Jump to content

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Today's featured article

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bencherlite (talk | contribs) at 13:17, 10 May 2013 (→‎Summary chart: scheduled Gender Bender). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

  • The article must be a featured article. Editors who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it for TFAR.
  • The article must not have appeared as TFA before (see the list of possibilities here), except that:
    • The TFA coordinators may choose to fill up to two slots each week with FAs that have previously been on the main page, so long as the prior appearance was at least five years ago. The coordinators will invite discussion on general selection criteria for re-runnable TFAs, and aim to make individual selections within those criteria.
    • The request must be either for a specific date within the next 30 days that has not yet been scheduled, or a non-specific date. The template {{@TFA}} can be used in a message to "ping" the coordinators through the notification system.

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.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

 – Check TFAR nominations for dead links

 – Alt text

Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to post a new nomination:

I.
Create the nomination subpage.

In the box below, enter the full name of the article you are nominating (without using any brackets around the article's name) and click the button to create your nomination page.


II.
Write the nomination.

On that nomination page, fill out as many of the relevant parts of the pre-loaded {{TFAR nom}} template as you can, then save the page.

Your nomination should mention:

  • when the last similar article was, since this helps towards diversity on the main page (browsing Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs will help you find out);
  • when the article was promoted to FA status (since older articles may need extra checks);
  • and (for date-specific nominations) the article's relevance for the requested date.
III.
Write the blurb.
Some Featured Articles promoted between 2016 and 2020 have pre-prepared blurbs, found on the talk page of the FAC nomination (that's the page linked from "it has been identified" at the top of the article's talk page). If there is one, copy and paste that to the nomination, save it, and then edit as needed. For other FAs, you're welcome to create your own TFA text as a summary of the lead section, or you can ask for assistance at WT:TFAR. We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewed is between 925 and 1025 characters including spaces, " (Full article...)" and the featured topic link if applicable. More characters may be used when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed.
IV.
Post at TFAR.

After you have created the nomination page, add it here under a level-3 heading for the preferred date (or under a free non-specific date header). To do this, add (replacing "ARTICLE TITLE" with the name of your nominated article):
===February 29===
{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/ARTICLE TITLE}}

Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. More than one article can be nominated for the same date.

It would also then be helpful to add the nomination to the summary chart, following the examples there. Please include the name of the article that you are nominating in your edit summary.

If you are not one of the article's primary editors, please then notify the primary editors of the TFA nomination; if primary editors are no longer active, please add a message to the article talk page.

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 Flame Robin 2 -2 pts if before May 22 (within one month of another bird on mainpage); promoted 2010. 3 0
Nonspecific 3
Nonspecific 4
May 16 Final Fantasy XI 3 5 years FA, 11th anniversary of release, widely covered, -2 because God of War within a month 7 0
May 22 Richard Wagner 11 bicentenary, vital article, requestor is a sig. contributor and has not had a 'Today's FA' before. 11 0
May 24 Thescelosaurus 9 centenary of original description (6), article promoted in 2007 (2), and no dinosaurs (non-avian) in past 3 months (1) 6 0
May 25 May Revolution 6 date relevant to article topic (1), widely covered topic (2), requester's contribution history (1), and lack of similar articles as TFA in past 6 months (2) 2 0
May 25 alternative Heinrich Bär 6 centenary anniversary of his birthdate (6), article promoted in 2009 (2), Operation Teardrop article featured within a month (-2). 1 0
May 27 Freedom for the Thought That We Hate -1 date relevance (1), recent similar article on US freedom of speech (-2) 1 0
May 29 The Rite of Spring 10+ centenary of premiere, vital article, possibly +1 or +2 for time since similar articles 6 0

† 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

Flame Robin

Adult male Flame Robin
The Flame Robin (Petroica phoenicea) is a small passerine bird native to Australia. It is a moderately common resident of the coolest parts of south-eastern Australia, including Tasmania. It is often simply but inaccurately called the Robin Redbreast. Like many brightly coloured robins of the Petroicidae, it is sexually dimorphic. Measuring 12–14 cm (5–6 in) long, the Flame Robin has dark brown eyes and a small thin black bill. The male has a brilliant orange-red chest and throat, and a white patch on the forehead above the bill. Its upper parts are iron-grey with white bars, and its tail black with white tips. The female is a nondescript grey-brown. Its song has been described as the most musical of its genus. A territorial bird, the Flame Robin employs song and plumage displays to mark out and defend its territory. Classified by BirdLife International as Near Threatened, the species has suffered a marked decline in the past 25 years. (Full article...)

Nonspecific date 3

Nonspecific date 4

Specific date nominations

May 16

Final Fantasy XI

Final Fantasy XI is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), developed and published by Square as part of the Final Fantasy series. Designed and produced by Hiromichi Tanaka, it was released in Japan on May 16, 2002 for Sony's PlayStation 2, and for Microsoft Windows-based personal computers in November of that year. The game was the first cross-platform MMORPG and the Xbox 360's first MMORPG. The story is set in the fantasy world of Vana'diel, where player-created avatars can both compete and cooperate in a variety of objectives to develop an assortment of jobs, skills, and earn in-game item rewards. Players can also undertake an array of quests and progress through the in-game hierarchy and thus through the major plot of the game. Since its debut in 2002, five expansion packs have also been released along with six add-on scenarios. In 2006, between 200,000 and 300,000 active players logged in per day, and the game was the dominant MMORPG in Japan. Final Fantasy XI has a user base of around 500,000 subscribers, and the total number of active characters exceeds 2 million. It is the most profitable title in the Final Fantasy series. (Full article...)
Final Fantasy wordmark
Final Fantasy XI is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), developed and published by Square as part of the Final Fantasy series. Designed and produced by Hiromichi Tanaka, it was released in Japan on May 16, 2002 for Sony's PlayStation 2, and for Microsoft Windows-based personal computers in November of that year. The game was the first cross-platform MMORPG and the Xbox 360's first MMORPG. The story is set in the fantasy world of Vana'diel, where player-created avatars can both compete and cooperate in a variety of objectives to develop an assortment of jobs, skills, and earn in-game item rewards. Players can also undertake an array of quests and progress through the in-game hierarchy and thus through the major plot of the game. Since its debut in 2002, five expansion packs have also been released along with six add-on scenarios. In 2006, between 200,000 and 300,000 active players logged in per day, and the game was the dominant MMORPG in Japan. Final Fantasy XI has a user base of around 500,000 subscribers, and the total number of active characters exceeds 2 million. It is the most profitable title in the Final Fantasy series. (Full article...)
Final Fantasy XI game producer Hiromichi Tanaka
Final Fantasy XI is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), developed and published by Square as part of the Final Fantasy series. Designed and produced by Hiromichi Tanaka (pictured), it was released in Japan on May 16, 2002 for Sony's PlayStation 2, and for Microsoft Windows-based personal computers in November of that year. The game was the first cross-platform MMORPG and the Xbox 360's first MMORPG. The story is set in the fantasy world of Vana'diel, where player-created avatars can both compete and cooperate in a variety of objectives to develop an assortment of jobs, skills, and earn in-game item rewards. Players can also undertake an array of quests and progress through the in-game hierarchy and thus through the major plot of the game. Since its debut in 2002, five expansion packs have also been released along with six add-on scenarios. In 2006, between 200,000 and 300,000 active players logged in per day, and the game was the dominant MMORPG in Japan. Final Fantasy XI has a user base of around 500,000 subscribers, and the total number of active characters exceeds 2 million. It is the most profitable title in the Final Fantasy series. (Full article...)
Final Fantasy XI is the most profitable Final Fantasy game ever made, and still is being updated despite being 11 years old. I nominated it in 2008 and it has successfully kept its Featured Status for five years, the day would be the 11th anniversary of its first release, and the topic is "widely noted". Normally that would be 5 points, but God of War (April 19) will make the date slightly under a month in between video game articles. Maybe the coordinators will be generous and call it 4? In any case, I nominate and support. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All in good time :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be cool, can anyone make it? I am not talented in that area. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A word-mark would not be that interesting to look at. The face is more attractive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The face is not indicative of the subject. Logos are designed to be eye catching and are easily recognisable. - hahnchen 01:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Logos are. This logo is non-free and cannot be used. Word-marks are not attractive, at all. They are font in an image format. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Word-marks are not attractive, at all"? Because, what, typography is not attractive at all? What complete bullshit. File:Final Fantasy wordmark.svg would be a better lead image, distinctive, recognisable, high contrast. - hahnchen 13:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • So having opinions which are not inline with yours is "ridiculous"? Well, I am sorry to have offended your delicate senses. The fact remains that File:Final Fantasy wordmark.svg and similar files are plain black text, block letters on a clear or white background, which offer the general reader little more than typing Final Fantasy XI would. Not to mention the word mark on its own is not recognizable as part of the game; the whole logo is, and that's not free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is ridiculous, hence the continuing existence of word marks. How is a man's face remotely "recognizable as part of the game"? Even those who have played the game, or are familiar with the franchise would not recognise that picture. They would recognise File:Final Fantasy wordmark.svg - it turns out that typing plain black text, block letters on a clear or white background - does offer something. - hahnchen 14:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • It appears your definition of ridiculous and the dictionary's is quite different. There are times when wordmarks might be useful (if Coca-Cola were ever to reach FA status, for example), but having a wordmark instead of a picture of someone related to the subject and worth mentioning in the blurb (such as a director, designer, etc.) would be, in my opinion, ridiculous. Try pushing a wordmark cropped from a poster for Ruma Maida, or Jaws; you'll find piles of opposes. If you feel strongly against having the photograph of the developer, this can be run without an image at all.
              • As for your patently POINTY that a man's face is not "recognizable as part of the game", which appears to have been a dig at my opinion on the other proposal below, you are comparing apples and oranges. The image below was created to resemble an early FF logo (but is not actually it, and thus has no EV), while a developer is certainly related to the game in question and worth an image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • You'd get piles of opposes if you ran a Google TFA with pictures of Larry/Eric/Sergei. And if you're going to pick on Films, try Star Wars. As for the WP:POINTY part, that was the part I removed. - hahnchen 14:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Google has a fairly widely recognised wordmark (which doubles as its logo), like Coca Cola; Star Wars too, and it's wordmark is essentially the series' logo as a whole. FFXI? Not so much, and the wordmark suggested would be misrepresentation of the actual logo. Hence the comparison to Jaws, for which the wordmark itself is not widely recognised. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's an inconsistency in the date format that needs to be sorted, with four different date formats in the references: 2007-08-01, 05/10/12, January 1, 2006 and 28 January 2013 all showing up. - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok those are taken care of too. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

Richard Wagner

Richard Wagner
Richard Wagner (1813 – 1883) was a German composer, theatre director, polemicist, and conductor primarily known for his operas. His compositions, particularly those of his later period, are notable for their complex textures, rich harmonies and orchestration, and the elaborate use of leitmotifs—musical phrases associated with individual characters, places, ideas or plot elements. These innovations greatly influenced the development of classical music; his Tristan und Isolde is sometimes described as marking the start of modern music. Wagner revolutionised opera through his concept of synthesising the poetic, visual, musical and dramatic arts. He first realised these ideas in his four-opera cycle The Ring of the Nibelung. He had his own opera house built at Bayreuth, containing many novel design features, where his most important stage works continue to be performed in an annual festival run by his descendants. Until his final years, Wagner's life was characterised by political exile, turbulent love affairs, poverty and repeated flight from his creditors. Wagner's controversial writings on music, drama and politics have attracted extensive comment in recent decades, especially where they express antisemitic sentiments. The effect of his ideas can be traced in many of the arts throughout the 20th century; their influence spread beyond composition into conducting, philosophy, literature, the visual arts and theatre. (Full article...)
  • 11 points, I think: Vital article (4), bicentenary of his birth on 22 May (6), 'requestor (me) is a significant contributor to the article, and has not previously had an article appear as Today's featured article'. Wagner's bicentenary is being celebrated round the world, this would be a fitting contribution by Wikipedia. Thanks.Smerus (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried here before, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Gerda; the last two sentences could be swapped. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have swapped as you suggest.--Smerus (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is one thing, the blurb for the Main page, for unprepared people, another. I don't think "operatic thought" is a good term for them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"operetic thought" is an inaccurate term actually, and is meaningless. What is meant is that Wagner changed how opera was viewed, seen or enjoyed. Opera is a performing art and is viewed rather than an intellectual pursuit that is thought about, and the phrase has to say that. Further the point being made is that Wagner marked a change in how opera was viewed and enjoyed making it more approachable to more people. That has to be clearly articulated in the article in clear language that appropriately references a performing art.(olive (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Interesting that it is both 'meaningless', and yet all the same the 'point being made' is clear! OK, I propose (as above) 'enriched the potential of opera', and have edited the article similarly.--Smerus (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support TFA, but for the rewording, how about just simply "transformed opera" or "modernized opera" or "revolutionized opera" -- something simple and direct, "enriched the potential of opera...?" Hmm, that's a dependent clause, not answering the "for what" question. Montanabw(talk) 17:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 'transformed' will quite do, since not everyone took up his ideas - 'modernized', yes, but didn't all major opera composers do that in their day and in their way (Gluck, Mozart, Meyerbeer even, ......). 'Revolutionized' could be good, as it carries the idea that he really shook things up... what do others think?--Smerus (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)think....[reply]

I believe the text is referring both to a change in the approachability to opera and to the critical thought on opera. If one word works for both, fine. I'm supposed to be on a self enforced break so I'll leave you all to it. (olive (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Er....I wrote the text; and I certainly had in mind critical thought on opera, but also certainly not 'approachability'. Whilst Wagner himself thought that people en masse would rush to lap up his ideas, this proved far from the case; in fact ironically his biggest fans were exactly the elite whom, when he evolved his ideas in his socialist phase, he despised. But as there's no snappy way of getting all that into a couple of words, I still favour 'revolutionized'.........and will put that in the paragraph above, save that the article uses throughout the '...ised' spelling of such words. --Smerus (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks,Gabe!--Smerus (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)--Smerus (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

Thescelosaurus

Reconstruction of Thescelosaurus
Thescelosaurus is a genus of small ornithopod dinosaur known from Upper Cretaceous rocks of western North America. It belonged to the last dinosaurian fauna of North America before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event at approximately 66 million years ago, living alongside dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops. This common genus was described from a specimen discovered in 1891, but not unpacked and studied until the 1910s. These circumstances suggested the names of the genus and type species T. neglectus, which roughly translate to "godlike, wondrous, or marvelous neglected lizard". Thescelosaurus is best known from several partial skeletons representing three species: T. neglectus, T, assiniboiensis, and T. garbanii. One specimen was initially thought to include a preserved heart, but later study found the object is probably a concretion. Thescelosaurus was a bipedal animal with a relatively long pointed skull and robust limbs. Typical individuals measured on the order of 2.5 to 4.0 metres (8.2 to 13.1 ft) long. It was probably primarily herbivorous and may have preferred to live near streams. (Full article...)
  • I propose Thescelosaurus for this date because it will be the centennial of its official description (May 24, 1913) (see a copy of the original article here). The article was promoted in 2007, and the last dinosaur article to be TFA was Psittacosaurus on January 7. This should give Thescelosaurus 9 points: 6 for the centennial, 2 for the promotion date, and 1 for length of time since the previous dinosaur. We have a number of other images; I just chose this one because it is the holotype, which I felt was most appropriate. J. Spencer (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked that line; with that and a couple of formatting fixes, it might on the long side. J. Spencer (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
agree that a pic of a dinosaur like this is a lot more engaging than the bones. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

May Revolution

May Revolution
The May Revolution was a week-long series of events that took place from May 18 to 25, 1810, in Buenos Aires, capital of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata. The May Revolution was a direct reaction to Spain's Peninsular War. In 1808, King Ferdinand VII of Spain abdicated in favor of Napoleon, who granted the throne to his brother, Joseph Bonaparte. Viceroy Cisneros tried to maintain the political status quo, but a group of criollo lawyers and military officials organized an open cabildo on May 22 to decide the future of the Viceroyalty. Delegates denied recognition to the Council of Regency in Spain and established a junta to govern in place of Cisneros, since the government that had appointed him Viceroy no longer existed. To maintain a sense of continuity, Cisneros was initially appointed president of the Junta. This caused popular unrest, so he resigned under pressure on May 25. The newly formed government, the Primera Junta, included only representatives from Buenos Aires and invited other cities of the Viceroyalty to send delegates. This resulted in the outbreak of war between the regions that accepted the outcome of the events at Buenos Aires and those that did not. (Full article...)

1 point for date relevant to article topic, 2 points for widely covered topic, 1 point for my contribution history, and 2 points for lack of similar articles in the last six months. The image shown here is a brighter version of the same portrait used as lead image, it's smaller but better suited for a caption-sized image (the other photo may be too dark in low resolution) Cambalachero (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Bär (Alternative)

Heinrich Bär (1913–57) was a German Luftwaffe flying ace in World War II. He flew more than 1,000 combat missions, and fought in all major German theatres of the war, including the Western, Eastern and Mediterranean fronts. He was shot down on 18 occasions and was credited with 220 aerial victories, around 16 of which were in the Messerschmitt Me 262, an early jet fighter. Bär joined the Reichswehr in 1934 and transferred to the Luftwaffe in 1935. Serving first as a mechanic, then as a pilot on transport aircraft, he was informally trained as a fighter pilot. He claimed his first aerial victory in September 1939 on the French border. By the end of the Battle of Britain, his tally of victories was 17. Transferred to the Eastern front to participate in Operation Barbarossa, he quickly accumulated further kills, earning the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords for 90 aerial victories in February 1942. Hermann Göring's personal dislike of Bär, coupled with Bär's insubordinate character and lack of military discipline, deprived him of higher awards. After the war, Bär continued as an aviator, and was killed in a flying accident near Braunschweig. (Full article...)

My first TFA nomination (and I did ask for permission first). All I know from the criteria is that it scores 6 points for being born 100 years ago, and 2 points for the article being promoted over 2 years ago. Not sure if it fits any other criteria. Minima© (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bencherlite for finding out the other recent TFAs. I hope its only two points that get deducted though, as it is (at its time) more than two weeks but within a month since the last similar article. I'll update the table. Minima© (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for May 26 - The point totals are similar, and the article above has more significence for the date than this one. If its within a day, it should still be satisfactory. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment is a 2007 non-fiction book by Anthony Lewis about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The book starts by quoting the First Amendment, which prohibits the U.S. Congress from creating legislation which limits free speech or freedom of the press. Lewis traces the evolution of civil liberties in the U.S. through key historical events. He provides an overview of important free speech case law, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions in Schenck v. United States (1919), Whitney v. California (1927), United States v. Schwimmer (1929), New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), and New York Times Co. v. United States (1971). The title of the book is drawn from the dissenting opinion by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (pictured) in United States v. Schwimmer. Holmes wrote that "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." Lewis warns the reader against the potential for government to take advantage of periods of fear and upheaval in a post-9/11 society to suppress freedom of speech and criticism by citizens. The book was positively received by reviewers, including Jeffrey Rosen in The New York Times, Richard H. Fallon in Harvard Magazine, Nat Hentoff, two National Book Critics Circle members, and Kirkus Reviews. Jeremy Waldron commented on the work for The New York Review of Books and criticized Lewis' stance towards freedom of speech with respect to hate speech. Waldron elaborated on this criticism in his book The Harm in Hate Speech (2012), in which he devoted a chapter to Lewis' book. This prompted a critical analysis of both works in The New York Review of Books by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. (Full article...)

It will have been 84 years since the 27 May 1929 decision in United States v. Schwimmer where U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote his dissent: "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." — the quotation from which became the title of this book.

Note: Please note that United States v. The Progressive was about nuclear weapon information — and this article is different in that it is more a generalist topic about freedom of speech, itself, which historically has been underrepresented on the Main Page.

Thank you for your consideration, — Cirt (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • -1 point (1 point for date relevance, -2 points for a similar article within 1 month of the proposed date). Both this and United States v. The Progressive (3rd May) are articles about freedom of speech in the US; that's enough to attract the points penalty even if one is general and another is specific. Both are in Category:First Amendment to the United States Constitution or its specific subcategories. Please note the instructions above: the blurb should be formatted as only one paragraph not three (I've fixed this) and it should be as close as possible to 1,200 characters including spaces - it's currently more than 800 characters too long. Please trim it. BencherliteTalk 13:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

The Rite of Spring

Dancers from 1913 production of The Rite of Spring
Dancers from 1913 production of The Rite of Spring
The Rite of Spring is a ballet and orchestral concert work by the Russian composer Igor Stravinsky. It was written for the 1913 Paris season of Sergei Diaghilev's Ballets Russes company, with choreography by Vaslav Nijinsky and stage designs and costumes by Nicholas Roerich. The ballet caused a near-riot in the audience when first performed, on 29 May 1913 at the Théâtre des Champs-Élysées in Paris, but rapidly achieved success as a concert piece and later became recognised as one of the most influential musical works of the 20th century. The scenario, developed by Roerich from Stravinsky's outline idea, is the celebration of spring by various primitive rituals, at the end of which a sacrificial victim dances herself to death. After its explosive premiere the ballet was unperformed until the 1920s, when Léonide Massine's rechoreographed version was the first of many innovative productions directed by the world's leading ballet-masters. In the 1980s, Nijinsky's original choreography was reconstructed by the Joffrey Ballet in Los Angeles. Providing "endless stimulation for performers and listeners" alike, The Rite is among the most recorded works in the classical repertoire. (Full article...)

My first TFA nomination (I didn't ask permission --- because I couldn't figure out how to do that; please help me out here). I thought I saw this article nominated for this date (the last time I looked), and was surprised to see it absent; I didn't read anything on the history page about this. Seems like a natural for this date: 100-year anniversary, significant work, etc. Musanim (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Permission to nominate is not required, but you ought to let the principal author and FAC nominator (Brianboulton) know that you've nominated it; I know he was planning to in due course. I've removed the image you used since it's non-free and can't be used on the main page, or indeed here. Incidentally, the blurb is only 701 characters including spaces, when the target is 1,200 so it needs some expansion. BencherliteTalk 20:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I had intended to nominate this week, so no harm done. I have expanded the blurb and added an acceptable free image. Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for obvious reasons.--Chimino (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, high quality article about a ballet; educational and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support gotta be! Yes, it's a week after Wagner but both are very significant anniversaries. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It may be a week after Wagner but let's sacrifice the conventions...--Smerus (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I supported it as FA, and have no doubt that it should appear that day, even if it was one day after some composer. I wonder if the pic might be cropped, this is pale and shows no excitement. - "The scenario, developed by Roerich from Stravinsky's outline idea, is the celebration of spring by various primitive rituals, following which a sacrificial victim dances herself to death." - isn't dancing to death part of the rituals? - That the music is influential is said twice, but not what made it so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image was far too small; I have enlarged it. I would rather not crop it – it shows Stravinsky's famous "knock-kneed Lolitas". I have made a few changes to the text, per Gerda; but a TFA blurb is not really the place to explain what made the music influential. Brianboulton (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&oldid=554441263"