Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

The purpose of this page is to determine which pages can be listed on Wikipedia:Featured articles (FA) (See also Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates).

• To help maintain this page: join the Wikipedia:Cleaning department
• To remove an article from FA: list it on FA removal candidates.
• To nominate an article to be placed on FA, or to move an article here to FA, see the sections below.
• For archives of this page, see below (3 different pages).

What makes a featured article?

A featured article should:

• Be comprehensive, factually accurate, and well-written. Please read Great Writing and The Perfect Article to see how high the bar can be set.
  • Accurate: support facts with specifics and external citations (beware vague justifications such as "some people say").
  • Well-written: compelling, even "brilliant" prose--the former name for featured articles.
• Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy (no ongoing edit wars).
• Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.
• Include a lead which is brief but sufficient to summarize the entire topic (see Wikipedia:Lead section).
• Include images (pictures, maps and diagrams) where appropriate.
• Include subheads and have a substantial, but not overwhelming, table of contents.
• Comply with the standards set by any relevant WikiProjects, as well as those in the style manual.

Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length, and if not enough can be said about the article's subject to reach that length, it should in most cases be merged into another article. However excellent short articles are also accepted.

An article does not have to have a picture to be featured; however, even if the subject does not have any obvious images associated with it, a suggested picture which could be used to represent it on the Main Page (it can be an abstract symbol that would be too generic for the article itself) is helpful.

Nominating and Supporting/Opposing an Article

Anyone can nominate any article; if you are nominating an art you've worked on or copyedited, note it up front as a self-nomination. Nominations need to be seconded (supported) by at least two people not significantly involved in the article's creation. Seconding an article implies that you have read it in full.

Sign (with date/time) your nominations and comments with "~~~~"). If a nomination, comment, or objection is not signed and dated, it might be ignored.

After nominating an article, you may want to place a notice on it to alert readers:

CODE: {{msg:fac}}
RESULT:

Discussion and Adding to Featured articles

The discussion period lasts at least one week. If, after that time, there are no objections and at least two supporters, it can be added to FA. If there are objections, a consensus must be reached. If no consensus has been reached after a month, the nomination should be archived in FC/archived nominations. Articles can be re-nominated once former objections seem to have been resolved.

Anyone can add approved candidates to FA and archive candidates with objections (if objections remain after a month).

After an article becomes featured, a link to the article should be added in the proper category on Wikipedia:Featured articles. The nomination statement should be removed from the article's page, and a notice placed atop its Talk: page:

CODE: {{msg:featured}}
RESULT:

The discussion of the article on this page should then be archived.

Removal from this page

If you are certain an article should not be featured, you can move it from one of the 'nominated' sections on this page to #Recent removals and proposals for removal (at the end of this page), together with your reasons to remove it. Be especially careful here to respect Wikiquette and to be as comprehensive as you can in explaining your reasons. If you are not really sure whether the article should be removed, ask first - without moving it's nomination/discussion - and try to find a consensus.

Entries that are removed should be archived appropriately.

Archiving

Discussion of articles which were previously on this page is archived in one of the following places:

• FAC/Featured log: for articles which become featured
• FC/archived nominations: for articles which don't reach consensus
• FAC/removal log for entries removed from #Recent removals and proposals for removal.

Nominations without objections

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

Writing Systems

I think this is an excellent article, with a full account of the often-confusing writing systems of the world. It answered a lot of questions for me, and I'll bet it will for lots of others. Mjklin 02:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Mons Badonicus

I am nominating this as an act of unabashed vanity -- & I'm amazed, not having read it for several months, that it still fairly close to what I strive for. I admit it needs some pictures. (I have the photos somewhere, & will scan them when I find them.) -- llywrch 23:40, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mountain Jews

This is an interesting article. Anyone disagree? Dagestan

Lassa fever

• this ancient article, I have started, lost its history so I can get away with nominating it here. Kpjas 08:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kinda short for a featured article, don't you think? --mav 10:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, working on it. Kpjas

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

• Wow. I think this is terrific. Kingturtle 07:10, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• It's about to get a lot better, so I think better to wait a couple of weeks and check again... --Woggly 11:29, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Trench warfare

I've done no work on this except adding three bits of punctuation, but it's an extremely well-organized, informative article on a fascinating topic. Meelar 04:48, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Amazingly comprehensive and detailed. The article itself could use a few more pictures. How about some World War I trench photos? Ex1le 18:32, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Meticulous! jengod 19:34, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. BTW, I wonder if I'm unique in having relatives (okay, one is the uncle of my step-mother) who experienced trench warfare on both sides? -- llywrch 23:40, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cajun cuisine

This is for the most part a self-nomination.

After the corrections made by others I'm inclined to believe that it's well-written in addition to being fairly comprehensive, and the subject is of broad enough interest, at least here in the States. --Bkalafut 10:09, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. It will only make people very hungry. Just kidding! Support. LUDRAMAN | T 21:06, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Well-rounded and informative. ⇒ whkoh [talk] 06:58, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Desperately needs images. —Steven G. Johnson 07:30, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • I would have to agree with Steven. All FAC's really need atleast two good images before they can be taken seriously. ChicXulub 09:35, Apr 2, 2004 (GMT)
    • Does anybody have any suggestions on how or where to find public-domain images of food? Bkalafut 10:01, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)~
  • Support: with the addition of pics. I'll try to find some outside of popeye's. --LordSuryaofShropshire 04:45, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. jengod 19:40, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC) I'm uncomfortable that it's more list than narrative, I'd like to see more history, and more detail on preparation of individual items, and why they are part of the Cajun menu. Also, parts of this are mildly POV:
    • "Sometimes the label is applied to any abomination involving inferior meat coated with stale cayenne pepper or merely as a slogan, as in McDonalds's "Spicy Cajun McChicken"."
    • "Cajun spice" blends such as Tony Chachere's are sometimes used in Acadian kitchens, but they tend to be avoided because they are inferior, too salty, and because Cajun-style seasoning is simply achieved from scratch, even by taste."
    • "what unscrupulous restauranteurs try pass off as Cajun."

Greek art

Excellent article, illustrated with a number of relevant images. Ambivalenthysteria 12:14, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Fredrik 15:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great looking article, but needs to be wikified before it is granted featured article status. Ex1le 21:03, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Prostitution

Seems very wide-ranging, well-written and comprehensive. jengod 07:42, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Seems neutral and informative. Saul Taylor 11:00, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Ambivalenthysteria 12:14, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: The second image there is a little dicey... not clearly prostitution at all. +sj+ 05:27, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
• Support. Kagredon 03:08, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- llywrch 23:40, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Origins of the American Civil War

This article was featured but was de-listed due to its page size and due to a questionable previous nomination/approval phase. The size issue has been fixed, but since the change was a very significant one and since a series instead of a single article on a single page is being nominated, and since the original nomination/approval is in question, it needs to go through this process again.

• This is an excellent, if a bit long (it is divided up into 4 pages), article on a very important and often misunderstood part of U.S. history. It covers the topic very well, is well-illustrated and wikified, and has been copyedited. This article has also been cited by outside sources as a great example of Wikipedia content (172 will have to provide the link). I wholeheartedly support re-adding this article as an example of great Wikipedia content. --mav 21:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Seconded. Coherent and compelling article/series; makes the reader wish it were longer. Due to recent moves, still needs a final pass of copy-editing; I found one instance of an uncompleted sentence which I hope I completed correctly... (diff) +sj+ 21:47, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Support. --Alex S 22:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Jeff8765 03:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Shakeer 07:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Object until completion of Support subject to copy-editing. I've fixed some errors, but there are some points I'm still not clear on, so I've left questions on the talk pages. (Vote edited, since the nomination clock is ticking).Markalexander100 07:36, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

James Bulger murder case

This is a self-nomination - Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:33, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I gather that he was actually known as James; "Jamie" is a coinage of the Sun newspaper. Maybe change the title. Markalexander100 00:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was the Sun, but did realise both names were in common use (e.g. BBC uses Jamie). I have switched to James as following your note I found that that is what his mother calls him. Redirects in place. Pete/Pcb21 (talk)

• Object. Not of widespread-enough interest for a featured article. Steven G. Johnson 01:03, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't feel that this is a fair objection. This murder profoundly shocked the British public, and filled the news for over a year. His name, and those of his murderers are still instantly recognisable to any Briton. And I don't think that fame or obscurity even enters into what makes a good featured article, does it? If you don't think it's featured quality however, it would be better if you said that. fabiform | talk 01:12, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Depends on definition of "widespread". This is not the type of story that travels internationally (e.g. I admit to having no clue to the names of the dead children in Belgium's Marc Dutroux case which also took place in the mid-1990s.) but as fabiform points out, locally (i.e. within a single country) there is often very substantial interest. Global interest hasn't been, I don't believe, a criteria for featured status in the past, but it may be worth thinking about on this page's talk page. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 01:33, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I am sure that people will be interested when they read the subject material. Although I am unfamiliar with British murder trials, and I have never heard of that trial in my life, it certainly gained my attention when I read it. I'm sure it would be like a domestic tragedy in the U.S. (assuming that you are American); for example, the Columbine shootings or the Peterson trials, although the latter is probably too publicized to be a good support. Also, there is no need for a featured article to have widespread knowledge; rather, it must be a good representation of Wikipedia's best. I believe that this page fulfills that role. ugen64 01:52, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is not a good reason for objecting. It shouldn't be a precondition for a featured article that everyone already knows about the subject; that would defeat the point of writing an article. Markalexander100 08:04, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very well written article. Saul Taylor 21:45, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Nice article. Clear, concise, covers the facts. The above objection is unreasonable - I'd never heard of the Scottsboro Boys or the Triangle Factory fire until today, when listed on the Main Page. Isn't that the whole point of an encyclopedia - it's got stuff in it that you didn't know already! Washington Irving | Talk 23:08, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• This is not an article about Jamie Bulger, it is about the Jamie Bulger murder case. I object unless it is moved to this or a similar title, with Bulger redirecting to it.—Eloquence 01:51, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • James Bulger murder case would be good for me. Markalexander100 02:33, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • After some umming and aahing, I concur and have moved the page. However I now object to featured status for the time being as several photos have been added and these images have not been tagged - some or all of them could easily be copyrighted - and I would like to see a discuss on whether fair use is appropiate before this article is elevated. I have contacted the user who uploaded the images to get the ball rolling Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • This issue has been discussed on the talk page. Two images have been removed, and another added. I remove my objection.
• Support. "Clear and concise" hits it on the nose. I think it's easier to write an excellent article about a focused topic like this than it is to tackle a Great topic. That said, it could use further refs to similar incidents (in England, or involving only children), and a few more external links, to stand as a model to others.
• Support. The following does not detract from my support it is a mere observation. - It is of course a sensitive subject, but I think that the article fails to deliver in an important area. What is particularly shocking about the case is the cruelty and brutality of the injuries inflicted upon the child before he died, and this is barely mentioned. Mintguy (T) 10:05, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I really don't think it's necessary to go into detail about what those two children did to him. Infact I believe it would detract from the overall quality of the article and lower it into the realms of seedy tabloid journalism. If anyone really needs to find out the lurid facts then they can always follow the external links. ChicXulub (T) 11:52, 1 Apr 2004 (GMT)
    • This is being discussed on the talk page. There are no current objections.
    • Since this page has been renamed to James Bulger murder case I think it's only proper to include factual details about the murder. I hope we can avoid a sensationalist tone without leaving relevant material out of the article. Have a look and see if you think I've succeeded (I've added specific details of the murder now). fabiform | talk 17:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support (although I've worked on the article, so this vote might not count). fabiform | talk 17:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Single Malt Scotch

This article was one of the first that I worked on, and I just filled in what I thought was it's biggest hole. Looking at it again, I think it's ready to be featured. Gentgeen 10:15, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Support, I didn't know anything about single malt before reading this, but I feel like I've got a really good grounding in it now. A couple of pictures wouldn't go amiss. fabiform | talk 01:48, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. But I have a couple of queries on its Talk page. Dandrake 08:00, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Support (even though it's a hideous drink ;-) ) Stewart Adcock 02:35, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support (Stewart, I hate you). Markalexander100 03:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Would it be possible to get a picture? RADICALBENDER★ 16:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. It really could do with a picture Dmn 23:35, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I've got some requests for premission to use photos out now. Hopefully, we'll have some soon. Gentgeen
    • Support. Looks good now. Any chance of a photo of the drink itself, perhaps in a glass or a bottle? Dmn 16:40, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • When my camera is returned by the friend to whom I lent it, I'll add one (probably a bottle with filled glass beside it). Expect it within the week. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I've added five photos illustrating the production process. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:48, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I await delivery of my free samples Dominick 19:50, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Informative and a good read. Jim 21:03, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Labor market

Well written example of an economics article. Jrincayc 18:35, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• I would second that, but I dont know if I am allowed to seeing as I contributed to the article. Just one minor thing, both the English and the American spellings of labour/labor are used. I dont know if this is a problem.mydogategodshat 23:17, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Not opposing or supporting yet. Someone needs to edit out the royal we bits. I think it happens about 7 times. Kingturtle 04:55, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I have eliminated all the "we's" I found, and fixed the spelling inconsistancy. mydogategodshat 05:23, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I don't like to criticize someone's work, but I find the graphs hard to read. The lines are all too thick and too soft, and the text on several is impossible to read. That said, the content is very informative. Isomorphic 07:43, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I've redrawn the graphs, they're not as colorful, but the lines are thinner and the text darker. fabiform | talk 03:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot. Much easier to read the graphs now (at least for me.) Isomorphic 04:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Clear, compelling and reasonably comprehensive. (further discussion of nonclassical views of labor markets is needed, but it's hard to find those anywhere) +sj+ 22:39, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

11 M

I just read in a comment, that there are several wikipedians from Madrid and we really don't know the fate of at least one of the regulars since the day before these events. Another admin wrote that he usually takes the train to go to the university but he didn't yesterday because of a strike. As this tragedy has touched the wikipedia community deeply and closely, I suggest that we make the March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks the featured article and use the Spanish flag with the black ribbon (es:Imagen:Madrid_pesame.png), de:Benutzer:Triebtäter

• Oppose. I understand why you've made this request, but I don't think that this article should be given "featued status" yet. It's shaping up into a wonderful article, but it is still changing every day, hour to hour, and I think it shouldn't be made a featured article until it has had a chance to stabilise. It is currently linked from the main page in the "in the news" section. Perhaps we could make this more obvious by changing the picture in this section to the Spanish flag and black ribbon, as you suggest? fabiform | talk 22:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • As far as I get news from Madrid, the attacks shattered thewhole country. Coloured ribbons recently have become an international symbol for solidarity. So I think it is a good idea to have the same memorial feature as the Spanish Wikipedia has. | 217.231.218.28 22:12, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• For everyone's info, the image in question has been uploaded to En as Flag spain black ribbon.png (not by me). Garrett Albright 09:16, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The article seems to have stabilized. --Ruhrjung 08:43, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Fine example of a quick-turnaround art by many collaborators. A model for future arts. (fabi: pls confirm it has stabilised) +sj+ 01:42, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • I will reread it when I get a chance, and decide whether I want to withdraw my objection then. fabiform | talk 08:16, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Definitely support. IMHO a good featured article should have interest in it and should be being edited regularly. LUDRAMAN | T 19:05, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chinatown

Good stuff, this. I'm putting it under self [when self-nominations and others were still separate - —Eloquence] because I've copy edited it a bit, but it's a very well-done piece. jengod 06:35, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Next to nothing on European ones. -- Kaihsu 20:30, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
  • Support. Content on the European Chinatowns has since been added. --Jiang 01:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• While it's a good article and fairly complete, there are still some omissions, for example there's nothing on Chinatowns in Asia, and some of the information (on Vancouver's Chinatown) is a little out of date. I think it's an incredible start, but could use a little more fleshing out. Exploding Boy 02:55, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • see Chinatown#Chinatowns_in_Asia. What's out of date about Vancouver? --Jiang
• Tentatively support; thorough and context-ful. Can someone break up the first long unbroken section a bit? (the first 10 pars of section 2) too long/detailed/lacking in overview compared with the tone/pace of the rest of the article. +sj+ 00:43, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • moved up to encourage people to verify that objections have been responded to.
  • I subhed'd the heck out of the top parts, and refined some of the others. whaddya think now? jengod 02:08, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wow, a massive amount of work done over the past day. Excellent. I love descent into h4 territory... makes the TOC worth reading. Dear successive supporter, please propel this beauty into Featured land. +sj+ 06:51, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
• Great article. Definitely support. Darkcore 09:40, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989

• A lengthy, NPOV and well-written article on a controversial issue. Ambivalenthysteria 07:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Need to be wikified. Colipon 16:50, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Otherwise good. Fredrik 17:33, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Can you give me an example of where this needs to happen? I didn't write the article, but if you can point me in the right direction, I'll fix it up anyway. Ambivalenthysteria 06:54, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't see how it needs to be wikified. there are enough links. --Jiang 09:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• A few sections would also be nice. --mav 06:25, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Good, but I agree sections would help. Markalexander100 08:02, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Looks good now. Markalexander100 08:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Agreed. The article should be fine now. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 10:33, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Would there be any objections to moving this back to nominations without objections then? Ambivalenthysteria 12:31, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support; simple, lovely example of a good feature. No objections to moving it, as the objections have been addressed. I'll move it in a minute, when I move a few others. +sj+ 01:39, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
• support. --Jiang 19:39, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain. Some anti-CPC biases slip in, student protestors are romanticized periodically, etc. But still, one would expect the biases to be far more overt on WP, given the subject matter. 172 23:18, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Leopold and Loeb

Easy to read. thorough. educational. an understanding of darrow. Kingturtle 19:31, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• My only concern is that it reads a little too polished. If this is original writing, then by all means let's put in the list. -- llywrch 20:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I get the same impression myself. Look at the original edit - looks a little too good for a first draft. →Raul654 21:50, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Innocent until proven guilty? We can't ask the orignal author, who seems to have stopped editing after June 2003. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 10:02, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, I did a quick check of selected text against Google, & could not find any possible candidates this was copied from -- although I did find a few sites that reuse Wikipedia content. Unless someone can think of an easy way to prove my suspicions (which I raised only to prevent immediate embarassment to Wikipedia), then I will withdraw my objections. -- llywrch 17:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A fine example of how to write up a brief but noteworthy story. +sj+ 01:55, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC) (objections seem to have been met, for now; minor error I just corrected would hopefully never have made it into a major publication. in any case, if we're not willing to remove sth for copyvio, we should be able to feature it while it's part of WP...)
• Object. This isn't the best we can do. Once the detail I mention is worked on, maybe. "In the Jewish community, no one had expected that such shining examples of success could...". Previous to this, there's no mention of them being Jewish or shining examples of success. This needs to change. I'd put it in myself, but I don't know the topic well enough to merge without awkwardness. Meelar 07:57, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Added "Both were Jews and had affluent families." ⇒ whkoh [talk] 07:09, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • With minor format changes and intro sentence, objection withdrawn. Meelar 19:01, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

ROC presidential election, 2004

Self-nominated by Kaihsu 20:36, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

• Neutral. I would like to see this promoted, but I think the organization needs some help. I tried to add subheads, but left stuff that didn't quite fit or would belong in mutiple sections into "other developments". --Jiang 06:19, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • organization has been fixed. --Jiang
• Looks great but against it as vote is not yet done. I don't mind to having this article nominated again after results are in.Revth 15:02, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Good call. Let's keep the article a candidate until the candidate becomes elected. -- Kaihsu 17:24, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)
  • While not really definitive yet, I support this article being featured now. I think the article is neutral. Revth 03:42, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Clear neutral prose, excellent organization, good use of images, color, and brief original-language (here, chinese) script. And the results are now in. +sj+ 06:52, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • As there seems to be no unaddressed objections, moving up.
  • well, it's not really over yet. by the looks of it there's going to be a recount. some parts still need conversion into past tense... --Jiang 07:35, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Buckinghamshire

Article on the county in England mainly developed to its current state by myself. I believe it's a good model for other county articles to copy. I finally decided to list it here because I've managed to find some artwork to display alongside Morwen's marvellous maps. Graham  :) 00:04, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Wow, that is tremendously comprehensive. Is it too comprehensive? Kingturtle 05:03, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Well there's nothing there that you won't find on any of the other county articles, except due to my local knowledge there is every single place in the county. I think it would be a travesty to not include those, but I suppose what you could do is to move the full list to a separate article and just have the key places in the main Buckinghamshire article. -- Graham  :) 16:00, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I think it's great, there's a lovely sense of politics and geography shaping the county. I will second it if we can break the long list of places off onto its own page. I think a list of (say 20?) principle towns/cities should remain on this article (you'll need to pick them, I have no idea!), and there can be a link to the entire list of cities/towns/villages in Bucks. How does that sound? fabiform | talk 18:58, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • How is it now? -- Graham  :) 21:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Excellent work. Still, it seems too much. Maybe Famous people from Bucks should be List of people from Buckinghamshire, and Towns in Buckinghamshire should be List of towns in Buckinghamshire? Maybe? What do you think? Kingturtle 22:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • No I disagree, and I quite like fabiform's edits making the lists into two columns. -- Graham  :) 23:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm happy with it now. The famous people seem fine on the main article to me. I've just tweaked the two lists of places so there's less white space. Anyway, I second this article now.  :) fabiform | talk 22:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lovely lavishing of locale-loving effort on what is at first blush an unremarkably-shaped county. Fine form for future neighborhood mavens to mimic. +sj+ 02:05, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Added to Geography section. Gentgeen 05:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Joseph Haydn

Group work has produced a long, deep and outstanding musical article on a major figure. (I haven't contributed anything there myself.) Wetman 21:07, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• My immediate reactions are that the intro ideally should paint a slightly more comprehensive picture and that "Life" should have a few subsections. No opinion on content yet. Fredrik 22:34, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nominations with unresolved objections

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

Alanis Morissette

This is for the most part a self-nomination.

After the corrections made by others I'm inclined to believe that it's well-written in addition to being fairly comprehensive. --User:Stoic squrimer 10:41, 2 April 2004 (-6:00)

• Sure, BUT ONLY IF the top photo can be returned to the way it used to be so it doesn't take up the entire width of the page. --Lowellian 00:58, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Actually, looking at it again, it's rather NPOV, so for now, I oppose this nomination until the page is made better. The page would be improved by less speculation about which lyrics correspond to what parts of her life, or backing up those speculations with citations from interviews or biographies. --Lowellian 16:05, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Conch Republic

One of the most fascinating reads on Wikipedia, in my opinion. While probably not appropriate for a featured article now, it has enormous potential. I can definitely see this attain featured article status if more people contributed. Ex1le 02:19, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's still very brief at this point, and would need a great deal of expansion. Ambivalenthysteria 12:14, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting, but too trivial to be featured. jengod 00:26, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Great Depression

Very good article which is comprehensive and well-written. I think it should be featured. Sasha Slutsker 03:31, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Support, nice novel... :-) LUDRAMAN | T 16:11, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Addresses impacts of Depression on some western European countries and its connections to the WWs, but I don't think it offers enough insight into the global impact (did it affect the Arab world? South America? how did the contraction of First World economies affect technological progress and developing world growth?) or the micro-impact on individuals suffering from job losses, bankruptcy and so on. I know that's a lot to ask, but a mega-topic like the Great Depression asks a lot. It's a good article, but I think needs to better if it's Wikipedia's contribution to understanding the Great Depression. jengod 00:34, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • As the primary author, I ardently OPPOSE feature. This article was grossly unfinished when I started adding content. Now it's going through a worsening identity crisis. I posted most of the existing content before the creation of the articles on individual countries (e.g., The Great Depression in the United Kingdom). The article increasingly leaves out everything but the United States. It flies through Italy, Germany, France, Britain, etc. in two meager paragraphs. For now we ought to change the name to The Great Depression in the United States. A new identity would cure the identity crisis. 172 12:27, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alternating current

I never could understand why we use AC. This article makes it clear. Well written. Not too technical. Encyclopedic. Could do with a picture I suppose. Washington Irving | Talk 22:39, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Support, although IMHO the density could be improved (the text should be more spaced out and sectioned) Ludraman | Talk 22:33, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I made some changes to address this issue. (Haven't worked on the article previously, this is not a self-nomination). Will also try to find a picture. Washington Irving | Talk 14:33, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Nice! Ludraman | Talk 22:24, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Object, for now. Nicely-written article -- however, it only addresses a few aspects of AC; there is much more to be said on the subject. More detailed discussion of high-frequency AC, different standards for AC, further information summarized as appropriate from the war of currents article, more on the pre-history before Edison et al started fussing over it, a note about the future of AC in modern use and its application in modern electronics, references to many more of the other topics which touch on electricity, &c.
• Support. Please note that the objector above has not signed, which currently invalidates the objector's vote, until a signature appears.Ancheta Wis 10:40, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • In that case, I'll second the objections. Fredrik 15:14, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Reluctantly object. While it is overall quite good --- and while a bit more could be written, the invocation of war of currents is probably the best way --- the invocation of Ohm's law making AC easier to distribute than DC strikes me as leaving unanswered questions. Smerdis of Tlön

Unreal

Covers the games and the series very well; structured well. 195.92.168.179 19:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Too short. Ex1le 12:40, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, this article is far too short. I'm moving it to the list of articles with unresolved objections. Fredrik 17:16, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • When the article was originally nominated it was actually a lot longer, but it has recently been split into two separate pages. Having said that, the article is still far too short and still needs a lot of work doing to it. ChicXulub 12:11, 01 APR 2004 (GMT)

Asperger's syndrome

This is a very well written and informative article. Perl 15:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Fredrik 15:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support, I enjoyed reading this, it flowed very naturally. fabiform | talk 23:38, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Acegikmo1 07:16, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Schnee 09:20, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Object, for now. Most of the article seems excellent, but the list of "possible people with Aspergers" is unsourced (is it just by random Wikipedians?) and it's hard to evaluate its basis and reliability. Some people on the list (or their descendants) may furthermore be offended by their thinly-justified inclusion on it. Steven G. Johnson 19:39, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you would support if we removed the list? I agree with yu about the list being unsourced and I think it should probably be shortened or removed. Perl 20:11, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I would support if the list were removed, or shortened to those people for whom an explicit citation to a reputable source could be given. Steven G. Johnson
      • I changed the section and added a little context. See if it looks right now. Perl 01:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I've edited the article a little further to make it clear that such "biographical" diagnoses remain controversial, and added a reference. I withdraw my objection, and am now neutral. Steven G. Johnson 03:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Dpbsmith 02:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) Best-written article I've seen recently, one of the few that might IMHO actually qualify as "brilliant prose," not just a good encyclopedia article. Maybe not quite up to John McPhee but "not quite as good as John McPhee" is pretty high praise. Dpbsmith 02:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm just curious: Do you mean the writings of John McPhee or the article John McPhee (or am I just missing something)? Acegikmo1
    • Oh, I meant the writings of John McPhee who is in my arrogant opinion one of the best nonfiction writers. In the world. Ever. Never even thought that someone might think that I was referring to the stubby and mediocre Wikipedia article. on him. McPhee is delightful; I can pick up a John McPhee book on some subject that doesn't interest you at all and within one page I get hooked and read it nonstop to the end. The Curve of Binding Energy is really good, BTW... Dpbsmith 13:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised... the prose puts me off, and is one of my main reasons for holding off on supporting featured status. +sj+ 22:13, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
• Support with one caveat. Is there a way to break up the characteristics section into two sections? I find myself swimming in it a bit, though the writing itself is good. If there's no way to break it up, I support anyway, but I would love it if the section could be partitioned somehow. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 18:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Gandalf61 10:39, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, for its interest and quality of writing. Pfortuny 08:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly support. Personally, I have a very strong interest in this issue; although I've never been officially diagnosed, I've become convinced that I'm an "Asperger" myself. But even if I didn't have a personal interest in the content, I'd still support. Dale Arnett 15:56, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Object. There's a fantastic article waiting to be made out of autism and Asperger's syndrome, but neither one is quite there yet. Arguing against featured art status: inconstant (and incomplete) wikification, colloquial non-encyclopedic language, and lacking historical context (how has the meaning of these notions/terms/syndromes changed over the past 100 years?). The article could be much improved by someone with a high-level view of the entire field of related mental states and conditions (and with a clinical detachment from AS itself). +sj+ 22:05, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Also, more detail is needed before this should be featured; among other things, AS should be distinguished from other types of 'high-functioning' autism, and definitional issues (which older classifications/diagnoses can be classified as AS, now that [for the past 20 years] it exists as a separate classification?).

Banach-Tarski paradox

I think it is perfect, Tosha 19:37, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Jeff8765 15:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. (As soon as the factual objections are removed or deemed invalid) --sanders_muc 23:17 22 Mar 2003 CET
• Okay, the revised article (especially the precise definition of "equi-decomposable") addresses my objections (see talk). I'm now neutral. Steven G. Johnson 03:15, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support . Gandalf61 14:56, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I couldn't even understand the opening sentence. Compare it to [1] (which is linked to from our article). The first couple of sentences need to be clearer so that people like me can at least get to the point where we understand that we're talking about taking a ball, cutting it up, and re-assembling all the pieces into two identical balls, but that this wouldn't work with a physical ball (and why). Once you've done that, you can throw in terms like "axiom of choice" (which is not made clear to me by visiting that article either). fabiform | talk 02:00, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Its well written and about an interesting topic, but really, really technical. Would support if some of the technical language were changed to increase readability. -Seth Mahoney 20:46, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I looked it over and it seems easy enough to understand. I'm 16 and if I can understand it, anyone can. ;)
• Oppose. This article is way too complex. It reads more like a math manuscript. 195.92.168.179 19:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I do not think it is an argument Tosha 05:19, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the article needs:
  • Better sectioning (first section is far too long and paragraphs far too short)
    • I think it is ok, it would be unnatural to cut it Tosha 05:19, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Better explanations (even though it is true that In three dimensions, a planar subset has an empty interior, since it lies on its own boundary, it would be easier to say that "a planar subset in three dimensions has no volume", for example). At least, for non-experts, the idea of volume is clearer than the "boundary" one. Ditto for the "infinite sets" and "bijective application" (Hilbert's Hotel is probably the easiest way to show the oddities of infinites)...
    • Part of this has been done, but I do not think all the set-theory paradoxes should go here. Tosha 05:19, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I know this is quite negative, but as an expert, I think the paradox deserves a much better vulgarization. Pfortuny 08:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I think anything which require axiom of choice can not be really vulgarized Tosha 05:19, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have no criteria for judging an article of this sort, all I know is that I learned little from looking at it. Needs some sort of explanation of the significance or history of the paradox, intelligible to humanists. Smerdis of Tlön 14:54, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • If you do not have criteria, why to write it? I think anybody can learn something here or at least can be surprized (anybody including 5-year old kids). Tosha 05:19, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Butterfly

I think that Butterfly should be a featured article. Just because of the beautiful Blue Morpho image that Hadal made. - Mark 16:39, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Meh. Not comprehensive enough - too little text to be a featured article. The pictures are nice though. Ludraman | Talk 12:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates is your friend. Ambivalenthysteria 06:58, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Soap bubble

Very nicely written, in every prespective a soap bubble has. You'll be surprised. Muriel 21:21, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Wow. That is a great piece of writing. Kingturtle 04:53, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Yeah, this is good. moink 05:29, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support: Beautiful topic, content, and execution. --zandperl 21:23, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Being able to make science easily understandable is a rare gift. (I do find it ironic however that this article could just of easily be put on VFD by people claiming it is mostly a "How to" or claiming the subject matter is "unimportant"). mydogategodshat 17:42, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Wow! Very nice and informative. --mav 02:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Object, for now. The structure is a bit chaotic, largely due to heading overkill. Reduce number of section headings, move some isolated sections like "Frozen soap bubbles" into larger ones. "No-tear" recipe may need some elaboration. "Usage" top section is not really necessary. "Soap bubbles and maths" is not usage.—Eloquence 02:47, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • I tried to reduce sections and moved the freezing to physics. Is it OK now? Pleaseplease, this is such a nice article... Muriel 20:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, no. I've done some work on it, but it's still a mess, especially the whole "interference" section, which also contains a broken sentence: "The ray of light reflected off the inner side of the wall travels slightly longer, so that, when the two waves become slightly out of sync, thus causing interference." I presume it can be fixed by removing the part ", when", but I am not sure. This section would be greatly helped by an actual illustration of the reflection of a light ray in a soap bubble, perhaps Theresa Knott could help with that. The structure is still messy. Mathematical theories related to soap bubbles do not belong under a "Usage" section. The "Frozen" section is still isolated. The last sentence of the "Bubble blower" section is ugly. Frankly, why did this get nominated? It may be a cute topic, but I see nothing here which stands out. Not the writing, not the structure, not the images (no caption for the merge image, btw).—Eloquence 00:02, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • This was nominated because i think is worth of Featured Articles. You may not agree and you actually dont. You explain your reasons and attempt your own corrections. Thats wonderful of you. Whats not wonderful of you is question why is this nominated, like the article was some sort of crap. From the supports i think its quite obvious that is not. Muriel 10:14, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Eloquence: I think your comments requesting more information on the interference should be addressed on the interference page, not the soap bubble page. --zandperl 01:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree with zandperl, I think this should not give too much detail about interference. Also, I tried to clarify how soap bubbles are used for maths, and tried to fix the broken sentence.it 01:46, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree with Eloquence, the structure of the article is still poor. And it really would benefit from a diagram showing light being refracted. fabiform | talk 03:58, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I've added in some diagrams, along with an explanation. See what you think. theresa knott 15:16, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • Good diagrams, but I still think the information belongs on the interference page, or on a thin film page. The phenomenon you describe is not limited to soap bubbles only, as is implied by the fact that it's only found on that page. --zandperl 00:46, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I've done some further work and withdraw my objection. Theresa's disagrams are great. I'd like to see a bit more on the history of soap bubbles, though.—Eloquence
• I was someone who liked the article, but wasn't ready to vote for or against it. I'm still not making any vote, but I'm happy to see it improved :) Good work! Sam Spade 18:55, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I think this is one of the most interesting articles in the entire wikipedia. -- Stewart Adcock 21:39, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but more could be done. I don't think the explanation of the role of soap in building better bubbles—specifically the remark that "It is so hard to make bubbles with clear water because the surface tension of water is actually too high, causing the bubble to pop instantly"—is not quite right. (Stop being so lazy, Dan, walk ten feet to your bookshelf) Hmmm... Isenberg... flip, flip, yep, it's a feedback effect that stabilizes the film because the, um, amphipathic ions decrease in concentration as the soap film stretches which raises the surface tension and brings it back. Dpbsmith 00:37, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellently, clearly and engagingly written. Extra points for the bubble recipes. Exploding Boy 02:38, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
• I withdraw my objection . No vote. fabiform | talk 23:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Object, for now. The section on interference and color (note British spelling colour, by the way) could use a bit more work. For one thing, the present article does not clearly describe whether the perceived color is determined more by constructive or destructive interference; the text seems to imply that only the wavelengths of destructive interference matter, but I'm not sure this is correct. Also, it does not mention the fact that the color/interference also depends upon the incidence angle of light, and thus incorrectly states that a bubble of uniform thickness would have only one color (you would still see different colors from the curvature, and/or if you move your head). Steven G. Johnson 22:44, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The discussion seems oversimplified in other ways as well...for example, all wavelengths don't instantly cancel as soon as the thickness becomes less than a wavelength. For one thing, the first destructive interference at normal incidence occurs for a thickness ~ wavelength/2n (and the first constructive interference for ~ wavelength/4n, where n is the index ~ 1.3). For another thing, when the thickness becomes smaller than this, the reflection gradually goes to zero, not all at once. (Note that the "millionth of an inch" quoted in the article is about 25nm, about 1/20 of visible wavelengths.) Steven G. Johnson 23:51, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I've edited it to remove some of these shortcomings, but I'm still concerned that it may not be correct in implying that destructive interference is the only feature determining the apparent color (vs. constructive). I don't know what the answer is (I can solve for the reflected spectrum, but I don't know enough about how the eye works to say how we perceive it), so I can't fix it myself. Steven G. Johnson 08:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great to see an example of how you can write a featured article on anything. Ludraman | Talk 00:05, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Awesome. Support. Jalnet2 00:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- I think we're missing the point. A featured article is not an article with no errors or omissions that is now "finished" and should never be touched again. It is an article that shows off Wikipedia's best, most informative and engaging side to the public. If there is something to be said about spectra of light, then yes, we should continue to work towards adding it, but I don't think that we should hold up this article because we can still find things it should mention. Yes, having too many holes is a legitimate objection, but I think at this point the objections are pointing out miniscule issues that are not sufficient to make this article less than representative of the best work we do here. Jwrosenzweig 18:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • An article which has known errors should not be featured before these errors are fixed.—Eloquence 19:11, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, I guess I misunderstood SGJ's comments....I didn't think we were talking about known errors anymore, but about a possibly incomplete section. Now that I have scruntinized his objection carefully, if I read him correctly, SGJ is saying there is an implication that X is true when it may in fact not be the whole truth (though it is part of the truth). My belief is that such an objection is insufficient to withhold Featured Article status, but we are, as always, free to disagree on that point, and it may well be that I am misunderstanding the situation. Jwrosenzweig 20:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The physics is right to first order, and clearly explained; the rest of the article is beautiful. +sj+ 00:39, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)

Heavy metal umlaut

I found this article to be an entertaining and informative discussion of a rather amusing pop culture trend. I had nothing to do with its creation and haven't contributed to it, I just thought it was really cool that we have an article on this. A picture wouldn't hurt but I don't know what you'd put there. Isomorphic 04:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Object. I agree it's great that we have an article on this, but while it's good I don't think it's superlative. The structure of the article is too awkward--decisions on where one paragraph ends and another begins seems arbitrary. --zandperl 21:01, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The article is fun, but the prose and disposition is not. --Ruhrjung 08:41, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This needs more work. Ex1le 01:57, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Considering the size of the Gibralter, this covers it extremely well. Very detailed. Not just the main article, but links to articles within it, e.g. History of Gibraltar

McDonald's Corporation

I stumbled onto this while hunting for pages that might be linkable to chicken nugget. It looks very neat to me, and there are lots of pictures. It's of reasonable size, and hey, it's an icon. --Johnleemk 06:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Object for now. Overall, the article has a clunky feel to it. Also, the lead section can be improved, as can the Challenges section. Is it really of sufficient encyclopedic value? Being an icon does not have anything to do with being a featured article. whkoh 08:44, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with whkoh, and also feel the images are pretty bad. LUDRAMAN | T 21:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Deus Ex

I think that Deus Ex is an excellent Wikipedia article. There are many things I know well and love, but rarely have I ever seen such a good synopsis of something. It is not long-winded but does not abbreviate too much either, clear and concise, and it has many handy links that I found useful, even ones, like UNATCO, created purely for the page itself. I would like to nominate this for a featured article- however, it does have spoilers, so probably isn't good to read for someone planning to play it. Does this present a problem? Aerothorn 03:22, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Quite well-written, but lacks the content needed for a feature article. That it contains spoilers shouldn't pose a problem, however. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 09:14, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

DOOM

Fredrik and I have put a lot of work into revamping this article lately, and though we're not quite finished yet, I think it's pretty damn good as it is right now. Any feedback on it would definitely be appreciated. Sarge Baldy 09:38, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Meh. Support probably - its a fairly good article but couldn't it be longer? Ludraman | Talk 10:16, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hrm, well, I think this nomination should wait a few days so the remaining work can be done first ;) Fredrik 18:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As Fredrik explained, this article is not yet ready. Kingturtle 19:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. I have read the edits so far...and the article still needs streamlining and better organization. Kingturtle 18:52, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a good idea to wait until the release of Doom 3? jacoplane

No, the article has nothing whatsoever to do with doom 3, that has its own page elsewhere. DOOM is about Doom and its immediate sequels. Sarge Baldy 01:10, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Support. -- Schnee 17:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support. -- Quoth 04:17, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now that is a danged fine article. Detailed information, clear and well organized sections, reads fluidly. Support whole-heartedly. --zandperl 21:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support. Strikes a nice balance between discussing the game and discussing the effects it had. I think this should be a feature article now, but that we should reserve making it the mainpage feature until the release of (the very eagerly awaited) DOOM3. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:53, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Definitely support. Well-written, compelling, comprehensive. +sj+ 00:46, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Good comprehensive page. Ludraman 10:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Unsure. It's a fine article, but could it not appear a bit conceited to the external user to be featuring an article on ourselves? -- Kwekubo 00:45, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This article doesn't seem encyclopedic enough to me; it reads a bit like a user guide in places. The "history" section is just one sentence and a link to the full article. It feels like it focuses too much on the English wikipedia, it doesn't say how many other languages it exists in, or what the top five most popular wikipedias are for example. I tried to imagine this page being exported to another encyclopedia, and it didn't feel right... I think the focus of the article needs to be better defined... is this article about the document we are creating, or the community that creates it? Why are we creating this encyclopedia, what gap does it fill? Where's the mention of the printed and cd rom editions? fabiform | talk 03:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I also feel the article can stand to be improved. Sam Spade 09:21, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I object to making this a featured article. (same reason as Fabiform) Perl 14:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Object. It would seem as self-praise. Bad, bad! --Ruhrjung 08:44, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• It's not all that comprehensive, or (sorry!) all that good -- it needs to be rewritten from an outsider's neutral perspective, with better parallelism, better overviews, more discussion of the big picture and the various groups using the {site, community, organization} and the divisions b/t those three, etc. I keep it on my watchlist but can never find the perspective to fix it... +sj+ 01:04, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Object for the reasons outlined above. →Raul654 00:10, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Cultural Revolution

Colipon 05:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The great Leap Forward section is too long and should be made more direct and concise. The entire article needs some copyediting to correct stylistic inadequacies: "purging actions" should be purges, etc. --Jiang 19:41, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rainbow flag

Or does it need more work? -- Kimiko 22:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Lots of info, but some of the sentences are awkward and could be tweaked for legibility. Example: "The flag, composed of the major colors of the rainbow, which is used to symbolize the cause of gay pride and gay rights, originated in the United States and is now seen around the world." could be "The flag is composed of the major colors of the rainbow; these colors symbolize gay pride and gay rights. It originated in the United States, but is now seen around the world." Garrett Albright 00:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Longer history, more focus on its development over time, migration to non-flag objects and designs, &c. The specific history of how use of the flag migrated from peace and other movements to the pride movement -- from more than one perspective -- extremely interesting; if you can track that down, it would be the makings of a great feature article. +sj+ 11:47, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
• Okay, I added some more about the peace flag and reorganized the article. I couldn't find any indication that this flag was used before the 60s, only that it was inspired by multi-colored flags that some pacifists used (presumably in the late 50s/early 60s). The history of the gay pride flag is already quite complete. I also added a little more on variations of the pride flag. Comments? -- Kimiko 12:44, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I like the changes a lot. Now it just needs a narrative arc... another angle you can pursue throughout the article might help. As it is, the collection of information and (v. nice) images doesn't hold together the way the brilliant articles do; hard to put a finger on it. +sj+ 01:10, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)

Donald Duck

A lengthy and well-written article, in my opinion. Samuelsen 11:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Very good article, but shouldn't be featured until it has more pictures.Ludraman 08:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• History should be summarized and/or condensed and split off to get the article below 30KB. --mav
• Object. Over 30KB, and too long--this needs to be condensed. While the layout is not unattractive, it could use a lot more pictures, considering the length of the article. Also, there are a number of links to non-existant articles. I don't know if we should have a featured article with dead links. Ex1le 02:07, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Object: it sounds like a summary during the comics section. Also, it's very long without any section breaks. I wouldn't object just because of size, 30 KB or otherwise, but rather because the unmitigated blob of paragraphs is daunting to the eye. --LordSuryaofShropshire 04:43, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Shell game

Very well done, and even includes a picture →Raul654 03:27, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

• This is not a vote. This is a question. Should Shell game and Three card monte be merged? Or are they completely different games? Kingturtle 20:10, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • They're similiar, but not the same. One uses cards, while the other uses shells (or cups, et al). They are always called by different names →Raul654 21:05, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • They are similar. and more work should be done discussing their similarities and difference. Kingturtle 04:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I maintain that this article is not yet ready, because of duplication issues with Three card monte. Kingturtle 03:17, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Do we "second" these? If so, I will. Nice article. I have to admit it's the Hieronymous Bosch picture that "makes" the article for me. I wish there were a more detailed description of the sleight-of-hand move. Dpbsmith 01:27, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why does this keep getting moved to the "unresolved objections" list? My own comment was certainly intended as support. Is any suggestion for possible improvement considered an objection? ("On my ship, excellence is the standard"--Captain Queeg in The Caine Mutiny)

Kingturtle has objected, I moved it down once because I thought "more work should be done" was an objection, Kingturtle moved it back down when it was put back in no objections and clarified that "I maintain that this article is not yet ready...". fabiform | talk 16:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mild objection. Lovely short article; not enough discussion of the specific history, variations, and most of all current instances of this game. I've seen and been offered to play a very low-stakes version, nothing like the "$30-$60" games suggested in the article; there are non-gambling magic tricks like this which take place wherever street magic is performed, carnival games, etc. +sj+ 01:34, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)

Venice

I thought this article was a good candidate. (I've had nothing to do with writing it.) -- Walt Pohl 04:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kinda stubish for such an important city. Huge holes in the history, for example. --mav 06:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem

The riddle is intriguing and the article is very well written. Fredrik 09:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Agree. Dpbsmith 21:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Agree. Zashaw 03:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Needs a better lead section. All I get from reading the lead section is that it is a riddle. --mav 06:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Not disagreeing with this, but please see the comment I'm about to put on the Talk page. Dandrake 23:09, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm pretty confused. In the assumptions section it discusses the idea that Monty might not offer the player a chance to switch, or he might open a winning door. I've never seen this program, did he ever do either of these things? How come the second contestant isn't even mentioned until near the bottom. Did they really use live goats in the show (I'm trying to picture this!)? Can the "what actually happened in the show" and "analysing the problem with probability theory and various modifications" aspects be more clearly separated? And how about a few diagrams? I kept losing track of where we were assuming the blooming goats were. fabiform | talk 16:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support now, there's been quite a lot of reorganising. fabiform | talk 19:15, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Support. The explanations simply do not explain well enough. They are not wrong; they just leave too much to be worked out by the reader. I think the article needs a work party, for which I'll volunteer if I can. Dandrake 22:53, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC) A number of fixes have been made. More critiques, especially of the intro, are welcome on the Talk page. Dandrake 02:26, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. A fascinating article with lots of good information, but too disorganised. Needs a solid re-write so that it flows better. (In particular, the discussion of variations on the problem should not come imediately after the intro - this is very confusing. Tannin 23:27, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sixto Nolasco

Self-nominated by Antonio Sex Addict Martin 2:21, 2004 Feb 29

• Photo? This is a photographer, yes? ;) Sam Spade 01:01, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • He's better known for his make-up and fashion work with stars than his photography. Antonio Rat Martin
• well, can we see a pic of a model he made up or some such? I really like pics, and this article seems to have use for one. Sam Spade 02:37, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I too would support this article if it had a pic of a beautiful woman wearing little or no clothes ;) - anon
  • Here here! Sam Spade 20:11, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

DXM

This is largely my article, I added info on dosages, safety issues, expected effects... it may be somewhat pro-dex POV, but I've tried to work around that... Pakaran. 23:28, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• mildly object. This article is slightly POV, lacks structure and might be a little cryptic for the "uninitiated". Some diagrams might prove helpful as well. Kpjas 08:14, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)\
  • I'll upload a molecule pic if I can find one that's not copyrighted. I'm aware of the pro-DXM POV in the article, and that needs work. Pakaran. 19:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This article has a lot of authoratative-sounding detail, but needs more of an introduction up front, and more focus throughout the article. I wasn't clear on what I was going to get from this article, and there seemed to be all sorts of random information that gets increasingly detailed (like the actual patent number) to the point of sounding like rambling. To be a featured article, I think DXM would at least need (1) someone to think about what is the significance of DXM and how this is covered in the article, and write an introduction that concisely summarizes this and guides the reader to the relevant parts, and (2) impose more organization on the article to sequester the highly detailed parts out of the main flow. Zashaw 03:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support, although I think it should include some information of William White, hydrobromide poisoning, Olney's Lesions, and kpjas has a point, it is kinda POV.

A few acres of snow

A succinct accurate correction of a general misperception, perfectly formed— since it concerns Voltaire— shows that a juicy brief article is recommendable too. Wetman 20:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Objection withdrawn. jengod 23:26, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for making the point, though -- I added several external references as a result of your concern. Bearcat 23:29, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

an Objection.

The quotation

"Vous savez que ces deux nations sont en guerre pour quelques arpents de neige vers le Canada, et qu'elles dépensent pour cette belle guerre beaucoup plus que tout le Canada ne vaut" does not necessarily lead to the conclusion Thus, there is simply no way Voltaire could dismiss New France as merely a few acres of snow, as the territory was too vast and too diverse in climate to fit the definition.

cette belle guerre has the conotation of this little war, a conflict, or the ironic sense of a "lovely war". This statement in Candide follows immediately after a duscussion as to whether the English or the French are the greater madmen. Beaucoup plus means much more and the sense of plus qu'il (tout le Canada) ne vaut is in the sense of il ne vaut rien - it ain't worht nothin', to put it in the vernacular. "le Canada" = "the middle of nowhere". It is perfectly reasonable to imply from this exchange of dialogue in a novel, particularly in the context of a description of the combatants as madmen, that Voltaire may well be of the view that, never mind that little patch that the combattants are fighting over, its not even worth the whole of that worthless back woods down as far as Louisiana. Although I agree that the quote may often be truncated, the weight of usage and opinion, as well as the actual context is against the conclusion of the author. It is an interesting take on it but Voltaire was concerned with the "Salon" not the back woods. A more balanced approach to the text and the context would get my vote. Benji Franklyn

These questions of whether Voltaire was right or wrong or lacked NPOV are for an essay. An encyclopedia entry is a report, not an opportunity for us to pass judgment on Voltaire's assessment of Canada and claim the "weight of usage and opinion.". The entry is succinct and self-explanatory. Wetman 05:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The weight of usage and opinion is that Canada is the few acres of snow, which is flat-out wrong regardless of what other opinions of Canada are or are not reflected in Voltaire's words. My entry doesn't claim that Voltaire had a particularly high opinion of Canada -- only that whatever his opinion was, quelques arpents de neige isn't it. Bearcat 05:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I object. While this is a very well written article, I don't think its scope is broad enough to become a "Featured article". While it might be interesting for Canadians, fans of Voltaire, or people interested in how misquotes (alternate, inaccurate memes) are often spread faster than real quotes, it isn't the kind of article that encompasses a topic of any real breadth, IMHO. Gaurav 19:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Speaking as the writer of the article, I'm perfectly happy with the fact that it already got posted as a "Did you know...?" link on the front page, which IMO strikes a good balance between "featuring" it and addressing your concern (which is perfectly valid). But then, I'm hardly objective *grin* Bearcat 10:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Congo Free State

Superb work on a topic that strikingly overlooked and difficult to research in scholarship, especially by User:Tannin, who must've expended quite a deal of effort, given the attention to detail and sources. This article provides excellent background for anyone trying to understand the civil war in the Congo since August '98. Mobutu's post-independence "kleptocracy" is the heir to the plunder of the Congo Free State. More recently, before the July 2003 power-sharing agreement, the DRC saw much of the same, with warring parties intentionally prolonging the conflict to plunder diamonds, gold, coltan, and timber. Although refugee agencies often attribute 2.5- 3.3 million deaths - directly or indirectly - to the civil war, reliable news from Congo is still so hard to find. It's to Wiki's credit that such an easy-to-overlook topic wasn't left to languish as a stub. 172 18:07, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Not ready for Feature. Needs more editing, more wikifying...needs to be adjusted for the everyday reader to understand. Kingturtle 00:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I made some changes for the sake of accessibity and presentaion. (Nothing substantial - so this isn't a "self-nomination" by any means) Are the changes enough for you to withdraw the objection? 172 23:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I spent an hour or so wikifying and performing small edits. I also listed some comments and questions on the talk page of the article. We need to get some other opinions and editors involved. I still don't think it is ready. Kingturtle 10:54, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • User:Markalexander100 went through Kingturtle's list of questions and comments and gave the article a final round of copyediting. I'll put this on the main page once Kingturtle's ready to withdraw the objections. 172 11:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • No one has worked on this since my Feb 21 comments. Please see my comments and questions on the talk page of the article. Kingturtle 05:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• This is indeed a superb article. On my short list of "what to show potential WP converts". Support. +sj+ 02:09, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
• I just "discovered" this article today through hitting the random page button and I have to say that I think it is a really great article. I came here to nominate it and I find that it's already here. I fully support this becomming as a featured article. Mintguy (T)

Socialism

Jmabel's version is the most neutral and accurate article I've read on any controversial subject at Wikipedia in the last 2 years! He should get a barnstar, too!! --Uncle Ed 15:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• The language of the article, particularly the informal tone, the passive voice, and the many generalizations ("Marxists would...") is getting in the way of me understanding the content of the article. DanKeshet 20:32, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Content: If I think it's reasonable and Uncle Ed doesn't think it's left-wing POV, it must be well done. Style: If it could use improvement, it's not something I'll put on List of articles that dandrake slammed for not being in good enough English. It has some things we've been warned against as weasel-words, but I think the references to other articles cover the ground. Another reason for support: unlike other pages with sub-standard style, it has a lively Talk page, and it appears that any questions about its language will be seen and addressed if raised there. Dandrake 19:16, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Why don't we leave it here for a little while (say until the end of the month). Give me a chance to edit the language I find inappropriate or confusing. You can see the starts of my edits on its history now. DanKeshet 23:42, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Well, it's past the end of the month... what do you think now? I'm neutral on this article, but certainly have no objections to featuring it. +sj+ 02:10, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Support. A very informative article. Ex1le 02:01, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Erie Canal

The geology and its effects on history alone would make this a candidate. Wetman 19:35, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Excellent, IMHO. Kingturtle 00:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I was utterly confused by the tenses, does this canal still exist today, if so is it used? E.g in the first line "The Erie Canal was a canal in New York State, United States, that runs from the Hudson River to Lake Erie, connecting the Great Lakes with the Atlantic Ocean." The English is spotty, strangely informal in places and unclear in others. I was left hanging a number of times: e.g. construction started in 1817 and finished in 1825, so we cannot say that 1000 workers died due to maleria (no date) and that they did the swamp section when it froze in the winter (which winter?). I added some metric convertions, but wasn't sure what tons (or even "tones") were referring to. It needs a map of the route of the canal, I was hopelessly lost since I know nothing about the geography of NYS, and a specific map showing the movement of population and goods would be fantastic. This article seems important and worth improving, its influence on American history was fascinating (if not always clearly expressed). fabiform | talk 12:00, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I now only have one objection to the article - it contradicts itself on one point (see the talk page). Once that's resolved I will support. fabiform | talk 21:02, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • In the Erie Canal area, there are freezes every winter, so any is a candidate for doing the swamp work, but nonetheless it would be nice to know just which winter. The Canal is still in use (as, I think, the NYS Barge Canal. As for malaria, I was surprised to learn that it was an issue that far north. Is this accurate? ww 14:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Support. +sj+ 02:21, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC) Great article; makes the subject come to life. I hope the last objection above (malaria, fabi's one talk-page note) are resolved so this can be featured...

Quebec French

Very extensive article on a topic rarely discussed in English. -- Kaihsu 16:44, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)

• Seconded. Good beans. jengod 23:35, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Support (except as Quebec French) -- Stewart Adcock 21:00, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Object. It still needs work. The English reads like a translation in places, and in others, frankly makes no sense to me: (e.g. this one-sentence paragraph) "This is due to the long history of French in Canada, the fact that the 16th and 17th century French immigrants to Canada were largely from areas outside Paris, and the strong influence of the French spoken by the King's Daughters who were of little bourgeois class from the Paris area (Ile-de-France) and Normandy." I also spotted some untranslated French, and felt a bit confused by some explanations which rested solely on comparisons to American culture. fabiform | talk 12:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Some edits made to address this. 67.68.254.41 05:19, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• partial support. I agree with fabi; once those worries are addressed, I will heartily support this art. It is clearly detailed and well-organized, and as kaihsu notes, a subject little covered in English. +sj+ 02:24, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)

Cryptography and related pages

This article does a pretty good job of introducing the modern practice of crypto, with some brief connections to its history. It is not overly technical, despite the ever present tendency to disappear in the technique or mathematical underpining. It's a good article in part because it avoids much of the myth and legend that encrusts the subject, warning in several instances of such cruft. Also, I goofed in adding it before noticing the candidate page. It's been removed, but adding it officially would be a good memorial to its evanescent existence on the list. Sorry about that.

The related pages are also pretty good, though perhaps not of quite the same standard. A reader looking through them would get a quite reasonable, and responsible, sense of the current state of the basic field, and some sense of the history. ww 16:53, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Disagree. Reads like a rant in places. Needs a bit of work. -- Arvindn 08:30, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I second this. The second paragraph of the intro, for example, is clearly editorial. Various other statements strike me as improper in tone or insufficiently supported (random sampling: "There is some tension between the two lexigraphic schools" ... "Which in turn gave government crypto organizations worldwide a severe case of heartburn" ... "At the time this sentence was written, each of the references listed in books on cryptography is reliable. Mostly.") Moreover, the article is fairly long, and information on many of the key concepts (e.g. public keys, zero-knowledge authentication, etcetera) is buried in the discussion of the history. Like any other mathematical topic, I would suggest that the current state of knowledge be summarized separately from how it got there. Steven G. Johnson 06:51, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Arvindn -- The article has been pretty stable for some time save for some organizational rearrangments. Those who have done minor typo fixes and such have included some crypto well informed folk. Can you suggest some of the work to be done in your view? ww 17:29, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I have made substantial edits to the article resolving the majority of my objections about the tone and my vote is now neutral. -- Arvindn 18:32, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I blanketly object to "related pages" - if they are so good, nominate them seperately. →Raul654 07:33, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Major changes have been made to the article both in content and intended coverage. As a result I have withdrawn my nomination of it until the situation clarifies. See Talk:Cryptography. ww 16:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Critical theory

Nominated by 172 22:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Not yet ready for primetime. -- Kaihsu 08:32, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)
  • You're probably right, given that it's so brief. But its quality stands out in that Wikipedia is weak when it comes to subject matter like this. 172 00:11, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Green politics

Nominated by Kaihsu 14:59, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

• This article constists mostly of bullet points. That is not beautiful prose. The article is informative, but is too basic. Kingturtle 18:30, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • This article has not been touched since my comments on 29 Feb. Please work on this article if you want it to become a feature. Kingturtle 05:07, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I agree with kingturtle -- most informative, not brilliant. Needs much more writing work to develop into a feature. +sj+

Green movement

Nominated by Kaihsu 14:59, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

• Not ready to be featured. What it lacks, and must have are: 1) History of the movement. Where did it start in various places around the globe? 2) Who were the important invidividuals to get the movements going, and how did they do it? 3) Where does and has the green movement have the most clout in the world? 4) As far as specifics, it really only mentions the U.S. Green Party, and the 2000 election...which is one of the weakest of Green Parties and IMHO the least Green of them all. Kingturtle 18:37, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• • This article has not been touched since my comments on 29 Feb. Please work on this article if you want it to become a feature. Kingturtle 05:07, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jürgen Habermas

Nominated by 172 22:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The discussion of Habermas' philosophy is mostly jargon, & I am left with no clear sense what his actual philosophy is, or how it might be different from, say, Noam Chomsky. -- llywrch 19:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, there's something wrong with your reading skills, not the article. 172 00:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • 1.I find your comment offensive & insulting, 172.
    • 2.If a writer cannot explain an abstract idea in plain English, then it is my opinion that the writer does not understand that idea, & is falling back on jargon to hide in a fog of ambiguity. -- llywrch 01:15, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, I get lost reading about nuclear physics, but I don't dismiss the subject as meaningless and what I read as "jargon." I'm sorry to tell you, but the world's complex. 172 01:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Explaining what is complex in clear & simple language is what makes an article worth praising. (That is what makes some popular accounts of physics and mathematics valuable, & others worhtless.) Consider Plato's Allegory of the Cave, or Wittgenstein's explanantion of his thoery of "language-games"; these explain very complex ideas in simple language. I would be happy to explain my problems with this article in detail at the Talk: page. -- llywrch 21:08, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • LOL! Now now.... I think readability is a factor deserving scrutiny. Perhaps a simplified synopsis would be an acceptable addition? It is true that a good many of our readers do not have english as a first langauge, and may benefit from a simple overview. Sam Spade 01:17, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • We don't have to be dumbed-down. Nevertheless the first sentence of the article reads "Jürgen Habermas (born 18 June 1929 in Düsseldorf, Germany) is a philosopher and social theorist in the tradition of critical theory who has integrated into a comprehensive framework of social theory and philosophy the German philosophical thought of Kant, Schelling, Hegel, Dilthey, Husserl, and Gadamer, the Marxian tradition -- both the theory of Marx himself as well as the critical neo-Marxian theory of the Frankfurt School, i.e. Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse --, the sociological theories of Weber, Durkheim, and Mead, the linguistic philosophy and speech act theories of Wittgenstein, Austin, and Searle, the American pragamatist tradition of Peirce and Dewey, and the sociological systems theory of Parsons." ..so I guess it is not totally unreasonable to accuse the article creators of intellectual masturbation. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:06, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • ..so I guess it is not totally unreasonable to accuse you of being ignorant. There's nothing wrong with this; we're all ignorant. For example, I wouldn't touch an article on, e.g., biology or software engineering. But when I come across something related to these subjects using terms with which I'm unfamiliar, I first assume that my ignorance is the problem, not the article. But if I'm wrong and you do know something about this subject, then I challenge you to write a better intro on your own. 172 14:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • Ignorant, yes indeed. There's the problem: people who are ignorant of the material we're writing about. As we computer geeks like to say, "If the customers can't understand our program, go find a better class of customer." Of course, we're joking; if we don't like the company's market, we need to find a different company in a different market. In point of fact, if you find a sentence as ponderous as that intro in any biology or programming article, you should complain! And get it out of FA if it's on the list, and if nobody fixes it. This applies whether or not you can make out the structure and meaning of the sentence, as I can without any large effort in the Habermas article. A sentence or an article is not good—not the sort of thing one wants to advertise—simply because the sufficiently clever reader can figure out what it means. If you don't want to change anything in the article, go ahead; just don't expect the article to be featured. By the way, though Habermas is no doubt a fine fellow, this encomium would appear to be so completely POV that it can't be featured anyway. Dandrake 17:48, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
• In short, object. Dandrake 17:48, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Wiki has the hyperlinks. Just put Weber, Durkheim, Parsons, Dewey, etc. in brackets and it would all be fine. The fact that users are objecting to this article simply by virtue of the fact that it's a difficult subject to access when you lack a fair amount of background strikes of anti-intellectualism. I'd have trouble grasping everything in Unified Modeling Language, for example, but I'd assume that that's my own fault, not the fault of writers engaged in what Pcb21 calls "intellectual masturbation." Nor is the intro "ponderous;" it's a succinct and clear summation of some really complex ideas. Moreover, do you realize the implications of applying the maxim "if you go with the maxim "customers can't understand our program..." to this page? For the sake of argument, Kylie Minogue would be the only article on this page that would reach a consensus. Granted the picture embedded in the body of the article makes this one of our best articles in terms of visuals, but insisting that articles have to be dumbed down to make featured status wouldn't say much for the site as a sourcebook for more serious subject matter - to put it mildly. 172 18:43, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I wish to apologize for use of the "intellectual masturbation" phrase. The phrase can be interpreted as offensive and I shouldn't have offended you. My point would've been better made if I had simply written "The first sentence is a bit long, innit?". I stand by that latter comment - ok Habermas's ideas are complex, and bring together the work of a lot of people. There is no compulsion that the first sentence of his article has to encapsulate all that. For instance the first sentence of the George Bush article merely states he is the current President of the US - it doesn't give his entire ideology. Good presentation doesn't necessarily require dumbing down. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reply. When reading your comments, I did assume that you were dismissing the intro as rubbish. Your second posting, however, is very helpful. You're raising salient concerns; the article does jump right into the meat of the subject, so to speak, without a slow build up, perhaps making the article more daunting than it has to be. I'll add your posting to the article's talk page when I'm running less short of time. 172 23:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Needs more detail and context, particularly for the individual works. Needs better sectioning/wikif'n for the large section of text at the top. Needs secondary views of the subject (related to context). +sj+ 01:02, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)

Zhu Rongji

Nominated by 172 22:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about this person myself, but reading the article makes me suspicious...it's so positive, it sounds like propaganda; someone critical should vet it. Steven G. Johnson 07:10, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Object. It reads like a glowing review of the guy - seems too POV to me. Ambivalenthysteria 01:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Needs much more detail; a lot could be written about ZR.
• Object - Way too POV. Unbalanced Dominick 19:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jews as a Chosen people

I enjoyed reading this article very much. It seems very well-rounded and complete. --Alex S 17:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Object, the "Chosenness as superiority" section needs much more work. It is from a jewish perspective, and fails to give proper focus to the opinions of others, or how this may have become intertwined with anti-semitism. Sam Spade 23:21, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Political divisions of China

Comprehensive. --Jiang 06:07, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Second. -- Kaihsu 18:21, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
  • Second withdrawn and formal objection raised in order to get Bth's issue addressed. -- Kaihsu 10:57, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)
• Broadly support, but section 2 of the table needs work to be comprehensible. -- Bth 14:54, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • fixed. --Jiang 08:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Not because there's anything wrong with the article- it looks fine- but it's a desperately dull topic. Markalexander100 02:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • dull is your POV and therefore not a legitimate reason to object. attack the content, not the subject of the content. What about Provinces of Thailand? It's already a featured article. --Jiang
    • From the criteria at the top of this page: "well written, even brilliant prose". Not even close. It reads like a competent but dull statement of accounts. The Thailand article has a history section which is much more worth reading than this. Markalexander100 04:14, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • point taken. the chinese version has the potential to be translated. however, it is not the topic you should be pointing at but the content. this article can become brilliant if it has a history section like the chinese version, no? --Jiang
    • Well, there is a connection. Most articles about dull topics will be dull. If you can write an interesting article about a dull topic, more power to you. ;) Markalexander100 01:47, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • and Provinces of Thailand is an interesting article on a dull topic? --Jiang
    • More so. Another point- the featured status of the provinces of Thailand article seems in part to be because it's considered as incorporating the individual province pages (see [2]); by comparison, a lot of the Chinese provinces are still very thin (e.g. Ningxia).Markalexander100 02:19, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • it would be logical to include articles such as Municipality of China (listed in the table) as well). we don't want lists nominated here, do we? --Jiang 07:41, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support... Comprehensive, and an excellent model for similar pages, an extra reason to feature it. Wikification, use of layout and tables, and breadth are all quite good. +sj+ 00:58, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • Nothing has been done to address either of my concerns. Still object. Markalexander100 02:00, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I noticed after writing the above that the Thai provinces article makes a somewhat better model... keeping it here.

M-theory simplified

Nominated by Ancheta Wis 23:02, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC). Comment: No equations, just concepts, which is appropriate for an introductory article.

• Hmmm. Support, but only just. It is good, but I'm not sure the tone is entirely encyclopedic (there's one point where the article essentially goes "But why? I hear you cry") -- also, I think it would be nice if it included an explanation of how string theory includes gravity (unfortunately, this isn't something I understand well enough myself to be confident of simplifying it correctly). --Bth 15:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Formal objection so Bth's issue gets addressed. --Kaihsu 10:57, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)
  • In the article, the hypothetical spin-2 particle, the graviton, which gives gravitation, is a result of the theory. Ancheta Wis 12:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) I believe this resolves Bth's worry.
• I think it would be better if these simplified explanations were merged into string theory and M-theory. If the explanations for either subject on their respective main articles are so difficult to understand that a separate article is needed, then they're not written right. And if for some reason you can't get one article to contain both a simple/abstract explanation and more in-depth information, IMHO it's better to keep the simple version in the main article and move the advanced information to separate topics. Fredrik 17:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue

Nominated by Dmn 21:14, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Second. -- Kaihsu 18:43, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)
• No vote, but would it be possible to use a photo that's less erotic and, I don't know, shows her face or something? :P Garrett Albright 23:59, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't ever call the photo "erotic", but I agree that a photo showing her face might be a good idea. - Gaz 07:26, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Any better? Dmn 11:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • No, the old one was better! Still, very good visuals overall. 172 14:25, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • The old one is still there, scroll down Dmn
        • I think it's better. Think of the children! :) Garrett Albright 19:32, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • No vote as I was only looking to see the old photo, but Ive been thinking of My child there and I want the old photo back!! lol!! Antonio B*ttmunch Martin
• I second this as well! Earl Andrew 02:08, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Second. It can't hurt in terms of attracting new users. --Bth 15:54, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Second. This page looks good.131.111.8.97 22:10, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Not bad. But not worthy of a listing with features, yet, imho. This article reads like a resume. it needs work. Kingturtle 04:48, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Looking better... +sj+ 02:44, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)

Quackery

Very well balanced and informative. fabiform | talk 16:43, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• This article is very weak on the history part. The history is very very rich, especially in 19th century USA and England. The article needs to delve much deeper. Kingturtle 04:53, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • No major edits have happened yet since my 6 Mar objection. Kingturtle 19:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

San Gabriel Valley

Comprehensive and insightful article on region of Southern California. My edits are most copy edits and a fact here and there--there have been many contributors since its fairly recent creation. jengod 06:16, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Nomination withdraw. jengod 21:31, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Not a vote (to ensure editing harmony). Need photographs. Please review the use of the word 'xenophobia'. Also, no link to 99 Ranch Market? (By the way, I used to live in Pasadena.) -- Kaihsu 20:35, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
• Just a suggestion, in the spirit of the non-vote above: the ethnic groupings mentioned in the article leap out as future trends for the nation. If SGV goes prime-time, sub-articles will need to be split off. I in fact vote for inclusion, but rework seems inevitable, just like the History of the United States which has been withdrawn from the Featured article series. Yes. Ancheta Wis 02:14, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• I oppose this one for now. It is comprehensive, yes; but it is not our best work. It reads more like an almanac and a tour guide. Kingturtle 05:00, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Withdrawn nominations

Hinduism

Withdrawn due to rewrite, valid objections Sam Spade 17:45, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) Particularly well fleshed out and informative, this article provides a solid explanation of what is perhaps the worlds most complex religion, and is also remarkably easy to skim for those looking for the basics. Sam Spade 21:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Support. fabiform | talk 03:54, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Jeff8765 15:10, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Object. When I start reading, I am overwhelmed with the number of unsupported statements: "Many consider Hinduism as a way of life rather than an organized religion" (what fraction of Hindus? is there any source for this?); "Hindu members of the religion are not known for seeking converts" (Hare Krishna?); "the concept of caste is gradually losing favor and intensity of taboo, but is still of very powerful significance" (without further explanation, this kind of hedging is simply vagueness). "The Vedas are considered the world's oldest scriptures" (a citation would be good). The Vedanta "distinguishes itself from other major religions in that it strongly encourages tolerance for different belief systems" (what about, say, Buddhism or Shinto?). Could also benefit from a few more images.
  • I don't agree with your objections, altho I do generally agree with citations. Do you find this article remarkable in its lack of citations? I think the wiki in general is lacking in both citations and verifiability (strange, cuz it's wiki...) but I try to work against that, citing as much as possible. I love references. I would expect that you likewise strive to cite sources in your edits? ;) Sam Spade 08:12, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think this article is remarkable in its lack of citations, but I think "featured" articles should be held to a higher standard. Moreover, what bothers me in particular here are the vague generalities that may or may not be true; I was always taught that, in a well-researched article, such generalities should be replaced with specific, quantitative statements and/or sourced to a specific author...otherwise they scream "don't rely on me." Steven G. Johnson 08:32, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) PS. Yes, I do cite sources whenever I can (see e.g. FFT) but let's not get ad hominem.
      • I didn't mean that as a serious ad hominem, but more a gentle jab. In any case I am thinking of removing the nomination as the article appears to be in the process of a rewrite. What say you, good sirs (and theoretical madams ;) ? Sam Spade 00:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Needs more coherence, and a better overview (on many levels). The opening para, the intro section below it, and the breakup of the article into subsections, all need significant work. Those high-level aspects of the article should be neatly parallel, cleanly NPOV, and to the point; right now, after reading a page of text, I still have no idea what Hinduism is; neither who its founders were (though I know what subcontinent they came from), who its current practitioners are, what distinguishes it, or how it is important in world and spiritual affairs (though I'm told it is a "dharma religion"). +sj+ 22:17, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Compare with, say, Buddhism. (-:
    • Support: Let's renew this discussion. Objections have been, I believe, largely addressed, and the Hinduism article deserves another look. The introductory section has been far better arranged and is more coherent, a sort of summary mini-article in and of itself. Caste has been addressed in greater depth, more pictures have been added (it is an extremely image-friendly religion!) and the entire article has been completely revamped in terms of organization. Even connecting links to more in-depth articles (regarding terms or specific scriptures and gods/goddesses, philosophies, etc.) have been addressed. Also, HInduism DOES distinguish itself from other major religions in terms of its 'one truth through many paths' doctrine. It doesn't mean that other religions don't share these ideas (Buddhism incidentally arising from a Vedic/Hindu culture and coopting many of its symbols and philosophies while rejecting others). Hinduism is a vast and complex religion with MANY completely unique streams of philosophy and worship coming under the same umbrella, and so is not easily condensed into as clean a format as other faiths. It is also the oldest faith, and that means that its development can be traced from stark henotheism to intelligent and complete monism with changes in methodologies and new movements and gurus popping up intermediately. This is an FA-worthy article. --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:38, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

1755 Lisbon earthquake

Removed this nomination because i agree with mav but i am not in the mood right now to pursue the suggested improvements. If anybody can volunteer, i would be happy to read! Muriel 21:01, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

i am very proud of this one. Muriel 08:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Pictures should be added directly to the article, I think.—Eloquence
  • Pictures from the XVIII century?? :) What do you suggest? Muriel 16:24, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • A google image search provides some suggestions of contemporary images: [3], [4] & [5]. fabiform | talk 16:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. jengod
• Oppose until the lead section gets expanded. The lead section needs to be able to stand alone as a concise article in its own right. See news style. --mav 20:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Dear mav, can you elaborate on your criticism? I'm not sure if i understood and i cant improve the article if i dont. Muriel 10:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The section starting "The 1755 Lisbon earthquake took place on..." needs to be expanded (at least a few more sentences - if not a second paragraph as well) to cover all the major points that are expanded on later in the article. --mav
• Think there should be a reference to Oliver Wendell Holmes's poem, "The Deacon's Masterpiece: or the Wonderful One-Hoss Shay. Why? Because I first heard about the Lisbon earthquake in reference to this poem and to the theological disputes to which it refers. Dpbsmith 15:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Recent removals and proposals for removal

World Wide Web

I feel like this is just not an example of our best work. I hate to be vague, but I feel like this is a ginormous topic, and this article has neither the depth nor breadth necessary to approach it well. jengod 21:53, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Medieval literature

I just noticed this, linked to as a featured article from the front page, no less. 1000 years of history, and it is covered in five short paragraphs. No citations. Is this the level of depth that we want to put forward as our "best"? —Steven G. Johnson 21:04, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

• I'll step up to the plate to defend my poor child. :-) I wrote almost the entire article back in August, Steven. I asked for feedback numerous times on several pages across Wikipedia, and all people said was "looks great". So after a while, I decided "this must be sufficient" and nominated it here....it was seconded, not objected to, and trickled upwards. I believe it is a good article as it stands, but agree heartily that it could be improved. If you have suggestions for improving it, I implore you, rather than simply cutting it as an FA, make your actual suggestions on its talk page. If it is cut with no rationale beyond "make it longer", I will become very frustrated with Wikipedia's peer review process (I already am, in fact) -- if no one is willing to help me write the darn thing, then I wish they wouldn't bash it. I'm no expert in medieval literature, and would welcome any and all contributors who are willing to make meaningful additions to the article. Jwrosenzweig 21:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, when I nominated it for the list, it was still called "Brilliant prose". Forgive my immodesty, but I happen to think the article is fluidly and carefully written, and serves an example of how an article can be pleasant to read, as well as informative. The article, as it stands, informs the reader of the major trends in literature during a period in history when the arts stagnated in many ways. It has the merit of being a broad overview that is not ponderous, and it sends the reader to numerous articles that explain concepts in greater depth (such as allegory and goliardic poetry). I'm sorry to get hot about this, but I really feel as though this article is being unfairly targeted. But perhaps I'm too close to it to be truly objective. I'll keep adding to it in my lonely fashion, then, and see if someday it will measure up to Wikipedia's high standards. Jwrosenzweig 21:22, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)