Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests: Difference between revisions
Crisco 1492 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
*'''Oppose''': I have to agree with Montanabtw; I'd like to think there is a large enough variety of featured content left to make the front page without having two television episodes run within five weeks of each other. Perhaps not...--[[User:Chimino|Chimino]] ([[User talk:Chimino|talk]]) 09:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''': I have to agree with Montanabtw; I'd like to think there is a large enough variety of featured content left to make the front page without having two television episodes run within five weeks of each other. Perhaps not...--[[User:Chimino|Chimino]] ([[User talk:Chimino|talk]]) 09:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support'''. Five weeks is plenty long enough between similar articles; it's well outside the time limit we penalise noms for. This one's in good shape (better than the last one, too) and is a lot less controversial (not that I ever thought cartoon poop was something anyone with half a brain should take offence at). We've also had a very dry run of articles lined up for January (politics, theology, military history, cricket "scandal" and that main page favourite, birds) so it's not like we're crying out for something more highbrow than science fiction. [[User:Grapple X|<span style="color:#556655"><small>'''GRAPPLE'''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Grapple X|<span style="color:#556655"><small>'''X'''</small></span>]] 23:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Support'''. Five weeks is plenty long enough between similar articles; it's well outside the time limit we penalise noms for. This one's in good shape (better than the last one, too) and is a lot less controversial (not that I ever thought cartoon poop was something anyone with half a brain should take offence at). We've also had a very dry run of articles lined up for January (politics, theology, military history, cricket "scandal" and that main page favourite, birds) so it's not like we're crying out for something more highbrow than science fiction. [[User:Grapple X|<span style="color:#556655"><small>'''GRAPPLE'''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Grapple X|<span style="color:#556655"><small>'''X'''</small></span>]] 23:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
*'''Two Comments''' - One, to emphasize Ruby's point, the 19th is known as the final episode, period (the show barely eked out a 5th broadcast season due to fan response). Second, I would recommend a bit of trimming on the front page blurb as while the blurb as taken from the lead is fine in conjunction with the article, as a front page bit it focuses a bit too much on the fiction which takes a bit of time to explain for this episode. (As I've worked on this article, I won't comment otherwise on front page support). --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 23:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
===January 26=== |
===January 26=== |
Revision as of 23:52, 2 January 2013
Here the community can nominate articles to be selected as "Today's featured article" (TFA) on the main page. The TFA section aims to highlight the range of articles that have "featured article" status, from Art and architecture through to Warfare, and wherever possible it tries to avoid similar topics appearing too close together without good reason. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with the TFA coordinators: Wehwalt, Dank and Gog the Mild, who also select TFAs for dates where no suggestions are put forward. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not necessarily mean the article will appear on the requested date.
If you have an exceptional request that deviates from these instructions (for example, an article making a second appearance as TFA, or a "double-header"), please discuss the matter with the TFA coordinators beforehand. It can be helpful to add the article to the pending requests template, if the desired date for the article is beyond the 30-day period. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requesters should still nominate the article here during the 30-day time-frame.
– Check TFAR nominations for dead links – Alt text |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools: | ||||||||
How to post a new nomination:
Scheduling: In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have. So, for example, January 31 will not be scheduled until January 30 has been scheduled (by TFAR nomination or otherwise). |
Summary chart
Currently accepting requests from September 1 to October 1.
Date | Article | Points | Notes | Supports† | Opposes† |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nonspecific 1 | |||||
Nonspecific 2 | |||||
January 15 | Hobey Baker | 1 | Date relevant to article topic | 3 | 1 |
January 18 | Over There (Fringe) | 2 | Date relevant to article topic | 1 | 1 |
January 26 | Douglas MacArthur | 3 | Birthday, vital article, recent US military biography | 2 | 2 |
January 28 | Reception history of Jane Austen | 10? | 200 years Pride and Prejudice, last literature > 3 months | 1 | 0 |
February 14 | Icelandic Phallological Museum | 3 | Nothing similar in last 6 months, date relevance |
† Tally may not be up to date; please do not use these tallies for removing a nomination according to criteria 1 or 3 above unless you have verified the numbers. The nominator is included in the number of supporters.
Nonspecific date nominations
Nonspecific date 1
Nonspecific date 2
Specific date nominations
January 15
Hobey Baker
Date relevant to article topic = 1 point. Similar article not showed in over 6 months. (The similar article is the Hockey Hall of Fame) = 2 points.--Lucky102 (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support, I don't recall seeing something too similar in a while, good relevant date, high quality article, recently promoted in 2012. — Cirt (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- There was another American sports biography article on 13 December. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but that was of a sport more unique to USA, American football, and this is of a sport more known in other countries, ice hockey. Good choice to show that variety and diversity on the main page. — Cirt (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- There was another American sports biography article on 13 December. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Please add to the summary chart at the top of the page; this doesn't show in TOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support Nice to see a hockey article Canuck89 (talk to me) 05:29, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
- 1 point at most as sports biographies are sports biographies, and TFAR does not sub-divide similarity by sport (and certainly not by whether or not sportsmen are in a hall of fame). I note also that a sports article is nominated for 14th January and that, if Kenneth Walker runs on 5th January, Baker would be the third US airman killed in battle to appear within 6 weeks. Blurb expanded to proper length, years of birth and death added, full names cut. BencherliteTalk 11:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose: Article seems suitable for TFA, but we seem to be pretty sports-heavy, particularly if Adelaide Leak runs the previous day. Maybe next month? Montanabw(talk) 22:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- It would be sub-optimal to run two sports articles back-to-back, and one is proposed for the 14th; why is this article not proposed in one of the non-date-specific slots, to give the delegates some leeway on choice of date? Those slots are empty. Also, point tally would be negative when we substract for similar articles (14th, and airmen). Also, there are four biographies on the page now, back-to-back sports, and three airmen killed in battle in a little over a month; delegates will have to overlook something that has community support to maintain mainpage diversity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
January 18
Over There (Fringe)
2 points -- Jan 18 will be the series finale of the American science fiction series Fringe, so I thought I'd give it a good send-off (1 pt for date relevance). This article was promoted in July 2011 (1 pt). As far as I can tell, no television episode will have appeared within a month of this date. This is the first time I've nominated an article that I've significantly contributed to, though Caroline of Ansbach ran earlier this year. Ruby 2010/2013 18:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment agree with calculation at 2 points. Toolserver reports two deadlinks, though. BencherliteTalk 19:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I found three link issues, which are now all resolved (one citation was removed entirely as the corresponding sentence was backed up by another source). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose:We just ran a South Park episode; seems like another TV series is not a priority. Nothing personal, just seems like we have something more interesting out there that has more potential points. Montanabw(talk) 20:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns. But just looking at the other potential TFAs in January (4 historical biographies, one sports incident, and this), I think this article would actually be adding some diversity. Ruby 2010/2013 21:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: I have to agree with Montanabtw; I'd like to think there is a large enough variety of featured content left to make the front page without having two television episodes run within five weeks of each other. Perhaps not...--Chimino (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Five weeks is plenty long enough between similar articles; it's well outside the time limit we penalise noms for. This one's in good shape (better than the last one, too) and is a lot less controversial (not that I ever thought cartoon poop was something anyone with half a brain should take offence at). We've also had a very dry run of articles lined up for January (politics, theology, military history, cricket "scandal" and that main page favourite, birds) so it's not like we're crying out for something more highbrow than science fiction. GRAPPLE X 23:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Two Comments - One, to emphasize Ruby's point, the 19th is known as the final episode, period (the show barely eked out a 5th broadcast season due to fan response). Second, I would recommend a bit of trimming on the front page blurb as while the blurb as taken from the lead is fine in conjunction with the article, as a front page bit it focuses a bit too much on the fiction which takes a bit of time to explain for this episode. (As I've worked on this article, I won't comment otherwise on front page support). --MASEM (t) 23:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
January 26
Douglas MacArthur
3 points: Vital article (4 points) + date relevance (1 point) - another article on a Medal of Honor winner (Walker on 5 January) (2 points). After MacArthur returned to the United States in 1951, his former staff and subordinates began gathering together annually at his penthouse at the Waldorf Towers in New York to celebrate his birthday. After his death, they continued to hold a reunion every year, but at varying locations, including a visit to Australia in 1974 hosted by Sir Edmund Herring. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Blurb tweaked to c.1,200 characters, feel free to tinker if you feel I've got the balance wrong. BencherliteTalk 20:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've tweaked it. 1,194 characters, including spaces. I'd like to mention that his Dad got the medal of honor too, but don't have the characters... Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Haven't we had a lot of military figures recently? Birthday is an obvious date, just wondering if we have been a little heavy on military officers, particularly American ones? This isn't an oppose, just a question> Montanabw(talk) 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- There were two in December (Jesse Brown and William the Conqueror), and this will make it two in January (with Kenneth Walker). I am one of the guilty parties who writes a lot of military biographies. MacArthur is probably the best known though, and I'm sure the article will attract a great deal of interest. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- True enough about interest, and William the Conqueror is a dramatically different character; just thought there'd been a lot of 20th century military articles recently, so figured I'd raise the issue in case it was an issue. Montanabw(talk) 18:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I would have run this on 5 April 2014 (fifty years since death) as there's more date relevance, but I've got no objection to this nom either. Sceptre (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support MacArthur is quite well known and accomplished a great many things, so there are a number of dates that this would work for. I would be fine with this running on the date suggested. I copyedited the blurb a bit. NW (Talk) 06:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. The article has always been too hagiographic. Too often it gives Big Mac the podium with long quotes that are not his most famous. (1. "By profession I am a soldier..." 2. "My strategic conception for the Pacific Theater..." 3. "The Japanese people since the war..." 4. "For five hours I toured the front..." 5. "I am closing my 52 years..." 6. "The shadows are lengthening...") Only the fifth quote should be present, and it should be trimmed down to the most famous bit: "...I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty." I'm surprised that the biography does not include one of his more famous quotes about the "misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear." That one seems to me more applicable to modern times than rah-rah sentiments about the "hordes of death" and "the battalions of life". In general, Wikiquote is where the lengthy quotes should be taken, not here. The bare statement in Wikipedia's voice, "a later generation would rediscover his philosophy of war, and see it as far-sighted", is just too much, as there is nothing like consensus on Mac's controversial legacy. The word "relief" repeatedly used for him getting fired by Truman is a powder puff replacement for the club Truman used. At the same time, the "Legacy" section does not emphasize quite enough how much respect is given MacArthur today for his guidance over occupied Japan. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- The word "relief" is technically correct; we went over this ground repeatedly with the dismissal article. It is not true though, that Truman personally relieved him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Binksternet. I see a lot of unresolved discussion on the article talk page from months ago which could if pursued resolve the issues with this article. I don't feel right meantime in promoting this as our best work. --John (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
January 28
Reception history of Jane Austen
Was proposed before, but postponed for the 200th anniversary of Pride and Prejudice, I see 2 points for FA 2008, 6 points for the centennial (sort of), 2 for last literature more than 3 months ago (23 Oct), - blurb needs trimming, but better by the authors/experts --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I believe this was sort of broached before, but wouldn't Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV series) be a better fit? The novel probably owes more of its modern day popularity to this than anything else. Ruby 2010/2013 23:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I said it the last time too but I feel that something directly related to Pride and Prejudice is a much better fit than a broader Austen article. GRAPPLE X 23:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is the former discussion: |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
end of former discussion --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC) |
February 14
Icelandic Phallological Museum
3 points: 2 points as there has been no similar article (on museums, Iceland or indeed phalluses) on the Main Page in the last six months; plus an extra point for date relevance (as phalluses are more likely to be relevant on Valentine's Day than any other day of the year - hopefully!). This was originally suggested for September by PumpkinSky with the blurb above but it was decided to hold it over to February, so I'm renominating it for consideration. Prioryman (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support for the dramahz, but two points as the date is not inherently relevant to the subject (an article on won tons for Chinese New Year would not get points either) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm thinking of it in terms of the subject being relevant to the date rather than the other way round... Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- From above: "Note that just because an article might be appropriate for a date, for example Chinese language on Chinese New Year's, that does not mean a point should be awarded." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support as per my comments in September. I can't even remember the last time we had a Urology-related TFA. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I've adjusted the blurb for excess size, WP:MOSDATE#Precise language ("now" is redundant), logical punctuation, and a museum doesn't "attract" a documentary; please review the article for similar issues. Also, please review for and correct repetitive prose: " The museum attracts thousands of visitors a year—the majority of them women—and has attracted international media attention." ... attracts, attracted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)