Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests: Difference between revisions
m →Summary chart: needs year, otherwise assumed to be 2008 |
|||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
{{TOCright}} |
{{TOCright}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/summary header |
{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/summary header |
||
| date = jan 3 |
| date = jan 3 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{|class="wikitable" |
{|class="wikitable" |
Revision as of 14:45, 27 December 2008
Here the community can nominate articles to be selected as "Today's featured article" (TFA) on the main page. The TFA section aims to highlight the range of articles that have "featured article" status, from Art and architecture through to Warfare, and wherever possible it tries to avoid similar topics appearing too close together without good reason. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with the TFA coordinators: Wehwalt, Dank, Gog the Mild and SchroCat, who also select TFAs for dates where no suggestions are put forward. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not necessarily mean the article will appear on the requested date.
If you have an exceptional request that deviates from these instructions (for example, an article making a second appearance as TFA, or a "double-header"), please discuss the matter with the TFA coordinators beforehand. It can be helpful to add the article to the pending requests template, if the desired date for the article is beyond the 30-day period. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requesters should still nominate the article here during the 30-day time-frame.
|
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools: | ||||||||
How to post a new nomination:
Scheduling: In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have. So, for example, January 31 will not be scheduled until January 30 has been scheduled (by TFAR nomination or otherwise). |
Summary chart
Currently accepting requests from January 3 to February 2.
Date | Article | Points | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Jan 8 | Alfred Russel Wallace | 5 | 185th birthday |
Jan 9 | Nimrod Expedition | 8 | Centenary |
Jan 15 | Alpha Kappa Alpha | 5 | 101st anniversary of founding |
Jan 19 | Edgar Allan Poe | 8 | 200th birthday |
Jan 20 | Washington, D.C. | 3 | Inauguration Day; next to be replaced |
Requests
January 8
Anniversary 5 pts, 1 pt anniversary, 1 pt one year since promotion, 2 pts more than a year since article on Darwin was run, 1 pt new editor. Another editor requested on the article talk page that this article be nominated for this date, and I think that this is a particulary appropriate article to be running in Jan. with the 200th aniversary of Darwin's birth coming up in Feb. and UNESCO declaring 2009 to be the year of Darwin in honor of that anniversary and the 150th aniversary of Origin of Species. The never ending creationism/evolution debate also makes this article topical. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
OpposeNeutral With five points, this article does not need to be on the request page this early, it can certainly take a spot whenever it wants. It unnecessarily ties up a spot and is an inefficient use of this page. Yes, it is within the rules, but so is myoppositionwithholding of support based on this point. Otherwise I have no problem with the article, it running, or the point calculation.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)- Support. We've had relatively few articles on scientists on the main page,-gadfium 07:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support Date is significant to the article, and the article appears to be well written. ThePointblank (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support. The subject of the article has recently received some well-deserved attention in a National Geographic article, and this would be a good way to start the 150th anniversary of a seminal year in natural science. As mentioned above, this nomination is clearly made within the rules. Kablammo (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support per date relevancy. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support per Kablammo (nice name, btw) and Julian. However - the blurb might be a little long...and if its on here early, schedule it early! Pretending that this was nommed a little later, it would have six supports already! I'm, ah, decently sure that it's gonna make it.</sarcasm> :D —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I shortened up the blurb a little. I think it is now more consistent with some of the other nominations.Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support - date relevance, interesting scientist. Wehwalt is right about clogging up TFAR, but we can hardly expect a 1st timer to know this. And Ed17 is right about scheduling early if needed. Smallbones (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support - ditto ed. This is an interesting subject on its own, plus the connection to Darwin, plus an anniversary. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Wonderful confluence of dates. How nice that Wikipedia's coverage of someone so important is so good! We should show off. :) Awadewit (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support per gadfium (talk · contribs), Kablammo (talk · contribs), and Awadewit (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
January 9
The British Antarctic Expedition 1907–09, otherwise known as the Nimrod Expedition, was the first of three expeditions to the Antarctic led by Ernest Shackleton. It was financed without governmental or institutional support and relied on private loans and individual contributions. Its ship, Nimrod, was a 40-year-old small wooden sealer of 300 tons displacement,and the expedition's members generally lacked relevant experience. Nimrod departed from British waters on 7 August, fewer than six months after Shackleton’s first public announcement of his plans. Initially, the expedition's public profile was much lower than that of Scott’s Discovery Expedition six years earlier. However, nationwide interest was aroused by the news of its achievements. The South Pole was not attained, but the expedition’s southern march reached a farthest south latitude at 88°23′S, and it could thus claim that it had got within a hundred miles of the Pole. This was by far the longest southern polar journey to that date and a record convergence on either Pole. During the expedition a separate group led by Welsh-born Australian geology professor Edgeworth David reached the estimated location of the South Magnetic Pole, and the first ascent was made of Mount Erebus, the lofty Ross Island active volcano. The scientific team, which included the future Australian Antarctic Expedition leader Douglas Mawson, carried out extensive geological, zoological and meteorological work. Shackleton’s transport arrangements, based on Manchurian ponies, motor traction, and sledge dogs, were innovations which, despite limited success, were later copied by Scott for his ill-fated Terra Nova Expedition. (more…)
- Renominate and Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- January 9 is the centenary of Sir Ernest Shackleton's achievement of a Farthest South point just 97 nautical miles from the South Pole - the greatest polar convergence in history, pioneering the route which Scott took three years later. 6 points for that and 2 more for no Antarctic expedition articles for at least 6 months. Brianboulton (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Would the category just be Antartic expeditions or general exploration?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- In my view, general human exploration. I looked through the last six months, didn't see any exploration articles whatsoever, so the points seem good.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Would the category just be Antartic expeditions or general exploration?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Is Brianboulton OK with the renomination after he withdrew it? It's our custom here not to go against the wishes of a principal editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've submitted the request so that Raul has one less talk page entry to keep track of; I'm confident that if I've offended Brian by re-submitting it, he will let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, me. I so tend to take what people say literally.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've submitted the request so that Raul has one less talk page entry to keep track of; I'm confident that if I've offended Brian by re-submitting it, he will let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support: A first rate article which truly deserves its time in the sun.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 01:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support per above. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support It is a fine article about interesting and exciting events with a good centenary tie in, and I am glad to see it back here. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support per Rusty Cashman (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
January 15
Alpha Kappa Alpha's 101th anniversary is on January 15, 2009 (1 pt. - date relevance to topic). This is my first and only FA, and I was a major contributor (1 pt. - contributor). The last FA for WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities was on July 25, 2006, when Alpha Phi Alpha was featured (2 pts. - no similar article in project for over six months). This is an underrepresented article in WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities (1 pt. - underrepresented in project). In summary, five points should be awarded for this article. miranda 22:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can we possibly add six points for the year after Centennial Anniversary to the total to make this 11 points? miranda 22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, sorry, it isn't in the rules. It would "only" be ten anyway, you can't have date relevance and centennial, it is one or the other. However, five points should be good enough to make it through.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support: How often does one come by a 101th anniversary? –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very relevant TFA because of the anniversary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the "diversity" (underrepresented) point is due to FA category, not wikiproject. This is categorized under Education, which has fewer than 50 articles, so the nomination still gets the point, however. Karanacs (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support per thedemonhog (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
January 19
A ton of points (200th birthday -6 pts, Vital article 2pts, other points possible) Feel free to tally em up it might be a record:-)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are no other points, so that means that this nomination has an eight-point total, which I think we have had in the past. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Aw shucks I was hoping for double digits. What writers were recent? (I am too busy/lazy to figure it out).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is the Sunderland Echo on 22 December, if that's considered similar. Other than that, I believe the last author to be on the main page was Mary Shelley on 30 October. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Addendum Had this article been promoted three days earlier, it would receive a point for being over a year old. :p JonCatalán(Talk) 04:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I did not consider the Echo to be similar, but I did count Mario Vargas Llosa on November 6 as similar. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and on that day, Jan 19 of 2008, I did tell reviewers that promoting the article on his 199th birthday would make a nice present! Three days, shmee days, I suppose! ;) --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I did not consider the Echo to be similar, but I did count Mario Vargas Llosa on November 6 as similar. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Addendum Had this article been promoted three days earlier, it would receive a point for being over a year old. :p JonCatalán(Talk) 04:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is the Sunderland Echo on 22 December, if that's considered similar. Other than that, I believe the last author to be on the main page was Mary Shelley on 30 October. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Aw shucks I was hoping for double digits. What writers were recent? (I am too busy/lazy to figure it out).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support - even if I'm already bored with 200th birthdays, it is a vital article. Smallbones (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I'm pretty sure that Midnightdreary, the primary author of this article, did think it would be cool to have it on the main page for his 200th anniversary. It is always nice to be able to showcase vital articles on the main page. Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support as eight points, Vargas Llosa being the last similar one. Of course, Raul has a month to run an article on a writer, which might even bring us down to six points! Or even five! Oh, the humanity.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support - 9 points, basic subject matter. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 22:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm, the rule isn't clear on this point, but I've always read it under the assumption that the points for vital article includes any points for basic subject matter, because almost all vital articles are basic subject matter, same would go for core topics. Think it is still eight points.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wehwalt is correct. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm, the rule isn't clear on this point, but I've always read it under the assumption that the points for vital article includes any points for basic subject matter, because almost all vital articles are basic subject matter, same would go for core topics. Think it is still eight points.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support I don't see how you could justify running any other article on the 200th anniversary of Poe's birth as long as this one is eligible. He is such important a figure in literary history and it is always good to honor 200th anniversaries when possible. Also it is a very good article.Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support As the primary editor of the current article, I support Eddy on the main page... so long as lots of people add it to their watchlist for me! I won't be able to keep it clean because, well, I'll be at Poe's birthday celebration (and nowhere near a computer, hopefully)! --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Are they serving a cask of Amontillado?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support per Awadewit (talk · contribs) and Midnightdreary (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support Two hundred years later, Poe remains an important and relevant literary figure. He is not in the dust bins. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support A "ton of points" seems like an accurate tally. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
January 20
Nominated on behalf of epicAdam, his first TFA for one point. Date connection is Inauguration Day, when the eyes of the world will be on Washington DC, and one point for basic subject matter, yes 12 year olds do reports on the US capital. And for myself, I do support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support - good date relevancy, good article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support - while hundreds of thousands are crammed into the city and can't move anywhere, at least they will be able to get online and read about the beautiful city they are visiting. Good article with obvious date relevance. Smallbones (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very good choice for this date.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent choice, extremely relevant Gary King (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support per TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support Superb date relevancy, a sublime choice for this date. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support from –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support per nom. --haha169 (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)