Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Shorthand:
WP:FAC

The purpose of this page is to determine which pages can be listed on Wikipedia:Featured articles. A featured article is, simply put, a particularly comprehensive and well-written article that examplifies Wikipedia's very best work. For more information on what a featured article should be like, see what is a featured article.

Anyone can nominate any article. If you are nominating an article you've worked on or copyedited, note it up front as a self-nomination. Sign (with date/time) your nominations and comments with "~~~~"). After nominating an article, you may want to place a notice on its talk page to alert readers by adding the message {{msg:fac}} (which expands to this).

If there are no objections after at least one week, candidates can be added to FA. If there are objections, a consensus must be reached. If enough times passes (approximately two weeks) without objections being resolved, a candidate may be removed. Anyone can add approved candidates to FA, or remove old candidates.

After an article becomes featured, a link to the article should be added in the proper category on FA. The nomination statement should be removed from the article's page, and a notice placed atop its Talk: page should be added by inserting {{msg:featured}} (which expands to this).

Nominations without objections

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

Baseball

Self-nomination (I helped organise a major rewrite and did some rewriting myself). May need some copyediting, rewriting, and pruning. Kosebamse 11:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Auto rickshaw

Self-nomination. Auto rickshaw is a mode of transport in Indian subcontinent. Hope you consider it. -Kesava 05:49, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Support, good article though slightly obscure -Aaron Hill 12:54, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Fascinating and concise. Support. - Lucky 6.9 21:12, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support. An example article, which in my opinion, covers almost everything that can be said about the topic in question. I would rate this on par with Crushing by elephant which was featured recently. Chancemill 12:18, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

StarCraft

I particularly like the "typical game" part. Fredrik 15:05, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article. --Etaonish 15:13, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support: Extremely chill. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:04, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Love the StarCraft culture section; wish more game articles could include something like that. - jredmond 16:52, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support. This should be the vanguard for ALL Wikipedia video game articles! - Lucky 6.9 21:25, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support. →Raul654 21:35, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose (but only just). It's a great article, but I think it's deficient in two places. First, I think it should have a paragraph or two (no more) on the significant structural and doctrinal differences between the three races (I think this is important, as it's one place where starcraft deviates markedly from the more symmetric warcraft games). Secondly, I think it needs some more pictures (I left suggestions on the talk page). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:58, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nominations with unresolved objections

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

Legend tripping

Self-nomination. A practice I engaged in several times in my youth, but for which I had no name. Smerdis of Tlön 17:39, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Interesting and well written. Exploding Boy 01:08, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Object, simply because of "in the [...] United States, and probably elsewhere". This is a US-centric, and too vague, statement. Needs clarification as to whether legend tripping actually exists elsewhere. Fredrik 01:21, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Object: There is much more material available outside of the States than within. Recognize that this is a little myopic.--LordSuryaofShropshire 16:15, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, is it called by some other name elsewhere? From what I have been able to determine, it seems to be mostly a US and Canadian phenomenon, and most sites I have been able to learn of are in the Midwest. Smerdis of Tlön 16:37, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, the ancient Greeks & Romans would travel considerable distances just to witness the Colossi of Memnon sing to the rising sun -- or at least they did until Septimius Severus rebuilt the sculptures. I seem to remember that there are other examples from Classical Literature, but I can't remember any of them well enough to mention here. -- llywrch 21:09, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support, provided the article satisfies Fredrik's and LordSuryaofShropshire's comments. - Kesava 08:33, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Public house

Well illustrated. Covers both history and current events, with a lot of neat trivia thrown in. I'm sure people will want to make a change here and there before we feature this, but it shouldn't take much to make it truly excellent. Isomorphic 07:35, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Object. I think the history is a bit thin, and there's quite a few things that could be further developed. I posted a load of things that sprang to mind as I read it to the talk page. fabiform | talk 21:10, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wigwag

This is a self-nominated article that I wrote about the old-fashioned railroad crossing signals that once dotted the Los Angeles area. Most are gone now. Thanks for your consideration! 0:18, 8 April 2004 (UTC) Lucky 6.9

• Comment: IMO sectioning needed. LUDRAMAN | T 14:06, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Sectioning done. --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:01, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Nice one! LUDRAMAN | T 17:05, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support: It is a well-written, succinct article with plenty of pictures that give visual context to a relatively (at least for me) obscure subject. I enjoyed it, and am in favor. --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:02, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with comment on talk: Can you upload higher res versions of the pictures and use the extended image syntax to create thumbnails? The layout is currently broken in Mozilla. Oppose as is, completely unrelated to content.--Eloquence* 17:29, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have converted the images to wikiformat. →Raul654 17:33, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Would some better pictures help? I have blanket permission from the webmaster of "Dan's Wigwag Site" to use any photos along with proper credit. The first two were prints I took myself with a disposable 35mm that were later scanned to the wigwag site. There's a wealth of far better photos available than the ones currently posted, including several looks at the mechanism's inner workings. - Lucky 6.9 08:25, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Better pictures added; correction of some facts and figures. Anyone? - Lucky 6.9 04:53, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Google

• Neutral. Will change to 'Support' when issues with for example the origin of the name 'Google' have been resolved. - MGM 09:21, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
• A really well-written and informative article. Good detail, but not boring. Meelar 05:24, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. While it is extremely well written, all fetured articles should have at least two pictures. A photo of one of the founders, perhaps? Will change vote to support if pic is added. LUDRAMAN | T 16:55, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Totally disagree that "all fetured (sic) articles should have at least two pictures". Not everything has a useful illustration. The only other genuinely relevant illustration I coudl imagine here is if there was a diagram somehow related to the PageRank algorithm. -- Jmabel 06:30, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- Jmabel 06:30, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Parts of it read too much like a Google press release. Too many external links. Needs many once overs and copy edits. Kingturtle 06:34, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jim Thorpe

Self-nomination. Jeronimo 18:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Support: comprehensive, well-written, NPOV, interesting topic. I don't know if I can vote b/c I just did a light copy edit and wikification, but I like. jengod 20:05, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Support: I'll add "thorough" to Jengod's review. However, I've also done some copyedit and wikification, and made a note on the article's Talk: page a few weeks back about its shortcomings. Still, Jeronimo did an excellent job with his major edit, and it's been steadily improving from there. - jredmond 20:21, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This really needs the POV to be toned down. It makes Thorpe sound like superman. We need to make him more human. Kingturtle 06:08, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I've added some information about Thorpe's difficulty dealing with the death of his family members and dropping out of school on several occasions, and some info on his three marriages (and two divorces). Jeronimo 09:48, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Nicely written.--TheEvilLibrarian 11:43, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anatoly Karpov

Self-nomination. --Etaonish 20:13, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Object for now. Although it's quite good, I think this article needs some work before it can be featured. There are some POV-ish parts ("which is saddening", "Nigel's success was richly deserved"), and several parts of the text are not wikified even though it seems appropriate. Some chess jargon or chess specific terms might be briefly explained or at least linked. Finally, there's hardly anything to find about Karpov's personal life. I'll go and do some minor edits now, which may "disqualify" me as a voter. Jeronimo 20:55, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay. Will attempt to update on personal life, but there really isn't much to find on that. Should have reread a bit closely on someone else's work. --Etaonish 21:25, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Have added much info and wikified. --Etaonish 16:27, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• I'm withdrawing my objection, and vote neutrally. The article's allright as it is, although I still think some more background would do it good. Tell more about Karpov's second era of being a World Champion, and more about the Kasparov/FIDE-split. Why did Karpov not defend his title in 1999? What is prophylaxis exactly (the article refers to Petrosian, but nothing is said about it there)? Jeronimo 09:59, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support, very well written.--TheEvilLibrarian 11:41, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

History of Baseball

Full disclosure: all the images are my work. Meelar 01:35, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Seems pretty good. But I think it needs some minor work (for example, no reading list is really "essential). Don't forget to include the fact that this is a self-nomination. And what do you mean the images are your work? --Etaonish 01:53, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Just that I added them into this article. Aside from those, though, I've added nothing to the article. Meelar 02:27, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • This article needs lots of copyediting. And formatting. It is also very very large. Kingturtle 05:23, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • This article seems to be mostly about the history of the game in hte US, and particularly Major League. I simply don't think an article about the history of baseball can do with out references to other countries were it's played, the International Baseball Federation, inclusion in the Olympics, etc. (Yes, I've seen the disclaimer at the top, but I simply don't agree with it). Perhaps it would be better as History of the Major League, or something similar. Jeronimo 06:56, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Blackadder

Lovely comprehensive article about the British sitcom. Doesn't have any images yet, but the writing style, pacing, and broad divisions of the article are all very good; a fine model for articles on TV-series. Take a look and see what you think. +sj+ 15:13, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

• Well, maybe it needs a little work before it's brilliant. On second read, I'm more neutral about it. [for instance, wikification of the page isn't complete yet; Tie-ins section could be more descriptive; tim McInnery doesn't have his own page yet; etc.] +sj+ 15:20, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

U.S.-led occupation of Iraq

Excellent example of an NPOV article on a very controvertial subject. From the talk page, it appears that it once had a very anti-occupation POV, but seems to have overcome this problem. If anything, it may have overcompensated slightly, but I think it has struck a good balance. It also has a very high information content and is well sectioned. -FunnyMan3595 02:19, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Object: Needs pictures of American soldiers. When that's done, I retract objection, because it's otherwise a very meaty and well-sectioned page. --LordSuryaofShropshire 04:35, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Object: This article is far from complete. Until the recent additions about events in the last 2 weeks it gave the impression that it hadn't been touched since the third quarter of 2003, ie no mention of the capture of Uday, Qussay or even Sadam. No mention of the apparent change of tactics to the targeting of Iraqi's who are co-operating with the US. No mention of the rotation of US troops. There is just too much missing from this article still. I do agree that it is relatively NPOV for a very controversial topic, but I don;t believe it is quiet up to featured status yet. Steven jones 14:02, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Object: I've just had a quick read through the article and most of it is not very well written. ChicXulub 16:02, 11 Apr 2004 (GMT)

Paideia

User:WHEELER might be a bit odd, but when he writes well, you wouldn't believe. An interesting and very well researched article. Kim Bruning 14:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I can't support right now. There is some very well-researched information there, but some very confusing style issues, and a few errors. The article, which is already brief, distracts itself for a fair amount of time with the concept of "arete" -- related partially to paideia, I admit, but it really shouldn't be the major tangent it is. Mistakes in areas I do know something about (for instance, he says "paideia" is a root for "pedagogy", which it is not) make me suspicious of areas I don't know as well. I think there is the core of a future featured article here, but it needs a lot of work to fix the style, expand it, and check some dubious assertions. In time and with work, I think WHEELER has indeed put together an article that will be featured. But not yet. Jwrosenzweig 20:59, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Confusing and in need of proof reading. Exploding Boy 16:09, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose: Too short. Not well sectioned. --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:03, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
• It needs a NOTOC and I don't know the syntax. Isomorphic 07:39, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good Times

I think it might be a good idea to have a pop-cultural article as a featured article (in this case, a groundbreaking TV show). Full disclosure: I wrote nearly all of this article. Moncrief 07:13, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. Some things that need work: needs more information on the characters (which are only lightly touched on) and maybe more on the plot. Breaking this apart into headers would be nice (if/when that extra info is added). A picture of some sort (like a fair use title card or DVD cover scan) would benefit the article greatly. Otherwise, I agree that we need a few more pop culture articles featured, though. :) RADICALBENDER★ 00:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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)
• Objection removed in large part, but would like to give Woggly a chance to do what she will before putting it up for this. Wally 02:08, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Wonderful article. I support. - Moby 11:32, 12 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)
• Very strongly support. The article was a fantastic summing-up of a very philosophically-intriguing game with links to relevant philosophy and sociology pages. A model of what Wikipedia entries on famous games should read. Wally 02:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)