenBlacker 15:45, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

New discussion[edit]

  • Object. See also: Wikipedia:What is a featured article. 1) No lead section. See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section. 2) No references. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Jeronimo 19:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • To clarify: the lead section needs to summarize the article. It does not mention enough about the origin nor the usage in the lead section. Come to think of it, the origin doesn't tell anything about the history of the letter. When was it first used? It also briefly mentions something about the letter in other languages, but only very briefly. This gap needs to be filled. As for the references: some are mentioned in the text, but these be (re)mentioned in a separate section at the bottom with full information (title, authors, publisher, ISBN, all where applicable). Jeronimo 07:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The pre-TOC paragraph reads like a lead section to me and there are plenty of articles without references (apart from anything else, an article about a letter of the alphabet may well mainly be written from un-cite-able personal knowledge). I supported it before and I support it now; though it's more arguably a self-support than it was then. — OwenBlacker 00:24, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Duden would be an obvious reference. Mark1 00:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The fact that there are other articles without references doesn't clear this one; it is requirement for FA's. And I certainly think there are references on this subject, so they should be used. Jeronimo 07:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. There appears to be some open questions in the Miscellaneous section (about Sumerian usage) -ZayZayEM 14:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lesch-Nyhan syndrome[edit]

self nomination i've been writing this article for a few days now and hope its up to par, so tell me what you guys think. ya i know but those are the best images i could find in wikipedia. --Larsie 23:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral just now, but mulling it over. One thing that needs to be clarified is the 380,000 live births. That's in what population? A percentage would be more rational, there. Otherwise, the article is exceptionally medical (perhaps technical). While I think that is admirable, I do think that a bit of lay speech is necessary in the lead to set a general expression of the thing before the detailed and medical discussion goes forward. Including differentials and genetic mechanism and treatment is crucial in a medical text, but it's a bit higher order than usual on Wikipedia. I don't dislike or diagree with it, but I do think it should be set up by something more accessible at first. Geogre 05:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I see now that I missed the ratio because it mixed "one" with "380,000." I made that "1:380,000" to prevent anyone else missing it with eyes as tired as mine were. Geogre 15:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support if a lay lead is introduced at the head to set forth the disease in plain language before the launch into the scientific description. I have no objections to the way the article is written in its body, but I do think we owe readers a courtesy of common language first, especially in the lead. Geogre 15:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also, I feel that the lead is now sufficiently user-friendly. After a lead that gives an overview of the subject, I personally think that precision and technical terminology are acceptable, so I don't agree with trying to explain every specialist term in the article per se. Summary sentences in "plain English" at the heads of each technical section could benefit, but I do not feel that we would be demanding that a high math article or computer science article explain each term before use, so neither should we here. Geogre 00:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Also neutral, as I mentioned to Larsie I think the article needs a more relevant picture. I also agree that it needs some more explanation for us everyday people, but not at the expense of preciseness. And I do want to point out that Larsie has made a tremendous effort here, and has also gone and written good articles for some of the linked terms. Rhobite 05:44, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Still neutral, I'm sorry, it needs a relevant picture. Genes and RNA stuff are good, but at least the lead picture should be specific to this syndrome. Rhobite 02:13, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This article is undoubtedly comprehensive (congratulations Larsie). However I have concerns about its relevance to the wider audience. LNS is a rare disease. Estimates vary between 1 in 100,000 and 1 in 1,000,000 live births. In the scheme of genetic diseases, this is rare. The most frequent X-linked diseases (excluding colour-blindness) with incidence per 1,000 live births are: -
Fragile X 0.5
Duchenne muscular dystrophy 0.3
X-linked ichthyosis 0.2
Haemophilia A 0.1
Becker muscular dystrophy 0.05
Haemophilia B 0.03

Larsie's estimate is far below this, at only 0.0026. Is there a precedent for such rare diseases to be accepted as featured articles in Wikipedia? Axl 13:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Why should it matter if it does not affect a large part of the populus? one would think that it affects more lives in this world than an exploding whale, don't you think? come on now. --Larsie 16:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Axl's objection is, as they say, not actionable. Rhobite 20:04, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Axl's objection is not actionable and is therefore invalid. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:26, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. If it is OK to have the article (not a list) on Wikipedia, then it is a potential candidate. I found it well structured and clear, if technical. Made a couple of minor format edits. Filiocht 14:49, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Getting much better. I agree with JFW's comments below. Too much unexplained medical jargon for an audience where 99.9% plus will not have the requisite background. Don't remove any detail, just explain any term most people are not likely to understand. Especially in the intro, then the article can slowly descend into the detail that most people would not understand without training. Finally this was listed on Peer review 24 hrs before being listed here. I reallize you worked a lot on it, but there are comments that were not entirely addressed both there and on your talk page when you listed this here. This listing was a little premature considering that. There are many many topics in this that do have Wikipedia articles that should be linked to. I will try to cover that one. By the way, how common the disease is has no bearing on whether it is a great article and thus if it can be featured. - Taxman 16:05, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • if i can get some examples of which parts of the article are hard to comprehend i'd be more than happy to re-work them, as i understand the subject at hand it is hard for me to differ what would not be understandable to others. --Larsie 16:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've replaced "hypotonia" with "abnormally decreased muscle tone (hypotonia)". Other examples of terms needing explanation are: "extrapyramidal", "pyramidal", "dystonia", "choreoathetosis", "opisthotonus", "hyperreflexia" "extensor plantar", "hyperuricemia", "nephrolithiasis", "hematuria" to name a few. Paul August 17:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
all these terms are explained in the articles that they link to to exdplain them all would expand the aricle to the point in which it would be to exhaustive to read. --Larsie 17:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well "pyramidal" and "extensor plantar" aren't linked ["plantar reflexes" is now linked Paul August 03:07, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)], and the first use of "extrapyramidal" wasn't linked (I've linked it now). Also, consider that articles should stand alone without links so, for example, printed versions make sense. It is better, where possible to add short definitions, similar to my edit above, or your "uric acid crystals or calculi". Other examples: "hyperreflexia" could be replaced by "overactive reflexes (hyperreflexia)" and "hematuria" with "blood in the urine (hematuria)", to name just two. [These two have now been addressed. Paul August 19:24, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)] Paul August 18:28, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Well a good lead section (please read) needs to be accessible to those that have not read every one of those articles. Yes, it is difficult for some subjects, but it can be done. It may involve carefully considering what information is truly important enough for inclusion in the intro. But yes, all of those terms either need to be explained in the intro where they are used or not be used in the intro. See black hole for an example of a good intro on a potentially difficult subject. Only the important topics are covered, and it is accessible to most people. I think you may just be trying to tell too much about the subject in the intro, that instead should be included in the detailed subsetions. - Taxman 18:08, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • alright so i re-worked the intro and added a paragraph 'description' i don't know if it is what you were looking for or not what do you think? --Larsie 18:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Well i think i'm done i re-worked what was requested and added a bunch of applicable images i hope you'll be pleased have a look. Lesch-Nyhan syndrome --Larsie 20:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Intro is much better but I worked on it a small bit, so caveat emptor. The rest of the article still could use some explaining of the various medical terms inline as explained in other comments above. Finally the last sentence in the inheritance section refers to less severe versions of the mutation, but I couldn't see anywhere else in the article this was covered. How much does it vary? That sentence needs to be expanded where it is and that idea should be covered wherever in the article is appropriate. Taxman
[I took the liberty of signing the above for Taxman ;-) Paul August 02:22, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)]
I think this version of the intro, written by user:Jfdwolff but reverted by user:Larsie is better:
Lesch-Nyhan syndrome or LNS is a severe medical condition caused by a genetic defect that affects mainly males. Patients have severe mental and physical symptoms throughout life, experiencing severe arthritis, gout, self-mutilation, as well as difficulty in achieving normal function. LNS was first described in 1964 by Dr. Michael Lesch and Dr. William Nyhan. The disease is due to a mutation located on the X chromosome. It is a rare disease, affecting 1:380,000 live births. No cure is available, and continuous follow-up and symptom control is required.
Paul August 02:11, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, with Larsie's agreement (I think) I've changed the intro back to Jfdwolff's version above - plus I've reincorporated some of Neutrality's edits and added a tweak of my own. Paul August 04:18, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can the caption on the first image say if these are LNS defective X-chromosomes with defects pointed to by the blue arrow or not? Paul August 03:16, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
The image has now been removed. Paul August 15:36, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is an interesting topic which may be featured due to its academic interest, not because of its incidence. At the same time, it has to conform to lay readability and scientific integrity at the same time - a tall order indeed. I have reorganised the article to conform to other medical articles under the Wikiproject "Clinical medicine", and made some factual changes. I would recommend some academic references - webpages are poor reflectors of recent scientific knowledge. I will search Pubmed for a recent quality review article and post its conclusions on Talk:Lesch-Nyhan syndrome before inclusion. Actually, the webpages may also provide some references. JFW | T@lk 14:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Question: The following sentence from the "Differential diagnosis" section has a problem: Biting the fingers and lips is a definive feature of Lesch-Nyhan syndrome. I don't think "definive" is a word and "definitive" seems too strong. Is "defining" what is wanted here? Paul August 16:00, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC) now fixed Paul August 21:22, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object As a layman, I have great difficulty understanding this article. I can just understand the first sentence, then I'm in a daze. The second paragraph means absolutely nothing to me! Lots of medical jargon is used throughout, always without explanation (see Wikipedia:Explain jargon). A featured article should be accessible to all: this article isn't. jguk 06:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think the jargon level is much better now than it was, and I think it is now probably at an acceptably low level for a FA. Paul August 17:55, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
I've just reread the second paragraph of the lead section. It's still too confusing. I disagree. You still need a reasonable level of medical knowledge (which I do not have) to be able to understand this article.jguk 22:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Good job on such an obscure disease. Found it to be relatively jargon-low, as far as not ending up in baby-speak.--ZayZayEM 14:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ok i'm a little confused as to where we are in this thing, is it done if not what exactly do we still need to work on, fix, edit, delete, add, or de-jargon? --Larsie 20:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well one small thing, could you respond to my last comment above about "definive"? Thanks. Paul August 14:52, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC) now fixed Paul August 21:22, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, comparing favorably with other material online..

Suggestions: Contextualize the extrapyramidal system for the reader since it is so pertinent to the pathology. Link macrocytic (anemia). Rather than a mini treatise on genetics (pictures in section 2.1) you should refer the reader to a link. Use of a genetic tree diagram would help to illustrate inheritance patterns. Illustration of organic chemistry reaction. Illustration of 3d structure of molecule. Define "sibs" for the layman before using the abbreviation. Define or hyperlink PCR and RT-PCR. Some additional material on SNP typing for identifying HPRT1 gene would keep the article current. prometheus1

  • FYI: Starting, Saturday, I will be on vacation for two weeks, (islands … sun … snorkeling … no computers … ahhhh) so if I don't respond to someone's possible query, you now know why ;-) Keep trying to make this article better! I would like to see it become a FA. I've spent a fair amount of time on it. I'll check back in two weeks. If it's still here, maybe I'll be able to support it then. Paul August 03:33, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Falklands War[edit]

Article has improved much since its last nomination in September. Well written. =) --Andylkl 08:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. See also Wikipedia:What is a featured article for some of my objections. 1) Insufficient lead section. See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section. 2) No reference section. Some are mentioned in the article, but there should be a section listing all used sources, and possibly further reading and external links. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources 3) The image of Galtieri is uncredited (and had a non-standard caption, fixed now) 4) There is non-standard use of boldface and italic characters in the article. Literal quotes should be in normal font, but with "-quotes. Titles of books should be in italic, not boldface. See WP:MOS. 5) Sectioning should improve. Some sections have only a single paragraph ("Failed diplomacy", "Life under the occupation") while "Invasion" is way too long and should be split up, or should be given subsections (such as done with "War"). 6) I fail to understand why the "Invasion" doesn't qualify as "War". 7) Although there is an analysis section (the "Military" section is very messy), I miss an "aftermath" discussion, in which the post-war developments are discussed. 8) I would like to see some more information from the Argentine point of view. We get the reactions in the British newspapers, but what happened in Argentina? There should be more balance in the article regarding this. Jeronimo 19:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. as Jeronomo. The details of the actual invasion can be detailed on a "sub article". Also, aftermath. Let's get the POV right too. Dunc| 16:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Noel Gallagher[edit]

Sorry to stick this up again but I've made extensive changes and additions, and am very proud it. I cannot see how to improve it further and would really appreciate hints. User:Vague Rant did a lot of helpful work on it too.--Crestville 00:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object for now. The opening line is confusing: Should it not read "Noel Thomas David Gallagher (born May 29, 1967) ..."? Or has he formally changed his name? Dbiv 12:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    No name change. Fixed -- GWO
  • Object for now: a lot of repetition in the writing. For example, the name Noel appears seven times in the first paragraph of the biography section alone. Filiocht 15:15, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
It's sorted--Crestville 15:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - needs a good proofread, there are quite a few spelling and grammar errors that I spotted on a quick read through. Also more importantly:
'Oasis went on to become one of the most popular and successful British acts ever' - not really, there have been many British acts who've sold more records than them.
'made him a rich and respected man' - weasel words
'Oasis are considered by many to be the best British band since the Beatles' - weasel words
Songwriting section is overflowing with excessive praise, not very neutral especially considering his habit of blatantly ripping off other peoples' work is well known and even commented on in this article
'Amongst this albums 10 unforgettable tracks' and other examples - I've forgotten them all, I thought they were rubbish. The article suffers from this sort of subjective writing.
Transcripts of arguments seem to me to add nothing to the article.
In summary, the article is a considerable way from being neutral. These are only a few representative examples
  • Hang on, lets take a look here:
'Oasis went on to become one of the most popular and successful British acts ever' - This is true, they are not the most popular and successful british act ever, but they're up there, as can be seen from there high positioning in those "100 greatest" shows they always have on VH1, and the act that every one of their albums has gone straight in at number 1 in the British charts.
They are nothing like one of the most popular and successful British acts ever. Queen, Led Zep, Rolling Stones, Dire Straits, etc etc have sold many many times as many records. Even Status Quo have sold over 100m records. I wouldn't be too surprised if Take That sold more records than them. Replace 'ever' with 'of the 1990s' and it might be an accurate statement.
'made him a rich and respected man' - He bloody is.
Rich=fact, respected=your opinion. Encyclopaedias shouldn't be opinionated.
'Oasis are considered by many to be the best British band since the Beatles' - weasel words - this is a widely held and well recognised comparison
Nonsense, I'm afraid, that is not a widely held opinion at all, and this kind of sentence is exactly what the weasel words article suggests should be avoided.
'Amongst this albums 10 unforgettable tracks' and other examples - Yeah, ok that's fair enough, didn't consider the possability of a Phil Collins fan taking an interest in the artical. Though on the basis of them being "rubbish" - continued sales of the album alone seems to prove general opinion is not in your favour.
Bad records often sell millions, but that's beside the point. The point is that the article is not written from a neutral point of view, it's written from a fan's point of view. Descriptions like 'unforgettable' have no place in an encyclopaedia article.
Songwriting section is overflowing with excessive praise, not very neutral especially considering his habit of blatantly ripping off other peoples' work is well known and even commented on in this article - This critisism seems redundent. How can I have glossed over his copying whilst at the same time commenting on it? In fact, a large section of the Songwriting bit is dedicated to this exact area! For what it's worth, I've tried to tone the rest of it down
It seems very strange to describe someone as a uniquely talented songwriter in one paragraph and then note their habit of plagiarising in the next. Again, the excessive praise is indicative of a non-NPOV article.
Transcripts of arguments seem to me to add nothing to the article - other that evidence of the nature of his relationship with his brother, which some people actually asked me to put in.
Just makes the article end oddly, and the quotes may look better in the body text instead of standing out in their own coloured boxes.

It would appear you are working more out of a dislike of the man than an actual attempt to help the page.--Crestville 18:33, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No. I'm pointing out that the article contains a lot that is not factual, balanced or objective. I am pointing this out because I think the article will be a lot better with more facts and balance, less purple prose and weasel words. Worldtraveller 23:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are suggeting about the coloured boxes, maybe you could do that if you wouldn't mind. As for an odd way to end the article, perhaps you could suggest a way to move about the sections so it ends on a more appropriate note. The Morning Glory page has links to some very good reviews. I'm adament it isn't rubbish, but, as you say, that's besides the point. However, I have gotten rid of the "unforgettable", which I hadn't noticed. Sorry to bore you when you clearly don't like the band but Oasis are one of the most popular and successful British acts ever, keep in mind, The Stones, Queen etc. have been selling consistantly for many decades now, so of course they've sold more, keep it in context. I assure you, Oasis - like it or not - are up there. I see no problem with leaving that, but I will incorperatre your suggestion as well. As for your Take That comments - a daggar to my heart (more than anything else, I doubt it's accurate). Noel's respect amongst other musicians can be seen from endevours like his work with McCartney and Weller, and the hand he has played in helping launch the careers of bands like Coldplay, Travis and the Zootons, I don't feel comfortable changing that (and another user actually asked me to add something to that effect). Noel's songwriting deserves both praise and critsim - which I feel is equally distributed. What would be unfair would be to either omitt his "plagirism" or his success and acclaim. We may have to agree to disagree. Also I can't find anything that describes him as a "Uniquley talented" songwriter. I appreciate your critisims, but we are totally working at cross purposes. Perhaps you could have a go at toning down the praise in the article, I know an objective eye is needed. I never expected this to become a featured article this time round, but I always end up improving it on the advice of others.--Crestville 17:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I had a go at toning it down, but actually, I don't think it was that bad! I even found a bit about Be Here Now saying how much he dislikes the album. I'd totally fogotten I even wrote that. Perspective, you see. Perspective. Nice.--Crestville 18:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. But, it's getting better. I can see you're a fan of his work and are working hard to make this a good article:
1. Unfortunately, it comes off that way in the writing - can you try to make it more NPOV? (read the previous comments about Weasel words).
2. I like the Public Persona section - just needs expansion.
3. Brotherly love still needs to be expanded, you're not going into enough detail. Please trim the quotes down a little, those ugly grey boxes look messy.
4. Copyedit! Find a good book on Grammar (or read one of the many Wikipedia articles) ("Eats, Shoots and Leaves" is a great way to learn grammar) and apply your new found knowledge.
5. Keep it up, this has the potential to become a great article. Zerbey 18:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Cheers, I know it's not up to scratch, but I can't put me finger on why, thats why I stuck it up here again. Grammar is far from me strong point, I've resolved to give up trying, let someone else take care of that. I know that the Gallaghers are really well known for arguing, put the problem is, most of it is myth. It's hard to build that up. I'll take a look at the public persona bit. I don't know what I could do about it. As for making it less POV, that may need an objective eye. --Crestville 19:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nuclear reactor[edit]

Oh, why not? I've looked this over, and it seems to be both complete and NPOV. -Litefantastic 15:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Although Chernobyl and Three Mile island are briefly mentioned and there is some discussion of environmental safety, the topic of catastrophic failure is not given much attention, or am I missing something? Kosebamse 18:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. No sources, only external links. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. There's easily room for 5-10 images here. Fredrik | talk 16:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The image has neither source nor licensing info. Lupo 08:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Remembrance Day[edit]

  • A usefully topical article (the day itself is in two days' time) which seems pretty thorough and admirably concise. -- ChrisO 00:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - topical and concise alright, timely too; but hardly comprehensive. What about practices in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand? (All are mentioned as observing Remembrance Day but then not mentioned again.) What about other countries? France? Germany? The text from Remembrance Sunday could usefully be included here instead and Remembrance Sunday turned into a redirect. Where are the references? Why an inline external link to the Royal British Legion? Are there no other relevant pages externally or in Wikipedia. Need I go on... -- ALoan (Talk) 00:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. In addition to being not comprehensive, there are various other issues mentioned in Wikipedia:What is a featured article not applicable to this article. E.g.: lead section, headings, references. Jeronimo 19:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - reasons as others -ZayZayEM 14:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


To my ignorant eyes, this looks like an excellent, thorough article. —No-One Jones (m) 00:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. The stuff about the black death being caused by a lack of cats is a myth. Comment. The pictures are fine photos of cats, but they don't illustrate the article. They are just pictures of cats, except the one illustrating a breed named in the article. Gdr 00:42, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
    • What exactly is the nature of the myth, and where is it debunked? A cursory search indicates that at least in some regions, cats were killed for superstitious reasons, e.g. [11].--Eloquence*
      • I think we need a source for the claim first, then we can debunk it! If "Historians theorize that widespread superstition-induced Christian emnity towards cats accelerated the black death" then the article ought to be able to say which historians theorize this and what evidence they use. Gdr
  • Object. the entire section on feral cats appears to me to be full of false information. Feral cats do thrive in the wild, are quite adaptable and readily find food sources (at least in Australia). It is either Americentric, or totally false.--ZayZayEM 09:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: the lead is... odd. I don't think that baby rats and obscure sayings are the most important subjects to mention there. Markalexander100 09:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. All of the above and no refs section. Filiocht 09:37, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, not featured-quality. Needs to be at least twice the current size, with references. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:53, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: "The only way to distinguish them is by looking at the processus hamatus of the feline scapula, which should have a processus suprahamatus" what does that mean? At least link it to relevant pages.. Mozzerati 23:47, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
  • Object: 1) Just as a comment, this should be moved to Domestic Cat in my opinion (which redirects to this article already) and Cat become a disambiguation page. This isn't why I'm objecting, however. 2) No references quoted 3) The part about the black death needs to be expanded. I'd like to see some figures on what effect killing cats had on increasing the number of plague victims. It sounds a bit suspect to me. 4) Can we have a bit more about Cats and ancient Egypt? They were reverred as Gods there (and as any cat owner knows, they've never forgotten this) so this section deserves more than a paragraph). 5) Little, or no mention of famous cats (eg. Garfield, Puss in Boots) aside from a link. Can we go into some details on this? 6) Slight agreement with ZayZayEM, feral cats DO thrive on their own but how well depends on the environment. The local strays in my neighbourhood do fine but that's because there's plenty of humans around to steal food from. This section needs to be fixed. Zerbey 21:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Cats and the Black Death". Is this true? Seems a bit simplicitic to say this was the only cause of the black death. Also, the Black Death spread throughout the world, didn't it? Wasn't just isolated to the "religious" areas of Europe... - Ta bu shi da yu 23:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: My mate Dave once got bitten on the hand by a cat and it went septic.--Crestville 22:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, with comments and reservations: I would like to see more references and links on what should be a popular (or unpopular), well at least, very common subject. The entire story doesn't have the word kitten in it at all. It could be a little friendlier; kids use Wikipedia for reference. Also, I'd like to see something mentioned about polydactyl cats. This is a mutation that causes more than the standard 5 digits. (seriously). Ernest Hemingway was perhaps the most famous owner of these. My polydactyl likes to come over and sit on the key board, which perhaps many cats do, but she can also open cabinet doors and do things no cat I've ever had before can do, as she has opposing digits (i.e. 2 thumbs on each front paw. Mine has 6 all the way around, so we say she is the cat that can count to 24). This article would be more interesting with this variation included. A lot of good stuff here, but keep working on it, please. Vaoverland 14:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

David Irving[edit]

For the most part a self-nomination, the article has been significantly re-worked and expanded since the last time it was nominated. Besides being a biography, it also dissects the rise of Holocaust revisionism. GeneralPatton 18:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object - Far too much POV phrasing. - Xed 19:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • All objections must give a specific rationale that can be addressed. - as it is, this objection is too vague to be actionable. →Raul654 19:50, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
"enabling Irving to claim he was a serious historian, publishing original material"
"Though Irving's works were generally ignored by academics, and often criticized as inaccurate when reviewed by specialists" - contradicted by quotes from said academics and specialists
"Most serious historians picked the book apart, noting its numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations" - who?
"Historians viewed the book as revisionist nonsense" - who?
"but they did help enforce the public impression that Irving was not just a historian of Fascism, but a Fascist historian"
The main authors of the article openly admit using the ADL as a reference!
-Xed 20:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: I did some grammar clean up, and I may have missed some things. The only POV objection I had was in the choice of "fascist historian," above, since Fascism is separate, or separable, from Nazism, and it was not by itself anti-semitic. Whether Irving is an anti-semite or not is not really in debate for us: the courts have said that he is. The governments of Austria, Germany, and South Africa have said that he is. We do not decide this matter -- not being competent to do so -- but rely only upon the verdict of those who do have the authority and charge to do so. (E.g. I don't think Alger Hiss was a spy, but if I were writing about him on Wikipedia, I would say that he was one, since that is the verdict of the courts. I don't think Bruno Hauptmann abducted the Lindbergh Baby, but the courts said he did, so, for our purposes, he did. We report the ambiguity, but we do not argue it.) Geogre 20:25, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The same logic would mean referring to Mandela as a terrorist with every mention of him. - Xed 20:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If the account were written before the end of apartheid, he would have been "a convicted terrorist regarded by the rest of the world as a freedom fighter." Thing is, I can't find any "rest of the world" that regards Irving as a freedom fighter. All I see is country after country denying him entry and calling him a holocaust denier. Geogre 04:26, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, both the US and Thatcher thought of Mandela as a terrorist. - Xed 18:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: for now. This splendid article is not quite there, but I really do hope it will be. (1) Given the large amount of detail, it needs some more breaking up into logical sections the two longest sections need some subheads, but, more importantly, (2) I agree with Xed in his/her general point that more references and specifics in the article text are needed if all the assertions in it are to stand. However, if this is going to make it too clumsy I think many of the type of phrases Xed identifies could simply be omitted, and make the article more neutral, albeit slightly more abstract. And (3) one of the only persons who testified? Naturenet 17:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Admirable work by General Patton. Jayjg 21:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Thorough coverage of the subject; perhaps the best of the element articles. +sj+ 10:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object - the section on isotopes is a bit thin; there is nothing about cold fusion. Also little astronomy: nothing about deuterium as a constraint on models of nucleosynthesis in the early universe; stars and gas are mentioned, but there is more to say about hydrogen gas in galaxies (for example, ionised HII regions, neutral atomic hydrogen emitting 21cm radiation, star-formation in regions of molecular H2, traced by CO emission) or planets (such as Jupiter); what about spectral lines, like the Lyman series or the Balmer series. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - could use a better picture. Maybe someone could photograph the ubiquitous "hydrogen combustion over a flask" from high school chemistry? Rhobite 21:21, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


No particular reason for nominating this. I just randomly came to the page and thought, "Why not?". (Note - this was nominated by an anon →Raul654 19:34, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC))

  • Object for now - insufficient lead, too many short sections, too many lists that could be turned into prose, infelicitous placement of images, and generally more that could be said. On the other hand, a good start. I'll help it if/when I have time (it would be a nice complement to speed of light). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I've started, moving the theories of light section to a better place at the end, but much work still to do. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, in case this needs another agreement to the above. Simply does not meet very many of the featured article criteria yet. - Taxman 20:48, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Although some sections are very good (eg Theories), others clearly need more work. I suggest, in particular
  • Categorising the sources of light into groups based on the chemical/physical process underlying them, or man-made vs natural.
  • Providing brief explanations of each of the above, also of the items in the measurements
  • giving the whole article a natural "flow" somehow. It currently flutters from topic to topic like a butterfly, but lacks any cohesive direction overall. --mike40033 06:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

High jump[edit]

"partial self-nom". i added to history, others helped with pictures and captioning, while others copy-edited, right down to the last umlauts. 22:36, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)(srf)

  • Object. Needs an expanded lead section. Some dodgy language too - "obtaining the most economical clearance to date." What does that mean? Also seems a little short to be truly comprehensive, but I personally don't know much else that is not covered. - Taxman 00:14, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) History is incomplete, mostly focussed on male high jumping and has several big gaps. It jumps from ancient Greeks to the 19th century, for example. It also seems highly US-biased, and mentions jumpers like Amy Acuff, while more accomplished jumpers are left out. Only Olympics and world records seem to be mentioned, but what about other international championships, notably the World Championships? It also fails to mention, f.e. when the event was introduced at the Olympics. 2) A section is needed on the various high jumping techniques, including illustrations (or a video?) of how a Fosbury flop jump works. Also, there should be more about how to jump. What equipment is used (shoes?), how does an athlete train for high jumping. If nothing specific can be said about that, mention that. 3) A lead section is needed. 4) Kostadinova's picture is uncredited. 5) A discussion of the physics of high jumping is also required. The reason why the flop works is because the centre of gravity has to travel as little as possible. This is also why people with long legs (a high centre of gravity) tend to jump higher in general. 6) The references are incomplete, and although I don't own these books, it seems like not all parts of the article originate from these sources, notably the "Procedures and rules". 7) The "Current status" section should be merged with history. 8) "which would likely have broken his neck in the old sawdust landing pits" - what old sawdust landing pits? We never heard about those. 9) The article should decide on it style. It currently mixes US and UK. We have some heights only in feet, others in both (which is as it should be), others only in centimeters. Also we have both track and field and athletics. Pick one style and stick with it. Jeronimo 07:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object with nothing to add to Jeronimo's remarks above. Filiocht 12:24, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Creation accounts in Genesis[edit]

This article was put together collaboratively by people with opposing POV. It reads excellently, and appears to completely surround the subject. CheeseDreams 20:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • ...And unfortunately it shows. It's not an article so much as a dot point of opposing views. I have to object.
  • Object. I see the following problems that need to be addressed (I may try to help with this myself...): (1) Lead section is currently three 1-sentence paragraphs (2) No image (3) Most of the text is bulleted lists rather than prose (4) Proponents of the various theories are not identified (5) A brief discussion of the documentary hypothesis would be appropriate here (not in detail, but enough to give context to the theory) (6) There are some less "mainstream" theories about the two-creation school (dinosaurs were in the first creation, but not the second, etc.) that should be at least lightly addressed. (7) No references. Mpolo 11:35, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • I find this countdown list very, very helpful--a real service to Wikipedia quality, in my opinion. So thanks! ---Rednblu | Talk 16:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - bulleted lists are not great writing. It should be prose. See Shroud of Turin for how that can be done acceptably. - Taxman 13:42, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: Not only is it all dot-points, but the dot points aren't even well used dot-points as they read linearly in many places. Make it prose and attribute the proponents, and maybe it will be up to scratch. Shane King 05:46, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: no refs, too many bullet points, to many sentences beginning 'Some.../Other.../Proponents... A classic example of why NPOV should not be considered to equal Include All POVs. Filiocht 12:16, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object Full of minor illiteracies. Not every Christian article need be featured. --Wetman 17:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • 'Object The article seems to be almost entirely an argument (without much attempt to resolve the arguments) about whether there are 2 or 1 creation accounts. Its angels-on-pinheads stuff and there isn't enough detail to allow the reader a meaningful ability to understand -- William M. Connolley 17:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC).
Urm, doesnt NPOV mean that you don't take sides and resolve the arguments?
Further, angels-on-pinheads is actually a very important philosophical question about the nature of infinity and was first posed by Augustine of Hippo. CheeseDreams 00:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, it's not. And no it wasn't. It's a theological question, unrelated to infinity but related (surprise!) to the nature of Angels. And it's usually attributed to Thomas Aquinas. -- GWO 15:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Behavioral finance[edit]

recreated from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2004

Partial self-nom - I added to pgreenfinch's original behavioural finance page. I think it's a good and well referenced article on a fairly interesting subset of finance/economics. But I might be biased :) Psychobabble

  • Support - yeh its interesting AlbinoMonkey 12:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. Wiki needs definetly much more work on economic subjects and I am happy to see activity in this field, but this article is far from ready from featured status. Did you notice there are two 'Criticisms' sections?? I fixed various minor problems, but this needs more interlinks and expansion, especially where there are lists like 'Behavioral economics topics' or 'Key Figures'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The outline of the article is split between behavioral finance and behavioral economics, the two criticism sections are specific to each of those sub-sections. I realise more needs to be done in the sub-topics, I wasn't sure if that was a criterion for having the main page (which is a broad outline of the field) featured. A lot of that stuff I'll fill in when I finish exams. Psychobabble
  • Comment on the picture: The only picture is a picture of Daniel Kahneman. The picture had no source/license information, but I've added a probable source and assumed the picture is fair use. Because of that I don't think we should use the picture in the article -- unless I'm mistaken about the license -- because I don't think we should use it as fair use outside Daniel Kahneman. ✏ Sverdrup 23:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't know much about this sort of stuff. I assumed if it was OK for the Kahnenman wikipedia articke, it was OK for this one.Psychobabble


I think its rather good. ZayZayEM 01:27, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Minor Objection. 1)The references only cover a small part of the information in the article. 2)Some of the units are not wiki linked. 3) The first image has no copyright tag. Martyman 01:46, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Overly short - more could be written on the topic, I'm sure. Ambi 02:13, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There is more information about each species in seperate articles. Though, mention of the numerous car accidents they cause would be good. Martyman 02:17, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Revth 09:08, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Kangaroos are commonly depicted as are great boxers, particularly in cartoons. Is that something worthy of mention? A little non-serious, I know. violet/riga (t) 09:28, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Cultural references would be one section that wouldn't be bad here. Ambi 11:22, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah I am sort of leaning back a bit for not enough content. I have some details on kangaroo fighting I'll add. (vs dogs, humans and apparently drowning hawks...)--ZayZayEM 14:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Not even close. Now substantially improved (after a heavy-duty copyedit) but a long long way from featured article status. Tannin 23:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Too short and needs more sources. Has potential, though; keep up the good work! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:59, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


Clear, to the point, and I like it. Ivan 03:41, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Object. Most of the article is a bullet-point list. Turn into prose, please.--Eloquence*
  • Object as well. There should be at least a history section out of this topic. Revth 14:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: too many lists and too little history. Literary examples need to go back at leas as far as Dante and the music should not start in the 1970s (Janacek for starters). Some discussion of the Romantic period would not go astray, plus some discussion of Plato's Republic as a dystopian text and on, and on. Filiocht 15:03, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. When lists are longer then the actual article we have a problem. Good start, long way from feature status. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It's a collection of lists with no real content. Zerbey 23:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Not really a self-nom even though I have contributed to this page. The end result of many, many hours of tireless work by people with nothing better to do. If successful, this may be the first anime FA (although I can't swear to to that). -Litefantastic 21:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. (1) The lead section should explain why it is notable/interesting/significant. (2) There's a lot about plot and character, nothing about artistic style. (3) Put the most important stuff first. Spelling of the title is trivia and belongs lower down. (4) Lead picture is tilted; can you rotate it back upright? (5) There's a great deal of information likely to only be of interest to fans (lists of characters and their relationships), but not much for the general reader of the encyclopedia. What is it about? Is it just an exotic romance? What is the secret of its popularity? Does it have anything to say about the human condition? What sources does it draw on? Does it make significant use of Japanese history, fiction, folklore or legend? Does it draw on other manga/anime? How does it compare to Takahashi's other work? (At the moment Wikipedia has very few featured articles on works of literature or media. See A Tale of a Tub and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, two featured literature articles, for what is required.) Gdr 01:26, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
  1. I agree that it would be good for the article to explain why InuYasha is interesting, but I think there is an important reason why it does not—most likely, such a section would be quite subjective. One of my favorite things about the series is that its characters are very sympathetic and varied. However, other people may have different preferences.
  2. Probably the reason the article does not discuss artistic style is either because it's difficult to describe or because it is not notable.
  3. I agree on this, and plan to move that section.
  4. Good idea, I will see what I can do in Photoshop.
  5. The "Overview" section covers some of this, but I think you are right that it could use some more information on the topics you suggested. (Although many of them, such as "the secret of its popularity" would also have to be rather subjective, though it is probably possible to make some general statements.)
[[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 02:16, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Okay. I tried to fix some of the problems that you mentioned. If anyone has any other improvements, though, feel free to make them. [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 05:14, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
You can explain why it is notable/interesting/popular while remaining objective by attributing opinions to notable reviewers, critics and enthusiasts, preferably by quoting them. The same goes for artistic style. Gdr 10:36, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
Further objections. (6) The ASCII art diagram is horrible; please make a proper diagram. (7) The U.S. and Japanese logos should be adjacent for comparison. (8) The picture of a purple circle contributes nothing. Is it even from the anime? Gdr 11:14, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)
(6.) You may be right that an image diagram would be better, and I think that one should be made, but remember that someone made the ASCII diagram that is there now. I did not make it, but please don't call anyone's work 'horrible'. (7.) You're probably right, and in fact, I uploaded such an image a while ago. Right now, though it's only used in the character navigation template. I was going to replace the one that is there now with that, but I had kind of forgotten about it. I'll do that now. [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 23:23, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
OK. I made a little graphical timeline. Comments? [[User:JoshG|Josh |Talk]] 05:55, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
Sort of like what i was going to do...but better! -Litefantastic 15:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Objection #8: The picture is supposed to be the Shikon no Tama, Jewel of Four Souls, which is the ultimate goal in the collect the pieces plot aspect of the show. It isn't actually from the show; one of the people here drew it. And I wouldn't say it contributes nothing; it's actually a pretty good picture. -Litefantastic 12:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It might mean something to fans, but to me it's just a purple circle with radial shading: a minute's work in Photoshop. Gdr 12:47, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)
I am disappointed that you do not think my jewel picture is complex enough. I know it's just a circle with a radial gradient, but I thought that it looked pretty similar to the jewel in the anime series. Improvement is always a good thing, though. Would it be better if I drew in a necklace around it? Or do you just think that there should not be a picture of the jewel in the main article? [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 23:23, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Gdr that it's simple, but simply doesn't = bad. I think that what you've done is probably the best you can do. If we really must have something better we can scrounge up a screenshot of the wretched thing. -Litefantastic 15:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's not a question of whether the picture is simple or complex, that doesn't really matter. It's a question of whether the picture adds value to article for the general reader. Does the picture help the general reader understand the subject of the article? A frame from the manga would illustrate Takahashi's style (and if accompanied by criticism would count as fair use). But the purple circle is someone's idea of what the object in question looks like: it's an opinion, a point of view. So like any other opinion in the article, you need to justify its inclusion and attribute it. Gdr 23:52, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
If you think that a screenshot would be more appropriate, I have one that would work. However, the reason that I made a picture instead of using a screenshot in the first place is because I thought it would help avoid copyright concerns. [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 01:04, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
It's not the picture itself, it's what you do with it. Present it as the subject of analysis or criticism and it counts as fair use, use it purely as an illustration and it doesn't. In any case, the picture isn't a big deal. The main problem is that the article is not yet encyclopedic. It's a guide for fans. See my objections above. Gdr 01:07, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
Considering the entire plot revolves around recovering the jewel, I think a picture of it would be pretty important, yesno? -Litefantastic 03:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. "InuYasha Characters Relationship Guide" is severly misleading. For example, Jaken is supposedly hated by Sesshomaru. In truth, Jaken is quite trusted by Sesshomaru especially when one considers that Sesshomaru rarely cares to keep anyone around. Jaken's occasional rumbling about how he doesn't like to be around Sesshomaru is on par with that by C3PO claiming how he isn't supposed to be stuck in a battlefield.
    • You're right about that. In fact, it has been discussed on the talk page before, but no one has actually done anything about it yet. [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 04:15, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
      • I have a beta-version that's almost finished. I'm not sure it'll be any better, but we can see. -Litefantastic 13:07, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) Just decided my version isn't much better than the original. I'll just take it down for now. -Litefantastic 12:20, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • What about some kind of table? Would that be any better? (I removed the old relationship guide from the page.) [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 23:23, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
          • I think the picture you've put in pretty much sums it up. -Litefantastic 15:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • I'm confused. I didn't put in a new relationship guide. Are you talking about the timeline? [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 00:27, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
              • Yeah. You see, what i was making was going to be a sort of relationship guide across the three time periods (X, Y, Z). In addition to the love/hate relationships, it would point out nifty things like Kagome being a reincarnation of Kikyo and stuff. Still, I like your version better. -Litefantastic 17:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • On Gdr asking about how InuYasha makes use of Japanese history, fiction, etc., is I think impossible to write becoming too long and complex. It would be quite an article by itself on how a love relationship between a Yokai and a human is possible from historical or religious point of views. To be more specific, it would start from a Chinese classic of "封神演戯" (there is no article yet) supposedly about fictious battles involving man and Chinese gods in 11th BC that led to Zhou Dynasty, touching on Shinto, Buddhism, magic in general, spirits, modern Japanese culture, etc., or about three millenium worth of informations. Revth 04:07, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Too many bullet point lists, the lead section does not cover enough of the content and there are no explicit references given. Filiocht 09:41, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • What do you want? -Litefantastic 12:20, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • 1) A lead section that is a summary of the article, not a definition followed by a single sentence, most of which, as an English-speaking reader of an English encyclopaedia I cannot read. 2) A reference section. 3) Prose in place of lists (and maybe some of the lists to move to sub articles). 4) World peace. Filiocht 12:54, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - it's 80% list. →Raul654 13:23, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • 70% list. Is your objection with the quantity of stuff that is in list form, or the fact that the list:article ratio is too high for your liking? -Litefantastic 15:36, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • A featured article is supposed to be good because of its prose - lists contain no prose, and thus are prima facie unfeaturable. In general, it has been decided that featured articles should not be mostly lists (IE, should not contain a high ratio of list to prose). In the past, this has been dealt with by spinning them into seperate articles. However, with that said, once you take the lists out of this article, there's not a whole lot of content there - one page, maybe less. →Raul654 17:31, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd love to see an anime title in FA, but I don't think this is the one. InuYasha relies heavily on its characters and thus any article would need to go into serious depth about it (like it is now), which would be a bore for the non-fan. I think the anime article closest to FA material is probably Cowboy Bebop (warning: I'm biased, I wrote the vast majority of it), but even it's failed the FA test before... RADICALBENDER 02:14, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, this article has a lot of lists, and it's true that splitting them into separate articles would remove much of the article's content. Even so, I think it should be done anyway. At least then, it will be clear just how long the article really is, and we can at least attempt to add some more prose content with the kind of analytic information that it apparently needs. Although I don't really know of any 'influencial reviewers' who we can quote (as Gdr suggested), I'm willing to give it a go. [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 06:01, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Formula One[edit]

Quite complete, well-written, and intuitively organized. It is somewhat of a self-nomination, though I am not by any means its primary contributor. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Previously nominated and rejected twice, the last nomination was in September. When renominating, it is probably useful to specify if and how previous criticism has been addressed in the meantime. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:36, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment These are the objections from the September 2004 nomination and the ways in which I believe they’ve been dealt with: Biased towards the present; history summary deals only with technical regs. The history summary is now much improved and includes info on the dominant drivers and constructors of the eras. Some sections only link to a list. Sections have been re-arranged and short summaries of all topics have been made. Related topics section repeats too many links already covered in the main text. Fixed. Templates and categories should not be linked to in the main text. This was debated about, but cats and templates have been moved to talk page. No book references Book and internet references added. External links section need no be cleaned out. Done. No source info for Fangio/Moss image. "Copyrighted, fair use claimed" template added. Budgets and international attention not covered sufficiently. Info on the both has been added throughout the article. SamH 10:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I can't imagine how using the F1 logo in a series box can qualify as fair use. Markalexander100 07:25, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It looks to me like we have a very strong case for fair use. The logo is being used in a highly original work, for non profit purposes, and will have negligible impact on the F1 brand name. Also, we're using just as much as we need to (since half a logo wouldn't exactly be sensible). So like I said, it looks to me like we have a strong case. →Raul654 08:04, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • On the other hand, we are using it rather indiscriminately (14 times, currently) on pages which directly compete with F1's official site. Using the logo once on this page to say "this is the F1 logo" would be analogous to quoting and fine; but what we are doing is using it as a logo ourselves for all of our own coverage. That's what other organisations pay a lot of money for. Markalexander100 08:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is there a mention somewhere about Ecclestone's talk of pulling out the Silverstone track in the future? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 07:30, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
It was already mentioned on Bernie Ecclestone, but I've added a paragraph under the "Future of Formula One" section regarding future races, including those whose future is in doubt, and a few new ones which are due to appear in the next few years. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 22:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. SamH 10:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 20:55, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support ZayZayEM 03:31, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Godspeed, article. AlexanderWinston 02:37, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
  • Object. Parts of this article are good, but other parts aren't. This article is about Formula One, which is (potentially) a large topic. Therefore, this article should mostly deal with general information, and delegate the specifics to other articles. This is already done to some extent, but more is needed. More specifically (I recall voicing these objections at an earlier nomination as well. I promised help then, but little has come of it, unfortunately): 1) The 2004 season section is too specific and should be moved to 2004 Formula One season or so. DONE 2004-11-02         2) The "People" section is messy, random and not very useful. The section needs to be removed or replaced with a section discussing what is currently only mentioned in one sentence more broadly. A few people can be named specifically if necessary (Ecclestone e.g.), but this isn't stricly necessary. Also keep in mind drivers and constructors already have their own section. 3) The "Future of F1" addresses some interesting and suitable topics, but only in the scope of the current and next season. The topics (internationalisation, cost increases (and effects on smaller teams), speed reduction & other rule changes) should be discussed more broadly, taking in historical aspects, rather than just mention what has been in the news for the last two months. This is an encyclopedia article about a topic that is over 50 years old, so the article should not be balanced towards the last year of that history. 4) The history section has most of the information it needs, but the writing needs to be improved; it reads like a bullet list at times. Jeronimo 12:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe[edit]

Self-nomination (sort of). This article is the product of an initial detailed structure by myself followed by and a great deal of work by a number of people with expertise in EU politics. It's attracted lots of discussion on the talk page, all of which has been resolved amicably and led to substantial improvements, and has also prompted some recent comments saying how good it is! Structure is clear and it's also very topical. Toby W 11:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. 1) Remove all the bold-face outside of the lead section. 2) There are some very brief sections that need work. Especially the "Reaction" section is quite ridiculous, with one reaction from a single person (which I have never heard of, either). 3) Much of the article is a bullet list, while more explanation is needed for much of the text. For example: "The European Union has legal personality." What does that mean? It should be explained, and also be explained what the consequences are of this. This applies for nearly all of the bulleted items. 4) In general, I have no clear idea what this article is about. It partially seems to be about the proposed constitution itself, but the title and lead section suggest otherwise. This needs to be cleared out, and if necessary parts should be moved to appropriate articles. 5) The section "controversy" would be better named as "Critique". Jeronimo 11:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the hints. 1) I agree about the bold face. 2) The Reaction section could do with a balancing quote from another source (but I understand Rifkin is a major figure in British pro-EU politics). 3) The bullet list strikes me as more of a structural simplification than an indication of terseness, but I'll look at which points need expanding. 4) Sorry, I don't understand what you mean; it's about the EU constitutional treaty, whose official title is the title of the article, and whose contents are described in the body of the article. 5) Noted. Cheers Toby W 11:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've now made these changes, except for the Rifkin quote, which I'll bring up on the talk page. Toby W
  • Object to the title. The title of the article is not narrow enough. It should disambiguate which treaty it deals with (for example by including the year), and specify that the consitution only concerns the European Union. Even if Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe is the official title of the document, it is not suitable for an NPOV enyclopaedia. Suggested new article title: "2004 treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union". — David Remahl 11:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Using the official title is the only NPOV option. Your suggestion flies against those who do consider it a constitution for Europe (i.e. for all Europe to eventually be party to it) zoney talk 12:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Another objection: I seriously doubt that all of the article's claims are supported by the single magazine article in the References section. — David Remahl 11:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The title was originally something like European Union constitutional treaty 2004, but it was agreed to change it to the correct title of the document itself. As for the references, you're right - because most of the claims come directly from the treaty itself. I'll move the link to that treaty into the references section. Thanks. Toby W
Some would call that original research. I will have a look at the discussion about the title change, and see if that resolves my objection. — David Remahl 14:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I can't find the discussion about the article title. Not on the talk page, nor in its history. At the very least, I suggest moving the article to Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe, 2004, on the same format as the numerous Treaty of Londons. A redirect from the current location would be appropriate. — David Remahl 14:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There is no cause for you to lead a one man crusade against a title you have issues with. Evidently it is not an outrageous title, or there would be a greater outcry against it. zoney talk 12:41, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • As I just wrote at the talk page the previously excellent structure has been destroyed in recent edits - the TOC is now huge. Would support if it was put back to how it used to be which was much more readable and sensible, imo. violet/riga (t) 15:33, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: David Remahl's suggestion that using primary sources constitutes original research is deeply silly. -- GWO 15:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe, but overly interpreting those sources would be original research. - Taxman 00:31, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)


re-nom. this has now been fully overhauled, specifically re wikifying, captioning, and rewriting and annotating external links as suggested. still trying to stay a step ahead of the vandals. thanks. Sfahey 19:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Do you happen to have the objections from the second nomination? I only found the first one in the archives ([12]), but I would like to review my objections. Jeronimo 21:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • yes, i wrote them down. the archived objections at the footnote were way before my time on the article. mine were mostly wiki errors. i'll look it up and send it to your home page.Sfahey 23:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Fifelfoo 22:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It needs a much better picture at the top. A good picture would show someone actually riding a bicycle, and preferably in a nice location. But it should show off the bicycle well too. Gdr 23:57, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
    • Sounds trifling. The article is "bicycle". There is a separate article, referred to in the "lead", called "bicycling".Sfahey 01:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I would have to agree. - Taxman 01:57, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not a trifling objection. Bicycles are nothing if not a form of human transportation. But the lead picture doesn't show that. Surely Wikipedia's "very best work" needs to do better? I will see if I can take something, but the weather is not good at the moment where I live. Gdr 11:06, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
      • I put a fairly good PD pic of a cop on a bike near where it mentions cops on bikes, but maybe it's good enuf to lead (the related text is just two sentences). (FWIW there's a more general PD one here, but the bike and rider may be too small. Niteowlneils 01:18, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, good luck with the vandals. Zerbey 01:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: I do think the Performance section could use a little copy editing, but that's not an objection, just a desire. Geogre 01:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
this has been retooled, specifically re what keeps a bike up, and efficiency. srf
  • Great article, well reasearched, good pictures. One thing I noticed is the 'Performance' section, first paragraph has got to be missing some context. It says bikes are most efficient as a transportation machine and in terms of cargo transport, but compared to what? - Taxman 01:57, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object --Sf 11:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) still needs some tweaking (but is definitely starting to get there) have reservations about some of the phrasing

** Further to this: There is a reference to European bicycles having "fenders" as a long standing European cyclist and (native English speaker) I have never heard of such devices in connection with bicycles.

      • "Fender" (American English) = "mudguard" (British English) Gdr 12:08, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
  • Object. "Early in the Second World War, Japan used thousands of bicycles stolen from the native population in their Asian campaigns." is a POV. The proper word is "commandeer". Now, the writer also seems to be unaware that the second Guards Division tasked with the campaign on Singapore was armed with bicyles which was made into a wartime movie Ginrinbutai, lit. silver wheel group. To be completely a NPOV sentence, one needs to offer evidences on "thousands" claimed here as well. Revth 12:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks and support but I noticed one more information that seems to be missing. Bicycles are used in many police forces as a mean to get around quickly in complex streets. Shouldn't this be written somewhere? Revth 04:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
good idea. someone added this this week.
    • I support this objection the role of bicycle borne troops in taking Malaya and the siege of Singapore needs better treatment Sf 13:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)--Sf 16:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object section on "conflict with automobiles" needs rethinking some of the language is POV eg use of the word "drivers" where the apparent reference is to "motorists" (both are considered to be drivers under the terms of the Vienna conventions on traffic - the use of the word "driver" to mean "motorists" is an affectation of the car lobby). Also this sentence "Bicycle engineer John Forester is one of many skeptics concerning the roots of these apparently bicycle-friendly developments". Not sure what this sentence means. For a treatment of the history of such matters see segregated cycle facilities. Perhaps what is meant is that he disputes the purpose of such devices. Section on Bicycle activism is also unclear/innaccurate. I am not clear how the sentence on "gentrification" applies or what concepts it is supposed to encapsulate. Many cycle activists have sought to prevent the application/construction of cycle lanes/ cycle tracks and the purposes for which they are being applied are matters of dispute. --Sf 13:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) now addressed --Sf 16:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
addressed.Sfahey 17:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object to this sentence: "In much of the western world however, bicycling's initial boom was short-lived, as people flocked to motorcars as soon as these became affordable." How much of the "Western" world? What is short lived? 40-50 years? 30-40 years? Perhaps the author means USA/Canada? --Sf 14:15, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) --Sf 16:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
addresed.Sfahey 17:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, this sentence is to my knowledge inaccurate "Since the 1950s, when pedal driven coaster brakes predominated, cable-pull brakes have been the rule. These feature paired, padded calipers which are squeezed together onto the wheel rims by a cable pulled by the brake handles." For many decades the standard Irish/British country bicycle and I believe equivalent Chinese models used caliper brakes actuated by interlinked rods and levers. I am not aware that pedal driven brakes ever predominated in UK/Ireland/France/Asia. Was this a US phenomenon? --Sf 14:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) --Sf 11:45, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) now addressed --Sf 16:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
addressed,10/28. srf
  • Object, section on Accessories "Lights are another option, ranging from generator-powered devices still common in Europe to the more powerful, battery-driven halogen lamps used more in North America". In most European jurisdictions, front and rear lights are not an option but are a legal requirement after dark. In France it is an offence to sell a bicycle not equiped with lights. A wikipedia article should at least reflect such key legal requirements (Front and rear reflectors themselves also being one, including in the USA). --Sf 14:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) Done --Sf 15:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, while I think of it in most Northern European jurisdictions a warning bell is also a legal requirement rather than an accessory. In addition, it is usually an offence to drive or control a pedal cycle that does not have functioning front and rear brakes. I suspect that similar requirements also obtain in Japan. --Sf 16:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) Done --Sf 15:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) --Sf 16:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Refer to peer review" It remains my view that this nomination is premature. --Sf 11:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. Currently there are 5 "support" votes plus me, including those from knowledgeable people who are very complimentary, and 2 "objects", one of which appears to be related to the lead picture. This article reads well, is comprehensive and, based on a visit to the library where I read Enc. Brittanica's seven column entry on the same topic for the first time yesterday, remarkably accurately recounts the bicycle's history as well. I believe that most if not all of sf's objections (which btw have been improperly entered on this page as if they were separate votes) have been addressed and should be stricken, along with the word "object" atop them.Sfahey 16:42, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it's fine as is. When it is featured any remaining minor fine-tuning people think it needs will quickly be taken care of (BTW, I uploaded the racing bicycle pic a long time ago--it's a little dark. If I can find my digital camera I will try and get a better pic up (or if someone knows where there digital camera is, and is in the Santa Clara, California area, we could make arrangements to get the picture taken sooner). Niteowlneils 05:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
More specifically, its a good length, covers many aspects of bikes and cycling, nicely balanced sections, good linkage/reference at the bottom of different bike topics, full references, well illustrated, and the Main article: Bicycle frame construction helps keep that section from overwhelming the rest of the article. Niteowlneils 05:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band[edit]

This is the current album of the Featured Album Project. More than a dozen editors have worked on it in the past couple days to make it ready for nomination and in line with WikiProject Albums standards. Tuf-Kat 15:39, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose It just doesn't seem very well written at the moment. Don't mean to be harsh, but the language needs a lot of improvement. Immediate observations are:
1.'The album also launching what we know today as the Classic Rock radio format.' The sentence doesn't make sense. Do we know it as the Classic Rock radio format, or do just some Americans? (I've never heard of the term.) Why did this album launch that format and not other bands of the era?
2.'is often called' Weasel words, who does the calling?
That's credited in the intro to Rolling Stone, and that is all that is need for the first paragraph. Others are mentioned elsewhere, such as in the section entitled "critical reception" and in the infobox.
Perhaps just quote Rolling Stone if the other critics aren't going to be named there.
There's no nice terse quotable phrase from the review that says it, unfortunately. It's really not necessary for the first paragraph. The goal of the intro is to get the most important facts across, and one of the most important facts is that Sgt. Pepper's is more critically acclaimed than most any other album, with Rolling Stone being given as an example. I don't think there's any need for a quote there -- if someone wants to know the details, there's a link to the review just a few inches down in the infobox.
3.'is sometimes described' These are weasel words.
4.'titular song' What's wrong with 'title song'?
I think of a "title song" as applying specifically to the titular song of a movie or musical, not a song with the same title as the album it was released on. In any case, "titular song" is perfectly acceptable English.
Acceptable, but unusual. Titular in that sense is listed in dictionaries as the fourth meaning of the word. May be better to describe it as the "first" song anyway. "First" imparts information, "titular" or "title" are tautologous (anyone can see that a song called "Sgt Pepper" is the same as the album title:) )
The most precise word would be eponymous, I think, but that's a bit obscure for the intro. Reworded a bit: One song, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", appears twice in slightly modified forms at the beginning and end, giving an overall theme to the album.
5.', in slightly modified forms,' Don't need commas around this phrase.
6.'In addition, several songs are cross-faded into one another, or joined by sound effects and unusual transitional elements.' Unclear sentence. What does 'cross-faded' mean? What are 'unusual transitional elements'? Why 'several songs' (I thought it was the whole A side and the whole B side)?
Reworded, may be more clear now. I'm not sure which songs are cross-faded, but I don't think there's any pattern to it. Don't have a copy to check right now.
7.'The duplication of "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" was produced to create the illusion that the recording was a concert performance by the resident band of the aforementioned club, which was Paul McCartney's original idea for the record.' Unnecessary complicated sentence. No need for long words like 'duplication' and 'aforementioned'. 'Reprise' would be better than 'duplication', 'by a resident band' would be better than 'by the resident band of the aforementioned club'.
Second part reworded. First part not touched -- though long, duplication is a frequently used and commonly understood word. Reprise is shorter but less commonly used, and I think, less commonly understood. In addition, I believe a song can only be reprised if it is identical both times, though I could be wrong.
Could go with "repeated" (with rephrasing). The song is identified as "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)" on the sleeve. And you're wrong, it doesn't have to be identical, it can be a shortened (and slightly modified) version of the original.
Changed to Repeating the first song at the end of the entire album helped establish the illusion that the recording
8.'The Beatles had grown tired of touring and had quit the road in late 1966, burned out after the dramas of the "Bigger than Jesus" controversy (with its resultant deaths threats and record burnings in the United States, due to the widespread disapproval of this message from the Beatles) and the tumultuous tour of the Phillipines which saw them virtually frog-marched out of the country at gunpoint.' Very long sentence of little relevance to the album.
Long sentence shorted, but of great relevance. It explains why they retired from touring during recording, and the importance of this is the point of the next paragraph.
9.'an effectively unlimited period'; 'virtually unlimited access' Don't know who used a thesaurus (badly) on this article, but it doesn't have many synonyms for 'unlimited'.
10.Still slightly unsure on this one, but changed enough for me to remove it. 'one of their greatest strengths as a recording unit was drummer Ringo Starr, who was highly creative, stylistically adaptable and extremely reliable, rarely needing more than one take. In fact, in their entire recorded archive, there are fewer than twenty major takes that break down because of a mistake by Ringo.' Do we need a puff piece for Ringo?
Toned down somewhat. I don't see the problem with it. The paragraph says that the Beatles were efficient in the studio, then mentions an author who pointed specifically to Ringo as being especially efficient. This seems appropriate to me, but I have removed the bit about Ringo only failing a take twenty times in their career, as that should be in his article, not here.
11.'By the time they came to record the album, The Beatles' musical interests and abilities...' I didn't realise that 'musical interests and abilities' could record albums.
The entire sentence was By the time they came to record the album, The Beatles' musical interests and abilities had grown enormously from their simple pop beginnings. Its been re-worded slightly, but your interpretation is mistaken -- the verb is clearly "had grown", not "record".
You miss my point. The subject of "came to record" in the opening clause is "musical interests and abilities". :)
I'm afraid I still miss it. In any case, I changed it to By the time The Beatles recorded the album, their musical interests had grown from.... Is this less confusing?
I'll stop here. I'm afraid it's just too poorly written at the moment.
Do you want me to read on now?
If you like, though if no one else votes, there will be no point as the article can't get featured.

jguk 18:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Simpsons[edit]

Self-nominated, I think that this is one of the reasons we have TV. The long-running series deserves to be a featured article.- B-101 11:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Definitely worth featuring. Ornil 13:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I love it, but I oppose because of no references. Johnleemk | Talk 13:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Please expand the lead section and cite references and I'll support. Zerbey 14:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • What do you mean with no references?- B-101 15:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The lead section is insufficient. See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section. 2) The main characters deserve more discussion than just a single sentence per character. Wiggum and Skinner even get longer descriptions! 3) There are a lot of lists and single paragraph sections (e.g. "Guest celebrities") in this article. Other sections, such as "Memes", are close to being a list. This should be improved by writing better prose, or moving the lists off to separate articles. 4) There need to be less "trivia" facts, and more general statements. For example, the part about the 3D world in the Halloween section is not of general interest. The history section also has several of such trivia which do not even seem to belong in that section. 5) We are not informed of the popularity of the show. How many watch it? How are the ratings? It's a US series, but is it also broadcast abroad? 6) The article seems internally inconsistent. For example, "Trivia" mentions that many characters where named for persons in Groening's life, but an entire list section is already dedicated to that early in the article. Jeronimo 20:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree with the 3D world not needing a mention - I think it was an important and highly anticipated part of The Simpsons. I remember seeing it and being quite impressed by how well it was done and there was quite a bit of hype surrounding it. However, there may well be other trivia there that doesn't need discussion. violet/riga (t) 09:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Agree with Jeronimo. - Taxman 20:55, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • I too believe there are too many lists. →Raul654 01:40, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, not nearly complete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 02:21, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs at least some mention of Phil Hartman. violet/riga (t) 09:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Totally agree with the nominator that the series deserves to have a featured article, but that's not the same thing as saying the existing article deserves to be featured. With more work it could, but I agree about the many gaps detailed by Jeronimo. A problem like the references hiding under a non-standard headline like Academia ought not to be hard to fix. The requests for references made by voters here highlight the reason for standardizing such matters: readers need to know where to find things.--Bishonen 13:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object.--Josiah 06:09, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gunpowder Plot[edit]

or alternatively Guy Fawkes Both self nominations; one or other of these would be nice for the week of November 5th (or maybe just even for the day!) and it would be really outstanding if these could be in really good shape for the 400th anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot next year. Sjc 08:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Object (for now) - at present there are two medium length and scope articles, neither of which seem to me to be sufficiently comprehensive to be Featured. Most of the information in Guy Fawkes seems (hardly surprisingly) to be about Guy Fawkes' involvement in the Gunpowder Plot rather than about Guy Fawkes, the person. I would suggest that most of the information about the Plot in Fawkes should be moved to and intergrated into Gunpowder Plot. When that is done, I may be able to support. We certainly ought to have something for 5 November 2005.-- ALoan (Talk) 11:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The information in the Guy Fawkes article needs to be merged into the Gunpowder Plot article and vice versa to make them consistent. 2) Next, the Guy Fawkes article needs to be expanded to give more information about the man. 3) The Gunpowder Plot article is a little short, can we go into more detail on the political background? 4) Who was responsible for the trial and eventual execution of the plotters? (surely Thomas Knyvet is not the only person involved in this?) 5) The article briefly mentions a "what if the plot had succeeded " scenario, can we go into more detail? 6) No references. 7) I declare "contemporaneously" as the word of the day. Zerbey 13:37, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested: The history section of BBC Online has a page that mentions several other people involved in the conspiracy. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:54, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for the present, but I would be very happy to support this well-written and interesting article if most of Guy Fawkes were merged into it and references provided (avoid saying "many modern historians think", please specify).--Bishonen 21:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: I don't mean to be mean, but the article seems stitched together, and we see one of the problems of Wiki-production: the opening section is scholarly and complete, referring to the other plots and the motivations. Then, though, it gets tacked on stuff that's like a tin can tied to a cat's tail. We have Modern Theories that provides only a single sentence. The Aftermath section is far from enough (yes, I will try to sofixit as best I can), as the plot resulted not just in delaying Catholic "emancipation" (odd word) but actually justified a raft of new anti-Catholic legislation that would stay in force through to 1842. Then we get Macbeth tied to a single graphic novel and a link to that alternate history? It's a radical mismatch. The external links and references are stunted. Again, I apologize if it looks like I'm unloading, but it's the second half of the article that seriously disappoints. Geogre 00:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Addendum: "Some scholars" argue that Macbeth is from the increased interest in evil. Who are these scholars? Also, what has that to do with this? James I of England had written a book on demonology and witchcraft, and he was known to believe that witches and demons and the devil trying to snare him. Since Shakespeare wrote for the court, a witch play makes perfect sense, especially one set in Scotland, where James was from. The connection to the Gunpowder plot is extremely weak on that basis, and, since Shakespeare was likely a Roman Catholic, I can't see his doing anything to fan the flames of the anti-Catholic mood. In fact, witch trials have a big spike in England during James I's reign, and it's reasonable to think that the people performing such trials were trying to rise politically by appealing to the King's own beliefs. As soon as James I was off the throne, witch trials fall precipitously. Geogre 13:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I take on board the objections and I think I agree with 99.99% of what has been said. I will rephase this and get these two moved into the category of articles for improvement. I was really putting these up as a straw man to see if I could capture what the substantive objections were likely to be since my real goal with this is to get something really good for the 400th anniversary next year. Thankyou for your opinions, they will help us get this in good shape. Sjc 07:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pascal's Wager[edit]

A clear, precise description of a philosophical argument, accompanied by various criticisms and interesting wiki links. I have not worked on this article. Doradus

  • Qualified support. Besides it lacking a picture, I'd like to see support/references for the statement "dismisses research suggesting there might be medical or socio-cultural benefits of belief and prayer." Psychobabble
    • My understanding is that pictures are not necessary for featured articles; only for the article of the day. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Doradus
      • What is a featured article: include images (pictures, maps and diagrams, with good captions) where appropriate. I'm not sure that it needs anything more than the existing image of Blaise Pascal. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Right, so featured articles only need images as appropriate while front-page articles always need them. Doradus
  • Object. This seem to have been shorn of its historical context. (1) What work did Pascal described the wager in? How did he phrase it? (2) How was the argument received at the time? Did anyone really think it was persuasive? (3) How did Voltaire criticize the wager? Can you quote him? (4) Who made which criticism? (5) Have famous philosophers and apologists commented on the wager? What did they say? Gdr 02:54, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now, but it needs an explanation of Variations of this argument can be found in other religious philosophies, such as Hinduism. Tuf-Kat 02:59, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: all the above reasons, plus more on the religious context in which Pascal was working and, crucially, references please. Filiocht 08:58, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral: Pascal was a Jansenist, so he was personally quite, quite radical. I had always thought he created the "wager" as a near-joke. He was merely making a point that narrow self-interest indicated theism, not arguing that that was/is a valid basis for faith. My problem is that this one philosophical argument is blown out of proportion only because it seems to be difficult for empiricists to refute. Geogre 13:31, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Support provisional on references: References would be good, but web references would be enough, really, as I don't think the summaries are particularly POV or out on a limb. Support after more external references are added. Otherwise, it's a pretty fair presentation of something that people take far too seriously. Oh, a pointer to an e-text of Pensees would be a good thing, too. Geogre 00:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. no references. Only a single external link that is of a one sided POV. Get some references, print preferably. They will likely help add valuable material anyway. Also, I agree with much of the above. - Taxman 14:53, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The lead section fails to mention that the argument is fallacious. -- Emsworth 19:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Conditional support, except for the dubious claim of scientific validation of the effects of prayer. Ejrrjs 14:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This is a big deal in religious philosophy, and it should include references and notes about the many philosophers who do and have issued and countered these criticisms. In other words: it's not nearly complete. I also believe some of the details are wrong. Maybe I'll put some work into this, because it certainly deserves it. Cool Hand Luke 08:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

B-29 Superfortress[edit]

Self nomination. I have done most of the work on the article as it exists now. It is comprehensive on the aeroplane's history from its early origins to its current operability. It has references. Its up to WikiProject Aircraft standards. It comprehensively describes all variants. It provides references. It has a comprehensive set of statistics. It certainly deserves it. Iñgólemo←• 06:09, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

I bet ‘Enola Gay’ with (those kind of) quotes is against all the naming conventions. I'd write it Enola Gay. Anyway, those names are just a minor issue, so support. --ZeroOne 06:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The table at the bottom seems like a duplicate of the sidetable at the top. If there are any new values, these should either be include in the top table, or the table at the bottom should only list these. Also some of the values conflict. F.e., the "first flight" is more specific at the bottom than at the top. 2) The units in these tables (m, kg, etc.) should be linked to the corresponding article on first mention (see WP:MOS). 3) Values in this table that are not known (e.g. rate of climb) should be removed, or it should be indicated that these are not known. 4) I find the operational history rather short. Basically, there are only four sentences about their actual history. More detail is needed about their actions in WOII and Korea, especially about the former.

5) The "Units Using the B-29" section should be converted in a table mentioning more information (numbers used, f.e.), or be merged with the operational history. As it stands, this section is hardly useful. The use by the RAF is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. 6) The two footers seem partially overlapping, and some of them should be listed as categories. 7) The references seem incomplete. None of the mentioned sites seems to have the version history (for example), so additional sources must have been used. Please list them. There must also have been written books about the Superfortress. If you know of any, please list them (if only as further reading). 8) I'm curious about the name Superfortress; was it derived from the B-17? Did Boeing dub it thus, or did pilots name it such? The name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article save the captions - this really should be discussed. 9) The article could really use some additional photographs. (Not an objection) Jeronimo 06:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Response to 1)I noted the comment on the blue data table, and I figured I'd give it a trial deletion. Another user reverted it in less than two minutes. The blue data table is no longer the format endorsed by WikiProject Aircraft, but after a debate on the system to be used in the new format, it was agreed to leave the data table as it stands in the articles that use the blue data table. 2) Do you mean, literally link 22 m as to metre, in the form 22 m? WP:MOS suggests that the convention would be to link it to 1 E1 m. 3) Some statistics just aren't provided in any of the material we have come across. The reason rate of climb (900 ft/min) isn't provided in the blue data table is because it's provided in the statistics subsection. Since that subsection is the current endorsed format for statistics, the blue table hasn't been used to add new information for some time. 5) The recommendations are not within the standard formatting endorsed by WikiProject Aircraft; the section as it stands is. 6) I respectfully disagree about the footers being overlapping. As to listing them as categories, I don't think that that is a problem with the article, so much as it is with the titles of those lists that it links to. 7) I can look for other sites, but the references are as I found them, with the addition of those I used. The version history is compiled from each of the 25 articles the [USAF Museum] has on each of the 20+ listed variants. I'll work on the references 8) I'm not sure about the name. None of the references describe it. The only thing I know is the conjecture I have that it is related to its rôle as successor of the Flying Fortress. The reason Superfortress is never used in the article is because convention is to refer to it as the B-29, not the Superfortress. 9) Believe it or not, public domain images are hard to come by. Iñgólemo←• 02:39, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
1) I think duplication is bad in this case, since there are essentially two tables (it would be OK if some of the facts were mentioned in normal prose text, though). Either drop the sidetable or the bottom table. One of the requirements for a FA is that the article should conform to any applicable WikiProjects. If that says use the bottom table, you should lose the sidetable. (I would personally prefer the sidetable, though, the bottom one is very ugly). 2) I intended your first suggestion. 3) Another reason to drop one of the tables. This is just plain confusing and ugly. 5) If you want to feature this article, the section needs to get more content, or be removed. WikiProjects are important, but it is impossible to fit every topic in a tight harnass. If there is nothing more to be said than just this, it doesn't deserve a section for this article. I think that should be acceptable for the WikiProject, too. 7) There have previously been problems with footers, and I don't really care for them, but others may complain about them. 8) I think it would be interesting to add if you can find it anywhere. Not vital, though. Jeronimo 17:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Article now has ten external links and two book references. Iñgólemo←• 23:45, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
  • My, hasn't this article grown since I last looked at it... Support. Zerbey 02:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support ZayZayEM 03:30, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I think the Russian copy, the TU-4 should be mentionned somewhere see [13]Ericd 10:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - the strengths of this article are in the completeness of its technical detail and in its relating of the B-29's development. Its weaknesses are its almost total lack of detail in the operational history section, and getting far too bogged down in minutiae, particularly in describing the variants. On a purely subjective level, maybe it's just me, but the article just comes across as plain (plane?) boring, even to someone as fascinated by flying machines as I am. FWIW, the article now meets WikiProject Aircraft's standard layout. --Rlandmann 06:36, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Another self-nomination. I've had one of these, uh, organs quite literally from the age of twelve. I learned to play piano by ear thanks in part to the thing! - Lucky 6.9 04:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support.Fifelfoo 06:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Please look at Wikipedia:What is a featured article and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. 1) No lead section. 2) The pictures are of low quality, notably the "sing along" image. 3) This article needs at least one sound sample. 4) Use level two headings. 5) Are there any book references/further reading? 6) The article seems rather short. Can't think of any major things missing though. Jeronimo 07:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I've cleaned up the lead section and headings per your suggestion. Can't do much about the pictures, though. Some photos I found on other sites some time ago weren't GDFL-compatible. The photos on the article were taken from with permission. I plan to add a discography and list of songbooks ASAP. As for audio samples, I can probably link to some on since I don't have an mp3 to Ogg Vorbis converter. Any other suggestions? - Lucky 6.9 00:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Linking would also be good, although having the samples local would be better (other sites will change). The photos are "bearable", but should be improved when possible. However, I'll maintain my objection awaiting sound samples and references. Jeronimo 11:16, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Very good article. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:42, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support (nominator). Past objections have dealt with. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:42, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent article. Some comments: 1. I note that there has been a recent discussion about the page being moved on the talk page, has this all been straightened out? 2. Nominating this article is going to make the heated debate on the Shroud of Turin seem like a minor disagreement... good luck! :) Zerbey 04:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Basically everyone who has worked on the article has accepted (or demanded) that it be at Jesus and not at Jesus Christ; however, we have a lot of "drive by"s who strongly object to leaving off the Christ. I think the issue is decided, but there's still a lot of bickering (especially a recent Jehovah's Witness issue that resulted in protecting the page). I have worked a lot on the article, but I don't think I can support its promotion yet -- I hope one day, but the points made here are valid. Neutral for now. Mpolo 19:23, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Dysprosia 06:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. One liner or paragraph sections such as at Jesus#The_names_and_titles_of_Jesus should not exist. "Introduction" is not a valid header. The lead section is the introduction! And if not, the lead section needs major expansion. --Jiang 06:30, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) No lead section. Most or all of the introduction section should be moved here. 2) There are no references, only further reading. 3) This article assumes a lot of knowledge and therefore gives little context. Take the first sentence of "Introduction": "According to the Gospels, Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and the Son of God, who served a ministry in Galilee and Judaea, and was ultimately crucified in Jerusalem by order of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate before rising from the dead on the third day." I think at least the terms Messiah, Galilee and Judaea need explanation in this or following sentences. Such problems occur throughout the text. Ideally, it should be possible to get a good understanding of this article without having to grab a dictionary or click all of the blue links. 4) The section "Christian perspectives on Jesus" doesn't tell anything that has not already been mentioned before in the article. In fact, it only gives one perspective, not multiple. As it stands, this section seems useless. Jeronimo 10:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • "Names and titles of Jesus" isn't a one-line section -- it has four subsections. Mpolo 19:23, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Try doing a search through the article for the word "some" and you'll see how many unattributed critics and churches there are. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I fixed only one instance based on personal knowledge of Catholic tradition, but I know nothing about the others except the Muslim perspective of Jesus' cruxificion (based on discussions with Muslim friends). Johnleemk | Talk 12:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, I agree with Jeronimo. Also, why is there information about portrayals of Jesus in 20th and 21st century drama but nothing about portrayals of Jesus in the preceding 1900 years of art (and in other forms of art in general)? The information exists elsewhere in Wikipedia, but at least a summary and a link to a main article (Images of Jesus?) should be provided. Fredrik | talk 13:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. At 42kb (at time of writing), it's far too long. Since featured articles are meant to be the best, it should conform with size guidelines. Needs to be reduced to below 32kb at the very least. jguk 22:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I must voice my opposition to such an objection. The size of the article should be related to the topic. Thus, an article with 42kb on Marshall, Texas is too long. But, an article with 42kb on a topic so important, on a person so influential, as Jesus is certainly not too lengthy. There should be no absolute limit of 32kb, but rather a general limit, chosen as appropriate to the topic in question. -- Emsworth 17:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Please see the talk page for whether the "32k limit" is mandatory or indicative. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The lead seems OK now, but there is no explicit References section (Further reading is not the same thing), there are too amny single-sentence paragraphs (some may be validly so, but not all) amd the 'Some' issue raised by Ta bu shi da yu is valid, IMHO. Filiocht 09:56, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Article does not address Jesus' place in history. Also, the heretical notion that Jesus was homosexual, if based solely on conjecture in a work of fiction, has no place in the article. It appears to depend on misconstrued translation: According to New Testament scholars, in the phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved," the word that is translated as "love" is "philo" (John 20:2) in the original Greek, which means brotherly love, or "agapas" (John 21:20) which means Godly love. Sexual love would be "eros".--Johnstone 11:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support.--Josiah 05:57, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Easily one of the best pieces on W. Nearly all these objections are insignificant and probably agenda-driven (excepting Johnstone's, which can be addressed going forward). Whatever your stance on JC, you shouldn't let it anesthetize your mind to topnotch prose. JDG 00:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The lack of a specific references section is not an agenda-driven objection and it still needs to be addressed. Filiocht 08:35, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)