Jump to content

Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kris12 (talk | contribs) at 21:03, 10 April 2006 (→‎[[Belgrade]] (28 votes, stays until [[June 3]])). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

The Article Improvement Drive is a weekly collaboration to improve non-stub articles to featured article status. (For stub articles or topics with no articles, see Collaboration of the week.)

/History - For past winners.
/Removed - For removed nominations.
/Maintenance - AID upkeep.

Collaborations
Articles
Science and technology
Miscellaneous

Introduction

To vote or nominate you have to be a registered user. Any and all articles may be nominated except:

If you wish to help with maintenance of Article Improvement Drive (updating vote counts and such), please see this page: /Maintenance.

{{User AID}} unfolds to

This user participated in the Article Creation and Improvement Drive.




How to nominate

Here is template for nominations: 

===[[ARTICLE]] (1 vote, stays until [[DATE ONE WEEK LATER]])===
:''Nominated [[MONTH DAY]], [[YEAR]]; needs at least 4 votes by [[DATE ONE WEEK LATER]], [[YEAR]]''

; Support:
# (sign with four tildes)

; Comments:
* (put your reason for nomination, sign again)

----
  1. Copy and paste the template to the bottom of the list of nominations on this page and fill it out. It is important to use UTC time; the current time and date now is 14:44, Tuesday, August 13, 2024 (UTC).
  2. Under "comments" section put explanation of what work is needed.
  3. After submitting the new nomination, go to the nominated article and put {{AIDnom}} at the top of the article and put both {{AIDnom}} and {{to do}} on the top of the article's talk page.

How to vote

Sign with "# ~~~~" on the end of the list of the article you want to vote for and then update the vote count in the subhead. Opposing votes are not counted; see approval voting. You can vote for as many articles as you like. If the vote count equaled the "needs at least xx votes by", then add 4 to "needs at least xx votes" and add a week to date in vote count and "needs at least xx votes by" notice.

Example. You encounter this situation and decide to vote:

===[[History of the world]] (23 votes, stays until [[February 7]], [[2006]])===
:''Nominated [[December 8]], [[2005]]; needs at least 24 votes by [[February 7]], [[2006]]''

First you put "# ~~~~" on the end of the list of people who voted for that article and then change the vote count and date in following manner:

===[[History of the world]] (24 votes, stays until [[February 14]], [[2006]])===
:''Nominated [[December 8]], [[2005]]; needs at least 28 votes by [[February 14]], [[2006]]''

How the article is elected

Article with most votes on each Sunday in 18:00 GMT is elected as "The current Article Improvement Drive article". If two articles have same number of votes, the older nominee wins.

The next project article is to be selected on Sunday April 16, 2006. 18.00 GMT (Template:DAYSTOSUNDAY)

How an article is removed from the list

Articles need four votes per week to stay on the list. If current date (August 13 2024) exceeds "stays until" date of particular article, that article entry is removed from this page and moved to page for removed nominations.

Nominations

Denmark (35 votes, stays until April 16)

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 40 votes by April 23, 2006
Support
  1. Caponer 02:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jhohenzollern 03:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Skurrkrow 06:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutralitytalk 07:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TwilaStar 08:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul James Cowie 10:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rokafela 18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. RJH 15:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Gflores Talk 16:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Wikiacc ( | ∞) 21:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Lbbzman 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Aerobird 03:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. youngamerican (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Vir 17:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Lukobe 05:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. OrbitOne 20:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Valentinian 09:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Maitch 18:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Terence Ong 09:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Sicilianmandolin 02:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Snailwalker | talk 14:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Jdcooper 15:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Istvan 15:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Hestemand 08:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Rasmus.p 13:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Rasmus (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Ataricodfish 21:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Passdoubt | Talk 00:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. CloudNine 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Dan1113 04:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Poulsen 08:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Maurreen 08:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. --Goran.Smith2 21:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. MicaelJ 17:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed votes
  1. SpandX 08:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 128.135.223.149 09:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • With all of the media coverage of violent outrage against the Kingdom of Denmark and the cartoons that caused the chaos, I think it would be appropriate to bring the main page of the country up to featured article status. Ignorant cartoons aside, it's a beautiful European democracy with a long and varying history. With a few edits and additions, it could be featured article within a week easily. --Caponer 02:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Denmark, and subjects related to Denmark, are quite well covered. Let's rather concentrate our forces on countries with a more poor coverage - any country /region in the less developed part of the world.Bertilvidet 11:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you have mistaken this for the collaboration of the week? ;-) Being better developed, Denmark is much closer to FA status. So it seems like a good choice to me. Besides it's been in the news a lot lately, so people will hopefully be more interested. But if you wanted to nominate another country, you could probably get some support. — RJH 18:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Misguided comment. CotW is for stubs, and AID is for larger articles. That is the sole distinction. Neither has anything to do with focusing only on articles that are already nearly Featured-quality; help is given to articles based on how much of a need for help there is (which relates to both the article's current quality and its current importance), not just based on how close to being an FA it is; if it's that close to being an FA, it belongs on Peer Review, not AID. -Silence 04:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well we can debate the nuances of the language, but I must respectfully point out that you contradicted yourself in stating that an article close to being an FA belongs in Peer Review, not here. :-) — RJH 19:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a goal for Wikipedia 1.0 that every country in the world should have a featured article. Since Denmark is closer to FA than other countries it would make sense to choose it. --Maitch 18:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tectonic plate (29 votes, stays until April 16)

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 33 votes by April 16, 2006
Support
  1. APower 03:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TestPilot 11:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gflores Talk 16:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Samsara contrib talk 20:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TachyonP 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Joyous | Talk 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Aerobird 18:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SpacemanAfrica 18:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. DanielCD 03:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Durova 17:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Steven 02:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ZeWrestler Talk 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Newguineafan 22:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Lbbzman 16:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Tcie 15:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Revolución hablar ver 17:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. RJH 18:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Ugur Basak 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Jazriel 12:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Daniel Collins 17:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Kumar 10:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Tarret 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. PDXblazers 01:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 04:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Mariano(t/c) 07:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. J. Finkelstein 20:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Votes
  1. 216.56.60.211 by Steven on 01:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Silence 23:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (confused with page for plate tectonics)[reply]
Comments
  • Tectonic plates are a primary study in the field of geology. However, there is only a small article on them. The article could easily be a featured article.
  • I have recently completed studies on Tectonic Plates, and it is center to the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift. I agree, let's get this article fixed up.

Ancient Egypt (27 votes, stays until April 21)

Nominated February 17, 2006; needs at least 31 votes by April 21, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 07:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lukobe 08:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steven 23:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Pedro 13:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Spawn Man 01:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mido 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hippalus 14:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. siafu 15:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Revolución hablar ver 17:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mkaycomputer 16:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Vir 19:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Ugur Basak 00:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Jazriel 12:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Phileas 05:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. PDXblazers 06:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Sicilianmandolin 14:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Passdoubt | Talk 08:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Psiphim6 13:59, 27 March 2006
  21. User:Nicholassayshi 14:44, 29 March 2006
  22. Iggle
  23. GfloresTalk 22:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Underneath-it-All 15:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Lakinekaki 18:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Joe Jklin 02:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Silence 04:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • There could be few articles more deserving or needing an Article Improvement Drive from the Wikipedia community. And this for one of the most important topics from the ancient world. (Take a look yourself - it's appalling!) This SHOULD be a Featured Article, comprehensively referenced and scientifically-written, and yet it seems to attract all manner of marginal ideas and poor quality contributions. Paul James Cowie 07:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Question: I've asked this question hundreds of times over the last few months on Wikipedia, and have never gotten a satisfactory, authoritative, or consistent answer on the matter: when it's not used at the start of a sentence or article title, do we properly call it "ancient Egypt", or "Ancient Egypt"? Which is it? Most (though certainly not all) of the ancient Rome articles treat ancient as an ordinary adjective, rather than part of a proper noun describing a time period, but most of the Ancient Egypt articles use the capitalized form (though plenty also use "ancient Egypt"). So which is it?! -Silence 19:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I have been able to find (Googled site:.edu "ancient Egypt"), "ancient Egypt" is the correct form (or at least most common among scholars), though "Ancient Egypt" seems to be common as well. ♠ SG →Talk 16:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed an anon vote by 69.120.246.50 --Mido 06:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Rainforest (40 votes, stays until May 20)

Nominated February 18, 2006; needs at least 44 votes by May 20, 2006
Support
  1. Hahnchen 01:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aerobird 03:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Juppiter 03:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Joyous | Talk 03:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Samsara contrib talk 14:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Lbbzman 17:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. PDXblazers 05:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Lukobe 03:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Deditos 10:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Masterdriverz 14:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Guettarda 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Spawn Man 01:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Nick Taylor
  15. Caponer 05:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Ricardo Carneiro Pires 12:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. RexNL 17:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. lightdarkness (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --Revolución hablar ver 17:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Matatigre36 01:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Jdcooper 03:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Ugur Basak 00:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Daniel Collins 03:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Lincher 20:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. *drew 15:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 04:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. --Ehouk1 17:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Jazriel 18:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Tarret 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. CloudNine 17:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Nessuno834 02:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. GfloresTalk 18:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Khoikhoi 03:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Tobyk777 05:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Dan1113 04:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Rory096 21:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. 1892 Fitch Dude 20:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Vir 17:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Votes
  1. agoldenroad by Steven on 01:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC). No contributions other then this one vote.[reply]
Comments

Rome (34 votes, stays until May 7)

Nominated February 19, 2006; needs at least 36 votes by May 7, 2006
Support
  1. Un sogno modesto 07:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hippalus 08:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. mimmo46 11:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wackymacs 10:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Attilios 15:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bill 14:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Silence 16:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WS 17:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Alessio Damato 20:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Caponer 00:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Juppiter 07:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Dannycas 17:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. lightdarkness (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. youngamerican (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Jdcooper 12:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. PDXblazers 02:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Doug 01:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Sicilianmandolin 02:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Duran 21:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. RexNL 23:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Ka34 10:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. BigBlueFish 10:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. HaM 18:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Ugur Basak 00:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. James 19:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. AED 07:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Hyphen5 12:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. --Chino 05:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. --Rory096 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Maurreen 20:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Covington 22:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Underneath-it-All 15:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed votes

  1. Removed anon vote by 64.254.230.34 - Jazriel 08:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Removed anon vote by 69.120.246.50 - Jazriel 08:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article is in terrible shape. As of one of the most important and influential cities in the world, this article needs a major overhaul and expansion. Take a look for yourself to see the poor shape the article is in; absolutely deserves much more attention.
  • It think even more deservedly is History of Rome (meaning the city). I made a stub of it, but it is still needing much work.
  • Strongest possible support. One of the two or three most important cities in the history of the world, and it's lower-quality than our Dumb & Dumber article. See also my bitching in Talk:Rome. I'd have nominated it myself, but I wanted to wait until there weren't too many great articles for it to compete with, but I guess it can't wait forever. -Silence 16:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rome, History of Rome and Ancient Rome were AID candidates. None of them won, all of them were removed for lack of votes. --Dijxtra 17:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not true. Ancient Rome won, about a month ago. (Though the amount of attention it received in that week wasn't especially inspiring; very few editors got involved.) But Rome is, and has been, in much, much worse state than Ancient Rome was. -Silence 18:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recycling (23 votes, stays until April 16)

Nominated February 26, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by April 16, 2006
Support
  1. PDXblazers 07:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Silence 07:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aerobird 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Joyous | Talk 16:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Terence Ong 10:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Hurdygurdyman1234 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DanielCD 16:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Revolución hablar ver 03:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matatigre36 02:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Ugur Basak 00:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Gflores Talk 06:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Jazriel 12:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 12:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Hestemand 20:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 04:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Un sogno modesto 22:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Tarret 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Covington 05:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Sicilianmandolin 09:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Mkaycomputer 21:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Kajerm 08:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Lakinekaki 18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. GoAround 19:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Silence says this article needs to be expanded more than paper recycling. I say lets fix 'em both. PDXblazers 07:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a fantastic idea. No reason we can't work on paper recycling too if this gets nominated, as a major sub-article also in need of work. -Silence 07:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd be nice to go into greater depth about the types, methods, and complications. And, at the expense of stirring things up (and Wikipedia doesn't always stir well), maybe a little on "controversy"? Some have suggested (not that I would cite Penn and Teller's Bullshit! as an authoritative source) that recycling everything but aluminum (and maybe glass) costs more than it saves and pollutes more than it prevents. At any rate, this could be an absolutely first-class article if we gave it a little wikipedia love. Kajerm 08:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Macedonia (23 votes, stays until April 20)

Nominated March 2, 2006; needs at least 27 votes by April 20, 2006
Support
  1. Caponer 17:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vlatko 13:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bitola 19:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Bomac
  5. Macedonia 21:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. youngamerican (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ruff 12:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ugur Basak 00:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Komitata 15:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. RaptorCore 12:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. *drew 15:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Maria 20:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Gogo 15:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. High Elf 21:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oscabat 21:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Cyberboki 23:47, 01 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. MyLifeIsought 13:15, 04 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Misos 18:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. estavisti 17:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. User:Trimond 23:08,8 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. dr.alf 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia makes an excellent candidate for the Article Improvement Drive because it is very close to reaching featured article status in both content and layout. I feel as if we should always be focusing on articles that only require minor adjustments and additions in the AID instead of those that need complete and total reworking, and this is one that will only require a week to make the small adjustments required. Macedonia deserves a spotlight since it poised to become a member state of the European Union and is a state that we will be hearing much more about in the news in the years to come. Its location adjacent to Albania and Kosovo will also make it a player in the upcoming debate over Kosovo's independence movement. I just feel it will be a fabulous choice and I hope you will think so, too. --Caponer 17:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics (29 votes, stays until May 4)

Nominated March 9, 2006; needs at least 32 votes by May 4, 2006
Support
  1. Durova 15:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Tom 23:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mkaycomputer 23:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vir 01:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. RexNL 18:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Silence 18:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. PDXblazers 00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Skinnyweed 00:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ugur Basak 00:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Steven 22:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Un sogno modesto 23:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Hgilbert 01:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Jaranda wat's sup 04:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --darkliighttalk 19:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. -MarSch 12:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. CloudNine 14:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Hippalus 10:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Soo 22:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Carabinieri 16:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Pointlessness 17:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. VegaDark 07:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Covington 18:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. GfloresTalk 18:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. CG 15:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. --Richard Clegg 10:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Xxxxxxxx 16:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Sicilianmandolin 03:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. K-UNIT 03:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed votes

1. Removed anon vote by 24.20.158.96 - Jazriel 08:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • According to Wikipedia:Most visited articles this is #5 among Wikipedia's most visited pages, yet it isn't a featured article, nor is it an FA in any of the other 81 language versions of Wikipedia where it appears. As of this writing the talk page has been quiet for a month. It's already at good article status. Good organization, great image use. Needs a better introduction and citations. Suffers from single sentence paragraphs. This is really a cornerstone of any encyclopedia. Let's prioritize it. Durova 15:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italy (15 votes, stays until April 12)

Nominated March 15, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by April 12, 2006
Support
  1. Sicilianmandolin 11:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PDXblazers 03:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 23:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Un sogno modesto 01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvo (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Scottwiki 02:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Rory096 02:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Gennaro Prota 00:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Rikimaru 12:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 03:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. CloudNine 13:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. GhePeU 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Maurreen 08:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Wikiragazzo 02:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed votes
  1. 84.68.86.23 15:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article is in desperate need of AID. Italy has been one of the most important and influential countries in the world and there's so much more that can be written about her than this, and as one of the most referenced country articles in Wikipedia, I don't see why there shouldn't be. Sicilianmandolin 11:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Country articles hold some of Wikipedia's greatest potential as a legitimate research tool. Important country articles should be among Wikipedia's best. PDXblazers 03:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely support this. Un sogno modesto 01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If / when work starts on this article, please leave me a message! I can help with translations between Italian and English for any sources and interwiki references. └ VodkaJazz/talk┐ 23:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely a vivid country as Italy deserves a better article than it currently has now. Italy has a distinct culture with beautiful cities and landscapes, and with a bella language to boot:D Wikiragazzo

Lewis and Clark Expedition (15 votes, stays until April 15)

Nominated March 18, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by April 15, 2006
Support
  1. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is pathetic, we should be much better than this. --Rory096 01:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wow, that needs help, badly -- Tawker 04:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It does need work done to it. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I added the list of expedition members, and I've since kept an eye on this one for vandalism for a long time, but never had the oomph to really tackle it as it should be tackled; I'd definitely help in a community effort. — Catherine\talk 04:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Absolutely. This is an article that is of high importance, so it should be of high quality. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wow. Truly in terrible shape. PDXblazers 03:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Caponer 19:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. lightdarkness (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. *drew 15:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Joyous | Talk 00:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Sarge Baldy 01:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ClarkBHM 02:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. this is really not so great. User:Trevdawg
Comments

Cuban Missile Crisis (13 votes, stays until April 18)

Nominated March 21, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by April 18, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 09:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hippalus 10:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 17:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mkaycomputer 22:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PDXblazers 01:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Daniel Collins 17:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Hestemand 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Enano275 01:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CG 15:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Charles Max Gross 9:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Djwings 14:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Ka34 14:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This has shaped the U.S. relationship with Cubia for the last 50 years, lets make it a article we can be proud of. Charles Max Gross 9:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Extremely important article. The fate of every life-form on Earth was at risk of nuclear annihilation because of this event. Everyone should be clearly and understandably informed about how major this was and realize how grateful the human race is for not being in a World War 3. Ka34 14:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tree (13 votes, stays until April 22)

Nominated March 25, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by April 22, 2006
Support
  1. PDXblazers 05:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Carabinieri 13:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sicilianmandolin 21:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PoptartKing 00:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Joyous | Talk 00:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ugur Basak 02:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Daniel Collins 15:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Steven 00:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Rory096 21:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yarnalgo 01:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. GfloresTalk 06:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is mainly just a list of different trees. The topic is so common, the article could be improved in many ways. Such a basic topic should be of a much better standard.
  • More on evolution and physiology is needed. I'd also like to see expansion of cultural connections to trees.Daniel Collins 15:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evolution and physiology aspects are tricky; there's very little that is actually unique to trees without also applying to shrubs. Such info would be better placed at woody plant (an article in even greater need of expansion!). Cultural aspects yes, though with the length of the tree page and the potential size of this aspect (huge), I'd say this would be better treated in a page of its own (or maybe better done by expanding and re-titling the existing Trees in mythology page). - MPF 09:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horse archer (5 votes, stays until April 9)

Nominated March 26, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 9, 2006
Support
  1. Ka34 11:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RJH 18:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jazriel 09:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Steven 00:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Important topic, especially in the world of archery and historical warfare - both modern and ancient. Deserves a lot more recognition. 100% fully capable of reaching Featured Article status, just needs to be expanded on and given more attention. Ka34 11:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare to Cataphract. RJH

Tour de France (8 votes, stays until April 16)

Nominated March 26, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by April 16, 2006
Support
  1. Yellowspacehopper 18:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 04:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hamster200 06:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. lightdarkness (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jacoplane 14:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Poulsen 20:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Xxxxxxxx 16:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

H.R. 4437 (11 votes, stays until April 16)

Nominated March 26, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by April 16, 2006
Support
  1. Scottwiki 22:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 04:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Passdoubt | Talk 08:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jonas Liljeström 13:38, Monday March 27, 2006 (UTC)
  5. Accurizer 19:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mkaycomputer 23:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kimun 18:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kaldari 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Imagine1989 00:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Osbus 14:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Lakinekaki 18:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Wikipedia has paid surprisingly little attention to a bill that has inspired protests by hundreds of thousands of people. -Scottwiki 22:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pleased that this nomination has quickly gained support. While waiting to see whether this eventually becomes the Article Improvement Drive article, I hope that more Wikipedians will contribute edits to this important and fast-changing topic. -Scottwiki 06:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epic of Gilgamesh (17 votes, stays until May 1)

Nominated March 27, 2006; needs at least 20 votes by May 1, 2006
Support
  1. Silence 21:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Un sogno modesto 22:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BorgQueen 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul James Cowie 13:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sicilianmandolin 18:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Playstationman 22:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jazriel 10:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ugur Basak 02:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. QuixoticKate 19:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CloudNine 17:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CG 05:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Biccamera 14:35, 4 April 2006
  13. Lstep 14:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. J. Finkelstein 00:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Mhernandez 18:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Keenan Pepper 04:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ×Meegs 05:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The oldest surviving story in existence, a work of epic poetry nearly unparalleled in importance and influence in human history, and its article is barely more than a stub?! (And the article on its central character, Gilgamesh, is in even worse shape.) Compare this to the much, much more expansive articles on similarly important works like Iliad, The Book of One Thousand and One Nights, and Bible; it's embarrassing and a disservice to Wikipedia readers. So much work can, and needs, be done. -Silence 21:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to echo these sentiments and observations.... Andrew George's latest, definitive edition of Gilgamesh did not even appear in the Further Reading! (I plan to rectify this!) Paul James Cowie 13:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Food and Drug Administration (7 votes, stays until April 10)

Nominated March 27, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 10, 2006
Support
  1. BorgQueen 23:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mkaycomputer 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Un sogno modesto 22:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Remember 13:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sicilianmandolin 21:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AED 22:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Lakinekaki 18:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Such organization with a global influence and rich history deserves a more detailed, better organized article. Certainly substantial improvements can be made. --BorgQueen 23:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the FDA certainly has its faults, this article is extremely one-sided in its negative presentation of the organization. -AED 22:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson (6 votes, stays until April 10)

Nominated March 27, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 10, 2006
Support
  1. RomeoVoid 00:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PDXblazers 09:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 02:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Jaranda wat's sup 20:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HAM File:Icons-flag-wales.png 18:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

After a quick scan, this doesn't appear too far from FA. Jefferson would certainly be deserving of such an article.

New England (8 votes, stays until April 17)

Nominated March 27, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by April 17, 2006
Support
  1. Behun 04:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bayberrylane 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Caponer 05:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Thud495 03:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tom 19:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kipple 10:45 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Markus24 02:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Cocoa (5 votes, stays until April 12)

Nominated March 29, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 12, 2006
Support
  1. --Chino 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ugur Basak 02:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. UFOPOLI 17:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Silence 17:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Cocoa is a topic which is familiar to a very large portion of people likely to read English Wikipedia. Cocoa has many uses, rich and varied history and interesting chemical composition. It is a very important commodity in the international trade and important to the national economies of many countries. Cultivation of cocoa has ecological implications. In my opinion none of these facts are adequately represented in the article in its current form. --Chino 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Taylor (6 votes, stays until April 12)

Nominated March 29, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 12, 2006
Support
  1. Scottwiki 10:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 07:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GrandDukeJohnofCorsica 8:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. GrantBud 1:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Nate 23:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Helmandsare 20:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia, periodically rises to the top of the news -- most recently, due to his dramatic disappearance and recapture. His activities, especially alleged war crimes, are likely to be a significant topic of discussion for years to come. I believe that a thoroughly well-written, well-sourced, and wikified article would be a public service. -Scottwiki 10:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this, noting that our present article says little of Charles Taylor's crimes or the direct cause of his controversy. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 07:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-GrantBudThe article provided no information about his 'crimes against humanity.'

Kojiki (4 votes, stays until April 12)

Nominated March 29, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 12, 2006
Support
  1. elvenscout742 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ugur Basak 02:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jazriel 09:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Imagine1989 00:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article on the Japanese Aeneid is woefully short, despite immense historical importance (I haven't read a book on Japanese mythology that didn't refer constantly to it, and the well-known fact that the Emperor of Japan claimed to be descended from Amaterasu gained its legitimacy partly from this volume) and other such articles on things it describes perhaps getting more attention. elvenscout742 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English language (15 votes, stays until April 27)

Nominated March 30, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by April 27, 2006
Support
  1. BorgQueen 01:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tarret 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Silence 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lukobe 01:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Caponer 05:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CloudNine 17:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. darkliighttalk 00:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CG 05:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Khoikhoi 02:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Already a good article, but if AID'ing this can push it to FA status why not. VegaDark 07:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. St jimmy 10:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Will need a lot of work, it's in really bad shape. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. CarabinieriTTaallkk 18:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Sicilianmandolin 03:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article was nominated for FA by an anon user in last November and failed. Undoubtedly this is a very basic topic, especially so in our English Wikipedia. It would be appropriate to have it as a FA. --BorgQueen 01:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should not be voted for because this is the English Wikipedia, it should be voted for because English is an important modern language. -Silence 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you have your point. If we reverse the logic used, non-Anglo Saxon topics should be paid less attention in the English Wikipedia? I've striken the first step toward such dangerous rationalization :-D --BorgQueen 06:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I see no problem with the original rationale. Surely each Wikipedia should have a top-quality article about its own language. There's nothing wrong with that. - dcljr (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, every Wikipedia should have a great article on its own language—and on every other language. Cultural bias is to be resisted, not encouraged; uneven coverage is certainly tolerable in the short run (since the only alternatives are stifling article growth or adding filler to articles noone's interested in working on yet), but in the long run, all Wikipedias should deal with all topics based on their general notability, not based on their relevance to the encyclopedia itself (which would be self-referential). To explain, suppose Encyclopedia Britannica produced versions of its entire text in English, Spanish, Arabic, and Russian next year. Would it be a good idea for them to spend more time on their English article in the English translation, their Spanish article in the Spanish translation, their Arabic article in the Arabic translation, and their Russian article in the Russian translation? Of course not, because that would lead to inconsistencies; if something's noteworthy in one language, it should be noteworthy in all, and if it's not noteworthy in other languages, it shouldn't be noteworthy in the one. If the English language was not one of the most noteworthy modern languages in existence at this time (for example, if it was only as noteworthy as the Ateso language, Pangasinan language, or Yi language), I probably wouldn't support this nomination: the fact that a certain language is the one spoken by the encyclopedia's writers just means that the language will be highly subject to cultural bias and will probably get undue attention where much more significant languages are being neglected (like Punjabi language, which is the the 10th-most-widely-spoken language in the world, yet has an article that's barely more than a stub), which will make nominating it for AID nothing but worsening the encyclopedia's evenness of coverage yet more. The reason that is not the case here is because English happens to be highly noteworthy completely regardless of the fact that we speak it (though obviously that's part of the reason it was nominated, and Punjabi was not). So in this case, a little more work is actually a good idea to bring this up to standards (and hopefully get the article featured), entirely on the basic of the topic, not of its editors' natural biases. -Silence 21:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "all Wikipedias should deal with all topics based on their general notability" Hmm. Well, there goes exploding whale... Anyway, which is the more "biased" view: supporting a language for AID because it's the language of the wiki or because it's "an important modern language"? Seems to me the latter carries more political baggage than the former. You even go so far as to seemingly denigrate Ateso, Pangasinan and Yi as somehow not "noteworthy"! Wow... (Yi is so non-noteworthy it has its own Wikipedia.) Sorry, but your argument appears to be completely self-contradictory. In any case, you'll notice I haven't actually voted on this nomination, only commented on it. "Zero-sum" editing projects like this make me uneasy. - dcljr (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dice (4 votes, stays until April 13)

Nominated March 30, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 13, 2006
Support
  1. Tarret 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Steven 00:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Covington 01:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Clay 03:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

United States Declaration of Independence (9 votes, stays until April 22)

Nominated April 1, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by April 22, 2006
Support
  1. Mkaycomputer 18:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JW1805 (Talk) 18:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SR Bryant 04:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Caponer 19:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PDXblazers 03:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ClarkBHM 02:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sicilianmandolin 21:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. J. Finkelstein 17:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed invalid votes
  1. N. Dunn 01:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • This article is one of the articles on wikipedia that needs to be featured. Period, the end. Mkaycomputer 18:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Because its about the states? dr.alf 02:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, because the mere fact that the document was issued completely changed the course of world history. Not only did it create the United States, (and who knows what the world would be like today without the US, you could argue it would be better or worse, but it would no doubt be way different), but the United States was also the first colony to successfully break away from its parent country. Along with Magna Carta and Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen (which would also make good AID candidates), it is one of the most important documents ever created, because they broke through barriers and allowed other countries to adopt their models. This has nothing to do with cultural bias, it is just that damn important. PDXblazers 04:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made man (4 votes, stays until April 16)

Nominated April 2, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 16, 2006
Support
  1. Fxer 03:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sicilianmandolin 20:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CarabinieriTTaallkk 18:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Arthur Holland 11:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • An important component in organized crime, specifically the Mafia. Could add all kinds of info about traditions and rituals, who can be "made", its place in popular culture and on and on...
I agree, it is quite central to the Mafia. It doesn't have to be a featured article, but it's reasonable enough to request that it be improved. Sicilianmandolin 20:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summer (6 votes, stays until April 16)

Nominated April 2, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 16, 2006
Support
  1. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 15:28 (UTC)
  2. BorgQueen 15:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sicilianmandolin 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Scottwiki 21:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Un sogno modesto 01:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blake's Star 20:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Even compared to the shortest of the other season articles (spring), this article is horribly dwarfed, and it is pathetic compared to autumn and winter. The information is mostly about the asronomical delineations of summer and does not explain anything about the important aspects of the season. In short, it is desperately in need of attention. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 15:28 (UTC)

Sacco and Vanzetti (6 votes, stays until April 16)

Nominated April 2, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 16, 2006
Support
  1. Osbus 17:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sicilianmandolin 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CarabinieriTTaallkk 18:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sarge Baldy 01:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casey14 23:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. J. Finkelstein 20:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Dungeons & Dragons (4 votes, stays until April 17)

Nominated April 3, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 17, 2006
Support
  1. Covington 08:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lewis 08:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cazcaz 14:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sherool (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Great start for a game that was the precursor to many video- and role-playing games in use today. A very popular game in its own right. Needs 1) general cleanup, 2) fix criticism - organize, reference, and add a section about criticism within the DnD community i.e. "powergaming", and 3) breaking down (or not, please discuss). With a more work, we can make this a featured article. Covington 08:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna (entertainer) (5 votes, stays until April 17)

Nominated April 3, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 17, 2006
Support
  1. Rimmers 17:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Underneath-it-All 18:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thankyoubaby 05:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Andrew Parodi 06:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Extraordinary Machine 16:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The article is a mess. For an artist with the profile of Madonna, her article should be a featured article but the state its currently in it has no chance. The article requires a big clean up, ideally a re-write imo. Information needs to be prioritiseds and processed appropriately. New sections need creating for her acting career for example. Parts of the article currently resemble fan sites with hotchpotched additions being made. From what I can gather on the talk page, there seems to a team of people reverting most edits made. Rimmers 17:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't insult vandals or bad written articles Rimmers and if you don't know Madonna's article was a former featured article. --hottie 17:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out an article is poorly written or is a mess is not an insult - its a statement of opinion. And although the article may have previously been a featured article, it needs a lot of working doing to it now. Clearly you agree with that - otherwise you wouldn't have been editing the article for the last 4 hours! Rimmers 17:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what can de done to save this article. I've worked on it, but it seems hopeless. The "problem" is that Madonna is a major artist, a mega-artist, with a very strong fanbase on the Internet. This leads to the page coming off as a fan page rather than an encyclopedia page. I'd like to see the page improved, but I have a feeling that may be a futile wish. Andrew Parodi 06:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. I think the fact that, not too long ago, two anon editors were having a (rather heated) argument on the talk page over whether Madonna or Mariah Carey is the better singer is indicative of the problem. As Andrew said, top-selling contemporary artists such as Madonna have a lot of fans, and inevitably some of them will end up editing Wikipedia. Now I'm definitely not saying that all of the fans who edit articles such as this are bad editors (I'm sure it's a minority) or that they mean to violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but the good faith contributions of some of them actually end up hindering the article rather than helping it. I was surprised to discover that this used to be a featured article - it's certainly nowhere near featured quality at the moment, and that's a pity, as there's a lot that could be written about her (by this I don't mean stuff like "Madonna sang "Take a Bow" at the American Music Awards"). Extraordinary Machine 16:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Goodall (3 votes, stays until April 11)

Nominated April 4, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 11, 2006
Support
  1. Sarge Baldy 08:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sicilianmandolin 09:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Iggle 09:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed vote
  1. 64.218.106.247 22:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Public defender (2 votes, stays until April 11)

Nominated April 4, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 11, 2006
Support
  1. Sherool (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CarabinieriTTaallkk 19:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Currently it focuses exclusively with the US system. I think it could do with additional information about the general consept and maybe a few examples on how it works in various different legal traditions besides the US one. I tagged it with {{Globalize}} back in September to no effect, so hopefully an improvement drive will help attract some people knowledgable about other legal systems (I'm afraid I'm not legal buff myself). --Sherool (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgamesh (2 votes, stays until April 11)

Nominated April 4, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 11, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 21:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sicilianmandolin 21:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Manuel Contreras (2 votes, stays until April 11)

Nominated April 4, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 11, 2006
Support
  1. Jersey Devil 22:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scottwiki 02:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Contreras was second only to Pinochet in the Chilean military reguime that ousted the Popular Unity government and he was the director of DINA Chile's notorious intelligence agency/secret police during that period that was responsible for most of the torture that people hear coming out of Chile during the mid-70s and til the end of the dictatorship. I definately think this page needs expansion, Conteras was certainly notable and needs a larger and better referenced page than this.--Jersey Devil 22:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasus (geographic region) (5 votes, stays until April 18)

Nominated April 4, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 18, 2006
Support
  1. Jdcooper 23:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sicilianmandolin 08:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kdehl 14:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ka34 08:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • It should be apparent to anyone who looks at this article that it is by no means full enough, or anywhere close. It is only just beyond a stub. The caucasus is an important region politically and geographically, especially for European and Asian history, and we could really do with at least a better article than this, if not a featured article. Jdcooper 23:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Mason University (4 votes, stays until April 13)

Nominated April 6, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 20, 2006
Support
  1. Bpiereck 05:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DividedByNegativeZero 07:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SeanG 04:36, 8 April 2006 (EST)
  4. JTiahrt 15:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • With the recent success of the University in the NCAA championship, the page has gone through multiple edits. It has plenty of information to be a great article on a topic that has come to national prominence - if only momentarily. It suffers from some lack of organization and mixed voice, style and grammar.

Gagauzia (7 votes, stays until April 20)

Nominated April 6, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 20, 2006
Support
  1. Luka Jačov 17:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --estavisti 23:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Clay 04:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ςerbiana ♫ 19:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --GTubio 09:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 10:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • (Needs expansion)

Cardiff (5 votes, stays until April 20)

Nominated April 6, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 20, 2006
Support
  1. Wackymacs 20:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 01:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vashti 08:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. HAM File:Icons-flag-wales.png 14:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Underneath-it-All 15:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

David Berkowitz (3 votes, stays until April 13)

Nominated April 6, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 13, 2006
Support
  1. J. Finkelstein 21:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sicilianmandolin 21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Scottwiki 06:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article about the Son of Sam killer needs clarification and explication of events and history.

Fat (6 votes, stays until April 13)

Nominated March 30, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 13, 2006
Support
  1. --PDXblazers 06:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --St jimmy 13:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Daniel Collins 15:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --King of Hearts talk 00:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Francisco Valverde 14:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Note: This topic originally appeared on the COTW, but was deemed too long to qualify as a stub. It has been moved here.

Flora (plants) (5 votes, stays until April 21)

Nominated April 7, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 21, 2006
Support
  1. --Francisco Valverde 16:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -Scottwiki 20:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sicilianmandolin 11:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Avala 13:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CloudNine 09:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Just like Fauna (animals) is, amanzingly, a sad stub. Flora is not much better. Such a generic term, with so much to write about, deserves a much better article. It could, I believe, next to Fauna, be a perfect Feature article. I am sure there are many botanists, biologists and plant-lovers who could contribute to this article. --Francisco Valverde 16:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Despite its misleading listbloat, this is a stub, and, like Fauna (animals), should thus be nominated on CotW, not AID. It could even be part of a dual-CotW, since the two topics are closely linked and since that method was fairly successful when attempted with male and female. -Silence 05:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I don't care whether it's an AID candidate or a COTW candidate. Either way, the article should be improved. Should we leave this nomination on AID, and if it fails, renominate it on COTW (unless it has been amended to an obvious non-stub by then)? -Scottwiki 06:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I recommend just nominating it on CotW now so there's a chance for it and Fauna to be co-nominees together, as I mentioned above; both articles are clearly in need of assistance from CotW, and it'll be more likely to drop from the AID listings more quickly if you cross-nominate it there and make it clear that that's the preferred project to improve it on (cf. the pop art disaster). -Silence 06:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That works for me. Will anyone be upset if we delete the AID nomination, at least for now? Perhaps we should post a message on the pages of the other four voters, and wait a day or two to see if any of them objects.
        • I nominated it on the WP:AID more on the quantity than on the quality aspect, I thought it was too long for WP:COTW if everyone agrees, we could just take it to WP:COTW. What is important is that both Fauna and Flora have something more to say. I like what Silence had to say: to be a part of a dual-COTW. Anyway, has anyone anything else to say, before we do the change? --Francisco Valverde 17:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York City (5 votes, stays until April 22)

Nominated April 8, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 22, 2006
Support
  1. --Whoshiwoo 14:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. estavisti 17:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steven 17:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Un sogno modesto 21:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Howrealisreal 17:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The largest city in the English-speaking world.But in French Wikipedia and German Wikipedia it's more particular than in English Wikipedia.In French and German Wikipedia New York City is featured article, but in English Wikipedia it's not.Is it possble?We MUST improve it!

Belgrade (29 votes, stays until June 3)

Nominated April 8, 2006; needs at least 32 votes by June 3, 2006
Support
  1. estavisti 18:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Luka Jačov 18:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Avala 18:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Pockey 18:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. JustUser 18:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ςerbiana ♫ 20:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Goran.Smith2 21:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Lakinekaki 21:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Filip (§) 21:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Foant 21:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Arag0rn 22:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Obradović Goran (talk 22:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. PANONIAN (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Discombobulator 23:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. — SasaStefanovic • 23:52 8-04-2006
  16. Vitriden 01:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. dr.alf 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Svetlana 03:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --RockyMM 11:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --Djordje D. Bozovic 12:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --CCCC 14:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --Sabate 19:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. --Lord Eru 20:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. --VKokielov 02:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Momirt 07:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. NeroN_BG 09:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Milena 11:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. --Djordjes (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --Kris12 (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Could easily reach featured status, just needs one last heave

William Shakespeare (7 votes, stays until April 22)

Nominated April 8, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 22, 2006
Support
  1. (PDXblazers 18:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  2. estavisti 20:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sicilianmandolin 00:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel Collins 01:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. dr.alf 02:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CloudNine 09:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. MyNameIsNotBob 10:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Arguably the most important author in the history of the English-speaking world. This must be FA, and with a little work and reorganization, I think we can get it there. PDXblazers 18:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darfur conflict (5 votes, stays until April 23)

Nominated April 9, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 23, 2006
Support
  1. Scottwiki 00:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CloudNine 09:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vint 01:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sicilianmandolin 03:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tjss 15:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is one of the most significant events in the world today, and a topic worthy of featured article status. Yet, among other deficiencies, the chronological updates are growing thinner as time passes. (Compare the 2004 entries with late 2005 and 2006 entries. Moreover, note that there is an entry for February 2006, but not for January or March.) This is such a large and important topic that I believe that we need a community effort to improve it and keep it up-to-date.

Amaterasu (2 votes, stays until April 16)

Nominated April 9, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 16, 2006
Support
  1. elvenscout742 10:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BorgQueen 14:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article is neither long nor detailed. Given that she is one of the only non-Christian, non-Classical, non-Hindu to be known by a majority of non-specialised Westerners (everyone knows that the Japanese Emperor claimed descent from the Sun Goddess up until WWII), I think she deserves better. elvenscout742 10:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toy (3 votes, stays until April 17)

Nominated April 10, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 17, 2006
Support
  1. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GfloresTalk 06:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Scottwiki 08:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Collaboration_and_Improvement_Drive&oldid=47851947"