Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2004

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

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

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. Dan | Talk 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. Dan | Talk 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)

Coachella Valley[edit]

Partial self-nomination. Decumanus started this and added the map. I live in the area, so it seemed a natural for me to expand. So, what sayeth you, fellow wiki warriors? - Lucky 6.9 03:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Strange article. The history is quite good, but a lot of the celebrity trivia doesn't seem that important/relevant in an article about the valley itself - and there isn't really much else there. Ambi 15:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. As Ambi said, this only has a decent history section. More is needed about economy and geography (geology). Perhaps also culture and biology. Also, more than just a map image is required. If you live in the area, it shouldn't be too hard to add some representative pictures. Jeronimo 10:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, all. I'll be moving this to peer review. Please feel free to clean it up as you see fit. - Lucky 6.9 04:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Noel Gallagher[edit]

Largely self nomination. I thinks there's enough here, as much as i love the beatles, wouldn't it be good to get some other british mucisians in there?--Crestville 18:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. 1. Needs references, 2. Not enough information on his relationship with Oasis or feuding with his brother, 3. Hasn't he been arrested several times as a result of this feuding? It's worth including. I seem to recall at least one incident in Germany, OK maybe I misremembered... 4. Personal life section is too short, 5. Needs an external links/see also section (I don't think this is a requirement for a FAC but it'll benefit IMHO. Good start so far, but he deserves a more complete article. Zerbey 19:41, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
All good points, but it was Liam who got his head kicked in by the Germans, I don't think either have had high profile arrests. Any more suggestions would be apprieciated.--Crestville 19:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Lead section too short. Some poor writing (e.g. Born in, Longsight, Manchester, Noel first began to teach himself to play guitar at the age of 13, imitating his favourite songs., Before the arrival of Oasis in 1994, debate raged over weather British rock had had its day. US grunge and dance music ruled). Desperately needs references -- plenty of prominent people believe(d) Oasis is/was the greatest thing since sliced bread, so quote one. Put songs in quotes and albums in italics. Tuf-Kat 20:12, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Cheers feller, anything else?--Crestville 21:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok, loads of changes, I don't know if it's up to standards yet, but take a look and get back to me.--Crestville 17:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Please do not strike out my comments in future, I am capable of speaking for myself. Zerbey 22:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • yeah, but so am I, it dosn't really matter.--Crestville 19:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. References, please. Jeronimo 13:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  •  : much as i love the beatles, wouldn't it be good to get some other british mucisians in there : Well Sex Pistols is featured, and IM-not remotely-HO, David Bowie isn't far off. -- GWO
  • true, but Noel should be up there too.--Crestville 19:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Baldrick[edit]

Alright, what needs doing on this one? Or is it up to standard? Self nom.--Crestville 17:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. For a start, you could add references, add a headline image, and remove the extensive quotes which take up so much space and don't add very much. (And I like Blackadder). -- ALoan (Talk)
  • Object, for now. Needed a copyedit, which I've done (but can another set of eyes take a look as well, please?); I agree with the quotes section, it needs shortening (but certainly not removed); needs references section. Other than that, I think it's a nice article. Zerbey 19:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. (1) Contains several copyright violations. Fair use does not cover this kind of thing. A couple of famous lines would be fine, quoting whole scenes is not. (2) Move one of the photos up to the top. (3) The lead section needs to explain if or why he is notable, otherwise this verges perilously close to "fancruft". (4) You might want to mention that this character was the making of Tony Robinson as a popular entertainer in the UK. Gdr 20:59, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)



Folk music[edit]

I'm sure I've edited this a few times, but it's not really a self-nom. Still, I think it's a great article, and does a good job of communicating the different ways this term is used. Tuf-Kat 05:32, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object: It's a fairly good article about modern folk music, but it more or less dances over traditional folk music. The "Defining" section is poor, as it gives too much attention to Sachmo and not enough to the key points to what makes a thing folk (e.g. anonymous composition, cultural dissemination (i.e. you find the same song in 4 places)). There is no discussion of the things that made/make folk music in many nations (legendary entertainments, moral tales, and commemorations of tragedy (Maid Marion, Captain and the Baker's Wife, any of the flood/wreck/battle songs). These characteristics are transnational. In the West, the balad revival of 1768 starts new awareness of the folk song, thus Romantics, thus early 20th c. interest in folk tale and folk song, thus the balad form as dominant. Anyway, a lot of the historical stuff would be a welcome addition, but, in particular, a complete absence of it is a reason for objection. Geogre 14:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, overly focused on English-speaking world. The style of the writing may be "scholarly", but there's not much scholarship, in the sense that many controversial statements go without footnotes or balancing views. For example, a theory of a three-stage decline of folk music in the face of modernity is hardly uncontroversial and not attributed to anyone. Also, where sociological matters enter, there seems to be little attempt to distinguish folk music as such and folk culture in general. There is a lot of decent material here, but it doesn't look to me to be even close to featured-article level. I wouldn't be surprised if a featured article about some narrower topic could be made out of this without too much work, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:11, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I had my own rationale for it, but Jmabel put it better. Deal with those objections and I'll likely support. Ambi 23:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, sadly. This has the potential to be a great article, but all these objections need to be addressed. I'd also like to see some coverage of the marriage between folk and popular music (Ireland being a strong case in point, e.g. Horslips, but also US and UK folk-rock, electric instruments in African music now, Reggae, World music, etc.) and more on the general revival in the west since the 1960s. Filiocht 11:24, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, with regrets. The relationship between folk music and other sorts of folklore is mostly unexplored. Agree that the "decline" thesis is stated a bit too strongly; the possibility (rather, documented fact) that antiquarianism and "authenticity" also distort traditions is unmentioned. The notion that garage band music, hip-hop, and similar trends represent live folk traditions might be mentioned. Smerdis of Tlön 01:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)



Amazon River[edit]

Partial self nomination. I think it's full of interesting information and a nice looking article.Worldtraveller 23:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Needs at least one ground level photo, and references (I doubt everything was incorporated from EB). Fredrik | talk 23:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The map: lacks source and copyright information; the colours on the map are horrible and the text hard to read (some of the labels go under the rivers!); the speckly lines for the rivers are horrible; there are artefacts (black specks); there's an unexplained asterisk on the Falkland Islands. Gdr 00:09, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
    • The asterisk marks the capital of the Falkland Islands, Stanley Deus Ex 17:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I know that. But Stanley has nothing to do with the Amazon River, so why mark it? Gdr 11:27, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
        • Well I liked the garish clashing colours on that map! But I've changed it to a more subtle one without random asterisks etc. Worldtraveller 21:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • The new map has nicer colours, but otherwise it is not an improvement. In particular, I can't read the names of the rivers at all. Also, you shouldn't use "thumbnail" or "framed" images inside an box like this. Gdr 21:07, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
        • On the map, some of the tributary rivers are shown continuing farther south than the highlighted area. That doesn't make sense. Rmhermen 21:55, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • How about this map? Gdr 22:05, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
        • I like it better but could the basin color be darker? Rmhermen 23:08, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • Do you really mean "darker"? Or do you mean "more saturated"? Gdr 12:02, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written. Xed 00:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Territory of Hawaii[edit]

By far the best U.S. territory article and actually better than all of the U.S. state articles. jengod 23:42, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. 1. for a geography topic, it has no map. 2. The feature picture is generic -- a U.S. president photo that has no graphically apparent relation to the topic. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 01:45, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - the okina spelling is by far less common than no-okina, and as such, we should be using the non-okina spelling, per the manual of style naming conventions. →Raul654 02:45, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • The okina spelling may be less common, but that does not make it less correct. --Golbez 08:13, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) No references. 2) Lead section needs to be expanded. Please see Wikipedia:What is a featured article for these two points. 3) If this is meant to be an article about all aspects of the Territory of Hawaii, we need far more than just the history. If this article is meant to be a "chapter" in the History of Hawaii (it is referred to as such in that article), that should be made clear in this article. Jeronimo 08:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Sewell's Point[edit]

So much information about somewhere I never heard of! 62.252.64.14 11:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. 1) No references. 2) No pictures. 3) Has many typos and instances of poor grammar, and needs a massive copyedit. 4) Half of the article doesn't even seem relevant to the peninsula. 5) There's practically nothing apart from history there. Ambi 01:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Tepid object: The writing needs fixing, and the headers sound like a tourist guide. If one were going to visit, all the tourist stuff would be interesting, but the primary importance of Sewell's point for the world at large is its historical one from the Civil War and its economic one in shipyards and naval bases. Those sections need much more, while the Shire to Town bit and the limits being altered by weather are much more trivial. Pictures, at least from the Monitor v. Merrimack at Hampton Roads, if not some of the Civil War (public domain) maps of the area should be available. Granting that I have a historical bias, but this is a place with history in it. Geogre 04:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Following Ambi & Geogre.Fifelfoo 06:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Ambi summarises most of my objections. Thtree additions: 1) a map is needed. 2) Please make clear in the lead section we're talking about the United States. This is not mentioned. 3) Add a lead section (see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section). Jeronimo 07:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Mostly what others said. I've also noticed that there is a lot of linking to the same articles more than once, creating too much blue and red text. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 13:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Golf[edit]

A dang fine article IMO. Comments welcome. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 22:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral. Excellent, but where are the references? Zerbey 22:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) Lead section too short. 2) Order of the sections is strange. I would expect a discussion of the gameplay and history before we get to golf courses. 3) No references (some external links though). 4) Some sections should be longer or merged. Others, like "golf ball" should have content instead of just referring to some other article. This is especially strange as less vital topics (such as environmental impact) get much more coverage. 5) Some sections only dicuss the US, such as Social aspects of golf. 5) The glossary should be moved to a separate (list)article. 6) The article desperately needs an illustration of a typical golf course, showing the tee, fairway, green, bunkers, etc. 7) I don´t think we need to know that the player in the first image is a US Airforce employee, it is in no way relevant to the article. 8) Measurements such as mm should be linked to the appropriate article (the first occurrence only). 9) Apart from the professional golf section, something more on competitive golf would be good (e.g. Ryder Cup, matchplay championships). Jeronimo 12:56, 22 Oct 2004(UTC)
    • Re 2), the point of that order is that the section about the anatomy of golf courses explains a lot of things that are necessary to understand the rest. It would of course be possible to switch the order of sections, but then you would have to check all of the article for terminology that is not explained earlier. Re 4), the golf ball section has recently been cut out as it was getting too long, and of course a summary should be in its place. Re 5), done. Re 9) , there is some coverage of the Ryder cup and other tournaments, see Category:Golf tournaments, that could be mentioned. Regards, Kosebamse 08:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Review my comments on request: 1) Seems OK. 2) I still stand by my original opinion. 3) There are still no references. This is really necessary. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article. 4) Still not fully addressed. 5) Not addressed. 5) (yes, I can't count) OK now. 6) Still missing. 7) OK now. 8) Not done. 9) Not done, save for some links in the see also section. In summary, most of my objections have not been addressed. Jeronimo 20:10, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I know very little about golf, but is Tiger Woods still the number 1 american golfer? I thought I read that he had slipped down... [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 01:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Number 1 American golfer, but number 3 in the world after Vijay Singh and Ernie Els. [1] Not sure what is meant by 'American rankings' though. jguk 22:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Aye. There's the PGA Money List [2], and assorted other stats, but the one people (even the PGA) take most seriously these days is the World Golf Rankings [3] -- GWO
  • Object. The "lead" section is all over the place. ("Stableford scoring" and all those parentheses aren't "lead"-worthy. "History" is sadly incomplete. And I don't believe that simply linking to "golf balls" or to the names of some of the great players (if that indeed is done at all here) suffices to make this article anywhere near comprehensive enough.Sfahey 00:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Género chico[edit]

Self-nomination, I suppose. This is the first article to come out of the Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week project. It is an article which already has featured status on the Spanish Wikipedia, and has been translated into English. Chameleon 09:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Please see Wikipedia:What is a featured article - no lead section, no references. In addition, context is needed. The average reader cannot be expected to know Género chico is a form of theatre, and will not know what zarzuela is.
    • The lead section is too short, but it does exist and it does say what género chico is a form of, and readers have only to click on the link to find out all about zarzuela. I don't think I've seen many articles with references. Chameleon 10:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, but a lead section's supposed to be an introduction. Can you try to at least fill it out to a full paragraph? And it's only a few extra words to provide a very brief summary of zarzuela. And last but not least, it was recently decided by consensus that references would be a mandatory basic requirement for featured articles. Wikipedia:Cite sources itself explains why we need references. I believe Wikipedia's best would have references. Johnleemk | Talk 10:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, the only source is the one given: es:Género chico. I've added a couple of external links though. The lead section is now longer. Chameleon 11:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • This is exactly why I've been hesitant to translate Spanish-language articles that lack cited sources. The fact that it was written in a foreign-language wikipedia is, indeed, part of the appropriate citation apparatus, but if that article didn't cite sources, you are still left with an article that, effectively, doesn't cite sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:41, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
The current lead is already better, but it still doesn't give a summary of the article. See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section for more. As for the references: the external links are not references, as they do not contain the information in the article. References are a requirement of featured articles (see Wikipedia:What is a featured article). Many current articles may not have references, but all of the articles that pass through here have. Jeronimo 13:31, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I just cleaned up the first several paragraphs, but judging by the previous state of those few paragraphs, this is simply not a well-written article at the sentence-for-sentence level. I added several rather obvious links, removed a lot of vacuous meandering, etc. If someone goes through and does something similar to the rest of it, ping me on my talk page when you are done and I will strike this comment. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:16, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Withdraw candidate. Chameleon 21:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)



Eric Morecambe[edit]

Any chance of getting this up there? I have no real vested interest (next to admiration), I'm just interested to see what happens. Maybe it will spur people on to write more--Crestville 16:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Bit short, I think. Andre (talk) 17:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Andre, the article's too short. It should at least include section headings, and have more content. Jeronimo 19:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • He's a legend - I'm sure more could be written. violet/riga (t) 22:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. He deserves a longer article than this, it's far too short. This would be an excellent candidate for Peer Review. Zerbey 23:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Hardcore Beatles fans in the US are often familiar with Morecambe and, um, the other guy, as the Beatle's appearance on their show is legendary. Perhaps more could be said in the article about Morecambe's humorous interactions with celebrity guests? func(talk) 23:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written, mentions the Beatles... I'm happy. :) func(talk) 20:04, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - just not up to standards, unfortunately. The "other guy" was Ernie Wise (he of the short fat hairly legs). I have proposed it as a WP:UKCOTW, athough strictly speaking it is about 2.5 times too long. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Made changes. What do you think of it so far??--Crestville 19:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • [Rubbish] No, seriously folks, a remarkable change, but still not there yet. [It is more usual to articles to be somewhere near Featured standard before they are listed, but anyway...] -- ALoan (Talk) 21:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • heh heh, Yeah, i know it needs work, but What man, dear God what?--Crestville 21:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Loved the man's work, but a few problems here: when exactly did they change there names to Morecambe and Wise? Did Gary M really write Eric M's autobiography? Should this section be changed to References? Where are the references? So, object for now. Filiocht 10:23, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone[edit]

User:Kathy T nominated this on the talk page, but I don't see any mention of it here... I'll renominate it. Timely and well done. --Golbez 01:16, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Support. Revth 05:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • This was already nominated a while ago, and was rejected. Please review the objections at [4], make sure they have been addressed and renominate afterwards. Jeronimo 08:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I assure you, I would have read that had I known it existed. However, there was no link to it in Talk:Tropical cyclone and three links down from this article is a bit long. It should have been mentioned on the Talk page, shouldn't it? Reading now. --Golbez 09:01, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
Quoting on the uncleared objections: 1) The "warm core" objection no longer seems to apply. 2) I've just cleaned up the energy question. 3) It is no longer word-for-word for anything, I don't believe; new specific complaints will have to be made. 4) It definitely gives equal time to storms in other oceans, but it is simple fact that the Atlantic basin is the most researched region. 5) Saffir Simpson has a valid article of its own. 6) I don't understand the bold-face comment, which makes me think it's cleared up. 7) There is no longer a "Hurricanes in the Atlantic" section. 8) I've completely redone the "Notable cyclones" section, it is no longer random. 9) I like the header. :P If the objection is really major, someone else will bring it up this time. If so, I'll see what I can do with it. 10) Finally, the Hurricane Odessa image is uncredited. I'd hate to have to remove that image, but then again ... almost all photos from space of hurricanes are done by the government. Yeah, I know, that doesn't count, but still. I'll search for it.
I don't see any more outstanding objections, so if you have more, please mention them. The previous ones all seem to be addressed. --Golbez 09:17, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
Found and added the source info of the Hurricane Odessa to the image page -- Chris 73 Talk 04:56, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Objections remain. 1) lead section needs to be rewritten as a summary. The second part of it should become a separate section. 2) The "Notable hurricanes" section is still only about the Atlantic (save one in Bangladesh). All facts have "in the Atlantic basin" appended, which suggests there are similar things to be said for the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The Atlantic may be the best researched, but that's no excuse for not adding anything on the other oceans. 3) Web references should be put in the style of. Also, please add some offline references as well, or "further reading" if they were not used as references. (The latter is a request/suggestion, not an requirement). Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Jeronimo 18:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
1) I am attempting to deal with this, though I am still enamored with the original large lead. I've split some of the information off into an "introduction" section that is more specific than the lede.
2) The Notable Hurricanes is indeed mostly about the Atlantic - because that is where the most expensive and, excepting the repeated batterings of the subcontinent, the deadliest hurricanes have occured. The list of notable cyclones also lacks certain information on storms in other basins. I will add information on Hurricane Iniki (Hawaii), and the super typhoons that have smacked Japan and Korea around in the past, as soon as I can find it. Furthermore, Gilbert has the caveat "in the Atlantic basin" simply because I have yet to find a typhoon with a lower pressure, but since I have not proven conclusively one has not been recorded, I decided to add the disclaimer. I wanted to be accurate. But you are right, it needs more storms from other basins.
3) I've cited the resource of the newer information I've added (the energy question), but most of this is paraphrased or inspired by NOAA or WMO literature. Furthermore, I have no offline resources to quote, and I won't just browse Amazon for a book that looks appropriate. Fortunately, that's not a requirement. :) But yes, it does need more citations.
Thanks for your comments. I've juggled some sections around, and put in all these changes. Maybe I should take this to Peer Review first. :) --Golbez 23:04, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Typhoon Tip had the lowest pressure recorded in any tropical cyclone. [5] -- Cyrius| 23:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Re point 2), see [6]. There are many storms from outside the Atlantic with 1000s of deaths. All of them "beat" the "deadliest storm on record in the Atlantic"; in 1991 alone there were two tyhpoons with 100,000+ deaths in Bangladesh. Jeronimo 07:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Four or five, actually, beat the deadliest in the Atlantic; three are in Bangladesh, two in India. A minor update to the article can illustrate this. --Golbez 07:50, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
My point is that with a simple web search I found several deadlier cyclones (only the post-1900 ones listed). Who tells me there aren't other cyclones more notable than those currently listed. I get the feeling the authors of the article only used references that discuss the Atlantic storms. Jeronimo 07:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm confused - It lists the deadlier storms now. It has for some time. What exactly are you saying is missing? I've listed the deadliest, the costliest, the biggest and the smallest - if you have evidence of a deadlier, costlier, bigger or smaller storm, please supply it, but don't consider the possibility of that a reason to indict that section of the article. Perhaps the entire section should be deleted, to make sure everyone gets it perfectly fair? I've also included the most notable storms to hit Hawaii and Australia, the most notable one to hit Bangladesh is obvious, anyone is welcome to add the most notable to hit Japan but most that hit Japan are pretty weak, relatively. It gets hit by a lot, though. Can you please be more specific with your present objection? Are you just saying that because the section previously didn't list these other storms, that it might still be deficient? What what point will it be satisfactory? --Golbez 01:31, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- William M. Connolley 18:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (though with this being far removed from my areas of expertise, my support should be weighed with that under consideration)-- 172 06:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have greatly expanded the Notable Cyclone section. It is now much less Atlantic-centric. --Golbez 15:13, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • And yet... no mention of Cyclone Tracy! This was one of the most significant natural disasters in Australian history. Would you be able to include it somehow? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:39, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Aye, I removed it when I was changing it to a biggest, baddest, worst storm section, but there's still room for the worst storms to hit specific areas, since I do mention Iniki. I'll readd it. --Golbez 15:24, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
And now that I have, I realize it IS notable in the "biggest, baddest, worst" - Not as the biggest, but as the smallest. :) --Golbez 15:58, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)


Casualties in the conflict in Iraq[edit]

Too often, when this subject arises, one selected group of casualties is mentioned as if they were the only group worthy of note. This article is the only treatment I've seen that gives a comprehensive, neutral review of what is known and what has been reported on this subject. Partial self-nomination. Neow 21:05, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. I don't feel that the picture of coffins draped with the US flag should get top billing when most of the people killed have been Iraqis. I'll support the nomination if this POV defect is corrected. Shorne 21:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • That makes sense; I've swapped the images. Neow 22:09, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • Support, now that Shorne's objection has been addressed. 172 06:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Thank you. It's a good article, too. Shorne 08:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I have not (yet) read the article, but I have a problem with the title. What conflict in Iraq is the article about? There have been many in the 20th century alone (the Gulf War and the Iran-Iraq war, for starters), so this title is very ambiguous. Jeronimo 12:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose (for now). This has the potential to be a great featured article. I'm rather afraid that it was largely written from the point of view of an coalition member. I copy edited this to try to resolve this issue, but I think that the whole piece needs some editing. I've edited the lead copy and the first section. Maybe other could do the rest? Also, I agree with Jeronimo — that title has got to change. (title has been changed) - Ta bu shi da yu 13:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I think the problem you saw is better now. Are there any other parts you think need to be changed? Neow 19:59, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - this has the potential to be an excellent Featured Article and is a good start along that road (it seems pretty NPOV to me), but it is flagged as a {{current}} event - the article can't be comprehensive and accurate when the "conflict" has not even finished. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • There is no rule that says a featured article can't be about a current event. (For example, Martha Stewart became a featured article the same day she was indicted by a grand jury, and it has undergone regular revision ever since as her story has evolved.) Obviously, we can't predict the future, but I think the article does give an accurate, comprehensive presentation of what is currently known. The numbers will keep changing, and occasionally new reports may surface with new information, but this shouldn't keep the current article from being featured. Aside from the fact that it's about an ongoing event, can you support the nomination? Neow 19:59, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • With all due respect, Martha Stewart is not an event. She is a person. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:10, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree with ALoan that the article cannot be comprehensive give that the conflict is still ongoing. The latter (ongoing) is not a valid objection, but comprehensiveness is one of the requirements of a featured article. There majority of the casualties of are Iraqis, but little is known about their number as of now. In fact, the number of resisters killed is not even mentioned. Another indication this article comes to soon is my earlier objection: there's not even a common name for the conflict. As for the article itself, it is mostly a discussion of statistics. The table, for example, is duplicated entirely in prose. I cannot say I find that FA material. Jeronimo 21:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • As the Wikimedia Foundation home page says, the goal here is to give "access to the sum of all human knowledge." So it's comprehensive if it covers all that is currently known, not all that might be known some day. By your definition, the Martha Stewart article still wouldn't be considered "comprehensive" today even though it's been featured for over a year. (Would you also disallow featuring biographies of anyone who was still alive, on the principle that such a bio couldn't be "comprehensive" yet?) By the same token, we can't use a common name for the conflict until one exists, but that doesn't mean the knowledge presented in the article isn't a comprehensive account of what is currently known. As for the Overview table being "duplicated" in the prose, well, that's because that's exactly what the table is: an overview of the statistics in the prose. There's a variety of information in the article that isn't in the overview table. If you think something else should be added, please explain what. Neow 22:01, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
        • You are incorrect. As was said during a previous FAC nom where this was an issue, comprehensive means it doesn't omit any critical information (regardless of whether or not that information is known). As such, this nomination does not meet the comprehensive criteria. →Raul654 04:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
          • Quoting from the introduction of this page: If nothing can be done to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This would seem to imply that If it's impossible for this article to be any more comprehensive that it is, then such an objection could be ignored. Paul August 04:38, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
            • (Speaking as the one who wrote that requirement) - That requirement applies to the intrinsic characteristics of an article (For example, if someone nominates penis, and someone else objects that it is a "vandalism magnet" - this is an inactionable objection). On the other hand, it doesn't excuse a lack of comprehensiveness. If the facts about the article aren't known, then you have to wait for them to become known before this article can be called comprehensive. And until it can be called comprehensive, it's not featured article material. →Raul654 06:51, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't recall giving a definition of comprehensiveness. That being said, this article certainly isn't comprehensive. This article doesn't have detailed information about the Iraqi casualties. Since this has already happened (it is not something that is to happen in the future), this is information that *should* be in the article. If it isn't, the article isn't comprehensive. Jeronimo 11:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • It doesn't give more detailed information about Iraqi casualties because that information is simply not known -- and it may well never be known (though that doesn't matter for deciding whether the article is comprehensive). Does the article omit any information that is currently known? If not, it is comprehensive. If you know something about the Iraqi casualties that isn't in the article, please let us know. If not, your objection is not actionable and so, by the rules at the top of this page, it should be ignored. Neow 19:13, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
        • Perhaps it is difficult or nearly impossible to obtain this information, I agree. Still, I think the article is incomprehensive because of it. Earlier articles have been rejected because of this (e.g. [7]). Jeronimo 07:27, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Well, that's a shame, because that one looks like a fine article too. Neow 18:07, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
          • If the information doesn't exist, then it can't be obtained. And It's not the job of Wikipedia to create new information, that would be original research. The Requirements for a featured article, shouldn't (nor in my opinion do they) include either impossibilities or violations of Wikipedia policies. Paul August 18:43, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose. Casualties are not a subject unique from a war itself, and from war casualties in general, and the tone of the article drips of POV, since it is evident that the authors want to emphasize the negatives aspects of operations in Iraq. That an ongoing situation is put up as a Featured Article candidate three weeks before the US election is also transparent. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • With all due respect, I suspect that some of these objections are not actionable. The first point is: this is an article about casualties directly resulting from a conflict caused by an occupying force. How exactly do you want us to phrase this to make it sound positive? IMHO the article is talking about one subject matter: people who have died as a direct result of the occupation of Iraq. This is its subject matter, and it should not cover positive results of the Iraq occupation. As to your other objections, please qualify these. In what way does it "drip of POV"? Please provide specific sentences so we can resolve the POV statements. The other objection that is not actionable is the statement "Casualties are not a subject unique from a war itself, and from war casualties in general". So what? Anyone is free to right an article about the casualties of the second world war, or the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Lastly, the objection that this article was put up three weeks before the US election is also not actionable as there is literally nothing anyone here can do about this. Also, IMHO, I feel that this is just your defensiveness and POV. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:19, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • This casualties page was originally broken out from the page about the war itself because that page was getting too long and the information about casualties can be treated as a separate subject (as this article itself demonstrates). This article links to the articles about the war for anyone who's interested in other aspects. Could you give an example of where the tone "drips of POV" and suggest how you would fix it to be NPOV? (Objections are supposed to give a "specific rationale that can be addressed", you know.) Yes, the subject is inherently negative, but given that, I think the article is quite straightforward and NPOV in what it presents. As for the timing, yes, the election makes this subject particularly relevant right now, but that doesn't mean the article is POV, and the fact is, I submitted this to peer review months ago, and I nominated it as featured now because I thought it had just reached featured quality. Neow 23:30, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with the two preceding sets of comments. There's nothing POV about this article, and the claim that it was submitted in connexion with the US election is unsubstantiated and, more to the point, not actionable. This article is well done and deserves recognition. Shorne 17:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment and question: This seems to me to be a well written article about an important subject. I think the authors have done an excellent job of presenting in a neutral way material fraught with POV peril. I have a question. The article seems to imply that there are two sides to the conflict the "U.S.-coalition" and "the Iraqi side" where does that leave the current Iraqi governmental forces? On which "side" are the deaths of those Iraqis supporting the present government counted?
    • Good question. I'd put the Iraqi puppet state squarely on the side of the US and would list any Iraqis killed in the service of Yankee imperialism as part of the US "coalition". Shorne 18:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • "the Iraqi puppet state" comment shows exactly why the article itself instead of the presentation, is POV. I know editors on Wikipedia will slant things to their POV, but there is a limit to how far they should be allowed to go in deciding what issues are relevant. I'm not objecting to the existence of the article itself, but to enshrine it as a "featured article" is inappropriate. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:25, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • For your information, I haven't laid a finger on the article. I don't know the editors' opinions on the subject and don't care to know them: the article is well done, and that is all that matters here. Shorne 03:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Since there are actually many groups involved in the conflict, the article really shouldn't have referred to two opposing "sides". I've now removed all such references. The article shouldn't try to classify casualties as to what group they belong to. It should only present what existing groups have reported, using the categories specified by those groups. Neow 19:13, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have a concern with the section title "Casualties due to poor security after the invasion". This could be construed to be implying that all of the non-combatant violent deaths are entirely "due" to the conflict. This seems problematic to me for two reasons. Obviously some of the violent deaths would have occurred without the conflict, and surely the perpetrators share some of the responsibility. So the most that could be said was the conflict was partially responsible for an increased level (say roughly the increase over the baseline) of such deaths. No? Paul August 05:08, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)


Congo Civil War[edit]

  • Was the collaboration of the week, and it's really great stuff. -- user:zanimum
  • Object. 1) The lead section should give a more extensive summary (given the length of the article). 2) The article writes Mobuto, but links to Mobutu. Which is it? 3) Organisation of the article is messy. The "Origins" section discusses parts of the war, while the "Course of the war" also discusses the war's characteristics. 4) The armed parties section should have more content than just a list of parties, which are mostly red links as well. 5) The pictures need to be better. The map is semi-useful, but a map showing major incidents in the war (or so) would be better. The only photo is from a minor player. Pictures of Mugabe and Kabila are the least I would expect. 6) The article has a lot of generallies, largelies, mostlies, and similar vagueness. Can we get a bit more specific? 7) Also, I'm hesitant to feature an article about an ongoing event. Jeronimo 21:17, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • 1 seems fixed, unless you want longer now. 2 is fixed. I haven't touched the rest. --Golbez 21:43, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object and agree with most of Jeronimo's objections - Xed 12:31, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. As a (minor) contributor to the page, I feel it's not ready yet. Filiocht 13:11, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, the lack of a good map is its greatest flaw. - SimonP 15:34, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. (1) Article name. There was an earlier Congo Civil War (1960–1965), so Congo Civil War should be a disambiguation page with the articles on the two conflicts somewhere like Congo Civil War (1960) and Congo Civil War (1998). (2) Needs more (and more relevent) pictures. (3) The section "armed parties" needs to give a brief account of the objectives of each party, if any, and the extent to which the various parties are allied into factions. If there estimates of the number of combatants in the various parties, that also needs to be given. (4) Needs maps. Gdr 11:18, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
    • The only book entirely devoted to the subject of the current war - [8] - refers to it simply "The Congo War". - Xed 17:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think it should be a disambig -- the Recent Congo Civil War is much more likely to be sought for. A link to the earlier war at the top of the article should be enough. ✏ Sverdrup 10:28, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • While this is a great article (and so much better than it was a month ago) I think it has further to go. At least one contributor is promising major work on it. If we make it featured now we lose the chance to feature it when it's really excellent. Let's wait a while and then renominate it. I guess that's an 'Object'. DJ Clayworth 14:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I think Gdr's suggestion about the title is a good idea, and the article does need a good map to illustrate events and the rough extent of the territory held by the various sides. Also a picture of the elder Kabila really should be included, and ideally one of the younger Kabila too. Everyking 15:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Internal combustion engine[edit]

Good article about the history and operation of the engine. Vacuum 14:20, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object: Surely you would be able to find some material for "references", "links", and "see also". If the Internal combustion engine technically includes Jet engines and gas turbines, then the article should too, otherwise the article should be moved to a proper location (This objection, however, is not strict can be discussed). The history ends in 1891, and somehow I don't believe that. Many sections could be fleshed out, e.g. Applications to inlcude lawn mowers etc. Also, the article feels in parts like a list with explanations - but I am not sure how to change that, so this is another point that may be discussed. -- Chris 73 Talk 14:30, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - agree it needs references and perhaps external links. Finding those might help improv the article even more. Also too many one or two sentence paragraphs. Finally could use a more fleshed out discussion of the Carnot limit than being stuck in the 'Other classifications' section. - Taxman 12:46, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)


Cassini-Huygens[edit]

Probably the best article we have about a space probe. GeneralPatton 21:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Lots of information and pictures; but: Images 1 2 3 have no source/license information, and other pictures could use some more information too. Also, the TOC is overwhelming; probably section 2.1 and 3.1 should be restructured. ✏ Sverdrup 11:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
All images are from NASA, thus they're PD. There sure are no photographers going up to Saturn and taking photos along the way. GeneralPatton 00:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Image:Huygensprobe.jpg is a painting/illustration by an artist, so I couldn't be sure it was PD. Are you sure? ✏ Sverdrup 11:22, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Stuff like that is commissioned and paid by NASA. GeneralPatton 05:35, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Would be nice to have during Christmas to New Years period, when the Huygens probe is being released --NeilTarrant 12:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but very promising article. Detailed suggestions for improvement: (1) Why did they pick Titan for the probe? If i remember correctly, there were a couple of good reasons (atmosphere, etc.) (2) The timeline should include future planned events (Landing, future flight path, end of mission, etc.) (3) There is an unclear point: Does Huygens collect data only during the descent, or is it also intended to collect data while sitting on the surface? (4) Are there any specific questions that they try to answer with the probe? (e.g. Life on Titan?). If possible, it would be good to expand on the research that will be done using the collected data. (5) I'd like to see a bit more about what's going on on earth. Were there any quarrels/problems during the project, other projects that influenced this one or were influenced by this one (Mariner Mark II is mentioned), etc. Thanks. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:05, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)


King James Version of the Bible[edit]

Partial self-nomination. It now has several interesting pictures and a fair amount of data. Smerdis of Tlön 15:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: there seems to be quite a few bulleted lists where they aren't needed. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Johnleemk | Talk 16:35, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It looks pretty good. My objections having been met, I change my vote to Support. Mpolo 07:48, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC) I have a few small objections, however. When most of them are satisfied, I'd be willing to support. (1) Could we have an ALT text on the picture of James I? Perhaps better to edit the photos to remove the included captions and then use Wikipedia captions. Just thinking about possible blind readers. House style is full-sentence captions, anyway. (2) As Ta bu shi da yu said, I'd rather see the information in the bulleted lists summarized and written in paragraphs. (Then the reader doesn't have to deal with early modern English either.) (3) Names of books should be KJV names. I noticed "Song of Songs" instead of "Song of Solomon", for instance. (4) "less sanitized" seems a little strange -- was "piss" a taboo word at the time of writing? If not, then using it hardly indicates a lack of decorum. (5) Not strictly an objection, but I find it strange to follow a colon by new subsections (in "Subsequent history") and actually, some of the following subsections don't go with that colon, it appears. (6) Might be good to pull all the ISBN info for editions out to the end of the article (maybe even an "editions" section, though that can hardly be exhaustive). (7) Last Caption Not a Full Sentence and is Overcapitalized. Mpolo 16:36, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • I captionised (is that a word?) the King James image, and created a proper one for the last image too. Unfortunately, it seems there's a technical issue with captioning King James' image; a caption exists, but none appears! Extremely strange. Johnleemk | Talk 17:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Doh, made a mistake in the formatting of the wikimarkup. I also cropped the built-in caption. Johnleemk | Talk 17:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I have removed the bulleted lists — they were useful once, then the data in them grew; pared down the list of royal instructions to the ones discussed in text; changed all the names of the books to KJV names except for Roman numerals; rephrased the bit about the startling vocabulary; and added a bit of intro about earlier Bible versions in English and their religious and political import. Smerdis of Tlön 02:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Needs paragraph on background relating to the Reformation, support on condition of that being included. Dunc_Harris| 16:38, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I added a bit of background, trying to keep focused on prior Bible translations and their perceived inadequacies or theological agendas. Smerdis of Tlön 19:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly dislike it is perhaps the most influential English version in America. so high in the intro: makes this seem like an article designed for Americans (and was it truely that infuential in Brazil and Peru?) (William M. Connolley 16:36, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC))
    • I replaced this with a statement about more recent translations in the KJV tradition. Smerdis of Tlön 21:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Neutral. However I think the thumbnail images need to be reduced on the page. We can click on the links for the thumbnails to see a larger image. KeyStroke 20:21, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC) Hey! Can we dispense with the numerology stuff about Psalm 46, please! Changed to Neutral until this (er...) "stuff" can be removed. KeyStroke 19:30, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now, but... Nothing about the literary/stylistic/linguistic influence of what is certainly (along with the collected works of Shakespeare) one of the two most influential volumes of writing in the English language? It is not coincidence that when we read Shakespeare or the King James Version of the Bible most of the words are still in our modern vocabulary: they are in our modern vocabulary because they are in these works. When one reads other contemporaneous works, they seem much more archaic, because the portion of their vocabulary which is not in common with these two volumes has, in so many cases, fallen out of the English language, whereas one hears conscious and unconscious echoes of Shakespeare and the KJV in English down to this day. -- Jmabel|Talk 08:35, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC) Support. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:22, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Quite comprehensive and reads well. Some comparison with modern English for the passages quoted as examples of obscure language would be nice (at the moment it risks suggesting the Word itself is needlessly obscure). zoney talk 11:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • SO, when will we come to a conclusion on all this discussion, and actually put this up as the featured article of the day? KeyStroke 17:06, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
    • Sigh....see the link to "what is a featured article" at the top of this page, please. And as for when this nomination's time is up, see the instructions at the top of this page (again). Johnleemk | Talk 06:39, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) You would never know from the article that this is one of the key texts in the development of English prose style with a historic importance for English literature exceeded only by Shakespeare. In fact, the impression to be gained from the Literary qualities section is of some quaint old thing that nobody can really read, with excerpts to prove the case. 2) The implication that "ye", "thee", "thou", "thy" and "thine", were 'somewhat anachronistic and archaic even at the time of publication' is false. 3) still somewhat US-slanted, for instance, the sentence 'The words [referring back to piss, teats, paps, etc] were not thought unseemly to appear in a Bible in 1611, even if you still can't say some of them in U.S. broadcasting.' belongs to some other argument entirely and not to an encyclopaedia article with this title. Filiocht 08:53, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • I hope I've addressed all (or almost all) of your concerns with my latest edits. I'm not sure if I address the "key text" part, but I think I took care of everything else. Johnleemk | Talk 17:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I would wonder also whether the "key text" business belongs here, or at William Tyndale; if the KJV is a literary masterpiece, Tyndale probably deserves more credit than the KJV committees, and most of the proverbial phrases appear first with him. It's a shame that the "saint" Sir Thomas More, his enemy, now gets much better press than the genuinely saintly and martyred Tyndale. Smerdis of Tlön 18:50, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. 1) Does not even mention the frequently discussed possibility that Shakespeare may have participated in the translation efforts. 2) Should stress the monumental importance that the KJV had for English literature. 3)The intro to to "literary qualities" should be tightened up. Of course some people find it hard to read 400 year old texts. Duh. And the section veers from the modern back to 1611 and the back to modern. Perhaps "literary qualities" is not the proper title for this section and perhaps all this stuff shouldn't be lumped together. Mentioning US broadcasting is an irrelevant aside. Gamaliel 16:42, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I couldn't find much on Shakespeare, except for some reference to Psalms, so I put that in. I'm not sure if I've stressed the importance the KJV has had enough, mainly because I'm not a professional in this sort of thing. I think I handled the last one already. Johnleemk | Talk 17:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • See my objection above regarding this edit. Lets not turn an article about KJV into an endorsement of the idea of numerology, please! KeyStroke 19:34, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
        • I don't support giving credence to crackpot theories, and if this is indeed a crackpot theory, then all we have to do is say something like "Scholars largely dismiss this theory, however." To not mention it at all I think is a mistake, and mentioning it is useful, if only to dispel a commonly held myth, if that is what this is. Gamaliel 23:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)



Shakespearean authorship[edit]

Self-nomination in that I've done a lot of subediting on the article, though I'd hardly call myself an expert in the area - David Gerard 14:55, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. You might, though, want to look at David Kahn's The Codebreakers. There is a long section deconstructing cryptographic clues as to the supposed authorship; using the same methods, Friedman and several others have produced cryptograms that show that Dante, Shakespeare himself, and Babe Ruth wrote the plays. My own theory is that Shakespeare's plays were not written by Shakespeare, but by someone else with the same name. Smerdis of Tlön 15:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • If you have the book, please expand upon this matter! - David Gerard 17:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I've added a note based on your words above :-) - David Gerard 20:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It would be nice to have some examples of what the anti-Stratfordians think honorificabilitudinitatibus has to say, but I won't oppose on that basis. Mpolo 07:33, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) Mildly oppose. Two things I noticed that I'd like fixed before I can support. (1) The section of Francis Bacon trails off into a discussion of cryptograms in general. Nothing is said about what Bacon supporters think honorificabilitudinitatibus indicates about authorship. Psalm 46 is not very germane to the discussion at this point. (2) Consistency about "Oxford" or "Lord Oxford". I'd prefer the latter -- otherwise the casual reader will think of the school. (Oxfordian is probably O.K., though) Mpolo 16:46, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • 1. That would be the bit Smerdis of Tlön just added ;-) 2. I understand the standard is to call them by their peerage, i.e. "Oxford" is actually correct - David Gerard 17:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • In any case we have to be consistent... I know, I know, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", but we go from "Oxford" to "Lord Oxford" and back again in the space of six sentences. If you can find one, a picture of Oxford would be very useful here to alert a reader who automatically assumes "Oxfordian" refers to the university that we're talking about a person. If not, it's no big deal. Mpolo 07:55, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC) -- Responding to myself. I added an image. It's definitely free in the U.S., but the Folger Library claims rights to it in Britain. If you have something better, feel free to change it. Mpolo 08:08, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
        • I've now changed it to "Oxford" all the way through and separated out the cryptograms as their own section. Will this do? - David Gerard 20:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Consider this an automatic support once Mpolo's objections are addressed. For now, neutral, but very close to support. Johnleemk | Talk 16:50, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • A very mild object. I think the article very good in general, but there are some concerns. The pargaraph "William Shakespere of Stratford-upon-Avon is held to have been a bumpkin whose father was unable to write his own name. Indeed, his wife and his two daughters are also said to have been illiterate beyond signing their own names, and, anti-Stratfordians claim, the literacy of Shakespere himself is in doubt. How, they ask, could he have written the masterpieces of literature that we know as the works of Shakespeare?" strikes me as odd -- who is it that "held" Shakespeare to be a "bumpkin"? Furthermore, this paragraph is never answered by the Stratfordian argument (which at the very least should note that the only reason to doubt Stratford Shakespeare's literacy is if we doubt he wrote the plays and poems attributed to him....personally, as a Stratfordian, I think it would be very difficult to establish the literacy of any early modern figure if I do not allow the admission of any written work that has been attributed to that person). Perhaps my bias here is blinding me, though -- if that paragraph can't be fixed, or shouldn't be, say so and I'll pipe down. My other concern, though, is that the final large section about authorship is a bit long, and seems disengaged from the rest of the article. If that's too vague, I'll see if I can clarify. Jwrosenzweig 22:58, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll see what I can dig up (I didn't write those bits). On the final large section, the problem is that the academic authorship debate is actually a completely separate thing from the 'popular' debate. Possibly it should be a separate article, though I'm not sure this article would be as good without detailing both authorship debates - David Gerard 20:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I've noted that the 'bumpkin' thing is in the opinion of the anti-Stratfordians. Evidence of his literacy is given a few paras below ("to be a successful trader at that time one would likely need to be able at least to read and write"). Is that OK? - David Gerard 20:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't know, I find it a bit harsh -- is there a way of rewording it? The problem with the sentence for me is that it isn't clear from the sentence that this view is anti-Stratfordian, and the rebuttal doesn't come for a number of lines -- in isolation, I think its current phrasing is too powerful. So, if a rephrase is not desirable or possible, I would ask that either the view be more clearly attributed to the A-S or that the S view more quickly follow it. It's a minor point, but I think one worth troubling with.
  • Strong support, fascinating topic, reads like a detective novel, yet the article doesn't drag and is nicely concise. GeneralPatton 21:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I wonder whether this authorship debate is a bit of a humanities equivalent to pseudoscience. The article warns very briefly about this in the beginning, then discusses all this in ernest, and then, suddently, says: and now to the real experts' (scholars') dabate. So what was the point for me to read all the stuff above if it is just idle speculation of self-proclaimed experts who might use a standard of proof on the ufologist level? Or is it not. The article leaves me unclear and with a bad feeling. Simon A. 08:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • That's not particularly actionable - David Gerard 17:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • David, you may be right that the objection as expressed doesn't clearly show actionability (is that a word?). I would argue, though, that there is something odd about the article, owing largely to the oddness of the topic (arguing whether Shakespeare was really Shakespeare or another man of that name, and all the other old bad jokes...). Is it actionable to request that the intro more clearly explain the structure of the article? That is, can the intro more clearly and openly note that there are the casual, fight-over-port-at-the-faculty-dinner objections and quarrels over the authorship, and then there are more serious and careful academic disputes? This is difficult to action, I grant you, but worthy of consideration, at least. What can the article do to help a reader (without instructing them) understand the dichotomy in this topic? If I am unclear, let me know -- perhaps we can consider this more fully and carefully on the article's talk page. I personally don't think it's an obstacle to FA status, but it is worth doing. Jwrosenzweig 19:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose: too much of this article is a hodge-podge of unattributed claim and counter claim. Who are these anti-Stratfordians and Stratfordians? And when the article says 'some Stratfordians', which ones? Plus everything Simon A. has to say. Filiocht 08:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • There's a references section - what are you after? - David Gerard 17:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Name names in the text, rather than 'some'. Filiocht 09:32, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
    • Note: interestingly omits any reference to the dubious authorship and subject matter of the portrait of 'William Shakespeare' that illustrates the article. Filiocht 09:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • You're right, I'll get onto that one! - David Gerard 17:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I find the use of the spelling "Shakespere", confusing. I assume this is intentional, and not just a misspelling or a typo? If so, I think the intent should be explained and should be made explicit, perhaps by using quotations around that spelling whenever it is intended - I almost "corrected" it while I was reading the article. Or perhaps it should be just dispensed with? Paul August 15:13, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This is pretty good stuff. I have some minor quibbles. As the leading Anti-WS candidate, Edward de Vere should be initally mentioned way earlier, probably right after Francis Bacon in the opening paragraph. The nature of the curriculum of schools like the Stratford Free School should be mentioned, as it was hardly the half-assed education that the AWS folks imply. The argument that Shakespeare might not have had access to the types of books he needed (British histories, Roman stuff, etc.) should be touched on. Also, the idea that Marlowe may have survived past 1593 is not unique to this argument. This article seems to imply the opposite. A case has been positied independent of any Shakespearean authorship question that Marlowe may have survived and penned other works, including a translation of Don Quixote. (I'll of course lend a hand in dealing with this stuff.) Gamaliel 09:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)



Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava[edit]

Partial self-nomination. I think this is a very complete and interesting article about a little-known but important Victorian diplomat. Worldtraveller 12:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Object: 1. No lead section. 2. No mention of his father (Price Blackwood, 4th Baron Dufferin) or of his mother. Furthermore, he would have inherited the surname "Blackwood," but used the triple-barrelled "Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood": the article does not explain why. -- Emsworth 14:20, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) Lead section is missing. Also, all the abbreviations of orders are not very informative (to me), and might be moved elsewhere. 2) The only image (which is not too great either) needs a caption. 3) I'm not too fond of the (ugly) succession section, but this appears to be some kind of standard. 4) The external links/references should be formatted according to the WP:MOS. Also, please add books as refrence or further reading, if there are any. Jeronimo 15:21, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I've added a lead section, mentioned his mother and father, made the succession section look a bit nicer and added a further reading section. I can't see how the external links do not comply with the WP:MOS? I note that the MOS says no need for an image caption on an biographical page if it's obvious that it's the subject of the article - I think this is the case here. No idea where his triple-barrelled name came from, or how to find out! Any clues? Worldtraveller 22:48, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • His wife was surnamed Hamilton; he was related to one Miss Temple, from whom he may have inherited property. -- Emsworth 23:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't like "referred to as Lord Dufferin" in the introduction - all peers are referred to as "Lord X" (or "Lord A" if they are "Marquess of A and B"), and so it's completely redundant. Proteus (Talk) 00:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) Support. Proteus (Talk) 11:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Cite_sources for how to cite sources. This assumes that the external links are references; if they're not, references should be added (not just further reading). As for the image caption: it is not required, though I think it is good practice anyway. Consider this as my support when the references/links are fixed. Jeronimo 07:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I have re-arranged the external links and further reading into one section entitled References and further reading, and formatted according to the MOS. Also removed that 'referred to as...' bit, and captioned the image.


Contingent valuation[edit]

Self nomination. I'm kinda new to Wiki so I'm not sure if it's suitable or if it is a too specific topic. It's fairly comprehensive, based on a research essay I did on the subject. (User:Psychobabble)

Don't forget to sign your nominations ;-) -- Chris 73 Talk 07:13, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Not bad, but I think this needs work to get featured. 1) I find the article a bit difficult to understand if you don't already have an idea what it is about. A little more context is needed. 2) I would like to see an example of contingent valuation. How is it done? This is hardly discussed and can be made up only partially from other sections. 3) The article is a US-centric. All of the examples, history etc. refer to the US - save one mention of Australia. Is this technique also used outside of the US? If not, it should be explained this is a US-thing only (and why), if so, this should be discussed. 4) There are no images. I agree that direct pictures may be impossible, but some of the linked articles (Exxon Valdez, NOAA) have images that could be used. 5) The article is quite short as it is. All sections could use some expansion. There's a lot more to tell about the history ("Use of the technuique has spread from there.") and controversies, I think. 6) Finally, there are some small issues that are not conform the Manual of Style, but those are really minor things. Jeronimo 08:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • object. i'm pleased to see this article written, and it's a good start. however, it has a long way to go before featured status. i'd be willing to help out sometime in the next couple months, as i teach a course in non-market valuation. but, it's just not there yet. john whitehead's 'primer for practioners' would be worth looking at to guide a lengthier presentation at wikipedia level. Wolfman 04:39, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


SubSpace (computer game)[edit]

Self-nomination. ContiE and I have worked extensively on this article, and I feel that it is quite comprehensive. This game is one of the first massively multiplayer online games, and it is probably one of the largest community-run games, if not the largest. Rather fitting that it has an article on Wikipedia. Your votes as well as your suggestions are more than welcome. --Slowking Man 21:55, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. This is interesting and well written! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:22, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. For a non-Gamer the opening is far too cryptic. What does top down mean in this context? Dsmdgold 01:39, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Rewritten opening is much better. Support Dsmdgold 17:05, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It's quite good, but it's a little short - I think some more could be written about the game generally. Ambi 07:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Anything that you'd specifically like to see more detail about? Your input, as a person unfamiliar with the subject, is especially helpful. --Slowking Man 23:46, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • I guess what it lacks is an explicit overview of what the game is about. It goes from a basic lead section, to history, to the specific components of the game, but it'd be nice to have a paragraph in there explaining to the uninitiated exactly what it was about. Ambi 09:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Richard Stallman[edit]

  • An overall well written article about a notable man, although i've made numerous contributions to it i do not consider this a self-nomination since my contributions have mainly been wikification and such. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:50, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
  • Support - seems to be a thourough and well-done article. Kundor 00:38, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Filiocht 08:35, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It needs information about the feud with Harlan Ellison. But would support if info is incorporated. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 02:34, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support with enthusiasm. An inspired article about a great man. I wonder if he contributes to Wikipedia... Cyopardi 22:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • He has certainly contributed on the mailing lists, particularly with respect to copyright and licensing issues. If he has contributed content, then there has not been a song and dance about it. Pcb21| Pete 09:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, "Media appearances" is a one-sentence section, and should either not exist or be expanded. ✏ Sverdrup 11:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Merged with the Trivia section now. Filiocht 09:11, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act[edit]

Encyclopedia style is well done, non partial, almost no POV (found two instances, but they are balanced against each other, and its argueable that they are POV). Bulleted lists do not detract, provides enough information without listing the whole laws in annotated form. Very good treatment of the support and the movements against it. Written in informational perspective, can be seen in many ways as a "Model" article. Only concern I have is that it may be very conteversial to feature this article, but on the other side of the coin, the article is currently very relevant. Ctrl_build 02:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • If any of you have issues with me listing 2 articles at once, I wish you to realize that I understand that the Columbia University article needs a lot of work, and probably at least should be refered to peer review. Ctrl_build 02:25, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Needs information about the recent court decison regarding the Act. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:11, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Horrible. 1) The lead does not tell anything about what the law enables (or disables). 2) The overview section is half of the article, while other sections are only a few lines. The overview also doesn't really give an overview. 3) There's too much "critics say" and "supporters say", and too little fact. If supporters/critics say something: a) back it up with a reference or mention them b) relate their arguments to facts. Most of this is just a collection of what some anonymous people have said. Why not put in my or your arguments as well. This is an encyclopedia. If we present opinions, we should present view of large groups or important groups. Not anonymous people who have claims that cannot be validated. 4) the Domestic vs foreign law enforcement and surveillance section is totally unclear. What is compared here? 5) We need to know what abbreviations mean. Best is to properly introduce them, or at least link them to the term they abbreviate. Eg: PEN/Trap, FISA, D-OH, I-VT, Reps, etc. Also: please use United States in the lead section, not US. There's no need to save letters. 6) It is not at all clear that all bullets (ugly!) under "Alleged abuses under the PATRIOT Act" have to do something with the PATRIOT act. Are these all cases? If not, why are these listed here? Do they have any special importance? Also: what about successful applications of the law? I didn't find any of these here. 7) What is "Sunset information"? To me, that's information about when the sun sets. I'm sure that's not what you meant. 8) If there are indeed "Historical similarities to other laws", this needs a real section, not just some links. 9) There's no picture. Surely there are many pictures that can be used, even if not one directly of the Act itself. 10) If Padilla and Kemal were not arrested under this Act, why are they mentioned here? 11) The fact that many cities and states have condemned the Act is interesting, but what are the legal consequences of this? Are there any? Have such things also happened to other laws? 12) The ACLU claims the Act is unconstitutional. Please elaborate on this. Has there been a lawsuit because of this? Is there not some body that checks an Act against the constitution to prevent such problems? Whatexactly violates the Fourth Amendment? Jeronimo 16:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Philosophy[edit]

Very nicely written. Vacuum 16:01, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. It is nicely written, (despite being at the center of frequent edit debates). func(talk) 00:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • if that is true, it should not be featured. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article: "A featured article should: Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy (no ongoing edit wars)." I therefore object if there are indeed frequent ongoing edit debates. Jeronimo 06:47, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • There have been no reverts on Philosophy in the past month, except to correct vandalism and a minor argument on which quotes to include (which was solved by moving them to Wikiquote). Vacuum 00:02, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • That's great. However, I still object to the article (now having read it as well). 1) There's no picture. Dozens of philosophers are mentioned, so dozens of choices. 2) I find it strange that the five types of questions identified by the Greek are broadly discussed, while it is then said that "there are others" and "Chinese philosophers in particular had a different conception of categories from the Greeks". If they're important enough to mention, please do so. Also, it is not at all clear if this subdivision is still used in the present. 3) I miss a brief "history of philosophy" section. Most of this information is scattered throughout the article, and difficult to get a hold of . There's at least a long History of Western philosophy article, so there should be plenty of information for such a section. Jeronimo 06:38, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Revth 08:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. ZayZayEM 12:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Objections: The length and diversity of this article merits at least another paragraph in the lead section. The Western philosophy is a list of names and not much more. ✏ Sverdrup 09:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: Sverdrup said what I was going to say. Filiocht 10:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Get Back[edit]

Self-nomination. Johnleemk | Talk 18:07, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

*Comment: Is the idea to feature as many Beatles articles as possible? Mike H 02:00, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

    • Not really. It's just that I believe most of my best work has been on Beatles song articles. Johnleemk | Talk 06:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • He does good work on Beatles articles. You do good work on soapie articles. What's the problem? Ambi 06:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I wasn't acting angry so there is no need to get defensive. Mike H 07:55, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Contribute what you know or are willing to learn about is our strongest driving policy. ✏ Sverdrup 08:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Oh, cripes, forget I said anything. It's so being taken out of context. Mike H 08:34, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
        • I actually agree with what you're saying, but with one slight difference. By all means these songs should be FAs but I don't think that all of them should be front-page articles, just the "special" ones like Yesterday. violet/riga (t) 09:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Good article, but some of the chronology is a bit jerky. Ambi 06:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • How so? I reread the article, and I'm not too sure what you mean. Johnleemk | Talk 11:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I like it. Go on, stop arguing and get it up there. Also, I agree with Mike H. Let's try to feature as many Beatles articles as possible! Hurrah!--Crestville 12:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Although most of this thread has been a misunderstanding, it is still annoying to me. We have great work from people like John (Beatles songs) and Emsworth (Peerage, English/British monarchs) yet on the several occasions when I have suggested we create something like "featured series" as a section in "featured articles" (possibly renamed to Wikipedia:Features to placate pendants) it gets knocked back with some pretty ill-thought-out objections. Pcb21| Pete 09:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Who's objecting? What are you on about?--Crestville 14:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • As always I am troubled by fair use images. Otherwise support. Another great article of course. - Taxman 14:31, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

List of North American birds[edit]

Along with companion pages List of North American birds: non-passerines and List of North American birds: passerines. OK, like it or not, Wikipedia has LOTS of lists. I guess I want to see if a well formulated, well explained, comprehensive list can be Featured Article. Self-nomination. Dsmdgold 14:24, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • Never supported a list before, but this seems pretty good! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. We need consensus as to if lists can be FAs. Also, the toc is overwhelming and there is no References section. Filiocht 08:00, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)It isn't even a list of North American birds, for Darwin's sake! I think this should become Birds of North America with the links to the lists as a See also section. Then it could be rewritten as a regular article with a lead, toc, references, etc. That could make a really good article. Filiocht 15:15, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
    • I don't see an actionable objection here. You can look in the article histories to see how we arrived at this division. A list of 900+ birds was too long for a single page, and this what we came up with. An article on the Birds of North America would be a very different beast. The text of this page only discusses the list and its rationale, i.e what area is covered by the term, and why the list is in this particular order. None of this would be particularly relevant to a Birds of North America article. I am willing to listen to alternative structures for this list, but I do not see suggestions to write a completely different article instead as actionable. Dsmdgold 16:36, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • That may be, but then I don't think this is a feature worthy item, even if you take them as a set. The birds of North America, if written very well and comprehensive could be. But as this is, as you have noted, is not comprehensive--an article that "only discusses the list and it's rationale" is not feature worthy. And yes that is entirely actionable. We are faced with an article that is not comprehensive and feature worthy and saying that to get to featured worthy, you would need to write featured worthy material and be comprehensive. In addition the writing in this article is simply not compelling, and of course that in the lists is not by definition. In summation, there is nothing wrong with lists like this, they can be valuable metadata, but are not worthy of featuring in their own right (even with a cover article explaining the list). Object. - Taxman 20:14, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Filiocht is right. It's not a list - it just links to two lists which are therefore different articles. The name is therefore incorrect and, while relevant and a good part of wikipedia, this article isn't feature-worthy imo. Count my objection if someone else can come up with a well-worded reason. violet/riga (t) 21:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Would this meet your objections? Dsmdgold 21:53, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • Why do features have to consist of one article? Is there a logical reason? Pcb21| Pete 06:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • agree with Filiocht. This is featured articles, not featured lists. Dunc_Harris| 16:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • No its not, its Wikipedia:Brilliant prose. Erm, what, we changed the name? Yep, and we can do it again. I really think it should be Wikipedia:Features in order to allow us showcase examples of our good work that do not fit into the arbitrary framework of a single article. Pcb21| Pete 19:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Lists ARE articles because they are not pictures, the other featured category. Lists make up a sizeable portion of the articles on Wikipedia. (I attempted to count them, but the database gave up after 6000 hits for articles with "List of" in the title.) Lists vary in quality; some are poorly concieved in that they have too many or too few potential members, some are poorly defined, some are incomplete. This list is none of those things. Dsmdgold 21:04, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • The lists are close to brilliant. Not quite there yet, however, Object for now:
    • The article nominated is the one which should eventually be featured, not the individual lists; though the truly brilliant content would be the lists themselves. I agree with this aspect of the nomination.
    • The text on the nominated page needs work. It's not detailed enough; only lists a one natively diverging species (wrens) and a few imports; doesn't clarify why the AOU's list is used in one place but not in another; not enough reference links, or links to the books mentioned in the article (I started clarifying the article a little to explain what I mean).
      • One note, the Wrens are a family, not a species. However there are a few other families that are limited to the New World. I willl add these. The ABA follows the AOU in taxonomical matters, which is why we are using two different authorities. I have indicated this in the article. I listed the most common introduced species, there are too many to list all of them. Many are established in a very limited area (eg Himalayan Snowcock and Skylark). However I will see what I can do about making this section somewhat more complete.Dsmdgold 15:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • The text on the list pages is too sparse. Each section needs an introduction, be it a sentence or a paragraph. Don't just list links to other articles; highlight which subarticles are more important and which less, which contested, which of special interest to birders or biologists or farmers, etc. Imagine opening a reference book on birds to the section on Vireos -- there would be a list of specific species, but also an overview.
      • Actually if I turned to a checklist of birds that is actually what I would expect, just a list, perhaps with some indication of frequency, but that would be it, no overview. Since each order and family links to an article discussing that taxon and the article are all at least good (some are very good) I don't see the point in short summary of info that is just a click away.Dsmdgold 15:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Images are not well-chosen. We have many fantastic images of birds; only one of them makes it to any of these pages. The image on the nominated page should be a crisper one; perhaps a symbolic one like the bald eagle, perhaps one of our features. The list pages themselves should have a few thumbnails on them; perhaps one representative image for each of the largest sections. +sj+ 07:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • You have a point here. I will work on it. Dsmdgold 15:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - I don't feel list should be featured, however as a general article on North American birds, linking to the lists, this can vbe "saved".Grinner 10:54, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Filiocht and violet/riga seem to be concerned that the nominated page is not actually a list. It now is. When working on this list I split the list since it would be over 32KB. However Wikipedia:Page size says that "(pages) >32KB - should be divided unless it is a list". Since this is a list, I have unsplit (if that is a word) it.

Filiocht, Grinner and Taxman seem to think that I have nominated the Birds of North America and have claimed that the article is incomplete on that basis. I have not nominated that article. I have nominated List of North American birds. I have not noted that the article is not comprehensive. It is comprehensive. The introductory text is just that, a text that introduces the list. It is not a general discussion of the birds of North America. I believe that when someone encounters a list like this, they might ask a couple of questions, such as "What birds are included in this list?" and "Why is it organized in this manner?" This text answers those questions. It would be inappropriate to go off on a discussion of migratory patterns or the role in of the Rocky Mountains in dividing bird species, topics that should be covered in the hypothetical Birds of North America article.

I know exactly what you nominated, and I am objecting to it. I quoted you directly, and a consequence of what you wrote is that the article is not comprehensive about the subject. It is mostly just a list. It has few of the qualities of a great article. In addition the title is wrong/misleading since almost half of North America by species count is not covered in the list. - Taxman 03:04, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
I thought no such thing. I suggested that such an article, if well-written, would make a much better candidate. May I respectfully suggest a less aggressive engagement with objections? Filiocht 11:21, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Taxman, Dunc_Harris, andGrinner have raised objections based on the fact that this is list. These objections are so fundamental that they cannot be addressed. Dsmdgold 02:36, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Sure they can be addressed, it just means the article as just a list and no well written, comprehensive coverage (the hallmarks of a featured article) cannot be a featured article. By definition of what it lacks. Don't rail against that, either write a featured quality article or don't worry about it being featured. Why the fuss to get a list featured? Its just metadata. - Taxman 03:04, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
(Speaking as featured article director) - I believe Taxman makes a valid point here. Lists are lacking the basic quality of a featured article - that is, prose. →Raul654 22:19, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

History of rugby league[edit]

Self nomination. A good general article coivering the history and development of the soprt of rugby league. This article has been on peer review for two weeks and some changes suggested there now incorporated. Grinner 10:54, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

  • generally support, but it needs a section on union players moving to league (particularly the poaching of the Welsh), perhaps a bit more on geography and demographics. (I'll read it again). Dunc_Harris| 14:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC).
    • Section addedGrinner 15:36, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) Lead section needs to present a summary of the article (see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section). 2) There are no references, no further reading, no external links. 3) Most of the information needed seems to be in the article, but the organisation is messy. The order of section is mostly chronological, but not entirely, and sections are named for geographic regions. This is confusing and difficult to follow. For example, the "France" section appears to discuss the sport in that country, yet doesn't discuss the French "golden age", which comes forward in "Post-war boom". 4) I feel the World Cup gets comparatively little attention, while I would assume it to be the most important event on the (international) calendar. 5) I would expect a section "before the schism" that briefly summarizes the history of the sport up to that point. This establishes context, while the details can still be read in other articles. Jeronimo 21:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Any better? Re. the world cup, sadly I feel it has about the prominence it deserves, unlike other sports the RL version has been sporadic, with a variety of formats, and never really been the pinnacle of international game. Grinner 11:16, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
My issues have been addressed, and I will support, although I have one note: please follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Cite your sources for the references. Jeronimo 07:21, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs a copyedit (for example, two consecutive sentences which don't make sense: The most succesful was English wing-cum-full back Jason Robinson, and generally considered that the easier transitions are in the backs. Brad Thorne, a New Zealand forward made a cross-code move, was a rare success, because of the technical forward skills required in union. ) Markalexander100 05:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Some errors crept in with the changes made after nomination on this page. I think your copyediting points have now been addressed now. Grinner 09:11, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • There are still lots of small errors: In 1905, as New Zealand's rugby union team, the All Blacks toured Britain; These games were played under rugby union las, as no copies of the rugby leagues laws were available to the teams.; and there are others. I still think the text needs to be read over more carefully before it's feature-worthy. Markalexander100 02:38, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Australian federal election, 2004[edit]

Basically, this is an excellent piece of writing. It was written from a highly accomplished author, Adam Carr, and is quite NPOV. It also is quite an excellent overview of the 2004 Australian Federal election. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. I'd been planning to nominate this myself. It was just about feature-worthy before the election, and has been just about completely rewritten since. Ambi 11:42, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm from Australia and followed the elction fairly closely. It looks good Psychobabble
  • Object. Current event status is a serious hinderance to featured article status in my mind. The results won't be final until around 31 October, plus a week or so to resolve lingering POV, pictures, analysis, grammer etc. Excellent candidate for feature article after 7 November. Fifelfoo 23:35, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • See my response to Aaronhill's comment below. Secondly, if there are problems with lingering POV, pictures, analysis and grammar, where are they? For the objection to be actionable, we need some pointers to where these may indeed be. Ambi 09:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote, but should not the article be intituled "Australian parliamentary election, 2004" ? -- Emsworth 00:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • There's been several suggestions. "Australian federal election, 2004" is the most popular alternative, if it was to change -- Chuq 01:50, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. lead section much too long--Jiang 00:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Slightly object Conditional support for much the same reason as Fifelfoo. To quote: "Current event status is a serious hinderance to featured article status in my mind". The article is still using the provisional results and the dust has still not yet settled on the election. It, after all, was last Saturday and there are still seats in doubt. Predicting the Senate results for sure is still difficult. I guess this is a "yes, but not just yet". This is not to say that the work is not quality, because it is probably one of the best articles available on the election on the entire internet, but it is just not appropriate for featured status just yet. (I guess this would be a partial self-objection :-D) - Aaron Hill 08:22, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • IMO, this shouldn't be a problem. There's very few undecided seats at the moment - it's down to about four in each house, and those are being updated practically daily with the latest details. Ambi 09:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I do not believe the article is POV or that it has problems with pictures or grammar, I do however think that it is necessary to wait until after the dust has settled on this still current event (the makeup of the senate is still far from certain) for it to be featured on the front page. - Aaron Hill 10:57, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
        • Then don't feature it on the main page for at least two weeks, but don't oppose its nomination either. Ambi 11:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • On that condition, I strongly support the nomination of this article. - Aaron Hill 12:07, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: the lead section is far too long and detailed, and, again, the actual references used need to be stated explicitly. I am also concerned about the provisional nature of the article as it stands. I know no article is never finished, but this is about an event in progress and so is even less finished than the average FA. Probably nominated two weeks too soon. Filiocht 11:14, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

If there are no objections/referals after approximately a week, the article may be promoted to featured article status. If there are objections, a consensus must be reached. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived.

Australian electoral system[edit]

Quoting Ta bu shi da yu: "Basically, this is an excellent piece of writing. It was written from a highly accomplished author, Adam Carr, and is quite NPOV". It's also relevant considering the recent Australian election, which is nominated for featured status below. - Aaron Hill 08:34, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object for now. The lead section should summarise in broad terms the content of the article and references need to be made explicit. Filiocht 11:03, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object 1) Lead section too short, not a summary. 2) No references. 3) The image has no source/usage info. 4) Use tables instead of typewriter parts. 5) While not necessarily bad, there is a lot of explanation of the voting systems themselves (apart from how they are implemented in Australia). Something needs to be explained (for ease of reading), but I feel this much is not really necessary. 6) Voting is compulsory. Is this enforced? How? 7) A map of the electorates (the Australian_electorates is just a stub) would be useful, since it is not very clear what the electorates are. Jeronimo 07:13, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Compares poorly to Antony Green's history on www.abc.net.au or that on www.aec.gov.au. Littered with nationalist NPOV "It was felt that since 60,000 Australians had died in the first world war defending freedom, Australians had a duty to use the freedoms so dearly bought." Nothing on classwar and the history of the electoral system (ALP for goodness' sake). Nothing on the anti-democratic tendencies in the Australian electoral system (I'm thinking the fight for franchise in the 19th C in the state systems, the development of the party system under ALP pressure.). Littered with Americanisms "Ballot Access". Rework, historicise, remove Americanisms, need more on 19th Century and the party system.Fifelfoo 05:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mahjong[edit]

A self-nomination, but I think the content is largely adequate, and changes made during the nomination process will cement its position among Wikipedia's elite articles. kelvSYC 20:31, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, though the navigation could be improved; I'm just not sure how. It's a lot of information, after all. --Golbez 21:15, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. A brief scan reveals several problems, notably a lack of (or just sporadic) information on the Japanese game. I fixed the first section, but don't have time to address the other problems today, or probably for a couple of days. Also, the article is currently 53kb. Exploding Boy 21:48, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • The TOC is also overwhelming and should be cut down. →Raul654 07:17, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have to admit that there is not enough depth in the scoring section (and it may need to be rewritten once again), but can you give us more detail as to what these problems you refer to are? kelvSYC 07:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the length of the article is a concern, what can us Wikipedians do to improve upon it? We could split the Mahjong article into something like American Mahjong for stuff specifically relating to American mahjong (eg. quints, Charleston, scoring card, etc.) and do similar things for other major variations. kelvSYC 07:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The typical (and more aesteically pleasing, and less time consuming) method is to take one of the longer sections and fork it off into its own article, and leave a 1-2 paragraph summary in its place. →Raul654 07:20, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
      • I've chopped off the scoring section and put that into Scoring in Mahjong. When more details are added, probably each type of scoring can have its own article. However there seems to be an imbalance of information in Mahjong which is currently 27kb. I'm not sure which other section in the main article to chop off. —Goh wz 01:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • The article length and TOC are fine now. →Raul654 20:27, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Some day I intend to learn Mahjong and actually understand it... As others have stated, in the future if this article continues to expand (and there's certainly plenty of room for it to do so) it'll need to be split up into different articles. Right now, the length is just fine. Zerbey 13:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it could still use a bit of tweaking in some awkward areas, but I withdraw my objection. Exploding Boy 18:31, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This is a decent article, but it needs references. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Consider this as my support when references have been added. Jeronimo 11:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Duck and Cover (film)[edit]

  • This is my second time trying to get this nominated, and I think that I and the others have written everything there is to be written on the subject at this point :-) After I started this page (yes, it's a self-nom) I put it on the FAC, and was turned down unanimously--although suggestions for improvement were provided. So we worked some more on it. I took it to the Collabartion of the Week, but they said they only worked on stubs and couldn't help me. So I've been adding more ever since. -Litefantastic 16:43, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I found this article quite informative and entertaining, especially for us youngsters that weren't around during the cold war. pie4all88 17:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1. The discussion of efficacy is POV and, in fact, largely wrong. While it is currently fashionable to ridicule the advice in this film, much of it is actually sound. To avoid clutter and debate here I have made some comments to that effect on Talk:Duck and Cover 2. Also I think Duck and Cover and Duck and cover probably should be merged; while they are arguably not about exactly the same thing, the content of Duck and cover is almost completely duplicated in Duck and Cover. Securiger 12:30, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) OK, withdraw my objection. Securiger 15:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Objection to merger proposal. Duck and Cover was a movie; duck and cover was a strategy. Some explanation of duck and cover has been provided in Duck and Cover, but only for clarification purposes. -Litefantastic 19:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, I don't feel strongly about merging, but as it stands, describing them as separate concepts, while true, seems to be hair-splitting to me: one is about the film, the other about the contents of the film. And the material in the big 'C' version for clarification purposes already almost completely duplicates the contents of the small 'c' version. If the small 'c' version is intended to be expanded to detail US nuclear civil defense in the Cold War, then it's under the wrong title, since it's a much broader subject than just the emergency drill. I guess we could put detailed discussion of the physics of the drill in the small 'c' version and call it a subpage or something. Securiger 15:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Perhaps duck and cover should be moved to "cold war training" or something like that. There was, you are right, much more to this than the drill. -Litefantastic 16:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. Questioning its usefulness is POV. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:26, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have removed the paragraph that questioned its usefullness. Better, or worse? -Litefantastic 19:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't think removal is necessary; it is quite appropriate to observe (especially in this "Pop culture" section) that people have doubted the efficacy. The problem for me is in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the "History and logic" section. These paragraphs outright dismiss the concept (i.e., are POV), and additionally are riddled with errors of fact. The shortest of several examples: "...its blast and resulting heat." (The heat doesn't result from the blast, but the other way around.) I discuss this further on the Talk page. Securiger 15:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • The bits questioning its usefullness have been partially reverted back and moved into a new block called "Controversy". Feel free to edit. -Litefantastic 16:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I have patched in places for NPOV purposes, and the remaining bits questioning its usefullness have been quartered off so that they are expressed as a possibility, not a POV. What else? -Litefantastic 15:43, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Since it has no analog in any other country, the world's only duck and cover film for children is sometimes regarded as being a red scare political tool, to make children frightened of the Soviet Union and communism. Is the Sovjet Union or communism mentioned anywhere in the film? Seems odd to call it a red scare political tool if the kids it's shown to have absolutely no political knowledge. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 07:50, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Opeth[edit]

Self-nomination. Extensive article on a notable band in the modern metal/death metal scene. I just expanded it, and I can't think of any more information that could be added to it. Nadavspi 05:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Overly short, IMO. It's not a bad article, but it's not quite up there with, say, Johnny Cash, yet. Ambi 05:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too short. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:41, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hip hop music[edit]

This is mostly a self-nom. Tuf-Kat 23:32, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Comprehensive referencing and continuous prose is required in the "Further spread to the US and abroad" heading. Certainly well on the way however. - Aaron Hill 03:07, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Lead intro is too long and should have some of the info incorporated into the main story. Haven't read the rest I'm afraid, so can't comment any further. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:33, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Lead is shortened. No info was lost, I believe. Tuf-Kat 04:42, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with Aaronhill, It's great up until the "Further spread to the US and abroad" section were the article degenerates into a list. The references section probably needs expanding as well, unless this article truly did only use two sites for information :) Zerbey 18:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't entirely agree that the bullet points in "further spread" were bad, but I have changed the section into a paragraph form, and in doing so, tweaked the whole "diversification" section in the 1980s. Is this more satisfactory? I used a number of references, but don't have them handy and won't soon, so I will see if I can track down some ISBNs and such on google. Tuf-Kat 22:39, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Some more refs have been added. AFAIK, all concerns have been address, so please re-object if needed. Tuf-Kat 23:30, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the section on spread abroad could use some work, but since its such a broad subject, it doesn't actually detract from the article by moving quickly from point to point. siroχo 00:14, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Far from complete. The article stops at the early 1990s and, as others have indicated, the "international spread" part is horrible. In addition, the article should be written from an international standpoint. Hip-hop certainly originates in the US, but it is more international now. A list of non-existing articles on "national scenes" is also quite useless. Jeronimo 07:02, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I would like to point out that heavy metal music never leaves the US and UK, punk rock does so only in a brief reference to Poland and jazz has a paragraph on Latin jazz and a few references to European jazzmen. All three are featured in spite of not being remotely internationalized. Tuf-Kat 10:30, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
      • Two things: 1) The fact that other articles "got away with it" doesn't mean all other articles can. 2) I think (but I'm not sure) that the articles you mention are from the "Brilliant prose" period, and have never been reviewed like the current featured articles. Perhaps this is a reason to re-examine them? Jeronimo 11:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Perhaps, but my point was that the reason the poor quality of that section got attention is because it existed. It is far more comprehensive and fair-minded than any other source on the Internet, especially in its international coverage. Tuf-Kat 21:59, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Xiao Qian[edit]

Article about a principled 20th c. Chinese journalist of WWII in Europe. Appears to be an internet collaboration in typical Wikipedia style. Appears to have been written in Chinese first, then translated and then organized, bit by bit. Ancheta Wis 05:10, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Object: inadequate lead section; traditional characters alone are not appropriate for a mainland-related topic; we should include pinyin for Chinese terms; frankly, poorly written (as noted, it appears to have been written in Chinese first, and Xiao witnessed and underwent the despairing and disheartening reality from his lowborn and destitute life is not brilliant prose). Markalexander100 06:12, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object as many informations are still missing. For example, while his second wife's name has both English and Chinese spelling, his first wife does not. It also doesn't say whether he had any children. In many places, same things with Chinese language happen, like "Impression on the way between Beiping and Suiyun" which makes little sense because most people would have no idea where both locations are. The single most important event in his life, being labelled a rightist needs more explanations. There is also nothing on what he did for 21 years from 1978 to 1999. Revth 13:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, reluctantly. It's about time there were some featured articles on non-Western figures, but this one suffers from poor writing and confusing layout. Also, the long bracketed groups of traditional/simplified characters are distracting. Interesting though. Exploding Boy 18:25, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Renormalization[edit]

Self-nom. This is a subject about which much more could be written, but perhaps not within the scope of a single encyclopedia article. Though the material is fairly arcane, I've tried to strike a balance between concreteness and clarification for nonspecialists. - Matt McIrvin 15:12, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Object IMHO, a featured article should be easily understandable by someone who knows a little about a subject, but who has some (but not a lot) of willingness to learn. I hope this article can be rewritten to achieve this. (After all, Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was a popular book explaining a complicated technical idea to laymen willing to put a small amount of work into it.)
More specifically, but not exhaustively:
In the lead section: what are 'field effects'?; The article states 'Renormalization arose in quantum electrodynamics as a means of making sense of the infinite results of various calculations and extracting finite answers to properly posed physical questions.' What infinite results, what calculations, what sort of physical questions?
Can't understand the diagrams.
Prehistory: What are point particles? What's a back reaction? What is a particle's field? Can 'inertial mass' be explained here - there are links to 'inertia' and 'mass' but not 'inertial mass'. What's a singularity? Did the 'Attempts to deal with the back-reaction' predict bizarre behaviour that was not observed, or not explain bizarre behaviour that was observed?
Divergences in quantum electrodynamics: What are 'divergent integrals'? What is the importance of 'calculations involving Feynman diagrams'?
A loop divergence: There's no way a layman can understand this! Einstein was kind with his maths (from memory, I think he put much of the details of Lagrangians in appendices a casual reader didn't have to look at. Perhaps it would be better to describe the effect of the formulae here and provide a link to a technical page for those interested (and capable of understanding it).
I'm lost by now, so I've given up reading the article. Personally, I think articles that deal with complex scientific ideas for the layman are as important as they are difficult to write. I hope it is possible to rewrite it so anyone can understand it, but until that happens, I vote object to it being a featured article. jguk 18:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough; part of the problem is that we need comprehensible articles explaining all of the rest of physics that provides background for this; I'm afraid that doing it in the renormalization article would turn it into a complete tutorial on calculus, quantum mechanics, particle physics, and classical and quantum field theory. Maybe we're simply not ready to turn something at this level of specialization into a featured article. --Matt McIrvin 18:51, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No so. For example if you start by explaining what field effects are particularly what a field is in the context of QED (QED being a subset of quantum physics - and quantum physics being readily explainable on a rudimentary level. This can be made to be a very interesting article if it is worked on compassionately and with a view of educating someone with a non science degree background. Do not be discouraged and do not discount the added dimension of understanding provided to yourself when you are forced to explain such complexity to a novice. It is a rewarding challenge! prometheus1
I don't think it's impossible to have a featured article out of this subject. I'm sure I've seen elsewhere pages for laymen, with links to more comprehensive pages for those more scientifically minded. Many pages in the non-scientific world, eg cricket are written for everyone, but have lots of links to more specific areas that only cricket-lovers are going to read. I can't see why a scientific subject can't do the same. jguk 19:43, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Weak oppose for now. Too complex. One thing that might help is if the diags were better labelled: at the moment they are very cryptic. When the text is dense, one tends to skip towards the piccies, in which case they need to be fairly self contained. OTOH the stuff about scale-dependence of forces I found very good, thats the closest I've ever come to understanding it -- William M. Connolley 19:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC).
  • Support with better explanation of diagrams. Are they Feynman diagrams? Label them as such if so. siroχo 05:12, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral, I want to remind people that the objection that laymen will not understand it only because the subject is too complex is invalid, because it is not an objection that can be dealt with. Andries 16:36, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It can be dealt with. See Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and Hawking's A Brief History of Time for two examples of making a complex subject understandable for a layman. jguk 19:09, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • That is incorrect. Just because an objection is difficult to deal with, does not make it invalid. It is certainly possible to do to some extent. - Taxman 19:24, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • On second thought, I think you are right that the article can be made more accessible to lay men. Andries 10:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is certainly better than most tries I've seen so far too explain the subject, but it is too high level and implicitely assumes quite some familiarity of the reader with physics, especially terminology. I'd judge it higher undergraduate physics level. While it is fine to get into detail, for the benefit of specialists, one should cover the key point before in a language accesible to the layman. Material for this is present, but there is quite some work to be done. Simon A. 21:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Vanbrugh[edit]

Oustanding collaboration, from two Wikipedian specialists, of a major double career in theater and architecture, even including a couple of illustrations. (It's hard to come by copyleft architectural images.) This is now about the best essay on this major Baroque architect on the internet, deft, accurate, well-written. (I tweaked a minor tweak.) Wetman 08:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:Bishonen and I really appreciate this being nominated, but we would like a little more time to finish it, as we are still kicking around a few ideas, and have more information to contribute before we are completely happy with it. Hence, we would like it withdrawn. Giano 13:22, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now -- needs formatting -- why the horrible emboldening? in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue, at the start of every paragraph. yuk! The portrait should go at the top of the page, so we can see immediately what he looked like, and I think there are better ones than the one used http://images.google.com/images?q=John+Vanbrugh&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search Dunc| 10:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Dunc. And it's not just the bolding, it's the fact that so many paragraphs begin 'In (year).... Plus, the lead section is far too short. Plus there are too many single-sentence paragraphs and the clever-clever headings (Act I, etc) should not be used for an encyclopaedia article. Filiocht 10:33, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • It's being improved, and I think it'll be a great FA next week or the week after, when Bishonen and Giano have had some time to smoothe it out. It's going to be a first class article. I just think this nomination is a little premature, as the article is very much in process. Geogre 14:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sesame Street[edit]

I'm relisting this semi-self nomination, which was delisted somewhat prematurely in its first run through. I find the article to be concise and NPOV, and it itself tries to explain the show's importance, rather than specific segments and characters, which while important, are segregated into their own article.

The older nomination is listed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/October 2004#Sesame Street, and the appropriate talk page can be visited for further discussion, post nomination period.

Notes on changes since first listing: I made moves and merges of various sections, added references and captions, eliminated lesser human characters, and discussed ratings. The article, despite claims, is as international as it needs to be, as it leads to existing articles on many element of international versions of the show. I even eliminated the term edutainment, much to my personal dismay, to reflect a less term-saavy world. Sesame Street was simultaneously listed on Peer Review, and still is, albeit no suggestions.

-- user:zanimum

  • Support., but can you expand the merchandising section a bit? Zerbey 02:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mpolo 18:30, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm again objecting to this article after re-reading it since the last nomination. Some of my original objections remain. 1) Many of the characters from the show are very famous, and need more text than just a link. E.g.: Bert & Ernie, Grover, Oscar, Elmo, etc. In addition, a more "typical" sketches could be discussed than the few in Overview. This article is about a tv show, so it should tell what the show shows. 2) The international section may point to several articles about the "regional" versions (an incorrect term, since Canada is not a region of the US), but it is inconsistent (some have years listed, some channels, others don't) and at least needs some more accompanying text than this. You might tell that some of the sketches are copied with voice-overs, while others have completely new characters and are original. Also, there are apparently 23 versions, why only list these? Because these are the longest-running? If so, note this. 3) The trivia section has only one sentence. Merge this section or add more content. Several other sections are also short and shot4) The lead section mentions Jim Henson, and his muppets/puppets play a big role in Sesame Street. Yet he is not at all mentioned in the article. 5) The history section should at least mention the first airing of the show, nor its founders (such as Joan Ganz Cooney). 6) The controversy section is not particularly interesting for the topic in general, and it would seem only interesting as a part of the History of Sesame Street article. I suppose it was added in the time when this topic was in the news, but it's not big enough to be part of the article. Jeronimo 06:55, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Untidy and less readable than it might be. Sorry. jengod 21:08, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As well as some of the objections above, this article's first image doesn't seem quite right for an article on Sesame Street. A group shot of the various characters from the show would be much more effective, even if it was just a screen grab. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 23:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: I'm working on some of the above objections; the above complaint however, I don't know what to do about. On talk:Sesame Street, there's a current cast photo. However, I'd rather not use press shots like this, as I question the extent to which fair use is okay. Comments on this? -- user:zanimum
  • Support Dysprosia 06:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support jguk 18:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: my original objections were met. Filiocht 07:35, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Pope John Paul I[edit]

  • Nomination abandoned; too hard to correct for NPOV. -Litefantastic 02:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

*A really nifty article that I loved. I'd never heard of this guy until I read this. -Litefantastic 23:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Heavily POV and not a single reference to back up any of the claims made. This will take some major work to NPOV and cite the facts instead of claims. The POV is as obvious as the caption on the first picture. I suggest removal to peer review. - Taxman 03:03, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. No lead section and references. Incidentally, I don't see what's wrong with the first caption. Johnleemk | Talk 06:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I think I've sorted the lead out at this point.
  • Object. No lead and references. I honestly don't see the deep POV problems (unless you consider giving that much space to the conspiracy theories and treating John Cornwell as a serious historian POV. :-) ) that couldn't be solved by a few citations of who said what about him. Mpolo 08:03, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object until the lead and references are sorted out. Filiocht 08:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Some POV patching has been done. What objections remain? -Litefantastic 14:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Lead section is not a summary and is too short. No references. Filiocht 14:50, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • The POV improvement has been substantial, but much remains. Primarily the problem now is that very strong claims are made without citation. The vatican is claimed in the article to have lied many times, with supporting information for that POV stated to be facts. Without a reference that is an unacceptable POV for a featured article. The caption was POV for the choice of terms. It is a POV that the cross was "cheap" or that his hair was "clumsily brushed back". In any case, I attempted to fix the caption. - Taxman 16:33, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • I have done the best I can. When I posted this for FAC, I hadn't made any edits to it, and I don't know who wrote the bulk of the article. Solutions are:
  1. . Find out from the History list and contact that user (this could take a while).
  2. . Revert all edits making such claims. A guaranteeed fix, but could tear out a large and potentially useful chunk of information.
  3. . Finally, someone could look up other references and see if they agree with what's here already.
I like the first two options best. Something to consider at this point is that we are possibly also dealing with a copyvio. -Litefantastic 00:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral (for now); The POV patching has helped a lot. Could you expand a little on the Sainthood section, giving more information about who has nominated him, &c? Please cite references as well. Such a shame he died so early on, I think he would have made a good pope. Zerbey 16:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think anything else is to be said. My personal opinion is that, since the poor guy dropped dead after only a month, he didn't have time to do the miricles required. If evidence exists for his canonization, it probably would have surfaced by now. Thus, while campaigns exist for his canonization, they probably don't get very far. -Litefantastic 00:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think there is an unwritten rule around her somewhere that says you shouldn't have more than one article on the nom list at a time. I have two just now - Duck and Cover and Pope John Paul I. On behalf of Bert the Turtle and His Holiness the Pope, I'd just like to say that this is less to prevent flooding the system than it is driving the posting user insane. -Litefantastic 00:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • The statements "...he is best remembered for his friendliness and humility, qualities at that time not generally associated with popes." and "A man who openly described himself as quiet, unassuming and modest, with a warm sense of humor, he was able to impress the world with his natural friendliness." are so POV they read almost like propaganda. Object until this is fixed. Zh 03:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm actually going to stand up for this one. If this is a self-description, then it's his opinion of himself, and is therefore potentially useful in this article. -Litefantastic 11:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object:
    1. While I realise he might have been a genuinely great human-being, writing "A man who openly described himself as quiet, unassuming and modest, with a warm sense of humor, he was able, with a few words in his notable Angelus of August 27 (he had been elected on a Saturday, so it was just his first day as a pope), to impress the world with his natural friendliness." is not really wise. Wikipedia does not endorse any particular subject, it just characterises opinions and views of specific people.
    2. "Vatican officials did not mention to him that they were also embarrassed by his rather awkward flat-footed walk, which they felt "unregal" and ungainly" Source for this?
    3. "(He was reported to have told them in the Conclave, "may God forgive you for what you have done on my behalf" with the smile that became his trademark.)" who reported this?
    4. "Through his actions, John Paul emphasized the servant role of the Pope that is expressed in the Latin phrase Servus Servorum Dei - (The Servant of the Servants of God)." - isn't this a point of view?
    5. "Who Albino Luciani wasn't was said to have been as important as who he was" - who said this?
    6. "Had they known just how precarious his health was (his feet were so swollen he could not wear the shoes bought for him for the conclave) they might have looked elsewhere for Paul VI's successor. But they didn't." speculation. Conjecture is not appropriate for Wikipedia, we are not information analyst, we just report facts and views of specific people.
    7. "The following days, Cardinals effectively (despite the prohibition of telling others about the Conclave) would have declared that with general great joy they had elected "God's candidate."" Speculation.
    8. "though he privately had urged Pope Paul in a document, prior to the encyclical's publication, to take a different stand." what document? Please be more clear.
    9. "Some critics of Pope Paul's encyclical Humanæ Vitæ expressed the hope that, in view of his opinions as expressed to Pope Paul, and his in depth discussion of issues relating to the population growth in the Third World, the new pontiff would issue a new encyclical 'adapting' Humanæ Vitæ." Weasel words. Which critics are being referred to here? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    10. In "Not up to the job?" there is a footnote, yet there is no footnotes section in the article.

Comment: (will not effect debate one way or the other, just putting in my $0.02) "And later, Mother Teresa commented: "He has been the greatest gift of God. A sunray of God's love shining in the darkness of world."" - greatest gift of God? I thought that was Jesus! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Something tells me that she meant "greatest" in the sense of "very great", as it is used in various other languages (I don't know about Albanian, of course...) Mpolo 08:20, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
I really don't know what she meant, but I'm sure the Blessed Theresa was familiar with the christian view of the greatest gift of God. You are taking words spoken out of context and coming to your own conclusions - that's POV, tsk! :-) Zerbey 19:16, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aer Lingus[edit]

I think both this and Ryanair (below) are very good articles - I learned a lot! JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 18:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Mpolo 19:20, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, although its missing info on todays revelations (Casual uniforms and non-Irish callcentres to save money) (it now mention the low-frills intercontinental flights, which this is a part of) Kiand 20:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I don't like the long list of destinations. Is it needed, or could it just be reduced to the countries served? Also, I would like to see more about financing. Hasn't Aer Lingus (controversially) received large government grants in the past, without which it may have gone under? (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong). Also, how large is it (eg in comparison to its competitors)? We have fleet numbers, but what about employee numbers or turnover? Jongarrettuk 20:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Two articles on airlines nominated by JOHN NEAR-MISS — is this a coincidence? ;-) -- Solipsist 21:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • No, I was reading up on airlines and these two struck me as being good so I nominated them both. PS whats with John Near-Miss? JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 17:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Colision, as in a crash, I guess... Kiand 20:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Dsmdgold 02:06, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Needs a References section and the lead could be expanded. Otherwise a good article and I'll support when my objections are met. Filiocht 11:16, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Plenty of images, quite informative of history and current situation. --CGorman 17:35, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree with Jongarrettuk that it's list heavy. →Raul654 07:41, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)


Hawaii[edit]

Excellent article. Partial self-nom. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 05:39, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Inconsistent spelling of Hawaii throughout the article. →Raul654 05:56, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • It's supposed to be that way. "Hawai'i" is used by the state government and by most natives, while "Hawaii" is used by the federal government. So we chose the spelling based on the context of each sentence. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 17:18, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • A featured article must follow the manual of style, which says an article should be self consistent. The best precedent in this case would be to do what happened over at Kyiv/Kiev - use the most common name (Hawaii) consistently throughout the article, except where the naming issue itself is discussed (in this case, in the Origins section). →Raul654 00:25, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
        • Isn't funny how all the rules say "for guidance only" until some wag wants to make it "his rule" If this is going to bring out more cockroaches, I personally would rather NOT see the article as "featured" - Marshman 01:15, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Uh, following the standards is a Good Thing. If you don't want to comply with the naming standards, you don't have to, but it only serves to hurt nominations. →Raul654 01:19, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It sets an example of frankness and clarity. Wetman 06:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Sections are well written and cover a lot of fascinating material. --Gerald Farinas 17:23, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a very complete article. Revth 05:19, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Inconsistent spelling of Hawaii throughout the article. Gzornenplatz 05:26, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The order of the sections is a bit strange (but I could live with that). I would expect symbols in a less prominent spot. 2) There are too many lists. The list of cities could be integrated (in prose) in the geography section, while the list of people needs to be dropped. The really important ones are already mentioned elsewhere, and this partial list will always be subjective and incomplete. Same goes for the short lists of educational institutions. 3) While perhaps not necessary for all US States, there should definitely be a Culture section for Hawaii. 4) This is an English language encyclopedia, so the English names should be used primarily. So it is Hawaiian Goose (nēnē), not the other way round (unless, of course, there is no English name). 5) No references are mentioned (only external links), and I would also like to see books/articles under suggested/further reading. Jeronimo 08:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Would advocate making Hawai‘i into Hawaii in the "Language" section (where it says "State of Hawai‘i" and uses the Federal spelling in every other use) and in the "Miscellaneous" section, where it (to me) more distracting than informative. -- Mpolo 09:57, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks cool to me. Very informative. I ran across this page several months ago and also thought something needed to be done with the spelling, but it makes sense to me now after reading the comment left by Neutrality --ScottyBoy900Q 23:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)



Brainfuck[edit]

An interesting esoteric programming language! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:17, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Very short and non-notable. violet/riga (t) 18:17, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object Utter nonsense - definitely esoteric and with an offensice name.Jongarrettuk 18:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The offensiveness of the name is irrelevant to the quality of the writing, which is what one is supposed to judge here. The notability of the subject is also not to be considered. That said, I object on the grounds indicated by Cecropia below. -- Emsworth 18:54, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • My first comments 'utter nonsense' were meant to imply that I couldn't understand it (which essentially the same as Cecropia's. I certainly think the offensiveness of the name is appropriate when discussing the main page - it's what most people, and most potential newbies see first. If newcomers are offended, they won't come back. Jongarrettuk 19:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Considering that this is not a page to vote for articles for the front page, I don't see how this objection is actionable. The clarity of the article, however, is most defintely actionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:58, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • But the instructions above indicate that objections must be "actionable," which is untrue of the above objection. Note, however, that it is possible to feature an article, at the same time prohibiting its display on the main page. (To my knowledge, however, this procedure has never been invoked, though it has been suggested for articles with obscene titles.) -- Emsworth 20:00, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Still object on the grounds that I can't understand it. Happy to refine the part of my objection on obscenity to just being an objection to it being on the main page (not that this is important until my first objection is dealt with). Jongarrettuk 20:10, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
            • Please define what parts you don't understand and we'll be happy to refine the article. Although even though one could call me an esolang enthusiastic, I, too, have to object the nomination for now... It focuses on examples and leaves other discussion out. Maybe the main article, esoteric programming language, could some day be nominated. --ZeroOne 13:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object It is not even understandable except to someone interested in artificial language internals and the basic format is, "Well C does this and Brainfuck does that." I especially like the comment: "Note that since each array location is specified as being a byte here, the - command is superfluous and could be replaced by 255 + commands." Oh, yeah, I'd do that. The article does not have either the clarity or depth to be presented as a best of Wikipedia. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:40, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, though I'm not sure it's actionable: Brainfuck is actually interesting for being a notable esoteric programming language (how many are - this and INTERCAL?), but I'm not sure this article gets across why it's notable - David Gerard 23:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. As David Gerard says, this is one of the more notable of the esoteric programming languages, but the article doesn't really say why. Also, the article gets so bogged down in examples without real explanation that it is very hard to read. (The Shakespeare programming language has the same problem, though it did inspire me to go to the project page and read up a bit...) I'd like to see some discussion of why being Turing-complete is important, why computer scientists bother with creating esoteric languages, etc. Obviously some of that is in the linked articles, but some of it has to be here to keep this from being gibberish to the unitiated. The examples would have to be carefully explained to make the article accessible. Mpolo 08:14, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The topic could be made interesting, and it definitely has Featured Article potential, but I couldn't understand any of the examples. Make it understandable to people who don't even know what the Internet is and then'll I reconsider. Cyopardi 22:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I annotated the Hello World example. Please see if you can understand it now? --ZeroOne 19:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • It's definitely improving, but I still think it needs to be dumbed down (or expanded to include a lot of dummy notes) further to be featured. Cyopardi 04:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I've renamed the unfortunately titled "Overview" section, and slightly divided it. I think that if the top part of the "Language design" section was expanded and explained more, this could be a FA. siroχo 23:31, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Oddly enough, my searching for information on this very language was what first brought me to Wikipedia. As a "scripter", I found the article well written and clear, (and amusing, with regard to how the language could be made to use even fewer operators). However, as I re-read it now, I can see that it needs some de-nerd-ification. Perhaps it should be placed on any of Clean Up, Peer Review, or Pages needing attention, (or whatever they are all called)? I would be willing to help make the article better, but I couldn't make a guess as to when it would be ready for Featured status. func(talk) 00:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Bidet[edit]

A very interesting, well written, and detailed article. Given the large numbers of our American readership, the relative uncommonness of this may give it greater appeal.

  • Support Dysprosia 08:09, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. The lead section needs to be expanded and some of the very short paragraphs need to be expanded/merged. Also, I would like to see the Usage section renamed Uses (usage tends to imply uses for which not originally intended when used in in a non-linguistic setting). Generally a very interesting article, however. Filiocht 08:22, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: comma splices. Markalexander100 09:37, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • (Not a vote): I was just planning to expand the article with a larger section about Japanese Style Bidets. Will take some pictures on my business trip soon, and expand the article when I am back (~ thursday). -- Chris 73 Talk 10:43, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Too conversational (i.e. "you" should be replaced with "one", etc.). Also reads like a user's manual instead of an encyclopedic article. And are pharases like this neccessary: "Although using a bidet may include touching the genitalia and the anus with the hands after using the toilet, it can be more hygienic than toilet paper. In fact, most people with bidets use both, wiping with toilet paper before washing with the bidet." You can almost hear the snickering of the writer as he was typing this. Marlowe 18:41, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Agree with the above. Second person is innapropriate. Also it seems to clearly be an attempt to use otherwise vulgar terms as many times as possible, wether needed or not. Nothing is covered on acceptance by those outside the areas they are common. - Taxman 02:02, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have reworded one paragraph to remove the second person pronouns. Smerdis of Tlön 16:07, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This sentence is not exactly brilliant writing: "Bidets are principally used to wash and clean the external genitalia and the anus, as well as the skin near these areas.". Also formulations like "excellent solution" doesn't sound very good, nor should the Usage section take the stance that the bidet is a strange thing you've never seen before. ✏ Sverdrup 14:39, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. A big part of the history section seems to be a joke. (see its talk page) FoeNyx 22:54, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Don't see what most of the wingeing is about. A bit rough around the edges, but pretty good collaboration and synthesis of information. ZayZayEM 12:57, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Suuport. Interesting and informative to those of us who aren't familiar with them. No article is perfect, this one ain't bad. :-) Frecklefoot | Talk 16:07, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)



Chesapeake and Delaware Canal[edit]

This is a self-nom that I spent considerable time editing, reformating and linking. I did not originally create the article, but rather totally reconfigured it from its original layout. The article contains a ton of information about the canal history and I would like to submit is as a featured-article. Tell me what you think. --ScottyBoy900Q 17:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. My main objection is that this is mostly a rewrite of the article's only reference [9]. I'm not sure what to do with this, since the source is a US Military page, but it's a bit suspicious at least. Other than that: 1) I'd like to see a map of the canal. It's hard to get a good picture of its location and course without one. 2) It's recommended by the Manual of Style to add metric equivalents in parentheses when use imperial units (so: 1 mile (1.6 km)), and to link the first occurrence of a unit (so 10 miles). 3) The lead section should give a little more information, I think. Also, it mentions the project office and museum, which are not discussed in the remainder of the article. 4) The reference and external links sections are messy. The same link is listed twice (unnecessary), once with detailed information (but not according to MoS), once without. If possible, I'd like to see more references or recommended reading, preferably a book or article. Jeronimo 07:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign)
    • Thanks for the suggestions whoever you are. Please post your signature information in the future when leaving comments. I took your advise and added a map of the canal, which you were interested in. I also fixed up the reference section by ading several books and several other webpage references. Hopefully that takes care of your concerns. Any other ideas? --ScottyBoy900Q 04:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, all my specific issues were resolved, but the main objection remains. I'm not sure what to do with this - anybody else knows what policy is (or should be) in such cases? Jeronimo 12:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nicely constructed article on a topic I knew nothing about and I learned something. Not sure I understand the objection. It's a rewrite so no copyvio and the reference that is used is a good one. I always like to see print references myself, but this is not policy. At least this article gives a reference. Filiocht 11:38, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It may not be a copyright violation, but I think it is still plagiarism. But if that is fine on Wikipedia, well, who am I to object. Jeronimo 12:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • To Jeronimo: It is not a copyright violation, nor is it plagerism. The article orignially posted on the Army Corps of Engineers website, where I got most of the information, is a public domain website. That is why it is not copyrighted nor is it plagarism. See article of Public domain for more information on this topic. Can you please specify what other objections you have? The reason I listed this for discussion is because regardless of where it orignially came from, it is very informative, and I did spend a lot of time tweaking it and finding other references.--ScottyBoy900Q 13:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I personally still think it's plagiarism, but if that's fine with Wikipedia, then my objection is void and my vote neutral. Jeronimo 10:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Can you give any backup for why you think it is plagarism? Look at the definition of public domain. It literally can't be plagarism. Check out the countless hundreds of articles that incorporate public domain information. Are they all plagarized as well? I would just like to see this article featured, I'm not trying to say you're wrong or anything. --ScottyBoy900Q 12:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(Also in reply to ScottyBoy's note on my talk page:) In my dictionary, plagiarism is presenting information as if it were your own (Wikipedia's own) without attributing it properly as being taken from somewhere else. This can be true even if the original is in the public domain (if it weren't, it would also be a copyright violation). In my eyes, this article is plagiarism, since I think it is not very clear, at first sight, that this article is an adopted version of a website article. I don't think the small note at the bottom suffices for this. This is a matter of definition and interpretation, so your views may differ on this.
More important than my personal definition of "plagiarism" are the reasons why I don't like a "plagiarised"article. The risk of introducing biased views and unchecked facts is too high. Also, I myself try my best to avoid such practices (not that I don't use PD sources, but I usually try to take several, check the facts, and then write my own story). Please note that I do not "require" an article to be original research (that's something completely different), I wish it to be original writing (showing that the authors had sufficient understanding of the topic to write their own prose and give the article their own structure) or at least be based on more than one reference.
Since these views are apparently not shared by Wikipedia, there's no way for me to object. That's why I already changed my vote to neutral, which I'm repeating now. I would have voted pro if this article were original. Jeronimo 07:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Would I be right in saying that something being public domain is a defence to main-stream copyright infringement, but plagiarism is more about moral rights (i.e. the right of an author to be identified when his works are reproduced, and not have his reputation disparaged by derivative works which are attributed to him)? As I understand it, the US doesn't have a concept of moral rights, although the UK does now, since it was required by an EU directive. Is there an intellectual property lawyer in the house? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, I would agree with your description of public domain being used as a defense to mainstream copyright. And in response to Jeronimo, I've got no problem giving the original author more credit. I'm not quite sure how to go about that though. I wasnt going to worry about because it is public domain and that is why that sort of policy is in place. --ScottyBoy900Q 20:37, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Plagiarism refers to the use of another's ideas, information, language, or writing, when done without proper acknowledgment of the original source." (from the Wikipedia plagiarism article). According to me it's the last bit that counts. I compared the two articles and they seem to be almost identical (beyond reformatting and links, it's mostly some titles changed). I've thus improved the attribution. Mozzerati 19:41, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)
Expanding on this; Copying from the public domain is encouraged and normal in Wikipedia. This is clear from the incorporation of much US Government data, use of 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica material etc. etc. Copying helps preserve material which might otherwise disappear when other suppliers of that material disappear or become difficult to access. Plagiarism is discouraged. This is clear from the pages which tell us to reference our sources. There is almost nothing which needs to be debated.Mozzerati 19:45, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
  • Okay, now that Jeronimo has decided he is neutral and not objecting, does anyone else have anymore comments before this candidate moves off the list?--ScottyBoy900Q 02:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: I don't think there is enough difference from the US Military page. As far as I can tell, from my scan through both side by side, there is almost no new text. This is a good article. It is worth having. Since the same material is available elsewhere, it fails the following Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet. If the army web site ceased to be available, then having stored it would be a valuable deed, of course and my objection would disappear. Mozzerati
    • Once again, please leave your signature information when posting feedback on here. I'd like to be able to discuss the article with you personally, but now have no idea who you are. The way I look at it is like so...If someone uses Wikipedia and comes across an atricle, that may be the first time they saw that particular article. Just because the information originated on another public domain source does not take away from the fact that it is informative, well written, and in fact, meets every single requirement of being a featured article. --ScottyBoy900Q 20:58, 02 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • ooops It was me.. I did it at the same time as saying it isn't Plagiarism so only signed once. Please answer in any case, the question is legit wherever it is asked. Mozzerati 13:49, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)
      • What exactly was your question? I didn't really see one asked before that's why i didn't answer it. Were you asking if I thought it was palgiarism? If that was the question, I don't think I am able to answer that one. We would need to get a community concensus on that. I guess the question would be, are duplicated public domain items plagarized? I'd have to say no. Wikipedia clearly states that many things online here are synthesized elements of other sources.--ScottyBoy900Q 14:30, 03 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • The question is the obvious one. What can be done to make this "Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet"? Is it worth doing it? If nothing is done then it shouldn't become a featured article. The objection stands. Mozzerati 19:45, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
  • Well...moving on. If anyone has any more comments, let's hear em. .--ScottyBoy900Q 03:30, 05 Oct 2004 (UTC)



Smile (album)[edit]

This recently ran a course on Peer Review and came out mostly intact, with a few good copyedits and word changes. It still needs a picture; the cover of the new album is now on commercial sites but I don't know the rules for usage. Other than that I think it's ready. A partial self-nom, I suppose. The album and film are coming, out early next week; dare I suggest this would be a good Main Page feature for that timeframe? Jgm 17:45, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. A real story. Denni 23:50, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)
  • This now has a couple of pictures, and has been updated to reflect the release of the new version. Jgm 16:09, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Sesame Street[edit]

  • My pet, I think it's pretty good. -- user:zanimum 02:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mostly good article. Two points. One: Get rid of the word 'edutainment' in the opening paragraph - it's ugly, links into a stub and screams 'this article is for Americans only', which it shouldn't be even though it's about a US programme. (It's also duplicating what's in 'History of the show', it doesn't seem so bad there.) Two: The dead-end linked characters (particularly the secondary ones) could do with some pruning (or writing up if they actually are interesting). If those two (small) things one thing are is changed, I'll alter my vote to 'support'. Jongarrettuk 18:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • How does the quality of a linked to article effect the quality of a candidate? I'll get on to the characters, but as a comparison, Belgium has redlinks to its people within the main article, yet it's featured. -- user:zanimum
      • It just looks like too long a list. I admit it's a bit niggly. To be honest, I'd probably change to support if only my first concern was addressed. Lists not perfect, but look ok enough to me now for me to withdraw this part of my objection. Jongarrettuk 00:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Fully support, if you shift the "History of the Show" to towards the top of the article. Great article! Incidently, I like the "edutainment" word in the lead section. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support now, my objections having been met. Filiocht 12:33, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) Object for now. The lead section is a bit short and there are no references. Also too many lists, I think the minor puppers and humans migh be left out at no great loss. FYI, the US version was on both British and Irish TV for years. Filiocht 08:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Request to post this on Wikipedia:Peer review first. Some issues: 1) No references. 2) Images should have captions (and sources for some images are a bit vague). If possible, the screen captures should be replaced with better images. 3) The list of characters should be dropped to List of Sesame Street characters, and replaced by a brief discussion of all the characters now listed under "Primary Puppet Characters". 4) See also lists and random facts seem to be inserted at various places in the articles. These need to be grouped together, unless such a see also belongs to a certain section (such as the list of characters). 4) The broadcast history and Regional variations of the show sections both tell the same story, but of different countries. 5) There needs to be a history section. Jim Henson is mentioned only twice, briefly. 6) A section such as "controversy" seems a bit out of place. It seems to imply there have been several controversies, but only one is discussed. If there have been more: discuss them, if not: include it in the history section if deemed relevant enough. 7) Is there info on viewing numbers? Are they growing/stable/declining after 35 years? And internationally? Jeronimo 09:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object at the moment. The section with links to character lists is messy and there's a lot more to be said about merchandising. I'm happy to support this otherwise. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:31, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Would be good to make the photo captions full sentences (cf. House style), however. Mpolo 09:25, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • NOTES: References have been added. Nielsen Ratings have been added. Characters have been abbreviated and clustered. Broadcast history adjusted. Non-screen capture images added. History moved. However, edutainment is the hot term for this sort of thing, and has been since the mid-1990s, at least. Ugly word of not, it's educational entertainment. -- user:zanimum
    • Love your work :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 08:22, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Still object to 'edutainment' as it's too American and so screams 'this article is for Americans only', whereas featured articles should be for a world audience Jongarrettuk 16:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Are you say the term is not used in countries other than America, or are you saying the edutainment page only has American examples? Within America, Thomson Learning and Prentice Hall textbooks, and Princeton U all use the term. Hong Kong Baptist University (Department of Computer Science) site, within the Hong Kong Education City site uses the term. [resources.ed.gov.hk/com-lit/it01/glossary_link.htm] The British edition of Macworld [www.macworldextra.co.uk/showme_ browse_results.lasso?caturn=20117] and the British Hutchinson Encyclopedia [10] (used at an ISP site named Tiscali [www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/ dictionaries/computers/data/m0045464.html]). Actually, the first result for edutainment in an international Google search comes up with the relatively irrelevant Surf Stallion Image Gallery, from Australia.
Within the realm of television, a search for "edutainment+TV": #2 is from Singapore, #7 from Israel, #10 from Finland. #9, although the site is hosted in the US, is a UNICEF conference in South Africa. -- user:zanimum
  • I wasn't going to comment more, but zanimum has requested I do, so I shall. When I first read the article, the word 'edutainment' in the lead sentence stood out to me as unusual - it is a recently coined portmanteau word, and whilst no doubt used in the TV industry and TV guides in the UK and in other countries, it is hardly common - it also screams out 'Americanism' (and by this I never meant to imply that the word is only used in America-n I know full well it is used in the UK, though not often :) ). Put simply, the phrasing you use in the first paragraph distracted me, nearly putting me off reading the remainder. Which is a shame as the rest of the article is very good. Because having that word so early on put me off the article, I oppose it becoming a featured article. May I propose a different construction along the lines of: 'Sesame Street is a television program which led the way for many of the modern shows for young children that combine education with entertainment.' Jongarrettuk 18:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alexandria[edit]

a good read. nice coverage of history. seemed like one of the better articles i've stumbled across.Wolfman 15:46, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. (1) The headers need sorting so that they are in order, (2) Would like to see some (simple) maps to accompany the sections that describe the various layouts of the city - much easier to visualize these in a map (3) Would like to see a timeline early on to draw together the various historical sections, (4) Don't think it all flows very neatly eg. (a) Bottom of the medieval section is a paragraph on a modern library, (b) The 1800s start with a comment about the Ottoman period but I can't easily see how this flows from the previous section, (5) The modern city section seems too short in comparison with the rest. Overall: Lots of good information but needs better presentation to make the best of it. MarkS 18:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I have added a timeline (see 3 above) edit this addition as necessary. The rest of document would need some restructuring to match the timeline, if people like the timeline. MarkS 22:09, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I've moved the section on the modern city to give the article a chronological timeline in the history. The article could still use some more wikification, especially in the Antiquities section, for which I don't have time at the moment. I'll withold my vote for now, but once the wikification has been done, I'm happy to support it. Just drop me a note :) BTW, like the timeline, coudl I have a link to the syntax rules of that thing? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:10, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object; history jumps from 1904 to modern day. Worth mentioning World War II since it was a big Royal Navy base atleast. Dunc_Harris| 11:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - Agree with the abnove. I've moved some more headings to give it a more logical structure, but it needs some effort to make it flow properly and to make sure information is under the right heading. Also, there must be something to say since 1904! Wasn't Alexandria one of the Afrika Corps' main targets? El Alamein is only 64 miles west. Also little popular culture - e.g. Ice Cold in Alex. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. A sentence like See Library of Alexandria for stories and theories regarding its destruction at about this time. appearing as a stand-alone paragraph jars, and even more so when the library is not covered until the next paragraph. I'd also like something on writers associated with the city: e.g. Lawrence Durrell and Constantine P. Cavafy. Filiocht 12:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Lots of stuff has already been said above. The significance of the city for Christianity is only one paragraph long, leaving out Origen and the effects of the Alexandrian school on the Cappadocians, for instance. Alexandria was one of only four original patriarchates, so should have more than two sentences. (The cited point is probably the most important, but not the only one.) Mpolo 08:21, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)



United States[edit]

I feel "revolution" is a misnomer. I think it is more accurate to say the colonies fought a "War for Independence," against Great Britain, considering that aside from to whom the colonies answered, little else changed. Perhaps the birth of the US as a country was, in itself, a revolution to the rest of the world, however when referring exclusively to the war between the colonies and Great Britain, I think it misleading to call it a "revolution." -Anonymous 02:45, 28 April 2006

Very informative, lots of information and well researched. Incidently, those who say this is too "USian" will be shot on sight. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's too USian. :-P TrollQueen 08:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
*bang!*
  • Even I am tired of seeing me put this word on this page: References. Please. Filiocht 08:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, would you like me to stick in every reference that was placed in all the subarticles? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • You've been around here enough to know that adding them all would be far better than having none. Agree the footers are jarring. A much better result could be had from linking to main articles in summary style that conatain the same information. In general, object. - Taxman 02:23, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
        • Excuse me, but I haven't been around long enough to know what to do with "umbrella" articles. Your presumption gets my back up. Also, I was asking a serious question. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:45, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Certainly didn't mean to offend. References are extremely important for the reliability of wikipedia. If you really used no other references than the other articles on wikipedia that you hoped did use the references listed, that is a bit of a concern. But yes, listing all of those would be a start, some direct references being used would be better, citing points in the article to specific references would be the best. - Taxman 11:53, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
            • I understand. Will look into putting in the relevant references... I'm kinda busy with research on some Aussie articles at the moment however! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:19, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) There are no photographs here. Surely there are many great images (several probably already on Wikipedia) that can be used. Just some suggestions: George Washington (history), 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (politics), the Statue of Liberty (demographics), the Grand Canyon (geography), Elvis Presley (culture), McDonald's (economy), ... 2) As a main article about the US, it should not present too detailed information, but this article actually writes too little on some topics, especially the history section. Three or four paragraphs are acceptable (politics is fine like it is), and shouldn't be difficult to fill. Geography (not even a mention of the main cities (L.A. isn't even mentioned in the article) and economy (give some numbers here) could also use more content. The demographics section fails to mention what influence/problems the great number of ethnic groups had/caused (or still have/cause). The culture section is OK, but why not mention a few artists as an example? 3) A map displaying the fifty states would also be useful in the political divisions section. The CIA map isn't informative either, too little detail. 4) The demographics section shouldn't use boldface for listing ethnic groups, and the writing is not that great. (The sentence "few immigrants came directly from France." is strange. Is this meant to refer to the Huguenots who usually first fled to another country? Or is it for some reason importantto mention France explicitly here?) 5) I'm not that keen on including footer templates in the middle of articles, and I would actually like to see them replaced by a proper table or list (if necessary). 6) There should certainly be references here. And yes, if you used all references for the subarticles for this article, then you should put them here. Jeronimo 09:40, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Agree with Jeronimo's reasons. The footers are especially jarring because if you're used to such things as footers, you think the article is over. On the other hand, all four footers at the bottom of this page would be ugly. Mpolo 10:00, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Unlike other articles, such as Myanmar and North Korea, this one says nothing about human-rights issues. (I've just now started a section on this.) In general, the article seems to avoid issues that would put the US in a negative light. So, yes, I'd say that there's a pro-US POV to it. Shorne 02:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Update: More could be said about human rights in the US, but I'm content with the description given here. I have therefore stricken the objection. Shorne 19:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Portugal[edit]

Self-nomination. --Pedro 09:50, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The "Politics of Portugal" section tells me about the government, but not about the politics—needs more about political parties and Portuguese attitudes towards the EU. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 17:22, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Included info (has asked) about politics and Portuguese attitudes towards integration in Europe. -Pedro 02:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The History section is too long. It should be much shorter. Revth 05:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I've shorten the History section one more time. I dont know if it is enough. I want it to keep coherence. -Pedro 22:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This is good. Nice pictures, most issues have good information, proper mentioning of references. However, there are still a few problems, I hope you can solve them. 1) The history and culture sections are way too long. Summarize the important issues, move the details to History of Portugal and Culture of Portugal (if not already there). 2) The map images are poor. The district&regions map is totally useless, it would be better to put the little information in there (location of the outlying islands) in the map in the infobox. Instead, there should be a map showing the districts and regions (and their borders). The other map image has problems with some of the city names displaying incorrectly. 3) Several sections need more information, give a slightly broader and more complete overview of their topic. There are several issues I miss there, including (but not limited to): the districts section should tell a little about the political issues: what distinguishes an Autonomous Region from a district? The economy section (straight copy from the CIA book, I guess) misses the fact that many Portuguese worked abroad as guest workers (some still do) and the fact that there were serious concerns (whether by other EU nations prior to Portugal's joining the Union. The geography section doesn't tell me that Portugal is sometimes struck by earthquakes (there was a major one in Lisboa in 1755 or so), and why that is. The International disputes section should be integrated with an other section, it has not enough body for a separate section. 4) The picture of the fado singer is probably copyrighted. If you think it is fair use, this should be mentioned. Suggestion: a sound sample of a fado song would be nice (not part of the objection). Jeronimo 07:48, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jeronimo's issues:

  • 1) I've made both shorter, maybe they need to be to be more summarize, but it is hard, if you want to keep vital info.
  • 2) OK. But districts are now being dismantled. Elections to the new Communities are now undergoing.
  • 3) A region is made of islands, Districts are in the mainland. Regions have more autonomy, a local parliament and local justice. I'll put that in the article. There's not much more.
  • 4) Eartquackes are not a serious issue in Portugal. The one from 1755 was an exception, but they occur. I'll try to put that. As for the economy section, it isnt from CIA, it has parts from the CIA. Well, the flux of inmigration in Portugal is now positive. Emigration today is not an important issue, has it was in the past. Some occur, that is a normal human activity, there are also many british, French and German immigrants in Portugal. But emigration has you understand still occur in the Azores and very rural Portugal. When Portugal joined the European community, there was no EU. It was not the same has today's joining of Eastern European nations.
  • I'll see If I found some fado samples, and correct the rest. Pictures etc. The problem is the use of a pic with Districts... It doesnt makes sence today. -Pedro 22:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
** My replies (quoting my original numbering): 1) Cut out the details to make it shorter. Just an example: the myth about King Sebastian is nice, but doesn't belong here. Same goes for many other events and details. 2) The situation may change shortly, but that still makes the map useless. Get rid of it if you don't think it's usefull. The other map still needs improvement. 3) I just put in a few suggestions I could think of (I don't know that much about Portugal), they are not meant to be comprehensive. My main point was they needed more info. They're better already. I'd like to see a little more, but I will not object to this particular issue. 4) Issue remains. Jeronimo 15:47, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • King Sebastian period is a very important period. Cause Portugal became controled by Spain. Something that the nation was avoiding for almost 500 yrs - the other Iberian kingdons were 1 by one, becoming under the Castillian control. Although the first Spanish King was a nice king and kept Port. autonomy, it is still an important figure and period. I'll see if I can reduce more, has for the 2nd map, I dont know why it is displaying wrongly, I'll make a JPEG out of that. -Pedro 23:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll leave it you which details to leave out, but the history and culture sections should really be brought to at most the length of the politics section. Jeronimo 17:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)