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

Ryanair[edit]

This is a pretty good article. Slightly shorter than the norm, but I think it is quite to-the-point. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 18:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Object for now. While heavy on criticism already, it doesn't mention the scandal they had about wheelchair access in Sansted last year. I don't know the details, unfortunately -- I know they claimed it was all the airport's fault. Also, maybe we could make some sort of graphs of the "growth" figures at the end to make it easier to take in. (There's plenty of blank space there to put them in...) -- Mpolo 15:32, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have added a graph of passenger figures for 1998 to 2003 next to the passenger growth area. adjust as needed MarkS 20:46, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, way too short, there are 1000's of better articles onj wikipedia. GeneralPatton 19:18, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    The article has been lenghtened - particularly with the update of the history section, addition of competitor section and general updates of the other sections. --CGorman 21:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Too much criticism. The article needs much more of the positives (eg: cheaper flights, opening up new routes) to achive balance. I think the addition of the positives should be done by restructuring so the positives and negatives sit side by side in sections on each sub topic, rather than just adding a positives section. Would also add more on the role on the role of Michael O'Leary, how he came to the airline and his role in transforming it. MarkS 19:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    (Goes to look up Ryanair: How a small Irish airline conquered Europe by Siobhan something-or-other) :) JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 20:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I've added alot of pro's to balance the criticism - such as its rapid growth, fiscal success, profitablity, new routes, hubs etc., i'll be adding more over the coming weeks. --CGorman 20:44, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

David Irving[edit]

Partial self-nomination. Irving is to the far right what Noam Chomsky is to the far left. GeneralPatton 02:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. No lead section, no references. Markalexander100 02:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Reference is "Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial by Richard J. Evans." and the lead section is there, it's just short and to the point. GeneralPatton 03:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • If all the information in the article came from one source, then more research needs to be done. The lead is inadequate. Markalexander100 03:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, if you've noticed there is also an extensive section named "External links" that provides quite a number of sources and views on Irving. I'll work on the lead section. GeneralPatton 03:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • The lead section has now been expanded and more references added. GeneralPatton 15:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Not bad, but needs some work 1) No picture 2) Lead section too short. Should present a broader summary/overview of the article. 3) The term "Holocaust revisionism" is loaded and disputed, and many view revisionists as deniers (not always correctly, I think). This should be explained in some detail. 4) The latter part of the story contains some gaps, and the last sentences of the "libel suit" section seem more appropriate as the last sentences of the article. 5) The NZ ban gets detailed attention, but previous refusals of entry are only mentioned briefly (in the same section). Why the unproportially big attention for this specific (and recent) ban? This should be sorted out. 6) What is the general public opinion of Irving after the lawsuit? The article mentions this for earlier periods of his life (esp after the Dresden book), but not later in his life. 7) The part about Keegan supporting Irving is weird, as he does not actually seem to support Irving's views (based on what is written here). 8) The article fails to mention the book by Lipstadt which led to the lawsuit (Denying the Holocaust). I think this book would also qualify as further reading. Jeronimo 07:47, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the suggestions, I’ve already worked some of them out, and I’ll try to address the remaining ones in the next few days.GeneralPatton 15:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • A lot has changed now, a review of my issues: 1) Many pictures now, but if these are to stand a chance as fair use they need to have reasons why they are thought to be fair use, and most likely also a source. 2) OK 3) OK 4) OK 5) This is better, but the "Persona non grata" section needs checking, it's a bit incoherent. 6) This still seems to be missing. 7) OK. 8) OK. Jeronimo 12:48, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • weak Object.Only because of the following phrases that i think transgress onto POV (or at least can be be rewritten less objectionably):
enabling Irving to claim he was a serious historian
Historians viewed the book as revisionist nonsense
  • Both of those statements are pretty NPOV since they are pretty similar to the conclusions of the High Court (that was in fact even more critical about Irving than we are in the article). GeneralPatton 18:15, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I was not aware that the High Court was a historian. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The judgment was based in part on the testimony and work of many distinguished academic historians. GeneralPatton 20:25, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object (though I'd like to support this story!) I'm no fan of holocaust deniers, but some tightening of the story would be great:
  1. "Though Irving's works were generally ignored by academics, and often criticized as inaccurate when reviewed by specialists, his flow of language and a wealth of entertaining anecdotes led generalists to write favorable reviews in the popular press, and many of his works sold well." Seems extremely general. Can we have specific examples of this? I have no doubt that this happened frequently but I have no way of verifying these general statements.
  2. "Most serious historians picked the book apart, noting its numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations, but it sold well." - again, very general. Please give specific examples of historical inaccuracies that specific historians discovered!
  3. "In it Irving attacked the members of the July 20 Plot to assassinate Hitler, branding them as "traitors", "cowards" and "manipulators", while at the same time he uncritically presented Hitler and his associates and their subsequent revenge against the plotters, of whom Rommel was also a victim." I've never read this book, but as with most things I've found context to be important. Could we have more of the surrounding text quoted rather than just specific words? Otherwise, it looks pretty POV.
  4. I'm confused by the following sentence: "He had also been banned from entering Australia since 1992, and had unsuccessfully fought four legal attempts to overturn the ban. "Mr Irving is not permitted to enter New Zealand under the Immigration Act because people who have been deported from another country are refused entry," government spokeswoman Katherine O'Sullivan had told the Press earlier." Australia is not New Zealand! Could we have this clarified?
Apart from these things, however, good work on the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I’ve noted your suggestions and i'll try to work them out, however, with people like Irving it’s sometimes really hard to sound “NPOV” as when objectively looked at their work is indeed deeply flawed and malicious. I’ve decided to rewrite the article since it was recently a subject of a revert war by a particular troll, I’ve decided to plug the then massive holes in the article (it was about 700 words long, now it is almost 3000) and thus make it hard for the deniers to promote their shady agenda. GeneralPatton 20:25, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  1. Neutral Object The article suggests that Hermann Goering was involved in the Holocaust. According to at least one mainstream historian, Werner Maser, who wrote the book Hitlers janusköpfiger Paladin: die politische Biographie, Goering was hardly involved in it. According to Maser, Goering had transferred all the decisions about the Jewish questions to the SS. Can be fixed quickly. Andries 00:14, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Da Vinci Code[edit]

Detailed and solid. Nice simple (but not too simple) sentence structure throughout. JDG 15:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. 1) I would expect a picute of the book (fair use) 2) Lead section should give a (very) brief summary of the book as well, and should be written more fluently (not stating facts only). The film adaptation mentioned is not discussed further in the article. 3) I think the first section (the title "Description" would be better as "Synopsis" or so) should not be in the "Spoiled" section of the article, it's suitable to read and doesn't really spoil anything. 4) Instead of the "Summary of Spoilers", which deals with many details, I would expect and extensive summary of the book's story, also giving away many of these spoilers. This bullet list makes it look like these are the only thing interesting in the story. 5) The "Criticisms" section is dedicated to finding (sometimes minor) factual errors in the book. There's nothing about the reception by (literature) critics, or by the reception of the public. How many books were sold, actually? And if there's so many critique on the factual contents of the book, what are the author's replies to this? 6) The "Facts & Mythology Behind The Book" section is completely unnecessary. These articles are already linked (more than once sometimes) from within the article. Jeronimo 19:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I would also expect the "criticism" part to offer actual literary criticism of the book, and not just debunk the issues presented in the storyline of the book. The captions of the photos should make it clearer that the "facts" presented in the captions are part of the plot of the book, and not accepted by religious historians. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 13:59, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Poorly constructed article on what is probably not that important a book. Filiocht 14:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Could you be more specific? As for the importance of the book - that's your POV. Many people would disagree. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Some specifics:
        • Lead section is weak; needs to summarise plot.
        • The title of the novel refers, among other things What other things?
        • Too many bulleted lists to interrupt the continuity of the prose
        • were removed to France by the Priory of Sion only several years ago: does this mean 'a few years previously'?
        • There is no discussion of the book's merit as a piece of writing.
        • the criticisms are referred to as what critics perceive as Brown's many errors and from historians dismayed by the way Dan Brown has in their view distorted?and in some cases fabricated?history but some of them are just plain errors (e.g. the original Olympics were held in honour of Aphrodite) and need no weasel words.
        • Overall, there is far too much detail about the book and the body of pseudoscience that lies behind it and nothing about sales figures, etc.
        • There is no References section.
      • I could go on. As for the importance of the book, lets come back in 50 years time and we might begin to have an evidence-based view on that. My gut feeling is that it will be entirely forgotten, but I could be wrong. Filiocht 07:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • OK, but as you don't know if it's important or not, then you can hardly use that as an objection, can you? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. In my opinion, articles with spoilers and similar can never be featured article candidates. Gerritholl
    • Policy is that you're supposed to use one ("Because of this, and because not everyone coming to the site immediately recognizes Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, please attach a warning text and link after the definition paragraph of an article that contains spoilers. -- Wikipedia:Spoiler warning). The requirements for a featured article are that it "Comply with the standards set by any relevant WikiProjects, as well as those in the style manual". This objection is complete bull, and should be ignored. →Raul654 17:14, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • Not that I need to, but I put my full support behund Raul654. Parent poster has no idea what he's talking about. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It's mostly list, with hardly any solid analysis (except for pinpointing historical errors). Zaha 19:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I'm a Chrisian and curious about this book, and I found the criticisms section useful - but not useful enough.
    • The claim that prior to AD 325, Christ was considered no more than a "mortal prophet" by his followers, and that it was only as a consequence of Emperor Constantine's politicking and a close vote at the First Council of Nicaea that Christianity came to view him as divine: This has been debunked with extensive reference to the Bible and Church Fathers by various authors. (Example http://www.envoymagazine.com/PlanetEnvoy/Review-DaVinci-part2-Full.htm#Full.) At the Council, the central question was if Christ and God were one, or whether instead Christ was a created being, inferior to the Father (see Arianism).
      • Good point, can we have more information?
    • The assertion that "the sacred feminine" has been suppressed by Christianity: In Roman Catholicism, for example, Mary (of Nazareth), the mother of Jesus, is specially venerated as the "Mother of God," the "Queen of Heaven," the spiritual mother of all mankind, and is believed to be free of sin. (It is hypothesized that Mary's Virginal nature does not accord with Brown's ideals.)
    • The allegation that five million women were burned by the Church as witches: the most reliable estimates?including those not executed at the Church's recommendation, not killed by burning, and not female?range from 30,000 to 50,000.
      • Please state where those "most reliable estimates" are from.
    • The depiction of the Templars as builders, guild-founders and secret-bearers: Templar historians point to abundant evidence that Templars did not themselves engage in building projects or found guilds for masons, and that they were largely illiterate men unlikely to know "sacred geometry," purportedly handed down from the pyramids' builders.
      • Which Templar historians?
    • The suggestion that all churches used by the Templars were built round, and that roundness was considered an insult by the Church: Some churches used by the Templars were not round, and those that were round were so in tribute to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
      • Example of churches that weren't round might be nice.
My other objection is that the article is mainly a gigantic list. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm getting quite discouraged by this FA process. People here are just so wrong so often (by my lights, of course, but what other lights can one have?). The article is a bit listy, but that's more of a plus than a minus when dealing with this sort of thriller fiction. Some of the list items are in fact pretty meaty paragraphs, and the writing quality throughout is far above the WiP norm. Oh well. JDG 04:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, this is your opinion. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a list. Thirdly (and most importantly!) don't get discouaged. My nomination of Windows XP got rejected for the same reason. I never worked out a decent way of fixing this without annoying a whole lot of people... I live in hope! Coalesce the points in paragraphs and this should become featured article standard. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Note regarding the above discussion: I think there's too much already in the article about debunking - or verifying - specific "facts" in the book. The article should certainly discuss the controversy over some of the facts in the book, but it doesn't have dig out every single bit. I personally don't think that is necessary in Wikipedia, and if you really think it is necessary, please make a summary in Da Vinci Code and move the details and unimportant ones to Alleged factual errors in the Da Vinci Code (or so). Jeronimo 07:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • That title is terribly POV. Either there are factual errors, or there aren't. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • It's entirely appropriate for the article to include these factual criticisms, since this is a major gripe that many historians of art and of religion, and theologians, have with the novel. Remarkably, author Brown insists that the items in question are true, even though experts in those fields say he is just plain wrong. And many of his readers uncritically accept what he says and propagate it as if it's great, newfound knowledge. As it is, the list is far from comprehensive. It's just a compilation of the most serious criticisms. Short-changing the "Criticisms" section would be a disservice to the reader. Inaccuracies and falsehoods, intentional or not, are often among the more interesting aspects of subjects, and are typically given full mention in Wikipedia articles.--Johnstone 23:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • The seventh word in the intro defines the book as a novel, and the word novelappears on 12 other occasions in the article. It is not Wikipedia's fault that "many of his readers uncritically accept what he says and propagate it as if it's great, newfound knowledge" I'm not sure the article deserves featuring, but I would vote FOR it any day rather than try to educate anyone who won't understand what the word novel means. Moriori 00:11, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
          • Yeah, it's a novel, but one with a conspicuous notice at the beginning titled, "FACT," that includes the following: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." Hence the factual criticism of the novel.--Johnstone 02:36, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, for reasons stated above and because it never mentions the book's literary merits, the book is a trashy mystery thriller (Not to say i didn't like reading it). Also since I've read Foucault's Pendulum the book doesn't even seem shocking or revolutionary Eco did it years before. BrokenSegue 14:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia[edit]

Why not have Wikipedia itself? --Gamingboy 14:15, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose (barely). There was a recent report about subtle vandalism that evades detection (it was linked at /. a few days ago) that would have to be addressed. It might be better to mark this as a "no front page" article once it makes feature status. Mpolo 19:15, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • The history and sister projects, for example, have to be expanded. ✏ Sverdrup 20:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It still reads like a self descriptive page for project users and promotes Wikipedia. Instead it should be descriptive to someone unaware of the subject and be NPOV encyclopedic. 1.) More needs to be done to discuss recent criticisms of wikipedia in general and specifically the subtle vandalism experiments that were done with unfavorable results. For example all of the external links are positive regarding wikipedia. 2.) Too many one sentence paragraphs. History is a one sentence section even. 3.) Downloading the database section is entirely unecessary to the importance of wikipedia to outsiders. 4.) Very little coverage of wikipedia's impact and growing popularity other than the awards section. 5.) Awards section is just a list, it needs some prose.
Taxman 13:26, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I can see how this is a good idea, but it seems way to self promotional to me. The article is well written and is very informative, but it doesn't seem to me like it should be featured.--ScottyBoy900Q 23:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Six Flags Over Texas[edit]

This is a self-nomination that I recently wrote from the ground up about the theme park Six Flags over Texas. Essentially, the park's importance was that it was the first park of the Six Flags theme park chain, which is now the largest regional theme park chain in the world. The park also has a interesting past. If anyone has any suggestions on how to change the article or make it better to possibly get a featured article status, please let me know. -- BrandonR 04:06, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Update: Thanks for all the criticisms so far, I'll work on expanding the article and making it look like less of a list. -- BrandonR 16:57, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object - 50% list. Also, who owns the copyright on those pictures (IE, who took them)? →Raul654 19:23, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • All the photos were taken by myself. What do you suggest to improve the article? -- BrandonR 20:20, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It's essentially a list. All of the sections need to be fleshed out more. The article will also benefit from a copyedit, I noticed a few errors (I'll fix them for you). It's a great article, that could easily achieve featured status with a little bit of work :) Zerbey 01:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The list format does not work here, in my opinion. Maybe you should describe a walk through the park? It might work. The lists here make the park seem like it has no trees, no pop corn wagons, no clowns, no magic shoppes, no ponds of water. If you described it well enough, you could leave out half of the rides. ---Rednblu 06:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Lead section says "despite its history of ever-changing owners and expansions" yet no details are given in the article about changing owners or major expansions. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Columbia University[edit]

I do understand that an article on a University may not be what we all dream of as an ideal encyclopedia article, but I see things, like the rather stable structure of a University as something to be documented, because the main units of it are well organized, and stable over time. Over the past 75 years, the ivory towers of science, history, social science, math, government, law, health, economics, business, engineering, art, and music have started to make attempts are true interdisciplinary learning, beyond the very focused, everything has 4 walls, a ceiling, and a floor, and doesn't exist in the real world, type learning. Because of this, I would like to nominate Columbia University page, but I also have other reasons. I belive it is well put together, and well thought through. There could have been twenty times the information there (check out Timelines), and I will try to argue its case. The main point is to understand that the institutions of learning are as an important part of our history as the knowledge they produce. There are little bits and pieces of information, that get lost as the universities continue to grow, in Columbia's case, one of the first cyclotrons to split the atom burried under the basement of Pupin phyics Labs of Columbia University, or the abandoned University Hall, that would have hailed many of the limitations and also many of the postiives of the "megastructures" that would come years afterward. This is only just one school, any univerisity has just as storied a history, but I belive this article about Columbia Univesity can make the case as well as any other. -- Ctrl_build 00:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I oppose. The article’s very one-sided—it’s written like it could be straight out of a university brochure, and parts like “one of the world's most prestigious universities ... placing just after Harvard (10.3%) and Yale (9.9%)” sound so self-congratulatory you can’t help but roll your eyes. The “Notable Columbians” stub section makes me cringe, as does “In film, television and the arts,” which might work better if it were broken into a separate article. Besides which, there is almost no discussion of the (often negative) neighborhood attitudes towards the university and its behavior in local politics, business and real estate. I also think some sections could use some expansion, such as the post-1968 history of the university and the description of the Morningside campus’s award-winning architecture. Finally, there’s almost no sources given for any of the information presented. There’s definitely potential here, but in its present state, there’s just no way it could be a featured article. Having said that, I might work on it a little right now... T-bomb 01:09, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Your points are well taken, thanks for the suggestions, I'll look into creating separate pages, that has been suggested before. Looking at it that way, I would suggest a separate section for 309 Havermayer itself, it has a lot of history in it (issolation of deterium, setting for many movies, wonderful architecture). -- Ctrl_build 01:26, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that sounds good. If you start breaking it up, mind if I chip in? T-bomb 01:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Go ahead, I have quite a bit of non wikipedia real world work to do, so go do it if you want. I already have done considerable work on the engineering school article and the Columbia College of Columbia University article in previous days. I think it would be prudent to take a model from the timeline linked to in in my first post. Its totally open, its information from the trustees of columbia university (the schools corporate name is Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, via a court order) If you have questions, ask, I am right at the University. By the way, its the 250th aniversary, and they are making a big deal out of it. I know this isn't the best place to give suggestions. I am happy someone else is willing to look into this. By the way, I like your small Duane Reade article. If you walk down broadway from 116th to 80th, you can count about 14 of them. That's probably triple the number of starbucks you can encounter.-- Ctrl_build 02:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This page is almost there. I like the list of Columbia people on the linked page--very classy. Here are my objections and how to fix them. Put a note on User:Rednblu so that I look back again.
    1. In my opinion, it does not make sense to begin the "Student life" section bragging about Columbia rejecting 90% of its applicants--third only to Harvard and Yale--the more it rejects the better. Does that mean that student life is better at Harvard which is first in rejection rate? Why isn't Columbia at the top of something? Or why doesn't the author claim first what Columbia is best at--better than Harvard or Yale? In my opinion, rejecting a large percentage of applicants has nothing to do with the quality of "student life."
      • So, I suggest you begin the "Student life" section with something that is notable about Columbia student life; for example, Columbia is a subway ride from the Metropolitan Museum of Art or Greenwich Village. Great dates! Or something like that.
      • Alternatively, you might make the whole first section about "Competition." In that case, I suggest you move the "Student life" section later. Within a section on "Competition," the high rate of rejecting applicants could be one race among many, including endowment and number of Nobel Prize winners on the faculty.
    2. I thought the first paragraph of the History section was a little weak. Surely, there is some endearing story you can tell about the founding, the beginning, the early buildings, the early New York. There must be an endearing one paragraph story that would capture the spirit of the beginning.
      • So, I suggest you take out that whole paragraph that ends with the fatal "It remains one of the world's most prestigious centers of higher education." Replace that paragraph with some endearing early story that captures the unique spirit of Columbia. Or something like that. The rest of the history section I thought was great.
    3. A list of movies shot on the Columbia campus is rather boring. It clutters the Columbia page. But if you mention the movies, I want more detail; I want to know what scenes.
      • So, I suggest moving that list to another page and link it, a stub for now, where you describe in a brief sentence the predominant Columbia scene from each movie. For people acquainted with Columbia, it would be nostalgia, pure Hollywood to think of it, to think of the camera angle all over again. For people acquainted with the movie, they might say, "Now that was the Columbia library. And watch the monster come out of the basement to the men's gym."
    4. That whole list of "Schools and Enrollment" seems to me to be unnecessary and clutters the Columbia page. What is deadly for me is all those numbers; you are about two steps away from throwing the Columbia fiscal budget at the reader.
      • So, I suggest that you cut the "Schools and Enrollment" section. If you feel there should be something to replace that section, you might describe more detail of the organizations you summarized in "Organizations and athletics" earlier; tell stories about those organizations; you might describe some of the unique traditions of those Columbia organizations, such as the drama society, the band, the student paper. ---Rednblu 03:35, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too repetitively laudatory. Plus I would like to see some balanced material about Columbia's early history. A while ago, while researching for the Five Points article, I came upon a number of partial statements from primary sources that tend to show the early financing of King's College (later Columbia U.) in a very poor light. In short, the trustees of Trinity Church on Broadway were intimately involved in some of the most egregious rent farming in early America, gouging the Irish poor of Five Points and others and using the proceeds for projects (like King's College) that almost wholly benefitted the well-to-do. The article badly needs material of this kind. JDG 15:46, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - those pictures need copyright information. →Raul654 19:28, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • I do not know where they come from, I was not the one that put them in there. Ctrl_build 20:31, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • I have contacted a local photography student who may want to put up his pictures. Ctrl_build 20:51, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Anti-intellectualism[edit]

Created fac from archive.

This is an excellent article about a fascinating subject. It's not beyond all POV problems, I'm afraid. Still, this has surely become one of the best articles I've ever read on here. Weasel

  • Object. This needs a history of anti-intellectualism from at least as far back as classical Greece. It does not need to begin with a section on America. What on earth does being a politically homogenous society got to do with the subject? Do you imagine that there is no anti-intellectualism in Europe or Asia? And an article with a section called Anti-intellectualism in other countries that reads:
There are, no doubt, many instances of anti-intellectualism and anti-intellectual subcultures in many other countries. People knowledgeable about these may want to add them to this article.
is nowhere near ready. Send to WP:PR Filiocht 14:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. For exactly the same reason as Filiocht wrote. Revth 15:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • it does not need to begin with a section on America... This was surely done because there exists quite a strong correlation. I didn't contribute to the article, I just thought it was very clear prose with a sound and rather fascinating line of thought. The state philosophies of all Communist countries are mentioned as European anti-intellectualism (the GDR leadership was proud to be "plain folks in a country of plain folks"), which (boldly stated) in most of Western Europe doesn't exist on such a scale as in the US (I don't have anything against the hands-on approach!). The article contains all that. I don't know about most of Asia, but the article does mention Cambodia etc.
What on earth does being a politically homogenous society got to do with the subject? Aaah, don't be nitpicking! :-) Fair enough, I didn't see that. But it's just one sentence.

Weasel (quarter past five UTC, frivolous, but I forgot how to do the timestamp)

  • Object. The lead is okay, but the whole article is poorly organized. Specifics on anti-intellectualism in different regions of the world should follow the more in-depth points on the causes of anti-intellectualism. Fairly substantial editing still needs to be done, even after the reorganization; for instance, it's a sprawling article with a lot of hypothetical wordings like "it would be said" or "the pro-Israel side would probably respond." I would probably say, if I were asked, that this sounds like a high school essay. - Karl Ward 22:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I was considering (self)-nominating this one myself. (Even found some pictures). Then the interesting sections about Russia and Cambodia were added, and I tend to agree now that more could be done. OTOH, prominently featuring the USA makes sense here, if only because American anti-intellectualism has international political consequences. Smerdis of Tlön 19:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So did anti-intellectualism in, for instance, the British Empire and Nazi Germany. It didn't do Socrates much good either. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper and needs to look beyond the here and now. Filiocht 13:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The stuff about China and Cambodia is grossly distorted, and this not the place to discuss it; it cannot be treated adequately in this article. The article suffers greatly from undefended opinions ("societies in Europe and Asia are much more politically homogeneous"—what is this supposed to mean?). Ditto most of the stuff on the USSR: it's mere opinion, and not very good opinion at that. What basis is there for asserting that the Soviet Union, which by the 1930s had dramatically improved literacy in all areas of the country (even to the point of creating writing systems for dozens of unwritten languages) and instituted public education that compared favourably to that of many Western countries, had a "policy … to maintain a spirit of anti-intellectualism"? There is only one reference (admittedly a good one), but it is to a book on anti-intellectualism in the US.
I would also like to see "America" changed to "the United States". Much more information is needed on contemporary anti-intellectualism in the US.
Better organisation would help. What exactly does anti-intellectualism oppose? At many points, the article seems to equate intellectualism with the possession of university degrees—an equation I certainly would not draw. What about the general social hostility, most notably in the US (a veritable cesspool of anti-intellectualism), towards anyone with a thought of his own to his name? That's what anti-intellectualism means to me, yet it's hardly even discussed. Shorne 03:14, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I Want To Hold Your Hand[edit]

Renominating, as there were no objections last time, just only one support vote. I'm not sure why this was moved to failed nominations at only one week after nomination, as Jeronimo merely made suggestions, not conditions for his support vote. See also WP:PR listing. Johnleemk | Talk 09:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support., but can you can confirm that the pictures are used with permission? Zerbey 17:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Same problems with the references cited as "A Day in the Life". Also, several references appear to be identical though they point to different pages. Minor nit not affecting objection status: I would like to see the word "interestingly" banned from Wikipedia as well. That should go without saying, I think. Jgm 18:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • All objections have been resolved. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Why? In some cases it's good. It usually denotes something unusual and tells the reader that the preceding text is out of the ordinary. Interestingly, it can denote several phrases all in one succinct word: curiously enough, funnily enough, interestingly enough, oddly enough and strangely enough. If it's not overused it's quite appropriate. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Interestingly, the word interestingly often either sets off a fact that is interesting in its own right and does not usually need to be noted as interesting, or is not really all that interesting at all, and shouldn't be noted as such. Ok, that sounded more harsh than I meant it, but the word cen be quite overused. - Taxman 13:24, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • See the "A Day in the Life" nomination below for my response. As for the "identical" references, I'm following official policy: Wikipedia:Cite sources. Johnleemk | Talk 08:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 02:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Albert Einstein[edit]

Very important physicist. By the Time magazine choosed as Person of the 20th Century. Actually a idol of the public. --ThomasK 13:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Not a vote, but the table of contents seems like quite a mess. -- Emsworth 14:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, needs more work. GeneralPatton 14:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Sheesh, talk about leaving us in suspense! What sort of work? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: Looks like a well organized work to me. TOC looks fine - don't see "a mess". Everything in wiki always "needs more work". I like it.--Vsmith 16:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a vote. The headings are a bit confused because most of the assesment of his acedemic work is fitted into his personal biography. When the discussion of his theories is given a section seperate to his early/middle/final years I'll support. Neutral for now. Cyopardi 22:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (Actually, I keep thinking that it needs a little more work as well, but I can't put my finger on why.) func(talk) 18:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. More careful discussion of various sources would be v. useful, since so much has been written about the subject. Biographical controversies should be noted. +sj+ 20:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. ---Rednblu 01:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article, highly structured, and very important. Gerritholl 17:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: Very well done. Simon A. 09:07, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vivien Thomas[edit]

I think he's got a really a great story, one that hasn't been told very much, and this article does a pretty good job of telling it. I found a fair-use picture to use with it as well. --Fastfission 20:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Object for now. Interesting story and fairly well told. The article is just about long enough, but I suspect it could be longer.
  1. Some section headings would be nice.
  2. The mention of his work on 'causes of medical shock' should be moved from the lead parra and discussed in more detail somewhere in the body.
  3. The lead section should then be reworked to give a better summary of the article.
  4. 'Thomas did not operate on Eileen' - I'm guessing that without actually being qualified as a doctor, it would have been illegal for him to do so. This should be mentioned.
    It's really here nor there, it was really Blalock's work to do anyway (Blalock being the surgeon), and anyway they would not have let him operate on a white patient anyway (and I doubt Thomas would have even tried).
  5. There is mention that a 'medical reporter picked up the story' on curing Blue Baby syndrome at the time, but it is not clear that the reporter was aware of Thomas' involvement, or publicised it.
    I'll disambiguate this. The medical reporter picked up the story from JAMA, which as it notes, did not mention Thomas at all, so her publication did not benefit Thomas directly (primarily it benefitted Blalock).
  6. On pay disparity and the wearing lab coats - was the issue that Thomas was black, or that he wasn't qualified as a doctor, or a bit of both. Reading between the lines Johns Hopkins University may have used rigid pay scales and could have found it difficult or impossible to pay a technician more.
    It's that he was black -- the idea of a black man in a (technician's) lab coat is what drew stares from strangers; they did not know his qualifications one way or another. There's no evidence that the issue of salary had to do with not being able to pay him more.
  7. But my biggest question would be how does this story relate to the wider experience of black doctors or medical professionals. My ignorance, but were there _any_ black doctors in the United States in the 1940s?
    Yes, of course, but they had a lot of difficulties. They of course did not work on white patients, and often were regulated to those black patients who could not afford white doctors.
Hope that helps. -- Solipsist 06:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it does, thanks! --Fastfission 14:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Swimming[edit]

This is a great article that deals with the different aspects of swimming - health/exercise, competition, resues, techniques etc., it is relatively detailed and well worded. --CGorman 21:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Object strongly. There's a lot of good content here, but it is ill organised. Furthermore: 1) some sections read like - or actually are - as summation of facts instead of a story, and not all of the facts are interesting. Surely, it is not necessary to list every possible risk involved with swimming (e.g. hit by lightning), where exactly you can swim in the nude etc.? 2) Some important information is missing: the history section is very brief (while there is a huge article about it), and there's hardly any dicussion of pools. Also, the lead section notes that some animals also swim, but this isn't mentioned in the remainder. I think at least fish deserve a mention... 4) There are no references. Jeronimo 19:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs better sectioning, flow of content. Lots of content, not yet brilliant.

World War III[edit]

Really good article, I think. Self-nom, I guess, as I've done quite a bit of work to it, over time. — OwenBlacker 23:42, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Read, but speculation is speculation, regardless of possible precursor incidents. An interesting article, but object. Denni 01:12, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
  • Object. This is a tremendously important concept in recent history, politics, and military technology, which is fast fading from common knowledge. (I recently went to a party where a 22 year old refused to believe that all us thirty somethings had once believed the world was in imminent danger of nuclear annihilation!)
    1. A featured article on World War III needs to give adequate coverage to the political, historical and technical/theoretical aspects. Aspects it should cover the SALT treaties, the START treaties, the ABM treaties, the peace movement, domestic fallout shelters in various countries, "Drop, Duck, and cover", the impact (if any) of SDI, actual capabilities, the nuclear winter controversy, and much, much more. As it stands, this article is completely dominated by references to popular culture, including even apocalyptic science fiction scenarios which are unrelated to World War III per se.
    2. Two of the "near miss" scenarios are somewhat exaggerated in comparison to their supporting references, and one isn't in the free references at all. It is also undesirable to use subscriber-only references. On the other hand, the Cuban missile crisis gets just one sentence.
    3. Some sections show the "editing by committee" problem, e.g. the bit on US highways as expedient runways first says there is no evidence for it, then states it as fact. Securiger 02:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It's 50% list. →Raul654 05:10, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object (this has nothing to do with my VfD of a similar entry a while ago). Too many lists! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Too many lists, needs to be fleshed out more. Good work so far :) Zerbey 16:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs a great deal of thought, not only excellent writing, and references to 10x as many thinktanks/orgs, national bodies, philosophers, politicians, authors...

Tibet[edit]

I think this article does a good job and is a good example of Wikipedia at work. Gerritholl 10:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Far from featured status. 1) Lead section goes into too much detail, this is better discussed in a separate section. 2) The map image has no source info, and may be copyrighted. The accompanying caption is not very informative. 3) Several sections have little content. The geography section needs to be rewritten. 4) I miss information about Free Tibet and similar movements. 5)
  • Object. The article goes from confusingly full (especially for those unfamiliar with the Chinese language (like my humble self) to very very empty (Economics, Demographics). It also lacks some originality. There's more to add (economical status within China, handling of tourism etc.). Weasel
  • Object. See other featured country-related articles for better examples. +sj+ 20:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, poorly developed from all perspectives. Fred Bauder 12:05, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Still far from adequate, I'm afraid. Shorne 03:20, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sewage treatment[edit]

This is a well-written and thorough article which has avoided a dry, clinical tone. It appears to cover everything one might want to know about the subject. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 04:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, surprisingly thorough, though it could use a picture. Maybe a diagram of how waste is typically processed, or a simple photo of a sewer or a treatment plant. ~ FriedMilk 04:22, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. "Historical sewage treatment" is too simple and it is a complete misunderstanding that such a method was the only way to treat waste water or gather waste water at all. It also just touches on cities as an example. More objections on the discussion page. Revth 09:04, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Added image of a sewage treatment plant -- Chris 73 Talk 09:38, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) No references. 2) Many one-sentence paragraphs. This looks awful, and generally reads awfully too; the text is not flowing, but jumps from here to there. Use bullet lists or tables for such text if a flowing text is impossible. 3) The history section is very brief, and fails to mention specific methods after the Minoans. 4) US (and Canada)-centered (" This is far too polluting for most locations in the U.S."). What about Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa? 5) Needs copyedit to remove things like (" at this time (2002)"). 6) Lead section should give an overview of the article. Jeronimo 11:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Too many one-sentence paragraphs. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hawaiian architecture[edit]

Very well-written article; both consise and factual. Sources are cited. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:29, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Neutral. Could use a little more meat in the sections, but it already has a substantial amount of information for readers to digest so I think I'm satisfied enough for it to be a featured article. And yes, it is well written!  ;) On second thought, it needs to be refined more. Gerald Farinas 06:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it is interesting to note that Gerald Farinas is in fact the main author of this article. Jeronimo 19:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Hence the little winky face at the end of my comment. Gerald Farinas 20:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, I'm afraid. This is a good article, but the majority of the photos in the article are copyrighted. A minor thing is the use of bold in each paragraph. This is not only unnecessary, but also discouraged by the WP:MOS. Jeronimo 19:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, a majority are. But Image:Moanahotel.jpg is a PD photo suitable for the main page. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:57, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
That's great, but all of the pictures need to be free of copyright, or demonstrated to be fair use. At present, they are not. Jeronimo 22:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with jero; object for now. They certainly need to be tagged! Lovely art, tho. +sj+ 20:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gibraltar[edit]

An impressive amount of information for such a small territory. The subarticles are also comprehensive. Deus Ex 22:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Object'Not a vote anymore - it still needs a bit of tidying up - too much space is devoted to the arcane subject of territorial waters and info on dispute with Spain should have its own page. Nearly there, but not quite there yet I decided to be bold, so I've now removed the bits I think are extraneous - of course, now the article seems short for a featured article! I'll wait for reaction to my changes before considering removing my objection. Jongarrettuk 06:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) I've now made quite a few changes to address my concerns, though not all of Jeronimo's. It still needs up to date economic data.Jongarrettuk 21:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The holiday pictures need to get rid of the "watermark", and should become separate picture, and without captions. 2) The story about the origin of the name is told twice, though slightly different both times. 3) The lead section doesn't give a good overview of the article. 4) I miss a section on the culture of Gibraltar (there's a lengthy article about it) 5) There are only web references/recommended reading 6) The article needs a copy-edit 7) The politics section tells more about issues than how the politics are organised. Jeronimo 10:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a vote. Objection 5 intrigues me. If this became policy and were retroactively applied to the current 380 FAs, how many would be left? Filiocht 11:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Not many, but that's beside the point. We need to work with new material and hold it to a high standard. Forget the previous FAs, lets just focus on the stuff we have nominated now! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:40, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Ahhh, Ta bu Shi, we've brought you to the dark side. - Taxman 04:24, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a vote: What's the difference between a "reference" and an "external link"? The article has several external links with reference-like information (CIA factbook, etc.). -- Creidieki 22:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • An external link is just a link to interesting information. A reference is a reference to material that you used for the story. links within the story should go into references and external links to sites not referenced in the story should go into external links. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:40, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • To answer Filiocht's question: perhaps not many, but as Ta bu shi da yu points out, this shouldn't be a reason to exclude this particular reason from my objection. I think it should be possible for most article to give at least one book (or other printed work) as reference or further reading. Websites tend to change or disappear, and there veracity is not always verifiable, since basically anyone can make one. Not all books may be true, but at least it's rather easy to find who wrote them. Jeronimo 06:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Don't get me wrong. I agree and use books a lot myself. But is this objection based on any formal requirement or just your (and my ) opinion? Should it be made a formal requirement? If the editors involved used no books, is it an actionable objection? I think not, sadly. Filiocht 07:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Sure, you can't add references you didn't use. However, it should be easy to find a book or article to mention under "further reading". I agree though that this is not currently required by any Wikipedia standards. Then again, if this were my only objection to an, I would vote neutral. Jeronimo 11:14, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Presuppositional apologetics[edit]

  • I stumbled on this article by chance, and was struck by its excellent style, its care with words, and how well-referenced it was. I know the topic is probably so specific and unfamiliar that many will find it unsuitable for a main page featuring, but honestly I don't know how the article could be much improved from its current state. I knew very little about this topic prior to reading the article, so I hope there aren't glaring errors that I am unaware of -- the article certainly does not give the impression of being poorly constructed. On the contrary, it seems solid, neutral, and cogent, to me at least. Jwrosenzweig 23:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, reluctantly. I think there's a featured article here. However, the article as it stands seems overly academic. At a certain point, the subject matter is inherently academic, but much of the material is fundamentally about issues relevant to many or most people: if I believe I am rational, is it okay to also be religious? or, is believe in God rational?
My criticisms: (1) the article has a very complicated sentence structure; the writing could be crisper, (2) the article seems aimed at people in theology who are very interested in the precise details of who said exactly what; the article should start off with text at a general audience, while later having some of the more involved details, (3) I'm not sure which of the previous two points this fits into, but things like the phrase "noetic effects of sin" need to be introduced more gently.
Zashaw 04:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My reply -- (1) Can you point to a few specific sentences? I'm happy to make some alterations, but since I'm happy with the style, I'll need your help to see my way to corrections. (2) Some changes have been made by others to the introduction since I nominated. Is this sufficient, or would you like more? One important consideration -- should I assume that someone who reads the introduction knows what apologetics is, or does that need introducing? I don't want to dumb it down too far, but I think it should be accessible. (3) The "noetic effects of sin" is a phrase (new to me -- had to look it up) that describes sin's alleged ability to distort the mind: the idea is that, in effect, sinfulness helps blind humans to the very presence of sin, and also limits human abilities to perceive sin's effects on the soul. Does that deserve an article, does it deserve to be better explained, or should the phrase be cut? It's a delightfully compact phrase that I'd like to preserve, but I'm open to comment. Jwrosenzweig 21:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(2) The introduction is vastly improved in the direction I was hoping. I think the intro's okay now. It no longer assumes that the reader has a pretty good grasp on apologetics, and the sentences are much simpler. (1) I'll have to get back to this; a quick skim today shows nothing obvious. On the whole, I think some things could be simpler, and less assumptions on the reader (the "noetic" being the most obvious). Also I did notice an affection on the writer's part for the subject, which leads to some unexplained things: "noetic", the comment beginning "Van Til illustrated this concept..." sounds clever, but I don't understand how the analogy relates to the topic, and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get out of the quote of Frame at the end of the section. Taxman, below, seems to have some ideas too. (3) if you had to look noetic up, obviously we can't assume the reader will know it. It'd be a shame to not mention the concept, but we need to make sure that readers aren't tripped up on this highly obscure term -- if you really want to use "noetic", maybe a parenthetical "(i.e., the so-called 'noetic effects of sin')"? Zashaw 02:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object temporarily: I think it is almost there, but I agree that 'noetic effects of sin' requires explanation (or its own article) and I'd like to be told who Clark is/was in the absence of an article on him. I have no problems with the overall writing style, as it seems suited to the topic. Filiocht 09:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See above for 'noetic effects of sin'. I've written a brief article on Gordon Clark -- is that sufficient? Or does more need to be said? Jwrosenzweig 22:04, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Clark article is fine, but I still feel that "noetics" needs clarification or maybe the parenthetical suggestion above should be used? Filiocht 07:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The kind of article I think is brilliant work, but shouldn't necessarily be featured on the main page (as jwr notes).
  • Object. The subject is not that hard that it should never go on the main page. Good articles on non mainstream topics are what wikipedia excels at. In any case being a featured article is a different animal from deciding if an article goes on the main page. As to the article, the intro still needs some more work. That is the one section that needs to be entirely approachable to the un-initiated reader, easing them into the topic. So for that section at least, the article could still use simpler sentence construction. Also after the intro, very little is covered other than the types of presuppositionalism, and the presuppositionalists views of the circularity argument. More needs to be covered on opposing views and whether the school has had any impact or importance, and if so, what. Also, needs at least some sort of representative image or diagram. - Taxman 16:22, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thank you -- excellent suggestions. I'll do some more on the introduction. The circularity section is in fact a section detailing the most common set of objections to presuppositional apologetics -- does that need to be more clear? Would simply renaming the section "Opposing views" be precise enough? As to impact and importance, I'll have to work on that -- being unfamiliar with this school prior to reading the article (in spite of a personal interest in theology) makes me assume the impact is relatively minor, but then I'm only an amateur in theology. I'll find what I can. Image or diagram has me thrown -- should all featured articles have one? I can't envision one for this -- it's not a topic like "the transmission of grace" or something where a diagram between God and humanity is easy to envision. Any suggestions are more than welcome....I'll see if I can find a picture of either Clark or Van Til, in the meantime. Jwrosenzweig 19:40, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • The circularity section does cover the most common objection, but primarily focuses on all the reasons proponents disagree with the objection. Thats not NPOV even if all the reasons proponents posit are cited. Especially if there are more reasons the critics would have that are not discussed which seems likely given the general lack of coverage of other criticisms. In other words one criticism with 14 refutations that are researched and cited to their source is not NPOV. The section does not need to be renamed, circularity is fine as long as the section is more balanced. There are also a number of terms used in the article that could stand for an inline, quick summary explanation. The most obvious being 'cosmological argument'. Also the phrase 'begged the question' is used in its archaic, mis-translated sense without explanation of the fact that that usage is not common anymore and is, in essence, another way to say circularity anyway. Finally the students of Clark and Van Til should either have stubs created, or not even be wiki links at all if they do not merit full articles in their own right. As to the image, it just needs something to represent the topic once it is featured in case it is picked for the main page. So I must continue to object. Please drop me a line on my talk page if you feel you have addressed these. - Taxman 02:52, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
        • A very reasonable position -- I'll do what I can to work on the circularity section. Given the difficulty of working on an article one knows little about, and the amount of time I have for editing, I suggest that this nomination be removed (perhaps placed in a subspace of the article's talk?), since it will take me some time to alter the article so that it will meet the objections that have been voiced. I have confidence it will be featurable soon, but I don't think it should hang around here in the meantime. Sorry for not being bold and removing it, but I haven't removed anything at FAC since it was overhauled early this year, and I don't want to accidentally violate policy if I can avoid it. Thanks for your suggestions, all of you -- Jwrosenzweig 13:53, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It strikes me as more of an argument for Presuppositional apologetics than an article about it. When some of the POV language is toned down I'll withdraw my objection. Cyopardi 12:51, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Cyopardi, I'm afraid I will really need examples of this. I was surprised by your objection -- in reviewing the article again, I find that all opinions are carefully attributed (the articles never says anything like "athiests are wrong", for example, but always something along the lines of "Van Til's supporters contend that atheists are wrong" -- unless I'm missing something), and that several objections to the theory are raised, along with the counterarguments of presuppositional apologists. What more would you like to see? Without a clearer statement, I don't see this as actionable. Jwrosenzweig 19:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • After reading the article again I realize I was a bit hasty in my objection. It is withdrawn. The Circularity paragraph struck me as being POV (as it carefully refutes all the criticisms) when it was really just well researched. Cyopardi 00:08, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ASCII art[edit]

The art of creating pictures from text-based characters has been around for hundreds of years (literally) but the most recent manifestation, "ASCII art" has proven to be a very interesting subject. I'd like to nominate it as a Wikipedia-featured article. (nominated by 192.25.140.133 →Raul654 23:05, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC))

  • Object. Consists mostly of some examples and a very long external links list. No detailed information about its popularity, how to make ASCII art, or a history of the practice and the term. Jeronimo 08:21, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not especially long on examples, and almost lacking in history. Not ready for Prime Time. Denni 23:36, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)
  • Object. It's interesting, but it's basically just a list. For starters: needs more information on history; the bird picture is offset; needs to go into more details on the ASCII art generation tools; lead section far too short. Could also use a picture, not sure what of, though :-) Maybe this should go to Peer Review first? Zerbey 15:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fuck[edit]

This is pretty impressive, although it might not be wise to put it on the front page ;) --Tothebarricades.tk 02:06, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • This nomination has failed twice before, if my memory serves. →Raul654 02:36, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • If Holy Prepuce got onto the front page, nothing would keep me from supporting this article. (sorry forgot to sign -- ugen64 03:44, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC))
  • Um... not voting. I think the image of the finger may be problematic. It provides very little information to the article's topic, while running the risk of causing much offense to the more sensitive reader. func(talk) 03:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • You mean that sensitive user would have moved from a state of agitation about the article "fuck" to apoplexy when they see the image of someone's middle finger? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Strange as it may sound, yes. I think images bother people far more than words. There are several editors who have been trying to remove various body part pictures from articles like Penis. These images are important, and entirely appropriate to the articles in question, but an image of the middle finger, pointed directedly at the reader... I don't know. A picture that is likely to offend a significant number of people should only be included when it is really going to add something to the article, when it is really worth fighting for. You know, I've used the middle finger without saying "fuck", the word and this action aren't even directly tied to each other. func(talk) 04:19, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I hate to say this, but tough to those people. If the picture is illustrative (and not illegal) then I'd suggest that it be kept. Those people trying to remove pictures of penises from the "Penis" article are pretty stupid really. Let's face it: penises exist, and they aren't going away any time soon (except perhaps in the castration article). - Ta bu shi da yu 05:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • LOL! I tried to come up with a joke involving Unix, but words failed me. ;-) func(talk) 06:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • So what you're saying is that the hand should be positioned the other way, showing the reader what it would look like if they were giving the finger? That should insult them less, since they aren't the ones that are having it pointed at them. --Aqua 04:06, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The page starts on the right track by stating that the word "fuck" is one of the most powerful verbal expressions in the English language. But there is no explanation for that power. Lots of good scholars have examined why the word has that extraordinary power, but instead of explaining the power, this page proceeds with a juvenile and unexamined display of that power. The current page is equivalent to starting to explain dynamite, and then without explaining that power proceeds to blow up the building like a juvenile playing with the power instead of figuring it out. So, before I would "support" this page, you would have to dig into the scholarly literature to summarize what various psychologists, psychiatrists, and linguists have said to explain the power of the word "fuck." ---Rednblu 06:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't understand. Please give exact sentences to back your case up. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:26, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Sure. Let me give some examples.
      • 1. The first paragraph after the first sentence is a failure, in my opinion; after the tremendous first sentence, the first paragraph just runs through an ungrammatical, juvenile, rambling string of unorganized examples of the uses of the word "fuck." Cute--and funny--but this is not supposed to be a joke book. And then to top off that very poor summary of the various uses of the word "fuck," the paragraph ends in the nonsense juvenile sentence Example: "What the fuck are you doing in my room?" roughly means "What are you doing in my room?" Again, it made me laugh, but this is not supposed to be a joke book, is it? :) As a fix to this lead section flaw, I would suggest that the lead section follow a more traditional format of summarizing in two paragraphs what is in the article that will follow. For example, the first paragraph of the lead section might summarize the psychological, biochemical, magical, or other documented sources of the word's power. And then the second paragraph could explain the "censorship" and "euphemisms" as a reaction to those sources of power--that basically is what the current second paragraph starts to do, but then the second paragraph rambles off into too many unorganized and logically irrelevant examples of "losing the fuck in the translation"--which is a totally different issue, in my opinion.
        • Actually, I beg to disagree. The first paragraph is not a joke (though it may seem that way because comedians use it like this all the time), it's actually a serious explanation of the ways that the word "Fuck" can be used. This is illustrative of the different contexts of the word, and at the same time it further explains " It is, however, rather common in daily use, as well as in popular, or vulgar, late 20th and early 21st century culture." Perhaps you thought it was funny because you think that using the word "Fuck" in an encyclopedia that doesn't usually reference the word is an unusual place to have it? I think this says more about your POV and understanding (and perhaps a large majority of the Western world's perception) of humour! Also, I can't see the words "losing the fuck in the translation" but this could have been editted since you looked at it. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • 2. Furthermore, the sections are not organized logically. For example, to start the sections with "euphemisms" is cute and makes a good joke; but it does not make a good encyclopedia page. That is, in a good encyclopedia article, in my opinion, you would never talk about euphemisms until first you had explained the power that people are fleeing when they use a euphemism. ---Rednblu 07:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • You seem to think the whole article is a joke. It most assuredly is not. I fear you are knit-picking over this point. Can anyone tell me if this particular objection is even actionable?! It doesn't seem valid, or very important to me. I certainly didn't treat it as a joke, that's for sure. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support once gain. It is a great article, I always like to see a very controversial subject dealt with appropriately, as this article has tried to do. Whilst I personally would not take issue with it being on the front page (I'm with Voltaire on that one), we must bear in mind that Wikipedia is read by many people from many different backgrounds who could potentially be offended. Zerbey 16:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. As an example of its power as a vulgarism we could cite Wikipedia's unwillingness to feature the article itself. Cyopardi 12:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I think this is a bad idea. We should not be referencing Wikipedia in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Quite. But providing an example of "its power" does not make a best-example encyclopedic article. A best-example encyclopedic article would minimally explore reasonably the sources, causes, and mechanisms of "its power"--not merely demonstrate examples of "its power." Similarly, providing an example of a bar magnet does not make an encyclopedic article on Magnetism. The current Fuck page is only a sophomoric parody on the Master's Seven dirty words which you can relish in the entirety at this link. ---Rednblu 19:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Rednblu that the article should not be an attempt to use the word as many times as possible, but discuss the reasons for its power and ubiquity, or why the Germans so much prefer their particular expletive, if this one is so powerful. If this gets up to speed, the "finger" should definitely not appear on the main page. The article itself, well, I'd prefer not to see it on the main page, but I wouldn't lodge a formal objection to that. -- Mpolo 19:05, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It would offend people and we're not here to do that, there are enough more interesting subjects to be featured. Gerritholl 06:10, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • So you're saying that this page should go to VfD, because if you aren't then your objection is not valid. Firstly: so what if there are "more interesting subjects to be featured"? We want all our articles to be featured!!!! Secondly, the offensiveness of the article should not be taken into consideration when deciding whether the article should be featured article material. Remember: a featured article does not necessarily mean that it will become a front page article! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for reasons as before. It ill-behooves the 'pedia to have its front page bannered with the word "FUCK". VV 06:49, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Invalid objection. Perhaps you should read about this page a bit more. A featured article does not necessarily mean that it will become a front page article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article goes way out of its way to layer on its extensive and ultimately mastubatory fascination with its subject. Wikipedia doesn't need to showcase just how juvenile some of our articles are capable of being. Or to put it another way: "If you don't know how the fuck to use fuck, then you fucking shouldn't read the fuck about it either." Maybe if we spent more time doing it we wouldn't be so fascinated with talking about it. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Amen...and on that note, Oppose. Mike H 07:07, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • Aren't these invalid objections? It seems to be opposing the topic, not the article content itself. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, but not because of the subject. Too many single-sentence paragraphs, Etymology section should be before the Linguistics section, which should be renamed Grammar. And yes, it does tend to be somewhat repetitive. Filiocht 07:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The "History of usage and censorship" has been much improved since the last nomination, but still reads too much like a list of random anecdotes without narrative prose to join them - especially more discussion of when and how it became taboo in the early period, or the social crcumstances or other significance of your anecdotes in the later period. It also contains some contradictions, e.g. the claimed date of first written appearance. The later part of "History" seems to include quite a lot of completely non-notable usages (we all know that folks say "fuck" millions of times per day, we don't need to list such examples unless they somehow changed society or censorship law, or where otherwise significant). The "Linguistics" section is not about linguistics, but grammar, and parts of it are wrong (several uses claiming to illustrate various parts of speech - no doubt following the old joke - are actually just phatics or interjections). The "different languages" section is also rather juvenile ("Look Ma! I can curse in 25 languages!"), is dictionary-like, and inevitably will either omit many of the world's thousands of languages or butcher the article into another horrible list article. Delete the list, however, the footnotes to that section are interesting and should be kept. The "Secondary Meanings" section still seems to me, as it did last time, silly and pointless; I would just delete the whole section, or at least merge it with a much improved grammar section. And just as last time, the current illustrations are pointless and do not contribute anything to the article. If we can find something like a picture of Paul Robert Cohen being arrested, that would be great, otherwise don't worry about pictures. And BTW, the "Etymology" section is excellent. Securiger 12:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, for many of the reasons already cited. I also dispute the claim that fuck is one of the strongest vulgarisms. I would have agreed twenty years ago, but by now it has lost much of its punch. It's even becoming banal, especially when US presidents toss it around with abandon. There's a story about a soldier who, presenting a broken radio to another soldier, said "The fucking fucker's fucking fucked." And it has been remarked that sexual intercourse would turn more heads than fuck in a crowded restaurant. These days I find a number of words more shocking and offensive than fuck, among them cunt, cock, and nigger.
More attention should be given to the sociological aspects of fuck. For example, it seems to contain an element of patriarchy. We can say He fucked her, but somehow *She fucked him doesn't seem quite right. We have mother-fucker but never *father-fucker.
I do not object to seeing Fuck on the home page from time to time in the title of an article. Anyone who doesn't like that can go fuck himself. Shorne 03:40, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anarchism in Spain[edit]

Self-nom; previous nomination had 2 supports and 2 neutrals. All issues have been addressed. --Tothebarricades.tk 22:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose: not NPOV. Specifically, we have sentences like this: Many women, while seeing the necessity for a common struggle against capitalism and the State...; generally, there is very little on the effects of anarchism when it was put into practice (except anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization, without saying how often), and there is no mention of why most Spanish people thought it was rather a bad idea. Markalexander100 01:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, that's women anarchists, so I don't see how it's POV. Most of the "effects of anarchism when it was put into practice" would be under Spanish Revolution; all future additions (by me anyway) will be put on Spanish Revolution rather than this page. As for "most Spanish people" thinking of anarchism as a "bad idea", I don't know how one could prove such a thing. Maybe most Spaniards weren't anarchists, but that doesn't make them critics, most were probably indifferent. I'm sure your average middle class Spaniard didn't particularly care. Anyways, yeah, this is focusing on anarchists in Spain (hence the title) so I didn't spend too much time talking about Spanish politics, history, etc. --Tothebarricades.tk 01:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The first example is POV because it says there was a necessity for a common struggle against capitalism. Not everyone would agree with that. The article in general concentrates on how lovely the anarchists were, and how horrible their opponents were: that may or may not be correct, but it would be nice to know why their opponents were so horrible. Markalexander100 02:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Not everyone would agree with that." -- Well, any anarchist would, and that's the context that sentence is in. And there is plenty of stuff about not so lovely stuff anarchists did, in terms of violence, etc. For the ideas of anarchism in general, there's another fairly large page. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"it would be nice to know why their opponents were so horrible" - So, you think there should be a section on how conditions for so many were poor? Their opponents were mainly institutions, not individuals. It's a different story when talking about Socialists, Communists, or Fascists but I noted those throughout. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No; we should have explanations of why both individuals and institutions were in general a) not anarchists and b) in many cases actively opposed to the anarchists. Markalexander100 07:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Object, reluctantly. There is some suggestion of sympathy with he anarchist cause evident in the writing. The bit about women referred to above reads as if it were Feminist women, or maybe all women, not anarchist women. Almost as important, there are too many single-sentence paragraphs. Filiocht 07:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mega Man[edit]

Seems pretty good. Interesting subject, seems pretty well written, has been broken into smaller articles after being on cleanup AFAICS. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. It still needs rewrite as one cannot read without skipping spoiler warnings that litter the article. Also, it needs to mention that in classic series, enemy boss robots were chosen from ideas by kids (and adults) who sent their ideas to Capcom. Revth 14:48, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, I've removed all the spoiler warnings and put one right at the start (should be enough). Could you provide a source of info on the info on enemy boss robots? I'd like to add this in. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Looks better and support. Here [1] is an example of special prizes given to a person whose idea became "Ring Man" in Rockman 4(or Mega Man 4?). In 2 to 8 of classic series, all enemy boss characters were selected from ideas sent few months in advance. Revth 08:50, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, for now at least. It is close, and I like the article but I second Revth' comments. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 14:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Some of the external links are unnecessary. There are lot of Mega Man fan sites on the Internet. Just doing a Google search would bring up a lot of them. Only the Capcom site should be there. Kuwanger 19:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • With the link objection resolved, I don't see anything else to object to about the article. I Support. Kuwanger 03:14, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, a few refs is okay. +sj+
      • Including fan sites encourages other people to add their own fan site links as well, which isn't desirable. It reads predominantly as advertising. Kuwanger 22:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I hope to have resolved this particular issue by listing directory entries for Yahoo!, Google directories and dmoz.org. These sites are better repositories for fan-site links. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • That sounds good. That way the choice of fan sites to list doesn't look like advertising. Post a message on my talk page when the issue has been resolved and I'll remove my objection. Kuwanger 02:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I like the changes that have been made. I think it's fine now. BrokenSegue 00:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The bit on the history of the X series needs work. I grew up on the NES and SNES, and I didn't consider the original Mega Man "too kiddy" or the X series "mature". Sounds like current fanboy arguments over Nintendo being too childish, frankly. Someone needs to dig around for why Capcom REALLY decided on the change. ~ FriedMilk 03:18, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. After that, support. Andre (talk) 20:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support after the changes. {Heliophile} 07:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Tried to NPOV that... I don't think I did a very good however. What do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Create a Category:Mega Man and put all those categories and articles in that one, that is the biggest category bloat i've ever seen. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:27, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, I think that's a terrible idea. There is only one article about Mega Man and he relates to all those categories referenced in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Formula One[edit]

Kind of a self-nom as I have done a lot of work on this article. It has been studiously ignored at Wikipedia:Peer Review for a long time. It was rejected here a while back but the criticisms - inconsistent British/American spelling, data in tabular form which should not be, colloquial diction - have been largely repaired, and as an F1 fan I think it covers the various aspects of the sport quite completely. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 04:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. I have done a lot of work on this article,too. I'm also a Fan of F1 and the article is complete and important for the featured articles,indeed.--ThomasK 04:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) This article is very much biased towards the present. We have a list of current riders which is not really necessary for the article, while Prost and Lauda are not even mentioned in the article! The history deals only with the technical rules, not at all with drivers and only briefly with teams. Even a brief summary (there's a separate history article) should do better than this. 2) There are several sections that only contain a link to a list. This is ridiculous. Something should be said about the topic; just like with the other sections, it is very well possible to discuss some part whithout listing the entire list. The "People" list is an exception to this, even though it is the least important. And why are the managers from Renault (Briatore!), Jaguar and Toyota missing, while "Ferrari gets its own bullet"? 3) The related topics sections repeats many links already listed (including all the "subarticles"), which is very unnecessary - especially since they're also in the template at the top of the article. Also, templates and categories shouldn't be here. 4) There are no book references, although there must be 1,000s of books written on the subject. 5) The external links section should be cleaned out. Either it should contain less of the same, or there should be more than just "News, humor and commentary" in the description. 6) The Fangio/Moss picture (the only mention of Moss!) is probably copyrighted, and has no source information. 7) The lead section speaks of huge budgets and international attention, but this is not addressed any further. Especially the fanbase should get a bit more in the article. Jeronimo 06:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Regarding your second objection, I don't understand what you have in mind when you suggest summarising the list articles. For example, how would one summarise the list of World Champions? SamH 13:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • There are several ways, I think. One would be to simply include the list. Especially the world champions list might be important enough to include entirely. An alternative is to discuss some of the more important or remarkable items in the list, for example those with the most world titles and Rindt because he is the only posthumous champion. For world champions, such a sectin may also fit in the history section, and then you can just add a reference to the list of champions there, and remove the entire section. Jeronimo 14:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • A previous discussion ruled out including the entire list, and favored moving it to a separate page since it was so large. I have attempted a summary of the various lists as you have suggested, and cleaned the "See also" and "External links" sections. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 22:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Object. Too much stuff packed into the "lists" section. "Lists" is as far as I know not a topic in Formula One, and less so a parent topic for the things currently listed there. Instead of just listing a bunch of topics and pointing to lists, write a little about them in the article (and provide links to lists in addition), and put them under more logical headings. The "See also" section also needs to be improved:
  1. Remove the Template: links. The template system is internal magic whose inner workings should not be exposed in articles. "Template" makes sense to an editor, but little sense to a reader.
  2. Remove the Category: links. Listing related categories in the article is non-standard; sub-categories go on the related category page.
  3. "Formula One subpages" should be named something else, because the linked articles are not actually subpages. Fredrik | talk 06:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This has all been taken care of: the templates and categories have been moved to the talk page and the See Also section has been improved. Also, the Lists heading has been removed and the structure revised a bit. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 22:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Change my stance to neutral (I'll have to read it in full before I support). Fredrik | talk 22:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I would strongly disagree with the remark about categories. Articles SHOULD link to categories when relevant. An article should not have to be PART of a category to refer to it. —Morven 22:37, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • And I maintain that it is a bad idea since those categories are already covered in Category:Formula One. If we link to related categories in this article, then we should do so in every other article. What would the point of the separate category system be then? Fredrik | talk 22:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The article has changed for the better, but I continue to object. I've just reworked the circuits section to something better (IMO), and will work on the rest as well. Until then, I'll object. Jeronimo 06:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington[edit]

I think this is very good, though perhaps it could do with a couple more images (all will be PD because of age) Dunc_Harris| 11:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, but a reference to Dublin's Wellington monument might usefully be added. Filiocht 11:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) Concerning his DOB: "most likely date is May 1st", but the article gives April 30th 2) His name lives on in the Wellington boots, but these are not mentioned in the article. 3) The article has no references. 4) The table with "succeeded by"/"preceded by" looks extremely ugly. This could be done more elegantly, and Leader of the House of Lords shouldn't have to be listed three times. 5) The lead section should give an overview of the article, and his full name and titles don't belong in there. Instead, the lead should give a short overview of Wellesley's life. Jeronimo 12:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The tables are structured so as to give an overview of the individual's career, so I would not object to it (furthermore, it follows conventions—see, for example, all the other articles on UK politicians). But there are other objections: 1. The article is too short. 2. The lead is too short. 3. Incorrect terminology is used in relation to the Peerage. For example: "appointed Duke of Wellington" (correct: "created Duke of Wellington"); "Viscount Castlereagh" (preferable: "Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh" or "Lord Castlereagh"); "Earl Grey" (preferable: "Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey" or "Lord Grey"), etc. -- Emsworth 21:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. A great article, but needs to go into more detail about Wellington's military service. Zerbey 16:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I have made some changes - perhaps it is more suitable now? ugen64 16:10, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)[edit]

Self-nom. See also Talk:Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown). Johnleemk | Talk 13:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Holy cow, man, isn't there supposed to be a limit on simultaneous self-noms? Anyway, the talk page for this article currently has several negative comments on structure and emphasis placed in response to the request on Peer review. I think Johnleemk has done a fine job of expanding and editing these song articles but I don't think any of them are crisp enough yet to warrant FA status. Jgm 14:38, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't really understand from them how to restructure the article appropriately. I've already explained the idea behind the sectioning. As for the limit on self-noms, Emsworth has had four or five at once. Quite a few of these articles are actually backlogged from about a week or two ago. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I am unclear about this comment, btw. Is it an objection or is it not? If it is, I don't see anything to address. The inappropriate Rubber Soul trivia and an extra-verbose quote have both been removed/trimmed. There's nothing specific — how does the article ramble? How does it need restructuring? Johnleemk | Talk 11:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I have not adhered to this limit on self-nominations; the policy was adopted without consensus, and, in any event, is (as presently worded) advisory, rather than binding. -- Emsworth 00:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent writeup. Can't see any glaring issues. Another excellently written Beatles article! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's not as long as many of the other Beatles articles, but still very good. Ambi 08:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Not as long as the other Beatles articles. The structuring isn't terrible but I don't like titling it with an ambiguous quote. That seems like a magazine article tactic, these articles should be very to the point. --Tothebarricades.tk 18:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Policy says a featured article should be "complete". How can the article be fleshed out further? What more can one say on the song? I've renamed the section. Johnleemk | Talk 18:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin (Note: a Shroud of Turin/temp re-write now exists. See below.)[edit]

A very well written article on a controversial subject. It has been the subject of some POV debates but seems to be sufficiently NPOV now to be featured. Zerbey 18:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Note: this was nominated before, see [2]. Please check to see if these objections have been addressed.
The following previous objections have been addressed:
  • Reference to a BBC documentary regarding the photographic theory was removed since its existence could not be verified, and replaced with a reference to authors of a book in which the theory was proposed.
  • A while ago, the theories were organized with section headings, and rearranged for better composition.
  • The "Resurrection theory of image formation" is clearly described as "miraculous."
  • The uncited example quote from the article was removed. Any others?
  • The external links now have descriptions.
The remaining unresolved(?) objections regard:
  • An "Oh, what a great mystery this shroud is" POV assertion. But counter-arguments are given for (seemingly) every theory. (It's a unique, strange artifact with no universally agreed-upon explanation, and the article reflects this.)
  • An "ongoing dispute as to which language should be used to describe the nature of the shroud." What does this refers to?
--Johnstone 04:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Hard to imagine a more detailed, balanced treatment. Some will cry "POV" not because pro-authenticity arguments are presented as truth but because such arguments are given the implicit respect of inclusion. Of course, the real "POV" is the impulse to totally exclude those arguments from serious consideration. JDG 05:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. JDG has been admirably industrious in unearthing and presenting every obscure argument offered by Shroud proponents. Some of the more blatantly POV presentations of those arguments, by JDG and others, have been improved somewhat, by myself and other editors. Nevertheless, the article still needs work to make it fair and balanced. It needs more information about the research and findings of the scientific investigation of the Shroud, by scientists who aren't actively looking for a way to argue that it's authentic. As far as I can tell, no one with scientific training has been involved recently so as to present the skeptical side properly. The article's overall tone also needs modification. It's still far too credulous about the proponents' claims and dismissive of the scientific establishment's view. Furthermore, there is no merit to JDG's pre-emptive strike against people voting against FA status. It's been a few months since I was involved in editing this article much, but I don't remember anyone who was trying to exclude the pro-authenticity arguments, as he charges. Instead, the effort was to deal with the pervasive pro-authenticity POV bias. For example, with regard to the C-14 testing in which four separate experts all dated the cloth to the thirteenth century, he stated as fact that there were "serious flaws in its implementation, attested to by qualified specialists of various religious and areligious predispositions, [that] left room for a rational belief that the shroud is something other than a medieval forgery." I fixed that particular one but I'm not a scientist and can't evaluate several of the other points that strike me as dubious. JamesMLane 16:33, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Wikipedia at its most preposterous. An utterly cynical nomination, which I expect will be followed on the main page by Vampire Watermelon. Wetman 16:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose (again). 1) Most of the claims lack direct citations. 2) Many sections are entirely without any counterbalance, e.g. "Analysis of artistic style". 3) No clear distinction is made between non-scientific claims, pseudoscientific claims and scientific claims. It has to be made clear that the majority of scientists would consider any theory which involves resurrection etc. to be pseudoscience. Right now, claims like "neutron emissions during the resurrection" are mixed with serious scientific analysis. This is unacceptable and ridiculous for any scientific reader. It makes Wikipedia look like a vehicle for religious propaganda. Many articles which exist in the intersection of religion and science/nature have this problem (compare the mess that is astrology). If you make scientific claims, you're judged by the rules and standards of the scientific method, including things like Occam's Razor. I have little hope for this article as long as the primary participants seem to be motivated by nothing but a desire to get the "real facts" about the shroud (i.e. the shroud is genuine, special, has come into existence by some unknown process) prominently featured.--Eloquence* 17:03, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
To me, this is a moment of decision for Wikipedia. Will it become the haven and preserve of a certain brand of intolerant rationalism, or will it strive to objectively report all serious viewpoints. James M. Lane, Wetman and Eloquence are, mostly unconsciously, applying a level of proof and rigor of citation to the shroud article that they would never hold an article on a less controversial topic to. Wetman and Eloquence, in particular, are dyed-in-the-wool skeptical reductionists who, ironically, show the same tendencies to supress (under the guise of NPOV and rigor) opposing positions that religious authorities of old showed. An article like this one is rendered unreadable when the authors attempt a super-delicate, almost neurotic tone of balance throughout. What it needs is what it has— strong statements displaying the core arguments of each side, letting the reader choose from among them. It is lively and engaging and brings the controversy home to the reader in a way that stimulates thought.
It's true the article could use some stronger material from the skeptical side. This need has been identified in its Talk page for months and no one has really stepped up. James M. Lane has limited himself mostly to tweaking existing sentences and Eloquence and Wetman have been content to stand on the side and trash writing that is plainly excellent prose merely because it is so removed from their own PsOV. The article is easily quality enough now for FA (and I'm referring to material almost wholly contributed by people other than me), even while we wait for the skeptics to get motivated. I'm calling on all Wikipedians who value real fairness and breadth to rally against these agenda-based objections. Yes, from day one in France, Encyclopedias have been dominated by more or less doctrinaire rationalists. I expect and accept that. But the best encyclopedias, round about the 1920s, began adopting conscious policies to moderate the rationalist bias in controversial topics along the faultlines of Science and Religion. Wikipedia must do the same and the vote on this excellent article is an important opportunity. JDG
Lots of personal attacks here, but no response to my arguments. I still oppose.--Eloquence*
Oh boy, here we go with the claims of personal attacks again. You can say those you disagree with are disseminators of 'pseudoscience' and still feel you are maintaining a proper tone. When I say you, Wetman and a few others are exhibiting a sort of intolerant, heavyhanded skepticism somehow I am engaging in ad hominem attack, even though the charge I'm making is, if anything, lighter than those you make. As for your 'arguments', I don't really see any. You put out the same phrases about non-scientific vs. scientific statements over and over, reshuffling the words, but not addressing anything specific to the shroud. In the article's Talk page, for instance, you recommended a 'Skeptic's Dictionary' writeup on the shroud as an admirable example of objective analysis. When I pointed out that the article you admired so much, in its assertion that "the shroud is a painting", flies in the face of nearly all _scientific_ studies of image formation in the shroud (which have found beyond all rational doubt that the shroud is a discoloration, not a coloration), you had nothing to say. So what have we here? We have a self-professed scientific skeptic advancing a position utterly debunked by real science. And we have (by your description) a purveyor of pseudoscience advancing a position fully backed by rigorous scientific method. This curious reversal has been going on, point by point, during the construction of the shroud article and it will apparently never stop. JDG 05:05, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Let me know when you are ready to talk about the substance of the article, or lack thereof.--Eloquence*
I guess you feel you are scoring points with these terse gibes, but as usual there is zero-content. If you want to talk substance why don't you start with the "shroud is a painting" position you advocate, which, as noted above, is at variance with over a dozen studies published in respected science journals? JDG
Why don't you start with 1) above? There is presently only a single complete reference in the article. For someone so obsessed with this article you show a considerable lack of interest in fixing its deficiencies.--Eloquence*
The article is chock full of references to books, individuals-by-name, named entities involved in named studies, etc.,. along with an extensive external links area. There is also an additional full reference in the body of the article in addition to the one listed in the References section. Another "deficiency" doing duty to a much larger agenda. JDG
There were only two places that I felt references were deficient. I thought you needed a citation to a reference at the end of the "General Observations" section and at the beginning of the "History" sections--with the assumption that probably one reference would cover the uncited points in the "History" sections since there were references cited for the dissenting opinions. ---Rednblu 07:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There's a difference between citing individuals by name and citing proper sources. Please do the latter. Then we can move on to 2).--Eloquence*
Yes. For example, consider the phrase--"On Holy Images, describes. . . .", At that place, you should cite to an entry in the References section. In the case of On Holy Images, there may not be a modern reprint of the entire text; nevertheless you should at least cite at least to a to a modern secondary text (a text that summarizes excerpts) to which the reader could refer to see whether or not you have correctly represented what is said in On Holy Images. In my opinion, there must be some reference that you could cite as a background reference for the entire History section, such as at the beginning of the History section, you might say: "The following section summarizes the History of the Shroud as detailed in Jones and Jones (2000)", and then you would give a complete citation to the book by Jones and Jones in the References section. ---Rednblu 18:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
An article's controversial nature is exactly the reason why we should be harder on the facts, hold a higher standard. All of these are excuses for not following the FA guidelines. It has to be balanced, fully treat the subject without skewing towards one side of the other. It also has to read well. This article fulfills neither obligation, and an inability to perform both simultaneously should not be a free pass to Featured Article status. --Gregb 05:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article is excellent on the facts. As many others here and during the last nomination have pointed out (among them the esteemed Jwrosenzweig), there is literally no description of one side's view without an equal representation of the opposing view. It's balanced so well it's almost astonishing. And it does read well. In fact it contains some of the tightest prose in all of Wikipedia (and, again, I am referring to others' contributions, particularly an anon user who waltzed in one day and contributed several long paragraphs worthy of a Britannica feature entry). Yet, a number of folks (led by Eloquence and Wetman who, tellingly enough, both admit to ingrained hostility to religion on their user pages) constantly charge imbalance and poor prose. I think the real source of their opposition is crystal clear. JDG
The section Radiocarbon dating is appallingly one-sided. Almost every paragraph in the article ends with a statement in support of the religious view. And as for prose, what about the sentence "At approximately 1.75 m (5 ft. 9 in), the man is quite tall, both for the 1st century, the time the shroud is purported to be from, and for the Middle Ages, the time of its purported fabrication"? Am I the only person who knows what purport means? I'll give you a clue: it doesn't mean "alleged" or "supposed".
Disagree on both counts. Radiocarbon Dating has its own article and it's in the nature of expository writing on controversial subjects to devote more space to what may be wrong with certain allegedly definitive conclusions. You don't give the reader a good sense of the controversy by rehearsing the merits of techniques like C-14 dating, you do it by delving into the specific objections made in this case. Also, "purported" is perfect in the sentence you cite ("1 : to have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming (something implied or inferred) <a book that purports to be an objective analysis>; also : CLAIM <foreign novels which he purports to have translated -- Mary McCarthy> 2 : INTEND, PURPOSE , or implied"— Merriam-Webster). You slipped up by applying the meaning of "purport" as a noun, but here it is used as a transitive verb. JDG
  • Support. It is a significant item in world culture. Arguments are presented both ways. I think that the "art analysis" paragraph is the weakest part. It would be good to get something quantifiable there. (A name or two...) But I don't see that as an obstacle to acceptance as a featured article, i.e. it would be good, but not "it would be imperative".
  • Oppose. It should be clearly stated that modern methods could date the shroud with fair certainty, but the owners refuse to permit access. (William M. Connolley 19:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
  • Support. But could you explicitly indicate your references, particularly for the "General Observations" and "History" sections? If these sections generally follow Picknett and Prince, those sections should be so cited--at the end of "General Observations" and at the beginning of "History" would be enough. For myself, I found the article Neutral Enough in point of view. That is, I did not feel that the text was unfairly asking me--or a hypothetical high school student-- to believe. After all, the article is documenting what is, in my opinion, a very superstitious, dangerous, and irrational part of humanity. But I thought the article did a good job in presenting reality; part of that reality is the superstition. And if I come to this page, I would want to know the depth of the darkness of the superstition about the Shroud; the page gave me that--and with good balance from the opposition. In addition, I felt that any hypothetical high school student who would come to this page and feel pressured to believe would deserve the cruel fate of becoming a believer; it would be his or her own fault and weakness--because I thought the Shroud of Turin page gave just the right balance that, in my opinion, manifests what Neutral Point of View should be in Wikipedia. ---Rednblu 19:57, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I didn't even get to the end. You know it's POV when a section on scientific analysis gives a brief description of the method (one line) followed by a long refutation (three paragraphs). Especially when the refutation involves resurrection-related neutron bombardments. By all means report on people's beliefs but keep the pseudo-scientific babble for your church picnic. Rory 20:04, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think it's particularly well written and the image may be a copyvio. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • If it is a fraud, then it is a non-copyrighted painting, so that a photo lacks artistic expression and is public domain (at least under U.S. law). If it's real, then copyright is an issue. You can't have it both ways. :-) [It shouldn't be too hard to get a beyond all doubt non-copyrighted image of the item in any case, since there were public displays in 1997 and 2000. Or was photography forbidden in the chapel? (I didn't make it there to see it in person...)] - Mpolo 07:54, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Some sections are quite POV, beyond a reasonable standard. Furthermore, many of the scientific objections seem to be related parenthetically, rather than on their own. It's death by a thousand cuts, rather than any specific looming infraction. Plus, as related above, the writing isn't anywhere near what I would call prose. Just because it's an important subject, and the article had lots of words, doesn't mean that it's deserving of a Featured Article status. --Gregb 05:02, 18 Sep

2004 (UTC)


I have substantially rewritten the article (before I had not been involved, other than one or two minor edits). The material is (mostly) the same, but I hope that the presentation is less controversial. I'd appreciate commentary -- is it better, is it worse, etc. The new version currently lives at Shroud of Turin/temp. -- Mpolo 14:41, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

The changes look OK to me. I did some copyediting, to remove some lingering POV wording.--Johnstone 01:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Support (Mpolo re-write). Compared to every other encyclopedia article and website I've seen on this subject, the article is a truly comprehensive, yet succinct presentation of theories and facts regarding the Shroud, and it compares nicely to many other FA articles. If it weren't on a controversial subject, my guess is that it would easily be accepted for FA status. As for the lack of direct references, many of the claims and counterclaims made in the article are widely known and available, and simple reference to an author, theorist, etc., would seem to be sufficient. However, if it is deemed that each and every theory and fact must have a "properly cited source," then this same criteria must be applied to all FA candidates. To do otherwise would not be neutral, which brings up the following:
It seems to me that there should be a standard, comprehensive checklist of criteria that every FA candidate must, at a minimum, meet—perhaps Wikipedia:The perfect article. (Previously existing FA articles can be grandfathered, but should be conspicuously labeled as having not been reviewed to the current standards.) Similarly, there should be a mandatory list of "unacceptable objections." Such lists will serve to limit the number of unready candidates, and the blocking of worthy candidates by spurious or invalid objections.
For example, an objection based on calling an article biased, without giving specific examples of how it is biased, is invalid, isn't it? It's equivalent to saying "the article is incomplete," but not stating how so. It's impossible to address, and could be used to veto any article.--Johnstone 01:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I applaud Mpolo's effort to whip the article into shape, and it's definitely getting better from the abysmal state it was in before, but I still have to oppose. Lack of references for scientific claims is a major problem right now - I want to know which journal published a certain positive or negative study, whether it is peer reviewed, and what other articles the same journal publishes, for example. This is particuarly important where the article makes claims in a very authoritarian style (including Mpolo's version), such as in the "Painting" section (why can the observed effect not simply be caused by aging?). Furthermore, I'm not sure if you're talking about anyone specifically in your rant, but my objections above were quite specific. So if you have suggestions about the FAC process, please take them to the talk page rather than to unrelated articles.--Eloquence*
I found some more information about the main group scientists supporting painting for the image formation process and provided a summary of their work and the journal names where they published their results. I also located three of the other articles (and linked them) that were discussed or alluded to in the article. Are there any more references missing? (I don't think we can realistically hope to provide an analysis of the scientific character of every journal cited -- is this done in any other article on Wikipedia?) With these changes the page has hit 30kb.--Mpolo 07:49, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Here's the current issues I have with your version:
1) The shroud is in the public domain - why do we only have a face portion, and a negative rendering instead of both? Surely one of the shroud enthusiasts can provide a high resolution scan and then we can look at specific portions, like the hands, to highlight things like stains so that the reader can get an impression of the so-called "wounds".
2) The article is curiously silent on the many other shrouds which were venerated throughout the Dark Ages. This SI article [3] cites a source saying there were "at least forty-three 'True Shrouds"'. Surely this needs to be discussed at greater detail.
3) So does the testimony of Pierre D'Arcis, of which we currently only have the two words "cunningly painted". The previously linked SI article has more background.
4) "sometimes citing Occam's razor as if it were a logical proof" part is mega-POV. This is the typical rhetoric that has slipped into this article. It's accusational style instead of citing real views by real people.
5) "so that it could not be produced by ordinary" .. is again POV, see my earlier comment.
6) "science-based theory" part about decomposing body - how on Earth does that support the "authenticity" of the shroud as being the image of Jesus Christ? There is an important distinction between the Shroud being an image of Jesus or the shroud being an image of someone.
7) "This explanation, however, does not address the near-photographic quality of the image" - uh-huh. And where exactly have we neutrally established that "near-photographic quality"? Delete or attribute. "by resurrection or otherwise" totally silly.
8) "but the micro-analysis seems to indicate" - why "but"? We have not established that there's any causal relationship that justifies this "but".
9) "Further doubt on the results was cast" not neutral. Among whom? Attribute, backup etc.
10) "A seam in the cloth corresponds only to a fabric found at the fortress of Masada near the Dead Sea, which dated to the first century." According to whom?
11) "The linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or sewing techniques which would speak against its origin as a high-quality product of the textile workers of the first century." - Source? What evidence speaks for it? What's the difference in techniques over the century and where's the evidence to back that up?
12) "this was not common knowledge in the Middle Ages so that a forger would be unlikely to deviate from the common depiction." - according to whom was it not common knowledge? Who's done a survey of crucifixion paintings to back up that statement?
13) "identified them as AB blood" - no sources here either.
14) Regarding blood, why is there no dark blood at all? Surely during a crucifixion you have bleeding wounds.
15) Sudarium section - entirely one-sided. Skeptical view?
16) Digital image processing section has no sources, poor style.
17) "artistic style" section adopts the POV it attributes ("almost three-dimensional").
18) Now according to that section, the painting does correspond to Christian iconography and that is cited as evidence in favor. Earlier the non-correspondence (nailed wrists) was cited as evidence in favor. So it seems like we're using a special brand of logic here where anything we turn up can be used as evidence in favor of our hypothesis. Entirely glossing over this contradiction is not acceptable and looks silly.
19) "Given concerns about the destructive nature" - we adopt Vatican POV here. This always has to be attributed, as skeptics will contend that the true motive of the Vatican is to prevent the forgery from being definitely proven (as if three independent tests weren't enough).
With regard to the references, I do not want an assessment of their quality, but I want full citations at the bottom of the article so that I can do that assessment myself. A full citation includes: 1) Author(s), 2) Title of journal, 3) Title of article, 4) Year 5) Volume/Number, 6) page(s). Most of the factual claims currently lack a full citation, and citations are carelessly strewn across the article itself, instead of sorting them at the bottom and referencing them in the article. A proper references section is a definite requirement.
Now, I am sure JDG will object to much of your changes and many of my suggested changes as well. This means that the article is in a state of flux with great differences of opinion about what is and isn't neutral. As long as these differences aren't amicably resolved, it's a really bad idea to consider this a "featured article". I do want this article to eventually become featured, but not by pushing it through in the aggressive manner JDG is trying to do, but by finding a mutually acceptable version.--Eloquence*
Although my remarks weren't really intended toward yours, thanks for delineating your objections; it's allowed them to be addressed.--Johnstone 01:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've just tried to address all of this... (Since there's a dispute about whether the photos are public domain, I have asked permission at a shroud site.) Are there any missing citations left? -- Mpolo 14:40, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
You've done a lot of good work and it's definitely turning into a solid, NPOV article now. The main thing I would focus on right now is getting the /temp version to be the actual main article, then I'd say we should continue the discussion on the talk page for a couple of weeks, and then, if everyone is happy, renominate the article here. How does that sound?--Eloquence*
Sounds like a good idea from my point of view, but I still stand by my nomination for now. However, if the majority feels it would be better to let the dust settle then I'll go along with that. Just because an article is controversial doesn't mean it's not good :-) Zerbey 16:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I read it through and didn't find it biased to one side or the other. Clearly presented the issues and both sides of the argument. There does need, it seems, to include more of the various detailed theories concerning how the image itself got onto the cloth. In particular I'm refering to that one scientist (can't remember his name) that claims that the 'blood' residue contained paint pigment in it.
  • Object. I found the article rather POV (and not just one POV: witness purported) and had some serious concerns with the structure. In partucular, the history section is mainly concerned with something (Cloth of Edessa) that many well not have been the shroud at all (only radiocarbon dating could confirm this) and then tails off into strings of short single-sentence paragraphs. and as for this: '(No scientific evidence can ever rule out a miracle, which makes scientific investigation of "miracles" somewhat quixotic).'. Well, really! Filiocht 15:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Mpolo has certainly done a fine job with his rewrite, and I feel this should be merged into the main article. The question remains, do other Wikipedians think this article is still too controversial for FAC status? Zerbey 16:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That was never, ever the issue, Zerbey.--Eloquence*
  • I admit, I hate to disagree with an editor who refers to me as "esteemed," though goodness knows where that adjective came from, but the article isn't featured quality yet -- I was wrong in April, and I admit it. Mpolo's proposal is a good one, but it still needs work, and frankly if we're still writing temp editions of an article, it's not ready to feature. I believe, though, that with a little more work citing specific sources, and a little more attention to NPOV, the article will be ready. I do not see the apparently glaring POV problems that others see, though I won't speculate as to why that is. I didn't make a secret before (nor do I now) that I am very skeptical of the radiocarbon dating done on the Shroud, and that I believe it likely the cloth is of ancient origin. Some of the evidence for this is circumstantial, and therefore should be given little attention here. Much, however, is worthwhile, especially the questions of the bacterial layer, and the dispute over how the image was formed. I hate to invoke the spectre of Mother Teresa, but unlike that situation, this is an article where there are many reputable sources arguing on both sides. if we cite from each side extensively, there's no reason this article can't be ready to feature soon. Soon. But not this time around. I will do my best to aid the editing once Mpolo's version is pushed live, but I don't have many books at my disposal: I'll see how I can help. I'm glad the article has received so much attention here -- many hands make light work. I hope you all will consider helping build a consensus version of the article which will succeed here in the future. Jwrosenzweig 20:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
jeezsh, I can't win by being nice either. I think your first impulse was right, JWR. NPOV is a very slippery creature, and doubly so in such an antennae-raising topic. Antennae twitched and certain folks came rushing onto the scene. I take their concerns seriously but do not automatically vaunt them over agnostic and religious voices. I hope you don't either. JDG 21:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Given the fairly clear statement I made about my opinion of the Shroud's origins and the reasonably open declaration on my user page, I think you'd be wise to avoid implying that I'm somehow a cheerleader for atheist concerns here. :-) I doubt very much that either Eloquence or Wetman (who supports the featuring, it seems to me) thinks of me as an ally on religious matters! Therefore I do what I can to be sure I act fairly towards all perspectives, so that no one believes that I'm being biased against them for religious reasons (and I hope anyone here would confront me if they felt I was showing favoritism). I am not "vaunting" anyone's perspective over anyone else's. I merely recognize valid concerns. I think the article is good and generally fair. I think it is still insufficiently NPOV to stand as a shining example of Wikipedia. I think it's awfully close. And I appreciate your niceness, which I don't think has "lost" you anything, JDG. On the contrary, I think it does you credit. But we have some excellent editors here on sacred topics (Mkmcconn, Wesley, Hawstom, Ihcoyc, Visorstuff, Bonomojo, and several more I can't recall), and they set a high standard which the shroud article just hasn't quite reached yet. If I may offer advice, I'd focus energy on improving the article and working to get some of these reject voters to change their minds by addressing some of their concerns with well-placed edits -- the nomination isn't going to succeed at this point, and I think trying any more to push it through will only frustrate you. I'm sorry my earlier vote led you to assume my support on this issue, but I try to be self-critical and willing to change my mind....a "flip-flopper", in some people's eyes, I guess, but personally I wouldn't live any other way. Jwrosenzweig 22:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object- This is clearly too controversial to be promoted now. The rewrite is much better, but I think it should have some time to settle, maybe a spell on Peer review then re-nominate. - Taxman 17:31, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed (and super work). Wait two weeks, perhaps. +sj+ 20:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

History of Australia before 1901[edit]

An extremely good overview, excellent prose and as far as I can see doesn't appear to miss many things. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. 1) No picture. 2) It's pretty weak on the post-1820 period, with the gold rushes and the important birth of trade unionism getting about two paragraphs and two sentences respectively. 3) It doesn't mention federation at all. 4) It's fairly long, and particularly if the later period was given as detailed coverage as the earlier periods, is likely to need breaking down into a series of smaller articles. 5) No references. Ambi 15:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • 1. & 2. So noted, I request this article to be placed in peer review for assistance. 3. Federation is in the article History of Australia since 1901. 4. Good idea. Again, on to peer review. 5. Will look through history and start messaging contributors for references they used for the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I think it might be worth taking this off here, and trying to rebuild it as a larger project, as the Americans have done. I've been interested in doing it myself, but haven't got around to it. The timeline was my first step there, and if you do decide to break it up (time constraints willing), I'll do my very best to help out. And just a note about federation: federation itself might have happened in 1901, but it was a major issue for at least the decade before that, with numerous conventions, referendums, etc. I can't see how any history of Australia that ends in 1901 could be complete without mention of the whole leadup to federation. Ambi 13:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. It could be that the whole history of Australia needs to be totally reorganised. Dividing it by date this way does seem fairly dopey. What's the procedure for moving this nomination to peer review? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok Soda[edit]

Self Nom. The images are fair use, but analagous to the images in the Coca-Cola article, which was featured a few weeks ago. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:30, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Well, since what you put up here was initially a red link and I had to create the redirect to OK Soda (the real article) myself, my first question is whether all necessary redirects from similar variants have been created. Also, I dislike the long bulleted list of testing areas, which gives undue prominence to what seems ultra-trivial information. But the real problem is that the article feels unbalanced, weighing heavily towards the marketing part of the story and providing only skeletal information on other subjects. I realize some of the needed context may be buried in the corporate vaults, but if the article is truly about the soda and not just the story of a GenX-marketing flop, then it's too incomplete to be featured. --Michael Snow 21:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oops, thanks for fixing the link Mike. What subjects other than marketing and history do you think are relevant? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:56, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Well, here are some questions the article triggers in my mind that might be interesting to explore and could broaden the context of the article:
  1. What exactly does "did not test well" mean? Did people dislike the taste? Were sales in the test markets disappointing? Did the drink appeal to the "wrong" demographic vis-a-vis the ad campaign?
  2. Does this episode play any significant part in the history of the Coca-Cola Corporation? For example, did it precipitate an organizational shakeup or did anyone get fired?
  3. A variety of other niche drinks (Jolt Cola, Red Bull, etc.) have emphasized higher-than-normal caffeine levels with varying success. Did this play any role for OK Soda - did it have extra caffeine, did it try to market on this issue, would any of this have helped save the idea?
I guess in terms of balance, it bothers me that the article has multiple second-level headings, one of which (marketing) is very long and has several subheadings, while the others are all two or three sentences. And marketing isn't even the first one presented, with the rest as afterthoughts. --Michael Snow 04:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Originally the "Testing" heading was under "History". Looking at it now, I think that section could be moved under history again, as well as the "Cult Following" heading. Of course Coke's regime has been shaken up several times since OK Soda, but I can't say how much of that was due to the failure of OK Soda. Even New Coke, which was a much bigger failure in terms of money did not cause any immediate firings ([4]). --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:36, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Tintin[edit]

I came across this today. It is in my opinion very well written and inclusive, and I cannot find any problems with it. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 09:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now a partial self-nomination, as I've been editing it to get it up to FA stats. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 09:52, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, regrettably (I like the article, it needs improving). Specifically:
1. Shouldn't this be under "The adventures of Tintin", with a redirect to "Tintin"? It's not primarily about the character Tintin, it's about the comic book series. The bolded text in the lead section bares witness to this.
Agreed. But I do not think enough could be said about the character Tintin to merit an article: he is too good to be interesting! {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 14:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Can't be moved, should be done by an admin. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 14:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) Been done!
2.The lead section is written in two sentence paragraphs. Perhaps this could be coalesced into a single paragraph to give only the bare essence of the article with a few relevant interesting "gee, that's interesting" facts thrown in. Any other extraneous information could be (and in fact probably should be) distributed into the story.
3. Tintin#Tintin The first sentence should not be the lead sentence, as it looks awkward when you read this and then read the next sentence. When I first read it I thought I was reading repeated information (which I hadn't - this was only my initial impression). In fact, it should not be a one sentence paragraph as this is not well-written prose.
I hope this is better as I've reorganised some of the text. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4. Tintin#Captain Haddock - same as comment above.
5. Tintin#Professor Cuthbert Calculus (Professeur Tryphon Tournesol) "It's widely admitted that the Calculus character was inspired by Auguste Piccard" - who admits this? Herge, or others?
6. Tintin#Thompson and Thompson (Dupont et Dupond) "They also provided the name for 1980s synthesizer band The Thompson Twins — who had three members. Ironically, their characters were based on his actual father and brother, both of which wore matching bowlers." Say what? the band's characters of the Thompson Twins were based on "his" (who's?) father and brother... I think you get my drift.
Very good points. I've made some edits to try and address them. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 14:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempts at modifying the text, but there are still one sentence paragraphs here. Could you expand the text somewhat or rewrite this prose to remove these? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) I figure this may be as good as it can get. Withdrawing this objection for the time being. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
7. Surely we can have more pictures? I'm not saying use gratuitous amounts of images... I'm just saying some good scans images of the characters would be good. For instance, an image of Thompson and Thompson in full "native" gear would be amusing and illustrative. In humour you could (possibly) add the bit where Thompson and Thompson win the an air stunt race accidently... all illustrative of the points in the article. - due to image copyright concerns, I'm withdrawing this objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And presumably all copyright? Filiocht 12:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not under fair use, however we'd need to make sure that they were for educational purposes, don't detract from or devalue the original work (unlikely), and also transform that original work into our own original material. So good captions are a must. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm very nervous about the idea of claiming fair use outside the USA. And Tintin is definitely that. Filiocht 13:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, hate to tell you this, but the image of Tintin and Snowy on the page is marked as fair use. I was forced to mark it as this because the French Tintin image was marked as fairuse. You know, however, this raises an interesting point. Surely other countries have some sort of fair use legislation? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Have a look here and here. I'm no lawyer, but as I read it, there is effectively no fair use provision in Europe. Filiocht 13:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is something I'm trying to establish on helpdesk. Even so, some of the Tintin comics were published in America, which does have fair use legislation. French legislation would not cover these books, surely? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I think the articles linked to in Tintin#Minor characters should really be merged into this article and redirected to The Adventures of Tintin - they just don't warrant their own article. This only effects my support because there are links to them. Just my $0.02 and doesn't affect my object/supports in any way. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. What about placing them all in Minor characters in Tintin, after articles like Minor characters in Star Wars? {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 12:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Could be a good idea. Not sure... - Ta bu shi da yu 13:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Now done. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 22:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't know that discussion to promote getting an article to "featured" status had to go hear. I was putting it on the article's talk page! Maybe this needs to be made clearer? At any rate, I think it's a very good idea to have this article featured considering how well in-depth it goes. There are some articles that just touch the surface of several aspects of that topic, not going into depth of any of them, making them poor articles.
--Fern 23:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So we'll put you down for a support then Fern? (hint: place a Support at the start of your comment). - Ta bu shi da yu 15:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, put me down for support. As I said, there's things that are unclear to me (such as this)
--Fern 18:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is well written, and very interesting. I think perhaps we should contact the Fondation Hergé and ask for permission to use more images; they have granted permission to other websites (unfortunately, the images won't be usable by Wikipedia mirrors). --Xiaopo 23:09, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Further objections:
    • The sentence "The only time this deviated was in the last published album, Tintin and the Picaros, he changes his daily garment, wearing brown jeans and loafers." is not accurate. See http://www.tintinologist.org/articles/clothes.html for a detailed list of his clothing. Could someone with the Tintin collection verify this and update the facts?
    • I reread the article and the prose is not the best. There are far too many one sentence paragraphs and awkward statements. These would need to be improved before the article could be considered after some relative minor modifications, this looks a lot better. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • More examples of humour might be nice in the humour section. This is not such a massive objection.
    • Comment: Race and Colonialism seems to summarise The ideology of Tintin, which is itself incomplete. Perhaps if this article could be made more complete and then resummarised in the story this would be better.
    • Captain Haddock has a footnote in it, but I can't see what this references in the article!
    • Books - could we have dates published, along with original publishers, also the translated texts and their publishers and publishd dates?
      • I'll try, hard to do: in many cases stories originally appeared in 20th Vingtieme. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 09:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Tintin in the New World: A Romance sounds interesting. Can we have more info?
    • Comment: Should the sentence "Belgium minted a limited-edition (50,000) silver 10-euro commemorative coin to celebrate the 75th birthday of Tintin in January 2004." be under See also? Also, maybe an image of the coin would be nice. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I had an image of the coin up the day the news came out, but it was taken off because (I think) it was copyrighted by Asociated Press. Also, most (if not all) of the albums were originally published by Casterman in French, so it probably would not be a good idea to put the publisher.
--Fern 18:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps we could just note this somewhere in the article? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I added a note on the stamp plus a quick scan. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 09:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FC Porto[edit]

Very well done. Short and concise. Great info. Great presentation. Joao Campos 04:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. It's 90% list and the description is short and poor. →Raul654 05:06, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. The article is too brief for such an illustrious team as FC Porto. How about picking up several memorable games? The entire latter half is a list of its archievement and not really organized. For example, "Famous Players" is not even alphabetized and many players simply have their nicknames listed. A man like Deco can be left as he is, he is well known with that name, but who is Diego? There must be a lot of football players named Diego and it is very confusing. Revth 05:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • In addition to the remarks by Raul and Revth, I can add that this article doesn't discuss the other sports from this club, apart from a brief mention in the lead section. So either this article should be renamed to FC Porto (Football) or so, or the other sports should get a better treatment. Regarding the objection from Revth: I do think Diego is accurate, since that is simply the name by which he is known (just like Pelé, Ronaldo, Romario or Deco). Jeronimo 07:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, I simply thought Diego can be someone else as it is a popular name in Portugese or Spanish countries and confusing. It's okay. Revth 16:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Far too much lists, too little description. The other clubs have now been added but only get the absolutely briefest of mentions, would like to see a separate section for these. No detail on famous players as positions or discussion about who was there the longest, recieved greatest support from supporters, was the biggest influence. Would like to see something about the financial position of the club (now and in the past) and possibly something about its interaction with the community (eg. supporters). MarkS 12:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Che Guevara[edit]

Comprehensive, yet concise; the essence of encyclopedic. Excellent NPOV, particularly so for a subject of such legendary proportions (and the article does address this legend). --Lensim 01:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The writing is generally good and covers most of what it should, at least it seems to me, as someone who knew nothing about him before. But there are many places where the writing is confusing, assuming the reader knows something they may not, or simply skips over important connections. Examples include the first sentence in the Cuba section that needs to be restructured to be clear who "the two" are. I assume, the paragraph in that section starting "Shortly..." means Niquero is in Cuba, but only the section heading leads to that conclusion. Also the section involving Felix Rodriguez fails to mention, but implies he was directly involved in the execution, etc. There are many others that would take another reading through the article to find. I'll fix as many as I can, but not being familiar with the subject, some of them I can't fix. - Taxman 15:36, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
I agree, these holes should be filled before Che reaches FA status. Another victory for the FAC process. But these edits seem fairly minor and the community should be able to iron out these chinks fairly quickly. I will re-read the article and pay particularly close attention to confusing nouns, pronouns and assumptions of subject familiarity. --Lensim 17:57, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. My earlier objections have not been addressed. See [5]. Jeronimo 17:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If I read correctly, you have three objections: the infobox, the image Image:Felix Ismael Rodriguez.jpg and the image Image:Che guevara black and white bust photograph.jpg.
  • I like the infobox. It provides accurate info quickly; i.e. it does the job an encyclopedia is supposed to do. I see it was deleted per your original objection on 12 July 2004, but restored on 28 August 2004 by a different party, thus indicating community support for the infobox. If your concern is one of standardization, would you consider keeping the infobox in the article and proposing a biography infobox template at infobox?
  • The images are a problem for the Che Guevara article and its impending FA status. The Felix Rodriguez photo is particularly suspect. We should give them a little more time for copyright verification, but I propose removing them from the article if Che Guevara fails the FAC process again.
--Lensim 18:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I have to admit, I don't like the infobox at all. I don't know how it looks on other browsers, but it is extremely wide in Internet Explorer on WinXP, a "fairly common" configuration (actually, it looksl ike crap in Firefox too, now that I check). (not a vote) --Fastfission 02:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Object (to the box). I fixed the stretchiness in Firefox (which is what happens when you try to fit too much stuff in them), but the whole idea of trying to fit Che into a box doesn't work: "Occupation: Physician"? Markalexander100 08:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Object to the infobox; I strongly dislike all bio infoboxes, but this one is particularly ugly and cumbersome. Everyking 12:44, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Occam's Razor[edit]

After nearly three years of editing, this should be a featured article. The article's recent history is somewhat disappointing, however. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 15:05, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose: the table of content looks like a mess. Pcarbonn 15:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for same reason as Pcarbonn. Could do with a reorganisation. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: the toc has clearly been fixed. Filiocht 14:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Within the article, we should settle on one spelling for "Occam's Razor/Ockham's Razor" and for William of Ockham's name (right now it depends on which editor worked on which paragraph or even sentence). Also the Religion section starts into an excursus on the history of Occam's Razor that has little connection to the context. That section also tends in the direction of applying the Razor as a logical principle rather than a methodological principle. Mpolo 14:38, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Prose is too dense and difficult. Take for example this single sentence: In the latter case there are three examples from the history of science where the simpler of two competing theories each of which explains all the observed phenomena has been chosen over its ontologically bloated competitor: the Copernican heliocentric model of celestial mechanics over the Ptolemaic geocentric model, the mechanical theory of heat over the Caloric theory, and the Einsteinian theory of electromagnetism over the luminiferous aether theory. Huh? I thought we are writing for people who have no background on the subject and field. Stbalbach 01:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dog[edit]

The dog article is great and should be a featured article. We have a article about mixed breed dogs already, but this is a great article too.--Gamingboy 21:51, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. With regards to the references, they were originally also further reading. Which was a reference, and which should be general reading? Which parts of the article were references via these books and journal articles? Aren't their other excellent dog books that people can recommend? Also, the quotation seems incongruous to the story. Should this be there at all? Incidently, I don't mean to sound very negative about this article. It's a great article, and I in particular was impressed by the bit about chocolate and dogs. I had no idea! I'd really like to give my support to this article... :-) Ta bu shi da yu 12:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Removed long quote. Elf | Talk 19:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • object. excessive number of sections containing only one paragraph --Jiang 05:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • chgd a few subheads to list intros. Probably more to do. Elf | Talk 19:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The lead section doesn't give an overview of the article, but only discusses the use of the word "dog", the formal name, and some other names. This should be a section on use of the word, and the lead should give an overview. (Also, "Dogs as well as cats are often kept as pets." should be changed; there's no reason for mentioning cats here and not mentioning rabbits, goldfish or other pets). 2) The "Ancestry and history of domestication" fails to explain the differences between wolves and dogs. There is nothing about how the dogs were domesticated, and if it only happened in Europe, or also elsewhere (and it seems incorrect to conclude that one grave in Denmark makes dogs important all over Europe). 3) Dogs refers to domestic dog (according to the lead), so what it this discussion about living in packs? 4) "800 being recognised by national dog clubs". This is a world-wide encyclopedia, not a national one. 5) What about naming some breeds? Is there a "List of dog breeds" article to refer to? Surely at least some examples can be mentioned? Also, how did these hugely differing breeds (from chihuahua to Danish Dog) came to be? 6) There is no discussion of what a dog looks like. This may be straightforward, but I don't think any animal article can do without a good description of the animal in question. 7) As Jiang points out, there are several sections with only one paragraph. Most of these topics need either more information on them, or they can be merged with other sections. 8) The quotation is perhaps best moved to WikiQuote. 9) I miss a dicussion of the place of dogs in modern society. Problems and topics such as dog doo, stray dogs, dog asylums, people leaving their dogs behind when going on holiday, dangerous dog breeds being outlawed, etc. Jeronimo 07:17, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Good suggestions for topics. I've got a list myself. Don't know whether someone has time to write them. 1) Removed odd nonsequitur "dogs kept as pets" sentence. 4) chgd phrasing to "various kennel clubs worldwide". 5) Linked "over 800" breeds to List of dog breeds--but this & many other topics are available thru category:dogs and/or List of dog topics and I hate to reproduce those lists here again. 8) Removed quote; is already in Byron article which can be gotten to via dog category->famous dogs->byron's dog->byron. Elf | Talk 19:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Regarding 3): Dogs are pack animals by instinct. This completely affects their relationships with other dogs and with the humans with whom they reside. I thought that the article states that fairly clearly. If not, maybe you can point out how that essence is missed? Elf | Talk 19:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Google[edit]

This is a huge article, with stuff about the company, the technology, the controversy and more! I think this would be a great Featured Article!--Gamingboy 15:07, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Needs much longer section about criticism, particularly criticism about G-Mail. Also, needs section about holiday logos. And those inline external links need to be removed. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 15:21, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The image with the caption "graphic representation of the world wide web around Google" has no relation to the section where it's placed. In fact, it doesn't seem to be relevant to the article at all. Also, the sections on additional tools and services should be moved to a separate article. Fredrik | talk 17:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Object: I'm not convinced that the sections on additional tools need to be a separate article. However, currently, the article seems to be confused about whether it's about Google, Inc. (the company) or www.google.com (the search engine created by the company). Even the first sentence ("Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) is a U.S.-based search engine") shows this confusion -- search engines are pieces of software, and do not have stock ticker symbols. It's possible that this would be best dealt with by splitting into two articles (Google and Google Inc.), but it might be possible to simply rewrite the article to make the distinctions clear. -- Creidieki 02:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. I think they should be split. Google has other services besides search which may become more important as time moves on. The Google inc site could discuss their IPO, executives, ticker symbol etc. While Google search could be about the technology and the culture around it. Like the way Xerox is seperate from xerography. BrokenSegue 19:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • This article certainly doesn't need a full list of all national Googles. What's the use of that? Jeronimo 08:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree. -- Creidieki 04:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Article actually needs a good deal more content in order to help disambiguate some of these issues. Also, better sectioning; currently a bit confusing. Better history and background would also be nice -- what was it like before it was Google? How has this affected Stanford? Ongoing collaboration with the university, etc. +sj+

Fair use[edit]

It's an interesting part of copyright law, and very well written. It's referenced on a ton of our images, also! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. A comprehensive and well-written document, but of limited interest to those not associated with Wikipedia. Denni 01:21, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
    • i dont see much self-referencing so i don't see a legitimate objection. having "limited interest to those not associated with Wikipedia" doesn't sound like a reason. --Jiang 02:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This objection is not actionable, and is therefore invalid. →Raul654 03:00, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree, it's not of limited interest to those outside of Wikipedia. It's of great interest to those who use websites, encyclopedias, publish quotations for criticism, etc, etc. If it's comprehensive and well-written, how do you want me to action this? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This article concerns a facet of law in the United States. The title should either reflect this Fair Use in United States Copyright Law, or the article should cover similar doctrines in other countries (such as fair dealing in the UK....) GWO 15:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't understand... is there a country other than the U.S. that has fair use legal doctrine? If there is, then this is a fair and valid objection. If not, then I don't see the point of moving it. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes. Australia, for one, uses the terms Fair Use and Fair Dealing pretty much interchangeably [6] [7] The title is too broad for this narrowly scoped article GWO
      • The first sentence of the article - "The fair use doctrine ... provides for limitations and exceptions to copyright protection in the United States. - would seem to suggest that it is limited only to the US, in which case this objection is just plain silly. →Raul654 22:14, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Dabbawala[edit]

This article is well-written and informative, and a great example of the sort of insight into other cultures that make Wikipedia a joy. DJ Clayworth 15:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Interesting topic, but the article's not of FA-standard. 1) POV (e.g. "would baffle anyone") and several difficult to verify statements ("a very nominal fee"). 2) Picture has no source or copyright information on it's image page; it could be copyrighted judging by the caption text. 3) No references (there apparently has been an article in Forbes magazine at least) 4) Use of non-standard bold for "Forbes" and "Six Sigma" 5) The article's short and - more important - misses vital information, f.e.: is this a job only occurring in Mumbai, or also elsewhere in India? When did these Dabbawala's first occur? Is the need for Dabbawala's still growing, with freezers and microwave ovens making it much easier to cook food at an appropriate time? Etc. Jeronimo 21:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cell (biology)[edit]

Informative, fascinating subject. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Withdrawing my nomination as it's soon to get a major reeditting. Which tag do we use?

  • Object. One sentence sections such as Cell_(biology)#Human_body_cells and Cell_(biology)#Moving_of_proteins should not exist. This article is far from complete and comprehensive. --Jiang 04:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree with Jiang the current article is very sketchy and unbalanced (good material on the origin of cells is unbalanced by telegraphically written non-prose information on the structure of cells). I am in the process of completely rewriting and integrating it with some nicely written material from science primer published by the NCBI (public domain), at User:Lexor/Temp/Cell (biology). I hope to get this done in the next few days. It will preserve as much as possible of the old material, and will include some (but certainly not all: it would be too much) of the NCBI material. When it is done, I propose renomination. --Lexor|Talk 07:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent. Perhaps I could withdraw this objection (er, brainfart, I meant candidacy)? How to I go about doing this? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Strike it over using <s>strike</s>. — David Remahl 08:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Um, you mean withdraw my objection, only I can withdraw my own objection! ;-) --Lexor|Talk 09:16, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Beslan school massacre[edit]

For something this recent, I'm pretty impressed. Here we have a detailed and neutral presentation of events, and I believe, something well worthy of featured article status. Ambi 14:14, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. I don't know if it is common to feature ongoing or recent event articles, but this is well written with good links. func(talk) 19:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, if the diagram image by wikibob could be cleaned up a little (no offense to Wikibob). - Ta bu shi da yu 23:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure my objection is valid, but I think the topic of this article has occurred to short ago. This is not an actionable objection, so I'll formulate it in slightly more actionable ones, more specically: 1) There's a lot of information that should be in this article that isn't, simply because this is not yet known. It isn't even known how many died or were injured. The "Who were the hostage-takers?" is another example of this problem. 2) On the other hand, there's a lot of information that isn't really required for an encyclopedia article, cluttering the real information. These are tiny "facts" that are mostly irrelevant to the story, and were clearly added when the event in question was still going on, and when they might have been relevant. For example "One of the female suicide bombers detonated her explosive belt, apparently by mistake. No one around was injured." isn't relevant at all, and doesn't fit in with the rest of the story at all. 3) The external links are very "fragile", since many online newssites often remove their articles, or put them in the archive, which is for subscribers only. The translated article links are quite useless, the automatic translators aren't that good. -- For the record, I think what is currently in the article is quite good, but this topic needs to settle down before it can really cover the topic well. Before then, I don't think it should be featured. Jeronimo 18:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • A featured article should be "Be comprehensive". If there are gaping holes in the article (such as who the attackers were) - even if this information is not known yet - then this definitely isn't comprehensive, and as such is not yet feature worthy. →Raul654 22:43, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose This mainly an "hot" subject it lacks a lot inforamtion that are now published in the press. For instance(and despite my strong disproval of Rusian policy in Chenya), according to many witnesses it seems that the cruelty of the hostage-takers was terrific.

Ericd 21:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose for reasons stated above; more information will be available in the future. It is a good article, but too recent to be complete. --Tothebarricades.tk 17:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think newness, or the changing nature of the article content, should be at issue here. If someone writes a brilliant piece on an event from yesterday, we should be happy to feature it, even if in another month it changes so much that it is unrecognizable (it will amost certainly continue to be brilliant, if in a different way... but if not, one can always remove it). One of the greatest things WP has to offer is very timely, highly-detailed content. +sj+ 20:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nothing Else Matters[edit]

(self nomination) Nominated by Army1987 →Raul654 19:51, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

  • No explanation for why this should be considered? I personally think it's too short, it has one sentence paragraphs (my own personal bugbear) and it has no image. Incidently, I'm a fan of the song, not that this should come into consideration. Oppose. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are far better song articles on Wikipedia and this article, while not bad, doesn't live up to the standard set by them. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 18:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not interesting. Dunc_Harris| 19:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the same reasons listed above...too short, not interesting, etc. ~ FriedMilk 19:52, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good song, not a bad little article, but somewhat short and could do with an image — a still from the video? the album cover (ok, lighting the shot could be difficult)? Not an FAC yet, imho. — OwenBlacker 23:48, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Needs lots of work; not ready for FAC. +sj+

Baseball[edit]

Partial self-nom, as I've helped to reorganize and rewrite parts of it over the past few months. Its detail to rules has been cut down, (and preserved in appropriate articles) it has a brief history, and more notice is given to international and non-American baseball. Hasn't been nominated since May, I think. siroχo 07:30, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. I think it's a good article without becoming too detailed. Revth 08:18, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Minor nitpick, can the diagram of the baseball field be replaced with a bigger one? --Zerbey 02:35, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I increased the size, but maybe we just need a diagram with bigger words? siroχo 19:02, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • That would be a better solution, the image itself is blurry (or my eyesight isn't what it used to be, pick one!) Zerbey 13:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice pictures, links and references. One nitpick, the paragraph on strikes needs to be made clearer. It doesn't seem to fit with the paragraph before it, and I'm not sure when any of the other strikes referred to occurred or else I would fix it myself. - Taxman 03:44, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Tried to fix that up, I just don't want that section to grow too much. siroχo 19:02, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, although it really needs copyediting. Can someone just read through and fix minor issues like capitalization of proper nouns? Rhobite 04:38, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - Made a huge list of clarifications needed and disambiguations required in the Talk:Baseball page -- Please go through it. TOC is also lopsided. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]] 19:09, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
Just like to respond that there is no problem with a "lopsided" TOC, if the article is written in that way; myself and others will be working through your objections as we find appropriate. siroχo 02:10, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Very complete! Support. Sidenote: there does need to be a central History of baseball article to summarize and introduce the series of separate baseball history articles. But that is a separate issue. --mav 05:13, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The IBF-section would better be included in the history section. 2) The article is a bit America-centric. For example: "Since then baseball has enjoyed another surge in popularity.", "Both football and basketball use a clock", 3) For me (as a non-American), it seems that baseball statistics are a part of baseball, but they are not even discussed briefly (only links) 4) A brief discussion of the differences with softball (and perhaps other related sports) is missing. Otherwise, this is a fine article, and I will support once the issues listed have been resolved. Jeronimo 06:36, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Please see Talk:Baseball#Statistics and Baseball#Statistics, to see if i've dealt with #3 correctly. Regarding 2, I really can't help much aside from what I can find on the internet, since I'm an American. 4 might be good, although discussing differences with cricket or even rounders will be near impossible to do breifly (: siroχo 07:39, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm doing up an article mentioning the differences between the sports. Perhaps you can copyedit the baseball part? It is incomplete, and I will add further details tomorrow. Added the link already. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]] 20:44, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Statistics is dealt with nicely (and quickly!). As for point 2), this isn't hard even if you're an American. My first example could easily be written as "Since then, Major League Baseball has enjoyed..." or "...a surge of popularity in the United States". And the second example could be "Many other team sports use a clock", or, "Baseball doesn't use a clock, marking a major difference with other popular team sports in the US (basketball, football and (ice) hockey)". I'll work through the article myself to see if I can help (but not now). Jeronimo 07:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Objections: 1. I believe that the Manual of Style suggests, "Grammatical articles should be omitted from the beginning of heading titles. Not: The mammals. But: Mammals." This article contravenes this policy, using "The fielding team," "The team at bat" (which is incongruous: to be consistent, one must use "The batting team"), "The play of the game" and "The style of play." I would suggest, that the first two aforementioned be renamed "Defense" and "Offense"; "Defense" may be subdivided into "Pitching" (or, perhaps, "Pitching and Catching") and "Fielding"; Offense, similarly, may be divided into "Batting" and "Baserunning." 2. "Innings and determining a winner" could be retitled "Structure" or some such thing; the present title seems unwieldy. Furthermore, mention needs to be made of the rare case of forfieture of matches; I believe that in such cases, the score automatically becomes 9-0. 3. The article states, "Scoring became so low in the American League due to pitching dominance, that they implemented the Designated hitter rule, a rule now thought to be one of the main differences between the leagues." I believe that the rule is one of the main differences (given the abolition of the outside chest protectors); there is, I feel, no need to use the circumlocutous "now thought to be." 4. The article states, "If the batter puts the ball in play in fair territory, he must drop his bat and begin running to first base; at this point he has become a baserunner." I was unaware that dropping one's bat has become mandatory; perhaps someone could check the Official Rules. 5. The article states, "If the batter swings and makes contact with the ball, but does not put it in play in fair territory—a foul ball—he is charged with a strike, except when there are already two strikes." What about the bunt foul third strike? 6. "However, a batter may replace another team mate when the team is at bat, and is referred to as a pinch hitter, similarly, a pinch runner may be used as a replacement for a baserunner. The above two roles are not substitutions." Really? So, if player A is the leadoff hitter, and player B hits fourth, player A could just replace teammate B? This would entail changing the original lineup impermissibly. This statement needs to be checked. 7. NPOV issues arise. The article uses terminology such as "beautiful, leisurely game" and "sudden and fierce beneath." 8. The article uses numerals for numbers below eleven; in these instances, words should be used, except for measurements and scores. 9. The articles "paragraphs" are too short. It includes at least thirteen paragraphs with fewer than three sentences. 10. Cuba's dominance in the World Cup is mentioned, but the historical dominance in the Major Leagues of New York is not. 11. "In the United States, baseball has often been called the "national pastime", and the total attendance for Major League games is more than that of all other American professional sports combined." Surely, this is because each team plays 162 games each season? The article should make mention of the same. 12. The article refers in all cases only to individuals of the masculine gender (as in "his"); as females find themselves capable of playing the sport, "his or her," and the like, would be preferable. 13. The layout of images in the section "The play of the game" seems messy. 14. "The four bases are approximately one foot squares, sticking up from the ground forming a 90 foot (27.43 meter) square; they are numbered counter-clockwise." Home base, if I recall correctly, is not a square but a pentagon. 15. A few grammar problems exist in the article, and need to be addressed; one example is "Some hitters hit better with runners in scoring position, and the manager of the fielding team might simply elect to intentionally walk him and face a worse hitter." -- Emsworth 01:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I fixed all the <11 numerals. --Locarno 21:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Since your thing is so long, I'll use <s>,</s> to point out whats been fixed, if i have any remarks about it, i'll put it in talk:baseball siroχo 19:14, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Can see POV sticking through - see "It is a beautiful, leisurely game on the surface (some would say boring) but sudden and fierce beneath. Many people fail to recognize that baseball is a game of strategy and anticipation, as much as it is a game of skill and athleticism." - Ta bu shi da yu 08:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Removed "beautiful" and rephrased the sentences a bit. Edit, also removed "fierce" a while back. siroχo 19:14, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
    Do you have any other objections? I have dealt with this one. siroχo
  • Have the objections from the two previous FAC nominations ([8] and [9]) been addressed? →Raul654 19:17, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
    I believe so, it is not simply about rules of play any longer. It was decided we would move the main body of stuff about proffesional baseball out, so there is a link to that now. A history section and statistics section was added to broaden the article. The play section is less ponderous now, and gives a better feel of the game instead of nitpicky rule definitions (which are linked to instead). Nothing about college baseball has been added, but I'd suggest that that doesn't belong here since pro ball was moved too. About the punctuation, I'll look at that once the other objections are dealth with (esp Emsworth's. I don't want to keep having to do that every few edits. (: siroχo 01:39, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • I for one am making one of my first acts as a wikipedian, I SUPPORT this article. I think it's a great article for a great sport. --Gamingboy 21:37, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone[edit]

Self nomination, though all I did was correct a spelling mistake. Very informative, interesting, and well done. Kathy T 21:52, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

I generally support the nomination. I am a meteorologist and I liked the article well enough to translate it for the French-language Wikipedia. However, I would like to see a few relatively minor things happen to the article before it was featured.

  • In the fourth paragraph, about the warm core, the fact that the warm core features an inversion (albeit true) is overemphasized. This distracts from the really important feature, which is that the core of a tropical cyclone is warmer than its surroundings. I would reword this to remove or reduce the importance given to the inversion.
  • As dicussed in talk:Tropical cyclone, the paragraph on energy release should be fact-checked and reworked as required.
  • In point 3 of section "Formation and Development", the word convergence refers to convergence of the airflow near the surface. But this convergence is a consequence, not a driving factor, of the pre-existing disturbance required for tropical cyclone formation. I would simply replace "A source of convergence" with "A pre-existing weather disturbance"
    • Done Kathy T 16:38, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • The section "Atlantic Hurricanes" strikes me as redundant. It repeats some of the information in "Major Basins" , and the rest could be merged into "Notable Cyclones".
    • Done Kathy T 16:38, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Provide a definition of extra-tropical cyclone and contrast with tropical cyclones. This would fit quite well in the last paragraph of the "Formation and Development" section
    • Done Kathy T 16:38, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Significant portions of the article are almost word-for-word renditions of the NOAA Hurricane FAQ. I don't think there is a copyright problem, but proper attribution should be made.

I have done some of the above in the French translation. I would have to "back-port" it to English, as it were. Or some enterprising soul could just go ahead and do it, if he/she agrees with my recommendations.

Girouette 00:49, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

  • Support. In general, I really like this article, but: Some things that may still need to be addressed:
  • There's a section about hurricanes in the Atlantic that could use some expansion (eg, Ivan is mentioned, but the fact that's it's the 4th tropical system to [potentially] hit Florida in 6 weeks should also be mentioned, along with Bonnie, Charley and Frances. No mention of the Labor Day hurricane that devastated the Florida Keys either, definitely worth a mention. (section was removed)
  • We should also have sections (or expand what we have) on hurricanes in other Oceans.
  • The US Government did some interesting work in the 60s and 70s on trying to dissapate hurricanes, this should also be mentioned.
    • Done Kathy T 16:38, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • We need to go into more detail on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane scale.

Zerbey 17:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Detail on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale is available in its own article. And the modification experiment you're thinking of is Project Stormfury, an article that could use some more links. -- Cyrius| 17:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The use of boldface for the categories is not per the WP:MOS (and although the use of boldface for the world-wide name could be defended, I don't like these either). 2) The section "Hurricanes in the Atlantic" is not balanced by similar section for the Pacific and Indian Ocean. Also, the section is very US-centric and too much attention is paid to recent history. 3) In the "Notable cyclones" section it seems like the mentioned cyclones are chosen at random. A more structured overview, based on category, wind strenght, losses and death toll would be better, I think. 4) Rather than giving an overview/summary of the article, the lead section gives an extensive description of a cyclone, which should be in the main article. 5) The Odessa image is uncredited. 6) I would like to see some off-line references as well. Jeronimo 19:17, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with most of the commentary above from Zerbey and Jeronimo, to the extent that the contents needs to be better organized and with more perspective. I think I can help with that, but it will take a while unless others pitch in. Not that we're in a hurry or anything, looks like we're in for a long hurricane season. ;-) I re-iterate my earlier comment that the "Atlantic Hurricanes" section is mostly redundant, and what isn't can be distributed across other portions of the article. A section on the history of tropical cyclones would be good, too. Girouette 00:41, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Game programmer[edit]

Self-nom, but pretty complete. At least I think it is interesting. :-) Frecklefoot | Talk 20:32, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Needs a copyedit and a picture first, but otherwise it's very complete. Zerbey 08:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
n/p. I'll work on getting a few pictures in there. It's been copyedited a few times, but I'll post it on peer review. Frecklefoot | Talk 14:20, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I like it. Looks complete and reasonably organized. Simon A. 20:34, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Caterpillar D9[edit]

Wow. What can I say? Interesting, well researched and informative. Plus has a cool picture. :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 04:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose at least as long as the article is qualifying the Palestinian as terrorists every 2 sentences. Ericd 10:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Where? I can't see any sentences that say this. I think that it's pretty balance over all. If you could point out the sentences you object to I'll fix them, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unsubtle propaganda. Filiocht 11:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Out of interest - where is the propaganda? This isn't a self-nom, but I'm happy to remove any POV stuff. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose while you fix all the spelling mistakes. --Phil | Talk 11:46, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, I checked it with a spellchecker in OpenOffice. Can't find any. Could you point out some errors to me? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Me? I didn't create it or even edit it. I only nominated it. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, but even it's not a self-nom, nominators traditionally fix the article, because there's nobody else interested in doing so. Johnleemk | Talk 15:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If an article is so uninteresting, why would it ever become Featured? Filiocht 15:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, considering other authors have their own interests, you can't expect them to devote their time to fixing something. If they don't have the time, someone else will have to do it, and the onus is traditionally on the nominator to fix the article if nobody else volunteers. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) This article has one picture labelled as a copyright violation, and two more that are copyrighted without indication of public domain or so. 2) The lead section is way too long. Also, it duplicates many facts from the table. 3) The units in the table (and elsewhere) are not linked. 4) The sections headings are very general, but the sections themselves are much narrowers. "Military use" mostly focuses on Israeli military use, while "Famous incidents" only discusses a single incident. Jeronimo 22:07, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like to address these objections:
  1. I checked every image. There are none that are labelled as copyright violations that I can see. Which one are you referring to? All other images are labelled with copyright tags.
  2. Respectfully, I can only disagree. The lead section is one paragraph long (just as long as my nominated exploding whale story, and noone seems to have an issue with the lead section size. The information that is duplicated is actually important to the sentence because it's describing the fact that it's the "upper end, but not the heaviest, of Caterpillar's track-type tractors". What in particular is wrong with that?
  3. Fixed.
  4. Someone resolved this issue.

Ta bu shi da yu 12:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Goomba[edit]

An article about a very prevalent and famous video game character. Probably the very first video game enemy most gamers saw when they bought their first Nintendo game system. It has also become a very common character in the various Mario video games, cartoon shows, and toys. 172.192.210.164 20:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Veto Object (I do not think that means what you think it means Ta bu shi da yu) — It's missing detail on the Goombas from the movie; and the information of their appearance in the things you listed. --Blade Hirato 02:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh ok. What do I do now? The guidelines on the top says to address any objections. I'm guessing the veto thing equals an "object". or does it mean something else? How do I address this? Do I add information into the article? Argue why it isn't there or what? I'm not sure what's next? 172.195.76.135 05:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • FYI - no one around here can "veto" anything - his objection counts just as little/much as anyone elses. And the proper procedure now would be to fix what he says is wrong with the article. --Your humble featured article director 05:24, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure what that means. Am I suppose to do something after someone votes "veto"/"object"? 172.195.76.135 05:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) Thank you. I'll try to do that. 172.195.76.135 05:28, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Even though I myself have worked on the article recently, and would be delighted to see it featured, I think it still needs more work (specifically, more info on goombas in the Paper Mario series). Maybe we should port this over to peer review. ~ FriedMilk 06:23, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC) Support, it's come along quite nicely. ~ FriedMilk 05:40, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support-just an idea of making long article about this is amusing. Very good! [[User:Avala|Avala|]] 21:28, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, too short. --GeneralPatton 07:10, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 08:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Livestock[edit]

COTW, drastically improved, FA worthy IMO. LUDRAMAN | T 23:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. There is a lot of good material there, but it is not very well organized. The lead section is way too long and does not cover only the most important overview topics. Some sections are disorganized. The disease section specifically contains some misinformation. I will try to fix the latter especially, but I think the article needs some significant editing before it should be listed here. Peer review would have been better. - Taxman 03:09, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree largely with Taxman, the article is not well organised, and all in all far from FA worthy. Additional concerns: 1) The lead section goes in to far too much detail about what is considered livestock and what not. Especially the mentioning of HR 2559, with way too many external links, is unnecessary (and very US-centric) The discussion of what is livestock should be made into a separate section. Also, camels etc. are not "exotic" at all in their areas of domestication, so this i a Europe/US-centric view. 2) The history section leaves more questions than answer. When and where did domestication first occur? Which animals? What about outside Europe? 3) I miss a broader discussion of which animals can be domesticated and why. 4) The "Animal welfare and rights" section is chaotic and vague 5) Any book reference would be welcome, and the current set of external links is mostly US-focussed 6) Copyedit needed for the entire article 7) Some sections, such as "Livestock transportation and marketing" and "Stock shows and fairs" are hopelessly US-centric. Jeronimo 09:55, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I like this article, but the intro is too long, and in general it's not organised brilliantly. Rather long. Some details that may or may not be correct/comprehensive, some backup references beyond external links would be nice. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 10:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Intro is too long, seems to be US/European-centric, badly organised. Footnotes could more than likely be incorporated into the body text, but that's not that important. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

COINTELPRO[edit]

nominated by LegCircus 20:40, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. 1) Lead section is too long. 2) No images. 3) Most importantly, the article is rather short, vague ("other organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan") and misses vital information, f.e.: what did the FBI want to achieve? Why did they exactly want that? What was actually achieved with the programs? 4) Article contains some POV terms such as "anti-Communist paranoia" 5) The first sentence of the article is the same as that of the first external link [10], so this might be a copyright violation. Jeronimo 21:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Way too short. --Tothebarricades.tk 17:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for same reasons as above. More info needed and a going over for style is needed--certainly the lead is awkward. PedanticallySpeaking 18:08, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Too short, lead too long, no pictures. I feel I'm missing information in this story! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I have more information on the subject than this article. The date of the break-in (March 1971) and the location (Media, Pennsylvania) are not specified clearly enough. Cite the famous quote "The purpose of this new counterintelligence endeavor is to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" radical Black organisations. For more information (and this would make a good link, too), check Brian Glick, War at Home: Covert action against U.S. activists and what we can do about it (Boston: South End Press, 1989). Shorne 03:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History of Iraqi insurgency[edit]

  • Support. It's VERY text-heavy, but a fine article. Add some images, etc. --Etaonish 00:38, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - No lead section. --mav 05:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. That can be easily changed, and someone has a start on that. Overall, it's a good article. User:Colinrorr 1:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) Copyrighted images. 2) No lead section, no context. 3) I don't think it is necessary to add the months in section headings. Some sections (e.g. "Early 2004" contain little information and could better be integrated with other sections. 4) This is an ongoing topic, which may make it less suitable to feature on the front page (yes, not actionable) 5) The article repeatedly mentions the "U.S" (I think spelling should be US or U.S.) death toll, but the Iraqi death toll, or non-US foreign death toll aren't mentioned at all. Also, it might be better to present this information in a single section, or with a table. In general, the article seems to be written from a US point of view 6) References are unclear, seem to cover a random part of the subject, and are likely to disappear quickly, and therefore useless. 7) There is no mention of the taking of foreign hostages by some Iraqi resisters. Jeronimo 07:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The subject in question happened far too recently, I think we should wait for the politics involved to die down. In addition, the name of the article is far too broad. Since the article only covers the recent (2003-2004) insurgency against the U.S.-lead coalition, the title should reflect this. In addition, it is extremely U.S. centric. --Admbws 23:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. On a cursory glance at the article I notice one of the images (Image:Nytimesgraphic.bmp) is a bitmap, it has a black line on the top of it (was this scanned in?!) and it's taken directly from the New York Times. Besides this, where does it get it's data from again? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • What would be everyone's thoughts if the article was rewritten to include more of an Iraqi perspective? (By the way, just because the article covers some recent events doesn't exclude it from being feautured. An attempt was made here to transcend the politics, which I think was somewhat successful. The next step is to transcend the U.S-centric perspective, and then I think it will be in good shape).
  • Object. Yes, it is very heavily slanted towards the US. One might almost imagine the Iraqi insurgency in Topeka or Indianapolis. This glaring fault would have to be corrected before I could possibly support this article. Shorne 03:56, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kasparov versus The World[edit]

Fascinating reading with stories of human conflict and cooperation. --Yath 07:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Strong support, but...could we have a slightly more condensed lead section? Perhaps a picture or two of the influential players, such as Kasparov and Krush? Still, this is a brilliant article. Johnleemk | Talk 11:26, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - a wonderful, engaging read. Some photos would be nice however (a screenshot of the forum?). --d 14:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, briefly : I'd like captions on the diagrams to tell me after which move each corresponds to. GWO 14:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Done. Deepak 15:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article does not follow encyclopedic style and is not written from a neutral point of view. Bits like the game being "fantastic" and comments along the lines of "While chess lovers can take from the game lessons in the opening, middlegame, and endgame, fans of open collaboration can learn about the importance of courtesy, patience, inclusiveness, and the attribution of original ideas" need to be eliminated, and much of the analysis offered appears to be no more than one interpretation out of many possible. Wikipedia is not a place for original interpretation ("direct observation" is OK, but this article goes beyond that at several points). If the analysis offered here borrows from analysis by published commentators, attribute it to them instead. Finally, there is too much text without links and I also agree with GWO about captions. Fredrik | talk 19:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral, so far. It's a very good article, and the play by play recap is good, though perhaps as noted above a bit POV. What I think this article needs is a summary of the gameplay before the move by move description, an overview of why the game play was unusual and significant and the roles of the participants, esp. Krush. Right now this material is scattered throughout the move recaps. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 19:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Okay, on a second reading, I noticed that the POV is a lot more pronounced than I thought it was on my first reading. It needs a lot of work in that respect. Also, I do like the sectioning as it stands. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Objection; the moves should be in the section text, not the headings. We should find a better model for sectioning this article. [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 12:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Objections: 1. Moves should be in the section text. 2. Article is not NPOV (I would not object to the mere retention of symbols like "!" and "?" however). 3. The article mainly addresses analysis, but does not make comments about the game's significance. 4. The last paragraph unnecessarily refers to this encyclopedia. 5. It might appear more elegant if the images were on the right side. -- Emsworth 20:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support IF the NPOV issue is resolved: I agree, the POV seriously limits the article. --Etaonish 00:40, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral: Until the article makes at least some slight attempt to explain what things like 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ mean. Is there some link to somewhere where the chess ?math? is explained? func(talk) 20:20, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Find a better way of sectioning the headings! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. I find the article quite interesting, and I don't mind POV that much. But a shorter heading and link(s) to explain the 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ are quite necessary. After those are adressed treat my vote as support. I'd like to see a 'See also' section refering to similar games, but that is only a wish, not an objection. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fourth International[edit]

Self-nom. As balanced a history of the Fourth International as you'll find. Warofdreams 18:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Sorry, I have no idea what the Fourth International is. There needs to be a better and clearer explanation for those who do no not know anything about Russian history, etc. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Will try to write clearer explanation. Warofdreams 10:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I was never sure where the Trotskyites fit in to the Big Picture, Now I do. Great article. Denni 17:57, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
  • Object - no references. Also seems a bit on the short side. --mav 23:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Changed "see also" to "references", which it should have read in the first place. Not sure if the second point is actionable; the article looks pretty long to me anyway and should be a little longer once I have addressed Ta bu shi da yu's objection. Warofdreams 10:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Not at all bad in the way of balance, I must say; my compliments to the authors for not pushing a POV. I think it falls flat at the end: there was a merger forty years ago; today there's just an organisation that not even Trotskyists recognise; that's it. What happened to make it fizzle out? Lack of interest? sectarianism? Resolve this problem and I'll change my vote to a yes. Shorne 04:05, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Penis[edit]

Well written and researched. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: It's all about the human penis. Isn't that a bit, um, POV? ;) Seriously though, it should include much more about non-human (specifically non-mamalian) penises. If it was called "human penis" I'd support. Rory 14:03, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: We don't want to turn off newcomers with such a potentially objectional article. It deserves to be in the 'pedia, but we don't want to shove it in visitor's faces. :-) Frecklefoot | Talk 00:01, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not an actionable objection, is this? I remember reading that objectionable articles can become featured, but discretion is advised about featuring them on the front page. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: For a while now, all articles on Wikipedia that could in any way be seen as involving the issue of circumsicion have been the victims of frequent revert and edit wars. If you look at the edit history, you will see that Penis is under constant revision... and these people are unrelenting in pushing their POV, (both those for and against). func(talk) 00:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, but only until the following fixes are made. 1) The link to the Cat Dick site under Oedema is inappropriate. A true medical "case" would be appropriate; but the Cat Dick pornography site is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It is however a very funny prank. :)) Under the "Animal penises in general" section 2) the last two sentences on animal circumcision need a citation to a medical or anthropology reference--preferably a direct quote with citation; otherwise they should go. 3) As User:Rparle notes above, the shortness of the "Animal penises in general" section makes the article out-of-balance. You should go through samples of the major vertebrates that have penises. You need about three more paragraphs. I changed the section title from "Animal penises" to "Animal penises in general" because "Isn't a human an animal?" Other than my three objections, in my last reading, I thought this page should get Featured Article status. Bravo to the editors for all your edit war pains. :) Are you ready for the big leagues of what will come under Featured Article status? ---Rednblu 03:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what a "major vertebrate" is, but that sounds a bit excessive. I'd suggest coverage of the interestingly-penised: biggest, smallest and so on. We really need pictures of the kangaroo and barnacle specimens, of course. Most people have a fair idea of what the human one looks like anyway, so the animals should be the most interesting part of the article. Markalexander100 07:30, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - human-centric. --mav 05:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Darn humans!!! Are there no animal writers on Wikipedia at all ?! func(talk) 20:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Humans are animals. :) --mav
Darn human animals!!! Are there no sentient, non-organic beings with penises who... oh, never mind. ;-) func(talk) 17:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - human-centeric, alot of these articles about bodyparts are way too human centeric. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:55, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Holocaust denial[edit]

Second nomination for this article, after the first nomination in June 2004. Changes made to the article since that time have included moving the lengthy section on debunking Holocaust denial to its own article, and an expansion and reorganization of the section dealing with the history of Holocaust denial to make it much more prominent. The article now focuses more on Holocaust denial itself, rather than simply proving why Holocaust denial is a hoax. -- Modemac 12:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. No lead section. Johnleemk | Talk 13:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I objected to the previous version of this article, and I still object, as most of my objections remain (others have been addressed). Jeronimo 11:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I still find the article as a whole to be somewhat incoherent. Also, some sections are just a combination of several facts, which doesn't read well (eg Public reactions to Holocaust denial).
    • The history section talks about a denial movement. Does it have a name? Is is organised?
    • "Beliefs of Holocaust deniers" is brief and unclear. Do they all believe this? If not, are there any major "streams" in who believes what? Some references to sources used for this are also desirable. It should also be rewritten as prose, rather than a bullet list.
    • The question "Why do people deny the Holocaust?" is hardly addressed satisfactory. What are the scientific views (if any) on this? Are there pyschological reasons behind this? Related, who are the deniers? Are they "angry white men"? Which countries are they from? Or are their numbers too few for such observations?
    • The fact that "holocaust denial" is illegal in several countries deserves more detailed information.
  • "Why do people deny the Holocaust?" is a very interesting question, and should be addressed further. Possible answers:
    • Deniers want to retain sympathy for Nazism, or for their more general right-wing beliefs
    • Deniers may have participated in WWII on the losing side, and are in denial about the misdeeds of their countries
    • Are there any detailed studies of this? -- The Anome 12:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • A (not NPOV) study or two of this have been done by Michael Shermer, I think. But I haven't read them. --Fastfission 15:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I like Shermer as a writer with interesting opinions, and I have read his thoughts on these questions, but we can't really call them studies. I'm not a psychologist, but I would say that Shermer's speculations on "Why people believe weird things" are pretty far from scientifically well-grounded -- most charitably, I think they could be described as the thoughts of an intelligent and openly-biased individual. He may be right much of the time, but I don't think we can quote him at all authoritatively -- at most, his theories would need to be balanced by significantly different perspectives. Jwrosenzweig 20:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Other than for encourging revert wars, why would Wikipedia wish to feature this article? I find it hard to believe that there are enough people in the world who actually do deny the undeniable to make this article a prime candidate for being put forward as one of Wikipedia's best, (no matter how well written or not it happens to be). func(talk) 16:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • object to this objection: Firstly, the size of the phenomenon doesn't change the quality of the article. Secondly, the thing about Holocaust Denial is not that it is huge, but that it exists in such an important issue despite such strong evidence. This has made it a very important issue of study and debate by many people. Thirdly, if the article is good then we should not allow revert wars to intimidate us from decaring it good. They may, however, be a reason not to put it on the front page. Finally, according to the first source I could find on the internet, [11] 50% of Canadians think the Holocaust is "exaggerated" and one in four people in Idaho answered "no" when asked "Do you believe that the Holocaust really occurred?", so at least surveys show that holocaust denial is actually a big issue. Mozzerati 19:57, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
Idaho doesn't surprise me, but the Canadian statistic is rather shocking. I agree with The Anome, if there was more of a focus on why the denial occurs, I'd support. func(talk) 20:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • object. The article doesn't say how many holocaust deniers there are. It also doesn't say what level of influence they have. The title "Other Holocaust denials" should read something like "other denials of genocide and mass murder". The examples here should be expanded to show common examples of minimisation of murder of all kinds for political and other gain including by a larger variety of sources (Americans/Russians/Israelies/Maroccans etc.) The statement about Syrians and the Palestinian authorities having released holocaust denial literature (and several other statements) should be backed up with a specific reference. Mozzerati 19:57, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
  • Belief disturb me... Is it belief or lie ? Are holocaust deniers sincere or is it simply propaganda  ? - Ericd 19:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • yes this should be differentiated. Certainly many of the leaders seem to be liars trying to make Nazism and Hitler acceptable again, but there are many people who learn from these people and honestly believe. So there are both liars and believers, a proportion of whom are probably self-decievers. Again, how many of each there are and their relationship to each other should be covered in the article. Mozzerati 20:02, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
      • Assertions seems more NPOV to me ? Ericd 22:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, and please forgive me for my previous objection, (I often live in my own little world, which is much nicer than the real one). func(talk) 20:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This is certainly to the standard of many FAs. I don't consider it against NPOV - there is an immediate list of popular mis-conceptions of "Holocaust denials", something that I would not be as eager to add. It has a healthy selection of references and links, as well as referring to many groups/individuals throughout. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 12:10, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral, the article does not answer essential questions i.e. why do they believe it? And do they believe it? But if there are no scholarly articles that deal with the question then I think it can still be featured. Are there any scholarly articles that deal with these very difficult questions? Andries 18:02, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - no lead section and way too short for a topic this expansive. --mav 21:58, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for many of the reasons already listed and for two others. First, the article plainly favours Jews over all other targeted groups. The Nazis went after leftists first (Hitler thought that the Jews were behind the Evil Communist Conspiracy"), and plenty of other groups (Slavs, Rom, homosexuals, &c) were also targeted. It is true that many Holocaust deniers are pursuing an anti-Jewish agenda, but that's no excuse for a POV that ignores the other groups entirely. Second, there is virtually no mention of at least one fact that encourages this sort of despicable revisionism: many people feel that the Holocaust gets more attention than it deserves. We hear about the Holocaust far more, for example, than we hear about the European conquest of the Americas, which utterly wiped out many entire nations (practically every Caribbean island was without indigenous inhabitants by 1600). Over time, a lot of people will become jaded and may even be taken in by the claims of Holocaust denial. This is hinted at in the mention of the "Holocaust industry" and "Shoah business", but I think it could be more fully developed. I've also noticed some problems with commas and the like that need to be corrected. By the way, I'm glad that this article exists. My first encounter with Holocaust denial was a little pamphlet that fell out of a library book (on a completely unrelated subject) twenty years ago. "Where are the ashes?"—that sort of rubbish. I still remember the anger I felt upon seeing that. Shorne 04:36, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fugu (formerly Pufferfish)[edit]

A large part of the featured article Pufferfish was recently moved to fugu (as for Terafugu, the poisonous fish eaten in Japan). When Pufferfish turned into a featured article, it was mainly about fugu, and only later expanded into all fish of the family Tetraodontidae. Now most of the interesting parts of the former article are at fugu. Therefore, I would like to move the nomination to Fugu by nominating Fugu and remove the nomination from Pufferfish. See also Pufferfish on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. (Disclaimer: I contributed significantly to fugu/pufferfish) -- Chris 73 Talk 09:17, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. No lead section and references (Wikipedia:Cite sources). Johnleemk | Talk 13:48, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Expanded lead section, and also changed style of two external links to refrence style. Not sure if the other external links can be converted to refrence style, or if it should be done this way.-- Chris 73 Talk 20:43, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • Hm...maybe a couple of references for the history of Fugu and the list of species? Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Added some references about the species, and also some about how to keep it in an aquarium. These also had a lot of other info, too -- Chris 73 Talk 09:14, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Very interesting article with a lot of potential, but it is very repetitive and even disorganized in places. For example, the notion that some unkown number of people die but the risk is low must be stated 5-6 times in the article. The actual mortality stat of approx 50 food deaths per year by Fugu in Japan from the linked pdf would be a good addition too I'd think. It's actually from a 1979 source, so could use some verifying. - Taxman 02:55, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Reorganized, added section about Fugu poisoning (including some info about death statistics), and weeded out a few "kills people" references, although there are still some left, since this is one of the main features of the fish -- Chris 73 Talk 07:15, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • The article is still primarily about eating the fish, with very little about the fish itself, such as what is it's food source and various other biological information. Also the misc section needs to be merged into the other relevant sections. There is nothing in there that doesn't have a better place. - Taxman 12:28, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
        • Most fish are not very well researched, but i added info about diet, behavior, color, teeth and also the more detailed method for inflation. For T. Rubripes also a sentence on breeding. The misc section is now completely moved to other sections. Looks better now, I think. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:14, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
          • That's better, but the intro is still almost entirely about eating the fish, and that is what the bulk of the article covers. If that is what you want to make the article about, that's fine, but maybe it should be titled something like 'Fugu consumption' or 'Fugu as a food'. Then the title would match the content. - Taxman 16:04, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
            • Ok, i think i understand you better now. I have expanded the lead section to cover also some fish specific info. The article is still 50% about eating fugu, but I think any encyclopedic article about Fugu would haver a large section about consumption, so I think this is OK. What do you think? -- Chris 73 Talk 17:32, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Starting back at the left. Well it is much more than 50% if you take out the species table, which really shouldn't be in the main article if there is not more to say about each. I really think you'd have a much better article if you moved the material about eating the Fugu out to an article focused on that. Then it would be consistent topically. - Taxman 16:42, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • In that I disagree. I think the fish and the consumption belong together in one article. The article is still below 30kb in size, and that is a good length for an article. An article about consumption alone would be in my opinion too short to be featured. Could you consider supporting the entire article, or is this a definite exclusion criteria? -- Chris 73 Talk 17:36, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • To me, topic inconsistency is not something I can support stamping as a featured article. I think you've got a great article about the phenomenon of eating Fugu, which would necessarily include a little bit about the fish. So for me its a deal breaker. I'm just one vote though. And I feel strongly the species table is out of place. Great stuff otherwise though. - Taxman 06:16, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Almost forgot that the nominator can vote, too. -- Chris 73 Talk 21:58, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Aliasing[edit]

An article about an import effect in signal processing, which is most well written. I especially appreciate that it first explains the subject with en easy-to-grasp analogy, then with some not-too-technical explanation using graphs and even sounds (synthesized specifically for this purpose) as examples in order too then finally give the mathematically interested and literate user all the details. That's how it should be: one part for the interested layman, one for the expert. Simon A. 20:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support (tentatively). I am no expert (though I've had undergrad study in the area), so I cannot tell if there is anything missing. What is there is clear and reads well, is well presented. There are no references - probably some should be added. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 10:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm no expert either, but its a good, lucid piece. PedanticallySpeaking 18:05, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • A good article, with excellent flow from simplicity to complexity. However, I have to vote to object until I can play the sound samples on my non-OSX Mac. Denni 18:13, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
    • That is an invalid objection since ogg is a standard supported by Wikipedia. --mav
      • It may be invalid to you, but it's not to me. Wikipedia supports universal text/graphics formats; it seems it does not support a universal sound format (AIFF, for instance). Would I be ticked if I bought a TIME magazine with my Visa card, but got no pictures because I didn't use Mastercard? Yep. Denni 01:27, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
  • Object - no references. --mav 23:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If you could put some references in, I'd support. Incidently, have any of the authors of this article considered expanding Moire effect? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anarchism in Spain 2[edit]

Self-nomination. I keep thinking it should be longer, but its over 32kb; I think I'm just a perfectionist. It's pretty comprehensive, methinks. --Tothebarricades.tk 22:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - This is a very detailed account. I haven't really seen any featured anarchist articles, and considering the huge amount of influence of the anarchist party had in Spain, I think this is a worthy topic. Lockeownzj00 23:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Strong support. After thorough nitpicking session, no unresolved objections. • Benc • Very well-written; this article is very close to featured quality. A few rough edges, though (all of them easily actionable, I think):
    • 1. Captions needed underneath each image. Fixed... MediaWiki's image syntax is a pain.
      • I'm having trouble with the captions here. They're there when you try to edit it but they don't seem to appear in the actual page... --Tothebarricades.tk 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • 2. Need a date for the founding of the FAI.
    • 3. In this section: "A Socialist leader once said...". An exact attribution if possible, please. Okay, this is the primary source's shortcoming, not the article's. Objection withdrawn.
      • No attribution in the book I got it from, can't find it on google either --Tothebarricades.tk 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • 4. Why is the Criticisms of the CNT-FAI by fellow anarchists section not a subsection of the History section?
      • Should it go in the section on the Spanish Civil War, perhaps? --Tothebarricades.tk 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Maybe. OTOH, it is nice to end the article with a quotation. It just looks a little out-of-place as it is, though. • Benc • 01:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • Moved it. It makes sense, since the criticisms were only made around the time of the Civil War. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:11, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • 5. There's a sore thumb in the Morality section: "It should be noted, however, than any generalization of Anarchist thought in Spain or elsewhere is inherently flawed; the lack of coercion or standardization allowed a wide variety of opinions." Is there any way to phrase that so it doesn't have the effect of "The preceding paragraph is pure speculation"?
      • Good point; I added that to point out that this was an organic thing, that it wasn't like, CNT policy. I removed the sentence entirely, because it was basically saying "not all anarchists had these qualities," which is fairly obvious. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • 6. Consistency: anarchist isn't capitalized, but Socialist, Communist, and Republican are. Is this intentional, and if so, what is the rationale? I've NPOVed the article as you suggested below.
      • It was intentional, but thinking of it, it's probably POV. I see anarchism not as an official dogma, but as more of a philosophy. There was no "Spanish Anarchist Party" with members who could be called Anarchists, capital A, as with the other three; in reference to members of the CNT-FAI, etc. the capitalized spelling would be appropriate, though. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Minor objections:
    • 7. Two or three historical photos from the pre-Franco era would help illustrate the text of the lengthy History section.
    • 8. ISBNs for book references would be nice.
    • 9. Expand the Today section ("Cause of the split, comparative size, influence").
      • I fixed that part up a bit, I didn't quite understand the split myself. Seems good now. The "Today" section still could use some expanding; it was a an afterthought (it is still essential, don't get me wrong), my main focus was 1868-1939. :( --Tothebarricades.tk 09:27, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Forgive me for being so nitpicky, but I really like this article, and would like to see it reach perfection, too. :-) • Benc • 23:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Could use an expanded lead section and the TOC is a bit much. Suggestion: move the ==History== section to History of Anarchism in Spain and leave a summary (1/3 to 1/2 the length it is now) at Anarchism in Spain. --mav 03:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • That doesn't seem necessary. I really don't want this article split up like that. I'm against article splitting as a rule, but whatever. Just my opinion. :) --Tothebarricades.tk 05:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Seems very comprensive and NPOV (at least, as far as I can tell without being familiar with Spanish politics). However, I feel it is not written in enough of a top-down form. By which I mean that each section, and the article as a whole, should start with the important generalities and then go down into specifics later. I should be able to read just the lead section to get a general idea of what anarchism in Spain is all about, and then only go into the details if I want to. As it is, I'm drowning in details and I never get the big picture unless I take the time to read all 15 pages of the article. I emphasize that this article is excellent as far as research goes, it's just that I feel the way it's set down is not appropriate for a reader with only a casual interest in the topic. --Shibboleth 06:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Good point. Fortunately, the solution to this problem is as simple as adding an "Overview" section in front of the "History" section. :-) • Benc • 20:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • So you're suggesting the lead be expanded? • Benc • 22:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • You're right that my criticism was rather vague :). Yes, adding a 4-5 paragraph overview of the important events of the history would do it. When that's done, support. --Shibboleth 04:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor objections: various errors of punctuation and the like, such as "44 day long" instead of "44-day-long". Clean it up a bit, and you'll have my support. (I'd do the clean-up myself, as is my wont on Wikipedia, but I'm too busy with other things.) Shorne 04:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP[edit]

Nominate this article, it's pretty much complete, not badly written and though it's been a controversial article it's had many eyes looking over it doing fact checking. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Well-written, comprehensive, and concerns something recognizable to just about every reader. Solver 16:22, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. The first paragraph says "Two versions of Windows XP are most commonly available: Home which is targeted at home users and doesn't allow users to join a domain, and Professional which has additional features such as dual-processor support and the ability to join a domain." The article should explain what "join a domain" means, possibly by making that text a hyperlink. -- Cabalamat 18:48, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Rhobite has added a section on domains. Not sure if this is useful. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, I hope I've addressed these concerns. Rhobite 14:58, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
        • I withdraw my objection. I've started the article Windows Server domain but cannot write further about it since I dson't know the subject matter -- Cabalamat 22:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - Needs a ==References== section. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. --mav 03:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I've started on this, but my question is: why? other articles don't, and they often went to the front page. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, it's completely done now. Actually, it was a good idea to do the references! No need to answer my question, I answered it myself. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, only slightly. Perhaps more running prose - I notice the greater part of the article consists of lists and bulleted sections. More images, there are plenty of things to see. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 10:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Good point. I've coalesced the lists in the Security Issues sections into running prose. Also, I've added two comparison screenshots of classic mode and default mode. Is this enough? I don't want the article to get too cluttered with images! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Although this article has improved out of sight in recent months, it still consists largely of lists, and it might be nice if the references section wasn't so massive (maybe it's necessary, I'm not sure, but still). Ambi 06:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Truer words were never spoken... - Ta bu shi da yu 10:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (Is this a self-nomination, since I've done a lot of work on this article in the past?) I think it's a solid article, and Rhobite and Ta bu have been doing a terrific job in accommodating peoples' suggestions. - Brian Kendig 14:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I appreciate that a lot of work has been done NPOV this article, and it's just about as good as it's going to get right now. However, I'm kind of want to rename "New and improved features" section; it sounds like it should be in a brochure with an exclamation mark after it. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:38, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • I changed this to "New and updated features" - is this enough? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:16, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. After some edits, it looks to be a really great article. -- KneeLess 22:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, at this time. Wikipedia has a large amount of articles on computer related topics, and these, in my view, make up a larger percentage of the total 'pedia than is appropriate to the goal of the project. We should not highlight this higher proportion by regularly featuring computer related articles, but seek to feature those which show the diversity and full scope of wikipedia. LegCircus 20:53, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • For the record, this objection is not actionable. →Raul654 20:54, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't know what that means, but if the objection breaks a wiki-code of behavior, allow me to apologize. LegCircus 16:08, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
        • The directions at the top of this page say: All objections must give a specific rationale which can be responded to. If nothing can be done to "fix" the objected-to matter, the objection may be ignored. - in other words, if you object to the article because it is about a computer-related topic, there's nothing that anyone can do to "fix" your objection. Therefore, your objection is invalid. →Raul654 16:33, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. As was said above, it's mostly list. →Raul654 04:44, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

I Want To Hold Your Hand 2[edit]

Has been on peer review; I've left the section there for the reading benefit of voters (I don't really see how it's beneficial to remove requests for peer review of candidates). I understand the article could need some more work, but I think it's almost there, if not already, featured-level. Johnleemk | Talk 10:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. A few suggestions though: 1) put the sound sample in the lead section (or at least more prominent), and perhaps more visible (a small speaker icon perhaps?) 2) I doesn't seem very relevant to mention the German recording in the lead section, it has (I think) sufficient attention below. 3) The four references to the same website should be distinguished by name or description. This way, it seems like it is four times the same site. Jeronimo 11:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I know there's a speaker icon somewhere here, but I can't locate it. I think it would be inappropriate if placed in the lead section, and I think it'll be prominent enough once we have the icon. Secondly, the German recording's rather unique, because AFAIK, only it and She Loves You were ever recorded in German by the Beatles. Re references, I am following the style outlined in Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Renaissance[edit]

At the risk of creating work for myself, this is the best non-featured product of ArticleCollaboration of the week project and looks (to me) to be ready to be featured. Inevitably I have made some minor amendments, so this is partially a self-nomination. Only two previous ACotWs have made featured status (siege and academia), but others (such as Iranian Revolution) will be coming here soon. See the history and the talk pages for more information. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Ambi 01:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Literature and poetry" section far too short. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Object for now: pictures are this article's weak spot. A few more images are needed to illustrate the text — it was such a colorful era, so the article deserves more. And that piecewise photograph of Florence has got to go (though it isn't terrible, for a Frankenstein's picture). • Benc • 02:03, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll see what I can dig up. I quite like the Florence picture, but a proper fisheye lens one would be better. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Added a few images, and Florence replaced - better? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: OK, I've recently switched my opinion on references (hey, I'm flexible all right?). Maybe we could make the references section be more like APA style? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Had a go - something like that? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The "Historiography" section makes a point that there was no *The Renaissance*, and that there have several such periods throughout history, and names them explicitly. I would then expect a brief discussion of each of these renaissances (or at least the most important ones), yet the next section is "Start of the Renaissance" which is in contradiction with the earlier text. Only the Italian and Northern Renaissance are then discussed. The Italian section refers to a main article (twice, actually) but this main article is shorter and messier. The other renaissances are not mentioned anymore. The best way to resolve this (IMO) is to make this EITHER an article about renaissance in general with references to (and short discussions of) more specific "renaissances" OR an article about what most people generally recognise as the Renaissance (also making up the majority of this article), namely the Italian Renaissance. Jeronimo 08:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I think the fact that certain scholars think there was no The Renaissance deserves to be there, and the other "renaissances" need to be mentioned too, but the article is (and should be) about The Renaissance as commonly understood - that is, the Italian Renaissance and the Northern Renaissance (whether it/they actually happened or not, an awful lot of people think it/they did). I'll see what I can do to resolve your objections - it is rather unfortunate that the "main articles" are shorter and less polished. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not the article's fault that there's so much historiography to churn through — blame the historians. I think the article does a good job in working its way through all the "re-periodization" issues as succinctly as possible while still remaining comprehensive. If anything, I think the Historiography could be subsectioned to help the reader know what's going on. • Benc • 13:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I've added two subsection headers to the "Historiography" section; it should be easier to digest now. • Benc • 06:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Re-reading your objection, did you mean that Italian Renaissance should be merged into this article? Given that Renaissance is 36k and counting, I should have thought that the traffic should be the other way. Other than the Italian Renaissance and Northern/English Renaissance, which other renaissances do you think should be included? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, a great deal more needed on the art and culture of the Northern Renaissance and how it built on and differed from that of the Italian Renaissance. - SimonP 19:59, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Give that the article is already 36k, there is not a lot of space here to write a "great deal" about the Northern Renaissance (although there is a separate article on the English Renaissance which is developing). If your concern is that the section on "Northern Renaissance" is too small in comparision to "Italian Renaissance", perhaps some of the section on the Italian Renaissance should be separated out to the 'main article' Italian Renaissance (which is now lagging behind English Renaissance in terms of structure and content). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. The article is still unclear as to what it is about. In fact, I think there is a real case for calling it The Renaissance as a way of addressing the issues raised in the historiography section. Also, there are some extremely dodgy statements of 'non-fact' like this humdinger: 'His disciple, Giovanni Boccaccio, became a major author in his own right. His works, such as Decamerone and La Teseida, would be emulated centuries later in the English Renaissance by Geoffrey Chaucer and John Dryden.' Chaucer was born a mere 50 years after Boccaccio, not centuries, and Dryden is a key 17th century writer, well after the Renaissance period. This may seem like a small thing, but it is the kind of problem that lends fuel to those who claim that Wikipedia is inherently unreliable. Bmills 07:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Taking your two objections separately:
      1. Unclear: the article is about The Renaissance - to quote the first sentence: a cultural movement and time period in the history of Europe, comprising the transitional period between the end of the Middle Ages and the start of the Modern Age. The first section ("Historiography") discusses whether there was a Renaissance or not, and then goes on to discuss how it started, and what happened, concentrating on Italy and then looking at northern Europe.
      2. Errors: Benc added the section to which you object to address the objection that there is too little on "Literature and poetry" but I agree that lumping Chaucer together with Dryden looks a little odd, particularly the way that it is phrased. What are the other "extremely dodgy statements of 'non-fact'"? (Of course Wikipedia is inherently unreliable, all sources are: but we have the best error-correction mechanism :) ) -- ALoan (Talk) 17:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Whoops, the "centuries later" bit was a misstep. Fixed. (I never claimed to be an expert on Renaissance literature — though I do make an honest effort at research and citing sources.) As to lumping Chaucer and Dryden together, this I got from the Encarta encyclopedia, which I cited. [12] • Benc • 21:17, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I took the liberty of working on the Petrarch/Boccaccio section, hopefully I've addressed the problems and not added any errors of my own. I don't know if I'd rely on Encarta too much, perhaps it's snobbishness on my part, but E. seems a bit off to me on this topic. Not so much in error but skewed in a way I can't quite put my finger on. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 05:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Would like to see less of red links though. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]] 19:21, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools[edit]

A very controversial issue treated in an exemplary way. Very well written and informative. Eric B. and Rakim 10:03, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not a vote, but could we have a picture or two? It helps a lot if at a later point we want to feature the article on the main page. If of the hijab, the picture could be reused in the hijab article too. Johnleemk | Talk 12:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Falklands War[edit]

Having stumbled across it, I was truly impressed. It seems well written and well researched. There are numerous maps, links to other very good articles, and it concerns one of the most important naval conflicts since the end of the Second World World, (as the article points out). I also think that there are many yanks of my generation who don't know very much about this important conflict. I was about 9 at the time, and the Falklands were barely a blip on my childhood radar screen. The conclusion of the war lead to important political changes in Argentina, and to important changes in the navel preparedness of fleets around the world. What really recommends it in my mind is that, while being entirely encyclopedic, it is also entirely riveting. It is simply a fascinating story, especially the section detailing the relatively small group of Royal Marines who undertook to defend the isle against a navel fleet and its commandos. AdmN 10:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support after a references section is added. This is an article where this is necessary. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for the moment - the writing style is clumsy (and grammatically incorrect in many places), and far too many of the links are red. I'll support if someone can go through and tidy up the writing and grammar - David Gerard 13:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arabic calligraphy[edit]

A fascinating article on an interesting topic. I particularly like the illustrations of the various styles showing the development through time. Could perhaps use some headings but the illustrations break up the text quite nicely as it is. Lisiate 23:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A minor objection. What do these scripts say? Are they a verse from Qur'an or simply listing alphabets? Having what they mean makes them more intersting to compare. Revth 04:25, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. 1) The article's a bit short, and has no clear structure (no sections). 2) Can the different types of calligrahpies be categorised? Surely there are more scripts than just those given here. 3) The images are all without source information. 4) There are no references. Jeronimo 07:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sections and categories ought to be done by someone with more knowledge in the subject than I (I just came across the article by accident). The illustrations were uploaded by User:Mr100percent back in 2003 so I'll leave a message on his talk page. I'll also ask what the scripts say. He may be able to provide references as well. Lisiate 21:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I want to see the Arabic names of the scripts included in the text. Also, the transcription is inadequate. Shorne 02:52, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Soul[edit]

  • I like this. It explains the idea and gives it from a bunch of different viewpoints. The only problem I can find with it is its lack of picture, although what sort of picture you could use for a soul I'm not sure. -Litefantastic 11:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, as a child I pictured the soul as looking like a white cabbage. Guess that doesn't really help, though. --Kbh3rd 21:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. This article does try to present a wide array of beliefs, succeeding for the most part. Objections listed below. • Benc • 12:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • 1. Missing belief systems: Shintoism and various Native American beliefs.
    • 2. The prose style in places is excessively wordy (with lots of parenthetical statements).
    • 3. More references needed.
  • Object. Seems to somewhat lacking in non Abrahamic religions, and has no mention at all of ancient religions - eg ka and ba of ancient Egyptian religion, which is fairly well known.--Gene_poole 13:00, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Er, the article has a lengthy Buddism section, and Egyptian belief is mentioned (at least in passing) in the "Other religious beliefs and views". I agree it needs expansion, though. • Benc • 14:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't say totally lacking - I said generally lacking. The focus is strongly on one family of religions, and my suggestion is to broaden that. Inclusions on Zoroastrian views would I think be interesting too, given that religion's strong influence on Judaism.--Gene_poole 23:28, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cogito ergo sum ("I think therefore I am")[edit]

Previously this page just featured a short entry outlining the argument. As it is one of the most famous statements in philosophy (and influential in defining the prevailent mode of philosophical enquiry for a number of centuries) I thought it necessary to add a discussion of its validity. I've kept the previous entry as a helpful initial summary. Self-nomination (I hope this isn't really poor form) bjardine, 3rd Sept. 2004.

  • Object. Well I'm duty bound to end up supporting eventually ;-) But for the moment I will object with the following.
  1. The lead section could use some simplification. What's there is good, it just needs a succinct summary of 'Cogito' before we get into discussing 'fallacious logic in the first meditation'.
  2. No image - but this can easily be sorted the photo of Rodin's The Thinker, or the Rembrant shown here.
  3. I think the Meditations were written in Latin, so there should probably be a note about who's translation we are using for the quote in the Introduction.
  4. The article is a little unusual for being written in the first person, so it sounds more like a lecture than an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, this could be seen to be highly apposite.
-- Solipsist 15:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object- I agree that the first person in unencyclopedic (disagree that it's highly apposite). Following on from the first person thing, accepting or rejecting particular arguments is not NPOV. Also, the scope is very limited- considering only three arguments against the cogito is fine in an essay or a lecture, but an encyclopedia article should be as broad as possible, covering all the major arguments for and against. Markalexander100 06:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object; As the above mentioned, the first-person references need to be removed. It could be a bit longer, too. --Tothebarricades.tk 21:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. First, the Wikipedia reference must be removed. Second, I doubt that you can use the first-person to make this particular article work. Why? you might ask. My first explanation would be that, if you use first-person to do the explanation of Descartes's thesis, you becloud Descartes's use of the first-person in the quote that you are trying to explain. I would not contend that first-person is always a failed technique, but it is certainly a failure in this case. ---Rednblu 01:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the interesting comments. That the article is limited is obvious, but so it goes—I don't really have time to expand it too much, and I thought that narrow but detailed content was better than a very short introduction. As for the first-person: I'll read through it again, and perhaps make it more 'encyclopedic'. Maybe there is a meta-argument about the value or subjectivity of this kind of subject (I like the idea of a humorous 'apposite' comment on Descartes' own method!). I stress, though, that the content and argument are, to me, succinct, i.e. happily limited. Perhaps if it were less subjective others could add to it. bjardine, 06/09/2004

Saint Petersburg[edit]

Visited this city recently, so checked out its article. I find it well written and it has some decent photos. --d 23:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. This article only has decent sections on history and landmarks, and even these are not that great; it reads like a summary of facts rather than a "story" (also, "Sankti-Pitersburh" is certainly not a Dutch name). More importantly, this article lacks (extensive) sections on politics, geography, culture & sports, economy and education. Jeronimo 06:54, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If you need some pictures, I visited the city as well and put some pictures in the German Article about the city. -- 213.7.138.158 21:48, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JPEG[edit]

Have you wondered how JPEG image compression works? Have you wondered about the patent fuss? I wondered, and found JPEG covers both questions thoroughly but succinctly, stopping appropriately short of an implementation manual for which there are external links. -- ke4roh 01:16, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose, for now. David Remahl 01:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    1. Wouldn't it be appropriate that an article on image compression featured at least one image? For example, an illustration of how an image compressed really hard with JPEG looks (artifacts and all).
      Agreed. I'm working on putting in all or some images from, though the translation is a bit dicey. -- ke4roh 00:11, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
    2. There should be some more references to some of the information.
      I added the JPEG main page and the JPEG FAQ to the list of external links. Does that address your concern? -- ke4roh 00:11, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Say take an image and compress it lowly and then highly with JPEG, and possibly JPEG2000.

Kiand 17:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. No picture (maybe an example how JPEG works). No history. -Pedro 01:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Objection; for example, the Encoding section is inappropriately written. It should maybe not use that many subheadings, and be written in a less step-by-step way. Also, the Decoding section is just one line.[[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 12:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An article on JPEG without a picture? Davodd 17:44, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Empire of Atlantium[edit]

A lot of info for a nation that is only an apartment. --Galena 04:11, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose, as this article has been a source of ongoing edit wars in the past, which will likely continue into the future. Plus, the conflicts have really detracted from the quality of the article. It just doesn't seem as fleshed out in the other aspects as it could be because of the sticky points of the edit wars. Gregb 04:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Gregb. External references and possibly a relevant photograph would also be beneficial to rounding out the article.--Gene_poole 04:32, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Firstly, what Gregb said. Secondly, it's a little ridiculous to be nominating this for FAC after it narrowly escaped VFD less than a month ago. Ambi 07:52, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • It would be a great coup to get an article featured having survived vfd. I don't think this one cuts it unfortunately. I wonder if List of movies that have been considered the greatest ever might make it with some more improvements - it is more prose than list these days and moving towards being comprehensive. Pcb21| Pete 11:17, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This would be too controversial. Average Earthman 15:07, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. child play. I'd vote "delete" on VfD. -Pedro 16:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mediocre article on a fairly non-notable thing. I'd vote "keep" on VfD, but this nomination on FAC is taking the piss. GWO 16:47, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support as a protest. It was ridiculous that this article was submitted to VfD three times and disgusting when it was deleted without concensus. Dmn / Դմն 14:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • It was deleted with 60% support. It was undeleted without even a bare majority (67% said keep deleted). Gzornenplatz 23:26, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty gobsmacked that you could say such a thing. I count 11 votes to keep deleted v 16 votes to undelete. [13] As for Dmn are your really saying that the reason you support this as a featured article is because you feel it has been treated unfairly in the past? Because if you do than I propose that your vote be ignored. Theresa Knott (The token star) 23:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • At the time maveric undeleted it, the vote was 8 for keep deleted to 4 for undelete. Thereafter, the vote was obsolete. People could see that their vote to keep deleted is being ignored anyway. Gzornenplatz 23:43, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
        • That argument goes both ways. It could just as easily be argued that since it had already been undeleted there was no point in voting to undelete. Theresa Knott (The token star) 23:55, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • Maybe, but I still think the vote was biased by maveric's undeletion. From a simple statistical view, it seems unlikely to be a coincidence that the votes before maveric's action were 8-4 for "keep deleted", and the votes after his action were 12-3 for "undelete". Gzornenplatz 09:58, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
            • And perhaps that simply reflected the sum total of those with axes to grind concerning the article jumping in early. All the expected names are there, after all. --Gene_poole 23:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm protesting the repeated listing of this page on VfD and I'm protesting when an administrator decided 29-19 constituted a consensus. Dmn / Դմն 00:01, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • I know why you are protesting :-) My point is that you should not protest in this way. I protested by arguing the case on votes for undeletion - as did several others. Other sutable places are the village pump, or on the talk page of votes for deletion on or vamp willow's talk page. But protesting by voting for a page to be featured is not on (of course if you actually think it is up to featured article standards that's a different matter). Theresa Knott (The token star) 00:13, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Articles which are deleted inappropriately can be undeleted without any vote at all. If it really makes a difference, this protest vote should be ignored. But it won't. So who cares? anthony (see warning) 01:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for reasons that others have stated -- Cabalamat 20:20, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - While I don't think it should be deleted, I don't think it should be featured either. --mav 03:18, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless we want to make Wiki look like a joke. Samboy 01:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This really isn't an actionable objection, unless you're referring to the state of the article instead of its subject matter. Johnleemk | Talk 10:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)